3-10-10
Judge Advocate SC Sen. Lindsey Graham Has Bumped His Head - Advocates Trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Four Others by Military Tribunals
Wikipedia says Lindsey Graham During the Gulf War, he was recalled to active duty, serving as a Judge Advocate at McEntire Air National Guard Station in Eastover, South Carolina, where he helped brief departing pilots on the laws of war.[4]
So we can understand why Sen. Graham has a bigoted mind set toward military tribunals. Graham was a JAG Officer, loved it, thinks it cool and looks forward to vicariously playing JAG Officer during the Military Tribunals he is throwing his weight around to set up to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed of the 911 fame. The cornerstone of Lindsey's "don't make sense" pertains to 
the 70 story World Trade Building # 7 in NYC adjacent to the Twin Towers which just up and fell down even thought it was not even hit by a plane September 11? Giant building do not up and fall down. Explosives brought the three World Trade buildings down. That's it, that's all. Anyone who thinks otherwise is either uninformed, a victim of big media propaganda, an idiot, a racist or a communi$t making war on the USA. The World Trade buildings going down by explosives proves Khalid is not the mastermind of September 11. Another part of the Khalid hustle is that Khalid was water board tortured 183 times by the CIA. Khalid confessed to being the mastermind of September 11. September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 'waterboarded 183 times' Khalid is not the mastermind of September 11 because World Trade Building # 7 was not even hit by a plane. Khalid confessed to a crime he did not do because he was tortured. It also makes no sense for a person to confess to an crime that will result in that person's death. Another reason we know Khalid confessed to a crime he did not do.
As a new Republican I have not earned my stripes to tell the Party off, but any Republican who thinks its conservative and living by the US Constitution to advocate military tribunals instead of a civil court trial for Khalid in my opinion has lost his/her mind, big time.
Military Tribunals are supposed to be used to try people in the military. Fine. Great. Cool. Neat. Lindsey can play JAG in a military setting until his heart is content. But those of us who read the US Constitution, love it, understand it, do not play JAG, realize Military Tribunals are not used, except when TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. This means Military Tribunals are used when dealing with large number of enemy, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands of soldiers, rounded up, ON US SOIL, and there is a need to determine what to do with them, quickly. If time is not an issue then the US Constitution directs that people who commit crimes in the United States to be tried in civil courts. Time is not of the essence when dealing with Khalid. He has been in custody for years.
Khalid should not be tried by Military Tribunal because the US Constitution tells us to try Khalid in civil court. We also know Khalid is not guilty of being the 911 mastermind because explosives brought the buildings down, not planes. Since we know Khalid is not guilty of being the mastermind of September 11, we know the only reason Khalid confessed to being the mastermind is because the CIA water boarded him 183 times. We know the reason SC Sen. Lindsey Graham wants Khalid tried by Military Tribunal is because Lindsey was a JAG Officer and he is on an ego trip and loves military tribunals. Sen. Graham saying he will press fellow Republicans to vote to close the Guantanamo Bay prison is just another Sen. Graham ego trip and is such a preposterous thought logic makes it a lie.
Lindsey's close Guantanamo promise reminds me of Barack's promise to get our military out of Iraq. Barack Obama's promise to get out troops out of Iraq when he directs our military to bomb with drones in Pakistan and Yemen, steps up rhetoric and military action against Iran, (all unConstitutional and treason) and intensifies military action in Afghanistan is so illogical it can only be classified a lie. Obama cannot do both. Guantanamo Bay prison is the genesis of indefinite detention, torture, and military tribunals. Sen. Graham advocating a military tribunal for 911 patsy Khalid out of one side of his mouth and closing Guantanamo out of the other defies logic. Military tribunals and Guantanamo are two peas in a pod. You can't have one and do away with the other. (Closing Guantanamo and opening another secrete prison does not count as closing Guantanamo, and is lame double talk.) Sen. Graham begging for one more little military tribunal and promising to close Guantanamo is a lie of expediency just like President Obama promising to get our troops out of Iraq and stepping up military action in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Yemen is a lie of expediency.
So a question becomes? In this decade what is the biggest scam and the most lame hustle? Sept. 11? Obama's promise to get troops out of Iraq while intensifying Mid East military operations? Lindsey's promise of one more little military tribunal to try the 911 patsy in exchange for his advocating to close Guantanamo? And of course it is totally and completely "nut o" for anyone to say Obama and Holder don't want military tribunals. Military tribunals is the cornerstone of ruling the USA by Martial Law. 911, wars which generate the debt that leads to the destruction of the dollar and insolvency of the USA, blood in the streets, military tribunals, secrete prisons, torture, surveillance are all dots on Rothschilds and Rockefellers' Satanic path to doing away with the US Constitution and ruling the USA by perpetual Dictators and Martial Law. Lindsey Graham has bought in to the treason.
When Sen. Graham is advocating for a military tribunal to try the 911 patsy, he is working to take our Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights from you and me. Every time a person who is not in the military is tried by Military Tribunal a precedent is established which makes it easier to try Americans who are not in the military by military tribunal. A question becomes. What does the US Constitution's Sixth Amendment give us and what does Military Tribunals take from Americans? Here is the Sixth Amendment.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Pretty clear the benefits of the US Constitution's Fifth and Sixth Amendment to the American people, openness and fairness. Does the Sixth Amendment guarantee the accused gets off? Not hardly. There are more Americans in prison per capita in the USA than in any country on the planet. Why hasn't Switzerland deported Roman Polanski to the USA to face criminal charges? Switzerland and the people of the world believe the US court system can be corrupted and used for propaganda purposes. So why do the bad guys, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, want to do away with our court system which can be and has been corrupted for military tribunals? Because military tribunals are more secretive and more easily corrupted than our easily corrupted court system.
Because prisoners do not have the right of Habeas Corpus, indefinite detention, lack of charges, torture, confessions because of torture, and outright murder of prisoners, Guantanamo prisoners are hiding the truth of US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. Military tribunals will hide the truth of what the US military is doing against US citizens in the United States. Basically this is the reason the bad guys want the 911 patsies tried by military tribunal and not by the US court system. The communi$t$ know it will be less risky for the truth of 911 not to be told to the American people if the 911 patsies are tried by military tribunals than if the 911 patsies are tried in our court system. Trying 911 patsies by tribunals will work as precedents to try Americans by military tribunals. Lindsey Graham has bought into the treason. Why? So Lindsey can play JAG. Will someone please send Lindsey a game of JAG? Forums: JAG: A-Z of JAG game
Would it not be great for the South Carolina Republican Party to call for a recall vote on Lindsey and replace Lindsey with Mark Sanford.
-------------------------------
Habeas corpus (pronounced /ˌheɪbiːəs ˈkɔrpəs/; Latin: You (shall) have the body[1]) is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from their unlawful detention or that of another person. It protects individuals from harming themselves or from being harmed by the judicial system. Of English origin, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
A writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum, also known as "The Great Writ", is a summons with the force of a court order addressed to the custodian (such as a prison official) demanding that a prisoner be brought before the court, together with proof of authority, allowing the court to determine whether that custodian has lawful authority to hold that person; if not, the person shall be released from custody. The prisoner, or another person on his behalf (for example, where the prisoner is being held incommunicado), may petition the court or an individual judge for a writ of habeas corpus.
Habeas Corpus
habeas corpus n. Law A writ issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint. [<Med. Lat., you should have the body] Source: AHD
The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ of habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
------------
Guess who these guys are? Send answer to
randycrow@randycrow.com Hint. They played are role in the Mexican American War.
GOP senator urges Obama to shift on terror trials
Graham says he'll press his GOP colleagues to back Guantanamo closing if Obama backs tribunals
http://wire.antiwar.com/2010/03/07/gop-senator-urges-obama-to-shift-on-terror-trials-3/
Staff
AP News
Mar 07, 2010 14:04 EST
A Republican senator is offering the White House a deal on terror trials.
Sen. Lindsey Graham says that if the president agrees to try alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four accused henchmen in military tribunals, he will press fellow Republicans to vote to close the Guantanamo Bay prison.
Graham, interviewed Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," says reversing Attorney General Eric Holder's plan to try the suspected terrorists in a civilian court in New York City would be seen as an act of leadership by the public.
The White House is reviewing Holder's plan and no new recommendation has been presented to the president. A decision is not expected for several weeks.
Beyond Mohammed's case, Graham also said a new legal framework is needed to deal with the most dangerous detainees at Guantanamo.
"We need a legal system that gives due process to the detainee, but also understands they didn't rob a liquor store," he said.
Closing Guantanamo was a key promise that President Barack Obama made when it took office, but it remains unfulfilled as he battles pressure from both sides of the political aisle. Most Republicans says it's a mistake to shutter the prison and hold trials in civilian courts while Obama's Democratic allies say closing Guantanamo down is a vital step in remaking America's image abroad.
In a full-page ad in Sunday's New York Times, the American Civil Liberties Union says if Obama fails to back Holder, he will be extending the policies of the Bush administration. The ad shows an image of Obama on the left and in subsequent panels moving to the right the image morphs into a portrayal President George W, Bush, who set up Guantanamo for suspected terrorists.
"As president, Barack Obama must decide whether to keep his solemn promise to restore our constitution and due process, or ignore his vow and continue the Bush-Cheney policies," the ad states.
The ACLU says the U.S. criminal justice system has successfully handled more than 300 terrorism cases compared to three in military tribunals.
The White House did not plan to respond to the ACLU ad.
"He's getting beat up badly from the left, but the ACLU theory of how to manage this war I think is way off base," Graham said. "And those who want to waterboard on the right and believe that we should keep (Guantanamo) open forever and use any technique to get information, I think they're equally off base."
Graham said he will need help from senior military officials, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, and former Bush administration officials.
"I can't do it by myself," he said. "I'm going to need people from the Bush administration to try to close (Guantanamo), to put aside partisanship, rally around this president, stand by his side and say, 'Let's close Gitmo safely,'" he said.
Source: AP News
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Graham
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lindsey Graham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham
Military service
Service/branch United States Air Force
Years of service 1982 – 1988 (active)
1988 – present (reserve)
Rank Colonel
Unit Judge Advocate General's Corps
Battles/wars Gulf War
Iraq War
War in Afghanistan
Lindsey Olin Graham (born July 9, 1955) is an American politician from South Carolina. A member of the Republican Party, he is currently the senior United States Senator from that state. He serves on the Armed Services and Judiciary Committees.[1]
Contents [hide]
Graham was born in Central, South Carolina, where his father, Florence James Graham, owned a liquor store. After graduating from high school, Graham became the first member of his family to attend college and joined the Reserve Officers' Training Corps. When he was 21 his mother died, and his father died 15 months later. Because his sister was left orphaned, the service allowed Graham to attend University of South Carolina in Columbia so he could be near home and care for his sister, whom he adopted. During his studies, he became a member of the fraternity Pi Kappa Phi.
Graham graduated from the University of South Carolina with a B.A. in Psychology in 1977 and from the University of South Carolina School of Law with a J.D. in 1981. Upon graduating, Graham was sent to Europe as a military prosecutor, and eventually entered private practice as a lawyer.[2]
[edit]Military service
Graham decided to join the United States Air Force in 1982, and served on active duty until 1988. Following his departure he stayed in the military, joining the South Carolina Air National Guard[3] and the U.S. Air Force Reserves. During the Gulf War, he was recalled to active duty, serving as a Judge Advocate at McEntire Air National Guard Station in Eastover, South Carolina, where he helped brief departing pilots on the laws of war.[4]
In 2004, Graham received a promotion to Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserves at a White House ceremony officiated by President George W. Bush.
Graham served in Iraq as a reservist on active duty for short periods during April and two weeks in August 2007, where he worked on detainee and rule-of-law issues.[5] He also served in Afghanistan during the August 2009 Senate recess.[6]
[edit]Political career on the national stage
[edit]House of Representatives
In 1992, Graham was elected to the South Carolina House of Representatives from a district in Oconee County. In 1994, he became the first Republican to represent South Carolina's Third Congressional District in Washington since 1877. After only one term, he was elected to the United States House of Representatives from South Carolina's 3rd congressional district in the northwestern part of the state after 20-year incumbent Butler Derrick retired. With U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond campaigning on his behalf, Graham won by a large margin; the 3rd District had never elected a Republican before. In his first reelection bid, in 1996, Debbie Dorn, daughter of longtime 3rd District congressman W.J. Bryan Dorn and Derrick's niece, challenged Graham. However, Graham turned back this challenge fairly easily, winning by almost 20 points. He was unopposed for reelection in 1998 and handily defeated an underfunded Democrat in 2000.
