If they had a hearing where it was determined that they were, and we're told that they did, I don't see what else it is that you'd want done.
For the hearing to be conducted before trained jurists, for the accused to have the right to know the evidence presented against him, and to be represented by counsel, and to question witnesses, and for there to be judicial review of appeals. For evidence obtained by torture to be inadmissible. I'd prefer it if the hearings were public, or at least that some independent persons were able to witness them. All of these were afforded the Nuremberg defendants.
The only one of the above rights that these men have is the right to an appeal, but so far that right has been blocked and fought every step of the way.
As it stands now, the hearings on status are closed, conducted before three military officers, who can hear secret evidence and evidence which was obtained via torture, which the defendant has no right to hear, and the defendant has no right to counsel, or to question witnesses.
This process is under judicial review. I think it will be found unconstitutional.
(Note: I don't have a problem with military officers hearing the cases as long as they are trained jurists.) |
