quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 while this is disappointing, at least....

thats what im talking about, this MSM whitewashing. none of these rules are new and the WaPo knows this.

military judges have ALWAYS had the authority to suppress evidence obtained from coercive interrogations. thats how this guy. had his case dismissed.

the application of hearsay evidence is a part of the court designed out out of necessity since the commisions originally began. otherwise the military would have to pull every soldier that had anything to do with capturing these assholes off their duty and fly them to GITMO to testify at their trials. to add to that, most of the evidence used on these detainees were evidence "could never be used because it is given to us by foreign intelligence services on the condition that it not be disclosed"

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo thats what im talking about, this MSM whitewashing. none of these rules are new and the WaPo knows this. military judges have ALWAYS had the authority to suppress evidence obtained from coercive interrogations. thats how this guy. had his case dismissed. the application of hearsay evidence is a part of the court designed out out of necessity since the commisions originally began. otherwise the military would have to pull every soldier that had anything to do with capturing these assholes off their duty and fly them to GITMO to testify at their trials. to add to that, most of the evidence used on these detainees were evidence "could never be used because it is given to us by foreign intelligence services on the condition that it not be disclosed"

like i said before, i have no problem with military trials. i have a problem with highly secret commissions that are specially designed simply to try these people.

siuce these commissions were secret, and evidence that was coerced out of them with waterboarding (and such) was admissible, what makes you think evidence obtained from foreign intelligence wasn't being used in those commissions? Obviously, I have no idea whether they were, but i suspect you can't be sure either. if protections are being added, apparently, the standards were pretty low before.

the Bush commission standards (more accurately, Congress' standards vise a vie the MCA 2006) were not low before. here are just some of the protections provided:

- the presumption of innocence;
- the imposition of the burden of proof on the prosecution;
- the right to counsel—both to a military lawyer provided at the expense of the American taxpayer and to a private attorney if the combatant chooses to retain one;
- the right to be presented with the charges in advance of trial;
- access to evidence the prosecution intends to introduce and to any exculpatory evidence known to the prosecution;
- access to interpreters as necessary to assist in understanding the proceedings;
- the right to a trial presumptively open to the public (except for portions sealed for national defense or witness security purposes)
- the free choice to testify or decline to do so;
- the right against any negative inference from a refusal to testify;
- access to reasonably available evidence and witnesses;
- access to investigative resources as "necessary for a full and fair trial"; and
- the right to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.

not to mention the military's in house, multi-teired appellate sytem whereby guilty verdicts can be reversed without ever having to appeal to the civilian courts.

the Obama commissions will be no different from the Bush era commissions.

you have a link for all that (so i can read). unfortuantely, i don't have the time to do the research, but i'd like to read it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the Bush commission standards (more accurately, Congress' standards vise a vie the MCA 2006) were not low before. here are just some of the protections provided: - the presumption of innocence; - the imposition of the burden of proof on the prosecution; - the right to counsel—both to a military lawyer provided at the expense of the American taxpayer and to a private attorney if the combatant chooses to retain one; - the right to be presented with the charges in advance of trial; - access to evidence the prosecution intends to introduce and to any exculpatory evidence known to the prosecution; - access to interpreters as necessary to assist in understanding the proceedings; - the right to a trial presumptively open to the public (except for portions sealed for national defense or witness security purposes) - the free choice to testify or decline to do so; - the right against any negative inference from a refusal to testify; - access to reasonably available evidence and witnesses; - access to investigative resources as "necessary for a full and fair trial"; and - the right to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. not to mention the military's in house, multi-teired appellate sytem whereby guilty verdicts can be reversed without ever having to appeal to the civilian courts. the Obama commissions will be no different from the Bush era commissions.

it's all in here >Military Commissions Act 2006<

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo it's all in here >Military Commissions Act 2006<

thanks, i'll read through this when i get a chance.

this thread is hilarious.