Category Archives: Guantanamo

Government Stonewalls on Guantanamo Detainees

U.S. Stymies Detainee Access Despite Ruling, Lawyers Say (washingtonpost.com)

More than three months after the Supreme Court declared that hundreds of detainees at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their imprisonment in U.S. courts, none has appeared in a courtroom.

Of the 68 alleged al Qaeda and Taliban fighters who have so far petitioned for access to federal court in Washington, only a handful have even spoken to their lawyers. With some held for nearly three years on the U.S. Navy base, the detainees remain largely precluded from receiving legal help because of protracted negotiations with the Justice Department over lawyers' security clearances, the government's insistence on monitoring attorney-client conversations and the number of visits lawyers will be allowed, defense attorneys told a U.S. District Court judge yesterday.

Losing in the Supreme Court has produced….no change at all.

Posted in Guantanamo | 1 Comment

Seymour M. Hersh Says Senior Officials Ignored Warnings About Atrocities

The NYT reports that Seymour M. Hersh's new book says the highest level military and civilian officials in the administration — including Rice and Rumsfeld — ignored warnings about abuses at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib.

Prison Scandal: New Book Says Bush Officials Were Told of Detainee Abuse: Senior military and national security officials in the Bush administration were repeatedly warned by subordinates in 2002 and 2003 that prisoners in military custody were being abused, according to a new book by a prominent journalist.

Seymour M. Hersh, a writer for The New Yorker who earlier this year was among the first to disclose details of the abuses of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq, makes the charges in his book “Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib” (HarperCollins), which is being released Monday. …

Mr. Hersh asserts that a Central Intelligence Agency analyst who visited the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in the late summer of 2002 filed a report of abuses there that drew the attention of Gen. John A. Gordon, a deputy to Condoleezza Rice, the White House national security adviser.

But when General Gordon called the matter to her attention and she discussed it with other senior officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, no significant change resulted. Mr. Hersh's account is based on anonymous sources, some of them secondhand, and could not be independently verified.

Although a number of senior officials were briefed on the analyst's findings of abuse, the high-level White House meeting did not “dwell on” that question, but rather focused on whether some of the prisoners should not have been held at all, the book says. A White House official confirmed Saturday that this meeting was held and reiterated that the focus, when the matter was referred to Mr. Rumsfeld, was on whether people were being improperly held.

Mr. Hersh also says that a military officer involved in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq learned of the abuses at Abu Ghraib in November and reported it to two of his superiors, Gen. John P. Abizaid, the regional commander, and his deputy, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith.

“I said there are systematic abuses going on in the prisons,” the unidentified officer is quoted as telling Mr. Hersh. “Abizaid didn't say a thing. He looked at me – beyond me, as if to say, 'Move on. I don't want to touch this.' “

But Capt. Hal Pittman, a Central Command spokesman, said in a statement Saturday, “General Abizaid does not recall any officer discussing with him any specific cases of abuse at Abu Ghraib prior to January 2004, nor do any of the officers of the Centcom staff who travel with him.”

Note the non-denial denial: in response to a charge about ignoring a warning about general and systemic abuse, the response is that the General 'does not recall any officer discussing with him any specific cases of abuse.'

Note also that Pentagon is worried about Hersh's book. Earlier today the Washington Note reported that the Pentagon let off a pre-emptive press strike against what it expected Hersh would be saying. The core of that campaign is the zillion whitewash reports issued in the past weeks, all designed to shield senior officials from any examination of their responsibilities.

They should be worried. I don't know if ignoring reports of abuse is technically a war crime under these circumstances — so much depends on exactly what they were told, and how — but it has to be close enough to be worrying. There does come a point where closing your eyes to the evidence is a form of complicity, although I can't say from the NYT article alone that this conduct reaches that high bar.

But whatever you call it, if Seymour Hersh is right again (and his accuracy record is imperfect) ignoring these warnings looks pretty raw.

Posted in Guantanamo, Iraq Atrocities | 1 Comment

Col. Brownback Update

During a fruitless search to find out the upshot of the motion to disqualify Col. Brownback from sitting in the first Guantanamo 'trial', I found this gem in the New Zealand Herald, regarding a byplay in the Salim Ahmed Hamdan proceeding:

Asked by the defence whether he believed the orders establishing the military commission were lawful, Colonel Brownback paused, and to the surprise of some observers, said: “I choose not to answer that question at this time.” Asked again by the military prosecutor, Commander Scott Lang, Colonel Brownback replied that he had “a duty to comply” with any order, even if it was “questionable”.

Does this mean anything, or just that he's learned to be cagey?

Posted in Guantanamo | 2 Comments

The Value of Zealous Representation

The NY Times has an eye-opening article on the first day of the Guantanamo proceeding (I hesitate to call it a “trial”) against Salim Ahmed Hamdan. First War-Crimes Case Opens at Guantánamo Base.

Naturally, since this is the first case of the new system, and the eyes of the nation and the world (especially the Islamic world) are upon it, the government has taken every precaution to make sure the proceeding both is and is seen as fair. The defense has been given adequate resources (NOT!). And the panel has been carefully selected to reflect the high standard of even-handedness and professionalism that characterizes the military justices system at its best.1

Oops.

Much of the morning was taken up with Commander Swift's efforts to portray Colonel Brownback as incapable of serving impartially because of extensive contacts with senior Pentagon officials who helped set up the military tribunals. Colonel Brownback, who came out of retirement to serve on a tribunal, seemed annoyed at Commander Swift's request that he step aside and said he would forward it to the Pentagon. By the end of the day Commander Swift had challenged the suitability of four other panel members.

Commander Swift said that Colonel Brownback should be disqualified because he said at a July 15 meeting with some lawyers that he did not believe Guantánamo detainees had any rights to a speedy trial. Colonel Brownback sharply denied making the remark.

But hours later at the conclusion of the day's proceedings, Commander Swift stunned Colonel Brownback when he said he had just learned that an audiotape of the meeting existed and he would like to include it in his request that Colonel Brownback be disqualified. Colonel Brownback covered his face with his hands for several moments and then agreed to have the tape recording included.

If it turns out that the presiding officer of the tribunal has lied in open court about his views and actions in order to remain in charge of the proceedings, it will taint — perhaps irretrievably — the entire proceedings.

And while Col. Peter E. Brownback III is as entitled to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty just as much as, well, the defendant, if it should transpire that this tape contradicts his courtroom remark, I trust there is a court-martial and a disbarment in his future.


1 Honest: at its best, the military justice system is really very good indeed; arguably in criminal cases it is in some ways superior to the civil justice system.

Posted in Guantanamo | 4 Comments

Trials or Travesties?

The Washington Post reports that Trials Set To Begin For Four at Guantanamo. In addition to the many fundamental structural failures (e.g. limited rights of appeal, limited access to counsel and witnesses) which are damaging our national reputation, stay alert for news of little-discussed but critical biases in implementation of the rules.

  • Have the defendants' lawyers had access to sufficient translation resources to meaningfully prepare the defense? [Earlier reports suggested the answer was “not at all”.]
  • Will the court hear arguments that the trials cannot go forward in light of the Supreme Court's decisions earlier this year? [I'd be surprised.]
  • Does a civilian court have jurisdiction to enjoin these trials? [I have no idea, and suspect it's an interesting question.]
  • Are the defense lawyers in a separate chain of command from the prosecution? [This is the norm in military trials — but was not the case in Guantanamo the last I heard, admittedly some months ago. It's a vastly important question, not just because of the potential for subtle pressure on the advocates — at least one of whom has already suffered a career-ending non-promotion, but also because it means there is no higher-up likely to go to bat for needed resources.]
Posted in Guantanamo | Comments Off on Trials or Travesties?

Gitmo Torture Regime Documented

Digby points to a report by the Center for Constitutional Rights based on the testimony of three UK citizens released from Gitmo. It describes an organized and systematic regime of psychological and physical torture to break the detainees.

If these charges are true, then this is not a few bad apples, but policy. And the person responsible for that policy is up for re-election soon.

Separately, information about doctors who at least failed to report physical torture and in some cases were complicit in enabling psychological abuse is emerging.

Posted in Guantanamo, Iraq Atrocities | 3 Comments