|
The
War Profiteers - War Crimes, Kidnappings & Torture |
|
The U.S. Department of Defense - The Guantánamo Bay
Concentration Camp |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Newest media report: CIA Flight Carried Secret From
Gitmo (6/8/2010/Associated Press) Newest government report: MEPs Debate Closure of
Guantanamo Prison Camp (3/2/2009/European Parliament) Newest legal document: Memorandum Order (9/4/2009/Mohammedou
Salahi vs. Barrack Obama et al) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
“[…] ‘I was in extreme pain and so weak that I could barely stand. It
was freezing cold and I was shaking like a washing machine. They questioned me
at gunpoint and told me that if I confessed I could go home. “‘They had already searched me and my cell twice that day, gone
through my stuff, touched my Koran, felt my body around my private parts. And
now they wanted to do it again, just to provoke me, but I said no, because if
you submit to everything you turn into a zombie. “'I heard a guard talking into his radio, ‘ERF, ERF, ERF,’ and I knew
what was coming - the Extreme Reaction Force. The five cowards, I called them
- five guys running in with riot gear. They pepper-sprayed me in the face and
I started vomiting; in all I must have brought up five cupfuls. They pinned
me down and attacked me, poking their fingers in my eyes, and forced my head
into the toilet pan and flushed. They tied me up like a beast and then they
were kneeling on me, kicking and punching. Finally they dragged me out of the
cell in chains, into the rec yard, and shaved my beard, my hair, my
eyebrows.’ “Tarek Dergoul, a British citizen born and brought up in east London
and released without charge after almost two years at Guantanamo Bay, was
describing one of many alleged assaults he says he suffered in American
custody. […] Dergoul’s testimony suggests that Guantanamo hides another
terrible secret - proof, in the shape of hundreds of videos shot by US
guards, that here, too, America’s war against terror has led to wanton
brutality against helpless detainees. […]” Excerpt from an article
of the “Observer” from May 16th, 2004. |
Camp Delta at the Guantánamo Naval Base |
||
|
|
|||
|
August 6th, 2010 - CIA Flight Carried Secret From
Gitmo 1 news article
from the Associated Press April 12th, 2010 - Guantanamo Detainee Ordered
Freed 1 news
article from the Inter Press Service January 25th, 2010 - Two Algerian Torture Victims
Freed from Guantanamo 1
feature article from the Public Record January 21st, 2010 - How I Fought to Survive
Guantánamo 1
feature article from the Guardian January 18th, 2010 - The Guantánamo “Suicides”: A
Camp Delta Sergeant Blows the Whistle 1
feature article from Harper’s Magazine November 11th, 2009 - White House Allies Say Obama
Bungled Guantanamo Closing 1 news
article from McClatchy Newspapers November 9th, 2009 - Guantanamo Conditions
‘Deteriorate’ 1
feature article from Al Jazeera October 22nd, 2009 - US Bands Blast Use of Music
in Guantanamo Interrogations 1 news
article from Agence France Presse October 21st, 2009 - Justices to Decide on U.S.
Release of Detainees 1 news
article from the New York Times October 14th, 2009 - Gitmo Update: 38 Cases, 2
New Releases, and 1 Showdown 1
feature article from ProPublica October 6th, 2009 - Detainee’s Lawyers to Get
Interrogation Tapes 1 news
article from the Washington Post September 28th, 2009 - Obama Team Clears 75 at
Guantanamo for Release 1 news
article from Reuters September 26th, 2009 - Guantanamo Prison Not Likely
to Close in January, Officials Say 1 news
article from CNN September 17th, 2009 - U.S. Judge Orders Kuwaiti
Held at Guantanamo Freed 1 news
article from Reuters September 10th, 2009 - DOD Lawyer Hedges on Closing
Gitmo by January 1 news
article from the Associated Press September 6th, 2009 - Growing Number of Guantanamo
Detainees Cleared For Release Remain Imprisoned 1
feature article from the Public Record August 27th, 2009 - Young Afghan Freed from
Guantanamo to Sue US Gov’t 1 news article
from the Associated Press August 22nd, 2009 - A Gitmo Prosecutor’s Act of
Conscience 1 news article
from CBS News August 21st, 2009 - Judge Orders Release of
Guantanamo Bay Detainee with Family Ties to Bin Laden 1 news article
from the Associated Press July 30th, 2009 - Judge Orders Young
Guantanamo Detainee’s Release 1 news article
from the Washington Post July 28th, 2009 - Afghanistan Would Collect
Guantanamo Detainee-Lawyer 1 news article
from Reuters July 25th, 2009 - Guantánamo Bay: The Inside
Story 2 feature articles
from the Times July 23rd, 2009 - U.S. Rebuffs U.N. Requests
for Guantanamo Visits, Data on CIA Prisons 1 news article
from the Washington Post July 22nd, 2009 - U.S. Judge Challenges Evidence
on a Detainee 1 news article
from the New York Times July 16th, 2009 - Guantánamo War Court Faces
Technological, Legal Challenges 1 news article
from the Miami Herald July 7th, 2009 - Officials: Fate of
Guantanamo Detainees Uncertain 1 news article
from the Associated Press July 3rd, 2009 - Documents Describe Chaos of
Gitmo’s Early Months 1 news article
from the Associated Press June 27th, 2009 - White House Weighs Order on
Detention 1 news
article from Washington Post June 23rd, 2009 - Judge Orders Syrian Guantanamo
Inmate Freed 1 news
article from Agence France Presse June 8th, 2009 - Recently Released Gitmo
Detainee Talks to ABC News 1 news
article from ABC News June 2nd, 2009 - Yemeni Prisoner in Guantanamo
Commits Suicide: U.S. 1 news
article from Reuters May 26th, 2009 - Ex-Detainee Describes Struggle
for Exoneration 1 news
article from Washington Post April 7th, 2009 - Red Cross: Gitmo Medical
Personnel Violated Ethics 1 news
article from the Associated Press March 23rd, 2009 - Plea Bargain Was Considered
for British Detainee 1 news
article from the New York Times March 19th, 2009 - Ex-Bush Admin Official: Many
at Gitmo Are Innocent 1 news
article from the Associated Press March 16th, 2009 - Red Cross Report: CIA Tortured
Terror Suspects 2 news
articles from the Associated Press & New York Review of Books March 7th, 2009 - Guantanamo Prisoner Tells of
Dark Afghan Prison 2 news
articles from the Associated Press & Agence France Presse February 23rd, 2009 - Gitmo Detainee who Claimed
Torture is Freed 1 news
article from the Associated Press February 20th, 2009 - British Resident to be Freed
from Guantanamo Bay 1 news
article from Reuters February 15th, 2009 - Diplomats Say Guantanamo
Detainee Fit to Travel 1 news
article from Reuters February 12th, 2009 - British Group Heads to
Guantanamo to Free Resident 2 news
articles from the Associated Press & BBC News February 4th, 2009 - Ministers Face Torture
Pressure 1 news
article from BBC News January 22nd, 2009 - Obama Signs Order to Close
Guantanamo in a Year 2 news
articles from the Associated Press & Reuters January 16th, 2009 - Holder Wants Some Detainees
Tried in the U.S. 1 news
article from the New York Times January 13th, 2009 - Obama’s Plan to Close Prison
at Guantánamo May Take Year 1 news
article from the New York Times January 8th, 2009 - Hunger Strikers Surge to 10 Percent
at Guantánamo 1 news
article from Miami Herald December 2nd, 2008 - Guantanamo ‘a Stain on US
Military’ 1 news
article by BBC News November 26th, 2008 - Freed Guantanamo Prisoner
Arrives Home in Yemen 3 news
articles by Los Angeles Times, Reuters & Agence France Presse November 15th, 2008 - George W. Bush Could Pardon
Spies Involved in Torture 1 news
article by Daily Telegraph November 10th, 2008 - Obama Plans US Terror Trials
to Replace Guantanamo 1 news
article by the Associated Press October 15th, 2008 - CIA Tactics Endorsed In
Secret Memos 1 news
article by the Washington Post September 4th, 2008 - Mexico Drug Plane Used for
US ‘Rendition’ Flights: Report 2 news
articles by Agence France Presse & CounterPunch August 18th, 2008 - Marine Lawyer has Sought
Judicial Reform 1 news article by
the San Diego Union-Tribune June 22nd, 2008 - Inside a 9/11 Mastermind’s
Interrogation 1 news article by
the New York Times June 13th, 2008 - Justices Say Detainees Can
Seek Release 2 news articles by
the Washington Post & Agence France Presse June 6th, 2008 - British Judge Sets Hearing on
Evidence for Detainee 1 news article by
the New York Times April 21st, 2008 - Torture Victim’s Records
Lost at Guantánamo, Admits Camp General 1 news
article by the Guardian April 2nd, 2008 - U.S. and Britain at Odds
Over Guantánamo Inmate 1 news
article by the New York Times February 6th, 2008 - AP Confirms Secret Camp Inside
Gitmo 1 news
article by the Associated Press January 14th, 2008 - Joint Chiefs Chairman: Close
Guantanamo 1 news
article by the Associated Press October 4th, 2007 - Secret U.S. Endorsement of
Severe Interrogations 1 news article by the
New York Times July 21st, 2007 - Court Tells U.S. to Reveal
Data on Detainees at Guantánamo 2 news
articles by the New York Times June 5th, 2007 - Military Judges Dismiss
Charges for 2 Detainees 1 news
article by New York Times May 31st, 2007 - Death of Guantanamo Detainee
Is Apparent Suicide, Military Says 1 news
article by the Washington Post April 30th, 2007 - Guantanamo Lawyers Predict
More Suicides 1 news article by
the Associated Press February 20th, 2007 - Guantanamo Detainees Can’t
Challenge Cases in U.S. Courts 1 news
article by the Washington Post February 14th, 2007 - Bush Order Allows Guantanamo
Trials to Move Ahead 1 news
article by Reuters February 3rd, 2007 - Life Harsher in New Guantanamo
Unit 1 news
article by the Associated Press January 4th, 2007 - Pentagon Says Abuses Already
Investigated 1 news
article by the Associated Press January 3rd, 2007 - FBI Details Possible Detainee
Abuse 1 news article by
the Associated Press December 16th, 2006 - Military Taking a Tougher Line
With Detainees 1 news article by
New York Times November 17th, 2006 - U.S. Military Plans New
Compound for Trials 1 news article by
the Associated Press November 4th, 2006 - U.S. Seeks to Silence Terror
Suspect 1 news
article by the Associated Press October 18th, 2006 - Regret and Resentment at
Guantanamo 1 news
article by BBC News October 17th, 2006 - Bush Signs Bill Setting
Detainee Rules 2 news
articles by the New York Times & Reuters October 17th, 2006 - U.S. Faces Obstacles To
Freeing Detainees 2 news
articles by the Washington Post & Reuters October 15th, 2006 - Marine Corps Issues Gag
Order in Detainee Abuse Case 1 news
article by the Los Angeles Times October 15th, 2006 - Expecting U.S. Help, Sent to
Guantánamo 1 news
article by the New York Times October 13th, 2006 - Southern Command to Probe
Gitmo Charges 3 news
articles by the Associated Press (2) & the Washington Post October 7th, 2006 - Pentagon to Probe Gitmo
Beatings Claim 2 news
articles by the Associated Press & the Los Angeles Times October 6th, 2006 - Prisoner Abuse by U.S.
