Brig. Gen. Hartmann Responds to Col. Davis:
In today's Los Angeles Times, Air Force Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann responds to the recent op-ed by former Gitmo prosecutor Col. Morris Davis alleging that the military tribunal process was unfair and unduly politicized. My former colleague Amos Guiora finds Hartmann's essay unresponsive and unpersuasive.
Related Posts (on one page):
The genocidal monsters at Nuremberg got quite a bit more.
Also factually untrue.
If he can't get his simple facts right, his credibility is for shit.
"true" story here? Almost definately not now.
If you really want to start a discussion about something, the op-ed by Davis was absolutely the wrong way to do it. It read more like an application to join the McCain For President team than anything else.
He as much as accused Davis of disobeying orders.
lyinginaccurate when he says Hartmann didn't address it. On top of that, Davis didn't mention Hartmann by name at all, so this is Guiora's "interpretation" of what Davis meant.And further, Davis's own words left me with the impression that the main reason he left was because he realized that he was working, through the chain-of-command, for Haynes. All this other stuff wasn't enough to make him resign, but having to work for Haynes was more than he could bear.
Sorry, Guiora's article strikes me as being more agenda-driven than the two articles to which he's responding.
If statements given after waterboarding are confirmed by other evidence, I see no reason why they are not reliable enough for the jury to consider. Unlawful enemy combatants have no right against self incrimination and the only issue is whether the evidence is reliable.
For example, if an unlawful enemy combatant admitted that he was involved in a plot to attack the Sears Tower and gave details of the plot and these details were confirmed by other captured plotters, then I see no reason why this evidence is not reliable enough to be considered.
However, when KSM took credit for murdering Danny Pearl, and admission which has not corroborating evidence and is contrary to other evidence, then the admission should be excluded. If course, the egomaniac KSM may take credit for it anyway in open court, but the out of court statement should not be admitted.
I've never understood this sort of logic. Some piece of alleged evidence is deemed worthless, but if there is support for what it purports to show it suddenly becomes respectable.
Let's say I announce it's going to rain tomorrow because my Magic Weather Wheel pointed to "rain" when I spun it. That's worthless. Now the Weather Service predicts rain. OK. So rain is now likely, but that doesn't give my Wheel any validity whatsoever. The only reason to expect rain is the Weather Service forecast. The wheel is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what it predicted. It in no way strengthens the argument that it will rain tomorrow.
tortureenhanced interrogation methods is perfectly reliable, except when it isn't.Interesting too that Gen. Hartmann refers to the Gitmo Guests as "alleged war criminals" which strikes me as a status quite different from the 'alleged unlawful enemy combatant' label that the administration is trying to use to keep these folks in an undefined limbo. If they are alleged war criminals, then shouldn't they be put on trial?
What continues to baffle me is how Yamashita &Quirin are precedents to deny any manner of process to determine these prisoner's status, considering those WWII era detainees had considerable process to determine their status, prior to the cases bearing their names being brought/decided.
Unprecedented rights indeed ... I think the lawyers for today's detainees would be tickled pink to get the process that Yamashita and the Quirin eight received to determine their status rather than being stuck as Schroedinger's Cats in boxes that could remain forever unopened.