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."
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.
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?
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.
If another country treated an American citizen like this, it would be regarded as a hostage crisis.
The CIA is not incompetent. It is malevolent.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Much like the people IN Guantanamo, you're assuming that they were given a choice in the first place. They weren't. The US decided to imprison them indefinitely without a trial, what made you think that they'd start playing fair if a trial actually came about?
I have to wonder just how much of the military budget in that fading republic is alloted toward sheer propaganda. The fact that americans are allowing their elected officials to redefine the word "torture" so that they can commit it...it's baffling in comparison to the picture of the US I grew up with. I can only assume that whoever is doing PR for the military is a fucking legend because this kind of shit was what ended Vietnam, but now it doesn't seem like anyone cares.
Actually it's both.
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.
What is the legality of keeping them without trial indefinitely ? The right to a fair trial is one of the inalienable fundamental rights, to which the USA is a signatory. If they can't prove it, then the guys must be let go.
Pragmatically speaking: how many of these still incarcerated are a real risk ? (If they were in the first place.) I suspect that by no means all. So what is the purpose of continuing detention? I suspect some notion of revenge -- which belittles the concept of the USA being a humane and moral nation.
Citizens of the USA: what is being done in your name ?
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.
If you really want to read about it, I would suggest you start with those that have already gone home. One of the guys that went back to the UK had been held because his passport had been stolen, reported stolen and turned up in Afghanistan (he was not in Afghanistan) so he was a victim that was held for years. Most are just foot soldiers that defended their country, I suppose you think that no Americans would defend their country if invaded? If it is OK for Americans to defend then it is OK for these guys to defend and just as many Americans would want to kill Chinese if China invaded America, it is perfectly normal for these guys to want to kill us.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
"we know are guilty" often refers to people from places like the Yemen, where after US offered $1000s reward for any Al Qaida members of the local law enforcement could write their own evidence and name the husband of some woman they wanted. The whole system was broken from the start. A few thousand $$$ is a lot of money to a policeman in Yemen or Warizistan.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
If it cannot be proven, they are innocent. What is being said here is that certain people are above the law and can decide without a court that someone must be held for life. That is a very dangerous precedent. If there is no evidence they may be wrong. In most of the cases that I have read, they were wrong. I accept that as we get nearer the end there are a higher percentage of true cases but it is the Bush witch hunt that has caused this situation, not the people in Guantanamo. If any one should be on trial is Bush.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
There is no requirement for fair trials for those captured in a war.
Yes there is... it's called the Geneva Convention. Yet the US have said "it doesn't count, because they're not proper soldiers", which surely means civilian law applies... in the country they offended in. Guantanamo is an illegal abomination, recognising neither military nor civilian law.
The hearings should not have been postponed -- the hearings should have been dismissed. If any other prosecutor had been caught looking at confidential defence documents, it would be immediately classified as "mistrial" and the accused would have walked on a technicality.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'