Verdicts for 9/11 accused unlikely during Bush presidency
Doubts were raised today over the outcome of the trial of the September 11 six, only a day after it was announced they would face criminal charges.
Given the slow pace of the military panels at Guantanamo Bay where they are all held, verdicts are unlikely before President Bush leaves office in January 2009.
The trials themselves may not even be under way by then and the next president may be less keen on the military tribunal system.
Throwing the process into further doubt, the Supreme Court is expected to rule in a few months on whether Guantanamo detainees can bring cases in civilian courts to challenge their confinement.
General Thomas Hartmann, the legal adviser to the military commissions the trial for the six Guantanamo detainees is at least 120 days away, "and probably well beyond that".
Critics of the untested military commissions system say the high-profile trial will expose its flaws.
In 2006, a previous system was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Months later, Congress and President Bush resurrected the tribunals in an altered form under the Military Commissions Act.
The cases are also complicated by recent revelations that alleged September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, one of the six charged, was subjected to a harsh interrogation technique known as waterboarding - which critics say is a form of torture.
Gen. Hartmann said it will be up to the military judge to determine what evidence is allowed.
Pre-trial hearings for two other Guantanamo detainees stalled last week over secrecy shrouding government files on terror suspects.
Gen. Hartmann said the six defendants will get the same rights as US soldiers tried under the military justice system, including the right to remain silent, call witnesses, and know the evidence against them.
Questions of due process could overshadow the proceedings however, according to Jennifer Daskal, senior counter-terrorism counsel for Human Rights Watch.
"By trying these men before flawed military commissions in Guantanamo Bay, the US makes the system the centre of attention rather the defendants and their alleged crimes," she said.
Steven Shapiro, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, said that "the administration now has placed itself in terrible bind because it subjected at least some, if not all, the six men to harsh interrogation techniques that the world regards as torture."
Under the Military Commissions Act, statements obtained through torture are not admissible. Some statements obtained through "coercion" may be admitted at the discretion of a military judge, however.
A death sentence requires the agreement of all members of the military panel that are present and the finding of a guilty verdict must have been unanimous. Sentences of 10 years to life in prison require at least three-quarters of the panel members.
Gen. Hartmann refused to discuss how and where any executions would take place. "When that time comes, if it should ever come at all, we will follow the law at that time and the procedures that are in place at that time," he said.
A federal appeals court in Washington can hear appeals, but it can only assess compliance with the standards and procedures under the 2006 law. The Supreme Court may review that court's final judgment.
Any death sentences likely would be carried out at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas by lethal injection, although the law allows for those convicted by military commissions to be executed elsewhere.
Eugene Fidell a lawyer and expert in military law said one possibility could be Guantanamo Bay.
He said the US would face obstacles however, including an international outcry.
"It would be highly controversial because a lot of the world simply doesn't believe in the death penalty anymore."
