Independent journalist and podcast host John Knefel wrote an article for The Nation in late October detailing his trip to Guantanamo Bay as a witness to the pre-trial hearings of accused 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several other suspected terrorists.
Knefel describes watching the military commission proceedings as like “[watching] a high-stakes game of Calvinball, in which the rules and parameters are established before your eyes.”
From his report we learn that the government is seeking censor any words the defendants speak:
The prosecution, on behalf of the government, has argued that all utterances by the accused should be “presumptively classified” — that is, every possible statement by should be treated as secret government information — but this request has since been weakened.
If it sounds bizarre that the government can lay claim to an individual’s personal experiences and thoughts, well, it is. The prosecution’s argument is that the five defendants are in a “particularly credible position to confirm or deny” elements of the CIA’s rendition, detention and interrogation program. Having been tortured, they are in possession to describe it, and the government has clear incentives to keep them from doing so.
Perhaps the most amazing piece of information to come out of Knefel’s trip, however, is an exchange between him and Gen. Mark S. Martins, Chief Prosecutor in the KSM trial. While mentioned only briefly in the Nation article, this exchange can be found in full on the Oct. 23 episode of Radio Dispatch, the podcast Knefel hosts with his sister, comedian and journalist Molly. Here’s an excerpt:
Knefel: [...] My question is, are we in danger of creating a permanent alternate legal system that is completely separate from the civilian system?
Gen. Martins: Let me address this. I mean, first of all, Congress passed a statute, signed into law by the President, that says this new rule, OK, as of 2009, we’re getting the meaning in effect(?) in this case. Beyond that, I could say I shouldn’t comment — that’s the will of our people! The sovereign will of our people through our legislature! That has meaning.
[...]
Criminal trials, rigorously conducted to the highest standard of proof we know in our law, although I know you’re not satisfied fully, many of you, with the transparency — are transparent. Much more transparent than a lot of other systems, including civil habeas proceedings for determining whether someone’s detained here. I think criminal trials — putting someone on notice of their charges, notwithstanding the concern people have about the (audio wonky) — that’s valuable. That is an instrumentality — an institution for a government that we’ll have to preserve. You can’t do these trials in federal court.
It may not be surprising or any sort of revelation — it’s pretty well known that temporary measures taken by the state have a way of staying permanent, after all — but to hear a government official basically come right out and admit that they’re creating a shadow legal system is still amazing to me.
Amazing! So you guys don't like how the government tries terrorists but insist on the contrary, that the positions of the terrorists and the government be reversed with government officials facing a similar set-up through an international war crimes tribunal?
An international war crimes tribunal is not at all like what our government does to alleged "terrorists".
A war crimes tribunal is one where the accused still has the benefit of an attorney, a fair procedure, and, yes, the presumption of innocence.
Hidden Author, why are you such a Scoop Jackson Democrat?
Because Marxist-Leninist and anarchist–no leftist, in general–revolutionaries are well known for giving out fair trials, right?
I know what you can say: Any fascist disposed of by anarchists without a fair trial deserved it and besides the war environment did not allow for the collection of evidence that a full, fair trial requires. But couldn't the same be said in relation to America and its Taliban terrorist opponents?
Hidden Author, why are you such a Scoop Jackson Democrat?
Both of us are opposed to government intrusions into people's lives–the difference is that I limit that when the government is actually standing up for victims of aggression.
Not the same. The anarchists in Spain (along with other factions on the side of the Republic) were fighting a war of resistance against Franco. America is a world superpower. Those with power automatically suspect.
Those with power? But the Republic was the legal authority in Spain and Franco was merely the chief insurgent.
"Because Marxist-Leninist and anarchist–no leftist, in general–revolutionaries are well known for giving out fair trials, right?"
Of course this is a tu quoque, not an argument.
Professed revolutionaries do all kinds of heinous shit when they have the guns pointed at their enemies. This is admittedly a serious problem with any form of social organization that depends heavily on violence and the exercise of armed might. Perhaps it's a serious problem for having revolutions; or perhaps it's a reason for acknowledging that even the most justifiable revolutions will often be accompanied by evil deeds, — deeds which deserve to be condemned as evil, whatever cause they may have been committed in the name of. In any case, it is certainly not a reason for accepting such deeds as justifiable, let alone accepting or signing off on the institutionalized violence of the national security state.
My recent post Election Results
given that the spanish republic's monopoly on violence had been effectively challenged, calling what the republic had 'legal authority' is stretching it
At any rate, the Spainish anarchists were on the right side of the fight. As Proudhon said, an imperfect republic is superior to even a perfect monarchy.
As kuro said, the Spainish Republic was overthrown by Franco and his thugs. Those who sided with the Republic were seeking to take down Franco. Whatever the faults of the Republic, it wasn't a tyranny.
I don't know, I hesitate to spend too much time refighting the Spanish Revolution yet again, but I do think that experience may have shown that the Republic was not really altogether on the "side" of the Anarchists when it came down to it, and that the Anarchists' "siding" with them, and entrusting as much as they did to a strategic relationship with the Republicans and the Stalinists, may have been a mistake. I think CNT in particular assumed a lot more good faith than was actually there to work with.
Of course this isn't an argument for siding with Franco instead. It's an argument for not siding with any of the warring states when governments go to war with each other.
My recent post Election Results
So all they have to do to get your support is to claim that their actions are in favor of victims of aggression?
Man, that means you have to support almost everything they do.