DOCSLIB.ORG

AL NASHIRI V. ROMANIA

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FIRST SECTION CASE OF AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA (Application no. 33234/12) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 31 May 2018 FINAL 08/10/2018 This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT i PROCEDURE ..........................................................................................................1 THE FACTS.............................................................................................................4 I. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS.............................................................4 II. EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT..............................................................5 III. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE...................................................................6 A. Terrorist attacks of which the applicant has been suspected .........................6 1. USS Cole bombing in 2000 ..................................................................................6 2. MV Limburg bombing in 2002.............................................................................6 B. The so-called “High-Value Detainee Programme”........................................7 1. The establishment of the HVD Programme..........................................................8 (a) The US President’s memoranda ...................................................................8 (i) Memorandum of 17 September 2001.....................................................8 (ii) Memorandum of 7 February 2002 ........................................................9 (b) Abu Zubaydah’s capture and transfer to a CIA covert detention facility in March 2002................................................................................10 (c) Setting up the CIA programme “to detain and interrogate terrorists at sites abroad” ...........................................................................................10 2. Enhanced Interrogation Techniques ...................................................................11 (a) Description of legally sanctioned standard and enhanced interrogation techniques.............................................................................11 (b) Expanding the use of the EITs beyond Abu Zubaydah’s interrogations .............................................................................................13 3. Standard procedures and treatment of “high-value detainees” in CIA custody (combined use of interrogation techniques) ........................................14 4. Conditions of detention at CIA “black sites” .....................................................19 5. The scale of the HVD Programme......................................................................20 6. Closure of the HVD Programme ........................................................................20 C. The United States Supreme Court’s judgment in Rasul v. Bush..................21 D. Role of Jeppesen Dataplan, Richmor Aviation and other air companies in the CIA rendition operations .................................................21 1. Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. .......................................................................................21 2. Richmor Aviation ...............................................................................................22 3. Other companies .................................................................................................22 E. Military Commissions..................................................................................24 1. Military Order of 13 November 2001.................................................................24 2. Military Commission Order no. 1.......................................................................25 3. The 2006 Military Commissions Act and the 2009 Military Commissions Act..............................................................................................28 4. Publicly expressed concerns regarding the procedure before the military commission .......................................................................................................29 ii AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT F. Review of the CIA’s activities involved in the HVD Programme in 2001-2009 by the US Senate .......................................................................31 1. Course of the review...........................................................................................31 2. Findings and conclusions....................................................................................32 IV. THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE......................36 A. The applicant’s capture, transfer to the CIA’s custody, his secret detention and transfers from mid-October 2002 to 6 June 2003, as established by the Court in Al Nashiri v. Poland and supplemented by the 2014 US Senate Committee Report..................................................36 B. The applicant’s transfers and detention between his rendition from Poland on 6 June 2003 and his alleged rendition to Romania on 12 April 2004 as reconstructed on the basis of the 2014 US Senate Committee Report and other documents and as corroborated by experts heard by the Court...........................................................................37 1. Transfer from Poland to Morocco and detention in Morocco (from 6 June to 23 September 2003)...........................................................................38 2. Transfer from Morocco to Guantánamo and detention in Guantánamo (from 23 September 2003 to 12 April 2004) ....................................................40 C. The applicant’s alleged secret detention at a CIA “black site” in Romania from 12 April 2004 to 6 October or 5 November 2005 as described by the applicant, reconstructed on the basis of the 2014 US Senate Committee Report and other documents and as corroborated by experts heard by the Court......................................................................42 1. The applicant’s initial submissions.....................................................................42 2. The applicant’s alleged rendition to Romania on the plane N85VM on 12 April 2004 .........................................................................................................43 3. Detention and treatment to which the applicant was subjected..........................46 4. The applicant’s alleged rendition from Romania on 6 October or 5 November 2005..............................................................................................49 D. The applicant’s further transfers during CIA custody (until 5 September 2006) as reconstructed on the basis of the 2014 US Senate Committee Report and other documents and as corroborated by experts heard by the Court......................................................................53 E. The applicant’s detention in Guantánamo Bay and his trial before the military commission from 6 September 2006 to present.............................54 1. Hearing before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal .....................................54 2. Trial before the military commission .................................................................54 F. Psychological effects of the HVD Programme on the applicant..................56 G. Identification of locations of the colour code-named CIA detention sites in the 2014 US Senate Committee Report by experts .........................57 H. “Detention Site Black” in the 2014 US Senate Committee Report .............57 I. Parliamentary inquiry in Romania ................................................................59 J. Criminal investigation in Romania ...............................................................62 1. Submission by the Government of confidential documents from the investigation file................................................................................................63 AL NASHIRI v. ROMANIA JUDGMENT iii 2. The course of the investigation according to documentary evidence produced by the Government............................................................................63 V. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW ....................................................................68 A. Criminal Code..............................................................................................68 1. Territorial jurisdiction.........................................................................................68 2. Prohibition of torture and offence of unlawful deprivation of liberty ................69 B. Code of Criminal Procedure ........................................................................69 VI. RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL LAW ......................................................70 A. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties .................................................70 Article 26 “Pacta sunt servanda” ......................................................................70 Article 27 Internal law and observance of treaties............................................70 B. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ..................................70 C. The UN Torture Convention ........................................................................70 D. UN Geneva Conventions .............................................................................71 1. Geneva (III) Convention.....................................................................................71 2. Geneva (IV) Convention.....................................................................................72 E.
Recommended publications
  • Download the PDF File

