The Republican Resistance To Closing Gitmo

March 15, 2010  |  Posted by Danielle Belton

We hope the White House was watching CNN this Sunday when House Minority Leader John Boenher said he wouldn't vote to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay even "if you put a gun to my head." Right now the White House is considering a deal with Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham that would close the prison under the condition that so-called 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others would be prosecuted in military commission trials only. But if the White House goes back on their decision to have criminal trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees in the hopes of getting the votes to close the prison they'll be destroying their principles while going on a fool's errand.

Republicans in the House and Senate are not going to vote to close Gitmo.

Rep. Boehner, like other Republicans before him, makes it clear to CNN's Candy Crowley that there aren't ANY circumstances he'd close Guantanamo Bay under. It's just a bad deal President Obama is considering with Sen. Graham. Not only would the White House be choosing an inferior, problemantic system by trying suspects in military commissions, they would be doing it for nothing.

The Washington Post ran a story Sunday explaining just some of the many problems with military commission trials.

Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said in an interview that the civilian courts are the best venue. "Military commissions are antithetical to the administration of justice," Fidell said. "They're slow, they're opaque, the rules are currently unknown." During the Bush years, the commission system ran into legal trouble at the Supreme Court. But its supporters say that the military courts are on a firmer, fairer path because of reforms lawmakers passed last year. New protections for classified information are in place, and judges can close the courtroom easier, for example. ... (T)he nature of the military legal system leaves open several of the same critical questions about such a trial.

Among them: It is unclear what, if any, constitutional rights would be triggered if Mohammed and his four co-defendants were moved onto U.S. soil for a military trial. There is little, if any, case law to guide the judges' decisions on defendants' challenges to their mental competency, their allegations that they have not been afforded a speedy trial and their ability to confront witnesses.

Military prosecutors are likely to rely on statements the defendants made to an FBI team that arrived after more questionable interrogations had taken place as proof of the alleged plotters' criminal intent. Assistant U.S. attorneys working in the civilian courts have developed a larger body of sensitive evidence, which they might not be willing to use in a military proceeding because of concerns about the legal standards there.

blog comments powered by Disqus