J. Bates entered an order on wednesday giving the government until the 15th to respond to my emergency motion and also telling the government to specifically address the issue of whether the government thinks the Judge has jurisdiction to hear my motion .... and if they don't think that he has jurisdiction to specify what "court or other forum, if any" does have jurisdiction and authority. The judge also told the government to provide up to date information regarding Al-Ghizzawi's medical condition and treatment.
We shall see.....
Friday, February 8, 2008
From Roger Fitch and our Friends Down Under
(click on the title to go to the original...
Roger Fitch Esq • February 8, 2008
Our Man in Washington
The Attorney General says the US can torture if it likes … The proposed American Freedom Agenda Act says the US can kidnap if it likes … Over at Guantanamo smart new portable court rooms have been installed … Pentagon bunglers mistakenly hand over “secret” evidence to the visiting press
The new Attorney General has finally given his views on the water cure. In testimony before the Senate, Michael Mukasey broadly implied that “waterboarding” is legal, and could be used again.
No senator thought to ask why, in that case, the US had tried and imprisoned Japanese soldiers and American GIs for using the same practice (see my post of September 22).
As Salon’s Glenn Greenwald sees it, Michael Mukasey showed himself before the Senate to be “ideologically, a clone of John Yoo and David Addington.”
Mukasey is also blocking an investigation into the crimes of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, according to the head of the Office of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch.
Meanwhile, Bush and his AG are pressing ahead with the nomination of the odious Stephen Bradbury as the Assistant Attorney General for Legal Counsel.
Bradbury (pic) “approved” waterboarding in a memorandum written in 2005 when he was acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel.
* * *
Although Mukasey says the CIA may “coerce” if it likes, the agency doesn’t really have the proper skills to do it, according to the Washington Independent.
Moreover, astute CIA officers can foresee a Department of Justice that isn’t run by Republican Party hacks or led by a loyal footsoldier in the neo-con revolution.
Perhaps that explains why CIA operatives are stocking up on professional liability insurance to protect against the legal costs associated with investigations and defending civil or criminal charges.
One policyholder is former CIA capo Jose Rodriguez, the designated scapegoat in the “torture tape” destruction scandal.
For extra insurance, the CIA has imposed new restrictions on its Inspector General.
* * *
Last year I wrote about George Bush’s practice of issuing imperial edicts under his assumed royal prerogatives. I called them “Bushwahs” (see my post of September 4).
A variation of the Bushwah is the notorious “signing statement”. That’s where, rather than actually vetoing an Act of Congress, as the Constitution provides, our sovereign simply signs the Bill and then adds a message that he has no intention of enforcing designated parts of it.
As in the case of so much that Mr Bush does, this is not exactly legal and, in fact, legislation specifically enabling line-item vetoes was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court during Bill Clinton’s term.
Bush’s “administrative” line-item vetoes are not unconstitutional – they are simply void – but they can be quite revealing of the Emperor’s pretended powers.
Take the new Defence Act. It contains provisions inserted by Congress that no funds can be spent to establish permanent military bases in Iraq, or to exercise control of Iraqi oil.
The Act also mandates a commission to investigate military contract fraud, provides new protections for whistle-blowers of such fraud, and requires the president to explain in writing when stonewalling Senate document subpoenas.
Mr Bush rejected them all, but only Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe picked up his signing statements.
The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin has more.
One congressional response to Bush’s “statements” is a proposed American Freedom Agenda Act 2007.
These days, comically patriotic titles are de rigueur.
There are good things in the Bill. The Military Commissions Act is repealed, and habeas corpus restored.
There is a provision that:
“No civilian or military tribunal shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion [my emphasis].”
Presidential signing statements may be challenged in court.
Then, there is this:
“SEC. 7. KIDNAPPING, DETENTIONS, AND TORTURE ABROAD. No officer or agent of the United States shall kidnap, imprison, or torture any person abroad based solely on the President’s belief that the subject of the kidnapping, imprisonment, or torture is a criminal or enemy combatant; provided that kidnapping shall be permitted if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process. A knowing violation of this section shall be punished as a felony punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to two years.” (Emphases added.)
No one is safe.
* * *
There was an interesting new development for “enemy combatants” at the beginning of February, with the DC Court of Appeals issuing its en banc decision in the Bismullah case.
The full court maintained the wider scope of its evidentiary review (under the Detainee Treatment Act) of combat status determinations.
The Supreme Court had previously indicated that the Court of Appeal’s final decision would inform its own decision in the important pending Guantanamo detainee case, Boumediene-Al Odah.
The Circuit Court divided mostly on party lines, although Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg (pic) sided with the Democrat appointees in declining to overrule the decision of the three-judge panel of which he was a part.
Meanwhile, the military commissions of Omar Khadr and Salim Hamdan resumed this week.
When the press arrived at Guantanamo, the Pentagon was showing off its wonderful new portable courts which, the Miami Herald gushed, “can be dismantled and shipped back stateside once trials are done”.
Yes, or shipped anywhere else in the world where summary show trials are planned.
Things got off to a shaky start when military publicists mistakenly handed the press corps secret evidence that might exculpate Khadr.
Unhelpfully for the Pentagon, the transcript of a US soldier’s testimony referred to another plausible grenade-lobber, and to an already wounded Khadr being shot twice again – in the back.
The motions and briefs are posted on the Pentagon website.
The argument on another motion, on Khadr’s status as a child soldier at the time of the “offences”, took a curious turn.
As I reported in my last post, the DC Court of Appeals has just ruled that Guantanamo detainees are not “persons” within the meaning of US law.
It seems the Department of Justice prosecutor takes a different view.
Responding to the argument that Congress could not have intended children to be subject to trial by military commission, the prosecutor claimed that it was enough that Khadr was a “person”, and he added, that means “anyone born alive”.
Roger Fitch Esq • February 8, 2008
Our Man in Washington
The Attorney General says the US can torture if it likes … The proposed American Freedom Agenda Act says the US can kidnap if it likes … Over at Guantanamo smart new portable court rooms have been installed … Pentagon bunglers mistakenly hand over “secret” evidence to the visiting press
The new Attorney General has finally given his views on the water cure. In testimony before the Senate, Michael Mukasey broadly implied that “waterboarding” is legal, and could be used again.
No senator thought to ask why, in that case, the US had tried and imprisoned Japanese soldiers and American GIs for using the same practice (see my post of September 22).
As Salon’s Glenn Greenwald sees it, Michael Mukasey showed himself before the Senate to be “ideologically, a clone of John Yoo and David Addington.”
Mukasey is also blocking an investigation into the crimes of his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales, according to the head of the Office of Special Counsel, Scott Bloch.
Meanwhile, Bush and his AG are pressing ahead with the nomination of the odious Stephen Bradbury as the Assistant Attorney General for Legal Counsel.
Bradbury (pic) “approved” waterboarding in a memorandum written in 2005 when he was acting head of the Office of Legal Counsel.
* * *
Although Mukasey says the CIA may “coerce” if it likes, the agency doesn’t really have the proper skills to do it, according to the Washington Independent.
Moreover, astute CIA officers can foresee a Department of Justice that isn’t run by Republican Party hacks or led by a loyal footsoldier in the neo-con revolution.
Perhaps that explains why CIA operatives are stocking up on professional liability insurance to protect against the legal costs associated with investigations and defending civil or criminal charges.
One policyholder is former CIA capo Jose Rodriguez, the designated scapegoat in the “torture tape” destruction scandal.
For extra insurance, the CIA has imposed new restrictions on its Inspector General.
* * *
Last year I wrote about George Bush’s practice of issuing imperial edicts under his assumed royal prerogatives. I called them “Bushwahs” (see my post of September 4).
A variation of the Bushwah is the notorious “signing statement”. That’s where, rather than actually vetoing an Act of Congress, as the Constitution provides, our sovereign simply signs the Bill and then adds a message that he has no intention of enforcing designated parts of it.
As in the case of so much that Mr Bush does, this is not exactly legal and, in fact, legislation specifically enabling line-item vetoes was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court during Bill Clinton’s term.
Bush’s “administrative” line-item vetoes are not unconstitutional – they are simply void – but they can be quite revealing of the Emperor’s pretended powers.
Take the new Defence Act. It contains provisions inserted by Congress that no funds can be spent to establish permanent military bases in Iraq, or to exercise control of Iraqi oil.
The Act also mandates a commission to investigate military contract fraud, provides new protections for whistle-blowers of such fraud, and requires the president to explain in writing when stonewalling Senate document subpoenas.
Mr Bush rejected them all, but only Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe picked up his signing statements.
The Washington Post’s Dan Froomkin has more.
One congressional response to Bush’s “statements” is a proposed American Freedom Agenda Act 2007.
These days, comically patriotic titles are de rigueur.
There are good things in the Bill. The Military Commissions Act is repealed, and habeas corpus restored.
There is a provision that:
“No civilian or military tribunal shall admit as evidence statements extracted from the defendant by torture or coercion [my emphasis].”
Presidential signing statements may be challenged in court.
Then, there is this:
“SEC. 7. KIDNAPPING, DETENTIONS, AND TORTURE ABROAD. No officer or agent of the United States shall kidnap, imprison, or torture any person abroad based solely on the President’s belief that the subject of the kidnapping, imprisonment, or torture is a criminal or enemy combatant; provided that kidnapping shall be permitted if undertaken with the intent of bringing the kidnapped person for prosecution or interrogation to gather intelligence before a tribunal that meets international standards of fairness and due process. A knowing violation of this section shall be punished as a felony punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to two years.” (Emphases added.)
No one is safe.
* * *
There was an interesting new development for “enemy combatants” at the beginning of February, with the DC Court of Appeals issuing its en banc decision in the Bismullah case.
The full court maintained the wider scope of its evidentiary review (under the Detainee Treatment Act) of combat status determinations.
The Supreme Court had previously indicated that the Court of Appeal’s final decision would inform its own decision in the important pending Guantanamo detainee case, Boumediene-Al Odah.
The Circuit Court divided mostly on party lines, although Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg (pic) sided with the Democrat appointees in declining to overrule the decision of the three-judge panel of which he was a part.
Meanwhile, the military commissions of Omar Khadr and Salim Hamdan resumed this week.
When the press arrived at Guantanamo, the Pentagon was showing off its wonderful new portable courts which, the Miami Herald gushed, “can be dismantled and shipped back stateside once trials are done”.
Yes, or shipped anywhere else in the world where summary show trials are planned.
Things got off to a shaky start when military publicists mistakenly handed the press corps secret evidence that might exculpate Khadr.
Unhelpfully for the Pentagon, the transcript of a US soldier’s testimony referred to another plausible grenade-lobber, and to an already wounded Khadr being shot twice again – in the back.
The motions and briefs are posted on the Pentagon website.
The argument on another motion, on Khadr’s status as a child soldier at the time of the “offences”, took a curious turn.
As I reported in my last post, the DC Court of Appeals has just ruled that Guantanamo detainees are not “persons” within the meaning of US law.
It seems the Department of Justice prosecutor takes a different view.
Responding to the argument that Congress could not have intended children to be subject to trial by military commission, the prosecutor claimed that it was enough that Khadr was a “person”, and he added, that means “anyone born alive”.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
President Bush Declares Water-boarding Legal
According to the Chicago Tribune, the White House claims that DOJ officials were consulted about the legality of water-boarding and found that it was legal. They reserve the right for the President to authorize it again.
How did the United States of America ever get to this point? We were the leaders of human rights and freedom. How can we lose our soul so easily?
Water-boarding goes back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition and is clearly torture. There is no humane way to torture.
Human Rights watch claims that the recent testimony that the U.S. has used water-boarding is "an explicit admission of criminal activity."
The White House's claim that it is legal is an outrage.
Click on the title to read the article.
How did the United States of America ever get to this point? We were the leaders of human rights and freedom. How can we lose our soul so easily?
Water-boarding goes back to the days of the Spanish Inquisition and is clearly torture. There is no humane way to torture.
Human Rights watch claims that the recent testimony that the U.S. has used water-boarding is "an explicit admission of criminal activity."
The White House's claim that it is legal is an outrage.
Click on the title to read the article.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
BEING AMERICAN MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY "I'M SORRY."
Unfortuantely Al-Ghizzawi's saga is not the only travesty at guantanamo and so I point you to todays Story about the man who died of cancer at the base on or about December 30, 2007: Abdul Razzaq Hekmati.
Hekmati was an Afghani hero who fought against the russians and the taliban and even helped some current afghani government officials escape from a taliban prison... in return some taliban members duped the americans into thinking Hekmati was either taliban or al-queda... and off he went to guantanamo... Despite lots of real evidence that he was on the same side as us... he remained at guantanamo until his death and even in death the military continues to lie about who he was... calling him a "jihadist"
You can read the entire story on Andy Worthington's webpage by clicking on the title above... but I leave you with this.. Hekmati died of colon cancer... one of the slowest moving cancers... according to the military he complained of pains in September and died a few short months later... given Al-GHizzawi's years long request for medical care we know that the military ignored Hekmati's condition until it was too late to save him...
Hekmati was an Afghani hero who fought against the russians and the taliban and even helped some current afghani government officials escape from a taliban prison... in return some taliban members duped the americans into thinking Hekmati was either taliban or al-queda... and off he went to guantanamo... Despite lots of real evidence that he was on the same side as us... he remained at guantanamo until his death and even in death the military continues to lie about who he was... calling him a "jihadist"
You can read the entire story on Andy Worthington's webpage by clicking on the title above... but I leave you with this.. Hekmati died of colon cancer... one of the slowest moving cancers... according to the military he complained of pains in September and died a few short months later... given Al-GHizzawi's years long request for medical care we know that the military ignored Hekmati's condition until it was too late to save him...
EMERGENCY MOTION
As per yesterdays post I filed an emergency motion with Judge Bates of the District Court yesterday morning. It was cleared for public filing late yesterday and if you click on the title you can see the actual motion without exhibits... The general consensus is that Justice Roberts denied my motion in the Supreme Court because he felt I had relief available in the lower courts...I am testing that hypothesis.
