We have some of the details related to the Saudi citizens that were released yesterday... once again not one of the released men was on the list of detainees that the government claims are "eligible" for release. I will be updating the information as it trickles in ...
1. Abdulhadi Abdullah Ibrahim Al-Sharikh (ISN 231) -- Gordon S. Woodward of Schnader Harrison. No advance-notice order. Counsel received no notice that this client had been deemed releasable. Habeas case but no DTA case. Camp4
2. Abdulrazzaq Abdullah Ibrhim Al-Sharikh (ISN 67) – Ditto Camp 4
3. Fahd Atiyya Hamza Al-Harazi (ISN 79) -- Heller Ehrman team. No advance-notice order.
4. Rami Sa`d Ghalib Al-Ju`aid (ISN 318) -- Steve Truitt and Charles Carpenter of Pepper Hamilton. Advance-notice order, counsel received notice. Counsel received no notice that this client had been deemed releasable. Camp 6.
5. Abdulhakim Abdulkarim Amin Bukhari (ISN 493) -- Cristi A. Charpentier, Philly federal defender. No advance-notice order. Counsel received no notice that client had been deemed releasable. Camp 1.
6. Khalid Hasan Husain Al-Barakati Al-Sharif (ISN 322) -- John C. Snodgrass and colleagues of Dickstein Shapiro. No advance-notice order. Counsel had not received any notice that client had been deemed releasable. Camp 6.
7. Majid Abdullah Sa`id Barayyan: ISN 51; unrepresented.
8. Muhammad Mubarak Salim Al-Kurbi He is ISN 342 -- Harvey A. Schwartz, Rodgers, Powers & Schwartz PC. No advance-notice order; government informed counsel of client's release mid afternoon on 9-6-97. Camp 6.
9. Abdullah Thani Faris Al-Sulami Al-Anazi (ISN 514) -- represented by Anant Raut at Weil Gotshal, who calls Abdullah "the gentle double- amputee poet of Guantanamo" No advance notice-order, no notice of releasability (in fact, because of his double amputation, one evaluation had deemed Abdullah unsuitable for repatriation ever, because his lack of legs (lost around the time he was captured) would make him "less attractive to his wife," thereby making him a "prime candidate for suicide bombing recruitment"), original habeas petitions had not been dismissed, no dta petition. Camp 6.
10. Zabin Zhahir Zabin Al-Fudaili Al-Shammari (ISN 647) -- represented by Paul, Weiss team. Jennifer Ching says "client suffers from a form of epilepsy and experienced seizures while at Gitmo." Advance-notice order, counsel received notice. Counsel received no notice that counsel had been deemed releaseable.
11. Abdulaziz Sa`d Muhammad Al-Oshan (ISN 112) -- represented by Anant Raut . Counsel received no notice that this client had been deemed releasable. Camp 5.
12. Moosa Ali Sa`id Al Sa`id Al-Omari (or Al-Amri) ISN 196; unrepre.
13. Salim Abdullah Sa`id Al Buhaish Al-Shihri (ISN 126) -- represented by Jenner
14. Fahd Muhammad Abdullah Al-Fowzan (ISN 218) -- represented by Martha Rayner and colleagues at Fordham Law School. Counsel received no notice that this client had been deemed releasable. Camp 6.
15. Imran Bakr Muhammad Hosawi (Isn 368)- unrep.
16. Bakri Awad Bakri Al-Sumairi (or Al-Samiri) (ISN 274__) unrep.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
16 SAUDI'S WENT HOME YESTERDAY
We just had confirmation that 16 Saudi citizens were sent back home yesterday including Anant Raut's client Abdullah Thani Faris Al-Anazi, the gentle double-amputee poet of Guantanamo.
There are rumors of even more transfers so stay tuned.
There are rumors of even more transfers so stay tuned.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
FROM OUR FRIENDS DOWN UNDER
From our friends down under ( www.justinian.com.au ) who are now putting up with GW visiting their land comes this post with a new term of art "Bushwah"..... see below and start using it.
Roger Fitch Esq • September 4, 2007
Our Man in Washington
It’s been a remarkable fortnight in the US, legally speaking.
The “terrorist” Jose Padilla has been convicted, and his civil suit against the US for torture disclosed.
After an unconscionable time a-dying, the man whose political death has long been predicted, Alberto Gonzales, has resigned as Attorney General.
And the briefs are in for the Guantanamo prisoners whose cases will be heard in the October Supreme Court term, including the case begun by Detainee 002, David Hicks.
In the Guantanamo appeals, some marvellous amicus briefs are linked on the website of the law firm Mayer Brown. As Scotus Blog notes, one of the most interesting is from Israel.
The Gonzales departure, however, provided the most relief to the largest number of people. The New York Times aptly summed up his dismal career.
Some, such as Sidney Blumenthal, attributed his departure to the resignation of his patron, Karl Rove, who quit two weeks ago. For The Guardian, it was a case of the ship leaving the rat.
