Obama’s new commissions…

Here is Obama’s statement   on the new improved version of military tribunals which shall be taken as gracious and good because they are HIS, not the evil Bush’s.

As I said before, it’s all rubbish.  Would somebody please point out how many people in the Obama administration worked for law firms which have eagerly represented Gitmo detainees?  And now we get to pay them even more.

Military commissions…

Ed Whelan has kindly collected his primary postings on State Dept. top lawyer Harold Koh, here.    And you may as well read what Kathy Shaidle says on Koh as well, since he has been voted out of committee with only 1 Republican vote.

You ought to read the ones you’ve missed,   because  His Oneness has just said he’s reviving military commissions,  and yet he hasn’t pulled the nomination of a man unalterably opposed to them.   Curiouser and curiouser,   said Alice.

The WaPo obediently reports that Obama’s “new” commissions will correct all the flaws in Bush’s (approved by Congress in 2006),  but it’s a flat-out lie.   They will be exactly the same.   The WSJ explains the proposal for indefinite detention now being floated.

You’ll soon see various claims about improvements and corrections, but here, as detailed by Andy McCarthy at The Corner,  are some of the protections for war crimes defendants provided under the Bush military commissions:

• the presumption of innocence;

• the imposition of the burden of proof on the prosecution;

• the right to counsel—both to a military lawyer provided at the expense of the American taxpayer and to a private attorney if the combatant chooses to retain one;

• the right to be presented with the charges in advance of trial;

• access to evidence the prosecution intends to introduce and to any exculpatory evidence known to the prosecution;

• access to interpreters as necessary to assist in understanding the proceedings;

• the right to a trial presumptively open to the public (except for portions sealed for national defense or witness security purposes);

• the free choice to testify or decline to do so;

• the right against any negative inference from a refusal to testify;

• access to reasonably available evidence and witnesses;

• access to investigative resources as “necessary for a full and fair trial”; and

• the right to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.