Appeals Court Enters Stay

The appellate court has entered a temporary "stay" on the release of the 17 Uighers which was scheduled for Friday. Both sides have been given a short time to file briefs after which the Court will hear argument.
As it was the Appellate Court that originally ordered these men released it would be a shame if this new panel now took sides with the government.
CLICK ON THE TITLE FOR MORE.

The U.N. has declared this.....

Dignity and Justice for Detainees week (click on the title for more)...

Maybe Judge Urbina knew tha when he ordered the 17 gitmo prisoners released to the US...

but clearly other judges never heard of it...

Transcript from Hearing

"Because the Constitution prohibits indefinite detention without cause, the Government's continued detention of Petitioners is unlawful. Furthermore, because separation-of-powers concerns do not trump the very principle upon which this nation was founded, the unalienable right to liberty, the Court orders the Government to release the Petitioners into the United States."

-- Hon. Ricardo M. Urbina, U.S. District Judge, ruling from the bench.

CLICK ON THE TITLE TO READ THE COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT

TWO "RELEASED" 17 ORDERED FREE (updated with Order)

Over the weekend two men were released: Mammar Ameur, 939, an Algerian and Mustafa Ibrahim, 719, from the Sudan. I know that Mustafa was not cleared for release but I do not have the details on Mammar. Mustafa had been held in camp 4.

More importantly a judge today ordered 17 men, all Uighers, to be released into the US. These men, like my client Mr. Al-Ghizzawi should never have been held at Guantanamo after being found not to be enemy combatants back in 2004.

Here is his order:
Docket Text:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Ricardo M. Urbina: Motion Hearing held on 10/7/2008. Motion [133] for judgment on 5 Detainees' Habeas Petition Order Release Into the Continental United States, heard and GRANTED; Motion [134] for Immediate Release on Parole Into the Continental United States Pending Final Judgment DENIED as MOOT; and Motion [172] for Immediate Release on Parole Into the Continental United States Pending Final Judgment and for Final Judgment on Their Habeas Petitions by the remaining detainees DENIED as to the first part and GRANTED as to the second part. Oral Motion by Defendant for a Stay of the Court's decision pending review and to seek an appeal, heard and DENIED. Oral Motion by Defendant for one (1) Week Administrative Stay, heard and DENIED. Court rules that the Uighurs Detainees be released into the United States and brought to this Court on Friday, October 10, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. A Hearing regarding conditions of their release is scheduled for 10/16/2008, at 2:00 p.m. The Court directs that a representative of Homeland Security be present for the hearing scheduled on Friday, October 16, 2008. (Court Reporter Catalina Kerr.) (jwd )


Like Mr. Al-Ghizzawi the petitioners and two or three other men were all reclassified as enemy combatants thanks to Matthew Waxman, now a professor at Columbia law school, so that our government could avoid the embarrassment of admitting it was holding "non enemies."

A hardy congratulations to the Bingham team for their hard work. Now it is time to get Mr. Al-Ghizzawi out of that hell hole.
CLICK ON THE TITLE TO READ MORE....

Circuit Court

Well no sooner did I write about the lack of movement by our courts when the Circuit Court decided to throw out Al-Ghizzawi's appeal for medical care and for his medical records. As his first of two appeals on the same issue was filed almost 2 years ago I guess I cannot feign surprise. Seems the appellate court does n0t think they have jurisdiction (despite the Supreme Court's holding in Boumediene) but hey, they go on to say that even if they did have jurisdiction Al-Ghizzawi has not shown irreparable harm in not getting medical care...sigh.
I guess that is because he is still alive.
It is clear... only by dying can Al-Ghizzawi show the irreparable harm necessary to convince the court.
Well I guess it is time to try the Supreme Court again.