In Congress, Graham became a member of the Judiciary Committee during the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1998. Graham opposed some articles, but vigorously supported others. In January and February 1999, after two impeachment articles had been passed by the full House, he was one of the managers who brought the House's case to Clinton's trial in the Senate which did not convict Clinton.[7]
[edit]Senate
In 2002, upon Thurmond's retirement, Graham defeated his Democratic opponent, Alex Sanders, the president of the College of Charleston. Graham became South Carolina's first new Senator since 1965, and the state's first freshman Republican Senator since Reconstruction when sanctions were imposed on South Carolina by Radical Republicans. Graham served as Junior Senator for only two years, serving with U.S. Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings. Graham became Senior Senator in 2005 when Jim DeMint won election to Hollings's seat. In 2008, Graham was easily reelected against North Myrtle Beach native Bob Conley.[8].
[edit]Alito confirmation hearings
An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message. (March 2009)
During the Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito for a seat on the United States Supreme Court, the topic of Alito's membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton was raised by other members of the committee.[9] Critics of Concerned Alumni of Princeton said that, when it was founded, the group opposed the admission of women into Princeton University, and it also opposed affirmative action policies. The founder of Concerned Alumni of Princeton had written racist comments in the group's magazine.[9][10]
While being questioned by Graham, Alito said that he had never written any articles for Concerned Alumni of Princeton, and also said that he "deplored" the racist comments the founder had written.[11] Graham then said, "If you don't mind the suspicious nature that I have is that you may be saying that because you want to get on the Supreme Court; that you're disavowing this now because it doesn't look good. And really what I would look at to believe you're not — and I'm going to be very honest with you — is: How have you lived your life? Are you really a closet bigot?"[11] Alito responded, "I'm not any kind of a bigot, I'm not."[11] Graham then responded, "No, sir, you're not. And you know why I believe that? Not because you just said it — but that's a good enough reason, because you seem to be a decent, honorable man. I have got reams of quotes from people who have worked with you, African American judges."[11]
Alito's wife, Martha-Ann Alito, cried and left the hearing briefly.[12] Rosemary Alito, Samuel Alito's sister, said that Martha-Ann Alito took the comments as a message of support. Rosemary responded, "Martha understood them to be kind comments. ... It was that expression of warmth, the feeling of support for Sam, that triggered an emotional response." After Judge Alito's participation in the hearings ended, Martha-Ann Alito gave Graham a quick hug and he responded that he planned to give her children a book compiling "all the documents that we have from so many different people saying nice things about her husband."[13]
[edit]Committee assignments
--------------------
Judge Advocate General's Corps
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Judge Advocate General (disambiguation).
Judge Advocate General's Corps, also known as JAG or JAG Corps, refers to the legal branch or speciality of any of the United States Armed Forces including the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, and Navy. Officers serving in the JAG Corps are typically called Judge Advocates. The Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Air Force do not maintain separate JAG Corps per se and judge advocates in those services maintain their line officer-status. In the Army and Navy, JAG officers only serve in legal positions.
Judge Advocates serve primarily as legal advisors to the command to which they are assigned. In this function, they can also serve as the personal legal advisor to their commander. Their advice may cover a wide range of issues dealing with administrative law, government contracting, civilian and military personnel law, law of war and international relations, environmental law, etc. (See below.) They also serve as prosecutors for the military when conducting courts-martial. They are charged with both the defense and prosecution of military law as provided in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Highly experienced officers of the JAG Corps often serve as military judges in courts-martial and courts of inquiry.
Contents [hide]
1 Military law
2 Court-Martial
2.1 General Court-Martial
2.2 Special Court-Martial
2.3 Summary Court-Martial
3 Appeals process
4 Other practice areas
5 Special training
6 References
7 See also
8 External links
[edit]Military law
The Uniform Code of Military Justice, also known as UCMJ, is the primary legal code through which all internal military justice matters of the United States are governed. The UCMJ applies to all members of the Military of the United States, as well as members of other federal services (such as NOAA Corps and the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps) when attached to the military. The UCMJ was created by an act of the United States Congress in 1951 in order to establish relatively consistent systems of military justice in all branches of the nation's armed forces. However, in cases involving very minor disciplinary infractions, each service has somewhat differing procedures. (Such cases are governed by UCMJ Article 15 and are called Non-Judicial Punishment, Captain's Mast (Navy), or Office Hours (Marines).)
In addition to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, personnel are subject to the terms of the Constitution, other federal laws, and individual state laws where applicable (e.g., whenever the service member is in the United States, unless on a military base with exclusive federal jurisdiction). When a violation of the UCMJ occurs, the matter is handled by the command of the servicemember. When a violation of a federal or state law occurs, the matter is handled by local state or federal authorities.
[edit]Court-Martial
The forum through which criminal cases are tried in the nation's armed forces is the court-martial. This term also applies to the panel of military officers selected to serve as the finders of fact or "jury". (In other words, they fulfil the role of a civilian jury in trying criminal cases.) The Uniform Code of Military Justice outlines three distinct types of courts martial.
[edit]General Court-Martial
jurisdiction over crimes committed by any person, including civilians, covered by military law at the time the crime was committed
forum for most serious charges such as homicide, sexual assault, drug distribution, or desertion
officers detailed to the court are defense counsel, trial counsel (prosecutor) and military judge
a court martial panel (or "jury") comprises five or more service members, at least one third of whom are enlisted if requested by an enlisted accused
accused service member may request trial by judge alone in lieu of trial by a panel of members, except where the death penalty may be adjudged
maximum sentence that a General Court-Martial can impose is the maximum specified in the specific UCMJ Article (crime) the accused is convicted of, including death
[edit]Special Court-Martial
jurisdiction over crimes committed by any person, including civilians, covered by military law at the time the crime was committed
forum for intermediate offenses such as battery, assault, larceny (theft), minor drug-related offenses, unauthorized absence, disrespect, disobedience, and similar crimes
officers detailed to the court are defense counsel, trial counsel (prosecutor) and military judge
Special Court-Martial panel comprises three or more members, at least one third of whom are enlisted if requested by an enlisted accused
accused service member may request trial by judge alone in lieu of trial by a panel of members
regardless of what crime is charged at a Special Court-Martial, the maximum sentence that can be adjudged is 12 months confinement, forfeiture of two-thirds pay for 12 months, reduction in rank, bad conduct discharge, and a fine
a Special Court-Martial cannot confine or dismiss an officer
[edit]Summary Court-Martial
jurisdiction over crimes committed by enlisted personnel only
forum for minor offenses such as petty theft
Special Court-Martial comprises a single officer whose pay grade should not be below O-3
maximum sentence is one month confinement, forfeiture of two-thirds pay, reduction in rank to E-1
Summary Courts-Martial may not adjudge punishments of confinement with out hard labor or reduction except the next inferior pay grade for accused who are in the pay grade of E-5 or greater
can be refused by the accused, in which case the matter is normally referred to a Special Court-Martial
[edit]Appeals process
The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides for several tiers of appeal. All cases are reviewed by the commander convening the court (the convening authority) who, as a matter of command prerogative, may approve, disapprove, or modify the findings and/or sentence. The commander may not approve a finding of guilty for an offense of which the accused was acquitted nor increase the sentence adjudged. A convicted service member may submit a request for leniency to the convening authority prior to the convening authority's approval of the court-martial sentence.
Each military service and the Coast Guard has a Court of Criminal Appeals, which is composed of panels of three appellate military judges:
Army Court of Criminal Appeals
Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals
These courts review all cases in which the approved sentence includes death, a punitive discharge, or confinement for at least a year, and all cases referred to it by the service Judge Advocate General. The court of criminal appeals "may affirm only such findings of guilty and the sentence or such part of the sentence, as it finds correct in law and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. In considering the record, it may weigh the evidence, judge the credibility of witnesses, and determine controverted questions of fact, recognizing that the trial court saw and heard the witnesses." Article 66(c), UCMJ.
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) consists of five civilian judges appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, to 15-year terms. The CAAF must review cases from all of the military services in which the court of criminal appeals has affirmed a death sentence, cases the Judge Advocates General order sent to the court, and cases appealed from the court of criminal appeals by the accused in which the CAAF finds good cause to grant the petition for review. Unlike the service courts of criminal appeals, the CAAF "shall take action only with respect to matters of law." Article 67(c), UCMJ. Decisions of the CAAF are "subject to review by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari." Article 67a, UCMJ; this merely confirms Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, granting the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in all US cases where it does not have original jurisdiction.
Cases not meeting the criteria for review by the service courts of criminal appeals are reviewed in the office of the service Judge Advocate General. Article 69, UCMJ. A death sentence "may not be executed until approved by the President. In such a case, the President may commute, remit, or suspend the sentence, or any part thereof, as he sees fit. That part of the sentence providing for death may not be suspended." Article 71(a), UCMJ.
[edit]Other practice areas
Besides prosecuting, defending, and presiding over courts-martial, military attorneys advise commanders on issues involving a number of areas of law. Depending on the service, these areas may include the law of war, the rules of engagement and their interpretation, and other operational law issues, government contract law, administrative law, labor law, environmental law, international law, claims against the government (such as under the Federal Tort Claims Act), and information law (such as requests for information in the possession of the military under the Freedom of Information Act). Military attorneys also advise individual servicemembers, military retirees, and their families regarding personal civil legal problems they may have, including drafting wills, fending off creditors, and reviewing leases.
[edit]Special training
In addition to being licensed attorneys in any state or territory of the U.S., all military attorneys undergo specialized training to qualify as judge advocates, allowing them to act as trial or defense counsel at military courts-martial. Specialized training takes place at one of three military law centers:
The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School (U.S. Army) in Charlottesville, Virginia. (link)
Naval Justice School in Newport, Rhode Island. (link)
Air Force Judge Advocate General School at Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama. (link)
Naval Justice School is the primary training center for Navy, Marine and Coast Guard JA's. Most Judge Advocates will take additional classes at more than one of these facilities during their time in the JAG Corps.
The Army's JAG School is the only military law center that has full American Bar Association accreditation. Its graduate course, leading to a Master of Laws degree, is open to Judge Advocates from all service branches.
--------------------
ACLU Ad Challenges Military Commissions
by William Fisher, March 09, 2010
Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum
Civil libertarians hit back hard Sunday at reports indicating that the Barack Obama administration is about to cave in to pressure from Congress and local groups in New York City and is not only considering transferring the cases of suspected terrorists to another federal court, but even moving them to the military commission system.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) purchased a full-page advertisement in Sunday’s New York Times, urging the president to stick to the Justice Department’s original plan to try "high-value" terror suspects in the civilian criminal justice system.
The ACLU said military commissions are "a second class system of justice which should be shut down for good. The Constitution is not optional, and the rule of law must be restored."
The ad features a picture of President Obama morphing into a picture of former President Bush.
"What will it be, Mr. President? Change or more of the same?" it asks.
"Candidate Barack Obama vowed to change the Bush-Cheney policies and restore America’s values of justice and due process. Many of us are shocked and concerned that right now, President Obama is considering reversing his attorney general’s decision to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court."
It notes the U.S. criminal justice system "has successfully handled over 300 terrorism cases compared to only three in the military commissions."
The ad urges readers to "Tell President Obama not to back down on his commitment to our justice system, and to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court. Remind the world that America stands for due process, justice, and the rule of law."
Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, said the organization placed the ad because "it’s critical that Americans know what is at stake here: nothing less than America’s commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law."
Other legal authorities have been blunt in their criticism of the Obama administration.
Prof. David J. R. Frakt, director of the Criminal Law Practice Center at Western State University College of Law, told IPS, "Many of the crimes alleged to have been committed by detainees at Guantanamo are not crimes under the law of war and do not belong in military commissions. If military commissions are the only option, this may preclude some detainees from being tried at all."
Frakt, a Lt. Col. in the Air Force Reserve, was appointed to defend Guantanamo detainee Mohammed Jawad, an alleged combatant facing charges for events that took place when he was a minor.
In 2008, he challenged the role of the legal advisor to the convening authority – the number two in the Office of Military Commissions – Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, in choosing his client for trial.
Frakt argued that Hartmann had "exercised unlawful command influence." Hartmann was widely quoted as saying the prosecution should choose to charge captives based on whether their trials would "capture the imagination of the American people."
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell joined dozens of retired military officers in encouraging the administration to use the civilian criminal justice system.
In a television interview, he said, "I don’t know where the [Republican] claim comes that we are less safe. … In eight years the military commissions have put three people on trial. Two of them served relatively short sentences and are free. One guy is in jail."
Meanwhile, he said, "The federal courts, our Article III, regular legal court system, has put dozens of terrorists in jail and they’re fully capable of doing it. So the suggestion that somehow a military commission is the way to go isn’t … borne out by the history of the military commissions."
As recently as two weeks ago, the Justice Department appeared to be steadfast in its commitment to civilian courts. "There is no precedent in the history of our nation in which Congress has intervened in such a manner to prohibit the prosecution of particular persons or crimes," the department said in a statement.
The administration appeared to be on board. The president has made his preference for civilian courts widely known.
