新的證據的系統性偏倚在關塔那摩的審判

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

By Andy Worthington -北京時間沃辛頓- andyworthington.co.uk |

Andy Worthington, author of 安迪沃辛頓的作者， The Guantánamo Files 關塔那摩檔案 , 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. ，繼續他的分析腐敗的指揮結構的軍事委員會在關塔那摩，新的信息少校大衛Frakt之一，該委員會的軍事辯護律師。

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在過去的三個星期，兩個事件發生的處理應該是一個毀滅性的打擊的軍事委員會在關塔那摩，系統的審判為“恐怖嫌疑人” -在美國以外的法院系統和美國軍方自己的司法系統-這是由副總統 Dick Cheney切尼 and his close advisers (in particular, his legal counsel David Addington) in November 2001.和他的親密顧問（特別是，他的律師大衛阿丁頓）於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 ，檢察官的情況 Mohamed Jawad穆罕默德賈瓦德 (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. （阿富汗被告投擲了一枚手榴彈在一輛吉普車載有兩名美軍士兵和一名阿富汗翻譯），辭職，表示他感到沮喪和失望的是， “可能開脫罪責的證據”已經“沒有提供” ，以賈瓦德的辯護律師團，並於9月19準將。 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.將軍哈特曼，各委員會的法律顧問，是“重新”後三個委員會的法官-美國所有的軍事人員，由政府委任， -他有資格從兩個審判（一審判後的審查），因為他透明的親起訴偏見。 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這是特別令人擔憂，因為他的職務說明-中所規定的軍事委員會法案2 006年，該委員會恢復後，最高法院裁定其為非法-規定，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上週，經過進一步分析-包括重要工作的法學教授 Scott Horton斯科特霍頓 –- I wrote a detailed article, -我寫了詳細規定， The Dark Heart of the Guantánamo Trials黑暗之心關塔那摩審判 , 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. ，我借鑒的例子有利於檢察機關偏見的一部分，哈特曼的老闆，蘇珊克勞福德，各委員會的召集管理局，並追查這個系統性偏差的指揮鏈，通過五角大樓的總法律顧問，以切尼和大衛阿丁頓，創造了整個委員會的進程。 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.切尼和阿丁頓的熱情不受約束的行政權力表示，毫不含糊，該公正的哈特曼和克勞福德只不過是一個幌子來掩飾委員會的赤裸裸的政治目標：確保定罪操縱系統，旨在防止無罪釋放。

As the正如 Washington Post華盛頓郵報 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.最近解釋說，管理局的召開是“需要一個中立的行使中委員會，監督而不是發號施令的工作，檢察官和分配資源的起訴和防禦” ，但一個明顯的例子，克勞福德的親是檢察機關的偏見顯示上校莫里斯戴維斯，各委員會的前首席檢察官，誰辭職，於2007年10月，主要是因為政治干預的過程中。

Writing in the寫作 Los Angeles Times洛杉磯時報 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，戴維斯寫道，克勞福德，不像她的前任少將約翰阿爾滕堡，其工作人員“保持距離，檢察機關以維護其公正性， ”已超出了她的行政作用，而且“已評估她的工作人員收到的證據提交收費，指導檢察機關的審前準備工作的情況下“和”起草控告那些誰被指控並指派檢察官的案件。 “戴維斯鮮明的結論-即”交織召開的權威和作用使檢察官的看法操縱堆疊過程中對被告“ -是u nerringly準確，但哈特曼屏蔽她的批評（並考慮所有的防彈自己），克勞福德迄今避免要求她辭職，即使是斯科特霍頓指出，今年2月，她是“一個切尼protégée ” ，並此外， “特別是接近切尼的幕僚長大衛阿丁頓。 ”

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.之後不久我的一篇關於腐敗的指揮結構委員會發表後，我收到了富有啟發性的電子郵件少校大衛Frakt ，穆罕默德賈瓦德的軍事辯護律師，這提供了更多的細節確認偏見的準將。 Gen. Hartmann and Susan Crawford.將軍哈特曼和蘇珊克勞福德。

More criticism of Brig. 更多的批評受傷。 Gen. Hartmann 哈特曼將軍

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是實物足以指出， “哈特曼被解僱” ，並說， “他聲稱，他晉升完全是無稽之談。 ”他列舉的證詞中哈特曼賈的情況於6月19日，並在隨後的書面陳述，在他說，他有三個不同的義務法律顧問：他負責後勤，規劃和資源，他是主管的起訴，他是法律顧問。 As Maj. Frakt explained, “His promotion consisted of removing two of those three duties.至於少校Frakt解釋說： “他的晉升由兩個消除這三個職務。 He is now responsible only for logistics, planning and resources.”他現在只負責後勤，規劃和資源。 “

He added that most of this work is done by the Commissions Support Group (CSG) at Guantánamo, headed by Brig.他補充說，大部分工作是由該委員會支助小組（ CSG ）的在關塔那摩，由準將。 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.將軍扎內蒂，誰作證在聽證會上賈瓦德的情況在8月份說， “哈特曼曾試圖有慢性淺表性胃炎指派給他的'命令' ，即使他在華盛頓和律師一般不指揮什麼” ，並證實，哈特曼“肯定是試圖採取負責的全過程。 ”我發現扎內蒂的評論說， “律師一般不指揮東西” （如轉述的少校Frakt ）特別告訴，因為它反映的方式，律師（阿丁頓，約翰柳，阿爾韋托岡薩雷斯）實際上已起到至關重要的作用，推動了殘酷的表現，布什政府的“反恐戰爭”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還提請我注意其他例子哈特曼的超越：尤其是時間表的審判，他創建於2007年11月，和有關報告的方式介紹他在關塔那摩指揮官對他的計劃，這這超出他的職權範圍作為一個不偏不倚的顧問。

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.據上尉帕特里克麥卡錫，工作人員軍法的聯合特遣部隊關塔那摩，誰發了沉積賈瓦德的情況下於6月30日在少校Frakt的要求，哈特曼（誰，他說，是“非常積極” ，以他在會議期間在關塔那摩）向他於2007年11月的“一項計劃，前進道路上的案件數量將收取每個月。 ”他解釋說： “他有一個大插頁圖表，大概3個或3半， 4英尺長。 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.”這是眾所周知的圖表，它已在該圖的那種放下了多少案件將程序和排序每月倍，他們將著手。 “

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.哈特曼承認存在這個時間在聽證會於6月19日，作為少校Frakt體現在一項動議駁回8月，當他相比的日期哈特曼的圖表日期囚犯被指控實際上他認識到，他們顯著相似。 “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.” “這是來之不易了一個陰險的解釋的一致性的圖表以及調度命令， ”他在日記中寫道， “這是很難拿出一個無辜的人。 ”

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.上尉麥卡錫還作證說，以及被欺凌和輕視自己，似乎，每個下面其他官員職級的秘書長或在關塔那摩海軍，哈特曼已舉行多次安全可靠的視頻電話與在關塔那摩指揮官，兩個面對的會議，它似乎也被他的一部分任務的“短”的指揮官就如何以及何時將開始審判，而不是讓這些問題制定的檢察官。 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.”正如麥卡錫所述，哈特曼“將密切合作，找出自己的檢察工作， ”是“在參與的詳細程度，沒有任何其他一般或旗長，我曾經工作或曾經參與” ，並給出了印象是，他是“負責推進軍事委員會在所有方面。 ”

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

Maj. Frakt also revealed more disturbing details about Susan Crawford’s role. Frakt少將還透露更令人不安的細節蘇珊克勞福德的作用。 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.”經過重新執政8月上校史蒂芬亨利，法官在賈瓦德的情況下，誰取消哈特曼第二次，和“下令國防有機會提出問題的減輕和緩解，並重新考慮她的克勞福德推介決定或者批准早先的決定，或採取其他適當行動，不要再投入哈特曼， “少校Frakt解釋說，在9月初”要求檢察機關复議法官的裁決，提出簡短的，其中包括一份宣誓書，並從哈特曼誓章從克勞福德自己。 “

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.這是極其重大，因為它提供了另一種具體的例子，克勞福德的干擾，添加到上校戴維斯的帳戶，它是所有更令人不安的Frakt少校隨後解釋如何哈特曼和克勞福德似乎縱容動搖法官的意見。 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.”他們的論點，他寫道，集中在克勞福德稱， “沒有誤導哈特曼的建議，即對賈瓦德案件被稱為非資本” ，作為他指出， “有誤導之嫌，因為它認為，死刑是一個選擇，當這不是一個授權懲罰犯罪與賈瓦德負責。 “最終的結果，他指出，是”簡要提出由政府嚴重歪曲事實。 “

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.儘管這樣，上校亨利修正了他執政的第二天，哈特曼授權審查事項提出的國防和補充自己原來的預審意見。 Maj. Frakt was appalled.少校Frakt感到震驚。 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.”他被剝奪了機會作出回應（如他說，他“理應獲得一個星期內作出回應的文件從對方當事人” ），他立即提出一項動議“指出的事實錯誤在政府簡短和抗議這一行動，其中包括一個事實，即擔任該法官沒有投入防守。 “最重要的是，他”要求，克勞福德被取消資格，因為她作出了自己的證人在一個有爭議的問題提交給委員會。 “然而，他指出，這”法官從來沒有答复。 “

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解釋說，雖然他知道這是“完全徒勞的”提交一份要求复議，但他“把一份詳細的備忘錄，解釋的證據，事實和法律不足的情況，並詳細介紹了廣泛減輕和減輕處罰情節“ ，他提交的關於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.他信還包括來自有關公民，一份請願書，敦促克勞福德下降的情況下，各種法律文件，但解釋說，雖然他“一再要求觀眾的個人”與克勞福德， “她拒絕與我見面，理由是政策沒有單方面通信任何一方。 “切割再次向問題的核心-克勞福德的稀薄，掩飾傾向- Fr akt少校說， ”這是純屬無稽之談。 She is not a judge and is specifically authorized to discuss matters with either party.”她不是一名法官，並特別授權，討論事項與任何一方。 “

Mohamed Jawad and the fog of “war crimes” 穆罕默德賈瓦德和霧的“戰爭罪”

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，哈特曼的離去顯然已經做任何事情來幹克勞福德的熱情提到收費無需支付任何重視的觀點提出了防禦，並在這，她似乎已經完全支持哈特曼的更換，上校邁克查普曼。 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解釋說， 9月22日（查普曼的第一天作為法律顧問），他頒布了一項新的預審意見，克勞福德-“楔子充分的誤導刻畫的事實和錯誤的法律” ，作為建立F rakt少校它-針對他的意見，他在信中指出， “沒有必要的國防論據。 ”第二天，作為少校F rakt接著解釋， “克勞福德'批准'她的推薦決定，並證實，她希望案件向前邁進。 “然而，這似乎是另一個例子克勞福德的預定僵硬，這使我想任何事情都有可能勸她不要去了的案件在她面前，賈瓦德，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，上校亨利發出三張的裁決請求被駁回申請的5月和6月，和少校Frakt解釋說，雖然他“拒絕駁回指控， ”他“非常接近。 ”本質上說，作為少校。 Frakt所述，上校亨利“裁定，政府沒有提供有說服力的依據其法律地位的含義的內容'謀殺，違反戰爭法” （賈瓦德的進攻被指控犯，即使雖然沒有一人死亡的手榴彈襲擊事件）。 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.”根據政府的數據，賈瓦德的地位“非法戰鬥人員”或“無特權的交戰” （變種的熟悉的標籤， “敵方戰鬥人員” ）是所有所需的證明，他的行為是“違反法律規定的戰爭。 “

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.”這實際上是胡說八道，和少校Frakt進行解釋，違反了戰爭法實際上應該意味著有“某種行為的性質據稱由賈瓦德，違反戰爭法的（例如，非法武器使用，或受保護的人的目標）。 “他補充說， ”由於賈瓦德被指控使用合法武器攻擊的合法目標（穿制服敵人）沒有獨立違反了戰爭法。 “

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“拒絕駁回此案，因為他說，他不知道什麼證據，政府將給他們一個機會來證明他們的情況， ”但他補充說，如果檢察機關“不有任何事實往往證明違反了戰爭法，那麼他們有獨立的道德義務去召集管理局，並要求她撤銷這些指控。 “

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.然後，他下令政府提供一個“法案的詳情” （一份聲明中的事實，詳細說明檢察機關將證明的內容的進攻），但作為Frakt少校介紹，這文件“只是rehashed政府先前的立場這違反了戰爭法的組成不合法的戰鬥員和穿著便服，以融入當地居民。 “指出荒謬的這一立場，他解釋說， ”政府規定他是一個非法的戰鬥，因為他不是一個成員的正規軍軍服，但後來聲稱，他違反了戰爭法，身穿平民服裝。 “他補充說， ”我已經多次指出的賈瓦德是當地居民。 He is an Afghan citizen.”他是一個阿富汗公民。 “

