DOCSLIB.ORG

Usa Crimes and Impunity Full Senate Committee Report on Cia Secret Detentions Must Be Released, and Accountability for Crimes Under International Law Ensured

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Usa Crimes and Impunity Full Senate Committee Report on Cia Secret Detentions Must Be Released, and Accountability for Crimes Under International Law Ensured USA CRIMES AND IMPUNITY FULL SENATE COMMITTEE REPORT ON CIA SECRET DETENTIONS MUST BE RELEASED, AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR CRIMES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW ENSURED Amnesty International Publications First published in April 2015 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org ≤ Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2015 Index: AMR 51/1432/2015 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 3 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 Table of contents Foreword: A deafening silence on accountability .............................................................. 1 Summary: ‘Watch America. Watch how we deal with this’ ................................................. 2 ‘Do Not Open, Do Not Access’: Full report still buried ...................................................... 5 Black on black: redactions and classification ................................................................... 7 A de facto amnesty for crimes under international law .................................................... 11 Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 17 PART 1 – JOINING THE DOTS ..................................................................................... 20 1.1 Senate Committee adds to existing picture .............................................................. 20 1.1b Cash for disappearances. Secret sites and ‘foreign governments’ ....................... 23 1.1c Involvement of Federal Bureau of Prisons in secret detention ............................ 28 1.1d Death of Gul Rahman and interrogator training ................................................ 29 1.1e ‘Enhanced’ interrogation in CIA ‘safehouse’ .................................................... 30 1.1f Consequences of torture and other ill-treatment ............................................... 32 1.1g Waterboarding-plus....................................................................................... 37 1.1h ‘We can never let the world know what I have done to you’ ............................... 40 1.1i ‘Let’s roll with the new guy’: Insights from CIA communications ........................ 42 1.1j From CIA Torture to CIA Transfer to torture? .................................................... 43 1.1k No CIA ‘enhanced’ interrogation due to ‘US person status’ ............................... 44 1.1l Lobbying other governments to hide detainees ................................................. 45 1.1m Little or no ‘accountability’ ........................................................................... 46 PART 2 – TWO HUBS OF SHAMEFUL SECRETS ........................................................... 48 2.1 Bagram and beyond: CIA detentions in Afghanistan ................................................. 48 2.1a Multiple detainees, multiple locations ............................................................ 51 2.1b The case of Redha al-Najar ........................................................................... 56 2.1c What about CIA activities in Bagram? ............................................................. 59 2.2 Confirming Guantánamo as a CIA ‘black site’ .......................................................... 61 2.2a Rendition to torture, Guantánamo, and Morocco? ............................................. 66 2.2b Green to Cobalt to Guantánamo and beyond: Interrogation ‘templates’ ............... 69 2.2c Injustice compounded: A quarter of CIA detainees still at Guantánamo .............. 74 2.2d CIA retains ‘operational control’ of detainees at Guantánamo in 2006 ............... 79 USA: CRIMES AND IMPUNITY. Full Senate Committee report on CIA secret detentions must be released, and accountability for crimes under international law ensured PART 3 – EXECUTIVE POWER AND RESPONSIBILITY ................................................... 80 3.1 ‘Each of us must answer for what we have done’ ...................................................... 80 3.2 ‘So it begins’: President approves a disappearance ................................................... 87 3.3 ‘Plausible deniability’ or a ‘stand-up guy’? ............................................................... 92 3.4 Green light 2003: ‘Executing administration policy’ .................................................. 97 3.4a The case of Janat Gul .................................................................................. 100 3.5 New CIA Director in 2004, crimes continue ........................................................... 102 3.5a Abu Faraj al-Libi ......................................................................................... 103 3.6 Ghost train: military/CIA disappearances 2005-2006 ............................................. 106 3.56a Abu Ja’far al-Iraqi and Ibrahim Jan ............................................................. 107 3.6b Ali Jan and Hassan Ghul ............................................................................. 109 3.7 Failure to end programme after April 2006 briefing ................................................ 110 3.8 Executive order timed for ‘enhanced’ interrogation ................................................. 111 3.8a Muhammad Rahim al Afghani ...................................................................... 113 PART 4 – FAR FROM TRUTH AND JUSTICE ................................................................ 116 4.1 Limits of Senate Intelligence Committee landmark ................................................. 116 4.1a What about ‘the dark side’? Rendition to ‘liaison’ custody ............................... 117 4.1b Based on CIA documents provided by CIA, no interviews ................................. 125 4.1c Emphasis on ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques .......................................... 126 4.1d Focus on ‘effectiveness’ distracts from human rights ...................................... 128 4.1e No reference to a systematic crime, enforced disappearance ........................... 131 4.1f Little or no reference to USA’s international obligations ................................... 132 4.2 Where was Congress? .......................................................................................... 136 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 139 Index: AMR 51/1432/2015 1 Amnesty International 21 April 2015 USA: CRIMES AND IMPUNITY. Full Senate Committee report on CIA secret detentions must be released, and accountability for crimes under international law ensured FOREWORD: A DEAFENING SILENCE ON ACCOUNTABILITY In the end truth will out William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act 2, Scene II This Amnesty International report responds to a document issued by the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on 9 December 2014. That 500-page document is itself the summary of the Committee’s report, some 13 times longer, about the programme of secret detention operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 2002 to 2009 under presidential authority granted six days after the crime against humanity committed in the USA on 11 September 2001 (9/11). The full report remains classified Top Secret. The Committee focussed its attention on whether the programme was effective in gaining information from detainees and whether the CIA accurately represented to other parts of government the programme’s operational details and intelligence outputs. However, these questions are being asked to the exclusion of a fundamental one – when will the USA end the impunity and stop blocking redress for the crimes under international law committed in the programme, as well as revealing the full truth about these human rights violations? Over four months after release of the summary, the administration’s answer would seem to be “never”. Returning to the Senate Committee’s summary four months on, Amnesty International does not address whether the CIA programme was or was not effective, or whether an agency described by a former Deputy Secretary of Defense as one that “thrives on deception” was economical with the truth. Rather, the organization extracts detail from the summary and sets it into a human rights frame. For the summary is not a human rights report, and makes no pretence to be. It does not assess the CIA’s conduct against the USA’s international human rights obligations, and its overarching focus on effectiveness and CIA reporting frequently relegates case details to footnotes or directs the reader to Volume III of the full report for “additional information”, which the public cannot see because it is classified. The Committee
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case 2:15-Cv-00286-JLQ Document 182-5 Filed 05/22/17
    Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 182-5 Filed 05/22/17 Exhibit E Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 182-5 Filed 05/22/17 1 2 3 4 Interrogating the Enemy 5 6 7 The Story of the CIA's Interrogation of Top al-Qa'ida Terrorists 8 9 10 (Working Title) 11 By James E. Mitchell, Ph.D., 12 Architect of the CIA Interrogation Program 13 14 With Bill Harlow 15 1 MJ00022577 Case 2:15-cv-00286-JLQ Document 182-5 Filed 05/22/17 1 long time ago not to be offended by this sort of posturing. It frequently went away when 2 you got on the ground and started working. 3 4 The operational psychologist told me that our task on the way over was to rough out a 5 design for the cell where Zubaydah was to be held. We were told that, because of his 6 importance as a potential source of intelligence and the severity of his injury, the cell 7 needed to be lighted 24 hours a day. Closed circuit TV cameras were also required. We 8 wanted Zubaydah focused on the interrogators and for the cell to not be a source of dis- 9 tracting stimulation, so we recommended they paint it white. Speakers were needed so 10 music could be played, mostly as sound masking for security reasons because the 11 guards were located just outside the door, but also, if ordered, as an irritant to wear on 12 him if he chose not to cooperate.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Ghailani, Ahmed Khalfan Verdict
    United States Attorney Southern District of New York FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOVEMBER 17, 2010 ELLEN DAVIS, EDELI RIVERA, JESSIE ERWIN PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE (212) 637-2600 AHMED KHALFAN GHAILANI FOUND GUILTY IN MANHATTAN FEDERAL COURT OF CONSPIRING IN THE 1998 DESTRUCTION OF UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN EAST AFRICA RESULTING IN DEATH Al Qaeda Terrorist And First Guantanamo Detainee To Be Tried In Civilian Court Faces Possible Life Sentence In January PREET BHARARA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that AHMED KHALFAN GHAILANI was found guilty today for his role in the 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that took the lives of 224 people, including 12 Americans. GHAILANI, 36, a Tanzanian national and the first detainee held at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba to be tried in a civilian court, was found guilty of conspiring to destroy