Categories
Join Us At:
|
What About Jawad?One of the most puzzling things about yesterday's news of the dismissal of charges against five Guantánamo detainees is that Mohammed Jawad was not among the five to have his charges dismissed. This is odd because it was Jawad's case that Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld resigned over after protesting the withholding of exculpatory evidence—evidence that could prove Jawad's innocence—from the defense. Well, it looks like ProPublica's Eric Umansky has chased down the reason why Jawad's charges weren't dismissed: We spoke with Jawad's military lawyer, Maj. David Frakt, who said that Jawad's case is both much further along and more troubled than the others. Frakt argued that the government is going to end up dismissing the charges against Jawad, and unlike the other cases, will be unlikely to re-file them.You'll recall that Jawad was a teenager when he was captured, and Frakt has argued all along that Jawad should have been treated as a child solider and rehabilitated instead of incarcerated. Last month, the judge in Jawad's case substantiated the defense's claims (PDF) of abusive treatment—namely, the now-infamous "Frequent Flyer" sleep-deprivation program—Jawad suffered while in U.S. military custody. Pentagon officials say they dropped the charges just so they can start fresh and refile the charges against these detainees. In the meantime, these detainees have no hope of being released, charges against them or not. It's what makes the military commissions, and the mere existence of Guantánamo, so very unconstitutional.
We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.
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. 1 Response to "What About Jawad? " |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
Oct 23rd, 2008 at 12:56am
Extreme solitary confinement is a base on which other forms of "abusive treatment" become torture. The frequent flyer program used this psychologically lethal mix, and Jawad attempted suicide twice, and is possibly mentally unfit for trial. It's time we stopped calling extreme solitary confinement and the deprivation regimens that go with it (sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, noise and light bombardment) "abuse", or "abusive treatment". They should be called torture, they fit the definition in the CATCIDT to a tee. And the Committee Against Torture has cited the U.S. for it at our supermax prisons (2006). It causes paranoia, abnormal sensitivity to light and sounds, visual and auditory hallucinations, loss of impulse control, and intrusive thoughts and ideations, panic attacks, loss of memory and difficulty thinking or concentrating, and permanent damage to socialization skills. (Grassian 1993).
What part of "procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality" (U.S.C. Title 18,2340(2)(B)) does that miss? What part of "severe mental pain and suffering" does attempted suicide miss?
Please, please, call it what it is.