NEWS: US Military Tribunals Modified in Minor Ways

The US military lawyer representing Australian David Hicks says changes to the conduct of trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees is a "desperate attempt" by the Pentagon to continue the cases.

The Pentagon has announced changes to the way it will conduct military trials of foreign terrorism suspects.

But critics have dismissed the changes as window dressing that has failed to fix fundamental defects.

"No substantive change was made to the process," said a statement by the lawyers representing Hicks, Marine Corps Major Michael Mori and civilian Joshua Dratel.

"The most recent manipulations of the military commission procedures represent a desperate attempt to salvage the failed commission process and a confirmation that Mr Hicks will not receive a fair trial."

Hicks' Adelaide lawyer David McLeod says the changes are an improvement, but are still flawed.

Mr McLeod says the changes do not increase defence access to trial information or provide any additional rights to Hicks, but still allow the jury members to take part in the questioning process.

"I'm very pleased that some focus has been put on changing the commission process, which is clearly unfair and has been determined to be unfair by so many eminent jurists and international academics and the Law Council of Australia," he said.

"Unfortunately the changes are nothing more than window dressing."

DAVID Hicks may be bad, mad or blameless. But if he goes on trial before the US military commission in coming weeks, Australians will never know for sure which descriptor applies. The public can have no faith in the military commission's verdict on Hicks. If he is found guilty, many Australians simply will not believe it. Justice must be seen to be done.

The Pentagon has announced new rules governing the military commission trial of the Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee, David Hicks, just weeks before the US Supreme Court decides whether it will hear a case that challenges its legality.

US Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway announced the new rules in Washington, saying they would make the military commission trials "more in tune with a judge and jury model" and make for a more efficient process. Hicks would also be given more access to the evidence against him.

"How many times is the Australian Government going to be fooled by this system?" said Hicks's US military defence lawyer, Major Dan Mori.

He said no country except Australia had agreed to allow its citizens to be tried by the special military commissions, which have been condemned by international lawyers.

The Bush Administration faces a challenge to the legality of the trials in the US Supreme Court and Federal Court. The Supreme Court will decide whether to hear the first challenge, brought by a Yemeni detainee, on September 26.
AdvertisementAdvertisement

If that challenge goes ahead, Hicks's trial could be postponed indefinitely and he will face a fourth year in Guantanamo Bay.

Until this week, the military panel hearing the trial was made up largely of military officers with no legal training who acted both as judges and jurors. Now only the legally trained presiding officer will be allowed to decide questions of law.

Vestril said:
Can any knowledgeable people explain what the changes actually were?

I really wouldn't expect his lawyers to say anything else.

TheFuckOffKid said:

So far I've only been able to find the news accounts that I've been posting. So, no.

You're aware of the general and widespread controversy surrounding the military commission process here, right?

Vestril said:

I didn't and don't argue the point, I just asked for more information and gave a reason why. Please don't read anything else into this

TheFuckOffKid said:
S'OK, there was a benefit of the doubt thing in there.

I did try to find out a little more online about the exact changes but haven't succeeded with my attempts thus far.