As soon as Fredo handed in his resignation, the DoJ’s Inspector General announced an investigation into his conduct, including an inquiry into the political tests introduced for hiring of staff attorneys.
The White House has floated a list with possible replacements for Gonzales. However, according to The Wall Street Journal, the Democrats may require the appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate Gonzales as a trade-off for the Senate’s approval of a new AG.
There is also speculation that President Bush may make a “recess” appointment, as he did with John Bolton and other unconfirmable people.
One suggested nominee for AG is the cadaverous Michael Chertoff (pic), who, in common with Fredo, has been identified as a suitable candidate for war crimes charges one day. However, writing legal “opinions” supporting torture didn’t stop Gonzales from becoming attorney general in 2005, so Chertoff’s moral ambiguities may also be overlooked.
As an assistant attorney general in 2001, Chertoff organised the railroading of Detainee 001, John Walker Lindh, when the American was captured in the Afghanistan war. It was Chertoff who prevented the legal assistance to which Lindh was entitled, and swept away concerns about his mistreatment. Democracy Now has taken another look at Chertoff’s stint in Justice.
Chertoff may also have fibbed about his knowledge of interrogation techniques when he was confirmed by the Senate for his position as Secretary of Homeland Security.
Regardless of who becomes the new Attorney General (Solicitor General Paul Clement is acting AG), US News confirms that not all lawyers in the Department of Justice are political thugs: a large number of the appellate attorneys in the department don’t want to be involved in the new Guantanamo appeals in the DC Court of Appeals.
* * *
The audacious assaults on the US legal system by Republican administrations since Ronald Reagan are now beginning to bear fruit. You will recall that Zacharias Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison for wanting to be part of a terrorist conspiracy that was never proved. Luckily he pleaded guilty.
The Jose Padilla case was more problematic as he is a US citizen and insisted on pleading not guilty, even after three-and-a-half years of lawless imprisonment in a US Navy dungeon, designed to break his will and (perhaps) force a guilty plea.
In his Miami trial for “terrorism” offences, Padilla would have known he was in trouble when his jury showed up in colour-co-ordinated red, white and blue outfits. Once his judge (a Bush appointee) suppressed any mention of Padilla’s treatment in military custody, it seems his fate was sealed.
Jose Padilla may be a disaffected American, and he possibly attended a “terrorist” training camp in Afghanistan, but no evidence was introduced that he ever visited the country or actually trained at any camp.
In fact, the conviction itself was for little more than “thought crime”, as Columbia law prof and Harper’s blogger Scott Horton (pic) observed.
The case was badly reported, with few journalists noting that Padilla had been detained in solitary confinement in a military brig for more than three years before being brought to trial. Media Matters also faulted the coverage.
A notable exception was the series of articles about Padilla in The Christian Science Monitor here, here and here.
Marty Lederman of Balkin Blog thought that the Padilla case offered a guide that allowed us to decode the Government’s policy on detention.
Yale law prof Jack Balkin (pic) analysed the infamous Jacoby Declaration previously used by the Government against Padilla.
Lawyer-blogger Glenn Greenwald probably had the best summary.
After the case was completed, Padilla’s lawyers from his “enemy combatant” days disclosed that they had brought a civil damages case against the US in South Carolina District Court. It’s for the torture and mistreatment that their client says he endured in the naval brig.
The other inmate there, Ali al-Marri (see below), had previously brought such a suit in 2005. Al-Marri’s claim apparently resulted in an end to illegal questioning and an improvement in detention conditions.
The new Padilla lawsuit was filed by Wiggin & Dana lawyer Jonathan Freiman for Yale Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic.
The amended petition includes as defendants Admiral Lowell Jacoby (pic) of the Jacoby Memorandum fame and Michael Mobbs, the Pentagon flunky who authored the dodgy “Mobbs Declarations”.
These second and third-hand hearsay statements were used by the Government in numerous cases for a habeas return, where the US claimed the right to hold detainees based on belief summaries without actual witness evidence.
There are many other, unnamed, defendants who worked at the brig or planned/condoned Padilla’s alleged mistreatment, e.g. medical staff, legal professionals, psychiatrists, interrogators and guards. In fact, there are John Does 1-50, in addition to the usual suspects such as disgraced former defence secretary (and universal defendant) Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz.
* * *
The Ali al-Marri case (see my post of August 15) is to be reheard en banc by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Whether the Government wins in the full court, the case will end up in the Supreme Court – but The Washington Post is worried.
In an ambiguous editorial, the Post has once again implied that the Dear Leader must retain his “right” to designate people in the US as Staatsfeinde – enemies of the state; or “enemy combatants” as Mr Bush prefers to call them.
The Post huffed: “This is not – or should not be – a country that simply ‘disappears’ people without hearings.” But the Court Circular seemed to suggest that, if there were some sort of hearing, disappearances would be quite OK.
That would suit retired US District Court judge Michael Mukasey. Mukasey, who heard the original Padilla case in New York, has written an op-ed in the Rupert Street Journal in which he favours national security courts where defendants receive decidedly limited rights.
* * *
Meanwhile, Mohammad Haneef’s Australian lawyers can take heart from the fact that in the US the Bush Administration has begun paying claims for illegal detentions, including this one in Washington State.
Other settlements for false arrests and detentions in the “war on terror” have been reported, including one with the Colorado lawyer Kiko Martinez, who received a settlement last month, according to The Washington Post. In a remarkably understated headline, the Post screamed, “20,000 Detentions in ‘06 Rile Critics”.
Last year the US paid $2 million to the West Coast lawyer Brandon Mayfield (pic). He was held for two weeks by the FBI after it erroneously matched his fingerprints to those found near the 2004 Madrid bombings.
Now a petitioner in Detroit is seeking $9 million damages in a suit arising from a failed terror prosecution where the case was aborted for prosecutorial misconduct.
* * *
George Bush continues to issue astonishing executive orders including a new one on Lebanon – a place I suspect he hadn’t heard of a few years ago – using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as well as something called the National Emergencies Act.
The IEEPA is the Act used so successfully on John Walker Lindh.
However, the US military has warned its soldiers to ignore Bush’s order purporting to authorise unnamed “enhanced interrogations techniques” for use by the CIA, and to stick to the Field Manual when interrogating.
Scott Horton has detailed the Pentagon lawyers’ misgivings over Bush’s recent “torture” order.
I’ve been trying to think of a name for these ubiquitous Bush edicts. Many of them have the flavour of a papal anathema or imperial injunction; indeed, of a fatwa. That put me in mind of an early 20th century Americanism, bushwah, which the Oxford American Dictionary defines as “rubbish, nonsense, bullshit”.
Although it derives from bourgeois, it’s a plausible combination of Bush and fatwa: “Today, the President issued a Bushwah” has a certain ring. It could be shorthand for a curse delivered upon some unfortunate target, say the Islamic Republic of Iran, or a citizen Staatsfeind.
Roger Fitch Esq • September 4, 2007
Our Man in Washington
It’s been a remarkable fortnight in the US, legally speaking.
The “terrorist” Jose Padilla has been convicted, and his civil suit against the US for torture disclosed.
After an unconscionable time a-dying, the man whose political death has long been predicted, Alberto Gonzales, has resigned as Attorney General.
And the briefs are in for the Guantanamo prisoners whose cases will be heard in the October Supreme Court term, including the case begun by Detainee 002, David Hicks.
In the Guantanamo appeals, some marvellous amicus briefs are linked on the website of the law firm Mayer Brown. As Scotus Blog notes, one of the most interesting is from Israel.
The Gonzales departure, however, provided the most relief to the largest number of people. The New York Times aptly summed up his dismal career.
Some, such as Sidney Blumenthal, attributed his departure to the resignation of his patron, Karl Rove, who quit two weeks ago. For The Guardian, it was a case of the ship leaving the rat.
As soon as Fredo handed in his resignation, the DoJ’s Inspector General announced an investigation into his conduct, including an inquiry into the political tests introduced for hiring of staff attorneys.
The White House has floated a list with possible replacements for Gonzales. However, according to The Wall Street Journal, the Democrats may require the appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate Gonzales as a trade-off for the Senate’s approval of a new AG.
There is also speculation that President Bush may make a “recess” appointment, as he did with John Bolton and other unconfirmable people.
One suggested nominee for AG is the cadaverous Michael Chertoff (pic), who, in common with Fredo, has been identified as a suitable candidate for war crimes charges one day. However, writing legal “opinions” supporting torture didn’t stop Gonzales from becoming attorney general in 2005, so Chertoff’s moral ambiguities may also be overlooked.
As an assistant attorney general in 2001, Chertoff organised the railroading of Detainee 001, John Walker Lindh, when the American was captured in the Afghanistan war. It was Chertoff who prevented the legal assistance to which Lindh was entitled, and swept away concerns about his mistreatment. Democracy Now has taken another look at Chertoff’s stint in Justice.
Chertoff may also have fibbed about his knowledge of interrogation techniques when he was confirmed by the Senate for his position as Secretary of Homeland Security.
Regardless of who becomes the new Attorney General (Solicitor General Paul Clement is acting AG), US News confirms that not all lawyers in the Department of Justice are political thugs: a large number of the appellate attorneys in the department don’t want to be involved in the new Guantanamo appeals in the DC Court of Appeals.
* * *
The audacious assaults on the US legal system by Republican administrations since Ronald Reagan are now beginning to bear fruit. You will recall that Zacharias Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison for wanting to be part of a terrorist conspiracy that was never proved. Luckily he pleaded guilty.
The Jose Padilla case was more problematic as he is a US citizen and insisted on pleading not guilty, even after three-and-a-half years of lawless imprisonment in a US Navy dungeon, designed to break his will and (perhaps) force a guilty plea.
In his Miami trial for “terrorism” offences, Padilla would have known he was in trouble when his jury showed up in colour-co-ordinated red, white and blue outfits. Once his judge (a Bush appointee) suppressed any mention of Padilla’s treatment in military custody, it seems his fate was sealed.
Jose Padilla may be a disaffected American, and he possibly attended a “terrorist” training camp in Afghanistan, but no evidence was introduced that he ever visited the country or actually trained at any camp.
In fact, the conviction itself was for little more than “thought crime”, as Columbia law prof and Harper’s blogger Scott Horton (pic) observed.
The case was badly reported, with few journalists noting that Padilla had been detained in solitary confinement in a military brig for more than three years before being brought to trial. Media Matters also faulted the coverage.
A notable exception was the series of articles about Padilla in The Christian Science Monitor here, here and here.
Marty Lederman of Balkin Blog thought that the Padilla case offered a guide that allowed us to decode the Government’s policy on detention.
Yale law prof Jack Balkin (pic) analysed the infamous Jacoby Declaration previously used by the Government against Padilla.
Lawyer-blogger Glenn Greenwald probably had the best summary.
After the case was completed, Padilla’s lawyers from his “enemy combatant” days disclosed that they had brought a civil damages case against the US in South Carolina District Court. It’s for the torture and mistreatment that their client says he endured in the naval brig.
The other inmate there, Ali al-Marri (see below), had previously brought such a suit in 2005. Al-Marri’s claim apparently resulted in an end to illegal questioning and an improvement in detention conditions.
The new Padilla lawsuit was filed by Wiggin & Dana lawyer Jonathan Freiman for Yale Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic.
The amended petition includes as defendants Admiral Lowell Jacoby (pic) of the Jacoby Memorandum fame and Michael Mobbs, the Pentagon flunky who authored the dodgy “Mobbs Declarations”.
These second and third-hand hearsay statements were used by the Government in numerous cases for a habeas return, where the US claimed the right to hold detainees based on belief summaries without actual witness evidence.
There are many other, unnamed, defendants who worked at the brig or planned/condoned Padilla’s alleged mistreatment, e.g. medical staff, legal professionals, psychiatrists, interrogators and guards. In fact, there are John Does 1-50, in addition to the usual suspects such as disgraced former defence secretary (and universal defendant) Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz.
* * *
The Ali al-Marri case (see my post of August 15) is to be reheard en banc by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. Whether the Government wins in the full court, the case will end up in the Supreme Court – but The Washington Post is worried.
In an ambiguous editorial, the Post has once again implied that the Dear Leader must retain his “right” to designate people in the US as Staatsfeinde – enemies of the state; or “enemy combatants” as Mr Bush prefers to call them.
The Post huffed: “This is not – or should not be – a country that simply ‘disappears’ people without hearings.” But the Court Circular seemed to suggest that, if there were some sort of hearing, disappearances would be quite OK.
That would suit retired US District Court judge Michael Mukasey. Mukasey, who heard the original Padilla case in New York, has written an op-ed in the Rupert Street Journal in which he favours national security courts where defendants receive decidedly limited rights.
* * *
Meanwhile, Mohammad Haneef’s Australian lawyers can take heart from the fact that in the US the Bush Administration has begun paying claims for illegal detentions, including this one in Washington State.
Other settlements for false arrests and detentions in the “war on terror” have been reported, including one with the Colorado lawyer Kiko Martinez, who received a settlement last month, according to The Washington Post. In a remarkably understated headline, the Post screamed, “20,000 Detentions in ‘06 Rile Critics”.
Last year the US paid $2 million to the West Coast lawyer Brandon Mayfield (pic). He was held for two weeks by the FBI after it erroneously matched his fingerprints to those found near the 2004 Madrid bombings.
Now a petitioner in Detroit is seeking $9 million damages in a suit arising from a failed terror prosecution where the case was aborted for prosecutorial misconduct.
* * *
George Bush continues to issue astonishing executive orders including a new one on Lebanon – a place I suspect he hadn’t heard of a few years ago – using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as well as something called the National Emergencies Act.
The IEEPA is the Act used so successfully on John Walker Lindh.
However, the US military has warned its soldiers to ignore Bush’s order purporting to authorise unnamed “enhanced interrogations techniques” for use by the CIA, and to stick to the Field Manual when interrogating.
Scott Horton has detailed the Pentagon lawyers’ misgivings over Bush’s recent “torture” order.
I’ve been trying to think of a name for these ubiquitous Bush edicts. Many of them have the flavour of a papal anathema or imperial injunction; indeed, of a fatwa. That put me in mind of an early 20th century Americanism, bushwah, which the Oxford American Dictionary defines as “rubbish, nonsense, bullshit”.
Although it derives from bourgeois, it’s a plausible combination of Bush and fatwa: “Today, the President issued a Bushwah” has a certain ring. It could be shorthand for a curse delivered upon some unfortunate target, say the Islamic Republic of Iran, or a citizen Staatsfeind.
Monday, August 27, 2007
DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YA ON THE WAY OUT...on second thought
Well it is official, the worst attorney General in the history of the U.S. (and that is saying alot.....) has finally resigned. Gonzales has not cited the usual "to spend more time with my family"... which is probably good. If there is any justice left in this country (?) Gonzales will be spending more time with his attorneys. His own personal attorneys. The ones who will be working on his defense for perjury, war crimes, fraud... (I will add to the list in time but these are the three that jumped into my head as I am typing....)
May Gonzales' attorneys be as smart as he is....
May Gonzales' attorneys be as smart as he is....
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
GOOD OLD MOE
You have to give Moe credit. When he comes up with a plan he sticks to it. In case you do not remember Colonel Moe he is the Colonel who drafted a detailed propaganda plan for the military. I described the plan in an earlier post on Huffington: Cully's Mentor MOE and His Six Point Plan . Also if you look down the right side of this page you will see his name pops up in a few of my blogs (he is like the gift that keeps on giving). Seems Moe has alot of time on his hands now that he is done trying to intimidate David Hicks' military attorney (oops on that one, huh Moe?) .... and now that the military commissions are at a standstill because the military court says it doesn't have jurisidiction to hear the enemy combatant tribunals.
So how is Moe spending his down time?... he is just doing what comes naturally.... telling tall tales about the kinder gentler Guantanamo that he has come to know and love. And he even has pictures to try to convince you that all of the habeas lawyers are lying about conditions. So now you can see a picture of the cell that my client, Mr. Al-GHizzawi spends 22 to 24 hours a day in... alone... with no one to talk to, no natural light or fresh air, one book a week to read...(if he is lucky) and "recreation time" in a 4X4 foot cage (where he can either stand in the blistering heat or during the dead of night.... depending on the schedule)...
Boy Moe these men, who have been charged with no wrong doing, should be happy shouldn't they? I mean the cells are probably cleaner than the ones the Koreans used when they kept our men in similar isolation... so what is the problem huh?
Well one of the problems Moe is that we use to pride ourselves on not being North Korea.... not even a cleaner version of North Korea...
And as you know Moe, the evidence against my client was described as "garbage" by his panel members (a nicer description than I would have given it) but Mr. Al-Ghizzawi shouldn't complain should he? He should just quietly sit in his cell and wait and see if someone might get around to reviewing his situation. You never know it could happen...
I guess you are right Moe, we just don't recognize what a wonderful place Guantanamo is. Just one question Moe, if it were our guys (and gals) who were being held under these conditions, with this kind of evidence and for a similar duration (perhaps forever) would it still be ok?
If you want to see Moe's latest piece of Propaganda take a look at: "Defense of Guantanamo Bay" in the Yale law journal...
So how is Moe spending his down time?... he is just doing what comes naturally.... telling tall tales about the kinder gentler Guantanamo that he has come to know and love. And he even has pictures to try to convince you that all of the habeas lawyers are lying about conditions. So now you can see a picture of the cell that my client, Mr. Al-GHizzawi spends 22 to 24 hours a day in... alone... with no one to talk to, no natural light or fresh air, one book a week to read...(if he is lucky) and "recreation time" in a 4X4 foot cage (where he can either stand in the blistering heat or during the dead of night.... depending on the schedule)...
Boy Moe these men, who have been charged with no wrong doing, should be happy shouldn't they? I mean the cells are probably cleaner than the ones the Koreans used when they kept our men in similar isolation... so what is the problem huh?
Well one of the problems Moe is that we use to pride ourselves on not being North Korea.... not even a cleaner version of North Korea...
And as you know Moe, the evidence against my client was described as "garbage" by his panel members (a nicer description than I would have given it) but Mr. Al-Ghizzawi shouldn't complain should he? He should just quietly sit in his cell and wait and see if someone might get around to reviewing his situation. You never know it could happen...
I guess you are right Moe, we just don't recognize what a wonderful place Guantanamo is. Just one question Moe, if it were our guys (and gals) who were being held under these conditions, with this kind of evidence and for a similar duration (perhaps forever) would it still be ok?
If you want to see Moe's latest piece of Propaganda take a look at: "Defense of Guantanamo Bay" in the Yale law journal...
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Al-Ghizzawi on SCOTUSblog
SCOTUSblog, a respected blog devoted to all matters concerning the Supreme Court, has picked up Al-Ghizzawi's original petition for a writ of habeas corpus and has posted a PDF of the petition HERE.