property and buildings of the United States, following a five week trial before U.S. District Judge LEWIS A. KAPLAN. GHAILANI faces a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life on this count. GHAILANI was acquitted of the remaining counts against him. "Ahmed Ghailani was today convicted of conspiring in the 1998 destruction of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, causing death as a result," said United States Attorney PREET BHARARA. "He will face, and we will seek, the maximum sentence of life without parole when he is sentenced in January. I want to express my deep appreciation for the unflagging commitment, dedication, and talent of the agents who so thoroughly investigated this case and the prosecutors who so ably tried it." According to the evidence presented at trial, previous court proceedings in this case, and documents filed in Manhattan federal court: GHAILANI was first indicted on December 16, 1998, by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law Release Date: April 23, 2018
    Release Date: April 23, 2018 CERL Report on The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law Release Date: April 23, 2018 CERL Report on The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law I. Introduction On January 25, 2017, President Trump repeated his belief that torture works1 and reaffirmed his commitment to restore the use of harsh interrogation of detainees in American custody.2 That same day, CBS News released a draft Trump administration executive order that would order the Intelligence Community (IC) and Department of Defense (DoD) to review the legality of torture and potentially revise the Army Field Manual to allow harsh interrogations.3 On March 13, 2018, the President nominated Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, and Gina Haspel to replace Mr. Pompeo as Director of the CIA. Mr. Pompeo has made public statements in support of torture, most notably in response to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2014 report on the CIA’s use of torture on post-9/11 detainees,4 though his position appears to have altered somewhat by the time of his confirmation hearing for Director of the CIA, and Ms. Haspel’s history at black site Cat’s Eye in Thailand is controversial, particularly regarding her oversight of the torture of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri5 as well as her role in the destruction of video tapes documenting the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques.6 In light of these actions, President Trump appears to be signaling his support for legalizing the Bush-era techniques applied to detainees arrested and interrogated during the war on terror.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Legal Document
    Case 1:10-cv-00436-RMC Document 49-3 Filed 08/09/13 Page 1 of 48 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ) UNION, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 1:1 0-cv-00436 RMC ) CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY, ) ) Defendant. ) -----------------------J DECLARATION OF AMY E. POWELL I, Amy E. Powell, declare as follows: 1. I am a trial attorney at the United States Department of Justice, representing the Defendant in the above-captioned matter. I am competent to testify as to the matters set forth in this declaration. 2. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a document entitled "Attorney General Eric Holder Speaks at Northwestern University School of Law," dated March 5, 2012, as retrieved on August 9, 2013 from http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/ag/speeches/ 2012/ag-speech-1203051.html. 3. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a Transcript of Remarks by John 0. Brennan on April30, 2012, as copied on August 9, 2013 from http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-efficacy-and-ethics-us-counterterrorism-strategy/ with some formatting changes by the undersigned in order to enhance readability. Case 1:10-cv-00436-RMC Document 49-3 Filed 08/09/13 Page 2 of 48 4. Attached to this declaration as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee dated May 22, 2013, as retrieved on August 9, 2013 from http://www.justice.gov/slideshow/AG-letter-5-22-13 .pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2015 Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1490 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2625217 62 UCLA L. Rev. 1156-1239 (2015) This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Social Control, Law, Crime, and Deviance Commons Prison Abolition and Grounded Justice Allegra M. McLeod EVIEW R ABSTRACT This Article introduces to legal scholarship the first sustained discussion of prison LA LAW LA LAW C abolition and what I will call a “prison abolitionist ethic.” Prisons and punitive policing U produce tremendous brutality, violence, racial stratification, ideological rigidity, despair, and waste. Meanwhile, incarceration and prison-backed policing neither redress nor repair the very sorts of harms they are supposed to address—interpersonal violence, addiction, mental illness, and sexual abuse, among others. Yet despite persistent and increasing recognition of the deep problems that attend U.S. incarceration and prison- backed policing, criminal law scholarship has largely failed to consider how the goals of criminal law—principally deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retributive justice—might be pursued by means entirely apart from criminal law enforcement. Abandoning prison-backed punishment and punitive policing remains generally unfathomable. This Article argues that the general reluctance to engage seriously an abolitionist framework represents a failure of moral, legal, and political imagination.
    [Show full text]
  • Forensic Mental Health Evaluations in the Guantánamo Military Commissions System: an Analysis of All Detainee Cases from Inception to 2018 T ⁎ Neil Krishan Aggarwal
    International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 64 (2019) 34–39 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Law and Psychiatry journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijlawpsy Forensic mental health evaluations in the Guantánamo military commissions system: An analysis of all detainee cases from inception to 2018 T ⁎ Neil Krishan Aggarwal Clinical Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, Committee on Global Thought, Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, United States ABSTRACT Even though the Bush Administration opened the Guantánamo Bay detention facility in 2002 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, little remains known about how forensic mental health evaluations relate to the process of detainees who are charged before military commissions. This article discusses the laws governing Guantánamo's military commissions system and mental health evaluations. Notably, the US government initially treated detaineesas“unlawful enemy combatants” who were not protected under the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, allowing for the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.” In subsequent legal documents, however, the US government has excluded evidence obtained through torture, as defined by the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Using open-source document analysis, this article describes the reasons and outcomes of all forensic mental health evaluations from Guantánamo's opening to 2018. Only thirty of 779 detainees (~3.85%) have ever had charges referred against them to the military commissions, and only nine detainees (~1.16%) have ever received forensic mental health evaluations pertaining to their case.
    [Show full text]
  • Dod OIG Semiannual Report to the Congress April 1, 20Qq Through September 30, 2011
    Department of Defense Department of Defense Inspector General Inspector General 4800 Mark Center Drive 4800 Mark Center Drive Alexandria, VA 22350-1500 Alexandria, VA 22350-1500 www.dodig.mil www.dodig.mil Defense Hotline 1.800.424.9098 Defense Hotline 1.800.424.9098 INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 400 ARMY NAVY DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22202-4704 I am pleased to present the Department of Defense Inspector General Semiannual Report to the Congress for the reporting period April 1, 2011 to September 30, 2011. DoD IG is dedicated to working on behalf of the warfighters and taxpayers to identify fraud, waste, and abuse; and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of DoD programs and operations. In doing so, we conduct audits, investigations and inspections that provide guidance and recommendations for improvement to both the Department and Congress. Our vision is to be a model oversight organization in the federal government by leading change, speaking truth and promoting excellence. During this reporting period, we conducted 82 audits, evaluations, intelligence reviews and assessments. Auditing identified $547 million of potential funds that could be put to better use and the Defense Hotline managed 9,340 contacts. In addition, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, working closely with other law enforcement agencies, returned $440 million in fines, restitution and recoveries to the U.S. government along with 63 arrests, 166 criminal convictions, 74 suspensions and 130 debarments. We are also pleased to recognize the 30th anniversary of DCIS. Since its creation in April 1981 by then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, DCIS has grown from a small cadre of 15 special agents to more than 350 special agents who run the criminal investigative arm of DoD IG.
    [Show full text]
  • Unclassified//For Public Release Unclassified//For Public Release
    UNCLASSIFIED//FOR PUBLIC RELEASE --SESR-Efll-N0F0RN-­ Final Dispositions as of January 22, 2010 Guantanamo Review Dispositions Country ISN Name Decision of Origin AF 4 Abdul Haq Wasiq Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 6 Mullah Norullah Noori Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 7 Mullah Mohammed Fazl Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 560 Haji Wali Muhammed Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war, subject to further review by the Principals prior to the detainee's transfer to a detention facility in the United States. AF 579 Khairullah Said Wali Khairkhwa Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 753 Abdul Sahir Referred for prosecution. AF 762 Obaidullah Referred for prosecution. AF 782 Awai Gui Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 832 Mohammad Nabi Omari Continued detention pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (2001 ), as informed by principles of the laws of war. AF 850 Mohammed Hashim Transfer to a country outside the United States that will implement appropriate security measures. AF 899 Shawali Khan Transfer to • subject to appropriate security measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Terrorist Groups and Their Means of Financing
    SURVEY OF TERRORIST GROUPS AND THEIR MEANS OF FINANCING HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM AND ILLICIT FINANCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2018 Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 115–116 ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 31–576 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 VerDate Mar 15 2010 14:03 Dec 06, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 G:\GPO PRINTING\DOCS\115TH HEARINGS - 2ND SESSION 2018\2018-09-07 TIF TERRO mcarroll on FSR431 with DISTILLER HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Chairman PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina, MAXINE WATERS, California, Ranking Vice Chairman Member PETER T. KING, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California NYDIA M. VELA´ ZQUEZ, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma BRAD SHERMAN, California STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York BILL POSEY, Florida MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin DAVID SCOTT, Georgia STEVE STIVERS, Ohio AL GREEN, Texas RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin ROBERT PITTENGER, North Carolina KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota ANN WAGNER, Missouri ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ANDY BARR, Kentucky JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut KEITH J. ROTHFUS, Pennsylvania BILL FOSTER, Illinois LUKE MESSER, Indiana DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado JOHN K. DELANEY, Maryland ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine JOYCE BEATTY, Ohio MIA LOVE, Utah DENNY HECK, Washington FRENCH HILL, Arkansas JUAN VARGAS, California TOM EMMER, Minnesota JOSH GOTTHEIMER, New Jersey LEE M.
    [Show full text]
  • Imprisonment and the Separation of Judicial Power: a Defence of a Categorical Immunity from Non-Criminal Detention
    IMPRISONMENT AND THE SEPARATION OF JUDICIAL POWER: A DEFENCE OF A CATEGORICAL IMMUNITY FROM NON-CRIMINAL DETENTION J EFFREY S TEVEN G ORDON* [e fundamental principle that no person may be deprived of liberty without criminal conviction has deteriorated. Despite a robust assertion of the principle by Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ in Chu Kheng Lim v Minister for Immigration, subsequent jurisprudence has eroded it and revealed stark division amongst the Justices of the High Court. is article clarifies the contours of the disagreement and defends the proposition that, subject to a limited number of categorical exceptions, ch III of the Constitution permits the involuntary detention of a person in custody only as a consequential step in the adjudication of the criminal guilt of that person for past acts. is article proposes a methodology for creating new categories of permitted non-criminal detention and applies that methodology to test the constitutionality of the interim control orders considered in omas v Mowbray.] C ONTENTS I Introduction ............................................................................................................... 42 II Legislative Power, Judicial Power and Imprisonment .......................................... 46 A From Which Section Does the So-Called ‘Constitutional Immunity’ from Executive Detention Originate? ........................................................ 51 1 Does the Legislative Power of the Commonwealth Conferred by Section 51 Extend to Authorising Imprisonment Generally? ............................................................... 52 2 Does Chapter III Have Any Operation When Parliament Enacts a Law Authorising Imprisonment? ................................... 55 * BSc (Adv) (Hons), LLB (Hons) (Syd), LLM (Columbia). Sincerest thanks to Peter Gerangelos for reading a dra, for generous advice, and for sparking my interest during his fascinating course on Advanced Constitutional Law at the University of Sydney.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]