ARAB-US RELATIONS - March 21 - New Military Tribunal Regulations.

The administration announces new military tribunal regulations, which require a unanimous vote of judges to impose the death penalty on convicted terrorists. The new regulations are more advantageous to Al Qaida and Taliban defendants than the guidelines Pres. Bush originally issued in Nov. 2001 when he established military tribunals. The original order suggested two-thirds vote of judges to impose the death penalty and barred appeals after conviction. The new regulations allow military officers to review a tribunal's decision on appeal. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the new regulations "are balanced, fair, and designed to produce just outcomes". Yet the new rules give prosecutors more leeway than they would have in criminal courts. Hearsay or secondhand evidence could be used in the military tribunals, although it is barred in ordinary criminal trials and courts-martial. (Bush's original order brought a barrage of criticism from human rights groups and European officials who said it could violate the rights of suspects brought to trial by the US).

But many US officials say there may be little use for the military tribunals because the great majority of the 300 prisoners being held at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are low-ranking foot soldiers. The tribunals are planned only for relatively high-ranking Al Qaida and Taliban operatives against whom there is persuasive evidence of terrorism or war crimes. Administration officials have other plans for many of the relatively junior captives now at Guantanamo Bay: indefinite detention without trial. US officials would take this action with prisoners they fear could pose a danger of terrorism even if they have little evidence of past crimes. Human rights groups expressed differing opinions about the new tribunal rules. All contended that some provisions still violate the rights of prisoners, but some expressed relief that the regulations were softened since Bush announced them. The human rights group Amnesty International said the new regulations violated suspects' rights in many ways. The worst provision, the group said, is that convictions could be appealed only to higher panels also named by the president, rather than independent judicial bodies - a practice it said was "deeply troubling". Human Rights Watch expressed misgivings about the same provision, with the group's Washington representative Tom Malinowski saying: "In America, we've never let our political leaders decide who is guilty. That's been a fundamental principle since 1789". Even so, he said, the milder rules "go a long way to meet the concerns of human rights groups". The change, he added, "will help the Bush administration climb out of the deep hole it dug for itself" in Nov. 2001.