Categories
Join Us At:
|
Report from Guantánamo Hearings: When Due Process is a Matter of Life and Death This week I’ve been at the Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay Cuba observing the first military commission proceedings since the ten-year anniversary of the opening of the Guantánamo prison. The proceedings concern the case of Abd al-Rahim Hussayn Muhammad al-Nashiri (pronounced al-NAH-shiri) — first taken into U.S. custody in November 2002 — who faces a possible death sentence for his alleged involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole over eleven years ago. Over the course of two full days of proceedings the military commission judge struggled with several motions that squarely implicate fundamental due process and fairness concerns, particularly crucial in a criminal trial where the defendant’s life is at stake. Yet few of these critical issues were resolved or even clarified this week as the commissions system continues to be bogged down by novel rules and a near complete lack of any instructive precedent. Extensive and time-consuming consideration of pre-trial motions is common in any complex death penalty case. What is exceptional about the al-Nashiri case is that most of the concerns raised by participants would never be at issue in a trial before any federal court, or even state court, where the rules are more fully developed and substantial precedent exists. Moreover, the atypical procedural obstacles that have arisen in the al-Nashiri case stem in large part from the omission of protections long recognized as essential by ordinary courts. For instance, federal courts and all state courts have long acknowledged the particular importance of sufficiently resourcing the defense in capital cases, a right widely recognized as requiring that the defense be allowed to ask the court for resources without showing the request to the prosecution. That is because if the defense were to include the prosecution in such requests it would risk revealing its trial strategy and giving the prosecution an unfair advantage. In the military commissions, on the other hand, the refusal to grant defense resources in death penalty cases has been such a serious problem that in 2009 Congress passed legislation making clear that the commissions were to provide defense counsel in capital cases with resources comparable to those granted in federal courts. Yet last month the Military Commissions Convening Authority, the body in charge of granting defense resources, inexplicably rejected a joint request from both the defense and the prosecution for the defense to be able to request resources from the Authority without sharing the request with the prosecution. On Tuesday, the defense challenged the Authority’s rejection before Judge James Pohl, who seemed uncertain about whether he had the authority to overrule the Convening Authority’s decision. Ultimately, Judge Pohl attempted to side-step the issue by asking defense counsel to provide only minimal descriptions of the resource request and related justification to the Authority and the Prosecution and to come back to the judge if and when those minimally described requests were denied. Given that there was nothing in the Authority’s lengthy and unequivocal rejection to suggest that it would accept a minimal description, it appears most likely that the commission participants will re-litigate the issue several times, leading to further delays. Another issue that would never come up in federal courts is the question of whether the government can examine the content of attorney-client mail. In federal court, the government would never be permitted to do so, as it would clearly violate the attorney-client privilege and provide the prosecution an unfair and significant advantage over the defense. Such practices were also rejected at Guantánamo until this past fall, when the Commander responsible for the prison began ordering closer reviews of attorney-client mail in military commission cases. A recent order requires that all attorney-client mail for detainees involved in the military commissions be reviewed by a team of government contractors for both physical and “information” contraband. The top military commissions defense lawyer saw this order as being such a threat to the attorney-client privilege that he told the attorneys under his command that they were ethnically obligated not to comply. In the al-Nashiri case, after several hours of oral argument and witness testimony over two days, Judge Pohl was still unable to resolve the issue. Instead, he ordered the defense and prosecution to provide additional information and the issue will be addressed--for third time in the al-Nashiri case — at the next hearing in April. A final issue that was raised and remains unresolved implicates the torturing of al-Nashiri while he spent four years in secret CIA custody. On Tuesday, defense counsel began to argue why his client should not be shackled while meeting with defense counsel because of the residual impact of his having been tortured while in shackles. (Publicly available information indicates that interrogators held a gun and power drill to al-Nashiri’s head during interrogations.) The answer to the underlying question of al-Nashiri’s shackling during defense counsel meetings was postponed to give the defense the opportunity to more fully explain the relevance of al-Nashiri’s mistreatment, an explanation that will most likely occur in a session closed to the public thus providing confirmation that the consistent true aim of the military commissions is to keep the secrets of American torturers. Again, no one in a federal or state capital trial would bother to question the “relevance” of a defendant’s torture to his capital defense. Particularly not when the torture was at the hands of the same government that seeks his death. In sum, after two lengthy days of arguments, the al-Nashiri case seems hardly closer to coming to trial. Defense counsel suggested that the al-Nashiri trial wouldn’t even begin until 2015 in commissions it described as a “facsimile of a court.” In a press conference following the proceedings’ conclusion, family members of the victims of the Cole bombing also commented on the delays, one man saying he expected he might see justice by the time he was an old man. What wasn’t discussed at the press conference was how many of delays and procedural quagmires that have delayed justice for al-Nashiri and the Cole bombing victims alike could have been avoided had the case been brought in the established federal forum where it properly belonged. Learn more about Guantánamo: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Close Gitmo, guantanamo, Guantanamo Dispatch
Guantánamo and the Death Penalty: Two Terrible Ideas Come Together The military commission hearing in the case of Abd al-Rahim Hussayn Muhammad al-Nashiri (pronounced al-NAH-shiri) beginning today will once again put on the world stage two of the worst U.S. ideas: Guantánamo and the death penalty. The hearing takes place in Guantánamo — bad idea number one — where al-Nashiri has been detained for years, following his secret imprisonment and torture. As our European allies in countries including Poland, the U.K. and Spain are forced to deal with their complicity in the shameful U.S. program of torture and secret prisons and as our enemies continue to use the detention camps as a recruiting tool, the reasons to close Guantánamo, not start new trials there, are mounting. Al-Nashiri’s hearing is in a capital case, the second really bad idea we cling to in this country. We still have the death penalty, although we are in the minority, and we share the distinction of “most executions” with human rights outlaws: China, Iran, North Korea and Yemen.
The fact that the hearing is in the military commissions (we’re going to stop counting bad ideas now) — will force Rick Kammen, longtime capital defender and al-Nashiri’s “learned counsel,” to make an argument he hasn’t needed in a long time, maybe a couple of decades. At issue is an indigent defendant’s right to receive funding for the investigation and the experts needed to defend against capital charges and the death sentence, and to ask for that funding outside the interested ears of the prosecution. (In legal Latin, such hearings are called “ex parte,” and they are as routine as the sound of ceiling fans in such bastions of “enlightened” capital practice as the courts of Mississippi and Louisiana.) Should a puzzled reporter or observer lean over to a lawyer today in Guantánamo and ask what would this hearing look like in federal court, the answer is that there would never be such a hearing in a federal court. The right for defense funding of experts and investigators, and the right to ask for that funding privately — without having to reveal defense strategy or the progress of the investigation — has been established in federal courts for decades. It is universally recognized in federal capital trials that an indigent defendant gets to go before the court and say what he or she needs for a fair trial — without having the other side listen in. What is even more surprising is that everyone seemed to recognize this state of play when the need for confidential hearings was raised. The judge indicated that the parties should ask the Convening Authority of the military commissions, and they did so together. It is worth noting that the motion to have “ex parte” communications about funding for experts and investigation was a joint motion of the defense and the prosecution. Despite this fact, it was denied by the Convening Authority. Al-Nashiri’s hearing beginning today at Guantánamo may decide what the military judge will do now. Before giving the prosecution too much credit, though, we should point out that the “sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander” argument doesn’t really apply here. The defense has only one source of funding for its investigation and experts: the military. The prosecution isn’t limited that way. If they want something — say a couple dozen lawyers and investigators to pursue evidence in Yemen, or Saudi Arabia — and the military turns them down, they will get all they need from the endless supply of Department of Justice lawyers and CIA and FBI investigators. And that brings us to the second big issue for the hearings this week in al-Nashiri’s case: the proposed “security” measures that the defense team, the American Bar Association, and others have said violate the attorney client privilege. There, the issue is an old one that will persist as long as these Guantánamo trials do; the vexing problem for the government of keeping secret the identities of the torturers and the details of the torture while trying to make the trial of a tortured man look fair. The “new” military commission has a new motto: “Fairness, Transparency, Justice.” But this week is all about a system that cannot seem to provide basic rights to a defendant. Stay tuned from more news from Gitmo later this week. Learn more about Guantánamo: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, capital punishment, Close Gitmo, Close Guantanamo, death penalty, Rick Kammen
The Machinery of Death: Witness to Al-Nashiri’s First Guantánamo HearingYesterday, the man accused of planning the 2000 U.S.S. Cole bombing appeared before the world for the first time, nine years after his capture, at a military commission hearing at Guantánamo. I was there to observe the proceedings for the ACLU. The arraignment of Abd al-Rahim Hussayn Muhammad al-Nashiri (pronounced al-NAH-shiri) was the beginning of what will likely be a years-long death penalty trial before a military commission. Mr. al-Nashiri wore a white smock and trousers (similar to a doctor's scrubs, just a bit thicker and baggier). Mr. al-Nashiri’s attorney told the court that the start of these proceedings meant Mr. al-Nashiri finally has something concrete in his life. But it seems that very little in this Guantánamo military commission is truly concrete. Speaking from the bench, the judge himself, Army Col. James Pohl, admitted some of the key uncertainties and problems that threaten a fair trial. Judge Pohl has never tried a death penalty case. When asked about mitigation — the portion of a death penalty trial in which the defense gets to argue why the accused should not be put to death — Judge Pohl stated he needed to research it more. More fundamentally, Judge Pohl recognized that in Guantánamo military commissions, “there are gaps not present in other more developed systems.” The new regulations for the military commissions (a 202-page document) were only issued on Monday and are untested. There has been only one contested Guantánamo military commission trial to date, and little precedent to follow. This stands in stark contrast to the 200-plus years’ worth of guidance and precedent available in the federal criminal justice system. Perhaps most worryingly, Judge Pohl stated that it was his job to follow the Guantánamo military commission rules and law even if they lead to an unreliable result. We are tinkering with the machinery of death and even with a mechanic like Judge Pohl, who comes across as fair minded, justice is unlikely because the tools are inadequate and the system is unfair. The hearing yesterday would have taken mere minutes in federal court, but stretched for hours here in Guantánamo. Time and resources were diverted to issues that would never need to come before a federal judge because federal courts resolved them long ago. The defense told Judge Pohl that the government was reading attorney-client mail, which federal courts have long held is unquestionably wrong. Judge Pohl ruled the government had to stop doing so — in this case only — though only after over an hour of argument and the testimony of the military lawyer who has been overseeing the reading of the mail to date. The military commission spent significant time on whether or not the defense has to tell the government why it needs an expert to work on the case, thereby tipping off the prosecution as to a possible line of defense. The judge left that question for another day, even though it is a long-established practice in federal courts that the defense can submit such requests to the judge without having to reveal them to the government. Down the line, the questions will get much more serious. Will the CIA finally be forced to reveal where it held Mr. al-Nashiri for four years and what it did to him? Will coerced evidence be entered into the record? Will hearsay even two or three times removed from the original source be used against Mr. al-Nashiri? It should go without saying that a trial tainted by secrecy, evidence that is the fruit of cruel treatment, and unreliable hearsay, cannot be fair — yet under the military commissions’ rules, that may be the trial Mr. al-Nashiri gets. The prosecution asked for a trial date of February 2, 2012, less than three months from now. The judge disagreed and set the trial date for November 9, 2012. A key reason for the delay is that the government has failed to turn over evidence the defense argues that it needs to prepare for trial. The next fight will be over just how much of this material, which includes information about the CIA’s torture of Mr. al-Nashiri, the government must provide to the defense team. If past experience is a guide, the government will try to act like Mr. al-Nashiri's four years in CIA secret prisons never happened. But revisionist history has no place in any judicial proceeding. We know already from a CIA Inspector General report released in 2009 that Mr. al-Nashiri was abused and tortured. He was waterboarded. He had a loaded gun put to his head. He had a drill revved near his face and threats to harm his family. All of that is relevant to any statements Mr. al-Nashiri has given while in U.S. custody and to the decision whether he will receive the death penalty. Only with full disclosure of the details of torture and the identities of all witnesses to and perpetrators of torture can this death penalty case even approach fairness. The judge will start to hear some of these issues in January 2012. The financial costs of this Guantánamo military commission will be enormous, particularly because the government has chosen to seek the death penalty. The best prediction of the cost of the defense alone — let alone the costs of the prosecution, and of flying a planeload of court personnel to Guantánamo for each hearing — is in the millions. Any death penalty case is expensive; a Guantánamo military commission, with all the delays that will ensue because of those “gaps” Judge Pohl identified in what he referred to as a “unique” system, will be exorbitantly so. Other costs may be even more profound. Families of the victims of the U.S.S. Cole bombing also attended the hearing. Afterwards they spoke of their hope for justice, but the justice they seek must be the product of a fair and open trial. Those families should not have to sit through novel proceedings that are virtually being created from scratch when a tried, tested, and trusted alternative exists: federal courts. Yesterday, we had a preview of all that is wrong with trying Mr. al-Nashiri's case before a Guantánamo military commission, and the challenges to come. Justice — for the U.S.S. Cole families, for Mr. al-Nashiri, for all of us — demands that we be in federal court. Learn more about military commissions: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Close Gitmo, Close Guantanamo
The Road to Death at Guantánamo Tomorrow, we start down the dark path to a possible execution in Guantánamo. As the Supreme Court has long said, death is different. Putting someone on trial for his life requires — at a bare minimum — a rigorously fair process if even the appearance of legitimacy is to be maintained. Nowhere will that be clearer than in the first Guantánamo military commission death penalty case, that of Abd al-Rahim Hussayn Muhammad al-Nashiri, who was held secretly for years by the CIA, and — as the government has admitted — tortured. On Wednesday, Mr. al-Nashiri will appear before the world for the first time since he was seized more than eight years ago. He will stand up and state whether he pleads guilty or innocent to planning the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. Should he be found guilty, he may be executed. But the Guantánamo military commission he will appear before will not provide justice for him, for the U.S.S. Cole victims, or for Americans anywhere. I will be at Guantánamo tomorrow to observe the proceedings for the ACLU. John Brennan, President Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor, claimed in a speech at Harvard on September 16, 2011 that “reformed military commissions… provide all of the core protections that are necessary to ensure a fair trial.” But if that is the case — if the basic structure of a Guantánamo military commission is the same as a civilian court — why is a Guantánamo military commission necessary at all? After all, a U.S.S. Cole indictment sits waiting in federal court. The answer comes from Brennan as well: real differences do remain between a commission and a federal trial. Among them are the admissibility of hearsay, on which the government plans to rely heavily in this case, and the admissibility of coerced evidence. As Mr. Brennan conceded, those are “differences that can determine whether a prosecution is more likely to succeed or fail.” Put another way, the Obama Administration has chosen a Guantánamo military commission for Mr. Al-Nashiri because they think the rules of evidence there are lax enough that they are certain to win. It is hard to make the argument that you are in favor of the rule of law when you make decisions based on the rule of victory. But the flaws of the Guantánamo military commissions are such that any victory will be years in the making — and may well prove pyrrhic. Since this is a system designed entirely from scratch, there is virtually no legal history testing its contours. Unresolved legal clouds loom. Can a Guantánamo military commission try someone for crimes, like those alleged here, that took place before September 11, 2001? A Guantánamo military commission has jurisdiction only over war crimes, but were we at war before 9/11? If not, the power of the Guantánamo commission to hear this case vanishes. Was one of the key charges against Mr. al-Nashiri, conspiracy, a war crime at the time Mr. al-Nashiri was allegedly acting? Four of the eight Supreme Court justices who have considered this have said no. If it was not a war crime, did Congress violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution when in 2006 it retroactively made it one? Is it legitimate to use evidence that is the poisonous fruit of coercion? Even if the coerced statement itself is thrown out, can the prosecution still use information that was gathered only thanks to that coercion, such as the names of possible witnesses? In all likelihood, it will take years for the Supreme Court to resolve these issues. Keep in mind that federal death penalty cases usually take two to two and a half years. And this is far from a usual case. The usual criminal defendant has not been tortured and secreted away for years by the government. The usual criminal case does not involve legal questions about whether the court has the power to hear the case at all. The usual criminal prosecution does not require flying the judge, lawyers, and court staff hundreds or thousands of miles every time there is a hearing. The discovery process alone will likely consume all of 2012, especially if — as expected — the government resists disclosing much of the evidence Mr. al-Nashiri’s lawyers will request, most critically anything to do with Mr. al-Nashiri’s torture in the CIA’s secret prison system. A trial may be years away. There is far more at stake than Mr. al-Nashiri’s fate. The debate about Guantánamo military commissions versus federal courts is not just one of rhetoric, inflamed by the upcoming elections. It is one of real consequences. Some of our European allies —Germany, Sweden, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic, to name a few — refuse to cooperate with us on terrorism cases if intelligence being shared or a suspected terrorist being extradited is going to end up before a Guantánamo military commission. That lack of cooperation is one reason why even the CIA’s former General Counsel John Rizzo favors federal court trials for terrorism suspects. How many other allies will withhold cooperation in fighting terrorism if we do not get this right? Are we willing to risk our allies’ cooperation — and our own reputation for fairness — for the sake of putting one individual to death? Stay tuned for more updates from Guantánamo this week. Learn more about torture and detention: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Close Gitmo, Close Guantanamo, guantanamo
NYT Disappointed at Court Decision on CIA Contempt Motion"A Missed Chance for Accountability" is how The New York Times described last week's federal court decision failing to hold the CIA in contempt of the court for destroying the videotapes that documented the agency's torture of prisoners in its custody. The Times editorial states: Imposing civil contempt would not have interfered with the agency's current operations or required payment of a fine or damages. But it would have provided official acknowledgement that the conduct of C.I.A. officials was grossly improper, which is crucial to preventing a recurrence by successors. Last week's ruling was the end of a long road for the contempt motion, which we filed in December 2007 after the CIA revealed that it had destroyed videotapes of "enhanced" interrogations from 2002 (days before the Times was to publish a story revealing the same fact). (Check out our interactive timeline for a breakdown of key events related to the videotapes.) The videotapes, which depicted the torture — including waterboarding — of CIA detainees Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, were responsive to the ACLU's 2004 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for information regarding the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody overseas. Learn more about accountability for torture: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Abu Zubaydah, accountability, accountability for torture, CIA, Torture
ACLU Lens: New Executive Order Institutionalizes Indefinite Detention at Guantánamo Yesterday, President Obama issued an executive order that institutionalizes the ongoing indefinite detention of detainees in U.S. custody at Guantánamo Bay. As ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero told the Washington Post, "It is virtually impossible to imagine how one closes Guantánamo in light of this executive order." Furthermore, the Obama Administration reversed its January 2009 decision to stop bringing new military commission charges against Guantánamo detainees and announced that new trials will resume shortly. According to media reports, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is suspected of planning the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, is likely to be among the first detainees charged in new commission proceedings. The ACLU's Denny LeBoeuf blogged recently of al-Nashiri's treatment: The usual problems of the military commissions will arise in al-Nashiri's case. The admission of coerced testimony will be an issue. Since Attorney General Holder announced in 2009 that al-Nashiri would not be tried in federal court, there has been speculation that the government was afraid of the weakness of its evidence. And looming over it all will be the question of al-Nashiri's well-documented torture, and the extraordinary efforts by the government to hide the details of that torture. In a statement in response to the Obama administration's announcements yesterday, Anthony said: "The best way to get America out of the Guantánamo morass is to use the most effective and reliable tool we have: our criminal justice system. Instead, the Obama administration has done just the opposite and chosen to institutionalize unlawful indefinite detention – creating a troubling 'new normal' – and to revive the illegitimate Guantánamo military commissions." In the news:
Get more information. Click here for the indefinite detention page. Tags: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Close Gitmo, indefinite detention
Accountability for Torture: Still Too Little, But Not Too LateOn Tuesday, lawyers for Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the Guantanamo detainee accused of planning the USS Cole attack, called on the Polish government to investigate and prosecute the Polish officials who knew about and authorized al-Nashiri's detention and torture in Poland after he was rendered there by the CIA. The filing was made by al-Nashiri's lawyer in Poland in cooperation with the Open Society Justice Initiative. Amrit Singh writes at the Open Society blog: Numerous reports have now confirmed that CIA black sites existed in Eastern Europe — in particular, in Poland, Romania, and Lithuania. In 2007, a Council of Europe report cited evidence of secret CIA detention facilities in Poland, at the Stare Kiejkuty intelligence training base, and in Romania. The same report noted that high level officials, including then president of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniweski, either authorized or were aware of the black site at Stare Kiejkuty. A 2009 ABC News report of a secret CIA prison in Lithuania prompted an inquiry by the Lithuanian Parliament, which concluded that two sites in Lithuania could have been used for CIA detention. More recently, a United Nations report on secret detention confirmed that al-Nashiri was rendered to Poland. As we blogged earlier this month, while in Poland, al-Nashiri was subjected to mock execution using a gun and drill. Poland is already conducting an investigation into possible abuses of power by Polish officials who knew about the CIA black site at Stare Kiejkuty. Today's action specifically asks Polish officials to investigate their government's role in al-Nashiri's abuse. Poland is the fourth European nation — joining Italy, Spain and Germany — to investigate its own role in the American torture and rendition program. But where's the accountability here at home? In civil litigation, the Obama administration has invoked the "state secrets" privilege to shield Bush administration officials who knew about and authorized torture. And while there is an ongoing criminal investigation, the scope of the investigation is unclear, and thus far none of the architects of the torture program has been charged with any crime. Four European nations have shown the world that in their countries, even the highest level officials — even a former president — is not above the law. Tell Attorney General Eric Holder you demand a full and thorough investigation into the Bush-era torture and rendition program. Tags: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri
After Torturing Prisoners, "Albert" Rejoins the CIA as a ContractorIt's safe to say that many employers might frown upon a potential hire who violated domestic and international law. Not so at the CIA. The Associated Press reported yesterday that a former CIA agent known as "Albert," who was previously disciplined for torturing detainee Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, has once again found gainful employment with the CIA, this time as a contractor. Al-Nashiri is accused of planning the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and is one of three detainees in CIA custody who were repeatedly waterboarded. But thanks to "Albert," a more novel act of torture was inflicted upon al-Nashiri. Last June, during our Document-a-Day Torture Awareness Month initiative, Larry Siems, author of The Torture Report, pointed to a passage in the CIA inspector general's May 2004 report on the agency's Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program. This passage describes the "gun and drill" incident, wherein al-Nashiri was threatened with execution in a secret CIA prison in Poland: Sometime between 28 December 2002 and 1 January 2003, the debriefer used an unloaded semi-automatic handgun as a prop to frighten Al-Nashiri into disclosing information. After discussing this plan with [REDACTED] "the debriefer entered the cell where Al-Nashiri sat shackled and racked the handgun once or twice close to Al-Nashiri's head. On what was probably the same day, the debriefer used a power drill to frighten Al-Nashiri. With [REDACTED] consent, the debriefer entered the detainee's cell and revved the drill while the detainee stood naked and hooded. "The debriefer," we learned yesterday, is "Albert." And as Larry points out in the Torture Report, death threats are specifically prohibited under international and U.S. laws banning torture. Last week, a New York Times op-ed cited the government's poor track record of losing 37 out of 52 federal court cases brought by Guantanamo detainees challenging their detention. Over the weekend, in a letter responding to that op-ed, Larry and ACLU deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer write: The Bush torture program was […] a kind of Ponzi scheme of torture, with one prisoner’s tainted confession supplying the basis for the detention of another, and that prisoner’s tainted confession supplying the basis for the detention of still another. This repugnant scheme is what the courts are now uncovering. That "Albert" is again gainfully employed by the CIA is repugnant. Those who authorized and carried out the Bush torture program must be held accountable. Tags: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri
Judge Finds President Obama's Order to Stay Gitmo Proceedings "Unpersuasive"The night of President Obama's inauguration — while he and First Lady Michelle Obama were hitting the inaugural ball circuit — an executive order arrived at Guantanamo ordering government prosecutors to request a 120-day stay on all proceedings there. Nearly all of the judges presiding over these cases granted the stay, but today we learned that one judge, Lt. Col. James Pohl, has denied the continuance, and arraignment is still scheduled for February 9 in the case of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who's accused of planning the 2000 U.S.S. Cole attack. The BBC reports: Judge James Pohl said the request to halt the trial to allow a review by the new administration was "unpersuasive".Al-Nashiri is being represented by a team of military and civilian lawyers, including Nancy Hollander of the ACLU's John Adams Project and Lt. Cmdr. Steven Reyes. Stay tuned. |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
