Advertisement
The Robert Jackson Steering Committee, a group of lawyers and journalists founded to uphold the principles of the Nuremberg Trials, is urging the Department of Justice to proceed with trying Khalil Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and other suspected 9/11 terrorists in federal criminal court, and not in military commissions.
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the Committee enumerates several substantial problems with military commissions:
(1) Admissibility of statements following torture in certain circumstances,
(2) Evidence derived from impermissible interrogation methods is not barred,
(3) Evidence seized outside the US without search warrants is not excluded,
(4) The accused is entitled to one "reasonably available" defense counsel,
(5) No mention of the attorney-client privilege,
(6) In a capital case, the accused is entitled to additional counsel "to the greatest extent practicable",
(7) Ex post facto law may be applied,
(8) No right to speedy trial,
(9) Trials may be closed to public,
(10) Conviction by two thirds of jurors rather than unanimity,
(11) Hearsay evidence admissible if direct testimony not available or would have adverse impact on military or intelligence operations,
(12) Government cannot be compelled to disclose classified information, and
(13) Only one peremptory challenge to jury selection.
Read the full letter:
Laws not Men
Notes RJSC member and University of Toledo law professor Ben Davis, "For an attentive observer, the reason the Military Commissions were put in place was so that evidence gained by coercive techniques and torture could be admitted and evaluated, and Constitutional guarantees that are the essence of fair trials could be avoided. When you see this or that argument made in favor of the military commissions as opposed to civilian criminal courts, understand that it is not about fine points of legal niceties like jurisdiction or charges; at its heart it is about how to get convictions of people that have been tortured by us." In the letter to Holder, the Committee emphasized that in American jurisprudence, every suspect is innocent until proven guilty: "It is important for the United States to have this trial in its first class system, with a jury of Americans hearing the evidence, and the tools used in prior federal terrorism trials being applied by the judge to this matter. Federal law is adequate to charge crimes by these defendants. Competent counsel for the United States and for the defense should be able to argue every permissible point in court so that there is no doubt for ourselves or the world that a fair trial was had by all."
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the Committee enumerates several substantial problems with military commissions:
(1) Admissibility of statements following torture in certain circumstances,
(2) Evidence derived from impermissible interrogation methods is not barred,
(3) Evidence seized outside the US without search warrants is not excluded,
(4) The accused is entitled to one "reasonably available" defense counsel,
(5) No mention of the attorney-client privilege,
(6) In a capital case, the accused is entitled to additional counsel "to the greatest extent practicable",
(7) Ex post facto law may be applied,
(8) No right to speedy trial,
(9) Trials may be closed to public,
(10) Conviction by two thirds of jurors rather than unanimity,
(11) Hearsay evidence admissible if direct testimony not available or would have adverse impact on military or intelligence operations,
(12) Government cannot be compelled to disclose classified information, and
(13) Only one peremptory challenge to jury selection.
Read the full letter:
Laws not Men
Notes RJSC member and University of Toledo law professor Ben Davis, "For an attentive observer, the reason the Military Commissions were put in place was so that evidence gained by coercive techniques and torture could be admitted and evaluated, and Constitutional guarantees that are the essence of fair trials could be avoided. When you see this or that argument made in favor of the military commissions as opposed to civilian criminal courts, understand that it is not about fine points of legal niceties like jurisdiction or charges; at its heart it is about how to get convictions of people that have been tortured by us." In the letter to Holder, the Committee emphasized that in American jurisprudence, every suspect is innocent until proven guilty: "It is important for the United States to have this trial in its first class system, with a jury of Americans hearing the evidence, and the tools used in prior federal terrorism trials being applied by the judge to this matter. Federal law is adequate to charge crimes by these defendants. Competent counsel for the United States and for the defense should be able to argue every permissible point in court so that there is no doubt for ourselves or the world that a fair trial was had by all."