Crimes, War Crimes and the War on Terror

[jmm99]

The testimony of Leon Panetta, if it reflects a considered view held by the Obama administration, outlaws "extraordinary rendition" and torture; but allows ordinary rendition and temporary (mesne) detention.

As reported by the Washington Times.

Panetta backs rendition, but not torture
Eli Lake (Contact)
Friday, February 6, 2009
Leon Panetta, the Obama administration's nominee to head the CIA, said Thursday that the administration would return to Clinton-era practices that sent terrorist suspects to foreign countries for prosecution.

Mr. Panetta said that under the new executive orders President Obama issued on the second day of his presidency, "extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of sending prisoners to foreign dungeons for enhanced interrogation or torture -- would not be allowed. But the nominee told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that returning an individual to a country for trial would be appropriate.

"In renditions where we returned an individual to the jurisdiction of another country, and they exercised their rights to try that individual and to prosecute him under their laws, I think that is an appropriate use of rendition," he said.
.....
Mr. Panetta also asserted the CIA's right to hold suspects on a temporary basis, a practice that he said was allowed under the executive orders signed by Mr. Obama on Jan. 22.

"Without going into the exact location, if we captured Osama bin Laden, we would find a place to hold him temporarily," he said. "We would debrief him and then we would incarcerate him, probably in a military prison."

Pros and cons in the rest of the article.

[jmm99]

but not in the arena of detainees - based on the first Obama DoJ submission to Judge Bates' request that the DoJ advise him if the definition of "enemy combatant" will be "refined".

No new definition of “enemy” now
Monday, February 9th, 2009 10:27 pm | Lyle Denniston
.....
The Obama Administration, in its first significant court filing dealing with detainees’ challenges to their imprisonment, urged a federal judge on Monday not to lay down a general definition of who is to be held in confinement as an “enemy combatant.” The judge should decide on the Executive Branch’s authority to detain terrorism suspects only on an individual, case-by-case basis, the Justice Department said in a five-page filing, found here, in U.S. District Court in Washington. .....

The DoJ filing is here.

It is not especially remarkable that a lawyer can write 5 pages without saying anything. It is somewhat remarkable that the new DoJ has no position on the definition of what constitutes an "enemy combatant" - considering all of the ink and bytes that have been expended over the last 7 years.

Judge Bates' problem is that he is not faced with generalities, but with 3 actual cases (discussed here at post #171), where he has to decide whether those particular detainees were "enemy combatants" subject to detention.

Perhaps, these DoJ folks were just having a bad hair day (happens to us all). A less charitable view would be that they are not well acquainted with the Laws of War.

[jmm99]

by March 13, says Judge Bates.

Judge rules — temporarily — on “enemy” definition
Friday, February 13th, 2009 10:38 am | Lyle Denniston
....
In the first federal court ruling rejecting a position of the Obama Administration on detention of terrorism suspects, a federal judge in Washington on Wednesday turned aside an Administration plea to go forward with detainees’ challenges without first defining who may be held as an “enemy combatant.” U.S. District Judge John D. Bates decided that no habeas cases can be decided without settling who may be treated as an enemy in the “war on terrorism.” However, he did give the Administration some added time — until March 13 — to come up with an alternative definition to one that he will be using temporarily.
....
Here is the definition (outlined by the government on Jan. 7, during the final days of the Bush Administration):

“At a minimum, the President’s power to detain includes the ability to detain as enemy combatant those individuals who were part of, or supporting, forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners and allies. This includes individuals who were part of or directly supporting Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces, that are engaged in hostilities against the United States, its coalition partners or allies. This also includes any persons who have committed a belligerent act or supported hostilities in aid of enemy forces.”

This definition is slightly more expansive than the definition drafted by Judge Leon, which formed the basis for his decisions to date.

The judge's order is here.

(opinion, pp.2-3)
Under the Case Management Order ("CMO") that governs these cases, see Hamlily v. Obama, Civ.A.No. 05-0763 (dkt. ent. #116), the date by which the parties and the Court will need to begin wrestling with the merits of these cases is fast approaching. And as in most civil and criminal proceedings, well before the hearing (i.e., trial) on the merits the parties and the Court must have a clear, uniform understanding of the key legal standard to be applied -- e.g., the criminal charge, or the tort asserted, or the controlling constitutional claim. So, too, here, with respect to the core controlling legal standard of "enemy combatant" to be applied to the specific facts in each individual detainee's case.

Nevertheless, given respondents' representations regarding the Executive Branch's need for additional time to review these and other Guantanamo Bay detainee cases, the Court is inclined to delay somewhat its decision on the definition of "enemy combatant." Although the Court is concerned with petitioners' ability to conduct discovery and file traverses in these cases
without the benefit of an "enemy combatant" definition, the Court concludes that it can manage the discovery process without first deciding the issue and, more importantly, that petitioners will not be prejudiced. Where necessary to resolve the scope of discovery obligations under the CMO, however, the Court will apply the broadest proposed definition of "enemy combatant" -- i.e., the definition proposed in respondents' brief filed in these cases on January 7, 2009. See Hamlily, Civ.A.No. 05-0763 (dkt. ent. #126). That means that discovery will likewise be broad based on that definition, but respondents should not be heard to complain, since they have to date declined to modify their position.

Respondents' rationale for their proposal to put off deciding the central legal standard of "enemy combatant" is not persuasive, and the Court's willingness to permit some delay is only to accommodate the ongoing "new" Executive Branch review. Hence, the Court will agree to delay deciding the "enemy combatant" issue even though it rejects respondents' contention that a
decision "on the scope of the Government's detention authority" should be made in a "case-bycase" manner, and only upon reaching the merits stage of these proceedings. Of course, the question whether a particular petitioner is an "enemy combatant" is a highly fact-intensive determination that must necessarily be made on a case-by-case basis in light of the evidence
presented. But the definition of the central legal term "enemy combatant" is not a moving target, varying from case to case, and the Court intends to rule on that definition before the parties reach a critical point in these proceedings. That point, the Court concludes, is at the briefing on motions for judgment on the record. [now set for 3 Mar]

[jmm99]

The Mohamed case was first reported in this thread here (post #83).

The NY Times has filed a very short (4 sentence) item, stating that he will be released from Gitmo and returned to the UK. The Times Mohamed index is here.

British Detainee to Return Home
By THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: February 15, 2009

LONDON — A British terrorism suspect, Binyam Mohamed, who says he was tortured while in American custody, was examined Sunday by a British medical team at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in preparation for his return home, British officials and the detainee’s lawyers said.

The British team concluded that Mr. Mohamed, who has been in American custody for seven years and began a hunger strike last month, could travel. One of his lawyers, Clive Stafford Smith, said Mr. Mohamed was expected to return to Britain this week.

The British have been seeking his release and return since August 2007.

More background through yesterday is found at CBS News and the London Observer.

Last Monday, as reported on Wednesday by the UK Guardian, counsel for Mohamed submitted a letter and attached memo to President Obama. The memo is totally redacted.

Thanks to David for keeping us aware of the UK take on this story - not yet ended.

[jmm99]

In what will probably not be a landmark decision, a 3-judge DC Circuit panel has vacated Judge Urbina's conditional release order and remanded the case to him "for further proceedings, in accordance with the opinion of the court..."

Uighurs barred from U.S.
Wednesday, February 18th, 2009 11:20 am | Lyle Denniston
....
Setting up a new detention policy challenge for the Obama Administration, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled on Wednesday that a federal judge had no authority to order the release into the U.S. of 17 Chinese Muslim Uighurs being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The ruling overturned a decision last October by a federal judge, who ruled that release into this country was the only option since the government no longer considered them to be “enemy combatants” and they could not safely be returned to their homeland in China.
.....
The Circuit Court decision appeared to be confined closely to the single issue of whether a federal judge may order release into the U.S. of non-citizens being held outside U.S. territory. The majority noted that the only claim by detainees that was before it was not “simple release” from Guantanamo, but whether a court could order the Executive Branch “to release them into the United States outside the framework of the immigration laws….The question here is not whether petitioners should be released, but where.”

Reversal of Judge Urbina's order is not surprising; but the opinion and judgment give him no real guidance on what he should do with the case.

The opinion is on solid ground in defining the limitations placed on the judiciary in matters involving admissions of aliens to the US.

(opinion, pp.6-8; footnotes omitted)
For more than a century, the Supreme Court has recognized the power to exclude aliens as “‘inherent in sovereignty, necessary for maintaining normal international relations and defending the country against foreign encroachments and dangers – a power to be exercised exclusively by the political branches of government’”7 and not “granted away or restrained on behalf of any one.” The Chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581, 609 (1889). Ever since the decision in the Chinese Exclusion Case, the Court has, without exception, sustained the exclusive power of the political branches to decide which aliens may, and which aliens may not, enter the United States, and on what terms. [JMM: over 100 years of case citations follow here]

With respect to the exclusive power of the political branches in this area, there is, as the Supreme Court stated in Galvan, “not merely ‘a page of history,’ . . . but a whole volume. Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and their right to remain here are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government.” 347 U.S. at 531 (quoting N.Y. Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921)). Justice Frankfurter summarized the law as it continues to this day: “Ever since national States have come into being, the right of the people to enjoy the hospitality of a State of which they are not citizens has been a matter of political determination by each State” – a matter “wholly outside the concern and competence of the Judiciary.” Harisiades, 342 U.S. at 596 (concurring opinion).

As a result, it “is not within the province of any court, unless expressly authorized by law, to review the determination of the political branch of the Government to exclude a given alien.” Knauff, 338 U.S. at 543. With respect to these seventeen petitioners, the Executive Branch has determined not to allow them to enter the United States.

This argument does sink Judge Urbina's effort to arrive at a practical solution to the Uighur problem. That solution is summed in Judge Rogers' separate opinion (p.22, n.5):

Petitioners were to be released in accordance with a detailed plan, developed with Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, the president of the World Uighur Congress, and others for their housing with Uighur families in the area, transportation, financial support, and care. See Oct. 2008 Mot. Hr’g Tr. at 49-52, 63. They acknowledged through counsel that conditions for bringing them into the country presented issues for the Department of Homeland Security. Id. at 52.

Judge Urbina may now be thinking of the saying that "no good deed goes unpunished". In any event, he is back to the drawing board.

What is not at issue here is that the Uighurs have a right to be released.

(opinion, pp. 12-13)
We do know that there is insufficient evidence to classify them as enemy combatants – enemies, that is, of the United States.
....
1. Judge Rogers: “The power to grant the writ means the power to order release.” Sep. Op. at 10.

No matter how often or in what form Judge Rogers repeats this undisputed proposition – and repeat it she does – it will not move us any closer to resolving this case. The question here is not whether petitioners should be released, but where. That question was not presented in Boumediene and the [Supreme] Court never addressed it.

Judge Urbina might find some guidance in how Judge Leon has handled the cases in which he has ordered release - that the detainee "be released from custody forthwith". In short, unlock the door and let the detainee out of his confinement block. What happens then is the Executive Branch's problem, not Judge Leon's.

I do not know either of these judges (beyond their opinions in these and related cases), but they do seem to represent two different judicial approaches to solving problems. Judge Urbina tried to present a nearly-complete but complex solution. Judge Leon has approached these cases more narrowly to find a solution to the immediate problem - and let the other branches work out the issues not directly before him.

[davidbfpo]

The Guardian today has reported on the House of Lords (similar to US Supreme Court) ruling Abu Qatada, AQ suspect and often described as AQ's leader in Europe, can be deported to Jordan: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/fe...-deport-jordan

Qatada has appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, so will not be deported soon. There is a link to the House of Lords judgement.

A couple of days ago the International Commission of Jurists, an eminent panel of statesmen, judges and experts who spent three years investigating the impact of 9/11 on counterterrorism laws in more than 40 countries, issued their report: http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=4453&lang=en .

A writer in The Guardian writes: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...iberty-central

And I have selected one phrase 'What is thought-provoking – to say the least – about the commission's report, is the fact that the UK is implicated in almost all of the measures singled out for criticism. Extraordinary rendition; detention without trial; complicity in torture; and control orders? We didn't even follow suit in the other country's use of those – we invented them'.

A former law lord (member of House of Lords, when sitting as a court) has written: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ivil-liberties

A former head of the UK Security Service (aka MI5) has commented on the changes in the UK, to a Spanish newspaper, but only just picked up here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/fe...terrorism-fear

The Binyam Mohammed case (prisoner in G-Bay) rolls on, when will he be released and whether MI5 had a part in his interrogation or alleged torture?

davidbfpo

[jmm99]

for the comparative law references: the HL opinions in Abu Qatada and the ICJ report (over 300 pages between the two). I will look at them more carefully - and perhaps comment at some point.

The comments by Lord Bingham and Ms. Rimington primarily address domestic UK concerns; although similar issues exist here - with much discussion past, present and to come. Because of our overriding written Constitution, the context, however, is quite different. Methinks 'tis difficult for Europeans to grasp fully the different legal approach which results from that document.

The infamous triangle of "extraordinary rendition; detention without trial; complicity in torture", as cited in Ms. Hirsch's article, is at the center of the Binyam Mohamed case. If my wish were granted, I would like to see that case brought to a merits hearing before the likes of Judge Leon. So far, that case has been marked more by allegations than evidence - the UK case being something of an exception since some (but not all) witnesses were at least briefly deposed.

If one runs only with this Guardian article's headline "Whitehall devised torture policy for terror detainees" and its lead:

A policy governing the interrogation of terrorism suspects in Pakistan that led to British citizens and residents being tortured was devised by MI5 lawyers and figures in government, according to evidence heard in court.

one could reasonably infer that torture was applied to British citizens and residents in veritable droves. The article then discusses the very limited testimony of Witness B in the UK Binyam Mohamed case. Factually, how many other Binyam Mohamed cases are there ?

The UK has gone a bit beyond the US in issuing "control orders" (38 issued; 15 in force) against British citizens and residents, which I now understand in their basics via Ms. Hirsch's link to this Guardian article.

The only US example, roughly corresponding to a UK control order, was Pres. Bush's unique executive order imprisoning al-Marri. That case is presently before SCOTUS, with a decision possible this year. All other US citizens and residents have been tried criminally or released.

Has any UK court considered the status of battlefield detainees in light of the GCs, especially Common Article 3 ? I suppose even more basic - is there a specific military policy governing detainment by UK forces in Iraq and Astan ?

[jmm99]

I've slogged through the EJPR - whether anyone else cares to do that depends on his or her level of masochism.

This is a report on the legal failings of "counter-terrorism". If you believe (as do I) that terrorism is a tactic and not a disease, the value of taking a "counter-terrorism" approach may well be questioned.

In any event, three quotes provide a context and bottom-line in what the report's arguments boil down to. Since the .pdf file doesn't allow me to cut and paste - at least on this computer, I'll just quote the key words. So, you'll have to read the page cited in the .pdf.

First, what is "terrorism" in the eyes of the Eminent Jurists:

(p.21, .pdf)
....criminal acts....
....
in describing terrorism, it is important to focus on the act itself and not the actor. ... In principle, anyone can commit terrorist acts.

Second, what is the primary tool against terrorism:

(p.29, .pdf)
Criminal law is the primary vehicle to address terrorism ....

Third, is the US legal position incorrect:

(p.174, .pdf)
Erroneously conflating acts of terrorism with acts of war, the United States Government proclaimed a "war on terror", thereby misapplying war rules to situations not involving armed conflict as understood by international humanitarian law.

The report's entire Chapter Three (start p.63, .pdf) is devoted to this argument. Note this is not a semantic argument that "the war on terror" would be better named something else. It argues that the laws of war should not apply generally to actions taken against AQ, Taliban, etc.

After reading this report, I was left with the serious question of how many allied nations are on the same page as the US. If they are not, they really cannot be fighting in the same war or world - either they are correct or we (US) are correct. If the nature of the war is not as we see it, then we are making a serious error in CvC terms. And, if the nature of the war is not as they see it, we would make a serious error in adopting their viewpoint.

There is a very basic dichotomy here, which goes well beyond the many legal issues and points raised in the report.

I note that one of the panelists is Mary Robinson. Other than being Irish and a lawyer, I expect the twain shall neer meet.

[Ken White]

...The report's entire Chapter Three (start p.63, .pdf) is devoted to this argument. Note this is not a semantic argument that "the war on terror" would be better named something else. It argues that the laws of war should not apply generally to actions taken against AQ, Taliban, etc.

No jurist I but that seems sort of sweeping. I'd be inclined to say the 'laws of war' might need a relook. Still, I understand their point of view and it stems, as you say, from this:

After reading this report, I was left with the serious question of how many allied nations are on the same page as the US. If they are not, they really cannot be fighting in the same war or world - either they are correct or we (US) are correct. If the nature of the war is not as we see it, then we are making a serious error in CvC terms. And, if the nature of the war is not as they see it, we would make a serious error in adopting their viewpoint.

In retrospect, the adoption of the phrase "War on Terror" was probably a mistake. At the time, I thought it would illustrate to the public that if the other guy thinks he's at war -- and he does -- and you do not think you are, that places you at a disadvantage. Obviously, I erred and most people choose not to look at it in that light.

When we rolled into the 'long war' I knew that was a mistake. Americans (most people, in fact) and long war don't mesh well...

I think you're correct and I opt for your second choice -- the war is not as they see it and we would make a serious error in adopting their viewpoint.

Thanks again for keeping up with and posting all this.

[jmm99]

from Ken
I'd be inclined to say the 'laws of war' might need a relook.

I agree, but my path is quite different from that of the Eminent Jurists. The need is for development of Common Article 3 jurisprudence, since that article (together with the definition of Powers to an armed conflict, and the requirements imposed on such Powers, in Common Article 2) expressly deal with non-State actors in those conflicts. So, while I think FM 27-10 needs an update to include much more substance and procedure to cover non-State actors, that old bugger is still on the right track.

The Eminent Jurists are very much committed to the essential notion of States (and to some extent Super States). Hence, violence by non-State actors are (to them) presumptively criminal acts.

-----------------

from Ken
I think you're correct and I opt for your second choice -- the war is not as they see it and we would make a serious error in adopting their viewpoint.

Very simply, my view is that 9/11 was a planned military operation against strategic targets using unconventional means (and violating a number of the laws of war as we know them - not violating the laws of war as AQ knows them). So also, the AQ attacks back to the 1993 WTC operation.

That is clearly not the view in many other nations (e.g., the UK official mentioned in the report who saw the London attacks as a police problem - not an armed conflict in the UK). To people who see this as a police and criminal law problem, direct action (targeted killings) are outrageously illegal - police arrest people and do not kill them; self-defense excepted.

My point is that, if a nation is committed to seeing these armed conflicts (as I view them) as not that, but as a criminal law problem, that nation can be at most a very reluctant ally if they join in military operations. I'd suggest that we (US) would be better off without such allies in military operations.

That does not mean that such nations cannot be allied in criminal law areas, where there are common interests. Obviously, criminal prosecutions are a valuable tool in dealing with the softer side (more or less civilian infrastructure) of the non-State actors who are engaged in armed conflicts with us.

I'd add that the concept of a combatant, when dealing with non-State actors, needs some very careful thought and development. The infrastructure (which may never pick up a rifle or a bomb directly) is more important than their Willies and Joes.

I'd also add that the emphasis on using the criminal law as the primary tool to defeat groups engaged in armed conflicts (as I view them) can have a very detrimental effect on the ordinary criminal law jurisprudence in a nation taking that approach. As the report certainly proves, many countries have used "counter-terrorism" as a reason to institute draconian measures - which are then used against non-terrorists. Thus, the report provides numerous examples of why hard cases make bad law - in countries that have used their criminal laws as the primary tool to "counter terrorists".

[jmm99]

or, have we entered a phase where no political advantage will be made of the impending release of Binyam Mohamed.

AFP
Britain, US agree on return of Guantanamo detainee
5 hours ago

LONDON (AFP) — Britain and the US have agreed on the transfer of ex-British resident Binyam Mohamed from detention in Guantanamo Bay "as soon as the practical arrangements can be made," the Foreign Office said Friday.

The announcement -- of what would be the first release from Guantanamo since US President Barack Obama took office -- came shortly after The Washington Post newspaper reported that Mohamed could be flown to Britain as early as Monday.

"The UK and US governments have reached agreement on the transfer of Mr Binyam Mohamed from Guantanamo Bay to the UK. He will be returned as soon as the practical arrangements can be made," a Foreign Office statement said.

"This result follows recent discussions between the British and US governments and a medical assessment, undertaken by a UK doctor, that Mr Mohamed is medically fit to return."

M. Mohamed will have more than his 15 minutes of fame, as will his legal counsel and many supporters. He and others will "testify" at length on what was done to him - all in the absence of cross-examination and any evidence to the contrary. The media will have a field day - c'est la vie !

[jmm99]

The DoJ filed an extremely short response in its final briefing in the Bagram habeas cases pending before Judge Bates.

U.S.: No habeas rights at Bagram
Friday, February 20th, 2009 5:27 pm | Lyle Denniston
....
The Obama Administration, in a full embrace of a controversial Bush Administration policy, told a federal judge on Friday afternoon that some 600 detainees being held by the U.S. military at Bargram airbase in Afghanistan have no right to go to U.S. courts to challenge their confinement. In a one-paragraph reply to District Judge John D. Bates, the Justice Department said: “Having considered the matter, the Government adheres to its previously articulated position.”
.....
The filing means that, at least for the time being, the new Administration will treat Bagram prisoners differently than the 245 detainees still being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. President Obama has ordered the closing of Guantanamo within a year and, in the meantime, his government is conducting an individual-by-individual review of the status of those at the Navy prison on the island of Cuba. There is now no similar process for those at Bagram, and White House officials have told reporters not to expect any change at the Afghan base for at least six months.

One might expect that Judge Bates (as a District judge) will dismiss the habeas petitions, since the post-WWII SCOTUS Johnson case (not expressly overruled by Boumediene) is factually on-point.

[davidbfpo]

Much reporting on the expected arrival of G-bay prisoner, an Ethiopian by birth, Muslim convert (whilst in the UK) and UK resident, Binyam Mohammed and here is the BBC News link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7903330.stm

Note the reviewer of terrorist law has commented too; very odd IIRC as he does not normally comment on individual cases. Better reported in this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-suspects.html

(JMM I will try to answer your questions posed another time).

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

A real "can of worms" appears on the near horizon, with allegations that British government agents (MI5 Security Service / MI6 Secret Intelligence Service) had a role in interviews in Pakistan before ISI used torture: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...n-human-rights

davidbfpo

[davidbfpo]

Has any UK court considered the status of battlefield detainees in light of the GCs, especially Common Article 3 ? I suppose even more basic - is there a specific military policy governing detainment by UK forces in Iraq and Astan ?

JMM,

I can only recall one case where a UK court has got involved in the military detention of persons in Iraq and this was tied up in the failure to reach a MOU on the UK's role in Iraq. Here is the judgement: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle5654450.ece

I know there are other stories on the case, but as a lawyer that should suffice. Wayback I can recall persons were often detained, with no Iraqi law & order, they were released. This was reported after a court martial for prisoner mistreeatment.

Detention in Afghanistan has a far lower public profile, although Ross Kemp's TV series has referred to fairly swift Afghan refusal to charge a suspected Taliban fighter a joint patrol detained.

davidbfpo

[jmm99]

(from court opinion)
On the facts, the UK was not before December 31, 2008, exercising any power or jurisdiction in relation to the applicants other than as agent for the Iraqi court. It was not exercising, or purporting to exercise, any autonomous power of its own as a sovereign state. After December 31, 2008, British forces enjoyed no legal power to detain any Iraqi. Had they done so, the Iraqi authorities would have been entitled to enter the premises occupied by the British and recover any such person so detained.

This is a different approach (acting at most as a agent for the local rule of law) than that of the US. In terms of UK laws of war, undoubtedly correct. There is definitely a dichotomy in how different nations define the laws of wars as to detainees and combatants.

PS: As to Binyam Mohamed (now multiplied by 10 or more UK-Paki cases), I said in one of my initial posts about the case that it could be somewhat "messy". I expect that the fallout in the UK will be greater than here. Our fallout will come when the "KSM Five" cases are reviewed. Where that will go will depend on the evidence - which hopefully will be heard in Federal court at some point.

[davidbfpo]

The released G-Bay prisoner, Binyam Mohammed, after his arrival in the UK has issued a statement and on the BBC News shown: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7905939.stm

Carefully phrased and plenty to indicate "a can of worms" about to open. Not withstanding our special relationship with the USA, see summary on that, by BBC Security Correspondent: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7870801.stm

davidbfpo

[Schmedlap]

Then there are thousands of other prisoners held by the US elsewhere around the world, with no charges, and without access to their families.

Wow. Between torture sessions, he was apparently getting briefed on our operations worldwide. Then again, maybe the CIA finally realized that PowerPoint briefings really are torture.

It is still difficult for me to believe that I was abducted, hauled from one country to the next, and tortured in medieval ways - all orchestrated by the United States government.

It's still difficult for me to believe that, as well. I look forward to seeing the evidence. It will not shock me if interrogations crossed the line occasionally, but I will be surprised if that even remotely began to approach being "tortured in medieval ways." I am very curious to find out what he regards as "medieval," especially given that he was born in Ethiopia. My hunch is that what most privileged westerners would regard as "medieval" would be regarded in Ethiopia as "slight discomfort." And with that in mind, and given that his statement clearly shows the handiwork of a lawyer, I can't help but think that this is the start of a propaganda circus. Call me cynical.

[jmm99]

from Schmedlap
And with that in mind, and given that his statement clearly shows the handiwork of a lawyer, I can't help but think that this is the start of a propaganda circus. Call me cynical.

Gee, given the lead to post #191, and the fact that I am a lawyer, what does that make me. BTW, NY Times piece is here.

Don't jump too quick, young CPT, cuz there is probably some fire underneath all of this smoke. There's a lot on this case that I haven't mentioned because the sources were non-comfirmable; and, frankly, there is a lot of classified information involved (plane numbers, dates, itineraries, etc.). A connected civil case has been dismissed for national security reasons.

That having been said, the press agents (whether lawyers or not) are probably going to engage in overkill - Binyam will become the most tortured person in human history, etc., etc. You will not likely see much of what we might call "evidence", but we'll see a lot of statements.

There may be a silver lining if Binyam's proponents overdo it. First of all, if they go well beyond the facts (whatever they are), they might lose some credibility. Second, the methods which will be claimed or proven to be used on Mohamed will probably make the methods used on KSM look relatively mild.

I would have liked to have seen Mohamed's case tried and all the evidence reviewed by a trier of fact - dirty laundry and all. But that will not happen.

[Schmedlap]

I agree. That's why I stated that it wouldn't surprise me if some interrogations crossed the line a little bit. But that statement is clearly a carefully drafted letter and foreshadows a media and propaganda whirlwind to come. I think you're right - there will probably be some unfortunate evidence and these clowns will likely overstep the truth, as well. It's going to be a politically-motivated circus waged by all sides, where everybody knows that it's a circus, but everyone keeps playing along because the last side to strike and the first side to quit will be at a disadvantage.