Monday, February 4, 2008
WILL THE CIRCLE BE UNBROKEN?
Well today I go full circle in trying to get medical treatment and records for Al-Ghizzawi...I will be filing an emergency motion in the District Court before J. Bates, the judge that denied this motion 18 months ago because Al-Ghizzawi could not show "irreparable injury".... I would say the injury is pretty irreparable at this point but we will have to wait to hear what J. Bates thinks...
I will post the motion when it is cleared for public consumption.
I will post the motion when it is cleared for public consumption.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
REACTION TO MILITARY'S DENIAL THAT AL-GHIZZAWI HAS AIDS
According to news reports late yesterday (click on title) the military has "reviewed" medical records and announced that no one has AIDS at the base and no one has ever had AIDS at the base. This is of course the same military that claimed that the 800 men it was holding were the "worst of the worst"... now there are only 275 still being held... many of those men long cleared for release and the world (at least that part of the world that is awake) knows that the vast majority of the men are innocent civilians. So to say that the military's credibility isn't the greatest would be a bit of an understatement?
But this statement by the military leads me to ask two important questions....
First why didn't the military's mouth piece (the DOJ attorney assigned to the case) tell me that Al-Ghizzawi was AIDS free? When I posed the question to Mr. Warden (his real name!) he took a day and a half to respond and then his response was a refusal to deny... claiming "We are not privy to the particulars of what your client may have been told by his doctor, if anything,....." (he then went on to tout the great medical practices of this hell hole where my client lies dying...) (I actually did a follow up email telling him to make himself privy... but like most attempts to have a reasonable exchange of information with the DOJ regarding guantanamo, my request was ignored...)
Second, If Al-Ghizzawi does not have AIDS why the hell did a doctor at the base tell this very very ill man that he does have AIDS? Is this a new form of psychological torture at the base? Are they telling him that he has AIDS and that they won't give him life saving medical treatment unless or until he agrees to some false confession?
Until I have Al-Ghizzawi's complete medical records in the hands of a competent doctor I will not believe a word I hear from this deceptive exectutive branch and its military.
But this statement by the military leads me to ask two important questions....
First why didn't the military's mouth piece (the DOJ attorney assigned to the case) tell me that Al-Ghizzawi was AIDS free? When I posed the question to Mr. Warden (his real name!) he took a day and a half to respond and then his response was a refusal to deny... claiming "We are not privy to the particulars of what your client may have been told by his doctor, if anything,....." (he then went on to tout the great medical practices of this hell hole where my client lies dying...) (I actually did a follow up email telling him to make himself privy... but like most attempts to have a reasonable exchange of information with the DOJ regarding guantanamo, my request was ignored...)
Second, If Al-Ghizzawi does not have AIDS why the hell did a doctor at the base tell this very very ill man that he does have AIDS? Is this a new form of psychological torture at the base? Are they telling him that he has AIDS and that they won't give him life saving medical treatment unless or until he agrees to some false confession?
Until I have Al-Ghizzawi's complete medical records in the hands of a competent doctor I will not believe a word I hear from this deceptive exectutive branch and its military.
Friday, February 1, 2008
WHO CAN YOU CONTACT ABOUT THIS OUTRAGE???
I guess we start with Condoleezza Rice and work our way down:
U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520
+202-647-4000 (main switchboard)
THEN WORK YOUR WAY DOWN TO :
John. B. Bellinger III
Legal Advisor
Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Rm. 6423
Washington D.C. 20520
VIA FACSIMILE +202-647-7096
DON' FORGET
Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, Commander Joint Task Force Guantánamo
Department of Defense , Joint Task Force Guantánamo, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, APO AE 09360
Fax: +1 305 437 1241
Salutation: Dear Rear Admiral
THEN THERE IS ALSO:
J. Alan Liotta, Principal Director, Office of Detainee Affairs
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2900 Defense Pentagon, Washington DC 20301-2900, USA
Email via: http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html
Salutation: Dear Director
PLEASE SEND COPIES TO:
Member of US Congress
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, 1027 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, USA
Fax: + 1 202 226 6890
REPRESENTATIVE SCHAKOWSKY (MY REPRESENTATIVE) HAS BEEN WONDERFUL AND IT IS GOOD TO LET HER KNOW THAT WE APPRECIATE HER HELP.....
U.S. Department of State 2201 C Street NW Washington, DC 20520
+202-647-4000 (main switchboard)
THEN WORK YOUR WAY DOWN TO :
John. B. Bellinger III
Legal Advisor
Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Rm. 6423
Washington D.C. 20520
VIA FACSIMILE +202-647-7096
DON' FORGET
Rear Adm. Mark H. Buzby, Commander Joint Task Force Guantánamo
Department of Defense , Joint Task Force Guantánamo, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, APO AE 09360
Fax: +1 305 437 1241
Salutation: Dear Rear Admiral
THEN THERE IS ALSO:
J. Alan Liotta, Principal Director, Office of Detainee Affairs
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, 2900 Defense Pentagon, Washington DC 20301-2900, USA
Email via: http://www.defenselink.mil/faq/comment.html
Salutation: Dear Director
PLEASE SEND COPIES TO:
Member of US Congress
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, 1027 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515, USA
Fax: + 1 202 226 6890
REPRESENTATIVE SCHAKOWSKY (MY REPRESENTATIVE) HAS BEEN WONDERFUL AND IT IS GOOD TO LET HER KNOW THAT WE APPRECIATE HER HELP.....
TALKING DOG ON AL-GHIZZAWI
(click on the title to go to the original...)
Yes, the talking dog is outraged... but I thank him from the bottom of my heart for all of his hard work on behalf of Al-Ghizzawi... may it all come to something positive...sooner rather than later...
January 31, 2008, Calling Dr. Kafka Orwell
Candace again vouchsafes that her client, Abdul al-Ghizzawi, of Libyan nationality, Kabul, Afghanistan domicile and Camp 6, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba apparently permanent residence, has, in addition to contracting tuberculosis, now contracted AIDS there. Chief Justice Roberts, in a surprise to no one, denied Candace's motion seeking immediate medical treatment for her client, who contracted both TB and AIDS while in American custody. She will now have to seek that relief in other fora.
As Candace sometimes lets me review drafts of her court submissions (including her historic original habeas corpus petition now pending in the United States Supreme Court), I continue to take more than a rooting interest in this situation. The real question is why more Americans don't seem to be the least bit concerned with this (or even presidential candidates, other than the ravings of some who tell us that the cruelties of Guantanamo should be expanded).
There will come a point in our future when we look back at this era and realize that far from our being any kind of "greatest generation", this will be far, far less than our finest hour. We will wonder why a nation that once legitimately stood as a shining beacon of human rights has turned the light off and then smashed the bulb and set the lighthouse on fire. At a time when we could have reached deep inside ourselves for greatness, we chose panic and cowardice. Throwing away due process. And of course... the acceptance, if not embrace, of torture.
We will look back at this part of our history and realize... this could have been a moment of greatness-- a generational struggle against the forces of nihilism and chaos to create something better. Instead, while we watched, our so-called leaders (both parties, btw) have led us into anything but our finest hour.
War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. Your talking dog is outraged.
Yes, the talking dog is outraged... but I thank him from the bottom of my heart for all of his hard work on behalf of Al-Ghizzawi... may it all come to something positive...sooner rather than later...
January 31, 2008, Calling Dr. Kafka Orwell
Candace again vouchsafes that her client, Abdul al-Ghizzawi, of Libyan nationality, Kabul, Afghanistan domicile and Camp 6, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba apparently permanent residence, has, in addition to contracting tuberculosis, now contracted AIDS there. Chief Justice Roberts, in a surprise to no one, denied Candace's motion seeking immediate medical treatment for her client, who contracted both TB and AIDS while in American custody. She will now have to seek that relief in other fora.
As Candace sometimes lets me review drafts of her court submissions (including her historic original habeas corpus petition now pending in the United States Supreme Court), I continue to take more than a rooting interest in this situation. The real question is why more Americans don't seem to be the least bit concerned with this (or even presidential candidates, other than the ravings of some who tell us that the cruelties of Guantanamo should be expanded).
There will come a point in our future when we look back at this era and realize that far from our being any kind of "greatest generation", this will be far, far less than our finest hour. We will wonder why a nation that once legitimately stood as a shining beacon of human rights has turned the light off and then smashed the bulb and set the lighthouse on fire. At a time when we could have reached deep inside ourselves for greatness, we chose panic and cowardice. Throwing away due process. And of course... the acceptance, if not embrace, of torture.
We will look back at this part of our history and realize... this could have been a moment of greatness-- a generational struggle against the forces of nihilism and chaos to create something better. Instead, while we watched, our so-called leaders (both parties, btw) have led us into anything but our finest hour.
War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery. Your talking dog is outraged.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Andy Worthington on Al-Ghizzawi
Click on title for full story....
It really doesn’t get any worse than this.
Candace Gorman, lawyer for Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi, a Libyan detainee at Guantánamo, reports that her client has been infected with AIDS. Mr. al-Ghizzawi explained to his lawyer in a letter that he was told about his infection by a doctor at Guantánamo, adding that he believes that the infection took place in 2004, when he was given a blood test, which “resulted in alarm amongst the hospital staff,” although he was not given any explanation for the alarm at the time.
The hospital at Guantánamo, where, Mr. al-Ghizzawi said, “the guards that would bring him to the clinic often sat and read his medical file and … would toss the file around for others to read while he sat there.”
On January 28, Candace Gorman filed an emergency motion with the US Supreme Court, asking for the US military to provide urgent medical treatment to Mr. al-Ghizzawi, and also asking for access to her client’s medical records. Yesterday morning, however, Chief Justice John Roberts denied the motion.
While this news is so alarming that it almost defies description, Mr. al-Ghizzawi’s plight is compounded by the fact that he already suffers from tuberculosis, which he also contracted in Guantánamo, and hepatitis B, which was dormant before his arrival at the prison.
In an affidavit filed with the US District Court in September 2006, Dr. Ronald Sollock, the Chief Medical Doctor at Guantánamo, confirmed that Mr. al-Ghizzawi “was subjected to complete medical tests by the military upon his arrival in Guantánamo in 2002,” and that he “entered [the prison] in good health,” although he admitted that “a history of hepatitis B was identified in tests performed in August 2002” (even though Mr. al-Ghizzawi was never informed of this fact), and that he “was exposed to tuberculosis while at the base.”Dr. Sollock also claimed that Mr. al-Ghizzawi “does not want to be treated for his life threatening illness[es],” although this is strenuously denied by Mr. al-Ghizzawi himself, who insists that he has never been informed about his health problems, and has never been offered any kind of medical treatment whatsoever.
CLICK ON THE TITLE TO CONTINUE .....
It really doesn’t get any worse than this.
Candace Gorman, lawyer for Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi, a Libyan detainee at Guantánamo, reports that her client has been infected with AIDS. Mr. al-Ghizzawi explained to his lawyer in a letter that he was told about his infection by a doctor at Guantánamo, adding that he believes that the infection took place in 2004, when he was given a blood test, which “resulted in alarm amongst the hospital staff,” although he was not given any explanation for the alarm at the time.
The hospital at Guantánamo, where, Mr. al-Ghizzawi said, “the guards that would bring him to the clinic often sat and read his medical file and … would toss the file around for others to read while he sat there.”
On January 28, Candace Gorman filed an emergency motion with the US Supreme Court, asking for the US military to provide urgent medical treatment to Mr. al-Ghizzawi, and also asking for access to her client’s medical records. Yesterday morning, however, Chief Justice John Roberts denied the motion.
While this news is so alarming that it almost defies description, Mr. al-Ghizzawi’s plight is compounded by the fact that he already suffers from tuberculosis, which he also contracted in Guantánamo, and hepatitis B, which was dormant before his arrival at the prison.
In an affidavit filed with the US District Court in September 2006, Dr. Ronald Sollock, the Chief Medical Doctor at Guantánamo, confirmed that Mr. al-Ghizzawi “was subjected to complete medical tests by the military upon his arrival in Guantánamo in 2002,” and that he “entered [the prison] in good health,” although he admitted that “a history of hepatitis B was identified in tests performed in August 2002” (even though Mr. al-Ghizzawi was never informed of this fact), and that he “was exposed to tuberculosis while at the base.”Dr. Sollock also claimed that Mr. al-Ghizzawi “does not want to be treated for his life threatening illness[es],” although this is strenuously denied by Mr. al-Ghizzawi himself, who insists that he has never been informed about his health problems, and has never been offered any kind of medical treatment whatsoever.
CLICK ON THE TITLE TO CONTINUE .....
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
No Medical Treatment For Al-Ghizzawi
(click on the title for the AP story)
In light of the news that Al-Ghizzawi is also suffering from AIDS and still not being treated I filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court monday afternoon...
asking that the Court order the military to treat him.
The application was turned over to Chief Justice Roberts as the original case hails from DC.
A few hours ago Justice Roberts denied the application.
So there you have it:
We kidnapped him in exchange for a bounty,
took him from his wife and daughter,
tortured him,
infected him with TB and HIV,
aggravated a preexisting exposure to Hepatitis B (that had shown no signs prior to his incarceration in our legal black hole)
and we have hidden him away in solitary confinement with no medical treatment.
The American courts don't care,
the American politicians don't care,
the American people don't care...
and the rest of the world looks on askance...
but doesn't want to step into the fray...
So what do I tell Al-Ghizzawi when I see him next month.... that is ...if he is still alive?
In light of the news that Al-Ghizzawi is also suffering from AIDS and still not being treated I filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court monday afternoon...
asking that the Court order the military to treat him.
The application was turned over to Chief Justice Roberts as the original case hails from DC.
A few hours ago Justice Roberts denied the application.
So there you have it:
We kidnapped him in exchange for a bounty,
took him from his wife and daughter,
tortured him,
infected him with TB and HIV,
aggravated a preexisting exposure to Hepatitis B (that had shown no signs prior to his incarceration in our legal black hole)
and we have hidden him away in solitary confinement with no medical treatment.