Writing on SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston notes,
Writing on SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston notes,
[Al-Ghizzawi's] case was one of two that have become highly visible examples of what are called "do-overs" in the Pentagon system for processing Guantanamo detainees. That process is conducted by "Combatant Status Review Tribunals." Detainee lawyers have complained in court that, if such a CSRT panel clears a Guantanamo prisoner, it is routine for the Pentagon to order a new CSRT review, to establish a basis for a combatant designation. Al-Ghizzawi is one of several individuals known to have been involved in "do-overs." Another is Anwar Hassan, who already has an appeal pending in the Supreme Court (In re Ali, 06-1194) seeking an original habeas writ.
The original three-member military panel that examined the case against Al-Ghizzawi, found that "there was no credible evidence supporting the allegation," according to a member of that panel. The member was an Army Reserve lieutenant colonel, Stephen E. Abraham. Since Colonel Abraham surfaced in filings in detainee cases in the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit Court as a critic on the inside of the CSRT process, Pentagon and Justice Department officials have undertaken a campaign to challenge his complaints about that process.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
GTMO: Symbol of Failure
Ian Bell in the British Herald tells it like it is:
...All actual British citizens were out of the place by 2005 [not so for British resident aliens], most with dreadful tales to tell. As the parliamentary intelligence and security committee reported less than a fortnight ago (another non-coincidence, I think), Britain's security services were "naive" in their dealings with the CIA in these matters, when not actually complicit, and any subsequent complaints were in any case ignored. But we - delete as applicable - still went along with a programme of kidnap, incarceration, rendition and torture with few arguments.
Guantanamo is an excellent example of how best to lose an anti-terrorist struggle. It stands alongside the introduction of internment in North Ireland in advertising an absolute failure of understanding. The base - first leased as a coaling station, according to the fascinating Gazette [the base newspaper] - no doubt has a symbolic standing for average, all-purpose western liberals. They don't count for much. Among Muslims in the Middle East, seeing precious few trials, and no convictions worth the name, its name will be potent for decades.
If [U.K. prime minister] Brown understands as much, good for him. But if the Prime Minister also cares to explain where he's been hiding his views since the latter part of 2001, all the better. The trouble with a war of beliefs is that it is far easier to make a catastrophic mistake, such as Guantanamo, than to rectify it. The belated release of five men because the US Supreme Court has begun to stir, and because a new Prime Minister needs a fresh start, will not purge all past errors.
"Guantanamo - The Most Potent Symbol of Failure" - The Herald
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Force-feeding Denounced in JAMA
A commentary in the most recent Journal of the American Medical Association has denounced the practice of force-feeding, which Guantánamo's medical authorities have used in a clearly punitive way in medically non-essential situations.
The statement urges military physicians to refuse to participate in the awful process, rather than violate their medical ethics by forcing a treatment upon an unwilling "patient."
From the AP via WSJ
The statement urges military physicians to refuse to participate in the awful process, rather than violate their medical ethics by forcing a treatment upon an unwilling "patient."
From the AP via WSJ
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
A Pile of Garbage
Mr. Al-Ghizzawi is languishing in Guantanamo because of a pile of garbage.
Last week, Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham testified before the House Armed Services committee that the evidence presented to Al-Ghizzawi's CSRT panel (on which Lt. Col. Abraham himself sat) was "garbage."
Candace elaborates in her newest Huffington Post piece, Garbage, Guantánamo-Style. Check it out.
Last week, Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham testified before the House Armed Services committee that the evidence presented to Al-Ghizzawi's CSRT panel (on which Lt. Col. Abraham himself sat) was "garbage."
Candace elaborates in her newest Huffington Post piece, Garbage, Guantánamo-Style. Check it out.
Andy Worthington on Abraham, Al-Ghizzawi
Andy Worthington has a piece in Huffington Post, (also picked up by Yahoo News) on the whistle blowing of of Lt. Col. Abraham.
Regarding our friend, Al-Ghizzawi, Worthington writes:
Regarding our friend, Al-Ghizzawi, Worthington writes:
The detainee in question is Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi, a Libyan who was 39 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan towards the end of 2001. Al-Ghizzawi had been living in Afghanistan since the Russians left the country in 1989, and had settled comfortably in his new home. Married to an Afghan woman, he had a six-month-old daughter, and ran a shop that sold bread and honey. When the US-led invasion began, he took his wife and daughter to his wife's parents' home in the country, to escape the bombing raids, but was abducted by some locals, who were seduced by American offers of free money for life, publicized through leaflets dropped from planes which stated, "You can receive millions of dollars for helping the anti-Taliban force catch al-Qaeda and Taliban murderers. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life - pay for livestock and doctors and school books and housing for all your people." Sold to the Northern Alliance, he was, in turn, sold to the US military, and made his way to Guantánamo via US-run prisons in Afghanistan, where the orders handed down to the interrogators by the military decision-makers based in Camp Doha, Kuwait, were that every Arab should be sent to Guantánamo.
