Breaking News 实时新闻 | | Forum 论坛 | | UK News 英国新闻 | | USA News 美国新闻 | | World News 世界新闻 | | Political News 政治新闻 | | Sci-Tech News 科技新闻 | | War & Terrorism News 战争与恐怖主义的新闻 | | Sports News 体育新闻 | | Multimedia 多媒体 | | Set Homepage 设为首页

Translate: 翻译：

Monday, October 13th, 2008 星期一，二零零八年10月13日

By Andy Worthington -北京时间沃辛顿- andyworthington.co.uk |

Andy Worthington, author of 安迪沃辛顿的作者， The Guantánamo Files 关塔那摩档案 , continues his analysis of the corrupt command structure of the Military Commissions at Guantánamo, with new information from Maj. David Frakt, one of the Commissions’ military defense lawyers. ，继续他的分析腐败的指挥结构的军事委员会在关塔那摩，新的信息少校大卫Frakt之一，该委员会的军事辩护律师。

In the last three weeks, two events have occurred that have dealt what should have been a knockout blow to the Military Commissions at Guantánamo, the system of trials for “terror suspects” — outside of the US court system and the US military’s own judicial system — that was created by Vice President在过去的三个星期，两个事件发生的处理应该是一个毁灭性的打击的军事委员会在关塔那摩，系统的审判为“恐怖嫌疑人” -在美国以外的法院系统和美国军方自己的司法系统-这是由副总统 Dick Cheney切尼 and his close advisers (in particular, his legal counsel David Addington) in November 2001.和他的亲密顾问（特别是，他的律师大卫阿丁顿）于2001年11月。

On September 24, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, the prosecutor in the case of 9月24日，中校Darrel Vandeveld ，检察官的情况 Mohamed Jawad穆罕默德贾瓦德 (an Afghan accused of throwing a grenade at a jeep containing two US soldiers and an Afghan interpreter), resigned, expressing his frustration and disappointment that “potentially exculpatory evidence” had “not been provided” to Jawad’s defense team, and on September 19 Brig. （阿富汗被告投掷了一枚手榴弹在一辆吉普车载有两名美军士兵和一名阿富汗翻译） ，辞职，表示他感到沮丧和失望的是， “可能开脱罪责的证据”已经“没有提供” ，以贾瓦德的辩护律师团，并于9月19准将。 Gen. Hartmann, the Commissions’ legal adviser, was “reassigned” after three Commission judges — all US military officers, appointed by the government — had disqualified him from two trials (and one post-trial review) because of his transparent pro-prosecution bias.将军哈特曼，各委员会的法律顾问，是“重新”后三个委员会的法官-美国所有的军事人员，由政府委任， -他有资格从两个审判（一审判后的审查），因为他透明的亲起诉偏见。 This was particularly worrying, because his job description — as laid down in the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which revived the Commissions after the Supreme Court ruled them illegal — stipulated that he was这是特别令人担忧，因为他的职务说明-中所规定的军事委员会法案2 006年，该委员会恢复后，最高法院裁定其为非法-规定，他被 required必需的 to “remain neutral and unbiased.”以“保持中立和公正的。 ”

Last week, following further analysis — including important work by law professor上周，经过进一步分析-包括重要工作的法学教授 Scott Horton斯科特霍顿 –- I wrote a detailed article, -我写了详细规定， The Dark Heart of the Guantánamo Trials黑暗之心关塔那摩审判 , in which I drew on examples of pro-prosecution bias on the part of Hartmann’s boss, Susan Crawford, the Commissions’ Convening Authority, and traced this systemic bias up the chain of command, via the Pentagon’s General Counsel, to Dick Cheney and David Addington, the creators of the entire Commission process. ，我借鉴的例子有利于检察机关偏见的一部分，哈特曼的老板，苏珊克劳福德，各委员会的召集管理局，并追查这个系统性偏差的指挥链，通过五角大楼的总法律顾问，以切尼和大卫阿丁顿，创造了整个委员会的进程。 Cheney and Addington’s zeal for unfettered executive power indicated, in no uncertain terms, that the impartiality of both Hartmann and Crawford was nothing more than a cloak to disguise the Commissions’ naked political aims: securing convictions in a rigged system designed to prevent acquittals.切尼和阿丁顿的热情不受约束的行政权力表示，毫不含糊，该公正的哈特曼和克劳福德只不过是一个幌子来掩饰委员会的赤裸裸的政治目标：确保定罪操纵系统，旨在防止无罪释放。

