Bishop Tutu, addressing supporters of Omar Deghayes:
Tell them injustice and oppression won't have the last word - that one day they will be vindicated...
In South Africa I opposed detention without trial and I have no reason to change.
The Argus: "Tutu compares horror of Guantanamo to apartheid era"
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Amnesty International on GTMO conditions:
Last month, Amnesty International issued a comprehensive report on conditions at the Guantánamo Bay prison camp. (Click here for a PDF version.)In addition to the highlighting the profound injustice of indefinite detention and physical abuse, the report also makes note of the declining mental health of Guantánamo's inmates and the psychological damage caused by isolation.
The report's appendix (which we have posted here) outlines exactly how the United States can undo the damage caused by Guantánamo Bay: fair trials and an end to unlawful detentions. The appendix also stresses that the right of victims to seek reparations in U.S. courts should not be limited and that unlawfully detained prisoners should be speedily transferred to a safe location of their choosing and offered the option of asylum in the U.S.
Interview with Tina Foster
The Talking Dog has another excellent interview, this time with Tina Foster who represented Guantánamo prisoners pro bono at Clifford Chance and later at CCR.
Foster is now the director of the International Justice Network. She has filed a habeas petition for a Yemeni held at the Bagram Air Base, citing his rights established by Rasul. The government has moved to dismiss, arguing that the Military Commissions Act strips the courts of any jurisdiction. However, since nobody at Bagram has ever been designated an "enemy combatant" through a Guantánamo-style Combatant Status Review Tribunal process, Foster can maintain that the MCA does not apply.
But now...
Foster is now the director of the International Justice Network. She has filed a habeas petition for a Yemeni held at the Bagram Air Base, citing his rights established by Rasul. The government has moved to dismiss, arguing that the Military Commissions Act strips the courts of any jurisdiction. However, since nobody at Bagram has ever been designated an "enemy combatant" through a Guantánamo-style Combatant Status Review Tribunal process, Foster can maintain that the MCA does not apply.
But now...
READ MORE
almost as if by magic, the military announced, two days before a court deadline on this issue, that it has established new CSRT-like proceedings (none of which involve the detainee even present, of course), but that this somehow satisfies the prerequisites for depriving the court of jurisdiction.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
New on Huffington Post:
Candace reflects on Moe and Cully.... could Larry be far behind? We are waiting with baited breath to witness the Bush administration's next attack on Guantánamo habeas counsel. Read her latest post on Huffington, "Is there a Larry Lurking in the Bushies?"
What's more American than a do-over?
From The Oregonian GUANTANAMO IN COURT
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
David Sarasohn
For five years, people have been complaining that the prison at Guantanamo Bay follows no real legal procedures. But evidence in a hearing in Washington, D.C., this week suggests that Guantanamo has plenty of legal procedures.
In fact, according to The New York Times, if a military tribunal hearing to decide whether a prisoner is an enemy combatant turns out in a way the government doesn't like, the government holds another one. Lawyers complain that the hearings have no relation to American legal principles, but what's more American than a do-over?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, just below the Supreme Court, is hearing a series of challenges from several groups of prisoners to the operation of Guantanamo's military tribunals. It's the Bush administration's position, of course, that the courts really don't have to bother.
According to the administration's reading of a law passed by Congress in 2005, courts have power only to decide whether the tribunals are following their own rules. Lately, the administration has suggested some interesting new rules, such as limiting lawyers' visits and checking out previously confidential communications between prisoners and their attorneys.
Tuesday, lawyers for prisoners asked for a broader review of the procedures, pointing out that was, well, what judges were supposed to do. Some judicial responses suggested sympathy for that idea.
Concerned about limited information from the government, Judge Douglas Ginsburg noted, "I don't see how there can be any meaningful review if we don't know what we don't know."
When a Justice Department lawyer suggested that the tribunals resembled procedures in the Army Field Manual, Judge Judith Rogers warned him, "You'd better not invoke that," pointing out that lots of the manual's procedures were missing in the tribunals.
