Judge tosses out most evidence on Gitmo detainee

Judge tosses out most evidence on Gitmo detainee

I tried three different comments here and all sounded like I've lost it, so I'll just leave it at the the article contents.

Originally Posted by PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Pete Yost, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jan 8, 3:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A federal judge has tossed out most of the government's evidence against a tarrorism detainee on grounds his confessions were coerced, allegedly by U.S. forces, before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

In a ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan also said the government failed to establish that 23 statements the detainee made to interrogators at Guantanamo Bay were untainted by the earlier coerced statements made while he was held under harsh conditions in Afghanistan.

However, the judge said statements he made during two military administrative hearings at the U.S. detention center in Cuba, where he was assisted by a personal representative, were reliable and sufficient to justify holding the detainee.

Musa'ab Omar Al Madhwani allegedly engaged in a 2 1/2-hour firefight with Pakistani authorities before his capture in a Karachi apartment in 2002.

The detainee says that after five days in a Pakistani prison, he was handed over to U.S. forces and flown to a pitch-black prison he believes was in Afghanistan. He says he was suspended in his cell by his left hand and that guards blasted his cell with music 24 hours a day.

He said that he confessed to whatever allegations his interrogators made and that harassment and threats continued after he was moved to a different prison in Afghanistan.

Al Madhwani said that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay on multiple occasions threatened him when he tried to retract what he now claims was a false confession.

The judge said he was particularly concerned that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay relied on or had access to the coerced confessions from Afghanistan made by Al Madhwani.

The logical inference from the record, said the judge, is that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay reviewed Al Madhwani's coerced confessions with him and asked him to make identical confessions.

"Far from being insulated from his coerced confessions, his Guantanamo confessions were thus derived from them," Hogan wrote.

The judge said the government presented medical records about the detainee's debilitating physical and mental condition that confirm his claims of harsh treatment during the 40 days he spent in Pakistann and Afghanistan.

Despite Hogan's concerns about the 23 statements, the judge relied on other evidence and three statements Al Madhwani made to a military tribunal and a review board to conclude that he trained, traveled and associated with members of al-Qaida, including high-level operatives. On those grounds, the judge ruled he is legally detained.

[Five-O]

...this is the only possible outcome when you bring enemy combatants captured on the battlefield or through other means into American civilian courts.

[Ret10Echo]

Originally Posted by HowardCohodas

I tried three different comments here and all sounded like I've lost it, so I'll just leave it at the the article contents.

Howard, was the comment you sought something along the lines of:

"We SUCK"



(And I mean "We" as the collective U.S. polictical and judicial ignorance and downright stupidity in dealing with the enemy)

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Five-O

...this is the only possible outcome when you bring enemy combatants captured on the battlefield or through other means into American civilian courts.

. . . because we decided to criminalize the folks on the other side of the conflict instead of call it a war. If we had called them POW's we could have held them until we decided the war was over.

[abc_123]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

. . . because we decided to criminalize the folks on the other side of the conflict instead of call it a war. If we had called them POW's we could have held them until we decided the war was over.

If we had called it a war, we could have held them until we decided to execute them for being illegal combatants.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

. . . because we decided to criminalize the folks on the other side of the conflict instead of call it a war. If we had called them POW's we could have held them until we decided the war was over.

Lets see - no uniform. Why go to the trouble of holding them?

[Richard]

I thought we called it a War - the Global War On Terror - even though Congress has never formally declared war - and we even give medals for it - the GWOT Expeditionary Medal and the GWOT Service Medal.

Appearances for appearances sake.

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[Warrior-Mentor]

Does this arse you up?

Consider this:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35080

[Richard]

The arguments appear to be lengthy and on-going amongst all sides of the issues - here's another one for consideration:

Nazi Saboteurs on Trial
A Military Tribunal and American Law

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/fisnaz.html

In a historical sense, I claim neither definitive answers nor strong opinions as to the political dilemma of all this - I do, however, retain an inherent trust in the strength of our justice system and its ability to withstand such pressures as may be brought upon it by this and other such circumstances.

You see, he knew his own laws just as other people so often know the laws: by words, not by effects. They take a meaning, and get to be very vivid, when you come to apply them to yourself.
- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court

And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

[Five-O]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

. . . because we decided to criminalize the folks on the other side of the conflict instead of call it a war. If we had called them POW's we could have held them until we decided the war was over.

Our court system is a complete joke and hypocritical if these terrortist cowards do not walk. In fact, they should be flown home at tax payer expense with a most sincere apology. These guys have rights...as all defendants do in American Courts. They are also presumed innocent.

These guys were never Mirandized, they were never given access to legal counsel and they never had their God (allah) given 5th Amendmaent rights explained to them. As a result ALL statements made and all information obtained should be suppressed. Their 6th Amnendment right to a speedy trail was shattered, they were arrested without a warrant and I am sure their homes and electronic device were seized and searched illegally. Their 4th amendment rights were also violated. It will not take Jonny Chochran, Robert Shapiro and Barry Sheck to get these guys off, a first year law student should have these guys home for Ramadan.

I just hope I am not in the first patrol/convoy that gets hit by an IED one of these poor guys sets.

[Surf n Turf]

Originally Posted by Richard

The arguments appear to be lengthy and on-going amongst all sides of the issues - here's another one for consideration:

Nazi Saboteurs on Trial
A Military Tribunal and American Law

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/fisnaz.html

In a historical sense, I claim neither definitive answers nor strong opinions as to the political dilemma of all this - I do, however, retain an inherent trust in the strength of our justice system and its ability to withstand such pressures as may be brought upon it by this and other such circumstances.
And so it goes...

Richard's $.02

Richard,
From the article, it appears that Mr. Fisher is siding with the Øbama administration position that these Terrorists should be tried under the Criminal Justice System, and he used the article to state his opposition to Military Tribunals. I believe that Terrorism is an act of War (declared or not), with trial by Military Tribunal being appropriate.
I am NO fan of FDR, but believe his decision in this matter was correct, lawful, and within his purview.
SnT

Caught before they could carry out their missions, under FDR’s presidential proclamation they were hauled before a secret military tribunal and found guilty. Meeting in an emergency session, the Supreme Court upheld the tribunal’s authority.

Looks to me as if the Judiciary was involved – and upheld the military tribunals.
I am of the opinion that the President did NOT need SCOTUS approval to try and execute these Saboteurs.

Fisher contends that, although the Germans did not have a constitutional right to a civil trial, the tribunal represented an ill-conceived concentration of power within the presidency.

See Article II, Section 1 – United States Constitution

Ex parte Quirin is cited as an “apt precedent” by the Bush administration for the trying of suspected al Qaeda terrorists, Fisher concludes that the 1942 decision was, in the words of Justice Felix Frankfurter, “not a happy precedent.”

But precedent non the less

[T-Rock]

These guys were never Mirandized, they were never given access to legal counsel and they never had their God (allah) given 5th Amendmaent rights explained to them.

I don't care too much for Lindsey Graham but he pointed this out rather eloquently and destroyed Holder's argument on this very issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG7lm8Sfbo4

[Richard]

Maybe the judge was 'judiciously' retaining enough for conviction yet removing all the potential 'ammunition' for future appeals -

Richard's $.02