DOCSLIB.ORG

Advance Unedited Version

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Advance Unedited Version ADVANCE UNEDITED Distr. VERSION GENERAL A/HRC/13/42 26 January 2010 Original: ENGLISH HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL Thirteenth session Agenda item 3 Joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances A/HRC/13/42 Page 2 CONTENTS Paragraph Page I. INTRODUCTION 1-7 II. SECRET DETENTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW 8-56 A. Terminology 8-16 B. Secret detention and international human rights law and international humanitarian law 17-56 1. Secret detention and the right to liberty of the person 18-23 2. Secret detention and the right to a fair trial 24-27 3. Secret detention and enforced disappearance 28-30 4. Secret detention and the absolute prohibition on torture and other forms of ill-treatment 31-35 5. State responsibility through secret detention by proxy 36-43 6. Secret detention and derogations from international human rights 44-53 7. Secret detention and international humanitarian law 54-56 III. SECRET DETENTION PRACTICES IN PAST CONTEXTS 57-97 A. The emergence of the recent practice of secret detention 57-59 B. The recent practice of secret detention 60-86 1. Secret detention in Latin America 60-70 2. Secret detention in Africa 71-74 3. Secret detention in Northern Africa and the Middle East 75-78 4. Secret detention in Asia 79-83 5. Secret detention in Europe 84-86 C. The United Nations and regional responses towards outlawing the practice of secret detention 87-97 IV. SECRET DETENTION PRACTICES IN THE GLOBAL “WAR ON TERROR” SINCE 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 98-162 A. The “high-value detainee” program and the CIA’s own secret detention facilities 103-129 B. CIA detention facilities or facilities operated jointly with US military in battlefield zones 130-139 1. Afghanistan 131-135 2. Iraq 136-139 C. Proxy detention sites 140-156 1. Jordan 143-144 A/HRC/13/42 Page 3 2. Egypt 145 3. The Syrian Arab Republic 146-148 4. Morocco 149 5. Pakistan 150-151 6. Ethiopia 152-154 7. Djibouti 155 8. Uzbekistan 156 D. Complicity in the practice of secret detention 157 E. Secret detention and the United States administration of President Obama 158-165 V. THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF SECRET DETENTION PRACTICES IN RELATION TO CONTEMPORARY REGIONAL OR DOMESTIC COUNTER-TERRORIST EFFORTS 165-281 A. Asia 167-201 B. Central Asia 202-206 C. Europe 207-214 D. Middle East and North Africa 215-250 E. Sub-Saharan Africa 251-281 V. CONCLUSIONS 282-292 Annex I SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT REPLIES TO QUESTIONNAIRE Annex II CASE SUMMARIES A/HRC/13/42 Page 4 I. INTRODUCTION 1. The present joint study on global practices in relation to secret detention in the context of countering terrorism was prepared by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (represented by its Vice Chairperson), and the Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances (represented by its Chairperson). 2. The study was prepared within the mandates of the above-mentioned special procedures. In particular, the Human Rights Council, in its resolution 6/28, requested the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism to make concrete recommendations on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, and to work in close coordination with other relevant bodies and mechanisms of the United Nations, in particular with other special procedures of the Council, in order to strengthen the work for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts. 3. In its resolution 8/8, the Council requested the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to study, in a comprehensive manner, trends, developments and challenges in relation to combating and preventing torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and to make recommendations and observations concerning appropriate measures to prevent and eradicate such practices. 4. In its resolution 6/4, the Council requested the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to seek and receive information from Governments and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, and receive information from the individuals concerned, their families or their representatives relevant to its mandate, and to formulate deliberations on issues of a general nature in order to assist States to prevent and guard against the A/HRC/13/42 Page 5 practice of arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Like other mandates, it was asked to work in coordination with other mechanisms of the Human Rights Council. 5. In its resolution 7/12, the Council requested the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances to consider the question of impunity in the light of the relevant provisions of the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, having in mind the set of principles for the protection and promotion of human rights through action to combat impunity (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/20/Rev.1, annex II, and E/CN.4/2005/102/Add.1), and to provide appropriate assistance in the implementation by States of the Declaration and existing international rules. 6. In the above context, the four mandates endeavoured to address global practices in relation to secret detention in counter-terrorism. In the joint study, they describe the international legal framework applicable to secret detention and provide a historical overview of the use of secret detention. The study addresses the use of secret detention in the context of the “global war on terror” in the post 11 September 2001 era. To the extent possible, in order to demonstrate that the practice of secret detention is regrettably not an uncommon one, it also highlights a number of cases where it has been utilized in and by States from various geographical regions. Owing to its global nature, the present study cannot be exhaustive but rather aims to highlight and illustrate by examples the wide spread practice of secret detention and related impunity. Finally, the study concludes with concrete recommendations regarding these practices, aimed at curbing the use of secret detention and the unlawful treatment or punishment of detainees in the context of counter-terrorism. 7. Owing to the secrecy of the practice of secret detention, it was often difficult to gather first hand information; nevertheless, a wide array of national, regional and international sources was consulted. While United Nations sources have been drawn upon, primary sources include responses to a questionnaire sent to all Member States (annex I) and interviews with current or former detainees (summaries of which are given in annex II). In some cases, secondary sources such as media and other sources were A/HRC/13/42 Page 6 used. Such accounts, while not always verifiable are utilized when regarded by the mandate holders as credible. Responses to the questionnaire were received from 44 States. A number of interviews had been held with people who were held in secret detention, family members of those held captive, as well as legal representatives of individuals held. The mandate holders conducted face to face interviews in Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Other interviews were conducted by telephone. Formal meetings at the level of capitals were held with officials in Berlin, London and Washington, D.C. The mandate holders thank those States that cooperated with them and facilitated their joint work. They also wish to thank the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) as well as others who provided valuable research and other assistance to the study. II. SECRET DETENTION UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW A. Terminology 8. For the purpose of the present report, a person is kept in secret detention if State authorities acting in their official capacity, or persons acting under the orders thereof, with the authorization, consent, support or acquiescence of the State, or in any other situation where the action or omission of the detaining person is attributable to the State,1 deprive persons of their liberty; where the person is not permitted any contact with the outside world (“incommunicado detention”); and when the detaining or otherwise competent authority denies, refuses to confirm or deny or actively conceals the fact that the person is deprived of his/her liberty hidden from the outside world, including, for example family, independent lawyers or non-governmental organizations, or refuses to provide or actively conceals information about the fate or whereabouts of the detainee. In the present report, the term “detention” is used synonymously with “deprivation of liberty”, “keeping in custody” or “holding in custody”. The distinction drawn between 1 Article 2 (a) of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifty-third session, in 2001, taken note of by the General Assembly in its resolution 56/83, and applied by the International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, judgment, 26 February 2007. A/HRC/13/42 Page 7 “detention” and “imprisonment” in the preamble to the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 43/173, in the section entitled “Use of Terms”, does not purport to provide a general definition.2 9.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Guantanamo's Hidden History
    Guantanamo’s Hidden History Shocking statistics of starvation June 2009 1 Author: Andy Worthington Copyright © 2009 Cageprisoners All rights reserved. Cageprisoners 27 Old Gloucester Street London WC1N 3XX Telephone: 00 (44) 7973264197 Email: [email protected] 2 INTRODUCTION Today is the third anniversary of the deaths in Guantánamo of three prisoners, Ali al-Salami, Mani al-Utaybi and Yasser al-Zahrani. The anniversary comes just two weeks after the second anniversary of the death of Abdul Rahman al-Amri, the fourth prisoner to die in mysterious circumstances, and just eight days after the death of a fifth prisoner, Muhammad Salih. The authorities maintain that the men died by committing suicide, although doubts about this explanation have repeatedly been voiced by former prisoners. However, it is also significant that all five men were long-term hunger strikers. Cageprisoners is marking this sad anniversary with a brief report about the Guantánamo hunger strikers, and the dreadful toll that prolonged starvation -- and brutal force-feeding, which is the response of the US military -- exacts on prisoners held, for the most part, without charge or trial in a seemingly endless legal limbo. Force-feeding involves prisoners being strapped into a restraint chair and force-fed twice daily against their will, through an agonizing process that involves having a tube inserted into the stomach through the nose. As Clive Stafford Smith, the lawyer for several dozen Guantánamo prisoners, explained in the Los Angeles Times in 2007, with reference to Sami al-Haj, who was released in May 2008, “Medical ethics tell us that you cannot force-feed a mentally competent hunger striker, as he has the right to complain about his mistreatment, even unto death.
    [Show full text]
  • A Decade Lost I ABOUT the AUTHORS
    A DECADE LOST i ABOUT THE AUTHORS The Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) brings together and expands the rich array of teaching, research, clinical, internship, and publishing activities undertaken within New York University (NYU) School of Law on international human rights issues. Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman are the Center’s Faculty co-Chairs; Smita Narula and Margaret Satterthwaite are Faculty Directors; Jayne Huckerby is Research Director; and Veerle Opgenhaffen is Senior Program Director. The Global Justice Clinic (GJC) at NYU School of Law provides high quality, professional human rights lawyering services to individual clients and non-governmental and inter-governmental human rights organizations, partnering with groups based in the United States and abroad. Working as legal advisers, counsel, co-counsel, or advocacy partners, Clinic students work side-by-side with human rights activists from around the world. The Clinic is directed by Professor Margaret Satterthwaite and in Fall 2010 to Spring 2011 was co-taught with Adjunct Assistant Professor Jayne Huckerby; Diana Limongi is Clinic Administrator. All publications and statements of the CHRGJ can be found at its website: www.chrgj.org. This Report should be cited as: Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, A Decade Lost: Locating Gender in U.S. Counter-Terrorism (New York: NYU School of Law, 2011). © NYU School of Law Center for Human Rights and Global Justice A DECADE LOST 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Global Justice Clinic (GJC)/Center for Human Rights and Global Justice (CHRGJ) at New York University (NYU) School of Law acknowledges the following individuals for their contributions in the preparation of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Fung Final Thesis Submission.Pdf
    THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH FINDING HUMANITY AFTER DEHUMANIZATION: AN EXAMINATION OF THE ROLE OF MEMOIR IN NARRATING THE HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AT GUANTÁNAMO BAY TAK-YIN SANDRA FUNG Spring 2012 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in English and Comparative Literature with honors in English Reviewed and approved* by the following: Sophia McClennen Professor of Comparative Literature, Spanish, and Women’s Studies Thesis Supervisor Lisa Sternlieb Associate Professor of English Honors Adviser Jonathan Marks Associate Professor of Bioethics, Humanities, and Law Second Reader * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College i Abstract This thesis examines the role of memoir within the larger dialogue concerning the human rights violations committed at Guantánamo Bay. Memoirs have always held an important place within human rights narratives, and the personal histories written by former Guantánamo detainees contribute an essential individual component to conversations about the injustices of the facility. Although several other detainees have come forward with memoirs, this thesis specifically evaluates Enemy Combatant : My Imprisonment at Guantánamo, Bagram, and Kandahar by Moazzam Begg and Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantánamo by Murat Kurnaz. Both men were detained without charge and released, albeit after enduring years of abuse, isolation, and poor living conditions. Despite the emphasis on the unique ability of memoir to connect the audience with the perspective of the work’s subject, this thesis does not argue for memoir as the most effective form of human rights narrative. Instead, the memoir should be viewed as one part of a larger conversation.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Guantánamo and Its Aftermath
    Guantánamo and Its Aftermath u.s. detention and interrogation practices and their impact on former detainees November 2008 Human Rights Center International Human Rights Law Clinic In partnership with University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley Center for Constitutional Rights Guantánamo and Its Aftermath u.s. detention and interrogation practices and their impact on former detainees Laurel E. Fletcher Eric Stover with Stephen Paul Smith Alexa Koenig Zulaikha Aziz Alexis Kelly Sarah Staveteig Nobuko Mizoguchi November 2008 Human Rights Center University of California, Berkeley International Human Rights Law Clinic University of California, Berkeley, School of Law In partnership with Center for Constitutional Rights ISBN# 978-0-9760677-3-3 Human Rights Center and International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley Cover photos: Louie Palu/ZUMA Design: Melanie Doherty Design, San Francisco Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley The Human Rights Center promotes human rights and international justice worldwide and trains the next generation of human rights researchers and advocates. We believe that sustainable peace and devel- opment can be achieved only through efforts to prevent human rights abuses and hold those responsible for such crimes accountable. We use empirical research methods to investigate and expose serious viola- tions of human rights and international humanitarian law. In our studies and reports, we recommend specific policy measures that should be taken by governments and international organizations to protect vulnerable populations in times of war and political and social upheaval. For more information, please visit hrc.berkeley.edu. International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law The International Human Rights Law Clinic (IHRLC) designs and implements innovative human rights projects to advance the struggle for justice on behalf of individuals and marginalized communities through advocacy, research, and policy development.
    [Show full text]
  • Guantanamo and Beyond: Dangers of Rigging the Rules Brian J
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 97 Article 2 Issue 4 Summer Summer 2007 Guantanamo and Beyond: Dangers of Rigging the Rules Brian J. Foley Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Brian J. Foley, Guantanamo and Beyond: Dangers of Rigging the Rules, 97 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1009 (2006-2007) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/07/9704-1009 THEJOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 97, No. 4 Copyright 0 2008 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in USA GUANTANAMO AND BEYOND: DANGERS OF RIGGING THE RULES BRIAN J. FOLEY* Supporters of the U.S. antiterrorism policy of indefinitely imprisoning "enemy combatants" captured in the "War on Terrorism" claim that it gives the Executive needed flexibility for incapacitating potentially dangerous terroristsand interrogatingthem with harsh methods to uncover plans for terrorist attacks. The policy has been widely criticizedfrom its inception, mostly on the grounds that it is illegal and immoral. Bracketing these critiques, this Article argues that this policy is ineffective. The policy impedes the government's ability to conduct the investigations necessary to prevent terrorist attacks because it fosters indiscriminate dragnets, imprisonment, and coercive interrogationsof people who are not terrorists. Given that innocent people are likely to confess falsely when subjected to coercion, the policy risks proliferatingfalse confessions andfalse leads that inundate and mislead investigators.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcendence in the Animal: Guantanamo's Regime of Indefinite Detention and the Open in the Cage
    Volume 60 Issue 3 Article 5 11-1-2015 Transcendence in the Animal: Guantanamo's Regime of Indefinite Detention and the Open in the Cage Joseph Pugliese Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the National Security Law Commons Recommended Citation Joseph Pugliese, Transcendence in the Animal: Guantanamo's Regime of Indefinite Detention and the Open in the Cage, 60 Vill. L. Rev. 573 (2015). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol60/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. \\jciprod01\productn\V\VLR\60-3\VLR305.txt unknown Seq: 1 15-OCT-15 8:57 2015] Pugliese: Transcendence in the Animal: Guantanamo's Regime of Indefinite De TRANSCENDENCE IN THE ANIMAL: GUANTANAMO’S´ REGIME OF INDEFINITE DETENTION AND THE OPEN IN THE CAGE JOSEPH PUGLIESE* N the closing pages of an essay in which Penny Pether tracks her unwa- Ivering “pursuit of the unspeakable,” she abruptly shifts location from Australia to Charlottesville, Virginia. Visiting Thomas Jefferson’s house, Monticello, she describes a scene that continues to haunt her: Monticello itself is dwarfed by the vast underground warren of rooms where slaves worked to keep the house going, its domestic beauty seeming like a lovely poisoned fungus feeding on hidden corruption. The enslaved
    [Show full text]
  • THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY ORAL HISTORY PROJECT the Reminiscences of Moazzam Begg Columbia Center for Oral History Columbia University
    THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY ORAL HISTORY PROJECT The Reminiscences of Moazzam Begg Columbia Center for Oral History Columbia University 2011 PREFACE The following oral history is the result of a recorded interview with Moazzam Begg conducted by Ronald J. Grele and Kanishk Tharoor on May 30, 2011. This interview is part of the Guantánamo Bay Oral History Project. The reader is asked to bear in mind that s/he is reading a verbatim transcript of the spoken word, rather than written prose. 3PM Session One Interviewee: Moazzam Begg Location: London, United Kingdom Interviewer: Ronald J. Grele and Kanishk Tharoor Date: May 30, 2011 Q: This is an interview for the Columbia University Oral History Research Office with Moazzam Begg. The interview is being conducted in London. Today's date is May 30, 2011. This is an interview for the Columbia Oral History Research Office. Begg: My name is Moazzam Begg, I am a former Guantánamo prisoner and the director of the human rights organization Cageprisoners. Q: In the last chapter and the epilogue of the book, you talk about coming home from Guantánamo, and talk about the reception and plans for the future. How would you rewrite those chapters today? Begg: I do not know that I would rewrite the chapters about the epilogue in my book. I finish off saying that American justice in Guantánamo is an oxymoron. There are two conflicting concepts. The concept of justice in Guantánamo, I believe, has not been administered to any of the prisoners there – not the ones that have been released, not the ones who have habeas corpus petitions pending in the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Leaving Guantanamo
    JANUARY 2012 HASC COMMITTEE PRINT 112-4 2120 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 202.225.4151 ARMEDSERVICES.HOUSE.GOV LEAVING GUANTANAMO LEAVING As of September 2011, the LEAVING U.S. government believed that 27 percent of former GTMO detainees were confi rmed or suspected to have been engaged GUANTANAMO in terrorist or insurgent activities. POLICIES, PRESSURES, AND DETAINEES RETURNING TO THE FIGHT SUSPECTED OR CONFIRMED HASC 71-370_cover.indd 1 3/14/12 12:44 PM JANUARY 2012 HASC COMMITTEE PRINT 112-4 2120 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20515 202.225.4151 ARMEDSERVICES.HOUSE.GOV LEAVING GUANTANAMO LEAVING As of September 2011, the LEAVING U.S. government believed that 27 percent of former GTMO detainees were confi rmed or suspected to have been engaged GUANTANAMO in terrorist or insurgent activities. POLICIES, PRESSURES, AND DETAINEES RETURNING TO THE FIGHT SUSPECTED OR CONFIRMED HASC 71-370_cover.indd 1 3/14/12 12:44 PM SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS of the COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 71-370_text_CX.indd i 3/23/12 8:55 AM ….we have been very selective in terms of returning people. One of the things we have discovered over time is that we are not particularly good at predicting which returnee will be a recidivist. Some of those that we have considered the most dangerous and who have been released or who we considered dangerous and potentially going back into the fi ght have not, and some that we evaluated as SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES not being much of a danger or much of a risk FEBRUARY 17, 2011 we have discovered in the fi ght.
    [Show full text]
  • ENDNOTES Endnotes
    CHAPTER 1 ENDNOTES Endnotes 1 Guantánamo Remarks Cost Policy Chief His Job, CNN (Feb. 2, 2007), available at http://www.cnn. com/2007/US/02/02/gitmo.resignation (“When corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms.”). 2 Task Force staff interview with Moazzam Begg, Omar Deghayes, Bisher al-Rawi (Apr. 17, 2012) [hereinafter Begg, Deghayes, al-Rawi Interview]. 3 Neil A. Lewis, U.S. Military Eroding Trust of Detainees, Lawyers Say, N.Y. TIMES (Mar. 9, 2005), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/world/americas/08iht-gitmo.html (“Another lawyer, Marc Falkoff of New York, whose firm represents several Yemenis at the naval base in Cuba, said some of his clients had told him that a person who said he was a lawyer and had civilian clothes had conferred several times with some detainees. That person, Falkoff said his clients had told him, later appeared at the detention center in uniform, leading the inmates to distrust anyone claiming to be a lawyer and acting in their interest.”). See also Neil A. Lewis, Detainee’s Lawyer Says Captors Foment Mistrust, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 7, 2005), available at http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/international/07hamdan.html (“The Guantánamo authorities violated a court order by moving a prisoner from the general population there and placing him in close contact with a hard-core operative for Al Qaeda known for urging detainees to refuse to cooperate with their lawyers, according to papers filed with the United States District Court here by Lt.
    [Show full text]
  • Shari'ah Law As National Security Threat? Cyra Akila Choudhury
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals June 2015 Shari'ah Law as National Security Threat? Cyra Akila Choudhury Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Conflict of Laws Commons, Family Law Commons, International Law Commons, Law and Race Commons, National Security Law Commons, Religion Law Commons, and the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Choudhury, Cyra Akila (2013) "Shari'ah Law as National Security Threat?," Akron Law Review: Vol. 46 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol46/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Choudhury: Shari'ah Law ARTICLE 2 - CHOUDHURY (DO NOT DELETE) 4/4/2013 4:12 PM SHARI’AH LAW AS NATIONAL SECURITY THREAT? Cyra Akila Choudhury* I. Introduction ......................................................................... 49 II. Much Ado About Nothing?: State Anti-Shari’ah Laws ...... 52 A. State Anti-Shari’ah Bills ............................................... 54 B. The Architects of the New Threat ................................. 61 III. Family Law as Fifth Column: Shari’ah Creep in U.S. Courts? ................................................................................. 65 A. Marriage ........................................................................ 66 B. Divorce .......................................................................... 69 C.
    [Show full text]