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.恰恰相反如何荒謬的審判將泛了仍有待觀察，但如果是有希望的穆罕默德賈瓦德，同樣不能說，委員會的一般，這是從內在的痛苦的問題，不能彌補解僱任何法律顧問召開管理局或召開管理局她-雖然積累了一定的證據表明，像受傷。 Gen. Hartmann, Susan Crawford should be removed from her post.將軍哈特曼，蘇珊克勞福德應免去職務。

Enshrining political manipulation 莊嚴的政治操縱

Several legal scholars have been noting these problems for some time.一些法律學者已經注意到這些問題了一段時間。 In August, for example, Professor Gregory S. McNeal, a former academic consultant to the Commissions’ chief prosecutor,今年8月，例如，美國教授格雷戈里麥克尼爾，前學術顧問委員會的首席檢察官 wrote寫信 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.”的結構和規則委員會，作為製作由國防部， “允許政治操縱的幾乎所有方面的審判。 ”

One of the major flaws identified by McNeal was the nature of the Convening Authority’s role.其中一個主要的缺陷所確定的麥克尼爾的性質召集權力機構的作用。 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.在軍事法庭的審判制度，由該委員會是含糊所得，召開管理局是一個軍事指揮員，誰是推定能夠“公正的和非政治的決策。 ”在軍事委員會法，但是，它說明該軍事委員會“可能是由秘書長召集國防部或以任何人員或官方的美國秘書長指定的用於這一目的” ;換句話說，平民一樣，蘇珊克勞福德，可帶到故意施加“不當命令影響”這兩個與她和她的法律顧問，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.在我看來，這是一個關鍵的區分，故意適合對政府允許的傀儡行政機關履行其主人的命令，並解釋說，我想，為什麼就不會有正義在關塔那摩，直到整個系統拆除和審判轉移到美國本土，而法官可以自由地拋出可笑和/或舞弊指控對像穆罕默德賈瓦德和處理，獨立的問題，他們無疑將面臨起訴少數真正的危險在關塔那摩個人在法庭上，可以索賠的合法性。

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.直到這個時候，我感謝少校Frakt分享他的見解與我，我將繼續揭露“不當命令的影響”的毒藥切尼和大衛阿丁頓的構想拙劣的，準法律制度的展示審判。

Have Your Say: New Evidence of Systemic Bias in Guantánamo Trials 你說：新的證據的系統性偏倚在關塔那摩的審判
Please read our請仔細閱讀我們的 posting guidelines before posting張貼在發布前的指導方針 . 。
Alternatively或者 you can discuss this report here你可以討論這份報告在這裡 . 。

RSS 的RSS TrackBack URL引用網址

Related News 相關新聞

This entry was posted on Monday, October 13th, 2008 at 8:03 pm and is filed under本條目被張貼在週一， 2008年10月十三日在下午8時03分，並提交下 Surveillance, Civil Liberties & Human Rights News監控，公民自由與人權新聞 . 。 You can follow any responses to this entry through the您可以按照任何反應，這個項目通過 RSS 2.0 2.0 feed. You can飼料。您可以 leave a response留下一個反應 , or或 trackback引用 from your own site.從您自己的網站。

TOP NEWS DISCUSSIONS 頭條新聞討論	LATEST NEWS DISCUSSIONS 最新消息討論	LATEST FORUM TOPICS 最新論壇主題
Spooks in the classroom Spooks在課堂 Seven Years After 9/11, Spies Finally Forced to Share 7年後9 / 11 ，探馬最後被迫共享 Chomsky: Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed 喬姆斯基：反民主性質的美國資本主義正受到	ian 伊恩 commented on: 評論： Chomsky: Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed 喬姆斯基：反民主性質的美國資本主義正受到 Noam has hit it on the head again. 諾姆已觸及它的頭部了。 His clarity is impresionable and demands... 他清晰impresionable和要求... Continue Reading & Reply 繼續閱讀及回复 bricbuck bricbuck commented on: 評論： Army scientists want to create ‘brain-wave helmet’ 美國陸軍的科學家要建立'腦電波頭盔' Seriously, the military doesn’t move as fast as gamers? 嚴重的是，軍事行動並不快遊戲？ Well if... 那麼，如果... Continue Reading & Reply 繼續閱讀及回复 Horus 荷魯斯 commented on: 評論： How to Control the AMERICAN Population 如何控制美國人口 Young people, especialy imigrants seem to have many babies as that is what is normal to them and sadly... 年輕人， especialy imigrants似乎有許多嬰兒因為這是正常的，他們和可悲... Continue Reading & Reply 繼續閱讀及回复 ZingPao ZingPao commented on: 評論： Bush To Provide $6.4 Billion In Arms To Taiwan 布什提供64億美元向台灣出售武器 Well with $700 billion what the hell. 井7,000億美元是地獄。 Plenty to spread around right? 很多傳遍對不對？ May Bush, all of them,... 布什5月，所有的人， ... Continue Reading & Reply 繼續閱讀及回复

ADVERTISEMENTS廣告		SITE MAPS網站地圖
Web Desing & Hosting UK , USA, Europe網頁設計與託管英國，美國，歐洲 WOWEB - Web Design WOWEB -網頁設計 FAST GATEWAY - Web Hosting快速通道-虛擬主機 INFOTX - Web Hosting Guides and Resources INFOTX -W eb託管和資源指南 ASHLEY GUEST HOUSE - Morecambe Guest House阿什利招待所-莫克姆招待所 Skin up marijuana cannabis weed forum皮膚了大麻，大麻草論壇	Linux Web Hosting Linux的虛擬主機 Never Be Lied To Again!絕不會騙了！ Subliminal Secrets Exposed潛意識的秘密接觸 Holographic Creation: Your Own Reality全息創造：你自己的現實 Masonic Secrets Revealed共濟會秘密透露 What You Aren't Supposed To Know你不應該知道 Conspiracy DVDs Cheap DVDs陰謀DVD光盤便宜的DVD Debt Consolidation債務	7/7 7 / 7 Afghanistan阿富汗 Alternative-Energy替代能源 Art藝術 Barack Obama奧巴馬 BBC英國廣播公司 Big-Brother大兄弟 Bilderberg彼爾德伯格 Biometrics生物識別技術 Bush布什 CCTV中央電視台 Censorship檢查 CIA美國中央情報局 Climate-Change氣候變化 Cover-Up掩蓋 Cults邪教 Culture文化 Database-State數據庫的國家 David-Hicks大衛希克斯 David-Ray-Griffin大衛射線格里芬 Debt債務 Democrats民主黨 Demos演示 Drugs藥品 Education教育 Entertainment娛樂 Environmental News環境新聞 EU歐盟 False-Flag假旗 FBI美國聯邦調查局 Fraud詐騙 Free-Speech自由言論 Freemasons濟 G8八國集團 Globalization全球化 Guantanamo關塔那摩 Health-News健康新聞 History歷史 ID-Cards編號卡 Internet互聯網 Iran伊朗 Iraq伊拉克 Israel以色列 John McCain約翰麥凱恩 Law法 Marches遊行 Media News媒體新聞 MI5軍情五處 MI6軍情六處 Microsoft微軟 Military軍事 MoD國防部 Money金錢 Music音樂 NASA美國宇航局 Neocons新保守主義 New World Order新的世界秩序 NSA國安局 Oil油 Pakistan巴基斯坦 Podcast播客 Police-State警察國家 Propaganda中宣部 Reviews評語 RFID RFID技術 RINF Rumsfeld拉姆斯菲爾德 Science科學 Science & Technology News科技新聞 Secrecy保密 Security安全 Slavery奴隸制 Space空間 Sports體育 Spy間諜 Spying從事間諜活動 Stephen-Lendman斯蒂芬- Lendman Technology技術 Terrorism恐怖主義 Tony-Blair英國首相布萊爾 Torture酷刑 TV電視 UK-News英國新聞 UN聯合國 USA-美國， USA-News美國新聞 Video視頻 Voting投票 war戰爭 War & Terrorism News戰爭與恐怖主義的新聞 Warfare戰 White-House白家 Wolfowitz沃爾福威茨 World-News世界新聞 Yahoo雅虎 2003 - 2005 Archives 2003至2005年檔案 \| 2005 - 2007 Archives 2005年-2 007年檔案 \| 2007 - 2008 Archives 2007 -2 008檔案 \| Current Archives目前檔案館 \| Past Version \|以往版本

New Evidence of Systemic Bias in Guantánamo Trials新的證據的系統性偏倚在關塔那摩的審判