Professional Soldiers ® - Gitmo Update - CAUTION: May Cause Hypertension

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- General Discussions (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46)

- - Gitmo Update - CAUTION: May Cause Hypertension (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24471)

Gitmo Update - CAUTION: May Cause Hypertension

And so it all goes... :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Quote:

Afghan Jail Conditions Hamper Gitmo Prosecutions
Ben Fox, AP, 8 Aug 2009

U.S. military prosecutors allege that Ahmed al-Darbi has met with Osama bin Laden, trained at an al-Qaida terrorist camp, and plotted to blow up a ship in the Strait of Hormuz or off Yemen.

But the government may never be able to bring those allegations to court because of the torture the prisoner says he suffered in U.S. custody in Afghanistan. Al-Darbi says American troops subjected him to beatings, excruciating shackling, painfully loud music, isolation and threats of rape, according to a new affidavit obtained by The Associated Press. If al-Darbi's statements to interrogators were indeed obtained under such circumstances, they will likely be thrown out.

"I was frightened and there were times I wished I would die," the 33-year-old prisoner from Saudi Arabia said in the statement taken in July at Guantanamo, which was provided to the AP by his lawyer. "I felt that anything could happen to me and that everything was out of control."

Al-Darbi's is a test case of sorts for what will happen under the Obama administration to prisoners who allege their testimony was forced out of them under torture. His affidavit illustrates one of the greatest challenges facing President Barack Obama as he tries to determine what to do with the 229 prisoners still left at Guantanamo, the military prison at the U.S. base in Cuba. Obama has vowed to close the prison by early next year.

Under former President George W. Bush, the special war crimes tribunals known as Military Commissions allowed "coerced" statements from defendants at a judge's discretion. But the rules are changing for the 60 or so prisoners whom authorities had planned to prosecute: The Obama administration has prohibited the use of confessions obtained under "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment." A Justice Department official has told Congress, which is drafting new rules for Military Commissions, that only "voluntary" statements are likely to withstand future court challenges.

But legal experts believe a number of cases can't be prosecuted because conditions were so harsh in Guantanamo, Afghanistan and secret CIA "black sites" elsewhere. The number of cases involved isn't known publicly since most of the background is still classified.

In some cases, Obama will have no choice but to release the prisoners or, if they are considered too dangerous, place them in "preventative" detention, said David Glazier, an associate professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Either scenario opens the president up to criticism, but Glazier, a former Naval officer and expert in military law, says it's better than allowing convictions that aren't reliable or would be viewed as illegitimate around the world.

"Some number of cases may not be prosecutable, but I also think it's safe to that they should not be prosecutable," he said.

Al-Darbi may be just such a case.

The affidavit, which was provided to the AP by al-Darbi's lawyer, is an unusually detailed first-person account of the harsh conditions at the heart of the issue. In October, a military judge threw out the confession of Guantanamo prisoner Mohammed Jawad because it was given to U.S. officials in Afghanistan after Afghan authorities threatened to kill his family. Jawad had been charged with wounding two U.S. soldiers and their interpreter with a grenade.

Al-Darbi was captured at the airport in Baku, Azerbaijan in June 2002. Several weeks later, the affidavit says, he was taken blindfolded to the U.S. base in Bagram, Afghanistan, through which many if not most of the Guantanamo detainees have passed.

Al-Darbi was held for eight months at Bagram. For the first two weeks, he was kept in isolation when not being interrogated, according to the affidavit. Later, it says, he went through a litany of harsh tactics, including being kicked and dragged around a room by U.S. troops while music blared in the background. At times, he was forced to kneel with his hands cuffed above his head through the night and repeatedly interrogated, often while hooded. He also describes a process in which he was hooded, shaken violently and subjected to water poured over his head.

"My view is that taken together all this treatment amounts to torture," said his attorney, Ramzi Kassem.

Al-Darbi is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism. He denies the charges, which carry a potential sentence of life in prison. In April 2008, at a hearing at the base, he called the Guantanamo tribunals a "sham" and a "scandal" and said he would not attend his trial.

Kassem says his client was taken into custody because he is a distant relation by marriage to Khalid al-Mihdhar, one of the hijackers who crashed a plane into the Pentagon on Sept. 11. Al-Darbi is married to a sister of the hijacker's wife.