Guantanamo Guards Described 2 news
articles by Reuters & the Associated Press October 1st, 2006 - Detainee Memo Created Divide
in White House 2 news
articles by the New York Times & Bahrain Daily News September 29th, 2006 - Senate Approves Broad New
Rules to Try Detainees 3 news
articles by the New York Times, the Associated Press & Reuters September 22nd, 2006 - Top Republicans Reach an
Accord on Detainee Bill 1 new article by
the New York Times September 16th, 2006 - Military Lawyers Caught in
Middle on Tribunals 1 news
article by the New York Times September 10th, 2006 - At a Secret Interrogation,
Dispute Flared Over Tactics 1 news article by
the New York Times July 13th, 2006 - White House Prods Congress to
Curb Detainee Rights 1 news article by
the New York Times June 29th, 2006 - Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo
War Trials 2 news articles by
the Associated Press and the Washington Post June 18th, 2006 - How US hid the suicide secrets
of Guantanamo 1 news article by
the Observer June 12th, 2006 - Prisoners’ Ruse Is Suspected at
Guantánamo 3 news articles by
the Guardian, New York Times and Al Jazeera June 11th 2006 - Three Prisoners commit Suicide
at Guantánamo 2 news articles by
the New York Times and the Washington Post May 16th, 2004 - US Guards ‘Filmed Beatings’ at
Terror Camp 1 news
article by the Observer |
|||
|
February 3rd, 2009 - MEPs Debate Closure of
Guantanamo Prison Camp & CIA Rendition Flights Press Release from
the European Parliament “[…] In a joint debate, MEPs debated Guantanamo Bay prisoner camp and
CIA renditions flights. Many MEPs called on Member states to facilitate the
closure of the facility within one year (as announced by the new Obama
administration) by accepting detainees while, at the same time, ensuring that
detainees are not sent to countries where they could be persecuted. During
tis legislative period, MEPs repeatedly called on the US to close the
Guantanamo camp. […]” January 22nd, 2009 - Executive Orders 13491,
13492 & 13493 Compilation of 3
presidential documents filed at the U.S. Federal Register “[…] Sec. 3.
Closure of Detention Facilities at Guantanamo. “The detention facilities at Guantanamo for individuals covered by
this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year
from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain
in detention at Guantanamo at the time of closure of those detention
facilities, they shall be returned to their home country, released,
transferred to a third country, or transferred to another United States
detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security
and foreign policy interests of the United States. […]” July 9th, 2008 - Human Rights Annual
Report 2007 Report by the U.K.
House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee “[…] 74. The FCO report states that it is the Government’s position
that the circumstances in which detainees are held indefinitely are
‘unacceptable’ and that it firmly believes the detention facility ‘should
close’. It welcomes ‘President Bush’s commitment to close the detention
facility as soon as practicable’. However, Human Rights Watch’s submission
notes that ‘in fact, President Bush has now stated that he will not do so,
and that he will leave Guantánamo for the next President to deal with’. The
FCO report notes some outstanding concerns with the US Military Commissions
Act 2006 (which aims to bring about the trial of some of the detainees), particularly
relating to habeas corpus and the treatment of those acquitted. In what was
seen as a coded criticism of the United States, the Foreign Secretary
commented in February 2008 that ‘it’s very, very important that we always
assert that our system of values is different from those who attacked the US’
on 9/11. […] “77. We conclude that the European Union can and must do more to help
the United States in bringing about the overdue closure of the detention
facilities at Guantánamo Bay. We welcome the Government’s representations on
behalf of the five British residents in Guantanamo Bay. Given its decision to
intervene in their cases, we recommend that the Government should express
particular concern over the prospective trial of Binyam Mohamed under the Military
Commissions Act and lobby strongly against any use of the death penalty if he
is found guilty. We recommend that the Government should continue to press
for the return of Binyam Mohamed and Shaker Aamer to the UK. […]” May 2008 - A Review of the FBI’s
Involvement in and Observations of Detainee Interrogations Report by the U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General (6,1 MB) “[…] Our report found that after FBI agents in GTMO and other military
zones were confronted with interrogators from other agencies who used more
aggressive interrogation techniques than the techniques that the FBI had
successfully employed for many years, the FBI decided that it would not
participate in joint interrogations of detainees with other agencies in which
techniques not allowed by the FBI were used. “Our review determined that the vast majority of FBI agents complied
with FBI interview policies and separated themselves from interrogators who used
non-FBI techniques. In a few instances, FBI agents used or participated in
interrogations during which techniques were used that would not normally be
permitted in the United States. These incidents were infrequent and were
sometimes related to the unfamiliar circumstances agents encountered in the
military zones. They in no way resembled the incidents of detainee
mistreatment that occurred at Abu Ghraib. “However, FBI agents continued to witness interrogation techniques by
other agencies that caused them concern. Some of these concerns were reported
to their supervisors, which sometimes resulted in friction between FBI and
the military over the use of these interrogation techniques on detainees.
Some FBI agents concerns were resolved directly by the agents working with
their military counterparts, while other concerns were never reported.
Ultimately, however, the DOD made the decisions regarding which interrogation
techniques could be used on the detainees in military zones. In our report,
we describe the types of techniques that FBI employees reported to their
supervisors. […]” February 6th, 2008 - Detainee Operations - JP
3-63 Military
Doctrine by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (1,2 MB) “[…] 4. Detainee Categories “The DOD definition of the word ‘detainee’ includes any person
captured, detained, or otherwise under the control of DOD personnel
(military, civilian, or contract employee) […]. It does not include persons
being held primarily for law enforcement purposes except where the United
States is the occupying power. As a matter of policy, all detainees will be
treated as EPWs until some other legal status is determined by competent
authority. During the course of operations classified by the United States as
international armed conflicts, captured opposition personnel who satisfy the
criteria enumerated in the GPW will be granted the appropriate status as a
matter of law. Detaining officials must recognize that detained enemy combatants
who have not satisfied the applicable criteria in GPW will have a status as
unlawful ECs, but are still entitled to humane treatment. The inhumane
treatment of detainees is prohibited and is not justified by the stress of
combat or deep provocation. “a. Enemy Combatant. In general, a person engaged in hostilities
against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict.
The term ‘enemy combatant’ includes both ‘lawful enemy combatants’ and
‘unlawful enemy combatants.’ “(1) Lawful ECs, who are entitled to protections under the GPW,
include members of the regular armed forces of a state party to the conflict;
militia, volunteer corps, and organized resistance movements belonging to a
state party to the conflict, which are under responsible command, wear a
fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly,
and abide by the laws of war; and, members of regular armed forces who
profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the
detaining power. Lawful combatants are EPWs upon capture, and are entitled to
‘combatant immunity’ for their lawful pre-capture warlike acts. They may be
prosecuted, however, for violations of the law of war. If so prosecuted, they
still retain their status as EPWs. “(2) Unlawful ECs are persons not entitled to combatant immunity, who
engage in acts against the United States or its coalition partners in
violation of the laws and customs of war during an armed conflict or who
support such acts. For purposes of the war on terrorism, the term unlawful EC
is defined to include, but is not limited to, an individual who is or was
part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces or associated forces that
are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. “b. Enemy Prisoner of War. Individual under the custody and/or control
of the DOD according to Articles 4 and 5 of the GPW. […]” July 20th, 2007 - Interpretation of the
Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 Executive Order by
the U.S. White House February 14th, 2007
- ICRC Report on the
Treatment of 14 “High Value Detainees” in CIA Custody Report by the International Committee of the Red Cross February 14th, 2007 - Executive Order Trial of
Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants by Military Commission Press Release by
the U.S. White House October 17th, 2006 - President Bush Signs
Military Commissions Act of 2006 Press Release by
the U.S. White House September 28th, 2006 - Military Commissions Act
of 2006 Act of U.S.
Congress proposed to the U.S. President for acceptance September 6th, 2006 - Summary of the High Value
Terrorist Detainee Program Report by the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence September 5th, 2006 - The Department of Defense
Detainee Program Directive by the
U.S. Department of Defense September 2006 - FM 2-22.3 Human
Intelligence Collector Operations Field Manual by
the U.S. Department of the Army May 15th, 2006 - List of Individuals
Detained at Guantánamo Bay from Jan 2002 through May 15, 2006 Report by the U.S.
Department of Defense February 15th, 2006 - Situation of Detainees at
Guantánamo Bay Report by the
Commission on Human Rights, United Nations “[…] 25. Many of the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay were captured in
places where there was – at the time of their arrest – no armed conflict
involving the United States. The case of the six men of Algerian origin
detained in Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2001 is a well-known and
well-documented example,24 but also numerous other detainees have been
arrested under similar circumstances where international humanitarian law did
not apply. The legal provision allowing the United States to hold belligerents
without charges or access to counsel for the duration of hostilities can
therefore not be invoked to justify their detention. […]” March 28th, 2003 - Camp Delta Standard Operating
Procedures (SOP) Report by the
Joint Task Force - Guantanamo (JTF - GTMO) (4,3 MB) “[…] a. This standard operating procedure (SOP) provides policy,
procedures, and responsibilities for the security, administration, and
treatment of detainees in custody at Camp Delta. This SOP also establishes
procedures for transfer of custody from Camp Delta. […]” March 14th, 2003 - Re: Military Interrogation
of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the U. S. Memorandum by U.S.