As the正如 Washington Post华盛顿邮报 recently explained, the Convening Authority is “required to exercise a neutral role in the commissions, overseeing but not dictating the work of prosecutors and allocating resources to both the prosecution and defense,” but a clear example of Crawford’s pro-prosecution bias was revealed by Col. Morris Davis, the Commissions’ former chief prosecutor, who resigned in October 2007, primarily because of political interference in the process.最近解释说，管理局的召开是“需要一个中立的行使中委员会，监督而不是发号施令的工作，检察官和分配资源的起诉和防御” ，但一个明显的例子，克劳福德的亲是检察机关的偏见显示上校莫里斯戴维斯，各委员会的前首席检察官，谁辞职，于2007年10月，主要是因为政治干预的过程中。

Writing in the写作 Los Angeles Times洛杉矶时报 last December, Davis wrote that Crawford, unlike her predecessor Maj. Gen. John Altenburg, whose staff had “kept its distance from the prosecution to preserve its impartiality,” had overstepped her administrative role, and “had her staff assessing evidence before the filing of charges, directing the prosecution’s pre-trial preparation of cases” and “drafting charges against those who were accused and assigning prosecutors to cases.” Davis’ stark conclusion — that “Intermingling convening authority and prosecutor roles perpetuates the perception of a rigged process stacked against the accused” — was unerringly accurate, but with Hartmann shielding her from criticism (and taking all the flak himself), Crawford has so far avoided calls for her resignation, even though, as Scott Horton pointed out in February, she is “a Cheney protégée,” and is, moreover, “particularly close to Cheney’s chief of staff David Addington.”去年12月，戴维斯写道，克劳福德，不像她的前任少将约翰阿尔滕堡，其工作人员“保持距离，检察机关以维护其公正性， ”已超出了她的行政作用，而且“已评估她的工作人员收到的证据提交收费，指导检察机关的审前准备工作的情况下“和”起草控告那些谁被指控并指派检察官的案件。 “戴维斯鲜明的结论-即”交织召开的权威和作用使检察官的看法操纵堆叠过程中对被告“ -是u nerringly准确，但哈特曼屏蔽她的批评（并考虑所有的防弹自己） ，克劳福德迄今避免要求她辞职，即使是斯科特霍顿指出，今年2月，她是“一个切尼protégée ” ，并此外， “特别是接近切尼的幕僚长大卫阿丁顿。 ”

Shortly after my article about the corrupt command structure of the Commissions was published, I received an enlightening email from Maj. David Frakt, Mohamed Jawad’s military defense lawyer, which provided additional details confirming the bias of both Brig.之后不久我的一篇关于腐败的指挥结构委员会发表后，我收到了富有启发性的电子邮件少校大卫Frakt ，穆罕默德贾瓦德的军事辩护律师，这提供了更多的细节确认偏见的准将。 Gen. Hartmann and Susan Crawford.将军哈特曼和苏珊克劳福德。

More criticism of Brig. 更多的批评受伤。 Gen. Hartmann 哈特曼将军

Maj. Frakt was kind enough to point out that “Hartmann was fired,” and that “his claim that he was promoted is nonsense.” He cited testimony by Hartmann in Jawad’s case on June 19, and in a subsequent affidavit, in which he stated that he had three different duties as legal adviser: he was responsible for logistics, planning and resources, he was the supervisor of the prosecution, and he was the legal adviser.少校Frakt是实物足以指出， “哈特曼被解雇” ，并说， “他声称，他晋升完全是无稽之谈。 ”他列举的证词中哈特曼贾的情况于6月19日，并在随后的书面陈述，在他说，他有三个不同的义务法律顾问：他负责后勤，规划和资源，他是主管的起诉，他是法律顾问。 As Maj. Frakt explained, “His promotion consisted of removing two of those three duties.至于少校Frakt解释说： “他的晋升由两个消除这三个职务。 He is now responsible only for logistics, planning and resources.”他现在只负责后勤，规划和资源。 “

He added that most of this work is done by the Commissions Support Group (CSG) at Guantánamo, headed by Brig.他补充说，大部分工作是由该委员会支助小组（ CSG ）的在关塔那摩，由准将。 Gen. Zanetti, who testified in a hearing on Jawad’s case in August that “Hartmann had tried to have the CSG assigned to his ‘command’ even though he was in Washington and lawyers do not generally command anything,” and confirmed that Hartmann “was definitely trying to take charge of the whole process.” I found Zanetti’s comment that “lawyers do not generally command anything” (as paraphrased by Maj. Frakt) to be particularly telling, as it reflects the way in which lawyers (Addington, John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales) have actually played crucial roles in driving the cruelest manifestations of the administration’s “War on Terror” policies.将军扎内蒂，谁作证在听证会上贾瓦德的情况在8月份说， “哈特曼曾试图有慢性浅表性胃炎指派给他的'命令' ，即使他在华盛顿和律师一般不指挥什么” ，并证实，哈特曼“肯定是试图采取负责的全过程。 ”我发现扎内蒂的评论说， “律师一般不指挥东西” （如转述的少校Frakt ）特别告诉，因为它反映的方式，律师（阿丁顿，约翰柳，阿尔韦托冈萨雷斯）实际上已起到至关重要的作用，推动了残酷的表现，布什政府的“反恐战争”的政策。

Maj. Frakt also drew my attention to other examples of Hartmann’s overreach: in particular, a timeline for the trials that he created in November 2007, and reports about the ways in which he had briefed commanders at Guantánamo on his plans, both of which exceeded his remit as an impartial adviser.少校Frakt还提请我注意其他例子哈特曼的超越：尤其是时间表的审判，他创建于2007年11月，和有关报告的方式介绍他在关塔那摩指挥官对他的计划，这这超出他的职权范围作为一个不偏不倚的顾问。

According to Capt. Patrick McCarthy, the Staff Judge Advocate of Joint Task Force Guantánamo, who made a deposition in Jawad’s case on June 30 at Maj. Frakt’s request, Hartmann (who, he said, was “remarkably aggressive” to him during meetings at Guantánamo) briefed him in November 2007 on “a plan for a way forward on the number of cases that would be charged in each month.” He explained, “He has a large foldout chart that’s probably three or three and a half, four feet long.据上尉帕特里克麦卡锡，工作人员军法的联合特遣部队关塔那摩，谁发了沉积贾瓦德的情况下于6月30日在少校Frakt的要求，哈特曼（谁，他说，是“非常积极” ，以他在会议期间在关塔那摩）向他于2007年11月的“一项计划，前进道路上的案件数量将收取每个月。 ”他解释说： “他有一个大插页图表，大概3个或3半， 4英尺长。 It’sa well-known chart and it has on that chart the kind of lay down of how many cases will be proceeding and sort of monthly times as they will proceed.”这是众所周知的图表，它已在该图的那种放下了多少案件将程序和排序每月倍，他们将着手。 “

Hartmann admitted the existence of this timeline during the hearing on June 19, and as Maj. Frakt demonstrated in a motion to dismiss in August, when he compared the dates on Hartmann’s chart with the dates the prisoners were actually charged he realized that they were remarkably similar.哈特曼承认存在这个时间在听证会于6月19日，作为少校Frakt体现在一项动议驳回8月，当他相比的日期哈特曼的图表日期囚犯被指控实际上他认识到，他们显着相似。 “It is easy to come up with a sinister explanation for the congruence of the chart and the scheduling order,” he wrote, adding, “It is hard to come up with an innocent one.” “这是来之不易了一个阴险的解释的一致性的图表以及调度命令， ”他在日记中写道， “这是很难拿出一个无辜的人。 ”

Capt. McCarthy also testified that, as well as being bullying and dismissive to himself and, it seemed, every other officer below the rank of General or Admiral at Guantánamo, Hartmann had held several secure video teleconferences with the commanders at Guantánamo, and two face-to-face meetings, which, it appeared, were also part of his mission to “brief” commanders on how and when the trials would proceed, rather than allowing these issues to be developed by the prosecutors.上尉麦卡锡还作证说，以及被欺凌和轻视自己，似乎，每个下面其他官员职级的秘书长或在关塔那摩海军，哈特曼已举行多次安全可靠的视频电话与在关塔那摩指挥官，两个面对的会议，它似乎也被他的一部分任务的“短”的指挥官就如何以及何时将开始审判，而不是让这些问题制定的检察官。 As McCarthy described it, Hartmann “would closely identify himself with prosecutorial efforts,” was “involved at a level of detail that no other general or flag officer that I’ve ever worked for or with has ever been involved at,” and gave the impression that he was “responsible for moving forward with military commissions in all respects.”正如麦卡锡所述，哈特曼“将密切合作，找出自己的检察工作， ”是“在参与的详细程度，没有任何其他一般或旗长，我曾经工作或曾经参与” ，并给出了印象是，他是“负责推进军事委员会在所有方面。 ”

More disturbing revelations about the Convening Authority 更令人不安的披露管理局召开

Maj. Frakt also revealed more disturbing details about Susan Crawford’s role. Frakt少将还透露更令人不安的细节苏珊克劳福德的作用。 After revisiting the August ruling of Col. Stephen Henley, the judge in Jawad’s case, who disqualified Hartmann for a second time, and “ordered that the defense be given an opportunity to submit matters in extenuation and mitigation, and that Crawford reconsider her referral decision and either ratify the earlier decision or take other appropriate action without further input from Hartmann,” Maj. Frakt explained that in early September “the prosecutors sought reconsideration of the judge’s ruling, filing a brief which included an affidavit from Hartmann and an affidavit from Crawford herself.”经过重新执政8月上校史蒂芬亨利，法官在贾瓦德的情况下，谁取消哈特曼第二次，和“下令国防有机会提出问题的减轻和缓解，并重新考虑她的克劳福德推介决定或者批准早先的决定，或采取其他适当行动，不要再投入哈特曼， “少校Frakt解释说，在9月初”要求检察机关复议法官的裁决，提出简短的，其中包括一份宣誓书，并从哈特曼誓章从克劳福德自己。 “

This is enormously significant, as it provides another concrete example of Crawford’s interference, to add to Col. Davis’ account, and it is made all the more disturbing by Maj. Frakt’s subsequent explanation of how Hartmann and Crawford seemed to connive to sway the judge’s opinion.这是极其重大，因为它提供了另一种具体的例子，克劳福德的干扰，添加到上校戴维斯的帐户，它是所有更令人不安的Frakt少校随后解释如何哈特曼和克劳福德似乎纵容动摇法官的意见。 Their argument, he wrote, centered on claims that Crawford “had not been misled by Hartmann’s recommendation that the case against Jawad be referred as non-capital,” which, as he pointed out, “was misleading because it suggested that capital punishment was an option, when it was not an authorized punishment for the offenses with which Jawad is charged.” The end result, he noted, was that “The brief filed by the government severely distorted the facts.”他们的论点，他写道，集中在克劳福德称， “没有误导哈特曼的建议，即对贾瓦德案件被称为非资本” ，作为他指出， “有误导之嫌，因为它认为，死刑是一个选择，当这不是一个授权惩罚犯罪与贾瓦德负责。 “最终的结果，他指出，是”简要提出由政府严重歪曲事实。 “

Despite this, Col. Henley amended his ruling the next day, authorizing Hartmann to review the matters submitted by the defense and to supplement his original pre-trial advice.尽管这样，上校亨利修正了他执政的第二天，哈特曼授权审查事项提出的国防和补充自己原来的预审意见。 Maj. Frakt was appalled.少校Frakt感到震惊。 He had been denied the opportunity to respond (as he stated, he was “supposed to get one week to respond to filings from the opposing party”), and he immediately filed a motion “pointing out the factual errors in the government brief and protesting this action, including the fact that the judge acted without input from the defense.” Most importantly, he “requested that Crawford be disqualified since she had made herself a witness in a contested matter before the commission.” He noted, however, that “The judge never responded.”他被剥夺了机会作出回应（如他说，他“理应获得一个星期内作出回应的文件从对方当事人” ） ，他立即提出一项动议“指出的事实错误在政府简短和抗议这一行动，其中包括一个事实，即担任该法官没有投入防守。 “最重要的是，他”要求，克劳福德被取消资格，因为她作出了自己的证人在一个有争议的问题提交给委员会。 “然而，他指出，这”法官从来没有答复。 “

In addition, Maj. Frakt explained that, although he knew that it was “completely futile” to submit a request for reconsideration, he nevertheless “put together a detailed memorandum explaining the evidentiary, factual and legal deficiencies in the case and detailing the extensive mitigating and extenuating circumstances,” which he submitted on September 15.此外，少校Frakt解释说，虽然他知道这是“完全徒劳的”提交一份要求复议，但他“把一份详细的备忘录，解释的证据，事实和法律不足的情况，并详细介绍了广泛减轻和减轻处罚情节“ ，他提交的关于9月15日。 He also included letters from concerned citizens, a petition urging Crawford to drop the case, and various legal documents, but explained that, although he “repeatedly requested a personal audience” with Crawford, “she refused to meet with me, citing a policy of not having ex parte communications with either party.” Cutting once more to the heart of the problem — Crawford’s thinly-veiled bias — Maj. Frakt added, “This is utter nonsense.他信还包括来自有关公民，一份请愿书，敦促克劳福德下降的情况下，各种法律文件，但解释说，虽然他“一再要求观众的个人”与克劳福德， “她拒绝与我见面，理由是政策没有单方面通信任何一方。 “切割再次向问题的核心-克劳福德的稀薄，掩饰倾向- Fr akt少校说， ”这是纯属无稽之谈。 She is not a judge and is specifically authorized to discuss matters with either party.”她不是一名法官，并特别授权，讨论事项与任何一方。 “

Mohamed Jawad and the fog of “war crimes” 穆罕默德贾瓦德和雾的“战争罪”

Moreover, Hartmann’s departure has clearly done nothing to stem Crawford’s enthusiasm for referring charges without paying any heed to arguments made by the defense, and in this she seems to have the full support of Hartmann’s replacement, Col. Mike Chapman.此外，哈特曼的离去显然已经做任何事情来干克劳福德的热情提到收费无需支付任何重视的观点提出了防御，并在这，她似乎已经完全支持哈特曼的更换，上校迈克查普曼。 Maj. Frakt explained that on September 22 (Chapman’s first day as legal adviser) he issued a new pre-trial advice to Crawford — “chock full of misleading characterizations of the facts and misstatements of the law,” as Maj. Frakt put it — in response to his submissions, in which he stated that there was “no merit to the defense arguments.” The following day, as Maj. Frakt proceeded to explain, “Crawford ‘ratified’ her referral decision and confirmed that she wanted the case to go forward.” However, while this appears to be another example of Crawford’s predetermined inflexibility, which leads me to wonder if anything could persuade her not to go forward with the cases before her, Jawad, at least, appears to have some support from the judge in his case.少校Frakt解释说， 9月22日（查普曼的第一天作为法律顾问） ，他颁布了一项新的预审意见，克劳福德-“楔子充分的误导刻画的事实和错误的法律” ，作为建立F rakt少校它-针对他的意见，他在信中指出， “没有必要的国防论据。 ”第二天，作为少校F rakt接着解释， “克劳福德'批准'她的推荐决定，并证实，她希望案件向前迈进。 “然而，这似乎是另一个例子克劳福德的预定僵硬，这使我想任何事情都有可能劝她不要去了的案件在她面前，贾瓦德，至少，似乎已一些支持，法官在他的案件。

On September 24, Col. Henley issued three rulings on motions to dismiss that were filed in May and June, and Maj. Frakt explained that, although he “declined to dismiss the charges,” he “came very close.” Essentially, as Maj. Frakt described it, Col. Henley “ruled that the government had offered no persuasive authority for their legal position on the meaning of the elements of ‘murder in violation of the law of war’” (the offense Jawad is accused of committing, even though no one died in the grenade attack). 9月24日，上校亨利发出三张的裁决请求被驳回申请的5月和6月，和少校Frakt解释说，虽然他“拒绝驳回指控， ”他“非常接近。 ”本质上说，作为少校。 Frakt所述，上校亨利“裁定，政府没有提供有说服力的依据其法律地位的含义的内容'谋杀，违反战争法” （贾瓦德的进攻被指控犯，即使虽然没有一人死亡的手榴弹袭击事件） 。 According to the government, Jawad’s status as an “unlawful combatant” or “unprivileged belligerent” (variants on the familiar label of “enemy combatant”) is all that is required to prove that his acts were “in violation of the law of war.”根据政府的数据，贾瓦德的地位“非法战斗人员”或“无特权的交战” （变种的熟悉的标签， “敌方战斗人员” ）是所有所需的证明，他的行为是“违反法律规定的战争。 “

This is actually nonsense, and Maj. Frakt proceeded to explain that a violation of the law of war should actually mean that there was “something in the nature of the act allegedly committed by Jawad that violated the law of war (eg an illegal weapon was used, or protected persons were targeted).” He added, “Because Jawad is accused of using a lawful weapon to attack lawful targets (uniformed enemy soldiers) there is no independent violation of the law of war.”这实际上是胡说八道，和少校Frakt进行解释，违反了战争法实际上应该意味着有“某种行为的性质据称由贾瓦德，违反战争法的（例如，非法武器使用，或受保护的人的目标） 。 “他补充说， ”由于贾瓦德被指控使用合法武器攻击的合法目标（穿制服敌人）没有独立违反了战争法。 “

Col. Henley seemed to agree, but he “declined to dismiss the case because he said he did not know what evidence the government had and would give them a chance to prove their case,” although he added that if the prosecution “didn’t have any facts that would tend to prove a violation of the law of war, then they had an independent ethical obligation to go to the Convening Authority and ask her to dismiss the charges.”上校亨利似乎都同意，但他“拒绝驳回此案，因为他说，他不知道什么证据，政府将给他们一个机会来证明他们的情况， ”但他补充说，如果检察机关“不有任何事实往往证明违反了战争法，那么他们有独立的道德义务去召集管理局，并要求她撤销这些指控。 “

He then ordered the government to provide a “bill of particulars” (a statement of facts detailing how the prosecution would prove the elements of the offense), but as Maj. Frakt described it, this document “simply rehashed the government’s prior stance that the violation of the law of war consisted of not being a lawful combatant and wearing civilian clothes to blend in with the local population.” Pointing out the absurdity of this position, he explained, “The government states he is an unlawful combatant because he was not a member of a regular army in military uniform, but then claims his violation of the law of war was wearing civilian clothes.” He added, “I have noted several times that Jawad was part of the local population.然后，他下令政府提供一个“法案的详情” （一份声明中的事实，详细说明检察机关将证明的内容的进攻） ，但作为Frakt少校介绍，这文件“只是rehashed政府先前的立场这违反了战争法的组成不合法的战斗员和穿着便服，以融入当地居民。 “指出荒谬的这一立场，他解释说， ”政府规定他是一个非法的战斗，因为他不是一个成员的正规军军服，但后来声称，他违反了战争法，身穿平民服装。 “他补充说， ”我已经多次指出的贾瓦德是当地居民。 He is an Afghan citizen.”他是一个阿富汗公民。 “

Quite how this absurd trial will pan out remains to be seen, but if there is hope for Mohamed Jawad, the same cannot be said for the Commissions in general, which are suffering from inbuilt problems that cannot be remedied by the dismissal of either the legal adviser to the Convening Authority or the Convening Authority herself — although the accumulating evidence certainly suggests that, like Brig.恰恰相反如何荒谬的审判将泛了仍有待观察，但如果是有希望的穆罕默德贾瓦德，同样不能说，委员会的一般，这是从内在的痛苦的问题，不能弥补解雇任何法律顾问召开管理局或召开管理局她-虽然积累了一定的证据表明，像受伤。 Gen. Hartmann, Susan Crawford should be removed from her post.将军哈特曼，苏珊克劳福德应免去职务。

Enshrining political manipulation 庄严的政治操纵

Several legal scholars have been noting these problems for some time.一些法律学者已经注意到这些问题了一段时间。 In August, for example, Professor Gregory S. McNeal, a former academic consultant to the Commissions’ chief prosecutor,今年8月，例如，美国教授格雷戈里麦克尼尔，前学术顾问委员会的首席检察官 wrote写信 that the structure and rules for the Commissions, as crafted by the Department of Defense, “allowed for political manipulation of nearly all aspects of the trials.”的结构和规则委员会，作为制作由国防部， “允许政治操纵的几乎所有方面的审判。 ”

One of the major flaws identified by McNeal was the nature of the Convening Authority’s role.其中一个主要的缺陷所确定的麦克尼尔的性质召集权力机构的作用。 In the courts-martial system, from which the Commissions are vaguely derived, the Convening Authority is a military commander, who is presumed to be capable of “unbiased and apolitical decision-making.” In the Military Commissions Act, however, it is stated that Military Commissions “may be convened by the Secretary of Defense or by any officer or official of the United States designated by the Secretary for that purpose”; in other words, that civilians, like Susan Crawford, can be brought in to deliberately exert the “undue command influence” with which both she, and her legal adviser, have repeatedly been identified.在军事法庭的审判制度，由该委员会是含糊所得，召开管理局是一个军事指挥员，谁是推定能够“公正的和非政治的决策。 ”在军事委员会法，但是，它说明该军事委员会“可能是由秘书长召集国防部或以任何人员或官方的美国秘书长指定的用于这一目的” ;换句话说，平民一样，苏珊克劳福德，可带到故意施加“不当命令影响”这两个与她和她的法律顾问，曾多次被查明。

In my opinion, this is a crucial distinction, deliberately tailored by the administration to allow a puppet of the executive to fulfil her master’s commands, and it explains, I think, why there will be no justice at Guantánamo until the whole system is dismantled and the trials are moved to the US mainland, where judges are free to throw out risible and/or rigged charges like those against Mohamed Jawad, and to grapple, independently, with the problems they will undoubtedly face in prosecuting the handful of genuinely dangerous individuals at Guantánamo in a court that can claim legitimacy.在我看来，这是一个关键的区分，故意适合对政府允许的傀儡行政机关履行其主人的命令，并解释说，我想，为什么就不会有正义在关塔那摩，直到整个系统拆除和审判转移到美国本土，而法官可以自由地抛出可笑和/或舞弊指控对像穆罕默德贾瓦德和处理，独立的问题，他们无疑将面临起诉少数真正的危险在关塔那摩个人在法庭上，可以索赔的合法性。

Until this time comes, I am thankful to Maj. Frakt for sharing his insights with me, and I will continue to expose the “undue command influence” that poisons Dick Cheney and David Addington’s ill-conceived, quasi-legal system of show trials.直到这个时候，我感谢少校Frakt分享他的见解与我，我将继续揭露“不当命令的影响”的毒药切尼和大卫阿丁顿的构想拙劣的，准法律制度的展示审判。

Have Your Say: New Evidence of Systemic Bias in Guantánamo Trials 你说：新的证据的系统性偏倚在关塔那摩的审判
Please read our请仔细阅读我们的 posting guidelines before posting张贴在发布前的指导方针 . 。
Alternatively或者 you can discuss this report here你可以讨论这份报告在这里 . 。

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL引用网址

Name (required) 名称（必需）

Mail (will not be published) (required) 邮件（将不会被发表） （必填）

Website 网站

Related News 相关新闻

• Guantanamo general calls 2nd general ‘bullying’关塔那摩一般号召第二一般的'欺负'
• Al Jazeera Cameraman Freed From Guantánamo半岛电视台摄影师从关塔那摩获释
• Washington ordered destruction of Guantánamo interrogation records华盛顿下令销毁关塔那摩的审讯记录
• Guantanamo official says he’s not resigning关塔那摩官员说，他不会辞职
• Guantánamo torture records lost关塔那摩酷刑记录丢失

This entry was posted on Monday, October 13th, 2008 at 8:03 pm and is filed under本条目被张贴在周一， 2008年10月十三日在下午8时03分，并提交下 Surveillance, Civil Liberties & Human Rights News监控，公民自由与人权新闻 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the您可以按照任何反应，这个项目通过 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. You can饲料。您可以 leave a response留下一个反应 , or或 trackback引用 from your own site.从您自己的网站。

Loading ...载入中...

TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS 头条新闻讨论

LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS 最新消息讨论

Activism & Protest News 积极与抗议新闻 | | Business News 商业新闻 | | Civil & Human Rights News 公民与人权新闻 | | Environmental News 环境新闻 | | Media News 媒体新闻 | | Globalisation News 全球化新闻 | | Web Development News Web开发新闻

ADVERTISEMENTS广告

SITE MAPS网站地图

7/7 7 / 7 Afghanistan阿富汗 Alternative-Energy替代能源 Art艺术 Barack Obama奥巴马 BBC英国广播公司 Big-Brother大兄弟 Bilderberg彼尔德伯格 Biometrics生物识别技术 Bush布什 CCTV中央电视台 Censorship检查 CIA美国中央情报局 Climate-Change气候变化 Cover-Up掩盖 Cults邪教 Culture文化 Database-State数据库的国家 David-Hicks大卫希克斯 David-Ray-Griffin大卫射线格里芬 Debt债务 Democrats民主党 Demos演示 Drugs药品 Education教育 Entertainment娱乐 Environmental News环境新闻 EU欧盟 False-Flag假旗 FBI美国联邦调查局 Fraud诈骗 Free-Speech自由言论 Freemasons济 G8八国集团 Globalization全球化 Guantanamo关塔那摩 Health-News健康新闻 History历史 ID-Cards编号卡 Internet互联网 Iran伊朗 Iraq伊拉克 Israel以色列 John McCain约翰麦凯恩 Law法 Marches游行 Media News媒体新闻 MI5军情五处 MI6军情六处 Microsoft微软 Military军事 MoD国防部 Money金钱 Music音乐 NASA美国宇航局 Neocons新保守主义 New World Order新的世界秩序 NSA国安局 Oil油 Pakistan巴基斯坦 Podcast播客 Police-State警察国家 Propaganda中宣部 Reviews评语 RFID RFID技术 RINF Rumsfeld拉姆斯菲尔德 Science科学 Science & Technology News科技新闻 Secrecy保密 Security安全 Slavery奴隶制 Space空间 Sports体育 Spy间谍 Spying从事间谍活动 Stephen-Lendman斯蒂芬- Lendman Technology技术 Terrorism恐怖主义 Tony-Blair英国首相布莱尔 Torture酷刑 TV电视 UK-News英国新闻 UN联合国 USA-美国， USA-News美国新闻 Video视频 Voting投票 war战争 War & Terrorism News战争与恐怖主义的新闻 Warfare战 White-House白家 Wolfowitz沃尔福威茨 World-News世界新闻 Yahoo雅虎
2003 - 2005 Archives 2003至2005年档案 | 2005 - 2007 Archives 2005年-2 007年档案 | 2007 - 2008 Archives 2007 -2 008档案 | Current Archives目前档案馆 | Past Version |以往版本

About 大约 | | DVD Store DVD商店 | | Opinion 意见 | | Reviews 评语 | | Special Guests 特别来宾 | | Webmasters 网站管理员