Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Some Truths about Gitmo (updated)
Click on the title...
and if that was not enough read more about how this has been ignored by the US press.
and if that was not enough read more about how this has been ignored by the US press.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Tomorrow on NPR's "The Story" (updated)
I don't have the link yet but tomorrow I will continue my dialog with Dick Gordon about Guantanamo and my clients. Listen live or be patient and I will provide a link.
CLICK ON THE TITLE TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE LINK...
CLICK ON THE TITLE TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE LINK...
Task Force Platinum (sometimes referred to as Operation Platinum)
Evidence is starting to mount suggesting that when GW stepped in front of the microphone on that 5th day of September in 2006 and made the dramatic announcement that 14 “high value” detainees were moved to Guantanamo (http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2400470) that he was once again lying and that those men were already at Guantanamo and had been at Guantanamo for quite awhile. In fact, they were hidden away at Guantanamo from the ICRC and the world so that their torture could continue and they were only unveiled on that September day because the Bushies needed some ammunition (so to speak) to pass the Military Commissions Act and undo the latest Supreme Court rulings. If you or someone you know is willing to talk with me about this please send me an email: theblog@myway.com
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
THE NEW DEFINITION
At this point I am only going to focus on what the Government's position means to my two clients at Guantanamo. It is clear to me that this memorandum was very clearly written to address two separate issues and we should all keep that in mind: the first is what to do about the men who have been held all these long years at Guantanamo and the second is what to do in the future so we never have a Guantanamo again. As they addressed in the memo, the second part will be unveiled in July.
First, and importantly, the term "enemy combatant" has now been dropped by the Obama administration. I take that to mean that neither of my clients are now considered to be "enemy combatants". That is a good thing.
But back to Mr. Al-Ghizzawi and Mr. Razak Ali: Both men were originally determined to be enemy combatants back in 2004 when the Supreme Court ordered that an assessment be made as to whether or not the men were in fact "enemy combatants" (It took two tries for the military to find Al-Ghizzawi an enemy combatant). Razak Ali was found to be an enemy combatant because he was staying in a guesthouse in Pakistan that was raided and amongst the many men staying at that guesthouse was a man that may or may not have been a member of al-Qaeda. There has never been an allegation that Razak Ali even knew the man nevertheless a determination that the man himself is a member of al-qaeda. In laypersons terms he has been held for seven years because of "guilt by association." Al-Ghizzawi was found to be an enemy combatant because he traveled a lot when he was younger (he was a meteorologist for the Government airlines and could travel at a discount) and the military accused him of being a member of an anti Qadaffi organization (which he has steadfastly denied).
The administration is now asking the judges to review the habeas petitions with this definition:
“The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaeda forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.”
The nuances between this definition and Bush's may not seem clear to the untrained eye but they are important. Under Bush the definition was purposely vague so as to justify holding anyone they wanted to hold. The language is getting tighter and although not perfect most of the men currently held at Guantanamo should be released under this definition because now actual proof of substantial and direct support will be required.
As for my clients: neither has ever been accused of planning or aiding the 9-11 attacks nor have they been accused of being a part of or supporting Taliban or al-Qaeda forces or of being a part of any forces that have committed beligerent acts. In fact, neither has been accused of being involved in any terrorist activity. Up until now they didn't have to be accused of anything specific as it was enough for Bush to allege that they in some vague way "supported" something that Bush did not like....
Let us hope that this is the beginning of the end for Al-Ghizzawi and Razak Ali.
First, and importantly, the term "enemy combatant" has now been dropped by the Obama administration. I take that to mean that neither of my clients are now considered to be "enemy combatants". That is a good thing.
But back to Mr. Al-Ghizzawi and Mr. Razak Ali: Both men were originally determined to be enemy combatants back in 2004 when the Supreme Court ordered that an assessment be made as to whether or not the men were in fact "enemy combatants" (It took two tries for the military to find Al-Ghizzawi an enemy combatant). Razak Ali was found to be an enemy combatant because he was staying in a guesthouse in Pakistan that was raided and amongst the many men staying at that guesthouse was a man that may or may not have been a member of al-Qaeda. There has never been an allegation that Razak Ali even knew the man nevertheless a determination that the man himself is a member of al-qaeda. In laypersons terms he has been held for seven years because of "guilt by association." Al-Ghizzawi was found to be an enemy combatant because he traveled a lot when he was younger (he was a meteorologist for the Government airlines and could travel at a discount) and the military accused him of being a member of an anti Qadaffi organization (which he has steadfastly denied).
The administration is now asking the judges to review the habeas petitions with this definition:
“The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaeda forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces.”
The nuances between this definition and Bush's may not seem clear to the untrained eye but they are important. Under Bush the definition was purposely vague so as to justify holding anyone they wanted to hold. The language is getting tighter and although not perfect most of the men currently held at Guantanamo should be released under this definition because now actual proof of substantial and direct support will be required.
As for my clients: neither has ever been accused of planning or aiding the 9-11 attacks nor have they been accused of being a part of or supporting Taliban or al-Qaeda forces or of being a part of any forces that have committed beligerent acts. In fact, neither has been accused of being involved in any terrorist activity. Up until now they didn't have to be accused of anything specific as it was enough for Bush to allege that they in some vague way "supported" something that Bush did not like....
Let us hope that this is the beginning of the end for Al-Ghizzawi and Razak Ali.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Enemy Combatant
http://www.pegc.us/archive/In_re_Gitmo_II/gov_ec_memo_20090313.pdf
The previous edition (2008.10.22) is here:
http://www.pegc.us/archive/In_re_Gitmo_II/gov_ec_memo_20081022.pdf
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Talking Dog Interviews Terry Holdbrooks, former military cop at Gitmo
Terry Holdbrooks, Jr. served as a military police officer with the rank of Specialist in the United States Army between 2002 and 2005, attached to the 252nd Military Police, and later assigned to the 463rd MP company, a mobile deploying unit, based at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. From 2003 to 2004, he was deployed to Guantanamo Bay, where he served as a prison guard.
Thanks to Terry for being willing to speak out about his experience and thanks (of course) to the Talking Dog for another amazing interview.
CLICK ON THE TITLE TO READ THE INTERVIEW.
Thanks to Terry for being willing to speak out about his experience and thanks (of course) to the Talking Dog for another amazing interview.
CLICK ON THE TITLE TO READ THE INTERVIEW.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
FEELS LIKE OLD TIMES.... UNFORTUNATELY (updated)
UPDATE
As my friend and fellow Habeas attorney David Remes tells us, the Obama government is now using the pendency of the "interagency review" as a basis for moving to stay the habeas cases. (Eric Holder has stated that the interagency review could take "a good portion" of the year Obama gave to close Guantanamo.)
But that is not enough... again from David Remes:
"Going further, the government suggests that if the interagency review team deems a prisoner eligible for release, the prisoner's habeas case is over - even if the prisoner remains in US custody, and however long he may remain in US custody - because the review team has given him the only relief he could have gotten from the court: a determination that he should be released. What the government means (and says) is that, in its view, the court has no power to order the prisoner's release. The court lacks such power, the government says, because the court cannot order his release into the US (the government cites Kiyemba for this) or order the President to release the prisoner to another country (the government, stretching Kiyemba, also cites it for this). (It would appear that the government will defend Kiyemba, a Bush triumph, if the petitioners seek cert.)
Thus, we come full circle. First, the government argued that the courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the prisoners' habeas cases; the Supreme Court shot that argument down in Rasul. Then, the government argued that even if the courts have jurisdiction, the prisoners have no rights. The Court shot that argument down in Boumediene. Now, the Obama DOJ, like the Bush DOJ before it, is arguing that even if the court has jurisdiction, and the prisoner has rights, there's nothing a court can do to enforce those rights, because the president alone controls whether a prisoner shall be released. Of course, a right without a remedy is not a right.
The government also says the case stops even if the prisoner wants to pursue his case to overturn his enemy combatant designation, and even if overturning the designation might make it easier for the prisoner to be released, because the prisoner's "reputational interest" is not enough to support continued jurisdiction.
Finally, the government lies about its position in Al-Marri as to Al-Marri's enemy combatant status. In the Supreme Court, particularly in its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss as moot or vacate and remand, the government said Al-Marri's enemy combatant status had been revoked; in this filing, it says his enemy combatant status remains intact.
Good show! It feels like old times."
For those of you who do not know David Remes he is another of the habeas counsel that has given up his law practice to work solely on the Guantanamo cases. David represents several of the Yemeni men.
Click on the title to read Scotusblog's take on this and for the link to the governments pleading.
As my friend and fellow Habeas attorney David Remes tells us, the Obama government is now using the pendency of the "interagency review" as a basis for moving to stay the habeas cases. (Eric Holder has stated that the interagency review could take "a good portion" of the year Obama gave to close Guantanamo.)
But that is not enough... again from David Remes:
"Going further, the government suggests that if the interagency review team deems a prisoner eligible for release, the prisoner's habeas case is over - even if the prisoner remains in US custody, and however long he may remain in US custody - because the review team has given him the only relief he could have gotten from the court: a determination that he should be released. What the government means (and says) is that, in its view, the court has no power to order the prisoner's release. The court lacks such power, the government says, because the court cannot order his release into the US (the government cites Kiyemba for this) or order the President to release the prisoner to another country (the government, stretching Kiyemba, also cites it for this). (It would appear that the government will defend Kiyemba, a Bush triumph, if the petitioners seek cert.)
Thus, we come full circle. First, the government argued that the courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the prisoners' habeas cases; the Supreme Court shot that argument down in Rasul. Then, the government argued that even if the courts have jurisdiction, the prisoners have no rights. The Court shot that argument down in Boumediene. Now, the Obama DOJ, like the Bush DOJ before it, is arguing that even if the court has jurisdiction, and the prisoner has rights, there's nothing a court can do to enforce those rights, because the president alone controls whether a prisoner shall be released. Of course, a right without a remedy is not a right.
The government also says the case stops even if the prisoner wants to pursue his case to overturn his enemy combatant designation, and even if overturning the designation might make it easier for the prisoner to be released, because the prisoner's "reputational interest" is not enough to support continued jurisdiction.
Finally, the government lies about its position in Al-Marri as to Al-Marri's enemy combatant status. In the Supreme Court, particularly in its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss as moot or vacate and remand, the government said Al-Marri's enemy combatant status had been revoked; in this filing, it says his enemy combatant status remains intact.
Good show! It feels like old times."
For those of you who do not know David Remes he is another of the habeas counsel that has given up his law practice to work solely on the Guantanamo cases. David represents several of the Yemeni men.
Click on the title to read Scotusblog's take on this and for the link to the governments pleading.
U.N. REPORT SAYS U.S. BROKE INTERNATIONAL LAW
CLICK ON THE TITLE TO READ MORE:
Perhaps the Obama Administration will listen to these words from the report:
"The United States has indicated that it wants to move forward and turn this dark page in its history, but in other countries this practice or permission of secret detentions — often of people who have been branded as terrorist suspects — is continuing," Scheinin said. "Before a page can be turned, we have to know what's on it, in order to move forward."
Perhaps the Obama Administration will listen to these words from the report:
"The United States has indicated that it wants to move forward and turn this dark page in its history, but in other countries this practice or permission of secret detentions — often of people who have been branded as terrorist suspects — is continuing," Scheinin said. "Before a page can be turned, we have to know what's on it, in order to move forward."
THE MILITARY'S PROPAGANDA MACHINE
As the talking dog has pointed out in his last few blogs the military has gone to great lengths to convince the world that it is holding the masterminds of September 11th. Whether they are or not will be very difficult to ever ascertain because of the military's under handed dealings. This all began several months ago when the military allowed the men to confer together without attorneys, surprise surprise, after that meeting they all decided to fire their attorneys. Then, as the talking dog points out, they submitted a document jointly claiming responsibility for the attacks....hmmm, wonder how they managed to do that without legal counsel?
The military desperately wants a victory here.... even if it means taking advantage of mentally disturbed prisoners who, for what ever reason, are willing to go down in the books at martyrs.
The military desperately wants a victory here.... even if it means taking advantage of mentally disturbed prisoners who, for what ever reason, are willing to go down in the books at martyrs.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
SEND A BOOK TO GITMO (deadline 3/20/09)
Send a book to Mohammed el Gharani
We would be delighted if you could send one of your favourite books to our client Mohammed el Gharani, in
Mohammed el Gharani was just 14 years old when he was wrongfully imprisoned in Guantánamo.
Despite being ordered to be released by a federal judge, he is still there seven years later - the youngest remaining prisoner taken as a juvenile.
Although Mohammed has spent his school years in a notoriously brutal prison, he loves books - particularly history. He recently told Reprieve attorneys that he is keen to read as much as possible to prepare for his release.
Show your support for Mohammed by sending him your favourite book. We hope that sending many books all at once will:
- support Mohammed at this very difficult time
- remind the officials at Guantánamo of his youth, his innocence and their legal obligation to release him.
How to send a book
1) Choose a book - one of your own, second-hand or new is fine (Mohammed has learned to speak and read English in Guantánamo; he also speaks Arabic)
2) Write one sentence on why you have chosen it
3) Call or email Reprieve to let us know – we will deliver it to Mohammed in
4) Post your book to us at:
‘A Book for Mohammed el Gharani’
ATTN: Samuel Rowley
Bingham McCutchen LLP
We need all books to arrive by Friday March 20, in time for our next Guantánamo visit.
If you can help or need further information, please email laura@reprieve.org.uk or give us a call at +44 20 7353 4640. We will be publishing a list of the books that we take over, as well as who has sent them in and the reasons the specific books have been chosen.
Many thanks, as ever, for your support.
The Convoy
I do not like to go off message (Guantanamo) but sometimes events in the world force you to. This important event really did not get covered in the corporate media so if you are not aware of the convoy to Gaza led by British MP George Galloway then please make yourself aware. Over 200 vehicles traveled from Great Britian, through 9 countries and over 10000 kilometers to bring supplies to the people of Gaza. They arrived yesterday. Click on the title for more.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