Department of Justice (5,9 MB) “[…] You have asked our Office to examine the legal standards
governing military interrogations of alien unlawful combatants held outside
the United States. You have requested that we examine both· domestic and
international law that might be applicable to the conduct of those
interrogations. “In Part I, we conclude that the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, as
interpreted by the Supreme Court, do not extend to alien enemy combatants
held abroad. In Part II, we examine federal criminal law. We explain that
several canons of construction apply here. Those canons of construction
indicate that federal criminal laws of general applicability do not apply to
properly authorized interrogations of enemy combatants, undertaken by
military personnel in the course of an armed conflict. Such criminal
statutes, if they were misconstrued to apply to the interrogation of enemy
combatants, would conflict with the Constitution’s grant of the Commander in
Chief power solely to the President. […] “Third, we examine the applicability of customary international law.
We conclude that as an expression of state practice, customary intemational
law cannot impose a standard that differs from U.S. obligations under CAT, a
recent multilateral treaty on the same subject. In any event, our previous
opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and
that the President is free to override it at his discretion. […]” |
|||
|
|
|||
|
January 2nd, 2007 -
Documents related to
internal Guantanamo Bay Inquiry Report by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (5,2 MB) June 7th, 2002 - Investigative FBI Report
on Prisoner Abuse at Camp Delta “[…] [censored] was interviewed at Camp Delta, present for the
interview were SA [special agent] FBI, SA [censored] Naval Criminal
Investigative Service (NCIS) [censored] linguist [censored] provided the
following information, translated by: “[censored] stated he had been beaten unconscious approximately three
or four weeks ago when he was still at Camp X-Ray. According to [censored] an
unknown number of guards entered his cell, unprovoked, and started spitting
and cursing at him. The guards called him a ‘son of a bitch,’ and a
‘bastard,’ then told him he was crazy. “[censored] rolled on his stomach to protect himself, [censored]
stated a soldier named [censored] jumped on his back and started beating him
in the face. [censored] then choked him until he passed out. [censored]
stated that [censored] was beating him because [censored] is a muslim, and
[censored] is christian. [censored] indicated there was a female guard named
[censored] who was also beating him and grabbed his head and beat it into the
cell floor. “[censored] stated that all the soldiers were aware of his [censored]
problems, and he was taken to the hospital following the beating, where he
received an IV and treatment for his facial wounds. [censored] claimed the
camp warden, who is a tall african american male, visited him at the hospital
and told the doctors to immediately return him to the camp. [censored]
reported the aforementioned incident to two Red Cross representatives at Camp
Delta, who he identified as [censored] and [censored]. [censored] stated he
did not do anything to cause the guards to enter his cell, and did everything
they instructed him to do. [censored] had what appeared to be a recent wound
on the bridge of his nose. “[censored] stated that he was put in an isolated cell after he was
involved in a dispute over food givent to him. [censored] stated that he is
unable to eat certain foods, and was placed in isolation after arguing with a
guard. […]” |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mohammedou Ould Salahi vs. Barrack H. Obama et al U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Case No.: 05-CV-0569 April 9th, 2010 - Memorandum Order “[…] Mohammedou Quld Salahi, a Mauritanian national, alleges that he
is illegally detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and petitions this court
for a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release. “Salahi has been in custody, without being charged with any crime,
since November [redacted] 2001. He was first taken into custody by [redacted]
on [redacted] suspicion that he had been involved in the failed ‘Millennium
Plot’ to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport. The United States [redacted]
transported him to Guantanamo Bay in August 2002, […]. He has been there ever
since. He filed this petition in 2005, but his case, like all other habeas
corpus petitions from Guantanamo Bay, was put on hold until the Supreme Court
decided that Guantanamo detainees have a right to habeas proceedings and that
this court has jurisdiction to hear them. “[…] The government’s case, essentially, is that Salahi was so
connected to al-Qaida for a decade beginning in 1990 that he must have been
‘part of’ al-Qaida at the time of his capture. The allegations are that
Salahi was a recruiter for al-Qaida - that indeed he recruited two of the men
who became 9/11 hijackers and a third who became a 9/11 coordinator; that he
actively supported his cousin, who is or was one of Osama Bin Laden's
spiritual advisors that he carried out orders to develop al-Qaida's
telecommunications capacity; and that he had connections with an al-Qaida
cell in Montreal. “[…] Salahi concedes that he traveled to Afghanistan in early 1990 to
fight jihad against communists and that there he swore bayat to al-Qaida. He
maintains, however, that his association with al-Qaida ended after 1992, and
that, even though he remained in contact thereafter with people he knew to be
al-Qaida members, he did nothing for al-Qaida after that time. […] The
government’s case relies heavily on statements made by Salahi himself, but
the reliability of those statements - most of them now retracted by Salahi is
open to question. “[…] The government’'s problem is that its proof that Salahi gave
material support to terrorists is so attenuated, or so tainted by coercion
and mistreatment, or so classified, that it cannot support a successful
criminal prosecution. Nevertheless, the government wants to hold Salahi indefinitely,
because of its concern that he might renew his oath to al-Qaida and become a
terrorist upon his release. That concern may indeed be well-founded. Salahi
fought with al-Qaida in Afghanistan (twenty years ago), associated with at
least a half-dozen known al-Qaida members and terrorists, and somehow found
and lived among or with al-Qaida cell members in Montreal. But a habeas court
may not permit a man to be held indefinitely upon suspicion, or because of
the government’s prediction that he may do unlawful acts in the future - any
more than a habeas court may rely upon its prediction that a man will not be
dangerous in the future and order his release if he was lawfully detained in
the first place. The question, upon which the government had the burden of
proof, was whether, at the time of his capture, Salahi was a ‘part of’
al-Qaida. On the record before me, I cannot find that he was. “The petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted. Salahi must be
released from custody. It is so ordered. […]” Mohammed Al-Qahtani et al vs. Barrack Obama et al U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Case No.: 1:05-cv-01971-RMC October 5th, 2009 - Memorandum Opinion & Order “[…] In response to the Court's June 2, 2009 discovery order requiring
the Government to report on the burden that would be imposed if the Court
were to require the Government to produce all audio/video recordings of
Petitioner from August 8, 2002 through January 15, 2003. [redacted] Each tape
is approximately [redacted] hours long. “In order to clear these tapes for release, multiple agencies
including the Department of Defense (‘DOD’), the FBI, and the Central
Intelligence Agency would have to review the tapes frame-by-frame. Thus, to
require the Government to produce all of these videotapes would be
excessively burdensome. “However, the tapes created at the end of the period from August 13,
2002 to November 22, 2003 likely have some value to Petitioner. To justify
Petitioner’s detention, the Government relies on Petitioner’s statements made
from April 2003 through March 2004. Petitioner challenges the veracity and
reliability of the statements. He contends that his statements were so
tainted by the cumulative effects of abusive treatment that took place
previously that the statements cannot be credited or relied upon.
Accordingly, Petitioner seeks information regarding his own mental and
physical status both prior to and at the time he made the incriminating
statements on which the Government relies. Thus, the audio/video recordings
made later would be more likely to contain information relevant to
Petitioner’s challenge on voluntariness grounds than those made earlier. […] “[…] For the reasons set forth above, it is hereby ordered that the
Government shall produce the audio/video recordings of Petitioner created
between November 15, 2002 and November 22, 2002; and it is further ordered
that the Government shall produce the nine summarized witness statements
related to Petitioner that are listed in the appendix to the Schmidt-Furlow
Report; […]” Fouad
Mahmoud Al-Rabiah et al vs. U.S.A. et al U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Case No.: 1:02-cv-00828-CKK September 17th, 2009 - Order “[…] For the reasons set forth in the Court's Classified Memorandum
Opinion issued to the parties on this date, Petitioner Fouad Mahmoud Al
Rabiah's petition for habeas corpus is granted. The Government is directed to
take all necessary and appropriate diplomatic steps to facilitate the release
of Petitioner Al Rabiah forthwith. The Government is directed to comply with
any reporting requirements mandated by the Supplemental Appropriations Act,
Pub. L. No. 111-32, 123 Stat. 1859 (2009), if applicable, to facilitate the
release of Petitioner Al Rabiah forthwith. The relevant agencies shall
complete a classification review of the Court’s Classified Memorandum Opinion
and shall provide the Court with an Unclassified version no later than 10:00
A.M. on September 25, 2009. “This is a Final, Appealable Order. […]” Mohammed al-Adahi et al vs. Barack H. Obama et al U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Case No.: 1:02-cv-00299-CKK August 21st, 2009 - Memorandum Opinion “[…] Petitioner Mohammed Al-Adahi […] has been detained since 2002 at
the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Respondents […] argue
that his detention is justified under the Authorization for the Use of
Military Force, […], which grants the Executive the power to detain
individuals engaged in certain terrorist activities. The Petitioner
disagrees, and has, along with four other petitioners, filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus […]. The matter is before the Court on Cross-Motions
for Judgment on the Record […]. “Upon consideration of the Motions, the Oppositions, extensive oral
argument and accompanying exhibits, and the entire record herein, Al-Adahi’s
habeas corpus petition and Motion are hereby granted. […] “[…] As a preliminary matter, some attention must be given to the
nature of the evidence that has been presented in this case, and how the
Court, as fact-finder, will go about evaluating that evidence. In attempting.
to meet its burden, the Government has provided evidence in the form of
classified intelligence and interview reports that it believes justify the
Petitioner’s detention. The reports contain the statements of Petitioner, as
well as statements made by other detainees, that the Government argues
demonstrate the Petitioner’s status as a member or substantial supporter of
al-Qaida and/or the Taliban. […] “[…] There is no question that the record fully supports the
Government's allegation that Petitioner had close familial ties to prominent
members of the jihad community in Afghanistan. […] “[…] A few days later, Al-Adahi met Bin Laden again and the two
chatted briefly about religious matters in Yemen. […] In his testimony, the
Petitioner insisted that such a meeting with Bin Laden was common for
visitors to Kandahar. […] The Government interprets the access to Bin Laden,
as well as the relationship to [redacted and [redacted] brother, an alleged
bodyguard for Bin Laden, as part of the evidence that ‘Al-Adahi was part of
the inner circle of the enemy organization al-Qaida.’ […] “[…] There is no reliable evidence in the record that Petitioner was a
trainer at Al Farouq, that he ever fought for al-Qaida and/or the Taliban, or
that he affirmatively provided any actual support to al-Qaida and/or the
Taliban. There is no reliable evidence in the record that Petitioner was a
member of al-Qaida and/or the Taliban. While it is tempting to be swayed by
the fact that Petitioner readily acknowledged having met Bin Laden on two
occasions and admitted that perhaps his relatives were bodyguards and
enthusiastic followers of Bin Laden, such evidence - sensational and
compelling as it may appear - does not constitute actual, reliable evidence
that would justify the Government's detention of this man. “For these reasons, and the reasons set forth above, the Court grants
the petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Mindful of the limitations on the
scope of the remedy in this situation, […], the Court further orders the Government
to take all necessary and appropriate diplomatic steps to facilitate
Petitioner'S release forthwith. […]” Saki Bacha aka Mohammed Jawad vs. Barack Obama et al U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Case No.: 1:05-cv-2385-ESH-(ISN 900) July 30th, 2009 - Order “[…] Before the Court is respondents’ notice that respondents will no
longer treat petitioner as detainable under the AUMF […] and petitioner’s
response thereto […], respondents’ proposed order and judgment […], and
respondents’ memorandum in support of respondents’ proposed order for
resolution of this action […]. For the reasons stated during today’s public
hearing, it is hereby ordered that Mohammed Jawad’s petition for writ of
habeas corpus is granted. “It is further ordered that on or before August 6, 2009, respondents
shall submit to the Congress the information required under Section 14103 (e)
of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 111-32, 123 Stat. 1859
(2009). “It is further ordered that beginning on August 21, 2009, when 15 days
following the submission of the aforesaid information to the Congress have
passed, respondents shall promptly release petitioner Jawad from detention at
the U.S. Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay and transfer him to the custody of
the receiving government. “It is further ordered that petitioner Jawad shall be treated humanely
consistent with respondents’ legitimate security and operational concerns. It
is further ordered that on or before August 24, 2009, respondents shall file
a status report regarding petitioner Jawad’s transfer. So ordered. […]” In Re: Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Case No.: Misc. No. 08-0442 (TFH) July 10th, 2009 - Memorandum Opinion “[…] Pending before the Court is the government’s Motion to Amend the
September 11, 2008 Protective Order and Counsel Access Procedures and the January
9, 2009 Amended TS/SCI Protective Order and Counsel Access Procedures […].
The government asks the Court to amend the protective orders entered in the
above-captioned cases in order to prevent petitioners from viewing their own
statements, if those statements have been designated as classified or
protected. Upon consideration of the motion, petitioners’ opposition, and the
government’s reply, the Court will deny in part and grant in part the motion.
[…] “[…] For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the government’s
motion will be denied in part and granted in part. The government’s proposal
to amend the Protective Order, the TS/SCI Protective Order, the Counsel
Access Procedures, and the TS/SCI Counsel Access Procedures will be denied.
The government’s request to modify the procedures for providing petitioners
access to their respective protected statements will also be denied. To the
extent the government’s motion seeks to modify the procedures for providing
petitioners access to their respective classified statements, it will be
granted. […]” Abdulrahim Abdul Razak Al-Ginco vs. George Bush,
Barack Obama et al U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Case No.: 1:05-cv-01310-UNA June 22nd, 2009 - Memorandum Order “[…] Petitioner Abdulrahim Abdul Razak Al Ginco (who now prefers the
surname Janko) (‘petitioner’ or ‘Janko’) is a detainee being held at the U.S.
Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He alleges that he is being unlawfully
detained by Respondents President Barack H. Obama, Secretary of Defense
Robert M. Gates, Rear Admiral David M. Thomas, Jr., and Army Colonel Bruce
Vargo (collectively, ‘respondents’ or the ‘Government’). On May 28,2009, this
Court commenced habeas corpus proceedings for petitioner Janko. […] “[…] Petitioner Janko, a Syrian citizen who spent his teen years in
the United Arab Emirates, was taken into custody by U.S. forces in January
2002 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. […] Initially he was held and questioned at
Kandahar Air Base, until he was ultimately taken to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
after approximately 100 days. […] In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's
decision in Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466, 473 (2004) (holding that 28 U.S.C. 5
2241 extended statutory habeas corpus jurisdiction to Guantanamo), petitioner
Janko filed his habeas corpus petition with this Court on June 30, 2005. […]
As with hundreds of other petitions filed around that time, no action was
taken by this Court on the petition until the Supreme Court ruled on June 12,
2008 in Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S. Ct, 2229 (2008), that Guantanamo detainees
are ‘entitled to the privilege of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of
their detention.’ […] “[…] The Government contends, in essence, that petitioner Janko is an
enemy combatant because he was ‘part of ... Taliban or al Qaeda forces’ at
the time he was taken into custody by U.S. forces in 2002. In particular, the
Government argues that petitioner Janko: (1) traveled to Afghanistan to
participate in jihad on behalf of the Taliban; (2) stayed for several days at
a guesthouse used by Taliban and al Qaeda fighters and operatives in early
2000, where he helped clean some weapons; and (3) thereafter attended the al
Farouq training camp for a brief period of time. […] The Government
effectively concedes, however, that petitioner Janko was not only imprisoned,
but tortured by al Qaeda into making a false ‘confession’ that he was a U.S.
