Slashdot Mirror
Guantanamo Hearings Delayed as Legal Files Vanish
houghi writes "The defense lawyers of Guantanamo prisoners have been ordered to stop using government computers for sensitive information due to security and confidentiality concerns. One News from New Zealand says 'In another case, system administrators were searching files at prosecutors' request and were able to access more than 500,000 defense files, including confidential attorney-client communications.' Due to all this, hearings were postponed."
...would use government (prosecution) computers in the first place????
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
So now prosecutorial misconduct that would get any civilian prosecutor disbarred is going to indefinitely delay the release of any prisoners who happen to be innocent.
Wow. Only in America... err... Cuba.
So now the prosecutors are facing jail time for contempt of court, correct?
If these incidents happened in the so called "third world" or even in other jurisdictions, folks in the mighty USA would be saying somethig to the effect: -
"We're are better than them..."
"We've got more mature credible sysytems and established procedures..."
That's the beauty of living in a country like America..."
Plus all the rest of the verbiage that normally follows...
Question is: Am I wrong?
and people who think like that get a code red.
The US gov know they can not release these men. Not because of what the prisoners supposedly have done, but because of what the US gov has done to the prisoners and the effect their release and statements in free media will have.
Non of these prisoners will be released. Gitmo can not close until the last prisoner has died in captivity, and this is the beginning of the US push to reach this end.
TERRORIST HACKERS.
... north korea? Better go to war, US military.
From
- Nec Impar Pluribus, or so I'm told.
If another country treated an American citizen like this, it would be regarded as a hostage crisis.
Scott Horton has been writing about this. http://harpers.org/blog/2013/04/a-final-act-for-the-guantanamo-theater-of-the-absurd/
Does the CIA call for secrecy to protect our freedom or to cover its incompetence?
Under Obama's policy, he just has to grant them citizenship, release them, then gun them down with drones.
Don't worry. The rest of the world has been saying that about the US for a long, long time now.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Obama promised he was going to close Gitmo, so it must already be closed, and this must be old news...
The Gun Grabbing continues.
http://xrepublic.tv/node/2921
Well, if you're going to assert the bullshit that the military should collect legally admissible evidence, then you have to give the defense access to the evidence, and if it's classified, then it's going to be on government or contractor computers.
Just ask WikiLeaks for the backup.
Question is: Am I wrong?
Yes! We're Free!
We don't have to worry about government spying on us - unless it's for national security and they're trying to get terrorists or you're making an international call - international calls are a sign of terrorism, you know!
The government isn't allowed to search us for no reason - unless we're flying or taking mass transit
We don't have to worry about being imprisoned for no reason - unless accused of terrorism or child porn or for having a small quantity of drugs that for some reason are considered criminal..
We can own guns! Fill out the government paper work, and you can even have a machine gun!
By golly! If that's not the sign of a free country, then I don't know what is!
Comparable to the Americans taken into custody by the Iranians?
"We're are better than them..."
Well, that certainly does sound like something that certain people from the US might say.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Follow. The. Money! When I go to a bank, and a banker is offering me advice, the one main thought going through my head is: "From who is this person being paid?". If the bank is paying them, then the advice they give is to benefit the bank. "Government Lawyers" should be a clue. They are paid by the government. They are doing what is in the best interests of the government. When 500,000 important documents vanish, my suspicious mind starts swimming in three letter agencies: "CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, NRO, DOD". It would be wrong to assume that all 500,000 'vanished' by way of just one of the agencies. It would be more correct to say that a certain number of records 'vanished' under each agency. And perhaps not all records vanished at one time: ongoing operations would have required the 'disappearance' of information deemed critical. Whether the records are actually 'gone' or whether they are in safe storage somewhere else is another question. Some might actually be gone, and some might just be 'highly unavailable'. I would also assume that the reason the lawyers used government computers is because they were given no other choice. I would also assume that redundant backups and archives of this important information (after all, peoples lives are at stake), are also 'gone'. ...and they will make sure that you never know who did the deleting.
So, you're the prosecution and you're trying to build a case against a defendant. As the government's counsel, you have system administrators do a search for files that relate to that defendant. ...and discover that the defense has been using the same systems.
Do you:
A) Ignore the discovery, take the files, and use them to help build your case...
B) Tell the sysadmins to quietly stop searching those files, which MAY be discovered later...
or C) Tell the sysadmins to stop searching those files and tell the defense to stop using government computer systems, as they're leaking privileged information to the prosecution.
IMO, the ethical thing to do is C, since you want to make sure it's as fair a trial as you're capable of having, both as the defendant's rights require and to help allay issues arising in the court of public opinion. Personally I think the prosecution did the right thing in forcing the defense to take their files and go use a different system.
