Observers of the first U.S. war crimes trial since World War II have seen enough to render a verdict on the fairness of the trial, the first major test of the military commission system established by President Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
John Altenburg, a retired Army major general, said the defendant was allowed as good a defense as any enemy fighter has been allowed. "What's important is the process," said Altenburg, who oversaw the commissions from the Pentagon from 2004 to 2006. "And clearly the process has passed muster as full and fair."
Stacy Sullivan, a counterterrorism adviser for Human Rights Watch, said the tribunal allowed tainted evidence to be heard and that the defendant, Salim Hamdan, was denied basic rights. "I don't think that anybody could argue that this was a fair trial," said Sullivan, who has been observing the trial at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Kyndra Rotunda, a former legal adviser to military investigators at Guantanamo, said Allred's decision to exclude some statements indicated fairness.
"He's ruled both in favor of the defense on some motions and in favor of the prosecution. What you have is a judge that suggests a level of fairness."
If you would like to read this entire story, please visit:
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment