Okay, this bill on Military Commissions seems...well...completely wacko. You can see the full text of the bill
here, whilst
this site has a good break down of it.
`Sec. 948a. Definitions
`In this chapter:
`(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.
Can you really apply a law retroactively???
`(d) Inapplicability of Certain Provisions- (1) The following provisions of this title shall not apply to trial by military commission under this chapter:
`(A) Section 810 (article 10 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to speedy trial, including any rule of courts-martial relating to speedy trial.
`(B) Sections 831(a), (b), and (d) (articles 31(a), (b), and (d) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to compulsory self-incrimination.
`(C) Section 832 (article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), relating to pretrial investigation.
`(2) Other provisions of chapter 47 of this title shall apply to trial by military commission under this chapter only to the extent provided by this chapter.
That might not seem like much, but here are the affected parts of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, with the affected sections stricken-through:
§ 810. Art. 10. Restraint of persons charged with offenses
Any person subject to this chapter charged with an offense under this chapter shall be ordered into arrest or confinement, as circumstances may require; but when charged only with an offense normally tried by a summary court-martial, he shall not ordinarily be placed in confinement. When any person subject to this chapter is placed in arrest or confinement prior to trial, immediate steps shall be taken to inform him of the specific wrong of which he is accused and to try him or to dismiss the charges and release him.
In other words, there's not hurry for a trial and there's no need even tell the poor guy what he stands accused of.
§ 831. Art. 31. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited
(a) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any question the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.
Wave cheerio to the right to silence!
(b) No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.
Again, no need to tell him that he'sa ccused of anything, and no need to tell him what his rights are. Disgraceful.
(c) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence is not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.
Character assassination no relevant to proceedings - such behaviour is (and should be) banned from 'real trials
(d) No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.
Torture, torture, torture. Still think that America are the good guys?
§ 832. Art. 32. Investigation
(a) No charge or specification may be referred to a general courtmartial for trial until a thorough and impartial investigation of all the matters set forth therein has been made. This investigation shall include inquiry as to the truth of the matter set forth in the charges, consideration of the form of charges, and a recommendation as to the disposition which should be made of the case in the interest of justice and discipline.
(b) The accused shall be advised of the charges against him and of his right to be represented at that investigation by counsel. The accused has the right to be represented at that investigation as provided in section 838 of this title (article 38) and in regulations prescribed under that section. At that investigation full opportunity shall be given to the accused to cross-examine witnesses against him if they are available and to present anything he may desire in his own behalf, either in defense or mitigation, and the investigation officer shall examine available witnesses requested by the accused. If the charges are forwarded after the investigation, they shall be accompanied by a statement of the substance of the testimony taken on both sides and a copy thereof shall be given to the accused.
So, no legal representation, nor any ability to seriously act as his own council - i.e. no cross-examining or submission of evidence. This is not a trial. This is a Stalinist stitch-up.
(c) If an investigation of the subject matter of an offense has been conducted before the accused is charged with the offense, and if the accused was present at the investigation and afforded the opportunities for representation, cross-examination, and pre- sentation prescribed in subsection (b), no further investigation of that charge is necessary under this article unless it is demanded by the accused after he is informed of the charge. A demand for further investigation entitles the accused to recall witnesses for further cross-examination and to offer any new evidence in his own behalf.
I'm not totally sure about all the legal-speak, but that sounds like someone can be tried for the same 'offence' again, again and again.
(d) If evidence adduced in an investigation under this article indicates that the accused committed an uncharged offense, the investigating officer may investigate the subject matter of that offense without the accused having first been charged with the offense if the accused—
(1) is present at the investigation;
(2) is informed of the nature of each uncharged offense investigated; and
(3) is afforded the opportunities for representation, cross-examination, and presentation prescribed in subsection (b).
So people can be investigated, charged and sentenced all without really being involved!
(e) The requirements of this article are binding on all persons administering this chapter but failure to follow them does not constitute jurisdictional error.
Oh, so there will be no penalty for going even further than these draconian laws. No penalty for corruption, misdeeds or vendettas from those investigating. That's handy.
But wait, there's more! Back to the bill on military tribunals
(g) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Source of Rights- No alien unlawful enemy combatant subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a source of rights.
Now that's just got to be bollocks. That's like saying to me, if I was charged with a crime, that I couldn't invoke the European Charter on Human Rights. This bill removes absolutely all protection for those accused. In fact, if the US government wanted to get rid of someone, all they would have to is make the accusation - the system would do the rest.
`Sec. 948r. Compulsory self-incrimination prohibited; treatment of statements obtained by torture and other statements
`(a) In General- No person shall be required to testify against himself at a proceeding of a military commission under this chapter.
`(b) Exclusion of Statements Obtained by Torture- A statement obtained by use of torture shall not be admissible in a military commission under this chapter, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.
`(c) Statements Obtained Before Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained before December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.
`(d) Statements Obtained After Enactment of Detainee Treatment Act of 2005- A statement obtained on or after December 30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
`(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value;
`(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence; and
`(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not violate the cruel, unusual, or inhumane treatment or punishment prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
quote from analysing website said:
While no person "shall be required to testify against himself at a proceeding of a military commission," the gutting of UCMJ Article 31, sections (a), (b), and (d) would permit the coercion of statements prior to the tribunal, and it removes the provision of section (d) which reads, "No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial." What is left is that the accused does not have to take the stand, at trial, and say he is guilty.
Ok, I could go on all day about this, but you get the idea. You can read more on the webpage that I linked to.
I think you give him too much credit.
