U.S. Military Trials of Terror Suspects 'Imminent'
President Bush (news - web sites) in 2001 authorized the first U.S. military
commission trials of wartime prisoners since World War II. On
July 3, Bush designated six foreign captives as eligible for
such trials. The Pentagon refused to identify them.
"I think it's safe to say our start is imminent, soon,"
Army Col. Frederic Borch, named by the Pentagon to lead the
prosecution, told an American Bar Association event.
He did not give a specific date, how many defendants would
be tried, or the charges involved.
The rules set by the Pentagon for the trials have come
under sharp criticism from human rights groups and criminal
defense lawyers, who doubt the defendants can get fair trials.
"Ultimately, I would ask all the critics, wait until we
actually start the process so you can see what actually
happens," Borch said.
Defendants tried before the commissions of seven American
military officers must be non-U.S. citizens. They are expected
to be among the roughly 660 foreign prisoners, most captured in
Afghanistan (news - web sites) and imprisoned at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo
Bay. No criminal charges have been brought against any
Guantanamo prisoners to date.
Commission trials are set to be held there. Defendants
could face the death penalty if convicted.
Critics argue the rules are biased in favor of the
prosecution, place unacceptable conditions on the defense and
allow for no independent judicial review by civilian courts.
"We are now putting forth a system of justice before the
world that doesn't meet either current American or
international standards of due process," said Kevin Barry, a
renowned expert in military justice and board member of the
National Institute of Military Justice.
One rule that has drawn particular ire from critics is the
government's right to monitor communications between the
defendants and their lawyers.
Borch said that even though the rules allow for such
monitoring -- which many experts consider a breach of
attorney-client confidentiality -- any information obtained
from this could not be used by prosecutors in the case.
"Monitoring is security and an intelligence function. It's
not a law-enforcement function," Borch said. "None of this
monitored information on a particular accused is going to be
used in any trial of that accused."
Air Force Col. Will Gunn, the chief defense lawyer, said he
anticipates that defense attorneys will ask that their
conversations not be monitored and, if it is permitted, that
the defense knows when it is taking place.
Each defendant will be assigned a U.S. military defense
attorney and also has the right to hire an American civilian
lawyer as long as that attorney is deemed eligible by the
Pentagon to hear classified evidence and agrees to conditions
that include monitoring conversations.
Asked about the admissibility in commission trials of
hearsay and other evidence barred in U.S. civilian courts,
Borch noted that such evidence is allowed by the international
court trying war crimes from the former Yugoslavia.
He said defense lawyers in commission trials have "the same
evidentiary standard," adding: "In other words, all those
things that the prosecution may benefit by the admissibility
rule, the same thing applies to the defense."
