By North America correspondent Leigh Sales

Leaked emails from two former prosecutors claim the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent, and thin on evidence against the accused.

Two emails, which have been obtained by the ABC, were sent to supervisors in the Office of Military Commissions in March of last year - three months before Australian detainee David Hicks was charged and five months before his trial began.

The first email is from prosecutor Major Robert Preston to his supervisor.

Maj Preston writes that the process is perpetrating a fraud on the American people, and that the cases being pursued are marginal.

"I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people," Maj Preston wrote.

"Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."

Maj Preston says he cannot continue to work on a process he considers morally, ethically and professionally intolerable.

"I lie awake worrying about this every night," he wrote.

"I find it almost impossible to focus on my part of mission.

"After all, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it is kind of hard, particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and lawyer."

Maj Preston was transferred out of the Office of Military Commissions less than a month later.

Rigged?

The second email is written by another prosecutor, Captain John Carr, who also ended up leaving the department.

Capt Carr says the commissions appear to be rigged.

"When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," he wrote.

"Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."

Capt Carr says that the prosecutors have been told by the chief prosecutor that the panel sitting in judgment on the cases would be handpicked to ensure convictions.

"You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel," he said.

Significant find

David Hicks' defence lawyer, Major Michael Mori, says the documents are "highly significant".

"For the first time, we're seeing that concerns about the fairness of the military commissions extend to the heart of the process," Maj Mori said.

David Hicks's father, Terry, says the latest revelations confirm what he has suspected all along.

"These commissions weren't set up to release people," he said.

"These commissions were set up to make sure they were prosecuted and get the time that they give them, and the other thing we've said all along, that we believe that this system has been rigged as they call it."

But the Pentagon's Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway, who is a legal advisor to the military commissions, says an investigation has found the comments are based on miscommunication, misunderstanding and personality conflicts.

He says changes have been made in the prosecutors' office.

"I think what we did is work on some restructuring in the office, there was some changes in the way cases were processed, but we found no evidence of any criminal misconduct, we found no evidence of any ethical violations," he said.

Brig Gen Hemingway says he does not know if the Australian Government has been informed of the claims.

"I can't tell you whether they were informed formally, I have so many contacts with representatives of your embassy here in town, the exchange of information has certainly been constant, open and significant but whether or not we got down into the details of this, I really have no recollection," he said.

"We certainly would have shared it with them if we found that there was any evidence of misconduct in the office of the prosecution, but we did not find any such evidence."

'Sufficient evidence'

Brig Gen Hemingway denies that the cases being prosecuted are low-level.

"All of the cases I have recommended that the appointing authority refer to trial, are cases upon which I thought there was sufficient evidence to warrant sending to a fact-finder," he said.

"In each of the four cases which have been referred, the appointing authority John Alterburgh made an independent determination that the evidence was sufficient to warrant trial."

He also denies that the commission panels are being hand-picked to insure detainees are not acquitted.

"I can tell you that any such assertion is clearly incorrect," he said.

"There is absolutely no evidence that it is rigged."

Whether it's true or not, this is exactly the kind of stuff that comes up when you try to do things this way. They should be bringing these people to a real court instead.

Originally posted by Echo2

Leaked emails from two former prosecutors claim the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent, and thin on evidence against the accused.

gasp!!!!!!!

Are you serious?!

Something that stinks that BADLY, under the scrupulously hooooooonest and mooooooral Bush Administration?!?!?!?

It CAN'T be so!!!!!!!

_________________________________

"Perhaps the most dispiriting aspect of the whole sorry Bush chapter has been the collapse of national memory and accountability. One outrage follows the next with dreamlike regularity, lies about aluminum tubes, to 9/11 revelations to Ahmed Chalabi, to the exposing of a CIA operative, to cooked intelligence data, to Abu Ghraib, to torture, to illegal detentions, to lost explosives, and nothing ever happens, no one is ever punished, everything is for the best in the "best of all possible worlds".

lets let them all out, they can go live in echos town, I am sure she would have no problem living next door to these fine gentlemen

I can't imagine that we just plucked these people off of the street. I'm sure they're detained for a reason, and being that they're NOT Americans, I don't see how they're entitled to due process. We'll try them when we get a chance (that process costs a lot of money) - end of story.

Just because we're Americans, doesn't mean everybody under the sun is entitled to be treated the way we are. They're referred to as a citizen's rights, not world rights.

