|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
October 15th, 2006 - Marine Corps
Issues Gag Order in Detainee Abuse Case |
|
Marine Corps Issues Gag
Order in Detainee Abuse Case The action has lawyers worrying they could be punished for defending
Guantanamo clients. By Carol J. Williams Los Angeles Times October 15, 2006 Miami The U.S. Marine Corps
has threatened to punish two members of the military legal team representing
a terrorism suspect being held at Guantanamo Bay if they continue to speak
publicly about reported prisoner abuse, a civilian lawyer from the defense
team said Saturday. The action directed at Lt.
Col. Colby Vokey and Sgt. Heather Cerveny follows their report last week that
Guantanamo guards bragged about beating detainees, said Muneer Ahmad, an
American University law professor who assists in the defense of Canadian
suspect Omar Khadr. The order has heightened
fears among the military defense lawyers for Guantanamo prisoners that their
careers will suffer for exposing flaws and injustices in the system, Ahmad
said. "In one fell swoop, the
government is gagging a defense lawyer and threatening retaliation against a
whistle-blower," Ahmad said. "It really points out what is wrong
with the detainee legislation that Bush is scheduled to sign on Tuesday: It
permits the abuse of detainees to continue, immunizes the wrongdoers and
precludes the detainees from ever challenging it in court." The Marine Corps said the
gag order had been issued to ensure the legal team's actions were in
compliance with professional standards. "The Chief Defense Counsel of
the Marine Corps, as Lt. Col. Vokey's direct supervisor, has directed him not
to communicate with the media on this case pending her review of the
facts," said 1st Lt. Blanca E. Binstock of the Marine public affairs
office. Defense lawyers for
Guantanamo prisoners say the personal stakes are high and point to the Navy's
failure to promote Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift after he successfully challenged
the legitimacy of the Pentagon's war-crimes commissions. Two weeks after the
Supreme Court ruled the commissions unconstitutional and lacking in due
process, Swift was passed over for advancement and will be forced by the
Navy's up-or-out policy to retire by summer. At least three other
military defense lawyers for the 10 charged terrorism suspects have also been
passed over for promotion in what some consider a subtle reprimand of their
vigorous defense of their clients. "We've all known that
representing folks in these kind of circumstances would have consequences,
but to actually see Charlie passed over after he takes his case to the
Supreme Court and wins - that certainly put it in the forefront for me,"
said Army Maj. Tom Fleener, who represents Ali Hamza Bahlul of Yemen. As an Army reservist with a
civilian law career in Wyoming to return to in a year or so, Fleener notes he
is less susceptible to pressures being exerted on the military defense
lawyers. "If I was active duty,
where my livelihood depended on what my military superiors said of me, I
would feel tremendous pressure," he said. Fleener says the mood in
Guantanamo defense circles has deteriorated since the government's response
to the high court ruling June 29 that President Bush overstepped his powers
when he created the military war-crimes commissions. Those commissions would
have allowed Pentagon prosecutors to use hearsay evidence and testimony
obtained through torture, and barred defendants from seeing evidence against
them that prosecutors deemed classified. Congress last month passed
legislation creating a new military commissions process almost identical to
the one rejected by the Supreme Court, with the added restriction that
Guantanamo detainees have no right to submit writs of habeas corpus to U.S.
civil courts to challenge their detention. It was such a writ filed on
behalf of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, an alleged driver and bodyguard for Osama bin
Laden, that brought the tribunal case to the Supreme Court. Swift declined to comment on
not having received a promotion. "As a defense attorney,
I don't like allegations without evidence," he says of the widespread
view among his colleagues that he was punished for challenging the
administration's tribunal process. "What you sought in any
career was an opportunity to make a difference. I got that opportunity, and
for that I will be forever grateful," Swift said. He said the new commissions
legislation appears to preclude defendants' getting a fair trial. "A zealous defense is
essential to any process that works," Swift said. "What has given
the commissions any integrity so far is the ability of defense council to
raise the case and concerns in all federal forums and the commissions
themselves, and when necessary, in the media." External link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-gitmo15oct15,1,3884201.story |