Chimpy Loses Again

Wow, imagine allowing the accused to actuallypresent evidence of his innocence in court.

A federal appeals court refused Friday to reconsider a ruling broadening its own authority to scrutinize evidence against detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

The Supreme Court is also closely watching that issue.

The decision is a setback for the Bush administration, which was displeased by the court’s three-judge ruling in July and had urged all 10 judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review it.

The ruling held that, when Guantanamo Bay detainees bring a court challenge to their status as “enemy combatants,” judges must review all the evidence, not just the evidence the military chooses.

When detainees are brought before military combatant status review tribunals, they are not allowed to have lawyers and the Pentagon decides what evidence to present. Unlike in criminal trials, the government is not obligated to turn over evidence that the defendant might be innocent.

“For this court to ignore that reality would be to proceed as though the Congress envisioned judicial review as a mere charade,” Chief Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg wrote Friday.

4 thoughts on “Chimpy Loses Again

  1. A universal characteristic of dictatorships is that the dictator decides who is guilty whenever it is to the advantage of the dictator to make that decision. No opposition to the decisions of the dictator is allowed. And, as the chimp said, it is much easier to be a dictator than a president.
    It is also universally true that if a conviction of a crime charged by the government can be obtained through following the constitutional rules, the rules will very likely be followed. If not, every possible effort will be made to justify ignoring those rules.
    Something tells me the US Supreme Court as it now stands isn’t going to allow itself to be aware of those two truths.

  2. judges must review all the evidence, not just the evidence the military chooses
    Jesus. I never thought I’d read that statement in the context of discussing US jurisprudence. We’ve come a long way in the last 10 years or so in the hegemonic monoculture. Suddenly we’re not only debating the usefulness and legality oftorture, but bringing back some of the prime tenets of inquisitorial (rather than accusatorial) law, too.

  3. Why, y’all, they’re (the gubmint prosecutorial forces) are just following the “cheney” of command…
    Good on the judge for calling for looking at ALL the evidence…
    What the hell has this country come to…??? (don’t answer…I already know)

Comments are closed.