John Brennan, assistant to the president and deputy national security advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said last week, "Cries to try terrorists only in military courts lack foundation. There have been three convictions of terrorists in the military tribunal system since 9/11, and hundreds in the criminal justice system – including high-profile terrorists such as [the shoe-bomber, Richard] Reid and 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui."
But the political backlash was already growing. Most congressional Republicans believe that military commissions are the correct vehicles for trying suspected terrorists. They also believe that those who cannot be tried in either civilian court or military commissions should be held indefinitely, without trial or charge.
Some of these congresspersons grudgingly acknowledge the Supreme Court’s ruling that all detainees must have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts – the habeas corpus right. But others would deny this right, absent a Supreme Court ruling.
At the same time, some Democrats – looking toward the 2010 elections – are fearful that they will be called out as being "soft on terrorism" and are therefore either remaining silent or adopting the Republican line.
Congress threw an early monkey wrench into administration plans to bring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. for trials and to house those convicted in an Illinois prison the government was set to purchase.
"Not in my backyard" was the frightened cry that went up from Congress – which barred the president from moving any prisoner to the U.S. without their consent.
The wrath of right-wing politicians, activists, and commentators reached a new level last week when Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, launched an attack on seven lawyers in the Justice Department.
She tagged the lawyers as "al-Qaeda sympathizers" because the law firms they worked for before joining the government defended Guantanamo prisoners, often on a pro bono basis. Cheney called them "The al-Qaeda Seven."
"Keep America Safe," the organization she heads along with William Kristol, a prominent conservative publisher, has launched an Internet ad demanding that the identities of the seven lawyers be revealed.
Condemnation of the Cheney ad came from scores of lawyers; law professors; Ted Olson, who served as George W. Bush’s solicitor general; and the American Bar Association. Carolyn Lamm, president of the American Bar Association, called the Cheney ad "a divisive and diversionary tactic to impugn the character of lawyers who have sought to protect the fundamental rights of unpopular clients."
She said that lawyers have an ethical obligation to "provide representation to people who otherwise would stand alone against the power and resources of the government – even to those accused of heinous crimes against this nation in the name of causes that evoke our contempt."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 20, 2009
September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 'waterboarded 183 times'
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6130165.ece
(AP)
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
CIA interrogators used the controverisal waterboarding technique 183 times on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, attacks and 83 times on another al-Qaeda suspect, according to The New York Times.
A 2005 Justice Department memorandum revealed that the simulated drowning technique was used on Mohammed 183 times in March 2003.
Abu Zubaydah, the first prisoner questioned in the CIA's overseas detention programme in August 2002, was waterboarded 83 times, although a former CIA officer had told news organisations that he had been subjected to only 35 seconds under water before agreeing to tell everything he knew.
President Barack Obama has banned the use of waterboarding, overturning a Bush Administration policy that it did not constitute torture.
RELATED LINKS
British prosecution fear over US torture
The torture memos: Obama's truth and reconciliation
The memo is one of four authorising “harsh interrogation” that were declassified by the Obama Administration last week. They show that the CIA based more than 3,000 intelligence reports on the questioning of “high-value” terror suspects from September 11, 2001, to April 2003.
According to The New York Times, some copies of the memo on Mohammed appeared to have the number of waterboardings used on him redacted while others did not.
A footnote to another 2005 Justice Department memo said that waterboarding was used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the CIA rules permitted, the newspaper claimed, while a separate footnote said that the use of the harshest techniques appeared to have been “unnecessary” in Abu Zubaydah's case.
On Saturday, The New York Times claimed that Abu Zubaydah had already given all the information he knew before he was subjected to waterboarding.
Officials in the Bush Administration had claimed that harsh interrogation techniques were necessary to get information but the number of times Mohammed was subjected to waterboarding will raise questions about its efficacy and about assertions from officials that the methods were used under strict guidelines.
Mr Obama, who will make his first visit to the CIA headquarters today, does not intend to prosecute Bush Administration officials who devised the policies that led to the harsh interrogation techniques, the White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said on Sunday.
Mr Obama has already made clear that he did not believe that those who carried out the interrogations should be prosecuted. Announcing the release of the documents last week, he said: "It is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution."
He did not mention the officials but Mr Emanuel told ABC television that the President did not want them prosecuted. Mr Obama believed that they "should not be prosecuted either and that's not the place that we go".
---------------------------------------------------------------
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.