    Download the PDF File

    S E C R E T / / NOFORN / / 20321104 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEADQUARTERS, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO U.S. NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA APO AE 09360 JTF-GTMO-CDR 4 November 2007 MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, United States Southern Command, 3511 NW 9lst Avenue, Miami, FL 33172. SUBJECT: Recommendation for Continued Detention Under DoD Control (CD) for Guantanamo Detainee, ISN US9TS-000168DP (S) JTF-GTMO Detainee Assessment 1. (S//NF) Personal Information: JDIMS/NDRC Reference Name: Muhammad Ibn Arfhan Shahin Aliases and Current/True Name: Adel Bin Ahmed Ibrahim Hkimi, Abdel Khalek, Abu Bilal al-Tunisi, Abu Hind al- Tunisi, Muhammad Bin Erfane Bin Chahine Place of Birth: Ben Arous, Tunisia (TS) Date of Birth: 27 March 1965 Citizenship: Tunisia Internment Serial Number (ISN): US9TS-000168DP 2. (U//FOUO) Health: Detainee is in overall good health. 3. (S//NF) JTF-GTMO Assessment: a. (S) Recommendation: JTF-GTMO recommends this detainee for Continued Detention Under DoD Control (CD). JTF-GTMO previously recommended detainee for Continued Detention Under DoD Control (CD) on 11 August 2006. b. (S//NF) Executive Summary: Detainee is assessed to be a senior member of the Global Jihadist Support Network (GJSN) with specific membership in the Tunisian Combat Group (TCG) and the Armed Islamic Group (GIA).1 Detainee is a veteran terrorist with a proven 1 The GJSN is a National Intelligence Priority Framework (NIPF) Priority 1A counter terrorism (CT) target. Priority 1A targets are defined as terrorist groups, countries that sponsor terrorism, or countries that have state organizations involved in terrorism that pose a clear and immediate danger to US persons or interests.
  • 2. Bensayah Belkacem Had Phone Conversations with Abu Zubaydah

    2. Bensayah Belkacem Had Phone Conversations with Abu Zubaydah

    UNCLASSIFIED CombatantStatusReviewBoard TO : Personal Representative FROM , CSRT ( 6 October 2004) Subject: Summary of Evidence for Combatant Status Review Tribunal: AL HAJJ, Boudella 1. Underthe provisionsofthe Secretaryofthe NavyMemorandum dated 29 July 2004, ImplementationofCombatantStatusReviewTribunalProceduresfor EnemyCombatants Detainedat GuantanamoBayNavalBase Cuba, a Tribunalhas beenappointedto reviewthe detainee'sdesignationas an enemy combatant. 2. An enemy combatanthas been definedas an individualwho was part ofor supportingthe Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associatedforces that are engagedin hostilitiesagainst the United States or its coalitionpartners. This includesany personwho committeda belligerentact or has directly supportedhostilitiesinaidofenemy armed forces. 3. The UnitedStatesGovernmenthas previouslydeterminedthat the detaineeis an enemy combatant. This determinationis basedon informationpossessedby the UnitedStates that indicatesthat he is associatedwith al Qaida. a The detainee is associatedwith al Qaida: 1. The detainee was arrested with BensayahBelkacem, a known al Qaida associate, for InternationalTerrorismby the Bosnia- Herzegovinaauthorities. 2. Bensayah Belkacem had phone conversations with Abu Zubaydah, a senior aide to Usama Bin Laden, who was in charge of screening recruits for al Qaida training camps inAfghanistan. 3. The detainee and othersacted as an organizedterrorist groupandthey were incontact with known al Qaida member, Abu Zubaydah . 4. Detainee was arrested by Bosnianauthorities in connection
  • United States District Court Eastern District Of

    United States District Court Eastern District Of

    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No. 239 filed 08/07/17 PageID.9393 Page 1 of 43 1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 4 5 SULEIMAN ABDULLAH SALIM, et al., ) ) 6 ) No. CV-15-0286-JLQ Plaintiffs, ) 7 ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) RE: MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY 8 vs. ) JUDGMENT ) 9 ) JAMES E. MITCHELL and JOHN ) 10 JESSEN, ) ) 11 Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) 12 BEFORE THE COURT are Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 13 169), Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 178), and Defendants’ 14 Motion to Exclude (ECF No. 198). Response and Reply briefs have been filed and 15 considered. The parties have submitted a voluminous record of over 4,000 pages of 16 evidentiary exhibits. The court heard oral argument on the Motions on July 28, 2017. 17 James Smith, Henry Schuelke, III, Brian Paszamant, and Christopher Tompkins appeared 18 for Defendants James Mitchell and John Jessen. Hina Shamsi, Steven Watt, Dror Ladin, 19 Lawrence Lustberg, and Jeffry Finer appeared for Plaintiffs Suleiman Abdullah Salim, 20 Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, and Obaid Ullah. The court issued its preliminary oral 21 ruling. This Opinion memorializes and supplements the court’s oral ruling. 22 I. Introduction and Factual Allegations from Complaint 23 The Complaint in this matter alleges Plaintiffs Suleiman Abdullah Salim (“Salim”), 24 Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud (“Soud”), and Gul Rahman (“Rahman”)1(collectively herein 25 Plaintiffs) were the victims of psychological and physical torture. Plaintiffs are all 26 27 1Obaid Ullah is the personal representative of the Estate of Gul Rahman. 28 ORDER - 1 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ ECF No.
  • In the United States District Court for the Dist~Ct of Columbia

    In the United States District Court for the Dist~Ct of Columbia

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DIST~CT OF COLUMBIA BOUDELLAAL HAJJ, et al. Petitioners, Civil Action No. 04-CV-1166(RJL) GEORGEW. BUSH, Presidentof the UnitedStates, et al., Respondents. DECLARATIONOF JAMES R, CRISF1ELD JR. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I, CommanderJames R. Crisfield Jr., Judge Advocate General’s Corps, United States Navy, hereby state that to the best of myknowledge, information and belief, the followingis tree, accurate and correct: 1. I am the Legal Advisor to the CombatantStatus ReviewTribunals. In that capacity I amthe principal legal advisor to the Director, CombatantStatus ReviewTribunals, and provide advice to Tribunals on legal, evidentiary, procedural, and other matters. I also reviewthe record of proceedingsin each Tribunal for legal sufficiency in accordancewith standards prescribed in the CombatantStatus ReviewTribunal establishment order and implementingdirective. 2. I hereby certify that the documentsattached hereto constitute a tree and accurate copy of the portions of the record of proceedings before the CombatantStatus ReviewTribunal related to petitioner BoudellaAI Hajj that are suitable for public release. Theportions of the record that are classified or consideredtaw enforcementsensitive are not attached hereto. I have redacted information that wouldpersonally identify other detainees and the family membersof detainees, as well as certain U.S. Governmentpersonnel in order to protect the personal security of those 5069 individuals. I have also redacted internee serial numbersbecause certain
  • Extraordinary Rendition« Flights, Torture and Accountability – a European Approach Edited By: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights E.V

    Extraordinary Rendition« Flights, Torture and Accountability – a European Approach Edited By: European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights E.V

    WITH A PREFACE BY MANFRED NOWAK (UNITED NATIONS SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE) 1 SECOND EDITION 2 3 CIA- »EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION« FLIGHTS, TORTURE AND ACCOUNTABILITY – A EUROPEAN APPROACH EDITED BY: EUROPEAN CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS E.V. (ECCHR) SECOND EDITION 4 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS 09 PREFACE by Manfred Nowak, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture © by European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights e.V. (ECCHR) 13 JUSTICE AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN EUROPE – DISCUSSING Second Edition, Originally published in March 2008 STRATEGIES by Wolfgang Kaleck, ECCHR This booklet is available through the ECCHR at a service charge of 6 EUR + shipping. Please contact [email protected] for more information. 27 THE U.S. PROGRAM OF EXTRAORDINARY RENDITION AND SECRET DETENTION: PAST AND FUTURE Printed in Germany, January 2009 by Margaret Satterthwaite, New York University All rights reserved. 59 PENDING INVESTIGATION AND COURT CASES ISBN 978-3-00-026794-9 by Denise Bentele, Kamil Majchrzak and Georgios Sotiriadis, ECCHR European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) I. The Freedom of Information Cases (USA/Europe) Greifswalder Strasse 4, D-10405 Berlin 59 FOIA Cases in the U.S. Phone: + 49 - (0) 30 - 40 04 85 90 / 40 04 85 91 62 Freedom of Information Cases in Eastern Europe Fax: + 49 - (0) 30 - 40 04 85 92 Mail: [email protected], Web: www.ECCHR.eu II. The Criminal Cases Council: Michael Ratner, Lotte Leicht, Christian Bommarius, Dieter Hummel 68 The Case of Ahmed Agiza and Mohammed Al Zery (Sweden) Secretary General: Wolfgang
  • The Current Detainee Population of Guantánamo: an Empirical Study

    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.
  • Download Article

    Download Article

    tHe ABU oMAr CAse And “eXtrAordinAry rendition” Caterina Mazza Abstract: In 2003 Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr (known as Abu Omar), an Egyptian national with a recognised refugee status in Italy, was been illegally arrested by CIA agents operating on Italian territory. After the abduction he was been transferred to Egypt where he was in- terrogated and tortured for more than one year. The story of the Milan Imam is one of the several cases of “extraordinary renditions” imple- mented by the CIA in cooperation with both European and Middle- Eastern states in order to overwhelm the al-Qaeda organisation. This article analyses the particular vicissitude of Abu Omar, considered as a case study, and to face different issues linked to the more general phe- nomenon of extra-legal renditions thought as a fundamental element of US counter-terrorism strategies. Keywords: extra-legal detention, covert action, torture, counter- terrorism, CIA Introduction The story of Abu Omar is one of many cases which the Com- mission of Inquiry – headed by Dick Marty (a senator within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) – has investi- gated in relation to the “extraordinary rendition” programme im- plemented by the CIA as a counter-measure against the al-Qaeda organisation. The programme consists of secret and illegal arrests made by the police or by intelligence agents of both European and Middle-Eastern countries that cooperate with the US handing over individuals suspected of being involved in terrorist activities to the CIA. After their “arrest,” suspects are sent to states in which the use of torture is common such as Egypt, Morocco, Syria, Jor- dan, Uzbekistan, Somalia, Ethiopia.1 The practice of rendition, in- tensified over the course of just a few years, is one of the decisive and determining elements of the counter-terrorism strategy planned 134 and approved by the Bush Administration in the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks.
  • Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court Of

    Supreme Court of the United States Supreme Court Of

    No. 06- IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LAKHDAR BOUMEDIENE, et al., Petitioners, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI STEPHEN H. OLESKEY SETH P. WAXMAN ROBERT C. KIRSCH Counsel of Record MARK C. FLEMING PAUL R.Q. WOLFSON JOSEPH J. MUELLER WILMER CUTLER PICKERING PRATIK A. SHAH HALE AND DORR LLP LYNNE CAMPBELL SOUTTER 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. JEFFREY S. GLEASON Washington, DC 20006 LAUREN G. BRUNSWICK (202) 663-6000 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP DOUGLAS F. CURTIS 60 State Street PAUL M. WINKE Boston, MA 02109 JULIAN DAVIS MORTENSON (617) 526-6000 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 230-8800 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/074717/ QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600, validly stripped federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by for- eign citizens imprisoned indefinitely at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay. 2. Whether Petitioners’ habeas corpus petitions, which establish that the United States government has im- prisoned Petitioners for over five years, demonstrate unlaw- ful confinement requiring the grant of habeas relief or, at least, a hearing on the merits. (i) PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/074717/ LIST OF PARTIES TO PROCEEDING BELOW The parties to the proceeding in the court of appeals (Boumediene, et al.
  • Alleged Secret Detentions and Unlawful Inter-State Transfers Involving Council of Europe Member States

    Alleged Secret Detentions and Unlawful Inter-State Transfers Involving Council of Europe Member States

    Parliamentary Assembly Assemblée parlementaire restricted AS/Jur (2006) 16 Part II 7 June 2006 ajdoc16 2006 Part II Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Alleged secret detentions and unlawful inter-state transfers involving Council of Europe member states Draft report – Part II (Explanatory memorandum) Rapporteur: Mr Dick Marty, Switzerland, ALDE C. Explanatory memorandum by Mr Dick Marty, Rapporteur Table of Contents: 1. Are human rights little more than a fairweather option? ……………………………………. 3 1.1. 11 September 2001 ……………………………………………………………………… 3 1.2. Guantanamo Bay ………………………………………………………………………… 4 1.3. Secret CIA prisons in Europe?…………………………………………………………. 4 1.4. The Council of Europe’s response ……………………………………………………. 5 1.5. European Parliament ………………………………………………………………….. 6 1.6. Rapporteur or investigator? …………………………………………………………… 6 1.7. Is this an Anti-American exercise? ……………………………………………………. 7 1.8 Is there any evidence?............................................................................................ 8 2. The global “spider’s web”………………………………………………………………………. 9 2.1. The evolution of the rendition programme ……………………………………………. 9 2.2. Components of the spider’s web ………………………………………………………. 12 2.3. Compiling a database of aircraft movements ………………………………………… 14 2.4. Operations of the spider’s web ………………………………………………………… 15 2.5. Successive rendition operations and secret detentions …………………………….. 16 2.6. Detention facilities in Romania and Poland ……………………….. 16 2.6.1 The case of Romania …………………………………………………. 16 2.6.2. The case of Poland ……………………………………………………. 17 2.7. The human impact of rendition and secret detention ……………………………….. 19 2.7.1. CIA methodology – how a detainee is treated during a rendition ………… 20 2.7.2. The effects of rendition and secret detention on individuals ………………. and families ……………………………………………………………………… 23 ________________________ F œ 67075 Strasbourg Cedex, tel: +33 3 88 41 20 00, fax: +33 3 88 41 27 02, http://assembly.coe.int, e-mail: [email protected] AS/Jur (2006) 16 Part II 2 3.
  • Download the PDF File