Just because we're Americans, doesn't mean everybody under the sun is entitled to be treated the way we are. They're referred to as a citizen's rights, not world rights. It's called the 14th amendment and human rights ya jerk.

I can't imagine that we just plucked these people off of the street. I'm sure they're detained for a reason, and being that they're NOT Americans, I don't see how they're entitled to due process. We'll try them when we get a chance (that process costs a lot of money) - end of story. Well that a cute little assumption to go along with your cute little blind alligence. the US didn't just pick them up off the street. They actually payed the Warlords in Afghanistan to bring the "al Q" members. We all know that Afghan warlords are justice loving people and would never kidnap random people to make money right?

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
It's called the 14th amendment and human rights ya jerk.
I was speaking in general terms, and you know it, ya jerk! ;)
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Well that a cute little assumption to go along with your cute little blind alligence. the US didn't just pick them up off the street. They actually payed the Warlords in Afghanistan to bring the "al Q" members. We all know that Afghan warlords are justice loving people and would never kidnap random people to make money right?
I'm not calling you a liar, but could you please provide a link. Thanks.

Prae, From what you have been posting it sounds to me like you see America as a very exclusive club that should discriminate against everyone that isn't an American. i.e. We apply human rights to ourselves and become outraged when another country doesn't apply them to us, but we should not have to apply our human rights to people from other countries.

America is the quintessential exclusive country club.

I was speaking in general terms, and you know it, ya jerk! That doesn't even make any sense...you could at least try to lie better than use nonsense obfuscation.

AP: Gitmo Detainees Say They Were Sold
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0531-10.htm

"A former CIA intelligence officer who helped lead the search for Osama bin Laden told AP the accounts sounded legitimate because U.S. allies regularly got money to help catch Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. Gary Schroen said he took a suitcase of $3 million in cash into Afghanistan himself to help supply and win over warlords to fight for U.S. Special Forces."

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
That doesn't even make any sense...you could at least try to lie better than use nonsense obfuscation.
My only point was that I wasn't being specific, so excuse the shit out of me. As far as "human rights" are concerned, show me how our laws are geared for the non-uniformed terrorist combatants we currently have in criminal custody. We're not talking about the goddamned Magna Carta, you know? On a related note, and purely out of curiosity, are you seriously suggesting that these pricks should be entitled to our 14th amendment rights? Hell, as far as I'm concerned, even our own citizens should watch their asses:

http://theworstpageintheuniverse.com/images/civil_blackred.jpg

Nice to know you consider yourself a slave Prea (the shirt...)

And yes youre are goddamn right...anyone who even touches US soil gets 14th amendment rights whether you like it or not.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Nice to know you consider yourself a slave Prea (the shirt...)
Correction: I'm the one with the baton. ;)
Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
And yes youre are goddamn right...anyone who even touches US soil gets 14th amendment rights whether you like it or not.
What the hell are you talking about??? The fucking thing is TITLED Citizenship Rights!!!

Section 1 of the 14th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states very specifically that: all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive that person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny citizens within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 1 of the 14th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states very specifically that: all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive that person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny citizens within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Wow you really are a pathetic loser aren't you?...You changed the wording of the 14th amendment just to try and make me look bad... Man you're desperate...I mean...jesus you're beyond pathetic.

The 14th Amendement reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Correction: I'm the one with the baton. Really? I'd've guessed you were the one in the skirt...
:D

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Wow you really are a pathetic loser aren't you?...You changed the wording of the 14th amendment just to try and make me look bad... Man you're desperate...I mean...jesus you're beyond pathetic.

The 14th Amendement reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Really? I'd've guessed you were the one in the skirt...
:D

The alteration of ANY PERSONS to THAT PERSON still does not change the message that it only applies to citizens.

"Man you're desperate...I mean...jesus you're beyond pathetic."-500lbguerilla

That came back at you :D

My god you people are clueless the 14th amendment protects non-citizens. Go look it up before spouting off your ignorence...

And changing the wording changes the meaning completely. Im just surprised that Prea is pathetic enough to care that much about "winning" an internet debate...

Section 1. All persons BORN or NATURALIZED in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nope, still talks about citizens only.

I know for a fact that you are wrong. And good job ignoring the last 2 sentences all you're provideing is heresay...

+++++++++++++++++++++
The amendment provides a broad definition of national citizenship, overturning a central holding of the Dred Scott case. It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not merely citizens) within their jurisdictions. At the time of adoption, the main intent was to ensure equal protection regardless of race, including some protection of the right to vote in section 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion
+++++++++++++++++++

Now if you don't know what you are argueing do us all a favor and STFU unless you gonna take the time to go find out what it actually means instead of spread you ignorence.

The fact that you don't know what it really means = no problem
The fact that you go on and on when you daon't have a clue what you are talking about and unwilling to educate yourself for 10 seconds worth of reading = unexcusable

Jackass.

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
I know for a fact that you are wrong. And good job ignoring the last 2 sentences all you're provideing is heresay...

+++++++++++++++++++++
The amendment provides a broad definition of national citizenship, overturning a central holding of the Dred Scott case. It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not merely citizens) within their jurisdictions. At the time of adoption, the main intent was to ensure equal protection regardless of race, including some protection of the right to vote in section 2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion
+++++++++++++++++++

Now if you don't know what you are argueing do us all a favor and STFU unless you gonna take the time to go find out what it actually means instead of spread you ignorence.

The fact that you don't know what it really means = no problem
The fact that you go on and on when you daon't have a clue what you are talking about and unwilling to educate yourself for 10 seconds worth of reading = unexcusable

Jackass.


"Going on and on" about it in two posts with minimal comentary is hardly going on and on about something.

"Spreading my ignorance", you mean arguing your point, because you are so radical and blinded you revert to name calling, dodge questions or answers, or just ignore people altogether. Just because i disagree with you does not make me a jackass. Why are you so juvenile?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside- Fourteenth Amendment, United States constitution, section one, line (or sentence) 1

All people born or those who have attained citizenship are the citizens of this country that are granted jurisdiction by the U. S/ government.

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws- 14th Amendment, Us constition, section 1, line (or sentence) 2.

To be in the jurisdiction of the US government as explained earlier in the passage you must be born or naturalized here.

"It requires the states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons (not merely citizens) within their jurisdictions"- 500lbguerilla

But that is incorrect, as stated it says to be within their jurisdiction you must be born or naturalized here (aka having citizenship).

I know for a fact that you are wrong. And good job ignoring the last 2 sentences all you're provideing is heresay...- 500lbguerilla

the section (1) of the 14th amendment is only 2 sentences heavily broken up by ; and ,. And apparently you ignored the first so you misread the second.

Ps- you link is broken

To be in the jurisdiction of the US government as explained earlier in the passage you must be born or naturalized here. Wrong. Juridiction means any US land or Imperial outpost (guam etc).

I have no clue why the formatting screws up my links but it did the same thing when I tried to fix it.

Go to wikipedia and type in "fourteenth amendment"

Or better yet You should type in "jurisdiction"

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Wrong. Juridiction means any US land or Imperial outpost (guam etc).

I have no clue why the formatting screws up my links but it did the same thing when I tried to fix it.

Go to wikipedia and type in "fourteenth amendment"

Or better yet You should type in "jurisdiction"

Yea when the link was broken i checked into it myself. But if you are in Guam, Puerto Rico, etc you are still naturalized as a citizen so under US jurisdiction, or are they not given citizenship?

Anyway, back to the root of the argument. We are the most powerful nation on the earth overall, and so we must be responsible. These non uniformed troops may not be entitled to the same Geneva code and various US rights, but we still treat them as such. We are doing what is right and necessary to care for POWs.
Interrogating a POW for information that regards the safety of american citizens is also right and necessary, we need that information to protect our people.

Wow I love your going from "they aren't protected" to " but, but we have too..."

Well those aren't my words, but yes i do believe even though they are not entitled to the same rights doesn't mean that gives us a free pass to be inhumane towards them

Originally posted by Evakian
Anyway, back to the root of the argument......These non uniformed troops may not be entitled to the same Geneva code and various US rights, but we still treat them as such.

Demonstrably FALSE.

"WE"----- iow, the U.S. --------does NOT treat the prisoners in question as if they had the protection of the **same Geneva Convention** and various US rights.

THAT in itself is what this argument centers around.

These non uniformed troops may not be entitled to the same Geneva code and various US rights, but we still treat them as such. Please explain how the conditions in Gitmo resemble - even slightly - what is specified under the Geneva Convention.
Nice try Prae, but Guerilla's version of the 14th is, in fact, correct. You should really stop copying from those right-wing nut-ball sites and go to the original sources; you would sound a lot more credible that way. Section one of the 14th amendment does apply to these detainees, period: "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "