Earlier this week the Bush administration announced that it would be pursuing the death penalty in the cases of 6 Guantanamo detainees before the so-far-unbesmirched-by-actual-litigation military commissions system. This was met with a lot of resistance, and a lot of questions like “hey, what about due process?” and “wait a minute, you’re not sure whether evidence gained from torture will be admissible or not???”
But check out the competition: In Saudi Arabia, a woman named Fawza Falih has been found guilty of witchcraft (which is, incidentally, not defined under Saudi law) and will be beheaded just as soon as the King gets around to approving the execution order. In the course of convicting her, the court declined to establish any elements of the crime of witchcraft, preferring to rely on a coerced confession and the accounts of witnesses who may or may not have been turned into newts.
Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the King today, gently suggesting that perhaps allowing verdicts that rely on confessions obtained through torture following trials in which the accused is not permitted to offer evidence in his or her own defense is not the best way to get other countries to take your legal system seriously. Given that Saudi Arabia is already handicapped in their quest for legal credibility by the lack of a written penal code, they really can’t afford to flout their few codified fair trial guarantees.
In Fawza Falih’s case, she was not permitted to attend every session of her trial, to cross-examine witness against her, or to have access to an attorney; all rights guaranteed by the Law of Criminal Procedure (which, unlike the penal code, someone took the time to write down). She was also detained for 35 days by the religious police, in violation of a royal decree. Now, admittedly, that’s not five and a half years in Camp Delta, but I’m thinking the sentence of death by beheading for a nonexistent crime more or less evens the score.