Wednesday, January 16, 2008
DIRE NEWS
Today I received a letter from Mr. Al-Ghizzawi in which he informs me that he has recently seen a doctor and the doctor informed him that he has AIDs. It will take some time for me to confirm this information as the government is reluctant to give out any information to the prisoners or their attorneys but you can bet I will be doing everything I can to find out the truth. In August 2006 the government admitted that Al-Ghizzawi had Hep. B and TB but said nothing about HIV or Aids but Al-Ghizzawi has long suspected that he was infected with the disease during a routine blood test.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Check out the Atlantic.com's photo essay: Inside Guantánamo
Click on the title to see a well written and photographed photo essay depicting some of the reasons why we need to shut down Guantánamo. Text by Andrew Sullivan, Photos by Louie Palu.
Also be sure to click on the slideshow to see what it is like inside:
http://www.theatlantic.com/slideshows/guantanamo/
Also be sure to click on the slideshow to see what it is like inside:
http://www.theatlantic.com/slideshows/guantanamo/
6 years of shame
Jan 11th marked the six year anniversary of the first detainees in the "war on terror" being brought to Guantánamo. Amnesty International has pictures from protests around the world. http://flickr.com/search/?q=counter-terror-with-justice&w=all
To join Amnesty International's global initiative to end illegal US detentions and a major online action under Amnesty International’s campaign to Counter Terror With Justice click on the title or go to http://www.tearitdown.org/
To join Amnesty International's global initiative to end illegal US detentions and a major online action under Amnesty International’s campaign to Counter Terror With Justice click on the title or go to http://www.tearitdown.org/
FROM ROGER FITCH AND OUR FRIENDS DOWN UNDER
(I don't think all the bells and whistles are working but click on the title to get to the original...)
Roger Fitch Esq • January 8, 2008
Our Man in Washington
The New Year brought the usual lists surveying the previous year’s events and people.
This time they were heavily weighted towards crime and criminals.
For instance, The Talking Points Memo blog tallied Bush officials who have been
sacked, disgraced, jailed, or seem headed for time behind bars.
CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) listed the year’s top-10
scandals.
One enterprising blogger provided a handy 82-page list of accumulated Bush crimes
through to the end of 2007.
And on New Year’s Eve, The New York Times acknowledged that “men in some of the
most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover-up the torture of prisoners by
Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening
behaviour.”
The Grey Lady continued:
“It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy [sic]
in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule
of law and human decency.”
The Times let fly, referring to to “inhumanity … lawless behaviour … barbaric acts
… shocking abuses … a trampled constitution [and] the kangaroo court in Guantanamo”.
It was a blistering editorial, yet the torture of detainees would have been exposed
years ago if papers such as the Times and The Washington Post had not insisted on
sugar-coating Bush administration misbehaviour.
After all, who gave us the words, “harsh interrogation” and “tough tactics”? Who
accepted and justified their use on “recalcitrant” and “stubborn” prisoners?
It was the Post that genteelly said, “controversial interrogation techniques … include
some that cause extreme discomfort”.
At the very least, the alarm bells should have begun ringing when the so-called
torture memos were disclosed in 2004. Instead, one of the authors, Alberto Gonzales,
was confirmed as Attorney General in 2005.
After Gonzales left the White House, Bush’s lawyers openly discussed destroying
the incriminating tapes, although there were some legal dissidents.
In any event the tapes are said to have been destroyed and, as the scandal unfolds,
Georgetown law prof Jonathan Turley (pic) has prepared a helpful list of “six identifiable
crimes” that are available against Bush and his officials.
Without the torture memos, of course, there might never have been any torture to
tape.
One plaintiff has made the connection, and is bringing suit against the very man
whose tortured logic many believe led to tortured people.
Jose Padilla, the US citizen falsely imprisoned for three-and-a-half years in a
navy brig, has sued the presumed architect of torture, the former Department of
Justice “lawyer” John Yoo, now a tenured law professor at Berkeley.
The lawsuit seeks to hold Yoo accountable for Padilla’s alleged torture during his
spell as an “enemy combatant”.
According to Padilla’s lawyers, Yoo (pic) was personally involved. Jurist has more
to say about this.
Even as the dust settles on the CIA’s alleged destruction of the torture tapes,
that agency finds itself facing the additional charge of obstructing the 9/11 Commission,
which specifically sought such information and was told it didn’t exist.
The bipartisan leadership of the commission attacked the CIA actions in a New York
Times op-ed.
Finally, Attorney General Michael Mukasey felt compelled to take action, and ordered
an FBI investigation of the CIA’s destruction of the “torture tapes”.
Dahlia Lithwick reports on the AG’s choice for prosecutor, Assistant US Attorney
John Durham (pic) of Connecticut.
The investigation should be interesting, as the FBI has always disapproved of the
CIA’s brutal interrogation methods. The Times suggested it could even be payback
time for the often-ignored and overruled FBI.
* * *
Another area of interest in the torture controversy concerns the CIA’s “black sites”
overseas, said to have been located in such places as Thailand, Poland, Romania
and the British possession of Diego Garcia.
No doubt the talk of black sites by John Kiriakou (see my last post) is one reason
the CIA wants to investigate the former CIA agent. Mother Jones has more about this.
The danger to the Bush administration of further black site disclosures is the subject
of a piece by John Dean in FindLaw’s Writ. It all hangs on the ACLU’s FOI suit against
the CIA pending in US District Court in New York.
We also now know more about these CIA black sites, thanks to Muhamed Bashmilah,
one of the plaintiffs in another ACLU lawsuit – the one against the Jeppesen Travel
division of Boeing. Jeppesen arranged “flight services” for the CIA’s (shudder)
extraordinary renditions.
Bashmilah’s detailed descriptions of his treatment at black sites is the basis for
a report put out by NYU’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice.
That’s the one run by an eminent Australian, the law professor Philip Alston (pic).
Middle East Times correspondent William Fisher has more on the NYU report and on
black sites generally.
* * *
There is yet another useful list that has been produced for 2008. It’s a status
report on “GTMO and related” cases in Washington and elsewhere by David Remes, a
leading member of the Guantanamo Bar Association.
Speaking of Guantanamo, the list of disaffected and departed Gitmo military officers
is still growing.
First there was the incident in 2005 when three prosecutors from the Air Force Judge
Advocates quit. Leigh Sales from your ABC had details of the third resignation.
They were later joined by the prosecutor Lt. Col. Stuart Couch and the defence counsel
Lt. Col. Colby Vokey (pic).
Officers involved in holding the CSRTs, including Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, have
been filing affidavits for detainees in their court cases, attesting to the unfairness
of the CSRTs.
Even the Chief Prosecutor, Moe Davis has quit in protest and like Col. Couch (see
my post of December 7, 2007), Col. Davis has been prevented from testifying to Congress
by Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes.
Davis strongly attacked the Pentagon’s political interference in the commissions,
in an LA Times op-ed.
Col. Morris Davis will not be going quietly. As he says:
“I’m not the first person associated with Guantanamo to be bound and gagged before
having cold water poured on him, although in my case it is intended to induce me
not to talk.”
Maybe Moe’s not kidding.
Roger Fitch Esq • January 8, 2008
Our Man in Washington
The New Year brought the usual lists surveying the previous year’s events and people.
This time they were heavily weighted towards crime and criminals.
For instance, The Talking Points Memo blog tallied Bush officials who have been
sacked, disgraced, jailed, or seem headed for time behind bars.
CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) listed the year’s top-10
scandals.
One enterprising blogger provided a handy 82-page list of accumulated Bush crimes
through to the end of 2007.
And on New Year’s Eve, The New York Times acknowledged that “men in some of the
most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover-up the torture of prisoners by
Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening
behaviour.”
The Grey Lady continued:
“It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy [sic]
in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule
of law and human decency.”
The Times let fly, referring to to “inhumanity … lawless behaviour … barbaric acts
… shocking abuses … a trampled constitution [and] the kangaroo court in Guantanamo”.
It was a blistering editorial, yet the torture of detainees would have been exposed
years ago if papers such as the Times and The Washington Post had not insisted on
sugar-coating Bush administration misbehaviour.
After all, who gave us the words, “harsh interrogation” and “tough tactics”? Who
accepted and justified their use on “recalcitrant” and “stubborn” prisoners?
It was the Post that genteelly said, “controversial interrogation techniques … include
some that cause extreme discomfort”.
At the very least, the alarm bells should have begun ringing when the so-called
torture memos were disclosed in 2004. Instead, one of the authors, Alberto Gonzales,
was confirmed as Attorney General in 2005.
After Gonzales left the White House, Bush’s lawyers openly discussed destroying
the incriminating tapes, although there were some legal dissidents.
In any event the tapes are said to have been destroyed and, as the scandal unfolds,
Georgetown law prof Jonathan Turley (pic) has prepared a helpful list of “six identifiable
crimes” that are available against Bush and his officials.
Without the torture memos, of course, there might never have been any torture to
tape.
One plaintiff has made the connection, and is bringing suit against the very man
whose tortured logic many believe led to tortured people.
Jose Padilla, the US citizen falsely imprisoned for three-and-a-half years in a
navy brig, has sued the presumed architect of torture, the former Department of
Justice “lawyer” John Yoo, now a tenured law professor at Berkeley.
The lawsuit seeks to hold Yoo accountable for Padilla’s alleged torture during his
spell as an “enemy combatant”.
According to Padilla’s lawyers, Yoo (pic) was personally involved. Jurist has more
to say about this.
Even as the dust settles on the CIA’s alleged destruction of the torture tapes,
that agency finds itself facing the additional charge of obstructing the 9/11 Commission,
which specifically sought such information and was told it didn’t exist.
The bipartisan leadership of the commission attacked the CIA actions in a New York
Times op-ed.
Finally, Attorney General Michael Mukasey felt compelled to take action, and ordered
an FBI investigation of the CIA’s destruction of the “torture tapes”.
Dahlia Lithwick reports on the AG’s choice for prosecutor, Assistant US Attorney
John Durham (pic) of Connecticut.
The investigation should be interesting, as the FBI has always disapproved of the
CIA’s brutal interrogation methods. The Times suggested it could even be payback
time for the often-ignored and overruled FBI.
* * *
Another area of interest in the torture controversy concerns the CIA’s “black sites”
overseas, said to have been located in such places as Thailand, Poland, Romania
and the British possession of Diego Garcia.
No doubt the talk of black sites by John Kiriakou (see my last post) is one reason
the CIA wants to investigate the former CIA agent. Mother Jones has more about this.
The danger to the Bush administration of further black site disclosures is the subject
of a piece by John Dean in FindLaw’s Writ. It all hangs on the ACLU’s FOI suit against
the CIA pending in US District Court in New York.
We also now know more about these CIA black sites, thanks to Muhamed Bashmilah,
one of the plaintiffs in another ACLU lawsuit – the one against the Jeppesen Travel
division of Boeing. Jeppesen arranged “flight services” for the CIA’s (shudder)
extraordinary renditions.
Bashmilah’s detailed descriptions of his treatment at black sites is the basis for
a report put out by NYU’s Center for Human Rights and Global Justice.
That’s the one run by an eminent Australian, the law professor Philip Alston (pic).
Middle East Times correspondent William Fisher has more on the NYU report and on
black sites generally.
* * *
There is yet another useful list that has been produced for 2008. It’s a status
report on “GTMO and related” cases in Washington and elsewhere by David Remes, a
leading member of the Guantanamo Bar Association.
Speaking of Guantanamo, the list of disaffected and departed Gitmo military officers
is still growing.
First there was the incident in 2005 when three prosecutors from the Air Force Judge
Advocates quit. Leigh Sales from your ABC had details of the third resignation.
They were later joined by the prosecutor Lt. Col. Stuart Couch and the defence counsel
Lt. Col. Colby Vokey (pic).
Officers involved in holding the CSRTs, including Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, have
been filing affidavits for detainees in their court cases, attesting to the unfairness
of the CSRTs.
Even the Chief Prosecutor, Moe Davis has quit in protest and like Col. Couch (see
my post of December 7, 2007), Col. Davis has been prevented from testifying to Congress
by Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes.
Davis strongly attacked the Pentagon’s political interference in the commissions,
in an LA Times op-ed.
Col. Morris Davis will not be going quietly. As he says:
“I’m not the first person associated with Guantanamo to be bound and gagged before
having cold water poured on him, although in my case it is intended to induce me
not to talk.”
Maybe Moe’s not kidding.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Catch 22 in the 21st Century
When I visited my client Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi at Guantánamo on Sept. 25 and 26, he brought with him two letters that he had been working on since summer. The letters, written in Arabic, were six pages and one page in length. The six-page letter described the torture he had endured since bounty hunters picked him up in Afghanistan in late 2001. The one-page letter contained instructions upon his death. Al-Ghizzawi wanted to spend our meeting going over the letters so that if they got “lost” in the mail, the information would be recorded in my notes. ....
To read the rest of this article click on the title....
To read the rest of this article click on the title....
Friday, January 4, 2008
Reply in the Supreme Court (UPDATED)
The Supreme Court ordered the solicitor general to respond to Al-Ghizzawi's Original Habeas Petition on December 26th. Not wanting to spoil their own holidays they filed early on the 20th (after first asking me if I would consent to a 30 day extension!). If you click on the title you can see the Reply I filed on Monday the 31st. This has been cleared for public filing.
The docket sheet shows that the Petition was distributed on January 3rd for the conference on January 18th.... let's keep our collective fingers crossed...
The docket sheet shows that the Petition was distributed on January 3rd for the conference on January 18th.... let's keep our collective fingers crossed...
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
I GUESS IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY THINK "IMMEDIATE" IS?
The Military is claiming that none of the prisoners are in immediate danger of death..... what else can I say except to call them what they are... liars.
click on the title to read about some of the other very ill prisoners being held at Guantanamo. ...
click on the title to read about some of the other very ill prisoners being held at Guantanamo. ...
Sunday, December 30, 2007
End of the year thoughts
(click on the title to take you to... Daily Kos: the death of the bill of rights)
HAPPY NEW YEAR.
HAPPY NEW YEAR.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Saudi transfer under way...Updated..more ISN's included
10 Saudi's were transfered back to Saudi Arabia last night. Their names are:
Ziad Saleh Muhammad Al-Bahooth ISN 272
Mish`al Sa`d Abdulaziz Al-Rasheed ISN 74
Jameel Ali Atyan Al-Ka`bi ISN 216
Khaled Milweh Shaye` Al-Qahtani ISN 439
Nayef Fahd Mutlaq Al-Otaibi ISN 436
Abdullah Aydha Abdullah Al-Mutrafi ISN 005
Abdullah Aali Nayef Al-Otaibi ISN 243
Bandar Ali Abdulaziz Al-Rumaihi ???
Abdulrahman Nashi Badi Al-Otaibi ISN 268
Abdulhakim Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Al-Moosa ISN 565
Ziad Saleh Muhammad Al-Bahooth ISN 272
Mish`al Sa`d Abdulaziz Al-Rasheed ISN 74
Jameel Ali Atyan Al-Ka`bi ISN 216
Khaled Milweh Shaye` Al-Qahtani ISN 439
Nayef Fahd Mutlaq Al-Otaibi ISN 436
Abdullah Aydha Abdullah Al-Mutrafi ISN 005
Abdullah Aali Nayef Al-Otaibi ISN 243
Bandar Ali Abdulaziz Al-Rumaihi ???
