DOCSLIB.ORG

For Immediate Release: Torture Verdict: Uk

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
For Immediate Release: Torture Verdict: Uk FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: TORTURE VERDICT: UK GOVERNMENT FAILS TO TAKE SUFFICIENT ACCOUNT OF BINYAM MOHAMED’S TORTURE Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones handed down their second judgment this afternoon on the case of Guantánamo Bay prisoner and British resident Binyam Mohamed. Foreign Secretary David Miliband had been given one week in which to reconsider the government’s refusal to share evidence with Mr. Mohamed that could help prove his innocence. The judges decided that his claim of “Public Interest Immunity” (PII) was insufficiently supported in that he had not properly taken into account the torture suffered by Binyam. The judges decided that Mr. Miliband’s evaluation of the case “failed to address, in light of the allegations made by [Binyam Mohamed], the abhorrence and condemnation accorded to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.” UK Judgment II, at para. 20 . In other words, the Foreign Secretary has balanced Mr. Mohamed’s right to a fair trial with the strong US desire that this information not be disclosed, and come down in favour of the Bush Administration – which is, Reprieve contends, itself a difficult outcome to justify. But the Court found that Mr. Miliband had not forthrightly taken into account the fact that Mr. Mohamed has gone through torture of a medieval quality prior to facing a military commission in Guantánamo Bay. Rather than simply tell him what his job should be, the Court gave Mr. Miliband another week – until Friday, September 5, 2008 – to reconsider. As Clive Stafford Smith, Director of Reprieve , explained after the release of the second judgment: “The British government’s action has, frankly, been embarrassing. The government says it wants to help Binyam Mohamed, yet then has the nerve to pretend that the British public interest is best served by covering up America’s criminal act of kidnapping and torturing him.” He added: “The British government effectively says that a British resident’s right to a fair trial is less important than avoiding embarrassing the Bush Administration, and we’ll just gloss over the fact that he was tortured. But British national 1 security cannot ever be enhanced by torture. To borrow from President Bill Clinton’ speech two days ago – the world is more impressed by the power of our example, than the example of America abusing its power. To suggest otherwise is, surely, Britain going back to the role of poodle.” Richard Stein, of Leigh Day & Co. , said: “Today's judgment discloses the shocking fact that the Foreign Secretary failed to give any proper weight in secret submissions he made to the Court to the abhorrence of torture when he purported to determine that it was in the public interest not to disclose the evidence of ill-treatment to our client. This is extremely surprising given that this case is all about Binyam's rendition and his torture at the behest of the US. The Court has given the Foreign Secretary a further chance to reconsider his position before passing judgment. We await his response with interest." -- ENDS -- For further information and interviews, please contact Andy Worthington at Reprieve’s Press Office on 020 7427 1099 or Clare Algar on 020 7427 1085. Emails: Andy – [email protected] Clare – [email protected] Background British resident Binyam Mohamed (30) has been held by or on behalf of US forces since April 2002, when he was seized in Pakistan. Rendered to Morocco in July 2002, he was tortured on behalf of the United States for 18 months (in sessions that included regularly having his genitals cut with a razor), and was then held for nine months in Afghanistan, first at the “Dark Prison”, a secret prison run by the CIA, where he was also tortured, and then at Bagram airbase. He has been held at Guantánamo since September 2004. Reprieve represents Mr. Mohamed in Guantánamo Bay, and the US now seeks to use the fruit of this torture in a Guantánamo military commission. In May 2008, Reprieve, working with solicitors from Leigh Day & Co., sued the British government, seeking the release of information relating to British knowledge of Mr. Mohamed’s rendition and torture. This followed the government’s refusal to disclose such evidence after an earlier request to do so, claiming that “ the UK is under no obligation under international law to assist foreign courts and tribunals in assuring that torture evidence is not admitted” and that “it is HM Government’s position that … evidence held by the UK Government that US and Moroccan authorities engaged in torture or rendition cannot be obtained” by his British lawyers. Last Thursday, following a judicial review in the High Court, Lord Justice Thomas and Mr. Justice Lloyd Jones delivered a stinging rebuke to the British government, ruling that by interviewing Mr, Mohamed while he was held unlawfully in Pakistan in May 2002, and by “supplying information and 2 questions for his interviews,” while he was held by or on behalf of the United States in an unknown location, “the relationship of the United Kingdom government to the United States authorities in relation to BM [Mr. Mohamed] was far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing.” The judges also ruled that US denials that Mr. Mohamed had been tortured were “untenable”, and stated that there was “no good reason” for the American government to refuse to hand over potentially exculpatory evidence in its possession. Given that this was the case, however, they ruled that the British government had an obligation to hand over the information in its possession, insisting that this was “not only necessary but essential for his defence.” They did, however, grant the government six days in which to consider its response. On Wednesday, what was initially regarded as a straightforward hearing for the British government to announce its response to the judges’ ruling turned into another long session as the government responded by filing a Public Interest Immunity (PII) Certificate, and the US State Department attempted to strike a deal through correspondence with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO). John Bellinger, the US State Department’s Legal Adviser, claimed that public disclosure of the documents was “likely to result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing intelligence information-sharing arrangements between our two governments.” His only concession to the judges’ ruling was to note that the Office of the Chief Prosecutor in the Office of Military Commissions had agreed to provide the British intelligence documents (44 in total) to the commissions’ Convening Authority, Susan Crawford, “subject only to the condition that the names of American and British government officials and the locations of intelligence facilities will be redacted from the documents prior to their being provided.” He added that, if Mr. Mohamed’s trial goes ahead, the redacted documents will be made available to his military lawyer at the “normal discovery phase” of the process. In a separate email to the FCO, Stephen Mathias, one of Mr. Bellinger’s deputies, claimed that the “national security of the UK” would also be affected by disclosure of the documents. As Ben Jaffey argued in court, neither Mr. Bellinger’s “carefully calibrated concessions” nor the British government’s claim of Public Interest Immunity were tenable. He pointed out that the case did not involve public disclosure of the documents, but only the confidential disclosure to Mr. Mohamed’s lawyers, Lt. Col. Yvonne Bradley, and Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve’s Director, who both have US security clearance. He added that the supposed concessions demonstrated merely that the US government was determined to find any method possible to prevent disclosure, and added that nothing offered by the State Department addressed the “central question” relating to Mr. Mohamed’s rendition and torture: “where was Mr. Mohamed between 2002 and 2004?” 3 Mr. Jaffey was equally dismissive of the British government’s PII claims, noting, in particular, that David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, had effectively conceded that the British government was going to hand over the intelligence documents to Mr. Mohamed’s lawyers until the State Department intervened. Lord Thomas and Justice Jones held five days of hearings involving evidence of British complicity in Mr. Mohamed’s torture. In its first judgment last week, the British court expressed deep concern that the US authorities will not even admit where Mr. Mohamed was for two years, from May 2002 to May 2004. While US authorities deny that anyone has been rendered to another country for torture, Mr. Mohamed’s allegations are unrebutted, and are strongly supported by evidence in UK hands. For example: • The US would not even tell the UK where he was for the two years he was missing. • Evidence provided by the UK to the US matched the material that Mr. Mohamed says was used by the Moroccan torturers. • Evidence in British hands proves that various of the allegations against Mr. Mohamed are false. The Court held that Mr. Mohamed was not likely to receive this exculpatory information from the US authorities, and found that the UK should reveal it. The Court reminded the British and American governments that “the torturer has become like the pirate and the slave trader before him … an enemy of all mankind.” Copies of both judgments are available through Reprieve , along with an analysis of the case. * * * Note for editors: Reprieve , a legal action charity, uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantánamo Bay. Reprieve investigates, litigates and educates, working on the frontline, to provide legal support to prisoners unable to pay for it themselves. Reprieve promotes the rule of law around the world, securing each person’s right to a fair trial and saving lives.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Government Turns the Other Way As Judges Make Findings About Torture and Other Abuse
    USA SEE NO EVIL GOVERNMENT TURNS THE OTHER WAY AS JUDGES MAKE FINDINGS ABOUT TORTURE AND OTHER ABUSE Amnesty International Publications First published in February 2011 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2011 Index: AMR 51/005/2011 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of 2.2 million people in more than 150 countries and territories, who campaign on human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We research, campaign, advocate and mobilize to end abuses of human rights. Amnesty International is independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion. Our work is largely financed by contributions from our membership and donations CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 Judges point to human rights violations, executive turns away ........................................... 4 Absence
    [Show full text]
  • The Virtues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror
    Roger Williams University DOCS@RWU Law Faculty Scholarship Law Faculty Scholarship 4-2009 The etD ainees' Dilemma: The irV tues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror Peter Margulies Roger Williams University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://docs.rwu.edu/law_fac_fs Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Politics Commons, and the Legal Profession Commons Recommended Citation Peter Margulies, The eD tainees' Dilemma: The irV tues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror, 57 Buff. L. Rev. 347, 432 (2009) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Scholarship at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 57 Buff. L. Rev. 347 2009 Provided by: Roger Williams University School of Law Library Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Thu Nov 17 10:09:44 2016 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information BUFFALO LAW REVIEW VOLUME 57 APRIL 2009 NUMBER 2 The Detainees' Dilemma: The Virtues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror PETER MARGULIESt INTRODUCTION For detainees in the war on terror, advocacy outside of court is often the main event.' Analysis of advocacy through the prism of Supreme Court decisions 2 resembles surveying t Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law; e-mail: [email protected].
    [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]
  • UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP on ARBITRARY DETENTION In
    PETITION TO: UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION In the matter of Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) Palestinian v. Government of the United States of America Government of the Kingdom of Thailand Government of the Republic of Poland Government of the Kingdom of Morocco Government of the Republic of Lithuania Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan Government of the United Kingdom Submitted by [signature] Helen Duffy international representative of the applicant Human Rights in Practice [address] [phone], [email protected] Submitted: 30.04.2021 Abu Zubaydah v. the United States and 6 others Individual Complaint and Request for Urgent Action under the procedures of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and Name: Zayn Al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) Sex: Male Age: (31 at the time of detention; 50 today) Nationality/Nationalities: Palestinian Address of usual residence: Internment Facility at the US Guantánamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba States against which this complaint is lodged: United States, Afghanistan, Lithuania, Morocco, Poland, Thailand and the United Kingdom. 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 OVERVIEW OF CLAIM ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 RELIEF SOUGHT AND URGENT ACTION .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional and Political Clash Over Detainees and the Closure of Guantanamo
    UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH LAW REVIEW Vol. 74 ● Winter 2012 PRISONERS OF CONGRESS: THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL CLASH OVER DETAINEES AND THE CLOSURE OF GUANTANAMO David J.R. Frakt ISSN 0041-9915 (print) 1942-8405 (online) ● DOI 10.5195/lawreview.2012.195 http://lawreview.law.pitt.edu This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. This site is published by the University Library System of the University of Pittsburgh as part of its D- Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. PRISONERS OF CONGRESS: THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND POLITICAL CLASH OVER DETAINEES AND THE CLOSURE OF GUANTANAMO David J.R. Frakt Table of Contents Prologue ............................................................................................................... 181 I. Introduction ................................................................................................. 183 A. A Brief Constitutional History of Guantanamo ................................... 183 1. The Bush Years (January 2002 to January 2009) ....................... 183 2. The Obama Years (January 2009 to the Present) ........................ 192 a. 2009 ................................................................................... 192 b. 2010 to the Present ............................................................. 199 II. Legislative Restrictions and Their Impact ................................................... 205 A. Restrictions on Transfer and/or Release
    [Show full text]
  • Outlawed: Extraordinary Rendition, Torture and Disappearances in the War on Terror
    Companion Curriculum OUTLAWED: Extraordinary Rendition, Torture and Disappearances in the War on Terror In Plain Sight: Volume 6 A WITNESS and Amnesty International Partnership www.witness.org www.amnestyusa.org Table of Contents 2 Table of Contents How to Use This Guide HRE 201: UN Convention against Torture Lesson One: The Torture Question Handout 1.1: Draw the Line Handout 1.2: A Tortured Debate - Part 1 Handout 1.3: A Tortured Debate - Part 2 Lesson Two: Outsourcing Torture? An Introduction to Extraordinary Rendition Resource 2.1: Introduction to Extraordinary Rendition Resource 2.2: Case Studies Resource 2.3: Movie Discussion Guide Resource 2.4: Introduction to Habeas Corpus Resource 2.5: Introduction to the Geneva Conventions Handout 2.6: Court of Human Rights Activity Lesson Three: Above the Law? Limits of Executive Authority Handout 3.1: Checks and Balances Timeline Handout 3.2: Checks and Balances Resource 3.3: Checks and Balances Discussion Questions Glossary Resources How to Use This Guide 3 How to Use This Guide The companion guide for Outlawed: Extraordinary Rendition, Torture, and Disappearances in the War on Terror provides activities and lessons that will engage learners in a discussion about issues which may seem difficult and complex, such as federal and international standards regarding treatment of prisoners and how the extraordinary rendition program impacts America’s success in the war on terror. Lesson One introduces students to the topic of torture in an age appropriate manner, Lesson Two provides background information and activities about extraordinary rendition, and Lesson Three examines the limits of executive authority and the issue of accountability.
    [Show full text]
  • Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture
    House of Lords House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights Allegations of UK Complicity in Torture Twenty–third Report of Session 2008–09 Report, together with formal minutes and oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Lords to be printed 21 July 2009 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 21 July 2009 HL Paper 152 HC 230 Published on 4 August 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 Joint Committee on Human Rights The Joint Committee on Human Rights is appointed by the House of Lords and the House of Commons to consider matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases); proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders. The Joint Committee has a maximum of six Members appointed by each House, of whom the quorum for any formal proceedings is two from each House. Current membership HOUSE OF LORDS HOUSE OF COMMONS Lord Bowness John Austin MP (Labour, Erith & Thamesmead) Lord Dubs Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) (Chairman) Lord Lester of Herne Hill Dr Evan Harris MP (Liberal Democrat, Oxford West & Lord Morris of Handsworth OJ Abingdon) The Earl of Onslow Mr Virendra Sharma MP (Labour, Ealing, Southall) Baroness Prashar Mr Richard Shepherd MP (Conservative, Aldridge-Brownhills) Mr Edward Timpson MP (Conservative, Crewe & Nantwich) Powers The Committee has the power to require the submission of written evidence and documents, to examine witnesses, to meet at any time (except when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved), to adjourn from place to place, to appoint specialist advisers, and to make Reports to both Houses.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. ( S// NF) Personal Information : JDIMS/NDRC Referencename
    SECRET // 20331226 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STATES COMMAND HEADQUARTERS , JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO U.S. NAVAL STATION , GUANTANAMO BAY , CUBA APOAE09360 JTF- GTMO- CDR 26 December2008 MEMORANDUMFORCommander, UnitedStates SouthernCommand, 3511NW 91st Avenue, Miami, FL 33172 SUBJECT: Recommendationfor ContinuedDetentionUnder Control(CD) for GuantanamoDetainee, ISN -001458DP( S) JTF - GTMO Detainee Assessment 1. (S//NF) Personal Information : JDIMS/NDRC ReferenceName: Muhammad Binyam Current/ True Name and Aliases: Binyam Ahmad Muhammad, Talha al-Kini, Talhaal-Nigeri, Ben, Benjamin AhmadMuhammad, John Samuel Fouad Zouaoui, Muhammad al-Habashy, Nabil, Binyamin Zouioue Place of Birth: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (ET) Date of Birth: 24 July 1978 Citizenship: Ethiopia Internment Serial Number (ISN) : US9ET 001458DP 2. ( U //FOUO ) Health: Detainee is inoverall good health. 3. ( U ) JTF- GTMO Assessment : a . ( S) Recommendation: JTF- GTMO recommendsthis detainee for Continued Detention Under DoD Control ( CD) . JTF- GTMO previously recommendeddetainee for CD on 17 November2007. b . (S//NF) Executive Summary: Even ifreleased with rehabilitation, close supervision , and means to successfully reintegrate into his society as a law -abiding citizen, it is assessed detainee wouldprobably seek out prior associates and reengage in extremist activities at home and abroad. Since transfer to JTF -GTMO, detainee has expressed his intentions of participating in hostilities against the US and its citizens ifreleased and in one instance physically assaulted an interrogator. Additionally, detainee has been uncooperative with CLASSIFIED BY : MULTIPLE SOURCES REASON : 12958, AS AMENDED , SECTION 1.4( C ) DECLASSIFY ON : 20331226 SECRET NOFORN 20331226 SECRET // 20331226 JTF - GTMO -CDR SUBJECT : Recommendation for Continued Detention Under Control (CD) for Guantanamo Detainee , ISN -001458DP ( S) intelligence collection efforts since November2004.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Journey of Death” 1
    THE JOURNEY OF DEATH – OVER 700 PRISONERS ILLEGALLY RENDERED TO GUANTANAMO BAY WITH THE HELP OF PORTUGAL 28 January 2008 THE “JOURNEY OF DEATH” 1 - OVER 700 PRISONERS ILLEGALLY RENDERED TO GUANTANAMO WITH THE HELP OF PORTUGAL - Reprieve can now conclusively show that Portuguese territory and airspace has been used to transfer over 700 prisoners to torture and illegal imprisonment in Guantanamo Bay. Through comparing flight logs obtained from Portuguese authorities, 2 information from the US Department of Defence showing dates of arrival of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and unclassified testimony from many of the prisoners themselves, 3 Reprieve is for the first time able to name 728 prisoners rendered to Guantanamo Bay through Portuguese jurisdiction. 1 So said Adil Al-Zamil, prisoner transported on Flight RCH108Y through Portuguese jurisdiction to Guantanamo Bay: “I call the journey to Guantanamo ‘the journey of death.’ I discreetly wished that the plane would fall to end the pain I felt.” Source: Kuwaiti Gitmo Detainees Speak Out about Abuse, By Rania El Gamal, Kuwait Times, December 1, 2006 2 Flight logs obtained by Ana Gomes MEP in 2006 reveal that on at least 94 occasions aircraft crossed Portuguese airspace en route to or from Guantanamo Bay between 2002-2006 . On at least 6 occasions rendition aircraft flew directly from Lajes in the Azores to Guantanamo. See appendix for full copies of the logs. 3 The US Department of Defence has released ‘in-process’ records of Guantanamo inmates, detailing when prisoners were first weighed and measured on entry to the prison. It is possible confirm the identities of prisoners transported to Guantanamo through Portuguese jurisdiction by matching the ‘in- process’ dates of particular prisoners held in Guantanamo with flights contained in the Portuguese flight logs.
    [Show full text]
  • USA: Right the Wrong, Decision Time on Guantánamo
    USA: RIGHT THE WRONG DECISION TIME ON GUANTÁNAMO Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 7 million people who campaign for a world where human rights are enjoyed by all. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. © Amnesty International 2021 Cover photo: In this photo released 18 January 2002 by the Department of Defense, U.S. Army military Except where otherwise noted, content in this document is licensed under a Creative Commons police escort a detainee to his cell in Camp X-Ray at the US Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (attribution, non-commercial, no derivatives, international 4.0) licence. during in-processing to the temporary detention facility 11 January 2002. © Photo by -/DOD / US https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode NAVY/AFP via Getty Images) For more information, please visit the permissions page on our website: www.amnesty.org Where material is attributed to a copyright owner other than Amnesty International this material is not subject to the Creative Commons licence. First published in January 2021 by Amnesty International Ltd Peter Benenson House, 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW, UK Index: AMR 51/3474/2021 January 2021 Original language: English amnesty.org CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I INTRODUCTION 1 GUANTÁNAMO, JANUARY 2021 – NUMBERS AT A GLANCE 3 1. EXECUTIVE DECISION, LEGISLATIVE FAILURE, JUDICIAL DEFERENCE 4 1.1 POLITICAL CHOICES, NOT LEGAL NECESSITY 6 1.2 KEEPING THE JUDICIARY AWAY 7 1.3 CONGRESSIONAL FAILURE: DTA AND MCA 8 1.4 EXECUTIVE REVIEW: FROM CSRT TO GRTF TO PRB 9 1.5 AUMF – WAR POWER WITHOUT TEMPORAL OR GEOGRAPHICAL LIMIT 12 2.
    [Show full text]
  • The Queen on the Application of Binyam Mohamed and The
    Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. BM Case No: T1/2009/2331 Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWCA Civ 65 COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE DIVISIONAL COURT Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd-Jones Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 10/02/2010 Before : THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS and THE PRESIDENT OF THE QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : The Queen on the application of Binyam Mohamed Respondent - and - The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Appellant Affairs - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jonathan Sumption QC, Pushpinder Saini QC and Karen Steyn (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs; Dinah Rose QC, Ben Jaffey and Tom Hickman (instructed by Leigh Day) for Binyam Mohamed; Thomas de la Mare and Martin Goudie (instructed by The Treasury Solicitor's Special Advocates Support Office) as Special Advocates for Binyam Mohamed; Gavin Millar QC and Guy Vassall-Adams (instructed by Jan Johannes) for Guardian News and Media Ltd, British Broadcasting Corporation, Times Newspapers Limited, Independent News and Media Ltd and The Press Association; Geoffrey Robertson QC and Alex Gask (instructed by Finers Stephens Innocent) for The New York Times Corporation, The Associated Press, the Washington Post, the LA Times and Index on Censorship. Michael Beloff QC (instructed by Liberty and JUSTICE) by way of written submissions. Draft 10 February 2010 12:55 Page 1 Judgment Approved by the court for handing down. BM Hearing dates: 14 -16 December 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Approved Judgment The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT V
    Case 5:07-cv-02798-JW Document 27 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 1 of 74 1 STEVEN M. WATT* [email protected] BEN WIZNER (SBN 215724) [email protected] 2 ALEXA KOLBI-MOLINAS* [email protected] 3 JAMEEL JAFFER* [email protected] STEVEN R. SHAPIRO* [email protected] 4 AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 5 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY, 10004 6 Tel. 212.549.2500 / Fax 212.549.2651 7 ANN BRICK (SBN 65296) [email protected] 8 ACLU FOUNDATION OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 9 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA, 94111 10 Tel. 415.621.2493 / Fax 415.255.1478 11 Additional Counsel Listed on Next Page 12 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA 14 San Jose Division 15 BINYAM MOHAMED; 16 ABOU ELKASSIM BRITEL; AHMED AGIZA; 17 MOHAMED FARAG AHMAD BASHMILAH; 18 BISHER AL-RAWI Civil Action No. 5:07-cv-02798 (JW) 19 Plaintiffs, 20 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT v. 21 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 22 JEPPESEN DATAPLAN, INC. 23 Defendant. 24 25 26 27 28 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Case 5:07-cv-02798-JW Document 27 Filed 08/01/2007 Page 2 of 74 1 CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH*† [email protected] ZACHARY KATZNELSON† (SBN 209489) 2 [email protected] 3 REPRIEVE PO Box 52742 4 London EC4P 4WS England 5 Tel. +44 (0)207 353 4640 / Fax +44 (0)207 353 4641 6 PAUL HOFFMAN (SBN 71244) [email protected] 7 SCHONBRUN DESIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP 8 732 Ocean Front Walk, Suite 100 Venice, CA, 90291 9 Tel.
    [Show full text]