Former interogator at Guantanamo denounces practices used there

[Hurin_Rules]

It might not be a fair tibunal - but most military lawyers I have been around were at least very competent in their representing any soldier that they had to represent.

No argument there Redleg, but the crucial point is that most of the detainees at Guantanamo are not given military lawyers-- their 'defenders' have not gone to law school or passed the bar.

The initial team of lawyers the Pentagon appointed rejected the rules as inherently unfair, and were then fired:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...+lawyers&hl=en

Then, the DoD allowed lawyers for a couple of the detainees (mostly from allied nations like Australia) and 'defense counsel' to the rest; these 'defenders' are not lawyers, which means that most of the detainees in Guantanamo have never had access to any lawyer, military or not. Even the German 'unlawful combatants' of WWII were given lawyers.

In addition, several of the 'judges' revealed that they too had no legal training when they struggled to grasp elementary legal concepts. Several of them were replaced as well:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...+counsel&hl=en

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ining%22&hl=en

I do not in any way question the integrity of American military lawyers. In fact, many of them have spoken out AGAINST what is happening in Guantanamo, and were fired for it. But the people both defending and judging the detainees at Guantanamo are not lawyers. That is why the kangaroo courts there cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered 'fair and competent' tribunals.