June 22, 2006
Bush Says Gitmo Detainees Could Get US Trials
According to the Jurist, President Bush told reporters after a May 20th US-EU summit meeting that the White House is open to having Guantanamo Bay detainees tried in US courts -- repeating a statement made ten days before in Denmark, and effectively reversing the position that detainees will only be tried in Guantanamo-based military commissions. HIs statements were made against a backdrop of continued pressure from EU members to close down the detention center.
"There are some who need to be tried in U.S. courts," Bush said. "They're cold-blooded killers. They will murder somebody if they're let out on the street. And yet, we believe there's a -- there ought to be a way forward in a court of law, and I'm waiting for the Supreme Court of the United States to determine the proper venue in which these people can be tried."
A June 21 editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle by two lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees strongly endorsed the idea of using the US Courts, noting "Already, the vast majority of detainees at Guantanamo have a case pending in court. Many of these cases have been pending for more than a year and a half and would be proceeding normally if the Defense Department had not intervened in January, prompting the courts to stay all proceedings."
February 17, 2006
U.N. Report: Close GITMO
In a statement posted to its website, the United Nations announced the release of a joint report on the treatment of foreign terror suspects held at the United States naval facility in Cuba, calling on the United States “to close immediately the detention centre in Guantánamo Bay and bring all detainees before an independent and competent tribunal or release them.”
The result of an 18 month investigation, the report’s findings were based upon interviews with former detainees, public documents, media reports, attorney interviews and a government questionnaire, the Washington Post reports. The U.N.'s five member panel concluded that detainees are entitled to (1) challenge the legality of their detention before a judicial body, and (2) obtain release if detention is found to lack a proper legal basis. Finding some of the interrogation techniques employed "meet four of the five elements in the Convention definition of torture," the report calls for the closure of the prison facility "without further delay."
While U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan did not agree with everything contained within the report, he did nevertheless echo the report’s conclusion that detainees could not be held in perpetuity without charge or the opportunity to defend themselves, CNN reports.
Annan likewise agreed that the prison’s closure should occur as soon as possible.
The White House summarily rejected the U.N. report's claims as “largely without merit.” While the human rights experts who authored the 54-page report were invited to Guantanamo, they declined after U.S. authorities said they would not be permitted to interview the detainees.
Responding to inquiries about the report during his daily press briefing, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan offered, “I think that what we are seeing is a rehash of allegations that have been made by lawyers representing some of these detainees," maintaining "The military treats detainees humanely, as directed by the President of the United States.”
Also weighing in on the report, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said at the Council on Foreign Relations meeting, "There is no torture, there is no abuse...It’s being handled honorably.”
The U.N. report in its entirety may be viewed here.
December 13, 2005
Pentagon Invites Human Rights Specialist to Guantanamo
The Pentagon announced it has extended an invitation to a representative for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to visit the detention facility at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba.
As the DoD release explains, "Although department policy does not provide for such visits to military detention facilities, the department has determined on an exceptional basis to extend this invitation. The department strives for transparency in our operations to the extent possible in light of security and operational requirements and the need to ensure the safety of our forces."
According to the American Forces Press Service, Belgian politician and OSCE representative Anne-Marie Lizin accepted the DoD's invitation, and will be permitted to observe operations at the facilities at Guantanamo and ask questions of the command, staff and U.S. officials who would accompany her.
A DoD spokesman said he did not yet know when Lizin's visit would take place.
October 06, 2005
Senate Votes to Regulate Detention & Interrogation Policy
In an attempt to codify what many consider to be the military's conflicting policies and procedures for the interrogation and treatment of those under the detention, custody, or control of the U.S. Government, the Republican-controlled Senate yesterday overwhelmingly approved a measure that would ban the use of cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment of foreign enemies, The New York Times reports.
Contained within a $440 billion Defense Department spending bill, the measure was approved by a 90-9 vote. According to the Washington Times, the nine Republican senators who voted against the proposal were Wayne Allard of Colorado, Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, John Cornyn of Texas, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and Ted Stevens of Alaska. New Jersey Democrat Jon Corzine was the only senator not to vote.
As quoted by the Associated Press, Senator Stevens of Alaska opined, "This is a different war now... We're in a war against terrorists, and I don't think they're entitled to the same type of treatment that we give to prisoners of war."
Despite such sentiment, the anti-torture legislation has attracted broad, non-partisan support. Vietnam War P.O.W. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) - himself the victim of torture - is the bill's primary sponsor. As the International Herald Tribune reports, over two dozen retired senior military officers - including John Shalikashvili and Colin Powell, both former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff - have also endorsed measures that ensure detainees are treated humanely.
In a letter read by Senator McCain on the Senate floor, former Bush White House Secretary of State Colin Powell expressed, "The world will note that America is making a clear statement with respect to the expected future behavior of our soldiers... Such a reaction will help deal with the terrible public diplomacy crisis created by Abu Ghraib," the Associated Press reports.
The following - taken from a press release posted to his website - is an excerpt of Senator McCain's statement to the Senate:
"This amendment would (1) establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and (2) prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. government.
Mr. President, to fight terrorism we need intelligence. That much is obvious. What should also be obvious is that the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently would not only offend our values as Americans, but undermine our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms -- not helps --us in the war on terror.
First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop.
Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy -- if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can't let prisoner abuse tarnish our image.
And yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part, I believe, because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is not. The amendment I am proposing will go a long way toward clearing up this confusion."
As the Washington Post reported back in July, the Bush Administration has tried to quell what it views to be an incipient Republican rebellion. Lobbying to block such legislation, the White House maintains it would restrict the President's authority "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack and bring terrorists to justice."
