Hillary Clinton moved to halt disclosure of CIA torture evidence, court told

By GottaLaff

Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian, was granted refugee status in Britain in 1994. He was detained in Pakistan in 2002 on suspicion of involvement in terrorism and then "rendered" to Morocco and Afghanistan. Photograph: PA Wire/PA

Time after time, CIA abuse/torture has nullified, or at least seriously challenged the credibility of, prosecution cases against detainees. When testimony has been coerced, when a suspect has been tortured into saying anything and everything he thinks his abusers want to hear, the evidence is inadmissible.

Oh, and torture is illegal, despite the efforts of John Yoo, David Addington, et al. to twist and stretch the law into something unrecognizable to most Americans. The CIA has been frantically playing CYA as more and more revelations have made their way into the public eye.

Now Hillary Clinton has chimed in:

Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, personally intervened to suppress evidence of CIA collusion in the torture of a British resident, the high court heard today.

The dramatic turn emerged as lawyers for Binyam Mohamed, the UK resident abused in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Morocco and Guantánamo Bay, joined by lawyers for the Guardian and other media groups, asked the court to order the disclosure of CIA material.

It consists of a seven-paragraph summary of what the CIA knew, and what it told MI5 and MI6, about the treatment of Mohamed. Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones, the judges hearing the case, have said that the summary contains nothing that could possibly be described as "highly sensitive classified US intelligence".

However, David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has repeatedly told the court that the US would stop sharing intelligence with the UK if the CIA material was published. The judges, as well as lawyers for Mohamed and the media, have challenged that assertion. [...]

In a written statement proposing a gagging order, Miliband told the court that she "indicated" that the disclosure of CIA evidence "would affect intelligence sharing". Pressed repeatedly by the judges on the claim yesterday, Karen Steyn, Miliband's counsel, insisted that Clinton was indeed saying that if the seven-paragraph summary of CIA material was disclosed, the US would "reassess" its intelligence relationship with the UK, a move that "would put lives at risk".

Guy Vassall-Adams, for the Guardian and other media groups, told the court earlier that Miliband's claims – including his account of his conversation with Clinton – "lack any credibility". [...]

A letter recently sent by the CIA to the high court "merely demonstrated that the CIA would like the court to withhold from the public … findings about CIA wrongdoing", [ Lord Justice Thomas] added.

The CIA letter was couched in vague language and Miliband's interpretation of the US claims was completely unreasonable, lawyers for Mohamed and the media said.

The court was also provided with a 35-page MI5 document – of which all but three are blacked out – relating to its instructions to one of its officers in 2002. [...]

It is unclear why so many pages in the MI5 document have been redacted, but the information contained in them may relate to Mohamed's condition and how he should be interrogated.One unredacted passage refers to Mohamed as "The Dirty Bomber" a reference to claims about him which were dropped years later after he was secretly flown to Guantánamo Bay. The high court judges, who have described the case as "troublesome", reserved their ruling on whether the CIA material should be published.

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.

H/t: Cody

U.S. District Judge Orders Release of Kuwaiti Detainee from Gitmo

By GottaLaff

(click on image to enlarge)

I got some great news via an e-mail from Lt. Col. Barry Wingard today. First, he said the following:

Looks like DOJ has lost its 27 of 32 cases it has reviewed under "any evidence" to justify detention standard, never mind a specific crime or "beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah, about that...

And then the very, very good news about one of the remaining Gitmo detainees (not Fayiz al-Kandari):

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 29, 2009

U.S. District Judge Orders Release of Kuwaiti Detainee from Guantanamo

Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rules there is insufficient evidence to continue the detention of Kuwaiti citizen Khaled Al-Mutairi

WASHINGTON, DC – A federal judge today ordered the release of Kuwaiti citizen Khaled Al-Mutairi from the Guantanamo Bay prison, where he has been held for nearly eight years without any charges being filed against him. The U.S. government had its chance under the rule of law to demonstrate the basis for Al-Mutairi’s detention during his habeas corpus hearing, but a judge ruled that the government lacks sufficient evidence to continue his detention. Al-Mutairi was taken into U.S. custody in Pakistan in 2001.

“The Government is directed to take all necessary and appropriate diplomatic steps to facilitate the release of Petitioner Al Mutairi forthwith,” U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her order.

“Since his imprisonment, all that Khaled Al-Mutairi and his family have asked for is a fair hearing before an independent, impartial court to test the evidence against him. After more than seven long years of imprisonment, justice has finally been served for Khaled,” said David Cynamon, lead attorney for the Kuwaiti detainees and a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman. “We now want the U.S. Government to follow the court order and promptly return Khaled to Kuwait. That is what the rule of law is all about.”

“While he will never regain the years he has lost, we look forward to his return to his family and his country with open arms,” said Khalid Al-Odah, head of the Kuwaiti Family Committee and father of Guantanamo detainee Fawzi Al-Odah. “But we cannot forget Kuwait’s three remaining sons who await their fair hearings that the U.S. Supreme Court has promised.”

Al-Mutairi was taken into custody in Pakistan in 2001 after he traveled to Afghanistan to build a mosque and to provide funds for schools and orphans. His family has long been actively engaged in charitable works.

“We must remember that Khaled Al-Mutairi is just one of the four Kuwaitis remaining in Guantanamo. Our work is not done until all of these men receive the fair hearings to which the Supreme Court held they are entitled more than a year ago,” Cynamon added.

There were originally 12 Kuwaitis in Guantanamo Bay. In 2005 and 2006, the United States returned eight of them to Kuwait, where that country’s courts charged, tried and cleared them of wrongdoing.

Three additional Kuwaitis remain in Guantanamo, where they, like Khaled al Mutairi, have been imprisoned for nearly eight years. The court has scheduled habeas corpus hearings for Fawzi Al-Odah and Fouad Al Rabiah to take place in August. Fayiz al-Kandari’s habeas corpus hearing is scheduled for September 2009.

A copy of Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order is attached to this release. An unclassified version of Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s opinion is expected to be available within a few days.

About the Kuwaiti Family Committee:

The Kuwaiti Family Committee’s mission is to seek justice for the remaining Kuwaiti detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The organization is led by Khalid Al-Odah, the father of Guantanamo detainee Fawzi Al-Odah, and includes in its membership approximately 100 relatives of the prisoners. They are only asking for due process of law for their fathers, brothers, and sons, including speedy proceedings either to release them or to charge and try them in a fair process.

Kahled Al-Mutairi's story is so similar to Fayiz's, isn't it? An innocent man doing charity work gets swept up, imprisoned for 8 years, and most likely abused and/or tortured (again, like Fayiz) for absolutely no good reason.

His family suffered, and continues to suffer, for absolutely no good reason. Lives have been damaged, or ruined completely, for absolutely no good reason.

This continues today.

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.

Did the CIA lie to the Red Cross? And about those criticisms of President Obama's policies...

By GottaLaff

Is this obstruction of justice? That's what the Washington Independent is asking:

[T]hat’s what Jane Mayer told Alternet’s Liliana Segura: the Defense Department actually hid prisoners from the International Committee of the Red Cross when the humanitarian group first visited the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay in 2002.

“That’s an overt act; lying to the Red Cross, hiding prisoners from them,” Mayer said.

Here is an excerpt from Segura's interview that delves further into the lies:

LS: Is there anything in the report in particular that has struck you that you didn't know before?

JM: One of the things that caught my eye last night was that it's clear that the CIA -- and I think you'd have to guess the Department of Defense -- lied to the Red Cross. They told the Red Cross when it visited Guantanamo [in 2002] that it had seen all of the detainees. But what the report says is that some of the detainees -- some of the high-value detainees -- realized when they were finally sent to Guantanamo in 2006 that they'd been there before. They were there. And yet the Red Cross was not allowed to see them. The Red Cross was told they'd seen everybody.

So the CIA and DOD lied to the Red Cross. There were some hidden prisoners in Guantanamo. That's an overt act; lying to the Red Cross, hiding prisoners from them.

And here is some interesting analysis about the Obama administration's policies:

LS: Does this mean that the CIA black sites have been dismantled? Also, what about renditions? Isn't Obama keeping open the possibility of keeping Clinton-era style rendition in place?

JM: [...] Essentially, they claim it's a return to the pre-9/11 Clinton program, which was ostensibly "rendition to justice." But some sources who were involved in the Clinton years have told me it was a very rough business. The CIA has fought very hard to keep the program going in a modified form. We'll see if they can do it in the transparent, legal and humane way the executive orders require. I have my doubts.

I think that there's a ton still to do here. And some of the early positions they've taken -- defending state secrets and denying, as you say, habeas corpus rights to prisoners held in Bagram -- you know, they're worrisome. I think there's more going on here, though, which people haven't really focused on, which is: there's a real tug-of-war going on about the confirmation process. A number of top appointees who Obama wants to put in to handle some of these issues have not been confirmed. The Republicans in the Senate are really holding up people that Obama needs to make changes for the better.

You've got Harold Koh, who's been nominated to be the top lawyer for the State Department. He's a great defender of human rights. His nomination confirmation is in trouble because the Republicans are talking about trying to block him.

And the same thing is true of Dawn Johnsen, who has been nominated for the head of the Office of Legal Council. And there are a number of other top positions that are open that are really important. The Obama administration doesn't have enough staff to handle what it needs to do.

Meanwhile, it's being hit by wave after wave of litigation, because the human rights community's approach in the Bush years was "we're gonna litigate." So there is case after case breaking and requiring action from the Obama administration, which doesn't have its people in place yet. And I think that's part of the problem. So, I'm cutting them more slack then some critics, because I don't think we're seeing everything they want to do yet.

LS: So is what you're saying that they are buying themselves time, adopting these Bush positions or defending them for the moment?

JM: Well they're definitely buying themselves time on Guantanamo, but they haven't bought themselves very much time. They gave themselves 180 days; they've got three task forces, which took a long time to get up and running. I hear from people who are involved in this that it's a really complicated process.

And on the state-secrets cases -- you know, I don't know whose really making these decisions. But again, on accountability, I think it comes back to Obama himself. And he is spread so thin and so distracted by so many other emergencies right now, I'm not sure that he's really giving it the attention that some of us think it needs.

So that's what I think is going on. I'm not sure that I would impute terrible motives to them at this point. I think it's more disorganization and delay.

This would all go back to my wait-and-see posture. Which is why I'm waiting and seeing. And have good posture.

Like Mayer, I have some doubts, but I feel we still don't know the whole story yet. I remain troubled by what Jonathan Turley and others have opined, but as I keep saying, I'm willing to be patient for awhile longer. It's only been a couple of months, after all. I'm still in simmer mode.

Joshua is angry

By GottaLaff

I love the Joshua Blog. Joshua is a cool guy who is responsive to my Tweets on The Twitter Machine. I went over to his place, and I found a very angry Joshua. He has graciously invited me to copy and paste his entire post:

Now I'm really starting to get pissed off. What the hell is he thinking?! He refused to go after Bush officials for torture, he embraces Bush's executive power grab and protects the domestic spying program and it's telecom conspirators, blackmailed by the Senate GOPers with filibusters his appointees & threatened by the CIA with God only know what, he decides not to release the torture memos as planned and now this bullshit?!

From the NY Times:

Obama to Appeal Detainee Ruling

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.

In a court filing, the Justice Department also asked District Judge John D. Bates not to proceed with the habeas-corpus cases of three detainees at Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Afghanistan. Judge Bates ruled last week that the three — each of whom says he was seized outside of Afghanistan — could challenge their detention in court.

Tina Foster, the executive director of the International Justice Network, which is representing the detainees, condemned the decision in a statement.

“Though he has made many promises regarding the need for our country to rejoin the world community of nations, by filing this appeal, President Obama has taken on the defense of one of the Bush administration’s unlawful policies founded on nothing more than the idea that might makes right,” she said.

read more

NOT OK.

Joshua has a point. I really don't want to get this upset with President Obama, he's really terrific in so many ways... but regarding these topics, I'm starting to simmer. I'm still in wait-and-see mode before I get to the same boiling point as Joshua, but right now, I don't like what I'm seeing while I wait.

Let's hope there's more to this than meets the eye, and that we will feel some sense of relief, not dread or vindication for our outrage.

Obama Clings to Extraordinary Executive Power

By GottaLaff

At TPC, most of us are pretty supportive of President Obama. But we are also not adverse to calling him out when we don't like what we see. This is one of those times:

Now that the Obama administration has decided to transfer al-Marri out of the South Carolina Navy brig — where he’s been imprisoned without charge for the last seven years — and charge him in federal court, the habeas corpus petition the American Civil Liberties Union filed on al-Marri’s behalf would seem to be moot. After all, the ACLU had asked for their client to be transferred to civilian custody and charged in a regular court. The Department of Justice did just that Feb. 27, charging al-Marri under federal criminal law with providing material support to al-Qaeda.

The Obama Justice Department now asks the Supreme Court to dismiss al-Marri’s appeal. But if the court agrees, it would leave in place the court of appeals’ ruling that the federal government has the right to hold a lawful U.S. resident in prison without charge indefinitely, as long as the president designates him an “enemy combatant.” The court could, alternatively, vacate the Fourth Circuit’s decision, but that would leave the question undecided, except in the district of South Carolina where the court ruled that the government did not have that extraordinary power.

All of which raises the obvious question: Why Is the Obama administration clinging to the right to hold lawful U.S. residents indefinitely without charge on U.S. soil? [...]

In asking the Supreme Court to dismiss al-Marri’s case, the Obama administration wrote that the possibility that al-Marri will be re-designated an enemy combatant and therefore subject to indefinite detention is a “subjective fear” that is “remote and speculative.” But still possible. [...]

So the government reserves the right to use evidence from his criminal trial to re-classify al-Marri as an “enemy combatant” subject to indefinite detention?

The ACLU, which is representing al-Marri, is pleased that the Obama administration transferred him out of military custody. But now they’re left arguing that the Supreme Court should hear a case that, as a practical matter, doesn’t really exist anymore. [...]

As Jonathan Haftez, the lead ACLU lawyer on the appeal, explained earlier today, the Obama Justice Department has “refused to defend an illegal policy. But they have not explicitly repudiated the domestic detention powers. They should have done that.”

Am I missing something?

John Sidney McCain's Out-of-TouchTwofer

By GottaLaff

Today I became aware of not one, but two appalling quotes from John Sidney McFootInMouth. Earlier today I posted this one:

John Sidney McCallous: "You don't know what it's like to have a comrade die [in a war]."
Woman: "I know what it's like to have a loved one die."
McCallous: "You're lucky he died."

Just now I stumbled across this one, regarding the Supreme Court decision on habeas corpus/Gitmo:

Senator John McCain today called the Supreme Court decision protecting the right of habeas corpus for prisoners in Guantamo Bay “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”

People For the American Way President Kathryn Kolbert released a statement. Here it is, in part:

“Senator McCain has gone out of his way to appease the far right-wing of his party on the subject of the Supreme Court, but his latest comment is either ill-considered pandering, a ridiculously flippant comment, or just plain out-of-touch. Any way you read it, there’s no good explanation.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to stand up and protect the right of habeas corpus is one of its proudest moments. It’s appalling that Senator McCain would compare it to a decision that blacks and whites should drink from separate water fountains. Or that hundreds of thousands of Japanese Americans should be imprisoned in internment camps. Or that African-Americans should not be counted as persons under the law."

As I mentioned yesterday, somebody should be compiling these quotes into a book and/or a calendar. It'll happen. It's just a matter of time.

Habeas Rights Upheld For Gitmo Detainees By SCOTUS

By Paddy


Very important development, and Christy breaks it down.