Brave Women, Syrian Slaughter, & Sham Trials in Bahrain: E WIRE from HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 22MAR12

READING this e mail newsletter it became clear to me it is getting harder to differentiate articles about human rights violations in the U.S. with human rights violations in the rest of the world, and that is a sad commentary on the status of our civil liberties and constitution. Here are updates on the Syrian revolution and the slaughter of civilians by the government, the continuing persecution of human rights activist in Bahrain, the Pentagon's billion dollar contract with the Russian weapons dealer who also supplies the Syrian government with weapons to kill their own people, Afghan prisons, world women activist and the threat to justice by American military tribunals, from Human Rights First....

HRF'S E-NEWSLETTER

March 22nd, 2011

EMAIL TO A FRIEND»

DONATE»

Letter from the President and CEO» The U.S. Should Cut Ties with Enabler of Atrocities in Syria» Protests Continue in Bahrain. So Does the Crackdown» Bagram Transfer Agreement Falls Short» Khan Plea Deal is a Bad Deal for American Justice» HRF In The News» Letter from the President and CEO In the wake of World War II, Eleanor Roosevelt was the driving force behind the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United Nations adopted in 1948. Since then, women have played an essential role in the human rights movement, as advocates, organization, journalists, politicians, teachers, and lawyers. Some are women's rights activists; most are human rights activists who happen to be women. As women, they face unique challenges, from sexism to cultural bias to repression, which often takes the form of gender-based violence. But time and again, women activists refuse to be silenced. At Human Rights First, we're privileged to work with an array of courageous women leaders. We support their work, highlight their struggles, and amplify their voices. And we partner with them to press the U.S. government, American businesses, and international organizations to support human rights. For example, we teamed up Pakistani activist Shehrbano Taseer to block a proposed blasphemy code at the United Nations, and we brought Esraa Abdel Fattah, a leader in Egypt's revolution, to the United States so that together we could urge policy makers and tech companies to protect the ability of activists to use the Internet without fear of persecution. To commemorate Women's History Month, we're honoring the heroism of women fighting for human rights around the world. Please read their stories and support their efforts. Sincerely, Elisa Massimino President and CEO Human Rights First The U.S. Should Cut Ties with Enabler of Atrocities in Syria We've been urging the U.S. to stop doing business with Rosoboronexport, Russia's state arms dealer, which is selling weapons to the brutal Assad regime in Syria. Now a bipartisan group of seventeen United States Senators, led by John Cornyn (R-TX) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), is taking up the cause. In a letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, they express "grave concern" over this "serious policy problem." Russia is Syria's top supplier of arms, and Russian weapons have been found at the scene of atrocities. In January, Rosoboronexport signed a deal with Syria to sell 36 combat jets capable of hitting ground targets, and the company's spokesperson says it has no plans to stop. At the same time Rosoboronexport benefits from a nearly $1 billion contract with the U.S. Department of Defense—signed on May 26, 2011, months after the crackdown began. The U.S. should cancel the contract immediately. Protests Continue in Bahrain. So Does the Crackdown As Bahrain's uprising enters its second year, Bahraini citizens demanding democracy and human rights show no signs of giving up. The largest protest yet, with an estimated 100,000 people marching on a highway west of the capital Manama, took place just days ago. The regime had intensified its crackdown in a largely successful attempt to deter protests marking the Feb 14th anniversary of the uprising's beginning. But this huge rally, which came in response to a call from Shia cleric Sheikh Isa Qassim, suggests that the democracy movement is stronger than ever. Brian Dooley of Human Rights First—who has done groundbreaking reporting on the abuses of the Bahraini regime—had been denied access to the country during February. But he's back in Bahrain, where he is reporting from the appeal hearing of 20 medics who were detained, tortured, and sentenced to long prison terms in sham military trials. The regime took them into custody last year after they provided medical care to protestors. Bagram Transfer Agreement Falls Short Over the next few years, the United States will give the government of Afghanistan control of the more than 3000 prisoners at Bagram Air Base. We welcome the transfer but only if it protects the rights and safety of the prisoners. A recently announced agreement between the two countries falls short. We've documented the human rights problems at Bagram, where many suspects are detained indefinitely based on secret evidence and have no access to lawyers. The transfer agreement threatens to exacerbate these problems and raises concerns about the potential for widespread abuse. The agreement contains no mechanism to ensure due process or humane treatment. As Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First told CBS news, "Afghan security services have a history of using torture to elicit confessions, and that was found just within the past year by the United Nations, so it's not clear from this agreement how the United States will make sure that's not happening." Khan Plea Deal is a Bad Deal for American Justice After spending nearly a decade in U.S. custody, Majid Shoukat Khan has pled guilty before a military commission to conspiracy, murder, attempted murder, providing material support for terrorism, and spying. Khan—who tried to kill himself at Gitmo by chewing through an artery in his arm—agreed to testify against fellow detainees in exchange for a lighter sentence. The deal may be in the best interest of both the government and Khan, but it's not in the best interest of justice. As Melina Milazzo of Human Rights First points out in the Washington Post, Khan was charged with terrorism and conspiracy, which are not war crimes under international law and were not originally crimes in the military commission system. "Prosecuting people for conduct that was not a crime when they committed the act violates the ex post facto prohibition enshrined in the Constitution and the international legal principle of legality," Milazzo says.  That's not the example we should be setting. This was only the seventh conviction in the military commission system and the first of a so-called "high-value detainee." Federal courts, by contrast, have secured more than 400 convictions of terrorists since 9-11 while protecting the rights of suspects. The military commission system is a risky strategy for cases of such importance.  The United States should recommit itself to trying terrorism cases in the federal courts, where there is a wealth of experience and a solid track record.  HRF in the News U.S. Prepares to Continue Egypt Military Aid Amid Dispute Nicole Gaouette, Bloomberg, March 18, 2012 Detention for Immigrants That Looks Less Like Prison Kirk Semple and Tim Eaton, New York Times, March 13, 2012 U.S. must aid Afghan judicial system Daphne Eviatar, Politico: Opinion, March 13, 2012 War's Strange Bedfellows Mark Thompson, Time, March 12, 2012 Human Rights First, 333 Seventh Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10001-5004 www.humanrightsfirst.org Join us on Facebook, Follow us on Twitter

Christmas Day Bomber Sentenced To Life In Prison 16FEB12

The American judicial system has taught us two important lessons from this trial. It confirms the civilian court system is extremely capable of conducting terrorism trials and serving justice, proving again the concerns of right-wing inspired gop / tea-bagger politicians and media that we do not need to resort to military tribunals for terrorism trials. It also shows the difference in the concept of justice between the civilian and military courts. Abdulautallab had an open trial in civilian court and was sentenced according to civilian law. The war crimes committed by American soldiers in Iraq (see the video 'Collateral Murder'), and the mass murder of 24 civilians in Haditha resulted in "investigations" and some military trials with little or no punishment for the offenders and no justice for the victims. So much for military justice....From NPR....

by Dina Temple-Raston

Listen to the Story

All Things Considered

[3 min 51 sec]

 

U.S. Marshals Service, File/AP Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pleaded guilty in October to a plot to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009.

The man who tried to blow up a U.S. passenger plane three Christmases ago was sentenced to life in prison in a Detroit courtroom today. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, 25, boarded Northwest Flight 253 in Amsterdam on Dec. 25, 2009, with a massive bomb hidden in his underwear. As the plane approached Detroit, he tried to detonate the explosives. They failed to go off.
Four months ago, on the second day of his criminal trial, Abdulmutallab pleaded guilty.
Judge Nancy Edmunds' decision to put Abdulmutallab away for life without possibility of parole was not a surprise: two of the eight terrorism and conspiracy charges to which he pleaded guilty carried mandatory life sentences.
"This was an act of terrorism that cannot be quibbled with," Edmunds said.
Several people who were on the flight that day spoke in court ahead of the sentencing. They talked about what the attempted attack had wrought and how, even today, nearly three years later, they are still skittish about flying. Abdulmutallab, who acted as his own attorney, also provided a statement to the court. He didn't use the opportunity to express remorse, but instead sought to explain why his attack on Flight 253 was a mission from God.
Abdulmutallab spoke briefly in court. He said his sentencing was a "day of victory," adding that the Quran instructs Muslims to kill people in God's name and Jews should be driven out of Palestine. 
Edmunds listened patiently as the young Nigerian spoke and after he was done, gave her ruling.
While the life sentence was hardly a surprise — it was mandated by federal law — some of the details that came out ahead of Abdulmutallab's sentencing were new. In particular, a document prepared for Judge Edmunds that assessed the level of danger Abdulmutallab presented shed new light on the role American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki played in the most major plot on U.S. soil since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In a 22-page report, an Israeli criminologist who specializes in interviewing suicide bombers, Simon Perry, said that Abdulmutallab had revealed that Awlaki not only inspired him, which was known, but also masterminded the attack.
According to the report, Abdulmutallab told the FBI that he went to Yemen in search of Awlaki in late 2009. Abdulmutallab had listened to Awlaki's sermons and heard in them a calling: He decided his destiny was to become a martyr for Islam. So he traveled to Yemen and went from mosque to mosque asking if someone could help him reach Awlaki.
Eventually the two traded text messages. Awlaki made Abdulmuttallab write an essay about his commitment to jihad and then, eventually, had him driven to his desert home. Awlaki discussed the plot with Abdulmutallab, introduced him to an al-Qaida explosives expert who made the underwear bomb, and then spent days helping Abdulmutallab perfect his martyrdom video.
Awlaki was killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen last year. The Obama administration said that he was an operative for al-Qaida and therefore, even though he was an American, born in New Mexico, he was a legitimate target. Until the Abdulmutallab sentencing document, the Obama administration had not provided any proof for its allegations. Awlaki was better known as a propagandist for al-Qaida's arm in Yemen, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula.
The Justice Department may have decided to release those new details about his more operational role to prepare for a speech that Attorney General Eric Holder is expected to give in the coming days that outlines the legal justification the administration used to target Awlaki.
Awlaki was not the only American killed in that Yemeni drone attack. A North Carolina man named Samir Khan was also in the car when the drone struck. The sentencing document includes some details about Khan, too. It says that he also met with Abdulmutallab in Yemen and provided counseling and advice ahead of Abdulmutallab's Christmas Day mission.

End unfair trials in Egypt from AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 20JAN12

DEMOCRACY is still a work in progress in Egypt following last years revolution. It does take time to establish a free and democratic government and the associated institutions and establish open, transparent and democratic policy and behavior. That doesn't mean abuses and violations of human rights by the transitional governing authority should be tolerated and ignored. The governing military council in Egypt must end their practice of unfair trials before military tribunals, drop politically motivated charges against citizens and release all political prisoners. Please consider participating in this action by Amnesty International, click the link.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/node/29251 

This page in other languages

• اللغة العربية
• Français
• Español

Like thousands of Egyptians, Amr Abdallah Al-Beheiry is waiting for justice.
One year after the “25 January Revolution”, it seems further away than ever.
Last February, military police and soldiers beat Amr Abdallah Al-Beheiry up and arrested him at a protest in Cairo. Days later, a military court sentenced him to five years in prison for assaulting a public officer and breaking the curfew. Amr Abdallah Al-Beheiry had no chance of a fair trial. His hearing lasted just minutes. The court didn’t allow his family or lawyer into the room. Instead, it chose its own lawyer to defend him. Now, a military appeals court has said Amr Abdallah Al-Beheiry will be retried – by another military court.
As for Maikel Nabil Sanad, he is in jail for criticizing the army. The blogger, who is considered by Amnesty International to be a prisoner of conscience, had his three-year sentence reduced to two years after a retrial before a military court. He was imprisoned in April for criticising the post-Mubarak military authorities on his Facebook page and for supposedly “spreading lies and rumours about the armed forces” on his blog.
Military courts can’t deliver justice.
Egypt’s military courts violate basic human rights, like the right to a fair trial and the right to appeal to a higher tribunal. Since the uprising, they have tried 12,000 and convicted an estimated 8,000 ordinary Egyptians for crimes like “thuggery” or “breaking curfew”. Sentences range from a few months to years in prison. They have even sentenced people to death.
Enough with the hollow promises of Egypt’s military rulers to stop such trials. It’s time to call on them to put a stop to unfair trials once and for all

TAKE ACTION
Call on the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces to end military trials of civilians.

Dear Field Marshal Muhammad Tantawi,
I call on the SCAF to end military trials of civilians:

• Stop trying civilians before military courts;
• Immediately and unconditionally release any one detained solely for criticising the army and for the peaceful exercise of their rights to freedom of expression and assembly;
• Release those facing trial before military courts or transfer ongoing cases to civilian courts for a new trial, in proceedings that meet international standards for fair trial and without recourse to the death penalty; 
• Order fair re-trials for others already convicted by military courts or release them.

• Take Action

Judges Question Evidence On Guantanamo Detainees 28APR11

THE Guantanamo Papers show just how flawed and prejudiced to the guilt of the defendant military "justice" is, and why these people deserve to be tried in civilian courts. These military trials are a disgrace and make a mockery of the U.S. government's policies on justice, civil rights and human rights. 

by Tom Gjelten

Listen to the Story

Morning Edition

[4 min 33 sec]A side-by-side comparison of the Pentagon's secret Guantanamo detainee assessment briefs and federal court rulings involving those detainees shows that intelligence analysts and federal judges can reach starkly opposing conclusions, even while relying on the same raw intelligence.

More From This Investigation

Military Documents Detail Life At Guantanamo

NPR INVESTIGATION: Reports put a name and history to hundreds of men held at the detention camp.

Detainees Transferred Or Freed Despite 'High Risk'

Secret documents show inconsistencies in the way the Pentagon assessed Guantanamo prisoners.

INTERACTIVE: Tracking The Detainees

Who are the Guantanamo detainees and what risk did they pose?

TIMELINE: Guantanamo Key Events and Decisions

After nearly a decade the U.S. is still assessing its policies regarding detainees at the camp.

The Pentagon's threat profiles suggest little doubt about the prisoners' alleged terrorism record, but in some cases, federal judges have been unimpressed by those conclusions. The classified Guantanamo assessment reports were obtained recently by The New York Times and shared with NPR.
One such example involves Fouad al-Rabia, a Kuwaiti arrested in the Tora Bora area of Afghanistan in December 2001.
"Detainee is an al-Qaida member who met with Osama bin Laden at least four times and gave him a $1 million U.S. contribution," is the opening statement in the report on al-Rabia. "Detainee provided support to the Taliban and al-Qaida on the Bagram frontline before going to fight at Tora Bora, where he was placed in charge of logistics."
The report went on to allege that al-Rabia may have directed an al-Qaida training camp and provided instruction to some of the al-Qaida members involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Nowhere in the report is there any suggestion that the information on al-Rabia may be unreliable.
When al-Rabia filed a petition for habeas corpus, the federal judge hearing his case, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, had an opportunity to review all the files on which his threat assessment was based. She was not impressed.
"The Government has failed to provide the Court with sufficiently credible and reliable evidence to meet its burden of persuasion," Kollar-Kotelly wrote. "If there exists a basis for al-Rabia's indefinite detention, it most certainly has not been presented to this Court." She ordered al-Rabia released, and in December 2009, he returned to Kuwait, a free man after eight years at Guantanamo.
Since 2008, the detainees at Guantanamo have been able to challenge their detention through the habeas process, and the court rulings in their cases have made clear that the evidence against them has sometimes been flawed. Only with the disclosure of the previously secret detainee assessments, however, has it become clear how far the government went in making unproven claims about the detainees' alleged terrorist activity.

Related Document

Read the judge's decision in the Fouad Mahmoud Al-Rabiah's habeas case.

Document: Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabiah V. U.S. Et Al

In the case of al-Rabia, the Guantanamo investigators depended on statements made about him by other detainees, the most important of whom was later judged to be unreliable. Al-Rabia was also subjected to coercive interrogations, where he was confronted with the accusations made against him.

"They initiated a very harsh program," says defense attorney Matthew MacLean, "utilizing a number of techniques that ultimately over a period of several months broke him down to the point that he basically started parroting back to them whatever they said."
MacLean and al-Rabia's other attorneys showed Kollar-Kotelly that the detainee made his "confessions" after first denying the accusations against him, and that he changed course so quickly and thoroughly as to make his confession suspect.

"Al-Rabia's full confession sought to weave together all of the 'evidence' interrogators told al-Rabia that they possessed," she wrote, "even though the 'evidence' is absent from the record in this case."

In fact, Kollar-Kotelly's observation is supported by a line from al-Rabia's assessment brief. "Detainee admits to details only when confronted with the fact that interrogators already know the details," the assessment notes, as if that observation supported al-Rabia's guilt rather than his willingness to provide his interrogators the answers they were seeking. Kollar-Kotelly noted in her opinion that al-Rabia had been told that he could go back to Kuwait if he confessed, but that if he denied the accusations against him, he would have to stay at Guantanamo.
Significant discrepancies between the views of the intelligence analysts who wrote the detainee threat assessments and the judges who analyzed them as part of the habeas process are evident in many other detainee cases.

In his detainee assessment brief, Musab al-Mudwani, a Yemeni, is described as "an al-Qaida operative who planned to participate in terrorist operations targeting U.S. forces in Karachi, Pakistan and possibly inside the United States." That claim is based in part on the circumstances of al-Mudwani's capture following a firefight with Pakistani security guards at the site of a suspected al-Qaida residence in Karachi. Al-Mudwani was also said to have confessed to his al-Qaida associations during interrogations at Guantanamo.
The federal judge who considered al-Mudwani's habeas petition, Thomas F. Hogan, was not persuaded by the government's evidence presentation. Of 26 statements introduced by the government in support of its argument that al-Mudwani should be indefinitely detained at Guantanamo, Hogan threw out 23.

"There is no evidence that he fired a weapon in battle or was on the front lines," Hogan wrote. "There is also no evidence that he planned, participated in, or knew of any terrorist plots. ... The Court fails to see how, based on the record, Petitioner poses any greater threat than the dozens of detainees who recently have been transferred or cleared for transfer."

Detainee Database

Explore the NPR/New York Times database featuring government documents, court records and media reports on the 779 detainees at Guantanamo.

Database: The Guantanamo Docket

New York Times: The Guantanamo Files

Hogan also concluded that al-Mudwani, who had been subject to "coercive" interrogation in Afghanistan before being transferred to Guantanamo, had been so traumatized by his interrogation experience that his subsequent testimony was tainted. The judge nonetheless approved the government's request that al-Mudwani remain in detention, pointing out that in his judgment the government had to demonstrate only that al-Mudwani was a "part of" al-Qaida in order to justify his continued detention.

Hogan's willingness to defer to the government on that point may have indicated that he recognized how different the role of an intelligence official may be from that of a federal judge. The first is focused on potential threats to national security and is rigorous about containing them. The second is focused on justice and is rigorous about promoting it.

"They're asking different questions," says Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow and national security blogger at the Brookings Institution. "Sometimes one will be shown to have been asking the right question, and sometimes the other will be shown to asking the right question. That's why we have different branches of government taking on different responsibilities. It's why we generally don't put intelligence analysts in charge of the law and why we generally don't put judges in charge of intelligence analysis."

An intelligence analyst has to worry about getting as much information from a detainee as possible and may therefore have a reason to keep that detainee locked up. At Guantanamo, there was also an enormous volume of material. The analysts had hundreds of detainees to review. Matthew MacLean, who helped defend al-Rabia, notes that those who decided which detainees were dangerous may not have had the time to assess thoroughly the information on which they based their decisions.

"You can't do it without looking to see what's behind it," MacLean says. "We ultimately were able to do that ourselves with the information the government provided, and the judge was able to see it, too. What any other analyst has been able to see, I couldn't say." 

The Guantanamo Papers

Judges Question Evidence On Guantanamo Detainees

NPR INVESTIGATION: Intelligence analysts, federal judges reach starkly different conclusions.

The Guantanamo Papers

Guantanamo Document: Matrix Of Threat Indicators

Matrix OF Threat Indicators For Enemy Combatants

The Two-Way

Guantanamo Papers Reveal A Great Deal, Reporter Says

Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald has been reporting about the detention center for years.

Eric Holder Lashes Out At Congress Over Decision To Try KSM In Military Tribunal 4APR11

THIS is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but the cowards in Congress don't have the backbone or the moral courage to live up to that reputation, choosing to use fear mongering to justify their violations of civil rights and civil liberties. Too bad they are too self-righteous to be ashamed. From HuffPost.....
WASHINGTON -- After announcing it would try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four alleged conspirators by military commission rather than in a civilian trial, the Obama administration quickly scapegoated Congress to explain the decision.
Attorney General Eric Holder announced Monday that his department was scrapping its November 2009 decision to hold Mohammed’s high-profile trial just blocks from the World Trade Center. Instead, they were moving the venue to Guantanamo Bay. Holder and other administration officials said the policy reversal was due to congressional interference in executive counterterrorism efforts and “needless” drumming-up of controversy.
“The reality is, I know this case in ways that members of Congress do not,” Attorney General Eric Holder said during a press conference. “I have looked at the files. I have spoken to the prosecutors. I know the tactical concerns that have to go into this decision. So do I know better than them? Yes.”
The attorney general said had not arrived at the decision comfortably. Had he had his druthers, Holder claimed, he would have kept the trial in its original setting, but the legislative branch controls the money for transferring the prisoners and securing the site.
The Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 prohibits use of funds to transfer defendants from Guantanamo Bay to the United States. In a file dismissing the indictment of Mohammed and the four alleged conspirators sent to the Southern District of New York on Monday morning, members of the U.S. Attorney’s Office pointed to the act as the prohibitive restriction preventing a federal trial.
Before Holder’s announcement, a Department of Justice official said that a military commission trial had become the “only option available given congressional restrictions.” If the message wasn’t clear enough, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney cited “congressional reaction to some of the goals that were laid out” as one of the reasons for the reversal. Asked whether blaming Congress was going to be the simple pushback, another official replied, “We're just explaining the facts.”
“[Congress has] taken one of the nation’s most tested counterterrorism tools off the table and tied our hands in a way that would have serious ramifications,” Holder said. “We will continue to seek to repeal those restrictions.”

If the Obama administration were seeking to make a villain out of the legislative branch, they had willing partners in some congressional lawmakers. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took a break from budget negotiations to praise the administration for following the will of an “overwhelming bipartisan opposition from the American people and their elected representatives here in Congress.” Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called Holder’s announcement the “final nail in the coffin of that wrong-headed idea,” referring to the possibility of a civilian trial. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), chair of the Homeland Security Committee, described the change as “a long-awaited step in the right direction.”
Others in Washington seemed to agree with Holder that Congress had played a guiding role in the reversal of course. “I believe that the Congress forced the president into this decision,” Col. Lawrence Wilkerson said, “first, by their abject lack of courage in not wanting [Mohammed] tried ‘in their city, in their courtroom,’ and, second, by their inability to present the president with an alternative other than the military system.”
But Wilkerson, a onetime chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, refused to absolve the Obama administration entirely. “Of course the president, in complying, demonstrated a decided lack of moral courage as well,” he said.
It appears debates over the legal parameters of national security law don’t break down perfectly either along party lines or between branches of government. And while the vast majority of lawmakers praised moving Mohammed’s trial back to Guantanamo, others expressed both disappointment with the development and with what they considered to be Obama’s willingness to let it happen.
"I felt that if the scene of the crime was New York, why not try him in New York?" Rep. Jose Serrano (D-N.Y.) said. “I don't think we should do anything that gives the terrorists the ability to say they've disrupted the normal way we do things. Normally, we would have tried [Mohammed] at the scene of the crime.”
Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said, “Had [Obama] showed some courage to begin with on these national security issues, I think he could have made huge gains.” But, he added, “Obama backed down every time there was a whiff of an oppositional problem on national security.”
Michael McAuliff and Jon Ward contributed to this report.

Gitmo Detainee Gets Life in NYC Court from HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST 27JAN11

CLICK the header or the links to join Human Rights First in calling on Congress to stop blocking federal trials for Gitmo detainees...

Watch our "Silence of the Fearmongers" video spoof. And write your member of Congress to ask why they're obstructing justice for 9/11 by blocking the closing of Gitmo. A federal court in Manhattan sentenced a former Guantanamo detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, to life in prison on Tuesday. So, why did Congress block transfers of Guantanamo detainees to the United States for federal court trial? It was certainly not based on facts. Watch our latest "Fight Fear" video which spoofs some of the critics of federal court trials who claimed that if Guantanamo detainees were tried in federal court there would be chaos. Watch our video, and help us fight back with the facts by writing your member of Congress The sentence of Ahmed Ghailani—to serve more years in prison than all detainees tried in contested military commissions proceedings combined—only proves once more the foolishness of that legislation. Federal courts have convicted more suspected terrorists than military commissions (over 400 vs. 5). Federal trials have done it more quickly. With stiffer sentences. Furthermore, trying terrorism suspects in military commissions—calling them "warriors"—dignifies them and is disrespectful of the real warriors who serve in America's military. So why are we listening to fearmongering, and not the facts? Blocking federal court trials for Guantanamo detainees is equivalent to obstructing justice. Write today to tell your member of Congress that federal courts can handle the Guantanamo cases—and Ghailani's sentencing only proves it. The legislation expires in September. It's critical that we show Congress, between now and then, that the decision to block these trials is foolish. Help us put the pressure on. Thanks for your help. Sincerely, C. Dixon Osburn Director, Law and Security Program

Human Rights First, 333 Seventh Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10001-5004 www.humanrightsfirst.org Join us on Facebook, Follow us on Twitter

FACTS ON TRYING TERROR SUSPECTS IN FEDERAL COURT & TRY KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED IN FED DISTRICT COURT from HRF 18NOV10

REP peter king r NY is a cowardly, loud-mouthed hypocrite. He is playing the fear and paranoia game for his own political gain, and he should be ashamed as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for casting doubt on the effectiveness of the U.S. justice system when his pronouncements have NO factual basis.....see the fact sheet on the federal court system trials of terrorist for the truth, and proof our justice system does work. From Human Rights First...

Watch Retired Generals and Admirals Speak Out: Tell President Obama: Bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other suspected terrorists to justice in federal district court Try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Federal District Court Yesterday, once again, a federal court convicted a terrorism suspect. A federal court in New York convicted Guantanamo detainee, Ahmed Ghailani, of plotting to blow up U.S. embassies in Africa. He will spend a minimum of 20 years – and likely much longer – in prison. And Americans can be proud of the fact that he was convicted according to law. This conviction adds to the federal criminal justice system's track record of success in international terrorism cases. The facts are clear: Since 9/11, our federal courts have convicted more than 400 terrorists. Military commissions have only convicted five, two of whom have already been released. We've been waiting for over nine years. It's about time that we bring 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the rest of the Guantanamo detainees to face justice in federal court. It's time for President Obama to demonstrate leadership and move forward with trials, not bow to political opposition. Our justice system is strong and effective. We have the tools that we need to convict KSM and try the rest of the Guantanamo detainees. We need to use them. Tell President Obama: Bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other suspected terrorists to justice in federal district court. Many of our nations' retired generals and admirals have spoken out. Keeping terror suspects at Guantanamo and granting them military trials sends the wrong message. KSM isn't a warrior, he's a criminal. Let's try terrorism suspects where we try criminals: in civilian court. Sincerely, C. Dixon Osburn Human Rights First, 333 Seventh Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, NY 10001-5004 www.humanrightsfirst.org Join us on Facebook, Follow us on Twitter   FACT SHEET Trying Terror Suspects in Federal Courts  Federal civilian criminal courts have convicted 400 terrorists since 9/11.1 Military commissions have convicted only five.2 Federal court convictions include convictions resulting from investigations of terrorist acts and of criminal acts by those with an identified link to international terrorism.  55 federal district courts in 36 states have successfully convicted terrorists since 9/11. The 400 terrorist convictions were the result of trials in 55 different US district courts; 27 cases were in the Southern District of New York.3  Federal courts have more tools to try terrorists than military commissions. Federal courts, unlike military commissions, can try terrorists for offenses such as those involving fraud, immigration, firearms, and drugs. In addition, convictions for crimes of conspiracy and material support before a military commission rather than a federal court face a greater likelihood of being overturned on appeal because those crimes were not generally considered war crimes before the Military Commissions Act.  Federal prisons hold more than 300 convicted terrorists. None has ever escaped. 4 Of the 5 GTMO convicted detainees, only 3 remain in prison. The American Correctional Association said, “Corrections and law-enforcement professionals in the United States are second to none. We want to assure all Americans that the public will be safe from harm and that the terrorists will be properly and effectively detained -- whether in Cuba or in a single facility or multiple facilities across the United States.”5  Federal courts have repeatedly imposed stiff sentences on convicted terrorists. The Sentencing Guidelines, §3A1.4, provides for increased sentencing for defendants convicted of a crime that “involved, or was intended to promote, a federal crime of terrorism.” US courts have imposed severe sentences on convicted terrorists.6  Prosecuting terror suspects before military commissions makes them look like warriors rather than common criminals. Those who argue that terror suspects should be tried before military commissions because they do not deserve our regular courts miss the mark. As Judge William Young said when sentencing Shoe Bomber Richard Reid, “You’re no warrior…. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders.”7 1 http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2010/03/doj-releases-details-on-400-convicted.php; http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/05/AR2010100505683.html 2 http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE50A2JR20090111, http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2008/10/27/an-empty-trial-at-guantanamo/, http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iSnYtLdPe0aYIsxWJFTIO0hjBYjwD9GQFHCO0, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/26/world/la-fg-gitmo-plea-20101026 3 http://www.justice.gov/cjs/docs/terrorism-convictions-statistics.pdf 4 http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2009/June/09-ag-564.html 5 http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/other-views/story/1385750.html 6 http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090723-LS-in-pursuit-justice-09-update.pdf 7 Statement by Judge William Young, U.S. District Court on Sentencing of Shoe Bomber Richard Reid. FACT SHEET  Military commissions fail to meet U.S. constitutional and international law fair trial standards. While the newly constituted military commission rules provide some needed reforms, such as prohibiting the admission of evidence obtained by cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, some serious flaws remain. For instance, the bill:  Continues to permit the admission of coerced testimony obtained at the point of capture or during closely related active combat engagement.  Includes an overbroad definition of who can be tried before military commissions, one that extends trials in this forum to juveniles and those not even engaged in hostilities.  Permits defendants to be tried ex-post facto for conduct not considered to constitute a war crime at the time it was committed.  Miranda is an effective law enforcement tool that provides valuable information. FBI and local law enforcement know how to interrogate suspects. Though some decried their reading Miranda rights to the Christmas day bomber, interrogators obtained critical information after doing so. The Miranda requirement does not prevent intelligence professionals from interrogating prisoners, and recent court decisions have recognized exceptions to the Miranda requirement including the foreign law enforcement interrogations exception and the “public safety” exception to Miranda that would likely apply to statements made on the battlefield.8  Federal courts are expert at protecting classified information. The rules for military commissions governing classified information are modeled after the federal court rules. Military commission judges have little experience applying those rules, unlike federal court judges.  Our Constitution applies to citizens and foreigners alike in the U.S. criminal justice system. It is well-established in the Constitution and by Supreme Court precedent9 that, as James Madison said, “[I]t does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution…they have no rights to its protection…. [A]s they owe…a temporary obedience [to the Constitution], they are entitled in return to their protection….” 10 8 http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/090723-LS-in-pursuit-justice-09-update.pdf 9 See Boumediene v. Bush, 126 S. Ct. 2229, 2246 (2008); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369 (U.S. 1886). 10 James Madison, Mr. Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolutions (1799)

 http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/pdf/Trying_Terror_Suspects_in_Federal_Court.pdf

DEMAND A FAIR CIVILIAN TRIAL FOR OMAR KHDAR from AI USA 30SEP10

PLEASE take part in this Amnesty International action concerning the trial of Omar Khdar.....the civil rights, including the right to a fair trial, is guaranteed to everyone, citizen or not, on trial in this country. We can not allow fear created by deception and propaganda erode our constitutionally guaranteed civil rights, the rights that make our Republic the best nation in the world. Click the header to go to Amnesty International's Action page.

	In the U.S. everyone has the right to a fair trial, unless it’s taken away first. Protect everyone’s right to a fair trial by giving Omar Khadr his chance at justice.

		The U.S. Constitutional amendment protecting everyone's right to a fair trial is under attack. On October 18, the desperately flawed trial of Omar Khadr, the young Canadian man who has been in U.S. custody since age 15, is scheduled to resume – lack of transparency, fairness, credibility and all. The trial is flawed because it is not happening in a real court. Omar Khadr has been tortured, threatened with rape, and denied basic legal rights. Yet despite all that, his fate now hangs outside a traditional judge and jury, but rests with politicians and military personnel. But three decision-makers, responsible for guiding policies from three different federal offices – the Department of State, Department of Justice and Department of Defense – have the power to steer this runaway trial back on course.
		They can be the ones who rise above the noise and send this powerful reminder: In this country, when a person is suspected of doing something that violates the law, no matter how heinous the alleged act, they are entitled to a fair trial in a U.S. federal court. We do not create new systems of justice to match the crime or to secure a conviction. That's why we're asking you to join us in calling on these three officials to stop this trial before it starts on October 18: Harold Koh - Legal Adviser for Department of State, David Kris - US Assistant Attorney General for National Security and Jeh Johnson - General Counsel in the Department of Defense. The fight against torture and terrorism can also be won in the courtroom, but it begins right here. Right now. Thank You, Njambi Good Counter Terror with Justice Campaign Director Amnesty International USA Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Spy Vs...Lawyer? from MOTHER JONES JULI/AUGUST 2010 ISSUE

HERE is a great story from Mother Jones exposing more on the allegations of torture sanctioned by the bush administration. Too bad if the cia doesn't like pictures of their agents beong shown to detainees.....because they tortured people they are criminals just like the detainees and should be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. I may be hasty in judgment, these people do deserve fair trials and are innocent until proven guilty, just like the detainees. Unfortunately I doubt they (the cia agents) will ever be brought to trial here. I do take great satisfaction they, like so many from the bush administration, have to stay close to home, and be careful where they go overseas, because under international law they can be arrested for their crimes and tried outside the U.S. So there is that bit of justice to be thankful for....

— Illustration: Chip Wass

How human rights advocates investigating torture ended up snooping on the CIA—and in hot water with the feds.

— By Nick Baumann and Daniel Schulman

July/August 2010 Issue

The CIA probably doesn't want you to know this, but unmasking its covert operatives isn't as hard as you'd think. Just ask John Sifton. During a six-year stint at Human Rights Watch, the attorney and investigator was hot on the trail of the CIA and some of its most sensitive Bush-era counterterrorism programs, including extraordinary rendition, secret Eastern European detention sites, and the legally dubious and brutal methods used to extract information from detainees. "Even deep-cover CIA officers are real people, with mortgages and credit reports," Sifton once told CQ Politics. For researchers with a trained eye for the hallmarks of a CIA alias, there are obvious giveaways: "A brand new Social Security number, a single P.O. box in Reston, Virginia. You disregard those and focus on the real persons who lie behind, and you can find them."
Sifton's talent for uncovering the CIA's secrets may have served him well—but now, it also has set off a firestorm in the human rights community, prompted a backlash from congressional Republicans, and helped trigger a federal investigation headed by none other than Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame affair. The story begins in 2008, when military prosecutors sought the death penalty in military commission trials of six suspected 9/11 conspirators being held at Guantanamo Bay, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the attacks. The defense had few resources and little experience trying capital cases. Into the breach stepped the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which created the John Adams Project—an effort to supply civilian lawyers to assist in the defense of some of the least sympathetic clients in the world. Fittingly, the group was named after the founding father who had represented British soldiers after the Boston Massacre.

A top priority for the lawyers was establishing whether the detainees had been coerced or tortured into giving the statements the government was now using against them. And to do that, the detainees' lawyers needed to identify who had been involved with those interrogations.
To get that information, the John Adams Project turned to Sifton, who in 2007 had opened his own investigations firm, One World Research, catering largely to human rights and public interest groups. Its website says the firm's employees can "deploy quickly to almost anywhere in the world; for instance, to take affidavits in Afghanistan, investigate allegations of abuses by private security forces in Nigeria, examine incidences of questionable police practices in the United States, or conduct studies of social or economic rights issues in Nepal." For its clients—which have included Amnesty International, Human Rights First, and the ACLU—it offers services from public-records searches to locating victims and witnesses, from serving subpoenas to "collecting video, photographic, and physical evidence." One World also says it can provide "surveillance," which is fairly routine for a PI shop—except when your quarry happens to be CIA officers.
The role of Sifton's firm in gathering information for the John Adams Project has not previously been revealed. But last August, the Washington Post reported that the Justice Department had launched an investigation after Gitmo defense lawyers allegedly showed their clients pictures of CIA personnel. At the time, Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director, insisted no laws or regulations had been broken. "The real scandal," he said in a statement, "isn't that we're investigating the torture of our clients, but that the government isn't."
Photos depicting CIA officers also reportedly surfaced in the Guantanamo cell of accused 9/11 financier Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi. Coming at a time when CIA personnel had grown uneasy over the Obama administration's scrutiny of Bush-era war-on-terror tactics, the discovery of the photos only escalated the tension. John Rizzo, who retired in December as the agency's acting general counsel, has described the incident as "far more serious than Valerie Plame." Another former high-ranking intelligence official explains, "This is an agency that has reasons to be concerned as to whether or not somebody's got their back. It's always operating out there on the edge, not unlawfully, but generally at the farthest reaches of executive prerogative."
With the CIA pressing the Justice Department to act, Attorney General Eric Holder added Fitzgerald to the investigation. It was a painful blow: Some human rights activists had hoped the administration would appoint Fitzgerald to run a wide-ranging investigation of the Bush-era torture practices. Instead, he'd been chosen to investigate the torture critics.
At Human Rights Watch, the initial instinct was to publicly defend the John Adams Project against the suggestion that it had done anything improper. But the organization decided against going on the attack, says Stacy Sullivan, the group's counterterrorism advisor, largely because the ACLU and John Adams lawyers refused to discuss exactly what had transpired.
Those acquainted with the operation have reason to keep quiet. "Anybody who says anything—'Oh yeah, I knew about this before'—they're going to get a grand jury subpoena," notes Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. (He confirms his organization has employed Sifton's firm, but "can't say why.")
The ACLU, along with lawyers for the John Adams Project, also declined to discuss the photographs or the methods used to obtain them with Mother Jones. Sifton says: "I can't comment on the work that we do for any of our clients, including the John Adams Project."
But sources familiar with the operation say the goal of One World Research's surveillance effort was to allow defense lawyers to provide photo lineups (containing random people as well as CIA personnel) to their clients so they could pick out officers who had interrogated them, enabling lawyers to call the interrogators as witnesses.
"Proving torture is crucial to the defense," says Joanne Mariner, the director of Human Rights Watch's terrorism and counterterrorism program. "The way to prove it ideally would be to get the torturers in the courtroom." Sifton's firm would figure out the real names of the suspected interrogators, then look for photos of them online. For a few, no pictures could be found, so One World Research set out to track the officers down and take pictures.
The notion of showing photos of CIA officials to suspected terrorists has provoked outrage from congressional Republicans. Last month, Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) slipped a provision into a military appropriations bill that was clearly aimed at the John Adams Project lawyers. It requires the Pentagon's Inspector General to launch an investigation into Gitmo defense lawyers who may have "interfered with operations of the Department of Defense." (The measure survived the mark-up process by the House Armed Services Committee.) Miller, who describes the John Adams Project as a "treacherous enterprise," has said that he believes defense lawyers' actions created a "significant security risk to intelligence and military personnel," "compromised national security," and violated "US laws and Department of Defense policies."
It remains unclear whether, by giving detainees what sources describe as photo montages containing pictures (but not names) of CIA officers, the John Adams lawyers breached any disclosure rules. If a violation occurred, say former military lawyers at Guantanamo, it's likely because in the alternate justice system created by the Bush administration, it was difficult to tell what was and wasn't allowable. "I had a full time job just...fighting to verify what the rules were," says Col. Steve David, the first chief defense counsel at Gitmo, who recalls once being informed that every word uttered by a high-value detainee was considered a state secret.
"The only way really for a detainee to bolster his claim of torture," says Lt. Colonel Darrel Vandeveld, a former top military prosecutor at Guantanamo who resigned because of concerns with the commissions system in late 2008, "is to identify faces, names, pseudonyms, places, and so on, that lend credibility to the claims of mistreatment." And that, he says, pretty much means using a photo lineup—even though, he admits, "If I were a CIA officer, I would be highly concerned that my image was shown to a detainee."
David worries that the investigation into the photos will weaken the legal representation afforded to detainees in an already lopsided system. "Can you imagine the chilling effect?" he asks. "We want you to defend them, but not to do that zealously?"
Some in the human rights community have privately questioned the John Adams Project's tactics, if for no other reason than the PR blowback. But most agree that it was the Kafkaesque military commissions process that drove the group to such desperate measures. Says Karen Greenberg, the executive director of New York University's Center on Law and Security, "The reason people do things like this is they feel all the legitimate tools were taken out of their hands."

Nick Baumann covers national politics for Mother Jones' DC Bureau. For more of his stories, click here. You can also follow him on twitter. Email tips and insights to scoop [at] motherjones [dot] com.

Daniel Schulman is Mother Jones' Washington-based news editor. For more of his stories, click here. To follow him on Twitter, click here. Email him at dschulman (at) motherjones.com.

If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...

• 
  
  

  From Sarajevo to Guantanamo: The Strange Case of the Algerian Six

  In Boumediene v. Bush the Supreme Court will decide the fate of habeas corpus petitions, and the fate of a group of alleged Al Qaeda members who have been imprisoned at Gitmo for six years.
• 
  
  

  Am I a Torturer?

  Ben Allbright watches The Daily Show, worships Dave Eggers—and still wound up "softening up" prisoners in Iraq.
• 
  
  

  A Timeline of Torture

  In the September/October CJR, Eric Umansky has an excellent and lengthy account of the reporting done on torture in the...

Failed Times Square Bomber's Guilty Plea Is a Win for US Justice System 21JUN10

After an initial delay, Faisal Shahzad, the failed Times Square car bomber, stood up today in a federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan and entered a plea of "guilty."
Though his expected court appearance had been widely publicized, there were no gunshots heard or bomb threats issued. Notwithstanding Liz Cheney's warnings that bringing suspected terrorists to a U.S. federal courthouse can only cause chaos, the proceeding was orderly, calm and peaceful. The dozens of reporters from around the world who packed the courtroom quietly hurried out to file their stories across the globe.
And the story that they now have to tell is a simple one: the U.S. criminal justice is working.
Since it happened in May, critics of the Obama administration have heralded the failed Times Square bombing attempt as proof that Americans are under constant threat from a powerful foreign enemy and must, in our vigilance, treat all suspected terrorists as enemy warriors -- throwing them in an offshore military prison and either detaining them indefinitely or allowing them only a trial by military commission.
But the careful handling of Faisal Shahzad by New York City police and federal law enforcement is proof of just the opposite. Whether the attempted mass murderer sees himself as aligned with a group of foreign jihadists battling American imperialism is beside the point. What matters is that good old-fashioned law enforcement -- police officers quickly responding to the observations of an alert pedestrian, and skilled FBI agents using time-honored interrogation techniques -- successfully averted disaster and, thereafter, gained critical intelligence to help thwart future attacks.
Shahzad, a Pakistan-born U.S. citizen, was indicted last week on 10 terrorism and weapons charges that accused him of using money and training from the Pakistani Taliban to plot his failed car bombing. His plea of guilty to all 10 counts (five more than originally specified) could land the 30-year-old father of two in prison for life.
Shahzad's plot fizzled, of course, when the gasoline-and-propane bomb he tried to construct failed to ignite in the SUV he'd parked near a Broadway theater. That's typical, say many experts, of bombing attempts in the United States. Among the challenges of detonating a bomb on U.S. soil are the difficulty of obtaining high-powered explosives and of fashioning an effective explosive from the sort of products that are easily available.
That Shahzad wasn't successful doesn't mean he's not a terrorist, however. And what's critical about this case is that skilled law enforcement officials knew that even though his attempt failed, Shahzad was a potential treasure trove of information about the Pakistani Taliban and their operations. And they've exploited that well: after his arrest, Shaizad reportedly cooperated with law enforcement and answered their questions for two weeks before even requesting a lawyer. His arraignment was postponed several times even after a lawyer was appointed to represent him, indicating that even with a lawyer he continued to cooperate, with the process culminating in today's guilty plea.
Shahzad's cooperation has so far lead to the arrest of a Pakistani army major in Islamabad who was allegedly in contact with Shahzad by cell phone. Three men have also been arrested in the United States on immigration charges for allegedly helping Shahzad import money from Pakistan.
Administration critics such as John McCain insisted after Shahzad's arrest that he should never have been read his Miranda rights or treated as a common criminal. Indeed, a bill McCain introduced in March, the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act, would have prevented that. The bill would require all terror suspects such as Shahzad to be turned over to the military for interrogation and possibly indefinite dentition without trial. There would be no Miranda rights, no right to a lawyer and no right to remain silent.
Although it's theoretically possible that military interrogators handling a suspect that way could get useful information, it's not clear exactly how or why that would work. For one thing, military interrogators are trained to gather information on a battlefield, not for future prosecution. That means the evidence can easily be compromised, making it impossible to prosecute the suspect later. That also means the interrogator loses the leverage a future prosecution can offer.
The administration, of course, has said that it can hold indefinitely any suspects it deems "alien enemy belligerents." But that also works against encouraging cooperation. After all, if a suspect knows that acknowledging his participation in the plot could land him in indefinite detention without charge or trial, what incentive does he have to cooperate?
One reason the FBI has been so successful is terrorism cases is that by following the federal court rules, it reserves its ability to criminally prosecute any terrorism suspect. It doesn't have to worry that the evidence won't be admissible later. The suspect, meanwhile, knows he's headed to court, and that the person interrogating him can influence what the charges and the sentence will be. That provides a strong incentive to cooperate and provide as much information as possible, in the hopes of getting some sort of a break -- a few decades in prison, say, instead of life.
Still, critics such as Liz Cheney and Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Joseph Lieberman continue to argue that treating suspected terrorists as criminals isn't being tough enough, and demand military detention.
But just because something's run by the military doesn't make it any tougher. On the contrary, the military commissions created to try suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay have managed to convict only three terrorists in eight years -- and two are already out free. The criminal justice system, on the other hand, has convicted some 400 terrorists since September 11, 2001.
Faisal Shahzad's guilty plea today is a perfect example of how the system works, producing valuable intelligence while still landing convicted terrorists behind bars.
The U.S. faces a very real threat of terrorism, whether at home or abroad. But the solution to the threat isn't to do away with the most effective means we have of combating it.