Gitmo

9/11, al Qaeda, Barack Obama, DOJ, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Military Commissions, September 11, War on Terror

9/11 family member at DOJ meet asked ‘How many people here are in favor of closing Gitmo?’ Two hands went up

by  • 

WJHG TV, an NBC affiliate in Panama City, Florida reports:

Arias’ brother, Adam, was killed when the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed during the September 11th terrorist attacks. Arias was randomly selected to go to Guantanamo Bay this January and witness a competency hearing for accused terrorist Ramzi Binalshibh.

Arias says, “When I was in Gitmo, the defendants looked tanned and relaxed and quite cocky. They proclaimed how proud they were that they had killed almost 3,000 Americans.”

Arias is back from two weeks of meetings with the Military Commissions Prosecution Team in Orlando and the Department of Justice Task Force in the nation’s capital. Arias believes that President Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo Bay is misguided. He says he met many people who agree with him: “An elderly fireman, who retired, who lost his son on 9/11, looked around the table and said, ‘How many people here are in favor of closing Gitmo?’ Two hands went up. ‘How many people here are in favor of keeping Gitmo and the tribunals open?’ Forty hands went up. That man said, ‘Bring that to the president, tell him what 9/11 families really want.'”

He says that under the President’s current orders, a multi-agency task force will review each case in the detention center, with guidance to put as many in federal court as possible. But, he claims this provides terrorists with more rights than they deserve, and he cautions that prosecuting attorneys would have to divulge sensitive information in court just to get a conviction.

“We would actually betray our allies in the field that way. So, that would give insight into the ways, means, methods in which we collect information to thwart terrorist attacks. So, we’re putting human lives in danger by doing that.”

Arias says a justice system that punishes war criminals is vital to winning the War on Terror. He offers an argument against those who say Gitmo can be used against us: “Prior to 9/11, there was no such thing as Guantanamo Bay Detention Center. Al-Qaeda needed no recruitment tool other than hatred to kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11.”

For those family members of the victims of terrorism unable to attend the Department of Justice’s meetings, but still interested in expressing views, the DOJ “welcome[s] written submissions.” Please send your written comments via email (nsd.ovt@usdoj.gov) or fax (202-514-4275) to the Office of Justice for Victims of Overseas Terrorism (OVT) no later than June 26, 2009. Click here for a few questions to consider when writing them.

9/11, al Qaeda, detainees, embassy bombings, Gitmo, Guantanamo, Military Commissions, USS Cole

Comparison of Procedures and Rights Military Commissions Act of 2006, Courts-Martial, U.S. District Courts, and Other International Courts

by  • 

Defense lawyers and others who advocate on behalf of the detainees at Guantanamo allege Military Commissions would deny their clients a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. They are deceiving you, as the four-page comparison chart below clearly shows. (Click each page to enlarge it. You may also download it and send it to everyone you know.)

As you read the chart, think of 9/11, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and our embassies in Africa, Daniel Pearl and al Qaeda’s mutilation and maiming of tens of thousands of people worldwide. The detainees at Gitmo are war criminals who acted outside the laws of war and protections of the Geneva Conventions; Military Commissions would afford them far more human rights than those they gave the people they slaughtered.

Notes:

1) Download chart here: Word doc or pdf file.

2) President Obama recently administratively changed some Military Commission rules. He granted detainees more rights to choose their counsel, prohibited “the use of statements obtained by cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, regardless of when the statements were obtained,” and placed the burden on the prosecution to show why hearsay should be admitted into evidence by “demonstrating that a reasonable commission member could find the evidence sufficiently reliable under the totality of the circumstances to have probative value.” The latter comports with international standards.