Categories
Join Us At:
|
Holes in GOP Guantánamo Report Only Highlight the True ProblemsThe republicans on the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations released a report today rehashing old accusations about Guantánamo prisoner "recidivism." The report criticizes the Bush and Obama administrations for their release decisions and repeats without question or adequate verification claims that 27 percent of prisoners released from Guantánamo are either confirmed or suspected to have "reengaged in terrorist activities." Not a single democrat signed on to the report, which is unusual for this subcommittee when it comes to national security issues, and actually the democrats released a dissent. Unfortunately, the report is long on accusations but short on facts. Few cases are discussed and no evaluation is done of the evidence supposedly underpinning its claims, despite repeated showings that recidivism claims and Guantánamo-related intelligence in general are deeply flawed. Nowhere in the report is the fact that the vast majority of men released are confirmed to be working peacefully to rebuild their lives, despite years of abuse and incarceration without charge or trial. Nor does the report mention the agreement among defense and intelligence officials that closing Guantánamo is a security imperative. As Washington Congressman Adam Smith, the ranking democrat on the Armed Services Committee, noted, “[T]he detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is a black eye for our nation abroad, serving as a powerful recruiting tool for terrorists.” Even under the skewed, partial picture presented by the report, it is clear that the Obama administration has done a significantly better job arranging safe transfers from Guantánamo than its predecessor. The current administration has released people only upon the unanimous decision of our military, intelligence services and justice department. We do not need further congressional interference in transfer decisions. We need to listen to our security experts. The administration should immediately release cleared Guantánamo prisoners and put everyone else on trial, if there is evidence to prosecute. Indefinite detention is not acceptable. As this debate continues, we must remember that every person in Guantánamo is an individual and should be judged on their own merits. Anything less defies our American tradition of individual, not collective justice. Learn more about Guantánamo: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Adam Smith, Close Gitmo, Close Guantanamo, detention
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
Injustice at Guantánamo: Past and Present Image, left: Lakhdar and Yusuf (born 8/2010) - September 2011 This Wednesday marks 10 years since the prison at Guantánamo Bay opened. Today in The New York Times, Lakhdar Boumediene reflects on that anniversary and tells the harrowing tale of the seven and a half years he spent imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay. Mr. Boumediene always maintained his innocence, fought his case all the way to the Supreme Court in a case that bears his name, and ultimately won his freedom before a federal court in Washington. Today, he lives in France with his wife and three children. Mr. Boumediene’s personal experience goes to the heart of what is wrong with Guantánamo. Originally from Algeria, he became a Bosnian citizen and worked there for the Red Crescent — the Muslim equivalent of the Red Cross. In October 2001, he was taken away from his wife and two daughters, arrested and falsely accused of being an al Qaeda operative. After three months of investigation, Bosnia's highest court found there was no evidence against him, but instead of tasting freedom, he was kidnapped by the United States government, trussed up and flown to Guantanamo. There, he was brutally treated, beaten, subjected to extreme temperatures, forced to stay in painful positions for hours at a time, sleep deprived and beaten. His wife and young children were never allowed to visit and their letters were either rejected entirely or heavily censored. Mr. Boumediene went on hunger strike to peacefully protest his incarceration without charge. He was force-fed for two years.
Still, somehow, Mr. Boumediene maintained the strength to fight for his freedom. In his historic 2008 case, Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners like him must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge their confinement. Months later, a federal judge ruled that the U.S. had no credible evidence against Mr. Boumediene and ordered him set free. It turns out the government’s entire case relied on a single unnamed informant, whom U.S. Embassy officials in Bosnia had found untrustworthy at the time Mr. Boumediene was originally seized. Yet he remained imprisoned for seven and a half years. He was finally reunited with his family in France in May 2009. “Some politicians say that people in Guantánamo are terrorists, but I have never been a terrorist. Had I been brought before a court when I was seized, my children’s lives would not have been torn apart, and my family would not have been thrown into poverty. It was only after the Supreme Court ordered the government to defend its actions before a federal judge that I was finally able to clear my name and be with them again....I’m told that my Supreme Court case is now read in law schools. Perhaps one day that will give me satisfaction, but so long as Guantánamo stays open and innocent men remain there, my thoughts will be with those left behind in that place of suffering and injustice.” While Mr. Boumediene is finally free, over 170 men remain in Guantánamo, stuck in a limbo created by the politics of fear that surround anything to do with terrorism. The majority of Guantanamo prisoners have been unanimously cleared for release by the United States intelligence and military communities, but remain incarcerated, to the cost of over $70 million a year. The reason is politics and failure by all three branches of government to act to bring an end to Guantánamo. It is a lot easier to bang the drum of fear than to sound the call of justice.
I had the honor of interviewing Mr. Boumediene last week, and our conversation will be available online later this week as a podcast on the ACLU’s website. It is a unique opportunity to hear the words of a man who has actually experienced Guantánamo Bay from the inside, with all its failings and profound ugliness. We ask that you stand today with Mr. Boumediene and call upon the U.S. government to finally end the blight on our reputation — and our security — that is Guantánamo Bay. Join us in asking President Obama to keep his promise to close the prison camp by charging and trying the prisoners who are there, or sending them home. Learn more about Guantánamo: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Close Gitmo, Close Guantanamo, detention, Gitmo at 10, guantanamo, indefinite detention, Lakhdar Boumediene
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
ACLU Studio: Porter Goss, Beer Nuts and Waterboarding Apparently, former CIA Director Porter Goss' favorite party trick is to use beer nuts to show how waterboarding is really no big deal. You'll learn this and other fun facts in our inaugural ACLU Studio Podcast. ACLU Studio is for those who can't get enough of the ACLU. Hosted by ACLU staff, the series will feature compelling interviews with writers, filmmakers, musicians and artists whose work is inspired by civil liberties issues. In our first episode, ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director, Ben Wizner talks with award winning journalist Michelle Shephard about her new book, Decade of Fear: Reporting from Terrorisms Grey Zone.
According to Shephard, former CIA Director Goss made light of the 183 times CIA interrogators wateboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, saying these incidents of torture were as insignificant as the beer nuts in his hand. Tune in to ACLU Studio for more savory tidbits from Michelle's remarkable decade covering the so-called "war on terror." Listen now: Alternative content Next up: an interview with former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan about his new book, The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War against al-Qaeda. Subscribe to our podcast feed in iTunes, or subscribe via RSS. Learn more about torture: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: accountability for torture, ACLU Studio, Ali Soufan, CIA, Close Guantanamo, Michelle Shephard, podcast, Porter Goss, Torture, waterboarding
Cheney Digs in on Legacy of Torture Former Vice President Dick Cheney's brazenness is again on display this week as he promotes his new book In My Time. His comments in a recent interview coupled with excerpts from the book have served as a jarring reminder of the lack of accountability we've seen for the torture policies of the Bush administration. The take-home message appears to be: He is not sorry. (The same unapologetic stance that a number of former Bush administration officials have maintained for a decade.) For example, in promoting the book, Cheney has suggested that it is not the detentions at Guantánamo Bay that hurt America's image abroad but rather critics who peddle falsehoods about it. He has also indicated that he is pleased that President Barack Obama has failed to close the prison in Guantánamo Bay, as he had pledged. These statements indicate that not only does the former vice president have no regrets, but that he actually believes the policies, that violated the rights of many people, are boast-worthy. In an NBC interview with Jamie Gangel, Cheney said we should still be using "enhanced" interrogation. When asked if we should still use waterboarding as a tool for interrogating terror suspects even though many have condemned it, calling it torture, Cheney stated that he would strongly support waterboarding if it were the only way to get a "high value detainee" to talk. Cheney has no regrets, even though the very policies that he wants his legacy to rest upon have been recognized as illegal and even criminal by the public and policymakers alike. It's impossible to forget that many Americans were disgusted by the Abu Ghraib revelations and the negative reports of torture and abuse that dominated the news for years. Following that scandal, the McCain anti-torture amendment aimed at the military passed the Senate by a 90-9 vote and became law. Also, the Senate Armed Services Committee wrote an exhaustive report on the damage done by the military's abuse of prisoners and held a series of hearings examining how the abuse hurt U.S. intelligence gathering and facilitated enemy recruitment. The Senate Intelligence Committee is currently undertaking a similar report on the CIA's detention and interrogation program. In addition, both chambers of Congress voted in favor of limiting the intelligence community to the Army Field Manual's interrogation techniques to make clear that the torture prohibition was absolute. And more recently, after the killing of Osama bin Laden Sen. John McCain delivered a floor speech attributing the successes of Seal Team 6 to practically everything under the sun with the exception of the use of torture. However, as we've seen again this week, the former vice president remains free to boast of his 'tough' interrogation polices because there has been little to no effort to hold Bush administration officials accountable for the torture and abuses they oversaw. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has made it clear that they would rather look forward and not back. But holding those responsible accountable for their actions is critical to ensure that we never return to a time where torture is authorized against anyone. The Bush administration's torture polices may have been marginalized, hopefully to the point of no return, but the only way to ensure that is through accountability. Follow us on Twitter where we'll tweeting live on Friday, September 9, 2011 from 9-10 a.m. EDT from an event hosted by the American Enterprise Institute where former vice president Dick Cheney will speak. The event is a 9/11 anniversary conversation entitled "Ten Years After: Lessons Learned, Lessons Unlearned." Tags: Abu Ghraib, accountability, Army Field Manual, Close Guantanamo, detention, Dick Cheney, enhanced interrogation, John McCain, Osama bin Laden, Seal Team Six, Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Intelligence Committee, Torture, waterboarding
ACLU Lens: Guantánamo Documents Reveal Dubious Claims to Hold Detainees Last night, a handful of news organizations released hundreds of pages of documents profiling past and present detainees held at Guantánamo. Among other things, the documents reveal:
Viewed with judges’ rulings on legal challenges by detainees, the documents reveal that the analysts sometimes ignored serious flaws in the evidence — for example, that the information came from other detainees whose mental illness made them unreliable. Some assessments quote witnesses who say they saw a detainee at a camp run by Al Qaeda but omit the witnesses’ record of falsehood or misidentification. They include detainees’ admissions without acknowledging other government documents that show the statements were later withdrawn, often attributed to abusive treatment or torture. There is a lot of information in these documents that is of great value to the public, but keep in mind that they're all government documents, and only give one side of the story. The best way for the public to learn the government’s justification for its actions would have been, and still is, for the government to present the evidence in a federal court of law. Hina Shamsi, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project, said in a statement today: “These documents are remarkable because they show just how questionable the government’s basis has been for detaining hundreds of people, in some cases indefinitely, at Guantánamo. The one-sided assessments are rife with uncorroborated evidence, information obtained through torture, speculation, errors and allegations that have been proven false. In the News:
Learn more about indefinite detention: Subscribe to our newsletter, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. Tags: Close Gitmo, Close Guantanamo, guantanamo
Nine Years of Guantánamo Nine years ago today, a Department of Defense C-141 transport plane carrying 20 prisoners arrived in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. On that day, January 11, 2002, the naval base began operating as a detention center for men captured in President Bush's so-called "war on terror." Today, the detention center at Guantánamo Bay enters its 10th year of operation. More than 170 prisoners continue to be detained indefinitely there. Although President Obama signed an executive order on his first full day in office to close the prison camp, Guantánamo remains open, and its very existence continues to be a stain on America's reputation at home and abroad. President Obama is now reportedly considering issuing another Executive Order that would permit the ongoing indefinite detention of Guantánamo prisoners, but would establish a periodic administrative review process for them. As we've pointed out countless times, this is a losing proposition: if the government has enough credible evidence against a detainee to justify holding him indefinitely, it should use that evidence to prosecute him in a federal court. As for those prisoners who continue to be held despite a court determination that they should be released — remember the plight of the Uighurs? — release and repatriation is the answer. Unless we put an end to the practice of indefinite detention with which Guantánamo has become synonymous, a promise to close Guantánamo will merely be a symbolic gesture. President Obama vowed to close Guantánamo. Today's the day to remind him of that promise. Send him a message: tell him to act now. Tags: Close Gitmo, Close Guantanamo
Life after GitmoToday, the Los Angeles Times reports on the struggle of former Guantánamo detainee Mohammed Jawad to readjust to freedom after spending roughly a third of his life in detention. In August, as a result of the ACLU's habeas corpus petition on behalf of Jawad, he was finally released and sent home to Afghanistan after 6 1/2 in U.S. custody. While in U.S. custody, Jawad, one of the youngest prisoners held at Guantánamo, was held in solitary confinement and subjected to the infamous "frequent flyer" sleep deprivation program. He attempted suicide in December 2003 by repeatedly slamming his head against his cell wall. Two judges — first his military commission judge, then a federal judge — ruled that evidence gleaned through Jawad's torture and coercion was inadmissible. The LA Times story sheds light on the difficulties of adjusting to life after Guantánamo: [Jawad]...suffers from frequent headaches, he says, and often rests during the day. Prison memories haunt him, something doctors warn may never end. He worries about those left behind, his de facto family. He's out and they're not, and that's a source of guilt. Though the Obama administration has said it will close Guantánamo, hundreds of detainees remain there and at Bagram. In spite of this, Jawad has hope for the future. The article states that Jawad wants to be a doctor and "[h]e wants to resume his education, he says, even if it means sitting with 13-year-olds at tiny desks." Jawad goes on to state, "That's my dream... I don't know if it's possible. But that's my dream." The story also quotes one of Jawad's military lawyers, Eric Montalvo, as saying, "We need to do more than just dump him on the corner with a bus ticket after seven years and say, 'Have a nice day.'" Promptly and justly handling the cases of remaining prisoners is one part of the Guantánamo challenge. Honestly confronting the crimes committed in America's name at the notorious prison camp is another. Americans deserve to know who authorized, condoned and encouraged the abuse and torture of detainees like Jawad; let Attorney General Eric Holder know that you stand with the ACLU and support a thorough investigation of torture crimes. Tags: Close Guantanamo |
|
|
© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 |
