Page 11 of 31 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 601

Thread: Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror

  1. #201
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I'd add

    there's also much money to be made but I won't add that as I don't want JMM to think it's a smack aimed at him -- which it emphatically would not be.

  2. #202
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Nope, Ken, wouldn't be offended ...

    if you alleged that some lawyers (and press agents) are in it for money - either directly, or because it will give them fame, which will later translate to money.

    Some, however, will be in it because of beliefs and/or because they hate the prior administration with all their hearts.

  3. #203
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default That's true --

    on all counts. Wonder who'll do the book contract...

  4. #204
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default From La Belle France ....

    Five former Gitmo detainees, repatriated to France and who were convicted on French terrorism charges in 2007, have had those convictions overturned by a French intermediate appeals court.

    Paris appeals court acquits ex-Guantanamo inmates
    By JAMEY KEATEN, Associated Press Writer
    Tuesday, February 24, 2009

    (02-24) 12:50 PST PARIS, France (AP) --

    A Paris appeals court on Tuesday overturned the terrorism convictions of five former detainees at Guantanamo Bay, ruling French police agents were out of line in questioning them at the U.S. prison camp.

    France is among the few Western countries to prosecute nationals who have returned home from Guantanamo — and the ruling marks the latest high-profile foreign disavowal of the secretive center that President Barack Obama's administration wants to shutter for good.

    The appeals court ruled that agents from the French counterterrorism agency DST who questioned the five inmates at Guantanamo in 2002 and 2004 had overstepped their roles. Overturning a lower court's conviction, the appeals court said DST could not act as both a spy agency and a judicial police service, the body French law says is authorized to interrogate detainees.

    State prosecutors said they would appeal to the highest French court, the Court of Cassation.
    The logic of the appellate court closely follows the logic of the Eminent Jurists discussed above. Note that the sentence involved was 1 year.

  5. #205
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default The media saga of Binyam Mohammed ...

    continues here and here. Besides giving one a warm, fuzzy feeling, both articles provide an interesting factoid:

    (from the first link)
    Jaralla Saleh Mohammed Kahla al-Marri, a Qatari, said he had been held at the Colnbrook Immigration Removal Center since Monday over a visa irregularity.

    In a telephone interview from the center, al-Marri said he couldn't understand his treatment. He said he traveled to Britain a few weeks ago without problems to take part in a speaking tour about his experiences at the prison camp.

    "They said 'We didn't know you were in Guantanamo,'" al-Marri said "All the world, they know. (The British government is) the last to know? It's a shame."

    Al-Marri was detained by U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2001 on suspicion of links to the Taliban and al-Qaida. But no charges were ever brought against him.

    His brother, Ali al-Marri, is currently being held in the brig at Charleston Naval Base, in South Carolina.
    Of course, none of these folks (plus Moazzam Begg, also mentioned) have any pre-Gitmo links - just a reunion of former Gitmo detainees who want to sit over tea and biscuits (cookies). And, I have a bridge to sell ......

  6. #206
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,202

    Default The UK didn't know?

    JMM,

    Very odd the detention of the Qatari, Jaralla Al-Mari, on 23/2/09 apparently on his exit from the UK; for some months IIRC he has been featured in the publicity for a UK tour to speak on G-Bay organised by Cageprisoners campaign group, alongside Mozzam Begg (ex-G-Bay UK prisoner), Omar Deghayes (ex-G-bay prisoner, Libyan origin and UK resident) and Christopher Arendt (ex-US Army guard).

    The main website run by Begg is: http://www.cageprisoners.com/index.php (their home page has problems loading) and the UK tour is: http://www.cageprisoners.com/campaigns.php?id=818 note lengthier spelling of Al-Mari's name.

    Needless to say there are many hits via Google on the history of all those named.

    davidbfpo
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 02-25-2009 at 10:16 PM.

  7. #207
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Quite a tour, David ....

    quite a tour. I expect more of this, not only by released detainees so far named, but by others - e.g., Mohamed Farag Bashmilah.

    Another former Gitmo guard, making the US media circuit, is Brandon Neely, whose statement is here. Neely is presently active in the Houston chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War.[*]

    The journalist who has followed the Gitmo cases most closely (many articles and a book) - from the detainees' viewpoint - is UK resident Andy Worthington, who lives in London.

    I expect this cottage industry to grow - exponentially if Sen. Leahy's proposed Truth & Reconciliation Commission flies.

    ------------------------
    [*] Ex-guard Arendt is also connected with IVAW, and testified last year at the Winter Soldier Hearings. The latter is also a road show - in Austin TX on 28 Feb. IVAW is an affiliate of Veterans for Peace, whose board is bio'd here.

    Another affiliate is VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War), which is a splinter from a splinter of the original VVAW of the late 60s and early 70s. Barry Romo, who spoke at 2008 Winter Solder, is probably its best known member from his role in 1971 Winter Soldier.

    None of these groups should be confused with VVA (Vietnam Veterans of America), which is congressionally chartered under Title 36, USC - VVA webpage.

  8. #208
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Al-Marri redux - perhaps ...

    Originally, al-Marri was charged by John Ashcroft under Federal criminal law. Pres. Bush overruled him; the charges were dismissed and al-Marri was detained under the President's executive order. The Obama administration may reverse course and attempt to restore the criminal prosecution as Lyle Denniston reports here.

    Court trial for Al-Marri?
    Thursday, February 26th, 2009 2:25 pm | Lyle Denniston
    ....
    The American Civil Liberties Union, citing news stories, reported Thursday that the Justice Department will shortly file terrorism charges and hold a trial in civilian court of a Qatari national, Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri — the only detainee taken prisoner in the U.S. and still being held in this country. ...
    ..... [a summary of the al-Marri proceedings follow] ....
    The ACLU news release is here. The Washington Post story is here.

    If the indictment is filed, the SCOTUS appeal, not far off from being decided, will probably be moot and dismissed (based on recent decisions). There may be problems in prosecuting in Federal court because of the prior dismissal of the original Federal charges (mentioned in prior posts); although the original charges (credit card fraud and making false statements to the FBI) are different from the new charges (providing material support to al-Qaeda).

  9. #209
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Al-Marri indictment filed

    The DoJ, via the Federal attorney for the central district of Illinois, has filed a two count indictment against al-Marri.

    U.S. charges Al-Marri, seeks end of Court case
    Friday, February 27th, 2009 1:39 pm | Lyle Denniston
    .....
    A federal grand jury in Peoria, Ill., has charged a Qatari national held in the U.S. on terrorism crimes, and the Justice Department said Friday it will ask the Supreme Court to dismiss the prisoner’s pending appeal, now set for a hearing April 27.
    .....
    The Department said the Solicitor General’s office would move, probably later Friday, to have Al-Marri’s petition dismissed in the wake of the indictment. But Jonathan Hafetz, Al-Marri’s lead lawyer, said: “Despite this indictment, the Obama administration has yet to renounce the government’s asserted authority to imprison legal residents and U.S. citizens without charge or gtrial. We will continue to pursue Mr. Al-Marri’s case before the Supreme Court to make sure that no American citizen or lawful resident will ever again be subjected to such treatment.”
    The indictment is here; the DoJ press release is here; and the ACLU press release is here.

    The indictment is a bare notice pleading charging al-Marri with providing “material support” and "resources", specifically “personnel” (which could include himself) to AQ, and with conspiracy to provide such support

    This case will now take two different paths:

    1a. SCOTUS will have to decide whether the case should continue. Normally, these facts would render the case moot and it would be dismissed. Since the case presents the issue of whether habeas corpus can be suspended for a non-citizen, but legal US resident, the Court may decide to hear that issue; or,

    1b. Even if habeas is not suspended, can a non-citizen resident or even a citizen be detained (even if not charged with a crime) under Common Article 3 of the GCs as an unlawful enemy combatant ? Note that Common Article 3 was originally aimed at covering domestic insurgencies, and does not distinguish whether the insurgent is a citizen, legal alien resident or illegal alien resident of the nation involved in the armed conflict.

    2. Al-Marri will have to plead to the indictment; but, since it is a bare notice pleading, the defense will most likely request a bill of particulars; and will certainly engage in some pre-trial discovery. One defense may be that the acts to be proven against al-Marri now were the same acts underlying the initial credit card fraud charge (dismissed with prejudice). If the acts now charged are different, that defense would not be available.

  10. #210
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,202

    Default UK Torture enquiry comes?

    More speculation on Binyam Mohammed's allegations of torture will force an investigation in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7917543.stm

    davidbfpo

  11. #211
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default David, a question on this ....

    from your BBC link
    Lord Carlile told the Sunday Times that a judicial inquiry was needed to look into the claims made Mr Mohamed.
    What would a UK judicial inquiry look like ?

    For example, in Michigan procedure, we have what is called a one-man grand jury (a judge). He can authorize police investigations, subpeona witnesses, order searches and production of documents, etc. He then can issue indictments if criminal conduct is found. Those one-man grand jury proceedings are secret (like the common law grand jury), until indictments are issued.

  12. #212
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default DoJ 2001-2002 memoes now available ...

    at this DoJ webpage.

    Seven memoes (msotly dealing with detention issues) from 2001-2002 are now available after their release by AG Holder:

    Memorandum Regarding Constitutionality of Amending Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to Change the "Purpose" Standard for Searches (09-25-2001)

    Memorandum Regarding Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities within the United States (10-23-2001)

    Memorandum Regarding Authority of the President to Suspend Certain Provisions of the ABM Treaty (11-15-2001)

    Memorandum Regarding the President's Power as Commander in Chief to Transfer Captured Terrorists to the Control and Custody of Foreign Nations (03-13-2002)

    Memorandum Regarding Swift Justice Authorization Act (04-08-2002)

    Memorandum Regarding Determination of Enemy Belligerency and Military Detention (06-08-2002)

    Memorandum Regarding Applicability of 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a) to Military Detention of United States Citizens (06-27-2002)
    Note that two later memoes in 2008 and 2009 (also available at the above link) "refine" the previous memoes in part:

    Memorandum Regarding Status of Certain OLC Opinions Issued in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (01-15-2009)

    Memorandum Regarding October 23, 2001 OLC Opinion Addressing the Domestic Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities (10-06-2008)
    Since the last two memoes represent the final position of the Bush administration - and reflect its practices after 2002, the earlier memoes must be taken with a grain of salt. That is, they are not evidence of what was actually done, or even planned; but do reflect the legal opinions of their authors at the time.

  13. #213
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Al-Marri restored to status quo ante

    No surprise here in a short article and short order.

    Al-Marri detention case ended
    Friday, March 6th, 2009 12:13 pm | Lyle Denniston
    ...
    The Supreme Court on Friday wiped out a lower court ruling that gave the President the authority to detain indefinitely as terrorism suspects individuals living legally in the United States. The order also approved transfer of Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri from military custody to civilian custody for a trial on criminal charges in a regular federal court, presumably in Illinois. ...
    ....
    The Court’s action ended the Qatari national’s appeal in Al-Marri v. Spagone (08-368) that the Court had agreed to hear. Thus, the hearing set for April 27 will not be held.
    This result leaves for another day settlement of the issue: Can a non-citizen resident or even a citizen be detained (even if not charged with a crime) under Common Article 3 of the GCs as an unlawful enemy combatant ?

    Common Article 3 was originally aimed at covering domestic insurgencies, and does not distinguish between whether the insurgent is a citizen, legal alien resident or illegal alien resident of the nation involved in the armed conflict.

    The clearest voice on this issue, as applied to citizens, has been Justice Scalia, who said "NO" - either release or charge criminally. He took no position as to legal alien residents. Justice Jackson, in the post-WWII Johnson case, suggested that the same habeas rules apply to citizens and legal alien residents; but that non-resident aliens (Germans) could be detained in an American prison located in Germany. The Johnson case is very much on point re: the Bagram detainees.

  14. #214
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,202

    Default Torture allegations

    Binyam Mohammed has started to talk in the UK; primarily to the "right leaning" Mail on Sunday: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...EXCLUSIVE.html . Note the editorial comment which is scathing that torture was used: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/coffeebre...os-Binyam.html . Story picked up by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7930708.stm . A central allegation is that the UK Security Service (MI5) knew he was being tortured.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 03-07-2009 at 11:38 PM. Reason: Add links

  15. #215
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default KSM's Islamic Response

    KSM and his 4 companions have filed a six-page response in the Gitmo MCA proceeding (stayed by the Obama administration). From the UK Guardian:

    Five Guantánamo detainees claim responsibility for September 11 attacks
    • Men call accusations 'a badge of honour'
    • Pentagon confirms New York Times report
    Daniel Nasaw in Washington
    guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 March 2009 14.30 GMT

    Five accused planners of the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States have said they are proud of the effort that killed nearly 3,000 people and called it a model of Islamic action.

    In a filing with the Guantánamo Bay military commission trying them, the alleged co-conspirators describe themselves as "terrorists to the bone".

    "To us, they are not accusations," the document reads. "To us they are a badge of honour, which we carry with honour. Many thanks to God, for his kind gesture, and choosing us to perform the act of Jihad for his cause and to defend Islam and Muslims".

    The document, titled The Islamic Response to the Government's Nine Accusations, bears the names Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Al-Hawsawi, all of whom are currently held in a high-security camp at Guantánamo Bay. ....
    The MCA order (simply entering and publishing the document) and the six-page response is here.

  16. #216
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Rasul civil tort action nearing decision

    Rasul v Bush (2004) was one of the original habeas cases. After a successful result there, Rasul began a civil tort action against Don Rumsfeld et al. That case has generally been unsuccessful, but was remanded by SCOTUS for reconsideration of the issues in light of all the changes in detainee law.

    That case is nearing decision in the DC Circuit (one more set of short reply briefs to be filed by 23 Mar). The DoJ brief is the first merits position taken by the Obama administration concerning Gitmo torture claims.

    U.S. opposes torture lawsuit
    Thursday, March 12th, 2009 3:52 pm | Lyle Denniston
    ....
    The Obama Administration, taking its first position in a federal court on claims of torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees, urged the D.C. Circuit Court on Thursday to reject a lawsuit by four Britons formerly held there. In addition, the new filing argued that a recent appeals court ruling makes clear that “aliens held at Guantanamo do not have due process rights.”

    Moreover, the document called for a sweeping ban on lawsuits against U.S. military officials, claiming constitutional violations by such officials. Allowing such lawsuits “for actions taken with respect to aliens during wartime,” it said, “would enmesh the courts in military, national security, and foreign affairs matters that are the exclusive province of the political branches.” ....
    The detainees' brief is here; and the DoJ brief is here.

  17. #217
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,202

    Default G-bay to Helmand command

    Below are two paragraphs taken from this longer general article:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...r-enemies.html

    'He might, as he insists, be innocent of any wrongdoing. But the risks of taking the protestations of innocence of a former Guantánamo detainee at face value have been graphically demonstrated this week by the revelation that another inmate, Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, has re-emerged as one of the Taliban's most effective commanders in southern Afghanistan.

    During the six years he was held at Guantánamo, Rasoul, now known as Mullah Abdullah Zakir, managed to convince his American interrogators that he had never held a military command, even though it turns out he was a high-ranking commander close to Mullah Omar, the Taliban's supreme leader. Rasoul was eventually released after claiming he wanted to return to his family and farm. British officials believe he is the mastermind behind the deadly surge in roadside bombings in Helmand since last spring'
    .

    davidbfpo
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 06-24-2010 at 08:05 PM.

  18. #218
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,202

    Default Binyam Mohammed interview

    Binyam Mohammed has been interviewed by the BBC, with his legal adviser present and blames the UK for his alleged torture: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7940958.stm

    davidbfpo

  19. #219
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default Kafka and counterterrorism...

    Activists defy law to buy plane ticket for exiled Canadian


    LES PERREAUX AND BILL CURRY
    From Friday's Globe and Mail
    March 12, 2009 at 9:59 PM EDT

    MONTREAL and OTTAWA — More than 100 Canadians have chipped in airfare and exposed themselves to criminal prosecution in an effort to force Ottawa to allow a Canadian citizen to fly home from Sudan, where he's been stranded since being labelled an al-Qaeda operative by the United Nations.

    The donors, including teachers, students and a couple of dozen university professors from across Canada, bought a $997 airline ticket for Abousfian Abdelrazik.

    Now, they say, it's up to the Harper government to live up to a promise to give him travel documents for his April 3 flight from Khartoum to Toronto via Abu Dhabi.

    Mr. Abdelrazik, 47, is lost in a legal no-man's land. Canadian and Sudanese authorities have cleared him of being a terrorist suspect after years of questioning, imprisonment and torture.

    But he remains on the UN terror list at the behest of the United States, according to his lawyer.

    The Canadian government gave Mr. Abdelrazik “temporary safe haven” at the Khartoum embassy nearly a year ago.

    Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Emma Welford would not say whether emergency travel documents will be issued, as promised, saying only that Canada is obliged to enforce a United Nations travel ban on Mr. Abdelrazik.

    But that travel ban specifically permits citizens to return to their home countries.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  20. #220
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Comment on Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul

    I found the Telegraph article cited by David to be excellent. Having said that, it is up to the people of the UK (and of Canada, since the same issues are present in the case cited by Rex) to decide how they are going to address those issues. Our experiences with similar cases (the good, the bad and the ugly) may be instructive, but the decisions in the end are theirs and not ours.

    As to the Rasoul case, we must be aware that the very simple issue was whether he was an unlawful enemy combatant subject to detention - not whether he was guilty of war crimes, or subject to "anti-terrorist" laws. The facts (despite his statement, which was simply not truthful) compelled the first three reviewing panels to conclude that his detention was justified.

    The final reviewing panel, and Gordon England, determined (for reasons which were totally redacted) that he should be released. Perhaps, that decision was solely political, perhaps not - the record does not allow us to make that determination. As events have turned out, that decision was a cock up.

    As to Rasoul himself, it is easy to call him a lying terrorist. My own take on Rasoul (which to me is more scary) is that he was simply a good soldier in his army, who was aware that he had to survive, evade, resist and escape - and managed to do so.

    That was all in accord with his Laws of War - which to him and other AQ and Taliban members are a matter not only of law, but of religion. As KSM stated in his "Islamic Response" (link):

    (p.3 .pdf file)
    Also, as the prophet has stated: "War is to deceive."
    Taking this KSM view into account, the Telegraph article is still correct in this conclusion:

    The worldwide campaign against Islamist-inspired militancy is highly complex. But if the West to wants to prevent further terror attacks, we must first distinguish between those who are on our side, and those who are not.
    But, as the Rasoul case illustrates, that distinguishment is subject to error - especially if everything said by detainees is taken at face value. And, discernment is also impeded by having to take everything our government says at face value - the redacted decision to release Rasoul is simply one example of too many we have so far seen on this thread.

    Common Article 3 of the GCs (along with several other articles in GC III and IV) require that detention status be determined by an impartial tribunal (not necessarily a full-fledged domestic judicial court) - based on evidence. That requirement is making more and more sense to me, where these cases are being "tried and decided" based on statements by government (and "shadow government") officials, the detainees and their lawyers.

    Binyam Mohamed (link in David's last post) is a good example - the propaganda circus continues. I have stated before and reiterate that I would have liked to see the BM case tried before a tough impartial judge (military or civilian) to determine (1) whether he should be detained as an unlawful enemy combatant; and (2) whether he was guilty of war crimes, "terrorist" crimes, etc. If that trial reached issues of unlawful rendition and torture, so be it.

    It is perfectly conceivable that a judge could have found against BM on issues (1) and (2) - and also could have found that both unlawful rendition and torture occured. If the latter finding was made, the judge's duty would then have been to refer the case for Federal prosecution against the persons responsible for the renditions and torture. That is how our (US) system is supposed to work.

    Obviously, political decisions were at work in the BM case (by both the Bush II and Obama administrations). So, here also, we are left with a media "trial".

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •