Thursday, October 18, 2007
CAPTAIN MCCARTHY CLAIMS HE SAW THE BODY BUT NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD BELIEVE A WORD HE SAYS
I will give you a hint.
Everything Mr. Al-Ghizzawi has ever told me has been backed up by the governments own records.
Captain McCarthy on the other hand does not have such a stellar record. On my first visit to the base the military screwed up and did not allow me to visit one of my clients. It became apparent that this was not just a mistake but that it was intentional....so I filed what is called a "rule to show cause" asking the judge to hold the military in contempt of court (I had a court order to see that second client). Captain McCarthy (a man I have never met) prepared a long affidavit explaining that the reason that I did not get to see my client was my own fault. He made up a bunch of lies, some just plain silly, others more nefarious.... I asked the judge to strike McCarthy's affidavit because it was not based on any of his own personal knowledge. The judge refused to strike the affidavit but instead said that he would determine how much weight to give McCarthy's affidavit... after hearing the testimony he gave McCarthy's affidavit ZERO weight.... in non legal terms that would be like saying "McCarthy you are a liar."
So back to my question above? Who do you believe?
I say McCarthy is covering up for the medical neglect at Guantanamo just like he tried to cover up for the intentional interference of my visit with my client. I say that anything that McCarthy says should be given the same weight it was given by the good Judge....ZERO weight.
Click on the title above to read the story from the Miami Herald.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Mr. Al-Ghizzawi's latest secret
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
THERE IS A LARRY LURKING IN THE BUSHIES...
(click on the title above for the full story...
Monday, October 15, 2007
Truitt and Carpenter interviewed on The Talking Dog
The legal procedures are of course a joke (a sad one at that)... but it is not because of the hard work of the many courageous attorneys who have taken on these cases.... it is because the circuit court and the district court judges are completely unable (or unwilling) to do their job.
Shame on those judges.... They took the same oath we lawyers took... "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic".
Sunday, October 14, 2007
THREE SHOULD DO IT?
Everytime we think it can't get much worse.... it does...
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Gonzales' lawyer, Gonzales' worry
But let me tell you this...
if I and a many others get our way...
this will be one of the smaller worries for gonzo...
War Crimes,
Torture,
violating the Geneva Convention and other treaties,
A fist full of lies to Congress,
the American people
not to mention the rest of the World.
And Gonzo.... remember when it comes to the law...
ignorance is not bliss.
(did they teach you that at law school?)
From Roger Fitch and our friends down under...once again.
(click on the title to go directly to "Justinian"
Roger Fitch Esq • October 10, 2007
Our Man in Washington
The National Law Journal has a report on important cases for the new term, including the Guantanamo detainee case, Boumediene-Al Odah, which will test the suspension of habeas contained in the Military Commissions Act 2006.
The military commission case, Hamdan, would have made a natural companion case to the detainee case, as both require the court to construe the MCA. It was refused certiorari, however, on the basis that Hamdan’s appeal had not yet been decided by the DC Circuit.
In a Catch 22 for Mr Hamdan, the Court of Appeals has deferred consideration of his case until the Supreme Court decides Boumediene.
According to a not entirely disinterested analysis, the new conservative bloc of the Supreme Court is ready to “implement a bold, longstanding plan for radically remaking the court’s jurisprudence”.
One of the major cases – a late addition to the court’s docket – concerns capital punishment, e.g. the constitutional validity of the method of lethal injection.
This issue – whether the protocol for administration of drugs in fact paralyses the person executed while allowing excruciating pain – has caused many states to suspend such executions. It’s no trivial question, as Texas and many other states ban the use of one of the challenged medications in putting down animals.
Texas, the leading capital punisher, refused at first to suspend executions, but finally relented at the beginning of October.
Unfortunately, it was too late to save one man. A fatal crash of computers is said to have cost the life of a Texan inmate, who failed to meet an appeal deadline days before Texas acted to suspend executions.
* * *
In the meantime, the Bush Administration has had two big losses in US District Courts.
In one case, a federal judge ruled that the US National Archives could not refuse FoI requests relying on a Presidential Records Act order of George W. Bush.
The order famously claimed the right to prevent disclosure of presidential records for new and spurious reasons and placed consent for release in the hands of the presidents or their descendants. One of the plaintiffs, the National Security Archive, has more on this.
* * *
The disasters of the US mercenary firm (sorry, security contractor) Blackwater, which “protects” US officials in Iraq, are back before a Congressional committee.
The initial report of the House Committee makes unedifying reading, even without the details of a September 16 shootout in which as many as 28 innocent civilians were killed by Blackwater – an apparently unprovoked incident in which no one else fired a shot.
US contractors in Iraq can claim exemption from Iraqi law on the basis of the infamous “Order 17” made by the proconsul Paul Bremer just before he departed Iraq.
Blackwater claims to be exempt even from US oversight in Iraq because it contracts with the State Department rather than the Defence Department. The US legislation, such as it is, pertains to military support contractors.
In the unfolding farce, the State Department first interfered to protect the mercenaries from investigation.
The State Department’s Inspector General was accused of intimidating potential House Oversight Committee witnesses – one reason for proposed new legislation that would strip the President of the power to sack truly independent Inspector Generals.
Then, when the State Department reluctantly provided a “report” on the latest Blackwater “incident”, it turned out that the report had been outsourced to a Blackwater official.
As the Times’ Maureen Dowd commented: “Once there was the military-industrial complex. Now we have the mercenary-evangelical complex.”
In any event, there is now going to be a proper FBI investigation of the Blackwater “incident”, although the FBI understandably declined the State Department’s offer to have its agents protected by Blackwater.
The State Department has agreed to begin oversight of Blackwater – after $1 billion in US contracts, and there is to be new legislation (now passed by the House) making all contractors in Iraq subject to US criminal law.
Law prof Laura Dickinson (pic) also had some interesting thoughts on the same subject.
* * *
Speaking of military commissions, the Government’s appeal of the dismissal of the Omar Khadr commission has been decided.
The Court of Military Commission Review has partly saved the Government from the effect of its incompetence, although it was hardly the mighty victory for the Bush regime that it was portrayed to be in the press.
Scotus blog has more on the Khadr case.
Sadly, when the MCs of Khadr and Hamdan (also affected by the CMCR decision) resume, colourful Chief Prosecutor “Moe” Davis will be gone.
After an apparent losing struggle with Brig Gen Thomas Hartmann, whom he accused of interference, Colonel Davis has asked to be transferred.
Like Col. Abraham, the officer, as yet unidentified, had participated in a CSRT where a “redo” was ordered by the Pentagon after the panel failed to find that the detainee was an “enemy combatant”. The officer’s statement is part of a declaration filed by the lawyers for Adel Hamad, a hospital administrator seized in Pakistan and sent to Guantanamo.
Unlike Col. Abraham, the latest Pentagon defector participated in not one but 49 CSRTs. Hamad’s CSRT was but one of six the officer participated in where repeat panels were demanded by the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, the Department of Defence proudly announced that last year’s new arrivals at Gitmo, the “high value” detainees, were to be offered the right to request lawyers, to be provided by the American Bar Association.
The ABA immediately contradicted the DoD, declining to have anything to do with a Guantanamo process that had no habeas corpus.
The ABA said its offer had been made two years ago in the wake of the Rasul case, after the right to habeas had been confirmed by the Supreme Court and before Congress took it away.
Apparently, the DoD kept the ABA’s offer secret for two years and then tried to extend it selectively to the “high value” detainees – not yet detained in Gitmo in 2005 – and only for their representation before the Detainee Treatment Act appeals in the DC Court of Appeals.
* * *
A persistent problem in the Guantanamo (and now Bagram, Afghanistan) detainee cases has been the Government’s zeal to send released prisoners to countries where they may be tortured or arbitrarily detained, always without telling their lawyers or the courts beforehand.
Many such attempts by the Administration were stayed in the various habeas cases, but since February 2007 when the DC Court of Appeals (in its 2-1 Boumediene decision) interpreted the Military Commission Act to block all habeas case motions, the danger to detainees has become especially grave.
Now, the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York has filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court on behalf of a Libyan held in Guantanamo, whose refoulement/forced repatriation they seek to block.
CCR earlier condemned a recent decision of Judge Richard Urbina, who dismissed 16 cases involving 40 detainees despite the pending appeal of the Boumediene-Al Odah cases in the Supreme Court this term.
A day after Urbina’s ruling, the DoJ informed all the affected lawyers that they were barred access to their clients, but after the lawyers appealed Urbina reinstated the cases.
