What goes on at military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees:
It boggles the mind.
PS The columnist is paraphrasing a legal ruling by a US District judge. He even gives a page reference. First person to bring up the evil CBS liberal bias without addressing this properly gets either a ban or a backrub from Ferrio.
The presiding tribunal officer accuses Idr of associating "with a known Al Qaeda operative." The detainee says, reasonably enough: "Give me his name." The tribunal president says: "I do not know." Idr understandably asks: "How can I respond to this?" The tribunal president asks: "Did you know of anybody that was a member of al Qaeda?" Idr says: "No, no ..."
And then Idr went to the heart of the constitutional problem, as Judge Green sees it, with an evaluation that the judge described as "piercingly accurate."
"This is something the interrogators told me a long while ago," Idr complains during his so-called trial. "I asked the interrogators to tell me who this person was. Then I could tell you if I might have known this person, but not if this person is a terrorist. Maybe I knew this person as a friend. Maybe it was a person that worked with me. Maybe it was a person that was on my team. But I do not know if this person is Bosnian, Indian or whatever. If you tell me the name, then I can respond and defend myself against this accusation."
The tribunal president then responds, presumably with a straight face: "We are asking you the question and we need you to respond to what is on the unclassified summary."
It boggles the mind.
PS The columnist is paraphrasing a legal ruling by a US District judge. He even gives a page reference. First person to bring up the evil CBS liberal bias without addressing this properly gets either a ban or a backrub from Ferrio.