Sunday, August 15, 2004

Rumsfeld's Kangaroo Court

By Elaine Cassel

You have to hand it to Bush and company. They don’t mind thumbing their collective noses at the U.S. Supreme Court. In order to try and convince a federal judge in the District of Columbia that the Guantanamo prisoners do not need federal courts and habeas corpus petitions (in spite of the Supreme Court’s ruling to that effect in June 2004), the Defense Department has begun “reviews” of the status of the “enemy combatants” it has held in cages in Cuba for going on three years.

Not surprisingly, the kangaroo court, consisting of military brass and JAG officers facing off against the prisoners, sans attorneys (they had military “helpers” who supposedly guided them through the sham proceedings), concluded that the men were indeed rightfully held. And there they will remain. The military provided interpreters. Judge, jury, bailiff, attorney, and your own “helper” are picked by your jailer. Some justice.

The Pentagon and the Justice Department have filed briefs with the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, to which the Supreme Court remanded the cases of the winning litigants, arguing that the Supreme Court was dead wrong to declare that the prisoners were to have lawyers and access to the federal courts. Their filings made it clear that they would do everything in their power to see that no prisoner has access to an attorney. They propose Kafka-esqe rules that attorneys would be foolish to agree to—including having all of their communications with the prisoners not only recorded, but sent to the military and DOJ lawyers.

The government’s flaunting of the Court’s order could lead to a constitutional crisis—if a federal judge would find Rumsfeld and Ashcroft in contempt. That is not likely to happen.

Here is about all you are going to hear about the proceedings—a report from the Associated Press, without a byline. The Pentagon allowed a few “journalists” to sit in on some of the hearings of the nameless and hapless prisoners, on the grounds that it review (and presumably “correct") the reports before they were printed.

Have I been dreaming through the last half of the 20th century? Did I just wake up to read about hearings in the Soviet Union or China? Sure seems like it.

Elaine Cassel practices law in Virginia and the District of Columbia, teaches law and psychology, and follows the Bush regime’s dismantling of the Constitution at Civil Liberties Watch. She is the author of the new book, The War on Civil Liberties: How Bush and Ashcroft Have Dismantled the Bill of Rights. She can be reached at: ecassel1@cox.net.

More from Elaine Cassel

Comments (1)

Printer Friendly Format | Tell-a-Friend

Next: Come November 2nd, What Will It Be for the Next Four Years? Burger King or McDonald's? -->

<-- Previous: Capital Punishment Because You Couldn’t Pay the Premium

Support Press Action