This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Gitmo Aff Dartmouth 2K9 1 Guantanamo Bay Aff Last printed 0/0/00 0:00 AM 1 1AC Observation One is Inherency: Although Obama has issued a closure of Guantanamo Bay, the trials against the detainees will contain classified evidence and some will even be detained indefinitely Sullum , Senior Editor for Reason, 7/18 (Jacob Sullum, Senior Editor for Reason, newspaper columnist, and writer for The Washington Times 7/18/09 “The Right to a Guilty Verdict” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/18/the-right-to-a-guilty- verdict/ ) G.A. In a speech he gave a couple of months ago, President Obama said he was determined to guarantee "meaningful due process rights" for terrorism suspects. But it turns out he is committed to due process only when it achieves the result he wants. Last week, the Defense Department's top lawyer declared the president has authority to detain people accused of belonging to or assisting terrorist groups even after their acquittal. The only point of prosecuting them, it seems, is to create an impression of due process while continuing Bush detention policies Mr. Obama has repeatedly condemned. We already knew Mr. Obama plans to keep 90 or so of the 229 men who remain at the Guantanamo Bay prison , which he has promised to close by January, in "prolonged detention" without trial. In his May speech the president said these prisoners "cannot be prosecuted" because there is not enough admissible evidence against them, yet cannot be released because they "pose a clear danger to the American people." But Mr. Obama promised to minimize the number of detainees who fall into that category. "Whenever feasible," he said, "we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts." If that's not possible, he said, suspected terrorists can be tried by military commissions , which "allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence gathering" and "for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts ." Mr. Obama, who criticized the Bush administration for failing to give detainees due process, bragged about strengthening protections for the accused. Thanks to his reforms, he said, defendants tried by military commissions will have "greater latitude in selecting their own counsel" and "more protections if they refuse to testify"; introducing hearsay evidence will be harder, and statements elicited through "cruel, inhuman or degrading interrogation methods" will be banned. But how "meaningful" can such due process rights be when a conviction is the only outcome the government plans to respect? "If you have the authority under the laws of war to detain someone," Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, "that is true irrespective of what happens on the prosecution side. ... If a review panel has determined this person is a security threat [and] if for some reason he is not convicted for a lengthy prison sentence ... weperson is a security threat [and] if for some reason he is not convicted for a lengthy prison sentence ....
View Full Document