At Guantanamo, a Dubious Start to a Doubtful Trial
By Andrew Cohen
May 6 2012, 1:36 PM ET 8
America must use military tribunals to prosecute terror suspects like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, we've been told by public officials for the past 10 years, because the trials would be safer and swifter than their civilian counterparts and because the defendants, "enemy combatants" all, are not deserving of the same substantive and procedural safeguards that American criminal defendants are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
It's the most important tribunal in American history since Nuremberg, and if this is how it begins I dread to think of how it will end.
<snip>
We've heard all this, and the American people have largely trusted what they've heard. On Saturday, however, at Camp Justice at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, during an arraignment of five terror suspects that lasted 13 hours, it all came undone. The new commission rules may be different than before, but they appear to be no more effective in creating the sort of sober military-court trial that the United States would like the rest of the world to see.
Instead, the arraignment devolved at times into farce. The defendants acted like petulant children. The military judge acted like Lance Ito. The defense attorneys, finally given their opportunity to vent publicly about the restrictions placed upon their clients, made windy speeches instead of answering questions. It's the most important tribunal in American history since Nuremberg, and if this is how it begins I dread to think of how it will end.
<snip>
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/at-guantanamo-a-discordant-start-to-a-dubious-trial/256773/?google_editors_picks=true