spy, and imprisoned thereafter by the Taliban for over eighteen months at the
infamous Sarpusa prison in Kandahar. […] Notwithstanding these extraordinary
intervening events, the Government contends that Janko was still ‘part of’
the Taliban and/or al Qaeda when he was taken into custody after U.S. forces
learned from a reporter of petitioner’ s presence at the abandoned prison in
January 2002. […] “[…] Thus, combining the limited and brief nature of lanko's
relationship with al Qaeda (and/or the Taliban), with the extreme conduct by
his captors over a prolonged period of time, the conclusion is inescapable
that his preexisting relationship, such as it was, was sufficiently vitiated
that he was no longer ‘part of’ al Qaeda (or the Taliban) at the time he was
taken into custody by U.S. forces in 2002. Accordingly, the Government has
failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that lanko was
lawfully detainable as an enemy combatant under the AUMF at the time he was
taken into custody, and the Court must, and will, GRANT his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus and order the Government to take all necessary and
appropriate diplomatic steps to facilitate his release forthwith. […]” Lakhdar Boumediene et al vs. George W. Bush et al U.S. Supreme Court for the United States Case No.: 06 - 1195 June 12th, 2008 - Opinion of the Court “[…] Petitioners are aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained
at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There are others
detained there, also aliens, who are not parties to this suit. “Petitioners present a question not resolved by our earlier cases
relating to the detention of aliens at Guantanamo: whether they have the
constitutional privilege of habeas corpus, a privilege not to be withdrawn
except inconformance with the Suspension Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 2. We hold
these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege. Congress has enacted a
statute, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), 119 Stat. 2739, that
provides certain procedures for review of the detainees’ status. We hold that
those procedures are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas
corpus. Therefore § 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), 28
U.S.C.A. § 2241(e) (Supp. 2007), operates as an unconstitutional suspension
of the writ. “We do not address whether the President has authority to detain these
petitioners nor do we hold that the writ must issue. These and other
questions regarding the legality of the detention are to be resolved in the
first instance by the District Court. […]” Lakhdar Boumediene et al vs. George W. Bush et al U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia
Circuit Case No.: 05 - 5062 February 20th, 2007 - Opinion “[…] Federal courts have no jurisdiction in these cases. In
supplemental briefing after enactment of the DTA, the government asked us not
only to decide the habeas jurisdiction question, but also to review the
merits of the detainees’ designation as enemy combatants by their Combatant
Status Review Tribunals. […] The
detainees objected to converting their habeas appeals to appeals from their
Tribunals. In briefs filed after the DTA became law and after the Supreme
Court decided Hamdan, they argued that we were without authority to do so.16
Even if we have authority to convert the habeas appeals over the petitioners’
objections, the record does not have sufficient information to perform the
review the DTA allows. Our only recourse is to vacate the district courts’
decisions and dismiss the cases for lack of jurisdiction. “So ordered. […]” Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al Supreme Court of the United States Case No.: 05 - 184 June 29th, 2006 - Opinion “[…] Pursuant to Congress’ Joint Resolution authorizing the President
to ‘use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or
aided’ the September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks (AUMF), U. S. Armed
Forces invaded Afghanistan. During the hostilities, in 2001, militia forces
captured petitioner Hamdan, a Yemeni national, and turned him over to the U.
S. military, which, in 2002, transported him to prison in Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. Over a year later, the President deemed Hamdan eligible for trial by
military commission for then-unspecified crimes. After another year, he was
charged with conspiracy ‘to commit ... offenses triable by military
commission.’ […] “The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because
its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva
Conventions signed in 1949. […] (a) The commission’s procedures, set forth in
Commission OrderNo. 1, provide, among other things, that an accused and his
civilian counsel may be excluded from, and precluded from ever learning what
evidence was presented during, any part of the proceeding the official who
appointed the commission or the presiding officer decides to ‘close.’ Grounds
for closure include the protection of classified information, the physical
safety of participants and witnesses, the protection of intelligence and law
enforcement sources, methods, or activities, and ‘other national security
interests.’ Appointed military defense counsel must be privy to these closed
sessions, but may, at the presiding officer’s discretion, be forbidden to reveal
to the client what took place therein. “Another striking feature is that the rules governing Hamdan’s
commission permit the admission of any evidence that, in the presiding
officer’s opinion, would have probative value to a reasonable person. Moreover,
the accused and his civilian counsel may be denied access to classified and
other ‘protected information,’ so long as the presiding officer concludes
that the evidence is ‘probative’ and that its admission without the accused’s
knowledge would not result in the denial of a full and fair trial. […]” |
|||
|
Photo Credits 1) Guantánamo Bay, Camp Delta - April 5th,
2006 - Brennan Linsley/AP; 2) Guantánamo Bay, Camp Delta - June 25th, 2005 - Haraz Ghanbari/AP; |
|||
|
|
|||
