 |
ACLU sues for files on Bagram prisoners
By Stephen C. Webster with AFP, The Raw Story, September 22, 2009 After months of asking politely and being refused, the American Civil Liberties Union has sued the U.S. Departments of Defense, State and Justice, along with the Central Intelligence Agency, to obtain files on prisoners in U.S. custody at the Bagram detention center in Afghanistan. |
Judge denies ACLU request to reveal US role in torture of American citizen
By Stephen C. Webster, Raw Story, June 8, 2009
By not entertaining discussion of Naji Hamdan's torture and what the ACLU says shows that the U.S. was at least implicit in his capture, Judge Robertson is continuing the same U.S. policy of admitting to keeping secrets to protect the guilty, persecute the innocent, jeopardize the lives and healths of U.S. prisoners-of-war, and make more enemies who would have otherwise surrendered in a more civilized time, but instead will have renewed incentive to run or fight to the death.
By Stephen C. Webster, Raw Story, June 8, 2009
By not entertaining discussion of Naji Hamdan's torture and what the ACLU says shows that the U.S. was at least implicit in his capture, Judge Robertson is continuing the same U.S. policy of admitting to keeping secrets to protect the guilty, persecute the innocent, jeopardize the lives and healths of U.S. prisoners-of-war, and make more enemies who would have otherwise surrendered in a more civilized time, but instead will have renewed incentive to run or fight to the death.
Critics Call Obama's Tribunals "Bush Lite"
And McCain wants his title back! The amount of water for waterboarding and the amount of pressure applied to remove or crush body parts will be only half of that recommended by the previous administration. It's still enough to get the job done, it just means the henchmen get to toy longer with their victims -- who all agree it, "tastes great and is less filling! Yes, yes, I did it! I confess!"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/05/16/politics/main5018988.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_5018988
Critics Call Obama's Tribunals "Bush Lite"
President Says Detainees' Legal Rights Will Be Protected, But Restarting Terror Trials May Jeopardize Closing Of Gitmo
CBS/AP, May 16, 2009 Comments 171
(CBS/AP) In an apparent reversal, President Barack Obama is reviving the Bush administration's much-criticized military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees, shocking those who expected the president to end them completely.
CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports that the president says these will not be your Bush-era tribunals, promising a new system that guarantees more legal rights for detainees.
Mr. Obama said the changes were designed to give defendants stronger legal protections, such as a ban on evidence "obtained through torture, or by using cruel or degrading interrogation methods," like waterboarding; limiting use of hearsay evidence; granting the accused more say in who represents them; and protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions.
But his action was almost instantly denounced by critics who called the new tribunals "Bush Lite," reports Dozier.
During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was highly critical of the commissions used by the Bush administration.
"By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure," he said last June 18.
And one of his first actions as president was setting in motion the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison within 12 months.
Re-opening these military tribunals may also delay the closing of Guantanamo, says Dozier. The earliest the trials of 13 defendents (9 of whom are charged with helping orchestrate the September 11 terror attacks) can resume is September. That would give prosecutors about four months to finish before the end of the year, because these military tribunals cannot be held back in the United States.
The rest of the 241 Guantanamo detainees will either be released, transferred to other countries, tried in civilian U.S. federal courts or, potentially, held indefinitely as prisoners of war with full Geneva Conventions rights.
"This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply-held values," Mr. Obama said in a three-paragraph White House statement.
The administration said he was not embracing the Bush-era system because it would be so significantly changed.
Human rights groups disagreed.
"In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law," said Amnesty International executive director Larry Cox.
"As a constitutional lawyer, Obama must know that he can put lipstick on this pig - but it will always be a pig," said Zachary Katznelson, legal director of Reprieve, a London-based legal action charity that represents 33 Guantanamo detainees.
Critics called it a return to a second class system of justice for cases without enough evidence for a federal trial.
David Remes, a attorney for 18 detainees, said, "It's a prosecutor's dream, it's a defendent's nightmare."
The White House disagrees: "The notion that this is the same vehicle is simply, it's simply not true," said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
Mr. Obama's announcement was greeted more warmly on Capitol Hill, where he will need broad support to quickly push through tribunal changes. The White House hopes to do so before mid-September, when a new 120-day freeze the president put on the cases Friday runs out.
The Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, D-Mich., called the changes "essential in order to address the serious deficiencies in existing procedures." Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said the announcement was an "encouraging development."
"It's a difficult legal situation, and I think this is really the only rational choice to make," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., who opposes bringing detainees to the military's maximum security prison located in his state.
The tribunal system was established after the military began taking detainees from the battlefields of Afghanistan in late 2001. But the process immediately and repeatedly was challenged by human rights and legal organizations for denying defendants rights they would be granted in most other courts.
As a senator, Mr. Obama voted for one version of the tribunal law that gave detainees additional rights, but then voted against the more limited 2006 legislation that ultimately became law.
Friday's changes restore some of those rights.
Veterans of the Bush White House say Mr. Obama faced the same hard choice their boss did: Finding a way to keep dangerous men in jail.
"Call it a war on terror, call it what you like, but if there is an ongoing fight, then the openness, the due process that is normally attached to a criminal legal process is difficult," said CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate.
The latest delay, however, means Mr. Obama could face an uncomfortable choice as the clock runs out on his self-imposed January 2010 deadline to close Guantanamo.
His administration will have only four months to finish the nine trials before then, or risk moving the cases to the United States if they are still under way. If that happens, the detainees would be given even greater legal rights than they have at Guantanamo - and more than Mr. Obama wants to give.
Asking Congress to change the 2006 commissions law could create longer delays. Lawmakers, leery that the detainees could be brought to the U.S., already have held up funding for closing the prison until the White House outlines details of how it would happen.
President Obama could roll back the January 2010 deadline, which he imposed on his second day in office. That could throw in doubt his campaign promise to shut down the prison and, at the least, highlight his struggle to reverse Bush-era national security policies that damaged America's image worldwide and stoked recruitment among insurgents.
Clive Stafford Smith, who represents several current and former detainees, was surprised that the Obama administration plans to restart the trials at Guantanamo instead of elsewhere. "There is zero chance that the military commissions could be over by January, so that cannot possibly be the plan," he said.
Navy Lt. Richard Federico, who represents two Guantanamo detainees charged before the military commissions, including alleged 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al Shibh, also doubted cases could be completed by January. Litigation over the legality of the new rules "will certainly incur additional delay," Federico told The Associated Press.
The White House says this is not a departure from campaign promises. They said they always had a problem with the way tribunals were carried out, not the idea of military commissions overall.
Don Baer, who served as Director of Strategic Planning and Communications in the Clinton White House, said Mr. Obama is "not technically" breaking a campaign promise.
"He's modifying where he was back last August," Baer said on CBS' The Early Show Saturday Edition. "It's an indication that governing is a more complicated and complex situation … than campaigning is.
"I suspect it's a change of direction that will help the president because it underscores he's governing in a way that is going to keep the country safer."
Baer suggested that presidents get more information about security threats than do presidential candidates, and so Mr. Obama was simply acting on what he knew. "Given what he knew at the time, he was being responsible. Given what he knows today, he's being even more responsible."
Todd Harris, who was John McCain's communications director during his 2000 White House run, said Mr. Obama was simply being realistic and applauded his decision.
"But let's be honest here: this is a reversal," he said on The Early Show. "He campaigned as someone who was going to close the book on Bush-era terrorism techniques, but seems to be writing a new chapter. It's not just the military commissions; it's continued support for the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap programs, keeping Guantanamo Bay open, refusing to release the photos of depicted abuse.
"Time after time, as Don said, the administration is finding that it's a lot harder to actually implement these campaign promises than it was to make them back in the campaign."
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Critics Call Obama's Tribunals "Bush Lite"
President Says Detainees' Legal Rights Will Be Protected, But Restarting Terror Trials May Jeopardize Closing Of Gitmo
CBS/AP, May 16, 2009 Comments 171
(CBS/AP) In an apparent reversal, President Barack Obama is reviving the Bush administration's much-criticized military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees, shocking those who expected the president to end them completely.
CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports that the president says these will not be your Bush-era tribunals, promising a new system that guarantees more legal rights for detainees.
Mr. Obama said the changes were designed to give defendants stronger legal protections, such as a ban on evidence "obtained through torture, or by using cruel or degrading interrogation methods," like waterboarding; limiting use of hearsay evidence; granting the accused more say in who represents them; and protecting detainees who refuse to testify from legal sanctions.
But his action was almost instantly denounced by critics who called the new tribunals "Bush Lite," reports Dozier.
During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama was highly critical of the commissions used by the Bush administration.
"By any measure, our system of trying detainees has been an enormous failure," he said last June 18.
And one of his first actions as president was setting in motion the closing of Guantanamo Bay prison within 12 months.
Re-opening these military tribunals may also delay the closing of Guantanamo, says Dozier. The earliest the trials of 13 defendents (9 of whom are charged with helping orchestrate the September 11 terror attacks) can resume is September. That would give prosecutors about four months to finish before the end of the year, because these military tribunals cannot be held back in the United States.
The rest of the 241 Guantanamo detainees will either be released, transferred to other countries, tried in civilian U.S. federal courts or, potentially, held indefinitely as prisoners of war with full Geneva Conventions rights.
"This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply-held values," Mr. Obama said in a three-paragraph White House statement.
The administration said he was not embracing the Bush-era system because it would be so significantly changed.
Human rights groups disagreed.
"In one swift move, Obama both backtracks on a major campaign promise to change the way the United States fights terrorism and undermines the nation's core respect for the rule of law," said Amnesty International executive director Larry Cox.
"As a constitutional lawyer, Obama must know that he can put lipstick on this pig - but it will always be a pig," said Zachary Katznelson, legal director of Reprieve, a London-based legal action charity that represents 33 Guantanamo detainees.
Critics called it a return to a second class system of justice for cases without enough evidence for a federal trial.
David Remes, a attorney for 18 detainees, said, "It's a prosecutor's dream, it's a defendent's nightmare."
The White House disagrees: "The notion that this is the same vehicle is simply, it's simply not true," said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
Mr. Obama's announcement was greeted more warmly on Capitol Hill, where he will need broad support to quickly push through tribunal changes. The White House hopes to do so before mid-September, when a new 120-day freeze the president put on the cases Friday runs out.
The Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin, D-Mich., called the changes "essential in order to address the serious deficiencies in existing procedures." Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell said the announcement was an "encouraging development."
"It's a difficult legal situation, and I think this is really the only rational choice to make," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., who opposes bringing detainees to the military's maximum security prison located in his state.
The tribunal system was established after the military began taking detainees from the battlefields of Afghanistan in late 2001. But the process immediately and repeatedly was challenged by human rights and legal organizations for denying defendants rights they would be granted in most other courts.
As a senator, Mr. Obama voted for one version of the tribunal law that gave detainees additional rights, but then voted against the more limited 2006 legislation that ultimately became law.
Friday's changes restore some of those rights.
Veterans of the Bush White House say Mr. Obama faced the same hard choice their boss did: Finding a way to keep dangerous men in jail.
"Call it a war on terror, call it what you like, but if there is an ongoing fight, then the openness, the due process that is normally attached to a criminal legal process is difficult," said CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate.
The latest delay, however, means Mr. Obama could face an uncomfortable choice as the clock runs out on his self-imposed January 2010 deadline to close Guantanamo.
His administration will have only four months to finish the nine trials before then, or risk moving the cases to the United States if they are still under way. If that happens, the detainees would be given even greater legal rights than they have at Guantanamo - and more than Mr. Obama wants to give.
Asking Congress to change the 2006 commissions law could create longer delays. Lawmakers, leery that the detainees could be brought to the U.S., already have held up funding for closing the prison until the White House outlines details of how it would happen.
President Obama could roll back the January 2010 deadline, which he imposed on his second day in office. That could throw in doubt his campaign promise to shut down the prison and, at the least, highlight his struggle to reverse Bush-era national security policies that damaged America's image worldwide and stoked recruitment among insurgents.
Clive Stafford Smith, who represents several current and former detainees, was surprised that the Obama administration plans to restart the trials at Guantanamo instead of elsewhere. "There is zero chance that the military commissions could be over by January, so that cannot possibly be the plan," he said.
Navy Lt. Richard Federico, who represents two Guantanamo detainees charged before the military commissions, including alleged 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al Shibh, also doubted cases could be completed by January. Litigation over the legality of the new rules "will certainly incur additional delay," Federico told The Associated Press.
The White House says this is not a departure from campaign promises. They said they always had a problem with the way tribunals were carried out, not the idea of military commissions overall.
Don Baer, who served as Director of Strategic Planning and Communications in the Clinton White House, said Mr. Obama is "not technically" breaking a campaign promise.
"He's modifying where he was back last August," Baer said on CBS' The Early Show Saturday Edition. "It's an indication that governing is a more complicated and complex situation … than campaigning is.
"I suspect it's a change of direction that will help the president because it underscores he's governing in a way that is going to keep the country safer."
Baer suggested that presidents get more information about security threats than do presidential candidates, and so Mr. Obama was simply acting on what he knew. "Given what he knew at the time, he was being responsible. Given what he knows today, he's being even more responsible."
Todd Harris, who was John McCain's communications director during his 2000 White House run, said Mr. Obama was simply being realistic and applauded his decision.
"But let's be honest here: this is a reversal," he said on The Early Show. "He campaigned as someone who was going to close the book on Bush-era terrorism techniques, but seems to be writing a new chapter. It's not just the military commissions; it's continued support for the Bush administration's warrantless wiretap programs, keeping Guantanamo Bay open, refusing to release the photos of depicted abuse.
"Time after time, as Don said, the administration is finding that it's a lot harder to actually implement these campaign promises than it was to make them back in the campaign."
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
|
McCain wouldn't comment on whether he is considering legal action against Obama for trademark infringement. |
 |
http://www.infowars.com/more-broken-promises-obamas-military-commissions-detainee-photos-betrayal/
More Broken Promises: Obama’s Military Commissions, Detainee Photos Betrayal
By Kurt Nimmo, Infowars, May 14, 2009
According to Evan Perez of the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration is in the process of retooling military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Perez reports that Obama is struggling “to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.”
Evan Perez of the Wall Street Journal puts a corporate media spin on Obama’s betrayal.
By Kurt Nimmo, Infowars, May 14, 2009
According to Evan Perez of the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration is in the process of retooling military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Perez reports that Obama is struggling “to establish his counter-terrorism policies, balancing security concerns against attempts to alter Bush-administration practices he has harshly criticized.”
Evan Perez of the Wall Street Journal puts a corporate media spin on Obama’s betrayal.
|
During the election, Obama said Guantanamo should be closed and habeas corpus restored for the detainees. He said the United States should have “developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.”
In fact, Obama never seriously considered substantially modifying policies of the previous administration, as is now obvious. His opposition to the “counter-terrorism” policies of the Bush neocons during the election was |
|
little more than posturing intended to bamboozle anti-war Democrats and those outraged by human rights abuses. Obama continued the policies of his predecessor after the election, much to the chagrin of Democrats and self-described progressives who bought into his “change” rhetoric.
Obama’s version of military commission trials will call for indefinite detentions with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court. This is a far cry from his promise to restore habeas corpus to the detainees. “This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?” mused South Carolina Republican and neocon Sen. Lindsay Graham, who has attended meetings on the issue with White House Counsel Greg Craig.
In addition to the announced continuation of the illegal military commission trials — in violation of the Geneva Conventions — Obama has reversed his announced decision to release photos showing abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama said the reason for the reversal was due to his belief that releasing the photographs would endanger U.S. troops and “further inflame anti-American opinion,” according to the New York Times. Obama has bowed to the Pentagon which had fought tooth and nail against releasing the photographs.
The decision to release the photographs came after an ACLU lawsuit prevailed at the Federal District Court level and before a panel of the Second Circuit.
Criticism of the planned release came from both Republicans and Democrats. Last month, Senate foreign relations committee chairman, CFR and Skull and Bones member John Kerry said he was concerned the release of photos depicting the abusive treatment of detainees illegally held by the U.S. could become “propaganda tool” for terrorist organizations. Kerry stressed that “this didn’t happen under Obama, it happened under Bush and every one understands that.” Increasingly, every one — including previously mesmerized Democrats — are beginning to understand there is little difference between the Bush and Obama administrations in regard to the twin occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (thus far resulting in the murder of over a million people), torture, and the secret military trials of abducted foreign nationals.
The seamless transition between administrations — a seamless continuation of war crimes and crimes against humanity — should come as no surprise to those who bothered to pay attention and were not mesmerized by facile and completely disingenuous election season rhetoric and silly mantras promising change.
As Max Blunt eloquently put it during the rigged dog and pony show known as the U.S. election cycle, Obama repeatedly expressed a “deep willingness to obsequiously kiss the ring of dominant political and economic authority.” In fact, the elite — through New World Order doyen and Rockefeller minion Zbigniew Brzezinski — groomed Obama specifically for the job. He is a creature of Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, and the rest and their order out of chaos agenda.
It remains to be seen if Democrats and the fawning legions of “yes we can” zombies will come around the next time the elite hold a so-called election in a little over three and a half years.
In the meantime, we can expect our rulers to continue building their high-tech control grid in incremental but steady fashion. It really is irrelevant what front man is in office because the global elite are itching to impose martial law and a military dictatorship in response to the next Hegelian dialect false flag attack or full-blown designer pathogen pandemic now promised to hit this coming autumn and winter.
Obama’s version of military commission trials will call for indefinite detentions with the imprimatur of some type of national-security court. This is a far cry from his promise to restore habeas corpus to the detainees. “This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?” mused South Carolina Republican and neocon Sen. Lindsay Graham, who has attended meetings on the issue with White House Counsel Greg Craig.
In addition to the announced continuation of the illegal military commission trials — in violation of the Geneva Conventions — Obama has reversed his announced decision to release photos showing abuse of prisoners at U.S. military facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama said the reason for the reversal was due to his belief that releasing the photographs would endanger U.S. troops and “further inflame anti-American opinion,” according to the New York Times. Obama has bowed to the Pentagon which had fought tooth and nail against releasing the photographs.
The decision to release the photographs came after an ACLU lawsuit prevailed at the Federal District Court level and before a panel of the Second Circuit.
Criticism of the planned release came from both Republicans and Democrats. Last month, Senate foreign relations committee chairman, CFR and Skull and Bones member John Kerry said he was concerned the release of photos depicting the abusive treatment of detainees illegally held by the U.S. could become “propaganda tool” for terrorist organizations. Kerry stressed that “this didn’t happen under Obama, it happened under Bush and every one understands that.” Increasingly, every one — including previously mesmerized Democrats — are beginning to understand there is little difference between the Bush and Obama administrations in regard to the twin occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (thus far resulting in the murder of over a million people), torture, and the secret military trials of abducted foreign nationals.
The seamless transition between administrations — a seamless continuation of war crimes and crimes against humanity — should come as no surprise to those who bothered to pay attention and were not mesmerized by facile and completely disingenuous election season rhetoric and silly mantras promising change.
As Max Blunt eloquently put it during the rigged dog and pony show known as the U.S. election cycle, Obama repeatedly expressed a “deep willingness to obsequiously kiss the ring of dominant political and economic authority.” In fact, the elite — through New World Order doyen and Rockefeller minion Zbigniew Brzezinski — groomed Obama specifically for the job. He is a creature of Goldman Sachs, UBS AG, Lehman Brothers, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse, and the rest and their order out of chaos agenda.
It remains to be seen if Democrats and the fawning legions of “yes we can” zombies will come around the next time the elite hold a so-called election in a little over three and a half years.
In the meantime, we can expect our rulers to continue building their high-tech control grid in incremental but steady fashion. It really is irrelevant what front man is in office because the global elite are itching to impose martial law and a military dictatorship in response to the next Hegelian dialect false flag attack or full-blown designer pathogen pandemic now promised to hit this coming autumn and winter.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090514/pl_afp/usattacksguantanamodetention
Obama mulls 'indefinite detention' of terror suspects
Yahoo! News, Thu May 14, 6:54 am ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – As part of its plans to close Guantanamo Bay, the Obama administration is considering holding some of the detainees indefinitely and without trial on US soil, US media reported Thursday.
President Barack Obama's "administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on US soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay," The Wall Street Journal said.
The proposal, which is part of the administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with the prisoners ahead of a planned closure of the controversial US military prison next year, is being shared with some lawmakers, it added.
White House officials contacted by AFP had no immediate comment on the detainee deliberations.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who met with White House Counsel Greg Craig this week about the Guantanamo plans, told the Journal that the administration was namely seeking authority for indefinite detentions granted by a national security court.
"This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" asked Graham, who, along with former Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain, has pressed for reinstating the military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees.
The Journal noted that "the idea of a new national security court has been discussed widely in legal circles," including by Michael Mukasey, who served as attorney general under president George W. Bush and Neal Katyal, a Justice Department official serving under the Obama administration.
US officials told AFP that Obama is set to announce this week that he is reviving the military trials for terror suspects held at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, in southern Cuba.
But Obama, who sharply criticized the use of military commissions to try extremists under Bush, may ask lawmakers to expand legal protections for detainees, the officials said, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.
The Senate Appropriations Committee is set to take up legislation Thursday granting Obama's request for 80 million dollars to shutter the facility by January 22, 2010 -- but attaching strict conditions, among them forbidding the use of new money to ship any detainees to the United States.
Yahoo! News, Thu May 14, 6:54 am ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – As part of its plans to close Guantanamo Bay, the Obama administration is considering holding some of the detainees indefinitely and without trial on US soil, US media reported Thursday.
President Barack Obama's "administration is weighing plans to detain some terror suspects on US soil -- indefinitely and without trial -- as part of a plan to retool military commission trials that were conducted for prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay," The Wall Street Journal said.
The proposal, which is part of the administration's internal deliberations on how to deal with the prisoners ahead of a planned closure of the controversial US military prison next year, is being shared with some lawmakers, it added.
White House officials contacted by AFP had no immediate comment on the detainee deliberations.
Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who met with White House Counsel Greg Craig this week about the Guantanamo plans, told the Journal that the administration was namely seeking authority for indefinite detentions granted by a national security court.
"This is a difficult question. How do you hold someone in prison without a trial indefinitely?" asked Graham, who, along with former Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain, has pressed for reinstating the military commissions to try Guantanamo detainees.
The Journal noted that "the idea of a new national security court has been discussed widely in legal circles," including by Michael Mukasey, who served as attorney general under president George W. Bush and Neal Katyal, a Justice Department official serving under the Obama administration.
US officials told AFP that Obama is set to announce this week that he is reviving the military trials for terror suspects held at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, in southern Cuba.
But Obama, who sharply criticized the use of military commissions to try extremists under Bush, may ask lawmakers to expand legal protections for detainees, the officials said, requesting anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.
The Senate Appropriations Committee is set to take up legislation Thursday granting Obama's request for 80 million dollars to shutter the facility by January 22, 2010 -- but attaching strict conditions, among them forbidding the use of new money to ship any detainees to the United States.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/05/most-of-those-tortured-were-innocent.html
Most of Those Tortured Were Innocent
Washington's Blog, May 14, 2009
One of the main excuses used to justify torture is that the people being tortured were bloodthirsty terrorists, who would do far worse to us if we didn't stop them.
Is that true?
Judge for yourself:
Is he right?
Well, given that top experts say that torture doesn't work and that it reduces national security, torture is not really justifiable.
Moreover, I don't know whether any of them were guilty or not. Some might have been guilty, although some were crazy to start with and others were tortured into saying false things (see this and this). So how can we be sure if any were guilty in the absence of substantial corroborating evidence from unbiased third party witnesses?
Washington's Blog, May 14, 2009
One of the main excuses used to justify torture is that the people being tortured were bloodthirsty terrorists, who would do far worse to us if we didn't stop them.
Is that true?
Judge for yourself:
- The number two man at the State Department under Colin Powell, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, says that many of those being held at Guantanamo Bay were innocent, and that top Bush administration officials knew that they were innocent (see this and this)
- The the commander of the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Janis Karpinski, estimates that 90% of detainees in the prison were innocent
- Children were allegedly tortured (and see this)
- Many of the those tortured in the "war on terror" were apparently innocent farmers, villagers, or those against whom neighbors held a grudge (Iraqis received a nice cash reward from the U.S. government for turning people in as suspected terrorists) (see especially this movie) Postscript: One commentator wrote:
Is he right?
Well, given that top experts say that torture doesn't work and that it reduces national security, torture is not really justifiable.
Moreover, I don't know whether any of them were guilty or not. Some might have been guilty, although some were crazy to start with and others were tortured into saying false things (see this and this). So how can we be sure if any were guilty in the absence of substantial corroborating evidence from unbiased third party witnesses?
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/07/holder-says-he-approved-clinton-era-renditions
Holder says he approved
Clinton-era renditions
By Stephen C. Webster, Raw Story, May 7, 2009
Under fire from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that he had approved of rendition — essentially, legalized kidnapping — apparently more than once during his tenure as President Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general. Cautioning Holder that any potential investigation into the Bush administration’s torture program could result in Democrats being roped in, “Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of Alabama pressed Holder on the CIA’s ‘rendition’ program that moved terrorism suspects from one country to another,” reported Domenico Montanaro with MSNBC.
“Didn’t that happen during the Clinton administration?
“Yes, Holder said.
“‘How many did you approve?’ they asked.
“Holder said he’d check the record.”
Despite frequent condemnation of the practice around the world, rendition — the secret capture, transportation and detention of suspected terrorists to foreign prisons in countries that cooperate with the U.S. — remains in the CIA’s playbook, thanks to a Jan. 22 executive order issued by President Obama.
Under President George W. Bush, renditions became “extraordinary renditions,” in which suspects were handed over to nations where torture was not illegal. Rendition under Presidents Clinton and Obama has not been linked to torture.
Holder has been, at least in public, an opponent of the torture program.
“Waterboarding is torture. My justice department will not justify it, will not rationalize it and will not condone it,” Holder said in a speech to the Jewish Council of Public Affairs in March.
“The use and sanction of torture is at odds with the history of American jurisprudence and American values. It undermines our ability to pursue justice fairly, and it puts our own brave soldiers in peril should they ever be captured on a foreign battlefield.”
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was briefed in 2002 on the torture tactics the Bush administration wanted to use against terror war prisoners. At the time, she did not object. In April of 2009, she denied knowing the techniques would ever be applied to prisoners.
“[They] did not tell us they were using that,” she said. “Flat out. And any — any contention to the contrary is simply not true.”
RAW STORY was the first news outlet to identify the exact location of one of the sites in the CIA’s secret prison network, used in conjunction with Bush-era extraordinary renditions. RAW STORY identified a prison in northeastern Poland, Stare Kiejkuty, that was used as a transit point for terror suspects.
According to filings, the CIA has over 7,000 documents related to Bush-era renditions.
Attorney General Eric Holder has said that “no one is above the law” and that his office would “follow the evidence.” He has not appointed a special prosecutor.
President Obama said Holder will be the person who ultimately decides whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote opinions providing a legal basis for interrogation techniques widely denounced as torture.
President Obama also said CIA agents who tortured prisoners will not be prosecuted.
Clinton-era renditions
By Stephen C. Webster, Raw Story, May 7, 2009
Under fire from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee Thursday, Attorney General Eric Holder revealed that he had approved of rendition — essentially, legalized kidnapping — apparently more than once during his tenure as President Bill Clinton’s deputy attorney general. Cautioning Holder that any potential investigation into the Bush administration’s torture program could result in Democrats being roped in, “Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Richard Shelby of Alabama pressed Holder on the CIA’s ‘rendition’ program that moved terrorism suspects from one country to another,” reported Domenico Montanaro with MSNBC.
“Didn’t that happen during the Clinton administration?
“Yes, Holder said.
“‘How many did you approve?’ they asked.
“Holder said he’d check the record.”
Despite frequent condemnation of the practice around the world, rendition — the secret capture, transportation and detention of suspected terrorists to foreign prisons in countries that cooperate with the U.S. — remains in the CIA’s playbook, thanks to a Jan. 22 executive order issued by President Obama.
Under President George W. Bush, renditions became “extraordinary renditions,” in which suspects were handed over to nations where torture was not illegal. Rendition under Presidents Clinton and Obama has not been linked to torture.
Holder has been, at least in public, an opponent of the torture program.
“Waterboarding is torture. My justice department will not justify it, will not rationalize it and will not condone it,” Holder said in a speech to the Jewish Council of Public Affairs in March.
“The use and sanction of torture is at odds with the history of American jurisprudence and American values. It undermines our ability to pursue justice fairly, and it puts our own brave soldiers in peril should they ever be captured on a foreign battlefield.”
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was briefed in 2002 on the torture tactics the Bush administration wanted to use against terror war prisoners. At the time, she did not object. In April of 2009, she denied knowing the techniques would ever be applied to prisoners.
“[They] did not tell us they were using that,” she said. “Flat out. And any — any contention to the contrary is simply not true.”
RAW STORY was the first news outlet to identify the exact location of one of the sites in the CIA’s secret prison network, used in conjunction with Bush-era extraordinary renditions. RAW STORY identified a prison in northeastern Poland, Stare Kiejkuty, that was used as a transit point for terror suspects.
According to filings, the CIA has over 7,000 documents related to Bush-era renditions.
Attorney General Eric Holder has said that “no one is above the law” and that his office would “follow the evidence.” He has not appointed a special prosecutor.
President Obama said Holder will be the person who ultimately decides whether to prosecute Bush administration lawyers who wrote opinions providing a legal basis for interrogation techniques widely denounced as torture.
President Obama also said CIA agents who tortured prisoners will not be prosecuted.
░▒▓►flashback◄▓▒░
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/38662prs20090204.html
Obama Endorses Bush Secrecy On Torture And Rendition
ACLU, February 4, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ▌ CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; [email protected]
NEW YORK – After the British High Court ruled that evidence of British resident Binyam Mohamed's extraordinary rendition and torture at Guantánamo Bay must remain secret because of threats made by the Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama administration told the BBC today in a written statement: "The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens."
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:
"Hope is flickering. The Obama administration's position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn't be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors."
When the ACLU learned of the High Court's ruling earlier today, it sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urging her to clarify the Obama administration's position relating to the Mohamed case and calling on her to reject the Bush administration's policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programs.
The ACLU's letter to Secretary of State Clinton is available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/general/38660leg20090204.html
The British High Court ruling is available online at: www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mohamed-judgment4-04022009.pdf
Obama Endorses Bush Secrecy On Torture And Rendition
ACLU, February 4, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ▌ CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; [email protected]
NEW YORK – After the British High Court ruled that evidence of British resident Binyam Mohamed's extraordinary rendition and torture at Guantánamo Bay must remain secret because of threats made by the Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama administration told the BBC today in a written statement: "The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens."
The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union:
"Hope is flickering. The Obama administration's position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law. The new American administration shouldn't be complicit in hiding the abuses of its predecessors."
When the ACLU learned of the High Court's ruling earlier today, it sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton urging her to clarify the Obama administration's position relating to the Mohamed case and calling on her to reject the Bush administration's policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programs.
The ACLU's letter to Secretary of State Clinton is available online at: www.aclu.org/safefree/general/38660leg20090204.html
The British High Court ruling is available online at: www.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/judgments_guidance/mohamed-judgment4-04022009.pdf
░▒▓►flashback◄▓▒░
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Blotter/story?id=4996146
9/11 Families: Gitmo Tribunals 'Tainted'
Group of Victims' Relatives Say Military Tribunals 'Compromised by Politics'
By ARIANE de VOGUE, ABC News, June 4, 2008
In advance of Thursday's arraignment of alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others at Guantanamo Bay, the relatives of seven victims of the 9/11 attacks are charging that the military tribunals are "tainted by political influence."
In a June 3 letter to Susan Crawford, the judge who serves as the convening authority over the commissions, the family members claim that the latest example of the system's "politicization" was a secret invitation to attend the proceedings that allegedly was extended only to Deborah Burlingame, who lost her brother in 9/11 and has supported the Bush administration's position on the military tribunals.
Burlingame was also a featured speaker at the last Republican National Convention.
"As people who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we want nothing more than to see that justice is served in the prosecution of suspects. However, we know that no justice will come out of a system that has been compromised by politics and stripped of the rule of law," the families wrote in the letter, released by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Burlingame told ABC News that she had not been invited to attend, but said she does believe "the system is designed to be fair and objective." She said she's "not worried about the process," but instead is worried about how the process will be carried out.
"I'm against trials in the criminal justice system," she told ABC News.
But Burlingame did express disappointment that the military is unable to accommodate victim's family members who want to watch the proceedings.
She said she is hopeful the military will be able to find a way for family members to watch the upcoming trial by closed circuit television.
The family members who signed on to the letter also urge transparency in the proceedings.
"If the prosecution of these suspects is carried out in a manner that is not in accordance with American values of due process, the rule of law, and transparency, any verdict will lack legitimacy and we will be left to wonder if those responsible for the deaths of our loved ones have really been brought to justice," they wrote.
Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
9/11 Families: Gitmo Tribunals 'Tainted'
Group of Victims' Relatives Say Military Tribunals 'Compromised by Politics'
By ARIANE de VOGUE, ABC News, June 4, 2008
In advance of Thursday's arraignment of alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others at Guantanamo Bay, the relatives of seven victims of the 9/11 attacks are charging that the military tribunals are "tainted by political influence."
In a June 3 letter to Susan Crawford, the judge who serves as the convening authority over the commissions, the family members claim that the latest example of the system's "politicization" was a secret invitation to attend the proceedings that allegedly was extended only to Deborah Burlingame, who lost her brother in 9/11 and has supported the Bush administration's position on the military tribunals.
Burlingame was also a featured speaker at the last Republican National Convention.
"As people who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks of 9/11, we want nothing more than to see that justice is served in the prosecution of suspects. However, we know that no justice will come out of a system that has been compromised by politics and stripped of the rule of law," the families wrote in the letter, released by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Burlingame told ABC News that she had not been invited to attend, but said she does believe "the system is designed to be fair and objective." She said she's "not worried about the process," but instead is worried about how the process will be carried out.
"I'm against trials in the criminal justice system," she told ABC News.
But Burlingame did express disappointment that the military is unable to accommodate victim's family members who want to watch the proceedings.
She said she is hopeful the military will be able to find a way for family members to watch the upcoming trial by closed circuit television.
The family members who signed on to the letter also urge transparency in the proceedings.
"If the prosecution of these suspects is carried out in a manner that is not in accordance with American values of due process, the rule of law, and transparency, any verdict will lack legitimacy and we will be left to wonder if those responsible for the deaths of our loved ones have really been brought to justice," they wrote.
Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures
░▒▓►flashback◄▓▒░
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1428749.htm
Third prosecutor critical of Guantanamo trials
By North America correspondent Leigh Sales, ABC News Online, March 8, 2005
Last Update: Wednesday, August 3, 2005. 7:28am (AEST)
A third US military prosecutor has walked out of the commissions process set up to try Guantanamo Bay detainees because of concerns it was unfair, the ABC has learned.
Australian detainee David Hicks is due to stand trial under the system.
Air Force Captain Carrie Wolf chose to take a reassignment along with other prosecutors.
Capt Wolf asked to leave the Office of Military Commissions at the same time as two other colleagues, Major Robert Preston and Captain John Carr.
Earlier this week, the ABC revealed that in March 2004, Maj Preston and Capt Carr requested transfers because they believed the process was "rigged" and pursuing "marginal" cases.
Maj Preston was nominated for the Air Force's outstanding judge advocate award last year and Captain Carr has been promoted to major since leaving the military commissions.
It is understood Capt Wolf shared her colleagues' concerns and also asked for a redeployment.
Capt Wolf did not return calls.
The ABC has also been able to speak to an Air Force judge advocate-general who was closely involved with the military commissions while these problems were unfolding.
He supports the process and agrees with the Pentagon's characterisation that a total breakdown in personal relationships led to misunderstandings.
"The personality conflicts reached such a point that folks in the office weren't talking to each other and that led to a lot of misunderstandings," the judge said.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says the Australian Government has been reassured by the Pentagon's internal investigation.
"There was a very thorough, a very thorough investigation into these allegations because amongst the material in these emails are very serious allegations," he said.
The Pentagon says it has made changes to improve the legal process in the year since the emails were written.
© 2009 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Third prosecutor critical of Guantanamo trials
By North America correspondent Leigh Sales, ABC News Online, March 8, 2005
Last Update: Wednesday, August 3, 2005. 7:28am (AEST)
A third US military prosecutor has walked out of the commissions process set up to try Guantanamo Bay detainees because of concerns it was unfair, the ABC has learned.
Australian detainee David Hicks is due to stand trial under the system.
Air Force Captain Carrie Wolf chose to take a reassignment along with other prosecutors.
Capt Wolf asked to leave the Office of Military Commissions at the same time as two other colleagues, Major Robert Preston and Captain John Carr.
Earlier this week, the ABC revealed that in March 2004, Maj Preston and Capt Carr requested transfers because they believed the process was "rigged" and pursuing "marginal" cases.
Maj Preston was nominated for the Air Force's outstanding judge advocate award last year and Captain Carr has been promoted to major since leaving the military commissions.
It is understood Capt Wolf shared her colleagues' concerns and also asked for a redeployment.
Capt Wolf did not return calls.
The ABC has also been able to speak to an Air Force judge advocate-general who was closely involved with the military commissions while these problems were unfolding.
He supports the process and agrees with the Pentagon's characterisation that a total breakdown in personal relationships led to misunderstandings.
"The personality conflicts reached such a point that folks in the office weren't talking to each other and that led to a lot of misunderstandings," the judge said.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says the Australian Government has been reassured by the Pentagon's internal investigation.
"There was a very thorough, a very thorough investigation into these allegations because amongst the material in these emails are very serious allegations," he said.
The Pentagon says it has made changes to improve the legal process in the year since the emails were written.
© 2009 Australian Broadcasting Corporation
░▒▓►flashback◄▓▒░
www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1426797.htm
Leaked emails claim Guantanamo trials rigged
By North America correspondent Leigh Sales, ABC News Online
Last Update: Monday, August 1, 2005. 8:16am
Leaked emails from two former prosecutors claim the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent, and thin on evidence against the accused.
Two emails, which have been obtained by the ABC, were sent to supervisors in the Office of Military Commissions in March of last year - three months before Australian detainee David Hicks was charged and five months before his trial began.
The first email is from prosecutor Major Robert Preston to his supervisor.
Maj Preston writes that the process is perpetrating a fraud on the American people, and that the cases being pursued are marginal.
"I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people," Maj Preston wrote.
"Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."
Maj Preston says he cannot continue to work on a process he considers morally, ethically and professionally intolerable.
"I lie awake worrying about this every night," he wrote.
"I find it almost impossible to focus on my part of mission.
"After all, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it is kind of hard, particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and lawyer."
Maj Preston was transferred out of the Office of Military Commissions less than a month later.
Rigged? The second email is written by another prosecutor, Captain John Carr, who also ended up leaving the department.
Capt Carr says the commissions appear to be rigged.
"When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," he wrote.
"Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."
Capt Carr says that the prosecutors have been told by the chief prosecutor that the panel sitting in judgment on the cases would be handpicked to ensure convictions.
"You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel," he said.
Significant find David Hicks' defence lawyer, Major Michael Mori, says the documents are "highly significant".
"For the first time, we're seeing that concerns about the fairness of the military commissions extend to the heart of the process," Maj Mori said.
David Hicks's father, Terry, says the latest revelations confirm what he has suspected all along.
"These commissions weren't set up to release people," he said.
"These commissions were set up to make sure they were prosecuted and get the time that they give them, and the other thing we've said all along, that we believe that this system has been rigged as they call it."
But the Pentagon's Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway, who is a legal advisor to the military commissions, says an investigation has found the comments are based on miscommunication, misunderstanding and personality conflicts.
He says changes have been made in the prosecutors' office.
"I think what we did is work on some restructuring in the office, there was some changes in the way cases were processed, but we found no evidence of any criminal misconduct, we found no evidence of any ethical violations," he said.
Brig Gen Hemingway says he does not know if the Australian Government has been informed of the claims.
"I can't tell you whether they were informed formally, I have so many contacts with representatives of your embassy here in town, the exchange of information has certainly been constant, open and significant but whether or not we got down into the details of this, I really have no recollection," he said.
"We certainly would have shared it with them if we found that there was any evidence of misconduct in the office of the prosecution, but we did not find any such evidence."
'Sufficient evidence' Brig Gen Hemingway denies that the cases being prosecuted are low-level.
"All of the cases I have recommended that the appointing authority refer to trial, are cases upon which I thought there was sufficient evidence to warrant sending to a fact-finder," he said.
"In each of the four cases which have been referred, the appointing authority John Alterburgh made an independent determination that the evidence was sufficient to warrant trial."
He also denies that the commission panels are being hand-picked to insure detainees are not acquitted.
"I can tell you that any such assertion is clearly incorrect," he said.
"There is absolutely no evidence that it is rigged."
By North America correspondent Leigh Sales, ABC News Online
Last Update: Monday, August 1, 2005. 8:16am
Leaked emails from two former prosecutors claim the military commissions set up to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent, and thin on evidence against the accused.
Two emails, which have been obtained by the ABC, were sent to supervisors in the Office of Military Commissions in March of last year - three months before Australian detainee David Hicks was charged and five months before his trial began.
The first email is from prosecutor Major Robert Preston to his supervisor.
Maj Preston writes that the process is perpetrating a fraud on the American people, and that the cases being pursued are marginal.
"I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people," Maj Preston wrote.
"Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."
Maj Preston says he cannot continue to work on a process he considers morally, ethically and professionally intolerable.
"I lie awake worrying about this every night," he wrote.
"I find it almost impossible to focus on my part of mission.
"After all, writing a motion saying that the process will be full and fair when you don't really believe it is kind of hard, particularly when you want to call yourself an officer and lawyer."
Maj Preston was transferred out of the Office of Military Commissions less than a month later.
Rigged? The second email is written by another prosecutor, Captain John Carr, who also ended up leaving the department.
Capt Carr says the commissions appear to be rigged.
"When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," he wrote.
"Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."
Capt Carr says that the prosecutors have been told by the chief prosecutor that the panel sitting in judgment on the cases would be handpicked to ensure convictions.
"You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel," he said.
Significant find David Hicks' defence lawyer, Major Michael Mori, says the documents are "highly significant".
"For the first time, we're seeing that concerns about the fairness of the military commissions extend to the heart of the process," Maj Mori said.
David Hicks's father, Terry, says the latest revelations confirm what he has suspected all along.
"These commissions weren't set up to release people," he said.
"These commissions were set up to make sure they were prosecuted and get the time that they give them, and the other thing we've said all along, that we believe that this system has been rigged as they call it."
But the Pentagon's Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway, who is a legal advisor to the military commissions, says an investigation has found the comments are based on miscommunication, misunderstanding and personality conflicts.
He says changes have been made in the prosecutors' office.
"I think what we did is work on some restructuring in the office, there was some changes in the way cases were processed, but we found no evidence of any criminal misconduct, we found no evidence of any ethical violations," he said.
Brig Gen Hemingway says he does not know if the Australian Government has been informed of the claims.
"I can't tell you whether they were informed formally, I have so many contacts with representatives of your embassy here in town, the exchange of information has certainly been constant, open and significant but whether or not we got down into the details of this, I really have no recollection," he said.
"We certainly would have shared it with them if we found that there was any evidence of misconduct in the office of the prosecution, but we did not find any such evidence."
'Sufficient evidence' Brig Gen Hemingway denies that the cases being prosecuted are low-level.
"All of the cases I have recommended that the appointing authority refer to trial, are cases upon which I thought there was sufficient evidence to warrant sending to a fact-finder," he said.
"In each of the four cases which have been referred, the appointing authority John Alterburgh made an independent determination that the evidence was sufficient to warrant trial."
He also denies that the commission panels are being hand-picked to insure detainees are not acquitted.
"I can tell you that any such assertion is clearly incorrect," he said.
"There is absolutely no evidence that it is rigged."
░▒▓►flashback◄▓▒░
 |
Leaks suggest US military terror trials rigged
Agence France-Presse (AFP), July 31, 2005 Original link (now expired): http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050801/w1_afp/australiaattacksusguantanamo;_ylt=Am4VJAXVtjxD3p0bqwpqBThvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHN1YwM1JVRPUCU1 |
SYDNEY, (AFP) - Leaked emails from two former prosecutors suggested the US military commissions to try detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent and thin on evidence, Australian national radio reported.
In one of the emails obtained by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, prosecutor Major Robert Preston wrote to his supervisor in March last year that the process was perpetrating a fraud on the American people.
"I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people," Preston wrote, according to the ABC.
"Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-assed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."
Of the 510 detainees being held at the Guantanamo Bay US naval base in Cuba, most of them captured during the US attack on Afghanistan in late 2001, a dozen have been declared eligible to be charged before the military commissions.
One of those facing trial is Australian David Hicks, who was allegedly fighting for the former Taliban rulers when he was captured in Afghanistan.
Preston said he could not continue to work on a process he considered morally, ethically and professionally intolerable, ABC reported, adding that he was transferred out of the Office of Military Commissions less than a month later.
A second email written by another prosecutor, Captain John Carr, who also ended up leaving the department, said the commissions appear to be rigged, ABC said.
"When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," he was quoted as saying.
"Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."
Carr said the prosecutors had been told by the chief prosecutor that the panel sitting in judgment on the cases would be handpicked to ensure convictions.
"You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel," he wrote.
Hicks's military lawyer Major Michael Mori told ABC the documents were highly significant.
"For the first time, we're seeing that concerns about the fairness of the military commissions extend to the heart of the process," Mori said.
But Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway, legal adviser to the military commissions, told ABC that the Pentagon had conducted its own investigation and found no legal or ethical problems.
In one of the emails obtained by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, prosecutor Major Robert Preston wrote to his supervisor in March last year that the process was perpetrating a fraud on the American people.
"I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people," Preston wrote, according to the ABC.
"Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-assed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."
Of the 510 detainees being held at the Guantanamo Bay US naval base in Cuba, most of them captured during the US attack on Afghanistan in late 2001, a dozen have been declared eligible to be charged before the military commissions.
One of those facing trial is Australian David Hicks, who was allegedly fighting for the former Taliban rulers when he was captured in Afghanistan.
Preston said he could not continue to work on a process he considered morally, ethically and professionally intolerable, ABC reported, adding that he was transferred out of the Office of Military Commissions less than a month later.
A second email written by another prosecutor, Captain John Carr, who also ended up leaving the department, said the commissions appear to be rigged, ABC said.
"When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," he was quoted as saying.
"Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."
Carr said the prosecutors had been told by the chief prosecutor that the panel sitting in judgment on the cases would be handpicked to ensure convictions.
"You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel," he wrote.
Hicks's military lawyer Major Michael Mori told ABC the documents were highly significant.
"For the first time, we're seeing that concerns about the fairness of the military commissions extend to the heart of the process," Mori said.
But Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway, legal adviser to the military commissions, told ABC that the Pentagon had conducted its own investigation and found no legal or ethical problems.
░▒▓►flashback◄▓▒░
|
Guantanamo trials 'half-assed'
AFP, January 8, 2005 Sydney - Leaked emails from two former prosecutors suggested the US military commissions to try detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are rigged, fraudulent and thin on evidence, Australian national radio reported on Monday. In one of the emails obtained by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, prosecutor Major Robert Preston wrote to his supervisor in March last year that the process was perpetrating a fraud on the American people. "I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people," Preston wrote, according to the ABC. "Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-assed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time." Captured Of the 510 detainees being held at the Guantanamo Bay US naval base in Cuba, most of them captured during the US attack on Afghanistan in late 2001, a dozen have been declared eligible to be charged before the military commissions. One of those facing trial is Australian David Hicks, who was allegedly fighting for the former Taliban rulers when he was captured in Afghanistan. Preston said he could not continue to work on a process he considered morally, ethically and professionally intolerable, ABC reported, adding that he was transferred out of the Office of Military Commissions less than a month later. A second email written by another prosecutor, Captain John Carr, who also ended up leaving the department, said the commissions appear to be rigged, ABC said. Volunteered "When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," he was quoted as saying. "Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged." Carr said the prosecutors had been told by the chief prosecutor that the panel sitting in judgement on the cases would be hand-picked to ensure convictions. |
 "You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be hand-picked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel," he wrote.
Hicks's military lawyer Major Michael Mori told ABC the documents were highly significant. "For the first time, we're seeing that concerns about the fairness of the military commissions extend to the heart of the process," Mori said. Military But Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway, legal adviser to the military commissions, told ABC that the Pentagon had conducted its own investigation and found no legal or ethical problems. He said an inquiry had concluded that the comments by the prosecutors were the result of miscommunication, misunderstanding and personality conflicts. "I think what we did is work on some restructuring in the office, there was some change in the way cases were processed but we found no evidence of any criminal misconduct, we found no evidence of any ethical violations," he said. Hemingway also denied that the commission panels were being hand-picked to ensure detainees were not acquitted. -AFP |
