Guantanamo Justice

Try to force those two words together.

On October 4, 2007, Colonel Morris D. Davis resigned as chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay, and he has devoted considerable time, ever since, to giving his reasons why. Confessions extracted from defendants under torture were to be admitted as evidence at the trials. This breach of international law in a legal proceeding, Colonel Davis found unconscionable, and it was perhaps the largest single cause of his resignation.

But there were other disagreements. Colonel Davis had been advised by Brigadier General Thomas W. Hartmann, at the Office of Military Commissions, to mount prosecutions that would have political value for the Cheney-Bush administration. In an apparently high-minded conversation, on the other hand, he was informed by William J. Haynes II, the general counsel of the Pentagon, that the Guantanamo trials were meant to become a sort of Nuremberg Trials for our time. Yet this dignified precedent, too, led back to politics and facade. When Colonel Davis pointed out that the Nuremberg Trials sounded like an excellent standard to aim for--adding that some of the Nuremberg defendants had been acquitted, and this was among the facts that lent credibility to the proceedings--his simple reminder was greeted with consternation.

As Davis recalls, "I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process"; and at that point, Haynes's "eyes got wide and he said, 'Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals. If we've been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can't have acquittals. We've got to have convictions.'"

So Colonel Davis has written editorials and given interviews that expose the rigged system at Guantanamo: a set of procedures corrupted by the intent to use evidence obtained by torture, and, much more (as he sees it), by the constant intervention of supervisory officers outside the system of military justice, functionaries who have in view the political fortunes of Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. The latter charge is so exceptional on the face of it that skepticism might be called for in any setting other than that of Cheney-Bush, where such meddling has proved itself the rule.

All of this matters now because Colonel Davis has agreed to testify on behalf of one of the defendants, Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

A spirit far less candid than skepticism--a tone of archness and a misplaced hunt for "human interest"--badly vitiated William Glaberson's February 28 New York Times story "Ex-Guantanamo Prosecutor to Testify for Detaineee." Rightly calling Colonel Davis "one of those critics who will not go away," Glaberson went on to characterize him as a man "willing to turn on the system he helped run." Turncoat is the word that hovers over that sentence, yet the same thing could have been said in different words. The truth is that Colonel Davis risked his career to expose the injustice of a system that paid his salary. How many have the strength to "turn" in quite this way?

Glaberson quotes Colonel Davis's view that he is well situated to unsettle the complacency of the Pentagon "and try to get this fixed"--but then catches him "enjoying some aspects of his new role." No explanation is offered for that curious comment. But Colonel Davis is described, elsewhere in the article, as "provocative," and perhaps the message is clear. The article skirts the edge of saying that a man who holds two opposed views at different times--one of which pits him against his associates--has crossed a line beyond which all bets are off regarding the sobriety and soundness of his character. Yet what were the opposed views? That some of the detainees are dangerous terrorists who ought to be prosecuted with the greatest energy and resourcefulness, but that, in any case, all deserve fair trials, and a foregone conclusion of "all convictions" will serve neither justice nor the interests of the United States. Where exactly is the contradiction?

The Glaberson story is pestered by other peculiarities. Bad editing--Colonel Davis's pre-Guantanamo life drops out of nowhere into paragraph eighteen and is finished in two sentences--supports the bad writing to such an extent that one hardly knows whom to blame. Inexplicably, this report of February 28 omits the fact that, on February 25, the Department of Defense announced the resignation of William J. Haynes II--someone whose disappearance at just this moment might be supposed to give a certain plausibility to Colonel Davis's charges. And when Glaberson tells us that Colonel Davis "suggested darkly that there are 'people at key points in the process, that I just don't know what their allegiance is,'" there is really nothing dark about the suggestion. The main person in question is Susan J. Crawford, the convening authority of the Military Commissions: a protege of Dick Cheney (as Scott Horton described her in a widely available column) and a close associate of David Addington. Now, what was that about "darkly suggested"?

Again, why does Glaberson say that Colonel Davis has "written op-ed pieces" (giving the impression of a publicity seeker) and why does he cite an interview in The Nation (giving the impression of a left-wing constituency) when the most recent and remarkable of Davis's editorials appeared on February 17 in the New York Times? It is entitled "Unforgivable Behavior, Inadmissible Evidence," its subject is "waterboarding," and Glaberson would have done well to ask Colonel Davis what moral consideration determined his use of the word unforgivable.

If we outlive these times, when American liberty is under attack by Americans, and so few in journalism and politics have shown the civic courage exhibited by so many in the judiciary and the armed services, any honor we recover will be owed in large part to officers with names like Batiste and Swift and to judges with names like Taylor, Rodgers, and Walton. Colonel Morris Davis is another of that company, and only a perversion of the idea of news gathering could reduce his protest to an obscure case of office politics.

Comments

[jqcitizen]

Military officers within the ranks of 2nd Lt. up to Col., for the most part, get promotions based on merit and ability. A Brig. General will NOT get another star unless he/she goes along with the political demands of the Secretary of Defense, who in turn gets his marching orders from the President.

That should explain the reason that only retired Generals and Admirals speak their mind. Doing so while in uniform is a career ending act. Any wonder why so many GI's are "Quitters"? Quitters such as Col. Davis are HEROS not BOOTLICKERs.

[NoFactsJustTruth]

You're correct, sir, they can never acquit or turn loose ANYONE that might call them on their lies of minimal torture, and for having false imprisoned people. Glaberson's obviously another party kool-aid drinker that places the criminal actions of government, from the preznutz' political party, above The Constitution of OUR country. I'm sincerely concerned, Dr. B, that should something EVER happen to 'the people's hope' of changing corporate and lobbyists' influence over law-making and courts, citizens may choose the ONLY option then left to them for trying to restore Constitutional 'Rule of Law'.

And, it WON'T be pretty...

[villastrangiato]

Oh, this is rich....."we can't acquit anybody because then they might sue us for imprisoning them without charges for five years"

I think it's entirely possible that Iraq had a more fair justice system under Saddam

[vah411]

David,

Thank you for writing about this. The overall press silence on this subject is deafening!

It is NO coincidence that these 'show' trials are scheduled to run during the six months leading up to the 2008 presidential election. The Rovian republicans are determined to use these death penalty trials of the 'worst of the worst terrorists' to scare American voters into voting for Warminger McCain in the general election.

Senator Clinton, who is widely regaded as strong on defense and security has a chance to beat McCain, but if the democrats nominate inexperienced Obama, they will ensure that the Architect Karl Rove gets another republican elected, using the dirtiest political trick in all of history.

The Bush administration plans to execute these prisoners in Guantanamo death chambers right before the election. The anger against the U.S. that will be stirred around the world and the fear and division in the U.S. created by these trials will have a HUGE impact on the general election.

The press should examine NOW how this will impact the general election, while democratic primary voters still have a chance to nominate Senator Clinton, the only candidate who can possibly beat McCain after this spectacle plays non-stop from March through November.

[gallery]

Great article David.
If this exposes the intention kangaroo court at the expense of what's left of our international standing, so be it.
This is what happens when scumbags like bush and cheney try to game the system, it sticks to the bottom of their shoe like the dogshit that it is.
Any word on whether the gag order on Australian, David Hicks, has been lifted yet?
I'd be really curious to hear what he has to say about the deal that cheney made with howard to get his release.

[DMM1029]

There is no legitimacy to even holding the detainees, let alone prosecuting them. Please try to recall, we invaded their country. When they resisted by force of arms, we took them. Turn it around. What would Americans do if invaded by a Muslim force? We'd fight like hell. How then, would we view it if some US fighters were captured and held for years? Totally aside from the question of launching and prosecuting aggressive war, a crime we tried the Nazis on at Nuremberg, is the question of trying people who resisted that action in their home country. Really, what are the charges? What did they actually do to threaten the US? Resist invasion? That is somehow a crime? And then, because the legality is hopelessly contrary to our own legal standards, standards which have, for a hundred years been the gold standard, we deny them even habeas corpus to test the legality of that detention? This is a mess, and the rest of the world knows it. We will reap the whirlwind for our actions. We have lost the moral high ground to complain when some future soldier is captured and tortured in the name of some other country's national interest. History will not be kind to Bush and his thugs.

Dave McGlaughlin Harrisburg, Pa.

[PierreLeClerke]

This is True Leadership. Sacrifice of ones own self for the good of the People, to uphold and restore the Rule of Law. This Brave Soldier, is a Patriot and others will follow his lead. Our Entire Congress lacks the courage of this One man. Take heart America, all is not lost. There are Soldiers and Patriots among us, willing to risk all for the Constitution they have sworn to protect and uphold. I will follow this Col. through the gates of Hell to deliver these bastards to Satan personally.

[appleknocker]

Two questions re your new saint:
1) Is about to retire anyway?
2) Did he previously say that sympathy for the detainees is nauseating?

[musselmanm]

Reading this outstanding article brought back thoughts of reading Lord Of The Rings. The people running our government are very bad people. They will come to trial after this administration is gone. Along with all of the higher ups in the Executive Branch of our government.When reading something which I find very scarey I can only picture all of these characters as Trolls and such.
We must not forget these things and force the prosecution of all involved. If we can bring back someone to uphold the Constitution this November, we can show the world that America is not what it now appears.

[HST]

Know who else wrote an op-ed piece?

Gen.Betryus wrote on in 2004 in suuport of dear leader's reelection campaign.

Guess it's only wrong/suspicious when others do it.

[larry278]

I hope that the good Col is around to testify against the clods at Gitmo & elsewhere at trials of the clods for treason, crimes against humanity & conspiracy to committ mopery. A US court must try the clods for a conviction for treason allows a US court to approve death sentences.
But the Col may not favor the death penalty & might make his opposition to the death penalty know at sentencing proceedings. If the Col asked the lives of the clods who are guilty of treason be spared-the US Court would grant the Col's request for the Col's arguments couldn't be refuted. The Col acts like a moral person.

[margotb822]

This is a great article. It is encouraging to see people that are willing to stand up to this corrupt administration. IMO, these are the type of people we need on the SCOTUS; people who are willing to put justice over politics and what's right over what's popular.

The whole world knows that Guantanamo is no Nuremburg. I hope that the next administration closes down that farce and returns to real justice.

Imagine if China were whisking away our citizens to a military prison, subjecting them to torture and tribunals that don't actually offer any justice. Many of the people there are innocent, and have just been caught up by an overzealous military. However, because Bush can't admit he's wrong, these people are subject to years of torture and illegal imprisonment. Guantanamo is an international outrage and must end!

www.serveoutloud.blogspot.com

[vippy]

How can one take Mr. Bush serious when he says one thing and does the opposite time after time again. He calls us a democracy when he has made a mockery out of it. We are in a recession and yet Bush does not know that gas is $ 4.00 per gallon. Does this make any sense?
He could not be more out of touch! No wonder, we are going downhill. Then he blabbers about
human rights with the Chinese or Cuba when he has enough dirt in his own front door.
Simply amazing.

[margotb822]

Yes, Canada added the US to the list of countries that use torture. Precious...

I still can't decide if Bush is a moron, a puppet or both. I'm thinking both. Plus a little bit of a*hole thrown in...

www.serveoutloud.blogspot.com

[gladiatorpodolsky]

Amen.

[zjr909]

One has to hope that men like Colonel Davis are not so marginalized, if not downright demonized, that everything they have to say is dismissed as irrelevant. I'm sure it's just a matter of time till some enterprising reporter makes the claim that if Colonel Davis had been sincere in his concern over the system of justice being used at Guantanamo, he would have stayed there and fought "within the system" to correct its shortcomings. Never mind that the system is so skewed that it cannot be straightened out from within, someone will say it - thus dismissing Colonel Davis as a "quitter" - and enough Americans will second that assessment to render Colonel Davis' criticisms unworthy of a true American "patriot." And that would be the end of that story. The press would no longer have to trouble its red-white-and-blue mindset with its responsibility to uncover what that flag was thrown down to obscure.

[1proudinfidel]

If there is evidence of criminal wrong doing, there should be obvious prosecutions. We must, however, as Americans, initially give the benefit of the doubt to all.
War brings out the worst of everyone. (The blogosphere notwithstanding) Despite events such as My Lai, Abu Ghraib and Haditha, most of the military personnel are honorable, but we can't weed out all of the bad apples.

[desmirl]

The more we learn about the kind of people who infest the Pentagon, the sadder it becomes. Patriotism has become partisanship, and much of it because a career as a military officer--when one curries favor with the Republican party--leads directly to a high-paying job in the military-industrial complex, once the officer retires. The people are not fit to defend this nation--of course, since 1945, defending this nation has been from things like the monstrous North Vietnamese invasion fleet that was repelled at the shores of California.... err... you mean, that didn't happen?