The administration has had some embarrassing judicial defeats on the subject of Guantanamo, and it seems that even after the last Congress passed new laws to try to write courts out of the issue, it might be facing some more. "The D.C. Circuit is skeptical of the government's restrictions on lawyers, of how limited the scope of courts is in the government's view," says Jonathan Hafetz, litigation director of the Liberty & National Security Project at NYU Law School's Brennan Center for Justice. "It shows the need for court review. You can't just leave this to the executive branch."
On Guantanamo, and military tribunals, the government has managed to take a procedure with minimal legal credibility and no international acceptance and make it look steadily worse. In addition to trying to write courts out of the oversight process, the last Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, declaring that Guantanamo prisoners had no habeas corpus right to ask a court why they were being held. Then, the administration decided that lawyers had too much of a role in the process. And of course there was the do-over rule. One of the prisoners represented in a D.C. hearing went through the process once and was found not to be an enemy combatant, but a second time around straightened that out.
"The tribunals in general are a kangaroo court," says Tom Johnson, a lawyer at the Perkins Coie firm in Portland, who represented and secured the freedom of Ihlkham Battayav of Kazakhstan, a cook's assistant in a Taliban camp who was held for four years. "My client had no idea what was going on when he walked into the room."
A prisoner does not have an attorney present at the tribunal. There is an officer assigned to him, says Johnson, but "that person is told not to advocate on behalf of the detainee, but just to make the detainee know what's happening" -- which would not include showing the detainee evidence against him that's been declared classified.
Once again, the issues about Guantanamo, and military tribunals, are on a long march, first through the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court. But we don't need a judicial decision to recognize that Guantanamo is a situation that our principles won't support and our friends will not defend.
We need to reconsider what we're doing there.
We need to reconsider what we're doing there.
In fact, we need a do-over.
The despair...
Jurist reports that Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, lawyer of Jumah Muhammad al-Dossari, has released a letter from his client in which al-Dossari expresses his desire to kill himself. Al-Dossari, who has been held without charge for five years, has attempted suicide on several occasions (acts which Admiral Harris calls "asymmetrical warfare"). We call it depression and dispair.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Jonathan Hafetz on Habeas Corpus
Jonathan Hafetz, of the Brennan Center for Justice, has written an excellent white paper Ten Things You Should Know About Habeas Corpus. In nine pages, Hafetz makes short work of the Bush administration's unprecedented assault on that venerable cornerstone of our legal system.last week, Hafetz addressed the the National Press Club regarding the restoration of habeas corpus. His remarks are worth reading.
Here is a highlight:
The Administration and other supporters of the recent court-stripping Military Commissions and Detainee Treatment Acts argue that federal judges should not be in the business of exercising this review and that habeas corpus has not been able to foreign nationals during wartime. Those arguments are misinformed: habeas has been available in wartime, both to citizens and non-citizens alike. But, more importantly, it is the very nature of the so-called “Global War on Terrorism” that makes habeas so essential. Unlike past conflicts, this struggle has no clearly identifiable enemies, no recognizable battlefields, and no foreseeable end. Some in the Administration now refer to it as “the long war.” It is precisely the indeterminate, open-ended nature of this struggle that increases the risk that government officials will detain innocent people based upon unfounded suspicion, innuendo, or mistake. (Indeed, a confidential CIA memo written in 2002 reported that most of the Guantanamo detainees “didn’t belong there”; regrettably, it was ignored by Administration officials in Washington). And since the “Global War on Terror” will last for generations, mistakes are of greater, potentially lifelong – consequence to those wrongfully imprisoned as “enemy combatants.”
