WASHINGTON: The military tribunals of suspected terrorists held at Guantánamo Bay were a “tremendous failure”, a US military lawyer told Congress on Wednesday. Navy Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift was testifying before the first full Senate hearing on the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees since the “war on terror” began.

His comments come amid calls from Democrats and some Republicans that the Guantánamo Bay prison camp be closed down.

Lt Cdr Swift was assigned to represent Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s driver, whom he said had been left mentally disturbed after being held in solitary confinement for seven months.

Lt Cdr Swift said that Mr Hamdan was offered the opportunity to see a defence lawyer only if he pleaded guilty to the charges made against him.

He told the Senate judiciary committee: “Mr Hamdan was on the verge of being coerced into a guilty plea or deteriorating mentally to the point that he would be unable to assist in his defence if he ever came to trial.

“We have lost sight of our fundamental values to the point that Mr Hamdan faces judgement for allegedly violating the law of war in a tribunal that fails to live up to the standards of justice required by that same law.”

Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway, a legal adviser to the military commissions, denied that access to lawyers had been made conditional on a guilty plea.

He also objected to the description of Mr Hamdan’s conditions as “solitary confinement”, describing it instead as “segregation”. He did not explain the difference.

Only four people have been charged under the military commission system, which was suspended before any prosecutions could be made pending court battles over the legality of the procedures.

The stalling of the military tribunals has left about 520 detainees in Guantánamo Bay without charges. In the past few days some prominent Republicans have joined Democratic calls for it to be closed down or reformed. Mel Martinez, a senator normally considered a Bush loyalist, described it as “an icon for bad news” and questioned whether its costs outweighed its benefits.—Dawn/The Guardian News Service