Pentagon to Seek Death Penalty for Six at Guantanamo

What do we have here -- show trials just in time for the November elections, to help out the Republican nominee? (hat tip to reader Scribe.)

Military prosecutors will seek the death penalty for six detainees at Guantanamo.

Update: The ACLU says the system is flawed.

Via Sebastian Meyer: The U.S. reasoning for the 6 death penalty cases sought in Guantánamo is based on the Geneva Conventions, the very document the U.S. claims does not apply in this case.

Update: The Center for Constitutional Rights which represents one of the six designated for execution is challenging the validity of military comissions and use of torture evidence in death penalty cases.

< Comparing Hillary and Obama on Crime Issues | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No coincidence, either, I suppose (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by scribe on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 01:53:15 PM EST
    that three of the six so charged (charges and specifications - 90 page .pdf), were identified last week as having been tortured by Americans while in captivity.

    That's one way to make sure they never tell what was done to them.

    Well, (1.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:00:23 PM EST

    Military prosecutors will seek the death penalty for six detainees at Guantanamo.

    Well someone has to take out the garbage.

    Looks like they are going (none / 0) (#1)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:39:36 AM EST
    with Obama as the nominee. That certainly is a good indirect way to get the "I was against Iraq from the beginning" to work against him.

    LOL WUT (none / 0) (#3)
    by manys on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:57:37 AM EST
    You seem to have imagined an incontrovertible chain of events in place for that possibility. Care to elaborate, or should we already know what you're talking about? Cuz I don't.

    See comment (none / 0) (#6)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:08:47 PM EST
    What do we have here -- show trials just in time for the November elections, to help out the Republican nominee?

    The Repubs will have to come up with some indirect attacks. Bush already thinks Irag was about 9/11 and insists the whole would agree with him..... and he just can't leave that one alone. We hear it over and over again.

    Hence this whole thing before the Nov election will be used against Sen Obama.

    This and many more to come.


    Yes (none / 0) (#2)
    by Salt on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:46:27 AM EST

    The first of many.

    To be crude. . . (none / 0) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    (in the sense of looking at the political ramifications of what is essentially a moral travesty) this seems pretty weak on the Republicans' part.  Is this the best "base" issue they can come up with?  I think the Dems can easily defeat it, and I don't think it will have the motivational power that the Republicans think it will.

    Unserious. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:24:40 PM EST
    Sebastian Meyer's observation is borne of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Geneva Conventions. His (and your) response glib and probably quite viscerally satisfying, but not actually representative of the situation.

    The government argues that the combatant-detainees are not covered by the Geneva Conventions precisely because the detainees violated them. They are not "protected persons" within the meaning of the conventions because they violated the rules laid out in the Conventions, specifically Article 4 of the Third Convention.

    Your summation, to be accurate should read: They are there because the provisions of the Geneva Conventions do not protect them from prosecution. Now they must die because they violated different provisions of the Geneva Convention.

    Or you could stick with glib. It probably gets more votes.

    Gabe! Long time no...er...read. (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:28:52 PM EST
    Hello (none / 0) (#9)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 12:49:35 PM EST
    Hi, Sarcastic. Coblogging at Ace of Spades HQ takes up most of my blogging time these days. TalkLeft is still in my RSS feed, so I stop by every once in a while for interesting posts. Unfortunately, BTD's recurring posts, "(insert name here) is irrelevant" or "Sexist! but not Racist!" do not interest me.

    What good does it do to kill more? (none / 0) (#11)
    by koshembos on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:05:45 PM EST

    "Torture evidence" (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jim Strain on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 02:30:21 PM EST
    Now there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one.  

    Alas, the US is no stranger to this sort of symbolic vengeance -- often wreaked upon the innocent or the marginally involved.  During the Civil War, Lincoln ordered 38 Sioux Indian men to be hanged in Mankato, MN.  The 38 were culled from an original group of over 300, all accused on little or no evidence of killing white settlers, and convicted by a military tribunal.  It was the largest mass execution in US history.

    Death for Terrorist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Kozlo on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:11:26 PM EST
    I'm very happy with George Bush and the War on Terror.  Let's keep Gitmo open and bring all of the terrorists to trial.  I support George Bush for keeping Gitmo open.  What these terrorists need are to be brought before a Military Tribunal not be given Constitutional Rights and brought to the US so the Liberals can cry how terrible we  are treating them.  Go George!  Also, let's stay in Iraq - not run like cowards like the Libs want us to.

    Hobson's Choice (none / 0) (#15)
    by SFHawkguy on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 06:29:34 PM EST
    Bush is trying to force our country to make a Hobson's choice.  Either we prosecute these guys using tainted evidence (evidence gained from torture) or we let them walk.  Bush couldn't do it the legal, ethical, and smart way.  No, he had to do it like a two-bit dictator.  Just as Saddam would have done it.  I can think of no better example of why this president should be impeached.  He purposely broke the law and jeopardized these prosecutions.

    It will be interesting to see how the candidates handle this issue.  I fear that McCain, Clinton, and Obama will all be equally indifferent and give lip service to American ideals but do nothing to redress this atrocity.  Wonder how restoring habeas and fixing the MCA is coming in the Senate.

    go ahead (none / 0) (#16)
    by diogenes on Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:41:42 PM EST
    Let the Democratic platform include a plank calling for civilian jury trials.  Heck, even in the US juries and witnesses are intimidated by drug gangs to the point where in some locales prosecutors avoid calling witnesses to protect them from retribution.