Kangaroo Court

Apologies to this noble animal, but since its name has long since been adopted to describe sham legal proceedings, it's only appropriate here.  The so-called trial now taking place at Guantánamo of Salim Hamdan, a low-level driver of Osama bin Laden, is a kangaroo court.  As the U.S. military preens and poses, going through the motions of due process, bragging (not to mention preaching) to the rest of the world about its high-falutin' legal system, a few members of the press are sort of allowed in, sort of allowed to cover the trial, and sort of allowed to report on it.

In today's New York Times account, the dispassionate narration of the proceedings never once mentions the word "torture."  The usual euphemisms that have become so beloved of the press, however, are in abundance:  "coercive interrogation," "highly coercive environment."  But no matter.  Few Americans care that our government is torturing people in our name, anyway.  So I suppose we can just look at the proceedings with an appreciation for farce.

Seven years after the September 11th attacks, we are no closer to catching Osama bin Laden, but we have got his cabbie, by George!  What an accomplishment.  And in keeping with the superior transparency of American justice, nowhere are Hamdan's offenses actually spelled out, but appear to include checking the oil and the tire pressure on bin Laden's car.

Even for lovers of farce, though, it's hard to tell what's going on:  Yes, the Constitutution does apply (Supreme Court); no, it doesn't (military judge Capt. Keith Allred).  Yes, Guantánamo is part of the USA (1903 Cuban-American Treaty); no, it isn't (Pentagon spokeswoman Maj. Gail Crawford).  Cameras are allowed in the courtroom (Pentagon cameras only), but they're turned away from witnesses' faces and from evidence. 

But what the hell?  Feydeau and Molière are long since gone -- we've gotta get our entertainment somewhere!

Comments

[drip]

The really unfortunate thing is that the US could put this guy on trial in any US District Court in the country, give him a top notch lawyer (Ted Wells comes to mind), eliminate the use of all coerced testimony as evidence and show the world that we are not afraid of the result. Instead, by prosecuting a flunky, we appear as cowards to the world.

[Sir Charles]

These proceedings are so impermissibly tainted by the torture I don't see how they could ever be made to comport with any reasonable notion of due process.

I can't believe the degree to which this administration has forfeited what should have been our greatest strength -- our system of justice and its respect for human rights.

[janinsanfran]

This crap just keeps on coming...

[Lisa Simeone]

Sir C, and the degree to which so much of the nation has gone along with it. Torture? Okay, as long as "we" do it. After all, We're The Good Guys. The level of hypocrisy is stupefying.

[drip]

Its hypocritical and stupid. We're going to see torture defended as necessary by other evil people and we will be forced into silence or condemnation of American behavior. That chicken will come home to roost.

[Lisa Simeone]

Drip, it is indeed stupid. Stupid and counter-productive, as even the frigging Pentagon is saying. In fact, the DOD just came out with yet another report today saying this. Leave aside human rights and decent goddamn human behavior, for those who don't give a fig about such niceties, and on the grounds of efficacy alone torture is a stupid f-ing thing to do.

But then, this has been proven over and over and over and over and over and over again throughout history, in all parts of the world, and still people cling to it. The baseness of human behavior knows no limits.

[drip]

Nazis 1934 after sterilizing 100,000 invalids and mentally ill residents: The US does this in 27 states. Nazis in 1934 about racist law towards Jews: The US lynches Negoes. The administration knows this. They want to spread their chaos throughout the world to make all public governance impossible. Sorry, I only sort of mean that, but I'm a little depressed about this whole business.

[some guy]

In regards to the last paragraph which begins "Even for lovers of farce...," it may be useful to look at some of the actual rulings to get a better view of what is actually going on. In Boumediene v. Bush the court found (5-4) that the combatant status review board (CSRB) was not a sufficient alternative to a habeas corpus hearing. They did not find that the constitution in general applies in Cuba, but, rather, outlined a series of conditions to decide if a given right applies there, including "objective factors and practical concerns," or if provision of the right in question is "impractical or anomalous." This, I believe, explains Judge Allred's finding that some rights do not apply to Hamdan.

Similarly, the status Guantanamo Bay can be seen through the lens of de jure (Cuba) or de facto (USA) sovereignty. Anyway, just some thoughts...

[Miley Cyrus]

hmm.....