Amnesty labels U.S. Trials 'Travesty of Justice' by Kate Holton Reuters / Times 5:25pm 6th Jul, 2003   July 5, 2003    LONDON - Amnesty International has denounced the planned U.S. military trials for six prisoners at "Camp X-Ray" in Guantanamo Bay as a "travesty of justice."    "We deeply regret that the President has taken his country one step closer to running trials that will flout basic standards of justice," the human rights group said in a statement late on Friday.    President Bush has designated six foreign captives in what he calls the war on terrorism as eligible to be tried for U.S. military commissions.Britain's Foreign Office announced on Friday that two Britons -- Moazzam Begg, 35, and Feroz Abbasi, 23, -- would be among the six suspects, whose names and nationalities U.S. defense officials have refused to reveal.Charges set out in the Pentagon's instructions for the trials could bring the death penalty.    "Any trial before these military commissions would be a travesty of justice," Amnesty said."We urge the U.S. administration to rethink its strategy before it causes any further affront to international fair trial norms and any more damage to its own reputation.    Amnesty criticized the commissions, citing the use of a lower standard of evidence that would be admissible in an ordinary court, including hearsay evidence. It also drew attention to Pentagon guidelines which do not expressly exclude statements extracted under coercive methods.    Officials said there was evidence the six had attended "terrorist" training camps and may have been involved in financing Saudi-born Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network -- blamed by Washington for the September 11 attacks against the United States.    Military officials have had preliminary discussions about building an execution chamber at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. navy base, where about 600 prisoners are being held, but say talk of execution is premature.    The Foreign Office said on Friday they were opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances and had made this view clear to Washington.    The U.S. chief defense lawyer for Guantanamo Bay, Colonel Will Gunn, told the BBC's Newsnight program late on Friday that he faced many challenges.    "We will have a cultural divide which will take us time to overcome, if we're ever able to overcome it. So I see that as a fundamental challenge," he said.But he said he had faith in his staff who would work to provide the "very best possible defense."    "This country has long said we're about justice being done," he added. "That's what the principle of Americanism means to many people."    Copyright 2003 Reuters Ltd    July 5, 2003    'Lawyers Furious as US Builds Death Chambers' by Frances Gibb and Tim Reid, published by the Times/UK    LAWYERS expressed outrage yesterday at plans to put al-Qaeda suspects, including two Britons and an Australian, on military trial in Guantanamo Bay. They would effectively be tried by a “kangaroo court”, stripped of all basic rights of due process that would be afforded in criminal courts in Britain or America, they said.    No charges have yet been levelled against Moazzem Begg from Birmingham or Feroz Abbasi from Croydon, although Pentagon lawyers are finalising the wording of the indictments.    Matthias Kelly, QC, chairman of the Bar of England and Wales, said that the proposed trials were “totally illegitimate and a violation of every rule in international law”.    He said: “The construction of execution chambers makes virtually every lawyer in the Western world extremely angry. The idea that there is an artificial creation or enclave which, according to the Americans, is beyond the purview of all recognised systems of law is repugnant.”    Mr Kelly, also a member of the New York Bar and US Federal Bar, added: “If America wants to put people on trial, why not put them on trial before a recognised international tribunal? There is a well-tried system for doing that. “It is wholly inappropriate and in fact outrageous for the United States to create this special mechanism.” Stephen Jakobi, director of Fair Trials Abroad, said: “So, you have a friendly government which is going to put our suspects in a kangaroo court where they could face the death penalty. And what is Tony Blair going to do?”    Neal Sonnett, a former president of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers, said: “The State Department issues a report every year in which it criticises those nations that conduct trials before secret military tribunals. What I’m hearing sounds alarmingly like something similar.”    Louise Christian, Mr Abbasi’s lawyer, said: “We are horrified that the British Government is allowing this to happen.”    The fate of the British and Australian detainees is being contrasted with that of John Walker Lindh. The 21-year-old Taleban fighter from California was brought before a judge in Washington and allowed to strike a plea bargain which reduced a probable life sentence to 20 years.    But the defendants taken before these military tribunals which can try only non-Americans, will be represented by Pentagon approved lawyers. Baroness Symons, the Foreign Office Minister, said yesterday: “The fact is that I can’t alter the legal processes in the US. America has decided that they want to be the detaining power and that they want to hold the trials there, and it is now up to us to have a very vigorous discussion with the US about securing a fair trial.”    President Bush’s move represents a defeat for Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who said at the time of the first detentions that he wanted British suspects tried in Britain. Pentagon officials said that there was evidence that the six, whom they refused to name, had attended “terrorist training camps” and may have been involved in financing al-Qaeda.    Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, has delegated to his deputy, the hawkish Paul Wolfowitz, the final decision on whether the prosecutions will proceed. “There are a lot of checks and balances in this system,” one Pentagon spokesman told The Times. Asked what those checks and balances were, the official cited the review of the President’s decision by Mr Wolfowitz. Asked if there were any other checks and balances other than that, the official replied: “No, sir.”    Copyright 2003 Times Newspapers Ltd. Visit the related web page
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item