Secret Trials in the United States

Sunlight is said to be among the best disinfectant, electric light the most efficient policeman.

The U.S. government denies secret study of the practice of foreign-born defendants internationally-mandated rights to a public hearing. But, "[w] e live in dangerous times" is the oft-repeated mantra of governments and officials who have been run successfully the otherwise ordinary civil liberties and rights of citizens and residents of the UnitedStates.

Totalitarian regimes have so historically and currently uses a "need" reasons for the worldwide oppression to justify the millions. In fact, it has the millions of people who have borne the brunt of such atrocities have been on death or concentration camps, gulags and killing fields. Although some might argue that the nature of the terrorist threat to secret trials, the absolute mandate power in the hands of people who are not accountable ultimately undermine public confidence in ourJustice.

As an "indictment" of such unlimited power, only in the last century, millions of citizens worldwide fallen victims of executions, often without the appearance of a fair trial or recognition of their fundamental human rights. The world's governments have repeatedly turned to murder to ethnic, religious and political differences to delete. Just as often blunt, governments have rationalized justice as a tool, without the legitimacy of the evidence - for individuals as aThreat. In addition, an unrestrained government always justify their actions by rally behind the banner of "dangerous times" call for drastic measures.

Should the United States will be a policy of embracing secret procedures, although to (i) hinder international humanitarian law, (ii) appellate court functions, (iii) traditional notions of fairness and (insult iv) of the procedural rules of transparency requires that reasonable studies?

The attacks of 11 September are now part of ournational consciousness. As significant as the Kennedy assassination, these events will not fade from national recognition. We will always know that on 11 September 2001 to celebrate the Al-Qaeda terrorist organization hijacked commercial aircraft used on kamikaze-style attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Unfortunately, almost 3,000 people killed in these attacks.

In response to the attacks of 11 September, the Bush administration declared a state of war against terrorism.As part of this response, the United States born in a policy of secret procedures and processes to embrace foreign citizen to prosecute. The reasons given for the existence of these procedures is that these people are suspected of terrorism and the protection of war-time intelligence is justified.

The unprecedented executive order (the "Order") authorizing this practice was executed in November 2001. Actually, U.S. President George Bush's order, in practice and effect waivedcharged with public criminal proceedings for all foreign nationals, the terrorist acts. The Regulation also be waived for public criminal proceedings, all foreigners suspected of terrorism. Instead of following the order of the mandate, they would all these procedures are carried out by a military commission. This specially created commissions missing, but many of the basic protections for fairness in the civil courts and in U.S. military courts set.

In addition, these procedures, for the most part,contrary to the plain language of international human rights treaties. Such long-standing precedents are the root of our due process system, adopted to ensure full transparency of government policy. For his part, should the U.S. government's position - that secret procedure is not a violation of international law - not remain uncontested. As an "advanced society", the U.S. should embrace the dictates of international law and make these criminal litigants a reasonable, fair,and public prosecution process. Finally, these beliefs are subject to reversal by inspection or complaint.

If the position of the government were adopted, it would mean that would be subject for the foreseeable future, no international citizen against the validity of their massive military commission conviction of criminal responsibility, including execution and life imprisonment. Normally a custodial sentence could be carried out by the not the kind in question. InLight of liberty interest at stake and the risk of errors, military commission trials of terrorist suspects should be made public. It is time to reconsider So for the United State to its practices in this area and to change its rule so that they may have allegedly committed acts of terrorism have public trials. Our government should not be allowed to continue a policy of "just trust me" that I am doing what is best for you. This paternalism is contrary to our democratic values andlong-standing demand of the government that the process remains transparent.

This article presents fundamental questions about the power of the United States, the due process rights of international criminal law litigants and purge it goes with the unprecedented judicial concealment of information, a process that currently threatens the public's confidence in the justice system. This article examines the impact of President George Bush's orders, trying to use military commissions of foreign criminalLitigants. Part one of this article examines the procedural framework of the newly created military commissions, and how these processes do not behave with the traditional notions of fairness. Part two of this article turns to the international human rights standards. Specifically, although the current U.S. policy of full secret trials violates the plain language of international human rights treaties, Part Two considers the question of a right states to derogate from their internationalObligations. The third part examines the arguments for secret trials by military Commission. The fourth part deals with the potentially devastating effects of the unilateral U.S. policy regarding Executive consent in military commissions. criss In addressing this framework, several arguments of moral perspectives of international legitimacy of the debate and ultimately lead to the condemnation of secret experiments in the way of military commissions. In addition, part four discusses how nationalSecurity and confidentiality not to the cultural and religious issues in mandates military commissions address. In addition, part four, the harmful aspects of the U.S. attempt to consent to the use of military commissions to the International Criminal Court dispute.

Secret Trials and Secret Evidence

In addition, classified testimony, evidence and information may be used against the accused. "Hearsay will be allowed. Conversations between defendants and lawyersbe observed in some cases. Discharge detection can be kept secret from suspects. "
A commission may admit a wide range of evidence, would be that in criminal trials in federal courts and courts martial to be admissible, as un-affidavits and other hearsay evidence, forced confessions and well-authenticated physical evidence.

are, in fact, not the rules of fair procedure and evidence. As written, the rules allow the Commission Guantánamo federal levelGovernment, Hamdan on the basis of secret evidence that he never see his lawyers and that is to convict never fully understand. Under these rules not only the government to introduce secret evidence in the process, which is withheld from the accused and his civilian lawyers, but the government can blacken "state secrets" given from the evidence the accused's military defense, have the security clearances. In addition to criminal lawyers, the defendantsto refute not recognized or classified to confront statements, evidence and information.

Military jurisdiction of the Commission

be assured, despite the White House that used military commissions to just "try enemy war criminals" for "crimes against the international laws of war," would expand the crimes charged to military jurisdiction into areas never before as the subject of military justice.

The range of crimes, the material is presented as a "triable by military commission" isvery large and includes a rule as a civilian crime crimes. Military Commission Instruction No. 2 extends the concept of "armed conflict" - the state of things, that the threshold is a prerequisite for any offense referred to as a "war crime" - to individual cases, and even tried one crime. Thus, crimes that may traditionally fallen outside the military court now for the purpose of military commissions under which the "laws of the mantle are recordedWar. "

This unprecedented jurisdictional issues can be achieved is by extending the definition of the term "armed conflict" - the Geneva Convention definition, if "the law of war" is triggered - to "hostile acts" or unsuccessful attempts, such acts, including crimes committing to reach isolated as a "terrorist" or "hijacking", which traditionally fall within the ordinary jurisdiction of the federal courts.

The problem with the process because after the 11th September military commissions, then is thatThey provide no mechanism for a defendant who denies his personal jurisdiction of the Commission over him, that the effect of the protest. The President alone determines that an individual subject of the Military Order, and of that determination, the individual may be indicted for war crimes, although he denies that he or an unlawful combatant, he takes on the order of the three criteria for eligibility.

Impartiality of the finder of fact or lack thereof

In addition, there is no jury, withburden on the State to convict only by a two thirds majority vote in the State to rubberstamp met. Of course, the supposed panel, which stamps the U.S. "two-thirds majority burden is allocated from U.S. officers serving in that capacity made.

Secret Proceedings increase the risk of erroneous determinations

The military commission rules on secret evidence can result in a higher risk of incorrect results. The Hamdan court recognized the crucial role that the defendantplays both in the preparation and presentation of the defense. Under the military rules of the Commission, the defendant can from the knowledge and the general nature of the evidence against him to prevent. With the use of military commissions, the risk that the accused mistakenly convicted is much higher. According to her, his hand that secret trials by military commissions are fallible. President Bush's Executive Order makes the military - the establishment of the government is entrusted with the task ofa war against these individuals - the judge, jury and executioner.

With one paw of his pen, replacing President Bush, the democratic foundations of our legal system with the Commission a military system, in which he or his designee, is the rule and coffee maker, investigator, prosecutor, prosecutor, judge, jury, sentencing court, review of court and jailer or executioner. This system is a radical departure from the central constitutional guarantees as the hearts of Americans to beDemocracy: the right to a presumption of innocence, an independent judiciary, jury, unanimous judgments, the public hearing, due process, and appeals to higher courts. All these safeguards against injustice are gone.

It seems unlikely that the Americans would this practice, if President Bush gave this power to enable, for example, the Dallas Police Department. In addition, the order prohibits effect of all right to a meaningful appeal. In the current study the possibility of secret cases,Appeal would be appropriate given the fact that those cases the stigma attached of life imprisonment and death. But now, the result of the Military Commissions is to avoid permanent international criminal defendants all litigants that due process implies.

Even in cases where the sentence - by meeting the load reaches two-thirds majority - is the execution, as the convicted person has no right to a meaningful appeal. The military commissions do not for a review by a court allow independent ofThe executive branch of government. Review of the commissions' procedure is a specially created review panel by the Secretary of Defense appointed limited. No appeal is addressed to U.S. federal courts or allowed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, a civilian court independent of the executive, the appointments of the court-martial . The President has the final review of the Commission's convictions and sentences.

Everyone convicted of a crime should have the right to use histo review conviction and sentence by a higher tribunal according to law. These criminal parties, but never deny the opportunity to have their debt paid. The right of properly in opposition to the government's effort to secure a person, his liberty is one strip is located in the heart of the procedural law protection under the Constitution. Unfortunately this is not applicable to foreigners accused of committing terrorist acts.

In the absence of a reversal of the position of the United Stateson the implementation of studies mystery, this process threatens the unprecedented judicial concealment of information and practical to allow the power of government can be disabled by the United States. At significant risk for an indefinite period perpetuate such errors as those that may occur, this aspect of the U.S. government deserves the rejection process.

The U.S. arguments for Secret Trials

United States argues that, because terrorists are found worldwide, publicDissemination of classified information would be used by terrorists: (i) adapt their operating methods, (ii) evade detection, (iii) further attack the U.S., its allies or their citizens, or (iv) retaliation against the participants of the secret trial.

White House officials have stated that military courts let the government try, suspected terrorists quickly, efficiently and without endangering public security, classified information or intelligence and methodsOperations. They argue that courts would American jurors, judges and witnesses of the possible dangers of the defendants tried to protect Terroristen. According to some government officials, the government is trying reluctantly captured terrorists - especially leaders of the Taliban and al-Qaida terrorist network - conventional courts, which take their trials and appeals for years, and was left in the glasses.

Specifically, proponents of secret evidence argue that the withholding taxClassified by the accused is necessary because disclosure would jeopardize intelligence-gathering system efforts in the area and dry up valuable information. For example, the accused can experience the highly sensitive and actionable information that he or his attorney may then easily spread to others. Such a scenario is especially dangerous if the accused is a member of a global terrorist network like al-Qaida. Critics of secret evidence, argue on the other side,that classified evidence not disclosed to the basic principles of due process, cripples the ability of lawyers to open an effective defense, and the door to racial and religious prejudice.

Security needs

The government argues that it can offer during the current fighting, secret proceedings and trial more security and protection for all involved.

Many fear that the freedom of the press access to national security concerns compromise. Concerns about a media frenzy around terroristischeStudies and projections that members of al-Qaida terrorist network may be glorified or made into martyrs if they are on public trial all have to be addressed on a case by case basis, not closure orders through the ceiling.

If one concludes that any court will be used to suspected terrorists, will try an additional target for terrorists, then the added security of a U.S. military installation with (i) sophisticated security measures, (ii) limited access, and ( iii isolated) from civilianMetropolitan areas is to keep the rational place to such a procedure. The U.S. government has found that post-trial Taliban, Al Qaeda or terrorist retaliation is a real threat are so secret, is responsible for the proceedings to protect the identity of the participants justice.

