Tribunals differ from earlier trials

WASHINGTON -- Terror suspects tried before military tribunals would have many of the legal rights given defendants accused of other crimes, but prosecutors could use evidence that would probably be tossed out of an ordinary American court, a U.S. official said Wednesday. \nDefense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is expected to announce details Thursday about how the tribunals would operate. He has said the panels would be used in rare cases, if at all, and only if the suspects' home countries don't take over prosecution. \nThe Pentagon's rules seem designed to answer some of the sharpest criticism that followed President Bush's November announcement that tribunals would be an option for suspected members or supporters of the al Qaeda terror network. \nA government official described the rules on condition of anonymity. \nBush said Wednesday, "The world now will begin to see what we meant by a fair system that will enable us to bring people to justice (and) at the same time protect (our) citizenry," Bush said. \nAsked if tribunals were imminent, Bush said, "No plans right now…nobody in mind as yet." \nIn many respects, the panels would resemble criminal trials in civilian court and the parallel military system of courts-martial. \nDefendants would have the right to a lawyer, for example, and the right to see the evidence against them. Military lawyers would be provided free, and defendants could hire an outside civilian lawyer if they chose. Defendants would be presumed innocent. \nThe panels would include three to seven officers, as do many courts-martial. \nKey differences would be a freer hand for prosecutors in introducing evidence before tribunals, and a very limited right to appeal that is designed to keep defendants out of federal courts. \n"I think this is falling far short of what was hoped for," said Frank Spinner, a civilian lawyer who specializes in representing military defendants before courts-martial. \nThe tribunals might allow prosecutors to use hearsay or evidence that came to them through unorthodox means -- for example, maps and writings discovered in Afghanistan that could have passed through several hands before U.S. investigators obtained them. \nProceedings would be largely open to reporters, although television cameras would be barred. If prosecutors wanted to present classified material, the courtroom would close. \nSpinner said the rules could lead to uneven justice -- with one panel allowing consideration of evidence that another might reject. \nAmnesty International, which opposes use of military tribunals, went further. \n"The proposed commissions would be inherently discriminatory by affording foreign nationals a lower standard of justice than U.S. nationals," the group said. \nCritics also found fault with the appeal system fashioned by Pentagon lawyers. \nA convicted defendant could ask a special, three-member review panel to look at the case.