|
'War on terror' trials could allow evidence obtained through torture
By Agence France Presse
03/03/06 "AFP" -- -- US military officers, breaking with domestic
and international legal precedent, said that "war on terror"
military tribunals at the Guantanamo naval base could allow evidence
obtained through torture.
The US military officer presiding over the trial of an alleged aide
to Osama bin Laden said he was not ready to rule out such evidence.
The officer, who wields power similar to a judge, was asked by the
defense lawyer representing Ali Hamza Ahmad al-Bahlul, a Yemeni
accused of plotting terror attacks for bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network,
if he was ready to exclude all evidence secured through torture.
After a long pause, Colonel Peter Brownback declined to commit to a
blanket ban on evidence obtained as a result of torture.
"What you and I mean by torture could be different," Brownback told
defense lawyer Major Tom Fleener.
He said "a red-hot needle in the eye" constitutes torture but was
not ready to commit to a prohibition in advance of the trial. "My
personal belief is that torture is not good," he added.
But he said it would depend on the circumstances and how the
prosecution presented the evidence.
Bahlul's lawyer, who has the right to question the tribunal chief to
verify his client will receive impartial treatment, said he asked
the question because he alleged his client had been tortured while
in detention.
"I believe Mr al-Bahlul was tortured," Fleener said.
He added that "it's going to be an issue" in the trial.
Brownback did say that how evidence was obtained would be a factor
in whether to admit such evidence and how to evaluate it.
After the hearing, US officers confirmed that the rules written for
the newly created military tribunals, or commissions, left the
question open. The rules also allow for hearsay evidence and other
exceptions to standard US and international legal norms.
Asked about evidence secured through coercion, a spokeswoman for the
military tribunals said the issue would be addressed by the officers
presiding over each trial.
"I can't speculate on what a presiding officer is going to do in any
situation," Major Jane Boomer told a news conference.
Defense lawyers, human rights groups and European governments have
accused the United States of abusing and torturing detainees held at
the "war on terror" prison at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba.
Brownback's comments are sure to reinforce concerns about how the US
government treats and prosecutes detainees held as part of the "war
on terror."
The US military has denied systematic torture has been employed and
insisted that any isolated abuses have been punished.
Of some 500 detainees held at Guantanamo for more than four years,
Bahlul is one of 10 detainees formally charged by US military
tribunals.
Addressing the tribunal in a courteous, articulate manner, Bahlul
said earlier he could not receive a fair trial if he was represented
by a US citizen.
Bahlul said the impact of the September 11 attacks, which he said
had left a "deep psychological scar," meant that no US lawyer would
be able to argue effectively on his behalf.
It would be "impossible for the counsel to push aside his feelings
as an American," said Bahlul, speaking through an interpreter.
He renewed his request to be allowed to represent himself, though
tribunal rules require that he accept a US lawyer, and asked for an
attorney from his native country.
He sought to clarify earlier comments that he was a member of
Al-Qaeda, saying that he did not have anything to do with the
attacks of September 11, 2001.
"I had no connection to the events of September 11," he said.
Prosecutors allege he served as a propaganda specialist and
bodyguard for bin Laden in Afghanistan before he was captured in
2001 and transferred to the controversial US-run detention camp at
the Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base in Cuba.
The presiding officer rejected Bahlul's request, saying he could
have a foreign citizen as a legal adviser but that the tribunal
rules barred him from representing himself.
After several hours, Bahlul chose not to return to the hearing
following a recess.
The presiding officer said he would not order Bahlul to be forcibly
taken to the tribunal if he refused to attend the hearing when it
resumed on Thursday.
Fleener, the defense lawyer assigned to Bahlul, said it was "absurd"
that Bahlul could not argue his own case. He cited US domestic and
military law as well as the Nuremberg war crimes trials, which he
said allowed for self-representation or for citizens of the same
nationality to serve as defense lawyers.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse.
Click below to post a comment on this article
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