Classified Nature of Evidence

Since in the context of the evidence submitted, a U.S. military commission is likely to be better evidence of involvement to protect ongoing military operations and investigations, whichostensibly to continued success of military operations required. The type of classified / sensitive information, it is argued, must be kept secret "includes communications U.S. intelligence sources, identities, skills and methods to collect." Furthermore, because U.S. military are trained panelists Commission already in the maintenance of confidentiality, and have experienced background security investigation, they will process to effectively be able to classified information.

Maintain the secrecyour allies' Information

The U.S. argues that its secret information is also derived from allied intelligence sources. This information was disseminated through public trial, the cooperation with the United States may exercise its allies to "lose vital" information.

Rules of Evidence

Because the evidence is against terrorist fighters argued by the United States have their basis in the areas of combat "active," the submission of such proof will be better served by U.S. militaryCommission rules of evidence because they are run by less flexible and forced formality. The basis for the application of this standard of evidence refers to the manner in which it has received, is maintained and protected in the ongoing military operations, including the recognition of the alleged war-related chaos in terms of demand.

Procedures after conviction

A conviction and sentence become final only after the U.S. President or his deputy, the U.S.Secretary of Defense. The U.S. president and U.S. Secretary of Defense is allowed at the discretion of parole gewähren or reject or modify findings of a guilty verdict for a guilty verdict to a lesser included offense, or reduce, move, commute, or suspend the sentence or a part thereof. "

Foreign Policy and Secret Trials

started as the leader in the transparency of governments, the United States' reputation and leadership by his secret methodPolicy.

Secret Trials Harm the United States' reputation

The United States should consider that their reputation mottled already losing ground as a world leader to take. On the one hand, U.S. allies seek in the United States with the implementation of widely accepted international law. In addition, friendly nations share common legal traditions and the past with the United States. On the other hand, non-allied nations exploit the United States' use of secret methods and processes todenigrate the United States for violations of international law. In addition, such a procedure allows the U.S. enemies on American precedent as a reason for their own injuries and atrocities benefit justified.

U.S. Hypocrisy

In addition, try to military commissions, the crime of terrorism, sending at least two inappropriate messages: (a) the only superpower in the world, should promote the rule of law, can with proper protection for foreign nationals without (if they have at leastremain outside the U.S.) and (b) It is reasonable to do the same for other countries. The former message is not only problematic in and of itself, but it undermines any moral superiority. For example, it seems hypocritical to use the United States on these military commissions, and then criticize other countries like China, for their lack of due process protection.

In addition, a U.S. Department of State official right tone for the secret procedures set controversy,"Secret trials [are] not with due process." On 25 March this year, for example, condemns State Department Spokesman Margaret Tutwiler D. Israel's deportation of four Palestinians to claim that the United States "believes that the charges for misconduct be brought along to be argued in a court based on evidence, public process. "In addition, for his part, condemned the government of the United States or critical of the successive governments on the use of secret trials: Nigeria;Egypt, Peru, China, Syria, Cuba, Iraq and Kuwait.

The use of military contracts to foreign nationals in situations of traditional short war also try problematic precedent that could be used by other countries to (a) crack down on dissidents, the attempt to domestic violence, or (b) U.S. soldiers arrested perpetrate abroad during a peace mission or humanitarian intervention.

Critics also argue that secret tests are bad public relations for the United Statesbecause the outcome of such a procedure is achieved e njoy none of the legitimacy of the results in normal civilian trials.33 More, and not stigmatized as terrorists, as defendants can be regarded as political prisoners - victims, not perpetrators. Some European countries, including Spain, have made it clear that they do not extradite suspects to the United States when a guarantee that the defendant not before a military court because of what they think havetheir suspicions procedures. As such, opponents argue that the United States is "a threat credibility as a world leader.

