Jess Bravin reports in this morning's Wall Street Journal (subscription required) that the JAG attorneys detailed to defend detainees at Guantanamo before pending military tribunals are suffering from a lack of resources in several key areas. Among other things, they are being forced to mount a defense with just a few weeks of prep time since their assignment, and without sufficient staff support or translator support. Here's an excerpt from the article:
... Army Maj. Mark Bridges and Navy Lt. Cmdr. Philip Sundel, say they lost their first Arabic interpreter months ago and haven't received a replacement.
"Without being able to communicate with our client, how can we possibly represent his issues?" says Maj. Bridges.
That problem, one of several affecting four Guantanamo defendants facing potential life sentences for war crimes, hasn't deterred the Bush administration from pressing forward with the proceedings, defense attorneys say. Col. Peter Brownback III, a retired Army judge, was named in June to head the first U.S. military commission to try foreign prisoners for war crimes since the end of World War II. Col. Brownback has set initial hearings at the Guantanamo naval base for the week of Aug. 23, imposing a breakneck timetable on a process that has been stymied by legal and policy debates inside government and a diplomatic dispute with Britain over the possible prosecution of British nationals held at Guantanamo.
[. . .]
Analysis: Mr. Bravin's article reports on a litany of other issues plaguing the upcoming tribunal prosecutions, such as potential conflicts of interest between the attorneys on the government side and the judges. But the real meat of the story is this lack-of-resources problem. And here's why: the President has pledged to make these "full and fair" trials, notwithstanding their departures from well-settled military and civilian criminal law. Few scholars believe that's possible, given the way the tribunal rules and procedures are currently written. So far, the best hope for the administration has been these defense attorneys -- whose zealous pursuit of justice has lended an air of legitimacy to the tribunals which they would otherwise not have. By hobbling the defense attorneys in this case with a lack of resources, the Pentagon has undermined the most important and most visible source of legitimacy for these tribunals. Men like USMC Maj. Michael Mori, detailed to defend Austrailian prisoner David Hicks, have become literal folk heroes around the world for their stand on this issue. Their ability to continue the fight on behalf of their clients may well save these proceedings from being seen as "kangaroo courts", to borrow Bill Safire's phrase. Thus, if the Pentagon and the White House really want these proceedings to be fair, and to be perceived as such, they will rectify these resource shortfalls quickly.
Why do we even bother? If these trials are going to be ANYTHING but kangaroo courts, the defense needs a level playing field. If we're not going to do it right, we shouldn't do it at all. It'll only come back to bite us in the ass later on,
No comments:
Post a Comment