If The Media Did Its Job

[erpowers]

It was reported this morning that the Obama Administration is on the verge of moving the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to a military tribunal. Missing from at least some of the discussion of the issue was the stance of JAGs (Judge Advocate Generals-military lawyers). The media would probably be more accurate in its reporting about military tribunals if it pointed out that the push for military tribunals is mainly a civilian effort since many in the JAG Corps have rejected the practice.

With the way some in the media have been reporting the story one would think the story actually pits the military, which is greatly in support of military tribunals, against those crazy civil liberatians at groups like the ACLU, who want to treat terrorists just like drug dealers. One could easily get the idea that military lawyers are greatly in favor of military tribunal rules that would allow prosecutors to present evidence that was obtained through coercion, or harsh interrogation. However, that would not be true. Since, the idea of military tribunals first began to make a comeback during the Bush Administration, the military has put forward some form of resistance. Those putting forward the resistance are not just the low level first year JAGs. Resistance has even come from top ranking JAGs.

In 2006, when the Bush Administration published it revised military tribunal plan, after the Supreme Court has rejected its first plan, the Judge Advocates General of the military said the plan had flaws. In response to the Bush Administration's support for preventing terrorist suspects from seeing some of the evidence against them Marine Corps Staff Judge Advocate General James Walker said,

"I'm not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized...where an individual can be tried without -- and convicted without -- seeing the evidence against him. And I don't think that the United States needs to become the first in that scenario."

The Judge Advocate Generals of the other military branches agreed with General Walker. They also expressed opposition to admission of evidence obtained by coercion.

Recently, Kelly Vlahos discussed the media's dumbing down of the military tribunal issue and its lack of focus on members of the JAG Corps. Vlahos listed a number of JAG officers who have announced their opposition to the military tribunal system and other JAG officers who have resigned due to their opposition. Today, it was reported on Democracy Now that Colonel Jeffrey Colwell, the acting chief defense counsel at the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions said it would be a "sad day for the rule of law" if President Obama decides not to move forward with a federal trial. "I thought the decision where to put people on trial -- whether federal court or military commissions -- was based on what was right, not what is politically advantageous."

It would be nice to see the television news media discuss the opinions of JAG officers. Discussing their opinions could at least broaden the debate. It is possible that the JAG officers who have expressed opposition to the military tribunal system may be called unpatriotic by some. However, there is at least a chance that the debate dimensions would change from anti-American forces versus pro-American forces to anti-tribunal forces versus pro-tribunal forces. In addition, learning the opinions of JAG officers might change the opinion of some Americans.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6269553n&tag=mg;earlyshow
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5783523
http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2010/02/18/confused-about-tribunals-ask-a-military-lawyer/
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/3/5/headlines#7
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030405209.html