The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair, that's patreon.com slash

LawFair. Also check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull, and the aftermaths.

Hello and welcome to the LawFair podcast. I'm Wells Bennett. We continue this week with our coverage

of the military commissions in Guantanamo Bay. In January, we spoke to Brigadier General Mark

Martins, the commission's chief prosecutor, on his recommendation to withdraw certain charges

against the defendant's accused in the 9-11 case. This week, I spoke to Commander Walter Ruiz,

a lawyer for one of the men accused in that case who stopped all how sorry.

Let's start with the commissions just generally before we talk about the case on which you've

been working. Congress has approved these tribunals twice. We know they impact it, support them.

The Obama administration said it supports them under certain circumstances and touts the reforms

in 2009 statute is making them fair. Dallas you're aware of General Martins, very public efforts

at explaining and advocating for commissions, their procedures. How are they wrong?

Well, I mean if you're comparing them to where we started and where we are, certainly I think I

would be hard pressed to say that there hasn't been some progress. Right, but when the bar

starts that low, it's difficult to say that we haven't come up to some degree.

The wrong one may be different aspects. If you're talking about structural and what the 2009

military commission's act lacks in structural terms of rights, like you would see in federal court,

rights that you were seeing in our state courts, we can start for example with one of the rules

that we've been talking about is the head derivative evidence for torture.

And the fact of the matter is that you've seen a great push from General Martins to say that

...