×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Guantanamo Hearings Delayed as Legal Files Vanish

samzenpus posted 1 year,9 days | from the sieve-security dept.

Government 170

houghi writes "The defense lawyers of Guantanamo prisoners have been ordered to stop using government computers for sensitive information due to security and confidentiality concerns. One News from New Zealand says 'In another case, system administrators were searching files at prosecutors' request and were able to access more than 500,000 defense files, including confidential attorney-client communications.' Due to all this, hearings were postponed."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

170 comments

What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (5, Interesting)

quonsar (61695) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446127)

...would use government (prosecution) computers in the first place????

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (5, Funny)

NettiWelho (1147351) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446163)

The ones that think that the united states is the land of the free and home of the brave, not another iteration of category ("USSR, Nazi-Germany, Cuba, North Korea, DDR")

Re: What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (-1, Flamebait)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446209)

Do *you* really think we're "the home of the free"? And WTF is "iteration of category" supposed to mean?

Re: What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (2)

NettiWelho (1147351) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446245)

Do *you* really think we're "the home of the free"?

I dont remember saying that.

And WTF is "iteration of category" supposed to mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iteration [wikipedia.org]

Re: What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (0)

therealkevinkretz (1585825) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446787)

I couldn't tell from your "the ones that think that the united stats is the land of the free" if you were counting yourself among them. It sounds like you were. And I know what "iteration" means. It doesn't make sense the way you used it - no need to "iterate" through each member of a group to point out a distinction from that group.

Re: What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447135)

And I know what "iteration" means. It doesn't make sense the way you used it - no need to "iterate" through each member of a group to point out a distinction from that group.

obviously you know less than you think you do. iteration - synonyms: reappearence, reoccurance, repeat, replication, return, IT HABBENING AGAIN

I couldn't tell from your "the ones that think that the united stats is the land of the free" if you were counting yourself among them

that's because you're incapable of parsing english, apparently.

Re: What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447743)

I bet he can type happening without making a mistake though.

Re: What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447823)

Do *you* really think we're "the home of the free"?

Wall sure. We haz thu SECOND AMENDMENT! What more do you need? Votes? A responsble gummit? Travel with your clothes on? A place to hide from the tanks and drones? Hayell no! We has gots our 20-round magazines - at least until Obummer comes and tries to take them from us!

USA! USA! USA!

the lawyer was working for the government.. (4, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446513)

..in the first place. why do you think they were using government computers? thus the problem isn't really that system admins of the defense attorneys lawyers were able to access the files. of course they were. but the problem is that the prosecutors are full of bullshit and are asking them to do that. of course, the whole court situation in gitmo is fucked up in the first place which is why it's in gitmo and not even at a federal secret court and prison inside usa.

so the problem is that the prosecuting and court handling site was not going to go about it fair and square in the first place. not that computers were used.

Most intelligent points by gl4ss (2)

sgt_doom (655561) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447043)

Great points and most lucidly articulated, good citizen. Just as the shyster judge has allowed a witness for the prosecution, a SEAL team member who was part of the hit team on Osama bin Laden, who was never convicted in any court of culpabability for the events of 9/11/01, and whose body was never produced after the hit on him, which renders this SEAL team witness completely hearsay in a true court of law, military or otherwise, such is proof positive America is the land of the lawless where the so-called legal system is used to keep the competition down (those smaller criminals who pose a competitive threat to the super-criminals) and to quash the reformers (whistleblowers, populists, workers' rights adovcates, etc., etc., etc., --- never forget the history of Convict 9653 --- such was and is the "legal system" is Amerika today.......)

Re:the lawyer was working for the government.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447581)

What military group would let someone bring in their "own computer system" onto a base to use? They just proved the Manning case, To show Manning is guilty, they have to "lower Shields" and accept intrusion. But limit the intrusion. You cannot let someone honest into the system. It's called a honeypot.

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (-1, Flamebait)

Maudib (223520) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446627)

Guantanamo is not part of the US.
The people on trial were not picked up in the US.

There is no requirement for fair trials for those captured in a war. There is no country willing to take the released prisoners. Frankly most countries would not have taken them prisoner in this first place, they would have just been killed.

We have mistakenly tried to apply U.S. Civil Justice to war trials. It was noble, but very stupid, however the failure to do so is not itself an indictment on Justice in America.

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (-1)

nogginthenog (582552) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446869)

> There is no country willing to take the released prisoners
There are plenty.

willing to take the released prisoners? (4, Informative)

Firethorn (177587) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446903)

There are plenty? Citation please?

I remember reading that finding countries willing to take them in was indeed a problem.

Countries to take them (3, Informative)

Etherwalk (681268) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447267)

Finding countries to take certain of them is a problem. The big problem, though (the real bar to closing Guantanamo) is the people who we know are guilty but can't legally prove are guilty because the evidence of their guilt was obtained unconstitutionally.

As a result, we have a class of people who are effectively permanent detainees.

Re:Countries to take them (5, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447429)

What is the legality of keeping them without trial indefinitely ? The right to a fair trial is one of the inalienable fundamental rights [wikipedia.org] , to which the USA is a signatory. If they can't prove it, then the guys must be let go.

Pragmatically speaking: how many of these still incarcerated are a real risk ? (If they were in the first place.) I suspect that by no means all. So what is the purpose of continuing detention? I suspect some notion of revenge -- which belittles the concept of the USA being a humane and moral nation.

Citizens of the USA: what is being done in your name ?

Re:Countries to take them (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447463)

They are **INNOCENT** until PROVEN guilty!!

If you can't (constitutionally) prove their guilt then let them go!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Re:Countries to take them (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447845)

They are **INNOCENT** until PROVEN guilty!!

If you can't (constitutionally) prove their guilt then let them go!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

Oh, you are so archaically 20th-Century. Next thing we know you'll be demanding the right to apply for a job without taking a drug test. Or citizenship papers. Or all of those other pre-Reagan ideas.

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447203)

Where does the Constitution limit protections to citizens or by location? The plain meaning of the text (bill of rights in particular) is it applies to anyone who falls into the hands of US legal proceedings. As for people caught on battlefields, the Geneva Convention is supposed to apply (but too bad, it won't support torture). But from what I read most of those in Gitmo got grabbed due to people in Afghanistan or Iraq collecting bounties and claiming their enemies were terrorists. By rights they should have gotten speedy trials, not been put in modern oubliettes.

The longer you keep someone, the worse the injustice where there's no proof of wrongdoing. The willingness of anyplace to "accept" prisoners is somewhat irrelevant. The just thing for an innocent person is to admit wrongdoing, try to compensate him for time in prison and find somewhere. It is not surprising that when you just let them sit there for years that they don't think Americans are all just wonderfully peachy people.

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447615)

Gitmo, even as a military post, is part of the American possessions, therefore subject to American federal law. Even the UCMJ says a fair trial, of peers/by peers, but that will never happen since the bushes abrogated and war criminalized the military. Remember the laws were changed, and redefined by the military on orders from the VP. Pappy and JR may be kept free because of that, but I love it that the man with a Peace prize raised on justice for the little man, okayed the bad laws, so on his watch, he became a war criminal, justifying the actual doers of the crime. Big black mark of shame.

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446723)

So in North Korea and UUSR, the prosecutors would tell the defense that they have access to the files, and to get them off because the prosecutors believe in attorney-client rights?

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447629)

and are we North Korea? or USA?

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (1, Informative)

ajdlinux (913987) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446173)

Because they're military defence lawyers, and thus serving members of the military?

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446255)

You haven't really been following this story, have you?

The defense attorneys aren't military and some of them are quite outspoken against their client's treatment.

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (5, Informative)

wagonlips (306377) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446273)

You haven't really been following this story, have you?

The defense attorneys aren't military and some of them are quite outspoken against their client's treatment.

Not only the defense lawyers... http://harpers.org/blog/2008/02/the-great-guantanamo-puppet-theater/ [harpers.org]

"Davis submitted his resignation on October 4, 2007..."

"Colonel Davis is not just any JAG officer. He was an up-and-comer widely viewed in his peer group as someone in line for a star, and ultimately perhaps, to be the Air Force’s Judge Advocate General. He is also no whining civil libertarian, but rather a no-nonsense conservative, whose prior scraps with civilians in the Pentagon came over the restraints they put on his ability to charge forward and prosecute cases."

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (2)

ajdlinux (913987) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446329)

I stand corrected. You're right - I haven't been following this story, and most of what I've heard about Guantanamo defence lawyers comes from when Michael Mori (who was military) defended David Hicks. That was a while ago though.

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447715)

The defense attorneys aren't military

Some of them aren't, but largely they are, hence why TFA indicates that the order not to use government computers for defense information came from "Col. Karen Mayberry, the chief military defense counsel".

and some of them are quite outspoken against their client's treatment.

