Darrel Vandeveld Helped Secure Release of Prisoner Who Confessed Under Torture; Now He's a Pariah

By GottaLaff



I've previously posted about Darrel Vandeveld, most recently here, and also here, here, here, and here.

So. Take a look at what happens to truth-tellers who pose a serious challenge the powers that be:

(CBS) One of the youngest detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison is expected to be returned this weekend to Afghanistan where he was arrested seven years ago for allegedly throwing a grenade at American soldiers.

Mohammed Jawad's break came when a U.S. military lawyer made a choice - to follow his conscience, as CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan reports.

Reserve Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld could not keep silent. As he put it, "Silence in the face of evil is collaboration with evil."

Vandeveld was a military prosecutor at Guantanamo - until he decided to speak against the corruption of justice he found there.

"Our fighting men and women who've been putting themselves in harms - They're not fighting for rigged, kangaroo trials," Vandeveld said.

Vandeveld had been the lead prosecutor in seven cases.

"I would characterize him as a true believer at that point," said Maj. David Frakt, a military commission defense counsel.

Frakt was the defense attorney in the case that would ultimately compel Vandeveld to risk everything.

[...] [I]mportant evidence in the case had been withheld.

"I saw something that floored me," he said.

In the evidence file of an unrelated trial, Vandeveld discovered that Jawad had made a statement to military investigators - a statement that was backed up by the U.S. guard force at his prison.

"He had been hooded and slapped, that he had been shackled, hooded, and thrown down stairs," Vandeveld said. "I knew nothing about the existence of the statement. … The evidence was in a state of chaos."

By law, Vandeveld had to share his discovery with the defense. He now believed Jawad had been tortured even though he had no intelligence to offer. And he did not believe Jawad could be convicted.

See how fair our so-called legal system (read: military commissions) is to Gitmo prisoners? Just ask Fayiz al-Kandari, he'll tell you... well, he would if he could. He's still stuck in a cell after nearly 8 years.

His lawyer, Lt. Col. Barry Wingard says he's innocent, the only time he's made such a definitive statement about a detainee.

Frakt says that discovery changed Vandeveld forever. He could not ignore the violations of law he discovered - critical evidence that was missing, lost, or withheld. [...]

That led Vandeveld to make the most agonizing decision of his life. In September 2008, he resigned from the military commissions.

But, Vandeveld, said, "My conscience is not clear. I prosecuted Mohmmed Jawad for too long. I participated in the commissions for too long."

The Pentagon, in a statement to CBS News said, "Vandeveld's statements are proven to be unsubstantiated."

But Frakt asserts that "The Pentagon propaganda machine is hard at work to try to discredit Darrel Vandeveld."

He received a poor evaluation report, which effectively ends his military career.

"You do the right thing, you will be forever grateful that you did it no matter what happens to you," Vandeveld said.

Next question: What will happen to Lt. Col. Wingard? Stay tuned...

*********************************

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are 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.

Military Lawyers Claim U.S. Paid Gitmo Prosecution Witnesses

By GottaLaff

I have posted about several times about Mohammed Jawad, the very young detainee whose testimony was ruled inadmissible by two U.S. judges because it was coerced. He was tortured and his attorney, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, quit over Jawad's treatment and asked that he be released.

Jawad is in the news again. Voila! Bombshell:

In a startling accusation, defense lawyers in the case of an adolescent arrested and brought to Guantanamo Bay six years ago claim the Justice Department may bring a criminal case against the young man based on testimony from witnesses paid by the U.S. government for their cooperation. [...]

Now, although the Justice Department has conceded it can’t rely on those confessions and can no longer imprison Jawad based on the laws of war, it’s said it may file new criminal charges against him based on previously unavailable eyewitness testimony to the crime. Those witnesses, however, according to Jawad’s U.S. military defense lawyer, were all paid in gifts or cash in exchange for their testimony.

U.S. Marine Corps Major Eric Montalvo, one of Jawad’s military defense lawyers, said he’s spoken to all of “the government’s star witnesses” and “they all have a couple of things in common.” First, “they know how to describe the day of the incident anywhere from two to five different ways, placing themselves in different locations for each of these descriptions and witnessing or not witnessing different things,” he said in a recent e-mail message. Second, “they have all received some sort of U.S. government compensation, from shoes and a trip to the United States to $400 for cooperation, which is a princely sum in Afghanistan.”

Furthermore, Montalvo says, when he spoke with officials from the government of Afghanistan, which has been demanding Jawad’s return home, they “openly admit that the matter was not handled properly and they don’t even know what happened because the Americans in their lust for bloodletting snatched Jawad away before the incident could be investigated.” [...]