Sunday, May 20, 2007
DIAZ RECEIVES SIX MONTHS
For those of you not familiar with Matthew Diaz he was a military lawyer at Guantanamo in 2004-05. I have to admit I do not know as much as I should about Diaz. But it seems that about eight months after the Supreme Court ruled in June 2004 that the Guantanamo detainees were entitled to legal representation Diaz sent the name of the detainees to the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. At the time Diaz said that his decision was the right decision because of how the detainees were being treated and he reminded everyone that his oath was to the U.S. Constitution. That would be the same oath (to the same Constitution) that Gonzales took… but it seems that Diaz took his oath a bit more seriously. As Diaz’s time at the base was nearing an end he stated "I had observed the stonewalling, the obstacles we continued to place in the way of the attorneys.” "I knew my time was limited. ... I had to do something."
Diaz has apologized for his actions. I hope one day I can apologize to Diaz for the actions taken by our country against him…. A country that has lost its moral compass and sentenced this man to six months for doing the right thing.
Thank you Lt. Comdr. Matthew Diaz. You are a hero.
Diaz has apologized for his actions. I hope one day I can apologize to Diaz for the actions taken by our country against him…. A country that has lost its moral compass and sentenced this man to six months for doing the right thing.
Thank you Lt. Comdr. Matthew Diaz. You are a hero.
GONZALES MUST RESIGN
I applaud the 2/3’s of the Harvard Law School Class of 1982 for speaking out publicly against their classmate. I would have liked to have been a fly on the wall as that letter was being drafted….fifty six lawyers from Harvard drafting a letter…. And they still managed to get it out in a timely fashion. That alone is a wonder.
I am not one of Gonzales’ Harvard classmates. I graduated from the John Marshall Law School in Chicago six months after Gonzales graduated from Harvard Law School. I admit that it is not a remarkable fact that I am calling for Gonzales’ resignation. In fact, I feel certain that no one will be surprised that I do not think his resignation is enough. Gonzales is the man that said yes to torture, yes to indefinite detention, yes to the illegal surveillance of American citizens… and yes to a bunch of things we still don’t know about and a bunch of things I am forgetting… but we know that there is more illegal/immoral conduct lurking behind the bushes, because frankly, Gonzales is just that type of criminal "yes man."
Gonzales must be tried for his crimes and he must be punished. If we are to preserve our constitution it is time for everyone to step up to the plate and demand that Gonzales be removed from the position of Attorney General. Please call your senators on Monday and demandthat Gonzales be removed from office.
I am not one of Gonzales’ Harvard classmates. I graduated from the John Marshall Law School in Chicago six months after Gonzales graduated from Harvard Law School. I admit that it is not a remarkable fact that I am calling for Gonzales’ resignation. In fact, I feel certain that no one will be surprised that I do not think his resignation is enough. Gonzales is the man that said yes to torture, yes to indefinite detention, yes to the illegal surveillance of American citizens… and yes to a bunch of things we still don’t know about and a bunch of things I am forgetting… but we know that there is more illegal/immoral conduct lurking behind the bushes, because frankly, Gonzales is just that type of criminal "yes man."
Gonzales must be tried for his crimes and he must be punished. If we are to preserve our constitution it is time for everyone to step up to the plate and demand that Gonzales be removed from the position of Attorney General. Please call your senators on Monday and demandthat Gonzales be removed from office.
GONZALES' CLASSMATES SPEAK OUT
Fifty-six members of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' graduating class at Harvard Law School signed a quarter-page open letter in yesterday's Washington Post excoriating their former classmate for his "cavalier handling of our freedoms."
AN OPEN LETTER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES
May 15, 2007
Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
Twenty-five years ago we, like you, graduated from Harvard Law School. While we arrived via many different paths and held many different views, we were united in our deep respect for the Constitution and the rights it guaranteed. As members of the post-Watergate generation who chose careers in law, we understood the strong connection between our liberties as Americans and the adherence of public offi cials to the law of the land. We knew that the choice to abide by the law was even more critical when public officials were tempted to take legal shortcuts. Nowhere were we taught that the ends justifi ed the means, or that freedoms for which Americans had fought and died should be set aside when inconvenient or challenging. To the contrary: our most precious freedoms, we learned, need defending most in times of crisis.
