Gitmo Trials Unlikely Before Bush Leaves Office

The Washington Post reports that the Bush Administration says it is unlikely that trials of any of the Guantanamo detainees will take place before Bush leaves office.

Nearly seven years later, however, not one of the approximately 775 terrorism suspects who have been held on this island has faced a jury trial inside the new complex, and U.S. officials think it is highly unlikely that any of the Sept. 11 suspects will before the Bush administration ends.

Though men such as Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged Sept. 11 mastermind, are expected to be arraigned in coming months -- appearing publicly for the first time after years of secret detention and harsh interrogations -- officials say it could be a year or longer before worldwide audiences will see even the first piece of evidence or testimony against them.

All three presidential candidates, Hillary, Obama and McCain have promised to close Guantanamo. [More...]

Does this mean there's a chance the Gitmo detainees could face trial in our federal courts with non-military judges and juries? Or that they will be moved to military facilities in the U.S. and face trial under the Military Code of Justice? Either would be an improvement over the unfair milititary commissions system now in place.

The candidate's positions, as of March, are here.

< Today's Test For Obama | Cheney Aide Addington to be Subpoenaed in Probe of Interrogation Practices >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    jesus (none / 0) (#1)
    by Emma on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:02:20 AM EST
    Guantanamo is a horror.

    Is Bush scared of losing the cases? (none / 0) (#2)
    by joc on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:02:24 AM EST
    Given the "harsh interrogation" methods used, I'm guessing a lot of the evidence will be highly suspect, and aid the defense in getting acquittals for some of the detainees. Bush doesn't want it on his record, too.

    Starting a needless war, mismanaging that war, violating the civil liberties of Americans, leading the country into recession twice, and to top it off, unable to convict confessed terrorists.

    confessed terrorists? (none / 0) (#3)
    by kmblue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:04:27 AM EST
    says who?

    confessed after torture (none / 0) (#4)
    by kmblue on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:05:41 AM EST

    I Would Have To Think (none / 0) (#5)
    by The Maven on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:28 AM EST
    that the current system is likely to be scrapped unless the current lawsuits challenging aspects of the tribunal setup and CSRTs (e.g., Khadr, Hamdan II, each of which are before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals now, I believe) are thrown out in their entirety.  And that's totally separate from the Supreme Court's consideration of the habeas-related cases, Boumediene and Al Odah.

    As stated above, a shift to either of the possibilities mentioned here would be an immeasurable improvement over the obviously rigged system the Bush Administration installed in an attempt to justify its appalling -- and likely illegal under international law -- behavior.

    Could you expand? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Emma on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:13:07 AM EST
    Maybe a little more description/analysis of the cases you're referring to?



    Here Are Some Quick Links (none / 0) (#8)
    by The Maven on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:23:44 PM EST
    to several stories posted at SCOTUSblog regarding the Khadr challenge to the Guantanamo procedures, as well as the one brought by Hamdan.

    As for Boumediene/Al Odah, here's the SCOTUSwiki summary, and a post from last December by yours truly over at the Orange place, just prior to oral argument.  (Other diaries I'd done there in 2007 on these issues can be found here, here or here.)

    I'm sorry that I don't have time to revisit these in detail here, but hopefully these links will suffice.


    That's great! (none / 0) (#9)
    by Emma on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:51:03 PM EST
    Thanks so much!

    No honor whatsoever (none / 0) (#6)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:48:29 AM EST
    Bushco has damaged our image abroad so badly with the horror of Gitmo. This is our Abu Ghraib to the power of a billion.

    This pathetic administration completely circumvented the rule of law with respect to the Geneva conventions.  

    Is it January 20, 2009 yet?

    What's gonna change? (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:52:29 PM EST
    If whichever of three stooges wins and keeps their promise, the gulag at Gitmo will simply be replaced by another...dollars to donuts that's what will happen.

    For example, when Clinton was elected in '92, all the nefarious sh*t the intelligence community was up to continued unabated.  Some things don't change no matter what letter is after the name of the president.