Justice Delay
Rejected as military judge declines Obama admin request to put off the arraignment of an accused USS Cole plotter. NYT:
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration hit an unexpected rough patch on Thursday in its plan to give itself time to decide how to prosecute Guantánamo detainees.
A military judge in the case of one of the best-known terrorism suspects declined an administration request to delay an arraignment scheduled for Feb. 9. The decision differed from rulings by two other military judges in the war crimes system at the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, who last week granted requests filed by military prosecutors for four-month delays so the new administration could study detainees’ files and its legal options.
The unexpected move brought confusion at the White House and the Pentagon, and added a new legal tangle to the already confounding challenges of the Obama administration’s effort to move in sharply new directions on detainee issues. The decision came in the death penalty case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi charged as the chief planner of the attack on the Navy destroyer Cole in 2000, which killed 17 American sailors.
In the ruling on Thursday, the judge in Mr. Nashiri’s case, Col. James L. Pohl of the Army, said “the request to delay the arraignment is not reasonable.” At times, Colonel Pohl, the chief judge in Guantánamo, took a contentious tone that seemed to challenge the Obama administration.
His decision included language about the independence of judges in the military commission system, and he wrote that he found the prosecutors’ arguments, including the assertion that the Obama administration needed time to review its options, to “be an unpersuasive basis to delay the arraignment.”
At the White House, the press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said the administration had learned of the ruling and was “working to get some consultation on that.” He noted that the other judges at Guantánamo had delayed cases, saying those stays “give us what we need to evaluate who is at Gitmo and make the decisions” about how to proceed.
As a candidate, Barack Obama was critical of the military commission system that was a centerpiece of the Bush administration’s strategy in dealing with terrorism. But the new administration has not made clear whether it will restrict prosecutions to existing American courts or, perhaps, use the military commissions for some cases.
Sounds more like there already was confusion at the White House, and this unexpected move just underscored it.
But look, it’s only been eight and a half years since 17 American sailors were murdered by terrorists in Yemen. Why rush a military tribunal when we could ensure the defendant’s constitutional rights as a unlawful non-US citizen combatant are protected a long, dragged-out, expensive, grandstanding opportunity?
It’ll be interesting to see how people who previously applauded dissent in the Pentagon, and military insubordination, refusal to follow orders, desertion, etc., respond as this case develops. Meanwhile, here’s TalkLeft highly concerned about the implications of defiance of the commander in chief.
Welcome Instapundit, etal. Always good to see you. That’s your law class for the day, now it’s time for a quick foreign policy pop quiz. Meanwhile, in Poli Sci, some props for the new kid: This exercise in new Reach Across politics could have been written by Julius “Divide and Conquer” Caesar. Hey, what are we calling this thing now … FKATWOT?
Topics: GWOT, Guantanamo, Obama, justice, terrorists
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:24 am Comments (7) on Friday, January 30, 2009
7 Responses to “Justice Delay”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Bwah hah hah! Now we have DIMocrats in charge of single-party government. Now it’s their war.
When it was someone else’s war, DIMocrats wanted to lose it. They did their best to lose it. Now it’s their war and they are eating the faustian bargain.
I repeat, Bwah hah hah.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Dissent is the purest kind of Patriotistic direct legal-action!?
January 30th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Ah, yes. What goes around, comes around. I just love it. This should be interesting since I have never heard that the military judicial system was independent, as is the federal court system. But we will find out I’m sure.
January 30th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Amr, that’s just because you’ve never heard it. In fact, interfering with a military judge’s legal proceedings is an offense under Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. You could also google “unlawful command interference.”
I’m suspicious that the Obama Administration wasn’t aware of this either.
January 30th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
[...] Jules Crittendon also has the link. [...]
January 30th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Charlie:
Ah yes, but Obama is not just any Commander in Chief doncha know.
And btw, the Democrats in Congress were part and parcel of creating the current system. Where was Obama then? What bright idea did he have for an alternative then?
January 30th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
I’m suspicious that the Obama Administration wasn’t aware of this either.
You may be suspicious, but I am disheartened (nay, brought to the brink of despair) that a man elected to be president could be so farking ignorant. Not to mention the so-called “advisors” who are supposed to be guiding him through the labyrinth of American law.