Reuters: Nuremberg prosecutor says Guantanamo trials unfair

[AsburySkinsFan]

Let's just get Godwin's Law out of the way with the first post.

Nuremberg prosecutor says Guantanamo trials unfair

Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:57PM EDT

By Jane Sutton

MIAMI (Reuters) - The U.S. war crimes tribunals at Guantanamo have betrayed the principles of fairness that made the Nazi war crimes trials at Nuremberg a judicial landmark, one of the U.S. Nuremberg prosecutors said on Monday.

"I think Robert Jackson, who's the architect of Nuremberg, would turn over in his grave if he knew what was going on at Guantanamo," Nuremberg prosecutor Henry King Jr. told Reuters in a telephone interview.

"It violates the Nuremberg principles, what they're doing, as well as the spirit of the Geneva Conventions of 1949."

King, 88, served under Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court justice who was the chief prosecutor at the trials created by the Allied powers to try Nazi military and political leaders after World War Two in Nuremberg, Germany.

"The concept of a fair trial is part of our tradition, our heritage," King said from Ohio, where he lives. "That's what made Nuremberg so immortal -- fairness, a presumption of innocence, adequate defense counsel, opportunities to see the documents that they're being tried with."

King, who interrogated Nuremberg defendant Albert Speer, was incredulous that the Guantanamo rules left open the possibility of using evidence obtained through coercion.

"To torture people and then you can bring evidence you obtained into court? Hearsay evidence is allowed? Some evidence is available to the prosecution and not to the defendants? This is a type of 'justice' that Jackson didn't dream of," King said.

He said the Guantanamo prisoners should be tried in the court-martial system or the U.S. federal courts, under fair rules that leave open the possibility of acquittal. Three Nuremberg defendants were acquitted, King noted.

The Bush administration has said it needs to hold the special tribunals at Guantanamo in order to protect national security. Last year the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the first version of the Guantanamo trials as illegal.

TURNING BACKS ON NUREMBERG?

The 2006 Military Commissions Act, which set revised rules for trying suspected terrorists at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "sort of turns its back on Nuremberg," King said. "I don't think it's a credit to us to have this thing."

"The United States has always stood for fairness. That's the important thing. We were the ones who started war crimes tribunals and we're the architects. I don't think we should turn our back on that architecture."

King, who teaches law at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio, also questioned whether former Guantanamo prisoner David Hicks deserved to be tried as a war criminal. After being held at Guantanamo for more than five years, the Australian pleaded guilty in March to a charge of providing material support for terrorism and was sent home to serve the rest of his nine-month sentence.

"He's not an arch-criminal type, just a guy who was disaffected from the system," King said.

Hicks, who admitted training with al Qaeda and briefly fighting on its side in Afghanistan, is the only person convicted in the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Good thing we asked him for his opinion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Good thing we asked him for his opinion.

Good thing those who are actually qualified in such matters are weighing publically. Personally, it would seem that someone who was actually involved in the prosecution of the Nazis might actually know a little about what is right and wrong in such matters.

But, you go right ahead and dismiss those who actually know in favor of the Bush Administration hacks.:applause:

[Spaceman Spiff]

Good thing those who are actually qualified in such matters are weighing publically. Personally, it would seem that someone who was actually involved in the prosecution of the Nazis might actually know a little about what is right and wrong in such matters.

But, you go right ahead and dismiss those who actually know in favor of the Bush Administration hacks.:applause:

I don't like Bush but the ****ing and whining thats been going on for what, 6 years now?..is getting tiresome.

[Burgold]

Some of the tactics here are so anti-the American spirit of Justice. Allowing only one side to view and study evidence? Allowing heresay? The torture one I'm actually iffy about, it should be noted that the "confession" was gotten under duress and may have been made to please his captors, but all the other issues that he brings up seem more like a witch trial than an American one.

Bush was able to select 2 members of the Supreme Court and the Court is decidedly Conservative these days. On several occassions now, they have declared his actions illegal and unconstitutional. What does that say?

[stevenaa]

Couldn't it be done through the Court Martial system and still maintain security?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't like Bush but the ****ing and whining thats been going on for what, 6 years now?..is getting tiresome.

So, you would have people be quiet and simply become passive about human rights abuse that our country is perpetrating?! Yeah, great plan.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Couldn't it be done through the Court Martial system and still maintain security?

From my understanding Court Martials are limited to service persons only, and they are not tried under regular US law, but instead under the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice). Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Burgold]

I think doing it as a military trial is fine, as long as the trial is ethical and sticks to the canon of ethics that we believe in. I want to get it right, not just get a decision that makes me look good.