By GottaLaff
I've previously posted about Darrel Vandeveld, most recently here, and also here, here, here, and here.
It looks like his former client could very well be tried by our very own DoJ. Funny, suddenly the U.S. court system is acceptable for Gitmo detainees... Watch out, Rushpublics! Before you can say, "in our backyards" detainees may be held in our all-American supermax prisons!
The Justice Department signaled in court papers Friday that it was considering filing criminal charges against a Guantanamo Bay detainee who is alleged to have thrown a grenade at U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
The detainee, Mohammed Jawad, would be the second prisoner brought from the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States for a federal trial, if the Justice Department proceeds with a prosecution.[...]
Human rights groups have decried Jawad's detention, asserting that he may have been as young as 12 when he was captured.
Until recently, the government had justified holding Jawad by citing his confessions to Afghan police and U.S. soldiers.
But a federal judge was leaning toward tossing out those statements by adopting a military commission ruling last year that the confessions were obtained through torture.
U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle [...] set a hearing for Aug. 5 and sharply criticized the government's case, saying it was "riddled with holes."
Instead of providing Huvelle new evidence, the government announced it was going to abandon the habeas fight and was examining whether it could charge Jawad with a crime in a U.S. court.
In a search of records, Justice Department lawyers wrote, authorities had discovered eyewitness accounts of the attack "not previously available for inclusion in the record" and videotaped interviews of witnesses. [...]
The Justice Department stopped short of saying it had made a firm decision in his case.
Jonathan Hafetz, Jawad's attorney, said the court filing was "another example of the government playing tricks and games with the federal courts."
"They want to avoid a ruling before a hearing before a federal judge who is poised to rule against them," said Hafetz, who works for the American Civil Liberties Union.[...]
A prosecution of Jawad would have to rely almost entirely on accounts of eyewitnesses placing him at the attack. [...]
The government also alleged that Jawad was associated with a group tied to Osama bin Laden.
The government had planned to try Jawad for the attack in military tribunals. But that case evaporated upon close inspection by military prosecutors and judges who grew concerned about how Afghan police and U.S. forces obtained his confessions the night of the attack.
A military judge, Army Col. Stephen R. Henley, threw out the statements to Afghan police after he determined the interrogators had threatened to kill Jawad or his family if he didn't confess.
The judge also tossed statements that Jawad gave that night to U.S. soldiers because his fears of being harmed "had not dissipated."
Vandeveld, who was the original military prosecutor in this case, quit over Jawad's treatment and had asked that his client be released.
All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.
If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.
Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.
More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.
.jpg)