DOCSLIB.ORG

Guantánamo Global Justice Initiative

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guantánamo Global Justice Initiative guantánamo global justice initiative center for constitutional news briefing rights may 2008 15 detainees currently face mili- has stated on numerous occasions that it In further developments in the Hamdan hear- tary commissions plans to try up to 80 detainees in the military ings, on April 30, 2008, the military judge commissions, but has moved slowly in filing presiding over the military commission, Lt. Guantanamo’s military commissions contin- charges. The vast majority of the approxi- Col. Keith Allred, ordered that Hamdan ued as 15 detainees have now been mately 275 men currently held at Guan- would be allowed to contact four of the so- charged before the commissions. No trials tanamo have never been charged with any called “high value detainees” – former CIA have been completed and 1 conviction, crime and have been held for over six years secret prisoners – via a written communica- resulting from the guilty plea of Australian in arbitrary detention without charge or trial tion bearing his signature, seeking their testi- David Hicks, have resulted. The military com- throughout that time. mony to support his defense. However, this missions, created by the October 2006 falls far short of what was requested by passage of the Military Commissions Act, Former CIA “ghost” detainee trans- Hamdan’s attorneys, including two-way provide far fewer protections than either ferred to Guantanamo communication between Hamdan and the standard courts-martial, which try soldiers in former ghost detainees, and a meeting with times of war, or the U.S. federal criminal On March 14, 2008, the U.S. military an- one of Hamdan’s military defense attorneys, court system, which historically has tried nounced that it had transferred Muhammad assuring the former ghost detainees of the cases involving charges of terrorism. For Rahim al-Afghani to Guantanamo Bay, and request’s sincerity. Hamdan is currently boy- example, the military commissions allow the that he had previously been held in secret cotting the military commissions process. The introduction of hearsay evidence and evi- CIA “ghost” detention. The CIA secret 2006 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case, dence obtained through coercion, require “ghost” detention program was allegedly Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which invalidated an only 2/3 jury vote for conviction, and the emptied in September 2006, when 14 for- earlier military commissions process and jury is composed solely of members of the mer ghost detainees were transferred to affirmed the applicability of Common Article military. Guantanamo Bay; the military transferred 3 of the Geneva Conventions to Guan- another detainee in April 2007. Inside the tanamo detainees, resulted from Hamdan’s On March 31, 2008 charges were sworn secret CIA detention program, the use of so- earlier challenge of the military commissions. against detainee Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a Tanzanian man who was transferred to including cruel, inhumane and degrading Also on April 30, 2008, military judge Col. Guantánamo from secret CIA detention in treatment, as well as techniques amounting Peter Brownback, presiding over the military September 2006. Mr. Ghailani was in the to torture, including waterboarding (a torture commission of accused former child soldier, CIA interrogation program for over two technique that simulates drowning), have Canadian citizen and Guantanamo de- years and is accused of playing a role in been officially and explicitly allowed. The tainee Omar Khadr, ruled that the prosecu- the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in U.S. government accuses him of involvement tion of Khadr continued despite the fact that Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. A Manhattan with Al-Qaeda. At the time the transfer was he was only 15 when seized by U.S. forces Federal court indicted him 10 years ago. announced, the CIA refused to state if it was in Afghanistan and brought to Guantanamo Rather than trying him in the federal courts, currently holding any other detainees in its Bay. By treaty, Khadr should be recognized the government opted instead to try him in secret prisons. as a child soldier entitled to protection, but the military commissions, where it faces an the military – and now the military commis- unfair advantage and where the secrets of Former military commissions chief sions courts – have refused to acknowledge its CIA detention program will continue to prosecutor testifies for the defense this status. Khadr’s attorneys have also ap- be hidden. The government plans to seek in Salim Hamdan commission; mili- pealed to a federal appeals court in Wash- the death penalty for Ghailani, as it has for tary judge allows prosecution of ington, D.C. to have his initial determination six other detainees facing military commis- former child soldier as an “enemy combatant” overturned due to sions. his juvenile status at the time. On April 7, 2008, charges were referred On April 28, 2008, former chief military Detainees Ahmad al-Darbi and Ibrahim al- against Afghan detainee Mohammad commissions prosecutor Col. Mo Davis took Qosi, also charged before the military com- Kamin, who was charged with “providing the stand and testified for the defense in a missions, have, to date, refused to partici- material support for terrorism” during the pretrial hearing for the military commission pate in what they have termed “sham” pro- U.S. war on Afghanistan. Twelve other de- of Guantanamo detainee Salim Ahmad ceedings. tainees currently face military commissions, Hamdan. Davis argued that the commissions including six detainees against whom the process is fundamentally flawed, and cor- Bush vetoes anti-waterboarding government is seeking the death penalty, rupted by political involvement and de- measure accusing them of involvement with the at- mands for convictions on the part of high- tacks of September 11, 2001. The military ranking military and administration officials. On March 9, 2008, President George W. (continued on pg. 2) Center for Constitutional Rights www.ccrjustice.org Bush vetoed a bill passed by Congress tary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Representative William Delahunt, mem- that would have prohibited the CIA from Director George Tenet and Attorney ber of Congress, held a field briefing in using waterboarding and other forms of General John Ashcroft, who all directly Boston on March 26, 2008, focusing on torture against detainees. The intelli- participated in approving the CIA’s use Guantanamo’s refugees. The briefing, gence authorization bill, which permits of cruel, inhumane and degrading treat- held on behalf of the House Subcommit- U.S. government spending on intelligence ment against detainees. tee on International Organizations, Hu- agencies and related expenses, prohib- man Rights, and Oversight, addressed ited U.S. intelligence agencies, including Also, on April 1, 2008, the legal memo the plight of dozens of Guantanamo the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), from March of 2003 by former admini- detainees who cannot return home due from using techniques not allowed by a stration attorney John Yoo that purported to fear of persecution. procedures manual for U.S. military per- to authorize the use of torture was de- sonnel, the Army Field Manual. The man- classified. The memo was widely at- Emi Maclean, attorney at the Center for ual prohibits harsh interrogation tech- tacked within the legal community for Constitutional Rights, as well as attorneys niques such as waterboarding and other attempting to provide a legal safeguard Sabin Willett and Michael Mone, who forms of torture and cruel, inhumane and for torture and protect government offi- represent refugees held at Guantanamo degrading treatment. cials from prosecution for authorizing Bay, addressed the briefing, detailing the torture. Many organizations, including needs of refugees at Guantanamo to find Waterboarding is a form of torture that the Center for Constitutional Rights, safe havens. induces drowning in a victim; the drown- called upon Boalt Hall Law School at the ing is stopped before the point of death University of California – Berkeley, Yoo’s An estimated 50 detainees cannot return by the use of a rag, plastic wrap, or an- current employer, to fire or sanction him home for fear of torture. At least two of other obstruction placed in the victim’s for unethical conduct regarding this those men had been designated refu- mouth. Its use against detainees by the memo. gees by the United Nations High Com- CIA has been confirmed. Bush’s veto missioner for Refugees before they ar- confirms his continued position that the Attorney Gives Classified Brief- rived at Guantánamo. So far, neither the president has the authority to allow the ing to Senate Intelligence Com- United States nor European countries, CIA to use waterboarding and other mittee on Details of CIA Torture where some detainees have relatives, forms of torture, despite clear prohibitions Program have been willing to give them safe ha- in U.S. and international law. Gitanjali Gutierrez, an attorney at the ven. In fact, the U.S. has already sent Center for Constitutional Rights represent- almost 40 detainees back to countries Reports: Bush Administration ing former CIA “ghost” detainee Majid that are known for human rights abuses, officials directly approved tor- Khan, who was held in secret CIA pris- including Uzbekistan, Libya, Tunisia, and ture program ons for three years before his transfer to Egypt. Guantanamo Bay, spoke with the Senate On April 9, 2008, news reports revealed Intelligence Committee on March 28, Former detainee Murat Kurnaz that the highest-level Bush administration 2008. releases new book officials were deeply involved in discus- sions and authorization of torture against Gutierrez briefed staff members on the Former Guantanamo detainee Murat secret CIA “ghost” detainees. In an inter- torture and abuse of Khan while he was Kurnaz released his new book, “Five view, President Bush also acknowledged held in the secret CIA prisons. Gutierrez Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in that he knew about these discussions and is the first attorney to speak with Con- Guantanamo” in English in April 2008.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Supreme Court of the United States
    No. ________ In the Supreme Court of the United States KHALED A. F. AL ODAH, ET AL., PETITIONERS, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI DAVID J. CYNAMON THOMAS B. WILNER MATTHEW J. MACLEAN COUNSEL OF RECORD OSMAN HANDOO NEIL H. KOSLOWE PILLSBURY WINTHROP AMANDA E. SHAFER SHAW PITTMAN LLP SHERI L. SHEPHERD 2300 N Street, N.W. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP Washington, DC 20037 801 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 202-663-8000 Washington, DC 20004 202-508-8000 GITANJALI GUTIERREZ J. WELLS DIXON GEORGE BRENT MICKUM IV SHAYANA KADIDAL SPRIGGS & HOLLINGSWORTH CENTER FOR 1350 “I” Street N.W. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS Washington, DC 20005 666 Broadway, 7th Floor 202-898-5800 New York, NY 10012 212-614-6438 Counsel for Petitioners Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover JOSEPH MARGULIES JOHN J. GIBBONS MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER LAWRENCE S. LUSTBERG NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY GIBBONS P.C. LAW SCHOOL One Gateway Center 357 East Chicago Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 Chicago, IL 60611 973-596-4500 312-503-0890 MARK S. SULLIVAN BAHER AZMY CHRISTOPHER G. KARAGHEUZOFF SETON HALL LAW SCHOOL JOSHUA COLANGELO-BRYAN CENTER FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 833 McCarter Highway 250 Park Avenue Newark, NJ 07102 New York, NY 10177 973-642-8700 212-415-9200 DAVID H. REMES MARC D. FALKOFF COVINGTON & BURLING COLLEGE OF LAW 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. NORTHERN ILLINOIS Washington, DC 20004 UNIVERSITY 202-662-5212 DeKalb, IL 60115 815-753-0660 PAMELA CHEPIGA SCOTT SULLIVAN ANDREW MATHESON DEREK JINKS KAREN LEE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SARAH HAVENS SCHOOL OF LAW ALLEN & OVERY LLP RULE OF LAW IN WARTIME 1221 Avenue of the Americas PROGRAM New York, NY 10020 727 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Day Two of Military Judge Questioning 9/11 Accused About Self-Representation
    Public amnesty international USA Guantánamo: Day two of military judge questioning 9/11 accused about self-representation 11 July 2008 AI Index: AMR 51/077/2008 On 10 July 2008, military commission judge US Marine Colonel Ralph Kohlmann held further proceedings to question the men accused of orchestrating the attacks of 11 September 2001 about their decision to represent themselves at their forthcoming death penalty trial in the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Amnesty International had an observer at the proceedings. The primary purpose of the hearings was to inquire of each of the accused individually about whether they had been intimidated before or during their arraignment on 5 June 2008 into making a choice to represent themselves, or whether this decision had been made knowingly and voluntarily. Judge Kohlmann had questioned two of the accused, ‘Ali ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ‘Ali (‘Ammar al Baluchi) and Mustafa al Hawsawi at individual sessions held on 9 July (see http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/076/2008/en). He had scheduled sessions for the other three men, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Ramzi bin al-Shibh on 10 July. In the event, Ramzi bin al-Shibh refused to come to his session. It seems unlikely that the military judge will question him again on the matter of legal representation until the issue of Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s mental competency is addressed at a hearing scheduled to take place next month (see http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/074/2008/en). Both Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Walid bin Attash denied that they had been intimidated or that any intimidation had taken place.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • \\Crewserver05\Data\Research & Investigations\Most Ethical Public
    Stephen Abraham Exhibits EXHIBIT 1 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings - New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/us/23gitmo.html?pagewanted=print July 23, 2007 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings By WILLIAM GLABERSON NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — Stephen E. Abraham’s assignment to the Pentagon unit that runs the hearings at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, seemed a perfect fit. A lawyer in civilian life, he had been decorated for counterespionage and counterterrorism work during 22 years as a reserve Army intelligence officer in which he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. His posting, just as the Guantánamo hearings were accelerating in 2004, gave him a close-up view of the government’s detention policies. It also turned him into one of the Bush administration’s most unlikely adversaries. In June, Colonel Abraham became the first military insider to criticize publicly the Guantánamo hearings, which determine whether detainees should be held indefinitely as enemy combatants. Just days after detainees’ lawyers submitted an affidavit containing his criticisms, the United States Supreme Court reversed itself and agreed to hear an appeal arguing that the hearings are unjust and that detainees have a right to contest their detentions in federal court. Some lawyers say Colonel Abraham’s account — of a hearing procedure that he described as deeply flawed and largely a tool for commanders to rubber-stamp decisions they had already made — may have played an important role in the justices’ highly unusual reversal. That decision once again brought the administration face to face with the vexing legal, political and diplomatic questions about the fate of Guantánamo and the roughly 360 men still held there.
    [Show full text]
  • SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, Petitioner, V. UNITED STATES of AMERICA
    USCA Case #11-1257 Document #1362775 Filed: 03/08/2012 Page 1 of 65 [Oral Argument Scheduled for May 3, 2012] No. 11-1257 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Appeal From The Court Of Military Commission Review (Case No. CMCR-09-0002) REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER SALIM AHMED HAMDAN Adam Thurschwell Harry H. Schneider, Jr. Jahn Olson, USMC Joseph M. McMillan OFFICE OF THE CHIEF DEFENSE Charles C. Sipos COUNSEL MILITARY COMMISSIONS Rebecca S. Engrav 1099 14th Street NW Angela R. Martinez Box 37 (Ste. 2000E) Abha Khanna Washington, D.C. 20006 PERKINS COIE LLP Telephone: 202.588.0437 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4800 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant Telephone: 206.359.8000 SALIM AHMED HAMDAN Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant SALIM AHMED HAMDAN USCA Case #11-1257 Document #1362775 Filed: 03/08/2012 Page 2 of 65 CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES The Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases is set forth in Petitioner-Appellant Salim Ahmed Hamdan’s Principal Brief filed on November 15, 2011, and is hereby incorporated by reference. DATED: March 8, 2012 By: /s/ Charles C. Sipos One of the attorneys for Salim Ahmed Hamdan -i- USCA Case #11-1257 Document #1362775 Filed: 03/08/2012 Page 3 of 65 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CERTIFICATE AS TO PARTIES, RULINGS, AND RELATED CASES.........................................................................................................i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES..................................................................... iv GLOSSARY OF TERMS .......................................................................... xi SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT.............................................................................................. 3 I. MST Is Not Triable by Military Commission .......................
    [Show full text]
  • The Oath a Film by Laura Poitras
    The Oath A film by Laura Poitras POV www.pbs.org/pov DISCUSSION GUIDe The Oath POV Letter frOm the fiLmmakers New YorK , 2010 I was first interested in making a film about Guantanamo in 2003, when I was also beginning a film about the war in Iraq. I never imagined Guantanamo would still be open when I finished that film, but sadly it was — and still is today. originally, my idea for the Oath was to make a film about some - one released from Guantanamo and returning home. In May 2007, I traveled to Yemen looking to find that story and that’s when I met Abu Jandal, osama bin Laden’s former bodyguard, driving a taxicab in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen. I wasn’t look - ing to make a film about Al-Qaeda, but that changed when I met Abu Jandal. Themes of betrayal, guilt, loyalty, family and absence are not typically things that come to mind when we imagine a film about Al-Qaeda and Guantanamo. Despite the dangers of telling this story, it compelled me. Born in Saudi Arabia of Yemeni parents, Abu Jandal left home in 1993 to fight jihad in Bosnia. In 1996 he recruited Salim Ham - dan to join him for jihad in Tajikistan. while traveling through Laura Poitras, filmmaker of the Oath . Afghanistan, they were recruited by osama bin Laden. Abu Jan - Photo by Khalid Al Mahdi dal became bin Laden's personal bodyguard and “emir of Hos - pitality.” Salim Hamdan became bin Laden’s driver. Abu Jandal ends up driving a taxi and Hamdan ends up at Guantanamo.
    [Show full text]
  • Murat Kurnaz Released from Guantánamo!
    Amnesty International 25 August 2006 AI Index AMR 51/147/2006 Murat Kurnaz had been held for four years and eight months without charge or trial. Guantánamo must be closed! Good News: Murat Kurnaz released from Guantánamo! “Thank God, I am well, but just God that created us knows when I will come back” Murat Kurnaz wrote these words to his family from Guantánamo in March 2002. His dreams of returning home to Germany have only now, finally, been realised. Released from Guantánamo on 24 August 2006, Murat Kurnaz had been held for four years and eight months without charge or trial. The only contact he had been allowed with his family was through heavily censored letters. In a statement, his German lawyer said: “He is now again in the circle of his family. Their joy at embracing their lost son again is indescribable”. Murat’s mother, Rabiye Kurnaz has dedicated these past years to campaigning for her eldest son’s release. In November 2005 she attended an international conference organized by Amnesty International and Reprieve where she spoke of her hopes of being reunited with her son. Now these hopes have become a reality. Murat Kuraz is a Turkish national who was born in Germany in 1982. His prolonged detention in Guantánamo had been complicated by his status – lacking German citizenship, the German authorities had refused his return to Germany. The Turkish authorities had shown little interest in his case. It was only after intense lobbying from his family, lawyers and AI members around the world, including in his home town of Bremen, that the German authorities began to act on his behalf, finally paving the way for his return.
    [Show full text]
  • Print: Bush's Plan to Erode Our Liberties
    Print: Bush's Plan to Erode Our Liberties http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/huq/print Bush's Plan to Erode Our Liberties by AZIZ HUQ June 8, 2007 Early this week, judge advocates halted two prosecutions in the Guantánamo military commissions established under the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA). This is not the first setback the Administration's second-tier court system has hit; the Supreme Court invalidated an earlier iteration of the commissions in 2006. And it won't be the last. But while this week's setback likely will be speedily surmounted, it casts an unexpected light on the MCA's real purposes, and what's at stake when the Bush Administration plays politics with national security. Understanding the significance of this week's ruling means delving into a bit of procedural arcana. The devil in the MCA is, almost literally, in the details--and unless we attend closely to the rococo details of the statute, we'll miss the ways in which the Administration intends to slowly erode our liberties. At the beginning of this week, the military commissions' two judges--Army Col. Peter Brownback and Navy Capt. Keith Allred--dismissed charges filed against Omar Khadr and Salim Hamdan. The rulings focused on a question of categorization--basically, the judges found that Khadr and Hamdan had been wrongly classified. But how did this happen? The MCA, which created the military commissions, states that only an alien who is an "unlawful enemy combatant" can be tried in a military commission. It also defines "unlawful enemy combatants" in tremendously sweeping terms to include anyone who has "materially supported hostilities." Many civil libertarians, including myself, expressed grave concerns about the scope of this provision.
    [Show full text]
  • 1. October 19, 2011 To: Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Re: Letter in Support of Private
    October 19, 2011 To: Robert Nicholson, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada Re: Letter in Support of Private Prosecutions Filed Against George W. Bush for Torture We, the undersigned human rights non-governmental organizations and individuals, are writing this statement in full support of the private prosecutions against George W. Bush, former President of the United States, being lodged on behalf of three former Guantánamo detainees, and one current detainee, who allege that they were tortured by U.S. officials, and seek a criminal investigation and prosecution against Mr. Bush upon arrival in Canada, for substantive breaches of the Canadian Criminal Code and United Nations Convention Against Torture (CAT). The criminal cases submitted under sections 504, 269.1, 21 and 22 of the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Indictment with an appendix of supporting material attached thereto, (collectively, the “Bush Dossiers”) set forth reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a person who is scheduled to be present on Canadian territory has committed an act of torture. The Case Against George W. Bush The Bush Dossiers allege that George W. Bush, in his capacity of former president of the United States, bears individual responsibility for acts of torture and/or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment committed against detainees held in U.S. custody or rendered to other countries by the U.S., in that he ordered, authorized, condoned, planned or otherwise aided and abetted such acts, or failed to prevent or punish subordinates for the commission of such acts. As set forth in detail in the Bush Dossiers, including through documentary evidence in the form of inter alia official memoranda issued by Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • No Torture. No Exceptions
    NO TORTURE. NO EXCEPTIONS. The above sketch by Thomas V. Curtis, a former Reserve M.P. sergeant, is of New York Times an Afghan detainee, Dilawar, who was taken into U.S. custody on December 5, 2002, and died five days later. Dilawar was deprived of sleep and chained to the ceiling of his cell—techniques that the Bush administration has refused to outlaw for use by the CIA. Further, his legs were, according to a coroner, “pulpified” by repeated blows. Later evidence showed that Dilawar had no connection to the rocket attack for which he’d been apprehended. A sketch by Thomas Curtis, V. a Reserve M.P./The 16 January/February/March 2008 Introduction n most issues of the Washington Monthly, we favor ar- long-term psychological effects also haunt patients—panic ticles that we hope will launch a debate. In this issue attacks, depression, and symptoms of post-traumatic-stress Iwe seek to end one. The unifying message of the ar- disorder. It has long been prosecuted as a crime of war. In our ticles that follow is, simply, Stop. In the wake of Septem- view, it still should be. ber 11, the United States became a nation that practiced Ideally, the election in November would put an end to torture. Astonishingly—despite the repudiation of tor- this debate, but we fear it won’t. John McCain, who for so ture by experts and the revelations of Guantanamo and long was one of the leading Republican opponents of the Abu Ghraib—we remain one. As we go to press, President White House’s policy on torture, voted in February against George W.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wire USA Executes Mentally
    The Wire March 2006 Vol. 36. No. 02 AI Index: NWS 21/002/2006 [Page 1] USA executes mentally ill “Today, at 6pm, the State of Florida is scheduled to kill my brother, Thomas Provenzano, despite clear evidence that he is mentally ill... I have to wonder: Where is the justice in killing a sick human being?” Sister of death row inmate, June 2000 By the end of 2005, more than 1,000 men and women had been put to death in the USA since executions resumed in 1977. At least one in 10 of them were suffering from mental illness. In a report released in January, AI listed the stories of a hundred people who had been executed in the USA since 1977 despite clear evidence that they were mentally ill. People like Johnny Garrett, executed in 1992 for a murder committed when he was 17. Like many on the list, Johnny Garrett was severely physically and sexually abused as a child, leaving him brain damaged and chronically psychotic. He was described by a psychiatrist as “one of the most psychiatrically impaired inmates” she had ever examined, and by a psychologist as having “one of the most virulent histories of abuse and neglect... encountered in over 28 years of practice.” Many of the 100 suffered hallucinations or delusions as a result of their mental illness, some had serious brain damage. Yet all were judged mentally competent and able to understand the charges against them – a necessary prerequisite for a death sentence. The judge who found Thomas Provenzano competent for execution found “clear and convincing evidence that Provenzano has a delusional
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecuting a Pre-9/11 Terrorist: the Legal Limits of Military Commissions
    PROSECUTING A PRE-9/11 TERRORIST: THE LEGAL LIMITS OF MILITARY COMMISSIONS DEBORAH PEARLSTEIN* It is an interesting moment to step back and assess how the mil- itary commission trials have progressed in the thirteen years since the trials were originally conceived by presidential order in 2001.1 I had the privilege of being among the first group of human rights monitors to visit Guantanamo Bay in 2004 to witness the opening hearings of an earlier generation of military commission trials, and I have watched the trials closely since then.2 Military commissions in their various forms have had multi- ple trips to the federal courts, including a trip to the Supreme Court in 2006.3 They have been the subject of two major pieces of federal legislation—the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Military Commissions Act of 2009, which have sub- stantially revised the rules surrounding commission proceed- ings.4 Today, the commissions boast a truly distinguished chief prosecutor in General Mark Martins, who is an extraordinary lawyer, among other things. In many respects, the commissions are vastly fairer procedurally than they were when they were conceived in 2001 and 2002.5 Yet the central problem remains: The legal complexity of pursu- ing a novel system of military commission trials, or war crimes * Associate Professor of Law, Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University. This essay was adapted from remarks given at the 2014 Federalist Society Annual Stu- dent Symposium at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida. 1. See Military Order of November 13, 2001, Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Cer- tain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, 66 Fed.
    [Show full text]