DOCSLIB.ORG

Guantanamo Begins at Home Systematic Discrimination Faced by Muslim “War on Terror” Suspects in the Us

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guantanamo Begins at Home Systematic Discrimination Faced by Muslim “War on Terror” Suspects in the Us GUANTANAMO BEGINS AT HOME SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION FACED BY MUSLIM “WAR ON TERROR” SUSPECTS IN THE US 1 Guantanamo Begins at Home Systematic discrimination faced by Muslim “War on Terror” suspects in the US Author: Aviva Stahl CagePrisoners 27 Old Gloucester Street London WC1N 3XX [email protected] 0044 (0) 2073776700 “I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system -- including Article III courts (U.S. federal courts) -- to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened.” President Barack Obama, March 2011 “So if anybody is coming to the federal system, this is what they will face. And this is a calculated ploy of the government to make you think closing Guantánamo and putting people into the federal system is something better, which it’s inherently not.” Faisal Hashmi (brother of Syed Fahad Hashmi), April 2010 INTRODUCTION...................................................................9 PRIOR TO INDICTMENT: HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS ABUSES OUTSIDE OF CIVILIAN COURTS........................................................11 1) Secret Arrest And Imprisonment...........................................11 Case Study: Aafia Siddique...........................................................11 2) Abuse By U.S. Armed Forces.....................................................12 Case Study..................................................................................12 3) Conclusion..............................................................................13 FROM INDICTMENT THROUGH CONVICTION: THE SYSTEMIC NATURE OF PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETIES............................17 1) Imprisoned Without Trial......................................................17 A) Pre-Trial Detention................................................................17 Case Study: Syed Fahad Hashmi..............................................17 B) Misuse Of Material Arrest Warrants......................................18 Case Study: Abdullah Al-Kidd..................................................18 C) Unconstitutional Detention Of South Asian And Arab Non- Citizens..............................................................................19 2) Discriminatory Policing And Prosecution..........................20 A. Citizen Vigilantes And “Preventative Policing”..................20 Muskasey Guidelines And Fbi Domestic Investigative Operational Guidelines (Diogs)......................................................................21 Case Study: The Fort Dix Five22.................................................22 B. Selective Prosecution...............................................................22 Case Study: Rafil Dhafir...............................................................22 3) Illegitimate Charges...............................................................23 A. Material Support.....................................................................24 Case Study: Mohamad Hammoud............................................24 Lawsuit: Holder Vs. Humanitarian Law Project...............................24 B. Use Of Informants & Agent Provocateurs................................25 CONTENT Case Study: Newburgh Four51...................................................26 Lawsuit: Fazaqa V. FBI.............................................................27 C. The Threat Of ‘Enemy Combatant’ Status And The Inducement Of Guilty Pleas............................................................................28 Case Study: Iyman Faris...........................................................28 4) Evidence.............................................................................29 A. Prejudicial Or False Testimony...............................................29 Case Study 1: Sabri Benkhala & The ‘Expert’ Testimony Of Evan Kolhmann..........................................................................29 Case Study 2: Pete Seda & Paid Witnesses....................................31 B. Gained In Ways That Violate Civil Liberties And Human Ri ghts.........................................................................32 Case Study 1: Ahmed Omar Abu Ali & Evidence Gained Under Torture....................................................................................32 Case Study 2: Uzair Paracha & The “Swift” Program................33 Lawsuit: Al-Haramain V. Bush (Al-Haramain Foundation V. Obama) And Wararntless Wiretapping.................................................34 5) “By Any Means Necessary”: Government Tactics When Guilty Verdicts Fail.............................................................................35 Case Study 1: Youssef Megahed..................................................36 Case Study 2: The Liberty Six.......................................................36 6) Conclusion...........................................................................37 AFTER CONVICTIONS COMES SENTENCING: DISPROPORTIONATE & UNJUST............................................................................................40 1) Terrorism Enhancement Statue (3A1.4)................................41 Case Study: Ali Asad Chandia.....................................................41 3A1.4: Too Blunt To Promote Just Outcomes...........................42 2) In Contrast To Guantanamo: The Danger Of Longer Sentences...................................................................................43 Case Study: David Hicks................................................................44 3) Conclusion...............................................................................44 LIFE ON THE INSIDE: GUANTANAMO LIGHT?.............................46 1) Communication Management Units (CMUs)............................47 Case Study: Yassin M. Aref..........................................................48 Lawsuit: Aref, Et Al. V. Holder.....................................................49 2) Special Administrative Measures (Sams)...................................50 Case Study: Richard Reid............................................................50 3) Inhumane Conditions?..........................................................51 4) Conclusion...........................................................................52 CONCLUSION....................................................................................54 INTRO- DUCTION8 In January 2009, just two days after he was sworn into after a judge blocked the government from enforcing office, President Barack Obama signed an executive provisions of the NDAA permitting indefinite detention, order. The order declared that the detention camps at the Obama administration immediately appealed Guantanamo Bay “shall be closed as soon as practicable, the ruling. When the judge denied the request, the and no later than one year from the date of this order.” government went to the US Court of Appeals to ask another judge for an emergency stay, which he quickly Lawyers and activists sighed in relief; this was the light granted. It is clear that the Obama administration is at the end of the tunnel they had all been hoping for keen to bring Guantanamo Bay “back home” in more in Obama’s presidency, for the closure of the ultimate ways than one. symbol of human rights violations justified under the War on Terror. Now is a moment of great strategic importance. Where should we direct our energies, in order to ensure that Years passed, and Guantanamo remains open. Shutting all individuals suspected of terrorism - from those held it proved to be more difficult than Obama initially at Guantanamo Bay, to the people suffering in secret anticipated. After the mid-term elections, a full-scale “black sites”, to the accused that are arrested abroad transfer of inmates to U.S. soil seemed impossible. and face extradition to the U.S. - access the fairest form of legal judgment possible? Is simply struggling to get On 7 March 2011, President Obama lifted the ban on War on Terror suspects into the federal court system trials by the Military Commission at Guantanamo. Civil enough? rights group immediately vocalized their opposition. Anthony D. Romero, the Executive Director of the This report endeavours to provide a comprehensive American Civil Liberties Union, commented: account of the treatment of terrorism suspects in U.S. federal courts. It documents the systemic human rights “The only way to restore the rule of law is to put abuses and Islamophobia that pervade the criminal an end to indefinite detention at Guantánamo and justice system at every step: prior to indictment; from the broken commissions system, and to prosecute indictment through conviction; in sentencing; and terrorism suspects in federal criminal courts. Today’s inside U.S. prisons. The report was not written with the announcement takes us back a step when we should purpose of advocating for the use of Military Tribunals. be moving forward toward closing Guantánamo and Rather, the author of this report intended to document ending its shameful policies.” the many barriers that Muslims accused of terrorism face in receiving fair and legal treatment within the The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), another federal criminal justice system. prominent civil rights group, released the following statement: “Barack Obama campaigned and began his presidency http://www.aclu.org/national-security/president-obama-issues- with a pledge to shut down Guantánamo, support executive-order-institutionalizing-indefinite-detention
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Policy Notes for the Trump Notes Administration the Washington Institute for Near East Policy ■ 2018 ■ Pn55
    TRANSITION 2017 POLICYPOLICY NOTES FOR THE TRUMP NOTES ADMINISTRATION THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY ■ 2018 ■ PN55 TUNISIAN FOREIGN FIGHTERS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA AARON Y. ZELIN Tunisia should really open its embassy in Raqqa, not Damascus. That’s where its people are. —ABU KHALED, AN ISLAMIC STATE SPY1 THE PAST FEW YEARS have seen rising interest in foreign fighting as a general phenomenon and in fighters joining jihadist groups in particular. Tunisians figure disproportionately among the foreign jihadist cohort, yet their ubiquity is somewhat confounding. Why Tunisians? This study aims to bring clarity to this question by examining Tunisia’s foreign fighter networks mobilized to Syria and Iraq since 2011, when insurgencies shook those two countries amid the broader Arab Spring uprisings. ©2018 THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. THE WASHINGTON INSTITUTE FOR NEAR EAST POLICY ■ NO. 30 ■ JANUARY 2017 AARON Y. ZELIN Along with seeking to determine what motivated Evolution of Tunisian Participation these individuals, it endeavors to reconcile estimated in the Iraq Jihad numbers of Tunisians who actually traveled, who were killed in theater, and who returned home. The find- Although the involvement of Tunisians in foreign jihad ings are based on a wide range of sources in multiple campaigns predates the 2003 Iraq war, that conflict languages as well as data sets created by the author inspired a new generation of recruits whose effects since 2011. Another way of framing the discussion will lasted into the aftermath of the Tunisian revolution. center on Tunisians who participated in the jihad fol- These individuals fought in groups such as Abu Musab lowing the 2003 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Homeland Security Law Policy Jurimetrics
    SYMPOSIUM HOMELAND SECURITY, LAW, AND POLICY THROUGH THE LENS OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND KEY ASSET PROTECTION Joe D. Whitley, George A. Koenig, and Steven E. Roberts* ABSTRACT: Homeland security continues to be one of the principal priorities of government at all levels. Homeland security, however, is not static. What gets pro- tected, how resources are allocated, and the manner in which threats are identified continue to evolve. In particular, critical infrastructure and key asset protection are fundamental components of homeland security greatly influenced by developments in law and policy. CITATION: Joe D. Whitley, George A. Koenig, and Steven E. Roberts, Homeland Security, Law, and Policy Through the Lens of Critical Infrastructure and Key Asset Protection, 47 Jurimetrics J. 259–279. *Joe D. Whitley was the first General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security and is now an attorney and part of the Global Security and Enforcement Team in the Washington, D.C., office of Alston & Bird L.L.P. George A. Koenig was former Counsel to the General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security and is now an attorney and part of the Global Security and Enforcement Team in the Washington, D.C., office of Alston & Bird L.L.P. Steven E. Roberts is an attorney specializing in homeland security matters in Boca Raton, Florida. SPRING 2007 259 Whitley et al. I. HOMELAND SECURITY: NOT A POST 9/11 PHENOMENON The escalation of terrorist activity throughout the 1990s suggests that the end of the Cold War ushered in a new era of conflict.1 The terrorist enemies in this war neither maintain standing armies nor subscribe to the laws of war.
    [Show full text]
  • MAJID KHAN, at This Time Please Do Not Comment on the Evidence
    (b )( 1) (b)(3) NatSecAct TOP SECRET !I SCI.J, Verbatim Transcript of Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing for ISN 10020 OPENING PRESIDENT· This hearing shall come to order. RECORDER. This Tribunal is being conducted at 08:42 on 15 April 2007 on board U.S. Naval Base GuantanamoBay. Cuba. The following personnel arc present: Colom:! (b)(6) United States Air Fom·. Prcs1dcnt, Cornman er (b)(6) United States Navy, \fomber, Licutc b)(6) United States ·\ir Force, Member, Majo {b){6) Unitt.'tlStates Air Force, Personal Representative, Sergeant ·1rst rs(b)(6 United States Anny, Reporter, Ma.1od(b)(6) l~Stalt!s Air force, Recorder. Lieutenant Colone!~is the Judge Advocate member of the Tribunal. OATH SESSION1 RECORDF.R All rise. PRESIDENT: The Recorder will be !mom. Do you, Major!(b)(6) l swear or aflinn that you will faithfully performthe duties as Recmdcr assigned in this Tribunal, so help you God? RECORDER. I do. PRESIDENT: The Reporter will now he sworn. The Recorder w:11administer the oath. RECORDER: Do you, Sergeant first Cla">s(b)(6) , swear •hat you will faithfully discharge your duties as Rcporter ass1gne in this i'ribunal. so help you Ood'7 REPORTER: I do. PRESIDEN·t. We'll take a brief recess while the Detainee is brought into the room. RECORDER: The time is 08:43 on 15 April 2007. This Tribunal is now in recess. All rise. [All personnel depart the room.] CONVENINGAUTHORITY RH'.ORDER: (All personnel return into the room at 08:48.] All ri~c. PRESIDENT: This hearing will come to order.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 8: Columbus and the Brooklyn Bridge John Mueller June 3, 2011 Like Jose Padilla (Case 2), Iman Faris Is an American
    Case 8: Columbus and the Brooklyn Bridge 1 Case 8: Columbus and the Brooklyn Bridge John Mueller June 3, 2011 Like Jose Padilla (Case 2), Iman Faris is an American who for various reasons linked up with al-Qaeda before 9/11, met Osama bin Laden, and connected to the putative “mastermind” of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). In early 2002, he was sent on a surveillance mission to the United States by KSM, and there seem to be two key episodes on this trip. First, he met with a couple of friends in August 2002 in a coffee shop near Columbus, Ohio. One of the men, outraged at the US attack on Afghanistan, suggested shooting up a local mall. Faris appears to have suggested that a bomb might be better, and the third man dismissed the idea as “stupid.” That was the Columbus mall plot: there was no followup whatever. Second, later in 2002, Faris traveled to New York City to scout out possible terrorist targets at the behest of KSM. Although most New Yorkers might proudly insist that their city is fairly festooned with lucrative targets, the only one Faris looked at was the Brooklyn Bridge. He drove over it once, noticed that there were quite a few cops around, thought the support cables too big or difficult to cut through, informed KSM of this profound discovery, and then, his curiosity and/or patience exhausted, drove back to Columbus. That was the Brooklyn Bridge plot: there was no followup whatever. The police presence at the bridge probably stemmed in part from the testimony-under-torture earlier in 2002 (see Case 2) of the captured al-Qaeda operative, Abu Zubayda, who suggested that al-Qaeda had the Brooklyn Bridge on a target list that also contained the Statute of Liberty and an undifferentiated array of shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, and apartment buildings—none of which have actually been struck by any terrorists in the subsequent nine years in the United States, not even in Columbus, Ohio.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Administrative Measures and the War on Terror: When Do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend the Constitution?
    Michigan Journal of Race and Law Volume 19 2014 Special Administrative Measures and the War on Terror: When do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend the Constitution? Andrew Dalack University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Law and Race Commons, and the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Andrew Dalack, Special Administrative Measures and the War on Terror: When do Extreme Pretrial Detention Measures Offend the Constitution?, 19 MICH. J. RACE & L. 415 (2014). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjrl/vol19/iss2/5 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Race and Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES AND THE WAR ON TERROR: WHEN DO EXTREME PRETRIAL DETENTION MEASURES OFFEND THE CONSTITUTION? Andrew Dalack* Our criminal justice system is founded upon a belief that one is innocent until proven guilty. This belief is what foists the burden of proving a person’s guilt upon the government and belies a statutory presumption in favor of allowing a defendant to remain free pending trial at the federal level. Though there are certainly circum- stances in which a federal magistrate judge may—and sometimes must—remand a defendant to jail pending trial, it is well-settled that pretrial detention itself inher- ently prejudices the quality of a person’s defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the Attorney General the Honorable Mitch Mcconnell
    February 3, 2010 The Honorable Mitch McConnell United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator McConnell: I am writing in reply to your letter of January 26, 2010, inquiring about the decision to charge Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab with federal crimes in connection with the attempted bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 near Detroit on December 25, 2009, rather than detaining him under the law of war. An identical response is being sent to the other Senators who joined in your letter. The decision to charge Mr. Abdulmutallab in federal court, and the methods used to interrogate him, are fully consistent with the long-established and publicly known policies and practices of the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the United States Government as a whole, as implemented for many years by Administrations of both parties. Those policies and practices, which were not criticized when employed by previous Administrations, have been and remain extremely effective in protecting national security. They are among the many powerful weapons this country can and should use to win the war against al-Qaeda. I am confident that, as a result of the hard work of the FBI and our career federal prosecutors, we will be able to successfully prosecute Mr. Abdulmutallab under the federal criminal law. I am equally confident that the decision to address Mr. Abdulmutallab's actions through our criminal justice system has not, and will not, compromise our ability to obtain information needed to detect and prevent future attacks. There are many examples of successful terrorism investigations and prosecutions, both before and after September 11, 2001, in which both of these important objectives have been achieved -- all in a manner consistent with our law and our national security interests.
    [Show full text]
  • I TABLE of CONTENTS Page TABLE OF
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………….v JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT………………………………………………..1 ISSUES PRESENTED……………………………………………………………..2 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT…………………………………………………...4 STATEMENT OP FACTS…………………………………………………………4 PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS………………………………………………6 The CIPA Motions……………………………………………………6 The Rule 15 Deposition………………………………………………6 Motions In Limine…………………………………………………….7 THE TRIAL…………………………………………………………………7 The Government’s Case………………………………………………7 Appellant as a Student at the University of Manitoba…………7 Cooperating Witnesses………………………………………..13 The FOB Chapman Incident and Forensic Evidence……….....20 The Handwritten Letters………………………………………25 Opinion Evidence……………………………………………..26 Lorenzo Vidino………………………………………...26 Evan Kohlmann………………………………………..29 i The Defense Case……………………………………………………32 Jury Deliberations and Motion for Mistrial…………………………..32 The Verdict…………………………………………………………..33 POST-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS The Presentence Report……………………………………………...33 Defense Sentencing Submission……………………………………..34 THE SENTENCING……..………………………………………………...34 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT…………………………………………………..35 ARGUMENT POINT I: REVERSIBLE ERROR WAS COMMITTED WHEN THE LOWER COURT ADJUDICATED THE GOVERNMENT’S CIPA MOTIONS EX PARTE…………………………………………………………..36 POINT II: THE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION OF APPELLANT BY THE WITNESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED AS THE PRODUCT OF A SUGGESTIVE PROCEDURE……………………………………40 POINT III: REVERSIBLE ERROR WAS COMMITTED WHEN THE LOWER COURT ADMITTED, OVER APPELLANT’S RELEVANCE AND HEARSAY OBJECTIONS, THE OUT OF COURT STATEMENTS
    [Show full text]
  • Jenny-Brooke Condon*
    CONDON_MACRO (8-25-08) 8/25/2008 10:31:18 AM EXTRATERRITORIAL INTERROGATION: THE POROUS BORDER BETWEEN TORTURE AND U.S. CRIMINAL TRIALS Jenny-Brooke Condon∗ I. INTRODUCTION The conviction of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a twenty-two-year-old U.S. citizen from Virginia, for conspiring to commit terrorist attacks within the United States1 exposes a potential crack in a long- assumed bulwark of U.S. constitutional law: that confessions obtained by torture will not be countenanced in U.S. criminal trials.2 ∗ Visiting Clinical Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law. The author served on the legal team representing Ahmed Omar Abu Ali in his habeas corpus petition filed against the United States while he was detained in Saudi Arabia, and contributed to the defense in his subsequent criminal case. The author is grateful to Seton Hall Law School and Kathleen Boozang, in particular, for generous support of this project. She would also like to thank the following people for their insightful comments on previous drafts: Baher Azmy, Elizabeth Condon, Edward Hartnett, and Lori Nessel. She thanks Sheik Shagaff, Abdolreza Mazaheri, and Katherine Christodoloutos for their excellent work as research assistants. 1. See News Release, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Nov. 22, 2005), available at http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/vae/Pressreleases/2005/1105.html (last visited Feb. 13, 2008) (noting that a jury in Eastern District of Virginia found Abu Ali guilty on November 22, 2005 of nine counts, including conspiracy to provide material support and resources to al Qaeda, providing material support to terrorists, conspiracy to assassinate the president of the United States, and conspiracy to commit air piracy and to destroy aircraft).
    [Show full text]
  • The Suffocation of Free Speech Under the Gravity of Danger of Terrorism
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by bepress Legal Repository First Amendment Tim Davis Prof. Raskin The Suffocation of Free Speech under the Gravity of Danger of Terrorism I. Introduction Ali al -Timimi (“al- Timimi”) is an outspoken Muslim scholar who is well respected in the worldwide Muslim community. In his fervent support of Muslims everywhere, he has openly proclaimed that America is one of the chief enemies of the Muslim populace. 1 He has proclaimed that the explosion of the space shuttle Columbia was a sign for Muslims to take action.2 He has urged young Muslim men to jihad, to wage armed conflict with the enemies of Islam. 3 It is safe to say that al -Timimi has made numerous speeches that most Americans would find highly objectionable. On September 23, 2004, the Federal government charged al -Timimi with a six -co unt indictment4, which was later superceded by the present ten -count indictment. 5 During the trial in April 2005, the prosecution introduced over 250 evidentiary exhibits 6, testimony from several expert witnesses on radical Islamism 7, and testimony from various government agents. In 1 Presentencing Report for Muhammed Aatique at 17, United States v. Khan, (No. 03 -296 -A). 2 Presentencing Report for Muhammed Aatique at 17, United States v. Khan, (No. 03 -296 -A). 3 Transcripts, Rebuttal Argument by Mr. Kromberg, Pleading 123 at 14, United States v. Al -Timimi, (No. 1:04cr385). 4 Indictment, United States v. Al -Timimi, (No. 1:04cr385), available at http://www.altimimi.org.
    [Show full text]
  • New Terrorism and New Media
    research series vol 2 New Terrorism and New Media by Gabriel Weimann About the Author Gabriel Weimann is a Full Professor of Communication at the Department of Communication at Haifa University, Israel. His research interests include the study of media effects, political campaigns, new media technologies and their social impact, persuasion and influence, media and public opinion, modern terrorism and the mass media. He published eight books: Communicating Unreality (Los Angeles: Sage Publications, 2000); The Influentials: People Who Influence People (State University of New York Press, 1995); The Theater of Terror (New York: Longman, 1994); Hate on Trial (Toronto: Mosaic, 1986); The Singaporean Enigma (Jerusalem: Tzivonim, 2001); Terror on the Internet (Washington, DC: USIP Press, 2006); Freedom and Terror (London: Routledge, 2011); and Social Research in Israel (Jerusalem: Tzivonim). His papers and research reports (7 monographs and more than 160 publications), have been published in scientific journals and books. He received numerous grants and awards from international foundations and was a Visiting Professor at various universities including University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, Hofstra University, American University DC, University of Maryland, Lehigh University (USA), University of Mainz (Germany), Carleton University (Canada) and the National University of Singapore. http://www.wilsoncenter.org/staff/gabriel-weimann. © 2014 Gabriel Weimann The report content may be reproduced in whole, or in part, for educational and non- commercial uses, pursuant to the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc- sa/3.0/deed.en_US and provided this copyright notice and the following attribution is given: Weimann, Gabriel.
    [Show full text]
  • Tom Eagleton and the "Curse to Our Constitution"
    TOM EAGLETON AND THE “CURSE TO OUR CONSTITUTION” By William H. Freivogel Director, School of Journalism, Southern Illinois University Carbondale Associate Professor, Paul Simon Public Policy Institute This paper is scheduled for publication in St. Louis University Law Journal, Volume 52, honoring Sen. Eagleton. Introduction: If my friend Tom Eagleton had lived a few more months, I’m sure he would have been amazed – and amused in a Tom Eagleton sort of way - by the astonishing story of Alberto Gonzales’ late night visit to John Aschroft’s hospital bed in 2004 to persuade the then attorney general to reauthorize a questionable intelligence operation related to the president’s warrantless wiretapping program. No vignette better encapsulates President George W. Bush’s perversion of the rule of law. Not since the Saturday Night Massacre during Watergate has there been a moment when a president’s insistence on having his way resulted in such chaos at the upper reaches of the Justice Department. James Comey, the deputy attorney general and a loyal Republican, told Congress in May, 2007 how he raced to George Washington hospital with sirens blaring to beat Gonzeles to Ashcroft’s room.1 Comey had telephoned FBI Director Robert S. Mueller to ask that he too come to the hospital to back up the Justice Department’s view that the president’s still secret program should not be reauthorized as it then operated.2 Ashcroft, Comey and Mueller held firm in the face of intense pressure from White House counsel Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card. Before the episode was over, the three were on the verge of tendering their resignations if the White House ignored their objections; the resignations were averted by some last-minute changes in the program – changes still not public.3 Before Eagleton’s death, he and I had talked often about Bush and Ashcroft’s overzealous leadership in the war on terrorism.
    [Show full text]
  • 20121211 IACHR Petition FINAL
    TO THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES PETITION ALLEGING VIOLATIONS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF JOSE PADILLA and ESTELA LEBRON BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WITH A REQUEST FOR AN INVESTIGATION AND HEARING ON THE MERITS By the undersigned, appearing as counsel for petitioners UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 23 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS Steven M. Watt Human Rights Program American Civil Liberties Union 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY, 10004 F/(212)-549-2654 P/(212)-519-7870 Hope Metcalf Ingrid Deborah Francois, Law Student Intern Sheng Li, Law Student Intern Alaina Varvaloucas, Law Student Intern Allard K. Lowenstein Human Rights Clinic Yale Law School 127 Wall St. New Haven, CT 06520 P/(203)-432-9404 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 3 I. Petitioner Estela Lebron ............................................................................................................................................. 3 II. Seizure, Detention, and Interrogation of Jose Padilla ................................................................................... 3 A. Initial Arrest and Detention Under the Material Witness Act .........................................................
    [Show full text]