The Pentagon's top uniformed lawyers took issue Thursday with a key part of a White House plan to prosecute terrorism detainees, telling Congress that limiting the suspects' access to evidence could violate treaty obligations....
"I believe the accused should see that evidence," said Maj. Gen. Scott Black, the Army's Judge Advocate General.
Black and the other lawyers said such an allowance was a fundamental right in other court systems and would meet requirements under the Geneva Conventions.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR2006090700357.html
2006-09-07 11:06:21 · 7 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Coragryph: I read an analysis yesterday Bush's proposal would allow EXCLUSION of Defendants at their own trials!
2006-09-07 11:14:08 · update #1
Traveler, "oppose" may be too strong - bu Pentagon lawyers voiced opposition to Bush bill at House Hearing - still remarkable -they're not presenting facts, they're arguing law and conflict with conventions, treaties
2006-09-07 11:18:48 · update #2
Lawyers and military officers are oath-bound to obey the laws and defend the constitution, against all enemies foreign and domestic.
Any lawyer being complicit in illegal can be disbarred. Any military officer following any illegal order can be court martialed.
Bush has gone to far. He has publicy stated that he does not recognize the authority of federal courts to review his actions, and that he will not enforce or follow any law that he doesn't like.
2006-09-07 11:10:53 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
YES!!!! These SOBs are terrorists bent on the destruction of the USA and are not citizens of the US and do not have any rights except immediate death. President Bush is privy to information that we cannot see due to National Security and he therefore is NOT going too far.
2006-09-07 18:26:59 · answer #2 · answered by Vagabond5879 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's easy to be a remf lawyer. i think all military atty's should have to serve some trigger time in a combat arena prior to sitting in judgment, or prosecuting any combat related happenstance. if you haven't pulled a trigger, you have no real first hand knowledge of what can go wrong, only hear say knowledge
2006-09-07 18:24:01 · answer #3 · answered by ron m 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
President George W. Bush is also known as Commander-in-Chief. Have you ever been in the military? Do you understand how COMPLETE that title is? If Bush says it one way, that's the ONLY WAY to say it. God Bless you.
2006-09-07 18:14:29 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
JAG is not opposing the CiC. His job is to present the facts prior to a decesion being made.
2006-09-07 18:12:58 · answer #5 · answered by Traveler 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, they are wrong to oppose the Commander in Chief.
2006-09-07 18:08:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
JAG opposing the President...hm....I say go for it!
2006-09-07 18:08:27 · answer #7 · answered by ansem7 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