The American courts don't care,
the American politicians don't care,
the American people don't care...
and the rest of the world looks on askance...
but doesn't want to step into the fray...
So what do I tell Al-Ghizzawi when I see him next month.... that is ...if he is still alive?
Friday, January 25, 2008
From Roger Fitch and Our Friends Down Under
(click on the title to go to the original)
Roger Fitch Esq • January 22, 2008
Our Man in Washington
The case is generating plenty of comment, including this from Slate’s legal observer, Emily Bazelon.
The best analysis of the Yoo case was John Steele’s on the Legal Ethics Blog.
Elaine Cassel has also written about the lawsuit at FindLaw’s Writ.
The Murdoch Wall Street Journal cried out, “Terrorist Tort Travesty”, and provided an analysis by Mr Yoo himself.
As Yoo had claimed earlier, it was all a case of “lawfare”, i.e. evildoers using the rule of law to wage war against innocents, such as himself.
Yet even the court circular, The Washington Post, now thinks Padilla’s torture should be investigated.
As I noted in my post of September 4, Padilla has a case pending in South Carolina against Department of Defence personnel. Why not sue the person who advised and counselled their conduct?
Balkin Blog’s legal ethicist, David Luban, saw similarities between the behaviour of John Yoo and other Bush “lawyers”, and similar underlings employed by Herr Hitler.
More on that can be gleaned from the trial transcripts of the Nuremberg “Justice Case” prosecutions.
The indictment lists defendants whose jobs sometimes closely resemble those of the prosecutors, administrators, “legal counsellors” and the like at the White House, the Pentagon and Justice.
The Nuremberg list also includes judges of “special courts”, which may be of interest to those presiding in the Guantanamo military commissions. And perhaps other judges.
In his memoirs, John Yoo has bragged that he advised the Bush administration on the confinement and treatment of Padilla at the navy brig in South Carolina where the “enemy combatant” was held for three-and-a-half years.
Such a defence is now possible. That’s the import of a new DC Court of Appeals decision in Rasul v Myers.
This is another prison mistreatment case, brought by four of the original Guantanamo prisoners, including Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal, the co-petitioners in David Hicks’ 2002 habeas case.
Among the propositions endorsed by the (all-Republican) panel are that (1) mistreatment is within the scope of employment for military personnel who are detaining enemy prisoners; so (2) torture is foreseeable.
The court, believe it or not, cited the Restatement of Agency. Scotus Blog has a report on this chilling decision.
The case is being viewed as one of the worst appeal decisions affecting detainees, ranking with Hamdan I and Padilla II.
Harper’s blogger Scott Horton comments here. McClatchy Newspapers have more.
Another part of the Rasul decision concerned the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which ostensibly protects prisoners in the exercise of their religion. The district court had allowed this to proceed, but the government appealed and once again claimed Guantanamo is a place where detainees have no rights.
In an amazing contortion, the DC Court of Appeals went even further and ruled that:
“Because the plaintiffs are aliens and were located outside sovereign United States territory at the time their alleged RFRA claim arose, they do not fall with[in] the definition of ‘person’.”
It was of no moment that the Constitution doesn’t equate “persons” with “citizens”, and that the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that Guantanamo is part of the US for purposes of detainee litigation.
“A ‘person’ is ‘an individual human being … as distinguished from an animal or a thing’.”
Judge Brown then lamented that the decision left the DC Circuit as “the only court to declare those held at Guantanamo are not ‘person[s]’ ... a most regrettable holding in a case where plaintiffs have alleged high-level U.S. government officials treated them as less than human”.
* * *
Last week it was revealed that the Canadian foreign ministry agreed with the DC Circuit on the foreseeability of the torture of detainees at Guantanamo by Americans. Even the New York Times noticed this development.
As was to be expected, however, Canada was soon “persuaded” to remove the names of Israel and the US from its list of states that torture.
* * *
On the same day as its decision in the Rasul torture case (January 11, the sixth anniversary of the Gitmo detentions), a different panel of the Court of Appeals, led by the same judge, Karen LeCraft Henderson, gave the White House a big victory in an FOI claim.
In this case, the NIMJ (National Institute of Military Justice) had sought, “records containing the opinions and recommendations of non-governmental lawyers whose advice the United States Department of Defense (DoD) solicited to promulgate regulations establishing terrorist trial commissions”.
The Court of Appeals upheld a summary judgment in DoD’s favour on the dodgy grounds that private individuals (even unpaid) who give their opinions to the government are somehow producing “intra-agency” correspondence that is exempt from disclosure.
Judge David Tatel, a Clinton appointee, wrote a blistering dissent.
In another ACLU FOI case being run in the NY District Court, Judge Alvin Hellerstein was told by the government that the CIA had “no duty” to preserve the evidence it had been ordered to preserve.
The FOI case was run by the ACLU’s Amrit Singh (pic), whose new book, Administration of Torture I wrote about in my post of November 8.
It seems Ms Singh is winning appreciative audiences for her Bush-bashing in India, where her father, Manmohan Singh, is the Prime Minister.
As some of us expected, it is now being reported that the torture taping never really stopped.
Perhaps that’s why the government can’t admit that the tapes, if they do exist, are subject to preservation.
* * *
The government has been busy stitching up Jose Padilla and other people, often those involved in running charities, for a connection (no matter how remote) to speculative conspiracies to commit acts of terror.
The government then seeks judicial “enhancements” to the sentences which have the effect of giving punishments exceeding those sought before the jury.
I reported on this practice last year (see my post of July 30).
While the defendant gets a stiffer sentence from the judge than he was given by the jury, the “enhancement” only requires a “preponderance of evidence”.
Often, it seems, the enhancement factor is not proved but only alleged, and this suffices for judicial fact-finding.
In the end Judge Marcia Cooke departed from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and sentenced Padilla to 17 years in prison, partly because of his ordeal in the military brig.
The judge did say that the government never proved he attended a terrorist training school and it is undisputed that no one was injured by his actions.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
UPDATE ON AL-GHIZZAWI HEALTH
After I received the distressing news from Mr. Al-Ghizzawi that a doctor at the base has informed him that he has AIDs I sent an email to the government attorney who has been (mis)handling Mr. Al-Ghizzawi's case. I asked him if he could confirm for me whether or not Mr. Al-Ghizzawi has AIDs. Here is his response:
"We are not privy to the particulars of what your client may have been told by his doctor, if anything, but Guantanamo provides high-quality medical care to all detainees."
And so there you have it.... this criminal government will not deny the doctors diagnosis... (which in and of itself is telling) instead they provide an unresponsive answer...of course if it is true that Al-Ghizzawi has AIDs it means that he acquired the disease while at the base because the military claimed it did a complete physical when Al-Ghizzawi arrived and the ONLY condition he suffered from at that time was Hepatitis B....so I guess there is good reason why they don't want to confirm the diagnosis.
"We are not privy to the particulars of what your client may have been told by his doctor, if anything, but Guantanamo provides high-quality medical care to all detainees."
And so there you have it.... this criminal government will not deny the doctors diagnosis... (which in and of itself is telling) instead they provide an unresponsive answer...of course if it is true that Al-Ghizzawi has AIDs it means that he acquired the disease while at the base because the military claimed it did a complete physical when Al-Ghizzawi arrived and the ONLY condition he suffered from at that time was Hepatitis B....so I guess there is good reason why they don't want to confirm the diagnosis.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
CANADA PUTS US ON TORTURE WATCH LIST (Updated)
And here I thought Canada accepted our torture policies... click on the title for more...
Well that didn't take long... seems Canada does accept our torture policies... they took us off the list.... seems it was embarassing to certain close allies... wonder who that would be??
Check out the reversal...
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1762987120080119
Well that didn't take long... seems Canada does accept our torture policies... they took us off the list.... seems it was embarassing to certain close allies... wonder who that would be??
Check out the reversal...
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1762987120080119
Friday, January 18, 2008
Check out Fora.tv and it's Progressive Programs about Guantanamo
Fora.tv has progressive programs about Guantanamo and other important issues... Click on the link to get to the site and while you are there look at the program on Supreme Court argument in Boumediene:
American Society of International Law
Washington, D.C.
Dec 12th, 2007
Boumediene v. Bush: Rights of Detainees in the View of the Supreme Court A panel discussion with Paul Wolfson, Jonathan Cohn, and Neal Katyal
Boumediene v. Bush, a set of consolidated cases argued before the US Supreme Court on December 5, raised the question of whether detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention through habeas corpus petitions. At this program, scheduled for one week after oral arguments before the Court, counsel for the parties and their amici will debate the issues raised in the case and comment on the questions raised by the Justices at the oral argument. The discussion will cover the effect of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which purports to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions from the detainees, and whether the detainees are entitled to a hearing on the merits Click on the title to watch.
American Society of International Law
Washington, D.C.
Dec 12th, 2007
Boumediene v. Bush: Rights of Detainees in the View of the Supreme Court A panel discussion with Paul Wolfson, Jonathan Cohn, and Neal Katyal
Boumediene v. Bush, a set of consolidated cases argued before the US Supreme Court on December 5, raised the question of whether detainees at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay may challenge their detention through habeas corpus petitions. At this program, scheduled for one week after oral arguments before the Court, counsel for the parties and their amici will debate the issues raised in the case and comment on the questions raised by the Justices at the oral argument. The discussion will cover the effect of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which purports to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas petitions from the detainees, and whether the detainees are entitled to a hearing on the merits Click on the title to watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
