'Fair, Open, Just, Honest'
This is where the lack of fairness comes in. This is where observers say the standards are different, the process is different.
No, no.
Exculpatory evidence, discovery. [Prince] talks about being in an interview with his client and not being able to walk out with written notes.
That's not correct. Of course he can take notes. He can take them out with him.
Attorney Prince has complained that he can't take his notes with him.
Well, he can. I'm telling you: number one, he can take notes; number two, he can take those notes out with him; and number three, if those notes are classified, he can take those notes to classified storage locations on Guantánamo Bay. He has a defense special compartmentalized information facility, a SCIF, completely dedicated to the defense. A big building about half the size of all the floor space we've got has been available to them. It's been available to them for about three weeks now. They have one in the United States, and when it wasn't available to them down there, they had other SCIF storage space down there.
You're saying there's now a facility?
On Guantánamo Bay. Those are available. Those were constructed specifically for the defense. Now, the particular SCIF wasn't available. It was ready, but there was an operating procedure that wasn't in place, so they were allowed to store their material elsewhere. But they were allowed to take their information out and store it. In Washington, D.C., they have a SCIF; the SCIF is too small. I have been fighting to get them a better SCIF for some time and I continue to fight that.
I just saw pictures of the new courtroom at Guantánamo. There's a fairly large courtroom; there's a glass wall, and reporters will be on the other side of that glass wall. Now, my understanding is that during classified portions of the hearing, reporters will not be able to hear what's going on inside. Can you estimate how much of the hearings reporters won't be able to hear?
That's a good question. I can't answer it in terms of a percentage. But what the prosecutors have told me in general is that the amount of classified information that will be used in the cases will be relatively minor.
Can you quantify it?
Relatively little is all I know.
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Sultan Ahmed @ 06/08/2008 6:43:20 AM
Comment: There is no justification to constitute a commission especially for trial the accuseds involved in 9/11 insurgency.
It must be tried in the Federal Court that was legally justified stage for trial and punishment.
but Millitary commission was set up for gaining requisited results of the case.In this way it is no fair trial.
As it has come to surface,accuds persons refused to accepte the attornies offered by the trial commission and saying they have no trust in commission in regard to justice.
It is duty of the prosecution to prepare a case and prove the allegations levelled by it against the accuds by supporting relevant documents and get the accuds punished.
Shouldn't be used third methods,should be used coercive methods.
He was kept under strict custody,tortured and waterboarding and in this way a confessional statement was obtained.
It is justice it is no justice .Proceeding must be clean and procedure must be according to law.
Trial in the Millitary Commission under the presiding over a millitary man is absolutely unjust.
Suprem court of The United States has ruled which is not in favour of the Millitary Commssion but congress and president resurrected .
Barak Obama and Macinare also agreed that Millitary Commission is not procedure adopted by the Bush administration.
So it is essential for state department to change its course leading to free fair and impartial justice and the world should see the justice is being done in the case.
Posted By: sjbrock80 @ 06/03/2008 3:31:10 PM
Comment: Just skip the trial and hang these losers.
Posted By: Finnigan @ 06/03/2008 10:30:09 AM
Comment: Any defence of the "legal" proceedings discussed is ultimately silly. The world has seen the evidence, have heard the lies of the Bush administration and it's apologists, and has found their case to be wanting. Trying to mount a defence of the U.S. not using torture by saying, "the president says we don't, so we don't" is not going to work on anyone older than a seven year old. The president lied his way into the war, and the people will decide on whether waterboarding is terror. Wait, this just in, it is. Japanese soldiers were convicted of doing it to Americans during World War II. Who knew?