| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: Another Guantanamo prosecutor quits. |
 |
|
I wonder just how much of what is really going on in that place is going to come out when Bush is out of office.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/09/24/guantanamo.trials.ap/index.html
| Quote: |
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) -- A U.S. military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay has quit because his office suppressed evidence that could clear a young Afghan detainee of war crimes charges, defense lawyers said Wednesday.
The prosecutor, Army Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, is now supporting a defense bid to dismiss war crimes charges against Mohammed Jawad because of the alleged misconduct, according to Michael Berrigan, the deputy chief defense counsel for the Guantanamo tribunals.
The chief prosecutor, Army Col. Lawrence Morris, denied that his office withheld evidence and said Vandeveld told him he was leaving his post for "personal reasons."
"All you have is someone who is disappointed because his superiors didn't see the wisdom of his recommendation in a case," Morris said.
Jawad, who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 16 or 17, is facing trial for allegedly throwing a grenade that injured two U.S. soldiers and their Afghan interpreter in December 2002. He faces a maximum life sentence.
In a declaration submitted to the defense, Vandeveld said prosecutors knew Jawad may have been drugged before the attack and that the Afghan Interior Ministry said two other men had confessed to the same crime, Berrigan said. Pentagon officials refused to provide a copy of the declaration.
Vandeveld declined to comment through a tribunal spokeswoman.
"He decided he could no longer ethically serve either as a prosecutor in this case or for the Office of Military Commissions," said Jawad's Pentagon-appointed attorney, Air Force Maj. David Frakt. He said Vandeveld had endorsed settling the case and releasing Jawad after a short while.
Frakt said he has asked for Vandeveld to testify at Jawad's pretrial hearing Thursday but the former prosecutor was denied authorization to fly to the U.S. Navy base in southeast Cuba.
At least three other Guantanamo prosecutors have quit their posts over allegations of misconduct. The former chief prosecutor, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, resigned in October and accused his superiors of political meddling.
Jawad is one of about 20 detainees facing charges in the Pentagon's specially designed system for prosecuting alleged terrorists. Military prosecutors say they plan trials for about 80 of the 255 men held here |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Cornfed
Joined: 14 Mar 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Jawad, who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 16 or 17, is facing trial for allegedly throwing a grenade that injured two U.S. soldiers and their Afghan interpreter in December 2002. |
Why should this be considered a crime? They invaded and destroyed his country so that some corporation could build a pipeline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I still don't legally understand how it can be termed an act of terrorism when you kill a foreign soldier in your own land. Is "because we say so" now an accepted legal arguement?
Irish bombing pubs in England=Terrorism
Saudis flying jets into the WTC=Terrorism
Midwestern nut job blowing up a federal building=Terrorism
Killing a foreign soldier in your own homeland=Could call it a myriad of things but Terrorism? Who exactly is this goat herder terrorizing? The special forces guys who are backed up by AC-30 gunships, Bradley fighting vehichle and Howitzers. Damn, I feel sorry for those guys.
For the record I am Canadian. We have suffered our share of loses there. I respect everyone who is serving but I still can't/won't call any afghan a "terrorist" for targeting ANY soldier. You can still hunt them down and kill them for what they represent without having to resort to the disigenous and propagandistic use of the term "terrorist" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One would think that the laws in the new democratic Afghanistan would be
such that this individual could recieve just treatment in his home country. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 9:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yawarakaijin wrote: |
I still don't legally understand how it can be termed an act of terrorism when you kill a foreign soldier in your own land. Is "because we say so" now an accepted legal arguement?
Irish bombing pubs in England=Terrorism
Saudis flying jets into the WTC=Terrorism
Midwestern nut job blowing up a federal building=Terrorism
Killing a foreign soldier in your own homeland=Could call it a myriad of things but Terrorism? Who exactly is this goat herder terrorizing? The special forces guys who are backed up by AC-30 gunships, Bradley fighting vehichle and Howitzers. Damn, I feel sorry for those guys.
For the record I am Canadian. We have suffered our share of loses there. I respect everyone who is serving but I still can't/won't call any afghan a "terrorist" for targeting ANY soldier. You can still hunt them down and kill them for what they represent without having to resort to the disigenous and propagandistic use of the term "terrorist" |
It is wrong to defend Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda fighters are not entitled to protection. No one has a right to defend them since Al Qaeda is still intending to attack again.
If some in the South was defending Klu Klux Klan members from Union troops after the civil war what would they be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cornfed wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Jawad, who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 16 or 17, is facing trial for allegedly throwing a grenade that injured two U.S. soldiers and their Afghan interpreter in December 2002. |
Why should this be considered a crime? They invaded and destroyed his country so that some corporation could build a pipeline. |
I love it - enemy soldiers in a country you've invaded are now committing 'crimes' by throwing grenades at your soldiers. Just what exactly were they expecting when they started a war? The absurd hypocrisy aside, do American taxpayers even want to pay for this? What would it have cost to give every Japanese who fired a rifle or threw a grenade at an American during WW2 a life sentence? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2008 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
It is wrong to defend Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda fighters are not entitled to protection. No one has a right to defend them since Al Qaeda is still intending to attack again.
If some in the South was defending Klu Klux Klan members from Union troops after the civil war what would they be? |
I see where you are going wth it but it is a pretty poor analogy.
A more apt analogy would be if Canadians or Brits decided they didn't like the KKK and we sent our soldiers to America to hunt them down. How many Americans would be down with that? Let's even suppose the newly formed union government asked the Brits to come in, do you think southerners would stand for having British forces killing southerners for ANY reason?
If they are Taliban foot soldiers kill them. If captured on the battlefield then lock them up (and afford them their rights under the Geneva Convention) until the Taliban is defeated or disbanded. It isn't so hard to do. If they are terrorists bombing and killing fellow afghans, as stated in a previous post, the newly elected Afghan government can handle them. Labelling them "terrorists" is disingenuous at the very least.
Would you label every German who continued to fight on after the fall of the third reich a terrorist? Let's say the Indonesian army decides to march on East Timor, destroys it's elected government in the first day of the offensive. Is every east Timorese who decides to fight on a terrorist?
The labelling of every combatant as a terrorist has set dangerous example worldwide. Since no one in their right mind would try and defend a terrorist, or no particular political party could possibly argue against a group of people being labelled terrorist in a time of fear, a very dangerous precedent is set.
Who are we to critisise China or Russia nowadays? In the past we had the moral standing or at the very least the illusion of righteousness to be able to take these powers to task in regards to their actions. Sadly, we have lost that. Whether or not we agree that we have lost it is moot point. The rest of the world believes we have lost it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
agentX
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Location: Jeolla province
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Of course, if the coalition forces would stop getting shot at by the locals, they might actually leave a lot quicker.
At some point, we (NATO) will leave Afghanistan. Will it fall into the hands of another "Taliban" or will it just fall back into civil war/unrest or...well forget choice #3. There's no way anybody in Kabul can hold this mess together without serious foreign aid.
Nonetheless, the boy in the case is innocent, or at least less likely to be guilty. I can't blame the officer for quitting. He is a prosecutor, not a partisan hack. Cheney and the neo-nuts want convictions, not the truth.
How are we supposed to win the war on Terror when we can't even sort out who's innocent and who's guilty? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
The US justice system is not up to dealing with Al Qaeda.
Ask Sandy Burger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Based solely on a couple stories I've heard on This American Life, the JAG types really are committed to justice. They themselves don't like the legal travesty created in Cuba. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RJjr
Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| If some in the South was defending Klu Klux Klan members from Union troops after the civil war what would they be? |
If Israelis napalmed an American ship in international waters, killing 34 and injuring 170+, what would they be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RJjr wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| If some in the South was defending Klu Klux Klan members from Union troops after the civil war what would they be? |
If Israelis napalmed an American ship in international waters, killing 34 and injuring 170+, what would they be? |
I guess they would be what the US government says they are.
By the way if someone is trying to sink a ship why use napalm? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yawarakaijin
Joined: 08 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| RJjr wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| If some in the South was defending Klu Klux Klan members from Union troops after the civil war what would they be? |
If Israelis napalmed an American ship in international waters, killing 34 and injuring 170+, what would they be? |
I guess they would be what the US government says they are.
By the way if someone is trying to sink a ship why use napalm? |
This is the problem isn't it? The rule of law has been confused with the rule of "they are what we say they are."
JAG's are quitting! Probably the most honourable people you could find in all of America and many don't want anything to do with it. What does that tell you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It tells you that the system needs fixing but that doesn't change the fact that the US legal system isn't up to dealing with Al Qaeda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| It tells you that the system needs fixing but that doesn't change the fact that the US legal system isn't up to dealing with Al Qaeda. |
Is it up to dealing with MS-13? If yes, how is it different and if no, then what do do about them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