Abdulrahman Nashi Badi Al-Otaibi ISN 268
Abdulhakim Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Al-Moosa ISN 565
Saturday, December 22, 2007
International Press....
(For the Francophones in the audience clip on the title for the original version)
An American Lawyer's Fight Against Guantanamo Goes Through Switzerland
By Luis Lema Le Temps
Wednesday 19 December 2007
A seriously ill detainee is denied medical care by the Americans. Berne is solicited.
Candace Gorman spent last weekend at Guantanamo. She no longer counts the number of times she's gone to the American detention center, "maybe eight or nine." A Chicago lawyer for twenty-five years, she has, as she says herself, "largely given up her practice" to conduct a battle against her government the last several years. As a volunteer, she receives neither pay nor expense reimbursement of any kind. She wants, she repeats, to "remedy the injustice" to which one of the Guantanamo detainees is victim.
Her client's name is Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi. He was thirty-nine years old when he was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. His crime? Being Libyan in the wrong place at the wrong time. When he was captured, his lawyer reminds us, the Americans were inundating the country with tracts calling for Arab "terrorists and criminals" to be handed over. They promised astronomical bounties, enough to "feed your family and your village for the rest of your life." Married to an Afghan woman, al-Ghizzawi owned a little grocery store in Jalalabad. He was arrested by the Northern Alliance, put in a truck, sold to the Americans, and then transferred to Guantanamo.
Candace Gorman is convinced that the man is entirely innocent. Placed under a regime of exceptional justice, he does not enjoy the usual rights and recourse of defense. However, at the end of 2004, the members of a military tribunal agreed to acknowledge that the Libyan, like 45 other Guantanamo detainees, could not be described as an "enemy combatant." Some weeks later, however, other hearings were organized and those decisions were annulled. The lawyer, who has transcripts of those hearings, is persuaded that the about-face has one rationale only: the military was embarrassed to have so many detainees on its hands whose innocence had been acknowledged. The rules of the game were changed.
The Harshest Unit
Instead of being freed, Al-Ghizzawi was, quite the opposite, transferred to Camp 6, the harshest unit at Guantanamo. When his lawyer visited him for the first time a year ago, she found her client chained to the floor, kept in virtually complete isolation in a steel cell with no windows. She very quickly realized that the man was seriously ill. The camp doctors confirmed that he was infected with chronic Hepatitis B, and perhaps tuberculosis also. They declared that the detainee refused medical care. But they rejected his lawyer's demand for medical management and supervision.
"I knew the military would never allow him to be cared for in the United States. So I tried abroad," Candace Gorman explains. Through a chain of circumstances, she came upon the name of JŸrg Reichen, liver specialist at the Berne hospital. She went to meet him in Switzerland. And the doctor filed a statement with an American district court and then with the Supreme Court. "I tried unsuccessfully to obtain a diagnosis," JŸrg Reichen confirmed over the phone. "And I alerted my 'colleagues' at Guantanamo as to what they should do with a proven case of hepatitis B."
The Swiss doctor has already gathered the funds necessary to care for Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi at the Berne Hospital. A proceeding, he insists on making clear, that "will not cost Swiss taxpayers a penny." The lawyer has addressed the [Swiss] Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. But the FDFA says it is unable to intervene as long as the Bush administration does not present a request for admission to Switzerland to receive medical care. Now, according to the lawyer, "it's clear that the United States will never make an official request. That would amount to admitting its own policy failures."
"A Dead Man" If ...
Yet there's no time to waste. A few days ago, 12 Guantanamo detainees were sent to Pulcharkey prison in Kabul, for which the Americans have just finished building a new wing. The authorities' wager: to bet on the fact that the detainees will escape American jurisdiction there and will not be able to be defended by their lawyers. "It's Guantanamo's Guantanamo," Candace Gorman sums up. And her contacts in Washington have assured her that her client's name is on the list of those who will be sent next to that high security prison which has no medical services. Specialist JŸrg Reichen's opinion allows no appeal: If Al-Ghizzawi is sent to Afghanistan, he's a dead man."
An American Lawyer's Fight Against Guantanamo Goes Through Switzerland
By Luis Lema Le Temps
Wednesday 19 December 2007
A seriously ill detainee is denied medical care by the Americans. Berne is solicited.
Candace Gorman spent last weekend at Guantanamo. She no longer counts the number of times she's gone to the American detention center, "maybe eight or nine." A Chicago lawyer for twenty-five years, she has, as she says herself, "largely given up her practice" to conduct a battle against her government the last several years. As a volunteer, she receives neither pay nor expense reimbursement of any kind. She wants, she repeats, to "remedy the injustice" to which one of the Guantanamo detainees is victim.
Her client's name is Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi. He was thirty-nine years old when he was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. His crime? Being Libyan in the wrong place at the wrong time. When he was captured, his lawyer reminds us, the Americans were inundating the country with tracts calling for Arab "terrorists and criminals" to be handed over. They promised astronomical bounties, enough to "feed your family and your village for the rest of your life." Married to an Afghan woman, al-Ghizzawi owned a little grocery store in Jalalabad. He was arrested by the Northern Alliance, put in a truck, sold to the Americans, and then transferred to Guantanamo.
Candace Gorman is convinced that the man is entirely innocent. Placed under a regime of exceptional justice, he does not enjoy the usual rights and recourse of defense. However, at the end of 2004, the members of a military tribunal agreed to acknowledge that the Libyan, like 45 other Guantanamo detainees, could not be described as an "enemy combatant." Some weeks later, however, other hearings were organized and those decisions were annulled. The lawyer, who has transcripts of those hearings, is persuaded that the about-face has one rationale only: the military was embarrassed to have so many detainees on its hands whose innocence had been acknowledged. The rules of the game were changed.
The Harshest Unit
Instead of being freed, Al-Ghizzawi was, quite the opposite, transferred to Camp 6, the harshest unit at Guantanamo. When his lawyer visited him for the first time a year ago, she found her client chained to the floor, kept in virtually complete isolation in a steel cell with no windows. She very quickly realized that the man was seriously ill. The camp doctors confirmed that he was infected with chronic Hepatitis B, and perhaps tuberculosis also. They declared that the detainee refused medical care. But they rejected his lawyer's demand for medical management and supervision.
"I knew the military would never allow him to be cared for in the United States. So I tried abroad," Candace Gorman explains. Through a chain of circumstances, she came upon the name of JŸrg Reichen, liver specialist at the Berne hospital. She went to meet him in Switzerland. And the doctor filed a statement with an American district court and then with the Supreme Court. "I tried unsuccessfully to obtain a diagnosis," JŸrg Reichen confirmed over the phone. "And I alerted my 'colleagues' at Guantanamo as to what they should do with a proven case of hepatitis B."
The Swiss doctor has already gathered the funds necessary to care for Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi at the Berne Hospital. A proceeding, he insists on making clear, that "will not cost Swiss taxpayers a penny." The lawyer has addressed the [Swiss] Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. But the FDFA says it is unable to intervene as long as the Bush administration does not present a request for admission to Switzerland to receive medical care. Now, according to the lawyer, "it's clear that the United States will never make an official request. That would amount to admitting its own policy failures."
"A Dead Man" If ...
Yet there's no time to waste. A few days ago, 12 Guantanamo detainees were sent to Pulcharkey prison in Kabul, for which the Americans have just finished building a new wing. The authorities' wager: to bet on the fact that the detainees will escape American jurisdiction there and will not be able to be defended by their lawyers. "It's Guantanamo's Guantanamo," Candace Gorman sums up. And her contacts in Washington have assured her that her client's name is on the list of those who will be sent next to that high security prison which has no medical services. Specialist JŸrg Reichen's opinion allows no appeal: If Al-Ghizzawi is sent to Afghanistan, he's a dead man."
THE HOPE IS THAT HE WOULD READ IT.....
For those of you who weren't strolling by the White House on Thursday at noon, the esteemed former legal director for the Center for Constitutional rights,Bill Goodman, played the part of Santa Claus and attempted to deliver 37,000 copies of the constitution to our Commander in Chief. The results are here:http://youtube.com/watch?v=ohc8Uyl95xQ
Indeed, "[e]very chimney was guarded."
Elf appears courtesy of "Billionaires for Bush."--
If you are looking to make a donation to an organization that is fighting every day to uphold the constitution please think about sending a check to the Center for Constitutional rights in NYC.
http://ccrjustice.org/
Indeed, "[e]very chimney was guarded."
Elf appears courtesy of "Billionaires for Bush."--
If you are looking to make a donation to an organization that is fighting every day to uphold the constitution please think about sending a check to the Center for Constitutional rights in NYC.
http://ccrjustice.org/
The Crime of Waterboarding....
(Thank you Charles Gittings for pullling this together... click on the title to go to Charly's blog...)
NOTE ON WATERBOARDING
=====================
So there's an Andrew McCarthy article in the NRO that pretty much sums up the talking points of the apologists these daze in the wake of the CIA's admission that it destroyed video and audio tapes of detainees being tortured by water-boarding and other means....
"Regardless of what the revisionist Left is now saying, the only bright-line limit on the treatment of alien enemy combatants held outside the United States in 2002 was the federal law against torture. The United States did not outlaw cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment when it ratified the international anti-torture treaty in 1994 -- it was not until 2005 that such treatment overseas was outlawed, and even then only ambiguously, no matter what Senators John McCain, Patrick Leahy, and others now claim."
Andrew McCarthy, THE CIA INTERROGATION TAPES, NRO (2007.12.21).
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmQ5ZWVlNDUwMGU2NTNkYWVkNTk1MGUxNDIyYmQ5Yzg=&w=Mg==
Now I'd just like to point out to one and all, especially those of you who are journalists, that what Mr. McCarthy claims not only isn't true, it's obviously untrue to the degree of certainty. To wit...
By my tally, these interrogations and the subsequent destruction of the tapes involved possible violations of the following statues (note that this discussion excludes Title 10 USC Ch. 47, which is the Uniform Code of Military
Justice):
18 USC § 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense)
18 USC § 1201 (Kidnapping)
18 USC § 1505 (Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and
committees)
18 USC § 1509 (Obstruction of court orders)
18 USC § 1512 (Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant)
18 USC § 1519 (Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy)
18 USC §§ 2340-2340B (Torture)
18 USC § 2441 (War crimes)
There really isn't much room for doubt about several of those, and I don't believe there's any serious question water-boarding is in fact torture either.
Anyone who thinks otherwise should read Evan Wallach's authoritative legal study of the subject:
Evan J. Wallach, DROP BY DROP: FORGETTING THE HISTORY OF WATER TORTURE IN U.S.
COURTS, 45 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 468 (2007), draft version available at:
http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf
But the kicker here is that it doesn't really matter in regard to the destruction of the tapes, because even if it wasn't torture and didn't also violate one or more of the other statutes I've mentioned, the kicker is 18 USC § 113, which covers assaults within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction as defined by 18 USC § 7. That statute includes a very bright line indeed, simple assault. Personally, I think the only way water-boarding wouldn't "shock the conscience" is if someone didn't have one, but set that
aside:
How could water-boarding not be at LEAST simple assault, if not one of the more aggravated forms?
There's no way that water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and forcibly induced stress don't rise to that level, hence the question of "is or isn't it torture?" is irrelevant to the question of "is or isn't it a crime?" It clearly WAS a crime, because it clearly WAS an assault even if it wasn't torture.
And I really wish someone would plaster that simple fact on the front pages of the NY Times, the Washington Post, and every other newspaper in the country RIGHT NOW. These folks aren't just criminals, they are sloppy, wanton criminals.
NOTE ON WATERBOARDING
=====================
So there's an Andrew McCarthy article in the NRO that pretty much sums up the talking points of the apologists these daze in the wake of the CIA's admission that it destroyed video and audio tapes of detainees being tortured by water-boarding and other means....
"Regardless of what the revisionist Left is now saying, the only bright-line limit on the treatment of alien enemy combatants held outside the United States in 2002 was the federal law against torture. The United States did not outlaw cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment when it ratified the international anti-torture treaty in 1994 -- it was not until 2005 that such treatment overseas was outlawed, and even then only ambiguously, no matter what Senators John McCain, Patrick Leahy, and others now claim."
Andrew McCarthy, THE CIA INTERROGATION TAPES, NRO (2007.12.21).
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmQ5ZWVlNDUwMGU2NTNkYWVkNTk1MGUxNDIyYmQ5Yzg=&w=Mg==
Now I'd just like to point out to one and all, especially those of you who are journalists, that what Mr. McCarthy claims not only isn't true, it's obviously untrue to the degree of certainty. To wit...
By my tally, these interrogations and the subsequent destruction of the tapes involved possible violations of the following statues (note that this discussion excludes Title 10 USC Ch. 47, which is the Uniform Code of Military
Justice):
18 USC § 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense)
18 USC § 1201 (Kidnapping)
18 USC § 1505 (Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and
committees)
18 USC § 1509 (Obstruction of court orders)
18 USC § 1512 (Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant)
18 USC § 1519 (Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy)
18 USC §§ 2340-2340B (Torture)
18 USC § 2441 (War crimes)
There really isn't much room for doubt about several of those, and I don't believe there's any serious question water-boarding is in fact torture either.
Anyone who thinks otherwise should read Evan Wallach's authoritative legal study of the subject:
Evan J. Wallach, DROP BY DROP: FORGETTING THE HISTORY OF WATER TORTURE IN U.S.
COURTS, 45 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 468 (2007), draft version available at:
http://www.pegc.us/archive/Articles/wallach_drop_by_drop_draft_20061016.pdf
But the kicker here is that it doesn't really matter in regard to the destruction of the tapes, because even if it wasn't torture and didn't also violate one or more of the other statutes I've mentioned, the kicker is 18 USC § 113, which covers assaults within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction as defined by 18 USC § 7. That statute includes a very bright line indeed, simple assault. Personally, I think the only way water-boarding wouldn't "shock the conscience" is if someone didn't have one, but set that
aside:
How could water-boarding not be at LEAST simple assault, if not one of the more aggravated forms?
There's no way that water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and forcibly induced stress don't rise to that level, hence the question of "is or isn't it torture?" is irrelevant to the question of "is or isn't it a crime?" It clearly WAS a crime, because it clearly WAS an assault even if it wasn't torture.
And I really wish someone would plaster that simple fact on the front pages of the NY Times, the Washington Post, and every other newspaper in the country RIGHT NOW. These folks aren't just criminals, they are sloppy, wanton criminals.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
THREE BRITISH RESIDENTS ON WAY BACK TO BRITAIN
According to Andy Worthington three of the British residents are in a plane on their way back to Britain.... ... Click on the title to go directly to his story...
FROM ROGER FITCH AND OUR FRIENDS AT JUSTINIAN
(click on title to go directly to Justinian)
Roger Fitch Esq • December 17, 2007
Our Man in Washington
The Guantanamo “war crimes” trial of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s one-time driver, began the other day.
He is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism.
It was the first time the US had produced a witness against any “enemy combatant” in the “war on terror”, before a judge of any court.
Think about that.
Six years ago George Bush declared Hamdan was an “enemy combatant”. And for six years the US government has successfully obstructed proof that he is not.
At present, the evidence being presented by the Pentagon is concentrated on the question of whether Hamdan was a combatant or a civilian.
However, assuming Hamdan is found to be a combatant, and an “unlawful” one, there still remains the little problem that he stands charged in a military commission with civilian offences.
Before proceeding, the Department of Justice lawyers who are assisting might want to read s.950p of the Military Commissions Act 2006.
It states quite clearly that the Act’s purpose is to “codify offences that have traditionally been triable by military commissions” and that the MCA “does not establish new crimes that did not exist before its enactment”.
Of course, s.950v (“crimes triable by military commissions”) proceeds to do just that, i.e. create a number of new and retrospective offences unknown to the law of war, and therefore, unknown to military commissions.
Conspiracy was specifically condemned, in Hamdan’s very own case, by a plurality of the Supreme Court. As for “material support for terrorism”, that, like conspiracy, has never been a war crime, despite its use against David Hicks.
Hicks’ case only succeeded with a guilty plea and Australian government complicity.
* * *
Across the Atlantic, the Bush administration has informed a British court that the US has the right to kidnap people in the UK.
This remarkable claim provoked editorials as far away as India.
In the same week, a Canadian court ruled that the US is no longer a safe place to send refugees.
Yet it may be American courts that present the gravest danger to the scofflaws of the Bush administration.
Bear in mind that a number of federal judges in the DC habeas cases have ordered the government not to destroy evidence.
At the same time, other federal courts have ordered the production of relevant CIA and FBI evidence in civil trials or FOI claims, e.g. by the ACLU.
In these cases the government has repeatedly claimed that such evidence – the very kind it now acknowledges – either did not exist or had never been created. These statements might now be seen to be false. Judges could be seriously annoyed.
The trouble began with the government’s recent admission in Leonie Brinkema’s (illustration) federal court in Virginia that it had been untruthful during the trial of Zacharias Moussauoi, the only alleged 9/11 conspirator to be tried in the US.
Here’s the US Attorney’s letter to the judge admitting that the CIA “mistakenly” denied the existence of certain video and audio evidence.
Leonie Brinkema is also the judge in the Al Timini terrorism case, and has ordered the government to reveal evidence in that case as well – withheld by the government even from the prosecution – or face dismissal. The Washington Post has more.
The final blow for the government came this month. In response to a New York Times investigation the CIA Director, Michael Hayden (pic), said the CIA had made, and then destroyed, videos of “harsh interrogations” of two of the “high-value” detainees now being held in Guantanamo.
Slate has a handy history of the events leading up to this latest scandal.
The two men are Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Nashiri, both of whom are said to have been “waterboarded” by the CIA. One of the CIA agents involved has since come forward. Another member of a “high value” interrogation team has also been talking.
Everyone seems to forget that the water cure, an ancient practice, used to be considered a crime.
Unfortunately, for the government, the Abu Zubaydah videos could be the very ones that might have helped Moussaoui in his case – and they are the ones the government told Judge Brinkema didn’t exist.
At the same time, undaunted by all this, the government may still intend to use such “waterboard evidence” in its Guantanamo military commissions, judging from an op-ed by recently-resigned Chief Prosecutor Moe Davis.
Col. Davis strongly implies that he resigned under pressure from above to use such tainted evidence.
In the latest scandal, the CIA at first claimed everything had been done properly, but within a day had adopted a contradictory, scapegoat explanation as blogger Scott Horton notes.
A DoJ investigation has now begun , and there will likely be Congressional hearings.
Andrew Sullivan (pic) observed in the Atlantic blog that the latest CIA revelation of missing tapes was not the first such admission – the recent terrorism case against Jose Padilla in Miami was another.
Also, back in 2002, a US district court in New York apparently relied on secret evidence from Abu Zubaydah at the time the government sought a warrant to hold Padilla as a material witness.
The judge in that case was Michael Mukasey, our new Attorney General. Perhaps this will motivate Mukasey to investigate.
The news of Abu Zubaydah’s “torture tapes” drew the interest of lawyers for Majid Khan. Khan, from Baltimore, is the only “high value detainee” who’s been allowed a lawyer.
As a result, he’s the first to talk about enhanced interrogation.
The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a Motion for Preservation of Torture Evidence in the DC Court of Appeals.
Lawyers for Yemeni detainees (the Abdah case) have also gone to court – Henry Kennedy’s – and here’s the motion.
Scotus Blog has more.
Possible spoliation of evidence has led another group of detainees to sue in Richard Roberts’ court. They had prudently sent the CIA a copy of Roberts’ order forbidding destruction of evidence in 2005, before the date the torture tapes were destroyed.
Finally, British lawyer Clive Stafford Smith (pic) urged the CIA not to destroy the “gruesome” photos which he says exist of the, uh, genital mutilations that his client Binyam Mohammed endured in Morocco when sent there by the CIA.
Mr Mohammed reports that a women agent who interrogated him claimed to be a Canadian.
There have previously been verified reports of CIA interrogators impersonating FBI agents, and even defence lawyers.
Now we have this slander by the CIA of our worthy neighbours, the Canadians.
At least the CIA hasn’t tried to pass off its agents as Australians. Even Meryl Streep couldn’t manage that, although she is said be a most convincing CIA operative in the new film Rendition.
Roger Fitch Esq • December 17, 2007
Our Man in Washington
The Guantanamo “war crimes” trial of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s one-time driver, began the other day.
He is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism.
It was the first time the US had produced a witness against any “enemy combatant” in the “war on terror”, before a judge of any court.
Think about that.
Six years ago George Bush declared Hamdan was an “enemy combatant”. And for six years the US government has successfully obstructed proof that he is not.