So it has been with dismay that we have watched your cavalier handling of our freedoms time and again. When it has been important that legal boundaries hold unbridled government power in check, you have instead used pretextual rationales and strained readings to justify an ever-expanding executive authority.
Witness your White House memos sweeping aside the Geneva Conventions to justify torture, endangering our own servicemen and women; witness your advice to the President effectively reading Habeas Corpus out of our constitutional protections; witness your support of presidential statements claiming inherent power to wiretap American citizens without warrants (and the Administration's stepped-up wiretapping campaign, taking advantage of those statements, which continues on your watch to this day); and witness your dismissive explanation of the troubling firings of numerous U.S. Attorneys, and their replacement with others more "loyal" to the President's politics, as merely "an overblown personnel matter." In these and other actions, we see a pattern. As a recent editorial put it, your approach has come to symbolize "disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law."
As lawyers, and as a matter of principle, we can no longer be silent about this Administration's consistent disdain for the liberties we hold dear. Your failure to stand for the rule of law, particularly when faced with a President who makes the aggrandized claim of being a unitary executive, takes this country down a dangerous path.
Your country and your President are in dire need of an attorney who will do the tough job of providing independent counsel, especially when the advice runs counter to political expediency. Now more than ever, our country needs a President, and an Attorney General, who remember the apt observation attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." We call on you and the President to relent from this reckless path, and begin to restore respect for the rule of law we all learned to love many years ago.
Yours truly,THE SIGNATORIES ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CLASS OF 1982
AN OPEN LETTER TO ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES
May 15, 2007
Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
Twenty-five years ago we, like you, graduated from Harvard Law School. While we arrived via many different paths and held many different views, we were united in our deep respect for the Constitution and the rights it guaranteed. As members of the post-Watergate generation who chose careers in law, we understood the strong connection between our liberties as Americans and the adherence of public offi cials to the law of the land. We knew that the choice to abide by the law was even more critical when public officials were tempted to take legal shortcuts. Nowhere were we taught that the ends justifi ed the means, or that freedoms for which Americans had fought and died should be set aside when inconvenient or challenging. To the contrary: our most precious freedoms, we learned, need defending most in times of crisis.
So it has been with dismay that we have watched your cavalier handling of our freedoms time and again. When it has been important that legal boundaries hold unbridled government power in check, you have instead used pretextual rationales and strained readings to justify an ever-expanding executive authority.
Witness your White House memos sweeping aside the Geneva Conventions to justify torture, endangering our own servicemen and women; witness your advice to the President effectively reading Habeas Corpus out of our constitutional protections; witness your support of presidential statements claiming inherent power to wiretap American citizens without warrants (and the Administration's stepped-up wiretapping campaign, taking advantage of those statements, which continues on your watch to this day); and witness your dismissive explanation of the troubling firings of numerous U.S. Attorneys, and their replacement with others more "loyal" to the President's politics, as merely "an overblown personnel matter." In these and other actions, we see a pattern. As a recent editorial put it, your approach has come to symbolize "disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law."
As lawyers, and as a matter of principle, we can no longer be silent about this Administration's consistent disdain for the liberties we hold dear. Your failure to stand for the rule of law, particularly when faced with a President who makes the aggrandized claim of being a unitary executive, takes this country down a dangerous path.
Your country and your President are in dire need of an attorney who will do the tough job of providing independent counsel, especially when the advice runs counter to political expediency. Now more than ever, our country needs a President, and an Attorney General, who remember the apt observation attributed to Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." We call on you and the President to relent from this reckless path, and begin to restore respect for the rule of law we all learned to love many years ago.
Yours truly,THE SIGNATORIES ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE HARVARD LAW SCHOOL CLASS OF 1982
HICKS IS BACK IN AUSTRALIA
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
