« | »

Reuters Experts On Legality Of Tribunals

From those champions of justice at Reuters:

U.S. terrorism trials face court challenges

Sat Sep 30, 2006

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – New military trial rules for terrorism suspects that President George W. Bush endorsed and Congress approved will draw vigorous court challenges and could be struck down for violating rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, critics and legal experts said.

The legal battle will likely be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which could be troubled the rules unconstitutionally restrict the suspects' rights, they said.

They cited the bill's provisions that strip foreign suspects of the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts, the broad definition of enemy combatants and what they described as unfair rules for military trials, including some use of hearsay and coerced evidence.

"I have no doubt that this is headed for the Supreme Court. Once again, the administration has overreached, and that makes it more likely that the court will strike it down," Stanford University law professor Jenny Martinez said.

"It allows the use of coerced evidence, which our laws have rejected since the founding of this country. It also denies noncitizens, including those in the U.S., access to court for fundamental human rights violations like torture," she said…

Democrats and even some Republican lawmakers said taking away the prisoners' right to have habeas corpus hearings in federal court was unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court. The experts agreed.

"I believe that the court will conclude that the habeas-stripping provision is unconstitutional," said Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington attorney and military law expert who is president of the National Institute of Military Justice

Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners, vowed to challenge the removal of the habeas corpus rights.

Ratner said such an opportunity could arise when the administration moves to dismiss pending Guantanamo cases in order to apply the new rules. Defense lawyers could then respond by challenging the rules' constitutionality.

This is a really shocking development.

Those who pushed these changes through, like Senator John McCain, must not have foreseen all of these litigious challenges that will tie up our court system for years.

(Of course I kid.)

New military trial rules for terrorism suspects that President George W. Bush endorsed and Congress approved will draw vigorous court challenges and could be struck down for violating rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, critics and legal experts said.

Are these detainees being given US citizenship along with their honey-glazed chicken?

But just Google the names of the cited "legal experts":

http://www.masnet.org/cms_article_files/article_1171/pic2.jpg   http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0619/csmimg/0619p4a.jpg

Jenny Martinez and José Padilla.

Jenny Martinez is the attorney for accused "dirty bomb" terrorist José Padilla.

Eugene Fidell (R) with US Army Muslim Chaplin James Yee.

Eugene R. Fidell is defending the accused spy and Muslim Chaplin James Yee.

http://rwor.org/photos/nov2-2005slides/mediafiles/l42.jpg

Michael Ratner addresses a "World Can't Wait, Drive Out The Bush Regime" rally, sponsored by the Communist Party.

Michael Ratner is the head of the Communist front America-hating group that is defending almost all of the accused terrorists detained in Guantanamo.

Which of course makes them all perfect choices for unbiased "legal experts" in this matter.

Way to go, Reuters! That is real objective reporting!

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, September 30th, 2006. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Reuters Experts On Legality Of Tribunals”

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »