USA Watch: Guantanamo

July 12, 2006

White House Says Terror Detainees Hold Basic Rights

July 12, 2006
White House Says Terror Detainees Hold Basic Rights
By MARK MAZZETTI and KATE ZERNIKE

WASHINGTON, July 11 � The White House conceded on Tuesday for the first time that terror suspects held by the United States had a right under international law to basic human and legal protections under the Geneva Conventions.

The statement reverses a position the White House had held since shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, and it represents a victory for those within the administration who argued that the United States� refusal to extend Geneva protections to Qaeda prisoners was harming the country�s standing abroad.

It said the White House would withdraw a part of an executive order issued by President Bush in 2002 saying that terror suspects were not covered by the Geneva Conventions.

The White House said the change was in keeping with the Supreme Court decision two weeks ago that struck down the military tribunals Mr. Bush established. A Defense Department memorandum made public earlier Tuesday concluded that the court decision also meant that terror suspects in military custody had legal rights under the Geneva Convention.

The new White House interpretation is likely to have sweeping implications, because it appears to apply to all Qaeda and Taliban terror suspects now in the custody of the Central Intelligence Agency or other American intelligence organizations around the world. From the outset, Mr. Bush declared that the battle against Al Qaeda would be a war like no other, but his administration has been forced to back away from its most forceful efforts to deny rights to terror suspects.

Mr. Bush�s order of Feb. 7, 2002, issued shortly after American-led forces toppled the Taliban government in Afghanistan, specifically said that critical aspects of the Geneva Conventions do �not apply to either Al Qaeda or Taliban detainees.�

In response to a question, the White House issued a statement late Tuesday, saying: �As a result of the Supreme Court decision, that portion of the order no longer applies. The Supreme Court has clarified what the law is, and the executive branch will comply.�

The Pentagon memorandum, dated July 7, offered an unexpectedly conciliatory interpretation of the justices� ruling 12 days ago that struck down White House rules for military tribunals that would have granted detainees the barest of rights. Until late Tuesday, the White House and the C.I.A. had been silent on whether detainees in the custody of intelligence agencies must also be granted those rights.

The memorandum, written by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, summarized the Supreme Court findings and reminded officials to �ensure that all D.o.D. personnel adhere to these standards.�

The Pentagon currently holds approximately 1,000 Qaeda and Taliban detainees at the military prison at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, and at bases in Afghanistan. An estimated three dozen additional terror suspects, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, are believed to be held by the C.I.A. at secret sites around the world.

Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a C.I.A. spokeswoman, declined to comment on questions posed before the White House issued its statement.

Despite the new statements by the White House and the Pentagon, administration lawyers appearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday urged Congress to approve military commissions similar to those that the court said the president did not have authority to set up on his own. The lawyers played down the Pentagon announcement as representing not a policy shift but simply an announcement of the Supreme Court decision.

�We would ask this body to render its approval for the system as currently configured,� said Daniel J. Dell�Orto, the Pentagon�s principal deputy general counsel. �It would be a very expeditious way to move these trials forward.�

But the tribunal approach ran up against fierce resistance among Republicans as well as Democrats. Some lawmakers argued that the best way to set up a system to bring detainees to trial would be to start with the existing code of military justice, which grants wider rights to detainees, and adjust it to reflect the demands of prosecuting terrorists.

�If you fight that approach, it�s going to be long hot summer,� said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a former military lawyer who is expected to play a leading role in the debate over bringing detainees to trial.

The new Bush administration statement addresses questions surrounding a key provision of the 1949 Geneva Conventions known as Common Article 3, which prohibits cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires that detainees receive �all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.� Mr. Bush�s 2002 order came after a fierce debate about the rules for what the administration was calling a �different kind of war.�

In the new memorandum, Mr. England asserted that �the Supreme Court has determined that Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 applies as a matter of law to the conflict with Al Qaeda.�

The memorandum by Mr. England was first reported in Tuesday�s online editions of The Financial Times.

Pentagon officials have long said that detainees in military custody are treated in accordance with Common Article 3, yet Mr. England�s memorandum went further in acknowledging that the court�s decision made mandatory what the Pentagon had said it was doing voluntarily.

The memorandum also appears to settle continuing battles within the administration over a long-awaited Pentagon directive on the treatment of detainees.

The directive, called �D.o.D. Program for Enemy Prisoners of War and Other Detainees,� has been held up for months because of wrangling over the types of treatment that ought to be prohibited.

In the past, Vice President Dick Cheney�s chief of staff, David S. Addington, pressed Pentagon officials to eliminate specific language from the document that cited the Geneva Conventions in prohibiting cruel and degrading treatment.

Since becoming the Pentagon�s No. 2 official in 2005, Mr. England has repeatedly expressed concerns about the detention of enemy combatants and has told colleagues that he advocates closing the military prison at Guant�namo Bay because of the negative impact it has on the United States� reputation.

In a sign of the seriousness with which Mr. England took these issues, his memorandum reprinted the entire text of Common Article 3 and required military commanders to review all the directives and policies under their purview and report back to him within three weeks.

On Capitol Hill, Mr. Dell�Orto played down the England memorandum, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was merely intended to �get the word out� about the court decision.

�It doesn�t indicate a shift in policy,� Mr. Dell�Orto said. �It just announces the decision of the court and with specificity as to the decision as it related to the commission process.�

The hearing today, the first of three this week, formally opened the debate about how to bring Guant�namo detainees to trial, and it quickly showed the stark divide between the White House and Congress.

The White House believes the court did not so much rule out the military commissions as indicate that Mr. Bush should seek approval of them from Congress, administration officials have said.

Under such a system, the defendant could be excluded from the courtroom and could be denied the right to see some of the evidence against him. The military commission rules also allow evidence that is typically excluded from courts, including hearsay and statements obtained through coercion.

Many in Congress, including some Republican leaders who are expected to guide the debate in the Senate, believe that the court will strike down any new arrangement approved by Congress if it does not allow detainees broader rights.

But Mr. Dell�Orto said �it would be ludicrous� to go so far as allowing detainees protections like those granted in court-martial proceedings.

But Senator Graham told the administration lawyers they would be �well served to forget about� the commissions the president wanted.

David Sanger contributed reporting for this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/washington/12gitmo.html?_r=2&th&emc=th&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
----------
Download the Pentagon Memo - PDF

Posted by marga at 10:40 PM | TrackBack

June 29, 2006

Supreme Court Blocks Guant�namo Tribunals

From the NY Times:

"The Supreme Court today delivered a sweeping rebuke to the Bush administration, ruling that it exceeded its authority by creating tribunals for terror suspects that fell short of the legal protections that Congress has traditionally required in military courts.

As a result, the court said in a 5-to-3 ruling, the tribunals violated both American military law and the military's obligations under the Geneva Conventions."

From AP:

"Defense lawyers and human rights activists praised Thursday's Supreme Court decision rejecting military war crimes trials for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but most felt it likely won't force a quick shutdown of the prison.

The base's commander predicted earlier this week that an adverse ruling would not bring a closure of the jail, saying many of the prisoners could not be released."

Supreme Court Blocks Guant�namo Tribunals
By John O'Neil and Scott Shane
The New York Times

Thursday 29 June 2006

The Supreme Court today delivered a sweeping rebuke to the Bush administration, ruling that it exceeded its authority by creating tribunals for terror suspects that fell short of the legal protections that Congress has traditionally required in military courts.

As a result, the court said in a 5-to-3 ruling, the tribunals violated both American military law and the military's obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

The court ruled two years ago that Congress had not given the executive branch a "blank check" in the war on terror. But today's ruling, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, was the first to address the standards that should apply to suspects held in what has become a prolonged struggle.

It was also the most significant rebuff to date to President Bush's effort to expand presidential power in the course of waging that struggle. And the reasoning adopted by the majority called into question the justification Mr. Bush has used for other programs that have come under Congressional scrutiny, like the warrantless wiretapping conducted by the National Security Agency. In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the administration had failed to prove a "practical need" that would justify trying the detainees in courts that provided a lesser standard of justice without seeking authorization from Congress.