The Senate is expected to vote on the overall spending bill by the end of the week.
In his daily press briefing, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the President will most likely veto the defense budget if the amendment remains part of the spending bill.
"We have put out a Statement of Administration Policy saying that his advisors would recommend that he vetoes it if it contains such language."
September 01, 2005
Critics Respond: Revisions to Commission Procedures Cosmetic; Fundamental Flaws Remain
Despite the Pentagon's latest announcement that it is changing military commission procedures, extending additional rights to terror suspects, some of the commission's earliest and staunchest critics maintain the changes are trivial, submitting the process to try Guantanamo detainees remains unfair and inherently flawed.
In a press release posted to its website, Human Rights Watch expressed concern that military commissions will continue to function entirely within the military and executive branch, in the absence of independent judicial review.
"The new rules are aimed to deflect criticism of the commissions, but fail to address their most fundamental problems. Without review by civilian courts, there is no means of ensuring that any fair trial rules are in fact respected," said Jamie Fellner, the organization's U.S. program director.
Fellner continued, "Those responsible for war crimes should be tried by real courts using real rules, not commissions created from scratch."
Amnesty International reiterated HRW's contention that many of the commission's problems remained, specifically, allowing the admission of evidence obtained through torture or hearsay, a violation of Article 15 of the Convention Against Torture.
"If the U.S. government really wanted to provide full and fair trials, the defendants would be tried in an established system of justice such as U.S. federal court or in a court martial. By insisting on going forward with these ill-conceived commissions, the administration is confirming its desire to apply sub-standard justice to foreign nationals. The announced rule changes to the military commissions amount to little more than hanging curtains on a condemned house and marketing it as renovated," said Jumana Musa, Amnesty International's observer to the military commissions.
Also weighing in on the Pentagon's announcement was the U.S. military-appointed counsel for Australian terror suspect David Hicks, who told Australia's The Age the changes were "meaningless" and a "publicity stunt."
"There are no changes at all," said Major Michael Mori.
"This is totally cosmetic. It's totally for show. It's because they realise that no one in the world accepts it as a fair system and are desperate to convince somebody.
"You can slap a new coat of paint on the outside of a house with broken foundations, but it doesn't fix the problem."
August 31, 2005
DoD Makes Procedural Changes to Commissions, Expands Trial Rights for Detainees
Criticized by legal and human rights groups - as well as military defense lawyers - for procedures that subject terror suspects to unfair disadvantages, the Defense Department announced today that it is instituting procedural changes to the controversial Military Commissions established to try terror suspects picked up in the War on Terror and detained at Guantanamo.
Following a Special Defense Department Briefing on Military Commissions, the Pentagon issued a press release explaining the changes - effective immediately - intended to promote more efficient trials, including �making the process more like a judge and jury model.�
Among the procedural changes, defendants will now be given additional rights to attend their trials and will be granted access to classified evidence against them.
While initial trial proceedings began last August at Guantanamo, the process was halted three months later, when a federal judge ruled that the trials were unfair and unlawful, and violated prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions.
For the Department of Defense Fact Sheet, "Changes to Military Commission Procedures," click here.
For the Department of Defense Fact Sheet, "Military Commission Procedures," click here.
August 23, 2005
3 Detainees Transferred from GITMO
The Department of Defense announced the release of three more detainees from Guantanamo, including one detainee to Yemen, one detainee to Tajikistan, and one detainee to Iran.
Two of the detainees - the Yemeni and the Tajik - were among the 38 detainees found no longer to be enemy combatants and cleared for release by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal. Nine of those detainees still await transfer.
The third detainee was transferred to Iran following the recommendation of an annual Administrative Review Board.
Citing security concerns, the names of those released or transferred have not been disclosed.
According to the Pentagon, the latest movement raises the number of detainees who have departed Guantanamo to 245. Approximately 505 detainees remain at the prison facility.
July 16, 2005
Fed. Appeals Court Upholds Use of Military Tribunals at Guantanamo
Ruling unanimously that military commissions established to try enemy combatants detained at Guantanamo do not violate the Constitution, international law or American military law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has allowed war crime trials to resume at the U.S. run prison facility in Cuba, The New York Times reports.
Back in November, a federal judge in Washington ruled unfair and unlawful - and immediately halted - the military commission of Osama bin Ladens former driver and alleged terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan. The 34-year old Yemeni was to be the first detainee to be tried as a war criminal by the newly constituted military commissions at Guantanamo. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 04-CV-1519, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals."
According to the 45-page memorandum opinion, Judge Robertson found that the administration contravened Geneva Convention guidelines, disregarding a basic provision which requires the United States to treat Hamdan as a prisoner of war (P.O.W.), unless he appears before a special tribunal described in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention that determines he is otherwise.
Yesterdays decision, handed down by a three-judge panel, is a victory for the White House. The Bush administration contends that Hamdan and other suspected terrorists designated as enemy combatants are not entitled to P.O.W status and as such, do not merit protections conferred by the Geneva Conventions - which governs the treatment of civilians and soldiers in wartime - because al Qaeda did not sign the treaty.
Responding to the ruling Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales commented, "The president's authority under the laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital part of the global war on terror...and today's decision reaffirms this critical authority."
Hamdan's attorney, Georgetown University law professor Neal K. Katyal said he would consider an appeal.
July 03, 2005
Pentagon Reaffirms Medical Policies for Detainees
Amid a storm of criticism against U.S. medical ethics at Guantanamo, the Department of Defense posted to its website a reaffirmation of its medical policies for detainees:
"The Department of Defense posted today recently issued guidance to the military services and commands reiterating policies regarding the care and handling of enemy prisoners of war, detainees, retained persons, and civilian internees.
