The Bazaar for Deals at Gitmo
Dafna Linzer has a very timely story describing how prosecutors at Gitmo are scrambling to make deals with detainees at Gitmo, in some cases to resolve their fate, but in others to prepare them to testify against more significant detainees.
As the United States moves to prosecute Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others [1] accused of being conspirators behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, federal and military prosecutors are racing each other to strike plea deals with at least a dozen additional Guantanamo detainees whose testimony could be used against some of the most notorious prisoners.
The plea bargaining exposes the difficulty the government faces in bringing prosecutable cases against these defendants and others still in Guantanamo. Most of the remaining detainees are considered too difficult to prosecute, mostly because the evidence against them is thin or based on statements obtained through coercion.
One defense attorney said federal prosecutors had so little on his client that they asked the detainee to suggest a charge he would be willing to plead guilty to.
I sort of wonder whether that’s one thing that’s going on with Omar Khadr. When asked at a DOD/DOJ press conference today whether Khadr’s trial might be transferred to Canada, the senior DOD official giving the briefing dodged by saying his case is still early in the process.
Toronto Star: Walk me through thinking about Omar Khadr, whether his age was a consideration, and whether there was communication with Canadian govt. Still possibility that Khadr could be repatriated to Canada.
DOD: Don’t want to speculate about outcome of pending prosecutions in commissions. We have this as a pending case. Status of it, it’s a ways off. There’s a way to go in the case. I’m sure the prosecutors will consider all their options wrt how they handle the case.
That seems remarkable for a case that has, supposedly, already been green-lighted for a military commission. So I wonder if they’re trying to get him to approve of a deal?
In any case, click through to read Linzer’s complete story.
As we here at the coffemaker are celebrating…….. we might not be the most honest critters on earth…but here goes GENEVA CONVENTION 3 ART 12
Cheers….. you decerve it marcy we got your back covered
Just my five cents worth
BTW on OT if some of your friends like to do a real life “hero” story you might wanna check out BOSTON JOHN He is a AC at KBOS and he is the the real thing…… he love his job, when you listen to his speak on tape or in realtime you think this tower is rocking…. aka there hawing the time of there life as they do there job……. we use to refocuse here at the coffee machine….but he’s still a hero in any mans book….i Use it to recalibrate the important things in life
he also has his own section on FB
http://www.liveatc.net/recordings.php
Just my five cents worth
I suspect this is the implementation of the STFU defense, since the “deals” will have cooperation and/or non-disclosure elements. After seven or eight years of abuse, torture and neglect of the legal aspects of their detention in favor of the political utility of detaining them, it must be hard to construct a valid case against even the most probable criminals. Pity the US government didn’t consider that before. Just saying.
I’ve always wondered how they can prosecute individuals caught on the field of battle as “terrorists” when they are solely involved in fighting military personnel. Whether we like it or not, these individuals were fighting for the established government of Afghanistan at the time. They were recognized allies as much as the Canadian Air Force or Poles were in the Battle of Britain.
Furthermore, Omar Khadr, at 15 years, was essentially a coerced “child soldier” even if he is established to have participated in the battle. Essentially he was detained because of who his family was, not because of any acts they had good evidence to support his detention.
On top of that, the witness statements made shortly after the event were changed after those who were there could have been tampered with by the prosecution. Khadr was shot in the back and no evidence exists that shows he was a threat. That’s a war crime that the whole platoon would have an interest in covering up. And the autopsy evidence shows that the shrapnel in the body of the man Khadr supposedly killed came from a US grenade. So there is a motive to cover up a friendly fire incident.
The whole case stinks like a three-day-old fish wrapped in a gym sock.
We keep hearing about some kind of plea bargain for Khadr, and who am I to say, but I don’t see the logic of his defence counsel accepting any time soon.
First, there’s the case just argued before the Supreme Court today. There’s a strong chance the government is going to lose, and Harper will be forced to ask Obama to repatriate. We’ve long been hearing that Obama would like nothing better; only Harper has stood in the way. So first of all, at the level of the cynical bastards, I don’t think anyone is going to move until the court speaks, which won’t be before Christmas, apparently.
Second, Khadr has two things going for him: he’s probably innocent, and he was a child soldier. Further, he’s been tortured (stress positions, sleep deprivation, use as a human mop to wipe up his own urine) at both Bagram and GTMO, and we know that some of the testimony he’s given has proved to be false, suggesting that it was extracted through abuse. So what kind of a deal would defence counsel be willing to agree to?
To me, the legal conundrum with Khadr (if we were dealing with serious courts) is that his two strongest arguments — innocence and status as child soldier — are in tension with one another. If he is suddenly whisked out of the system on the basis that he was a child soldier, then he will never get his day in court (a serious court), where it sounds as though he would have a good chance of being acquitted. But does any decent nation want to be trying child soldiers? He would be the first since the 1940s.
If we do get him back here, my main worry will be that he’ll be turned into a clockwork orange, or even more of one than he must already be. There are politicians and therapists chomping at the bit to fix him up according to their theories of what he will need. But that is still at least months down the road.
I tend to agree that no one is really pumping hard for the Khadr deal yet, until Obama can see if he will be able to get Harper to take him back. That would be the most ideal for Obama.
On the “does any decent nation” question, Obama and Holder have their answer out on that – Obama has never argued that we can’t or shouldn’t try child soldiers and if he wanted to make that a clear position, he could have a long time ago.
Instead, he is hoping someone else will solve the problems for him.
The kind of moral courage O exhibits often. /s
I recall KSM at one point after habeas corpus was re-allowed was trying to admit guilt and was actively recruiting other prisoners to plead guilty to government charges in order to die a martyr.
Has KSM changed his mind? and is he going to fight his charges?
Or is he going to make the work of DoJ easier by confessing to his crimes in open court? KSM gets to become a martyr. DOJ gets a win without stepping through its minefield of bygones.
Is Gmail down? Does anyone know?
Jailhouse snitches is what they got Illinois freed how many people from the Death Penalty who were convicted in whole or in part because of this testimony. Prisoners have no reason to lie to get out of jail/s
Holder is from Illinois so is Obama they know better.
He needs to plead not guilty and make the government prove its case. His confessions are rubbish as he was tortured.
After being tortured is he sane can he plead?
Why is the Obama justice Dept trying to cover for Bush? Or is this a fake out and the plan is to release many of these defendants and blame Bush for jailing people with weak evidence.
He will have an attorney who can determine that. no?
True but if he is nuts then can there be a trial?
Probably not. I lost my Gmail… I am trying to figure out if it’s my pc or a system down
I do want him to go to trial. I want discovery on who tortured him and who gave the order to torture him. I know the GOP is all kinds of scared of this happening. This whole we can’t bring these terrorist to trial here is hysteria.
But I do have my doubts anyone would be sane after torture he needs therapy first.
You hoping to get on the jury?
My guess about why the Obama administration (and Attorney General Eric Holder) is trying some alleged terrorists in federal court and others in military tribunals is because of the torture issue.
There apparently is evidence not derived from torture that can assure a guilty verdict against those being tried in federal court, while the ones being tried before a military tribunal were probably tortured, while being detained on orders of top Bush/Cheney administration officials, and there isn’t much evidence, if any evidence not derived from torture, that would assure a guilty verdict.
Thus, the Obama administration (and Eric Holder) split the difference, continuing the Bush/Cheney administration’s military tribunal policy (meant to keep the torture hidden and keep top Bush officials from being tried for war crimes), while shifting the trials of some detainees to federal court where not-torture-linked evidence will be submitted to a jury, but still in hopes of keeping the torture policies of the previous Bush/Cheney administration “off the record.”
“they asked the detainee to suggest a charge he would be willing to plead guilty to.”
Jaywalking. How about jaywalking? Everybody does that. Or maybe parking in a no parking zone? Spitting on the sidewalk? 35 in a 30 mph school zone? Ripping the “don’t remove” labels off his mattress?
“how prosecutors at Gitmo are scrambling to make deals with detainees at Gitmo”
Has potential for a new game or reality show
Let’s make a Deal
Door 1
Door 2
Door 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lT5nfSk4u2A