Quote:
Originally Posted by Beebs
A competent tribunal? Perhaps, say, the Combatant Status Review Tribunals?
|
You mean the one that the court held in Boumediene subjected detainees to "considerable risk of error in the tribunal's findings of fact" and the DTA's provision for limited judicial review "is, on its face, an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus."
You mean that one?
According to what I've seen on the case:
"The CSRTs significantly impede "the detainee's ability to rebut the factual basis for the Governments assertion that he is an enemy combatant" because the detainee (1) lacks counsel and may be detained based on (2) undisclosed evidence, if it is deemed classified by the military, and (3) hearsay, depriving the detainee of an ability to confront his accusers. This deficient fact-finding process is not cured by judicial review because the D.C. Circuit is denied authority by the DTA to (4) make an independent finding about the sufficiency of the government's evidence and (5) "admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding."