January 24, 2008

No-hearings hearings from Wikipedia

I think everyone should be aware of how this works - or doesn't work. This is a major issue - because while most Americans are unaware of all this - the rest of the world is certainly NOT. Our children and grandchildren are going to have to live with the fact that we committed war crimes. Please read and get active!

No-hearing hearings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

No-hearing hearings is the title of a study published by Professor Mark P. Denbeaux of the Seton Hall University School of Law, his son Joshua Denbeaux, and some of his law students, on October 17, 2006.^[1]^[2]

The study analyzes the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRT's) for 393 detainees held on Guantánamo Bay.^[3] The study is notable because it is the first to document that the OARDEC convened multiple Tribunals for some captives when their original Tribunals determined they should not have been classified as enemy combatants.

The Denbeauxs represent two detainees at Guantánamo Bay.

[hide]

[edit] The study

The report was based upon information given by lawyers for 102 Guantanamo detainees and transcripts of the tribunals which were released by the government under a Freedom of Information Act law-suit filed by the Associated Press.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] It analyzes the background of prisoners on Guantánamo Bay and how their status had been determined.

[edit] Combatant Status Review Tribunals

This is the trailer where the Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held. The detainee's hands and feet are shackled to a bolt in the floor in front of the white plastic chair.^[5]^[6] Three chairs were reserved for members of the press, but only 37 of the 574 Tribunals were observed.^[7]

Main article: Combatant Status Review Tribunal

The Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held by the United States Department of Defense between July 8, 2004 through March 29, 2005, for the purpose of confirming whether the detainees they had been holding in Guantanamo Bay detainment camps in Cuba had been correctly classified as unlawful combatants.

Following the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld ruling (November 2004) the Bush administration began using Combatant Status Review Tribunals to determine the status of detainees. By doing so the obligation under Article 5 of the GCIII was to be addressed.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

These hearings were conducted based on the assertion by the Bush administration that detainees in the war in Afghanistan were not eligible for prisoner of war status according to the terms of Article 2 of the GCIII and therefore designated unlawful combatant.

Since the CSRT's do not qualify as competent tribunals the study compares them to civilian trials under U.S. criminal law.

[edit] Findings in the report

The analysis by Denbeaux et al. led to the following conclusions:^[1]^[2]^[3]

The government did not produce any witnesses in any hearing.
The military denied all detainee requests to inspect the classified evidence against them.
The military refused all requests for defense witnesses who were not detained at Guantanamo.
In 74 percent of the cases, the government denied requests to call witnesses who were detained at the prison.
In 91 percent of the hearings, the detainees did not present any evidence.
In three cases, the panel found that the detainee was “no longer an enemy combatant,” but the military convened new tribunals that later found them to be enemy combatants.

According to Associated Press Mark Denbeaux said “These were not hearings. These were shams,” and called the hearings a show trial.^[3]

[edit] Comment

With the Military Commissions Act in mind the Washington Post stated:^[4]

If the actual trials of the detainees are as empty and shallow and pre-ordained as were the Status Review Tribunals there is every reason to be mortified at the prospect -- made real by the legislation -- that the federal courts will be frozen out of vital oversight functions. If a regular trial court proceeding were this shoddy, this unwilling to perform a truth-seeking function, this unable to achieve a fair process, the judge presiding over it would be impeached.

Nat Hentoff opined in the Village Voice that

conditions of confinement and a total lack of the due process that the Supreme Court ordered in Rasul v. Bush and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

makes US government officials culpable for war crimes.^[8] His article continues to state:

Co-author Joshua Denbeaux tells me: "The government's own documents proved that the government's claims that the prisoners were the 'worst of the worst' was a false and shameful public relations ploy . . . We hope that our reports will convince Congress to amend the Military Commissions Act and restore federal jurisdiction." If that happens, the prisoners could contest their conditions of confinement, their imprisonment, and their sentences.

[edit] Captives named in the study

id	name	notes
32	Faruq Ali Ahmed	According to the "No-hearing hearings" study his Personal Representative told his Tribunal that he disagreed with their ruling.^[1]
45	Ali Ahmad Muhammad Al Rahizi	According to the "No-hearing hearings" study his Personal Representative told his Tribunal that Al Rahizi made an informed choice to not attend his Tribunal although the record showed he only met with him for 24 minutes, did not read the Tribunals procedures to him, and did not leave a copy behind for Al Rahizi to read.^[1]
58	Musa Abed Al Wahab	On October 20, 2004 Al Wahab's Personal Representative told his Tribunal Al Wahab had decided not to attend. However the Detainee Election Form his Personal Representative filled out said he didn't meet with Al Wahab until five days later, on October 25, 2004. The study noted: "It is not clear how the personal representative could have advised the Tribunal that the detainee had affirmatively declined to participate when he had yet to meet with the detainee."
156	Allal Ab Aljallil Abd Al Rahman Abd	The "No-hearing hearings" study reported that his Tribunal President deemed hospital records that would provide an alibi for him, during the time he was alleged to have been in Afghanistan, participating in terrorist activities were "not reasonably available".^[1]
220	Abdallah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi	The "No-hearing hearings" study reported that Al Ajmi was the first captive to have a Tribunal convened.^[1] The study observed the Al Ajmi's only met with him once, for ten minutes. Al Ajmi did not attend his Tribunal.
250	Hassan Anvar	The "No-hearing hearings" study documents that Hassan Anvar was one of the Gunatnamo captives whose original Tribunal initially determined that he had not been an "enemy combatant" in the first place, only to have later Tribunals convened to overturned that determination, and confirm his enemy combatant status.^[1]
277	Bahtiyar Mahnut	The "No-hearing hearings" study criticized Mahnut's Tribunal President for arbitrarily ruling that Mahnut's witness requests would be repetitious.^[1]
333	Mohamed Atiq Awayd Al Harbi	The "No-hearing hearings" study reported that Al Harbi was an example of a captive whose request for exculpatory evidence was not satisfied.^[1]
552	Faiz Mohammed Ahmed Al Kandari	The "No-hearing hearings" study quoted a comment from Commander James R. Crisfield made, with regard to Al Kandari's Tribunal, on the peculiarities of the Tribunals use of "hearsay evidence".^[1]
556	Abdullah Mohammad Khan	The "No-hearing hearings" study documents that Abdullah Mohammad Khan was one of the Gunatnamo captives whose original Tribunal initially determined that he had not been an "enemy combatant" in the first place, only to have later Tribunals convened to overturned that determination, and confirm his enemy combatant status.^[1]
654	Abdel Hamid Ibn Abdussalem Ibn Mifta Al Ghazzawi	The "No-hearing hearings" study documents that Al Ghazzawi was one of the Gunatnamo captives whose original Tribunal initially determined that he had not been an "enemy combatant" in the first place, only to have later Tribunals convened to overturned that determination, and confirm his enemy combatant status.^[1]
680	Emad Abdalla Hassan	The "No-hearing hearings" criticized Emad Abdalla Hassan's Tribunal for failing to find his passport, which would have confirmed his alibi.^[1]
928	Khi Ali Gul	The study entitled, "No-hearing hearings", cited Khi Ali Gul as an example of a captive who was unreasonably denied the testimony of exculpatory witnesses.^[1]
1463	Abdul Al Salam Al Hilal

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g ^h ⁱ ^j ^k ^l ^m ⁿ ^o Mark Denbeaux, Joshua Denbeaux, David Gratz, John Gregorek, Matthew Darby, Shana Edwards, Shane Hartman, Daniel Mann, Megan Sassaman and Helen Skinner. No-hearing hearings. Seton Hall University School of Law. Retrieved on April 2, 2007.
^ ^a ^b ^c Nat Hentoff. "Bush's War Crimes Cover-up", Village Voice, December 8, 2006. Retrieved on April 2.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d "Gitmo detainees denied witnesses: Lawyer calls legal proceedings ‘shams,’", MSNBC, November 17, 2006. Retrieved on April 2.
^ ^a ^b Andrew Cohen. "Gitmo Justice Is a Joke", Special to the Washington Post, November 30, 2006. Retrieved on April 2.
^ Neil A. Lewis. "Guantánamo Prisoners Getting Their Day, but Hardly in Court", New York Times, November 8, 2004.
^ "Inside the Guantánamo Bay hearings: Barbarian "Justice" dispensed by KGB-style "military tribunals"", Financial Times, December 11, 2004.
^ Annual Administrative Review Boards for Enemy Combatants Held at Guantanamo Attributable to Senior Defense Officials. United States Department of Defense (March 6, 2007). Retrieved on 2007-09-22.
^ Nat Hentoff. "Our Own Nuremberg Trials", Village Voice, December 17, 2006. Retrieved on April 2.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hearing_hearings"

--
Please visit and take action at: http://freedetainees.wordpress.com/

No comments:

Post a Comment

~ What must be done next ~

Website: http://www.MoveToAmend.org Mission: We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to: * Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights. * Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count. * Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments. Company Overview: On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, The People rule.

Proposed change to the US Constitution

We the People

I. Powers and Rights Reserved To We the People, Never Delegated or Violated Without Consent

A. The People are expressly defined as human beings and does not refer to corporations or contractual relationships.

B. No contract, agreement, or promise may ever bind any human to refuse to enforce the law, or prohibit them from speaking on matters of public interest.

C. We the People may believe anything, including the possible belief that this Constitution must be discarded and replaced with a superior document which defends the People and protects their power to enforce this Constitution against the Government.

D. The People are educated to apply the lessons of history to ensure rights are preserved, power asserted, and this Constitution is protected from domestic and foreign enemies.

E. The People have the enforceable right and power to review any public document and access any public official.

F. The People have the enforceable right to engage in any speech, communication, or discussion on issues of war crimes, government incompetence, or allegations of reckless government planning and maladministration.

G. Government officials, agencies, departments may not invoke any power or right they have denied to the People.

H. The People have the right to affordable housing. Where none is available, the government is denied the power to prosecute anyone for not living in a home, or residing in a public park, open forest, or public lands.

I. The People have the enforceable right to freely travel, without questions, and without delay. Any law enforcement officer, agents, or contacted security official who uses any ruse, scheme, or deception to engage in pretextual stops shall be enforced as a violation of this Constitution.

J. The People have the enforceable right to compel govenment officials, contractors, and securty personnel to identify themselves, disclose their policies and procedures, and respond to complaints about violations of this Constitution, the Supreme Law, or laws of war.

K. The People may not be subject to any electronic surveillance except on probable cause and a warrant before a judicial tribunal. The President, Congress and others are expressly denied the power to enact, create, use, or rely on quasi-judicial tribunals to self-certify warrants to conduct surveillance.

L. All denied powers to the US Government in this Constitution are reserved to the People to be used to defend the Constitution.

II. Powers and Rights Reserved to States

A. States shall have authority to enforce any law within their jurisdiction. Failure to enforce the laws of war shall be prosecuted as a war crime.

B. States shall, when the Federal Government refuses to enforce the Constitution or Supreme Law, enforce the national and international law against contractors, legal counsel, state or US government officials.

C. Any state may start impeachment investigations or proceedings against the President, Member of Congress, or US government official on issues of international laws of war, domestic rebellion, or violations of the Supreme Law oath of office, or Geneva Conventions. The States shall, upon receipt of an impeachment investigation or conviction from any other state, shall within 10 days debate that resolution. If convicted by 2/3 of the States, that US government official shall be removed from office. Any effort to thwart State efforts to enforce the US Constitution through impeachment investigations or impeachment proceedings at the State level may be construed as a subsequent violation of this Constitution and laws of war.

D. The States may, without notice, organize themselves to collectively defend this Constitution from the domestic enemies in the United States government. The States Governors have the standing power, right, and authority to use deadly combat force to enforce this Constitution against US government officials.

E. A failure of any State official to enforce the laws of war shall be subject to a war crimes trial within 90 days of discovering that evidence. Where there are credible allegations of war crimes, a failure to investigate shall be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty.

F. States have the power to enforce contract obligations between contractors and the US government which affect the rights of their State citizens. Failure to enforce these contractual obligations against the contractors or US government could be construed as a subsequent violation under the laws of war and US Constitution against legal counsel, state officials, or court officers.

III. Independent Branch

A. All US government, contractor-provided, and legal counsel data shall be retained in an independent branch.

B. The President, Congress, and Judicial branches have no power, right or claim to not fully fund this Independent Branch.

C. The Independent Branch conducts electronic surveillance of the US government, stores that data, and ensures there are independent, safe, retained records of all US government transaction, including conversations and memos between legal counsel and government officials. Once created for the government or connected with any legal or illegal activity, these records are public records.

D. The data may be seen only upon a showing of reasonable belief or suspicion by the United States Congress, Court, or Executive Branch that the information may be useful in enforcing the Constitution, Supreme Law, or Geneva Conventions.

E. Private citizens may view any data, unless the US government provides sufficient, detailed evidence why that request for information should not be met for bonafide, lawful secrets. Any effort to hide evidence behind a claim of "state secrets," where that claim is linked with an effort to bypass the Constitution, oath of office, Supreme Law, or laws of war may be punishable by the death penalty.

F. All government data belongs to the People. Any legal counsel working for the US government shall ensure that the People's right to reliable information is protected. A failure to protect this information could be construed as a war crime.

IV. Prosecutorial Branch

A. All prosecutorial options are denied of the President.

B. The Prosecutorial branch has the power to raise independent combat power, support them, and may lawfully use that deadly combat force to confront Members of Congress, the Judicial Branch Officers, or the Presidents upon showing of probable cause for war crimes.

C. The prosecutorial power is the exclusive power of the prosecution branch. However, anyone may make a claim of illegal activity, and enforce the laws of the United States and States respectively. Any effort to block anyone from unilaterally attempting to enforce the laws of war through discovery, investigation, and open discussion of those alleged war crimes shall be construed as a possible subsequent offense under the laws of war.

D. Legal counsel are subject to public review, audit, and can be required, with fair notice, of a requirement to demonstrate before any court their compliance with the laws of war.

E. Legal counsel may be denied authority to conduct discovery during any investigation when that discovery is linked with efforts that would thwart war crimes investigation, enforcement of the Supreme law or Geneva Conventions.

V. Judicial Branch

A. The Judicial Branch is above the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch only in order of precedence. The Judicial Branch is a co-equal branch, and closest to the People and Constitution. It is least responsive, and most slow to the People's daily interests to enforce the Constitution and Supreme Law or Geneva Conventions.

B. Where the Judicial Branch does not timely enforce the Constitution, Supreme Law, or laws of war, the States and People retain the power and right to investigate and prosecute allegations of US government illegal activity, war crimes, or violations of the Supreme law.

C. All precedents under the laws of war are binding on the Judicial Branch, US government, and the People through enforcement actions.

D. Any decision by any judicial officer not to fully enforce the laws of war, Supreme Law, or this Constitution may be construed as a war crime, subject to the death penalty.

VI. Legislative Branch

A. The Legislative Branch is listed after the Judicial Branch because it is less responsive to the People.

B. The Members of Congress may be stopped between sessions and held to account for their failure to enforce the laws of war.

C. Refusing to investigate or impeach the President, Judicial Officers, or any current or former US government official for alleged war crimes, maladministration, illegal warfare, or other crimes against the People, States, or US Government shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to not fully assert ones oath of office, and punishable by the death penalty under the laws of war.

D. There are three chambers to the Congress. The Senate and House have a legal duty to fully enforce the laws. Any decision to not timely review evidence of impeachable offenses, or not investigate war crimes or maladministration could be construed as subsequent offenses under the laws of war.

E. The Superior Chamber shall decide, before any debate, whether the proposed bill is or is not Constitutional. This determination is subject to approval, challenge, and rejection by the People, States, and Judicial Branch.

F. The Congress is denied the exclusive power to make rules. Any rule which prohibits any investigation into alleged malfeasance in re the laws of war, Supreme Law, or oath of office is illegal, and may be construed as a subsequent offense under the laws of war.

G. The Congress shall comply with public audits, and timely provide within 45 days of an audit report a statement of remedy, and outline a plan within 90 days to fully comply with all legal obligations under the Statute, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.

H. The Congress may raise and support an army, and independently order that army only against the President when the President refuses to enforce the laws of war, or comply with his legal obligations under this Constitution.

VII. Executive Branch

A. The Executive Branch is led by three Presidents, co-equal with non-overlapping jurisdictions. The Executive Branch has one power: Executive Power. All actions taken under that one power are lesser authorities not powers. The Executive Branch has no power to create new powers or assign itself broader power.

B. The Executive Branch is listed last because it is the least responsive to the People, and the greatest threat of tyranny to this Constitution. The President is a clerk, not a King or Emperor. The President only manages programs. The President has no power to ignore, rewrite, or refuse to enforce the law. Each of the three Presidents shall have an ongoing requirement to demonstrate to the People and States and Congress and Courts compliance with the Constitution, Supreme Law, oath of office, and laws of war.

C. The Domestic Affairs President is responsive to the States and US Government on internal affairs.

D. The Foreign Affairs President shall have exclusive power to interact with foreign powers. The Foreign Affairs President is denied any power to violate the laws of war, or use covert activity against American citizens.

E. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judiciary, and Foreign Affairs President are denied the power to thwart any lawful State action to organize with foreign powers and agents to defend the US Constitution, enforce the laws of war, or protect the rights and powers of the People and States against domestic encroachments by the US government, legal counsel, or other US government officials.

F. The Commander in Chief shall only have power to lead combat operations during war time. Congress shall conduct ongoing, public reviews whether the Commander in Chief is or is not competent in managing combat operations. The Presidents and Commander in Chief are denied the power to prohibit Congress from using electronic surveillance or use separately raised and supported armies to conduct this oversight during wartime and peacetime.

G. The Executive Branch is denied the power to block anyone from getting access to illegal activity related to the laws of war.

H. During Peacetime, the Commander in Chief shall periodically cooperate with ongoing Oversight of US combat forces to ensure they are combat ready, fully trained on the laws of war, and prepared to lawfully be used to defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies.

I. The Executive Branch and Presidents and officers, agents, contractors, and personnel are denied the power, right, or authority to order anyone to ignore any statute, law, legal requirement, or obligation under the Constitution.

J. The Executive Branch has no power or authority to directly contact the Legislative Branch by name. The President may only request, not order other branches of government. All Communications between the Executive and Legislative Branch shall pass through the Prosecutorial Branch, and retained in the National Archives. Those records are available for public inspection at any time. The People have the enforceable right to compel the Executive Branch, Legislature, and Judicial Branch to produce documents.

K. The Executive Branch, Congress, Judicial Branch, and Prosecutorial Branch, and States are denied the power to wage warfare, information warfare, or harass American civilians through his agents, combat troops, or third parties in the United states or from overseas. Any funds used for this illegal purpose belong to the People and States. Contracts used to enforce, compel, or organize this illegal activity are not enforceable, and contrary to public policy.

L. The Presidents are denied a presumption of competence until proven. The President shall always have the burden of proof, and is expressly denied a presumption of good faith until demonstrated with overwhelming evidence in public. An election result is not proof of competence nor does it satisfy a presumption of good faith, only of mastery to win an election through legal or illegal methods and deception.

M. The Executive Branch and Presidents and subordinate agency head, contractor, and employees are expressly denied any assurance any conversation he has related to illegal activity, war crimes, unlawful acts, or other threats to the US Constitution shall remain secret behind any shield, scheme, agreement, or technology. Any order a President or anyone gives to anyone to hide, destroy,not provide, or conceal evidence of illegal activity may be construed as a subsequent war crime, punishable by the death penalty. This restriction against following illegal orders may not be bypassed by claiming the order was from a non-person, electronic device, or other non-Constitutionally recognized entity, database, policy, guide, or other document.

N. The Presidents are denied the power to use any combat force, technology, or other military weapon or plan against American civilians, except in cases of internal rebellion which only the Congress shall approve in writing. When the Congress fails to act, or abuses its authority, the State Governors may lawfully use deadly combat force to detain and enforce the laws of war prohibiting illegal use of force against American civilians.

O. The Presidents are denied the power to induce any civilian to take any action that might deny them on any Geneva protections as a civilian. Any order, ruse, scheme, propaganda, or unreliable information to induce anyone to wage war, information warfare, or any action to harass civilians is punishable by the death penalty, and may be enforced as a violation of the laws of war.

P. The President, when delegating any power to any agency head, agrees that that agency shall be organized as if it were a separate, lesser, and not coequal branch. Those agencies shall fully cooperate with the other branches of government to ensure power within the branch or department is divided. There is no single agency, division, or office in the Executive Branch that is beyond ongoing oversight by the other four branches.

Q. The President shall have no power to block the Congress, States, Judiciary, Prosecutorial, and Independent Branch from a having co-equal status to oversee, manage, and organize that lesser branch. If the President refuses to substantially comply with that requirement, Congress may not lawfully provide funding for that agency, and the funds return to the States and People.

LadyBroadoak Visionary Planetary Healing Tutorial

January 24, 2008

No-hearings hearings from Wikipedia

No-hearing hearings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The study

[edit] Combatant Status Review Tribunals

[edit] Findings in the report

[edit] Comment

[edit] Captives named in the study

See also

References

No comments:

ShareThis

~ What must be done next ~

~ Please sign and pass on ~

Search This Blog

Facebook Badge

Followers

BlogCatalog

Current information clusters

War crimes/Impeachment/arrest swicki then "Peak oil, peak dollar KlusterfucK swicki

Lady Broadoak

Translate Blog

Blog Archive

LINKS, real good stuff!

Proposed change to the US Constitution

sitemeter

About Me

Labels