Other DC judges had taken a different course. In July, Judge John Bates refused to dismiss the habeas case of a Yemeni, Al-Maqaleh, who alleged he was unlawfully detained by the US at its Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Judge Bates did so notwithstanding the MCA purporting to close down all habeas actions for “enemy combatant” aliens held by the US in Guantanamo and overseas.
In another Bagram case, DC Judge Gladys Kessler required notice to the court of any proposed transfer, acting on the basis of the Boumediene appeal. She cited evidence that the detainee Robullah “would face a serious threat of torture” in the Afghanistan-operated wing of the US prison in Kabul, Pul-i-Charki, where the US seems determined to transfer him.
If memory serves, even Richard Leon, the judge in the Boumediene case and a slavish supporter of Bush Law, has declined to dismiss cases pending the appeal.
Unfortunately for some petitioners, many cases, including those of Reggie Walton, were dismissed before the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Boumediene case.
* * *
In a final irony, the last surviving 13th century copy of the Magna Carta in private hands has come on the market.
There are only two copies outside England – in Australia and the US. This copy is the one on display in the National Archives in Washington, where it has been on a long-term loan from its owner, Texan billionaire Ross Perot.
And why not sell it? It doesn’t look as though there will be much call for it in future – in either Texas or Washington.
Monday, October 8, 2007
The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison
I was honored to be asked to preread Andy's book... You can read an interview with Andy at The talking Dog (http://thetalkingdog.com/archives2/000920.html) and here is what I wrote to Andy in July after I finished the book:
Dear Andy,
“The Guantánamo Files” is a must read for anyone who wants to understand how Guantánamo came to be the
Afghani "Terrorists" Executed
>1. Abdul Wakil S/o Mohd Akbar from Laghaman province by the name of
>terrorist
>
>2, Dost Mohd S/o Nazar Mohd from Nooristan Province by the name of terrorist
>
>3, Mohd Husain S/o Mohd Haneef from Farah province by the name of terrorist
>
>4, Ahmad Shah S/o Noor Mohd from Kandahar by the name of terrorist
>
>5, Raza Khan S/o Easa Khan from Kabul province by the name of terrorist
>
>6, Farhad S/o Gul Mohd from Nangarhar province by the name of terrorist
>
>7, Mirza Khan S/o Abdul Salam from Kunar province by the name of terrorist
>
>8, Mohd Iqbal S/o Iqbal from Logar province criminal (killer)
>
>9, Rahmatullah S/o Bahaudin from Nangarhar Province criminal (killer)
>
>10, Inayatullah S/o Bahaudin from Nangahar province criminal (killer)
>
>11, Mangal S/o Mali Khan from khost province criminal (killer)
>
>12, Samaiullah S/o Mohd Azeem from Kunar province criminal
>
>13, Mirwis S/o Ghulam Jan from Nangarhar province criminal
>
>14, Zarawar S/o Abdul Majeed from Kabul province criminal
>
>15, Shad Mohd S/o Din Mohd from Kabul province crimnal
Friday, October 5, 2007
No Conscience? No Constitutional violation
Well now we know Stephen Bradbury’s opinion on the sound of a tree falling in the woods when no one is there to hear it. There is no sound. In case you are not familiar with Mr. Bradbury he is the smarter version of Alberto Gonzalez… and he headed the Office of Legal Counsel at the (lack of) Justice department. If you read the New York Times story yesterday (you can click on the title above and it will take you there…) we finally find out how the Justice department justified torture as legal. You see the Supreme Court has held that conduct that shocks the conscience is unconstitutional…. But what happens if you have no conscience? You got it… according to Bradbury waterboarding, freezing temperatures, beatings, etc didn’t shock his conscience so therefore the supreme court would find it constitutional. Did I say that he was the smarter version of Gonzales?
Thursday, October 4, 2007
The DC Circuit Court
Most recently the government argued that “the dog ate the homework” and today the DC Circuit decided to duck and run by accepting that argument….they ruled that the Department of defense should just reconvene the Combat Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) in every case where the government failed to maintain sufficient records to justify the initial tribunal that found a detainee an enemy combatant…(In Mr. Al-Ghizzawi’s case “tribunalS) In essence the court was begging the Defense department to “please conduct new CSRT’s” so that the court does not have to deal with the fact that the defense department has no records to support its initial findings…
How long will this new process take – another year? Maybe two…. Depends on how quickly the Defense department can concoct new records….Then I guess we can all file new petitions and maybe the court can review those a year or two from now. I guess what this really means is that we will have a never-ending circle of do-overs (Mr. Al-Ghizzawi and 30+ other detainees have already had one do-over... and at least one detainee has already had two do-overs) with no opportunity for the court to engage in any meaningful review – and what is “meaningful,” a ruling where the government might actually be ordered to release someone it is illegally detaining.
In my Original Habeas Corpus petition before the Supreme Court (which the Court is considering right now) I asked that Court to take Mr. Al-Ghizzawi’s case because the lower courts cannot figure out how habeas works. What is happening in the courts is more than sad… men are dying while the lower courts fumble around… afraid to challenge the executive branch. The question the lower courts face is whether to follow the Constitution or follow congress…. When I went to school there was no question that the Constitution was the law of the land… but, as they say, that was yesterday…. And yesterday’s gone.
Oh and by the way the new nominee for Attorney General just gave special recognition to the attorneys in the office who have been handling the Guantanamo litigation.... good job boys and girls... you have followed the party line and have done your part to shred the constitution....
Don’t kid yourselves that things are getting better…. It gets worse just about every day.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
UNDER ARMOUR CAPER (CONTINUED)
our very own habeas attorney Sabin Willett has entered the drama with his own questions and came up with this masterpiece...
(now if we can only get it set to music...)
Briefly Noted
By P. Sabin Willett
The Corpsmen wonder
What’s he got under?
And so they file a brief report.
Whereat the starch of camo rustles
-- Here strides he of massive muscles! --
Glowering, full of quick retort.
Loudly then the Sarge responds
“For Clive Stafford -- Double Wands!
None penetrates my sally port!”
“Aye aye, Sir!” says Corpsman wander
Stroking wand as ‘gain to ponder
(crouching ‘neath Clive’s legs asunder)
What’s this fearful Brit got under?
Away at JAGville, colonel’s striding,
One thought tormenting, one thought riding --
(Certain as he is, well knowing, knowing --
Clive’s got something, and it’s not showing!)
His mind aburn, afire, consumed
And so paces. Stops. (Pace resumed.)
Stride -- Stop -- Turn -- and stride again. Pace --He
Yet never can evade the thought. Is it lacy?
In his oaken keep the SG broods
No sense of confidence exudes.
“Daily he assaults our core beliefs
To Justice deals so many griefs!
That hugger mugger terr’ist-hugger
With his hugger-mugger briefs!”
So ruminating calls staff to brief him
“What mighty force, what untold vim,”
Demands he of the underlings,
“Lurks in Stafford’s underthings?
(None knows. Yet fear’s asowing --
The wretched Scotus granted cert
The wretched Kessler’s on alert
Is it -- this fell unknown -- is it growing?)
All quiet then. SG cries out
To staffers in that dark redoubt,
“It’s only safety that I seek
For all from all our desperate foes!
I need a clue, a hint, a little peek --
I need intel on the underclothes!”
And now its on the ‘serv and in the papers
Food for thinkers and for gapers
The question rages (all must know yet no-one knowing)
Clive’s got something, and it’s not showing!
And so we daily, nightly wonder
What’s Clive Stafford Smith got under?
Monday, October 1, 2007
Original Habeas Petition (UPDATED)
Today (October 2nd) the Court ordered the government to respond to Mr. Al-Ghizzawi's Petition... they have until October 31st... this takes us one step closer to a hearing...
YIKES
The Supreme Court accepted Mr. Al-Ghizzawi's Original Habeas today.....
I wonder if he will live to see the end result of all of this.
8 DETAINEES TRANSFERRED
The Department of Defense announced Sunday the transfer of eight detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Six detainees were transferred to Afghanistan, and one each to Libya and Yemen.
DoJ has confirmed that the Yemeni man is Fordham's client, Ali Mohammed Nasser Mohammed (known to DoD as Ali Al Kazmi, ISN 172 and that the Libyan was ISN 557, represented by CCR and Kevin Boris.
Two of the Afghani’s are Muhibullah 974 and Sabar Lal (ISN 801)
We are still waiting for the confirmation of the other afghani prisoners.
After I get that information I will try to figure out how many were actually on the list to be released.... I believe that unlike the last two groups of released detainees at least two were on the list (ISN 172 and 557).