Asked about the claims that the government’s witnesses had been paid for their testimony, Dean Boyd, spokesman for the Justice Department’s National Security Division, wrote in an e-mail that “Jawad has not been charged with any crime in federal court. To begin speculating in public about possible evidence or witnesses in such a case is inappropriate and not an exercise the government will engage in.” He did not say that the government would not or cannot pay or otherwise compensate witnesses in these circumstances, however. Jawad’s defense lawyers, meanwhile, have not been reticent about their view of the evidence.

While explaining that he cannot describe the evidence because it’s classified, Hafetz insisted that “it is not new and it is not credible or reliable.” So far, the government has lost 28 out of 33 habeas corpus cases brought by Guantanamo detainees and heard by a federal court because the courts have found the evidence unreliable or otherwise insufficient to justify their continued detention. The Justice Department is reportedly planning to bring criminal charges against “dozens more” Guantanamo prisoners.

Stay tuned.
*************************************

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are 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.

H/t: BuzzFlash

BREAKING: Judge rules Gitmo detainee must be sent home

By GottaLaff

I've been posting and posting about Jawad. Now, per MSNBC just now, finally, he gets good news. Why? His statements were coerced, he was subject to torture, and his testimony is meaningless.

A judge agreed.

The earliest he can be sent home is August 21, and the Justice Department could still press charges.

A judge ruled today that one of the youngest detainees brought to Guantánamo Bay is being held illegally and must be released.

US district judge Ellen Huvelle's order does not end the case of Mohammed Jawad, however. Deputy assistant attorney general Ian Gershengorn told the judge that as the United States negotiates with the detainee's home country of Afghanistan for his return next month, the US justice department also is pursuing a criminal investigation.

Gershengorn said Eric Holder, the US attorney general, has not yet decided whether to indict Jawad, who allegedly threw a grenade that wounded two US soldiers and their interpreter in December 2002. That means it's possible he could be brought to the United States for a criminal trial.

Huvelle said she had no authority to prevent an indictment, but she encouraged prosecutors to think hard about problems with the case, including Jawad's mental competency to stand trial and the fact that he's already been incarcerated for six and a half years. "After this horrible, long, tortured history, I hope the government will succeed in getting him back home," she said. "Enough has been imposed on this young man to date."

Jawad was 12 when he was arrested.

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.

U.S. Will Transfer Gitmo Child Soldier to Civilian Court, Still Won’t Let Him Go

By GottaLaff

My previous posts on this case can be read here and here. The second link takes you to even more links about Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, who was the original military prosecutor in this case, and quit over Jawad's treatment and had asked that his client be released. He wasn't.

It wasn’t until late Friday afternoon that the Obama Justice Department, after years of wrangling over the fate of Mohammed Jawad, the Afghan boy arrested for allegedly lobbing a hand grenade at U.S. soldiers in 2002, admitted that it does not have enough evidence to continue to hold him indefinitely without trial under the laws of war.

The judge said the case had been "gutted" by the government's admission that torture was used to elicit confessions. There were also no reliable eye witnesses, not one.

The Justice Department evidently realized it wasn’t going to get very far in the habeas corpus case.

As you recall from my previous posts, DoJ now wants to take Jawad to criminal court.

A habeas corpus proceeding is a civil case, and the burden of proof is different than in a criminal prosecution. In a civil case, the government has to prove its case only by “a preponderance of the evidence.” A criminal prosecution, however, requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But that’s actually a higher burden of proof. So how could the government prove a criminal case against Jawad and not be able to prove its right to hold him in his habeas case?

The answer couldn’t rely on the strength of the evidence: eyewitness testimony that Jawad committed a war crime would be strong evidence that would probably support the government’s claim that it could hold him indefinitely under the laws of war. The only way the government’s latest claim makes sense is if it’s now saying that throwing a grenade at U.S. soldiers is not a crime of war, but an ordinary criminal offense. But if that’s the case, then why did the U.S. government hold him for six and a half years at Guantanamo Bay as an enemy combatant? And can it really have “newly discovered” reliable eyewitness testimony almost seven years after the crime occurred? Or is it just that the Department of Justice realized it wasn’t going to be able to string along this particular federal judge who’s clearly become exasperated by the flimsiness of the government’s case?

Here's the "new twist" in a nutshell:

“Until now, the Administration has been talking about detaining people who can’t be prosecuted,” said David Remes, a lawyer who represents more than a dozen detainees at Guantanamo, in an email over the weekend. [...] “Now the Administration is talking about prosecuting people who can’t be detained. This is a new twist.”

Seems the DoJ is all twisted up.

[...] Remes noted, they’re charging the men simply to avoid their release. In the cases of “enemy combatants” Ali al-Marri and Jose Padilla, for example, the government transferred them to the civilian court system to avoid facing a potentially adverse decision from the U.S. Supreme Court about the president’s power to continue holding them.

“As soon as the courts force the government’s hand in a habeas case, it simply lowers the boom on the detainee by prosecuting him,” says Remes. Either way, “they always get their man.”

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.

U.S. admits it has no case against teen held at Gitmo

By GottaLaff

Just yesterday I posted about the U.S. Department of Justice considering pressing criminal charges against Lt. Col. Vandeveld's former client (the Lt. Col. resigned in protest). Why a criminal trial here in the U.S. of A. after all this time? Here's why:

The Justice Department conceded Friday that it lacks the evidence to hold a teenage Guantanamo detainee as an enemy combatant after a federal judge last week ruled that his confession was inadmissible.

In a hearing last week, U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruled that Mohammed Jawad's confession to Afghan officials was inadmissible because it had been extracted through torture.

That "T" Word sure causes a mess-o'-trouble for our legal system, doesn't it?

She also questioned whether the Justice Department had any evidence to proceed with a trial to determine whether he can be held as an enemy combatant.

Fayiz al-Kandari, Lt. Col. Barry Wingard's client, can relate. See links below.

Huvelle called the case an "outrage" and told Justice Department lawyers that their case against Jawad had been "gutted."

"Without his statements, I don't understand your case," she told Justice Department lawyers. "Sir, the facts can only get smaller, not bigger. . . . Face it, this case is in trouble. . . . Seven years and this case is riddled with holes."

Ding! We have a winner! Aww, enemy combatant status, it looks like we'll be saying good-bye, but hey, we have parting gifts:

She then urged the lawyers to "let him out. Send him back to Afghanistan."

Department lawyers, however, signaled they may bring him to the U.S. for a criminal trial.

But do they have enough evidence? Let's find out:

In a statement issued Friday, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said the department had to determine whether it has enough evidence to prosecute him in criminal court.

Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer with the ACLU's National Security Project, was skeptical that the government could come up with new evidence to prosecute Jawad in federal court.

"They're simply trying to manufacture new ways to prolong his detention," he said.

The Justice Department's case against Jawad, whom Afghan officials say was captured when he was just 12 years old, underscores the difficulties the U.S. government faces in justifying its continued imprisonment of Guantanamo detainees.

And speaking of difficulties:

Last year, a military judge determined that Afghan police threatened Jawad's family while he was undergoing interrogation at a Kabul police station. The judge also concluded there was evidence that Jawad was under the influence of drugs at the time of his capture and forced confession.

''You will be killed if you do not confess to the grenade attack,'' the detainee quoted an interrogator as saying. "We will arrest your family and kill them if you do not confess.''

Hmmmyeah, that kind of testimony is a little, how you say, unreliable.

Now you get an inkling of why the DoJ needs to design its own court system, aka "Commissions", to gain a handful of convictions.

And thanks for playing, "I'm Not an Enemy Combatant, Get me Outta Here!"

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.

Lt. Col. Vandeveld's former Gitmo detainee client to face criminal charges

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.

VIDEO: Rachel Maddow, Former Gitmo Prosecutor Lt. Col. Vandeveld on sorry state of evidence

By GottaLaff

As you know, I am passionate about the unfair treatment-- legal, physical, and mental-- of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I've been chronicling the story of Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, who is doing his best to free his client Fayiz al-Kandari, or at least get him his day in court.

The story goes beyond that of torture and other brutal mistreatment of prisoners. It extends to the brutal mistreatment of our legal system and ethics.

Take a good look at former Gitmo prosecutor... yes, a prosecutor... echoing many of the same horrendous issues as Barry has. The video is from January 2009:

Rachel talks to former Guantanamo Bay prosecutor about why he quit and the sorry state of the evidence against the prisoners held there.

I've previously posted about Darrel Vandeveld, most recently here, and also here, here, and here.

His Wiki, in part, to catch you up (and you can follow my links above):

Darrel Vandeveld (1961 (age 47–48)) is an American lawyer and an officer in the United States Army Reserve.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

Vandeveld is notable for asking to resign from his appointment as a Prosecutor before a Guantanamo military commission. ^[7]

According to the New York Times, officials confirmed on September 24, 2008 that Lieutenant Colonel Vandeveld resigned over an ethical issue.^[1] Vandeveld is the seventh Prosecutor to resign from serving as a Guantanamo prosecutor.^{[citation needed]}

Vandeveld was serving as a Prosecutor in the case of Mohammed Jawad, a Pakistani youth who was charged with participating in a grenade attack in a bazaar in Afghanistan where two American GIs and their interpreter were injured.^[1] Colonel Stephen Henley had been growing impatient with the Prosecution, and had given them a deadline to share evidence they had withheld from Major David J. R. Frakt which he suspected could prove exculpatory.^{[citation needed]}

The BBC reports that the withheld evidence includes the confessions of two men who said they were the ones who actually made the attack.^[4]

Vandeveld's resignation was filed within the Military Commission system.^[1] The New York Times reported he had not commented publicly about his resignation. Carol Rosenberg, of the Miami Herald, quoted from Vandeveld's four page resignation memo^[2]:

“In my view evidence we have an obligation as prosecutors and officers of the court has not been made available to the defense.” “it seems plausible to me that Jawad may have been drugged before the alleged attack.”

Frakt claimed that Vandeveld had recommended a plea bargain and an early release for Jawad, who was a youth when the event took place, and who had been subjected to coercive "enhanced interrogation techniques", including prolonged sleep deprivation in Guantanamo's frequent flyer program.^[1]

Frakt commented that Vandeveld: “could no longer continue to serve ethically as a prosecutor.”^[1]

Time to speak up, folks. This is not justice, and at least in this regard, this is no longer the United States we thought we knew.

Ex-Military Commissions Prosecutor Says the System Is Unsalvagable

By GottaLaff

Just when you thought you were safe, I find yet another piece about Gitmo/detainees/military commissions, which, as you all know, are an obsession of mine. I've been doing some reading about Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld lately, and lo and behold, I find this piece on him in today's Washington Independent.

Once again, Spencer Ackerman fills us in:

In my just-published piece on the Obama administration and Congress’s plans for military commissions, I quote a former military-commission prosecutor, U.S. Army Reserve Lt. Col Darrel Vandeveld who’s an unlikely commission opponent. A former true-believer in the widespread guilt of the Guantanamo detainees, Vandeveld ultimately resigned from the commissions last September after suffering a crisis of conscience over prosecuting Mohammed Jawad, whom Vandeveld came to believe was innocent of throwing grenades at U.S. troops in Afghanistan as a juvenile.

The administration and congressional changes to the commissions are “cosmetic,” Vandeveld told me, as they’ll still provide for hearsay evidence (albeit in restrained form) and a measure of coerced testimony. The commissions depend on a empaneling military officials who have “no special expertise in the law to determine what weight to give that evidence,” he says. “In my mind, that’s too heavy a burden.”

But Vandeveld doesn’t stop with the military commissions. He rejects the entire administration contention that there’s a true class of detainees who are too dangerous for release and also can’t be successfully prosecuted, the backbone of the argument for preventive detention.

Why? Hearsay. A lot of the basis for determination of the potential danger of a released detainee is hearsay. Yep, that's what cases are based on, as in the case of Fayiz al-Kandari. Hearsay.

“Oftentimes, it’s based on statements made by the detainees themselves." ...

Again, see: al-Kandari, Fayiz. Continuing...

Nor was Vandeveld impressed by Pentagon General Counsel Jeh Johnson’s suggestion today that the administration could conceivably detain people acquitted of terrorism charges.

Vandeveld:

“I know the president has said he does not want release someone who’s a threat to the American people. As a prosecutor of 20 years, I can tell you that happens every day in the U.S. — the recidivism rate is huge. It’s worse than people want to think about. But it’s worth the risks that one has to take if one believes in democracy and the rule of law. There are two systems already in place [for dealing with dangerous people]: military courts martial under the [Uniformed Code of Military Justice] and Article-3 [federal civilian] courts. There’s no reason to lower our standards to obtain convictions would not obtain otherwise.”

Vandeveld is scheduled to testify tomorrow morning about military commissions to a House Judiciary subcommittee.

If it's on CSPAN, I'll be watching.

Oh, and by the way, Guantanamo prosecutor quits amid controversy

By GottaLaff

Lest we forget:

Contending that the government had suppressed evidence that could help a young man facing life in prison, a prosecutor has quit the war crimes tribunals here, several military defense lawyers said Wednesday.

Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld quit the case -- and the Office of Military Commissions -- after growing increasingly concerned about the lack of due process afforded to Mohammed Jawad and his legal team, according to Michael J. Berrigan, deputy chief defense counsel for the commissions.

Vandeveld, an Army reservist, said in a four-page declaration filed with the court that "potentially exculpatory evidence has not been provided" to the defense.

Since we were on the subject of politicizing...