Keep in mind that the specific attorneys with the prosecution may well not have finished their JD by the time these people were put in Gitmo, so don't blame them for the slow government response and delaying tactics.
..in the first place. why do you think they were using government computers? thus the problem isn't really that system admins of the defense attorneys lawyers were able to access the files. of course they were. but the problem is that the prosecutors are full of bullshit and are asking them to do that. of course, the whole court situation in gitmo is fucked up in the first place which is why it's in gitmo and not even at a federal secret court and prison inside usa.
so the problem is that the prosecuting and court handling site was not going to go about it fair and square in the first place. not that computers were used.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
If another country had been willing to claim these guys and take responsibility for the future actions, they would have been released years ago.
Nobody wants these dudes.
Just because "nobody wants them" doesn't mean you get to hold someone prisoner indefinitely. You can talk till you're blue in the face about "enemy combatants" but if you're holding someone with no intention of doing ANYTHING other than holding them indefinitely without trial or publicly presented evidence, it just makes you an asshole.
These are kangaroo courts anyway. Real Federal trials take place before real Federal judges who are members of the judiciary, not military officers who are functionaries of the executive branch.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
There are plenty? Citation please?
I remember reading that finding countries willing to take them in was indeed a problem.
I don't read AC A human right
Another country would gladly take them--the US, however, trusts no country to which they may be relinquished. Many were rounded up haphazardously by local warlords. Some of them were sixteen. You'd have no way of knowing they'll commit future crimes because we haven't given them what we in the "civilized" west call a "fair trial". It's sad to see you agree with our government that human beings don't deserve fair and equal treatment if the happen to be ay-rabs. You deserve no better, then.
I actually think the nobody wants them argument is one of the only really reasonable excuses for the situation. Suppose the president decided to pardon some of the detainees he thinks are innocent. Where could they go? You can't repatriate them to a nation that does not recognize them as citizens any more. They'd probably just wind up right back in a cell somewhere, or killed.
You can't bring them to this country; it would violate immigration laws, and no-way is this congress going to give you a special resolution to grant them visas let alone citizenship.
One solution is even though our lease on the gitmo base is not up for a long time; Cuba has in the past said they want the land back. One answer, of highly contestable ethics, would be to just pull out one day leaving the detainees in their cells and tell the Cubans its all your but these people are also your problem now. I have no idea how that would work out for the detainees or if it would improve our harm our relations with Cuba.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
but if you're holding someone with no intention of doing ANYTHING other than holding them indefinitely without trial or publicly presented evidence, it just makes you an asshole.
lol the 'asshole theory of foreign relations.' You should write a thesis. I'd love to see how that new innovation alters the balance of powers.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Seriously, this idea of differentiating among the neocons, because some have a "D" after their pathetic names, instead of an "R" is truly ludicrous --- do you dream of having sex with President Obama, by any chance?
Great points and most lucidly articulated, good citizen. Just as the shyster judge has allowed a witness for the prosecution, a SEAL team member who was part of the hit team on Osama bin Laden, who was never convicted in any court of culpabability for the events of 9/11/01, and whose body was never produced after the hit on him, which renders this SEAL team witness completely hearsay in a true court of law, military or otherwise, such is proof positive America is the land of the lawless where the so-called legal system is used to keep the competition down (those smaller criminals who pose a competitive threat to the super-criminals) and to quash the reformers (whistleblowers, populists, workers' rights adovcates, etc., etc., etc., --- never forget the history of Convict 9653 --- such was and is the "legal system" is Amerika today.......)
No, Walter, you're not wrong, you're just an asshole.
lol the 'asshole theory of foreign relations.' You should write a thesis. I'd love to see how that new innovation alters the balance of powers.
I like the Ding Chavez quip from the Jack Ryan books: "International relations is two countries fucking each other." Or something like that.
Ezekiel 23:20
The constitution says: "he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States" (article 2, section 2). He shoud use this to close Guantanamo and be done with it.
Did christ need a theory structure to convey to billions the proper way to treat your fellow man: as you would wish to be treated? That you are looking to theses on mattersof morality says more of your own character than your petty words ever could.
Spare us all your worthless, thoughtless smarm.
Finding countries to take certain of them is a problem. The big problem, though (the real bar to closing Guantanamo) is the people who we know are guilty but can't legally prove are guilty because the evidence of their guilt was obtained unconstitutionally.
As a result, we have a class of people who are effectively permanent detainees.
If another country treated an American citizen like this, it would be regarded as a hostage crisis.
They aren't hostages - you missed that completely. I'll give you a hint.
They are Prisoners of ___.
Three letters, starts with a "W". Any guesses?
The Law of ___ (see above) allows prisoners to be held until the end of the conflict - no requirement for charges or trials at all.
John McCain was held as a Prisoner of ___ for 5.5 years by North Vietnam.
I think it is an interesting comment on your thought process that you might consider Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, plotter of 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 people and currently a Prisoner of ___, as a "hostage".
By the way, this is legally equivalent to a Declaration of War.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
They are not granted the rights of prisoners of war. The entire justification of their treatment is that the US does not consider them prisoners of war, and therefore they are not protected by the laws and treaties dealing with prisoners of war. If they had been they would be treated much much better and probably released by now.
Not that I disagree with you. They are prisoners of war, but somehow I doubt you would be able to accept what that means.
Half of them may soon be dead anyway. With no chance of release, what good is life in prison as a PoW?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The administration who had them rounded up in the first place created all sorts of legal fictions to make sure that they weren't treated as prisoners of war complete with the rights that accompany that classification in international law. The current administration just wants to sweep this whole embarrasment under the carpet.
They are prisoners of war, but as "unlawful combatants", they are (so the US government argues), not entitled to the protections provided by the Geneva Convention. International law is not terribly clear on the status of unlawful combatants, but it seems pretty clear that, like lawful combatants, they can be held for the duration of the war without being charged with a crime.
I don't get it. Most people think fucking is a good thing. Unless the person is bad in bed, she gets pregnant, or he hypocritically whines 'slut'.
I prefer diplomacy is saying 'go to hell' so that one look forward to the trip.
> [What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer...] ...would use government (prosecution) computers in the first place?
There's a pretty big clue in the second paragraph of TFA: "The breach prompted Col. Karen Mayberry, the chief military defense counsel, to order all attorneys for Guantanamo detainees to stop using Defense Department computer networks to transmit privileged or confidential information until the security of such communications is assured."
The defense lawyers are, largely, like the prosecutors, US military officers. Using their employer-provided, and hence government, computers for their work is normal and expected for them.
Pakistan has repeatedly offered to take the prisoners.
Skip ------ See the latest from http://www.anArchyFortWorth.com
Gitmo, America's premier managed care and retirement community, in sunny Cuba welcomes you.
[quote]If another country had been willing to claim these guys and take responsibility for the future actions, they would have been released years ago.[/quote]
Released, or executed. Either way, it would be more merciful than some instances of what happens at GitMo.
Captcha: remorse
Edit: Forgot slashdot uses carrots instead of brackets for its BBCode.
ITT: People newly added to the terrorist watch list...
If another country had been willing to claim these guys and take responsibility for the future actions, they would have been released years ago.
Nobody wants these dudes.
Yeah. Because if they weren't screwed up before ending in gitmo they are now. Most will need a stay in a mental hospital and most wont reintegrate into society. Try to undo the damages you did first before sending them offshore.
If they are "unlawful combatants" hence not covered by the laws on prisoners of war, THEY ARE NOT PRISONERS OF WAR.
If another country had been willing to claim these guys and take responsibility for the future actions, they would have been released years ago.
Nobody wants these dudes.
Nobody wants pedos either, but they get let out of jail. We call this "justice".
Yeah, Slashdot uses carrots, the USA uses sticks (thrown from a sufficient distance by automated machinery that the US is under no risk of even getting a bruise)....
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Pragmatically speaking: how many of these still incarcerated are a real risk ?
Answer: ALL of them. That's why they're at Gitmo. These guys weren't picked up because they were jaywalking.
How's all this "hope and change" bullshit working for you Obama supporters? He was supposed to close Gitmo within a year of taking office. He promised. I guess he's not a different kind of politician after all.
Now he has expanded his war on terror, crossing boarders, using more drones, signing terrible NDAA's, etc. How is this any different from Bush, other than the fact that the US media refuses to report on it? The media no longer notifies of us soldier or innocent civilian deaths. How convenient.
But wait - look over here!!! The White House is no longer giving tours because teh evil Repubers won't let us spend any money!!!
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Slashdot doesn't use BBcode at all, it uses (restricted) HTML.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Most of them did nothing wrong and are welcome back to their own country or any country with a valid arrangement. Some have been demonised to the extent that their country is willing to ostracise them in order to curry favour with the US and a small minority are genuine criminals that are not welcome home but are not the responsibility of US and should not be in US custody.
Very nice post, except that it doesn't do the one thing I asked for - a citation that says that there are 'plenty' of countries willing to take them in.
As I understand it, while there are countries willing to take 'their own' back, and there's countries that are willing to take limited exceptions, there are a few that, for whatever reason, have either had their own country disclaim them or so muddled the issue of their own citizenship(Afghanistan not being great on records) that they can't prove their own nationality. This proportion has increased as Gitmo drew down on operational scope, because the ones like the UK guy who's passport was stolen was able to go home.
It's only a fraction of the original population, but it's even more specifically the part of the population that's most concerning.
I don't read AC A human right
That's the kind of shit you're supposed to think of before going to war, killing millions, and taking people prisoner.