May 20, 2007
Terror Detainee Back in Australia
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
ADELAIDE, Australia, Sunday, May 20 (Agence France-Presse) * David Hicks, the Guantánamo Bay detainee who pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge, returned home to Australia on Sunday to complete his sentence, after more than five years in detention at the United States military base in Cuba.
Mr. Hicks, 31, was to be taken to the maximum security Yatala prison. He was sentenced in March to seven years in prison after he pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism. Under a deal with American prosecutors, most of his jail sentence was suspended and he will be able to walk free before Jan. 1, 2008.
Mr. Hicks, who was arrested in Afghanistan in late 2001 and sent to Guantánamo early the following year, was held for years without charge and spent significant amounts of time in solitary confinement.
In March, he made a surprise plea bargain, pleading guilty to providing material support for terrorism in exchange for being allowed to serve out his term on Australian soil.
Under the deal, he has agreed to withdraw all claims of mistreatment during his
time in Guantánamo Bay and is barred from speaking to the news media for a year.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
From Rob Rogers of the Tuesday, May 15, 2007
THE MYTH THAT KEEPS ON GIVING
The pentagon always likes to spin the news when important court dates are upon them. Today arguments are being heard in the D.C. appellate court that will determine the rules the habeas counsel will be subjected to during our next phase in the litigation. So on the eve of this important argument the Pentagon wanted to show the court just how dangerous the detainees are. Since there was nothing new, the pentagon did a re-release of old FAKE news. The pentagon released the "news" that 30 men that were released from Guantanamo "returned to the battlefield." They also said they were releasing the names of six of those men. I haven't received the full six names yet but three of the men "named" were named in previous releases and debunked by me in the articles "the guantanamo myth" and "guantanamo myth no. 2" on these pages.
UPDATE
Four of the names were already dubunked by me... with the help of the governments own records. Of the remaining two we have the 13 year old detainee who was released when he was 15 and at some point after his release he was ostensibly picked up with papers saying he is in good standing in the Taliban. The papers gave him passage in the area of Afghanistan where he lives which is a Taliban stronghold. No indication he was fighting. He would be 18 or so now.
As to the other man, the government claims he was released in 2003 but there is no information that he has been found back on the battlefield only that he is wanted for being a Taliban leader.
UPDATE
Four of the names were already dubunked by me... with the help of the governments own records. Of the remaining two we have the 13 year old detainee who was released when he was 15 and at some point after his release he was ostensibly picked up with papers saying he is in good standing in the Taliban. The papers gave him passage in the area of Afghanistan where he lives which is a Taliban stronghold. No indication he was fighting. He would be 18 or so now.
As to the other man, the government claims he was released in 2003 but there is no information that he has been found back on the battlefield only that he is wanted for being a Taliban leader.
Monday, May 14, 2007
More news....
- Editorial from the Times Argus: "The United States is not 18th century France where people were left to rot in dungeons. Except that is how the government is behaving.The Democrats should not fear taking action to correct the unconstitutional abuses of the Bush administration. That is why the people elected them last November. It is no longer in the political interest of Democrats to behave in the timorous fashion of the past. Voters not longer have the patience for that. The Constitution needs its defenders....READ MORE
- David Hicks' military lawyer, Major Mori, has been passed over for a promotion and demoted to "trainee judge" in what Australian newspapers are calling retaliation for his spirited defense of his client. (The Sydney Morning Herald)
- Clive Stafford Smith has written a new book, reviewed here in the Daily Mail. The Mail critic writes that Stafford Smith had delivered an "indictment of the detention centre, which is all the more devastating for being expressed in such temperate terms."
- Adrian Bleifuss Prados
Saturday, May 12, 2007
HELL IS HOT
The heat, like everything else at Guantánamo, is oppressive. As I was waiting to see Mr. Al-Ghizzawi at camp six I was thinking about the men who were having “rec” time at that moment. The detainees at Camp 6 get two hours outside, but there is no shade in the exercise yard. Which is better, to come out during the night and never see the sun or come out during the day and stand in the blistering heat? I cannot even imagine having to make that choice. Of course the men at Camp 6 do not have a choice.
Adding to the heat index (or maybe it is to the oppression index) are the constant shenanigans by one captain McCarthy. Actually he may have another rank now, I know after the judge in one of my two cases gave an affidavit signed by McCarthy (under oath) “zero weight” (aka he is a liar) he got a promotion … (sound familiar?) McCarthy is in charge of the military lawyers at Guantánamo and from what I hear he considers himself an honest guy. As with the bushies, honesty takes on new meaning if this guy is an honest guy… Anyway, the latest shenanigan at the base involves the documents that we attorneys can bring into our meetings with our clients. A court order sets out the rules. We attorneys carefully abide by the rules set up by the court. The military on the other hand tries (sometimes successfully) to just ignore the court rules. The military philosophy was summarized very nicely by an escort who told me on my very first visit to the base “court orders don’t work here, we consider those only advisory.”
When I showed up for my first day of meetings with Mr. Al-Ghizzawi this week I had with me the usual set of documents. I always bring all of my recent correspondence in both English and Arabic. Sometimes I am lucky enough to have some of the court papers and judicial decisions translated into Arabic (thanks to the big law firms who take on these additional expenses) and I bring those along too. During the course of our two days of meetings I always review with Mr. Al-Ghizzawi the various letters and legal materials to make sure he understands what I was writing to him about.
In the morning of my first day of meetings everything was what passes for normal at Guantánamo. I went to see Mr. Al-Ghizzawi and we spent some time going over the letters and discussing other issues. Then comes the two hour break. They make us leave at 11:30 and if we are lucky we are back in by 1:30 (we use to leave at noon and come back at 1:00 but I guess they decided we needed a longer lunch!).
When I arrived in the afternoon to see Mr. Al-Ghizzawi I was told that I was no longer allowed to bring in any documents in Arabic unless “they” review the Arabic first. Problem is, “they” are not allowed to review letters that we attorneys send to our clients. Ooops new rule… who needs judges when the military can make up its own rules? Anyway I met with Mr. Al-Ghizzawi that afternoon and the next day without the benefit of my letters in Arabic… a little bit cumbersome but I did not want to give up my visit to fight this particular battle.
But I knew I did not want to have to go thru this with my other client Mr. Razak Ali on Thursday because I only had one day with him. I asked one of the escorts how I could get my letters in Arabic “approved” and he told me that I had to submit the materials to one of the escorts, who would then take the materials for approval and obtain a “red stamp” so that I could take them into the meeting. The red stamp part sounded kind of communistic for the military but as the disc jockey said on the local radio station that very morning… we are a “captive audience”. I wanted the approval so I was willing to jump through the hoop.
The next morning I gathered all of my legal materials for Mr. Razak Ali and brought them to one of the escorts. I included a letter with the materials explaining that I was giving all of my legal materials in English and Arabic that I planned to review with Mr. Razak Ali during my meeting the next day.
Surprise, surprise. That afternoon when I finished my meeting with Mr. Al-Ghizzawi I received a response to my request. My request was denied and my materials were returned to me. It seems letting “them” read my attorney client communications wasn’t enough so they added a few more hoops that I could not jump through over night.
I discussed this with some of the other attorneys that were at the base visiting their clients and I decided that I would have to protest the decision. The protest would not help me for my Thursday meeting but I was not the only attorney who would be affected by the rule changes. (As far as I know!)
When I got back to our quarters I alerted the gtmo attorneys back home of the “new rules” and one of them volunteered to file for emergency relief. He was heading down next week and he also wanted to bring Arabic legal materials. That evening I drafted a “protest” to the decision and I pointed out that the military was once again violating the court’s order. I assured them (McCarthy) that I would immediately, upon my return home, file a “Rule To Show Cause” asking the court to find the government (again) in contempt of court (the last time I filed one of these was when McCarthy decided to lie thru his teeth in an affidavit to the court). In addition I stated that I would seek a new trip down to the base on their dime so that I could complete my meetings (much to McCarthy’s chagrin I got that relief once already because of his conduct). I gave my protest letter to one of the escorts the next morning. At the same time counsel back on the mainland were preparing emergency papers and negotiating with government attorneys.
Something unusual happened that afternoon. McCarthy caved. He (through his minion) admitted that legal materials could be brought into meetings in any language. Unfortunately the fact that they were willing to follow the rules again, for a minute or so anyway, did not help me this trip. In all honesty, I don’t think they caved because they feared defending themselves in court against me again (they don’t care enough). Caving on this point more likely had to do with the fact that there is an important appellate argument this coming week and the government is under the gun to show that they are not impeding the work of the attorneys. This flare up would have been picked up by the media and had the potential to be an embarrassment.