At present, the evidence being presented by the Pentagon is concentrated on the question of whether Hamdan was a combatant or a civilian.
However, assuming Hamdan is found to be a combatant, and an “unlawful” one, there still remains the little problem that he stands charged in a military commission with civilian offences.
Before proceeding, the Department of Justice lawyers who are assisting might want to read s.950p of the Military Commissions Act 2006.
It states quite clearly that the Act’s purpose is to “codify offences that have traditionally been triable by military commissions” and that the MCA “does not establish new crimes that did not exist before its enactment”.
Of course, s.950v (“crimes triable by military commissions”) proceeds to do just that, i.e. create a number of new and retrospective offences unknown to the law of war, and therefore, unknown to military commissions.
Conspiracy was specifically condemned, in Hamdan’s very own case, by a plurality of the Supreme Court. As for “material support for terrorism”, that, like conspiracy, has never been a war crime, despite its use against David Hicks.
Hicks’ case only succeeded with a guilty plea and Australian government complicity.
* * *
Across the Atlantic, the Bush administration has informed a British court that the US has the right to kidnap people in the UK.
This remarkable claim provoked editorials as far away as India.
In the same week, a Canadian court ruled that the US is no longer a safe place to send refugees.
Yet it may be American courts that present the gravest danger to the scofflaws of the Bush administration.
Bear in mind that a number of federal judges in the DC habeas cases have ordered the government not to destroy evidence.
At the same time, other federal courts have ordered the production of relevant CIA and FBI evidence in civil trials or FOI claims, e.g. by the ACLU.
In these cases the government has repeatedly claimed that such evidence – the very kind it now acknowledges – either did not exist or had never been created. These statements might now be seen to be false. Judges could be seriously annoyed.
The trouble began with the government’s recent admission in Leonie Brinkema’s (illustration) federal court in Virginia that it had been untruthful during the trial of Zacharias Moussauoi, the only alleged 9/11 conspirator to be tried in the US.
Here’s the US Attorney’s letter to the judge admitting that the CIA “mistakenly” denied the existence of certain video and audio evidence.
Leonie Brinkema is also the judge in the Al Timini terrorism case, and has ordered the government to reveal evidence in that case as well – withheld by the government even from the prosecution – or face dismissal. The Washington Post has more.
The final blow for the government came this month. In response to a New York Times investigation the CIA Director, Michael Hayden (pic), said the CIA had made, and then destroyed, videos of “harsh interrogations” of two of the “high-value” detainees now being held in Guantanamo.
Slate has a handy history of the events leading up to this latest scandal.
The two men are Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Nashiri, both of whom are said to have been “waterboarded” by the CIA. One of the CIA agents involved has since come forward. Another member of a “high value” interrogation team has also been talking.
Everyone seems to forget that the water cure, an ancient practice, used to be considered a crime.
Unfortunately, for the government, the Abu Zubaydah videos could be the very ones that might have helped Moussaoui in his case – and they are the ones the government told Judge Brinkema didn’t exist.
At the same time, undaunted by all this, the government may still intend to use such “waterboard evidence” in its Guantanamo military commissions, judging from an op-ed by recently-resigned Chief Prosecutor Moe Davis.
Col. Davis strongly implies that he resigned under pressure from above to use such tainted evidence.
In the latest scandal, the CIA at first claimed everything had been done properly, but within a day had adopted a contradictory, scapegoat explanation as blogger Scott Horton notes.
A DoJ investigation has now begun , and there will likely be Congressional hearings.
Andrew Sullivan (pic) observed in the Atlantic blog that the latest CIA revelation of missing tapes was not the first such admission – the recent terrorism case against Jose Padilla in Miami was another.
Also, back in 2002, a US district court in New York apparently relied on secret evidence from Abu Zubaydah at the time the government sought a warrant to hold Padilla as a material witness.
The judge in that case was Michael Mukasey, our new Attorney General. Perhaps this will motivate Mukasey to investigate.
The news of Abu Zubaydah’s “torture tapes” drew the interest of lawyers for Majid Khan. Khan, from Baltimore, is the only “high value detainee” who’s been allowed a lawyer.
As a result, he’s the first to talk about enhanced interrogation.
The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a Motion for Preservation of Torture Evidence in the DC Court of Appeals.
Lawyers for Yemeni detainees (the Abdah case) have also gone to court – Henry Kennedy’s – and here’s the motion.
Scotus Blog has more.
Possible spoliation of evidence has led another group of detainees to sue in Richard Roberts’ court. They had prudently sent the CIA a copy of Roberts’ order forbidding destruction of evidence in 2005, before the date the torture tapes were destroyed.
Finally, British lawyer Clive Stafford Smith (pic) urged the CIA not to destroy the “gruesome” photos which he says exist of the, uh, genital mutilations that his client Binyam Mohammed endured in Morocco when sent there by the CIA.
Mr Mohammed reports that a women agent who interrogated him claimed to be a Canadian.
There have previously been verified reports of CIA interrogators impersonating FBI agents, and even defence lawyers.
Now we have this slander by the CIA of our worthy neighbours, the Canadians.
At least the CIA hasn’t tried to pass off its agents as Australians. Even Meryl Streep couldn’t manage that, although she is said be a most convincing CIA operative in the new film Rendition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