The story of what subsequently happened to Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi adds unprecedented weight to Stephen Abraham's concerns, particularly about the administration's obsession with confirming detainees' "enemy combatant" status at all costs. Reiterating complaints made in his affidavit, Abraham told Glaberson, "Anything that resulted in a 'not enemy combatant' [verdict] would just send ripples through the entire process. The interpretation [was], 'You got the wrong result. Do it again.'" Once the interfering intelligence officer - and, presumably, his obdurate colleagues - had been sacked, the administration convened a second tribunal for al-Ghizzawi, which duly found that he was an "enemy combatant" after all. Over two years later, he remains in Guantánamo, suffering from hepatitis 'B' and, possibly, liver cancer, and reportedly the victim of malingering on the part of the medical staff, because he refuses to admit that he was a terrorist and not a shopkeeper.
Monday, July 30, 2007
ALGERIANS ON THEIR WAY HOME?
I don't usually post rumors on my blog... but this one has the earmarks of being true. Rumor has it that a plane took off from Guantanamo a few hours ago with an unknown number of the Algerian detainees heading back to Algeria. My second client is Algerian Razak Ali. I hope he is on that plane.
Get Me Out of Gitmo!
One of the government's favorite excuses for the ongoing injustice at Guantánamo Bay is that the detainees themselves resist transfer to foreign countries. In the July issue of In These Times, Candace takes this nonesense head on and points out that the vast majority of GTMO inmates are chomping on the bit to leave. The fact that certain detainees have (quite legitimate) fears of further abuse and detention in other states does not mask the fact that the U.S. is arbitrarily (and unlawfully) depriving hundreds of men of their liberty.
Friday, July 27, 2007
ABRAHAM TESTIFIES
PANEL I OF A HEARING OF THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
· SUBJECT: UPHOLDING THE PRINCIPLE OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR DETAINEES
· WITNESSES: STEPHEN OLESKEY, PARTNER AT WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE AND DORR LLP; DAVID KEENE, CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION; PATRICK PHILBIN, FORMER ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT; LT. COL. STEPHEN ABRAHAM, UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVES;
· CHAIRED BY: REP. IKE SKELTON (D-MO)
Read the entire transcript here:
http://gtmodocuments.blogspot.com/2007/07/abraham-testimony.html
Read it all... but here is an excerpt from Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham regarding Mr. Al Ghizzawi's CSRT. Abraham sat on the original panel that found Mr. Al-Ghizzawi to NOT BE AN ENEMY COMBATANT:
"But where it specifically came to bear was when I sat on a CSRT and I looked at the very same kind of evidence, so to speak, that I had seen for months. And not only I, but the other members of the panel said, this is garbage.
And as a matter of fact, when we looked at direct statements that came from interrogators, where they said, our conclusion as to the facts is that this individual was involved in activities. And we said, 1) that's not even a rational conclusion that you could reach, but 2) we have no reason for presuming the validity of that. We were told, you have to accept that as true. The presumption is, it is true, it is valid.
And when we asked questions, we were told more time should be allowed for them to get the answers. And the answers didn't come -- and we concluded that the individual was not an enemy-combatant -- we were told, keep the hearings open so that they can come back. We were told, reconsider when there's other evidence. "
Poor Mr. Al-Ghizzawi. Six years in hell and dying. ..But thank you Col. Abraham and the rest of Panel 23 for doing the right thing in his initial CSRT... and thank you Col. Abraham for stepping forward and telling the world that the evidence against Mr. Al-Ghizzawi was garbage.
· SUBJECT: UPHOLDING THE PRINCIPLE OF HABEAS CORPUS FOR DETAINEES
· WITNESSES: STEPHEN OLESKEY, PARTNER AT WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE AND DORR LLP; DAVID KEENE, CHAIRMAN OF THE AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE UNION; PATRICK PHILBIN, FORMER ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT; LT. COL. STEPHEN ABRAHAM, UNITED STATES ARMY RESERVES;
· CHAIRED BY: REP. IKE SKELTON (D-MO)
Read the entire transcript here:
http://gtmodocuments.blogspot.com/2007/07/abraham-testimony.html
Read it all... but here is an excerpt from Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham regarding Mr. Al Ghizzawi's CSRT. Abraham sat on the original panel that found Mr. Al-Ghizzawi to NOT BE AN ENEMY COMBATANT:
"But where it specifically came to bear was when I sat on a CSRT and I looked at the very same kind of evidence, so to speak, that I had seen for months. And not only I, but the other members of the panel said, this is garbage.
And as a matter of fact, when we looked at direct statements that came from interrogators, where they said, our conclusion as to the facts is that this individual was involved in activities. And we said, 1) that's not even a rational conclusion that you could reach, but 2) we have no reason for presuming the validity of that. We were told, you have to accept that as true. The presumption is, it is true, it is valid.
And when we asked questions, we were told more time should be allowed for them to get the answers. And the answers didn't come -- and we concluded that the individual was not an enemy-combatant -- we were told, keep the hearings open so that they can come back. We were told, reconsider when there's other evidence. "
Poor Mr. Al-Ghizzawi. Six years in hell and dying. ..But thank you Col. Abraham and the rest of Panel 23 for doing the right thing in his initial CSRT... and thank you Col. Abraham for stepping forward and telling the world that the evidence against Mr. Al-Ghizzawi was garbage.
Supreme Court here we come....
On the heels of the Abraham declaration confirming that there was no evidence to declare Mr. Al-Ghizzawi an enemy combatant.... and coupled with the complete inaction of the district court and the circuit court... I filed an original habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court yesterday. What does this mean? Only time will tell... but my hope is that the supreme court will be convinced that it must provide much needed guidance to the lower courts and break the legal limbo that has kept these cases from moving forward. I hope they do something before Mr. Al-Ghizzawi dies.
See more on SCOTusblog
A new "do-over" detainee case reaches Court
12:12 PM Lyle Denniston Comments (0)
A detainee at the center of a sharp new controversy over Pentagon decisions seeking to justify holding Guatnanamo Bay prisoners has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, asking for an "original" habeas writ. The case involves Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi, whom the military is holding on the basis of an accusation that he was a member of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a group that has had its assets frozen by U.S. authorities for terrorist acts against the Libyan government.. (The petition for the writ has not yet been cleared by security officials for public access, and does not yet have an assigned docket number. For now, a motion for leave to file under seal has been docketed as 07M5. When a public version becomes available, it will be posted on this blog.)
A new "do-over" detainee case reaches Court
See more on SCOTusblog
A new "do-over" detainee case reaches Court
12:12 PM Lyle Denniston Comments (0)
A detainee at the center of a sharp new controversy over Pentagon decisions seeking to justify holding Guatnanamo Bay prisoners has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court, asking for an "original" habeas writ. The case involves Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi, whom the military is holding on the basis of an accusation that he was a member of Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a group that has had its assets frozen by U.S. authorities for terrorist acts against the Libyan government.. (The petition for the writ has not yet been cleared by security officials for public access, and does not yet have an assigned docket number. For now, a motion for leave to file under seal has been docketed as 07M5. When a public version becomes available, it will be posted on this blog.)
A new "do-over" detainee case reaches Court
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
More on David Hicks
"Deplorable," "charade," "shambolic" - these are the words used by Mr. Lex Lasry QC to describe the brand of justice served at Guantánamo Bay. Lasry was the Law Council of Australia's observer at the David Hicks proceedings. A summary of Lasry's report is available HERE.
Here is a selection from the conclusion:
The “trial” of David Hicks, which took place in March 2007, was a charade.
A pre-trial agreement had been signed and the balance of the legal proceedings was entirely surplus to requirements, although designed to lay a veneer of due process over a political and pragmatic bargain. The veneer cracked immediately.Ultimately, there has been no benefit from this process; only a corrosion of the rule of law.
No ground can be claimed to have been made in the so-called War on Terror. The Military Commission process at Guantanamo likewise has neither gained from it, nor shown any prospect of improvement. Predictably, there has been no response from the Australian Government to the consistent and widespread criticism of the Military Commissions and Guantanamo Bay generally. Their support for this process has been shameful.
They have never put an argument to the Australian public as to why the Military Commission process is “full and fair”. Now that the Hicks case is over, no doubt the hope is that the issue will disappear – and, regrettably, perhaps it will.
However, Australia’s international standing and moral authority has been diminished by its support of a process so obviously at odds with the rule of law. Those with a concern for the protection of due process should be very concerned about the future of this process, particularly given its jurisdiction to impose death penalties.
Here is a selection from the conclusion:
The “trial” of David Hicks, which took place in March 2007, was a charade.
A pre-trial agreement had been signed and the balance of the legal proceedings was entirely surplus to requirements, although designed to lay a veneer of due process over a political and pragmatic bargain. The veneer cracked immediately.Ultimately, there has been no benefit from this process; only a corrosion of the rule of law.
No ground can be claimed to have been made in the so-called War on Terror. The Military Commission process at Guantanamo likewise has neither gained from it, nor shown any prospect of improvement. Predictably, there has been no response from the Australian Government to the consistent and widespread criticism of the Military Commissions and Guantanamo Bay generally. Their support for this process has been shameful.
They have never put an argument to the Australian public as to why the Military Commission process is “full and fair”. Now that the Hicks case is over, no doubt the hope is that the issue will disappear – and, regrettably, perhaps it will.
However, Australia’s international standing and moral authority has been diminished by its support of a process so obviously at odds with the rule of law. Those with a concern for the protection of due process should be very concerned about the future of this process, particularly given its jurisdiction to impose death penalties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