The attorney late last year filed a motion to dismiss the charges, citing torture, and prosecutors have filed a written response. But the war crimes court has declined to release the court filings, and the prosecution team did not respond to requests for comment.

The chief Guantanamo war crimes prosecutor, Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, declined to discuss any specific case but said his team would follow the new rules. "We will introduce no evidence that's obtained by torture, no cruel, inhumane or degrading evidence," he said.

A former U.S. official who is familiar with the case said he doubts the government will be able to convict al-Darbi without the incriminating statements. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss it.

The affidavit specifically accuses an American soldier, Army Pfc. Damien Corsetti, of stepping on the prisoner's handcuffs to make them tighten around his wrists. In a separate incident, the affidavit says, Corsetti placed his knees on al-Darbi's chest so he couldn't breathe.

The U.S. military has already tried Corsetti on charges including maltreatment and assault for allegedly abusing al-Darbi and other detainees at Bagram, where at least two prisoners died while in U.S. custody.

Corsetti was acquitted by a military jury in 2006. He was among 15 soldiers charged with mistreating detainees at Bagram. Nine were acquitted; the other six were either convicted or pleaded guilty.

Corsetti's lawyer, William Cassara, called al-Darbi "a stone cold liar." "I don't know if anyone else abused him; I just know my guy didn't," he said.

The military prosecutor in the case, Army Capt. Ellis, referred questions about al-Darbi to a military spokeswoman, who did not respond to requests for an interview. At the trial, Ellis said the accused soldier "crossed the line" with his treatment of detainees.

A military judge is scheduled to hold a hearing in September on the motion to dismiss charges against al-Darbi, who has been at Guantanamo more than six years.

"We believe no American system of justice should admit involuntary statements," said Jamil Dakwar, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who monitors Guantanamo for the rights group. "They are inherently unreliable and their admission will likely be the cause of reversals eventually."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090808/...ed_confessions

Goes hand in hand with this story

Criminal investigation into CIA treatment of detainees expected

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,0,34626.story

"By Greg Miller and Josh Meyer
August 9, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. is poised to appoint a criminal prosecutor to investigate alleged CIA abuses committed during the interrogation of terrorism suspects, current and former U.S. government officials said.

A senior Justice Department official said that Holder envisioned an inquiry that would be narrow in scope, focusing on "whether people went beyond the techniques that were authorized" in Bush administration memos that liberally interpreted anti-torture laws........."

"......Opening a criminal investigation is something Holder "has come reluctantly to consider," the Justice Department official said, emphasizing that Holder had not reached a final decision but noting that, "as attorney general, he has the obligation to follow the law."........"

"Obligation to follow the law" - except in cases of voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers.

Interesting, is it not, the fascination the U.S. has with court trials?

We place ourselves at a position of profound disadvantage. I think this will, ultimately, produce a problem - perhaps then we'll realize that not everything needs to go in front of a judge.

Quote:

Interesting, is it not, the fascination the U.S. has with court trials?

The real Judgment of Nuremburg - it's our legacy brought about by the so-called Greatest Generation - and IMO we're right to choose to live by it.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 277701)

The real Judgment of Nuremburg - it's our legacy brought about by the so-called Greatest Generation - and IMO we're right to choose to live by it.

That's a good point. Nuremberg did set the pattern.

Some day, perhaps, I will enjoy the privilege of purchasing your libation of choice while touching on the issues of the surpluses of society and the sustainability of actions.

The courtroom may be the morally superior option, not unlike the right to counsel and so forth. However, they have a cost - a price. We are used to having the wherewithal to pay that price. I am not at all sure that will continue into the future.

Quote:

The courtroom may be the morally superior option, not unlike the right to counsel and so forth. However, they have a cost - a price. We are used to having the wherewithal to pay that price. I am not at all sure that will continue into the future.

I, too, often wonder about the future - but don't think we want to return to a world in which canonical law - other than philosophically - would trump our secularly codified legal system.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 277669)

And so it all goes... :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

But the government may never be able to bring those allegations to court because of the torture the prisoner says he suffered in U.S. custody in Afghanistan. Al-Darbi says American troops subjected him to beatings, excruciating shackling, painfully loud music, isolation and threats of rape, according to a new affidavit obtained by The Associated Press. If al-Darbi's statements to interrogators were indeed obtained under such circumstances, they will likely be thrown out.

If you haven't read the Manchester Documents, now is a good time.

If you go to the first one to come up in google:

The Department of Justice (DoJ) site, but it ONLY has 4 Lessons and 28 pages.

By comparison, The Smoking Gun has ALL 18 Lessons and 180 pages.

Interestingly:

Lesson 17 covers Interrogation and Investigation (15 pages)

Lesson 18 covers Prisons And Detention Centers (2 pages)

Why wouldn't DoJ want to let the American Public know what Al Qaeda has trained their terrorsists to do when detained?

You can find the FULL DOCUMENT here:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jihadmanual.html

Bottomline, AQ TRAINS IT'S JIHADIs TO ACCUSE TORTURE.

Big shocker there. But the Main Stream Media fall for it and repeat it EVERY TIME.

Quote:

Bottomline, AQ TRAINS IT'S JIHADIs TO ACCUSE TORTURE.

Big shocker there. But the Main Stream Media fall for it and repeat it EVERY TIME.

I'm confused here - isn't that their job - to report what is said or claimed along with background info from subject-matter experts and counter-points made by the prosecuters - looks as if they're doing their job, to me, and I appreciate the info - now, whether I believe it all or not is a different story and up to me to wade through to formulate an opinion. ;)

As for how this specific case is handled and turns out - well, that's for those directly involved in it all to determine - I'm just an interested citizen - and it seems to me as if the issues are quite complicated and relevant to us all to try and understand.

But are you inferring that we shouldn't allow a free and open press? :confused:

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard (Post 277733)

They aren't reporting the fact that they are trained to make this accusation. They continue to report as if what "ali-I-Hate-America" says is absolutely true.

If you are continually fed one side of a story, sooner or later, you'll start believing it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by nmap (Post 277702)

I think the courtroom and the right to counsel, etc are not rights we should compromise lightly. For if we disallow the option for a trial to foreigners (who we lack substantial proof of their crimes) what prohibits the expanded use against ourselves? As Thomas Jefferson stated, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending a too small degree of it."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor (Post 277775)

I believe you are correct that the news should also mention that they are trained to make such statements. However, I have also seen the damage caused when the media fails to give the accused side of the story. Therefore, the best alternative is where they need to report both sides, and add at the end comments like you stated. Although I still doubt I would trust the news very much.

FCW

Quote:

Originally Posted by FCWood (Post 277813)

As you say - not lightly. Please understand that my point about an inability to pay the price is not made lightly or flippantly. We are used to the happy circumstance of mass affluence - thus, we can afford a great many good things. We can (and do) provide a great many amenities and comforts to those involved with our society.

However - the current unpleasantness with regard to California's budget is instructive. If matters at the national level get worse, then fiscal triage may become necessary. And so we face the rhetorical question of which important budget item gets cut. For example, given a choice between childhood vaccinations for the children of North Caroline and providing quality counsel to an alleged foreign terrorist, which do we do? (Yes, that's a shameless plucking on emotional strings. Perhaps its unfair. But "what if?" remains.)

What's the answer? I don't know. But maybe we should consider the implications of a strained budget, a long-term war on terror, and the costs of dealing with such matters as we are discussing here.

By the way...

The numbers could hardly be more stark: Tax receipts are on pace to drop 18 percent this year, the biggest single-year decline since the Great Depression, while the federal deficit balloons to a record $1.8 trillion.

LINK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warrior-Mentor (Post 277775)

Sounds as if someone needs to submit a Letter to the Editor to let them and the readers know of the missing piece of critical information. ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Wonder what the Irish think of this one. :confused:

And so it goes... ;)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

Quote:

Head of MI6 Denies Role of Agency in Torture
John Burns, NYT, 10 Aug 2009

The head of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service has joined other senior British government officials in the defense of Britain’s counterterrorism policies, rejecting accusations that his agency has colluded in the torture of terrorist suspects being interrogated abroad.

In an interview broadcast by the BBC on Monday, the official, Sir John Scarlett, said his officers were “as committed to the values and the human rights values of liberal democracy as anybody else.” He said there had been “no torture and no complicity in torture” by Britain’s intelligence agencies, as several former detainees at the United States camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have alleged.

Sir John’s remarks were part of what the BBC described as the first broadcast interview given by a serving head of Britain’s overseas intelligence agency, which is also known as MI6. The interview was part of a radio series on the history of the service. In November, shortly after the service’s 100th anniversary, the MI6 chief will retire and be succeeded by Sir John Sawers, currently Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations.

The interview appeared to be part of a wider effort by the government of Prime Minister Gordon Brown to influence opinion in Britain at a time when pressure has been growing for a judicial inquiry into allegations that British officials from MI6 and its sister agency for domestic intelligence, MI5, knowingly assisted or allowed torture by agents of foreign governments.

Government concern has focused on a lawsuit by Binyam Mohamed, a former Guantánamo detainee now living in Britain, where he gained residency status a year before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. His lawyers are fighting in British courts to win the publication of secret correspondence between British and American officials that the lawyers say will show that Britain knew, or had reason to know, that Mr. Mohamed was being tortured while Britain was cooperating with American agencies involved in his custody.

Under pressure from the Obama administration, which has warned that intelligence cooperation between the countries could be affected if the secret documents are released, the government in London has refused to make the documents public. In the past week, two parliamentary committees have joined the battle.

Last week, the joint human rights committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords said that there was a “disturbing number of credible allegations” of British complicity in the torture of detainees held abroad, and urged the government to order a public inquiry. The Commons’ Foreign Affairs Committee followed with a report saying that it, too, had “grave concerns” that British intelligence officers may have been involved, at least indirectly, in detainees’ mistreatment.

The Ethiopian-born Mr. Mohamed, 31, was arrested at an airport in Karachi, Pakistan, in 2002 carrying a false British passport, and American officials have said that he trained at a camp in Afghanistan, run by Al Qaeda, for a plot aimed at detonating a “dirty bomb” in the United States. But charges against him were dropped in 2008 when prosecutors at Guantánamo acknowledged that evidence against him had been acquired, in part, during the interrogation of another detainee that involved use of the simulated-drowning technique known as waterboarding.

After his return to Britain this year, Mr. Mohamed claimed he was tortured in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Morocco while in American custody, and when he was being transferred under the rendition program adopted by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks. He has said that questions put to him while he was being held in Pakistan and Morocco could only have been based on information provided by British intelligence agencies.

Mr. Mohamed said he was abused at Guantánamo as well, and has asked a federal court in Washington to preserve “photographic evidence” that he says shows him being “savagely beaten.” American officials have denied any abuse.

British officials have also denied his accusations and said the fact that an MI5 official, who met Mr. Mohamed while he was held in Pakistan, later visited Morocco three times while he was a prisoner there was unrelated to his case.

But even as it has stood its ground in rejecting the release of the secret British-American correspondence in the case, the government has adopted a parallel strategy of arguing that protecting Britain against terrorist attacks required “realism” in the country’s intelligence exchanges with other governments.

The argument was put squarely in an article published over the weekend in The Sunday Telegraph in which two of the most senior ministers in the cabinet, Home Secretary Alan Johnson and Foreign Secretary David Miliband, argued that Britain’s intelligence agencies had “hard choices” to make in striking the balance between human rights and the country’s security.

“When detainees are held by our police or armed forces we can be sure how they are treated, and whether our standards are met,” they said. “By definition, we cannot have that same level of assurance when they are held by foreign governments, whose obligations and practices may differ from our own.

“Yet intelligence from overseas is critical to our success in stopping terrorism,” they continued. “All the most serious plots and attacks in the U.K. in this decade have had significant links abroad.”

The theme was echoed in the BBC interview with Sir John.

“We are an independent service working to our own laws — nobody’s else’s — and to our own values,” he said, noting, however, that MI6 officers had to weigh their decisions carefully in dealing with foreign intelligence agencies. “They also have the responsibility to protect the country against terrorism, and these issues need to be debated and understood in that context.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/11/wo...ef=global-home