Some of the most outspoken, from the beginning of the military tribunal system, have been the military defense counsel. (Also, some of the military judges. And, IIRC, even some of the military prosecutors have raised issues with the treatment of detainees.)

assert the bullshit (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446315)

Well, if you're going to assert the bullshit that the military should collect legally admissible evidence, then you have to give the defense access to the evidence, and if it's classified, then it's going to be on government or contractor computers.

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446439)

Much like the people IN Guantanamo, you're assuming that they were given a choice in the first place. They weren't. The US decided to imprison them indefinitely without a trial, what made you think that they'd start playing fair if a trial actually came about?

I have to wonder just how much of the military budget in that fading republic is alloted toward sheer propaganda. The fact that americans are allowing their elected officials to redefine the word "torture" so that they can commit it...it's baffling in comparison to the picture of the US I grew up with. I can only assume that whoever is doing PR for the military is a fucking legend because this kind of shit was what ended Vietnam, but now it doesn't seem like anyone cares.

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446865)

Sorry, as an aside to anyone who's reading this, I didn't want to come off as being anti-American in general. You have to take a look at the politicians that rule these countries, the amount of power that they have -- whether they even got to participate in a fair election. To say that North Koreans are ignorant or gullible because of their worship of Kim Jong-Un for example...do you really think that in an entire country full of people who can still -think- freely at least, do you really think that there's not an undercurrent of dissent when people are starving, forced into gulags? I would imagine that the North Koreans are as terrified of nuclear war as us, but they're not about to admit it because it would get them killed or imprisoned. Likewise, I don't fault the entire American populous for George W. Bush, because for one they didn't vote for him in a majority, and two, once he had power he used that power to usurp more. If Obama can get away with both promising to close Guantanamo, while at the same time his administration destroys the legal documents of the prisoners to ensure that a fair trial isn't even possible and keeps the damn place open... That reflects badly on the elected officials, not the people.

I guess it just saddens me to see the degree of warmongering in the media, people cheerleading the US into carpet-bombing North Korea...why? They find Kim Jong-Un's massively overinflated ego offensive? That's enough to condemn thousands upon thousands of people to death? We've been desensitized to the idea of nuclear war, as unlikely as that sounds, but for a good reason -- if you start to worry about it you'll never stop. The world sits on a hair-trigger of warheads and MIRVs, and if the shit ever hit the fan, everyone on this planet would die. Everyone. It's called Nuclear Winter for a reason -- once the atmosphere starts dumping millions of tons of radioactive dust back to earth, there won't be a place that's untouched. An Australian made-for-TV series called On The Beach (2000) covered this staggeringly well...the absolute despair that comes from knowing that in a few short weeks, the last place on earth untouched by radiation will fall to its effects, and no one will be spared. Without giving too much away, the governments in the film actually issue cyanide pills to the entire general population, knowing full well that once the fallout hits no one has a chance in hell.

To think that people could be faced with that choice one day, whether or not to try to survive in a nuclear wasteland or take your own life, the lives of the ones you love, to end the suffering... I guess I just don't understand how we could trivialize the possibility of a nuclear war, nor can I understand why Clinton would be impeached for oral sex while torture and murder on a military-industrial scale by the Bush administration has been given a free pass. Stephen Hawking was right, we do need to leave our "fragile planet" if we're going to survive the next millenia, if only to put some distance between ourselves and the megalomaniacs with their fingers on the button.

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446907)

I imagine they were using government (defense) computers.

Re:What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer... (0)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446923)

When you aren't allowed to bring in your own computer, and you are lied to (in writing) that the computer is not bugged or monitored in any way. Your choices are "don't defend your client" or "use the prosecution computers".

But the real question is, what was the prosecution doing? Apparently, the prosecution illegally bugged confidential conversations, illegally tapped CCTV circuits, and illegally sabotaged defense cases. Take your pick of rights violations.

Is anyone on Slashdot still arguing that the US has Rule of Law? The government ignores its own laws with impunity. Sure, the figurehead changes every 4-8 years, but it's still a dictatorship, where the figureheads are well crafted to allow an apparent "choice", when none is actually present. The most "liberal" president in 50 years is elected, and turns out to be right of Bush. There'd have been no difference if the other party had won, they are one party now, with just enough in-fighting to make it look like a choice.

RTFA: Defense lawyers are government (military) (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447701)

> [What kind of moronic "defense" lawyer...] ...would use government (prosecution) computers in the first place?