a word on palin

As many of you know I am not the biggest Obama fan... but I guess I will vote (I have to admit I am still thinking about that one for the first time in my so called adult life). Assuming I vote and as I could never vote for McCain, Obama will get my vote. So there you have it.
That being said, when McCain announced his running mate my first thought was that naming a woman was a good political move... trying to capture some of those Hillary supporters who were mad at Obama (by the way I am not particularly mad at Obama I just do not think you pluck someone up and make him president just because he gives a good speech).
It was not until I watched the VP debates that I realized that palin was not in the race to capture the Hillary voters (ok, duhhhhh). As I watched palin's "cute" smiles and that wink (was someone telling her in that little box on her back to "wink now"?) I knew she was in the race to capture a certain male voter... no serious Hillary supporter could possibly give her the time of day... but it wasn't just any male voter McCain was aiming for...and that is the funny part .... you see, I could actually picture McCain telling palin to wink and in my mind I could hear McCain saying...."they will love that" ...and "smile again" "do that grin where you stick your tongue between your teeth ...it is so cute." I can picture and hear all of this in my mind because McCain is such a known sexist. This isn’t about a running mate, this is McCain waiving his little Bunny in front of the crowd. Problem is that the men McCain is trying to impress are men like himself….and if they bother to vote they would have been voting for McCain anyway.
So anyway click on the title and sing along.
I will be back with more Guantanamo news later.... including news about more releases...(no not my clients).

As I Was Saying...

The New York Times today reports on what many of us habeas attorneys have been talking about for quite awhile and what I reported about just recently. The District Court judges continue to disregard the U.S. Supreme Court and refuse to move forward on the Habeas Petitions for the Guantanamo prisoners. CLICK ON THE TITLE TO READ THE STORY.

Are the judges hoping for another congressional intervention? Why are they so afraid to rule? (they cannot all be hoping for seats in the circuit or supreme court!).

After practicing law for more than 25 years I cannot point to a more disappointing display by our judiciary in my lifetime. I am not saying that the courts as a whole have not done worse... but in my lifetime this is the worst.

Shame on all of them...

Cheney

And just when you thought you knew more about our current VP then you ever wanted to know... you learn there is more that you need to know,including:
* How Cheney killed a State Department proposal to close secret CIA prisons, deleting it from the agenda of an NSC meeting.
Click on the title.

Bail out help needed

Of course when Bush pushes the panic button, which he regularly does, I automatically wonder what part of our constitution will be voted obsolete this time. I read that the Senate bill passed today would:

• Make permanent authority for undercover operations.
• Make permanent authority for disclosure of information relating to terrorist activities.

Does anyone have any details on these provisions?

By the way I have sent my letters to representatives and congress to stop this bill in its tracks. What about you?

British soldiers face Prosecution if they hand prisoners over to known torturer: US

So now the British are telling their soldiers they can't turn over prisoners in Iraq to the US without themselves facing prosecution because they know, as we all know, that the US tortures prisoners. Soldiers who turn prisoners over to the US would be in violation of both the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights which forbids the turning over of prisoners to groups known to torture.
Click on the title to read the legal opinion rendered to the British Parliament by Michael Fordham QC.
A synopsis of the opinion can be found in the Guardian:

The conclusion reached by Fordham and his colleague Tom Hickman is that an offence would definitely have been committed. If acted on, the opinion could mean that UK troops would not be allowed to "render" detainees to the US military until it was clear that they would no longer face the possibility of torture or ill-treatment.

What prompted the inquiry was a statement made in February this year by Ben Griffin, a former SAS soldier who was on active service in Iraq. In his statement, Griffin said that he was "in no doubt" that individuals handed over to the US military "would be tortured". He cited what had happened to those detained at Guantánamo Bay, Bagram airbase and Abu Ghraib prison.

The opinion adds: "UK forces operating in Iraq are potentially also subject to UK criminal law, tort law and Iraqi law. Notably, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it a criminal offence for a public official, whatever his nationality and wherever located, to commit an act of torture."

FROM ROGER FITCH AND OUR FRIENDS DOWN UNDER

Death throes of the Bush regime … Key case to test concept of “enemy combatants” ... Last minute election tricks in the Republican armoury … Cheney ordered not to destroy his papers … The 20 most corrupt members of Congress.

Even in its dying days the Bush administration seeks to vindicate a frightening principle and make it a permanent feature of American law.

It’s the notion that a US president, on his own say-so, can seize and indefinitely detain anyone, anywhere in the world, including US citizens and those on US soil, for any reason he chooses – without “second-guessing”, as the Bush lawyers call judicial review.

CLICK ON THE TITLE TO READ THE REST....

FIRE JOHN YOO

Wow, who knew there was a website dedicated to this cause? Check it out by clicking on the title. Now if we could get a similar one going for my client's personal war criminal, Matthew Waxman at Columbia Law School, I would really be happy.

Affidavit of latest military prosecutor forced out

Click on the title to go to the affidavit of Lt. Col. Vandeveld the lead prosecutor in the Jawed case. Col. Vendeveld stepped down (or it seems was forced out) after he realized that government and/or military agencies were withholding exculpatory evidence (that would be evidence that is helpful to the defendant). Col. Vandeveld described the discovery procedures for providing evidence to the defense as a "slipshod, uncertain procedure."
As with the other heros who have stepped forward to blow the whistle on the underhanded and illegal tactics being used in these military tribunals Col. Vandeveld has now been accused of collaborating with defense counsel and there were even cries of needing to submit Col. Vandeveld for a psychiatric examination. It seems everyone who questions these kangaroo proceedings is considered by the military to be crazy!
I for one would like to thank the good Col. for putting his career on the line in an effort to advance the truth as to what is happening at Guantanamo.

SO WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?

When Judge Hogan first came on board as the "coordinator" for the Gitmo cases he entered an odd order. He ordered that all of the petitions that were filed as "next friend" petitions be supplemented with an authorization from the client for the attorney to represent them. Next friend petitions are petitions where the authorization comes from a family member or friend. I don't know how many of the cases are filed as "next friend" petitions and frankly I don't know why it matters. Neither of my cases is a next friend case so the matter does not directly impact me but I still wondered what this judge was up to. Is he going to dismiss the cases if the clients will not sign an authorization? Will those petitioners then have to represent themselves pro se? Will he bar the attorneys from going to see their clients? Most importantly why is he spending energy on this issue when the supreme court has said to get moving on these cases? Over the last few weeks there has been a dribbling of motions coming across the wires explaining why they cannot get authorizations, some of the reasons are mundane:attorneys have never seen their clients because they are waiting for security clearances and hurricanes have kept them from getting to the base. Other reasons are not mundane: men with severe medical and psychological problems who do not understand anything about the US legal system (I can relate to that one of late) and desperately need representation; men who have been long engaged with their lawyers but will not sign any documentation.
Todays Order entered by Judge Hogan (below) shows that for whatever reason he is keeping tabs on this issue and has something up his sleeve. So while our clients rot in that hell hole and our courts continue to sit on their hands Judge Hogan finds time only to enter orders that are meaningless in the overall scheme of things. Indications from previous Judge Hogan orders suggest to me that this is not going to have a happy ending.
Docket Text:
MINUTE ORDER granting (Docket # 595, 05-cv-2386) (Docket # 522, 08-mc-442) Petitioner Abu Rawda's Motion For More Time To Submit Authorization. Accordingly, by October 28, 2008, counsel for Petitioner Rawda shall file a signed authorization from Petitioner to pursue this action or a declaration by counsel that states Petitioner directly authorized counsel to pursue this action and explains why counsel was unable to secure a signed authorization. Signed by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on 9/26/08. (lctfh1)

Judge Hogan on Medical Records

As I reported a short while ago on this blog Judge Hogan the judge responsible for "coordinating" the habeas cases (and he has been a huge disappointment) was also considering a request from another detainee for his medical records. Marc Falkoff reported after the hearing that it went quite well and he was hopeful that they would get the records.
J. Hogan added to his less than stellar Gitmo record by denying the medical records because he doesn't believe he has jurisdiction.
--
According to Marc his client Adnan, 1)attempted suicide in June, (2) weighed about 100 pounds when Marc saw him in August, (3) has had his mattress and blankets taken away as punishment for an unspecified disciplinary infraction, and (4) again attempted suicide about two weeks ago by biting off and swallowing a piece of the feeding tube they began using to force-feed him. Judge Hogan didn't address any of those issue but instead held that -- notwithstanding Boumediene -- the MCA strips the court of jurisdiction to hear all "conditions of confinement" claims. J. Hogan did not address most of the issues raised by Marc such as the records being incident to Adnan's habeas action and necessary to assure Adnan's continued access to the court to prosecute his petition. Judge Hogan also didn't address the argument that if the government's argument is correct, Adnan could be tortured or starved to death at Guantanamo and there's nothing the courts could do about it.
More Justice American Style.