Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Guantanamo Hearings Delayed as Legal Files Vanish

Posted by samzenpus on from the sieve-security dept.

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."

26 of 170 comments (clear)

  1. What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... by quonsar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...would use government (prosecution) computers in the first place????

    --

    Sacred cows make the best burgers.

    1. Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... by NettiWelho · · Score: 5, Funny

      The ones that think that the united states is the land of the free and home of the brave, not another iteration of category ("USSR, Nazi-Germany, Cuba, North Korea, DDR")

    2. Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... by wagonlips · · Score: 5, Informative

      You haven't really been following this story, have you?

      The defense attorneys aren't military and some of them are quite outspoken against their client's treatment.

      Not only the defense lawyers... http://harpers.org/blog/2008/02/the-great-guantanamo-puppet-theater/

      "Davis submitted his resignation on October 4, 2007..."

      "Colonel Davis is not just any JAG officer. He was an up-and-comer widely viewed in his peer group as someone in line for a star, and ultimately perhaps, to be the Air Force’s Judge Advocate General. He is also no whining civil libertarian, but rather a no-nonsense conservative, whose prior scraps with civilians in the Pentagon came over the restraints they put on his ability to charge forward and prosecute cases."

    3. Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... by Half-pint+HAL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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'
  2. Lose lose for prisoners by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Lose lose for prisoners by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, the Obama administration has made the actual policy on Guantanamo prisoners very clear indeed several months ago: None of them will ever be released under any circumstances. Even those who are known to be innocent of any crime or terrorism. Even those who present (or at least presented before they went in) no threat whatsoever to the United States.

      The reason we know this is that they shut down the office that was in charge of arranging releases of Guantanamo prisoners. Everything else is window dressing.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re: Lose lose for prisoners by Mabhatter · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not entirely fair to blame Obama. CONGRESS told him in no uncertain terms he could not hold civilian trials. And Congress told him he could not close a "secret base" in spite of the fact that the previous president NEVER ASKED to use Gitmo in this manner.

      For all the posturing in the media, the GOP LIKE the way things are. They LIKE the Drone bombing campaigns, they have the military ranks packed well enough all the Top brass is loyal to the GOP first because they keep funding coming.

    3. Re: Lose lose for prisoners by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While the GOP certainly has created obstacles to the token efforts Obama has made toward cleaning up this mess its precisely because its in military courts we can hold the president almost completely accountable. The cynic in my thinks Obama wanted this moved into the civilian courts so he could duck responsibility .

      Whatever happens in civilian courts the president could have simply said, its a judicial matter and I can't as the executive interfere. As it is he is the Commander and Chief, its certainly is within his power to insist the military tribunals be conducted quickly and fairly, rather than let the be the kangaroo courts they have become. It is within his power to move or remove any military personnel that interfere or obstruct that agenda. In either military or civilian courts its within his power to pardon; the ones he believes to be innocent could certainly be freed if he wanted to do so.

      So I think we can conclude one more of the following is true:
      1. Obama really does not care about the issue, it was all just sound bites to help win an election.
      2. Obama does not think these victim's lives are worth the political capital it would cost him to see justice served.
      3. Obama does not want them release now because of what they may now do, now that we have 'radicalized' them.
      4. Obama does not want them release because as bad as holding people indefinitely without or with obviously sham trials does not make his and the previous administration look nearly as bad or as lawless what these folks may reveal if released.
      5. Obama believes them all to be guilty and that justice is being served; independent of the integrity of the trial process.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  3. "searching files at prosecutors' request" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    So now the prosecutors are facing jail time for contempt of court, correct?

    1. Re:"searching files at prosecutors' request" by Opportunist · · Score: 3

      Where do you think you are? Some country where "do as I say don't do as I do" doesn't apply?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  4. A classic case of a kettle calling the pot black by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  5. They are being killed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:They are being killed by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is this "free media" you talk about, and can I get them here somehow?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  6. Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac by deep44 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If another country treated an American citizen like this, it would be regarded as a hostage crisis.

  7. Re:GITMO is an embarrassment and a tragedy by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The CIA is not incompetent. It is malevolent.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  8. Re:GITMO is an embarrassment and a tragedy by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually it's both.

  9. Missing the point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. the lawyer was working for the government.. by gl4ss · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..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.
  11. willing to take the released prisoners? by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
    1. Re:willing to take the released prisoners? by Zemran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.
    2. Re:willing to take the released prisoners? by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wouldnt blame them if after being innocent, kidnapped, moved to another country, tortured for years (and see how they tortured childrens along with him), and then released they would be willing to participate in attacks. The best way to ensure to have enemies is to create them.

  12. Countries to take them by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Countries to take them by Alain+Williams · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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 ?

    2. Re:Countries to take them by Zemran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.
    3. Re:Countries to take them by Zemran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.