The lawsuit brought by the petitioner in the case, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001, did not challenge his detention in the prison camp in Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, and does not affect the government's ability to hold prisoners there.

But while the court's ruling represented a decisive rejection of the administration's approach to the handling of terror suspects, legal experts said it might also open the way out of a legal morass created by contradictory court rulings and inconsistent policies. The justices appeared to indicate that the government had a choice of trying the detainees in traditional courts-martial or of seeking Congressional approval of an alternative system.

"Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in his own concurring opinion.

President Bush, in preliminary remarks after what he called a "drive-by briefing" on the ruling, hinted at such an outcome, saying "the Hamdan decision was the way forward," and that he would work with Congress to "have a tribunal to hold people to account" while meeting the court's directive.

The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said later that Mr. Bush was referring to "judicial proceedings or equivalent judicial proceedings, such as military commissions, perhaps courts-martial."

In the ruling today, the justices rejected the administration's argument that the Detainee Treatment Act passed by Congress last year had deprived them of jurisdiction over the case.

Justice Stevens was joined in parts of the majority ruling by Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Breyer and Justice Kennedy both wrote concurring opinions.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel J. Alito Jr. dissented. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. did not take part in the case, since he had ruled in favor of the government as an appeals court justice last year.

Justice Thomas took the unusual step of reading his dissent from the bench, the first time he has done so in his 15 years on the court. He said that the ruling would "sorely hamper the president's ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy."

Justice Stevens declared flatly that "the military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedure violate" both the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which governs the American military's legal system, and the Third Geneva Convention. The majority opinion rejected the administration's claims that the tribunals were justified both by President Bush's inherent powers as commander in chief and by the resolution passed by Congress authorizing the use of force after the Sept. 11. There is nothing in the resolution's legislative history "even hinting" that such an expansion of the president's powers was considered, he wrote.

Justice Stevens dwelt at length on the ways in which the military tribunals lack protections afforded to defendants being tried by courts martial, including the use of evidence obtained through coercion.

"Nothing in the record before us demonstrates that it would be impracticable to apply court-martial rules in this case," he wrote.

"The only reason offered in support of that determination is the danger posed by international terrorism" he said. "Without for one moment underestimating that danger, it is not evident to us why it should require, in the case of Hamdan's trial, any variance from the rules that govern courts-martial."

Justice Scalia responded in scathing language to the majority's reasoning on this point. He quoted President Bush's order creating the tribunals, which declared them to be necessary "for the effective conduct of military operations and to prevent terrorist attacks."

"It is not clear where the Court derives the authority - or the audacity - to contradict this determination," Justice Scalia wrote.

In his dissent, Justice Thomas cited a recent ruling in an environmental case to argue that the majority was being inconsistent in order to denigrate the president's powers.

"Those Justices who today disregard the commander-in-chief's wartime decisions, only 10 days ago deferred to the judgment of the Corps of Engineers with regard to a matter much more within the competence of lawyers, upholding that agency's wildly implausible conclusion that a storm drain is a tributary of the United States," Justice Thomas wrote. "It goes without saying that there is much more at stake here than storm drains."

For his part, Justice Stevens devoted a long string of footnotes to dissecting what he at one point called Justice Thomas's "remarkable view" of the case.

Cmdr. Charles Swift, the Navy lawyer assigned by the military to represent Mr. Hamdan, called today's ruling "a return to our fundamental values."

"That return marks a high-water point," Commander Swift said at a news conference outside the court. "It shows that we can't be scared out of who we are, and that's a victory, folks."

He said that the logical next step would be for Mr. Hamdan to be tried either by a traditional military court martial or by a federal court.

Neal Kaytal, a professor at Georgetown University Law School who also represented Mr. Hamdan, called the ruling a "rebuke" to a system of "fake courts."

He said that the court had left it up to Congress to address the question of whether terror suspects should be treated differently from people charged with other crimes.

"But the court has said that our fundamental values are at stake," he said, arguing that the ruling should be seen as a "caution to those who would rush in."

Richard Samp, a lawyer with the Washington Legal Foundation, which filed briefs supporting the government in the case, called the ruling a "disappointment" and an example of judges "clearly making it up as they go along."

Mr. Samp said the court had ignored its own precedents justifying the use of tribunals instead of courts martial, and was substituting its own judgment for the president's in his role of commander in chief. "For the court to step into the war-making arena, where it has no expertise, is inappropriate," he said.

Mr. Samp also said he believed the court "has set itself up against both the Congress and the president" by rejecting a law passed last year that stripped the Supreme Court over jurisdiction over appeals by Guant�namo inmates.

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which represents more than 200 Guant�namo inmates, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling, which he said fully vindicated the views of administration critics.

"What this says to the administration is that you can no longer decide arbitrarily what you want to do with people," Mr. Ratner said in a telephone briefing for reporters. "It upheld the rule of law in this country and determined that the executive has gone beyond the constitution and international law."

Michael Greenberger, who teaches the law of counterterrorism at the University of Maryland law school, said the court could easily have found technical reasons to avoid so sweeping a ruling.

"Obviously they felt strongly not only about the legal issues involved but about what this meant for the United States' position as the pre-eminent supporter of the rule of law worldwide," Mr. Greenberger said.

He said the ruling showed that "it's not enough to repeat the mantra that we're fighting a war on terror and therefore all power resides in the executive branch."

Despite the rebuff to administration policies, Mr. Greenberger said, the ruling may clear the way to a resolution of the murky status of detainees held at Guant�namo, in Afghanistan and in secret detention centers run by the Central Intelligence Agency.

"The court really rescued the administration by taking it out of this quagmire it's been in," he said.

Activists: Ruling Won't Close Gitmo Soon
By Brennan Linsley
The Associated Press

Thursday 29 June 2006

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba - Defense lawyers and human rights activists praised Thursday's Supreme Court decision rejecting military war crimes trials for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, but most felt it likely won't force a quick shutdown of the prison.

The base's commander predicted earlier this week that an adverse ruling would not bring a closure of the jail, saying many of the prisoners could not be released.

Attorneys and advocates called the 5-3 decision a rebuke to the Bush administration's anti-terrorist policies and use of the Guantanamo facility, which has been strongly criticized by foreign leaders.

Some detainee lawyers expressed hope the ruling will increase political pressure to close the facility, where about 450 prisoners swept up since the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States are being held on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

"There certainly will be some fallout from this and it may very well lead to the closing of Guantanamo Bay in the near future," said Army Maj. Tom Fleener, who represents Ali Hamza Ahmad Sulayman al-Bahlul, a Yemeni among the 10 detainees who were facing military trials.

But others agreed with Navy Rear Adm. Harry Harris, commander of the Guantanamo base, that a shutdown wasn't likely - at least in the near future.

"If they rule against the government, I don't see how that's going to affect us," Harris said this week.

Jumana Musa, advocacy director for Amnesty International USA, said the Supreme Court's decision doesn't address the jail's future.

All it does, she said, is "stop dead in its tracks ... the sham trials that have been going on under the guise of war crimes trials, charging people with crimes that aren't even war crimes, and I think that's the fundamental effect of this."

Bridget Arimond, assistant director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University's School of Law, said that "the administration is clearly going to have to come up with a different approach to trying these cases if it wishes to try the detainees under the military justice system."

Barbara Olshansky, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents about 300 Guantanamo detainees, said the cases belong in civilian courts.

"We have lawful courts in this country that are perfectly capable of hearing these cases," she said. "Try them in law courts or release them. This notion of (President Bush) creating his own universe is not permissible."

-------

Posted by marga at 4:29 PM | TrackBack

March 26, 2006

Scalia says Guantanamo detainees have no rights

Newsweek April 3, 2006 issue - The Supreme Court this week will hear arguments in a big case: whether to allow the Bush administration to try Guant�namo detainees in special military tribunals with limited rights for the accused. But Justice Antonin Scalia has already spoken his mind about some of the issues in the matter. During an unpublicized March 8 talk at the University of Freiburg in Switzerland, Scalia dismissed the idea that the detainees have rights under the U.S. Constitution or international conventions, adding he was "astounded" at the "hypocritical" reaction in Europe to Gitmo. "War is war, and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts," he says on a tape of the talk reviewed by NEWSWEEK. "Give me a break." Challenged by one audience member about whether the Gitmo detainees don't have protections under the Geneva or human-rights conventions, Scalia shot back: "If he was captured by my army on a battlefield, that is where he belongs. I had a son on that battlefield and they were shooting at my son and I'm not about to give this man who was captured in a war a full jury trial. I mean it's crazy." Scalia was apparently referring to his son Matthew, who served with the U.S. Army in Iraq. Scalia did say, though, that he was concerned "there may be no end to this war."

Continue Reading the story

Posted by marga at 1:21 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 9, 2006

Khadr terror case referred to rights watchdog

Khadr terror case referred to rights watchdog
Lawyer says U.S. trial violates pact
`Canada's silence very surprising'
Mar. 9, 2006. 05:19 AM
TIM HARPER
WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON�U.S. lawyers for Toronto teenager Omar Khadr are going before an international human rights organization in a bid to suspend his upcoming trial for murder.

Lawyers will make their case Monday before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, arguing the U.S. military commission trial violates international treaties dealing with child combatants and juvenile justice.

Sheku Sheikholeslami, a student lawyer who will be arguing the case under the direction of Khadr's American attorney Richard Wilson, says they will be filling the void left by the Canadian government.

"The international community has expressed its outrage over the detainees at Guantanamo,'' she said. "Even the British have spoken out to defend their nationals.

"Canada's silence on the matter is very surprising and its lack of action to protect its own citizens is more than disappointing. It goes against its obligations to uphold the rights of its children.''

Khadr, 19, was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15-years old and transferred to the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, just after his 16th birthday.

He is charged with murder and other crimes after allegedly tossing a grenade that killed U.S. 1st Class Sgt. Christopher Speer and injured Sgt. Layne Morris as they approached a mud hut in which he was hiding during battle in 2002.

His next appearance at a military tribunal is set for April 3.

"No international criminal tribunal, at least from Nuremberg on, has charged or tried anyone for war crimes alleged to have been committed as a juvenile under the age of 18 at the time of the alleged offences,'' documents filed in support of Khadr assert.

"Trial by military commission will cause irreparable harm to Omar because the military commission process is inherently and deeply flawed, and does not comport with international standards of juvenile justice or the most fundamental guarantees of due process under international law.''

In background documents, Khadr's lawyers refer to him as a "kind, respectful and clean'' child who would help with household chores and loved feeding the pigeons at Scarborough Bluffs Park.

"Omar enjoyed school,'' the documents state. "He loved to read and worked hard to achieve in classes. He always obeyed the rules in class, never skipped and always did his homework.''

The human rights commission is an agency under the auspices of the Organization of American States, but there is no indication Washington would abide by any recommendation that favours suspending proceedings against Khadr.

There is a better chance the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the Guantanamo Bay hearings before Khadr's case comes to trial.

Posted by marga at 10:15 AM | TrackBack

March 4, 2006

A Fate Worse Than Guantanamo?

This article becomes particularly significant at a time that the US is being pressured to close Guantanamo prison. What will the US do with the prisoners it has held for over 2 years with no charges?

A Fate Worse Than Guantanamo?
The U.S. Has an Obligation to the Prisoners It Is 'Releasing' Overseas

By Eric Umansky
Sunday, March 5, 2006; Page B07

Walid al-Qadasi should have been thrilled he was finally leaving Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Al-Qadasi, a Yemeni man in his mid-twenties, had been held at the prison there about two years. He was first arrested in late 2001 by Iranian authorities who, al-Qadasi later recalled, "sold" him to U.S.-allied Afghan forces for a bounty. With little evidence against him -- and no tribunal having established his guilt or innocence -- al-Qadasi was sent home from Guantanamo in April 2004.

In an affidavit taken by the Center for Constitutional Rights, which leads a team of attorneys representing Guantanamo detainees, al-Qadasi says that he remembers almost nothing of the unexpected move. He recalls being given an injection at Guantanamo and then simply waking up in another cell in what turned out to be Yemen. (Other detainees have also spoken of being drugged during transfers.) Once in Yemen, al-Qadasi said, he was "routinely beaten" by guards. Yemeni officials insist al-Qadasi is being held at the request of the United States, an assertion the Pentagon denies. Whatever the case, al-Qadasi has now been sitting in that jail for two years without a lawyer or prospects for a trial.

go to http://www.bugmenot.com/ for userid/passwords

Posted by marga at 3:50 PM | TrackBack

Guantanamo man tells of 'torture'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4769604.stm

A Kuwaiti man being held at Guantanamo Bay has told the BBC in a rare interview that the force-feeding of hunger strikers amounts to torture.

Fawzi al-Odah said hunger strikers were strapped to a chair and force-fed through a tube three times a day.

A senior US official denied the use of torture in Guantanamo Bay.

Mr Odah's comments, relayed by his lawyer in answer to BBC questions, came as another inmate launched a legal challenge to the force-feeding policy.

The case is being brought on behalf of Mohammed Bawazir, a Yemeni who has also been held there since 2002.

The action is the first test for a new law explicitly outlawing torture of terrorism suspects, which President George W Bush signed in December.

New testimony

The BBC Today programme's Jon Manel submitted questions for Mr Odah to his lawyer, Tom Wilner, who has access to the camp.

There was no opportunity for the BBC to challenge Mr Odah's responses.

Mr Odah, who has been held at the base since 2002, was one of 84 inmates at Guantanamo who went on hunger strike in December. Just four are still refusing food.

Speaking to the BBC, US state department official Colleen Graffey said all detainees were afforded regular status reviews and offered the opportunity to renounce violence.

Through his lawyer, Mr Odah described his treatment during his hunger strike.

"First they took my comfort items away from me. You know, my blanket, my towel, my long pants, then my shoes. I was put in isolation for 10 days.

"They came in and read out an order. It said if you refuse to eat, we will put you on the chair [for force feeding]."

He told how detainees were given "formulas" to force them to empty their bowels and were strapped to a metal chair three times a day, where a tube was inserted to administer food.

"One guy, a Saudi, told me that he had once been tortured in Saudi Arabia and that this metal chair treatment was worse than any torture he had ever endured or could imagine," Mr Odah said.

Strain

Mr Odah told the BBC that he felt like an old man despite being only 29.

He described a regime where young military guards routinely beat detainees who caused problems.

"If anything bad happens to the United States anywhere in the world, they immediately react to us and treat us badly, like animals," he said.

"I'm always tired. I have pain in my kidneys. I have trouble breathing. I have pain in my heart and am short of breath. I have trouble urinating and having bowel movements.

"Death in this situation is better than being alive and staying here without hope," Mr Odah added.

The US has said it is holding Mr Odah because he is a dangerous "enemy combatant", who travelled through Afghanistan with the Taleban, fired AK-47 rifles while at an al-Qaeda training camp and fought against US and coalition forces.

He dismissed the general allegations, branding them as "rubbish" and "absolutely untrue".

However, he refused to elaborate, insisting he would only discuss the accusations against at a court hearing.

New rules

In Washington, lawyers for Mohammed Bawazir, who has now ended his hunger strike, said the force-feeding inflicted "unbearable pain" on detainees.

The BBC's Justin Webb, in Washington, says the legal challenge may be a shot in the dark.

Under the terms of the new law it is not even clear whether courts have the right to hear this case, he adds.

The lawyers are arguing that the new anti-torture rules which Mr Bush signed in December outlaw this practice.

The UN Human Rights Commission said recently that it regarded force-feeding at Guantanamo as a form of torture, a charge the US firmly has repeatedly denied.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4770390.stm

Guantanamo interview: full transcript

A Kuwaiti detainee at Guantanamo Bay has given a rare interview to the BBC. The interview was conducted through a legal representative as journalists are not permitted to speak directly to detainees. The BBC Today programme's Jon Manel submitted questions for Fawzi al-Odah to his lawyer, Tom Wilner. The BBC was unable to challenge or question any of Mr Odah's responses.

No-one from the outside world can see you. So describe your physical appearance now.

I am much lighter than I was. I am now about 120 pounds, down from about 150 pounds when I came here. I have become an old man here. I'm only 29, but I have been here four years in isolation and have got old and much weaker.

How's your health?

I'm always tired. I have pain in my kidneys. I have trouble breathing. I have pain in my heart and am short of breath. I have trouble urinating and having bowel movements.

How would you describe your mental health?

I have given up. I am hopeless. I don't care about anything any more. I just want to be released. My health doesn't matter. Death in this situation is better than being alive and staying here without hope. Death would be better if it helped end this situation.

They told me: if you continue the hunger strike, you will be punished. First, they took my comfort items away from me one by one. You know, my blanket, my towel, my long pants, then my shoes. I was put in isolation for 10 days. Then, an officer came in and read me an order from General Hood [commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay].

It said if you refuse to eat, we will put you on the chair - these are special, new metal chairs they have brought to Guantanamo - that you will be strapped up and down very tightly in the chair and that liquid food would be forced into me using a thicker tube with a metal edge. The tube would no longer be left in all the time, but would be forced in and pulled out at each feeding, and that this would happen three times a day. I told him: "This is torture."

He said to me: "Call it whatever you like - this is the way it's going to be: we're going to break this hunger strike."

One guy, a Saudi, told me that he had once been tortured in Saudi Arabia and that this metal chair treatment was worse than any torture he had ever endured or could imagine. They gave these formulas on purpose to make them defecate and urinate and throw up on themselves.

I would still be on this strike if I had any choice. Death is better than continuing life like this.

Did those in charge at Guantanamo agree to negotiate with detainees or hold any discussions in any way?

For a while they did. And there were some changes in conditions, but then it went back.

You must understand that the real problem here is not the horrible conditions - the lousy food, no reading materials, bad medical care, being in isolation.

The real problem is being here without reason, without hope, without a hearing. I am an innocent person who has done nothing wrong and I have had no opportunity to show that. That is the real problem.

General Hood sent messengers to me and asked to talk to me himself about ending my hunger strike. I refused. I told the messengers to tell him that the problem was not you - you are irrelevant. My issue is with the people in Washington. They are making the decisions. We need to be released or have the opportunity to show that we are innocent.

The American authorities say that you are being held because you are a dangerous enemy combatant. What do you say to that?

It is rubbish. Why don't they charge me then if they really think this is true? It's absolutely untrue. And I have never had a fair hearing. I left my home to teach and work for needy people on my official leave. I was caught out of the country and couldn't get back. I have never supported terrorism. I hate it. I have never done anything against the United States. I was simply sold by a Pakistani for money to the United States. Why are they afraid of giving me a hearing? I was simply unlucky. I was out of the country and couldn't get back home. Everything else is simply rubbish.

What do you say to their allegations against you? They allege that you admitted travelling through Afghanistan with Taleban members, that you admitted firing an AK-47 rifle at a training camp near Kandahar, that you admitted staying at a guest house with fighters armed with AK-47s, that you engaged in hostilities against the US or its coalition partners, that you carried an AK-47 through the Tora Bora mountains for 10 to 11 days during the US air campaign in that region and that you were captured with five other men by the Pakistani border. How do you react to those allegations?

I don't think it is right to discuss these details on radio; I should discuss them at a hearing in court. As you know, they are stupid.

I was out of my country and couldn't get back. I found myself in an area that suddenly became incredibly dangerous, with everyone carrying guns around and hunting Arabs. I was in this place at the wrong time and couldn't get home. And I still can't get home.

The guards will beat you up quickly if you give any problem at all. They are very young people. They think we are terrorists and they treat us that way. They hate us. If anything bad happens to the United States anywhere in the world, they immediately react to us and treat us badly, like animals. It's understandable they would treat us that way. And maybe if we were terrorists they should treat us that way. But we're not.

Have you been tortured?

I don't want to repeat it again. No details here. But I was tortured badly in Kandahar. I was tortured here, too. I was beaten up badly at first when I was brought here. Also, when I first started on this last hunger strike, they abused us badly. They pulled the tubes in and out. If I resisted or tried to take the tubes out, they would strap me down, hold my head back and force the tubes in and out causing a lot more pain. It was useless to resist.

A fair court with fair procedures is what I have been asking for. That is all I have asked for from the beginning so that the truth can be known.

Before all this happened, what was your view of America?

I loved America. It freed my country from Saddam Hussein. My father fought with America against Saddam. I respected America. It stood for human rights and fairness around the world. America was the country we all looked up to.

What is your view now?

It has abandoned all of its own traditions and beliefs which were the cause of my respect for it. As someone who lived in the US, I cannot believe the American people know what is happening down here. This is wrong.

Posted by marga at 3:31 PM | TrackBack

Litigation Forces DoD to Release Names of Some Gitmo Detainees

http://www.dod.gov/news/Mar2006/20060303_4387.html

Litigation Forces DoD to Release Names of Some Gitmo Detainees
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, March 3, 2006 � DoD has released 317 "unredacted" records on detainees being held at the U.S. facility in U.S. Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The records, containing about 5,000 pages, are being released as part of an Associated Press Freedom of Information Act litigation decided in late January. A federal judge in New York ordered DoD release records of combatant status review tribunals and administrative review board summaries to the Associated Press by March 3.

Those documents were originally provided to AP, but with names and identifying information redacted for privacy reasons, as part of a Freedom of Information Act request in June 2005. "The court's ruling applies to those documents that have been provided under FOIA in June 2005," a senior official speaking on background said.

The list does not give the names of all 490 detainees being held at Guantanamo. Senior defense officials said the 317 records only cover the previously released redacted documents. These will be "unredacted," and names, nationalities and other personal identifying information will be released. Other protected information -- names of American servicemembers for example -- will remain redacted, officials said.

This is only a portion of the combatant status review tribunals and administrative review boards that have been held to date. There have been 558 tribunals and 463 administrative boards, officials said.

The judge ordered DoD to release personal information that DoD originally withheld because it feared the release could endanger lives or safety. "We removed the information from the transcripts that identified the detainees," the official said. "Detainee personal information was removed ... because of concern of potential harm to detainees if the documents were made public."

In some cases, detainees made incriminating statements about other detainees or about others in their home countries. In others, detainees made statements that could be taken by enemy forces as "disloyal acts" against them, and in other transcripts detainees indicated that they had cooperated with U.S. forces, acts that could be held against them in their countries.

These situations and others "could result in retaliation against the detainee from other detainees at Guantanamo or against their families in their home countries," the official said.

The documents are available on the Defense Department's Freedom of Information Act Web page at http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt/index.html

Posted by marga at 3:26 PM | TrackBack

U.S. Cast a Wide Net in Terror War

The Associated Press
Saturday, March 4, 2006

U.S. Cast a Wide Net in Terror War

By BEN FOX
The Associated Press

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- New documents on the Guantanamo detainees
suggest the Bush administration has cast a wide net in its war on terror.
But the U.S. has often come up empty as American troops picked up
suspects with descriptions as varied as a Kazakh apple seller and
a Pakistani millionaire.

Evidence against the apple seller, for example, showed he had been
captured by the Taliban and forced to work as a cook.

In fact, the man told his U.S. military tribunal, he was only a
cook's helper, and had never heard of al-Qaida or the Taliban until
he was kidnapped and conscripted by Afghanistan's former hardline
Islamic regime.

"I never had a weapon. I never carried a weapon with me and I've
never been in any kind of armed fight," he said in one of hundreds of
military hearings held to determine whether detainees at the U.S. prison
at Guantanamo Bay are being properly held without charges as "enemy
combatants."

These and other details emerging from about 5,000 pages of transcripts
released Friday suggest the Bush administration has picked up any number
of low-level suspects along with admitted al-Qaida and Taliban members
and the rare high-value target, a Pakistani millionaire who twice met
Osama bin Laden.

The Pentagon was forced to release the documents by a federal judge in
response to an Associated Press lawsuit, but much of the administration's
war on terror remains shrouded in overwhelming secrecy. The transcripts
reveal only unclassified information, for example the detainees and
their representatives are not told what other evidence the military
might have against them.

The apple seller's weak link to the Taliban or al-Qaida does not appear
to be unique at Guantanamo Bay, the mostly unredacted transcripts reveal.

Some detainees say they attended training camps U.S. authorities
believe were run by al-Qaida or militants linked to the terror group.
A few admit to meeting bin Laden. Some are prominent, like the governor
of Afghanistan's Herat province or the Taliban's minister of commerce,
or the Pakistani millionaire, a man with businesses in the U.S. and
ties to Middle Eastern leaders.

Some were picked up after their names were found on lists at al-Qaida
safe houses in Pakistan, or taken from the battlefields of Afghanistan
shortly after U.S. troops invaded and helped drive out the Taliban.

The evidence against others can seem flimsy. In at least one case, it
appears to include only the fact that the suspect wore a Casio watch -
a brand allegedly favored by terrorists for use as bomb timers.

And some of those captured seem to be small fry indeed, such as
Hafizullah Shah, a farmer who said he had never left his village before
being arrested because he wore an olive drab jacket.

"I was just walking in the street and I was captured," Shah said. "The
next thing I found out is that I am sitting here."

It is impossible to gauge from the transcripts alone whether someone
is improperly held at Guantanamo Bay, where the U.S. now holds about
490 detainees.

Again and again, detainees are told that there is other evidence against
them, but they are not permitted to see it.

The Bush administration has kept almost all information about the
detainees secret since opening the prison in January 2002.

The military, however, has stopped bringing new detainees to the prison
and has transferred or released about 279. The Pentagon said it would
reduce the detainee population by about 30 percent with more transfers
and releases.

The apple seller's fate is unknown. His name apparently was not mentioned
in his hearing, and so does not appear in the unredacted transcripts that
have revealed many other detainee names for the first time. But he had
a theory about why he was being held.

"I always knew America as a democratic country and always heard
positive things about America," he told the tribunal. "I believe that
after 9/11 America became very aggressive and that's probably the
only reason I'm here."

Posted by marga at 3:19 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 3, 2006

Vatican hits out at Guantanamo

Agence France Presse March 3, 2006 Friday

The Vatican issued a sharp rebuke Friday to the United States over its
continued operation of the Guantanamo Bay prison, accusing it of failing to
respect human dignity in its treatment of prisoners there.

"It seems clear that in this prison man's dignity is not being respected at
all," said Cardinal Renato Martino, the Vatican's "minister" for justice and
peace.

The Vatican has not previously commented directly on the controversial prison
camp, which the United Nations has demanded that Washington shut down.

"Isn't the lack of rights stamping on the dignity of man. Everyone always has
the right to an equable and just judgement," said Martino, speaking in an
interview with Italy's ANSA news agency on his return from a visit to Cuba.

In December, Pope Benedict said in an annual peace message that countries
have a duty to respect international humanitarian law even if they are at war.

"If there are inmates who find themselves in such conditions, deprived of
their liberty without even knowing what they are charged with -- wherever in the
world -- we will not hesitate the defend them," Martino said.

"I want to remind people that even people who have committed crimes remain
human beings whose dignity must be respected," the cardinal added.

Some 500 detainees have been held at Guantanamo since January 2002 but only 10 have been formally charged as alleged terrorists. Most were captured soon after the US-led war in Afghanistan against the Taliban regime.

A report by the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva made public last month
said inmates had been abused and that it should be closed.

Posted by marga at 10:44 AM | TrackBack

"20th Hijacker" Claims That Torture Made Him Lie

TIME.com: Exclusive: "20th Hijacker" Claims That Torture Made Him Lie -- Page 1

Interrogation Log

Exclusive: "20th Hijacker" Claims That Torture Made Him Lie

Mohammad al-Qahtani, held in Guantanamo and touted by the U.S. as a major informant, is taking it all back, his lawyer says. PLUS: for the first time, TIME.com publishes a secret, 84-page record of his interrogation

By ADAM ZAGORIN/WASHINGTON
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR

Posted Friday, Mar. 03, 2006
Of the roughly 500 detainees held at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, none is more notorious than Mohammad al-Qahtani, the so-called "20th hijacker." Only weeks before 9/11, he tried to enter the U.S. illegally in Orlando, Fla., while the plot's leader, Mohammad Atta, waited to pick him up in the airport parking lot. As the Pentagon has said, "Had al-Qahtani succeeded in entering the U.S., it is believed he would have been on United Airlines Flight 93, the only hijacked aircraft that had four hijackers instead of five [and the one that ended up crashing in a Pennsylvania field instead of striking the White House, its widely believed intended target]."

Last June, TIME published excerpts from a highly classified, 84-page log minutely detailing al-Qahtani's interrogation at Guantanamo. Now, as an increasing number of detainees mount legal challenges to their incarceration, TIME is making the record of al-Qahtani's treatment available to the public in its entirety (except for some names which have been redacted) for the first time. Back in June 2005, the Pentagon insisted that al-Qahtani had provided vital intelligence, focusing on key al-Qaeda leaders and some 30 fellow prisoners at Guantanamo whom he identified as Osama bin Laden's bodyguards.

Now, in an eyewitness account of al-Qahtani at Guantanamo, his recently appointed American lawyer tells TIME that al-Qahtani has repudiated all of his previous statements � claiming they were extracted under brutal torture. And that repudiation is sure to fuel the growing number of challenges in American courts from the detainees at Guantanamo whom al-Qahtani fingered.

For most of his confinement at Guantanamo, al-Qahtani, like other "enemy combatants," has been in legal limbo, never charged with a crime, unrepresented by legal counsel and without any recourse to U.S. courts. But a source has told TIME that last year his father in Saudi Arabia approached the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based nonprofit organization, which has provided al-Qahtani with a lawyer.

That lawyer, Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, a CCR staff attorney, has already filed a challege in federal court, in the District of Columbia, to al-Qahtani's detention. She has also visited him twice at Guantanamo, first in December 2005 and again in January of this year. After spending more than 30 hours talking with him through an interpreter, she told TIME that al-Qahtani today appears to be a broken man, fearful and at times disoriented � someone who has "painfully described how he could not endure the months of isolation, torture and abuse, during which he was nearly killed, before making false statements to please his interrogators."

When al-Qahtani got off his plane in Orlando in August 2001, he was refused entry to the U.S., deported, and captured in Afghanistan only a few months after 9/11 � as Osama bin Laden fled his mountain sanctuary at Tora Bora. Al-Qahtani was then brought to Guantanamo where, according to the Pentagon, he admitted that he had been sent to the U.S. by Khaled Sheik Mohammed, architect of the 9/11 attacks, and that he had met Osama bin Laden on several occasions. Al-Qahtani also confirmed that he had received terrorist instruction at two al-Qaeda training camps and met with numerous senior al-Qaeda leaders.

But from the standpoint of cases currently under review in U.S. federal courts, al-Qahtani's most significant disclosure was informing on some 30 fellow Guantanamo prisoners. The Pentagon quickly used his statements about those prisoners before special military tribunals to justify their indefinite detention as "enemy combatants."

Lawyers for detainees fingered by al-Qahtani strenuously object to that evidence. And a growing number are challenging the government, claiming that al-Qahtani's information was extracted under torture and is, therefore, unreliable and inadmissible in court.

But in a major case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to be argued on March 22 � a case that many observers believe will ultimately end up in front of the Supreme Court � the government is expected to argue that the reliability of statements like al-Qahtani's should not even be considered.

Instead, government lawyers will seek to apply the Detainee Treatment Act, a controversial December 2005 law sponsored by Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, that would preclude extensive court review of Guantanamo detentions. The Detainee Treatment Act says that " habeas corpus � the right of prisoners to have their detention legally justified to a U.S. court � does not apply to Guantanamo prisoners except on appeal. Detainee lawyers argue that the provision clashes with a 2001 Supreme Court ruling that opened the federal courts to any detainee held by the United States anywhere in the world.

Questions surrounding the Detainee Treatment Act will also come before the Supreme Court on March 28, when lawyers for Salim Ahmad Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's alleged driver, challenge government attempts to put him on trial before a military commission. "The issue in this court case is critically important because if the government has its way, Guantanamo will be returned to a legal black hole," contends Eric M. Freedman, a professor of constitutional law at Hofstra University and legal consultant to detainees, though not al-Qahtani. "It would be an outrage if evidence being used to hold prisoners was extracted by unconscionable methods and that fact did not come to light in a court of law." For the Pentagon's part, a spokesperson told TIME that "it is longstanding Department of Defense policy to treat all detainees humanely." The painfully detailed interrogation log of al-Qahtani seems to make clear that at the very least that policy has not always been followed.

Posted by marga at 10:41 AM | TrackBack

March 2, 2006

U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban

U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban
McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison

By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 3, 2006; Page A04

Bush administration lawyers, fighting a claim of torture by a Guantanamo Bay detainee, yesterday argued that the new law that bans cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody does not apply to people held at the military prison.

In federal court yesterday and in legal filings, Justice Department lawyers contended that a detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, cannot use legislation drafted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to challenge treatment that the detainee's lawyers described as "systematic torture."

continue reading:

U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban

for userid/password go to: http://www.bugmenot.com/

Posted by marga at 10:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

'War on terror' trials could allow evidence obtained through torture

Agence France-Presse
March 2, 2006 Thursday

'War on terror' trials could allow evidence obtained through torture

GUANTANAMO BAY US NAVAL BASE, Cuba, March 1 (AFP) -- US military
officers, breaking with domestic and international legal precedent, said
on Wednesday that "war on terror" military tribunals at the Guantanamo
naval base could allow evidence obtained through torture.

The US military officer presiding over the trial of an alleged aide to
Osama bin Laden said he was not ready to rule out such evidence.

The officer, who wields power similar to a judge, was asked by the
defense lawyer representing Ali Hamza Ahmad al-Bahlul, a Yemeni accused of
plotting terror attacks for bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network, if he was ready
to exclude all evidence secured through torture.

After a long pause, Colonel Peter Brownback declined to commit to a
blanket ban on evidence obtained as a result of torture.

"What you and I mean by torture could be different," Brownback told
defense lawyer Major Tom Fleener.

He said "a red-hot needle in the eye" constitutes torture but was not
ready to commit to a prohibition in advance of the trial. "My personal
belief is that torture is not good," he added.

But he said it would depend on the circumstances and how the prosecution
presented the evidence.

Bahlul's lawyer, who has the right to question the tribunal chief
to verify his client will receive impartial treatment, said he asked
the question because he alleged his client had been tortured while
in detention.

"I believe Mr al-Bahlul was tortured," Fleener said.

He added that "it's going to be an issue" in the trial.

Brownback did say that how evidence was obtained would be a factor in
whether to admit such evidence and how to evaluate it.

After the hearing, US officers confirmed that the rules written for the
newly created military tribunals, or commissions, left the question open.
The rules also allow for hearsay evidence and other exceptions to standard
US and international legal norms.

Asked about evidence secured through coercion, a spokeswoman for the
military tribunals said the issue would be addressed by the officers
presiding over each trial.

"I can't speculate on what a presiding officer is going to do in
any situation," Major Jane Boomer told a news conference.

Defense lawyers, human rights groups and European governments have
accused the United States of abusing and torturing detainees held at
the "war on terror" prison at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba.

Brownback's comments are sure to reinforce concerns about how the US
government treats and prosecutes detainees held as part of the "war on
terror."

The US military has denied systematic torture has been employed and
insisted that any isolated abuses have been punished.

Of some 500 detainees held at Guantanamo for more than four years, Bahlul
is one of 10 detainees formally charged by US military tribunals.

Addressing the tribunal in a courteous, articulate manner, Bahlul said
earlier he could not receive a fair trial if he was represented by a
US citizen.

Bahlul said the impact of the September 11 attacks, which he said had
left a "deep psychological scar," meant that no US lawyer would be able
to argue effectively on his behalf.

It would be "impossible for the counsel to push aside his feelings
as an American," said Bahlul, speaking through an interpreter.

He renewed his request to be allowed to represent himself, though
tribunal rules require that he accept a US lawyer, and asked for an
attorney from his native country.

He sought to clarify earlier comments that he was a member of Al-Qaeda,
saying that he did not have anything to do with the attacks of September
11, 2001.

"I had no connection to the events of September 11," he said.

Prosecutors allege he served as a propaganda specialist and bodyguard for
bin Laden in Afghanistan before he was captured in 2001 and transferred
to the controversial US-run detention camp at the Guantanamo Bay US Naval
Base in Cuba.

The presiding officer rejected Bahlul's request, saying he could have a
foreign citizen as a legal adviser but that the tribunal rules barred him
from representing himself.

After several hours, Bahlul chose not to return to the hearing following
a recess.

The presiding officer said he would not order Bahlul to be forcibly
taken to the tribunal if he refused to attend the hearing when it
resumed on Thursday.

Fleener, the defense lawyer assigned to Bahlul, said it was "absurd" that
Bahlul could not argue his own case. He cited US domestic and military
law as well as the Nuremberg war crimes trials, which he said allowed
for self-representation or for citizens of the same nationality to serve
as defense lawyers.

Posted by marga at 10:18 PM | TrackBack

Prosecutor likens Guantanamo defendants to vampires

Reuters News
28 February 2006

Prosecutor likens Guantanamo defendants to vampires

By Jane Sutton

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Feb 28 (Reuters) - Confronting the
defendants at the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals with the evidence
against them will be like dragging vampires into the sunlight the
chief prosecutor said on Tuesday.

The cases of two Guantanamo captives charged with conspiring with
al Qaeda to attack civilians, commit murder and destroy property will
begin pretrial hearings on Wednesday.

A scheduled hearing for a third defendant was delayed at the request of
his military lawyer, who sought more time to prepare his case.

The war crimes tribunals are the first held by the United States since
World War II and convened in August 2004, over 2-1/2 years after the
first prisoners were brought to the detention camp in Cuba as part of
the U.S. war on terrorism.

Defense attorneys sued to halt the tribunals, which they consider
fundamentally unfair for numerous reasons. These include the use of
secret evidence that defendants will not be allowed to see and the
potential use of evidence obtained through torture.

The chief prosecutor, Air Force Col. Moe Davis, blamed the delays on
the detainees and their lawyers and compared them to movie vampires.

"Remember if you dragged Dracula out into the sunlight he melted. Well
that's kind of the way it is trying to drag a detainee into the courtroom.
The facts are like the sunlight to Dracula. The last thing they want
is to face the facts in the courtroom," Davis told journalists. "But
their day is coming."

AL QAEDA SUSPECTS

One of those on the docket this week is Sufyian Barhoumi, an Algerian
accused of attending al Qaeda camps to learn and then train others to
make electronically controlled explosives for use against U.S. troops
in Afghanistan.

The other, Ali Hamza al Bahlul, is a Yemeni accused of acting as a
bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and making al Qaeda recruiting videos.

Only 10 of the 500 Guantanamo prisoners have been charged with crimes
and Wednesday's session will be the fourth round of pretrial hearings
to formally read charges and address issues such as which attorneys
will represent the defendants.

None of the cases has gone to trial and prosecutors said none will until
after the U.S. Supreme Court rules next summer on whether President George
W. Bush had authority to create the tribunals to try foreign terrorism
suspects after the Sept. 11 attacks. The court will hear arguments on
March 28.

U.S. judges have halted three of the 10 Guantanamo cases pending the
Supreme Court ruling and lawyers for some of the other seven said they
might ask for stays.

In the meantime, hearings are moving forward so trials can start as soon
as the court rules, Davis said.

"What we want to do is try to advance things, and not just sit at a
standstill for six or nine months waiting on a Supreme Court decision,"
he said. "I'm optimistic we'll prevail."

Legal and human rights monitors visiting Guantanamo called the tribunals,
formally known as commissions, an ad hoc system with no underlying law.
They said any charges against the prisoners should be brought in civilian
courts or the military courts-martial system, which have long established
rules.

Maj. Jane Boomer, a spokeswoman for the tribunals, said they are designed
to be full and fair, while protecting national security, but that "it will
be a developing process."

Posted by marga at 11:40 AM | TrackBack

February 20, 2006

European Parliament wants Guantanamo closed

On February 16th, the European Parliament issued resolution calling on the US Administration "to close the Guant�namo Bay detention facility". The European Parliament "insists that every prisoner should be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law and tried without delay in a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, impartial tribunal"

The text of the resolution can be found at

http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/excep/gtmoeng.html

Posted by marga at 1:41 PM | TrackBack

More calls to close down Guant�namo

The White House has characterized the prisoners kept at Guant�namo Bay as being "dangerous terrorists", and has thus justified their continual detention and abuse. However, a report by lawyers representing two Guant�namo detainees shows how 55 percent of the detainees haven't been found to have committed any hostile acts against the U.S. or its allies. Only 8 percent were characterized as al Qaeda fighters and 86 percent were handed over by Afghan forces or Pakistanis at a time when the United States was offering financial bounties for suspected enemies.

Read the Denbeaux report

Meanwhile a British high court judge granted three British residents detained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay permission to seek a court order requiring the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, to petition for their release. "America's idea of what is torture is not the same as ours and does not appear to coincide with that of most civilised nations," said justice Collins

Calls to close the Guant�namo Bay prison have multiplied since UN experts issued a report last week concluding that the United States was violating prisoners' fundamental human rights and called on the US to close the prison. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan told reporters "I think sooner or later there will be a need to close Guantanamo. I think it will be up to the government to decide, and hopefully to do it as soon as possible." The British, German and French ambassadors have also been vocal in expressing their concerns about Guant�namo. According to the French Ambassador to the US: "Guantanamo is an embarrassment, and so it has to be solved one way or the other. It's necessary to have the people in Guantanamo get a fair trial." Similar feelings were expressed by Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Chilean President Lagos and German Chancellor Angela Merkel who said "An institution like Guantanamo cannot and should not exist in the longer term. Different ways and means must be found". Editorials on newspapers around the world are making similar calls.

Posted by marga at 11:35 AM | TrackBack

February 16, 2006

New reports on Guant�namo

Five independent investigators of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights are calling on the United States to close immediately the detention centre in Guant�namo Bay and bring all detainees before an independent and competent tribunal or release them.

The experts were charged by the United Nations to analyse the situation in Guantanamo in light of the United State's obligations under international human rights law. They've found that the US has and is committing numerous human rights violations including arbitrary detention, torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and violations of the right to a fair trial, health and freedom of religion.

The report was written by the Chairperson of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Ms. Leila Zerrougui; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Mr. Leandro Despouy; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Mr. Manfred Nowak; the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ms. Asma Jahangir and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Mr. Paul Hunt.

Download the report, PDF format.

Amnesty International has also issued a new report on the detainees at Guant�namo: "Guant�namo: Lives torn apart � The impact of indefinite detention on detainees and their families"

"As the unlawful detentions of �enemy combatants� at the US detention centre at the Guant�namo Bay naval base, Cuba, enter their fifth year, Amnesty International is renewing its call for the detention centre to be closed and for all those held to be released or given fair trial according to international law and without recourse to the death penalty on the US mainland. Four years since the first transfers to Guant�namo, approximately 500 men(1) of around 35 nationalities remain held at the detention facility unlawfully. Reports from the detainees and their lawyers suggest that many have been subjected to torture or other forms of ill-treatment in Guant�namo or in other US detention centres. Some have embarked on a prolonged hunger strike, among them those who have requested not to be force-fed in order that they may be allowed to die. There have been numerous suicide attempts and fears for the physical and psychological welfare of the detainees increase as each day of indefinite detention passes.

In this document, Amnesty International relates the continuing plight of the detainees, and summarizes developments related to the ongoing hunger strike and further suicide attempts. The organization also assesses the situation of nine men who remain detained despite no longer being considered �enemy combatants� by US authorities."

Read the full report

And write to President Bush demanding that he close down the detention facility at Guant�namo Bay, and either charge and try the detainees in line with international standards, or release them.

Posted by marga at 12:28 PM | TrackBack

May 16, 2004

US guards 'filmed beatings' at terror camp

Dozens of videotapes of American guards allegedly engaged in brutal attacks on Guantanamo Bay detainees have been stored and catalogued at the camp, an investigation by The Observer has revealed. The Observer | International | US guards 'filmed beatings' at terror camp

Posted by marga at 11:27 AM | TrackBack

April 26, 2004

The Guantanamo Detainees Case Before the Supreme Court

When we filed Rasul v. Bush two years ago, we might have predicted that the case would eventually reach the Supreme Court. What we could not have anticipated, in those dark times, was the great sense of optimism we would feel after we had our day in court.

Yesterday, April 20th, at 10 in the morning, the court assembled to hear oral arguments from both sides. CCR was represented by Judge John Gibbons, the retired Chief Judge of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. A Nixon appointee, Judge Gibbons argued persuasively that the court must find that Guantanamo Bay falls within the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, and that the hundreds of men detained there must be allowed a foot in the door to defend themselves before the government is allowed to hold them prisoner.

This is an issue with deep roots in our legal system. It is a bedrock principle of our society that no one may be held by the government without any reason why that the government must specify the grounds for incarceration, and provide some opportunity for individuals to contest their detention. It can be traced back nearly 800 years, to the signing of the Magna Cartain 1215.

What the government wants to do is return to a time when the ruler has absolute power over individuals, without any check on that power,says Michael Ratner, CCR President. That time is 1214 A.D.

One of the most important issues that was raised is how to apply this notion to this case. There is a federal law that implements the principle of habeas corpus it says that the courts shall entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody& on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.

We argue that personis not and cannot be qualified; the government wants to restrict its application to only citizens. In a sustained exchange, Justices Kennedy and Souter challenged Solicitor General Ted Olson on this point. Drawing from this, Justice Breyer concluded that there was a clear rule to be inferred from the governments argument, but one that vested too much authority in the person of the President:

It seems rather contrary to an idea of a Constitution with three branches that the executive would be free to do whatever they want, whatever they want without a check.

Rasul is one of the most controversial and important cases before the Supreme Court this year, one that cuts to the heart of a host of issues, not least among them the separation of powers under which the judiciary functions as a check on the power of the other branches of government. We are hopeful that the Justices will rule in our favor, and in doing so, in defense of this critical oversight provided by the courts. A decision will most likely come down at the end of June.

For more information on Rasul v. Bush, please visit: http://www.ccr-ny.org/rasul/. For a complete audio transcript of the argument, see: http://www.c-span.org/courts/oralarguments.asp.

Be involved! Support the Center for Constitutional Rights. To find out more information, e-mail info@ccr-ny.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Phone: (212) 614-6464
Web site: www.ccr-ny.org
E-mail: info@ccr-ny.org

Posted by marga at 10:16 AM | TrackBack

April 21, 2004

Mexico backs Cuban motion on human rights inquiry into Guantanamo

Mexico pledged Tuesday to support Cuba's draft resolution calling for an inquiry into Guantanamo if it is put to the vote at the UN Human Rights Commission.

Patricia Olamendi, undersecretary for global issues and human rights at the Mexican Foreign Ministry, said, "Our vote will be in the sense that we are demanding respect for human rights in the fight against terror."

:: Xinhuanet - English ::

Posted by marga at 1:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 20, 2004

At court: terror-war detentions

At court: terror-war detentions: The case involving Guant�namo could alter government powers.

Legal challenges to the indefinite detention of Al Qaeda and Taliban suspects at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, have placed the US Supreme Court at a constitutional crossroads, with potential historic implications for the balance of power in American government.

AxisofLogic/ Civil Rights/Human Rights

Posted by marga at 1:54 PM | TrackBack

Supreme Court must end lawlessness in Guant�namo Bay

USA: Supreme Court must end lawlessness in Guant�namo Bay

No less than the rule of law is at stake in the Guant�namo appeal before the US Supreme Court.

The US administration is offering a vision of a world in which arbitrary unchallengeable detentions, potentially for life, become acceptable. The Supreme Court must reject this vision and begin the process of extracting the Guant�namo detainees from the legal black hole into which they have been thrown in the name of national security.

The issue before the Supreme Court is whether the US courts have jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus appeals from the hundreds of foreign nationals detained without charge or trial at the US Naval Base in Guant�namo Bay in Cuba. The lower courts have so far largely sided with the executive in its efforts to keep the judiciary out of the equation.

The government has claimed that, because Cuba has ultimate sovereignty over the Guant�namo base, even though the USA clearly has full jurisdiction and control over the base and the detainees held there, it is free to deny the right of any person under international and US law to seek judicial review of their detention.

This contention has no basis in international law. Under international law, no detainee can fall into the sort of legal abyss that the US administration has attempted to create. The right to judicial review is a fundamental right enshrined in international law. As authoritatively stated by regional and international bodies, including the Human Rights Committee that monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, this right applies to all detainees everywhere, even during times of emergency, including armed conflict.

Amnesty International is one of numerous organizations and individuals that have filed amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs on behalf of the detainees. US amici curiae include former prisoners of war, diplomats, military officers and Guant�namo officials; international amici curiae include jurists, legal historians and experts, as well as 175 British parliamentarians.

Condemnation has come from many quarters during the more than two years that the detainees have been held, reflecting global concern that the USA is setting a dangerous example in its "war on terror" detention policies. Other governments have already cited the example of Guant�namo in justifying their own abusive conduct.

By flouting fundamental principles of international law, the US administration's detention policies are making the world a less secure place. When any state, let alone a country as powerful as the USA, adopts a selective or contemptuous approach to international law and standards, the integrity of those standards is eroded.

The threat to human rights represented by al-Qa'ida and other groups seeking to attack US and other civilians around the world is a real one and must be confronted. However, governments must do so by respecting fundamental and universal human rights principles, rather than give in to a logic of lawlessness, which is ultimately self-defeating. It is now up to the US Supreme Court to reassert the rule of law and reaffirm those universal principles.

For further information, see:

USA: Undermining security: violations of human dignity, the rule of law and the National Security Strategy in "war on terror" detentions, http://amnesty-news.c.topica.com/maacaqKaa6br3bb0iygb/

USA: The threat of a bad example: Undermining international standards as 'war on terror' detentions continue, http://amnesty-news.c.topica.com/maacaqKaa6br4bb0iygb/

****************************************************************
You may repost this message onto other sources provided the main
text is not altered in any way and both the header crediting
Amnesty International and this footer remain intact. Only the
list subscription message may be removed.
****************************************************************

Posted by marga at 1:44 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 19, 2004

The Court and Guant�namo

Today's New York Times condemns the administration's attempt to deny basic due process rights to Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

"Legal arguments aside, the Guant�namo policies are a tragic mistake. They are being followed closely abroad, where they are greatly harming America's reputation for fairness. And � as a group of retired American military officers argue in a friend-of-the-court brief � they will come back to haunt us when Americans are taken captive.

Most important of all, the treatment of the Guant�namo detainees is not true to America's guiding principles. "The practice of arbitrary imprisonments," Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist No. 84, has been "in all ages" one of "the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." Much has changed since Sept. 11, 2001, but one thing that has not is this nation's commitment to freedom, and to the rule of law. "

The New York Times > Opinion > The Court and Guant�namo

Posted by marga at 2:02 PM | TrackBack

April 5, 2004

More Guantanamo detainees freed

Fifteen detainees held at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay have been freed, the Pentagon has said

BBC NEWS | Americas | More Guantanamo detainees freed

Posted by marga at 12:22 AM | TrackBack

March 16, 2004

Guantanamo captive 'worked with CIA'

A Canadian man recently released from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba has been telling the BBC how he worked there undercover for the CIA. BBC story

Posted by marga at 12:38 PM | TrackBack

March 15, 2004

Tipton three complain of beatings

The men described sensory deprivation for the flight to Cuba

Three Britons released from Guantanamo Bay after two years of imprisonment have told of the conditions they endured as terror suspects BBC story

Posted by marga at 10:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

U.S. Releases 26 Guantanamo Detainees

The U.S. military said yesterday that it released 23 Afghan and three Pakistani citizens from the U.S. Navy prison for terrorism suspects in Cuba, leaving about 610 still in detention. story

Posted by marga at 10:24 PM | TrackBack

March 9, 2004

Guantanamo families seek justice in US

The father of a British terror suspect held in Guantanamo Bay yesterday denounced a leak from the Bush administration which alleged his son trained at an al-Qaida training camp Guardian story

Posted by marga at 4:50 PM | TrackBack

March 8, 2004

NYC: An Evening with Families of the Guantnamo Detainees

Guantanamo Justice: An Evening with Families of the Guantnamo Detainees

Hosted by
THE CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
&
THE GUANTANAMO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

WEDNESDAY MARCH 10th at 7PM

Cooper Union Great Hall

7 East 7th Street (at 3rd Avenue) New York City

For over two years more than 650 people have been detained without rights in a legal black hole at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. They have been denied access to their families, a lawyer and the right to a hearing to determine their legal status. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case CCR brought on their behalf. For the first time in the United States, European families of Guantánamo detainees will tell their stories.

Speakers include: Michael Ratner, the Center for Constitutional Rights

Corin Redgrave, the Guantanamo Human Rights Commission

Azmat Begg, father of Moazzam Begg (UK) Guantanamo detainee

Rabbi David Goldberg & Margaret Drabble, novelist & patron

Plus: The InKlein Quartet, and others

THE EVENT IS FREE & OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

"We are appalled that revered conventions are being blatantly flouted, such as the dictum

that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, that everyone is entitled to a legal defense, and that habeas corpus pertains. I support your efforts to ensure justice is done for your loved ones and pray that they will be given access to their families."-- Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Message sent to Guantánamo Human Rights Commission on February 19th, 2004.

USA Watch: Guantanamo Archives

July 12, 2006

White House Says Terror Detainees Hold Basic Rights

June 29, 2006

Supreme Court Blocks Guant�namo Tribunals

March 26, 2006

Scalia says Guantanamo detainees have no rights

March 9, 2006

Khadr terror case referred to rights watchdog

March 4, 2006

A Fate Worse Than Guantanamo?

Guantanamo man tells of 'torture'

Litigation Forces DoD to Release Names of Some Gitmo Detainees

U.S. Cast a Wide Net in Terror War

March 3, 2006

Vatican hits out at Guantanamo

"20th Hijacker" Claims That Torture Made Him Lie

March 2, 2006

U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban

'War on terror' trials could allow evidence obtained through torture

Prosecutor likens Guantanamo defendants to vampires

February 20, 2006

European Parliament wants Guantanamo closed

More calls to close down Guant�namo

February 16, 2006

New reports on Guant�namo

May 16, 2004

US guards 'filmed beatings' at terror camp

April 26, 2004

The Guantanamo Detainees Case Before the Supreme Court

April 21, 2004

Mexico backs Cuban motion on human rights inquiry into Guantanamo

April 20, 2004

At court: terror-war detentions

Supreme Court must end lawlessness in Guant�namo Bay

April 19, 2004

The Court and Guant�namo

April 5, 2004

More Guantanamo detainees freed

March 16, 2004

Guantanamo captive 'worked with CIA'

March 15, 2004

Tipton three complain of beatings

U.S. Releases 26 Guantanamo Detainees

March 9, 2004

Guantanamo families seek justice in US

March 8, 2004

NYC: An Evening with Families of the Guantnamo Detainees