    Download the PDF File

    S E C R E T / / NOFORN / / 20330401 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE HEADQUARTERS, JOINT TASK FORCE GUANTANAMO U.S. NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA APO AE 09360 JTF-GTMO-CDR 1 April 2008 MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, United States Southern Command, 3511 NW 9lst Avenue, Miami, FL 33172 SUBJECT: Recommendation for Continued Detention Under DoD Control (CD) for Guantanamo Detainee, ISN US4AG-010005DP (S) JTF-GTMO Detainee Assessment 1. (S) Personal Information: JDIMS/NDRC Reference Name: Lakhdar Boumediene Current/True Name and Aliases: Lakhdar Boumediene, Ahmed, al-Muntasir Place of Birth: Ain Soltgane Saeda, Algeria (AG) Date of Birth: 27 April 1966 Citizenship: Algeria Internment Serial Number (ISN): US4AG-010005DP 2. (U//FOUO) Health: Detainee is in good health. 3. (U) JTF-GTMO Assessment: a. (S) Recommendation: JTF-GTMO recommends this detainee for Continued Detention Under DoD Control (CD). JTF-GTMO previously recommended detainee for Continued Detention Under DoD Control (CD) on 28 September 2007. b. (S//NF) Executive Summary: Detainee is a member of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA) and al-Qaida who was detained for his involvement with a GIA cell in Bosnia (BK), suspected of plotting an attack on the US Embassy in Sarajevo, BK1. Detainee has an 1 Analyst Note: The GIA is a National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF) counterterrorism (CT) Priority 3 target. Priority 3 targets are defined as issues, opportunities, or threats other senior policymakers and IC managers believe must receive attention from the IC that are not already identified as Priorities 1 or 2. These include terrorist/extremist groups involved in terrorism that have demonstrated both intention and the capability to attack U.S.
  • Stephen Oleskey Written Testimony House Oversight Comm 05-06-08

    Stephen Oleskey Written Testimony House Oversight Comm 05-06-08

    TESTIMONY OF STEPHEN H. OLESKEY OF WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP, COUNSEL FOR SIX GUANTANAMO DETAINEES CITY ON THE HILL OR PRISON ON THE BAY? THE MISTAKES OF GUANTANAMO AND THE DECLINE OF AMERICA’S IMAGE BEFORE THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND OVERSIGHT MAY 6, 2008 Introduction Thank you Chairman Delahunt, Ranking Member Rohrabacher, and Members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight for inviting me to speak to you today on this important issue. All counsel to Guantanamo detainees are grateful for the time, energy and thought which this Subcommittee is devoting to consideration of the issues presented by the detention of our clients, who have now been detained at Guantanamo Bay for almost six years and four months. My name is Stephen H. Oleskey and I am a partner at the law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr. I have been a member of the Massachusetts Bar since 1968 and am also admitted in New York and New Hampshire. I previously served as Massachusetts Deputy Attorney General and Chief of that office’s Public Protection Bureau. My practice generally focuses on complex civil litigation. By way of background to today’s testimony, my experience in the critical matter before this Committee arises from my role as co-lead counsel and pro bono advocate for six Guantanamo detainees in the period since July 2004, following the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in the Rasul and Hamdi cases.
  • Boumediene V. Bush and Extraterritorial Habeas Corpus in Wartime

    Boumediene V. Bush and Extraterritorial Habeas Corpus in Wartime

    Boumediene v. Bush and Extraterritorial Habeas Corpus in Wartime by RIDDHI DASGUPTA* How did the United States Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush,' come to the conclusion that the detention facility in Guantdnamo Bay, Cuba, is indeed American territory for the purpose of habeas corpus? Why did the Court extend habeas to non-citizens as well? Which legal provisions and precedents guided the Supreme Court's analysis? The U.S. Constitution's Suspension Clause, precluding the suspension of habeas corpus except in well-defined and discrete national security urgencies, is the controlling trump card raised by the detainees. This Commentary sets the stage for a multivariable conversation about the interplay among separation of powers, rejection of executive supremacy, historic status of habeas corpus, and other factors that guided the Court. The federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, extends to Guantdnamo because of practical considerations, not necessarily formal ones; and the consequences of excluding habeas corpus from Guantdnamo would have been devastating for judicial independence. The Commentary also references English and American legal history transcending pre- and post- 1789 to explore the competing merits on habeas's reach to Guantdnamo. Furthermore, in the end, the cause of judicial restraint would be harmed by the mechanism of governmentally approved trials (with lives and freedom at stake) that treat citizens and non-citizens differently concerning the right of habeas corpus. Finally, this Commentary also advances the overarching theme that Boumediene is essentially a civil liberties case and should be perceived as such for prudential reasons. Boumediene retains three central tenets: the * Doctoral student, University of Cambridge.