Healthcare personnel have a duty to protect the physical and mental health of such individuals and to provide appropriate treatment for disease and injury, according to a policy memorandum released by Dr. William Winkenwerder, Jr., the assistant secretary of defense for Health Affairs.
The policy memorandum, available here details a set of principles and procedures that address the scope of healthcare personnel responsibilities and activities in which they may not participate. In all cases, healthcare personnel will be guided by applicable law and are expected to act humanely and with professionalism.
'Our policy is meant to make clear for our medical care providers that if a detainee provides information that directly bears upon a national security issue --for example, plans to commit a terrorist act that kills or harms Americans --the medical provider should, with proper documentation and approval, pass along the information to responsible security and intelligence authorities,' Winkenwerder said.
Specific guidance in the overall policy includes: direction to accurately and completely create and maintain medical records on all detainees; to ensure clear separation of duties between personnel providing healthcare to detainees and behavioral science personnel consulting with interrogators; to carefully record disclosure of all patient-specific information for lawful purposes other than treatment; to report possible violations of applicable standards for the protection of detainees; and to ensure healthcare personnel have appropriate training regarding the care and treatment of detainees.
Although detainees do not have an absolute right of confidentiality with respect to information they share with medical care providers, the general guidance is to maintain such information confidentially, except for approved and documented specific reasons. This is the same standard that would apply in U.S. federal prisons.
'Any detainee related information provided by healthcare personnel for reasons other than treatment must be for a specific purpose, documented and approved by a medical commander before it is released, Winkenwerder said. This process creates a strict set of guidelines to ensure the information is used only for appropriate purposes and is not misused.'
'To the best of my knowledge we have no credible evidence that a military physician participated in detainee abuse,' said Winkenwerder. 'The department investigates credible allegations and if substantiated, holds accountable those who are responsible. We expect military medical personnel, and all other service members, to abide by policies that require detainees be treated humanely and to report any suspected detainee mistreatment.'"
July 02, 2005
Pentagon Disputes Medical Journal Findings
During a news briefing conducted by Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita, questions were raised regarding the use of medical information during interrogations at Guantanamo, and specifically, what departmental policy is for sharing a detainee's medical information for purposes of devising interrogation strategies specific to that detainee. A partial transcript of that briefing is as follows:
Q: Larry, with regard to the controversy over the use of medical information in interrogations in Guantanamo, can you clarify, is it department policy that information provided by detainees to their medical care givers can be routinely shared with interrogators in devising strategies and tactics for those specific detainees?
MR. DI RITA: Well, I think we've briefed on this extensively. And there's a transcript available -- you haven't had a chance to look at it. But we have medical professionals down there that are there for the purposes of treating the detainees. And, you know, they've described what they do, which is medical care as you would understand it.
It is not uncommon to use behavioral science specialists, people that are known to have sort of an expertise in -- the kinds of things -- I wouldn't want to use this term to make the direct comparison, but others have -- profiling, so that as you understand what an individual is like, you might be able to affect the approaches that the interrogators would take on him. It's quite a different thing from saying we're using information out of his medical record. That's not really what, as I understand it -- and as I said, we've briefed this, so if there's -- we can maybe provide you some additional information. But it's more of a generic use of the specialty than it is specific knowledge of an individual's medical records.
Q: Actually, it's both. But the New England Journal article and its author specifically alleged that that sort of normally private medical information is funneled into that process. And my question was whether that is allowable under DOD policy.
MR. DI RITA: Well, I don't want to speak to it in terms of what DOD policy is. What it is is a matter of what the medical professionals at Guantanamo assisting the interrogators might determine might be necessary. Remember, we are talking about people who are known or suspected terrorists. So, there is a well respected and well regarded -- and it's been observed by a lot of people -- care that's being provided to these terrorists. And they are terrorists, by our assessment. On the other hand, there may be information that can be gleaned from the knowledge of who these people are that can help -- or, the knowledge of how these people are behaving that can help the interrogators. And we're -- and we try and walk that line, and we try and be careful about it. But we are talking about people like UBL's bodyguards, like somebody who would have been on an airplane on 9/11, and the balance that we strike will be toward getting more intelligence and stopping future attacks on the United States. And that's the balance that we're challenged -- that we're working on.
There is no handbook on how to do this. It's never been done before. So we're trying to be very careful about it. I think we've now had over 200 members of Congress who have observed what's going on in Guantanamo. They're observed interrogations. They've observed the medical facilities. We, as a matter of routine, try and provide exposure to the way that the medical treatments are being conducted down in Guantanamo when members of Congress go down there. There's an awful lot of oversight. But there is not a textbook on how to do this, and we're being very careful -- with the objective of gaining intelligence to stop Americans from being killed. And that's the balance we need to strike.
April 07, 2005
White House Wants Ruling on Detainee Rights Reversed
In federal appeals court today, the Justice Department defended the Bush Administrations prosecution of foreign terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, and sought to overturn a federal ruling that deems unlawful military commission trials that do not afford foreign terror suspects the same legal protections as Americans, The New York Times reports.
Representing the government, assistant attorney general Peter D. Keisler said the trials that were halted send a message that if you commit terrible crimes, we will capture you, we will give you a fair trial, and if you're convicted, we will impose a just sentence, reports the Chicago Tribune.
Back in November, a U.S. District Judge ruled unfair and unlawful - and immediately halted - the military commission of Osama bin Ladens former driver and alleged terrorist Salim Ahmed Hamdan. The Yemeni was to be the first detainee to be tried by a special military commission. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 04-CV-1519, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared President Bush had both overstepped his constitutional bounds and improperly brushed aside the Geneva Conventions in establishing military commissions to try detainees at the United States naval base here as war criminals.
According to the 45-page memorandum opinion, Judge Robertson found that the administration contravened Geneva Convention guidelines, disregarding a basic provision which requires the United States to treat Hamdan as a prisoner of war (P.O.W.), unless he appears before a special tribunal described in Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention that determines he is otherwise.
The Bush administration contends that Hamdan and other suspected terrorists designated as enemy combatants are not entitled to P.O.W status and do not merit protections conferred by the Geneva Conventions - which governs the treatment of civilians and soldiers in wartime - because al Qaeda did not sign the treaty.
Among the points of contention: in military commission cases, the government cites national security concerns for classifying evidence. While legal counsel has access to this information, it may nevertheless be withheld from the defendant. Also, a defendant need not be present for all parts of the military commission trial.
It makes no sense to say that we adhere to international law and the first thing we do at the beginning of a trial is violate a canon of international law, said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, Hamdans Pentagon-appointed attorney.
This is the law in Rwanda, but not in the United States, Swift retorted.
Out of approximately 550 detainees at Guantanamo, 15 have been designated for military commission trials. Only four have been charged.
March 18, 2005
CIA Director Testifies: "We don't do torture."
Central Intelligence director Porter J. Goss defended the military's interrogation practices "at this time," remaining steadfast on the value of interrogation as a legitimate intelligence tool, essential to protecting civilians and military alike, The New York Times reports.
Testifying yesterday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Goss offered, "I can assure you that I know of no instances where the intelligence community is outside the law on this."
"And I know for a fact that torture is not productive. That's not professional interrogation. We don't do torture."
Goss later acknowledged however, that the line between what was and was not acceptable interrogation techniques had not always been obvious to C.I.A. officers. His responses to questions from Senator Carl Levin (D- MI.) suggest the possibility that some of the "coercive" interrogation techniques employed by the C.I.A. since September 11th were now considered inappropriate and possibly unlawful.
In response to the Times article, Special Counsel for Human Rights Watch takes Goss to task for his opinion that "waterboarding" - the practice of submerging the detainee's head in water until he believes he will drown - is in fact, a form of "professional interrogation." In a letter to the editor Reed Brody asserts, "Mr. Goss, by justifying the practice as a form of professional interrogation, renders dubious his broader claim that the C.I.A. is not practicing torture today."
March 11, 2005
Latest Pentagon Report: Detainee Abuses Not Sanctioned by Civilian or Military Policy
Echoing the findings of previous DoD-commissioned investigations, the Pentagon's latest probe into detention operations concluded that neither civilian defense officials nor military leadership sanctioned or encouraged prisoner abuse, finding "no single overarching explanation" for the numerous cases of prisoner mistreatment that have come to light since the notorious Abu Ghraib scandal.
As the Washington Post reports, unlike previous inquiries, the latest investigation did not focus solely on interrogation practices at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison facility in Iraq but rather, extended its scope to include the treatment of detained suspects dispersed throughout the various theaters of the War on Terrorism.
Ordered by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and headed by former Navy Inspector General Vice Admiral Albert T. Church III, the latest investigation traced the evolution of U.S. military interrogation policies between 2002 and 2004. During this period, the Bush administration determined the Geneva Conventions were neither applicable to the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan nor to the U.S.-run detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba - but that they were in fact, applicable to the war in Iraq. According to the Post, while the Church investigation found no linkage between sanctioned interrogation techniques and detainee abuse - and that "for the most part" military personnel complied with U.S. and international standards for treating detainees humanely - interrogators that transferred from one battlefield setting to another carried with them procedures from previous assignments. When directives were vague the article explains, interrogators improvised, often resulting in confusion insofar as what was - and was not - permissible conduct when dealing with detainees.
Released yesterday, the resulting 368-page report concludes that there was never a deliberate policy that allowed interrogators to torture detained suspects and that when required, the military investigated allegations of mistreatment, and subsequently punished offending soldiers when appropriate.
Briefing congressional leaders, Admiral Church told the Senate Armed Services Committee that a lack of guidelines and oversight, bad planning and a slow response to Red Cross warnings of abuse contributed to the mistreatment of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq.
An executive summary of the results of the Department of Defense review of detention operations and interrogation techniques can be found here.
February 16, 2005
Armed Forces Press Service on Current Conditions at GITMO
Reporter Kathleen T. Rhem of the American Forces Press Service provides a glimpse into the conditions under which terror suspects are currently being held. In an article posted to the Department of Defense website, the tarnished image of a scandalized Guantanamo is replaced by a detention facility in compliance with correctional, legal and humanitarian standards; a detention facility that embodies the mission of the Joint Task Force, ensuring "the safe, secure, humane custody of the detainees."
As Rhem reports, at the base's detention camps prisoners are divided into 4 levels. The levels are unrelated to detainee's intelligence value but rather, they are based on how well detainees comply with camp rules and cooperate with guards instructions.
Typically, level 1 detainees are obedient, and are inclined to follow camp rules. They occupy communal living quarters, and wear uniforms that are white - a culturally respected color that serves as an incentive to detainees in other camps.
In contrast, level 4 detainees often have a history of offenses, ranging from threatening guards and other detainees, to hurling bodily fluids, to refusing to exit their cell when ordered. Level 4 detainees wear orange, hospital type uniforms, and are granted fewer privileges than level 1 detainees.
For detainees who cooperate, privileges may include extended access (7-9 hours per day) to an outside exercise area, which features picnic and ping-pong tables, a soccer area and volleyball court. Games, books and other reading material, as well as electric fans and ice water may also be made available.
With regard to the camp's physical structure, the article illustrates how the concrete and open-air chain-link enclosures of the crude and hastily built Camp X-Ray have been replaced by more modern and permanent structures. Construction of Camp Delta began in 2002, eventually replacing the make-shift Camp X-Ray, which had never been intended for long-term detentions. Then in spring of 2004, a state-of-the-art $16 million detention facility was completed. Camp 5 was composed of four wings consisting of 12 to 14 individual cells each.
Last month, plans for a new prison - Camp 6 - were announced. The $25 million, 200 bed, medium-security facility will be restructured with an improved medical facility, including a $1.7 million psychiatric wing.
Together Camps 5 and 6 are said to represent 'the future of Guantanamo Bay,' which is being revamped to house those prisoners found to pose a continuing security threat.
Despite official pronouncements of its intentions to reduce prisoner population - as well as the contention held by many that GITMO will probably not become a fully-functional detention facility - the millions spent and earmarked for the construction of state of the art facilities suggests that the Department of Defense does in fact, have long-term plans for the U.S.- run prison in Cuba.
December 02, 2004
Detainee Status Debated in Federal Court
In what is expected to be a protracted second phase of the legal battle over the governments efforts to assign the fate of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. military rather than the federal courts, the Defense Department continued to defend its Guantanamo prison policy before a federal court in Washington on Wednesday, The New York Times reports.
In the landmark June 29th ruling, the Supreme Court entered the first phase of the battle, issuing a blow to the Bush administration when it ruled that foreign terror suspects held at Guantanamo could in fact use the American legal system to challenge their detentions.
Arguments heard yesterday concerned the governments motion to dismiss Habeas Corpus petitions filed on behalf of 54 Guantanamo detainees who have asked the courts to require government justification of its detentions. Lawyers for the detainees argue their clients have the right to a fair trial and should be given the proper opportunity to defend themselves.
Government lawyers however, remain steadfast in their position that the U.S. military can hold foreign terror suspects picked up in the War on Terror as enemy combatants - a broadly defined classification that suggests they are not entitled to protections generally given to prisoners of war and as such, do not possess the constitutional rights to contest their detentions in court.
Of the Pentagons decision to detain suspected Taliban and al Qaeda fighters - some for 3 years - deputy associate attorney general Brian Boyle explained, The military has an interest in holding people who pose a risk.
We're not detaining these people just because there's some enjoyment in it.
Addressing the hotly debated and broadly defined description of enemy combatants, Judge Joyce Hens Green presented a series of hypothetical scenarios, one of which questioned whether the president could imprison a little old lady from Switzerland as an enemy combatant if she unintentionally made a donation to a terrorist organization that was fronted as an Afghan orphanage.
Possibly, Boyle replied.
It would be up to the military to decide as to what to believe, he said.
As the San Francisco Chronicle reports, Boyle explained that the military can detain any foreigner who provides support to terrorists or might have knowledge of their plans.
Boyle argued that the foreigners detained at Guantanamo have no constitutional rights enforceable in U.S. courts. He averred that they have nevertheless been provided a process, contending that was all they were entitled to under the June 28th ruling.
Following the hearing, attorney for 12 Kuwaiti detainees Thomas B. Wilner told reporters, Thats really shocking.
People throughout the world will fear the United States is asserting the power to pick up little old ladies and men who made a mistake.
Attorney Barbara Olshansky of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) offered, The government showed its true colors today.
She continued, If under this definition of enemy combatant a Swiss granny who gave money to charity can be detained indefinitely at Guantanamo, then anyone who unintentionally acts in a way the government finds suspicious is in danger of losing their freedom.
November 13, 2004
White House Appeals Ruling on Hamdan Case
In a 2-page notice filed by the Justice Department, the White House presented its intention to appeal U.S. District Judge James Robertsons November 8th ruling, which deemed unlawful the military tribunal trial of a Guantanamo detainee alleged to be an al Qaeda terrorist. No hearing date has been set, the Associated Press reports.
The case of 34 year-old Yemeni Salim Ahmed Hamdan - who was scheduled to be tried as a war criminal by the newly constituted Military Commissions at Guantanamo - was declared by Judge Robertson to be unlawful, and ordered not to continue until special hearings are held to determine whether the detainee should be afforded prisoner of war (P.O.W.) protection under the Geneva Conventions.
While Mondays ruling contends the Bush Administration exceeded its constitutional authority and contravened the Geneva Conventions, the White House maintains its legal position that suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members picked up during the War on Terror were not acting on behalf of a legitimate government and as such, are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
In Judge Robertson's Memorandum Opinion the former Navy officer cited "procedural problems with the Commission's rules," and ruled the Combatant Status Review Tribunals - comprised of a panel of military officers - were not equipped to decide whether detainees should be held or released. The ruling underscores how the legal position maintained by the Bush Administration is unprecedented, submitting
"The Government has asserted a position starkly different from the positions and behavior of the United States in previous conflicts, one that can only weaken the United States' own ability to demand application of the Geneva Conventions to Americans captured during armed conflicts abroad."
As The New York Times reports, departing Attorney General John Ashcroft decried Judge Robertsons ruling.
These encroachments include some of the most fundamental aspects of the president's conduct of the war on terrorism.
Ashcroft continued, The danger I see here is that intrusive judicial oversight and second-guessing of presidential determinations in these critical areas can put at risk the very security of our nation in a time of war.
November 01, 2004
Military Commissions to Begin Today at Guantanamo
For the first time since the end of World War II, when they were used to try and execute Nazi saboteurs, military trials are scheduled to begin today for two al Qaeda suspects at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.
The first defendant is 29 year-old Australian David Hicks, a former cowboy and Muslim convert who fought alongside Islamic groups in Europe and Asia. Hicks is accused of conspiring with al Qaeda to attack civilians, attempting to murder American and coalition soldiers and aiding the enemy; he pleaded not guilty to all charges. The second defendant is 34 year-old Yemeni Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Ladens driver. Hamden is charged with conspiring with the terror network to attack civilians. Hamdan denies he was a member of al Qaeda, and that he was ever engaged in terrorist activities.
If convicted, each man faces up to life in prison.
The tribunals - called military commissions by the Pentagon - historically have been used to prosecute enemy combatants who violate the laws of war. Following the September 11th attacks President Bush reinstated the commissions, and in accordance with Military Order of November 13, 2001, foreign enemy combatants - defined by the Pentagon as individuals who were part of, or supported the Taliban or al Qaeda, or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces - picked up in the War on Terror and in the interest of protecting national security, are subject to the commissions.
Endowed with extraordinary prosecutorial privileges - including but not limited to the power to bring hearsay evidence and to shield from the men the identities of their accusers - the tribunal system has become the subject of controversy. Having faced a barrage of legal challenges, its critics claim the system ignores advances and boundaries of military and international law respectively.
Comprised of a three-member Review Panel of Military Officers, only one - the tribunals presiding officer Army Colonel Peter Brownback - has prior experience as an attorney and judge, and will review the case for errors of law. The three will hear defense counsels arguments, and respond as both judge and jury.
While legal counsel for Hicks and Hamdan are also military appointees, they nevertheless dispute allegations that their clients were members of al Qaeda. It is expected that they will move to dismiss charges their clients were involved in terrorist activities against Americans and coalition forces. Likewise, the lawyers have filed 50 or so motions challenging virtually all aspects of the commission framework, from whether the court itself is legitimate, to whether membership in al Qaeda constitutes a war crime, Knight-Ridder reports.
As the Washington Times reports, the tribunals will move the defendants - who have been in U.S. custody for almost three years - closer to the trial phase, despite a possibility that on the eve of the presidential elections the entire tribunal system may be dismantled if President Bush does not win re-election.
Senator John Edwards has been quoted saying that if Senator John Kerry is elected, his administration would do away with the tribunals. While Senator Kerry has yet to delineate his policy for dealing with enemy combatants, his running mate Edwards has said it would be based on the military court-martial system rather than special commissions.
Regardless of tomorrows outcome, commanders at Guantanamo say they are following the orders of their commander in chief. Quite frankly, the commissions are going to proceed, detention and interrogations are going to proceed, said Army Colonel David McWilliams, spokesman for the Miami-based Southern Command, which supervises the Guantanamo prison project.
At the time that our leadership," quotes Knight-Ridder, "whether current or new, determines there needs to be a change in policy and direction, then well make a change in policy and direction.
October 25, 2004
Senators McCain and Biden Voice Concern Over Alleged Prisoner Transfer
Responding to an article in Sunday's Washington Post citing a Justice Department opinion memo authorizing the CIA to remove Iraqis from their country for interrogation for a "brief but not indefinite period," leading senators expressed concern that the CIA secretly transferred as many as a dozen unidentified detainees out of unidentified locations in Iraq during the last six months, possibly violating international treaties, the Associated Press reports.
During a Sunday morning interview on ABCs "This Week", Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) said that while interrogations can help extract crucial information from detainees on plans for future attacks against Americans, international law - including the Geneva Conventions - must nevertheless be followed.
"These conventions and these rules are in place for a reason because you get on a slippery slope and you dont know where to get offThe thing that separates us from the enemy is our respect for human rights."
The CIA has come under fire for having as many as 100 "ghost detainees" - prisoners held without being registered with the International Committee of the Red Cross and whose whereabouts were not officially known in Iraq.
The report detailing how the CIA invoked a confidential memo to secretly transfer detainees out of Iraq was "another argument" for revamping the intelligence agency, averred Senator Joseph Biden (D-Del), senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who called for new leadership at the Justice Department.
Currently, Congress is considering legislation that would overhaul 15 agencies within the U.S. intelligence community and create a new powerful national intelligence director post.
October 24, 2004
Washington Post: Justice Memo Permits CIA to Take Detainees Out of Iraq
At the request of the CIA, the U.S. Justice Department drafted a confidential memo authorizing the transfer of detainees out of Iraq for interrogation, The Washington Post reports. Without notifying the International Committee of the Red Cross, congressional oversight committees, the Defense Department or CIA investigators, such furtive practice - international legal specialists submit - is in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
The Post article says the memo authorizes intelligence officers to permanently remove persons deemed to be "illegal aliens" under "local immigration law."
Written by the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel and dated March 19, 2004, the draft opinion refers both to Iraqi citizens and foreigners in Iraq, who the memo says are protected by the Geneva Conventions.
Lawyers interviewed by The Washington Post contend the memo contravenes Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects civilians during wartime and occupation, including insurgents who were not part of Iraq' military.
The treaty prohibits the "individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory... regardless of their motive."
During the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, the Bush administration declared Al Qaeda fighters were not considered "protected persons" under the Geneva Convention. Nevertheless, administration attorneys have been divided over detainee status, and whether the Geneva Conventions apply to hundreds of detained members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network and the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan. White House spokesman Sean McCormick said U.S. policy is in fact to comply with the international treaty, which protects civilians during war and occupation.
"The Geneva Conventions are applicable to the conflict in Iraq," McCormick assured.
The CIA, the Justice Department and the author of the draft memo declined to comment for the article.
September 13, 2004
Latest Hersh Book Alleges Administration Knew of Detainee Abuses
The New York Times reports that in his latest book "Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib" (HarperCollins), author and investigative journalist Seymour Hersh asserts that senior White House officials failed to heed repeated warnings of detainee abuse at U.S.-run detention facilities in Iraq and Cuba.
Specifically, Hersh writes that a C.I.A. analyst who visited Guantanamo in 2002 filed a report documenting abuses, drawing the attention of a deputy to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. In a Chapter Excerpt posted to the publishers website, Hersh explains that upon receipt of the "devastating findings" Dr. Rices deputy, retired four-star General John A. Gordon
"was deeply troubled and distressed by the analyst's report, and by its implications for the treatment, in retaliation, of captured American soldiers. Gordon, according to a former Administration official, told colleagues that he thought "it was totally out of character with the American value system," and "that if the actions at Guantnamo ever became public, it'd be damaging to the President." The issue was not only direct torture, but the Administration's obligations under federal law and under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, ratified by the United States in 1994, that barred torture as well as other "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The C.I.A. analyst's report, in Gordon's view, provided clear evidence of degrading treatment. Things in Cuba were getting out of control."
Yet as The Times article reports, Hershs book contends that once the matter was brought to the National Security Advisor's attention, and it was discussed with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, no significant change resulted.
In an interview with CNNs Wolf Blitzer, Dr. Rice denied Hershs allegations, averring
In the fall of 2002, we were made aware that there were some concerns that people might have been held at Guantanamo who didnt meet the definition of unlawful combatant. There were also early on some concerns about conditions of overcrowding. But nothing that suggested, to my recollection, that there were abuses, anything -- abuses going on at Guantanamo, and certainly nothing that would suggest the kind of thing that went on in Abu Ghraib. What we did when we learned that there might be people who were being held there who didnt meet the standard is that we went back, we looked at the cases, we put together a process to try and make sure that the right people were being held. So we have worked hard on Guantanamo to improve conditions there, to make sure that the right people are being held. But no, I do not recall being told of anything concerning prisoner abuse.
Hersh - who won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting of Vietnams My Lai massacre - authored a series of exposes for The New Yorker including Torture at Abu Ghraib , "Chain of Command" and The Gray Zone, describing in vivid detail the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. Military Police at Abu Ghraib. He accuses the Pentagon of implementing a secret system to seize and interrogate terrorist leaders. Such furtive system of detention and interrogation Hersh claims, paved the way for prisoner abuses.
In anticipation of Hersh's latest book - released today - the Defense Department issued a statement decrying the numerous unsubstantiated allegations and inaccuracies which he has made in the past based upon unnamed sources. The Pentagon then added If any of Mr. Hershs anonymous sources wish to come forward and offer evidence to the contrary, the department welcomes them to do so.
July 20, 2004
Pentagon Announces Creation of Office of Detainee Affairs
In response to the leaked 24-page report prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and first reported on by The Wall Street Journal - which finds prisoner treatment by coalition soldiers at Abu Ghraib tantamount to torture, the Pentagon has announced the creation of an Office of Detainee Affairs. The office will be a single point of focus for detainee affairs, and while it will not be setting policy, it will nevertheless be responsible for developing strategy and policy recommendations to monitor and improve detainee management. The detainee distinction includes all foreigners that the DoD has custody over, as well as conventional POWs.
Recent claims by the ICRC that it feared the abuse scandal could be broader than originally believed, suggesting Americans may be hiding prisoners taken in Iraq or Afghanistan in undisclosed locations that the ICRC has not yet been able to visit, have been rejected by the Pentagon.
When asked how the office would respond to the multitude of investigations, inquiries, reviews, etc. already in progress, Principal Deputy Undersecretary for Policy C. Ryan Henry said it would entail looking at how we can do training differently, how we can resource differently, how the exact operations go. Its an across-the-board look from a number of different angles on what went wrong and how we can do a better job in the future.
Pressed if the new office was a tacit acknowledgement by the Pentagon that to date detainee operations hade been handled poorly, Henry remained non-committal, offering only that the handling of matters related to prisoners had been somewhat disparate and spread out over the organization, and so its a means which to focus it in.
With regard to recent allegations made by journalist Seymour Hersh that damning videotapes show Iraqi boys being sodomized by prison guards at Abu Ghraib, Henry responded he had absolutely no knowledge of that, nor had he heard anything regarding it.
Sec. Rumsfeld Discusses Detainee Office on NPR
On NPRs Morning Edition Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld spoke with host Juan Williams about the Pentagon's newly created Office of Detainee Affairs.
When asked why after almost three years since establishing the prison at Guantanamo, has an office been created now, the Secretary of Defense remained entrenched in the administrations position that the abuses were an unfortunate aberration, the work of a few individuals.
All of a sudden, we have this situation where we have 24-hour news and people have digital cameras. They take these pictures of these terrible things that are happening and we are aware of it almost simultaneously with the Congress, the press and the world being aware of it, because we did not have in the department a process where everything got elevated up, particularly, for example, this was announced by the Department of Defense. This was not investigative reporting. There were some abuses. They were turned up within the army. The army then gave them to the public affairs office where the public affairs officer announced that there was some alleged abuses.
After an investigation, the army went out and announced that there was not only some abuses alleged, but in fact there were now criminal prosecutions underway. And then these pictures were leaked and it became a worldwide international incident. Now we said, if thats the case - and normally the pattern in the department had been not to go down and look into criminal prosecutions because that was not the way things should be handled. They should be handled through the Uniform Code of Military Justice system.
In this instance, it became clear that we live in a different era and therefore we have to get the Pentagon involved in these things at the top levels. We simply have to have a process that those things get kicked up here and you have to have policies and an ability for the legal and public affairs people here at the headquarters to be aware of whats taking place down at the lower level and we needed an office to communicate that.
July 10, 2004
Pentagon Prepares to Notify Detainees of Their Rights;Navy Secretary England Offers, Speed is of the essence.
Following Wednesdays announcement of its plans to notify detainees of
rights conferred by last months Supreme Courts ruling, Reuters reports the Pentagon announced the first of the Guantanamo hearings will commence within the next few weeks, with all proceedings completed within three to four months.
The first notifications are scheduled for release to detainees Monday.
During Fridays Pentagon briefing on the
Combatant Status Review Tribunal, Secretary of the Navy Gordon England
offered some insight into the preparation of the notifications. Submitting
it was a daunting task he explained, theyre from 40 countries, theres 17
languages and theres 19 dialects, and not all of the detainees read. So we
will have this in their language so they can read their rights, but if they
cant read we will also have someone orally describe this for them. And our
plan is to have this completed by next Thursday. So within the 10 days --
within 10 days, we will have this accomplished.
While particulars for the tribunals remain sketchy, England maintained, we
will do this as quickly as we can, and thats -- an underlying principle is
to do it quickly. Speed is of the essence. But the first principle is to do
this correctly. When asked whether the hearings will be open to the public
and press, England responded that with respect to classified data, they will
be made as open and transparent as we can.
June 08, 2004
Pentagon Seeks To Minimize Significance of Leaked Report
A June 8 New York Times article details the Pentagon's reaction to a report, first published yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, that a team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.
According to the Times, senior Pentagon officials on Monday sought to downplay the importance of the March memo, one of several obtained by The New York Times, as an interim legal analysis that had no effect on revised interrogation procedures that Mr. Rumsfeld approved in April 2003 for the American military prison at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba.
"The April document was about interrogation techniques and procedures," said Lawrence Di Rita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman. "It was not a legal analysis."
Another memorandum obtained by The Times indicates that most of the administration's top lawyers, with the exception of those at the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, approved of the Justice Department's position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the war in Afghanistan. In addition, that memorandum, dated Feb. 2, 2002, noted that lawyers for the Central Intelligence Agency had asked for an explicit understanding that the administration's public pledge to abide by the spirit of the conventions did not apply to its operatives.
April 25, 2004
Butler Tells Globe Gitmo Prisoners In For The Duration
Paul W. Butler, special assistant to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, told the Boston Globe in an interview this morning that the majority of the prisoners remaining in Guantanamo will be held indefinitely without recourse to trial.
'What I'm saying is that there is a large percentage right now who are either high threat or high intelligence value, that right now there's no intention to try them before a military commission," Butler told the Globe. ''They're dangerous. And we have a responsibility, both to our forces . . . and the rest of the world, to not let those people back out."
According to the Globe, Tom Wilner, a lawyer who argued last week at the Supreme Court, said he was glad to see the government confirming that most detainees won't go on trial. He has been trying to focus more attention on those detainees, he said, but the press and public have mostly thought of the process as one in which most detainees will either be convicted or acquitted. ''The ones who get a trial are the lucky ones," Wilner said. ''My 12 guys will never go before a tribunal, because they have no evidence against them."
April 17, 2004
David Hicks and His Interrogator
In another eleventh-hour move, the administration has allowed one of interrogators of David Hicks, one of the Australian detainees, to appear on the new program 60 Minutes and reveal what Hicks had told him about his training with Al Qaeda. In an interview with ABC News Australia correspondent Lisa Millar, David Hicks' military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, expressed his concern over the sudden, unexpected revelations, given that he has had to work under a gag order:
LISA MILLAR: Major Mori, were you surprised to see that an interrogator was speaking out publicly about what he said he'd learned from David Hicks?
MICHAEL MORI: Well, I was little surprised in the fact that the very strict procedures that I must go through to speak to the media, I'm not sure if he was required to go through any of the same procedures.
LISA MILLAR: Did you learn anything new from what he had to say?
MICHAEL MORI: No, no and I really can't confirm or deny whether what he said is accurate, because I'm still under that protective order.
LISA MILLAR: And what about the information that David Hicks refused to be a suicide bomber?
MICHAEL MORI: Again, I can't say whether that's accurate or not. But I think the comments echoed what I've been saying all along that David Hicks has not shot or injured any US service members. He's not a terrorist and he did not want to participate in any terrorist activities.
LISA MILLAR: But the interrogator did say David Hicks was in an al-Qaeda camp.
MICHAEL MORI: Again, I can't comment on whether it was accurate or not, but here is this person who claims to have knowledge, echoing the same thing that we've said all along that he didn't shoot at, you know, US armed forces; that he wasn't a terrorist, and so it really raises the question of why he's been locked up for two-and-a-half years of his life almost.
LISA MILLAR: The information that you heard about David Hicks, do you think it's going to help or hinder your case?
MICHAEL MORI: Look, the only thing that is going to help David Hicks, is if he receives a fair trial and we're able to defend him in a fair justice system. That's the only thing that's going to help David Hicks and that's what we're fighting for and arguing for.
Military bids to dispel 'myths' of Guantanamo
An April 14 wire service article details the administrations new efforts to convince reporters that human rights violations at Guantanamo are "a myth." Days before the Supreme Court will here oral arguments on Guantanamo, camp officials opened the door to rooms used for interrogations, provided limited information on efforts to gather intelligence from prisoners and showed off a courtroom where military tribunals likely will be conducted. They also allowed some photographs of restricted areas and permitted interviews with interrogators and others who deal with the prisoners.