DOCSLIB.ORG

No Meaningful Access to Habeas Corpus at Guantánamo

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
No Meaningful Access to Habeas Corpus at Guantánamo No Meaningful Access to Habeas Corpus at Guantánamo APPENDIX 29 The memorandum opinion that follows was issued in 2012 In re: Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation Continued Access to Counsel by Chief Judge Lamberth for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. It castigates the State for its ill-advised attempt, yet again, to restrict lawyers’ access to the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay. That the dispute which occasioned this opinion occurred shows that even crucial advances in Guantánamo detention policy, such as counsel access rights, are not guaranteed. Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 1 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 2 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 3 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 4 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 5 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 6 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 7 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 8 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 9 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 10 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 11 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 12 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 13 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 14 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 15 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 16 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 17 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 18 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 19 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 20 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 21 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 22 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 23 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 24 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 25 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 26 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 27 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 28 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 29 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 30 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 31 of 32 Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1009 Filed 09/06/12 Page 32 of 32 APPENDIX 30 2/27/13 Obama turns back the clock on Guantanamo - Washington Post Sign In Register Jobs Real Estate Rentals Cars Print Subscription Today's Paper Discussions Going Out Guide Personal Post Videos Politics Opinions Local Sports National World Business Tech Lifestyle Entertainment Jobs More OPINIONS Home > Collections > Guantanamo Bay Obama turns back the clock on Guantanamo By Baher Azmy , August 1 6, 201 2 Ads by Google New rules from the Obama Justice Department threaten to return Guantanamo Bay to the legal black hole it was in during the early days of the George W. Bush administration. The Online Cooking Lessons rules, which began trickling out in May, are to be reviewed Friday in a hearing Self Paced. Flexible. Affordable. before a federal judge in Washington. Escoffier Online Culinary Academy. They restrict lawyers’ access to detainees www.escoffieronline.com who have lost their initial habeas corpus petitions. The effect would be to wrest control of attorney-client access away from the courts and give the military nearly complete discretion to dictate if and when attorneys can visit detainees, how many attorneys may work on a case, The Secret to Getting Thin what information lawyers may obtain No Matter What You Eat and use in representing their clients, and where and how this information can be used. How Cruise Lines Fill All Those Unsold Cruise In other words, far from closing the Cabins prison camp as he promised, President Obama is steadily returning Guantanamo to the secretive and hopeless internment How to Improve Memory camp that he vilified as a candidate. with Scientifically Designed Brain Exercises Since the Guantanamo prison opened in 2002, its defining features have been the denial of judicial oversight and its exclusion of lawyers. The George W. Bush administration chose this location to house “enemy combatants” because officials thought the island military base — and treatment of detainees — would be beyond the scrutiny of the courts. After the Supreme Court rejected this strategy in its 2004 ruling in Rasul v. Bush, lawyers streamed down to the base. It soon became clear that not only had most detainees been abused but also that most should never have been detained at all. More than 600 of the nearly 800 Muslim men once held at Guantanamo have been released since Rasul. In 2008, the