Spreading Democracy with Secreat Trials

f0ca1 · #1 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 10:16 AM

Quote:

KABUL, Afghanistan — Dozens of Afghan men who were previously held by the United States at Bagram Air Base and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are now being tried here in secretive Afghan criminal proceedings based mainly on allegations forwarded by the American military.

The prisoners are being convicted and sentenced to as much as 20 years’ confinement in trials that typically run between half an hour and an hour, said human rights investigators who have observed them. One early trial was reported to have lasted barely 10 minutes, an investigator said.

The prosecutions are based in part on a security law promulgated in 1987, during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Witnesses do not appear in court and cannot be cross-examined. There are no sworn statements of their testimony.

Instead, the trials appear to be based almost entirely on terse summaries of allegations that are forwarded to the Afghan authorities by the United States military. Afghan security agents add what evidence they can, but the cases generally center on events that sometimes occurred years ago in war zones that the authorities may now be unable to reach.

“These are no-witness paper trials that deny the defendants a fundamental fair-trial right to challenge the evidence and mount a defense,” said Sahr MuhammedAlly, a lawyer for the advocacy group Human Rights First who has studied the proceedings. “So any convictions you get are fundamentally flawed.”

Anybody else see the problem here?

JMS · #2 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 10:24 AM

its called freedom. with an extra o for effect.

lunecat · #3 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by f0ca1

Anybody else see the problem here?

Yes, you haven't provided a link to your source.

JMS · #4 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 11:27 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/wo.../10afghan.html

JMS · #5 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 11:29 AM

what does it matter what the source is? is it something so unbelievable to you that you think it might not be from a reputable source, that it might be made up? if so, and if true, does that mean you see a problem?

beachbum · #6 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMS

what does it matter what the source is? is it something so unbelievable to you that you think it might not be from a reputable source, that it might be made up? if so, and if true, does that mean you see a problem?

you dont think the credibility of the source matters?

f0ca1 · #7 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunecat

Yes, you haven't provided a link to your source.

My apologies.

JMS provided it correctly.

lunecat · #8 (**permalink**) 04-10-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beachbum

you dont think the credibility of the source matters?

Thankyou.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMS

what does it matter what the source is? is it something so unbelievable to you that you think it might not be from a reputable source, that it might be made up? if so, and if true, does that mean you see a problem?

And yes JMS the source does matter - for credability reasons, also not providing the link denies others from reading the whole article. For completness and possibly a fairer balance on the story, that may not have been given if only part is quoted out of context and politically spun. As I believe f0ca1 is capable of doing.

Quote:

“These are not prosecutions that are being done at the request or behest of the United States government,” said Sandra L. Hodgkinson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detention policy. “These are prosecutions that are being done by Afghans for crimes committed on their territory by their nationals.”

Ms. Hodgkinson said the United States had pressed the Afghan authorities “to conduct the trials in a fair manner,” and had insisted that lawyers be provided for the prisoners after the first 10 of them were convicted without legal representation.

Whilst at a cursory look the Afghan legal system may not meet the same standards that are inplace, say in France for example.

But it is clear from the extract of the article that I have quoted above - that the US officials have been encouraging "fair" trials and "that lawyers be provded" - both corner stones of a Democracy.

So your thread title is questionable, because the Democratic roots are inplace and being encouraged to grow, in a Country that has been in turmoil in generations.

f0ca1 · #9 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunecat

So your thread title is questionable, because the Democratic roots are inplace and being encouraged to grow, in a Country that has been in turmoil in generations.

Quote:

“These are no-witness paper trials that deny the defendants a fundamental fair-trial right to challenge the evidence and mount a defense,”

And they're litteraly citing law from soviet-occupation era to do this.

The seeds of democracy may have been planted, but the weeds of authoritarianism persist.

And we aren't even trying to stop it.

lunecat · #10 (**permalink**) 04-11-2008, 10:16 AM

The weeds are being pointed out by the US to the Afghan's and as I quoted earlier "fair" trails are being encouraged.

So again your thread title is misleading.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
May Day Peace Activism Spreading	DemocratsBlog	Political Blogs	0	03-25-2008 10:30 PM
Spreading Capitalism	MannieD	Current Events	1	10-25-2007 08:12 AM
Trials	genieman123	Education	0	02-15-2007 12:36 PM
Gitmo witch trials	Geriatric-Delinquent	Political Opinions & Beliefs	0	01-19-2007 06:27 PM
The US tries out new European policy aimed at spreading ...	paronic	Russia & Eastern Europe	7	04-21-2006 09:19 AM