You might have also read that the government caved on its desire to limit attorney visits to three. The government asked the court to limit our visits to a maximum of three because we attorneys are causing “unrest” at the base. They backed down late Friday and withdrew that request… but don’t think it is because they had a change of heart about our presence. They are still asking the court for the right to terminate all attorney visits without prior notification or approval from the court.
Under that proposal we might not even get the three visits.
I am afraid Hell will remain hot for quite some time.
Adding to the heat index (or maybe it is to the oppression index) are the constant shenanigans by one captain McCarthy. Actually he may have another rank now, I know after the judge in one of my two cases gave an affidavit signed by McCarthy (under oath) “zero weight” (aka he is a liar) he got a promotion … (sound familiar?) McCarthy is in charge of the military lawyers at Guantánamo and from what I hear he considers himself an honest guy. As with the bushies, honesty takes on new meaning if this guy is an honest guy… Anyway, the latest shenanigan at the base involves the documents that we attorneys can bring into our meetings with our clients. A court order sets out the rules. We attorneys carefully abide by the rules set up by the court. The military on the other hand tries (sometimes successfully) to just ignore the court rules. The military philosophy was summarized very nicely by an escort who told me on my very first visit to the base “court orders don’t work here, we consider those only advisory.”
When I showed up for my first day of meetings with Mr. Al-Ghizzawi this week I had with me the usual set of documents. I always bring all of my recent correspondence in both English and Arabic. Sometimes I am lucky enough to have some of the court papers and judicial decisions translated into Arabic (thanks to the big law firms who take on these additional expenses) and I bring those along too. During the course of our two days of meetings I always review with Mr. Al-Ghizzawi the various letters and legal materials to make sure he understands what I was writing to him about.
In the morning of my first day of meetings everything was what passes for normal at Guantánamo. I went to see Mr. Al-Ghizzawi and we spent some time going over the letters and discussing other issues. Then comes the two hour break. They make us leave at 11:30 and if we are lucky we are back in by 1:30 (we use to leave at noon and come back at 1:00 but I guess they decided we needed a longer lunch!).
When I arrived in the afternoon to see Mr. Al-Ghizzawi I was told that I was no longer allowed to bring in any documents in Arabic unless “they” review the Arabic first. Problem is, “they” are not allowed to review letters that we attorneys send to our clients. Ooops new rule… who needs judges when the military can make up its own rules? Anyway I met with Mr. Al-Ghizzawi that afternoon and the next day without the benefit of my letters in Arabic… a little bit cumbersome but I did not want to give up my visit to fight this particular battle.
But I knew I did not want to have to go thru this with my other client Mr. Razak Ali on Thursday because I only had one day with him. I asked one of the escorts how I could get my letters in Arabic “approved” and he told me that I had to submit the materials to one of the escorts, who would then take the materials for approval and obtain a “red stamp” so that I could take them into the meeting. The red stamp part sounded kind of communistic for the military but as the disc jockey said on the local radio station that very morning… we are a “captive audience”. I wanted the approval so I was willing to jump through the hoop.
The next morning I gathered all of my legal materials for Mr. Razak Ali and brought them to one of the escorts. I included a letter with the materials explaining that I was giving all of my legal materials in English and Arabic that I planned to review with Mr. Razak Ali during my meeting the next day.
Surprise, surprise. That afternoon when I finished my meeting with Mr. Al-Ghizzawi I received a response to my request. My request was denied and my materials were returned to me. It seems letting “them” read my attorney client communications wasn’t enough so they added a few more hoops that I could not jump through over night.
I discussed this with some of the other attorneys that were at the base visiting their clients and I decided that I would have to protest the decision. The protest would not help me for my Thursday meeting but I was not the only attorney who would be affected by the rule changes. (As far as I know!)
When I got back to our quarters I alerted the gtmo attorneys back home of the “new rules” and one of them volunteered to file for emergency relief. He was heading down next week and he also wanted to bring Arabic legal materials. That evening I drafted a “protest” to the decision and I pointed out that the military was once again violating the court’s order. I assured them (McCarthy) that I would immediately, upon my return home, file a “Rule To Show Cause” asking the court to find the government (again) in contempt of court (the last time I filed one of these was when McCarthy decided to lie thru his teeth in an affidavit to the court). In addition I stated that I would seek a new trip down to the base on their dime so that I could complete my meetings (much to McCarthy’s chagrin I got that relief once already because of his conduct). I gave my protest letter to one of the escorts the next morning. At the same time counsel back on the mainland were preparing emergency papers and negotiating with government attorneys.
Something unusual happened that afternoon. McCarthy caved. He (through his minion) admitted that legal materials could be brought into meetings in any language. Unfortunately the fact that they were willing to follow the rules again, for a minute or so anyway, did not help me this trip. In all honesty, I don’t think they caved because they feared defending themselves in court against me again (they don’t care enough). Caving on this point more likely had to do with the fact that there is an important appellate argument this coming week and the government is under the gun to show that they are not impeding the work of the attorneys. This flare up would have been picked up by the media and had the potential to be an embarrassment.
You might have also read that the government caved on its desire to limit attorney visits to three. The government asked the court to limit our visits to a maximum of three because we attorneys are causing “unrest” at the base. They backed down late Friday and withdrew that request… but don’t think it is because they had a change of heart about our presence. They are still asking the court for the right to terminate all attorney visits without prior notification or approval from the court.
Under that proposal we might not even get the three visits.
I am afraid Hell will remain hot for quite some time.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
More Good Stuff on the Talking Dog
In case you missed it, last month the Talking Dog landed an interview with Donald Rumsfeld.
A selection:
A selection:
The Talking Dog: Secretary Rumsfeld, I can't thank you enough for agreeing to this interview. May I say how open-minded it is for you to speak with me, given how critical of you I have been, particularly of detention policies you administered and authorized that I believe verge on, if not outright constitute, war crimes. Do you have a comment on that?Is it satire? These days it's hard to tell.
Donald Rumsfeld: Stuff happens. It's untidy, and freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things.The
Talking Dog On the subject of detention policy, can you comment on the recent confession at Guantanamo by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and the recent guilty plea there by Australian national David Hicks, who received a 9-month sentence after we held him for over 5 years?
Donald Rumsfeld: You go to asymmetrical war with the rack and thumbscrews that you have, not with the rack and thumbscrews that you might want or wish to have at a later time. READ MORE
Hicks Heads for the Land Down Under...
David Hicks is scheduled to fly to Australia, perhaps as early as next week, to serve his perfunctory nine-month jail sentence.
Hicks' attorneys did a good job with their client's plea bargain. However, that David Hicks must spend any more time in prison after years of isolation, abuse and denial of due process is an outrage.
Part of the Hick's agreement stipulates that he will not speak to the media for the period of one year. The Australian federal elections are in January, 2008....how very convenient for PM John Howard, Bush's pal in the southern hemisphere.
Source: The Australian
- Adrian Bleifuss Prados
Saturday, May 5, 2007
THE ATTORNEY CLIENT RELATIONSHIP
Oh my. Seems one of the big news stories Saturday morning is the fact that some of our Guantánamo clients get frustrated at the lack of progress as we try to get them out of that hell hole.
Can you blame them? Of course not. These men have sat at Guantánamo for more than five years and most of them are innocent of any wrong doing. Our government knows most of these men were picked up by mistake...First we dropped thousands of fliers all over Afghanistan, Pakistan, and who knows where else, offering huge bounties for “murderers and terrorists” and then we were duped into buying these guys from the Pakistani's and the Afghan war lords... and we paid a handsome price for them too.
Of course our military could not be bothered trying to figure out who these men were so we just paid up and took them all. Eighty-two of the men being held at Guantánamo were cleared by our government for release more than 2 years ago because the government admitted that they were captured "by mistake". Since then the government stopped admitting the mistakes and stopped “clearing” the men because it is too embarrassing (even for these clowns) to have all of these men cleared for such a long time but not released... and, get this, the only country we could cajole into taking detainees that we captured by mistake has been Albania…. I guess the coalition of the willing is not quite so willing on this score!
When I took on the representation of Mr. Al-Ghizzawi and later Mr. Razak Ali I knew that this would not be any typical legal representation. For one thing the litigation in court has all been stayed (put on hold) since before I was even involved... You see attorneys have only been allowed at Guantánamo for less than three years... and the judges have not ruled on any matter of substance for more than two and a half of those years... In fact, the only thing the lower courts have been willing to rule on are procedural matters and attorney visit issues... and even these issues have not been ruled on by all of the judges.
As an attorney for my two clients I learned very quickly that the representation was going to involve doing things beyond the typical lawyer stuff... I have now become a quasi-diplomat and a journalist (of sorts…). I have traveled to countries that I hoped might be sympathetic to the plight of my two clients… I have met with representatives from countries near and far and I have asked these representatives to help my clients....even though they do not want to help my country.... And I have taken on this new career of journalism to help spread the word about what is going on both inside and outside Guantánamo, as it relates to these men who have been held without charge for more than five years.
So the bottom line is that the court process has been at a standstill almost since attorneys have been allowed in the door. If some men have in fact given up on their attorneys or on our legal system it would not be surprising to me (although I personally believe the number is quite small based on my frequent conversations with the other attorneys). But this is a frustrating process and although I never had much hope from the legislative side while the Republicans were in control I do admit that I had a faith in our judicial system that I no longer hold. At one time our judicial system was such that people around the world looked at it in envy. I can only imagine that when word came to these men who were languishing at Guantánamo that they were finally going to have attorneys and could challenge their imprisonment in court, that many got their hopes up that justice was just around the corner. Now we know that if justice is around the next corner it is a very long block.
So yes, on occasion our clients, who are now sitting in solitary confinement and quickly going insane..., sometimes get upset at us and our system of law... but it doesn't last long because they know that for now anyway, we are their life line.
I head back to Guantánamo on Monday. It takes a full day to get there and a full day to get back. I will spend three days with my two clients. I will tell them everything I have been doing these last two months since my last visit (and I have been doing a lot). As always I tell my clients the good news and the bad news... and as usual there is very little in the way of good news. My clients will be frustrated, as well they should be. I share their frustration. But the other Guantánamo attorneys and I are doing our best and we have been fighting against the odds and our clients know this. And so they wait, and hope.
Can you blame them? Of course not. These men have sat at Guantánamo for more than five years and most of them are innocent of any wrong doing. Our government knows most of these men were picked up by mistake...First we dropped thousands of fliers all over Afghanistan, Pakistan, and who knows where else, offering huge bounties for “murderers and terrorists” and then we were duped into buying these guys from the Pakistani's and the Afghan war lords... and we paid a handsome price for them too.
Of course our military could not be bothered trying to figure out who these men were so we just paid up and took them all. Eighty-two of the men being held at Guantánamo were cleared by our government for release more than 2 years ago because the government admitted that they were captured "by mistake". Since then the government stopped admitting the mistakes and stopped “clearing” the men because it is too embarrassing (even for these clowns) to have all of these men cleared for such a long time but not released... and, get this, the only country we could cajole into taking detainees that we captured by mistake has been Albania…. I guess the coalition of the willing is not quite so willing on this score!
When I took on the representation of Mr. Al-Ghizzawi and later Mr. Razak Ali I knew that this would not be any typical legal representation. For one thing the litigation in court has all been stayed (put on hold) since before I was even involved... You see attorneys have only been allowed at Guantánamo for less than three years... and the judges have not ruled on any matter of substance for more than two and a half of those years... In fact, the only thing the lower courts have been willing to rule on are procedural matters and attorney visit issues... and even these issues have not been ruled on by all of the judges.
As an attorney for my two clients I learned very quickly that the representation was going to involve doing things beyond the typical lawyer stuff... I have now become a quasi-diplomat and a journalist (of sorts…). I have traveled to countries that I hoped might be sympathetic to the plight of my two clients… I have met with representatives from countries near and far and I have asked these representatives to help my clients....even though they do not want to help my country.... And I have taken on this new career of journalism to help spread the word about what is going on both inside and outside Guantánamo, as it relates to these men who have been held without charge for more than five years.
So the bottom line is that the court process has been at a standstill almost since attorneys have been allowed in the door. If some men have in fact given up on their attorneys or on our legal system it would not be surprising to me (although I personally believe the number is quite small based on my frequent conversations with the other attorneys). But this is a frustrating process and although I never had much hope from the legislative side while the Republicans were in control I do admit that I had a faith in our judicial system that I no longer hold. At one time our judicial system was such that people around the world looked at it in envy. I can only imagine that when word came to these men who were languishing at Guantánamo that they were finally going to have attorneys and could challenge their imprisonment in court, that many got their hopes up that justice was just around the corner. Now we know that if justice is around the next corner it is a very long block.
So yes, on occasion our clients, who are now sitting in solitary confinement and quickly going insane..., sometimes get upset at us and our system of law... but it doesn't last long because they know that for now anyway, we are their life line.
I head back to Guantánamo on Monday. It takes a full day to get there and a full day to get back. I will spend three days with my two clients. I will tell them everything I have been doing these last two months since my last visit (and I have been doing a lot). As always I tell my clients the good news and the bad news... and as usual there is very little in the way of good news. My clients will be frustrated, as well they should be. I share their frustration. But the other Guantánamo attorneys and I are doing our best and we have been fighting against the odds and our clients know this. And so they wait, and hope.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Former Guantanamo inmate walks free in Morocco
Thu May 3, 2007 7:13AM EDT
RABAT (Reuters) - A Moroccan man sent home from the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay last week was released by local authorities after terrorism-related charges were dropped, a human rights lawyer and relatives said on Thursday.
Ahmed Errachidi, 41, was arrested on his return to Morocco and appeared before a judge on Wednesday on suspicion of preparing and carrying out terrorist acts, lawyer Mohamed Sebbar told Reuters.
"The charges were dropped, he was released last night and he is now back home with his family," said Sebbar. A relative confirmed his release and return home.
Errachidi spent more than five years at the U.S. detention camp for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba before being freed without charge last week. He has a wife and two young sons living in Morocco.
Relatives say he suffers from bipolar disorder, also known as manic depression, and needs to take medication regularly.
Errachidi lived in Britain for 17 years and worked as a chef in London restaurants. According to the British-based legal charity Reprieve, which represents him, he was arrested in Pakistan after traveling there in 2001 on a business venture to fund a heart operation for his younger son, Imran.
While there, he was affected by television footage of the U.S. invasion of neighboring Afghanistan and went there to try to help refugees from bombing raids, a decision his lawyers say reflected his erratic judgment caused by his illness.
Once in Afghanistan, he soon realized there was nothing he could do and it was dangerous to stay. He was detained after crossing back into Pakistan.
Pakistani officials then "sold Ahmed to the U.S. military for a bounty that was negotiated while he stood by in shackles and a hood", Reprieve said in a press release on his case.
The U.S. government has repatriated 10 Moroccans from Guantanamo in the past three years, according to lawyers.
They were charged with forming criminal gangs, forgery, illegal migration or belonging to an international terrorist organization but only one was imprisoned.
Three Moroccans remain in the maximum security prison in Cuba.
RABAT (Reuters) - A Moroccan man sent home from the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay last week was released by local authorities after terrorism-related charges were dropped, a human rights lawyer and relatives said on Thursday.
Ahmed Errachidi, 41, was arrested on his return to Morocco and appeared before a judge on Wednesday on suspicion of preparing and carrying out terrorist acts, lawyer Mohamed Sebbar told Reuters.
"The charges were dropped, he was released last night and he is now back home with his family," said Sebbar. A relative confirmed his release and return home.
Errachidi spent more than five years at the U.S. detention camp for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba before being freed without charge last week. He has a wife and two young sons living in Morocco.
Relatives say he suffers from bipolar disorder, also known as manic depression, and needs to take medication regularly.
Errachidi lived in Britain for 17 years and worked as a chef in London restaurants. According to the British-based legal charity Reprieve, which represents him, he was arrested in Pakistan after traveling there in 2001 on a business venture to fund a heart operation for his younger son, Imran.
While there, he was affected by television footage of the U.S. invasion of neighboring Afghanistan and went there to try to help refugees from bombing raids, a decision his lawyers say reflected his erratic judgment caused by his illness.
Once in Afghanistan, he soon realized there was nothing he could do and it was dangerous to stay. He was detained after crossing back into Pakistan.
Pakistani officials then "sold Ahmed to the U.S. military for a bounty that was negotiated while he stood by in shackles and a hood", Reprieve said in a press release on his case.
The U.S. government has repatriated 10 Moroccans from Guantanamo in the past three years, according to lawyers.
They were charged with forming criminal gangs, forgery, illegal migration or belonging to an international terrorist organization but only one was imprisoned.