court’s ruling in Boumediene v. Bush reaffirmed that detainees had a right to meaningful judicial review of the factual and legal basis of their detention. Boumediene reopened the courts to detainees, and habeas challenges resumed after years of being put on hold. In the first three years after Boumediene, most detainees won their cases in lower courts, underscoring the weakness of the Bush administration’s detention decisions. But over the past year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has reversed all of those decisions and imposed legal standards that make it virtually impossible to win a habeas case. Meanwhile, the Ads by Google Supreme Court’s refusal to review the D.C. Circuit’s defiance of the promise in Boumediene — despite a plea raised this year in seven separate appeals — signals the end of meaningful judicial oversight of Guantanamo. And the Justice Department’s new rules are bringing Guantanamo full circle. In a court filing this month, the Obama administration showed its faulty reasoning, arguing that in the absence of active habeas petitions, lawyers do not need guaranteed access to their clients or to classified information necessary to pursue their claims. Obama officials, like the Bush administration before them, say that the government should have unfettered control over Guantanamo. articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-16/opinions/35492526_1_detainees-boumediene-guantanamo-bay 1/3 2/27/13 Obama turns back the clock on Guantanamo - Washington Post But there is no plausible legal or military justification to punish these detainees in this way. Guantanamo remains thousands of miles from any active hostilities. More to the point, amid the thousands of attorney-client visits that have occurred over the past eight years, there has been no credible report of any disclosure of classified information or harm to national security. The Obama administration’s backtracking, taken with the D.C. Circuit’s evisceration of Boumediene and the president’s failed promise to close the prison, are shifting the status quo at Guantanamo to the pre-Rasul era, when Guantanamo was iconic for denying human beings We Recommend legal rights or access to the outside world. Supreme Court declines Guantanamo detainee appeals This development is as unsurprising as it is dangerous. In 2004, the Supreme Court was June 11, 2012 motivated to ensure judicial supervision over detention operations at Guantanamo by revelations about torture at Abu Ghraib as well as by concerns about detention without charge Detainees' Day in Court or trial. Today, most people think Obama has ended torture at Guantanamo. It does not follow, S eptember 17, 2008 however, that there is no longer a need for judicial oversight. Conditions and treatment at the Guantanamo detainees see legal progress rev ersed prison improved precisely because of attorney and judicial oversight. Abuses could easily return June 24, 2011 absent proper vigilance. Still, the more fundamental problem at Guantanamo has always been indefinite detention without charge or trial — itself a form of torture. Find More Stories About Ads by Google Guantanamo Bay Military Base Online Cooking Lessons Self Paced. Flexible. Affordable. Escoffier Online Culinary Academy. www.escoffieronline.com Torture was President Bush’s legacy at Guantanamo. I hope that President Obama’s legacy will not be that he legitimized indefinite detention without charge and made Guantanamo a place where the United States sends Muslim detainees to grow old and die. Ads by Google Free Medicare Plan List Free List of Medicare Advantage & Medicare Part D Plans. Compare Now! PlanPrescriber.com/Medicare Recommend 281 Tw eet 192 10 FEATURED ARTICLES Handy Guide: Buying a Mattress Notes from a newly converted Showtime’s ‘History of the juicer Eagles’: Soaring, and occasionally still sore MORE: ‘Life Is but a Dream’: Beyonce’s world, seen through a The Secret to Cleaning Grout in Tile Floors mish-mash 3-D printers could bring manufacturing to your home Five myths about picking a pope office Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway makes several Why Isn't The Dodge Dart Selling? stock moves, invests in ADM, Verisign 121 Comments articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-08-16/opinions/35492526_1_detainees-boumediene-guantanamo-bay 2/3 APPENDIX 31 NO HEARING HABEAS: D.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. ________ In the Supreme Court of the United States KHALED A. F. AL ODAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DAVID J. CYNAMON THOMAS B. WILNER MATTHEW J. MACLEAN COUNSEL OF RECORD OSMAN HANDOO NEIL H. KOSLOWE PILLSBURY WINTHROP AMANDA E. SHAFER SHAW PITTMAN LLP SHERI L. SHEPHERD 2300 N Street, N.W. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Washington, DC 20037 801 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 202-663-8000 Washington, DC 20004 202-508-8000 GITANJALI GUTIERREZ J. WELLS DIXON GEORGE BRENT MICKUM IV SHAYANA KADIDAL SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH CENTER FOR 1350 “I” Street N.W. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20005 666 Broadway, 7th Floor 202-898-5800 New York, NY 10012 212-614-6438 Counsel for Petitioners Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover JOSEPH MARGULIES JOHN J. GIBBONS MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY GIBBONS P.C. LAW SCHOOL One Gateway Center 357 East Chicago Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 Chicago, IL 60611 973-596-4500 312-503-0890 MARK S. SULLIVAN BAHER AZMY CHRISTOPHER G. KARAGHEUZOFF SETON HALL LAW SCHOOL JOSHUA COLANGELO-BRYAN CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 833 McCarter Highway 250 Park Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 New York, NY 10177 973-642-8700 212-415-9200 DAVID H. REMES MARC D. FALKOFF COVINGTON & BURLING COLLEGE OF LAW 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. NORTHERN ILLINOIS Washington, DC 20004 UNIVERSITY 202-662-5212 DeKalb, IL 60115 815-753-0660 PAMELA CHEPIGA SCOTT SULLIVAN ANDREW MATHESON DEREK JINKS KAREN LEE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SARAH HAVENS SCHOOL OF LAW ALLEN & OVERY LLP RULE OF LAW IN WARTIME 1221 Avenue of the Americas PROGRAM New York, NY 10020 727 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 War on Terror
    Chapter 7 War on Terror Thou shall not kill – But we will. In July 2005, Ahmed Ressam was sentenced to 22 years of impris- onment after a jury convicted him of an attempt to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on the eve of the millennium. Emphasizing the rule of law in punishing terrorists, US District Judge John C. Coughenour made the following comments during the sentencing hearing: I would like to convey the message that our system works. We did not need to use a secret military tribunal, or detain the defendant indefinitely as an enemy combatant, or deny him the right to coun- sel, or invoke any proceedings beyond those guaranteed by or con- trary to the US Constitution...Despite the fact that Mr. Ressam is not an American citizen and despite the fact that he entered this country intent upon killing American citizens, he received an effec- tive, vigorous defense, and the opportunity to have his guilt or inno- cence determined by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens. Most importantly, all of this occurred in the sunlight of a public trial. There were no secret proceedings, no indefinite detention, no denial of counsel. The tragedy of September 11th shook our sense of security and made us realize that we, too, are vulnerable to acts of terrorism. Unfortunately, some believe that this threat renders our Constitution obsolete. The war on terror is the antithesis of the criminal justice system that Judge Coughenour describes above. The criminal justice sys- tem is the peacetime legal infrastructure to arrest, indict, prose- War on Terror 249 cute, and punish persons accused of committing terrorists acts.
    [Show full text]
  • \\Crewserver05\Data\Research & Investigations\Most Ethical Public
    Stephen Abraham Exhibits EXHIBIT 1 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings - New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/us/23gitmo.html?pagewanted=print July 23, 2007 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings By WILLIAM GLABERSON NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — Stephen E. Abraham’s assignment to the Pentagon unit that runs the hearings at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, seemed a perfect fit. A lawyer in civilian life, he had been decorated for counterespionage and counterterrorism work during 22 years as a reserve Army intelligence officer in which he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. His posting, just as the Guantánamo hearings were accelerating in 2004, gave him a close-up view of the government’s detention policies. It also turned him into one of the Bush administration’s most unlikely adversaries. In June, Colonel Abraham became the first military insider to criticize publicly the Guantánamo hearings, which determine whether detainees should be held indefinitely as enemy combatants. Just days after detainees’ lawyers submitted an affidavit containing his criticisms, the United States Supreme Court reversed itself and agreed to hear an appeal arguing that the hearings are unjust and that detainees have a right to contest their detentions in federal court. Some lawyers say Colonel Abraham’s account — of a hearing procedure that he described as deeply flawed and largely a tool for commanders to rubber-stamp decisions they had already made — may have played an important role in the justices’ highly unusual reversal. That decision once again brought the administration face to face with the vexing legal, political and diplomatic questions about the fate of Guantánamo and the roughly 360 men still held there.
    [Show full text]
  • Forensic Mental Health Evaluations in the Guantánamo Military Commissions System: an Analysis of All Detainee Cases from Inception to 2018 T ⁎ Neil Krishan Aggarwal
    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 64 (2019) 34–39 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Law and Psychiatry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijlawpsy Forensic mental health evaluations in the Guantánamo military commissions system: An analysis of all detainee cases from inception to 2018 T ⁎ Neil Krishan Aggarwal Clinical Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, Committee on Global Thought, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, United States ABSTRACT Even though the Bush Administration opened the Guantánamo Bay detention facility in 2002 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, little remains known about how forensic mental health evaluations relate to the process of detainees who are charged before military commissions. This article discusses the laws governing Guantánamo's military commissions system and mental health evaluations. Notably, the US government initially treated detaineesas“unlawful enemy combatants” who were not protected under the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, allowing for the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In subsequent legal documents, however, the US government has excluded evidence obtained through torture, as defined by the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Using open-source document analysis, this article describes the reasons and outcomes of all forensic mental health evaluations from Guantánamo's opening to 2018. Only thirty of 779 detainees (~3.85%) have ever had charges referred against them to the military commissions, and only nine detainees (~1.16%) have ever received forensic mental health evaluations pertaining to their case.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Terrorist Organizations
    Order Code RL32223 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Foreign Terrorist Organizations February 6, 2004 Audrey Kurth Cronin Specialist in Terrorism Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Huda Aden, Adam Frost, and Benjamin Jones Research Associates Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Foreign Terrorist Organizations Summary This report analyzes the status of many of the major foreign terrorist organizations that are a threat to the United States, placing special emphasis on issues of potential concern to Congress. The terrorist organizations included are those designated and listed by the Secretary of State as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations.” (For analysis of the operation and effectiveness of this list overall, see also The ‘FTO List’ and Congress: Sanctioning Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations, CRS Report RL32120.) The designated terrorist groups described in this report are: Abu Nidal Organization (ANO) Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade Armed Islamic Group (GIA) ‘Asbat al-Ansar Aum Supreme Truth (Aum) Aum Shinrikyo, Aleph Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA) Communist Party of Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA) Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG) HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM) Hizballah (Party of God) Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) Jemaah Islamiya (JI) Al-Jihad (Egyptian Islamic Jihad) Kahane Chai (Kach) Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK, KADEK) Lashkar-e-Tayyiba
    [Show full text]
  • Approved for Public Filing by the CSO V
    Case 1:05-cv-02386-UNA Document 84 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 1 of 9 Approved for Public Filing by the CSO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMER MOHAMMON, et ai., ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED Petitioners, v. Civil Action No. 05 CV 2386 (RBW) (AK) GEORGE W. BUSH, et aZ., Respondents. EMERGENCY MOTION OF PETITIONERS ABDUL GHAFFAR AND ADEL NOORI FOR ACCESS TO COUNSEL AND TO HOLD RESPONDENTS IN CONTEMPT KU ::m!643 2 Case 1:05-cv-02386-UNA Document 84 Filed 07/19/2006 Page 2 of 9 Approved for Public Filing by the CSO Petitioners Abdul Rahman aJk/a Abdul GhatTar (ISN 281) and Adel LNU aJk/a Adel Noori (ISN 584), by and through their undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this emergency motion for access to their counsel, who are scheduled to visit the U.S. Naval Station at Guantiinamo Bay, Cuba ("Guantanamo"), between July 24 and July 28, 2006. Petitioners also seek the sanction of contempt for Respondents' refusal to comply with the Amended Protective Order and allow them access to their counsel - without a good faith basis, and apparently solely for the purpose of delay. INTRODUCTION Petitioners are Uighurs, a Turkic Muslim minority group native to the Xianjiang Autonomous Region, in western China. We have reason to believe and Respondents have not denied - that Petitioners may have been cleared for release from Guantiinamo. Respondents nonetheless refuse to aJlow Petitioners access to their counsel, who seek, in part, to confirm that Petitioners have been exonerated. Undersigned cO\ll1sel filed a notice of appearance in this case on June 15, 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Detainee Treatment Act of 2005
    Recent Developments DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005 INTRODUCTION Reports of Iraqi prisoner abuse by U.S. troops emerged as early as May 15, 2003,1 but it was not until April 28, 2004 that pictures of such abuse from the Abu Ghraib prison surfaced. 2 The Abu Ghraib scandal intensified public outcry and media inquiry into the tactics and legal justifications used by the George W. Bush Administration in executing the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism. 3 Internal memoranda written by various members of the Bush Administration materialized, revealing controversial interpretations of domestic and international law that led to ambiguities in the standards for detainee treatment. Such ambiguity led to policy choices that resulted in the shocking and morally reprehensible treatment of detainees, as captured in the Abu Ghraib pictures. On October 5, 2005, the Senate responded by approving an amendment ("S.Amdt. 1977") 4 to the Department of Defense ("DOD") appropriations bill for 2006 that would establish a clear source of approved interrogation tech- niques for use on detainees in DOD custody, and make clear that geographic considerations did not limit the prohibition on the use of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment ("CID treatment"). 5 The Bush Administra- tion threatened to veto the appropriations bill over S.Amdt. 1977, but the amendment remained in the bill after a compromise was reached, resulting in the addition of three other clauses related to detainee treatment: legal defenses 1. The May 15, 2003 report was made by Amnesty International at a press conference in London. Out of Sight, Out ofMind, COLUM.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Commissions Act of 2006
    MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY The Military Commissions Act was prompted, in part, by the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2006 ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld which rejected the President’s creation of military commissions by executive fiat and held unequivocally that the protections of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies in the context of the conflict with Al Qaeda. According to Administration statements, the Act was also prompted by concerns among CIA interrogators that the Detainee Treatment Act's prohibition of torture and coercive interrogations implied potential liability for the perpetrators and disbanding of the program of interrogation in secret CIA prisons. The MCA was passed in the House by a vote of 250 to 70. 1 The law was passed in the Senate by a vote of 65 to 34. 2 Five proposed amendments failed in the Senate by a narrow margin. Senator Specter (R-PA) proposed an amendment which would have removed the MCA’s jurisdiction- stripping provision. This amendment failed by a vote of 51-48. 3 The MCA was signed into law by President Bush on October 17, 2006. THE LAW The Military Commissions Act 4: Creates a broad definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” [Sec. 3(a)(1), amending § 948(a)(1)]; Severely limits the avenues of judicial review for non-citizens held in U.S. custody , aiming to eliminate both habeas and post-release civil challenges, thus effectively sanctioning indefinite detention and abusive interrogations of non-citizens and limiting accountability [Sec. 7]; Permits coercive interrogations and torture by creating narrow re-definitions, limiting judicial review, and allowing for statements obtained under torture or coercion to be used in prosecutions in some instances [Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: an Empirical Study
    © Reuters/HO Old – Detainees at XRay Camp in Guantanamo. The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empirical Study Benjamin Wittes and Zaahira Wyne with Erin Miller, Julia Pilcer, and Georgina Druce December 16, 2008 The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empiricial Study Table of Contents Executive Summary 1 Introduction 3 The Public Record about Guantánamo 4 Demographic Overview 6 Government Allegations 9 Detainee Statements 13 Conclusion 22 Note on Sources and Methods 23 About the Authors 28 Endnotes 29 Appendix I: Detainees at Guantánamo 46 Appendix II: Detainees Not at Guantánamo 66 Appendix III: Sample Habeas Records 89 Sample 1 90 Sample 2 93 Sample 3 96 The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: An Empiricial Study EXECUTIVE SUMMARY he following report represents an effort both to document and to describe in as much detail as the public record will permit the current detainee population in American T military custody at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Station in Cuba. Since the military brought the first detainees to Guantánamo in January 2002, the Pentagon has consistently refused to comprehensively identify those it holds. While it has, at various times, released information about individuals who have been detained at Guantánamo, it has always maintained ambiguity about the population of the facility at any given moment, declining even to specify precisely the number of detainees held at the base. We have sought to identify the detainee population using a variety of records, mostly from habeas corpus litigation, and we have sorted the current population into subgroups using both the government’s allegations against detainees and detainee statements about their own affiliations and conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • Islamist and Middle Eastern Terrorism: a Threat to Europe?
    © Rubbettino Centro Militare di Studi Strategici - Roma © Rubbettino Islamist and Middle Eastern Terrorism: A threat to Europe? Maria do Céu Pinto (University of Minho Portugal) Rubbettino © Rubbettino Copyright © by CeMiSS Centro Militare di Studi Strategici Piazza della Rovere, 83 - 00165 Roma (RM) e-mail: [email protected] © 2004 - Rubbettino Editore 88049 Soveria Mannelli - Viale Rosario Rubbettino, 10 -Tel. (0968) 662034 www.rubbettino.it © Rubbettino Index Abstract: 7 Introduction 9 I Islamist and Middle Eastern Terrorism in Europe: The Background 11 I.1. Palestinian Terrorism 11 I.2. Iranian Terrorism 17 II New Patterns of Islamist Terrorism in the 1990s 21 II.1. A New Age of Terrorism 21 II.2. Religious Terrorism 22 III The Web of Terror in Europe 31 III.1. Interlocking Terror Plots 31 III.2. Al-Qaeda: an Umbrella Network 32 III.3. Mosques: Recruitment and Indoctrination 36 IV Groups and Activities of Islamic Terrorists in Europe 41 IV.1. England 41 IV.2. France And Belgium 49 IV.3. Italy 53 IV.4. Germany 62 IV.5. Spain 65 IV.6. The Netherlands 71 V Evaluating the Terrorist Threat to Europe’s Security 75 V.1. Al-Qaeda’s European Infrastructure after 11th September 75 V.2. Islamic Communities in Europe: A Breeding Ground of Terrorists? 76 Conclusion 77 Bibliography 79 © Rubbettino 5 © Rubbettino Abstract During three decades Middle Eastern terrorism in Europe was largely a spillover from problems in the Middle East. Europe was a preferential oper- ational area for Arab, Palestinian and Iranian terrorists fighting each other. In the 1990s, a new Islamic threat emerged as a result of the activities of “ad hoc” terrorist groups, which lack a well-established organisational identity and tend to decentralise and compartmentalise their activities.
    [Show full text]
  • Islamist Terrorism in Northwestern Africa a ‘Thorn in the Neck’ of the United States?
    Islamist Terrorism in Northwestern Africa A ‘Thorn in the Neck’ of the United States? Emily Hunt Policy Focus #65 | February 2007 All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any infor- mation storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. © 2007 by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy Published in 2007 in the United States of America by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 1828 L Street NW, Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036. Design by Daniel Kohan, Sensical Design and Communication Front cover: A Nigerian girl walks past a wall displaying graffiti and political posters on the eve of presidential elections, April 18, 2003. Copyright AP Wide World Photos/Schalk van Zuydam. About the Author Emily Hunt is a former Soref fellow at The Washington Institute, where she studied North African terrorist net- works. Prior to joining the Institute, she worked as a terrorism consultant for the London security firm Aegis Defence Services. Ms. Hunt is currently a research fellow with the International Assessment and Strategy Center. She holds a master’s degree in war studies from King’s College, London, and a bachelor’s degree from the Univer- sity of St Andrews, Scotland. n n n The opinions expressed in this Policy Focus are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, its Board of Trustees, or its Board of Advisors.
    [Show full text]
  • THE PRESIDENT and the DETAINEES Aziz Z
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2017 The rP esident and the Detainees Aziz Huq Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Aziz Huq, "The rP esident and the Detainees," Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics, No. 793 (2017). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO COASE-SANDOR INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 793 THE PRESIDENT AND THE DETAINEES Aziz Z. Huq THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO January 2017 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2899120 ARTICLE THE PRESIDENT AND THE DETAINEES AZIZ Z. HUQ† Entering the White House in 2009, President Barack Obama committed to closing the military detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba. Eight years later, the facility remains open. This Article uses the puzzle of why Obama’s goal proved so recalcitrant as a case study of separation-of-powers constraints upon presidential power. Deploying a combination of empirical, doctrinal, and positive political science tools, it isolates the salient actors and dynamics that impeded Obama’s goal. Its core descriptive finding is that a bureaucratic–legislative alliance was pivotal in blocking the White House’s agenda.
    [Show full text]