GUANTANAMO JUDGE DENIES ACCUSED RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES

I thought an accused had a right to confront witnesses against him? This is what I learned in law school. Has the Sixth Amendment be abrogated? It sure seems that way when we hear that the Guantanamo Military Tribunal has warned defense lawyers not to disclose the names of prosecution witnesses in the case of Omar Ahmed Khadr, now 21 years old and on trial in Guantanamo for throwing grenades at U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.

William Glaberson writes in today's The New York Times:

"Defense lawyers preparing for the war crimes trial of a 21-year-old Guantánamo detainee have been ordered by a military judge not to tell their client — or anyone else — the identity of witnesses against him, newly released documents show. . . .
"
Defense lawyers say military prosecutors have sought similar orders to keep the names of witnesses secret in other military commission cases, which have been a centerpiece of the Bush administration’s policies for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

"Some legal experts and defense lawyers said the judge’s order, issued on Oct. 15 without public disclosure, underscored the gap between military commission procedures and traditional American rules that the accused has a right to a public trial and to confront the witnesses against him."

The Sixth Amendment reads:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

By not allowing Ahmed Khadr the right to confront witnesses against is just plain unfair. There is no way he can get a fair trial or a fair verdict.

Preventing an accused from seeing and cross-examining prosecution witnesses harks back to the days of the Inquisition where the accused was presumed guilty even before a hearing and had to contend with facing trial where the church concealed the identity of those people making the accusation, usually about witchcraft or heresy.

I thought the French Enlightenment of the 18th Century put an end to the Inquisition and the irrational and unjust practices of kangaroo courts in modern societies. But I was wrong.

Writes Glaberson:

"Mr. Khadr’s military defense lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler of the Navy, said that while he has been given a list of prosecution witnesses, the judge’s decision requires him to keep secrets from his client and that he would ask Colonel Brownback to revoke the order. He said it treated Mr. Khadr as if he had already been convicted and deprived him of a trial at which the public could assess the evidence against him.

"“Instead of a presumption of innocence and of a public trial,” Commander Kuebler said, “we start with a presumption of guilt and of a secret trial.”"

AP PHOTOGRAPHER HELD BY U.S. IN IRAQ FOR LAST 18 MONTHS WITHOUT SPEEDY AND FAIR TRIAL

Graham Bowley of The New York Times reports today that the U.S. military is planning to accuse an AP photographer, winner of a Pulitzer prize in 2005, of assisting insurgents before an Iraqi court.

Bowley writes:

"The American military is sending an Iraqi photographer for The Associated Press it accuses of aiding the insurgency into Iraq’s criminal justice system, according to American authorities and The A.P. The photographer, Bilal Hussein, was part of an 11-member team that won a Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography in 2005. He has been detained without charge since April 2006."

Has the U.S. military ever heard of the rule of law? The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution* guarantees the right of an accused to a fair and speedy trial. Some might say that this protection of the U.S. Constitution does not apply to persons, non-citizens, accused in places outside the U.S., such as Iraq. That the Sixth Amendment's protections apply only to Americans. But even if the U.S. Constitution does not apply, doesn't everyone enjoy this right as a "human right," as a matter of fairness under the rule of law? If police or the army arrest someone, shouldn't the person be given a fair and speedy trial in conformity with basic human rights, no matter where he lives and no matter what citizenship he or she holds?

Mr. Hussein has been held without a trial and without a hearing for over 19 months. The handling by the U.S. of his case is a legal disgrace and a violation of basic human rights.

*The Sixth Amendment reads:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."