Source: http://gtmoblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 15:24:41
Document Index: 92020973

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 1505', '§ 1519', '§ 2340', '§ 113', '§ 7']

The Guantánamo Blog: 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008
Detainee dies of cancer
(click on the title to take you to... Daily Kos: the death of the bill of rights)
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 2:21 PM 0 comments
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 5:19 PM 2 comments
(For the Francophones in the audience clip on the title for the original version)
An American Lawyer's Fight Against Guantanamo Goes Through Switzerland
By Luis Lema Le Temps
A seriously ill detainee is denied medical care by the Americans. Berne is solicited.
Candace Gorman spent last weekend at Guantanamo. She no longer counts the number of times she's gone to the American detention center, "maybe eight or nine." A Chicago lawyer for twenty-five years, she has, as she says herself, "largely given up her practice" to conduct a battle against her government the last several years. As a volunteer, she receives neither pay nor expense reimbursement of any kind. She wants, she repeats, to "remedy the injustice" to which one of the Guantanamo detainees is victim.
Her client's name is Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi. He was thirty-nine years old when he was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. His crime? Being Libyan in the wrong place at the wrong time. When he was captured, his lawyer reminds us, the Americans were inundating the country with tracts calling for Arab "terrorists and criminals" to be handed over. They promised astronomical bounties, enough to "feed your family and your village for the rest of your life." Married to an Afghan woman, al-Ghizzawi owned a little grocery store in Jalalabad. He was arrested by the Northern Alliance, put in a truck, sold to the Americans, and then transferred to Guantanamo.
Candace Gorman is convinced that the man is entirely innocent. Placed under a regime of exceptional justice, he does not enjoy the usual rights and recourse of defense. However, at the end of 2004, the members of a military tribunal agreed to acknowledge that the Libyan, like 45 other Guantanamo detainees, could not be described as an "enemy combatant." Some weeks later, however, other hearings were organized and those decisions were annulled. The lawyer, who has transcripts of those hearings, is persuaded that the about-face has one rationale only: the military was embarrassed to have so many detainees on its hands whose innocence had been acknowledged. The rules of the game were changed.
The Harshest Unit
Instead of being freed, Al-Ghizzawi was, quite the opposite, transferred to Camp 6, the harshest unit at Guantanamo. When his lawyer visited him for the first time a year ago, she found her client chained to the floor, kept in virtually complete isolation in a steel cell with no windows. She very quickly realized that the man was seriously ill. The camp doctors confirmed that he was infected with chronic Hepatitis B, and perhaps tuberculosis also. They declared that the detainee refused medical care. But they rejected his lawyer's demand for medical management and supervision.
"I knew the military would never allow him to be cared for in the United States. So I tried abroad," Candace Gorman explains. Through a chain of circumstances, she came upon the name of JŸrg Reichen, liver specialist at the Berne hospital. She went to meet him in Switzerland. And the doctor filed a statement with an American district court and then with the Supreme Court. "I tried unsuccessfully to obtain a diagnosis," JŸrg Reichen confirmed over the phone. "And I alerted my 'colleagues' at Guantanamo as to what they should do with a proven case of hepatitis B."
The Swiss doctor has already gathered the funds necessary to care for Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi at the Berne Hospital. A proceeding, he insists on making clear, that "will not cost Swiss taxpayers a penny." The lawyer has addressed the [Swiss] Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. But the FDFA says it is unable to intervene as long as the Bush administration does not present a request for admission to Switzerland to receive medical care. Now, according to the lawyer, "it's clear that the United States will never make an official request. That would amount to admitting its own policy failures."
"A Dead Man" If ...
Yet there's no time to waste. A few days ago, 12 Guantanamo detainees were sent to Pulcharkey prison in Kabul, for which the Americans have just finished building a new wing. The authorities' wager: to bet on the fact that the detainees will escape American jurisdiction there and will not be able to be defended by their lawyers. "It's Guantanamo's Guantanamo," Candace Gorman sums up. And her contacts in Washington have assured her that her client's name is on the list of those who will be sent next to that high security prison which has no medical services. Specialist JŸrg Reichen's opinion allows no appeal: If Al-Ghizzawi is sent to Afghanistan, he's a dead man."
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 2:34 PM 0 comments
For those of you who weren't strolling by the White House on Thursday at noon, the esteemed former legal director for the Center for Constitutional rights,Bill Goodman, played the part of Santa Claus and attempted to deliver 37,000 copies of the constitution to our Commander in Chief. The results are here:http://youtube.com/watch?v=ohc8Uyl95xQ
Indeed, "[e]very chimney was guarded."
Elf appears courtesy of "Billionaires for Bush."--
If you are looking to make a donation to an organization that is fighting every day to uphold the constitution please think about sending a check to the Center for Constitutional rights in NYC.
(Thank you Charles Gittings for pullling this together... click on the title to go to Charly's blog...)
NOTE ON WATERBOARDING
So there's an Andrew McCarthy article in the NRO that pretty much sums up the talking points of the apologists these daze in the wake of the CIA's admission that it destroyed video and audio tapes of detainees being tortured by water-boarding and other means....
"Regardless of what the revisionist Left is now saying, the only bright-line limit on the treatment of alien enemy combatants held outside the United States in 2002 was the federal law against torture. The United States did not outlaw cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment when it ratified the international anti-torture treaty in 1994 -- it was not until 2005 that such treatment overseas was outlawed, and even then only ambiguously, no matter what Senators John McCain, Patrick Leahy, and others now claim."
Andrew McCarthy, THE CIA INTERROGATION TAPES, NRO (2007.12.21).
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmQ5ZWVlNDUwMGU2NTNkYWVkNTk1MGUxNDIyYmQ5Yzg=&w=Mg==
Now I'd just like to point out to one and all, especially those of you who are journalists, that what Mr. McCarthy claims not only isn't true, it's obviously untrue to the degree of certainty. To wit...
By my tally, these interrogations and the subsequent destruction of the tapes involved possible violations of the following statues (note that this discussion excludes Title 10 USC Ch. 47, which is the Uniform Code of Military
Justice):
18 USC § 371 (Conspiracy to commit offense)
18 USC § 1505 (Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and
18 USC § 1519 (Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy)
18 USC §§ 2340-2340B (Torture)
There really isn't much room for doubt about several of those, and I don't believe there's any serious question water-boarding is in fact torture either.
Anyone who thinks otherwise should read Evan Wallach's authoritative legal study of the subject:
Evan J. Wallach, DROP BY DROP: FORGETTING THE HISTORY OF WATER TORTURE IN U.S.
COURTS, 45 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 468 (2007), draft version available at:
But the kicker here is that it doesn't really matter in regard to the destruction of the tapes, because even if it wasn't torture and didn't also violate one or more of the other statutes I've mentioned, the kicker is 18 USC § 113, which covers assaults within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction as defined by 18 USC § 7. That statute includes a very bright line indeed, simple assault. Personally, I think the only way water-boarding wouldn't "shock the conscience" is if someone didn't have one, but set that
How could water-boarding not be at LEAST simple assault, if not one of the more aggravated forms?
There's no way that water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and forcibly induced stress don't rise to that level, hence the question of "is or isn't it torture?" is irrelevant to the question of "is or isn't it a crime?" It clearly WAS a crime, because it clearly WAS an assault even if it wasn't torture.
And I really wish someone would plaster that simple fact on the front pages of the NY Times, the Washington Post, and every other newspaper in the country RIGHT NOW. These folks aren't just criminals, they are sloppy, wanton criminals.
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 10:01 AM 1 comments
THREE BRITISH RESIDENTS ON WAY BACK TO BRITAIN
According to Andy Worthington three of the British residents are in a plane on their way back to Britain.... ... Click on the title to go directly to his story...
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 6:44 PM 0 comments
(click on title to go directly to Justinian)
Roger Fitch Esq • December 17, 2007
The Guantanamo “war crimes” trial of Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s one-time driver, began the other day.
He is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism.
It was the first time the US had produced a witness against any “enemy combatant” in the “war on terror”, before a judge of any court.
Six years ago George Bush declared Hamdan was an “enemy combatant”. And for six years the US government has successfully obstructed proof that he is not.
At present, the evidence being presented by the Pentagon is concentrated on the question of whether Hamdan was a combatant or a civilian.
However, assuming Hamdan is found to be a combatant, and an “unlawful” one, there still remains the little problem that he stands charged in a military commission with civilian offences.
Before proceeding, the Department of Justice lawyers who are assisting might want to read s.950p of the Military Commissions Act 2006.
It states quite clearly that the Act’s purpose is to “codify offences that have traditionally been triable by military commissions” and that the MCA “does not establish new crimes that did not exist before its enactment”.
Of course, s.950v (“crimes triable by military commissions”) proceeds to do just that, i.e. create a number of new and retrospective offences unknown to the law of war, and therefore, unknown to military commissions.
Conspiracy was specifically condemned, in Hamdan’s very own case, by a plurality of the Supreme Court. As for “material support for terrorism”, that, like conspiracy, has never been a war crime, despite its use against David Hicks.
Hicks’ case only succeeded with a guilty plea and Australian government complicity.
Across the Atlantic, the Bush administration has informed a British court that the US has the right to kidnap people in the UK.
This remarkable claim provoked editorials as far away as India.
In the same week, a Canadian court ruled that the US is no longer a safe place to send refugees.
Yet it may be American courts that present the gravest danger to the scofflaws of the Bush administration.
Bear in mind that a number of federal judges in the DC habeas cases have ordered the government not to destroy evidence.
At the same time, other federal courts have ordered the production of relevant CIA and FBI evidence in civil trials or FOI claims, e.g. by the ACLU.
In these cases the government has repeatedly claimed that such evidence – the very kind it now acknowledges – either did not exist or had never been created. These statements might now be seen to be false. Judges could be seriously annoyed.
The trouble began with the government’s recent admission in Leonie Brinkema’s (illustration) federal court in Virginia that it had been untruthful during the trial of Zacharias Moussauoi, the only alleged 9/11 conspirator to be tried in the US.
Here’s the US Attorney’s letter to the judge admitting that the CIA “mistakenly” denied the existence of certain video and audio evidence.
Leonie Brinkema is also the judge in the Al Timini terrorism case, and has ordered the government to reveal evidence in that case as well – withheld by the government even from the prosecution – or face dismissal. The Washington Post has more.
The final blow for the government came this month. In response to a New York Times investigation the CIA Director, Michael Hayden (pic), said the CIA had made, and then destroyed, videos of “harsh interrogations” of two of the “high-value” detainees now being held in Guantanamo.
Slate has a handy history of the events leading up to this latest scandal.
The two men are Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Nashiri, both of whom are said to have been “waterboarded” by the CIA. One of the CIA agents involved has since come forward. Another member of a “high value” interrogation team has also been talking.
Everyone seems to forget that the water cure, an ancient practice, used to be considered a crime.
Unfortunately, for the government, the Abu Zubaydah videos could be the very ones that might have helped Moussaoui in his case – and they are the ones the government told Judge Brinkema didn’t exist.
At the same time, undaunted by all this, the government may still intend to use such “waterboard evidence” in its Guantanamo military commissions, judging from an op-ed by recently-resigned Chief Prosecutor Moe Davis.
Col. Davis strongly implies that he resigned under pressure from above to use such tainted evidence.
In the latest scandal, the CIA at first claimed everything had been done properly, but within a day had adopted a contradictory, scapegoat explanation as blogger Scott Horton notes.
A DoJ investigation has now begun , and there will likely be Congressional hearings.
Andrew Sullivan (pic) observed in the Atlantic blog that the latest CIA revelation of missing tapes was not the first such admission – the recent terrorism case against Jose Padilla in Miami was another.
Also, back in 2002, a US district court in New York apparently relied on secret evidence from Abu Zubaydah at the time the government sought a warrant to hold Padilla as a material witness.
The judge in that case was Michael Mukasey, our new Attorney General. Perhaps this will motivate Mukasey to investigate.
The news of Abu Zubaydah’s “torture tapes” drew the interest of lawyers for Majid Khan. Khan, from Baltimore, is the only “high value detainee” who’s been allowed a lawyer.
As a result, he’s the first to talk about enhanced interrogation.
The Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a Motion for Preservation of Torture Evidence in the DC Court of Appeals.
Lawyers for Yemeni detainees (the Abdah case) have also gone to court – Henry Kennedy’s – and here’s the motion.
Possible spoliation of evidence has led another group of detainees to sue in Richard Roberts’ court. They had prudently sent the CIA a copy of Roberts’ order forbidding destruction of evidence in 2005, before the date the torture tapes were destroyed.
Finally, British lawyer Clive Stafford Smith (pic) urged the CIA not to destroy the “gruesome” photos which he says exist of the, uh, genital mutilations that his client Binyam Mohammed endured in Morocco when sent there by the CIA.
Mr Mohammed reports that a women agent who interrogated him claimed to be a Canadian.
There have previously been verified reports of CIA interrogators impersonating FBI agents, and even defence lawyers.
Now we have this slander by the CIA of our worthy neighbours, the Canadians.
At least the CIA hasn’t tried to pass off its agents as Australians. Even Meryl Streep couldn’t manage that, although she is said be a most convincing CIA operative in the new film Rendition.
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 7:16 PM 0 comments
(Click on the title to see my original post on Huffingtonpost about this myth...)
In material they will deliver to a congressional committee today, however, Mark P. Denbreaux and his son, Joshua, who represent Guantanamo detainees, said the data lack specificity and include some former detainees who did nothing more than speak out publicly about their captivity.
"It doesn't matter if it's seven, 14, 30, or 50," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman. "The point we're trying to make is that we assume some risk in this. Even one is too many."
Mark Denbeaux, director of the Seton Hall Law School Center for Policy and Research, plans to present the information to a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing today on the legal rights of Guantanamo detainees. Denbeaux has been critical of Pentagon data regarding the threats the
detainees pose, and his previous reports have drawn fire from defense officials.
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 6:11 PM 0 comments
(I can't express enough my joy at having someone else write about Mr. Al-Ghizzawi, I just happened to find this article when I visited the Caged Prisoners site this morning... click on the title to go to Caged Prisoners.)
The Torture of Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi
In July 1948, President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9980, which was the beginning of the end of racial discrimination in the American armed forces. It was more than six years later that the last all-black unit was dissolved, and it wasn’t until July 1963 that the military’s responsibility was expanded to include the elimination of off-base discrimination of black servicemen.
Here is a thought experiment: Imagine what it would have meant for America today had these steps not been taken, had the military remained segregated. Plainly, and in addition to the continuing insult to black Americans and the reduced effectiveness of the military itself, the nation would be markedly disadvantaged on the world stage.
The time when formal racial discrimination could be indulged in by an international power was plainly over (and then some). And it was just 44 years ago that such discrimination was terminated.
Now flash forward 44 years. Is it thinkable that the United States, if it seeks to remain a great power, can still persist in its violation of international law and common codes of decency, claiming to itself the right to torture people it thinks may have information that would help defend this nation from its enemies?
Well, perhaps you will say that if there’s a ticking bomb and the only way to find where it’s been hidden is to torture your captive, torture may be excused. Surely we do not torture gratuitously, without some urgent (albeit inherently inadequate) purpose?
But: Consider the case of Abdul Hamid al-Ghizzawi, a Libyan meteorologist who has now been held in Guantanamo for more than five years. Al-Ghizzawi has had hearings before two Combatant Status Review Tribunals.
It is impossible to say how many of those being held in Guantanamo are, indeed, enemy combatants. The processes that would tell us that are deeply flawed, deeply and fatally. (See, for example, the testimony of former Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Abraham before the House Armed Services Committee on July 26, 2007.)
But it is possible to know what happens in Guantanamo. We know about Al-Ghizzawi because of a detailed statement of the Committee on Human Rights of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine.
Since Al-Ghizzawi arrived at Guantanamo, his health reportedly has deteriorated dramatically. He evidently suffers from hepatitis B and tuberculosis, but has received no medical treatment for either condition despite his repeated requests and those of his lawyer.
On December 7, 2006, he was among several hundred detainees randomly selected and moved to the newest detention camp at Guantanamo, Camp 6, which was designed to hold the majority of the detainees. According to Amnesty International, and in contravention of international standards, all detainees in Camp 6 are held under conditions of “extreme isolation and sensory deprivation for a minimum of 22 hours a day in individual steel cells with no windows to the outside.”
Their cells reportedly are extremely small. The only source of light is fluorescent lighting that is on 24 hours a day and the only air is air-conditioning, both of which are controlled by the prison guards. The detainees reportedly are allowed two hours of “recreation time” a day to be spent in a metal cage measuring four feet by four feet. (That’s 1/3 the size of a ping-pong table.)
Al-Ghizzawi’s lawyer says that his guards frequently give him his “rec time” in the middle of the night or, sometimes, in the middle of the day when the cage is in the hot sun. Detainees in Camp 6 have no access to radio, television or newspapers. They are given one book a week.
According to his lawyer, Al-Ghizzawi’s eyesight has deteriorated so significantly that he is now unable to read. Thus he now spends his time pacing in his cell. All of the detainees at Guantanamo reportedly are forbidden telephone calls and family visits, and most are not allowed to touch another human being. The detainees are not given any blankets. Their only cover is a plastic sheet.
There is no reason to believe that Al-Ghizzawi’s treatment is exceptional. If his is at all an exceptional case, it is exceptional because he has twice been unanimously declared not to be an enemy combatant.
Canons of crisis, behind us, before us, volley and thunder, deafen our sensibilities. It is hard to focus on one man unjustly tortured — for surely the circumstances of al-Ghizzawi’s detention amount to torture — or even on hundreds perhaps unjustly held, cruelly treated.
And it is hard to know how much damage Guantanamo does to perceptions of America by others, to our blundering effort to “win the hearts and minds” of people worldwide. (The end of segregation in the military, many historians believe, owed less to Truman’s courage than his concern with international opinion, what with the Cold War and the emergence of the Third World.)
The CIA destroyed the tapes of its interrogations; we can only speculate regarding what horrors they contained, what disgust they’d have provoked. But there’s horror aplenty that continues, with our permission, 24/7 — torture of named people in a named place.
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 9:30 AM 0 comments
According to the New York Times the CIA purposely destroyed video evidence of harsh-technique (torture) interrogations.
“This is a matter that should have been briefed to the full Intelligence Committee at the time,” an official with the House Intelligence Committee said. “This does not appear to have been done.
Is the CIA above American Law? How many laws has this administration broken in the name of the "war on terror." Do we really want American government agencies torturing people and then destroying the evidence? When will someone be held accountable?
I just finished listening to the argument before the Supreme Court... and it was pretty amazing. The primary question before the court is whether or not the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) is an adequate substitution for the writ of habeas corpus...(is the DTA the same as being able to go before a judge and make the government tell you why you are being held and charge you with something or let you go...)
The rebuttal by Seth Waxman said it all.... one of the many inadequacies under the DTA is that the prisoner is not allowed to know who the witnesses are . In one case however the name of the main witness/evidence against the prisoner was disclosed... a man the government claimed was a close friend of the prisoner and who was part of al-Queda and who supposedly blew himself up as part of a terrorist plot. The prisoner stated when he heard that persons name that he never knew that the man was part of al-queda. After the prisoner became represented by an attorney the attorney did research on the supposed al-queda friend... turns out he wasn't a terrorist, wasn't self detonated... and was alive, well, and working in Dresden Germany... Under the DTA the prisoner never would have been allowed to discover or challenge the governments story tying him to al-Queda....
Click on the title to hear this mornings oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the Constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act.... the outrageous law passed by our Republican Congress in October 2006.... just before they were thrown out of office.
This is the law that abolished the writ of habeas corpus for the Guantanamo detainees and all non-citizens.... and perhaps even citizens....
According to a recently released and well timed report in light of todays supreme court hearings, Murat Kurnaz, a combatant that was among the first to be brought to Gitmo, was considered innocent almost from the time he was picked up by the U.S.
A German intelligence officer said at the time (back in 2002) that the, "USA considers Murat Kurnaz's innocence to be proven," and "He is to be released in approximately six to eight weeks." Years later Kurnaz was still at Gitmo.
In spite of this the government made up charges to claim that Kurnaz should be detained. They wrongly claimed that he knew someone involved with a suicide bombing and decided to keep him. Is it legal in our country to hold someone indefinitely because they know someone involved in a crime? Is this the American justice system that we want?
Clearly the review process at Guantanámo is flawed and biased. If these detainees are ever going to get a fair trial the supreme court will have to act today and make it clear that the executive branch is not above the laws of our constitution and our country.
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 8:59 AM 0 comments
Today's Must Read (click on title to go to site)
By Spencer Ackerman - December 4, 2007, 8:55AM
Score another one for Wikileaks. This morning -- thanks to a source known only as "Peryton" -- the open-source website for whistleblower documents published the 2004 manual for U.S. military detention operations at Guantanamo Bay. You can read it, with commentary, here.
Last month, Wikileaks published the 2003 edition of the manual. Among other controversial provisions, the manual instructed officials to hide certain detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross, a practice that the military repeatedly denied was in existence at Guantanamo. Spokespeople for the U.S. military's Southern Command, which oversees Guantanamo Bay, said the manual was outdated and assured that some instructions that violated the Geneva Conventions were no longer in effect.
It's unclear so far what portions of the 2004 manual remain in place. (Maybe Peryton will enlighten us in the future.) The Washington Post's Josh White quotes Guantanamo Bay spokesman as saying that "things have changed dramatically" at the camp since 2004. But Wikileaks finds that, in key areas, the 2004 manual didn't change so much from 2003:
Systematic denial of Red Cross access to prisoners remains. The use of dogs remains. Segregation and isolation are still used routinely and systematically – including an initial period of at least 4 weeks "to enhance and exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee", only terminated at the behest of interrogators. Both manuals assert that detainees will be treated in accordance with the "spirit" of the Geneva conventions "to the degree consistent with military needs", but never assert that the conventions are actually being followed at Guantanamo. Put into practice, neither manual complies with the Geneva conventions.
So is the past prologue? We'll find out. For now, though, dig into the 2004 manual and let us know in comments what you think is most significant.
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 10:14 AM 2 comments
According to the Associated Press, Denmark has decided to pass on accepting Guantánamo detainees that the U.S. has cleared for release, citing security concerns. It is hard to be too upset with Denmark when we are unwilling to take these same detainees ourselves....but on the other hand the Danes are part of the "coalition of the willing"... I guess the willingness only goes so far.
So the men continue to sit... indefinitely... in the cruelest of conditions... and once again their only hope seems to be our Supreme Court. Chances are the Court will champion their cause once more...only to be ignored by the administration again.
I don't blame Denmark for saying no... but sooner or later some country... somewhere... must help these men...the world cannot sit back and let these men continue to be punished because of the arrogance of the US government.
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 10:32 PM 0 comments
Roger Fitch Esq • December 2, 2007
Some of the appointees requiring Senate confirmation are so fragrant that, like the Federal Election Commission’s chipmunk-cheeked Hans von Spakovsky , they have to be placed through recess appointments.
When Iraqi lawyers came to Washington in an effort to get Republicans to follow the rule of law in Iraq who better was there to show them around Congress than Manuel Miranda?
Happily, Mr Mukasey seems to have acted to remove the hated US attorney in Minneapolis, Rachel Paulose .
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 8:44 PM 1 comments
According to the New York Times, Omar Ahmed Khadr, who was 15 when he was brought to Guantánamo, will not have the benefit of knowing who his accusers are. Military Prosecutors claim that there may be retaliations against the witnesses if their names are released. In an e-mail message on Oct. 9, Major Groharing, the prosecutor, described Mr. Khadr as a “trained Al Qaeda operative” who is “certainly capable of exacting revenge” on witnesses should he ever be free.
The government has been holding the detainee for almost a quarter of his life without a trial. Now when he is finally about to get his day in kangaroo court he is told that he will not be able to know who his accusers are or what methods the court has made to ensure the validity of the evidence being used against him. Where is justice? How long will this administration continue to try to destroy the basic tenets of our legal system?
Posted by H. Candace Gorman at 8:39 PM 0 comments