There's a pretty big clue in the second paragraph of TFA: "The breach prompted Col. Karen Mayberry, the chief military defense counsel, to order all attorneys for Guantanamo detainees to stop using Defense Department computer networks to transmit privileged or confidential information until the security of such communications is assured."

The defense lawyers are, largely, like the prosecutors, US military officers. Using their employer-provided, and hence government, computers for their work is normal and expected for them.

Lose lose for prisoners (4, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446137)

So now prosecutorial misconduct that would get any civilian prosecutor disbarred is going to indefinitely delay the release of any prisoners who happen to be innocent.

Wow. Only in America... err... Cuba.

Re:Lose lose for prisoners (4, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446427)

Well, the Obama administration has made the actual policy on Guantanamo prisoners very clear indeed several months ago: None of them will ever be released under any circumstances. Even those who are known to be innocent of any crime or terrorism. Even those who present (or at least presented before they went in) no threat whatsoever to the United States.

The reason we know this is that they shut down the office that was in charge of arranging releases of Guantanamo prisoners. Everything else is window dressing.

Re: Lose lose for prisoners (4, Informative)

Mabhatter (126906) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446511)

It's not entirely fair to blame Obama. CONGRESS told him in no uncertain terms he could not hold civilian trials. And Congress told him he could not close a "secret base" in spite of the fact that the previous president NEVER ASKED to use Gitmo in this manner.

For all the posturing in the media, the GOP LIKE the way things are. They LIKE the Drone bombing campaigns, they have the military ranks packed well enough all the Top brass is loyal to the GOP first because they keep funding coming.

Re: Lose lose for prisoners (4, Interesting)

DarkOx (621550) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446905)

While the GOP certainly has created obstacles to the token efforts Obama has made toward cleaning up this mess its precisely because its in military courts we can hold the president almost completely accountable. The cynic in my thinks Obama wanted this moved into the civilian courts so he could duck responsibility .

Whatever happens in civilian courts the president could have simply said, its a judicial matter and I can't as the executive interfere. As it is he is the Commander and Chief, its certainly is within his power to insist the military tribunals be conducted quickly and fairly, rather than let the be the kangaroo courts they have become. It is within his power to move or remove any military personnel that interfere or obstruct that agenda. In either military or civilian courts its within his power to pardon; the ones he believes to be innocent could certainly be freed if he wanted to do so.

So I think we can conclude one more of the following is true:
1. Obama really does not care about the issue, it was all just sound bites to help win an election.
2. Obama does not think these victim's lives are worth the political capital it would cost him to see justice served.
3. Obama does not want them release now because of what they may now do, now that we have 'radicalized' them.
4. Obama does not want them release because as bad as holding people indefinitely without or with obviously sham trials does not make his and the previous administration look nearly as bad or as lawless what these folks may reveal if released.
5. Obama believes them all to be guilty and that justice is being served; independent of the integrity of the trial process.

Re: Lose lose for prisoners (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447613)

I'm going to suggest option 6: These people would prove to be very damaging witnesses to a war crimes tribunal.

Re: Lose lose for prisoners (2)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446953)

It kind of disturbs me how quickly you turn that argument around into blaming the GOP. First you say, "it's not entirely fair to blame Obama." Then you change it to blaming the GOP for everything.

You might want to fix your cognitive biases there. Saying the GOP is bad doesn't reduce the blame from Obama at all. He is the one who expanded drone attacks, clearly he likes things the way they are too. Obama had given up trying civilian trials a year before congress passed the bill stopping it (and in any case it's doubtful congress has that power anyway).

Basically, any time you start having ideas that sound like, "Obama was forced to do those bad things, and the GOP is so horrible," stop yourself, because you're probably about to say something idiotic.

Re: Lose lose for prisoners (2)

MickLinux (579158) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447239)

I think he was very good at not pointing out that it was GWB who began all kinds of anti-constitutional , and yes, high treason policies as "torture is not torture", thus undermining our entire system of government.

That said, let's simplify this: considering the rules of courts make all evidence questionable in all cases, I call for people serving as jurors to first consider whether the preponderance of evidence indicates guilt, and then consider whether there is any way that there can not be doubt far beyond reasonable, resulting in cases being found "not guilty".

Re: Lose lose for prisoners (1)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447403)

I literally read your post three times, and still have no idea what you said. Starting with, who is 'he?'

Re: Lose lose for prisoners (1)

swillden (191260) | 1 year,9 days | (#43448027)

Personally, I stopped bothering to distinguish between Bush and Obama years ago. I call them Obushma.

Warning: Obama obsessive (0)

sgt_doom (655561) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447019)

Seriously, this idea of differentiating among the neocons, because some have a "D" after their pathetic names, instead of an "R" is truly ludicrous --- do you dream of having sex with President Obama, by any chance?

Re: Lose lose for prisoners (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447411)

CONGRESS told him in no uncertain terms he could not hold civilian trials.

At which point Obama had the obligation to say, "Either these suspects get the trials to which they are entitled under the Constitution, or I am obligated by my oath to release them. What's it going to be, Congress?"

And Congress told him he could not close a "secret base" in spite of the fact that the previous president NEVER ASKED to use Gitmo in this manner.

Obama is Commander-in-Chief. He could reassign everyone out of Gitmo, Congress gets no say it it.

For all the posturing in the media, the GOP LIKE the way things are.

Of course. So do the Democrats.

Re: Lose lose for prisoners (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447611)

It's not entirely fair to blame Obama.

Yes it is. He had an office that was handling the release of Guantanamo prisoners. He made the unilateral decision to shut that office down, knowing that there were 86 people determined to be completely innocent by the kangeroo court system they'd concocted for those prisoners. So yes, I'm going to blame Obama for doing that, because he in effect announced that innocence or guilt doesn't matter, and the people there were going to be locked up forever.

Congress said they couldn't bring the prisoners to the mainland US for trial. They did not prevent him from releasing the prisoners.

The idea that it's entirely the Republican's fault is wrong. The idea that it's entirely the Democrat's fault is wrong too. What's happening in Guantanamo is happening with the support of the leadership of both major parties. Which is why I voted for neither of them in the last election.

Re:Lose lose for prisoners (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446599)

They've become pets to be kept in cages and occasionally looked at.

Re:Lose lose for prisoners (1)

Etherwalk (681268) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447281)

So now prosecutorial misconduct that would get any civilian prosecutor disbarred is going to indefinitely delay the release of any prisoners who happen to be innocent.

Wow. Only in America... err... Cuba.

No, it's not really prosecutorial misconduct. (At least the email thing isn't.) It's more a question of technical incompetence. Prosecutorial misconduct would imply they were doing it deliberately in order to get the emails; the disclosed searches, at least, were *disclosed*--the attorneys acted ethically when they were told the IT guys had done overbroad searches.

Re:Lose lose for prisoners (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447725)

So now prosecutorial misconduct that would get any civilian prosecutor disbarred is going to indefinitely delay the release of any prisoners who happen to be innocent.

Its actually not yet clear that the leakage of information (which appears to have gone both ways) was "prosecutorial misconduct" so much as poor isolation of IT systems which are used by both the prosecution and the defense.

"searching files at prosecutors' request" (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446153)

So now the prosecutors are facing jail time for contempt of court, correct?

Re:"searching files at prosecutors' request" (2)

nomadic (141991) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446193)

According to the story the prosecutors were the ones who informed the defense counsel that they had found the emails, and said they stopped reading once they realized what they were.

Re:"searching files at prosecutors' request" (1)

mysidia (191772) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447521)

According to the story the prosecutors were the ones who informed the defense counsel that they had found the emails, and said they stopped reading once they realized what they were.

It seems the system administrators' procedures were broken, as they allowed the lawyers to perform discovery and access to information in a scope outside their legal authority to do so.

It is the system administrator's duty to ensure that the scope of any search request is limited such that the data that can be retrieved will only be data that is legally allowed to be retrieved.

Re:"searching files at prosecutors' request" (3)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446251)

Where do you think you are? Some country where "do as I say don't do as I do" doesn't apply?

Re:"searching files at prosecutors' request" (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446493)

Why did the prosecutors need system administrators to do the searching for them?!?

A classic case of a kettle calling the pot black (4, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446175)

If these incidents happened in the so called "third world" or even in other jurisdictions, folks in the mighty USA would be saying somethig to the effect: -

"We're are better than them..."

"We've got more mature credible sysytems and established procedures..."

That's the beauty of living in a country like America..."

Plus all the rest of the verbiage that normally follows...

Question is: Am I wrong?

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (5, Insightful)

deep44 (891922) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446223)

If another country treated an American citizen like this, it would be regarded as a hostage crisis.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446459)

Comparable to the Americans taken into custody by the Iranians?

