Inside Guantanamo's secret trials (BBC gets first look at "Review Board")

[Rose Siding]

snip>
The BBC observed an ARB - the first time journalists had been allowed to do so. We saw only the unclassified part of the proceedings.

Our military escorts took us into Camp Delta - where the detainees are held - to a prefabricated building.

Before the proceedings began, they briefed us on what we would see. One officer likened the proceedings to a parole hearing - even though the detainees have not been found guilty of any crime.

He stressed that this was not a legal hearing, and standards of proof and evidence normal for a civilian court would not apply.
.....
Three military officers sat on the board. None of them were lawyers.
.....
Question: "Who did you fire your rifle at?"

Detainee: "I never fired a rifle."

Question: "Why were you firing?"

Detainee: "I never fired."

Question: "Why were you in Afghanistan?"

Detainee: "For a visit."

Question: "How do you explain the differences in the evidence?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4422825.stm

[kevinmc]

1. Leave it to the BBC to cover what is going on in the U.S.

[Rose Siding]

2. They present a file as witness, hear the prisoner, and then

have a SECRET "evidence" session. This is WHACK.

If someone asked me those stupid questions, I'd sound the same way!

[Rose Siding]

3. Kick for kangaroo courts

[teryang]

4. If he is a detainee and not a combatant, then what...

...is the need for the Review Board procedure? The combatants are those alleged to be in the threat category. Detainees by definition are non combatants incidentally caught up in an armed conflict. At some practicable point after it is determined that they are detainees they should be returned to their mother country.

This proceeding seemed to be focused on whether or not the individual was properly determined to be a combatant without distinguishing between illegal or legal combatant status. That is a completely different issue from whether they continue to be a threat. It would seem that the proper focus would be a trial before a competent tribunal of some sort to make findings of fact and a determination of guilt concerning alleged criminal violence as an illegal combatant. The "review board" seems procedurely out of place. Secret hearsay evidence. No lawyers. Right.

The rules for the military tribunals laid out by Rumsfeldt's office for conducting the so called trial phase are joke legally.