To the extent that appear studies are less than legitimate, the appearance of a "victor's justice" justice "or what some characterize perhaps as" anti-Muslim justice "is strengthened. Such a phenomenon could turn the administration's efforts to undermine a coalition against for terrorism, and possibly additional incite terrorism. Many European countries have alreadyexpressed concern about the use of military commissions. If U.S. allies are concerned about military commissions, the perception is already hostile to the United States undoubtedly worse.

Problem of legitimacy can also impact on the trials themselves. For example, Spain, first took the position that it does not extradite eight men with complicity in the attacks of 11 September levied if the United States agreed, in order to try in a civilian court. If countries areunwilling to extradite suspects, they can not also be willing to assist in the procurement of key witnesses and evidence. As a result, the United States could implement the ability to actual studies are hampered.

Thus, even if (a) military trials are conducted under prescribed well-planned, fairly neutral regulations by the Secretary of Defense, (b) defendants are represented by the position of the defenders, and (c) The proof is solid, it would be extremely difficult to counter assertions that the procedurewere illegitimate, especially if any of the proceedings closed to the public.

Pernicious aspects of the U.S. mission consent to the use of Military Commissions

A particularly harmful aspect of the current activities against Al-Qaeda terrorists - from the perspective of the fanatical (and not so fanatical) Muslims - is that the United States are anxious to denigrate the religious integrity and personal character of a quarter of our population.
The tragedy of 11September both opportunities and dangers for the United States. A finely calibrated and thoughtful foreign policy towards the Muslim world can have a transformative global impact. It can secure not only the United States, but also prompt the Muslim world towards greater democracy, peace and an important member of the international community. A skin rash and insensitive foreign policy will only increase uncertainty and lead to a prolonged and bloody conflict, is underminedto undermine the world economy and global stability.

Since so much of the U.S. government action in a culturally insulting manner is established, the case against religious militants set directed to go against their personal dignity at the end (and forever). As such, the resulting secret trials and convictions tainted by inherent political inequality. In this sense, for the United States' attempt at a corruption free society and as a world leader in human rights, our core businessfundamental judicial history is less near the meaning. In the case of Al-Qaeda fighters, human rights means to take into account personal and religious integrity that must be taken as the primary problem of how the world looks to the United States as a market leader.

National security and confidentiality not to the cultural and religious issues in mandating Military Commissions address

From the perspective of the fanatical (and not so fanatical) Muslims are ready, the United States to discredit the religiousIntegrity and personal character of a quarter of our population. Since so much of the U.S. government's approach has been calculated at an insult to the citizens in a world of religious and cultural exchange, the United States loses its focus in the fight against terrorism. The worst mistake that the current struggle against terrorism is not necessary, the simple rules in order to foreigners in a culturally and religiously more relativistic way.

As such, the argument that nationalSecurity mandates secrecy not for the fact that the United States is not a war against a quantifiable unit of account. It is not. The United States is fighting an amorphous nature. Religion and culture - that is a mistake that the United States was in the past by an unruly and ill-advised, committed in the Vietnam conflict. Secrecy in the fight against a quantifiable unit can win the day, because hanging the effectiveness and success of the military attacks do be surprised if aEnemy fails to change his tactics against or take precautions. An amorphous enemy of culture and religion is a new and not so new opponent.

The religious fighters has no weaknesses, because his fanatical warfare strategy changes to meet needs. The United States is vulnerable at all times against this threat, public knowledge will be used by information to the workers of a religious crusade convict is meaningless, the security of the United States. The reality must be that, so that public awarenessThis secret method is likely to highlight in a negative way, the huge gap between combatants and religious crusader, and the current government can not afford the perception that in the end, it is the pursuit of these people for their religious beliefs.

CONCLUSION - Reformation

Open courtrooms must be embraced by the citizens for the desired element of the democracy of free debate on law and its application. Public hearings and sentencing to preserve confidence in the rule ofLaw.

Even if the secret hearings are conducted fairly, they are "inherently suspect." Accordingly, the U.S. must reconsider their secret methods and processes of the practice. In fact, the U.S. decision to embrace the secret experiments in contradiction to their own courts of public history.

The U.S. "public trials, and tradition is in response to forfeit the barbaric justice examples that certainly the Spanish example of the Spanish Inquisition, the French abuse of the lettre decachet, and the English Court of Star Chamber.

Moreover, contrary to and un-reviewed secret court proceedings international human rights standards adopted laws to provide transparency of government decision-making mandate. Under normal circumstances, the rights of a foreign citizen by the process can not be extinguished so easily. But if the United States remains the "undisputed actions, international citizens will continue without recourse or acceptable attention should be sentenced to a fair trial. So ifAccount of the attack on due process rights and the risk of corruption and error "to the public and the media must be authorized to review all the" facts "that are the subject of an individual, huge amounts of criminal responsibility."

Of course, a secret procedures and processes in conflict with the policies of our democratic values. This practice undermines our democratic processes.

Embracing secret studies conflict with international humanitarian laws and laws of the United StatesRespect to a minimal due process requirements of a proper adjudicative process and the deference to fact-finder. Even this practice does not fall within a recognized exception to the secrecy, including: (i) the national security, (ii) privacy, or (iii) confidentiality. Moreover, contrary to the practice adopted in international humanitarian law, the law enforcement to ensure transparency.

The secret process currently employed by the U.S. promotes a reduction of public confidence in ourJustice. These procedures represent a threat to freedom and they are contrary to democratic values and democratic processes to form the basis of the American way of life. As such, the U.S. should reverse its policy in which the use of secret trials and procedural transparency, in line with the basic fundamental human rights to embrace, international humanitarian law and due process.

In the long term, the promotion of democracy, political self-determination and human rightsRights should be the overriding goal to be for the U.S. cooperation with the Muslim world. Washington should not support authoritarian regimes that undermine democracy and systematically violate the human rights of its own citizens. In addition, Washington should a program to promote intercultural understanding. Western allies should not only be invited to participate in this global program, but also share the financial burden of the project. American and European Muslims can become a veryimportant bridge between the two worlds and their participation should be active. The goal here is to address the growing anti-Americanism in the Muslim world arrest and to reduce prejudice and hostility towards Islam in the United States.

Even when I make these suggestions, I realize that it is a naive wish a hard-core liberal Muslim sound. So be it. Unless we work to build a relationship that is premised on mutual respect and understanding and accommodatingInterests, we will be condemned to war. Above all, the events of 11 September showed that the United States may be violated at a time when it is the only one, dominant, and undisputed superpower. We live in an increasingly interdependent world, and in this world, our insecurities and interdependent. If other feel secure, we will not be safe. If we want to protect our security, we need to work with others to make them safer. In its security is our security. This is the only solution tothe security dilemma.

The basic idea, a policy that can support as "nice, but together is tough." In an interesting computer game theoretical experiment showed Robert Axelrod (in Evolution of Cooperation), that in the long term, international actors, the first stage was nice and subsequent ones tough (use a tit-for-tat strategy), the most frequently around the The policy of the Flight Safety dilemma.5 "nice but tough", I recommend not only the rationalSense, but will also stand up to a systematic scientific investigation. I also recognize that changes in Washington will not be enough to transform the fundamental nature of the relationship between the U.S. and the Muslim world. But the framework I suggest is certainly the anti-Americanism and the security of the United States and its image in the eyes of Muslims everywhere. If you need more information, you can contact a well qualified lawyer in Los Angeles that youmore fully understand the intricacies of the secret trials. You can Dallas criminal lawyers who require well-versed in the area of secret trials and public criminal trials experienced.

Tags : caraudiomonitor. hdtv settlement debt relief subway franchise mesothelioma law firm