Military Tribunal Leaks: It Doesn't Make Sense

More leaks. This time confidential e-mails from two senior Guantanamo prosecutors complaining that the trials had been rigged to produce convictions. We've been here before, right? But this is different, as Slate points out:

Similar criticisms had been leveled by military defense lawyers but were dismissed as efforts to help their own clients. But the cases of these prosecutors would, if anything, have benefited from the rigging of the process.

We've heard David Hick's lawyer, for example, saying the tribunals were a farce. We've heard Civil Rights groups, families of the detained, and so forth. But these are the MILITARY PROSECUTORS! Why would they sabotage their own cases?

The NYT and the WSJ have stories today. Hey, we're even talking about it here in Australia!

Ladies and gentlemen of Australia, here is your two-faced enemy, just one of many such lowly vermin infesting our lovely shores:



Our former anti-foreigner Imigration Minister and now anti-law Attorney General, Phillip "Montgomery Burns" Ruddock (pic above), displayed a masterful touch of spin on this issue. At 1:00 pm he was telling reporters that the matter would be investigated "if the veracity of the emails was proven" (of course, he knows the Pentagon has already investigated and dismissed the issue). At 1:56pm, presumably after a nice dry Chardonnay and a lobster bisque, he declared that the matter had been investigated and the tribunals were fair. On to the next story of the day... What have we got? Something about terror...? Bingo.

UPDATE: OK, I am going to turn this into a bit of a rant, I'm araid. If you clicked on that Bingo link, you would have seen that the top TV story last night in Australia was about how an Indonesian bomber who tried to blow up the Australian embassy in Jakarta many months ago has finally confessed that bin Laden was the one who masterminded and financed the attack.

Of course, he has been interrogated for months and months, so it's hardly suprising he would say whatever the police want to hear. And his budget for the attack was a whopping $10,000 AUD - obviously, only bin Laden could finance such a job, right??! Yet the Aussie press see the angle and play it up for all it's worth... Even Alexander "Baby Face" Downer temporarily dropped his cue cards and said the information was unreliable (at 3pm).

This is exactly why this blog is called BushOut and not HowardOut - because (like far too many other countries around the world) our sycophantic little leaders are just following the lead of the Bush White House on terrorism and a hundred other issues. We vote at the UN whichever way the US wants us to vote, in the company of diplomatic giants like Palau, Micronesia and American Samoa - and of course, Israel. As today's editorial in the SMH points out, Australia is the only Western nation to allow one of its citizens to go before a US military tribunal. The British, Europeans and other governments have sought and secured the repatriation of all their nationals. Why don't we? Because Howard and Ruddock know there is no case against Hicks that will stand up in a court of law.

In another five years, if things don't change, Australians will be debating whether to become a de-facto US state like Costa Rica, because by then it wont make any difference to our daily lives, economy or politics.

I have read stories about Pakistani and Indian police abusing villagers in remote areas in complete contravention of the law, then brushing off all criticism by calling their victims "terrorists". Bush's insane agenda is having consequences far beyond the boundaries of the USA. That's why, even though I am an Aussie, I feel compelled to help get rid of the bastard.

UPDATE 2: Now even Australia's top military lawyer, Captain Paul Willee, a prominent Queen's Counsel, says the military tribunals are a farce:

There are those who in our community take the view that when the allegations is made by somebody in the lion's den, you don't get the head lion to deal with it... These are really very strong indicators that something is seriously wrong with the process... It denied people access to evidence, to the ability to cross-examine those who made the statements that might be used against them and generally flies in the face of all the rules of fairness that we have developed over the last 50-60 years.

And lest we forget, the US doesn't even treat it's own detainees this way! Speak up, John Howard, or step down!