home > by publication type > backgrounder > TERROR: Military Tribunals
Email
| Author: | Esther Pan |
|---|
March 10, 2004
It's unclear. The United States on February 24 charged two suspects, Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al-Qosi of Sudan and Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al-Bahlul of Yemen, with conspiracy to commit terrorism and war crimes against civilians. These are the first charges brought against any of the roughly 650 foreign detainees held at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. No dates have been set for the proceedings, which will take place in special military tribunals operated by the Department of Defense.
After 9/11, U.S. officials decided to use the Guantanamo facility to hold individuals captured in the war on terror. The first detainees arrived soon after the U.S. attack on al-Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan began in October 2001. Human rights groups and legal advocates have criticized the conditions under which detainees are held and the time it has taken to press charges against them.
U.S. officials have been interrogating the captives and preparing the legal framework for the tribunal process. President Bush issued an executive order on November 13, 2001, authorizing the tribunals for foreigners accused of terrorism, but criticism of the process spurred the Defense Department to modify the plan in March 2002. On July 3, 2003, Bush designated six of the detainees as candidates for military tribunals. Qosi and Bahlul will be the first of the six to face a tribunal.
In a speech in Miami on February 13, 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called the long detention of detainees a "security necessity." He said that if the detainees were released, "they would return to the fight and continue to kill innocent men, women, and children." Rumsfeld also said detainees under interrogation have provided important intelligence about Qaeda activities to authorities.
The February 24 indictment accuses Qosi of being Osama bin Laden's accountant, exchanging money for him on the black market, acting as a courier for Qaeda funds, and working as a treasurer for a business that financed Qaeda activities, the Associated Press reported. The indictment accuses Bahlul of being a bin Laden bodyguard and a Qaeda media propagandist who made a video glorifying the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000, an attack that killed 17 sailors.
Yes. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Susan Shaffer will defend Qosi, and Navy Lieutenant Commander Philip Sundel and Army Major Mark Bridges will act as counsel for Bahlul.
John D. Altenburg Jr., an army major general who retired in 2002. His title is Appointing Authority for Military Commissions. He will not serve on the tribunals, but will supervise the procedures under which the cases are conducted. Altenburg will decide which cases go before tribunals and whether they will be heard in open court or, because of security concerns, in closed or partially closed proceedings. An army lawyer for 28 years, he previously served as assistant judge advocate general for the Department of the Army. Air Force Brigadier General Thomas L. Hemingway, a former Air Force staff judge advocate and director of the Air Force Judiciary, will supervise the legal staff and act as Altenburg's legal adviser.
Cases will be heard by a panel of three to seven military officers. Altenburg will appoint one member, who must be a military lawyer, as each panel's presiding officer. A two-thirds majority of the panel must agree to convict or impose a sentence. The panel may impose the death penalty, but that sentence requires a unanimous decision. The tribunals will admit some evidence--hearsay, for example--that is not admissible in U.S. civilian courts. Detainees can hire civilian lawyers at their own expense to work alongside the military attorneys assigned to them.
Yes. On December 30, 2003, the Pentagon named four members of a review panel to hear appeals:
More members may be added later, experts say. Appeals will be heard by three members of the review panel; the makeup of each appeals court will be decided by review panel members. Panel decisions can be appealed to the secretary of defense and the president, but not to civilian courts.
Yes. Members of Congress, reporters, and representatives of the International Red Cross will be allowed in, The New York Times reported February 23. But the government says there is not enough space or capacity at the Guantanamo Bay facility to accommodate others. Advocacy groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Human Rights First have objected.
Yes. Marine Corps Major Michael Mori, defense lawyer for Australian detainee David Hicks, told the Associated Press on January 21, 2004, that his client's mental state has "degenerated" after two years of confinement, echoing criticisms from international rights groups. Rumsfeld stressed on February 13 that the United States "has no desire to hold enemy combatants any longer than is absolutely necessary" and announced that an additional review panel will examine detainees' cases on a yearly basis to decide who will be tried before military tribunals, who will be repatriated to home countries, and who will be released. A detainee's foreign government will be allowed to submit information to the review panel on the detainee's behalf, said Paul Butler, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee operations, in a February 13 briefing. The Pentagon has expedited the review process and has released more than 90 detainees to their home countries, experts say.
No. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, in a briefing February 7, 2002, said the Guantanamo detainees are not entitled to POW privileges under Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions. Fleisher said al-Qaeda and Taliban are "unprivileged" or "unlawful" combatants because they don't pass the four traditional tests for so-called state parties to war, as defined in the conventions. By this definition, soldiers must:
Military lawyers assigned to defend detainees have criticized it. Sundel told The New York Times February 24 that he and his co-counsel might challenge the tribunal process, saying, "We have concerns about virtually every aspect of the military commission process as it relates to our client getting a fair trial." Bridges told Reuters February 25 that the checks and balances enshrined in the modern legal system "don't exist in the military commission system." Mori criticized the tribunals as "created and controlled by those with a vested interest only in convictions," the Associated Press reported January 21. Many legal experts and others have called the military tribunal process unfair to suspects because they can be held as long as the U.S. government considers them a threat--even after they have been convicted and served a sentence. Before being charged, the detainees at Guantanamo have no access to lawyers, their families, or international aid groups. The military tribunal process is also not subject to review by independent courts.
Yes. Families of detainees from Britain, Australia, and Kuwait have brought a case before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the military tribunal process. They argue that Guantanamo detainees are entitled to lawyers while in detention and eventual access to civilian courts. A decision is expected by mid-summer, experts say. Military lawyers assigned to represent the detainees filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the Supreme Court in January that said, "the Constitution cannot countenance an open-ended presidential power, with no civilian review whatsoever, to try anyone the president deems subject to a military tribunal, whose rules and judges have been selected by the prosecuting authority itself," The Washington Post reported January 13.
A group of distinguished legal experts filed an amicus brief March 3 supporting the military tribunal process. The brief states that critics of the process are ignoring "the settled rules of the law of armed conflict ... which permits nations to defend their citizens through the use of military force, including the capture and detention of enemy combatants throughout the conflict ... so long as an armed conflict is still in progress." Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of international law at the Johns Hopkins University and one of the filers, says the brief argues that al-Qaeda, a terrorist group, "cannot be considered a state party to the Geneva Convention;" therefore, the Qaeda fighters being held at Guantanamo are not entitled to POW status or habeas corpus rights.
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
In Termites in the Trading System, Jagdish Bhagwati reveals how the rapid spread of preferential trade agreements endangers the world trading system.
America Between the Wars explores how the decisions and debates of the years between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Twin Towers shaped the events, arguments, and politics of the world we live in today.
In The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, Noah Feldman tells the story behind the increasingly popular call for the establishment of the sharia—the law of the traditional Islamic state—in the modern Muslim world.
Complete list of CFR Books.
This report argues that the United States must lead with domestic action on climate change and proposes a U.S. negotiating strategy for a global UN climate agreement that includes commitments from all major economies, while also promoting a less formal Partnership for Climate Cooperation that would focus the world's largest emitters on implementing aggressive emissions reductions.
This Task Force report examines changes in Latin America and in U.S. influence there, while taking account of the region's enduring importance to the United States. The Task Force offers an agenda for U.S. policy toward Latin America and identifies four critical areas that should provide the basis of a new U.S. approach.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR.
This report outlines the nature of the challenges in Pakistan's tribal areas, formulates strategies for addressing those challenges, and distills the strategies into realistic policy proposals worthy of consideration by the incoming administration.
This report analyzes the debate over U.S. use of assurances against torture, explaining the contexts in which they are used, how they can be conveyed, and what they can contain, and recommends a number of ways to respond to criticism so that the United States can continue using assurances.
Complete list of Council Special Reports.
“The Right Way to Engage China:” Henry M. Paulson argues that the prosperity of the United States and China depends on helping China to further integrate into the global economic system.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1-212-434-9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
To request permission to reuse Council materials, please email publications@cfr.org or fax +1.212.434.9859.
Please include the complete information of the requested work—author, title, sections/pages to be copied or reprinted, and number of copies to be made—along with a brief description of where and how you would like to reuse the work.
You may also request permission for Council material through Copyright Clearance Center. For more information, please click on the link below.
Copyright 2008 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.