Three Moroccans remain in the maximum security prison in Cuba.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
More on Yesterday's Lobby Effort
The Hill and Jurist both have synopses of yesterday's lobby day. We thank everybody for calling their senators and representatives!
From The Hill:
- Adrian Bleifuss Prados
From The Hill:
Congress in 1961 designated May 1 as National Law Day to celebrate the United States’ commitment to justice and the rule of law. The attorneys who aim to hold more than 50 meetings on the Hill today say such tradition has been tarnished by Congress’s September 2006 vote to deny habeas corpus to hundreds of detainees held in Guantánamo Bay for more than five years...READ MOREFrom Jurist:
About 70 lawyers representing some of the top firms in the US Tuesday lobbied various congressional offices to restore the writ of habeas corpus to Guantanamo Bay detainees brought before military tribunals. The lawyers, who also included public defenders and sole practitioners, held over 50 meetings with Washington legislators, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), to draw attention to the issue...READ MORE
- Adrian Bleifuss Prados
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Guantánamo Lawyers Lobby Congress
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- Seventy-five lawyers for nearly 400 Guantanamo Bay detainees urged Congress on Tuesday to give the prisoners access to U.S. courts.
Fanning out across Capitol Hill for private meetings with senators and House members, the attorneys are seeking legislation to overturn a section of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that stripped the detainees of court access.
Under last year's law, the detainees are entitled to a procedural review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia into whether they were properly designated unlawful enemy combatants.
Congress has supported "executive branch extremism" by enacting legislation that overrides Supreme Court rulings, retired federal appeals court judge John J. Gibbons said at a news conference with some of the lawyers. The court ruled in 2004 and a year ago that detainees do have rights.
"We're not talking about a get-out-of-jail-free card; we're simply talking about having a right to be heard in court," said Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
The center, acting largely on its own, filed the first lawsuits on the detainees' behalf in February 2002, a month after the Bush administration brought the first prisoners to Guantanamo Bay.
Since then, more than 500 lawyers from prominent firms and law schools nationwide have donated their time and paid their own expenses to represent the detainees.
WASHINGTON -- Seventy-five lawyers for nearly 400 Guantanamo Bay detainees urged Congress on Tuesday to give the prisoners access to U.S. courts.
Fanning out across Capitol Hill for private meetings with senators and House members, the attorneys are seeking legislation to overturn a section of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that stripped the detainees of court access.Under last year's law, the detainees are entitled to a procedural review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia into whether they were properly designated unlawful enemy combatants.
Congress has supported "executive branch extremism" by enacting legislation that overrides Supreme Court rulings, retired federal appeals court judge John J. Gibbons said at a news conference with some of the lawyers. The court ruled in 2004 and a year ago that detainees do have rights.
"We're not talking about a get-out-of-jail-free card; we're simply talking about having a right to be heard in court," said Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
The center, acting largely on its own, filed the first lawsuits on the detainees' behalf in February 2002, a month after the Bush administration brought the first prisoners to Guantanamo Bay.
Since then, more than 500 lawyers from prominent firms and law schools nationwide have donated their time and paid their own expenses to represent the detainees.
Monday, April 30, 2007
The Worst of the Worst?
The Bushies say Guantánamo holds the "worst of the worst," but other than a handful of "high value detainees" (brought in for show before the Military Commissions Act was passed) and a recent arrival from a secret CIA dungeon, this is clearly nonesense.As the Washington Post reports, more than 80 prisoners have been cleared for release by the government's own procedures....and yet they continue to languish in Guantánamo. The U.S. blames diplomatic impasses, but clearly they prefer to release prisoners in a slow trickle, which makes for less embarrassment (and less of a news story) than a mass-release of dozens of wrongfully imprisoned men and boys.
- Adrian Bleifuss Prados
A good resource:
Last Thursday (April 26), the Senate Armed Services Committee heard testimony "on legal issues regarding individuals detainedby the Department of Defense as unlawful enemy combatants."
The Seton Hall reports, authored by Mark and Joshua Denbeaux, were submitted to the Committee and are conveniently collected on Committee's website, HERE.
- Adrian Bleifuss Prados
The Seton Hall reports, authored by Mark and Joshua Denbeaux, were submitted to the Committee and are conveniently collected on Committee's website, HERE.
- Adrian Bleifuss Prados
Friday, April 27, 2007
CAUSING UNREST AT GUANTÁNAMO
OK, a show of hands please, how many of you thought about me when you saw the article about how the military wants to keep the lawyers out of Guantánamo? It seems the military thinks that we attorneys are acting as a conduit for the media! (If only it were true…) Anyway, that is bush talk for saying that we are doing a heck of a job exposing our clients’ conditions and our government’s un-American activities. We haven’t exposed any deep dark secrets and you should take note of the fact that the military has not accused any of us of misconduct or illegal activity… What they are accusing us of is being in the way. Too bad for them. I, for one, plan on staying “in the way” until the place closes.
So what is going on now? A brief summary: In October, our republican congress passed the military commissions act (MCA), a law that sent our country back to the Middle Ages by repealing the ancient writ of habeas corpus. (And don’t let these scum bags tell you otherwise, this law does not just apply to detainees at Guantánamo.. .it applies to any non-citizen and in the long run could even be applied to citizens that the prez determines are enemy combatants.) In the old days (before October 2006) habeas corpus allowed people being held by the government to challenge their detention by requiring the government to answer some simple questions: like why they were being held and what they were accused of doing. Anyway our government did away with that little law that had been around for 800 years or so.
At the same time the republican congress abolished habeas corpus it proclaimed that the only thing the Guantánamo detainees could challenge is their designation of having been determined to be an enemy combatant…. but the determination of being an enemy combatant was a rigged deal… and many of the detainees did not even participate in the proceedings because they were (correctly) told (by the military) that they did not have to participate because, get this, they had the right to challenge their detention in our federal courts… (oops on that one, huh?)
Well now the courts are closing their doors to the Guantánamo detainees. The appellate court said that the MCA is a legit law, the Supreme Court said it is too early to decide if the law is legit and the men at Guantánamo… well, they will continue to languish at Guantánamo for who knows how long.
And that brings me back to the lawyers… we are the trouble makers because we bring our client’s stories front and center. We are telling you who the men are and what they were doing (or more importantly what they were not doing) when they were sold to our government in return for bounties.
Bush and our military want to get back to the way things were… cages, water boarding… you know the drill. Meanwhile, we attorneys are fighting like hell to continue to represent these men and to visit and write to our clients… but it would sure be nice to have a little help about now.
Law Day. Tuesday May 1st. Can you help us out and contact your senators and your reps and tell them to restore habeas corpus and close the place? And can you ask everyone you know to do the same? If you do your part, I promise that the other habeas counsel and I will do our part and continue to be in the way…
So what is going on now? A brief summary: In October, our republican congress passed the military commissions act (MCA), a law that sent our country back to the Middle Ages by repealing the ancient writ of habeas corpus. (And don’t let these scum bags tell you otherwise, this law does not just apply to detainees at Guantánamo.. .it applies to any non-citizen and in the long run could even be applied to citizens that the prez determines are enemy combatants.) In the old days (before October 2006) habeas corpus allowed people being held by the government to challenge their detention by requiring the government to answer some simple questions: like why they were being held and what they were accused of doing. Anyway our government did away with that little law that had been around for 800 years or so.
At the same time the republican congress abolished habeas corpus it proclaimed that the only thing the Guantánamo detainees could challenge is their designation of having been determined to be an enemy combatant…. but the determination of being an enemy combatant was a rigged deal… and many of the detainees did not even participate in the proceedings because they were (correctly) told (by the military) that they did not have to participate because, get this, they had the right to challenge their detention in our federal courts… (oops on that one, huh?)
Well now the courts are closing their doors to the Guantánamo detainees. The appellate court said that the MCA is a legit law, the Supreme Court said it is too early to decide if the law is legit and the men at Guantánamo… well, they will continue to languish at Guantánamo for who knows how long.
And that brings me back to the lawyers… we are the trouble makers because we bring our client’s stories front and center. We are telling you who the men are and what they were doing (or more importantly what they were not doing) when they were sold to our government in return for bounties.
Bush and our military want to get back to the way things were… cages, water boarding… you know the drill. Meanwhile, we attorneys are fighting like hell to continue to represent these men and to visit and write to our clients… but it would sure be nice to have a little help about now.
Law Day. Tuesday May 1st. Can you help us out and contact your senators and your reps and tell them to restore habeas corpus and close the place? And can you ask everyone you know to do the same? If you do your part, I promise that the other habeas counsel and I will do our part and continue to be in the way…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