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (2, Insightful)

Maudib (223520) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446635)

If another country had been willing to claim these guys and take responsibility for the future actions, they would have been released years ago.

Nobody wants these dudes.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (0)

Worthless_Comments (987427) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446713)

Just because "nobody wants them" doesn't mean you get to hold someone prisoner indefinitely. You can talk till you're blue in the face about "enemy combatants" but if you're holding someone with no intention of doing ANYTHING other than holding them indefinitely without trial or publicly presented evidence, it just makes you an asshole.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (2)

DarkOx (621550) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446945)

I actually think the nobody wants them argument is one of the only really reasonable excuses for the situation. Suppose the president decided to pardon some of the detainees he thinks are innocent. Where could they go? You can't repatriate them to a nation that does not recognize them as citizens any more. They'd probably just wind up right back in a cell somewhere, or killed.

You can't bring them to this country; it would violate immigration laws, and no-way is this congress going to give you a special resolution to grant them visas let alone citizenship.

One solution is even though our lease on the gitmo base is not up for a long time; Cuba has in the past said they want the land back. One answer, of highly contestable ethics, would be to just pull out one day leaving the detainees in their cells and tell the Cubans its all your but these people are also your problem now. I have no idea how that would work out for the detainees or if it would improve our harm our relations with Cuba.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (1)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446973)

but if you're holding someone with no intention of doing ANYTHING other than holding them indefinitely without trial or publicly presented evidence, it just makes you an asshole.

lol the 'asshole theory of foreign relations.' You should write a thesis. I'd love to see how that new innovation alters the balance of powers.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447143)

lol the 'asshole theory of foreign relations.' You should write a thesis. I'd love to see how that new innovation alters the balance of powers.

I like the Ding Chavez quip from the Jack Ryan books: "International relations is two countries fucking each other." Or something like that.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447505)

... two countries fucking each other ...

I don't get it. Most people think fucking is a good thing. Unless the person is bad in bed, she gets pregnant, or he hypocritically whines 'slut'.

I prefer diplomacy is saying 'go to hell' so that one look forward to the trip.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447251)

Did christ need a theory structure to convey to billions the proper way to treat your fellow man: as you would wish to be treated? That you are looking to theses on mattersof morality says more of your own character than your petty words ever could.
Spare us all your worthless, thoughtless smarm.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446935)

Another country would gladly take them--the US, however, trusts no country to which they may be relinquished. Many were rounded up haphazardously by local warlords. Some of them were sixteen. You'd have no way of knowing they'll commit future crimes because we haven't given them what we in the "civilized" west call a "fair trial". It's sad to see you agree with our government that human beings don't deserve fair and equal treatment if the happen to be ay-rabs. You deserve no better, then.

Re: A classic case of a kettle calling the pot bla (2)

hemp (36945) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447873)

Pakistan has repeatedly offered to take the prisoners.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (1)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447311)

If another country treated an American citizen like this, it would be regarded as a hostage crisis.

They aren't hostages - you missed that completely. I'll give you a hint.

They are Prisoners of ___.

Three letters, starts with a "W". Any guesses?

The Law of ___ (see above) allows prisoners to be held until the end of the conflict - no requirement for charges or trials at all.

John McCain was held as a Prisoner of ___ for 5.5 years by North Vietnam.

I think it is an interesting comment on your thought process that you might consider Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, plotter of 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 people and currently a Prisoner of ___, as a "hostage".

By the way, this [govtrack.us] is legally equivalent to a Declaration of War.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (1)

Carewolf (581105) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447377)

They are not granted the rights of prisoners of war. The entire justification of their treatment is that the US does not consider them prisoners of war, and therefore they are not protected by the laws and treaties dealing with prisoners of war. If they had been they would be treated much much better and probably released by now.

Not that I disagree with you. They are prisoners of war, but somehow I doubt you would be able to accept what that means.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (1)

belmolis (702863) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447479)

They are prisoners of war, but as "unlawful combatants", they are (so the US government argues), not entitled to the protections provided by the Geneva Convention. International law is not terribly clear on the status of unlawful combatants, but it seems pretty clear that, like lawful combatants, they can be held for the duration of the war without being charged with a crime.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (1)

lxs (131946) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447443)

The administration who had them rounded up in the first place created all sorts of legal fictions to make sure that they weren't treated as prisoners of war complete with the rights that accompany that classification in international law. The current administration just wants to sweep this whole embarrasment under the carpet.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (1)

Opportunist (166417) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446259)

Don't worry. The rest of the world has been saying that about the US for a long, long time now.

You are wrong! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446399)

Question is: Am I wrong?

Yes! We're Free!

We don't have to worry about government spying on us - unless it's for national security and they're trying to get terrorists or you're making an international call - international calls are a sign of terrorism, you know!

The government isn't allowed to search us for no reason - unless we're flying or taking mass transit

We don't have to worry about being imprisoned for no reason - unless accused of terrorism or child porn or for having a small quantity of drugs that for some reason are considered criminal..

We can own guns! Fill out the government paper work, and you can even have a machine gun!

By golly! If that's not the sign of a free country, then I don't know what is!

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446479)

"We're are better than them..."

Well, that certainly does sound like something that certain people from the US might say.

Re:A classic case of a kettle calling the pot blac (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447047)

No, Walter, you're not wrong, you're just an asshole.

They are being killed (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446185)

The US gov know they can not release these men. Not because of what the prisoners supposedly have done, but because of what the US gov has done to the prisoners and the effect their release and statements in free media will have.

Non of these prisoners will be released. Gitmo can not close until the last prisoner has died in captivity, and this is the beginning of the US push to reach this end.

Don't worry (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446247)

Under Obama's policy, he just has to grant them citizenship, release them, then gun them down with drones.

Re:They are being killed (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446285)

Really, they all have to be silenced somehow for what they know, and still make it look like an accident. The mafia's way of dealing with things like this is much more humane.

Re:They are being killed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446383)

And good sodding riddance. I hope they die there. (They should have just been executed on the battlefield so as to not trouble the rest of the world with their retarded niggershines.)

Anyway:

The title of the story: Guantanamo Hearings Delayed as Legal Files Vanish

The blurb: system administrators were searching files at prosecutors' request and were able to access more than 500,000 defense files

Er, how does the title sync with the blurb?

Re:They are being killed (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446473)

Battlefield? Ha. You're on drugs. There was no battlefield, there are no bad guys in Guantanamo (aside from the possibly ~9 who have some connection to the 9/11 attacks), and everyone has lied to you about everything. Now go and kill yourself.

GITMO is an embarrassment and a tragedy (1)

wagonlips (306377) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446243)

Scott Horton has been writing about this. http://harpers.org/blog/2013/04/a-final-act-for-the-guantanamo-theater-of-the-absurd/ [harpers.org]
Does the CIA call for secrecy to protect our freedom or to cover its incompetence?

Re:GITMO is an embarrassment and a tragedy (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446301)

The CIA is not incompetent. It is malevolent.

Re:GITMO is an embarrassment and a tragedy (1)

phantomfive (622387) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446961)

There's actually a pretty good argument to be made for their incompetence, as well......

Re:GITMO is an embarrassment and a tragedy (2)

sgt_doom (655561) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447009)

Thank you. The CIA (or NSA or DIA, etc.) has never been about national security, but a node of the Financial-Intelligence-Complex, founded during and after World War II, by the Wall Street lackeys of the super-rich, and in some cases, directly by the super-rich (Rockefeller, Harriman, Mellon, etc.). The purpose of these agencies is simple: financial intelligence to aid the hegemons, and to aid in their command and control of the populace.

old news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446291)

Obama promised he was going to close Gitmo, so it must already be closed, and this must be old news...

Meanwhile over at the VA . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446295)

The Gun Grabbing continues.
http://xrepublic.tv/node/2921

Some of this is really simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446481)

Follow. The. Money! When I go to a bank, and a banker is offering me advice, the one main thought going through my head is: "From who is this person being paid?". If the bank is paying them, then the advice they give is to benefit the bank. "Government Lawyers" should be a clue. They are paid by the government. They are doing what is in the best interests of the government. When 500,000 important documents vanish, my suspicious mind starts swimming in three letter agencies: "CIA, NSA, FBI, DHS, NRO, DOD". It would be wrong to assume that all 500,000 'vanished' by way of just one of the agencies. It would be more correct to say that a certain number of records 'vanished' under each agency. And perhaps not all records vanished at one time: ongoing operations would have required the 'disappearance' of information deemed critical. Whether the records are actually 'gone' or whether they are in safe storage somewhere else is another question. Some might actually be gone, and some might just be 'highly unavailable'. I would also assume that the reason the lawyers used government computers is because they were given no other choice. I would also assume that redundant backups and archives of this important information (after all, peoples lives are at stake), are also 'gone'. ...and they will make sure that you never know who did the deleting.

Missing the point... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43446491)

So, you're the prosecution and you're trying to build a case against a defendant. As the government's counsel, you have system administrators do a search for files that relate to that defendant. ...and discover that the defense has been using the same systems.

Do you:
A) Ignore the discovery, take the files, and use them to help build your case...
B) Tell the sysadmins to quietly stop searching those files, which MAY be discovered later...
or C) Tell the sysadmins to stop searching those files and tell the defense to stop using government computer systems, as they're leaking privileged information to the prosecution.

IMO, the ethical thing to do is C, since you want to make sure it's as fair a trial as you're capable of having, both as the defendant's rights require and to help allay issues arising in the court of public opinion. Personally I think the prosecution did the right thing in forcing the defense to take their files and go use a different system.

Keep in mind that the specific attorneys with the prosecution may well not have finished their JD by the time these people were put in Gitmo, so don't blame them for the slow government response and delaying tactics.

Re:Missing the point... (2)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447063)

You are missing the point. You are the military and are holding hearings for people who, if guilty will get the same treatment they are getting now, and if innocent, will be great embarrassments. So you:
A) Give them a fair trial in front of an impartial civilain judiciary?
or B) illegally bug their interrogation rooms, snoop confidential files, and hamper the defense at all opportunities, and hold the hearings before a non-impartial military tribunal?

Arguing what "should be" done for a detail under B is silly.

Re:Missing the point... (1)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447455)

They may not get the same treatment if found guilty - some could get the death penalty.

B) illegally bug their interrogation rooms, snoop confidential files, and hamper the defense at all opportunities, and hold the hearings before a non-impartial military tribunal?

Good grief - you really believe that BS? I'll sort it out for you. Bugging the rooms would have been done by the intelligence agencies with no feedback to the prosecution unless it was in reaction to things like this [reuters.com] . The "snooping" probably happened as described - no doubt the systems were built and manned by the lowest bidder. It is the defense that has been hampering the movement of the cases with all manner of legal challenges, fighting tooth and nail on behalf of their clients. (Of course they did manage to secure a new Supreme Court precedent that will come back to bite the US in the ass - POWs can challenge their status in Federal Court. WW2 anyone [wikimedia.org] ? ) It isn't that the military tribunal isn't impartial, but when you are killing thousands of people with bombs and planes, you might be on weak ground.

Re:Missing the point... (2)

AK Marc (707885) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447645)

They have confirmed bugs in the only rooms allowed for use in "private" discussions. These were bugged by the prosecution (as in the "prosecution" is the USA vs., and the people that bugged the rooms did so as an agent of the USA). I didn't indicate that the lawyers for the prosecution did it, but that the prosecuting body did it. And, they have admitted to it. They just assert that they were turned off at the time, but since they were never revealed until "discovered" by the defense, there was never any verification of that assertion.

There is confirmed cloak and dagger spy stuff going on in a manner detrimental to the defendants. Tapped CCTV, bugged rooms, stored "private and confidential" files, and all that. Believe it? That's what the prosecution asserts. I'm not even touching what the defense asserts that hasn't been proven/confirmed.

Re:Missing the point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447229)

D) Realize that someone (possibly the sysadmins) has caught on to your attempt to obtain files belonging to the defense, and admit to it before you get outed. However you do not admit to the other times when you got away with it.

E) Obtain all the defense files, analyze them, and use them to help build your case. You then warn the defense that you had access to the files but claim you didn't read them, so that if they ever find out you can hopefully convince the judge to allow your case anyway.

I could go on forever, you are merely presenting a false dichotomy.

Re:Missing the point... (1)

cold fjord (826450) | 1 year,9 days | (#43447335)

C) Tell the sysadmins to stop searching those files and tell the defense to stop using government computer systems, as they're leaking privileged information to the prosecution.

If you don't want the case thrown out of court and face charges and disbarment you do "C". Anything else is idiocy, including the other options you listed.

Doesn't really matter. (2)

John Hasler (414242) | 1 year,9 days | (#43446733)

These are kangaroo courts anyway. Real Federal trials take place before real Federal judges who are members of the judiciary, not military officers who are functionaries of the executive branch.

Obama could fix the issue (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 days | (#43447147)

The constitution says: "he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States" (article 2, section 2). He shoud use this to close Guantanamo and be done with it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...