On her final day on this trip to Guantánamo, Hina writes in Daily Kos about the secret and classified evidence that the government ostensibly withholds from the defense for "national security" purposes. Specifically, she writes about a secret document that was accidentally leaked to the press and human rights observers yesterday, which showed that Omar Khadr was not the only person who could have thrown the grenade that killed a U.S. soldier. So in this case, a cover-up was necessary for the government to rationalize its charges against Khadr:
The released document also calls into question the bases for two of the other charges against Khadr, for conspiracy and material support for terrorism. According to the prosecution, among the underlying acts Khadr allegedly engaged in as a joint enterprise was using small arms fire to kill two Afghan militia members accompanying U.S. forces. In the final charge sheet, the Convening Authority (the OMC official responsible for convening the commissions and approving the charges brought by the prosecution) crossed out the allegation that "other suspected al Qaeda members" could have been responsible, as you can see here, in the last three pages of the document. This would leave Khadr solely responsible for the alleged deaths. The government may have other evidence to back up its claims, but based on the witness statement in the released document, there was, in fact, at least one man and possibly two other men who could have killed the Afghans.
For the last three years, public opinion, based on government disclosure, about Omar Khadr’s guilt for his alleged crimes has been decidedly one-sided. Now, based on the mistakenly released document, it appears the government may not have told the full story; we’re left to wonder what else we don’t know.
Secrecy has been a constant theme with the Bush administration. From the NSA wiretapping program to outing CIA agents to keeping its unlawful extraordinary rendition program from judicial scrutiny, the administration uses secrecy as a tool for government abuse and protecting the American people.
Protecting them from the truth, that is.
One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites.
We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published.
Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section.