Legislation drafted by the Bush administration setting out new rules on bringing terror detainees to trial would allow hearsay evidence to be introduced unless it was deemed “unreliable” and would permit defendants to be excluded from their own trials if necessary to protect national security, according to a copy of the proposal. The bill is not yet final, but it indicates the direction of the administration’s approach for dealing with a Supreme Court decision that struck down the tribunals established to try terror suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The draft bill proposes that rather than a required speedy trial for enemy combatants, they may be tried and punished at any time without limitations. Defendants could be held until hostilities are completed. The bill also specifies that no matter how evidence is gathered, it shall be admissible if the military judge determines it has probative value. Hearsay statements would be allowed at the discretion of the judge unless the circumstances render it unreliable. The bill would also bar statements obtained by the use of torture from being introduced as evidence, but evidence obtained during interrogations where coerceion was used would be admissible unless a judge found it unreliable.

The provision allowing defendants to be excluded from a trial to prevent them from hearing classified evidence against them is likely to be among the more controversial aspects of the administration’s plan. Another difficult issue the administration faces is whether a provision of the Geneva Conventions, known as Common Article Three, applies to detainees; the Supreme Court ruled that it did.

From what I have read, the New York Times has a copy of the bill but I yet to see the transcript. Based on what I presented above, I agree with some of clauses and disagree on others. First off, I disagree with with the part about the prisoners not allowed in the court room during their trial. I feel that if you are on trial, you need to be present for it. Any criminal must be present during their own trail for the defence. I don't see a difference in this at all. I sort of have a problem with the hearsay clause. The bad thing about hearsay is it can easily be turned around and misunderstood. It is going to be very hard for a judge to decide if what someone else says that you said is acutally real. I think something needs to be done with that. The issue about the speedy trail is fine. Lets try to get as much evidence on these terrorist as we can to make sure that they can never get out and harm another American or anyone else again.

I'm not saying that these prisoners are innocent. This is a common misconception most conservatives have on this issue about liberals. We do not think these people are innocent, and we do not feel that they should be let out on the streets. All we are saying is lets do the humane thing and give these human being a fair trial. Everyone knows they are guilty of something. Lets just put them in front of a judge and get it over with. Put them in jail where they belong and stop treating them like animals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.