Guantanamo prosecutor quits amid controversy

[kpete]

Source: Los Angeles Times


Guantanamo prosecutor quits amid controversy
The Army reservist was concerned about a lack of due process for war crimes defendant, two defense attorneys say. A tribunal official denies their claims.
By Josh Meyer, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 25, 2008
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA -- Contending that the government had suppressed evidence that could help a young man facing life in prison, a prosecutor has quit the war crimes tribunals here, several military defense lawyers said Wednesday.

Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld quit the case -- and the Office of Military Commissions -- after growing increasingly concerned about the lack of due process afforded to Mohammed Jawad and his legal team, according to Michael J. Berrigan, deputy chief defense counsel for the commissions.

Vandeveld, an Army reservist, said in a four-page declaration filed with the court that "potentially exculpatory evidence has not been provided" to the defense.

Jawad, now about 23, was arrested in 2002 near Kabul. He is charged with attempting to commit murder in violation of the law of war for allegedly throwing a grenade into a jeep transporting troops, injuring two soldiers and an interpreter. His trial is set for December.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo25-2008sep25,0,1717874.story?track=rss

[LynnTheDem]

1. When the PROSECUTOR quits over lack of due process...

That's when you know the dog & pony show trials are dog and pony show trials.

George W. bUsh, always trying to one-up Saddam Hussein.

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. Oh, I doubt it. I expect he has too much respect for his mentor.

[Piewhacket]

3. Failure to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense...

I'm guessing, and some military boneheads may comment but I suspect
and surmise that failure to provide exculpatory evidence to the defense
is regarded as prosecutor misconduct under the military code, as it is
everywhere else in the US (and probably under English law) and could
theoretically be a court marshal offense (or a grounds for disbarment).

It is also, perhaps even more importantly in this circumstance, a matter
and point of honor. Death before dishonor. Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld.
I'll remember.

I take the allegations of an experienced prosecutor, which are severely
against his interest and closes his career, and in no material way benefit
him, as most likely TRUE and the denials as generic, self-serving and most
likely FALSE. That is my reaction.

If Obama wins we may ask for inquiry into the truth of it and for some
accountability. If the exculpatory evidence was knowingly withheld by any
officer (office holder or employee) of the US government those responsible
should be prosecuted and imprisoned for the offense.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

8. Suppression of evidence favorable to the defendant is not uncommon.

Jackson v. Denno in the civilian world.

(I haven't forgotten everything I learned in law school 25 years ago!)

[Piewhacket]

9. In that case let our voices rail against it in harmony..

Thanks for the comment.

I think it was Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Remember "Brady rights"?
Jackson was about coerced confessions. (see below)
Glad to see we have some lawyers on DU, especially so when they are willing
to stand up for the constitution. God knows we have few enough people doing
that these days, eh?

Hiding exculpatory evidence may be as common as Sarah Palin, yet it is improper,
even misconduct which can subject the prosecutor to civil and criminal
sanction, and even being called bad names, like (shudder) 'republican'.
And, of course, it is evil and distasteful, and ethical prosecutors should
find other ways to win.

"It is a deprivation of due process of law to base a conviction in whole
or in part on a coerced confession, regardless of its truth, and even though
there may be sufficient other evidence to support the conviction."
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 376 (1964).

[Supersedeas]

4. Condi Condi Condi -- the enlightenment is coming

[bean fidhleir]

5. Maybe it's because I've never been a soldier, but...

...what exactly is it about throwing a grenade into a jeep that violates "the law of war"???

"He is charged with attempting to commit murder in violation of the law of war for allegedly throwing a grenade into a jeep transporting troops"

[Winterblues]

6. Isn't that what they call terrorism?

When a civilian throws a "bomb" it is terrorism, when a soldier throws a grenade it is warfare as usual. We are not fighting a war. We are not engaged against any uniformed soldiers. This is how they double talk their way around standard laws and civil behavior.

[bean fidhleir]

7. That's certainly what the Nazis called it when the Maquis did it during WW2

The French, British, and US disagreed, however. They called it "resistance to illegal invaders".

Normally I don't have any truck with Marx, but his comment was trenchantly insightful about it being a peculiarly Hohenzollern idea that a country's citizens must stop fighting once their uniformed forces have been defeated.