Pentagon Sets Rules for Detainee Trials

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Would you rather compromise our intelligence gathering methods and agents -- which could lead to serious setbacks in the GWOT; or, most importantly, to the death of said agents...?

just curious...

This is a total non sequitur and is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
how so? Most of the inadmissible evidence in question is essentially classified information that could/would lead to the compromise of our gathering methods and agents... so tell me Don, how is that irrelevant to the discussion again?

@Orbyte - so you say son, so you say.

It's irrelevant because we're not talking about leaking it to the Washington Post, we're talking about sending an innocent person to jail because the government has declined to release information that would set him free. Protecting sources and methods is important, but it seems like we've passed the line on that quite a while ago. And any trial where the prosecution can withhold evidence at will is basically a kangaroo court. You can't simply wave around "but we're protecting our sources and methods" and expect that to silence the debate.

Edit: As for your snarky comment to Orbyte, I've got a little advice. Condescension would work better if you were smarter. Just a thought...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Edit: As for your snarky comment to Orbyte, I've got a little advice. Condescension would work better if you were smarter. Just a thought...
right back at ya Rainy. Go ahead and stick up for your lefty buddies... but next time, maybe you should read the smart-assed unfounded crap he wrote about me before judging my response. Given the childishness of his initial personal attack, I personally think that I was nice to the poor kid... who knows... maybe you did read his childish attack and somehow justified it in your head because he happens to be on your side..? yes? no? maybe so?...

I'm always nice to you too Rainy-poo... what's the matter tonight? Have a bad day at your cash register? Need a hug?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Seems reasonable to me. A judge will get to review the information and how it was obtained and then will rule on whether it should be allowed or not.

As usual the people who complain about this don?t offer any alternative of their own.
If this is so important to the American people how come it wasn?t part of the Democrats 100 hours?

I say we call them POWs and let them rot till the 'war' is over.
What 'war' are you talking about, poofjohn?

The "WAR" in Afganistan was supposedly over some years ago. You don't mean the little detour called Iraq, shouldn't they try Iraqi prisoners in Iraqi courts
Most of the people in Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq.

The war I am talking about is the war on terror, or the war that these guys are fighting. They call it 'jihad' themselves, which of course means holy war. So tell them they are POWs until their jihad comes to an end.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Edit: As for your snarky comment to Orbyte, I've got a little advice. Condescension would work better if you were smarter. Just a thought...
right back at ya Rainy. Go ahead and stick up for your lefty buddies... but next time, maybe you should read the smart-assed unfounded crap he wrote about me before judging my response. Given the childishness of his initial personal attack, I personally think that I was nice to the poor kid... who knows... maybe you did read his childish attack and somehow justified it in your head because he happens to be on your side..? yes? no? maybe so?...

I'm always nice to you too Rainy-poo... what's the matter tonight? Have a bad day at your cash register? Need a hug?

Hmm, fair enough. Actually, I think stuff like what Orbyte said is best left out of the conversation. But when it comes down to smart-ass comments vs condescending comments, I tend to lean in favor of the smart asses.

But point well taken, that was my bad
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Seems reasonable to me. A judge will get to review the information and how it was obtained and then will rule on whether it should be allowed or not.

As usual the people who complain about this don?t offer any alternative of their own.
If this is so important to the American people how come it wasn?t part of the Democrats 100 hours?

I say we call them POWs and let them rot till the 'war' is over.
What 'war' are you talking about, poofjohn?

The "WAR" in Afganistan was supposedly over some years ago. You don't mean the little detour called Iraq, shouldn't they try Iraqi prisoners in Iraqi courts
Most of the people in Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq.

The war I am talking about is the war on terror, or the war that these guys are fighting. They call it 'jihad' themselves, which of course means holy war. So tell them they are POWs until their jihad comes to an end.

But it's not like they are all part of some big organization like in a traditional war. Hell, they might not even be terrorists at all. You keep talking like they all get together and have a big meeting where they set policy. But the war on terror is not a traditional war against a traditional nation state, it really has more in common with police work than military action, so applying the same rules to prisoners seems a little out of place.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
The first thing we need to figure out is the purpose of these detentions and tribunals. If it's justice we seek, then it simply can't be served in secret, or with secrets, something that Jefferson, Washington and the rest believed with all their hearts over 200 years ago. Trials and evidence must be public to be fair- it's just that simple. And no truly thinking conscientous citizen would want it any other way, since the opportunities for abuse are simply too great, the threat to individual liberty too grave.

The easiest way to cut through the crap is to turn it all around, look at it from the other side. What if the detainees were Americans locked up in some foreign land? Would the proposed tribunals satisfy our concerns for them to receive fair trials? Obviously not. We'd call it tyranny, and we'd be right.

Bring forth the accused- stand them up in front of a standard public civilian or military court of law, read the charges against them, bring forth the evidence and testimony, allow them every chance to defend themselves. Otherwise, turn them loose.

This is America, fer crissakes, the mightiest nation the world has ever seen. To claim that anything revealed through such a process could seriously compromise National Security is absurd, and worse- it's an acceptance of fearmongering, and an act of cowardice.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Edit: As for your snarky comment to Orbyte, I've got a little advice. Condescension would work better if you were smarter. Just a thought...
right back at ya Rainy. Go ahead and stick up for your lefty buddies... but next time, maybe you should read the smart-assed unfounded crap he wrote about me before judging my response. Given the childishness of his initial personal attack, I personally think that I was nice to the poor kid... who knows... maybe you did read his childish attack and somehow justified it in your head because he happens to be on your side..? yes? no? maybe so?...

I'm always nice to you too Rainy-poo... what's the matter tonight? Have a bad day at your cash register? Need a hug?

Hmm, fair enough. Actually, I think stuff like what Orbyte said is best left out of the conversation. But when it comes down to smart-ass comments vs condescending comments, I tend to lean in favor of the smart asses.

But point well taken, that was my bad
the same is true for my cash-register remark. my bad

you're a stand-up guy. thank you.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
This is America, fer crissakes, the mightiest nation the world has ever seen. To claim that anything revealed through such a process could seriously compromise National Security is absurd, and worse- it's an acceptance of fearmongering, and an act of cowardice.
Revealing the information gathered through collection is as good as revealing a source... revealing a source is as good as signing a death warrant for the source, and anyone associated with that source.

Not only is it mortally dangerous to good people, revealing the information also weakens our entire security posture. Losing agents and sources would make it more dangerous for the troops on the ground in combat zones, and civilians at home on "safe ground."

Are you willing to cripple our intelligence networks and get good people killed just to make sure all the evidence was made public? So you don't trust very senior US military officers to render an honest and moral decision behind closed doors?

This isn't fear-mongering, this is the way intelligence gathering works...

...or so I've heard.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
That's alright. I'm sure this is what the founding fathers would have wanted for this country anyway.


Why people who arent part of our citizenship should be granted the rights of being a citizen of the United States doesnt make sense to me.

Why they shouldn't is what confuses me.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Ever the obtuse apologist, eh, Palehorse?

"So you not trust very senior military officers to render an honest and moral decision behind closed doors?"

That would be correct. I doubt there's enough real evidence against most of the detainees for the prosecutors not to be laughed out of court.

"National Security" has become the Bush Admin's all purpose dodge- they showed how much they care about intelligence networks and sources when they outed Valerie Plame and her cover employer... then protected the perps.

 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
So you not trust very senior military officers to render an honest and moral decision behind closed doors?

I don't trust anyone making decisions behind closed doors. The military even less.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Jhhnn @ miketheidiot -
So, I'll take that to mean that you couldn't care less about the good people who act as agents and sources in the GWOT? They're disposable to you?

ok, got it.

ps: those directly involved in outing Plame are f*ckwads. welcome to their camp.
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Seems reasonable to me. A judge will get to review the information and how it was obtained and then will rule on whether it should be allowed or not.

As usual the people who complain about this don?t offer any alternative of their own.
If this is so important to the American people how come it wasn?t part of the Democrats 100 hours?

I say we call them POWs and let them rot till the 'war' is over.
What 'war' are you talking about, poofjohn?

The "WAR" in Afganistan was supposedly over some years ago. You don't mean the little detour called Iraq, shouldn't they try Iraqi prisoners in Iraqi courts
Most of the people in Gitmo were picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq.

The war I am talking about is the war on terror, or the war that these guys are fighting. They call it 'jihad' themselves, which of course means holy war. So tell them they are POWs until their jihad comes to an end.

A "war on terror" is not an actual war. It is a nonsense term cooked up that could allow the ones in power to always claim a "war" is going on. Did the "war on drugs" also give these same powers?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
This is America, fer crissakes, the mightiest nation the world has ever seen. To claim that anything revealed through such a process could seriously compromise National Security is absurd, and worse- it's an acceptance of fearmongering, and an act of cowardice.
Revealing the information gathered through collection is as good as revealing a source... revealing a source is as good as signing a death warrant for the source, and anyone associated with that source.

Not only is it mortally dangerous to good people, revealing the information also weakens our entire security posture. Losing agents and sources would make it more dangerous for the troops on the ground in combat zones, and civilians at home on "safe ground."

Are you willing to cripple our intelligence networks and get good people killed just to make sure all the evidence was made public? So you don't trust very senior US military officers to render an honest and moral decision behind closed doors?

This isn't fear-mongering, this is the way intelligence gathering works...

...or so I've heard.

You won't get any disagreement from me on that point, but there is a reason that law enforcement and intelligence work are two separate disciplines. You're right, making sensitive intelligence information public is a very bad idea, but trials with secret evidence don't seem like a very good idea either. I DO trust most judges, in and out of the military, to generally make honest and moral decisions, but I fundamentally don't trust a SYSTEM that allows all such decisions to be made behind closed doors. And even if the judges are totally trustworthy, the fact that the defendant doesn't know what evidence is being presented against him could severely hamper his ability to defend himself. There is a reason BOTH sides have lawyers.

There is, unfortunately, no perfect answer, but I think there is room for a decent compromise. Rather than simply allowing secret evidence in every situation, it should be disallowed unless specially reviewed further up the chain. The average rank and file terrorist or insurgent we might want to try can probably be convicted on evidence that is not secret, leaving the sensitive information totally out of the case. When the only evidence against the defendant is too sensitive to make public, it can be reviewed on a case by case basis at a higher level. This seems like a good way to protect "secret evidence" from being used to convict everyone without even the possible chance of them defending themselves while also allowing sensitive information to be used when necessary. I also think it would be a decent idea to have an appointed advocate to represent the defendant behind closed doors in the cases where secret evidence is being used. Not his lawyer, but maybe a military lawyer who is cleared and understands the necessity of keeping sensitive information to himself.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Jhhnn @ miketheidiot -
So, I'll take that to mean that you couldn't care less about the good people who act as agents and sources in the GWOT? They're disposable to you?

ok, got it.

ps: those directly involved in outing Plame are f*ckwads. welcome to their camp.

Indeed. While I admit that the "national security" card has been abused in the past, and is probably still being abused, there ARE situations where sensitive intelligence information really can't be revealed without hurting this country.
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Would you rather compromise our intelligence gathering methods and agents -- which could lead to serious setbacks in the GWOT; or, most importantly, to the death of said agents...?

just curious...

This is a total non sequitur and is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
how so? Most of the inadmissible evidence in question is essentially classified information that could/would lead to the compromise of our gathering methods and agents... so tell me Don, how is that irrelevant to the discussion again?


The article is about admitting evidence that would typically be excluded (i.e., hearsay and evidence gathered through torture or coercion). It has nothing to do with excluding or withholding classified info. Moreover, as I would think you'd know if your military background were what you says it is, it is perfectly possible to conduct classified trials with sealed records to protect against unwitting disclosure of classified info - the military regularly conducts classified courts-martial.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,347
8,434
126
the hearsay rule has more holes in it than swiss cheese, anyway. if you can't get hearsay evidence before the trier of fact you're probably a bad lawyer.

i'd like to see the hearsay rule done away with. they don't use it anywhere else and they seem to get along just fine.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
From Palehorse74-

So, I'll take that to mean that you couldn't care less about the good people who act as agents and sources in the GWOT? They're disposable to you?

Not disposable, at all. OTOH, you're projecting, extrapolating the existence of such persons wrt the detainees, and also wrt any danger posed to such sources.

Which is the beauty of such a strawman argument, of invoking facts and consequences not in evidence, at all.

If the Admin believes that they'd reveal the identities of people needing protection, then they can institute an international version of the witness protection program. Which may be necessary wrt the few high value detainees recently moved to Gitmo from other secret facilities.

Most of the other detainees were simply fingered for reward money, foreigners, convenient targets of greed, unable to defend themselves against rumor in the context of the need for the Admin to show that they're tough on terror. It's just a new twist on the whole boogeyman method of manipulating public opinion...

The truth is that no terrorist organization would touch any of the detainees with a pole. Having been identified as suspect and incarcerated for years, the chances of them being unreasonable liabilities or double agents is entirely too real. Even if they were AlQ or Taliban, their careers in that realm are over.

As for Rainsford's concept of reviewing secret evidence further up the chain, I'd offer that's probably the worst possibility. How about if Dubya or Gonzalez reviews it? They're clear at the top... and given the current admin, the closer ot the top you get, the more likely things are to be political, and therefore corrupt... Maybe Karl Rove could review the evidence? There's a concept...
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Palehorse74-

So, I'll take that to mean that you couldn't care less about the good people who act as agents and sources in the GWOT? They're disposable to you?

Not disposable, at all. OTOH, you're projecting, extrapolating the existence of such persons wrt the detainees, and also wrt any danger posed to such sources.

Which is the beauty of such a strawman argument, of invoking facts and consequences not in evidence, at all.

If the Admin believes that they'd reveal the identities of people needing protection, then they can institute an international version of the witness protection program. Which may be necessary wrt the few high value detainees recently moved to Gitmo from other secret facilities.

Most of the other detainees were simply fingered for reward money, foreigners, convenient targets of greed, unable to defend themselves against rumor in the context of the need for the Admin to show that they're tough on terror. It's just a new twist on the whole boogeyman method of manipulating public opinion...

The truth is that no terrorist organization would touch any of the detainees with a pole. Having been identified as suspect and incarcerated for years, the chances of them being unreasonable liabilities or double agents is entirely too real. Even if they were AlQ or Taliban, their careers in that realm are over.

As for Rainsford's concept of reviewing secret evidence further up the chain, I'd offer that's probably the worst possibility. How about if Dubya or Gonzalez reviews it? They're clear at the top... and given the current admin, the closer ot the top you get, the more likely things are to be political, and therefore corrupt... Maybe Karl Rove could review the evidence? There's a concept...
once again it's obvious that you do not have any clue about the intelligence gathering process. What you dismiss as "strawman" is actually reality. Everything you say is nothing more than your naive uneducated civilian perspective on the entire process, without any firsthand experience or actual knowledge of the subject being discussed. In other words, you're only guessing that my argument is "strawman" in nature.

Well I'm here to clue you in: you're wrong.

If the "evidence" against most of the detainees is disclosed, it would endanger the lives of real agents and sources. That is entirely unacceptable.

Rainsford is on to something with his suggestion of closed-door sessions wherein cleared attorneys review the information. While even that is dangerous and violates the concepts of compartmentalization, it may be possible as long as the defendant himself is not given the information. I know that the concept of hiding evidence from the defendant is difficult to swallow, but in the case of classified information, releasing it to a prisoner is as good as publishing it on the front page of the NYT.

The entire challenge is to find a method that allows us to try the detainees while simultaneously protecting our agents and sources from discovery. You might not believe it, but the smallest leak, of the most unremarkable information, could trigger a chain of events that leads to the death of good people; or the compromise of productive intelligence networks.

These concepts and their impact on real lives is very hard to explain to civilians and others not involved in the GWOT. for them I can only suggest that they sign up for some courses in Intelligence Operations to better understand the systems and challenges involved. There are plenty of public courses offered at well-established Universities that would at least give you some understanding of the real system.

be safe...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
If the "evidence" against most of the detainees is disclosed, it would endanger the lives of real agents and sources. That is entirely unacceptable.

Repeating a strawman doesn't make it any less of one, Palehorse. You speak as if you have intimate knowledge of the alleged "evidence" against the detainees, when you obviously don't, and when there likely isn't any in many instances. Suspicion and innuendo are not evidence, nor is gossip repeated and embellished for cash rewards...

Just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true, and I'd suggest that's particularly the case when it comes to the Bush Admin and their WoT. Why should any rational person trust them in the slightest? Their record simply can't support any trust whatsoever, and I think we both know that.

Which is not to say that I'd support such actions from any Admin, just that it's particularly suspect when dealing with known liars, cheats, thieves and charlatans... people who have no moral compunctions whatsoever beyond winning at any cost...
 

shadow9d9

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
8,132
2
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
If the "evidence" against most of the detainees is disclosed, it would endanger the lives of real agents and sources. That is entirely unacceptable.

Repeating a strawman doesn't make it any less of one, Palehorse. You speak as if you have intimate knowledge of the alleged "evidence" against the detainees, when you obviously don't, and when there likely isn't any in many instances. Suspicion and innuendo are not evidence, nor is gossip repeated and embellished for cash rewards...

Just because you believe something doesn't mean it's true, and I'd suggest that's particularly the case when it comes to the Bush Admin and their WoT. Why should any rational person trust them in the slightest? Their record simply can't support any trust whatsoever, and I think we both know that.

Which is not to say that I'd support such actions from any Admin, just that it's particularly suspect when dealing with known liars, cheats, thieves and charlatans... people who have no moral compunctions whatsoever beyond winning at any cost...


Palehorse would be perfect if he only lived in Salem for the witchtrials!
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
66
91
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the hearsay rule has more holes in it than swiss cheese, anyway. if you can't get hearsay evidence before the trier of fact you're probably a bad lawyer.

i'd like to see the hearsay rule done away with. they don't use it anywhere else and they seem to get along just fine.

This is pretty well completely inaccurate. Notwithstanding the various exceptions to the hearsay rule, the rule itself is very much in effect and plays an important role in excluding unreliable evidence. Your post sounds like a crumb of knowledge expanded into a "philosophy" that is based on ignorance and defies common sense.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Repeating a strawman doesn't make it any less of one, Palehorse. You speak as if you have intimate knowledge of the alleged "evidence" against the detainees, when you obviously don't
actually, i do.
 

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
Palehorse, you talk as if you even know what you're talking about. But I can imagine you being this guy, who was being a snitch/whistleblower and helping us out in Iraq, but we decided to jail him anyway when we raided the place. He's lucky he wasn't in Afghanistan, where people are sent to Gitmo because someone with a grudge calls up the US Army and accuses them of being a "terrorist." You should read it if you have the patience and skills.

link

One night in mid-April, the steel door clanked shut on detainee No. 200343 at Camp Cropper, the United States military?s maximum-security detention site in Baghdad.

American guards arrived at the man?s cell periodically over the next several days, shackled his hands and feet, blindfolded him and took him to a padded room for interrogation, the detainee said. After an hour or two, he was returned to his cell, fatigued but unable to sleep.

The fluorescent lights in his cell were never turned off, he said. At most hours, heavy metal or country music blared in the corridor. He said he was rousted at random times without explanation and made to stand in his cell. Even lying down, he said, he was kept from covering his face to block out the light, noise and cold. And when he was released after 97 days he was exhausted, depressed and scared.

Detainee 200343 was among thousands of people who have been held and released by the American military in Iraq, and his account of his ordeal has provided one of the few detailed views of the Pentagon?s detention operations since the abuse scandals at Abu Ghraib. Yet in many respects his case is unusual.

The detainee was Donald Vance, a 29-year-old Navy veteran from Chicago who went to Iraq as a security contractor. He wound up as a whistle-blower, passing information to the F.B.I. about suspicious activities at the Iraqi security firm where he worked, including what he said was possible illegal weapons trading.

But when American soldiers raided the company at his urging, Mr. Vance and another American who worked there were detained as suspects by the military, which was unaware that Mr. Vance was an informer, according to officials and military documents.

At Camp Cropper, he took notes on his imprisonment and smuggled them out in a Bible.

?Sick, very. Vomited,? he wrote July 3. The next day: ?Told no more phone calls til leave.?

Nathan Ertel, the American held with Mr. Vance, brought away military records that shed further light on the detention camp and its secretive tribunals. Those records include a legal memorandum explicitly denying detainees the right to a lawyer at detention hearings to determine whether they should be released or held indefinitely, perhaps for prosecution.

The story told through those records and interviews illuminates the haphazard system of detention and prosecution that has evolved in Iraq, where detainees are often held for long periods without charges or legal representation, and where the authorities struggle to sort through the endless stream of detainees to identify those who pose real threats.

?Even Saddam Hussein had more legal counsel than I ever had,? said Mr. Vance, who said he planned to sue the former defense secretary, Donald H. Rumsfeld, on grounds that his constitutional rights had been violated. ?While we were detained, we wrote a letter to the camp commandant stating that the same democratic ideals we are trying to instill in the fledgling democratic country of Iraq, from simple due process to the Magna Carta, we are absolutely, positively refusing to follow ourselves.?

A spokeswoman for the Pentagon?s detention operations in Iraq, First Lt. Lea Ann Fracasso, said in written answers to questions that the men had been ?treated fair and humanely,? and that there was no record of either man complaining about their treatment.

Held as ?a Threat?

She said officials did not reach Mr. Vance?s contact at the F.B.I. until he had been in custody for three weeks. Even so, she said, officials determined that he ?posed a threat? and decided to continue holding him. He was released two months later, Lieutenant Fracasso said, based on a ?subsequent re-examination of his case,? and his stated plans to leave Iraq.

Mr. Ertel, 30, a contract manager who knew Mr. Vance from an earlier job in Iraq, was released more quickly.

Mr. Vance went to Iraq in 2004, first to work for a Washington-based company. He later joined a small Baghdad-based security company where, he said, ?things started looking weird to me.? He said that the company, which was protecting American reconstruction organizations, had hired guards from a sheik in Basra and that many of them turned out to be members of militias whom the clients did not want around.

Mr. Vance said the company had a growing cache of weapons it was selling to suspicious customers, including a steady flow of officials from the Iraqi Interior Ministry. The ministry had ties to violent militias and death squads. He said he had also witnessed another employee giving American soldiers liquor in exchange for bullets and weapon repairs.

On a visit to Chicago in October 2005, Mr. Vance met twice with an F.B.I. agent who set up a reporting system. Weekly, Mr. Vance phoned the agent from Iraq and sent him e-mail messages. ?It was like, ?Hey, I heard this and I saw this.? I wanted to help,? Mr. Vance said. A government official familiar with the arrangement confirmed Mr. Vance?s account.

In April, Mr. Ertel and Mr. Vance said, they felt increasingly uncomfortable at the company. Mr. Ertel resigned and company officials seized the identification cards that both men needed to move around Iraq or leave the country.

On April 15, feeling threatened, Mr. Vance phoned the United States Embassy in Baghdad. A military rescue team rushed to the security company. Again, Mr. Vance described its operations, according to military records.

?Internee Vance indicated a large weapons cache was in the compound in the house next door,? Capt. Plymouth D. Nelson, a military detention official, wrote in a memorandum dated April 22, after the men were detained. ?A search of the house and grounds revealed two large weapons caches.?

On the evening of April 15, they met with American officials at the embassy and stayed overnight. But just before dawn, they were awakened, handcuffed with zip ties and made to wear goggles with lenses covered by duct tape. Put into a Humvee, Mr. Vance said he asked for a vest and helmet, and was refused.

They were driven through dangerous Baghdad roads and eventually to Camp Cropper. They were placed in cells at Compound 5, the high-security unit where Saddam Hussein has been held.

Only days later did they receive an explanation: They had become suspects for having associated with the people Mr. Vance tried to expose.

?You have been detained for the following reasons: You work for a business entity that possessed one or more large weapons caches on its premises and may be involved in the possible distribution of these weapons to insurgent/terrorist groups,? Mr. Ertel?s detention notice said.

Mr. Vance said he began seeking help even before his cell door closed for the first time. ?They took off my blindfold and earmuffs and told me to stand in a corner, where they cut off the zip ties, and told me to continue looking straight forward and as I?m doing this, I?m asking for an attorney,? he said. ? ?I want an attorney now,? I said, and they said, ?Someone will be here to see you.? ?

Instead, they were given six-digit ID numbers. The guards shortened Mr. Vance?s into something of a nickname: ?343.? And the routine began.

Bread and powdered drink for breakfast and sometimes a piece of fruit. Rice and chicken for lunch and dinner. Their cells had no sinks. The showers were irregular. They got 60 minutes in the recreation yard at night, without other detainees.

Five times in the first week, guards shackled the prisoners? hands and feet, covered their eyes, placed towels over their heads and put them in wheelchairs to be pushed to a room with a carpeted ceiling and walls. There they were questioned by an array of officials who, they said they were told, represented the F.B.I., the C.I.A., the Naval Criminal Investigative Service and the Defense Intelligence Agency.

?It?s like boom, boom, boom,? Mr. Ertel said. ?They are drilling you. ?We know you did this, you are part of this gun smuggling thing.? And I?m saying you have it absolutely way off.?

The two men slept in their 9-by-9-foot cells on concrete slabs, with worn three-inch foam mats. With the fluorescent lights on and the temperature in the 50s, Mr. Vance said, ?I paced myself to sleep, walking until I couldn?t anymore. I broke the straps on two pair of flip-flops.?

Asked about the lights, the detainee operations spokeswoman said that the camp?s policy was to turn off cell lights at night ?to allow detainees to sleep.?

A Psychological Game

One day, Mr. Vance met with a camp psychologist. ?He realized I was having difficulties,? Mr. Vance said. ?He said to turn it into a game. He said: ?I want you to pretend you are a soldier who has been kidnapped, and that you still have a duty to do. Memorize everything you can about everything that happens to you. Make it like you are a spy on the inside.? I think he called it rational emotive behavioral therapy, and I started doing that.?

Camp Rule 31 barred detainees from writing on the white cell walls, which were bare except for a black crescent moon painted on one wall to indicate the direction of Mecca for prayers. But Mr. Vance began keeping track of the days by making hash marks on the wall, and he also began writing brief notes that he hid in the Bible given to him by guards.

?Turned in request for dentist + phone + embassy letter + request for clothes,? he wrote one day.

?Boards,? he wrote April 24, the day he and Mr. Ertel went before Camp Cropper?s Detainee Status Board.

Their legal rights, laid out in a letter from Lt. Col. Bradley J. Huestis of the Army, the president of the status board, allowed them to attend the hearing and testify. However, under Rule 3, the letter said, ?You do not have the right to legal counsel, but you may have a personal representative assist you at the hearing if the personal representative is reasonably available.?

Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel were permitted at their hearings only because they were Americans, Lieutenant Fracasso said. The cases of all other detainees are reviewed without the detainees present, she said. In both types of cases, defense lawyers are not allowed to attend because the hearings are not criminal proceedings, she said.

Lieutenant Fracasso said that currently there were three Americans in military custody in Iraq. The military does not identify detainees.

Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel had separate hearings. They said their requests to be each other?s personal representative had been denied.

At the hearings, a woman and two men wearing Army uniforms but no name tags or rank designations sat a table with two stacks of documents. One was about an inch thick, and the men were allowed to see some papers from that stack. The other pile was much thicker, but they were told that this pile was evidence only the board could see.

The men pleaded with the board. ?I?m telling them there has been a major mix-up,? Mr. Ertel said. ?Please, I?m out of my mind. I haven?t slept. I?m not eating. I?m terrified.?

Mr. Vance said he implored the board to delve into his laptop computer and cellphone for his communications with the F.B.I. agent in Chicago.

Each of the hearings lasted about two hours, and the men said they never saw the board again.

?At the end, my first question was, ?Does my family know I?m alive?? and the lead man said, ?I don?t know,? ? Mr. Vance recounted. ?And then I asked when will we have an answer, and they said on average it takes three to four weeks.?

Help From the Outside

About a week later, two weeks into his detention, Mr. Vance was allowed to make his first call, to Chicago. He called his fiancée, Diane Schwarz, who told him she had thought he might have died.

?It was very overwhelming,? Ms. Schwarz recalls of the 12-minute conversation. ?He wasn?t quite sure what was going on, and was kind of turning to me for answers and I was turning to him for the same.?

She had already been calling members of Congress, alarmed by his disappearance. So was Mr. Ertel?s mother, and some officials began pressing for answers. ?I would appreciate your looking into this matter,? Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois wrote to a State Department official in early May.

On May 7, the Camp Cropper detention board met again, without either man present, and determined that Mr. Ertel was ?an innocent civilian,? according to the spokeswoman for detention operations. It took authorities 18 more days to release him.

Mr. Vance?s situation was more complicated. On June 17, Lt. Col. Keir-Kevin Curry, a spokesman for the American military?s detention unit, Task Force 134, wrote to tell Ms. Schwarz that Mr. Vance was still being held. ?The detainee board reviewed his case and recommended he remain interned,? he wrote. ?Multi-National Force-Iraq approved the board?s recommendation to continue internment. Therefore, Mr. Vance continues to be a security detainee. We are not processing him for release. His case remains under investigation and there is no set timetable for completion.? Over the following weeks, Mr. Vance said he made numerous written requests ? for a lawyer, for blankets, for paper to write letters home. Mr. Vance said that he wrote 10 letters to Ms. Schwarz, but that only one made it to Chicago. Dated July 17, it was delivered late last month by the Red Cross.

?Diana, start talking, sending e-mail and letters and faxes to the alderman, mayor, governor, congressman, senators, Red Cross, Amnesty International, A.C.L.U., Vatican, and other Christian-based organizations. Everyone!? he wrote. ?I am missing you so much, and am so depressed it?s a daily struggle here. My life is in your hands. Please don?t get discouraged. Don?t take ?No? for answers. Keep working. I have to tell myself these things every day, but I can?t do anything from a cell.?

The military has never explained why it continued to consider Mr. Vance a security threat, except to say that officials decided to release him after further review of his case.

?Treating an American citizen in this fashion would have been unimaginable before 9/11,? said Mike Kanovitz, a Chicago lawyer representing Mr. Vance.

On July 20, Mr. Vance wrote in his notes: ?Told ?Leaving Today.? Took shower and shaved, saw doctor, got civ clothes back and passport.?

On his way out, Mr. Vance said: ?They asked me if I was intending to write a book, would I talk to the press, would I be thinking of getting an attorney. I took it as, ?Shut up, don?t talk about this place,? and I kept saying, ?No sir, I want to go home.? ?

Mr. Ertel has returned to Baghdad, again working as a contracts manager. Mr. Vance is back in Chicago, still feeling the effects of having been a prisoner of the war in Iraq.

?It?s really hard,? he says. ?I don?t really talk about this stuff with my family. I feel ashamed, depressed, still have nightmares, and I?d even say I suffer from some paranoia.?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,347
8,434
126
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the hearsay rule has more holes in it than swiss cheese, anyway. if you can't get hearsay evidence before the trier of fact you're probably a bad lawyer.

i'd like to see the hearsay rule done away with. they don't use it anywhere else and they seem to get along just fine.

This is pretty well completely inaccurate. Notwithstanding the various exceptions to the hearsay rule, the rule itself is very much in effect and plays an important role in excluding unreliable evidence. Your post sounds like a crumb of knowledge expanded into a "philosophy" that is based on ignorance and defies common sense.

if we don't trust the trier of fact to be able to discard obviously unreliable evidence then why do we trust it with anything? again, the hearsay rule isn't used anywhere else and they all seem to get along just fine.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |