MISCELLANEOUS NEWS REPORTS * 2003.11.18 to 2003.11.30 misc_digest_2003_6b.txt * Aljazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage * Associated Press (AP): http://www.ap.org/ * Inter Press Service (IPS): http://ipsnews.net/ * Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/ * ABC News (Aus): http://www.abc.net.au/news/ * BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/ * CBS: http://www.cbsnews.com/ * CNN: http://www.cnn.com/ * The Age (Melbourne): http://www.theage.com.au/ * Baltimore Sun: http://www.sunspot.net/ * Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/ * Dawn (Islamabad): http://www.dawn.com/ * The Guardian (UK): http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/ * Toronto Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/ * The Independent (UK): http://www.independent.co.uk/ * Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/ * The Mirror (UK): http://www.mirror.co.uk/ * The Observer (UK): http://www.observer.co.uk/ * Newsweek: http://www.msnbc.com/news/NW-front_Front.asp * San Francisco Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/news/ * Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/ * The Telegraph (UK): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ * The Times (UK): http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ ================================================================================ November 30, 2003 PATRIOT ACT AUTHOR HAS CONCERNS Detaining citizens as 'enemy combatants' -- a policy not spelled out in the act -- is flawed, the legal scholar says. By Richard B. Schmitt, Times Staff Writer http://www.latimes.com/la-na-justice30nov30,1,632079.story WASHINGTON -- The Justice Department's war on terrorism has drawn intense scrutiny from the left and the right. Now, a chief architect of the USA Patriot Act and a former top assistant to Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft are joining the fray, voicing concern about aspects of the administration's anti-terrorism policy. At issue is the government's power to designate and detain "enemy combatants," in particular in the case of "dirty bomb" plot suspect Jose Padilla, the Brooklyn-born former gang member who was picked up at a Chicago airport 18 months ago by the FBI and locked in a military brig without access to a lawyer. Civil liberties groups and others contend that Padilla -- as an American citizen arrested in the U.S. -- is being denied due process of law under the Constitution. Viet Dinh, who until May headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, said in a series of recent speeches and in an interview with The Times that he thought the government's detention of Padilla was flawed and unlikely to survive court review. The principal intellectual force behind the Patriot Act, the terror-fighting law enacted by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Dinh has steadfastly defended the Justice Department's anti-terrorism efforts against charges that they have led to civil-rights abuses of immigrants and others. While the Patriot Act does not speak to the issue of enemy combatants, his remarks still caught some observers by surprise. In an interview, Dinh, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, said the Padilla case was not within his line of authority when he was in the department, but that he began to think about the issue later, and came to the conclusion that the administration's case was "unsustainable." Another top former Justice Department official, Michael Chertoff, who headed the department's criminal division, has said he believed the government should reconsider how it designates enemy combatants. "Two years into the war on terror, it is time to move beyond case-by-case development," Chertoff said, according to an excerpt from a speech he gave last month at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill law school. "We need to debate a long-term and sustainable architecture for the process of determining when, why and for how long someone may be detained as an enemy combatant, and what judicial review should be available," he said. Chertoff, a federal appeals court judge, also mentioned at a judicial conference in Philadelphia this month the need to reexamine procedures for combatants. "Inevitably, decisions of war are made with imperfect information," he said. "Perhaps the time has come to take a more universal approach." Chertoff emphasized in an interview that he wasn't venturing an opinion on the Padilla case, which is being litigated in the federal courts, or criticizing the decisions that the government has made to date in the case. The comments by Dinh and Chertoff offer some of the first public utterances by Justice Department officials who stood watch in the weeks and months after Sept. 11 on how they felt about the work done by them and their colleagues. The comments also illustrate the uncharted legal terrain they and others were operating under. Mark Corallo, a Justice Department spokesman, declined to comment on the remarks by the former officials, citing the fact that the Padilla case is pending in court. The department has staunchly defended its anti-terrorism record and its use of the tools in the Patriot Act, portions of which have been attacked as an abuse of government power by groups as diverse as the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Conservative Union. Dinh first flagged his concerns in a speech he gave in September at a human rights conference in The Hague sponsored by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He reiterated them this month during a panel discussion with Chertoff and others on national security and civil liberties at the conference in Philadelphia. "The person next to me said, 'My God. He is saying that the Padilla case is wrong!' " said Philip Heymann, a Harvard Law School professor who also sat on the panel in Philadelphia and who agrees that the administration view in the case is wrongheaded. "There has to be some form of judicial review and access to a lawyer," said Heymann, a deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration. "That is what habeas corpus was all about. That is what the Magna Carta was all about. You are talking about overthrowing 800 years of democratic tradition." In the interview, Dinh said he believed the president had the unquestioned authority to detain persons during wartime, even those captured on "untraditional battlefields," including on American soil. He also said the president should be given flexibility in selecting the forum and circumstances -- such as a military tribunal or an administrative hearing -- in which the person designated an enemy combatant can confront the charges against him. The trouble with the Padilla case, Dinh said, is that the government hasn't established any framework for permitting Padilla to respond, and that it seems to think it has no legal duty to do so. "The president is owed significant deference as to when and how and what kind of process the person designated an enemy combatant is entitled to," Dinh said. "But I do not think the Supreme Court would defer to the president when there is nothing to defer to. There must be an actual process or discernible set of procedures to determine how they will be treated." Padilla was arrested at O'Hare International Airport on May 8, 2002, after arriving on a flight from Pakistan. Initially, he was taken to New York and held as a "material witness," presumably to testify against others. The following month, he was transferred to a military prison in South Carolina after Ashcroft announced that the government had determined that he was part of an unfolding terrorist plot to explode a radioactive dispersion device, or so- called dirty bomb. Padilla's lawyers subsequently filed a writ of habeas corpus saying that he was being illegally held. The Justice Department responded by saying that the detention was a proper exercise of the president's wartime powers. A decision is pending before a federal appeals court in New York. * * * Toronto Star: November 30, 2003 KHADR BACK IN TORONTO Canadian diplomats in Sarajevo issued him travel documents, CBC reports From Canadian Press Abdulrahman Khadr returned to Toronto during the weekend after a trip that took him from a U.S. jail in Cuba for terrorist suspects to Afghanistan, to across much of Europe looking for help from Canadian embassy officials, CBC-TV's Sunday Report said today. He told the CBC he walked into the Canadian Embassy in Sarajevo, Bosnia last week and was given a special permit to return to Canada. Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was accompanied on his trip to Toronto by a consular official and is believed to have arrived early today. He was released in secret last month by U.S. authorities at Guantanamo Bay where he had been held without charges for nine months as a terrorist suspect. Khadr's case hit the headlines this week when word broke that he'd been released from the prison camp where he'd been held without charges as an "enemy combatant." While the family insisted he had been desperately trying to get back to Canada, the federal government said there was no truth to claims he's been turned away by Canadian officials in Pakistan and Turkey. Khadr insisted he was turned away in Pakistan. He said that when he was released, American authorities refused to take him to Canada and flew him instead to Afghanistan, where he was originally captured during the hunt for terrorist suspects, and dropped off without a Canadian passport or money. He said he borrowed money from friends and went to the Canadian High Commission in Islamabad, Pakistan looking for help. Khadr said they asked him for identity documents. "I told them I don't have anything, because I don't and they just says leave," he told the CBC. Khadr then went to Iran and Turkey before arriving late last week in Bosnia. "I am happy to be back in Canada for every reason," he said shortly after arriving at Pearson International Airport. He would not talk about his time in jail, but said he was captured only because he had a gun, which is commonplace in war-torn Afghanistan. "Why was I captured? Because I was armed. That was the only reason I was captured in Kabul. There was nothing against me. There was nothing against until this day, anywhere. Afghanistan, anywhere. That's why I was released, after two years of my life being wasted." * * * Time Magazine: November 30, 2003 INSIDE "THE WIRE" Security breaches. Suicidal detainees. A legal challenge heading to the Supreme Court. Welcome to Guantanamo By Nancy Gibbs with Viveca Novak in Guantanamo Next to the alternatives, Camp Four is paradise. Real, colored prayer rugs, thicker mattresses, pillows even, and soccer shoes. Pure-white clothes instead of glaring catch-me-you-if-you-can orange. A librarian comes around with books, and lunch is on picnic tables, family style. This is where the prisoners get to come if they are good, meaning well behaved and fruitful in their interrogations. "We try to sell this place," says Army Colonel Jerry Cannon, a National Guard member who in his other life is the sheriff of Kalkaska County, Mich. Military interrogators mention Camp Four to the prisoners, who get a glimpse of it as they pass it on their way to the hospital or elsewhere. It is one more step toward the day when some of the detainees might actually get out for good. That goal is reinforced by Arabic posters in the exercise yards, like the one full of children's faces. Loosely translated, it reads, Dad, how can I grow up without you? Of course, how to get out of the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is as great a mystery as the place itself. Escape is a long shot. The base is a prison, and a jewelry box. "You can't be too careful protecting this enormously valuable intelligence trove," says Army General Geoffrey Miller, commander of the joint task force that runs the detainee operation on the 45- square-mile. base. And so there are constant perimeter patrols by infantry squads in full battle gear, and visitors get turned inside out before they're allowed anywhere near the cellblocks. Getting out legally doesn't seem much easier. The detainees -- 660 suspects from 44 countries, scooped up in the war on terrorism -- cannot challenge their arrests or plead their cases or even talk to a lawyer, because the U.S. government denies that they have those rights. They are not U.S. citizens, and the base, while under total U.S. control, is not on American soil; since 1903, it has been leased from Cuba for 2,000 gold coins a year, now valued at $4,085, in perpetuity. That leaves one last exit strategy when desperation takes hold. According to military officials, there have been 32 suicide attempts in 18 months, at least one of which left a man in a coma. (Cannon calls the attempts "manipulative behavior.") Former detainees say in most cases the prisoner made a noose out of clothes or sheets and tried to hang himself from the cell bars; one, they say, tried to slit his throat with a knife he had made from metal. "Whenever we saw someone trying to kill themselves," says Ghazi Salahuddin, a detainee from Pakistan released in July, "we would all shout, attracting the attention of the guards." The new mental-health clinic on the base is usually close to full. Though U.S. officials have released some inmates deemed harmless, new ones are still arriving, with about 20 coming and going last week. Amid a global argument about their rights, the Supreme Court recently agreed to decide whether the captives at Guantanamo can at least challenge their detention in federal court. But in the meantime, however great the outcry from allies and human-rights groups, the U.S. military, along with the White House and the Justice Department, has not retreated from an unprecedented approach to prisoners captured in an unprecedented war. If you are a government hungry for clues about the enemies' plans, one problem with the Geneva Convention governing treatment of traditional prisoners of war is that it includes strict rules limiting interrogation. So these detainees are called "enemy combatants," and there is no field manual outlining the rules for handling them. Inmates arrive with no knowledge of how long they will stay, facing the possibility of trial by a military tribunal whose procedures have yet to be tested, on charges that have yet to be revealed and that carry sentences that may depend on not just what crimes they committed but what country they are from. The U.S. last week cut a deal with Australia that if its detainee David Hicks is found guilty, he will not be executed and will be allowed to have his family in the courtroom and talk to his lawyers without Americans listening in. But the Brits are pushing for more, and what about the inmates from Yemen or Pakistan or Afghanistan? Seeing the risks of multiple standards of justice, Pentagon officials said last week that they are conducting a wholesale review of the tribunal rules. Washington attorney Thomas Wilner represents the families of 12 Kuwaiti detainees whose case is among those the Supreme Court will hear early next year. He rejects the Bush Administration's insistence that detainees have no legal rights. "The arrogance of saying 'Well, we're feeding them well' is just absolutely absurd," he argues. Two of his clients' fathers have died while they were incarcerated. "They have had children born and parents die. They don't get to see their families, and they have no hope of getting out, even if they are innocent. That is what the Geneva Convention is about." Wilner has no problem with the U.S. imprisoning proven terrorists. He just wants a way to establish who the bad guys are. "Can you imagine being an innocent person being swept up into this thing and having no opportunity to say to somebody 'Hey, you've got the wrong guy?'" So far, the processing of detainees, whether for trial or release, has been slow; the Supreme Court's intervention, however, may have delivered a jolt. A U.S. military official tells Time that at least 140 detainees -- "the easiest 20%" -- are scheduled for release. The processing of these men has sped up since the Supreme Court announced it would take the case, said the source, who believes the military is "waiting for a politically propitious time to release them." U.S. officials concluded that some detainees were there because they had been kidnapped by Afghan warlords and sold for the bounty the U.S. was offering for al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. "Many would not have been detained under the normal rules of engagement," the source concedes. "We're dealing with some very, very dangerous people, but the pendulum is swinging too far in the wrong direction." Still, even as he speaks, new interrogation headquarters are being built to replace the long beige trailers where questioning occurs. If over the past two years conditions at Guantanamo -- Gitmo for short -- have become more humane, it is partly because they are also more permanent. The standards have come a long way from Camp X-Ray, the holding pen established during the Afghan war, where the world saw shocking images of detainees on their knees, blindfolded and shackled in a compound of cages. These days at X-Ray, vines curl through the old cells; turkey vultures circle overhead. X-Ray has been replaced by Camp Delta, but because the Army has allowed no outside photographers to shoot the new facilities, it is the old image that lingers. The population of the naval base, civilian and military, has tripled to more than 6,000 since January 2002. To accommodate the growth, a great deal of new construction is going on beyond the cellblocks. In addition to McDonald's, there are now Pizza Hut, Subway and KFC. Another gym is being built, and town houses, and a four-year college opens next month. Amenities matter because the troops have nowhere else to go; the rest of Cuba is off limits. Asked what he misses most besides his family, Sergeant John Campbell, a National Guardsman on a one- year deployment, talks as if he's in detention too: "the ability to get in a car and drive somewhere else." The priority of the base is security -- keep terrorists off the streets -- but the product is information. Every week close to half the detainees are brought in for sessions that may last anywhere from one to 16 hours. They are conducted by any of the 40 four-person "tiger" teams -- two interrogators, a linguist and an analyst. The commanders have concluded that interrogators should be young, maybe mid-20s, fairly new to the service. "Intelligence gathering is a young person's job," says Miller. "They're inventive and thoughtful." The idea is to build rapport with the detainees and come at them again and again, using new leads from intelligence gathered at Gitmo or elsewhere. "We got five times as much intelligence (from the detainees) last month as in January '03," says Miller, which, depending on whom you talk to, means that either the interrogators are getting better or the inmates more willing to say anything. British detainee Moazzam Begg is among the first six prisoners cleared for possible trial. His parents say he had gone to Afghanistan to do humanitarian work -- set up a school, install water pipes -- and was picked up in Pakistan by American soldiers at the house where he was staying. "It is nearly a complete year since I have been in custody," he wrote to his parents early this year. "After all this time, I still don't know what crime I am supposed to have committed. I am beginning to lose the fight against depression and hopelessness." According to lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, Begg confessed to an al-Qaeda plot to load a drone aircraft and then dust the House of Commons with anthrax. Smith, who represents the British detainees at the behest of their families, dismisses the confession as nonsense. "If you're held in solitary confinement, you're going to start making things up just to try and get out of that," he says. "Part of this whole Alice in Wonderland world is that in order to get charged with an offense down there and in order to get a lawyer, you have to agree to plead guilty." All new inmates at guantanamo start in Camp Three, the highest-security unit. (There is no logic to the camp names: Camp Three is tighter than Two or One, but Camp Four is the least restrictive.) Cells are 6 ft. 8 in. by 8 ft., with a squat-style toilet, a metal sink and a sleeping berth affixed to green steel- mesh walls. Each new detainee is issued a pair of shorts, a pair of long pants and two T shirts, all in orange, plus shower shoes, a towel and washcloth, toothpaste and shampoo, a prayer mat, beads, prayer oil, a prayer cap, a copy of the Koran and basic bedding, though no pillow. Twice a week, detainees get 20 to 30 minutes to shower and exercise. The guards say inmates spend much of the day reading the Koran; an arrow in their cells points the way to Mecca, and there are five calls to prayer daily via loudspeaker -- instituted after a five-day hunger strike by some inmates. Former Pakistani detainee Salahuddin recalls that the prisoners who spoke English would try teaching their U.S. guards about Islam. "Some of the soldiers were interested," he says. "They even learned to recite the Kalma, the invocation of the Koran." Guards patrol the hall of each 48-cell unit constantly, on routes designed to have a set of eyes on each prisoner every 30 seconds. Female guards have a harder time than males. "It's stressful," says Sergeant Rebecca Ishmael. "Sometimes they won't look at females or will refuse their food if it's been handled by a female." Prisoners have sometimes thrown bodily waste at the guards. Detainees in turn tell stories of punishment for bad behavior. Mohammed Sagheer, 52, a Pakistani preacher who has filed a $10.4 million lawsuit against the U.S. government for wrongful imprisonment, claims the Guantanamo wardens used drugs to control the prisoners. "They would give us these tablets that made us senseless," he says. "I'd hide the pill under my tongue and then spit it out when the guard was gone." Sagheer says he was twice put into solitary confinement in a dark cell for spitting at guards, who, he says, provoked him by throwing his Koran on the ground and beating him. A Guantanamo official said the task force doesn't address individual allegations, but she insists that the detainees are treated "humanely." With good behavior, inmates can move up to Camp Two, then One, in hopes of new privileges -- bottled water and a cup, a checkerboard and checkers, more exercise time. There are three juvenile prisoners, ages 13 to 15, who live outside the gates of Camp Delta at Camp Iguana. Once an officer's cottage, it has a magnificent view of the ocean, which none of the underage detainees had seen before coming to Guantanamo. Inside are two bedrooms, each with two beds, and a room with a TV and a vcr. Videos with animals are popular with the kids; their favorites include White Fang and The Call of the Wild. The kitchen has a refrigerator where fruit and other snacks are kept. Among the guards is Sergeant P., who, like almost everyone else at Camp Delta who has contact with the detainees, covers the name on his uniform with duct tape so the prisoners can't identify him now or ever. Sergeant P. did not even want his full last name used in this story. A middle-school teacher in his nondeployed life, he, along with some of the other guards, was handpicked because of his experience with juveniles. "We do a lot of math and science with them," he says. "We don't try to indoctrinate them in Americanism." The juveniles pick up English quickly, he notes. Outdoors, the teenagers play soccer, boccie and volleyball. "We've lost quite a few balls to the ocean," he says. Officials at Gitmo say most detainees have gained weight since they arrived at the facility. In the kitchen, where food is prepared for both detainees and troops, boxes of bananas and pita wait to be incorporated into a dinner menu. Bread, milk, vegetables and fruit -- bananas, apples, pears or dates -- are included in each meal. The cooks use a lot of curry -- breakfast might be curried eggs, dinner a curried-chicken stew -- to approximate the cuisine of at least some of the prisoners. "The food I ate there was the best I'd ever had in my life," says Pakistani Shah Mohammed, now 21, who says he landed at Gitmo after he was kidnapped by an Uzbek commander and sold to the Americans for a bounty being offered for al-Qaeda fighters. He was released last July, after his interrogators concluded that he not only had had no contact with Osama bin Laden's group but also hadn't even known 9/11 had happened until they showed him pictures. "I'd like to visit America someday," he says. "Some of the wardens and soldiers became my friends." In letters to their families, which are censored coming in and going out, some detainees have given the conditions at Gitmo decent reviews. Airat Vakhitov, one of eight alleged Talibs from Russia, wrote to his mother in Tatarstan that his conditions in Gitmo were much better than in the best Russian sanatorium. In fact, his mother Amina is concerned lest the Americans extradite her son to face a worse fate back home; she and another Russian mother have petitioned the U.S. government not to deport their sons. One detainee's brother, Arsen Mokayev, who served two years in prison for a criminal offense, sees it this way: "If they get into the hands of Russian investigators, they will be tortured and humiliated, and their will and beliefs might be broken. In the U.S., even if they are executed, they will think they are dying for their religion, which is just fine for a devout Muslim." But the grandmother of a Canadian detainee has a different experience. One of Fatmah Elsamnah's two grandsons at Gitmo was released. She says the other, Omar Khadr, 17, is still recovering from wounds suffered during a fire fight with U.S. troops in Afghanistan in July 2002. The U.S. military has accused Omar of tossing a grenade that killed a 28-year-old Army medic during that battle. Omar is the son of Ahmed Said Khadr, described by counterterrorism experts in Canada and Egypt as al-Qaeda's financier and ace bombmaker. Elsamnah, who lives in the Toronto area, chokes back tears as she recounts a letter from Omar: "How are you, how are you doing, I miss you, do something for me, pleeeeease, do something for me." By next July, the Supreme Court should rule whether the detainees may have access to the federal courts -- but even if such rights are granted, that may not change much. Captives could force the government to show why they should be held, but it would take an unusual judge to stand up to a military that says a detainee is dangerous and possesses critical antiterrorist intelligence; judging guilt will be a completely separate process. Still, allowing prisoners a hearing would be a major step forward. "We ask that they have access to a lawyer, access to their families and, most important, have access to some tribunal to see whether there is a basis for them to be there," attorney Wilner says. "We ask for all those things, subject to any reasonable security regulations the government wanted to impose." He says at least two high-level government officials have told him they would welcome that kind of ruling. Among other things, it would affirm the values the war is defending in the first place. [ With reporting by Helen Gibson in London, Tim McGirk and Ghulam Hasnain in Islamabad, Siobhan Morrissey in Miami, Simon Crittle in New York, Cindy Waxer in Toronto, and Yuri Zarakhovich in Moscow. ] Copyright © 2003 Time Inc. All rights reserved. * * * November 30, 2003 U.S. TO FREE 140 GUANTANAMO WAR DETAINEES -REPORT WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States plans to release 140 of the 660 prisoners at its Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison for suspects in the U.S.-declared war on terrorism, Time magazine reported on Sunday. Slated for release were "the easiest 20 percent" of detainees, a military official told the magazine. It did not identify its source, who said the military was waiting for "a politically propitious time to release them." A Pentagon spokesman was not immediately available for comment. No charges have been filed against any of the 660 prisoners at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba. Defense officials say many are suspected of being members of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network or Taliban fighters from the war in Afghanistan. Human rights groups have criticized the United States for holding the detainees without charges. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a case involving two Britons, two Australians and 12 Kuwaitis, has agreed to decide if foreign nationals can use U.S. courts to challenge their incarceration at the base. According to Time, activities leading toward release of the 140 prisoners have accelerated since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. It said U.S. officials had concluded some detainees were kidnapped for reward money offered for al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. Separately on Sunday, a British human rights lobbyist said five European nations were close to a deal to repatriate citizens held by the United States in Guantanamo Bay, possibly as soon as Christmas. Stephen Jakobi, director of Fair Trials Abroad, said his group had been tracking negotiations over the prisoners between Washington and Britain, France, Denmark, Sweden and Spain. Since the prison opened in January 2002, prisoners from 42 countries have been taken to Guantanamo Bay for detention and questioning. As of Nov. 24, a total of 84 prisoners had been transferred to their home countries for release and four were returned to Saudi Arabia for imprisonment. * * * VOA News: November 30, 2003 - 22:46 UTC US To Release Guantanamo Bay Terrorist Suspects U.S. military officials say 140 terrorist suspects will be released from the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Officials said the release date will be soon but declined to give a specific time frame. The U.S. Navy base in eastern Cuba holds 660 prisoners from more than 40 countries with suspected links to the ousted Taliban regime in Afghanistan or the al-Qaida terrorism network led by Osama bin Laden. No charges have been filed against any of the detainees. Since the prison opened in 2002 a total of 88 prisoners have been returned to their home countries. The facility has been the target of criticism by human rights groups as none of the detainees are eligible for representation by a lawyer. The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear an appeal from lawyers of two Britons, two Australians and 12 Kuwaitis. The court will decide if the detainees are outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. Some information for this report provided by AFP, AP and Reuters. * * * The Independent (UK): November 30, 2003 BRITISH PRISONER 'CONFESSES' PLOT TO POISON-BOMB PARLIAMENT By Severin Carrell A Briton held in Guantanamo Bay has claimed that he took part in an al-Qa'ida plot to attack the House of Commons with anthrax in an attempt to kill Tony Blair. The confession by Moazzam Begg, 35, one of nine Britons being held at the US base in Cuba, was disclosed to The Independent on Sunday by his lawyer, who says it was obtained under duress and is completely implausible. Clive Stafford Smith, a British lawyer based in New Orleans, Louisiana, said his client's admission was secured after months of interrogation and segregation in Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay. Mr Stafford Smith said Mr Begg, who now faces prosecution by a US military tribunal, was put under intense pressure to plead guilty because the White House wants to stage quick and successful trials in the run-up to next year's presidential elections. "Moazzam has agreed to plead guilty to this absurd story that allegedly he was part of an al-Qa'ida plot to get a drone - an unmanned aircraft - and fly it from Suffolk over London to drop anthrax over the House of Commons," said the lawyer. "The Americans must think we're incredibly stupid." The plot was "laughable" because unmanned aircraft sophisticated enough for such an attack were tightly controlled by the armed forces, and cost at least $5m each. Getting hold of anthrax capable of being dropped from an aircraft was even less feasible. Meanwhile, British authorities released a terrorism suspect held in Birmingham on Thursday, though searches continued. Turkey announced that it was holding a suspect over two synagogue bombings in Istanbul which preceded an attack on British targetsless than a week later. The suspect was said to have tried to cross into Iran using false identity papers. Yesterday the British embassy in Saudi Arabia warned terrorist attacks might be imminent there. * * * The Scotsman (UK): November 30, 2003 WARNING OF 'SHABBY DEAL FOR GUANTANAMO BRITONS' By Lia Hervey, PA News. http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2241397 A leading human rights campaigner today welcomed claims that nine British prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay could be repatriated back to Britain by Christmas, but warned it could be under a "shabby" deal which includes forced confessions. Stephen Jakobi, director of Fair Trials Abroad, said the "devil was in the detail" of a possible deal which secured the release of Europeans from the United States detention camp on Cuba, set up after the September 11 terrorist attacks. He added that it was "pure speculation" that detainees could be forced to confess to terrorist activities, but a "real possibility". "What concerns me is a deal that is essentially a shabby deal," he said. "Anything that stops the prisoners coming under the laws and fundamental rights of Britain will be a shabby deal. "There is a real risk that they could be put under a special category when they arrive back in Britain which puts them under emergency legislation brought in quickly by the House of Commons." "Whatever deal is brought in -- it must be under the legislation of the European Court of Human Rights. "The whole situation in Guantanamo is totally reminiscent of preparation for show trials. Members of public are familiar with the regime in Stalinist Russia and all the conditions in Guantanamo are right for that sort of thing." "Forced confessions are the sort of thing that can happen and has happened in the past, especially when people are held in certain conditions. The same thing happened in Saudi Arabia three years ago. Sandy Mitchell admitted to a bombing campaign in the country, something he couldn’t possibly have done. The whole thing is an outlandish joke." Clive Stafford Smith, a US-based British human rights lawyer, told The Observer newspaper: "The British Government has finally realised it has to help the Americans out of the corner they have painted themselves into. "This deal will most likely consist of the British having to plead guilty on some nonsense charge and come back here to serve their sentence." But Mr Stafford Smith suggested that two of the nine British detainees, Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal, the so-called "Tipton Two", could be freed outright. "It seems highly improbable that Iqbal and Rasul will be charged with anything," he said. "There simply is nothing there." Mr Jakobi said the official announcement on the repatriation was expected in the ne * * * Los Angeles Times: November 30, 2003 ARMY OFFICER ACCUSED OF GUANTANAMO SECURITY VIOLATION * Military says the colonel had classified items in his luggage and lied about it. He's the fourth base worker charged. From Times Staff and Wire Reports SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico -- An Army intelligence officer was charged Saturday with violating security at the U.S. detention camp for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He is the fourth worker at the base accused of security breaches. Two Arabic translators and a Muslim chaplain face charges ranging from espionage to adultery. U.S. Army Col. Jackie Duane Farr was charged with "wrongfully transporting classified material without the appropriate locking container" and "making a false statement in the course of the investigation," according to a military charge sheet by the U.S. Southern Command in Miami. Military officials said there did not appear to be any link between Farr and the other workers. They noted that Farr -- a 58-year-old reservist who was returning home after a six-month stint -- was not arrested or detained, and he voluntarily agreed to remain at Guantanamo Bay pending the resolution of the investigation. "These are different cases," said Lt. Cmdr. Chris Loundermon, a spokesman for the Southern Command. "The commander [in charge of the investigation] weighed the evidence and decided Col. Farr did not present a flight risk and was not likely to engage in any further serious criminal conduct." As Farr was leaving Guantanamo Bay on Oct. 11, officials searched his luggage and discovered classified documents, Loundermon said. When he was questioned, Farr falsely claimed that the documents were locked up and would not have left the island, according to the charge sheet. Security measures at Guantanamo Bay have been tightened in recent months amid charges that some officials violated military law, perhaps in an effort to assist detainees. The former Muslim chaplain at the base, Army Capt. James Joseph Yee, has been charged with transporting sketches of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, where he counseled prisoners accused of links to Afghanistan's deposed Taliban regime or the Al Qaeda terrorist network. Yee was held in a military brig for 67 days before being released Tuesday, when the military announced additional charges. He is also accused of adultery and of storing pornography on a government computer. He faces a preliminary hearing Monday at Ft. Benning in Georgia. Yee is one of three men who had contact with terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay to face charges. An Arabic translator, Air Force Senior Airman Ahmad I. Al Halabi, has pleaded innocent to charges of espionage and aiding the enemy. A civilian interpreter, Ahmad F. Mehalba, was arrested last month in Boston and charged with lying to federal agents. Investigators said Mehalba denied that computer discs he was carrying had classified information from Guantanamo Bay. He has pleaded innocent. It was not immediately known whether Farr had direct contact with prisoners at the camp, where some 660 men from 44 countries are being interrogated. They have not been charged or allowed access to lawyers. Farr had been on temporary duty there, serving as an intelligence staff officer, a military statement said. The charges against Farr have been forwarded to the commander of the base, who could dismiss them, refer them to a court-martial or direct a pretrial investigation, the statement said. He has been assigned two Army attorneys and has the right to retain a civilian lawye * * * NEWS.com.au: November 30, 2003 ARMY OFFICER IN SECURITY BREACH http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8022563^2,00.html A US Army reservist on a six-month assignment at the US detention camp in Guantanamo Bay has been charged with violating security for allegedly transporting secret documents illegally. Army Col Jack Farr, an intelligence officer, became the fourth person charged with breaches at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Two Arabic translators and a Muslim chaplain face charges ranging from espionage to adultery at the base, where interrogators are questioning some 660 detainees from 44 countries. Farr was charged yesterday with "wrongfully transporting classified material without the proper security container on or around October 11," and lying to investigators, said a statement from the US Southern Command. Lt Cmdr Chris Loundermon, speaking from the command's headquarters in Miami, said he did not know if Farr had direct contact with detainees. He declined to describe the classified material. "He was departing when the investigation revealed that he had some security violations," Loundermon said. "He voluntarily came back." Farr is not under arrest and has not been suspended, Loundermon said: "He didn't present a flight risk and he was not likely to engage in any further serious misconduct." Farr is a reservist who had been on temporary duty at Guantanamo Bay for six months and left to return to his home state, which Loundermon did not know. Farr's charges have been forwarded to the base commander, who could dismiss them, refer them to a court-martial or direct a pre-trial investigation. Security has been tightened at Guantanamo Bay since the first arrests were announced in September and military investigators arrived. New measures include firewalls on computer systems, increased bag screening and inspection of workers' electronic equipment before they leave the remote base on Cuba's eastern tip, which can only be reached by aircraft chartered by the military. The first person arrested was Senior Airman Ahmad al-Halabi, an Air Force translator detained on July 23 at Boston's Logan International Airport when he returned from a visit to Egypt. A naturalised US citizen, al-Halabi worked as an Arabic translator and is accused of collecting secrets about the base and messages from prisoners with plans to transmit them to an unspecified enemy in his native Syria. He has pleaded innocent to 32 charges, including espionage and aiding the enemy. The most serious charges carry a possible death sentence. Officials did not announce al-Halabi's arrest until news broke of the September 10 arrest of Army Captain Yousef Yee, the Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay who is a Chinese-American native of New Jersey. Federal agents said Yee, who converted to Islam after graduating from the US Military Academy, was found carrying sketches of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, where he counselled prisoners and advised the detention mission commander about Islam and its culture. Rumours grew that Yee, 35, would be charged with espionage, but instead he was charged on October 10 with disobeying a general order by taking classified material home and transporting it without proper security. On Tuesday, the military released him, but at the same time pressed additional charges of storing pornography on a government computer and committing adultery, an offence under the military code. Yee, who has pleaded innocent, faces a preliminary hearing tomorrow at Fort Benning, Georgia. The third arrest came on September 29, also at Logan airport. Customs agents found 132 compact discs, including one with hundreds of classified documents labelled "SECRET," in the luggage of Ahmad Mehalba, who was a civilian interpreter at the base. Mehalba, 31, was arrested as he arrived from his native Egypt. The government on November 12 charged him with gathering defence information and lying to federal investigators. Mehalba says he is innocent. The United States has defended its prolonged detention of the detainees, who are suspected of links to Afghanistan's fallen Taliban regime and the al-Qaeda terrorist network, saying they still are providing important intelligence. AAP * * * BBC: November 30, 2003 - 02:57 GMT GUANTANAMO BRITONS DEAL 'CLOSE' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3250282.stm Shafiq Rasul has no case to answer, Stafford Smith claims A deal to repatriate British terror suspects held by the US at Guantanamo Bay could be finalised by Christmas, according to reports. The nine Britons could be flown back to the UK whether or not they are charged with any crimes, The Observer claims. Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith said: "This deal will most likely consist of the British having to plead guilty on some nonsense charge". The British Foreign Office refused to say whether such a deal was close. She said discussions with the US were continuing at all levels. "The British Government have made it clear we have reservations about military commissions and have been raising this and other issues, including the return of detainees to the UK," she said. 'Tipton Two' The US is keen to return the Britons to the UK to end tension over the issue, the Observer claimed. Mr Stafford Smith, who is based in the US, told the newspaper: "The British Government has finally realised it has to help the Americans out of the corner they have painted themselves into." He claimed that most of the Britons would have to plead guilty to an offence, the sentence for which would be served back in the UK. But he suggested that two of the nine British detainees, Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal, the so-called "Tipton Two", could be freed outright. "It seems highly improbable that Iqbal and Rasul will be charged with anything," he said. "There simply is nothing there." 'Monstrous failure' Last week US secretary of state Colin Powell appeared to have dashed hopes of an early deal over the nine Britons held by the US in Guantanamo Bay. Seven were still being questioned to ascertain whether "they have done something wrong", he told the Guardian. And there were still "legal issues" to be settled over two, Feroz Abbasi and Moazzem Begg, who had been listed as due to face a military commission. Hopes had been raised during US President George Bush's state visit to the UK that a deal on the Britons, held on suspicion of being Taleban or al-Qaeda suspects, was imminent. One of Britain's top judges, Lord Justice Steyn, condemned the detentions at Guantanamo Bay as "a monstrous failure of justice". The judge said the detainees were being deliberately held beyond the rule of law and the protection of any courts. * * * The Observer (UK): November 30, 2003 TERROR CAMP BRITONS TO BE SENT HOME Guantanamo Bay deal 'before Xmas' By Kamal Ahmed and Tracy McVeigh http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1096508,00.html A deal to return British terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay is to be sealed before Christmas, according to officials from America and the United Kingdom. The 'returns policy' is now believed to be the leading option being considered in Washington which has made clear that it wants to end the tension between the US and Britain over the issue. Under the agreement, the nine British detainees will be sent back to Britain, either after pleading guilty to charges in America and being sent to serve their sentences in British prisons, or without being charged. It is then likely that some of them will be sent to Belmarsh prison in south London and held under prevention of terrorism legislation. At least two, Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal, the so-called 'Tipton Two' could be freed. The agreement will end one of the most damaging conflicts between the White House and Downing Street, which has been pressing for fair trials for the Britons who have been held under military command at the US base in Cuba for two years. Many observers thought that a deal would be signed to mark President George Bush's visit to London two weeks ago. But complex legal arguments, which are still on-going, meant a delay. America has been moving rapidly in recent weeks to solve the Guantanamo problem which has seen strained relations with a number of countries whose citizens are held at the same base. Last week Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, indicated that although a deal was not yet done with Britain, they had finished questioning two of the nine detainees, thought to be Rasul and Iqbal. An American diplomat also recently announced the release of 20 other non-British inmates. Australia has also agreed a deal on its nationals held there. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, have consistently made it clear that they wanted to see the suspects sent back to face British justice. The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has also made trips to Washington to try to secure a deal. British human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who is working with the suspects, said he was confident that a deal had been struck. 'The British Government has finally realised it has to help the Americans out of the corner they have painted themselves into,' he said. 'This deal will most likely consist of the British having to plead guilty on some nonsense charge and come back here to serve their sentence. 'However it seems highly improbable that Iqbal and Rasul will be charged with anything. There simply is nothing there.' It appears that Downing Street would be comfortable with some charges being brought but it is clear that the British Government could not guarantee a trial of anyone sent back to the UK, one of the original demands made by the US. 'The Americans just want these people to plead guilty so that it looks as if they have been telling the truth that these are all "bad dudes",' Stafford Smith said. 'We know that is nonsense. There is no evidence of any kind against them. In one man's case all he was doing was running a school.' Stafford Smith said Iqbal had been taken abroad for an arranged marriage by his parents who were concerned about his 'westernised ways', including a fondness for Manchester United. He disappeared on his stag night and turned up several weeks later in an Afghan jail. At the time the US was offering local people $4,500 to hand in 'foreign Taliban fighters'. 'The idea this rowdy football supporter from Tipton is a terrorist is laughable,' Stafford Smith said. 'He doesn't know how to load a gun.' The families of the two men had not been told of the imminent deal but professed delight if their relatives were to be returned home. Iqbal's sister, Nasreen Iqbal said: 'We have heard nothing about this at all. If it is true then obviously we would be very happy but I don't really want to say anything until we know the details for sure.' · A US Army intelligence officer was charged yesterday with violating security at the camp - the fourth worker at the base accused of such violations. * * * ABC: November 29, 2003 GUANTANAMO BAY OFFICER CHARGED Army Intelligence Officer Charged With Violating Security at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20031129_674.html SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - An Army intelligence officer was charged Saturday with violating security at the U.S. detention camp for terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He is the fourth worker at the base accused of such violations. Two Arabic translators and a Muslim chaplain face charges ranging from espionage to adultery. U.S. Army Col. Jack Farr was charged Saturday with failing to obey a lawful general order and making a false official statement, all violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, said a statement from the U.S. Southern Command in Miami. "Specifically, he's charged with wrongfully transporting classified material without the proper security container on or around Oct. 11, and making a false statement in the course of the investigation into his handling of classified material," it said. It was not immediately clear if Farr was under arrest, nor if he is still at Guantanamo Bay. He had been on temporary duty there for six months, serving as an intelligence staff officer, the statement said. His charges have been forwarded to the commander of the base, who could dismiss them, refer them to a court-martial or direct a pre-trial investigation, it said. He has been assigned two Army attorneys and has the right to retain a civilian lawyer. * * * The Boston Globe: November 29, 2003 CHAPLAIN IS CALLED VICTIM OF HYSTERIA By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/333/nation/ Chaplain_is_called_victim_of_hysteria+.shtml WASHINGTON -- Army Captain James "Yousef" Yee spent 76 days this autumn locked up in a Navy brig alongside so-called "enemy combatants" who are suspected of aiding Al Qaeda and threatening national security. Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at the Guantanamo Bay prison, spent most of that time in maximum-security lockup in a South Carolina brig where he was only let outside his cell in shackles for one hour per day, according to his lawyer. Meanwhile, news reports repeatedly quoted unnamed officials as saying he was suspected of spying for the other side in the war on terrorism. Yet the actual charges turned out to be far less serious. In mid-October, he was formally accused of improperly handling classified material -- by taking it home and transporting it without its proper container. On Monday, when he was released from the brig, the government added charges of adultery, making a false statement, and downloading pornography on his government computer. Now, the distance between the initial reports and the comparatively trivial charges has provoked outrage by Yee's defenders and concerns by some legal specialists that Yee may be a victim of hysteria over national security. Even as a military spokesman suggested that more charges could still be brought, some civil libertarians expressed concern that the government's decision to hold Yee in maximum security, alongside enemy combatants, may have left him with no way to clear himself of the taint of treason. And the long period of holding Yee may have led prosecutors to bring the adultery and pornography charges as a way of justifying their decision to arrest him in the first place. "The danger of an all-encompassing war on terrorism is when you pick up someone on suspicion alone, and you can't confirm your suspicion, you end up charging him with offenses like adultery and pornography, which seem to have little to do with homeland security," said Harold Koh, former assistant secretary of state for human rights in the Clinton administration. "Would he have been charged with adultery and pornography if he had not first been picked up on suspicion of affiliation with Al Qaeda? I don't think so," Koh said. "It sounds like he has been charged with a crime that he would never have been charged with, but for a desire to arrest him on charges that proved unfounded." Yee's lawyer, Eugene Fidell, who is hoping the charges will be dropped, said that Yee's reputation has been destroyed. He compared his client's predicament to that of Richard Jewell, the security guard who was falsely accused of the 1996 Olympics bombing, and Wen Ho Lee, the Los Alamo National Laboratory scientist who was arrested on espionage charges in 1999 only to be found not guilty after months in solitary confinement. "Will our society ever forget him or think of [Yee] other than the guy who was accused [of spying]," Fidell said. "I think that's indelibly attached to him now and I don't know how the government is ever going to make it up to him, or make up the fact that he spent 76 days in confinement over this. Some things are just irreparable." Fidell said the military prosecutor has proposed holding a preliminary hearing as soon as Monday, though that will probably be logistically impossible. A spokesman for the US Southern Command, which oversees the Guantanamo Bay prison, said the military has no control over what anonymous sources choose to tell a reporter. All it can be responsible for is what is said in official statements, which never accused Yee of spying for Al Qaeda. "No [Department of Defense] official has said that Captain Yee and espionage were linked together," said Navy Lieutenant Commander Chris Loundermon. "As for unnamed government officials -- unfortunately there are lots of people out there who have their opinions on it, but they're unnamed and they're not giving an official statement." Yee was arrested at a naval air station in Jacksonville on Sept. 10, but news of his detention was first broken by a Sept. 20 front-page report in The Washington Times. Setting the tone for the coverage that would follow, the newspaper cited an anonymous "law enforcement source" who said that Yee had been charged with "sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage, and failure to obey a general order" and might be charged with treason, which could carry a life sentence. In fact, he had not been charged with anything at that point. Numerous other media outlets who followed The Washington Times story got that part right, but remained suspicious. Other anonymous government sources were cited saying that Yee may have had a diagram of the prison facilities and a list of both detainees and their interrogators. Asked for comment, several Washington Times editors referred the Globe to the reporter who wrote the original story. He did not return a voice mail left on his cellphone yesterday afternoon. Although no one made an official public statement accusing Yee of being a spy, military officials have routinely brought up his case in the context of a review of security procedures at the base and the arrests of two former Guantanamo translators -- Senior Airman Ahmed I. al Halabi, who has been charged with espionage, and former civilian interpreter Ahmad F. Mehalba, who has been charged with carrying away classified information from Guantanamo. Both have pleaded not guilty. Laura Donohue, of Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, said the military should not be able to escape responsibility for leaked stories so easily. "To what extent is the government forming public opinion by leaking information, by making anonymous comments to reporters, and by taking certain steps that would lead reasonable people to conclude there were substantive concerns behind the anonymous allegations?" she said. "Trying to escape responsibility by saying, 'Oh, we didn't officially hold a press conference and say this is our position about it' -- well, this is how it works." [ Charlie Savage can be reached at csavage@globe.com. ] © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company. * * * Toronto Star: November 29, 2003 OTTAWA PLAYED ROLE IN TORTURE OF ARAR: LAWYER Intervening in Bouzari appeal Says government didn't protect Arar By Graham Fraser, National Affairs Writer OTTAWA -- The Canadian government caused Maher Arar serious psychological distress by failing to protect him from torture -- and is protecting his torturers if it upholds the legislation that prevents him from suing Jordan and Syria, Arar's lawyer says. These are two of the arguments that Lorne Waldman will be making before the Ontario Court of Appeal next week when he intervenes on behalf of an Iranian- Canadian who is seeking the right to sue Iran for torture he suffered when he was imprisoned there. Arar, who was deported to Syria from the United States by way of Jordan and tortured for a year before he was released from prison, is intervening in part to reinforce his own attempt to sue Jordan and Syria for his incarceration and torture. "It was not only the torture itself that caused Mr. Arar to suffer serious psychological distress but the government of Canada's failure to protect him from this torture," Waldman states in the factum submitted to the Court of Appeal yesterday. "What the Arar case raises is the extent to which our country can and will protect its citizens. Mr. Arar sought protection and it was not provided," he writes. "Now he seeks compensation from his torturers, agents of a foreign government who cannot be sued in their own country, and his own government argues that he cannot get it because other considerations of international comity are more important. With respect, Mr. Arar submits that there can be nothing more important to citizens than obtaining adequate protection from their government." Houshang Bouzari, an Iranian-Canadian, is attempting to sue the Iranian government for the torture he endured when he was imprisoned after he refused to direct an oil contract to a highly placed Iranian official in exchange for a bribe. When the Ontario Superior Court heard the Bouzari case, the federal department of justice intervened to say that the case should be dismissed because foreign governments enjoy immunity from lawsuits. The federal government intervened in that case to uphold that immunity. Bouzari lost his case before the Ontario Superior Court in May, 2002. In her decision, Judge Katherine Swinton concluded that section 3 of the State Immunity Act "is not inconsistent with customary international law respecting torture," or with Canada's treaty obligations. "Indeed, it reflects the current norms of customary international law with respect to state immunity," she wrote. Swinton also found that because the Canadian government had no connection with Bouzari's torture, he cannot claim that his right to security of the person under article 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been denied. Bouzari's appeal is being heard on Dec. 3. * * * Toronto Star: November 28, 2003 ARAR TO SPEAK IN TORTURE CASE Court grants intervener status Iran target of Ontario appeal By Graham Fraser, National Affairs Writer OTTAWA -- Maher Arar will have a chance next week to argue in court that Canada should not be protecting states that engage in torture. Arar, 33, the Syrian-Canadian who was deported by the United States to Syria and imprisoned and tortured for a year, has been granted intervener status in a case being heard next week by the Ontario Court of Appeal. Houshang Bouzari, an Iranian-Canadian, is attempting to sue the Iranian government for the torture he endured when he was imprisoned after he refused to direct an oil contract to a highly placed Iranian official in exchange for a bribe. Arar is intervening in part to reinforce his own attempt to sue Jordan and Syria for his incarceration and torture. When the Ontario Superior Court heard the Bouzari case, the federal department of justice intervened to say the case should be dismissed because foreign governments enjoy immunity from lawsuits. Bouzari lost his case in May, 2002, and the appeal is being heard on Dec. 3. In her decision, Judge Katherine Swinton concluded that Section 3 of the State Immunity Act "is not inconsistent with customary international law respecting torture," or with Canada's treaty obligations. "Indeed, it reflects the current norms of customary international law with respect to state immunity," she wrote. Swinton also found that because the Canadian government had no connection with Bouzari's torture, he cannot claim that his right to security of the person under Article 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has been denied. Article 7 states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." But Arar's lawyer, Lorne Waldman, told the Star yesterday that Arar is in a different situation from Bouzari. Arar sought help from consular officials and was deported from the U.S. in part on the basis of information supplied by Canadians. "The government of Canada was involved in the process even prior to his torture," Waldman said. "Mr. Arar has a stronger claim under Section 7 than Mr. Bouzari does." Waldman said the Canadian government has to balance the needs of Canadian citizens to be protected against the international obligation to respect state sovereignty. He said that the Arar case has struck an emotional chord with Canadians, who are feeling increasingly vulnerable because of what happened to Arar. "A lot of Canadians are wondering what it means to be a Canadian citizen," he said. "What does it mean to be a Canadian if you are constantly disappointed in seeking protection abroad, and seeking justice?" * * * The Ottawa Citizen: November 28, 2003 KHADR 'LIKELY PICKED AFGHANISTAN' Canadian is believed to have been released by U.S. in July Mike Blanchfield OTTAWA -- Abdulrahman Khadr, a Canadian who has been detained by the U.S. in Guantanamo Bay as a suspected terrorist, likely asked to go back to Afghanistan and has no interest in returning to Canada -- despite claims to the contrary by his grandmother, says a well-placed source. And the Pentagon's version of events -- that Khadr was released in July -- is likely true, and consistent with the U.S. government's approach of keeping foreign governments in the dark about what goes on in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, said the source. "It's conceivable that he was released in July when you look at his travel pattern. He's been out for some time, if he's gone from Afghanistan, to Pakistan, to Turkey and now in Serbia. That's a fair bit of travel. In four months you can do that sort of thing," said the source. The mystery surrounding the circumstances of Khadr's release deepened this week with allegations from his family that the government is trying to block his return to Canada, and new developments in the U.S. that suggest the 20-year-old may have been released months ago. Earlier this week, a Pentagon official who briefed Canadian reporters in Washington said Khadr was likely among 27 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay on July 18. The Canadian government was not informed until a few weeks ago that Khadr had been released. Khadr's grandmother, who lives in Toronto, also complained this week that the Canadian embassies in Turkey and Pakistan have blocked Khadr's attempts to travel back to Canada. Foreign affairs denies the allegation, saying Khadr has not contacted its embassies, and if he had, he would have been given full assistance. The source suggested the concerns of Khadr's family in Canada might be unfounded. "I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he asked to go back to Afghanistan," said the source. Khadr has family members living in the area, the source added, including a sister and brother in Pakistan. "I think there's a miscommunication in terms of what Abdulrahman is saying to the grandmother." Khadr was born in the Persian Gulf state of Bahrain but is a Canadian citizen. Though there appears to be no direct evidence linking him to terrorism, Khadr comes from a family with more than its share of alleged ties to terrorist activities. His father is Ahmed Siad Khadr, an Egyptian-born Canadian citizen whom Canadian and U.S. intelligence believe is an associate of al-Qaida terrorist leader, Osama bin Laden. His younger brother, Omar, 17, is still being held in Guantanamo Bay and has been accused of tossing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan last year. His older brother, Abdullah, ran an extremist training camp in Afghanistan, says Canada's spy agency, CSIS. "We've always insisted that he has the right to return. If he showed up at any embassy, any mission anywhere in the world, we would provide him with all the documentation to return home," Jim Munson, Prime Minister Jean Chretien's director of communications, said Thursday. "For national security reasons we can't comment." * * * Los Angeles Times: November 28, 2003 New Muslim Chaplain to Have Limited Role at Guantanamo * Replacement for Army Capt. James Yee won't have access to suspected terrorist detainees. By Matthew Hay Brown, The Orlando Sentinel GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba -- A new Muslim chaplain is expected here early next month but, unlike his predecessor, he will not be allowed to meet with the 660 suspected terrorists now held at Camp Delta, officials said. The new chaplain will replace Army Capt. James Joseph Yee, who was arrested in September after he allegedly was found carrying a map of the cellblocks and a list of detainees. Yee was released from a military brig Tuesday, but he faces new charges of adultery at the naval base and viewing pornography on his government computer there. Yee's release came one day after his lawyers sent a letter to President Bush complaining about his confinement and urging that he be freed until his criminal case could be resolved. Officials have not named Yee's replacement, but they have been clear about the new chaplain's role. "His mission will be to be the advisor to the commander of the Joint Task Force and to provide for the needs of the Joint Task Force members, not the detainees," said Gen. Mitchell R. LeClaire, deputy commander of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo. Yee had advised the task force and the detainees. In addition to advising Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller on religious and cultural sensitivity and counseling service members as an Army chaplain during his 10 months here, Yee met with prisoners to offer what he called "a sympathetic ear." LeClaire said it "was never his job officially" to meet with the detainees. "I can't say it was at the approval of his commanders," LeClaire said. He added that the matter was under investigation. Yee's lawyer, Washington attorney Eugene R. Fidell, rejected the suggestion that Yee's superiors did not know about his contact with prisoners. For months before his arrest, Yee described the interactions to reporters in interviews that were arranged and monitored by military public affairs officials. "Any claim that the command was unaware of Capt. Yee's activities will be investigated to the fullest extent of the law," Fidell said. "My sniffer tells me that people are running for cover." After his release Tuesday, Yee was assigned to Ft. Benning in Georgia, where he is to report to the chief chaplain to "perform duties commensurate with his rank." Yee is one of three Joint Task Force workers arrested in recent months on charges related to mishandling classified information about the operation. Senior Airman Ahmad I. al-Halabi, who worked at Camp Delta as a translator, is accused of passing secrets to individuals from Qatar and his native Syria. Ahmed Fathy Mehalba, a civilian translator, has been charged with lying about computer discs on which authorities say he was carrying classified information. While the Joint Task Force awaits the new Muslim chaplain, a Christian chaplain has assumed responsibility for ensuring that the religious needs of the detainees are met. This includes taking orders for Korans and making sure that the Muslim call to prayer is played five times daily -- procedures developed by Yee. "A lot of the things were already set in place," said Maj. Dan O'Dean, the current chaplain. "There's been a couple of cycles of the religious calendar, so a lot of the lessons learned from how the camp operates has kind of found a root. I don't really think it takes somebody guiding it now. It's pretty much found its place." * * * The Guardian (UK): November 28, 2003 HOW BRITISH CHARITY WAS SILENCED ON IRAQ By Kevin Maguire One of Britain's most high-profile charities was ordered to end criticism of military action in Iraq by its powerful US wing to avoid jeopardising financial support from Washington and corporate donors, a Guardian investigation has discovered. Internal emails reveal how Save the Children UK came under enormous pressure after it accused coalition forces of breaching the Geneva convention by blocking humanitarian aid. Senior figures at Save the Children US, based in Westport, Connecticut, demanded the withdrawal of the criticism and an effective veto on any future statements blaming the invasion for the plight of Iraqi civilians suffering malnourishment and shortages of medical supplies. Uncovered documents expose tensions within an alliance that describes itself as "the world's largest independent global organisation for children" but which is heavily reliant on governments and big business for cash. Save the Children UK, which had an income of £122m in 2002-03, boasts the Queen as patron and Princess Anne as president, plus a phalanx of the great and the good lending their titles and time. The row over Iraq erupted in April when the London statement said coalition forces had gone back on an earlier agreement to allow a relief plane, packed with emergency food and medical supplies for 40,000 people, to land in northern Iraq. Rob MacGillivray, the UK wing's emergency programme manager, released a statement which stated that the "lack of cooperation from the coalition forces is a breach of the Geneva conventions and its protocols, but more importantly the time now being wasted is costing children their lives". Within hours of the statement appearing, the US wing was demanding its withdrawal. Emails sent to staff in Britain by Dianne Sherman, associate vice- president for public affairs and communications in Connecticut, headed "Save/UK criticises US military", expressed dismay and censured the UK operation. Ms Sherman said the Americans were "really astonished at today's release, which went out without our prior knowledge, that attacks the US military". Her email went on: "This is undermining all the great work we've done, much of it in collaboration with you. We'll have to see the consequences of how this plays out - including affecting our future funding from the government." A number of less controversial "joint messages" were proposed by Ms Sherman, none of which criticised any aspect of the invasion or occupation. She instead wanted the UK and US groups to point out that humanitarian organisations were still not permitted access to most of Iraq, that delays harmed children and, on a positive note, that relief work was under way in Umm Qasr, Masul and northern Iraq. "Safe, secure conditions must be created immediately to allow humanitarians to bring in essential supplies and expertise to the people of Iraq," was her alternative version. Accounts published by Save the Children US highlight its vulnerability to political pressure from a Republican White House with "government grants and contracts" generating some 60%, nearly £71m, of its £119m operating support and revenue. The proportion is also high in the UK, where £60.1m - 49% - of the organisation's income is "grants and gifts in kind from institutional donors", including the government. Ms Sherman copied her broadside to US executives including Ann van Dusen, the executive vice-president, Rudy von Bernuth, vice-president and managing director of its children in emergencies section, and Andrea Williamson-Hughes, corporate secretary. When she discovered the London statement had been posted on the UK organisation's website, Ms Sherman also demanded the deletion of US press officer Nicole Amoroso's name as a contact, adding in a second email: "I would also strongly suggest that the press release be removed until we have agreed upon language of the release." A well-placed source in the UK operation said "all hell let loose" over the US intervention, with telephone calls "flying across the Atlantic" and a series of high-level meetings called to discuss the crisis. The removal of the US press officer's name was agreed to placate Connecticut but the source confirmed the Americans were also assured they would be sent all future UK statements on Iraq before they were issued. According to the source, the UK wing toned down later statements to avoid offending the US side of the operation. A statement issued in London on April 25, for example, was cleared in advance with the US, the source said. Headed "The war is not over for the children of Iraq", it made no mention let alone criticism of coalition forces. The looting of some hospitals was highlighted but not the widespread criticism at the time that troops were standing by and doing nothing. Save the Children US concentrates on fundraising and is said by London insiders to be anxious to curb campaigning by the UK arm. Ms Sherman was unavailable for comment until next week, her office said. But in a statement to the Guardian, Save the Children UK said it had not retracted the release at the heart of the row but had removed the name of Ms Amoroso, saying it had been an error not to consult her. Subsequent statements, it added, reflected the fact that the situation "had moved on" as medical supplies had landed in Jordan to be moved to Baghdad. "We do not agree news releases issued in Save the Children UK's name with Save the Children US or any other member of the International Save the Children Alliance," the London statement said. "Wherever possible we do share Save the Children UK news releases before they are issued with other alliance members working in the same area. If any changes are suggested by other alliance members to Save the Children releases, they are made or not at our discretion." The tensions over potential donor influence are not limited to the Iraq crisis. Other internal emails and documents disclose how Save the Children UK was nervous about the reaction of a major donor company, Serco, which makes huge profits from outsourcing, when the charity prepared to criticise the impact of privatisation on children. A number of staff were aghast in the summer of 2002 when a chapter critical of private finance initiatives, written for a report published ahead of the Johannesburg sustainable development summit, was deleted by senior figures in the charity just before it was printed. There is nothing in the documents to suggest that Serco exerted any pressure, but according to the emails, the charity's staff were anxious not to upset it. One email copied widely in the organisation admitted "underlying tensions" existed between the corporate fundraising unit and campaigners arguing that PFIs in basic services did not benefit children. Another warned that criticism of PFIs by the charity was "naturally making some of our corporate sponsors edgy", and the director general, Mike Aaronson, wanted a full briefing ahead of a meeting with a big private donor. As the internal debate raged, fundraiser Helen Barnes warned she was in a "tricky position" with Serco, which ran hospitals, prisons and schools for the government. Although about to cease being a corporate member, the firm, she said, "is still keen to support us" as she argued against portraying it as a company operating solely for profit. "Serco takes its social responsibilities very seriously and invests in the communities in which it operates," Ms Barnes said. Serco, which is heavily involved in the defence sector, raised a total of £626,500 for the charity, as well as naming its yacht Save the Children in the BT Global Challenge race three years ago. The charity's statement yesterday said: "At no point [in] the relationship did Serco attempt to influence Save the Children UK policy on any issue." It continued: "We were able to edit most of the report to meet the required standard but one chapter required further work before it could be approved for publication. Because time was short we decided to drop this chapter to allow the rest of the report to be published in time for the conference." * * * The Guardian (UK): November 28, 2003 POWELL: NO QUICK DEAL ON GUANTANAMO US needs more time to decide if Britons held in Cuba are dangerous, he tells Guardian By Julian Borger WASHINGTON - The US military authorities at Guantanamo Bay have not finished interrogating seven of the nine British detainees and have yet to decide whether "they have done something wrong", Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, said yesterday, nearly two years after the prison camp was set up in Cuba. Mr Powell's remarks, in an interview with the Guardian in his state department office, appear to dash hopes of a swift resolution to the fate of the British inmates. The US struck a deal with the Australian government this week, under which two Australian suspects would have lawyers from their own country if they faced military tribunals and might be able to serve their sentences in Australia. Mr Powell said there were still some legal obstacles to overcome before a deal could be reached on the two Britons, Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, who have been named among the first group of prisoners to face a military commission. "The specific cases of two detainees that are before our military tribunal, the British detainees, is a difficult one," Mr Powell said. "There are some very complex legal issues that our lawyers are still working out. But the president is anxious to do what he can to resolve that one. And we're trying to be very sensitive to the needs of Tony Blair's government." He did not specify what the outstanding legal issues were, but his remarks about the other seven inmates - Asif Iqbal, Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed, Richard Belmar, Tarek Dergoul, Martin Mubanga, and Jamal Udeen - offered even less hope that they would be freed or at least learn their fate any time soon. "The other seven are in a different track and they have not yet gone through the entire intelligence and interrogation process that exists in Guantanamo to determine whether or not they have done something wrong and therefore should be subject to some judicial process, or whether they should be released, and what danger they present," he said. The comments were greeted with outrage from human rights groups and the prisoners' lawyers. Relatives of all nine Britons, who were captured in Afghanistan, have denied they had links with terrorist groups. Stephen Jakobi, the director of the pressure group Fair Trials Abroad and an adviser to the European parliament on the issue of Guantanamo Bay, said: "It is necessary under international law to bring people before a court promptly. I have yet to see a definition of 'promptly' that means two years. The idea that intelligence can't process people over two years in risible. What Powell has said makes no sense." Rights The US supreme court agreed earlier this month to hear arguments from lawyers for a group of prisoners, including Mr Iqbal and Mr Rasul, demanding access to civilian lawyers and other rights enjoyed by defendants in civilian trials. That hearing is due in spring, but the British government will have to decide by Christmas whether to file an amicus brief, a written argument, laying out its position. There was little in what Mr Powell said to give much comfort to the government, which had been hoping to win concessions from the Bush administration during this month's presidential state visit. The secretary of state, who is due in Maastricht on Monday for a meeting of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, said Mr Bush had not yet decided whether to lift US tariffs on European steel."The president is waiting for some more information and reports," he said. As for the new international criminal court, the permanent war crimes tribunal supported by Britain and Europe but fiercely opposed by Washington, he said the US had not changed its policy of threatening signatories with economic reprisals if they did not pass laws excluding Americans from the court's jurisdiction. "We're not going to yield on our ICC policy," Mr Powell said. "We made it clear that we would not be any longer bound by any of the terms of the ICC, even though President [Bill] Clinton signed it just before he left office, knowing at the time he signed it it would never go to our Senate for ratification." In an unapologetic and at times heated performance, Mr Powell also defended his presentation to the UN on February 5, in which he laid out the evidence that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. None has been found. Asked if there were any claims in his speech that he now regretted, he mused for a few seconds before replying: "None." However, he put the responsibility for the speech squarely on the CIA. "What I presented on the 5th of February was not something that I made up here in the state department," he said. "And it was not something that was given to me by people who are not competent to provide such information. It represented the best work of our intelligence community, and I spent several days - I think from Thursday through Monday - with the director of central intelligence, with the deputy director of central intelligence, well into the night - almost midnight every night - and all of the analysts who have responsibility, the senior analysts, and we went over every single item." * * * The Hartford Courant: November 27, 2003 AMISTAD REVISITED AT GUANTANAMO? By Jeremy Brecher http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-amistad1127.artnov27,1,672831.story In the 1841 Amistad case - vividly portrayed in Stephen Spielberg's movie "Amistad" - the U.S. Supreme Court courageously held that human rights and the rule of law must apply to captives who had been seized in Africa and imprisoned in the United States. The Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the eerily parallel case of those seized in Afghanistan and imprisoned at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It should reaffirm the Amistad precedent. The Guantanamo captives, who the Bush administration alleges were "unlawful combatants," are held prisoner without lawyers, without a day in court, without even hearing the charges against them. The administration claims the authority to deny the captives the right of habeas corpus - the right to appear before a judge, a right dating to the Magna Carta, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and necessary for protecting all other human rights. The administration claims, paradoxically, that its agents can do whatever they want because the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay is in a foreign country and therefore not under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. The Amistad captives were seized in Africa, shipped to Cuba and sold as slaves. They revolted, seized control of the Amistad and sailed to New England. They were captured by the U.S. Navy and imprisoned in Connecticut. The U.S. attorney general demanded that the courts turn them over for delivery to Spanish authorities - even planning to send them on a U.S. government ship so Connecticut courts could not intercede with a writ of habeas corpus. Both these cases raise the same two fundamental questions of human rights and the rule of law. Does the executive branch of government ever have the authority to seize people, imprison them and spirit them away to a foreign land with no appeal to a court? And does the executive ever have authority to act without any possibility of review by the judiciary? In the Amistad case, the Supreme Court answered no to both questions. The executive's position in the Amistad case met withering scorn from former President John Quincy Adams - inspiringly portrayed in Spielberg's movie by Anthony Hopkins - who defended the Amistad captives before the Supreme Court. Adams charged that the government was depriving the captives of the most fundamental rights. "Have the officers of the U.S. Navy a right to seize men by force, to fire at them, to overpower them, to disarm them, to put them on board of a vessel and carry them by force and against their will to another state, without warrant or form of law? ... Is there a right of habeas corpus in the land? ... Is it for this court to sanction such monstrous usurpation and executive tyranny?" Adams pointed out that sending people overseas for trial was "one of the most odious of those acts of tyranny which occasioned the American Revolution." Indeed, the Declaration of Independence specifically condemns King George III for "transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences." Adams also condemned the executive's attempt to usurp the authority of the courts. Perhaps, Adams conceded, it may be easy for the royal governor at Havana "to seize any man" and "send him beyond seas for any purpose." But "has the president of the United States any such powers? Can the American executive do such things?" The Spanish demand was no less than that "the executive of the United States, on his own authority, without evidence, without warrant of law, should seize, put on board a national armed ship and send beyond seas 40 men, to be tried for their lives." When Spain demanded that the president issue a proclamation overriding the jurisdiction of the courts, it was demanding "what the executive could not do, by the Constitution. It would be the assumption of a control over the judiciary by the president, which would overthrow the whole fabric of the Constitution; it would violate the principles of our government generally and in every particular." Yet that is in essence what the Bush administration is asking the Supreme Court to accept in the Guantanamo case. The Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts were bound to protect the rights of the Amistad captives. The rights of the case "must be decided upon the eternal principles of justice and international law." To rule otherwise would "take away the equal rights of all foreigners, who should contest their claims before any of our courts, to equal justice," or "deprive such foreigners of the protection given them" by "the general law of nations." In 1841, the Supreme Court took a bold stand against executive tyranny and for human rights and the rule of law. Let us hope the United States will remain a government under law, not a presidential dictatorship. [ Jeremy Brecher of West Cornwall won the American Bar Association's 1997 Silver Gavel Award for the script of the video documentary "The Amistad Revolt." ] * * * Toronto Star: November 27, 2003 KHADR RELEASED AS EARLY AS JULY Pentagon official points to timeline Ottawa revises version of chronology By Tim Harper WASHINGTON - Ottawa has changed its version of events in the case of Abdul Rahman Khadr, raising new questions about how and when the government was informed the Canadian had been released from the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. A Foreign Affairs spokesperson acknowledged the change last night, saying it was no longer accurate to say Ottawa had been informed "a few weeks ago" that Khadr, the 20-year-old from Scarborough, had been released from Guantanamo where he had been held without charge on suspicion of terrorism. There were strong hints in Washington yesterday that he could have been released as early as July 18, when 27 detainees were shipped out of Guantanamo by the Pentagon, after Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was satisfied they were no longer of any intelligence value and did not pose a security risk to the United States. The only other large-scale transfer occurred six days ago and the Khadr family lawyer, Rocco Galati, initially said the family believed the young man had been freed in late October. The family says he has been in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey and the former Yugoslavia since he was let go, and has complained he has had no help from Canadian missions abroad. "There is a timeline here and common sense should take over," said a Pentagon official who asked not to be named. "There is a key player here who has not been heard from -- Mr. Khadr. We know no one was released between July and last week and we have to ask about the credibility of the family and the lawyer who are talking in Canada," the official said. Canadian Foreign Affairs spokesperson Reynald Doiron said last night that "Canadian officials were made aware that Mr. Khadr would be released." He said he had been instructed to say nothing about the timing of the notification, raising the question as to whether the U.S. shipped Khadr back to Afghanistan first, then told Ottawa. Earlier in the day, Jim Munson, a spokesperson for Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, said the Prime Minister's Office was made aware "a few weeks ago" that he would be released. "Then we were informed that he would go to another country, and travel elsewhere." Munson said he didn't know when Khadr was released. A Pentagon spokesperson repeated yesterday Ottawa was notified, but, citing privacy concerns, would not say if the notification came before or after he left the prison camp. "Mr. Khadr may return to Canada as a matter of right," Doiron said. "There is no record of Mr. Khadr approaching any Canadian mission with a request for assistance. As with all Canadians, consular services will be provided to him on request." Galati said he was shocked Khadr could have been out that long. "This makes it much worse," he told Canadian Press from Toronto. "The Canadian government knew longer and sat on it. I think the government doesn't want him home because he's going to talk." Paul Martin, who becomes prime minister next month, has indicated Khadr, who holds a Canadian passport, can return here. Khadr's grandmother, a Scarborough resident, has said her grandson has been turned away from Canadian diplomatic missions in Pakistan and Turkey, but a spokesperson for the embassy in Istanbul said there is no record of him approaching the embassy. The Pentagon official also said because of security concerns, it is not unusual for the information on detainees who were released to be closely kept in a very tight circle of foreign officials. Officials at the Canadian embassy in Washington said yesterday they were unaware that Khadr had been released when they sent a diplomatic note two weeks ago to the U.S. state department demanding that Khadr, and his brother Omar, who remains at Guantanamo, be informed of their right to return to Canada upon release. The embassy said it still has not received a response from the State Department. A State Department official told the Star the notes, known as a diplomatic démarche, would have been passed to the Pentagon. "It is not terribly unusual for the Prime Minister's Office to be the main point of contact here," said an embassy official who asked not to be named. The Nov. 11 note backed up in writing what the embassy had already conveyed verbally to the U.S. State Department. "The note said any Canadian citizen detained at Guantanamo should be informed of their right to return to Canada if they wish to do so," the official said. "We wouldn't have delivered the note if we knew he had been released. Mentioning both brothers would have been redundant. At that point, we were aware of two Canadian detainees." Abdul Rahman Khadr is the son of Achmed Said Khadr, wanted internationally for suspected ties to Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization. Abdul Rahman Khadr was taken into American custody just two months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when he was reportedly fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan. His brother Omar is one of a "very small number" of 17- and 18-year-olds held at Guantanamo. Omar Khadr is accused of killing an American in a grenade attack in Afghanistan last year. * * * Toronto Star: November 27, 2003 EDITORIAL: TROUBLING 'TERROR' FILE Is Canada committed to defending our 600,000-strong Muslim community, in a world made callous by 9/11 terror? Incoming prime minister Paul Martin wants to know. So do many Canadians. Muslims are being treated in ways that would stir fury if other religious groups were similarly targeted. The Americans shipped one Canadian, Maher Arar, off to Syria where he was held for nearly a year, and says he was beaten. Now they've just dumped another, Abdul Rahman Khadr, in Afghanistan after holding him for two years. Neither has been charged with a crime. And the Canadian government has sought to deport Hassan Almrei, a refugee from Syria, back home, unfazed that he might be harmed. He is deemed to be a threat to national security, and in Ottawa's eyes that allows him to be handed over to torturers after being detained for years. These murky cases differ markedly. Arar is believed innocent by Ottawa. Khadr reportedly had Al Qaeda training. Almrei is suspected of forging documents for Al Qaeda. Still, all three cases are troubling. They confirm the Americans have scant respect for Canadian passports, and they imply an unhealthy acquiescence by our own officials. In Arar's case Canadian police may have handed the Americans information that caused them to arrest and deport him rather than return him here. In Khadr's case, Jean Chrétien's office suppressed the news that he was being expelled to Afghanistan from the American jail in Cuba for alleged terrorists. And in Almrei's case, Ottawa is behaving exactly like Washington, seeking to deport him to Syria without regard to the consequences. Is no other country willing to take him? Martin has rightly condemned Washington's rough handling of Arar as "unacceptable," and has vowed to "get to the bottom" of the case. The best way is via a public inquiry. Martin also promises to ensure Khadr can return here if he chooses. And he wants to make sure "the Canadian passport will be respected and that fundamental rights will be respected" as we share information with our neighbours. Good. But Martin might want as well to tell federal officials to act more like Canadians, and less like Americans, as they deal with potential security threats. * * * The Guardian (UK): November 27, 2003 QUALITY OF JUDGMENT Leader The 650 suspected enemy combatants held by the United States on its Cuban naval base in Guantanamo Bay remained as far beyond the rule of law as ever yesterday; but at least the nation that placed them there finally received the searing indictment that it deserves. It came from Lord Steyn, one of the most senior judges on Britain's highest court, and in the most scathing language. The detentions were rightly described as "a monstrous failure of justice". The proposed prosecutions described as "kangaroo courts" under which the military act as interrogators, prosecutors, defence counsel, judges and, where death sentences were imposed, executioners too. Remember, this was a law lord speaking, steeped in the need to use words with care and precision. Accordingly he explained his use of the kangaroo epithet: "a pre-ordained arbitrary rush to judgment by an irregular tribunal which makes a mockery of justice." His indictment extended beyond the president, who had already described the prisoners as "killers", to the US courts which had refused to consider credible medical evidence that detainees had been or were being tortured. Red Cross officials, who have described the Cuban camp as a centre of interrogation rather than a centre of justice, were reported to believe that the techniques of interrogation were "not quite torture, but as close as you can get". The indictment, alas, came only in a lecture in London, not from the bench of an international court. But it placed the US firmly in the dock of international legal opinion. Each of the justifications which the US has employed for its Cuban camp was systematically taken apart by the law lord. The lecture won immediate applause from international lawyers. Moreover, it will no doubt be replayed at length in the US supreme court, which has finally declared itself ready to review the right of the president to imprison the suspects. Lord Steyn even pointed to an option, which it is still not too late for the US to adopt: an ad hoc international tribunal set up by the UN security council. The idea will not play in the White House but Americans should heed the judge's warning that the continuing denial of justice for the foreign suspects would lead to the gradual erosion of fundamental civil rights of US citizens. * * * November 26, 2003 PMO CITES 'NATIONAL SECURITY,' SAYS IT CAN'T DISCUSS KHADR CASE OTTAWA - The Prime Minister's Office is refusing to answer questions about the release of a Canadian from the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, citing national security as the reason for keeping quiet. The family of 21-year-old Abdu Rahman Khadr says Canadian officials refused to help him, after U.S. officials returned him to Afghanistan. That's where Khadr was arrested two years ago as a suspected terrorist. On Wednesday, as questions swirled about the case in Ottawa, government officials on both sides of the border offered few answers. Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs continues to say that it was surprised to learn Khadr had been released from Guantanamo Bay. A spokesman for the department says U.S. officials informed Canada several weeks ago Khadr's release was imminent. But, Reynald Doiron, says that information wasn't shared with Khadr's family in Canada because officials were waiting for a specific release date to avoid raising false hopes. Doiron says Washington never gave Foreign Affairs a date. Jim Munson, spokesman for the PMO refused to answer questions about the case. Munson says national security reasons prevent him from talking about Khadr or his family. One of Khadr's brothers remains in Guantanamo as an illegal combatant, another brother allegedly ran a terrorist training camp, and his father has been accused of being an al-Qaeda financier. "The government, in the last 48-hours, has a lot to answer for. And if the only answer they can give me about my client's release and whereabouts and what they know is that they can't tell me anything because of national security, that's more lies," said Khadr's lawyer Rocco Galati. No one in the federal government will even say whether they know when Khadr was released or under what circumstances. Although Galati says Khadr has been denied assistance at Canadian embassies in Pakistan and Turkey, federal officials deny he's sought any help. A U.S. State Department spokesman referred questions about Khadr to the Department of Defence, which is saying very little. Meanwhile, Justice Minister Martin Cauchon will not say what Ottawa's official position is on Maher Arar's plan to sue Syria. Arar's legal team says he was tortured and detained against his will in a Syrian jail after being deported from the United States. The Syrian-born Canadian says he doesn't want the federal government to stand in the way of his lawsuit. International agreements exempt countries from such lawsuits in all but exceptional cases. Cauchon says he can't say yet what Ottawa's position will be. Government lawyers are studying the matter. Written by CBC News Online staff * * * The Scotsman (UK): November 26, 2003 RED CROSS SLAMS US OVER GUANTANAMO PRISONERS "PA" A top official with the International Committee of the Red Cross said today it was "unacceptable" for the United States to hold terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay without charges or trial. Director-general Angelo Gnaedinger said in Copenhagen it was imperative that the detainees should be told "on what judicial ground" they are being held. About 660 prisoners, many captured after the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, are being held at the US Navy base in eastern Cuba, without charges or trial. US authorities claim the prisoners have provided valuable intelligence in the battle against terrorism. "We find it unacceptable that they are currently detained indefinitely," said Gnaedinger who was in Copenhagen to meet Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller and Danish lawmakers. Nine Britons are among the prisoners at the camp. On Tuesday, British judge Lord Steyn harshly criticised the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay without charges or access to lawyers. "The purpose of holding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was and is to put them beyond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any courts and at the mercy of victors," Steyn said. He also called it "a monstrous failure of justice." US authorities say the prisoners are questioned for information on any future terrorist attacks. Releases are possible for those whom officials decide will not be prosecuted, those no longer considered a threat and those no longer useful for intelligence. * * * The Age (Melbourne): November 27, 2003 DOWNER BACKS US OVER DETENTION OF HICKS, HABIB By Mark Forbes, Foreign Affairs Correspondent http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/11/26/1069825839237.html CANBERRA - Australia is at war with the terrorist group al-Qaeda, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has said for the first time, justifying the detention and military trial of two Australian terror suspects. Mr Downer told the National Press Club that David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib were "combatants" in a war against Australia, so it would be unacceptable to bring them home from the United States and free them. "Our intelligence services have advised us that both these people... participated in training with al-Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with al-Qaeda and these people have been detained in the manner that you would detain combatants in a war." Despite viewing the pair - who were arrested in Pakistan and Afghanistan - as "illegal combatants", the Government had spoken to the US about their detention and proposals for post-war military commissions, Mr Downer said. "In the case of Hicks we hope the trial or military commission will proceed quickly, in the case of Habib there is still evaluation being done," he added. "The military commissions have many of the elements of our legal system." Their rules of evidence were "somewhat akin" to those used for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia, he said. "What are the choices?" he said. "We can go through this process with the Americans, which we think is a fair process, or we can have these people brought back to Australia and set free because we don't have a basis, given when they did their training with al-Qaeda, of charging them for that training. "I don't know how people in Australia would feel having people who trained with al-Qaeda going to the cinema and in the shopping centres... sitting next to them." The Government said on Tuesday that it had won concessions for the pair in negotiations with the US, including the right to speak to Australian lawyers face-to-face and telephone their families. Both would be exempted from the death penalty and be able to serve any sentence imposed in Australia. But David Hicks's father Terry said yesterday the Australian Government had misled his family. Mr Hicks said he had been told some time ago that a phone call before his son was charged had been ruled out for security reasons. "This is the frustrating side of it, that we've known that this charge business has always been there," Mr Hicks said. "They think he might say something that could undermine the intelligence- gathering of the US, although I can't see what difference it's going to make." In response yesterday, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock's office said it would try to speed up family access to Hicks. Amnesty International spokesman Gary Highland said yesterday that a military trial "reduces justice to the level of a poker game, with individual countries trying to cut the best deals for their citizens rather than having fair and transparent processes for all detainees". * Further terrorist attacks in Turkey are imminent and Australians should avoid the country, the Department of Foreign Affairs warned yesterday. It advised deferral of non-essential travel to Turkey until further notice. - with Penelope Debelle * * * Hartford Courant: November 26, 2003 U.S. MILITARY PLANS TO RELEASE CHILDREN HELD AT GUANTANAMO By Matthew Hay Brown, Courant Staff Writer http://www.ctnow.com/news/local/hc-gitmo1126.artnov26,1,5677586.story U.S. NAVAL BASE GUANTNAMO BAY, Cuba -- The three children captured in Afghanistan and held for months at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay as enemy combatants will be released and sent home "very quickly," the commander of Joint Task Force-Guantanamo said Tuesday. Their detention in a special program, apart from some 660 older prisoners also held at the base, has drawn broad international criticism. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller described the youngsters, whose ages the military estimates at 13 to 15, as victims who were kidnapped into terrorism, had willingly shared valuable intelligence and had taken advantage of classes and counseling at Camp Iguana, the compound set up for them. He said they now pose no threat to the United States. "We feel this has been a success in both areas," the Joint Task Force commander said. "Not only have they helped us provide information that will help us win the global war on terror, but we also believe that we'll return to Afghanistani society three citizens who have a chance to make a difference." Miller said his recommendation to release the juveniles has been endorsed by the U.S. Southern Command and the Pentagon team that handles detainee policy, and now awaits final approval by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. The juveniles' detention, revealed in April, opened a new front for criticism of the controversial detention-and-interrogation operation here. Copyright © 2003 by The Hartford Courant * * * November 26, 2003 KHADR DOES NOT WANT TO COME BACK: OFFICIALS Canadian preferred to go to Afghanistan By Stewart Bell, National Post http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?id=84105AAE-86FD-480E-B482- B6145D58C78C TORONTO - A Toronto man released by the U.S. military after being detained at Guantanamo Bay has no desire to return to Canada and has not approached any Canadian embassies for help, government officials said yesterday. Canadian officials said there was no truth to claims made by the family of Abdulrahman Khadr that the 20-year-old was desperate to get back to Canada, but had been turned away by embassy staff in Pakistan and Turkey. "They kicked him out," his grandmother Fatmah Elsamnah of Scarborough said at a news conference at her lawyer's office in Toronto. She said embassy personnel told him he was not welcome in Canada. "This is what he told me." But Reynald Doiron, a Foreign Affairs spokesman, said Mr. Khadr could have returned to Canada upon his release from Guantanamo Bay if he had wanted to. Instead, Mr. Khadr chose to go to Afghanistan, Mr. Doiron said, adding the Canadian embassies in Islamabad and Ankara confirmed they had not heard from Mr. Khadr. Intelligence officials also claim to possess confidential evidence indicating that Mr. Khadr does not want to return to Canada. "They are lying if they say my client's grandson did not approach the embassy," countered Rocco Galati, the family's lawyer, adding it was "mind-boggling" to suggest Mr. Khadr would choose to go to Afghanistan instead of Canada. Mr. Galati accused the Canadian government of negligence, torture, crimes against humanity and racism, and said he would file a lawsuit unless Mr. Khadr gets a passport. "Canada does not recognize the citizenship of brown-skinned Muslims," he said. Mr. Khadr was born in Bahrain but is a Canadian citizen. He is the son of Egyptian-Canadian Ahmed Said Khadr, considered by Canada's intelligence service to be close to Osama bin Laden. He was raised in the Toronto area. "He spent most of his life here in Scarborough with me and he used to go back and forth to Afghanistan because his father was working for a humanitarian organization," Mrs. Elsamnah said. "He's Canadian since he was born." One of six children -- four boys and two girls -- he has been described as the black sheep of the Khadr family, who rejected the stern fundamentalist views of his father and wanted only to have a good time. He was last in Canada in early 2001. He got a job at a store and was planning to go to school, his grandmother said. But Canadian Security Intelligence Service agents questioned him and he decided to go back to Afghanistan, she said. According to a Canadian intelligence report released under the Access to Information Act, Mr. Khadr "is suspected of having undergone training at al- Qaeda facilities." He was arrested by the Northern Alliance rebels in Kabul in November, 2001. Mr. Khadr told an RCMP officer who visited him at his prison in Kabul in April, 2002, that he "was not anxious to return to Canada at that time," the report says. He was sent to Guantanamo Bay in January, joining his younger brother Omar. Aside from the allegations of al-Qaeda training, there is no evidence Mr. Khadr was directly involved in terrorism, but Omar allegedly killed a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan, and his father is a wanted al-Qaeda figure. Mr. Khadr was flown to Afghanistan and released by the U.S. military in late October. Mrs. Elsamnah said he made his way to Islamabad and Turkey and was in the former Yugoslavia when he called last Sunday and told his grandmother that Canadian embassy staff had refused to give him a new passport. The Khadr family, particularly its patriarch, has been a longstanding concern for Canadian intelligence investigators. Ahmed Khadr moved to Canada from Egypt in the 1970s and later joined a Muslim charity helping Afghan refugees. He went to Pakistan as regional director of the Ottawa-based Human Concern International and opened refugee camps that CSIS now says were used to aid Islamic fighters waging holy war in Afghanistan. In 1995, he was arrested in Pakistan on accusations he financed the bombing of the Egyptian embassy in Islamabad, but he was released without charges after Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister, raised the matter with Benazir Bhutto, then the Pakistani leader. The United Nations froze his assets in 2001 because of his alleged ties to bin Laden, and after the attacks of Sept. 11, Canada ordered banks to seize any accounts linked to him. The RCMP has opened an investigation into his activities but no charges have been announced. While Mr. Khadr remains on the loose, authorities have had better luck cornering his sons. Abdulrahman was the first to be captured, then Omar, and last month Pakistan said his youngest boy, Abdul Karim, 14, had been shot dead by Pakistani troops. "Everyone in Afghanistan have weapons and training," Mrs. Elsamnah said when asked about allegations Omar was undergoing weapons training when he was taken captive. Mrs. Elsamnah wants the Prime Minister to help Omar, the same way he helped his father in 1996. "Please Mr. Chretien, if you can help Omar, thank you very much," she said. "I beg him to look after Omar before he step down." KHADR FAMILY Father and sons: AHMED SAID aka Abu Abdulrahman Al Kanadi. Believed by CSIS to have close ties to Osama bin Laden. Born in Egypt and came to Canada in 1970s. Ran Canadian-funded refugee camps in Pakistan but allegedly became involved with armed Islamic groups. "The U.S. is very interested in finding Mr. Khadr," says a 2002 Secret Memo to the Prime Minister. ABDULLAH The eldest of four sons. A Canadian intelligence reports say he is alleged to have "commanded an extremist training camp in Lowgar Province in Afghanistan." His whereabouts are unknown. ABDULRAHMAN Suspected of "having undergone training at al-Qaeda facilities," according to a Canadian intelligence report. Captured when Northern Alliance rebels liberated Kabul in November, 2001. Sent to Guantanamo Bay in January, 2003, but released last month. OMAR Now 17, was captured in Afghanistan in July, 2002, following an intense firefight between U.S. and al-Qaeda forces. The U.S. military said he killed an American military medic. He is detained at Guantanamo Bay, where he confessed that his family was involved with bin Laden, says a Canadian intelligence report. ABDUL KARIM The youngest of the Khadr children, the 14-year-old was reported by a British- based Islamist association to have been shot dead last month by Pakistani soldiers, but Canada has been unable to confirm the killing and there are rumours he is recovering in a hospital. [ Ran with fact box "Khadr Family" which had been appended to the story.; sbell@nationalpost.com ] © Copyright 2003 National Post * * * Ottawa Citizen: November 26, 2003 MARTIN OPENS DOOR TO ARAR INQUIRY Next PM says foreign countries, including U.S., must respect Canadian passport By Anne Dawson, with files from Janice Tibbetts http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=3f626fd4- ee1a-44d0-bdd5-1a7eadf61837 Prime minister designate Paul Martin opened the door yesterday to a public inquiry into the deportation of Maher Arar to Syria, where he was tortured. Prime Minister Jean Chretien has refused to call an inquiry saying it is too expensive and that the Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP is already investigating the matter. "No, I'm not closing the door" to a public inquiry on Mr. Arar, Mr. Martin told reporters yesterday. "I can assure you that once I become prime minister, it is my intention to get all the facts and then we will make whatever decisions are necessary." Mr. Martin also said he has already sent out the order that all consular services are to be made available to Abdulrahman Khadr, a Canadian who was recently released after being held captive by the U.S. government at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In commenting on Mr. Arar and Mr. Khadr, Mr. Martin said there must be "greater co-operation" between Canada and the U.S. on these files and that the passports of Canadian citizens must be better respected than they have in the past. Mr. Martin has made improving strained Canada-U.S. relations a top priority for his new government. "I believe that what happened was simply unacceptable and that if in fact we're going to have the kinds of exchanges of information which are so important in terms of the security of North America ... there is going to have to be an understanding that in fact the Canadian passport will be respected and that fundamental rights will be respected," said Mr. Martin. The Canadian Bar Association has also called for a public inquiry into the case of Mr. Arar, a 33-year-old Syrian-born Canadian who was arrested at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport in September 2002 on his return to Canada after a family visit in Tunisia. He was questioned and detained for almost two weeks and then deported by the U.S. to Syria, via Jordan, even though he was travelling on his Canadian passport. He says he was falsely imprisoned for almost a year and tortured and subjected to death threats. The Americans said he was an al-Qaeda terrorist suspect, although he has never been charged with a crime in any country. In a letter to the prime minister, Canada's lawyers said Canadians have a right to know about the "profound shift in our legal climate" after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S. "All Canadians deserve to know what happened and why and be assured that this couldn't happen to them," wrote William Johnson, president of the 38,000-member Canadian Bar Association. Mr. Arar wants the federal government to help him with a $31-million lawsuit he has launched against Syria and Jordan. His lawyers are also asking for Justice Minister Martin Cauchon's support to bring the foreign countries before Canadian courts because they say he will not be able to obtain justice in the Syrian and Jordanian legal systems. The Justice Department has said it will consider the request even though individuals are normally not allowed to sue foreign governments from abroad. Mr. Martin was less forthcoming about whether he will intervene in this court case. "That's something that obviously Foreign Affairs and Justice are looking at and I'll wait ... to get their advice," he said. © The Ottawa Citizen 2003 * * * Los Angeles Times: November 26, 2003 GUANTANAMO CAMP'S MUSLIM CHAPLAIN FACES NEW CHARGES * Army captain suspected of mishandling secret data is accused of porn possession and adultery. By Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-yee26nov26,1,4110703.story WASHINGTON -- Army Capt. James Yee, the Muslim chaplain arrested for allegedly mishandling classified material at the terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was released from a military brig on Tuesday, but he faces new charges of adultery at the naval base and viewing pornography on his government computer there. The release of the sole Muslim religious leader ministering to the 660 detainees came one day after his Washington lawyers sent a letter to President Bush complaining about his confinement and urging that he be freed until his criminal case can be resolved. "We're not out of the woods yet, obviously," said defense lawyer Eugene R. Fidell. "But Chaplain Yee and his family are very, very grateful to the president and his advisors for this." However, military authorities said the release had nothing to do with the letter to the president. They said Yee was freed from a Navy brig in South Carolina as part of the routine process of the case. Authorities have yet to decide whether Yee will be court-martialed on any of the charges, including the initial offenses of mishandling classified material from the detainee prison. "We are very, very confident that there has been no outside pressure into this investigation" from the White House or any other source, said Raul Duany, a spokesman for the military's Southern Command, which runs the Guantanamo Bay prison. Yee was reassigned to Ft. Benning, Ga., where he will report to the chief chaplain and await any decision on a court-martial. He was arrested Sept. 10 after leaving the detention camp in Cuba and landing at the naval air station at Jacksonville, Fla. Later charged with two counts of mishandling classified material from the facility, he became one of three officials at the detainee prison who have been charged with taking secret information from there. On Tuesday he was charged with four more offenses. One charge said that Yee, a 35-year-old West Point graduate who is married, did "wrongfully have sexual intercourse with a woman not his wife" both in Guantanamo Bay and Orlando, Fla. Under the military code of justice, said Duany, adultery is considered conduct unbecoming an officer. There were two new charges that he did "wrongfully and dishonorably use a government-issued computer to view and store pornographic images" at Guantanamo Bay, and a fourth charge of making a false statement to authorities about whether certain material had been cleared for release to detainees. Duany said Army Col. Dan Trimble at Ft. Benning now will decide whether Yee will be sent to an Article 32 preliminary hearing to air the evidence against him and determine whether he should be court-martialed. But his defense attorney said the new charges appear to be just a "piling-on" against his client. "You see adultery charges being trotted out, and it just makes your heart sink," Fidell said. "What they're really trying to do is replace his leg irons with a scarlet letter." Fidell also suggested that the case may never get to a court-martial, and that instead there might be fruitful negotiations to settle the matter. "I'm hoping this case will go away," he said. * * * Charleston Post and Courier: November 26, 2003 MUSLIM CHAPLAIN RELEASED FROM BRIG Yee faces new charges, including adultery By Paisley Dodds, Associated Press SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO--The military has released from custody a Muslim chaplain accused of taking classified material from the U.S. prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and will allow him to return to duty at a base in Georgia. Army Capt. James Yee has been held at the Navy Consolidated Brig in Hanahan, S.C. Raul Duany, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command, said Tuesday that the military has filed additional charges of adultery and storing pornography on a government computer against Yee. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, commander of the prison facility at Guantanamo, ordered Yee's release, after determining that he presented no flight risk. In an interview at the prison facility, Miller declined to discuss the specific charges against Yee and said an Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury proceeding, will begin Monday at Fort Benning, Ga. "Capt. Yee is innocent until provenguilty," Miller said. "He deserves his day in court." Miller said he chose Fort Benning for the hearing, which will be public, instead of Guantanamo because the fort has more legal resources. Authorities arrested Yee, 35, in September and charged him with disobeying an order for allegedly taking classified material from Guantanamo and improperly transporting it. He was one of three men who worked with prisoners at the base in Cuba to be accused of wrongdoing. The new charges include making a false statement, storing pornography on a government computer and having sexual relations outside marriage, which violates military law. The adultery allegedly occurred with an unspecified woman at Guantanamo and in Orlando, Fla., between July and September 2003, and the pornography was on his government-issued computer at the base in eastern Cuba, Duany said. Yee, who also uses the first name Yousef, will be assigned to the base chaplain at Fort Benning, but his exact duties have yet to be determined, said Capt. Tom Crosson, another spokesman at the U.S. Southern Command. Yee will be prohibited from having contact with prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Duany said. Yee's lawyer, Eugene Fidell, said he was pleased that his client was released but disappointed by the new charges. "We're thrilled that Chaplain Yee was released, but on the other hand, the additional charges are the kind of thing that can give military justice a bad name, especially the adultery charge," Fidell said. The Uniform Code of Military Justice classifies adultery as a punishable offense, the U.S. Southern Command said. No other information was provided on the pornography allegation. Yee, a Chinese-American who converted to Islam after graduating from West Point, was arrested Sept. 10 in Jacksonville, Fla. Federal agents said they found the native of Springfield, N.J., carrying sketches of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, where he counseled prisoners accused of links to Afghanistan's deposed Taliban regime or the al-Qaida terror network. Once a chaplain at Fort Lewis, Wash., Yee was charged by the military on Oct. 10 with disobeying a general order by taking classified material home and transporting it without proper security containers. Miller said the release had nothing to do with a letter Fidell wrote to President Bush asking him to immediately release his client from the brig, saying Yee has been held in "harsh and illegal conditions." In the letter, Fidell said that after authorities arrested Yee, his client was held for six weeks in a maximum security area of the brig and kept in isolation for 23 hours a day. Fidell said people accused of mishandling classified information normally aren't confined at all. He likened Yee's treatment to that of Dr. Wen Ho Lee, who was arrested in 1999 on charges that he passed nuclear secrets to China. Lee spent nine months in solitary confinement before the government dropped all serious charges. Lee pleaded guilty to a minor charge of mishandling secret information. Yee is one of four people being held in the brig on terrorism-related charges. The administration has designated the three others -- Jose Padilla, Yaser Hamdi and Ali Saleh al-Marri -- enemy combatants, arguing that they present a danger to national security. Under that label, the Bush administration says it can hold them incommunicado in a maximum-security section of the brig for as long as necessary. Fidell said Yee's incarceration at the brig with the designated enemy combatants has "prejudicially linked" his client with them, and that until recently Yee was being treated as if he were an enemy combatant. For six weeks, Fidell said, Yee was required to wear hand and leg irons when leaving his cell, and brig personnel refused to provide him with religious materials or tell him the time of day, an important requirement for practicing Muslims. He was also not allowed to send or receive mail, watch television, or have any reading materials other than the copy of the Koran and the brig's manual of standard operating procedures. Last month, officials placed Yee in medium-security status and allowed him to read a censored newspaper and make two 15-minute phone calls to family or his lawyers. [ Tony Bartleme of The Post and Courier staff contributed to this report. ] * * * Toronto Globe and Mail: November 26, 2003 PMO KNEW KHADR WAS FREED By Paul Koring And Jeff Sallot Washington and Ottawa -- The Prime Minister's office knew weeks ago that the United States was about to release Abdul Rahman Khadr, a young Canadian recently set free from the U.S. military prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a PMO spokesman said yesterday. But the PMO, along with a handful of senior Canadian security officials and at least one senior Foreign Affairs official kept the information hidden from Mr. Khadr's family, as well as the Washington embassy handling the case. As a result of being kept in the dark, the Canadian embassy in Washington delivered diplomatic demarches to the U.S. State Department demanding that Mr. Khadr be informed of his right to return to Canada, even after he had been sent to Afghanistan on a U.S. military flight. "We were made aware a few weeks ago that Mr. Khadr would be released," PMO spokesman Jim Munson said. He added that Mr. Khadr, 21, had chosen to go to Afghanistan, although his family in Canada said he has been trying frantically to get home. Those who knew about Mr. Khadr's release -- a forced expulsion by military flight to an undisclosed location in Afghanistan -- kept that information from Nancy Collins, the Foreign Affairs officer handling the case, and from the Canadian embassy in Washington. In a note to the U.S. State Department, dated Nov. 11, the embassy demanded that Mr. Khadr and his brother (being held behind barbed wire at the U.S. military prison for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo), "should be informed of their right to return to Canada," Terry Colli, senior spokesman for the Canadian embassy in Washington said. Mr. Colli said the note had been delivered after the debacle involving the secret deportation of another Canadian, Maher Arar, to Syria. In the Arar case, U.S. ambassador to Ottawa Paul Cellucci suggested that Canadian security officials were told in advance and gave the green light, although ministers flatly denied any advance knowledge. In Mr. Khadr's case, Foreign Affairs in Ottawa kept its Washington embassy in the dark. "In the embassy -- on both the political and military side -- they did not know that Khadr has been released," Mr. Colli said yesterday, adding that most of Foreign Affairs apparently was taken by surprise. U.S. security agencies handling releases from Guantanamo also hid that information from the U.S. State Department. "The State Department is not in the loop ..... they continue to tell us that they have no information about Khadr," Mr. Colli said yesterday. There appears to be confusion about when Mr. Khadr was released. Although his family said he was freed in late October, some government sources suggested he may not have been freed until as late as mid-November. A source said yesterday that information about Mr. Khadr's release was received by Canada three weeks ago and that the information was kept in "limited circulation" because Canadian officials here did not want to do anything that on the "off chance" could jeopardize his freedom. Canada sent official communications to the United States around Nov. 11 and 14 asking about Mr. Khadr's status. Family members said Mr. Khadr made five hasty phone calls and sent four e-mails to them last week. He told of crossing a series of borders, despite being left in Afghanistan last month with no travel documents, identification or money. "He said, 'I'm in trouble, I'm in trouble.' What kind of trouble? He didn't want to tell me," Fatmah Elsamnah, his grandmother, said yesterday. The family said Canada refuses to allow him to return and that Mr. Khadr has been turned away at several Canadian diplomatic missions. Foreign Affairs said there is no record of Mr. Khadr appearing at any of their missions in recent weeks. The family rejects the PMO's insistence that Mr. Khadr chose Afghanistan over Canada. "No person out of a coma who has any semblance of sanity would believe that," said the family's lawyer, Rocco Galati. [ With a report from Colin Freeze in Toronto ] * * * November 26, 2003; Page A16 CANADA IS SAID TO KEEP U.S. DETAINEE FROM RETURNING By DeNeen L. Brown, Washington Post Foreign Service TORONTO, Nov. 25 -- A Canadian man who was imprisoned by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been released from custody, but his family asserts that Canadian authorities have refused to allow him to return home. Rocco Galati, an attorney representing the family of Abdur Rahman Khadr, said Tuesday that Khadr, 20, was released from U.S. detention in late October and sent to Afghanistan. "He is a Canadian citizen," Galati said. "He has no other nationality and they are shipping him back to Afghanistan with no money, no identification and only the clothes on his back." Galati said Khadr called his grandmother in Toronto and told her he had tried to get help from Canadian embassies in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkey. "He was denied travel documents by Canadian officials who indicated they do not want him back in Canada," Galati said. A spokesman for Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs denied the allegations. "It would be against our laws," the spokesman, Reynald Doiron, said in an interview. "That is a gross distortion of our law and values pertaining to the right of Canadian citizens to come back to Canada." Doiron said that U.S. officials told Canadian authorities three weeks ago that Khadr would be released. "No explanation was given," Doiron said. "We were not privy to conversations Abdur Rahman Khadr had with American authorities. Our understanding is [that] by his own volition, he went to Afghanistan. That was his choosing." Doiron said there was no record of Khadr approaching a Canadian mission for assistance. "He is a Canadian citizen," Doiron said. "It is up to him to contact us, and we will oblige." A U.S. Defense Department spokeswoman said in a telephone interview that she could not comment on individual detainee cases at Guantanamo Bay for security reasons. "I can tell you the U.S. has discussions with many other governments regarding detainees and coordinates each detainee's transfer for release with that detainee's home government," said the spokeswoman, who asked that her name not be used. Officials claim that Khadr's father, Ahmed Said Khadr, an Egyptian-born Canadian, is an al Qaeda leader with close connections to Osama bin Laden. Unconfirmed reports said that Ahmed Said Khadr and another of his sons were killed last month during a shootout with Pakistani forces at the Afghan- Pakistani border. Abdur Khadr's brother, Omar Khadr, was arrested in Afghanistan in July 2002 after a gunfight with U.S. forces. Omar Khadr, who is still in prison at Guantanamo Bay, is accused of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. medic. The eldest brother, Abdullah, was alleged to be a former commander of an al Qaeda camp. Canadian officials said Abdur Khadr was born in Afghanistan. Galati said Khadr's parents were traveling there at the time of his birth. They registered him as Canadian and he grew up in Toronto, Galati said. * * * Seattle Post-Intelligencer: November 26, 2003 ADULTERY, PORN CHARGES ADDED TO CHAPLAIN'S CASE Yee also accused of taking classified material from Guantanamo prison STAFF AND NEWS SERVICES A Muslim chaplain accused of taking classified material from the U.S. prison for terrorist suspects in Cuba now faces charges of adultery and storing pornography on a government computer. Army Capt. James Yee, formerly stationed at Fort Lewis, was released yesterday from a naval brig in South Carolina where he had been confined since September with terrorist suspects. He will return to duty at a Georgia base until the case is resolved, said Raul Duany, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command. Yee's supporters applauded his release, but criticized the government for unfairly targeting the West Point graduate. "The fact he's been in detention 76 days is a disgrace, and the government should be ashamed of itself for pursing the matter," Eugene Fidell, one of Yee's attorneys, said yesterday. Yee's wife, Huda Suboh, 29, lives in Olympia, with their two young children. In a statement read to The Olympian newspaper late last night by a family friend, Yee's wife said: "I believe steadfastly my husband is innocent of all these charges, including adultery and downloading pornography. I stand by him. It is clear to me that the U.S. government only wants to destroy his character and his family. They will not succeed." Samia El-Moslimany, vice chairwoman of the Seattle chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said yesterday: "We're absolutely horrified that they've decided to lob on these (new) charges at this time." Yee, 35, was a chaplain at the largest battalion at Fort Lewis before providing counseling to prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "We are very proud and confident of the just and fair process," said Duany, the military spokesman. Yee, while back on duty, will be prohibited from having contact with prisoners, he said. Authorities arrested Yee in September and charged him with disobeying an order for allegedly taking classified material from Guantanamo and improperly transporting it. Four new charges yesterday include making a false statement, storing pornography on a government computer and having sexual relations outside marriage, which is a crime under military law. The adultery occurred with an undisclosed woman at Guantanamo and in Orlando, Fla., and the pornography was on his computer at the base in Cuba, Duany told The Associated Press. Yee, who also uses the first name Yousef, will be sent to Fort Benning, Ga., and will be under the command of the chaplain, but his exact duties remain to be determined, military spokesman Capt. Tom Crosson said. "He's thrilled to be going back to his duties of chaplain," said Fidell, Yee's attorney. Yee, a Chinese American who converted to Islam after graduating from West Point, was arrested Sept. 10 in Jacksonville, Fla. Federal agents said they found the native of Springfield, N.J., carrying sketches of the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, where he counseled prisoners accused of links to Afghanistan's deposed Taliban regime or the al-Qaida terrorist network. The military charged Yee Oct. 10 with disobeying a general order by taking classified material home and transporting it without proper security containers. Those charges "didn't warrant the treatment that he received," said El- Moslimany, noting his weeks-long confinement. "Nobody who has been convicted of this charge has been imprisoned for it." Yee will face an Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent of a grand jury or preliminary hearing, in Georgia. The chaplain is one of three men with contact with the terrorism suspects at Guantanamo to face charges. An Arabic translator, Air Force Senior Airman Ahmad al-Halabi, has pleaded not guilty to charges of espionage and aiding the enemy. A civilian interpreter, Ahmad Mehalba, was charged with lying to federal agents by denying computer discs he was carrying had classified information from Guantanamo. He also has pleaded not guilty. * * * The Washington Times: November 26, 2003 MILITARY ADDS SEX CHARGES AGAINST MUSLIM CHAPLAIN By Rowan Scarborough The military yesterday filed charges of adultery and pornography against Army Capt. James Yee, a Muslim chaplain, and released him after 77 days in a Navy brig. Capt. Yee was charged last month with two counts of unlawful transportation of classified information while a chaplain at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, where about 660 al Qaeda and Taliban fighters are being held, and has been reassigned to the chaplain's office at Fort Benning, Ga. The officer will have an Article 32 hearing, an investigative proceeding, on Monday at Fort Benning, where the appointed hearing officer, Col. Daniel Trimble, is stationed. U.S. Southern Command said Capt. Yee faces four new charges: two counts of using a government computer to store pornographic material, one charge of giving a false statement pertaining to the release of CDs to detainees, and the adultery charge. That count states that Capt. Yee, who is married and has a 3-year-old daughter, had sexual relations with a woman at the base, and in Orlando, Fla. The public charge document censored the woman's name. Military sources say the officer was apprehended in September as he got off a plane in Jacksonville, Fla., to begin leave from Guantanamo. In his possession were secret lists of detainees and drawings of the prison. The military considers such material as classified materials that could harm the United States if they fell into enemy hands. The military has suspected Capt. Yee, a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., of espionage, but has not filed such charges. Eugene Fidell, Capt. Yee's civilian attorney, said he believes the suspect will be able to travel freely on and off Fort Benning. "He's apparently not being restrained in any way," Mr. Fidell said. "I think the release is a very welcome development," he said. Referring to the adultery and pornography charges, the lawyer said, "I'm fascinated by the evolution, a case that began as a triumph in the war on terrorism." Adultery is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, according to which the act disrupts good order and discipline. The military normally brings the charge only in conjunction with other offenses. At Guantanamo Bay, Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller told reporters yesterday that he knew Capt. Yee personally and was "surprised" by the charges against him. "We're an organization that deals on trust and honor, so when those kinds of things happen, you're surprised," said Gen. Miller, commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo. "Capt. Yee is innocent until proven guilty," he said, adding that the Article 32 proceedings at Fort Benning would be open-door. Capt. Yee is one of three Muslims charged in security breaches at the maximum- security prison. His release comes a day after Mr. Fidell sent a letter to President Bush requesting his client's release. A spokesman for Southern Command, which oversees the Guantanamo base, said the decision to release Capt. Yee was made well in advance of the petition. In the letter, Mr. Fidell argued that the mishandling of the classified material charges, which each carry a maximum sentence of two years, did not warrant pretrial confinement. The letter said Capt. Yee was kept in solitary confinement, with only an hour of exercise a day. Brig personnel refused to acknowledge his officer status, denied him a prayer rug and declined to tell him the direction of Mecca for daily prayers, according to the petition. Mr. Fidell said conditions improved after he complained but, "Even now, however, he is only allowed to read a censored newspaper, watch movies and make two 15- minute phone calls per day to immediate family members or counsel." "Chaplain Yee's continuing confinement is also deeply troubling to the Muslim community, to clergy of all faiths, to his fellow alumni of the United States Military Academy, and to the military bar, whose members are well aware of the fact that allegations such as those on which he is being held simply do not result in either pretrial confinement or, if proven, sentences that include confinement." Capt. Yee resigned from the Army in the mid-1990s and traveled to Syria, where he underwent traditional Islamic training. He then rejoined the Army. He was stationed at Fort Lewis, Wash., and then assigned to Guantanamo. The Army confined him to the Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C. The prison holds several high-profile figures in the war on terrorism, including Jose Padilla, also known as Abdullah Al Muhajir, who is accused of trying to bring a "dirty bomb" into the country. Air Force Senior Airman Ahmed I. al Halabi, who worked as an Arabic translator at Guantanamo, was arrested in July and charged with gathering classified information and planning to transmit it to Syria. Syria is on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism. In September, authorities arrested Ahmed Fathy Mehalba, another Guantanamo translator. Federal agents at Boston's Logan International Airport found in his possession computer discs containing the names of detainees. [ Guy Taylor contributed to this report. ] * * * The Independent (UK): November 26, 2003 GUANTANAMO TREATMENT IS 'MONSTROUS', SAYS LAW LORD By Robert Verkaik Legal Affairs Correspondent One of the country's most senior judges launched an unprecedented attack on US treatment of the 660 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay last night, saying they will become martyrs in the Muslim world. Breaking with the convention that law lords do not speak out on politically sensitive issues, Lord Steyn described their imprisonment as a "monstrous failure of justice" and the military tribunals that will try them as kangaroo courts. Lord Steyn, one of 12 judges who sits in the country's highest court, is understood to have been wrestling with his conscience for weeks. His comments would make it almost impossible for him to hear any appeal from the nine British prisoners held at the US naval base in Cuba if President George Bush agreed to send them for trial in this country. Lord Steyn said in a speech to lawyers in London last night that judges "have the duty, in times of crisis, to guard against an unprincipled and exorbitant executive response. "As a lawyer brought up to admire the ideals of American democracy and justice, I would have to say that I regard this a monstrous failure of justice. The military will act as interrogators, prosecutors and defence counsel, judges, and when death sentences are imposed, as executioners. The trials will be held in private. None of the guarantees of a fair trial need be observed." He also said the type of justice meted out at Guantanamo "is likely to make martyrs of the prisoners in the moderate Muslim world with whom the West must work to ensure world peace and stability". Human rights lawyers praised Lord Steyn for his courage. Stephen Solley QC, a former chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said Lord Steyn's comments would send a strong signal to the US Supreme Court, which is about to rule on American jurisdiction in Guantanamo Bay. He added: "It might help to persuade some of the waverers to rule in favour of the detainees." Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, said: "Lord Steyn is a man of principle and courage and one of our most respected law lords. Surely the Prime Minister will take heed of his comments and intensify the pressure on President Bush and allow these men to return to the United Kingdom for a fair trial?" Peter Williamson, president of the Law Society, heard Lord Steyn's speech. "I agreed with everything he said and I hope it will cause the Government to make further representations to the United States. The detainees should either be tried in the civil courts of America or sent for trial in this country." Lord Steyn, 71, who has a liberal reputation, has supported reforms of the appointment of judges and the office of Lord Chancellor. He was one of four law lords who supported a new Supreme Court to replace the law lords last month. He described the military commissions set up to try the Guantanamo detainees as kangaroo courts. "It derives from the jumps of the kangaroo, and conveys the idea of a pre- ordained arbitrary rush to judgment by an irregular tribunal which makes a mockery of justice." The trials would be "a stain on United States justice". He was also critical of the British policy of negotiating a separate agreement with the Pentagon so that British prisoners would not receive the death penalty. "This gives a new dimension to the concept of 'most-favoured nation' treatment in international law. How could it be morally defensible to discriminate in this way?" * * * The Daily Telegraph (UK): November 26, 2003 'MONSTROUS US JUSTICE' ATTACKED BY LAW LORD By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor One of Britain's most senior judges condemned the American courts last night for a "monstrous failure of justice" by refusing to rule on the claims of Taliban suspects held without trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Lord Steyn, a serving law lord, said the United States was acting illegally by holding the men without trial since their transfer from Afghanistan early last year. "By denying the prisoners the right to raise challenges in a court about their alleged status and treatment, the United States government is in breach of the minimum standards of customary international law," he said. Giving the annual F A Mann lecture arranged by the law firm Herbert Smith in London last night, Lord Steyn accused the world's most powerful democracy of "detaining hundreds of suspected foot soldiers of the Taliban in a legal black hole at the United States naval base at Guantanamo Bay, where they await trial on capital charges by military tribunals". But these tribunals, or "commissions", were not independent courts, he said. "The term 'kangaroo court' springs to mind. It derives from the jumps of the kangaroo, and conveys the idea of a pre-ordained arbitrary rush to judgment by an irregular tribunal which makes a mockery of justice. "International military commissions at Guantanamo Bay will be so regarded. Trials of the type contemplated by the United States government would be a stain on United States justice. The only thing that could be worse is simply to leave the prisoners in their black hole indefinitely." Lord Steyn avoids political debates in the House of Lords, but he asked yesterday: "Ought our government to make plain publicly and unambiguously our condemnation of the utter lawlessness at Guantanamo Bay?" The law lord left his audience in no doubt where his own feelings lay by quoting the famous meditation of John Donne, the 17th century poet and preacher: "No man is an island, entire of itself . . . Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bells tolls; it tolls for thee." Lord Steyn, 71, the third most senior law lord, said that under English law the writ of habeas corpus would protect citizens and foreigners. That was consistent with human rights law, which Lord Steyn concluded, the US had broken. * * * November 25, 2003 NEXT CANADIAN LEADER CALLS U.S. DEPORTATION OF CANADIAN TO SYRIA 'UNACCEPTABLE' Tom Cohen, Associated Press Writer He's not in office yet, but Canada's next prime minister already is expressing displeasure with the United States, saying Tuesday the U.S. deportation of a Canadian man to Syria was unacceptable. Paul Martin, who will take over as prime minister when Jean Chretien steps down Dec. 12, said he wants to know why Maher Arar was sent to Syria instead of being returned to Canada, where he has lived for years and holds citizenship. "I believe that what happened is simply unacceptable," Martin said at a news conference in Ottawa. Arar, 33, was detained at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport in September 2002 while returning to Canada from a visit to Tunisia. He wasn't charged, though U.S. officials said he was suspected of links to terrorism. He was held for several days before being sent to Syria, where he was born and still has citizenship. Arar has said Syrian authorities beat him and placed in solitary confinement for almost a year before releasing him last month and allowing him to return to Canada. "The Canadian passport has to be respected," Martin said. "When I become prime minister I'm going to get all of the facts and I'm going to ensure that this kind of thing doesn't happen again." U.S. officials say they acted within U.S. law in deporting Arar to Syria, and that they acted on information from various foreign countries, including Canada. Martin has promised to improve relations with the United States after several years of strains caused by a poor relationship between Chretien and President Bush. Chretien angered Bush this year by refusing to take part in the war in Iraq. At the same time, longstanding trade disputes involving softwood lumber and other commodities added to the perception of hard feelings between the countries. Martin has suggested he will form a Cabinet-level committee to deal with U.S. relations. * * * November 26, 2003 U.S. ADDS TO DETAINED AUSTRALIANS' RIGHTS By Neil A. Lewis WASHINGTON, Nov. 25 -- The Australian government and the Bush administration said on Tuesday that they had reached a final agreement to let military commissions bring terrorism or war crimes charges against two Australians detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The announcement, first made by Australia, came after a round of concessions by Washington that followed five months of talks. The changes include allowing an Australian defense lawyer to have face-to-face contact with any Australian charged. President Bush has designated 6 of the 660 detainees at the Guantanamo Navy base as eligible for trial by a military commission, including David Hicks, 26, an Australian who joined the Taliban in 1999 and was captured with it. Another concession allows Australia to file a brief with the body that would review any verdict and sentence reached by a tribunal. In a statement released by the Australian Embassy here, Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer and Attorney General Philip Ruddock said: "We accept Mr. Hicks and Mr. Habib could be tried by the U.S., provided that their trials are fair and transparent while protecting security interests. The government believes that the military commission processes will fulfill these criteria." The other Australian, Mamdouh Habib, 47, of Sydney, was seized by the police in Pakistan in October 2001 enroute from Quetta to Karachi. United States officials said they hoped that the accord could be a template for one with the British. Negotiations with both governments that began in July ended with pacts that neither Mr. Hicks nor two British prisoners among the six who could be taken before a tribunal would face the death penalty. From the start, Australia had been far more amenable in the talks than Britain, American officials have said. Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has faced significant criticism at home over the detentions of nine Britons at Guantanamo. In addition to Mr. Hicks, the six eligible for tribunals include Feroz Abbasi, 23, of London, and Moazzam Begg, 35, of Birmingham. The United States also said it would allow Mr. Hicks's family to attend any trial. * * * Toronto Star: November 25, 2003 MARTIN DENIES CANADA SHUNNING MAN FREED BY U.S. OTTAWA (CP) - Incoming prime minister Paul Martin denied today that the country is shunning a Canadian released from a U.S. jail in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where prisoners with alleged terrorist links are being held. "We have made it very clear to Mr. (Abdulrahman) Khadr that he would be welcome back to Canada and that the full level of consular services will be made available to him and, in fact, are being offered to him," Martin said. The comment came after a lawyer for Khadr's grandparents said the 20-year-old had been turned away and threatened with arrest when he approached Canadian consular officials overseas. He was flown to Afghanistan and released by the U.S. in October. Martin also spoke out today on the case of Maher Arar, another Canadian who was held on terrorist suspicions but never charged. Arar, 33, was arrested in New York in September 2002, in transit from Tunisia to his home in Canada. The Syrian-born man was questioned and detained for almost two weeks before he was deported to Syria via Jordan, even though he was travelling on his Canadian passport. The Americans said he was an Al Qaeda terrorist suspect, although he has never been charged with a crime in any country. "I believe that what happened was simply unacceptable and that, if in fact we're going to have the kinds of exchanges of information which are so important in terms of the security of North America, that there is going to have to be an understanding that, in fact, the Canadian passport will be respected and that fundamental rights will be respected." Martin also said that unlike Prime Minister Jean Chretien, he wouldn't rule out an inquiry into Arar's case once he takes office next month. Arar said he was tortured in Syria before being released. In a news conference in Toronto on the Khadr case, lawyer Rocco Galati and Khadr's grandmother said Tuesday that Canadian officials have so far denied Khadr his passport and are "either completely ignorant and negligent" or "spinning some lies" because they have also denied knowing Khadr's whereabouts. But a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham said Khadr hasn't sought help from Canadian Embassy or consular staff, but that help is available to him. France Bureau said if Khadr wants to return to Canada, there's nothing stopping him. "Mr. Khadr may return to Canada, as a matter of right." Canadian officials confirmed Monday that Khadr was released from a high-security prison at a U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, where he had been detained without charges since January. When Khadr contacted his grandmother Fatmah Elsamnah in Toronto over the weekend, he told her it would be his last call and his last attempt to return home, she said. He said he was in the former Yugoslavia and he was running out of money, and was scared of being picked up and jailed again. Elsamnah says he told her he was threatened with arrest after appearing at a Canadian consular office in Turkey. "We're really concerned that he may not try again - for good reason and fear of being arrested at the request of Canadian embassy officials - to get back home because he's without any assistance whatsoever abroad," Galati said. Galati could not explain how a man with little money and no official documents had travelled from Afghanistan to Pakistan, Turkey and the eastern edge of Europe over the past few weeks. "He is very frightened," said Elsamnah, who has lived in Canada for 30 years. She added that every time Khadr calls her he says he is in trouble but won't give her any details. Khadr, whose father and brother were allegedly members of Al Qaeda, was not returned to Canada from Cuba because American officials told him he was not wanted here, Galati said. Khadr has tried three times at consulate offices in Pakistan and Turkey to renew his Canadian passport and get a flight to Toronto, his grandmother and Galati said. "Canada is acting illegally, unconstitutionally and, arguably, in a criminal fashion," said Galati, who has defended several alleged terrorists following the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the United States. "Canada, I hate to say it, unfortunately does not recognize the citizenship of brown-skinned Muslims and Arabs," Galati said. Ahmed Said Khadr, Abdulrahman's father, and Abdulrahman's older brother, Abdullah, may have been killed in a gun battle in Pakistan. Canadian intelligence officials allege the father is a senior Al Qaeda member closely tied to Osama bin Laden. Khadr and his youngest brother, Omar, 17, formerly of Toronto, were among hundreds of suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Omar is accused of lobbing a grenade that killed an American in Afghanistan in 2002. He is still believed to be detained in Cuba although not charged. Khadr was reportedly captured by anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan in November 2002 and held by the Afghan government before being handed over to the Americans. * * * CTV: November 25, 2003 LAWYER BEGS FREED DETAINEE TO RETURN TO CANADA http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1069765871513_10/// The lawyer for a Canadian terror suspect quietly released by U.S. authorities from camp X-Ray in Cuba begged the young man to again try to come home now that his case had been publicized. At a press conference in Toronto on Tuesday, Rocco Galati accused Foreign Affairs of denying Abdul Rahman Khadr his passport and of being "negligent or spinning lies" because they deny knowing Khadr's whereabouts. "Canada is acting illegally, unconstitutionally and, arguably, in a criminal fashion," he said. "Canada, I hate to say it, unfortunately does not recognize the citizenship of brown-skinned Muslims and Arabs." Galati said Khadr, 20, made his way to the Canadian embassy in Islamabad only to be "denied travel documents by Canadian officials who indicated they did not want him back." Khadr was later turned away from the embassy in Turkey, leaving his whereabouts presently unknown, Galati said. "We don't know exactly where he is, we know the country but we don't know where." Khadr's grandmother, Fatmah Elsamnah, told reporters she is growing more and more worried. The last time she heard from Khadr, he was in Yugoslavia and running out of money. "He is very frightened," Elsamnah said. "I feel really bad. Today is our Eid. I am spending my Eid in my lawyer's office because I am waiting for my grandson." On Monday, the Department of Foreign Affairs in Ottawa admitted that Khadr, formerly of Toronto, had been released and returned to Afghanistan where he was arrested as an alleged al Qaeda fighter two years ago. In a statement released late in the day, Foreign Affairs spokesperson Reynald Doiron said Khadr opted not to return to Canada when he was released. As a Canadian, the former detainee can return to Canada "as a matter of right," Doiron said, but Khadr hasn't yet made any such request, he said. "We have no record of Mr. Khadr approaching a Canadian mission for assistance." Khadr's family is incensed and fearful for his safety. Since his release Khadr has travelled from Afghanistan to Pakistan and Turkey, and was last heard from in Yugoslavia. Galati could not explain how Khadr has been able to move from country to country with no passport and little money. According to Amnesty International's Alex Neve, the argument over what exactly is happening or should happen to terror suspects like Khadr -- who are held without charge or legal representation then suddenly released -- points to an underlying problem. "It leaves one with a real concern that what we've got here is a very arbitrary process of justice and detention in which legal rights are not being respected," Neve told CTV's Canada AM. "Of course if there is any evidence or allegations that Canadian authorities have connecting him with illegal terrorist activities, then Canadian law could and should kick in. "But that doesn't mean he should be barred from the country," Neve said. Ahmed Said Khadr, Abdul's father, and his oldest brother Abdullah were also allegedly members of al Qaeda, believed to have died in a gun battle in Pakistan. Ahmed's wife and daughter were denied Canadian passports in order to leave Pakistan six months ago. Khadr's youngest brother, Omar, was captured separately in Afghanistan, after a firefight in which an American soldier was mortally wounded. The 17 year old is believed to still be among the close to 660 suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay. News of Khadr's release follows a Pentagon announcement that 20 more prisoners had been released from the jail on Sunday. They were returned Friday to their homelands. Another 20 new suspects were transferred to the facility from an undisclosed location, officials said. Since the Guantanamo prison opened in January 2002, prisoners from 42 countries have been taken there for interrogation and detention. So far, 88 people have been released, four of whom were transferred to Saudi Arabian prisons for continued detention. * * * CTV: November 25, 2003 MARTIN VOWS TO 'GET TO THE BOTTOM' OF ARAR CASE http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1069803655538_65212855/ Liberal leader Paul Martin says when he becomes prime minister he intends to "get to the bottom" of the case of Maher Arar -- a Canadian man who claims he was tortured for nearly a year in Syria after being deported there by the United States. "I believe what happened was simply unacceptable," Martin told an Ottawa press conference Tuesday. "Let me tell you, when I become prime minister I'm going to get all of the facts and I'm going to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen again," he said. Martin said he had not ruled out the possibility of holding a public inquiry into the Arar case -- something the Opposition and critics have been calling for. Prime Minister Chretien has ruled out such an inquiry. Arar, 33, was detained and questioned as a suspected terrorist in New York in September 2002. Though he was never charged, he was suddenly sent to Syria, his birth country, via Jordan. There, he says he was beaten, kept in a tiny cell, and forced to sign a false confession. He was released without explanation in early October and described months of torture upon returning to Canada. Martin said Tuesday the Arar case showed how essential it is for Canadian and U.S. officials to share information. "If in fact we are going to have the kind of exchanges of information which are so important in terms of the security of North America, there is going to have to be an understanding that in fact the Canadian passport will be respected and that fundamental rights will be respected," he said. Martin will be sworn in as prime minister on Dec. 12. * * * November 25, 2003 - 23:25 GMT US FREES GUANTANAMO CHAPLAIN, BRINGS SEX CHARGES By Will Dunham WASHINGTON, Nov 25 (Reuters) - The U.S. Army on Tuesday ordered the release of a Muslim chaplain who worked with terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay prison and who had been accused of mishandling classified documents. The Miami-based U.S. Southern Command said four new charges were being brought against Capt. James James Yee, including for adultery, but none were related to espionage. Last month Yee, 35, who had ministered to prisoners being held at the Guantanamo Naval base on Cuba, was charged with two criminal counts as part of an espionage probe. The arrest of Yee and two others who worked at the Guantanamo facility spurred a probe into security gaps at the prison, with defense officials wanting to determine whether the prison had been infiltrated by al Qaeda. Yee's lawyer said the Army's handling of the case was outrageous. "The case that began with a bang seems to be winding up with a whimper," Eugene Fidell, Yee's lawyer, told Reuters. "To bring in adultery in a case that began with the destruction of my client's reputation with public allegations of aiding the enemy is really outrageous, and the type of thing that can give military justice a bad name," Fidell said. The four new charges were adultery and conduct unbecoming an officer for possession of pornography, as well as failure to obey an order and making a false official statement. The Army announced the first two charges against Yee of failing to obey an order on Oct. 10. Specifically he was accused of taking classified material to his home and transporting the material without proper security containers. Southern Command said Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, commander of the detention center at the Guantanamo base, authorized Yee's release from pretrial confinement in Charleston. Yee, 35, was arrested on Sept. 10 at Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida as he arrived back in the United States from Guantanamo. He had been held since then without charges at a military prison in Charleston, South Carolina. More than 600 foreign terrorism suspects, most captured in Afghanistan, are being held Guantanamo without charges or legal representation. The other two arrested were Arabic-language translators, one serving in the Air Force and one a civilian contractor at the base. One has been charged with espionage, and the other with wrongfully carrying classified documents. Asked whether the Army considered Yee's case espionage-related, Southern Command spokesman Raul Duany said, "Based on the charges, obviously it's not." * * * CNEWS: Novemebr 25, 2003 PAUL MARTIN DENIES CANADA SHUNNING MAN RELEASED FROM GUANTANAMO BAY http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/WarOnTerrorism/2003/11/25/268292-cp.html OTTAWA (CP) - Incoming prime minister Paul Martin denied Tuesday that the country is shunning a Canadian released from a U.S. jail in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where prisoners with alleged terrorist links are being held. "We have made it very clear to Mr. (Abdulrahman) Khadr that he would be welcome back to Canada and that the full level of consular services will be made available to him and, in fact, are being offered to him," Martin said. The comment came after a lawyer for Khadr's grandparents said the 20-year-old had been turned away and threatened with arrest when he approached Canadian consular officials overseas. He was flown to Afghanistan and released by the U.S. in October. Martin also spoke out Tuesday on the case of Maher Arar, another Canadian who was held on terrorist suspicions but never charged. Arar, 33, was arrested in New York in September 2002, in transit from Tunisia to his home in Canada. The Syrian-born man was questioned and detained for almost two weeks before he was deported to Syria via Jordan, even though he was travelling on his Canadian passport. The Americans said he was an al-Qaida terrorist suspect, although he has never been charged with a crime in any country. "I believe that what happened was simply unacceptable and that, if in fact we're going to have the kinds of exchanges of information which are so important in terms of the security of North America, that there is going to have to be an understanding that, in fact, the Canadian passport will be respected and that fundamental rights will be respected." Martin also said that unlike Prime Minister Jean Chretien, he wouldn't rule out an inquiry into Arar's case once he takes office next month. Arar said he was tortured in Syria before being released. In a news conference in Toronto on the Khadr case, lawyer Rocco Galati and Khadr's grandmother said Tuesday that Canadian officials have so far denied Khadr his passport and are "either completely ignorant and negligent" or "spinning some lies" because they have also denied knowing Khadr's whereabouts. But a spokesperson for Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham said Khadr hasn't sought help from Canadian Embassy or consular staff, but that help is available to him. France Bureau said if Khadr wants to return to Canada, there's nothing stopping him. "Mr. Khadr may return to Canada, as a matter of right." Canadian officials confirmed Monday that Khadr was released from a high-security prison at a U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, where he had been detained without charges since January. When Khadr contacted his grandmother Fatmah Elsamnah in Toronto over the weekend, he told her it would be his last call and his last attempt to return home. He said he was in the former Yugoslavia and he was running out of money, and was scared of being picked up and jailed again. Elsamnah says he told her he was threatened with arrest after appearing at a Canadian consular office in Turkey. "We're really concerned that he may not try again - for good reason and fear of being arrested at the request of Canadian embassy officials - to get back home because he's without any assistance whatsoever abroad," Galati said. Galati could not explain how a man with little money and no official documents had travelled from Afghanistan to Pakistan, Turkey and the eastern edge of Europe over the past few weeks. "He is very frightened," said Elsamnah, who has lived in Canada for 30 years. She added that every time Khadr calls her he says he is in trouble but won't give her any details. Khadr, whose father and brother were allegedly members of al-Qaida, was not returned to Canada from Cuba because American officials told him he was not wanted here, Galati said. Khadr has tried three times at consulate offices in Pakistan and Turkey to renew his Canadian passport and get a flight to Toronto, his grandmother and Galati said. "Canada is acting illegally, unconstitutionally and, arguably, in a criminal fashion," said Galati, who has defended several alleged terrorists following the Sept. 11 terror attacks in the United States. "Canada, I hate to say it, unfortunately does not recognize the citizenship of brown-skinned Muslims and Arabs," Galati said. Ahmed Said Khadr, Abdulrahman's father, and Abdulrahman's older brother, Abdullah, may have been killed in a gun battle in Pakistan. Canadian intelligence officials allege the father is a senior al-Qaida member closely tied to Osama bin Laden. Khadr and his youngest brother, Omar, 17, formerly of Toronto, were among hundreds of suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Omar is accused of lobbing a grenade that killed an American in Afghanistan in 2002. He is still believed to be detained in Cuba although not charged. Khadr was reportedly captured by anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan in November 2002 and held by the Afghan government before being handed over to the Americans. * * * CBC: November 25, 2003 CANADIAN AL-QAEDA SUSPECT DENIED ENTRY TO CANADA: LAWYER By CBC News Online staff http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/11/25/khadr031125 TORONTO - The brother of a 17-year-old Canadian suspected of killing a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan has been released from Guantanamo Bay but is being refused entry to Canada, a lawyer representing his family says. "Why is the Canadian government just sitting impotent -- to not only defending its citizens -- but also getting really nasty and refusing them re-entry when they have a right to re-enter," said Rocco Galati, who represents the family of Abdul Rahman Al-Khadr. Khadr, 20, who had been imprisoned since earlier this year, was sent to Afghanistan in late October. Khadr was arrested by the Northern Alliance after the fall of the Taliban in November 2001 as part of a round-up of suspected al- Qaeda members. His 17-year old brother Omar made headlines for his suspected involvement of killing a U.S. medic during a battle in Afghanistan last year. He remains in Guantanamo Bay. U.S. officials say their father, Ahmed Said Khadr, is a fugitive senior member of al-Qaeda. There are reports that Ahmed Said Khadr and one of his sons died during a raid on an al-Qaeda camp in the border region of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Canadian officials have been unable to confirm those reports. Khadr called his grandmother a week ago to say he had been taken from Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. naval base in Cuba, to Afghanistan and left there without money or identification. He told her the Canadian consulates in Pakistan and Turkey have refused to help him return to Canada. Galati said Khadr twice asked for assistance and travel documents in Turkey but was denied help. "He's on the streets, he's without any money or support. His physical health is not good -- his mental health is obviously very fragile," Galati said. Reynald Doiron, a spokesperson for Canada's Foreign Affairs department, denies Khadr was refused help by consular officials and there's no record he asked anyone for assistance. "What we can say is Mr. Khadr can return to Canada as his right -- provided of course he would have to step forward and request consular assistance," Dorian said. Doiron said his information indicates that Khadr ended up in Afghanistan because that was his choice. "Suffice to say he was sent to a place that was, let's say, negotiated between him and the American authorities." * * * Channel 4 News (UK): November 25, 2003 GUANTANAMO CONDEMNED By Alex Thomson http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/11/week_4/25_rights.html A top law Lord has urged judges to stand up to governments on the issue of Guantanamo Bay detainees. His remarks will be welcomed by human rights campaigners who claim they are being held illegally. Johan Steyn, the third most senior judge in Britain, arrived this evening to give his speech in central London. He's fired up alright -- and not just over Guantanamo Bay. He describes the US bombardment of Afghanistan as a military success - but it's left the region ravaged with warlords expanding their opium production for the world market. But he doesn't stop there. Seconds later he's onto Iraq saying the shock and awe was deeply unpopular and fractured the carefully crafted international order of things -- easy to wreck -- more difficult to reconstruct. He comes within a hair's breadth of saying America is torturing prisoners -- using techniques honed at their Bagram Base in Afghanistan. At Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay, he says there's sleep deprivation, forcing prisoners to stand for hours on end - what he terms minute cells 1.8m by 2.4m then quotes officials saying it's 'not quite torture but as close as you can get.' He said: "The purpose of holding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was and is to put them beyond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any courts, and at the mercy of victors. "The procedural rules do not prohibit the use of force to coerce prisoners to confess." Lord Justice Steyn says there's no justice -- Presidential order denies US courts hearing complaints of torture - or that prisoners might be non-combatants -- or foot soldiers who know nothing of al Qaeda. "The blanket presidential order deprives them all of any rights whatsoever. As a lawyer brought up to admire the ideals of American democracy and justice, I would have to say that I regard this as a monstrous failure of justice." The question is whether the quality of justice envisaged for the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay complies with the minimum international standards for the conduct of fair trials. The answer can be given quite shortly: It is a resounding No." Concluding, Lord Steyn says the deal whereby British prisoners at Camp Delta will escape the death penalty is morally indefensible. When George Bush met Tony Blair in London there was no sign of a solution to the Guantanamo problem. The judge says the Government's stance of continually saying it's working hard behind the scenes just won't wash anymore. "It may be appropriate to pose a question: Ought our government to make plain publicly and unambiguously our condemnation of the utter lawlessness at Guantanamo Bay?" * * * ABC (Aus) Online: 25 November, 2003 PM - Tuesday AUSTRALIA AND US REACH AGREEMENT ON HICKS AND HABIB Reporter: Catherine McGrath http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s997073.htm MARK COLVIN: But first, to the Federal Government's agreement with Washington on the conduct of the cases of the two Australians imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib. The Federal Government's reached agreement with the United States over how any military commission or military trial would be conducted. Neither has been charged, although both have been in detention for more than two years. The United States has previously indicated that Hicks is eligible to be tried by a military commission, though no decision has been taken yet on Mr Habib. Under the new agreement with the US, two relatives of David Hicks would be able to attend the trial, which the Government says would be open. He would be able to speak by telephone to his family and have face-to-face contact with an Australian lawyer if he wishes. From Canberra, Chief Political Correspondent Catherine McGrath reports. CATHERINE MCGRATH: They haven't been charged yet, and in the case of Mamdouh Habib the United States hasn't decided if he'll be eligible for a military commission. But the rules agreed to will apply to David Hicks and is he goes to Mamdouh Habib if he goes to trial. Attorney General Philip Ruddock. PHILIP RUDDOCK: Far from the sustained indifference, which some commentators have claimed the Government has shown towards Mr Hicks and Mr Habib, the Government has always been concerned for the welfare of Australian detainees in United States custody at Guantanamo Bay. But Australians who breach the laws of foreign countries while overseas have no automatic right to be repatriated to Australia for trial. So long as their trial is fair and transparent those who breach foreign laws while overseas are liable for their offences. CATHERINE MCGRATH: The Attorney General says that conversations between David Hicks and his lawyers will not be monitored by the United States, and if he chooses an Australian lawyer, he will be able to see him face-to-face, subject to a security clearance. PHILIP RUDDOCK: The accused will be represented at all times by a military defence counsel who have considerable expertise in military law and will provide a full and expert defence. An accused may also retain civilian defence counsel. To assume that a miliary defence counsel will act other than in the best interests of their client has no basis in fact. The rules of evidence applicable in Australian criminal proceedings do not apply to a trial before a US military commission. Those rules of evidence also do not apply before other international tribunals. For example, the rule against hearsay does not apply in relation to trials before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Similarly, the rule against hearsay does not apply in many states with highly developed legal systems which are based on the civil law tradition. Although certain rules of evidence do not apply to military commission trial, provision is made to ensure that the accused can examine and refute the evidence presented against him. Under the rules of miliary commissions, the defence shall be provided with access to the evidence the prosecution intends to introduce at trial, and evidence known by the prosecution that tends to exculpate the accused. In addition, the defence shall be able to present evidence in the accused's defence and to cross-examine each witness presented by the prosecution. CATHERINE MCGRATH: Since their arrest David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib have had no telephone contact with their families. If they go to trial, phone calls will be allowed. PHILIP RUDDOCK: Mr Hicks and if listed as eligible for trial, Mr Habib, may talk to their families via the telephone, and two family members would be available to attend their trials. An independent legal expert sanctioned by the Australian Government may observe the trial of Mr Hicks or Mr Habib. CATHERINE MCGRATH: All in all, the Attorney General says that the trial will be open, and the Australians will receive no less favourable treatment than other non-American detainees.But the Opposition says that's inadequate. Shadow Attorney General Robert McClelland. ROBERT MCCLELLAND: But fundamentally we have concerns with the trial process. The defence counsel will be military. The tribunal itself will be appointed by the military. The defence counsel will be under strict undertakings, for instance, they can't challenge the jurisdiction of the tribunal. There are all kinds of limitations which are foreign to trials in Australia, including, as the Attorney indicated, the absence of the rules of evidence. So for instance, what we're saying today in this House is arguably admissible against the men. All things considered we are still very concerned that two Australian citizens and again, we can't pronounce on the guilt or innocence of these individuals, all we can say is that as an Australian Parliament we should be ensuring that two Australian citizens are at the very least, given the opportunity for a standard of hearing, for a fair trial according to standards of Australian justice. CATHERINE MCGRATH: Robert McClelland says that Labor is also concerned about the review process, and the fact that neither man has been charged. Greens Senator Bob Brown says the Government hasn't protected the rights of David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib. BOB BROWN: It is important in recognising that the fate of Mr Hicks and Mr Habib in Guantanamo Bay is very much tied to the esteem with which we as Australians hold ourselves and all Australians in whatever circumstances they may find themselves around the world. And in this particular situation, there can be no doubt that the Australian Government has decided in its forelock tugging to the White House to allow these two individuals in Guantanamo Bay to be treated, not only outside the law, including international law and Australia's domestic law, but as second class citizens of a world in which the US President has deemed that Americans only are first class citizens. And that is not acceptable. MARK COLVIN: Bob Brown, the Leader of the Greens, ending Catherine McGrath's report. * * * 25 November, 2003 PM - Tuesday HICKS AND HABIB FAMILIES OPPOSED TO MILITARY TRIBUNAL Reporter: Edmond Roy http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s997077.htm MARK COLVIN: The families of David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib have given the Federal Government's announcement a cautious welcome. But they're still basically opposed to the prospect of a US military tribunal. They insist the two Australians will not be guaranteed a fair trial. Edmond Roy reports. EDMOND ROY: For Terry Hicks, father of David Hicks, the news from the Attorney General's office was nothing new. It was, according to him, the Government going over old ground, with no new input on the central question, the guilt or innocence of his son, David. Listening to Philip Ruddock's speech in Parliament, Terry Hicks picked up on one particular sentence, when Mr Ruddock claimed that the accused would be granted all the fundamental guarantees under military law. TERRY HICKS: What do they mean by "fundamental"? Now, after nearly two years, they should be saying he's innocent so we'll send him home. It's probably shattered every human rights law that there is because, I mean, it's nearly two years and no charges. If David's guilty of anything then he's got to wear it. But, I mean, after nearly two years, no charges, I mean, to me now, I just say he's not guilty. EDMOND ROY: It also says that if they are convicted they can serve out their sentences in Australia; does that give you any comfort there? TERRY HICKS: Well, it would be good if they did that because... as soon as he gets back here then I should say the civil lawyers would probably be jumping up and down because, I mean, what are they going to find him guilty of? EDMOND ROY: So are you suggesting then that if they are brought back here to serve time that you can mount a legal challenge? TERRY HICKS: I should say we'd be able to, yes. EDMOND ROY: That's an area that's still untested and could see some complicated legal arguments being expressed. For Mamdouh Habib, its a slightly different set of circumstances. While it's not clear yet, if he will be eligible to be tried in a military court, his lawyer, Stephen Hopper, is prepared for the worst. STEPHEN HOPPER: The problem with any of these miliary commissions are is they're very limited in their scope. For instance, say the lawyer in any court that brings issues of process against a client of mine, I can go in and challenge the jurisdiction of the court to hear that process, and you can't do that in these military commissions. They're not bound by the normal rules of evidence and the person who's under trial is basically locked away and isn't given an opportunity to properly prepare their defence. These guys have been detained for over two years now, and how are they meant to go and recreate their steps in Afghanistan or Pakistan and dig up forensic evidence to support their case? It's impossible. EDMOND ROY: So you don't take any comfort from this at all, do you? STEPHEN HOPPER: Well, no, there is some comfort. The Australian Government has, to its credit, guaranteed some further concessions that hadn't been there in the first place if in the event we are forced to go to one of these tribunals. And secondly, they've also made some representations to the US Government that Mr Habib's matter should be determined fairly quickly, as in, whether he will go to one of these commission or not. And this is quite a leap forward for the Government -- before they were just allowing to things to go on and on, but now they're saying "no", you know, to the US, "enough's enough, we want you to start dealing with Mr Habib, either charge him with one of these things or deal with him in some other way." EDMOND ROY: There is another complication. The US Supreme Court is due to rule on the validity of holding detainees in Guantanamo Bay sometime during the early part of next year. Depending on that ruling, today's announcement may well become academic, at least that's what the families of the two Australian detainees are hoping. MARK COLVIN: Edmond Roy. * * * Los Angeles Times: November 25, 2003 JAILED CHAPLAIN DECRIES TREATMENT * Army captain, a Muslim who worked with terrorist suspects at the U.S. prison in Cuba, says he's been blocked from practicing his faith. By Richard A. Serrano, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- The Muslim chaplain charged with mishandling classified material at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba said he has been held in harsh conditions, barred from practicing his Islamic faith and deprived of his legal right to a speedy trial. Army Capt. James Joseph Yee, a West Point graduate, speaking for the first time since his arrest in September, laid out his complaints in an unusual letter that his lawyer sent Monday to President Bush. Yee and his lawyer are demanding that the president release him from the brig at a Navy installation in South Carolina, where he is confined with terrorist suspects considered among the country's most dangerous, and that he be returned to his normal duty status until the case against him is resolved. "Capt. Yee is a United States citizen and service member," his lawyer, Eugene R. Fidell, said in the letter to Bush. "He is entitled to the full panoply of constitutional protections, including the right to a fair and speedy trial. This case, however, is moving at a glacial pace, and he is being treated as if he were an enemy combatant rather than a commissioned officer." But Capt. Tom Crosson, a spokesman for the military's Southern Command, which operates the prison for terrorism suspects at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, said the case is proceeding normally. "I can't speak to what the brig does in South Carolina, or what type of confinement they are holding him in," Crosson said. "But they are still within the correct time frame." Crosson said that Yee was taken into custody Sept. 10, and that under military law a court-martial should be held by Jan. 10, or within 120 days of his arrest. In addition, he said, there was a 45-day delay in the case once Yee was arrested. "So this is running its course," Crosson said. In the letter, Fidell said that for the first six weeks after Yee's arrest, he "was kept in isolation in a small cell for about 23 hours a day. He was required to wear hand- and leg-irons when leaving his cell ... and he was forced to endure several other harsh and illegal conditions on confinement." He said guards no longer recognized Yee as an Army captain and instead referred to him derisively as an enlistee. Fidell said Yee was not given a religious calendar or prayer rug in his cell, and that the brig staff "refused to tell him the time of day or the direction of Mecca, thereby needlessly interfering with his daily prayers and religious practices." He also said Yee was deprived of mail and not allowed to watch television or have reading materials other than the Koran. Even now, Fidell said, Yee is allowed one censored newspaper a day, and can make only two 15-minute phone calls a day to his lawyers or his family. Noting that he has been charged with two violations of mishandling classified information, Fidell said such treatment "is totally wrong and unfair." Normally, he said, military personnel with similar charges are released pending their court-martial. "If everyone who failed to safeguard classified information according to the letter of the regulation were imprisoned," Fidell said, "the brigs would be at capacity and then some." Instead, he said, his client is being held with some of the nation's most notorious terrorist suspects, including Jose Padilla, who is accused of plotting to explode a radioactive "dirty bomb" in the U.S., and declared enemy combatants Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri and Yaser Esam Hamdi. * * * Boston Globe -- November 25, 2003 US RELEASES 20 DETAINEES, TRANSFERS 20 MORE TO CUBA By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/329/nation/US_releases_20_detainees_transfers_ 20_more_to_Cuba+.shtml WASHINGTON -- The US military sent home 20 "enemy combatants" last weekend who were being held without trial at Guantanamo Bay naval base in Cuba -- only to replace them with the same number of new prisoners. The prisoner transfer, the first such movement since mid-July, followed a determination by senior military and intelligence officials that the outgoing group "either no longer posed a threat to US security or no longer required detention by the United States," according to a statement the Department of Defense released yesterday. "We can't talk about any of the individuals that may have departed the island due to security concerns," said Lieutenant Colonel Pamela Hart, a spokeswoman for the isolated facility at which the United States detains and interrogates suspected terrorists. But a high-ranking Pakistani official, who said yesterday that at least five of the outgoing transferees were Pakistani citizens, offered a chilly reaction to the Pentagon's news. "The government is happy, but this is too damn late," said Imran Ali, second secretary of the Pakistan Embassy, adding that 21 Pakistanis have been released from Guantanamo, but another 37 are still there. "Their lives have been destroyed. Their families have gone through psychological trauma, since they were not terrorists; they were just low-level Taliban fighters." The Paskistani official's reaction illustrated the pressure on the United States to resolve the situation -- especially from allies in the war on terrorism who have expressed concern for their citizens who are among the 660 prisoners from 42 countries being held at the base. Although the State Department has been negotiating with a number of countries to continue the detention of some, all those transferred last weekend will be released by their countries, US officials said. The Pentagon statement said that "at the time of their detention, these enemy combatants posed a threat to US security." It offered little information about the new arrivals, except that they were transferred from US Central Command in the Middle East. Navy Lieutenant Commander Barbara Burfeind, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said none of the new detainees were captured in Iraq. The weekend transfers of the detainees bring to 88 the number of Al Qaeda or Taliban suspects who have been transferred out. Of those, 84 were released and four were handed over to Saudi Arabia. Ruth Wedgwood, an international law professor at Johns Hopkins University, said the arrival of the 20 new detainees follows a flare-up of fighting by Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan. Wedgwood has defended the Bush administration's position that the rules of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to the detainees because they were not soldiers of a regular Afghan army. "Dismayingly, the Taliban have become very active again in the southern area, so really . . . the war isn't over in that area," she said. Not among those who were transferred for release, according to a senior Pentagon official, were the three "juvenile enemy combatants" -- Afghans ages 13 to 15 who were captured fighting alongside the Taliban and whose detention at the prison has attracted particularly intense international criticism. The commander of Guantanamo operations, Major General Geoffrey Miller, had recommended that they be sent home in August. US officials say they have been coordinating with UNICEF in the event that the young fighters are released. UNICEF, a United Nations agency that has offered to handle the juvenile combatants, runs a program to ease the reintegration of former child soldiers back into their home societies. "The State Department and UNICEF will make sure that if they're returned to Afghanistan, they won't just be plopped down," a Pentagon official told The Boston Globe last week. Ken Hurwitz of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, a New York-based organization, said that the surprise release reflected the military's "improvisational" policy decisions and its arbitrary power over the prisoners at the base. "It's the rule of law that's the point," he said. "They're saying 'Trust us, and we'll do the right thing.' But there is no right thing unless it's pursuant to some kind of ordered, lawful proceeding." Challenges to the detentions that have been filed in federal court have so far been dismissed because the base is located on Cuban soil -- it has been leased and controlled by the United States for a century -- and outside the jurisdiction of US sovereignty. Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court said it would review the question of whether federal court jurisdiction may extend there. In a related development, the lawyer for Army Captain James "Yousef" Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo who was arrested in September in the alleged mishandling of classified material, sent a letter to President Bush yesterday asking that his client be released from pretrial detention for Thanksgiving and his daughter's birthday. "These charges do not warrant pretrial confinement of any kind," Eugene Fidell wrote in the letter. "While military sources initially reported a wild laundry list of suspected offenses, such as spying or aiding the enemy, these have now been reduced to two relatively minor [charges]. . . . Nonetheless, he is being treated as if the original laundry list of charges was the legal basis for his confinement. This is totally wrong and unfair." Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said he would look into the letter, but had no comment on the president's behalf. Farah Stockman of the Globe staff contributed to this report. © Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company. * * * Hi Pakistan: November 24, 2003 FOUR PAKISTANIS AT GUANTANAMO BAY FACE TRIAL http://www.hipakistan.com/en/detail.php?newsId=en46182&F_catID=&f_type=source WASHINGTON, Nov 24: US authorities are believed to have decided to try four Pakistani prisoners at Guantanamo Bay prison camp in special military courts, diplomatic sources told Dawn on Monday. Other Pakistani nationals at the prison, which is also known as Camp X-Ray, are still being interrogated, said the sources. "Most of them may be released in small batches, like the five released last week," said a senior official who deals with the prisoners. "Some may face trials." The Pakistan Embassy in Washington estimates that so far about 20 Pakistani prisoners have been released from Camp X-Ray while more than 50 Pakistanis are still there. When asked to comment on the report that US authorities want to try four Pakistanis in special military courts, officials at the Pakistan Embassy said Pakistan would prefer to have the trial at a civil court. "We have told them that it would be difficult for us to defend Pakistani prisoners in a special military court," said Deputy Chief of Mission Mohammed Sadiq. "We have requested US authorities to allow us to try them in a civil court in Pakistan," he added. Mr Sadiq said Pakistani authorities understood why it was taking longer to release Pakistani prisoners than the Afghans. "It is easier for the Americans to release Afghans. Once it is proven that they are not linked to the Taliban or Al Qaeda, they are allowed to go." "But it is difficult for a Pakistani to establish what he was doing in Afghanistan when he was arrested. Even if not linked to the Taliban or Al Qaeda, they at least went there with the intention to fight US forces," he said. Meanwhile, a group of American journalists who visited Camp X-Ray last week said that so far there have been 31 suicide attempts at the camp. "The attempts were made by 21 prisoners, some of whom tried to kill themselves more than once," said Nick Horrock of United Press International who also visited the camp and interviewed prison officials. Prison authorities told Mr Horrock that no prisoner has died but one man has serious, long-term medical difficulties resulting from his attempt. Prison officials also said that some of the British prisoners in their custody were of Pakistani origin. These include the two British detainees, Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, whose trials were ordered by President Bush in July. Abbasi is 23, was born in Uganda and moved to Britain when he was 8. In November 2002, a British court of appeal found his imprisonment "legally objectionable," but failed to order the government to intervene. Begg, 35, is from Birmingham. He was picked up by the CIA in Pakistan in February 2002 and moved to Guantanamo. Other Britain citizens held at Guantanamo Bay are Ruhal Ahmed, 20, who went to Afghanistan in 2001 with Rasul, 24; Iqbal, 20; and Munir Ali, 21. They were held by US Special Forces in Kandahar before being transferred to Camp X-Ray. Other British nationals arrested in Pakistan include Richard Belmar, 23, of London, Tarek Dergoul, 20, also from London, and Martin Mubanga, 29, and Jamal Udeen, 35, both from Manchester. Najeeb bin Mohamed Ahmed al-Nuaimi, a Qatari lawyer who represents some 95 of the detainees at the request of their families, told UPI that he believes none of them will face the death penalty. But the delays have caused difficulties, according to the International Commission of the Red Cross. ICRC officials are the only outsiders who have been able to talk to the detainees. In an unusual statement in October, the ICRC said the long incarceration, with repetitive interrogations, no charges and no outside contact has caused a "worrying deterioration" among the detainees. Two of the British detainees, Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal; Australian citizen Terry Hicks, and 12 Kuwaiti nationals at Guantanamo sued President Bush and the US government through friends and families seeking release from illegal incarceration. Earlier this month, the US Supreme Court agreed to take the case and a hearing will be scheduled in the next several months. * * * Toronto Globe and Mail: Nov. 25, 2003 - 9:12 GMT U.S. RELEASES CANADIAN DETAINED IN GUANTANAMO By COLIN FREEZE AND GAY ABBATE http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20031125.uguan1125/BNStory/ National/ A Canadian citizen has been quietly released from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and those close to him say he wants to return to Toronto to talk about his two years as a detained terrorist suspect. Abdul Rahman Khadr, who turns 21 next month, has been released back to Afghanistan, where he was arrested as an alleged al-Qaeda fighter two years ago. Now, he "wants to come back [to Canada] as soon as possible," said Aly Hindy, a Toronto imam who has known the detained man's family since they came to Canada from Egypt in the 1970s. The imam said he hopes Mr. Khadr will come home to give Canadians an insider's view of Guantanamo Bay, just as Maher Arar, another former terrorist suspect, has recently spoken of the horrors of his detention in Syria. But supporters of Mr. Khadr say Canada is refusing to let him come home. This accusation will be detailed in a Toronto press conference to be held this morning. News of Mr. Khadr's release took many observers by surprise yesterday, given the fact that his father and brother remain al-Qaeda suspects and the secrecy that had surrounded his case. Canadian officials had tried but failed to visit Abdul Rahman Khadr while he was locked up as one of nearly 700 uncharged enemy combatants in Cuba. Now, he is now a free man somewhere in the Middle East. This much was confirmed by Canada's Foreign Affairs Department late yesterday. "Canadian government officials were made aware a few weeks ago that Mr. Khadr would be released," said spokesman Reynald Doiron yesterday. "Privacy concerns limit our ability to provide information on his current whereabouts." No explanation has been given for the release and there seem to be no outstanding allegations against the young man. "Mr. Khadr may return to Canada as a matter of right," Mr. Doiron said. "As with all Canadians, consular services may be provided to him on request at most Canadian missions abroad. "We have no record of Mr. Khadr approaching a Canadian mission seeking assistance." But family members in Toronto say they have been getting a series of panicked phone calls from Mr. Khadr since his release in late October. They are referring all questions about this to Rocco Galati, a Toronto lawyer who represents several accused al-Qaeda terrorist suspects whom Canada is trying to deport. Mr. Galati, who is to hold the press conference this morning, issued a statement yesterday saying that Mr. Khadr has been wandering around the Middle East since his release, travelling from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Turkey. He is now "on the streets, his health is at severe risk and his mental condition fragile. His current whereabouts are unknown," the statement said. According to Mr. Galati's statement, the young man was released by the Americans late last month. "He was then, according to his American captors, refused entry into Canada as Canada would not permit re-entry. U.S. troops then dumped him in Afghanistan with no ID and no money." From there, Mr. Khadr was said to have made his way to the Canadian embassy in Islamabad, where he was "denied travel documents by Canadian officials who indicated they do not want him back," Mr. Galati's statement said. He then went to Turkey, where he twice requested assistance and travel documents, but he was refused both times, the statement said. Mr. Khadr, who has dual Canadian and Egyptian citizenship, was apprehended by Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan in November, 2001. His captors allege he was a fighter for the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces -- a faction quickly routed during the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, which resulted in hundreds of so- called enemy combatants being sent to the U.S.-controlled naval base in Cuba. The imam, who has known the family for more than 20 years, said he first heard about the young man's release from Mr. Khadr's Toronto grandfather last Thursday. "He told me he [Mr. Khadr] called collect and he has no money, no papers, no nothing, and he's trying to get to Canada," he said. Though Mr. Khadr "badly wants to come" back to Canada, Mr. Hindy said, "he doesn't know what to do. He keeps calling the grandparents all the time." Omar, Mr. Khadr's 17-year-old brother, remains locked up in Cuba, where he is a juvenile suspected of killing a U.S. soldier during a fierce battle in Afghanistan last year. Ahmed Said Khadr, his father, is a fugitive al-Qaeda suspect, who was once also suspected of involvement in a deadly bombing in Pakistan. Unlike the case against Omar, who was caught wounded after a battle, Abdul Rahman Khadr's case has always been murkier. This is acknowledged by Canadian officials. "It was always very tenuous . . . the sense we all had was that they couldn't get the father to come into the open," and Abdul Rahman's arrest was "a pressure tactic," said Gar Pardy, the recently retired head of consular services at Canada's Foreign Affairs Department. Steven Watt, a New York lawyer who has brought the case of the Guantanamo Bay detainees to the U.S. Supreme Court, said the release is surprising because Canada has not been pushing for the Khadrs' release. "The Canadians haven't really done much in terms of representing their nationals," he said. * * * November 24, 2003 CANADA SLAMS DOOR ON TERROR SUSPECT FREED FROM CUBAN JAIL, FAMILY SAYS By STEPHANIE LEVITZ http://www.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/WarOnTerrorism/2003/11/24/267219-cp.html (CP) - Canadian consular doors are being slammed in the face of a Canadian terrorist suspect quietly released by U.S. authorities from their jail at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a lawyer for his family says. Abdul Rahman Khadr, 21, whose father and brother were allegedly members of al- Qaida, was set free from the high-security prison a few weeks ago, the Department of Foreign Affairs said Monday. Spokesman Reynald Doiron said Khadr chose not to return to Canada upon his release and refuted reports that Khadr was being denied a Canadian passport from embassy officials. The family's lawyer in Toronto says Khadr was dropped into Afghanistan by U.S. authorities with no money or identification and was told that Canada doesn't want him back. Through an Internet messenger service and a hasty phone call, Khadr told his grandparents last week that the Canadian embassies in both Pakistan and Turkey kicked him out when he told them who he was. However, Doiron said Khadr hasn't yet asked for consular support. "We have no record of Mr. Khadr approaching a Canadian mission with a request for assistance," said Doiron. Lawyer Rocco Galati, who is working with Khadr's family in Toronto, snorted derisively when told that Foreign Affairs had no record of Khadr asking for help. "That's bullshit. It's very convenient. They had no information on Arar either," Galati said, referring to the case of Maher Arar, an Ottawa man deported to Syria after passing through the United States and tortured during a year in prison. "Consular officials visited him in Cuba. You're telling me you're not going to keep tabs on a Canadian and be posted when he's released so you can bring him home?" Ahmed Said Khadr, Abdul's father, and his oldest brother Abdullah were allegedly members of al-Qaida. They are both believed to have died in a gun battle in Pakistan. Ahmed's wife and daughter were denied Canadian passports in order to leave Pakistan six months ago, Galati said, so the officials in Islamabad must have known who Khadr was. They likely do. Doiron said that the Khadr name is so well known to consular officials that the minute a member of the family arrives on a consular doorstep, officials in Ottawa know about it. That's why, Doiron said, if there's no record that Abdul has visited a consular office, it's likely he hasn't yet asked for a passport. Khadr and his youngest brother, Omar, 17, formerly of Toronto, were among hundreds of suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay. They were captured separately during the war in Afghanistan. The teenaged Omar, who was captured after a firefight in which an American soldier was mortally wounded, is believed to still be at the jail in Cuba. Galati said neither he nor the family knows exactly where Abdul Rahman Khadr is now and they are very worried. "We're fearful for his safety," said Galati. "We don't exactly where he is, we know the country but we don't know where." Galati said the family is incensed with Ottawa. "Where do they get off saying to a Canadian citizen you don't have a right to come into your own country? They are acting like a bunch of hooligans." News of Khadr's release came on the heels of the Pentagon announcing Monday the release of 20 more prisoners from Guantanamo. They were returned Friday to their homelands. The U.S. military, meanwhile, brought some 20 new suspects to the facility from an undisclosed location, officials said. The Sunday transfer means the prison on the U.S. naval base still holds some 660 people suspected of taking part in guerrilla activity - many believed al-Qaida and Taliban figures captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan two years ago at the start of the U.S. war on terrorism. So far 88 people have been transferred out of Guantanamo - 84 to be released in their countries and four transferred into Saudi Arabian prisons for continued detention. Since the Guantanamo prison opened in January 2002, prisoners from 42 countries, including Canada, have been taken there for interrogation and detention. U.S. officials said their aim was to get intelligence to help avoid future attacks and keep dangerous people out of circulation. * * * Los Angeles Times: November 23, 2003 Mission Creep Hits Home * American armed forces are assuming major new domestic policing and surveillance roles. By William M. Arkin SOUTH POMFRET, VERMONT -- Preoccupied with the war in Iraq and still traumatized by Sept. 11, 2001, the American public has paid little attention to some of what is being done inside the United States in the name of anti-terrorism. Under the banner of "homeland security," the military and intelligence communities are implementing far-reaching changes that blur the lines between terrorism and other kinds of crises and will break down long-established barriers to military action and surveillance within the U.S. "We must start thinking differently," says Air Force Gen. Ralph E. "Ed" Eberhart, the newly installed commander of Northern Command, the military's homeland security arm. Before 9/11, he says, the military and intelligence systems were focused on "the away game" and not properly focused on "the home game." "Home," of course, is the United States. Eberhart's Colorado-based command is charged with enhancing homeland security in two ways: by improving the military's capability to defend the country's borders, coasts and airspace -- unquestionably within the military's long- established mission -- and by providing "military assistance to civil authorities" when authorized by the secretary of Defense or the president. That too may sound unexceptionable: The military has long had mechanisms to respond to a request for help from state governors. New after 9/11 are more aggressive preparations and the presumption that local government will not be able to carry the new homeland security load. Being the military, moreover, contingency planners approach preparing by assuming the worst. All of this is a major -- and potentially dangerous -- departure from past policy. The U.S. military operates under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the direct use of federal troops "to execute the laws" of the United States. The courts have interpreted this to mean that the military is prohibited from any active role in direct civilian law enforcement, such as search, seizure or arrest of civilians. "There are abundant reasons for rejecting the further expansion of the military's domestic role," says Mackubin T. Owens, a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College. Looking at the issue historically, Owens wrote in an August 2002 essay in the National Review's online edition that "the use of soldiers as a posse [places] them in the uncomfortable position of taking orders from local authorities who had an interest in the disputes that provoked the unrest in the first place." Moreover, Owens said, becoming more involved in domestic policing can be "subtle and subversive ... like a lymphoma or termite infestation." Though we are far from having "tanks rumbling through the streets," he said, the potential long-term effect of an increasing military role in police and law enforcement activities is "a military contemptuous of American society and unresponsive to civilian authorities." Eberhart says his Northern Command operates scrupulously within the bounds of the law. "We believe the [Posse Comitatus] Act, as amended, provides the authority we need to do our job, and no modification is needed at this time," he told the House Armed Services Committee in March. Of course, what he knows is that amendments approved by Congress in 1996 for that earlier civilian war, the war on drugs, have already expanded the military's domestic powers so that Washington can act unilaterally in dispatching the military without waiting for a state's request for help. Long before 9/11, Congress authorized the military to assist local law enforcement officials in domestic "drug interdiction" and during terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the president, after proclaiming a state of emergency, can authorize additional actions. Indeed, the military is presently operating under just such an emergency declaration. Eberhart's command has defined three levels of operations, each of which triggers a larger set of authorized activities. The levels are "extraordinary," "emergency" and "temporary." At the "temporary" level, which covers such things as the Olympic Games or the Super Bowl, limited assistance can be provided to law enforcement agencies when a governor requests it, primarily in such areas as logistics, transportation and communications. During "emergencies," the military can provide similar support, mostly in response to specific events such as the attacks on the World Trade Center. It is only in the case of "extraordinary" domestic operations that the unique capabilities of the Defense Department are deployed. These include not just such things as air patrols to shoot down hijacked planes or the defusing of bombs and other explosives, , but also bringing in intelligence collectors, special operators and even full combat troops. Given the absence of terrorist attacks inside the United States since 9/11, it may seem surprising that Northern Command is already working under the far- reaching authority that goes with "extraordinary operations." But it is. "We are not going to be out there spying on people," Eberhart told PBS' NewsHour in September. But, he said, "We get information from people who do." Some of that information increasingly comes not from the FBI or those charged with civilian law enforcement but from a Pentagon organization established last year, the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA). The seemingly innocuous CIFA was originally given the mission of protecting the Defense Department and its personnel, as well as "critical infrastructure," against espionage conducted by terrorists and foreign intelligence services. But in August, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld expanded CIFA's mission, charging it with maintaining "a domestic law enforcement database that includes information related to potential terrorist threats directed against the Department of Defense." The group's Assessments and Technology Directorate, which shares offices with the Justice Department's Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, has already identified 200 foreign terrorist suspects in the U.S., according to a Defense Department report to Congress. This year, the Pentagon inspector general authorized assigning military special agents to 56 FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force operations at FBI field offices. These military agents will pursue leads in local communities of potential threats to the military. Eberhart also plans to have his own cadre of agents working with local law enforcement. Next year, he plans to transform Joint Task Force Six, a drug interdiction unit of 160 military personnel at Ft. Bliss, Texas, into Joint Interagency Task Force North. The new task force will be given nationwide responsibility for working with law enforcement agencies. CIFA, moreover, has been given a domestic "data mining" mission: figuring out a way to process massive sets of public records, intercepted communications, credit card accounts, etc., to find "actionable intelligence." "Homeland defense relies on the sharing of actionable intelligence among the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies," says Lt. Gen. Edward G. Anderson III, Eberhart's deputy. Another ambitious domestic project is being undertaken by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which is gathering "geospatial information" about 133 cities, the borders and seaports. This "urban data inventory" combines unclassified and classified data (including such things as the location of emergency services, communications, transportation and food supplies) with a high-resolution satellite map of the United States. When the mapping efforts are completed, a national "spatial data infrastructure" will be created down to the house level. Intelligence analysts speak of one day being able to identify individual occupants, as well as their national background and political affiliations. Though the military is just getting its systems in place, there can be no other conclusion: Domestic surveillance is back. It's not that we're heading toward martial law. We're not. But outside the view of most of the public, the government is daily expanding military operations into areas of local government and law enforcement that historically have been off-limits. And it doesn't seem far-fetched to imagine that those charged with assembling "actionable intelligence" will slowly start combining databases of known terrorists with seemingly innocuous lists of contributors to charities or causes, that membership lists for activist organizations will be folded in, that names and personal data of anti-globalization protesters will be run through the "data mine." After all, the mission of Northern Command and other Pentagon agencies is to identify groups and individuals who could potentially pose threats to Defense Department and civilian installations. Given all this, it might be a good time for state and local governments to ask themselves whether the federal government, through the military, is slowly eroding their power to manage what -- for very good reasons -- have always been considered local responsibilities. [ William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for Opinion. E-mail: warkin@igc.org ] ------- * * * Globe and Mail Monday, Nov. 24, 2003 Arar's deportation threatens co-operation with U.S., Manley says By Shawn Mccarthy New York -- The Canadian government wants a "clear understanding" from the Bush administration that Canadian citizens will not be deported to third countries, Deputy Prime Minister John Manley said yesterday. Mr. Manley said Canada and the United States will have to deepen bilateral co- operation in order to provide for a common defence of North America against terrorist threats, but he said the Americans' decision to deport Maher Arar to Syria threatens that co-operation. He said the deportation of Maher Arar is a "serious impediment" to greater co- operation. "There is no question that the exchange of information between Canada and the United States is necessary to our mutual security and will have to continue but we do have to have a clear understanding on how our citizens are going to be treated in another country," he said. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft has defended the decision - reportedly taken by officials in his office - to send Mr. Arar to Syria after he was detained at JFK Airport in New York during a flight to Montreal from Tunisia. Mr. Ashcroft said last week that the U.S. had Syrian assurances that Mr. Arar - who was suspected of having links to al Qaeda - would not be mistreated. The Canadian citizen has denied any links to terrorist organizations. Mr. Manley said federal cabinet ministers have been seeking some type of formal assurances from the Americans - so far without success - that Canadian citizens will not be deported to third countries. "They of course can be dealt with under U.S. law domestically, and that happens on a daily basis. But any removal should be to Canada," he said. The deputy prime minister has chaired the Liberal government's cabinet committee on security and been the principle counterpart to U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Thomas Ridge. He said yesterday that two countries are going to have to deepen their joint security efforts in order maintain an open flow of goods and people across the border, where Canada ships 87-per-cent of its exports. While Canadians tend to look at cross-border flows as an economic issue, while the Americans have looked at it through a "security lens" since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And that the federal government must allay any fears that Canada is a weak link in North American security. "Whether the concerns are legitimate or not is irrelevant," he said. "If I've got a customer who buys 87 per cent of what I sell, my customer is always right so I'm going to make sure I try to meet those needs," he said. Mr. Manley also offered some advice to incoming prime minister, Paul Martin, who takes over in two weeks and has promised to repair Canada-U.S. relations that have been strained under Mr. Chretien. "I like to say there are two rules in Canadian politics. One is: don't be too far from the United States. And the other is, you should not be too close to the United States," he said. "So Mr. Martin will need to find a way to walk that careful line." * * * KERRY'S WIFE WEIGHS IN ON GUANTANAMO James Neal, Associated Press SEATTLE - The wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Monday that suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay should be given prisoner of war status. "They were captured while fighting a war," Teresa Heinz Kerry said at an informal discussion with minority activists in Seattle. "They should have the rights that other prisoners of war have had." Heinz Kerry, the heir to the Heinz family's food fortune, said denying the detainees the protections of the Geneva Convention is "insulting, ignorant and insensitive" to the rest of the world. She added that under President Bush, the United States, once known as the standard-bearer for human rights, is now considered a hypocrite. "The arrogance shown by this administration on human rights and in its foreign policy is horrible," she said. Some 660 people suspected of taking part in terrorist activity are being held at the prison on the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Many, believed to be members of al-Qaida or the Taliban, were captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan two years ago in war on terrorism. The Bush administration has said its top priority is interrogating the detainees for intelligence on any planned terrorist attacks. American officials started releasing some of the detainees a year ago, using a system under which they had to be judged no further threat, of no further intelligence value and not wanted for prosecution. Officials have said the prisoners would either be tried by U.S. military tribunals, held indefinitely in Cuba or sent home if their governments could be trusted to handle them properly - something never completely explained publicly. A spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign said Sen. Kerry supports his wife's position that the detainees should be given basic protections such as the right to an attorney. "As long as al-Qaida is actively trying to take down America, Sen. Kerry believes that these prisoners should be held as enemy combatants," spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said. "But unlike the Bush administration, he also believes that we don't need to shred our Constitution in the name of national security." * * * November 24, 2003 - 13:03 GMT CANADIAN TERROR SUSPECT RELEASED FROM GUANTANAMO BAY Canadian Press The U.S. government has released a Canadian terrorism suspect held in a high- security jail in Cuba, the Department of Foreign Affairs said Monday. "Canadian government officials were made aware a few weeks ago that Mr. Abdul Rahman Khadr would be released, which he was," said spokesman Reynald Doiron. He said Khadr went to a country of his own choosing and may return to Canada as a matter of right. "Privacy concerns limit our ability to provide information on his current whereabouts," Doiron added. He said consular services will be provided to Khadr on request at most Canadian missions abroad. "We have no record of Mr. Khadr approaching a Canadian mission with a request for assistance." Khadr, 21, and his brother Omar Khadr, 17, formerly of Toronto, were among hundreds of suspects held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay. They were captured separately in Afghanistan. The fate of Omar Khadr was not clear. Doiron said that Abdul Rahman Khadr was released a few weeks ago. His comments came as the Pentagon announced the release of 20 more prisoners from Guantanamo. They were returned Friday to their home countries. The U.S. military, meanwhile, brought some 20 new suspects to the facility from an undisclosed location, officials said. The Sunday transfer means the prison on the U.S. naval base still holds some 660 people suspected of taking part in guerrilla activity -- many believed al-Qaida and Taliban figures captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan two years ago at the start of the U.S. war on terrorism. So far 88 people have been transferred out of Guantanamo -- 84 to be released in their countries and four transferred into Saudi Arabian prisons for continued detention. Since the Guantanamo prison opened in January, 2002, prisoners from 42 countries, including Canada, have been taken there for interrogation and detention. U.S. officials said their aim was to get intelligence to help avoid future attacks and keep dangerous people out of circulation. * * * NCM: November 24, 2003 EX-GUANTANAMO PRISONER PLANS LAWSUIT AGAINST U.S. GOVERNMENT Al Alam and Abu Dhabi Television, News Report, Compiled by Jalal Ghazi for Link TV http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id= ccc66cfef401c08f33c32b2fe0f2950c The first Pakistani released from the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo, Cuba is demanding financial compensation for the time that he was mistakenly imprisoned at the facility after his arrest in Afghanistan. Muhamad Sagheer, a preacher, is demanding $10.4 million for the mistreatment he was subjected to at the prison camp located on a U.S. naval base. He told a news conference that the ordeal resulted in the loss of his job and emotional and financial suffering for his family. According to Iran's Al-Alam television, which broadcast a news conference that Sagheer held, different lawyers and humanitarian organizations are trying to support him and adopt his case. He submitted his claims to the U.S. federal government, but has not received an answer yet. Sagheer is a Pakistani citizen who went to Afghanistan with a religious group called "Al Tabligh." The organization is not involved in politics; it only preaches people to believe in God, according to the Al-Alam on-air reporter. He was arrested on Nov. 11, 2001 and released the same month a year later. He tells a story about when he was being held in Afghanistan and placed in a closed container, where he witnessed with his own eyes the death of 50 people from a lack of oxygen, water and food. At one point, he was transferred to the prison in Cuba, where the U.S. has a naval base and is holding over 600 detainees from its war on terror. "They did not allow us to pray," Sagheer told Al-Alam television. "They shaved our heads, kept us from sleeping and put us in cold rooms as a kind of punishment. When they realized that I have no relations with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, they released me and gave me 100 U.S. dollars. I was jailed without a court hearing and the rest of the prisoners have not been tried yet. That is a great injustice." The Pakistani government is trying to get dozens more prisoners released from Guanatanamo prison, but the U.S. administration has not been very cooperative. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take a case to evaluate the right of the Guantanamo prisoners to legal hearings in the U.S. court system, but that will not happen until next year. According to Abu Dhabi Television, two British citizens, two Australians and twelve Kuwaitis are also suing the U.S. government, saying that their detention violates international laws and regulations. In Guantanamo, there are over 650 detainees from more than 40 countries, including a 90-year-old man and a 13-year-old child. The detainees are being held in jails that resemble warrens of cages. All these detainees, who are described as illegal combatants, remain under the direct jurisdiction of the U.S. Defense Department, says Abu Dhabi Television. The on-air reporter for the satellite channel, one of the most popular in the Arab world, says the terminology of "illegal combatant" was invented as away to justify stripping the detainees of their rights granted to prisoners of war by the Geneva Convention. U.S. officials continue trying to justify the situation in Guantanamo although it violates international law and the basic principles of human rights, the Abu Dhabi reporter says. If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to take the case, that might provide President Bush's Administration with a solution to the moral and legal dilemma that it has put itself into by establishing the prison camp. An exit from this dilemma is especially important now as Bush preaches to countries in the region giving lessons on democracy and human rights, the Abu Dhabi reporter concludes. * * * CBC: November 24, 2003 ARAR SUES SYRIA AND JORDON OTTAWA - Maher Arar has filed a lawsuit in Canada seeking millions in damages from Syria and Jordan, accusing both countries of kidnapping, assault and torture. Arar on his return home from Syria early last month (file photo) "He is seeking justice in Canadian courts because unfortunately he will not be able to obtain justice in either Syrian or Jordanian courts," said Lorne Waldman, Arar's lawyer. "He is seeking justice so the people who tortured him can be held accountable for what they did." Arar is the Ottawa man who was stopped by U.S. officials at a New York airport in the fall of 2002, and subsequently deported to Syria, via Jordan. He was held in a Syrian jail for 10 months and 10 days. FROM NOV. 4, 2003: 'Daily life in that place was hell,' says Arar Arar's lawsuit seeks $5 million in damages from the Syrian Arab Republic, and another $1 million from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The 33-year-old computer consultant is also seeking $25 million in punitive damages, citing psychological stress, physical injuries, loss of livelihood and reputation, and separation from his family. But the Canadian government says the State Immunity Act prevents torture victims from seeking redress against foreign governments in Canadian courts. The Ministry of Justice has already intervened in the case of an Iranian-Canadian, Houshang Bouzari, to try to prevent him from suing the Islamic Republic of Iran. Arar's lawyer Lorne Waldman says he'll intervene in that case to support Arar's right to sue. "We don't want to have the door shut by a decision in the Bouzari case that might foreclose options for us," said Waldman. Waldman will argue Thursday that the State Immunity Act should not protect states that violate international laws and conventions by torturing people. The office of Justice Minister Martin Cauchon was not available for comment. * * * Civil Liberties Watch: GULAG AMERICANA by Elaine Cassel http://babelogue.citypages.com:8080/ecassel/ The November 22 Washington Post reported an alarming story about a Virginia resident and American citizen, 22 year-old Ahmed Abu Ali. In June, as he was preparing to return home to Falls Church from Saudi Arabia where he is a student. He was detained by Saudi Arabian authorities, at the request of the U.S., supposedly for the purposes of "interrogation" about his involvement in a plot, along with other Northern Virginia residents, to provide aid to rebels in Kashmir, who are fighting the Indian takeover of that region. Ali disputes his involvement in the activities of some of his acquaintances who have pled to vague charges of training to fight against a friend of the U.S. (India) in a prosecution in Alexandria, Virginia federal court. We have no way of knowing what, if anything, Ali did that might be illegal under our broad and far-reaching anti-terrorist laws. That is beside the point at this time. What is the point, however, is that an American citizen can't come home, and the U.S. government is working with a foreign country to keep him locked up without a charge, without an attorney, without a trial, and with no hope of returning home. Because the U.S. set up his "detention," he has none of the protections normally afforded to a U.S. citizen who may be imprisoned in a foreign country, such as access to help from the State Department and consular personnel. Ali's case brings to mind that of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen whom the U.S. conspired to ship to Syria for interrogation, with the help of the Canadian government. Arar was returning to Canada through New York with federal agents captured him and put him on a plane to Syria. He was imprisoned in Syria for several months, where he says he was tortured. Neither the U.S. or Canada cared about returning him home -- Syria let him go because, according to the Syrian ambassador to the U.S., it could find no cause to hold him. Maybe I have been naive, but I had no idea that our government could do what was done to Ali, an American citizen. Or that it would do what it to do with a citizen of another country -- literally put a hood over his head and take him out of the country. In a communication with his family, he said that he was being threatened with being declared an enemy combatant and shipped to Guantanamo Bay. If this were the case, it would be yet another outrageous act by President Bush, to imprison an American citizen and deny him access to U.S. courts. Attorney Ashraf Nubani, who has been on the front line of dozens of cases against alleged "terrorists," has tried in vain to find legal help for Ali in Saudi Arabia. He says no attorney there will touch the case. Not that he would gain access to Ali, anyway. No doubt the Saudis would be as unlikely to give him access to counsel as the U.S. would. As I write that sentence, I am stunned by the fact that this is no longer a surprise to me, an attorney of 24 years, who never thought she would be routinely writing about Americans who are captured and imprisoned by their government without being charged with any crime. It has been a bad week for Americans caught up in the "war" on terror. Attorney Lynne Stewart was reindicted on new terrorist charges, after the judge threw out earlier charges. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals seemed ready to cede power to the president to keep Jose Padilla in prison forever, without charge, trial, or attorney, because he has been designated an "enemy combatant." And now, an American abroad is imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. There is no safe harbor for anyone whom the government wants to do in. Where is our Alexander Solzenitsyn, whom you may recall penned a classic of dissidence literature, The Gulag Archipelego. Where is our collective outrage? * * * San Diego Union-Tribune: November 24, 2003 BRINGS IN 20 NEW ONES By Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press WASHINGTON -- The U.S. government released 20 more prisoners from its high- security jail for terrorist suspects in Cuba, the Pentagon said Monday. After these prisoners were returned Friday to their home countries, the U.S. military brought some 20 new suspects to the facility from an undisclosed location, officials said. The Sunday transfer means the prison on the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba still holds some 660 people suspected of taking part in terrorist activity -- many believed al-Qaeda and Taliban figures captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan two years ago at the start of the global war on terrorism. Senior officials at the Defense Department, in consultation with other U.S. government officials, determined that the 20 freed "either no longer posed a threat to U.S. security or no longer required detention," said a Pentagon statement Monday. Officials have said for a year that they have been culling through the prisoners to determine final status -- that is which can be freed, which tried and which held for continued imprisonment. So far 88 people have been transferred out of Guantanamo -- 84 to be released in their countries and four transferred into Saudi Arabian prisons for continued detention. In keeping with their secretive policy regarding the prisoners, officials Monday did not identify those released Friday, nor their countries. But it already had become known over the weekend that five were Pakistani prisoners who arrived home Saturday. The men were captured in Afghanistan during the U.S.-led campaign to oust the Taliban in late 2001, and were later shifted to Guantanamo Bay to investigate their suspected links to al-Qaeda, an Interior Ministry official told The Associated Press. The official said the men will remain in Pakistani custody for a few days before being allowed to go free. "We believe that they had no links with any militant groups, but we want to satisfy ourselves before allowing them to go to their homes," said the official, who spoke in Pakistan on condition of anonymity. Since the Guantanamo prison opened in January, 2002, prisoners from 42 countries have been taken there for interrogation and detention. U.S. officials said their priority was to get intelligence to help avoid future terrorist attacks and keep dangerous people out of circulation. Officials in July said they had identified six prisoners who might go before military tribunals. But the process was stalled after the British government sought negotiations to change some trial rules considered by critics in the international community to be unfair and below acceptable standards of justice. * * * Toronto Globe and Mail: November 24, 2003 ARAR CASE THREATENS TO DERAIL MARTIN PLAN By Hugh Winsor If the way U.S. Attorney-General John Ashcroft took the stuffing out of Solicitor-General Wayne Easter in Washington last week is any portent of the future, the Mahar Arar deportation case is destined to become a major nettle in prime-minister designate Paul Martin's plans to establish better relations with the U.S. administration. Mr. Ashcroft, whose confirmation as Attorney-General was almost blocked by the U.S. Congress because of his extreme, racially tinged views, is now the most powerful cop in the Western world, and he gave short shrift to Mr. Easter's pitch that Canadian co-operation and information-sharing on security matters must be matched with respect for the civil rights of Canadian citizens. Mr. Ashcroft told Mr. Easter that Mr. Arar had al-Qaeda fingerprints all over him, so it was in the interest of U.S. security to send him to a gulag in Syria rather than to Canada where he was unlikely to be charged or incarcerated. Case closed, as far as the U.S. Attorney-General was concerned. He wouldn't even agree to a joint press conference after the meeting. But the case isn't closed in Canada, where a great many people, including Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, are outraged about Mr. Arar's treatment by both the United States and Syria. Mr. Graham believes the Syrian-born Canadian engineer's story is very credible and Kafkaesque. Mr. Easter will not go that far, and argues the RCMP stayed within its mandate and within the law in its investigation (which provided the original grounds for Mr. Arar's detention by U.S. authorities at Kennedy International Airport in New York). He is confident this will be borne out in the investigation being conducted by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Mr. Easter said there are still a lot of questions surrounding Mr. Arar. "If you were sitting in their [the U.S. authorities'] shoes (and if it weren't for the fact he was a Canadian citizen and should have been dealt with in Canada) . . . I just wonder what kind of a decision one would make given all of the facts and information they had before them. . . . But we can't have a situation where Canadian information is used in a way that that an individual's fundamental rights as a Canadian citizen are not respected." Not only did he press that point on Mr. Ashcroft, but he has already briefed Mr. Martin on the issue. Mr. Easter concedes the Arar incident raises the question of whether there are adequate checks and balances on the RCMP and on the information it shares, especially since the RCMP has been thrust back into national-security issues because of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. For his part, Mr. Graham is pursuing a formal complaint with the U.S. government, which might not be so easily dismissed as Mr. Ashcroft's shallow explanation that he had received assurances from the Syrian government that Mr. Arar would not be tortured. Mr. Graham has been stung by criticism his department's consular officers have not been doing enough to help Canadians in trouble abroad, whether in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and, yes, even in the United States. In the latter case, at least, the knock is unfair. A close examination of events while Mr. Arar was being held in New York suggests Canadian consular officials were attempting to help him, had arranged for a lawyer and even for him to make a phone call to his wife in Tunisia. But officials with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, on direct orders from Washington, whisked him away on a private jet at 3 a.m. and wouldn't even tell the Canadian government what it had done with him for 10 days. So with two ministers (at least for now), civil-rights activists and a large swath of the Canadian public steamed up about it, Mr. Martin can't avoid the subject when he eventually goes to Washington. hwinsor@globeandmail.ca * * * Toronto Globe and Mail: November 24, 2003 Comment: DELIVER US FROM SUSPICION By SHEEMA KHAN For Muslims, the month of Ramadan is a special time to purify the spirit through fasting, charity and extra prayers. We reflect deeply upon the Koran, expressing gratitude for the many blessings we often take for granted. Whether the favours are tangible (e.g. health, food, shelter) or intangible (peace, personal security), the heartfelt sentiment is best captured by the phrase: "There but for the grace of God go I." Earlier this month, I was waiting in a doctor's office with two flu-ridden children. It was Nov. 11 and, at 11 a.m., the busy staff stopped all work and stood respectfully to a solemn rendition of O Canada broadcast on CBC Radio. One silver-haired patient sang with deep conviction. My beautiful country, I thought. A beacon of light in a world filled with so much darkness. One of the few places where a worried mother can get prompt medical attention for her sick children, despite our current health-care concerns. As we observed two minutes of silence, my six-year-old son asked what was happening. I tried to explain the significance of remembering the efforts of those who had died in conflict. But it's also important to remember that while Canadian soldiers were fighting tyranny overseas, many were battling the tyranny of discrimination here in Canada. During both world wars, various ethnic groups faced suspicion, even internment, under the pretext of national security. Their treatment was often enshrined in law, later repealed by the efforts of those who found the miscarriage of justice unconscionable. Albertan suffragette Nellie McClung fought on behalf of Japanese Canadians and Jewish refugees during the Second World War. Such struggles have helped the cause of justice right here. In the post-9/11 era, Canadian Muslims and Arabs find themselves a minority under suspicion, based on the pretext of national security. The harrowing tale of Maher Arar has evoked collective outrage -- more so, given the signs of complicity on the part of Canadian security services. Yet, at least three more Canadians remain in Middle East prisons: Ahmad Abou El Maati in Egypt, and Abdullah Almalki and Arwad al-Bouchi in Syria. According to family members, all three were under surveillance by CSIS and the RCMP. Does Canada have its own unofficial "rendition" policy -- asking unsavory regimes to pick up Canadian citizens travelling abroad, and subject them to torture to break their will? In Mr. Arar's case, it's clear that transcripts of his "confession" found their way back to CSIS in Canada, with portions leaked by "anonymous" government sources. Attempting to smear Mr. Arar, they claimed that he had "spilled the beans" on some of the Muslim immigrants imprisoned on secret evidence under Canada's security certificate. Does the Crown's "evidence" include torture-based confessions -- evidence that would be rejected under normal rules? Remember: The defendant is not allowed to cross-examine, let alone see the evidence presented against him. Currently five people are imprisoned here in Canada without charge: Muhammad Mahjoub (since June, 2000); Mahmoud Jaballah (August, 2001); Hassan Almrei (October, 2001); Mohamed Harkat (December, 2002); and Adil Charkaoui (May, 2003). Even presiding judges find the Kafkaesque scenario deeply troubling. The judge in the Jaballah case has called the process "invidious," describing the detention as Canada's version of Guantanamo Bay. Federal Court Justice James K. Hugesson, speaking on behalf of his colleagues, said: "We hate it. We do not like this process of having to sit alone hearing only one party and looking at the materials produced by only one party and trying to figure out for ourselves what is wrong with the case. Good cross-examination requires really careful preparation and a good knowledge of your case. And by definition, judges do not do that. . . . I sometimes feel a little bit like a fig leaf." Our immigration department, stinging from American criticism of being too soft, decided to show just how tough it was by publicizing its handling of 19 Pakistani illegal immigrants. The muscle-flexing was meant for the audience due south. Even justice officials here said there was no evidence of a terrorist conspiracy -- just your garden-variety immigration scam. Yet the publicity cast a smear on the lives of these men, and sent a chill through the local Pakistani community. Those deported back to Pakistan have been interrogated about the alleged al-Qaeda link. Our immigration department refuses to admit error or issue an apology. These are a few of the more public examples of Muslims caught in the dragnet of security zeal. While there have been no terrorist attacks in North America since 9/11, many innocent lives have been ruined. At time of difficulty, Muslims are reminded that "God does not burden any soul beyond what it can bear." Rather than sink into victimhood, they should stand tall and demand fair treatment, following the examples of the struggle by Canada's other ethnic groups. On the eve of her husband's return from Syria, Monia Mazigh graciously called his release "a victory for Canadian values." Given what we now know, this characterization was premature. There will be no victory until there is a full accounting of the role of government agencies in the suspension of constitutional rights of many Muslims and Arabs. In the past, Canadians have resolved to right the wrongs inflicted on members of our mosaic. Let's take this challenge, O Canada, to stand on guard for thee. canada@cair-net.org * * * Toronto Star: November 24, 2003 EDITORIAL: LET MARTIN PROBE THE ARAR SCANDAL http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename= thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1069456208532&call_pageid= 968256290204&col=968350116795 Maher Arar's run-in with America's rough justice, post 9/11, is fast becoming an international cause celèbre. He's the Canadian citizen who was stopped in New York, held as a potential Al Qaeda agent and bundled off to Syria, where he spent 10 months in a rat-ridden cell and says he was tortured before the Syrians freed him last month. Ottawa considers him an innocent man. Even Americans are decrying his rough treatment. Yet prime-minister-to-be Paul Martin finds the case "bewildering," and is turning himself into a pretzel sympathizing with all parties. "There are very different stories coming out of this," he said Friday. "I must say that I certainly can understand the American position. But at the same time what Mr. Arar has said is both tragic and very, very compelling. And we've got to make sure that this kind of issue does not arise ever again." That can best be done by Martin immediately ordering an independent inquiry when he takes over Dec. 12. The inquiry can shed light on this murky business, to clear Arar's name and to reassure the Canadian public that there won't be a recurrence. The Arar case may turn out to be an early test of Martin's commitment to running a government that is accountable for its actions. Arar was arrested at John F. Kennedy airport on Sept. 26, 2002, as he was flying back to Canada from Tunisia on his Canadian passport. The Americans had him on an Al Qaeda "watch list" in part because Canadian authorities gave them information that raised suspicions he might have terrorist links, something he denies. As Canadian consular officials assured Arar he would be sent back here, the Americans were preparing to deport him to Syria, where he says he was maltreated and beaten. How did this happen? Arar wants to know. So does an all-party House of Commons committee. And the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Did the Americans consult with Ottawa before deporting Arar? Did Ottawa protest? Were there mixed signals from Foreign Minister Bill Graham's office, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Canadian Security Intelligence Service? If so, why didn't the political message prevail? Was it subverted? Solicitor-General Wayne Easter, who's responsible for the RCMP and CSIS, acknowledges Canada gave the Americans "information" that may have had a bearing on Arar's case. Did Ottawa have good evidence to suggest Arar might be a terrorist? Easter hasn't said. That's troubling. What is there to prevent other innocents from being named on "watch lists" on the basis of flimsy evidence? These are issues that aren't likely to be resolved by the current RCMP complaints commission probe. They are too far-reaching. Beyond that, does Martin intend to seek assurance from the Americans that Canadian citizens with dual nationalities who arouse suspicion while travelling in the U.S. ? but who aren't charged with a crime ? will be returned here, and not be bundled off to despotic regimes? If no assurance is offered, will Martin order CSIS and the RCMP to stop sharing "intelligence" ? a.k.a. suspicions ? with torture-tolerant allies? While Martin may "understand the American position," many Americans don't. They find laughable the claim last week by U.S. Attorney-General John Ashcroft that Arar's deportation was acceptable under U.S. law because the Syrians promised not to torture him. President George Bush has condemned Syria's "torture, oppression, misery and ruin." Deporting him may have violated the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Moreover, even if judged "lawful" under U.S. law, Arar's deportation would still be abhorrent here. Canada's Supreme Court has ruled it unlawful to deport people to face possible execution. This won't be the last "terror file" on Martin's desk. Two Canadian brothers, Omar and Abdul Rahman Khadr, are still being held by the Americans at Guantanamo naval station, without being charged. Another Canadian, Abdullah Almalki, remains in a Syrian jail. Ahmad Abou-Elmaati is held in Egypt. Jamal Akkal in Israel. All are troubling cases. This country has a duty to protect its citizens. We let Arar be handed over to torturers. We need to know how that came about, and why. * * * The Daily Star (Lebanon): November 24, 2003 US, EUROPE HAVE OVER 6,000 MUSLIMS IN CUSTODY Prisoners held on suspicion of links to terrorist groups Rights violations are prevalent, including use of torture Fadi Chahine, Daily Star Staff http://www.dailystar.com.lb/24_11_03/art26.asp BEIRUT - There are over 6,000 Muslims from more than 43 countries being held without trial in American and European prisons, according to human rights activists. "In addition to media reports, our sources indicate there are over 6,000 Muslim prisoners in the US and several hundred more in Europe," human rights activist and author Yamin Zakaria told The Daily Star in an interview from London. "The prisoners are simply held on suspicion of having links to Al-Qaeda or Afghanistan's ousted Taleban regime, and are held indefinitely without the benefit of due process of the law," he added. Supporters of Washington's treatment of the prisoners claim the US has no choice. They say Americans are determined that attacks like those of Sept. 11, 2001 will never take place again. Mark R. Jacobson, a former US Defense Department official and a professor at Ohio State University, disputed the number of prisoners in detention. "There are only around 680 individuals who were detained on the battlefield (and) are being held by the US at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba ... They have been detained because they were engaged in active hostilities and pose a threat to the US," he said. Most of the prisoners held by the US in Guantanamo Bay have been imprisoned for over 18 months without being charged or having any access to legal representation. They come from a large number of countries, but the majority are Arabs and Afghans. The prisoners are alleged to be members of Al-Qaeda or Taleban fighters picked up in Afghanistan and elsewhere during US President George W. Bush's war on global terrorism. Most of the prisoners are in their early 20s, although one was only 13 when he was grabbed by US Special Forces and another was barely 15, according to Gordon Thomas, an investigative journalist with the American Free Press. Most are Arabs, including 100 Saudis and 85 Yemenis. Lieutenant Colonel Barry Johnson, a US military spokesman, told the London-based Guardian newspaper last month that teenagers have been imprisoned in separate cells from the adult detainees. "These teenagers are considered enemy combatants," he said. Zakaria argues the inmates should at the very least be protected by the Geneva Conventions. However, US officials say none of them have been categorized as prisoners of war and so are not entitled to such protection. "All we are asking for is what the law states, nothing exceptional. Everyone should be subjected to the due process of the law, something that is universally recognized as a basic human right," Zakaria said. "If you arbitrarily arrest people and hold them indefinitely without legal charges and representation, than the most basic tenet of human rights values are violated," he added. "It is rather hypocritical to wage a war on the basis of upholding human rights values and democracy, while at the same time these values are being violated on a regular basis." Zakaria claimed that human rights violations are prevalent at Guantanamo Bay and other prisons in the US and Europe, including the use of torture. "The prisoners in Cuba are subjected to constant light for depravation of sleep, and made to kneel for hours," he said. Thomas, the investigative journalist, said prisoners are not allowed to have an attorney present. "Legal representation is normal when a suspect has yet to be charged," he said. "Prisoners are questioned for hours at a time by a succession of CIA and sometimes MI6 officers." "As events this month in Saudi Arabia have shown, the war against terrorism is still ongoing and threatens people around the world. As those being held at Guantanamo Bay have not been charged with any crimes, there is no requirement yet to provide defense counsel," Jacobson said. "I do not believe that members of Al-Qaeda are entitled to protection by the Geneva Conventions. Since Al-Qaeda specifically is a foreign terrorist group, as such its members should not be entitled to prisoner of war status," he said. Jacobson conceded that some things could have been done better, but the overall approach of the US government was entirely justified in his view: "While there certainly could have been improvements in the way the US handled the initial detention of enemy combatants, the process has been, in no sense, an error in any way." David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, agreed that whenever there are any doubts as to an individual's status, he or she "must be accorded a hearing before a competent tribunal to determine his or her appropriate status -- prisoner of war, illegal combatant or civilian. No such hearings have been provided at Guantanamo Bay." Cole said he believed terrorism should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, "but what troubles me is Washington's use of preventive detention to lock up persons not accused of terrorism and its reliance on the philosophy of guilt by association." Jacobson said as soon as these prisoners are charged with a crime they will be provided with counsel. "There is indeed a process at work to determine if these individuals no longer pose a threat to the US and can be let go, but it requires the cooperation of the detainees," he said. Zakaria argued that the arrests form part of a new and threatening background to the lives of Muslims in the US. "The atmosphere is very much like the late 1930s in Germany when the Jews were subjected to similar treatment. It seems that the veil of democracy, human rights and tolerance is disappearing fast," he added. Cole concurred. "There is no question that the US government's actions here and abroad have sown distrust within the Arab and Muslim community, largely because (the government) has used over-broad generalizations, treating entire communities as suspect without evidence of individual wrongdoing." Over the past three months Zakaria has launched an international campaign to highlight the plight of these prisoners. He told The Daily Star that he had set up a website, www.prisonerofwest.org, to enlist the help of other activists in the effort to highlight the prisoners' plight. "We are a group of individual Muslims living in the UK that felt very strongly about the issue, hence we decided to start the campaign," Zakaria said. "We have received a lot of positive feedback which encouraged us to expand our efforts," Zakaria said. "Along with the positive response we've also received opposing views from neo-conservatives" in the US who are as "well-informed and intelligent as those you see on the Jerry Springer shows." * * * Los Angeles Times: November 23, 2003 MISSION CREEP HITS HOME * American armed forces are assuming major new domestic policing and surveillance roles. By William M. Arkin SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. -- Preoccupied with the war in Iraq and still traumatized by Sept. 11, 2001, the American public has paid little attention to some of what is being done inside the United States in the name of anti-terrorism. Under the banner of "homeland security," the military and intelligence communities are implementing far-reaching changes that blur the lines between terrorism and other kinds of crises and will break down long-established barriers to military action and surveillance within the U.S. "We must start thinking differently," says Air Force Gen. Ralph E. "Ed" Eberhart, the newly installed commander of Northern Command, the military's homeland security arm. Before 9/11, he says, the military and intelligence systems were focused on "the away game" and not properly focused on "the home game." "Home," of course, is the United States. Eberhart's Colorado-based command is charged with enhancing homeland security in two ways: by improving the military's capability to defend the country's borders, coasts and airspace -- unquestionably within the military's long- established mission -- and by providing "military assistance to civil authorities" when authorized by the secretary of Defense or the president. That too may sound unexceptionable: The military has long had mechanisms to respond to a request for help from state governors. New after 9/11 are more aggressive preparations and the presumption that local government will not be able to carry the new homeland security load. Being the military, moreover, contingency planners approach preparing by assuming the worst. All of this is a major -- and potentially dangerous -- departure from past policy. The U.S. military operates under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the direct use of federal troops "to execute the laws" of the United States. The courts have interpreted this to mean that the military is prohibited from any active role in direct civilian law enforcement, such as search, seizure or arrest of civilians. "There are abundant reasons for rejecting the further expansion of the military's domestic role," says Mackubin T. Owens, a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College. Looking at the issue historically, Owens wrote in an August 2002 essay in the National Review's online edition that "the use of soldiers as a posse [places] them in the uncomfortable position of taking orders from local authorities who had an interest in the disputes that provoked the unrest in the first place." Moreover, Owens said, becoming more involved in domestic policing can be "subtle and subversive ... like a lymphoma or termite infestation." Though we are far from having "tanks rumbling through the streets," he said, the potential long-term effect of an increasing military role in police and law enforcement activities is "a military contemptuous of American society and unresponsive to civilian authorities." Eberhart says his Northern Command operates scrupulously within the bounds of the law. "We believe the [Posse Comitatus] Act, as amended, provides the authority we need to do our job, and no modification is needed at this time," he told the House Armed Services Committee in March. Of course, what he knows is that amendments approved by Congress in 1996 for that earlier civilian war, the war on drugs, have already expanded the military's domestic powers so that Washington can act unilaterally in dispatching the military without waiting for a state's request for help. Long before 9/11, Congress authorized the military to assist local law enforcement officials in domestic "drug interdiction" and during terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the president, after proclaiming a state of emergency, can authorize additional actions. Indeed, the military is presently operating under just such an emergency declaration. Eberhart's command has defined three levels of operations, each of which triggers a larger set of authorized activities. The levels are "extraordinary," "emergency" and "temporary." At the "temporary" level, which covers such things as the Olympic Games or the Super Bowl, limited assistance can be provided to law enforcement agencies when a governor requests it, primarily in such areas as logistics, transportation and communications. During "emergencies," the military can provide similar support, mostly in response to specific events such as the attacks on the World Trade Center. It is only in the case of "extraordinary" domestic operations that the unique capabilities of the Defense Department are deployed. These include not just such things as air patrols to shoot down hijacked planes or the defusing of bombs and other explosives, , but also bringing in intelligence collectors, special operators and even full combat troops. Given the absence of terrorist attacks inside the United States since 9/11, it may seem surprising that Northern Command is already working under the far- reaching authority that goes with "extraordinary operations." But it is. "We are not going to be out there spying on people," Eberhart told PBS' NewsHour in September. But, he said, "We get information from people who do." Some of that information increasingly comes not from the FBI or those charged with civilian law enforcement but from a Pentagon organization established last year, the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA). The seemingly innocuous CIFA was originally given the mission of protecting the Defense Department and its personnel, as well as "critical infrastructure," against espionage conducted by terrorists and foreign intelligence services. But in August, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld expanded CIFA's mission, charging it with maintaining "a domestic law enforcement database that includes information related to potential terrorist threats directed against the Department of Defense." The group's Assessments and Technology Directorate, which shares offices with the Justice Department's Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, has already identified 200 foreign terrorist suspects in the U.S., according to a Defense Department report to Congress. This year, the Pentagon inspector general authorized assigning military special agents to 56 FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force operations at FBI field offices. These military agents will pursue leads in local communities of potential threats to the military. Eberhart also plans to have his own cadre of agents working with local law enforcement. Next year, he plans to transform Joint Task Force Six, a drug interdiction unit of 160 military personnel at Ft. Bliss, Texas, into Joint Interagency Task Force North. The new task force will be given nationwide responsibility for working with law enforcement agencies. CIFA, moreover, has been given a domestic "data mining" mission: figuring out a way to process massive sets of public records, intercepted communications, credit card accounts, etc., to find "actionable intelligence." "Homeland defense relies on the sharing of actionable intelligence among the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies," says Lt. Gen. Edward G. Anderson III, Eberhart's deputy. Another ambitious domestic project is being undertaken by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which is gathering "geospatial information" about 133 cities, the borders and seaports. This "urban data inventory" combines unclassified and classified data (including such things as the location of emergency services, communications, transportation and food supplies) with a high-resolution satellite map of the United States. When the mapping efforts are completed, a national "spatial data infrastructure" will be created down to the house level. Intelligence analysts speak of one day being able to identify individual occupants, as well as their national background and political affiliations. Though the military is just getting its systems in place, there can be no other conclusion: Domestic surveillance is back. It's not that we're heading toward martial law. We're not. But outside the view of most of the public, the government is daily expanding military operations into areas of local government and law enforcement that historically have been off-limits. And it doesn't seem far-fetched to imagine that those charged with assembling "actionable intelligence" will slowly start combining databases of known terrorists with seemingly innocuous lists of contributors to charities or causes, that membership lists for activist organizations will be folded in, that names and personal data of anti-globalization protesters will be run through the "data mine." After all, the mission of Northern Command and other Pentagon agencies is to identify groups and individuals who could potentially pose threats to Defense Department and civilian installations. Given all this, it might be a good time for state and local governments to ask themselves whether the federal government, through the military, is slowly eroding their power to manage what -- for very good reasons -- have always been considered local responsibilities. [ William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for Opinion. E-mail: warkin@igc.org ] * * * The Independent (UK): November 23, 2003 SWEEPING NEW EMERGENCY LAWS TO COUNTER UK TERROR By Andy McSmith, Political Editor http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=466424 Sweeping measures to deal with terrorist attacks and other emergencies are to be announced this week, giving the Government power to over-ride civil liberties in times of crisis, and evacuate threatened areas, restrict people's movements and confiscate property. The Civil Contingencies Bill, which covers every kind of disaster from terrorism to the weather, will be the biggest shake-up of emergency laws since the early part of the last century, replacing legislation which saw the UK through a world war and the IRA bombing campaign. Some of the proposals in the draft version of the Bill, drawn up in the summer, have alarmed civil rights activists, notably a clause that gives the Government the power to suspend parts or all of the Human Rights Act without a vote by MPs. Once an emergency has been proclaimed by the Queen, the Government can order the destruction of property, order people to evacuate an area or ban them from travelling, and "prohibit assemblies of specified kinds" and "other specified activities". If these rules had been in force during the Iraq war, critics say, they could have been used to to ban street demonstrations, making anyone who travelled to protest guilty of a criminal offence. After a major terrorist attack, forums made up of local councils, the emergency services and utility companies would be put in charge of trying to get shattered communities back together. Other measures will be welcomed as a timely reaction to last week's carnage in Istanbul, where 57 people were killed and hundreds injured by suicide bombers. Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan yesterday gave the official death toll from Thursday's attacks on two British targets as 30, 10 of whom died in the British consulate. He also confirmed that the four suicide bombers responsible for all four attacks were Turkish citizens, and revealed that 18 people have been arrested in connection with the bombings. Three groups linked to al-Qa'ida have claimed responsibility. Although party political wrangling in Britain is often suspended after a tragedy on this scale, the pressure on Tony Blair showed no sign of letting up yesterday. Patrick Mercer, Conservative spokesman on homeland security, accused the Government of failing to take the terrorist threat seriously. "Why wasn't our consulate in Istanbul shifted? It was attacked earlier on in the year, the same time as the American consulate was attacked. The Americans moved theirs to a less vulnerable position, we didn't," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. He added: "I do wonder slightly why if, for instance, you go to London, the only building that seems to be taking the suicide bombing threat particularly seriously is the US embassy." David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, defended government actions saying: "While we must be vigilant, and of course defend our own staff and those using the consulates and embassies, we also have to exercise a degree of common sense. It is very good intelligence that actually saves you in the end, not massive concrete blocks around every piece of British territory abroad." The US already has the Patriot Act, rushed through Congress after the 11 September attacks, which has been criticised for its effect on civil liberties. Such fears will have been heightened yesterday by General Tommy Franks, who commanded the coalition troops in Iraq and who has become the first high-ranking US official to talk openly about scrapping the Constitution in the wake of a major terrorist attack. "The worst thing that could happen is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties," he warned. The effect of an attack on that scale could be to provoke Americans to "question our own Constitution and to begin to militarise our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event - which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution," he said. Meanwhile the Irish Prime Minister, Bertie Ahern, has announced that he has abandoned any plans to host European summits next year, because it would be a security "nightmare". He said, in Brussels: "It's too costly, too disruptive and quite dangerous." The Civil Contingencies Bill, which is being handled by the Cabinet Office minister Douglas Alexander, will be announced in Wednesday's Queen's Speech. More details will be made public on Friday, when a committee off MPs and peers publish their conclusions after four months examining the proposals. Civil liberties groups have been alarmed by the Cabinet Office's sweeping definition of an "emergency" and the powers it confers. It is defined as any event that represents a serious threat to the welfare of the population, the environment, political or economic stability or security of any part of the UK. This includes wars, floods, a breakdown of power supplies, outbreaks of animal diseases or any situation that "causes or may cause disruption of the activities of Her Majesty's Government". Gareth Crossman of Liberty said: "We are not saying that the Government shouldn't have powers to deal with civil emergencies, or that they shouldn't be brought up to date, but we are concerned that they have been extremely broadly drawn." * * * November 23, 2003 Toronto Globe and Mail: CSIS HAD NO ROLE IN ARAR'S DETENTION, SAYS SPY WATCHDOG Canadian Press OTTAWA -- The watchdog that oversees the Canadian Security Intelligence Service has received personal assurances from the head of the spy agency that it had no role in the detention of Maher Arar by U.S. authorities or his deportation to Syria. CSIS director Ward Elcock recently told the Security Intelligence Review Committee the service was not involved in the Ottawa man's arrest or removal to his country of birth on suspicion of terrorism, said a spokeswoman for the review committee. The denial could prompt renewed questions about the role played by the RCMP, Canada's other leading counter-terrorism agency, in supplying information to U.S. officials responsible for Mr. Arar's deportation. Mr. Arar, a 33-year-old Canadian citizen born in Syria, was detained by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service on a stopover in New York in late September 2002. The telecommunications engineer, travelling on a Canadian passport, was en route to Montreal from Tunis where he had been vacationing with his family. Mr. Arar, who steadfastly denies involvement in terrorism, had apparently shown up on a U.S. watch list of suspected collaborators with Osama bin Laden's al- Qaeda network. In early October 2002, Mr. Arar was deported to Syria and spent most of the next year behind bars. Following his recent release and return to Canada, he described months of torture by his captors. The case has attracted international attention, outraging civil libertarians who cite Mr. Arar's ordeal as emblematic of the Bush administration's disregard for due process in the war on terrorism. U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said last week he had received assurances from Syria that Mr. Arar wouldn't be tortured if he was sent to that country. Officials who questioned Mr. Arar in New York last year possessed a copy of an Ottawa rental agreement he had signed in 1997, and Canadian authorities have yet to explain how the private document ended up in U.S. hands. Solicitor General Wayne Easter, the minister responsible for CSIS and the RCMP, has indicated Canada was among a number of countries that passed information about Mr. Arar to the U.S. The Security Intelligence Review Committee, a civilian panel that reports to Parliament, broached the subject of Mr. Arar with Elcock this fall in light of the publicity about the case. "The committee did have a chance to speak with the director of CSIS about it, and he personally reassured them that the service had no involvement in the detention or the deportation," said the spokeswoman, who declined to be named in keeping with committee policy. She did not address the question of whether CSIS -- even if it played no role in the arrest or deportation -- had ever provided information to U.S. authorities about Arar. CSIS spokeswoman Nicole Currier also denied involvement of the spy service in Arar's detention or deportation. She too declined to say whether CSIS had passed information about him to the Americans, but hinted the service had not done so. "While we do share a certain amount of information with our counterparts internationally, it doesn't mean we share information on every single case that comes up," said Ms. Currier. RCMP Sgt. Gilles Deziel said he could not discuss the matter, since the public complaints commission overseeing the Mounties has begun a formal investigation of the case. The intelligence review committee performs a similar role in monitoring CSIS, but it has not received a complaint about the Mr. Arar case, the committee spokeswoman said. Michael Edelson, Mr. Arar's lawyer, was not immediately available. * * * BBC: GUANTANAMO PAKISTANIS RETURN HOME Five Pakistanis held at the US high-security camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to their country. Officials said the men arrived in the capital Islamabad on Saturday and will be held for a few days for questioning. The five are among up to 50 Pakistanis captured in Afghanistan while fighting against US-led forces, and the third group from the country to be released. More than 600 people are being held at Guantanamo, on suspicion of links to al- Qaeda or the Taleban. Washington describes them as unlawful combatants who can be held indefinitely without trial. But human rights groups have criticised conditions at the camp, and the fact that prisoners have no legal right to challenge their detention. 'No links' Pakistani officials said the released men will be debriefed by intelligence services before being allowed to return to their families. "We believe that they had no links with any militant groups, but we want to satisfy ourselves before allowing them to go home," an official told the Associated Press news agency. He added that efforts were under way to secure the release of other Pakistani prisoners at Guantanamo. Eleven Pakistani inmates of the camp, most of them members of hardline Islamic groups sympathetic to the Taleban, were released in July. One of the men, 51-year-old cleric Mohammed Sagheer, is suing the US and Pakistani governments for over $10m in damages. He says he was mentally and physically tortured in Guantanamo. * * * The Australian: November 24, 2003 AUSSIE HELD OVER LINKS TO SADDAM By John Kerin and agencies An Australian worker with an international IT company who is suspected of being a Saddam Hussein loyalist has been detained by British forces in a dramatic raid in southern Iraq. The seizure of the terror suspect coincided with fresh terrorist violence in Iraq, including a missile attack on a civilian aircraft, and British intelligence warnings of a new plot to carry out a "spectacular" attack in Britain in the wake of the suicide bombings in Turkey. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the 45-year-old Adelaide man was detained after a raid in the southern city of Umm Qasr on a house thought to contain people loyal to the former Iraqi dictator. The man is believed to be an Iraqi Australian working for London-based Intertek, an IT company working with the oil industry in Iraq. "He is now in British custody," Mr Downer said yesterday. "His case will be reviewed by the British on Tuesday, with a view to working out what they're going to do with him and what association he had with the Saddam Hussein loyalists while he was in the house." Mr Downer said the name of the man had not been released and that it was too early to say if charges would be laid. "It's conceivable he could be released on Tuesday," he said. "It's (also) conceivable they could decide to charge him under the Geneva Conventions as a combatant in a war, if he was seen to be participating with Saddam Hussein elements attacking coalition forces. "There may be offences under existing Iraqi law as well that he could be charged with." A day after two main Baghdad hotels and the Oil Ministry were attacked, suicide bombers struck the towns of Khan Bani Saad and Baquba on Saturday. At least 18 were killed and more than 30 wounded, overwhelming hospitals. A DHL cargo jet taking off from Baghdad airport also took a direct hit from a SAM-7 surface-to-air missile. The aircraft landed safely. The developments follow terror alerts from the US, British and Australian governments in the wake of Thursday's twin attacks on the British consulate and a bank building in Istanbul that left 30 people dead and 450 injured. Among them was a 58-year-old Australian woman, Nazime Erkmen, who worked at the British consulate. Mr Downer said Erkman's death would only redouble Australia's resolve to stamp out terrorism. A leading Australian terror expert warned yesterday that overseas embassies were the most likely Australian targets, along with identifiably Australian organisations. Clive Williams said Australian citizens were now the "target of choice" of terrorists in Southeast Asia. His warning came as Labor called for security to be tightened at all "high- profile" Australian commercial representative offices in vulnerable countries. The Sunday Times has reported that up to 10 terrorists from north Africa and Saudi Arabia have mounted surveillance operations on vulnerable commercial targets such as big banks and shopping centres. They also have received intelligence that some of the suspects have made "dummy runs" in preparation for possible suicide car-bombings. The British warning was given to Blair government ministers by MI5 director- general Eliza Manningham-Buller. Britain is on its highest state of terrorist alert since the September 11 attacks in 2001. Security was heightened after MI5 received warnings 10 days ago of an imminent attack. Labor foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said Australia, through Austrade, should have its high-profile representative offices tighten security. "This is particularly the case where they have a designated building, and in Southeast Asia," he told The Australian. Prime Minister John Howard has ordered a review of security at all overseas posts. But a spokesman for Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said there had been no change in the threat level within Australia, which remained at "medium". * * * Reuters: November 23, 2003 FIVE PAKISTANIS FREED FROM GUANTANAMO BAY ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Five Pakistani prisoners have arrived in Islamabad from Guantanamo Bay, the third batch of Pakistanis to be released from the U.S. detention centre in Cuba, a government official says. Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul Rauf Chaudhry told Reuters on Sunday the five- member group had arrived on Saturday and was transferred to a prison for questioning by law enforcement agencies. On return, the prisoners are usually debriefed by Pakistani intelligence agencies before being freed to join their families. The last batch of 11 Pakistani prisoners returned from the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in July. Five Pakistanis were released before them. It was not immediately known how many Pakistanis remain in detention there but Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat has said in the past that about 50 Pakistanis were taken to Guantanamo Bay after U.S.-led forces forced the Taliban movement from power in neighbouring Afghanistan in December 2001. Many Pakistanis went to Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban when the hardline Islamic movement was under attack by the U.S.-led coalition following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. * * * Channel NewsAsia (Singapore): November 23, 2003 - 07:24 GMT BRITISH TROOPS IN IRAQ ARREST AUSTRALIAN MAN SUSPECTED OF TIES TO SADDAM http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/58691/1/.html SYDNEY (AFP) Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer said an Australian man, suspected of being a Saddam Hussein loyalist, had been arrested by British troops in Iraq. Downer said the 45-year-old man, who was working for an international company, was detained Friday after British troops raided a house in the sourthern port city of Umm Qasar believed to contain people loyal to the former Iraqi leader. The Australian representative office in Baghdad was due to make contact Sunday with the man from the southern Australian town of Adelaide. "His case will be reviewed by the British on Tuesday with a view to working out what they are going to do with him and what association he had with the Saddam Hussein loyalists," Downer told reporters. "We just frankly don't know enough about what he could have been doing with these people at that time." Several others in the house were also detained. Downer said the man's name would not be released until the British conducted their review. He said he did not know if or for what the man would be charged. "It's conceivable he could be released on Tuesday. It's conceivable they could decide to charge him under the Geneva conventions as a combatant in a war if he was seen to be participating with Saddam Hussein elements attacking coalition forces," Downer said. "There may be offences under existing Iraqi law as well that he could be charged with." Downer said the government was surprised when informed of the arrest. "It was quite a surprise to hear an Australian was found with a group of people who, at least the British believe, are Saddam Hussein loyalists," he said. "We just, frankly, don't know enough about what he could have been doing with those people in that house at that time." Iraqis loyal to the former regime are believed responsible for a wave of car bombings, assassinations and rocket attacks on coalition forces inside Iraq. Downer said Friday's raid was a significant step towards flushing out the loyalists. Copyright © 2003 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. * * * Charleston Post and Courier: November 23, 2003 THE NAVY'S SECRET BRIG Prison's mission evolves as terror suspects arrive By Tony Bartelme, The Post and Courier Staff http://www.charleston.net/stories/112303/loc_brignew.shtml It's 4:30 p.m., quitting time at the Naval Weapons Station, and hundreds of cars and trucks roll single-file past the gate onto Remount Road. Across the street, a photographer aims his camera toward a distant building on the base. The building is mostly blocked by live oaks and pines, but between the trees, you can make out an orange barricade, a fence of coiled razor wire and a sliver of the building itself, beige with an American flag flapping nearby. This is the Naval Consolidated Brig, a prison that in the past year and a half has become one of the more secretive installations in the U.S. military. Suddenly, two Humvees appear, bouncing briskly over a grassy knoll. They take up position between the photographer and the brig, blocking the photographer's sight line. The afternoon sun brightens a spider-web tattoo on one serviceman's bicep. The men in the Humvees are wearing flak jackets, camouflage and grim faces, and when the photographer moves a few steps right, the Humvees move with him. When he goes left, they go left, blocking a view that reveals little in the first place. Getting a good look at the brig hasn't been easy since it emerged as an important cog in the government's terror-fighting machine, the prison of choice for some of the nation's most wanted terrorism suspects. The brig's mission began to change in June 2002 when Jose Padilla, the alleged "Dirty Bomber," was spirited there under heavy guard. Two others arrived this year: Yaser Hamdi and Ali Saleh al-Marri. Among other things, the government alleges that Hamdi fought with the Taliban, and that al- Marri made phone calls to one of Osama bin Laden's top lieutenants. The president has determined that Padilla, Hamdi and al-Marri are "enemy combatants" and thus can be held incommunicado for as long as needed -- no communication with family, no access to lawyers, no formal criminal charges filed against them. The brig also is home to another headline-grabbing inmate, Army Capt. James Yee, a Muslim chaplain accused of "wrongfully transporting classified materials" from the military's other main jail for suspected terrorists, Camp Delta in Guantanamo, Cuba. Unlike the other three, Yee is not an enemy combatant, though his lawyer says he's been treated like one -- held in solitary confinement in a maximum security area of the brig and prohibited from reading anything but the Koran. Other detainees suspected of terrorism could be in the brig now, but the military won't say. Since Padilla's arrival last year, officials have surrounded the brig with concertina wire and bunker-like checkpoints. These measures ostensibly are being used to keep bad guys from going in or out. At the same time, the military has buttoned up the place from almost any public scrutiny. The Navy so far has refused to answer even the most basic questions about the brig. How many inmates held under terrorism and non-terrorism allegations are being held there? Are regular inmates separated from the terrorism detainees? Have any detainees attempted suicide, as has happened in Cuba?In what ways are they being interrogated? Would it be possible to talk to the brig commander, or have a limited tour? Requests denied. "It has to do with appropriate anti-terrorism measures and information security reasons," Ted Brown, a Navy spokesman said, declining to be more specific. That's not been the case at Guantanamo, where more than 600 men and a handful of teen-agers are being held as enemy combatants. The Pentagon has allowed limited access there to humanitarian groups, reporters and other observers, who have subsequently raised questions about conditions and the military's interrogation practices. This secrecy at the brig highlights its growing role in a new justice system created specifically to deal with terrorism, one that even the Bush administration says is separate from the nation's existing criminal justice system. In this legal netherworld, detainees are not considered prisoners of war and thus afforded protections under the Geneva Conventions. Because they face no formal criminal charges, they also lack the usual constitutional safeguards. Some argue that because this new system is cloaked in secrecy, it's ripe for abuse, and that giving the president power to imprison someone without formal criminal charges is fundamentally un-American. Some humanitarian groups say holding people incommunicado for long periods of time is a form of torture. The Bush administration argues just as vigorously that the nation is at war, and that in times of war, the government must use every legal tool at its disposal. So far, the courts have upheld the administration's stance, though last week in New York, two federal appeals court judges seemed hostile to Padilla's treatment. "As terrible as 9-11 was, it didn't repeal the Constitution," one judge said. The brig is caught in this debate, and the story about the brig's evolving mission and how the four terrorism detainees ended up there touches on a much larger one about the government's challenge to define its role and limits in the shadowy fight against al-Qaida. REDEMPTION: BRIG'S ORIGINAL MISSION The brig wasn't always so elusive. Before the Sept. 11 attacks, brig leaders maintained close ties to the community, especially nearby Hanahan. In 1996, the brig's staff volunteered 6,500 hours at Hanahan High School. Inmates rehabbed the school's activity bus. A Hanahan High official said they haven't heard from brig officials lately. In other years, inmates built thousands of wooden toys for the area's Toys for Tots program. Military officials eagerly invited reporters to publicize the brig's good deeds, and they had a good story to pitch. Throughout the military -- indeed, the entire corrections field -- the brig was known as a first-rate operation. This success was due in large part to a man named John R. "Barney" Barnes. Barnes is tall and thin, with silver hair and a strong jaw. He was a helicopter pilot in Vietnam and flew 508 combat missions with the Navy's Seawolves. He has a military man's toughness tempered by an almost missionary belief in the power of redemption. He is Clint Eastwood cast as a preacher. Today, retired from the Navy, Barnes runs Dorchester County's detention center, but in 1984, he was put in charge of the Navy's entire corrections system. He inherited a mess. At the time, the Navy had 21 detention facilities. Half were more than 40 years old. Many were firetraps. Inmates spent much of their time watching television or playing basketball. Fewer than 15 percent ever returned to duty. Barnes was appalled at the waste of human potential. Under his command, the Navy launched a $70 million overhaul of its corrections system, with a heavy emphasis on rehabilitation. "It's more in line with our Judeo-Christian values," he said, cracking his knuckles. If inmates had substance abuse problems, counselors would treat them. Inmates also would learn auto mechanics and carpentry and other job skills. "Our goal was to give inmates a hand up, not a handout," he said. The overhaul called for two new medium-security brigs, one in San Diego and another at the Naval Weapons Station in Hanahan. The brigs would be identical, each housing about 400 inmates, and would be based on modern design principles, with an ode to King Solomon. "In Proverbs 6, King Solomon urges us to study ants," Barnes said. "If you look at an anthill, it's very neat and clean, and they seem to work by themselves to keep the anthill working, and that's what you'll see if you go to the brig." Construction began in 1988. The brig has 10 triangle-shaped cell blocks. In each triangle, inmates' cells line two edges and overlook a lobby-like common area. This design enabled just a few detention officers in the common area to oversee the entire space, saving manpower and making each block more secure. "We laid it out so it's like you have a bunch of big valves," Barnes said. "You can open this valve and fill up one space, and close this one down if you need to, which gives you a lot of flexibility." This flexibility should be especially helpful in separating terrorism detainees from the rest of the inmates, he said. Indeed, when Padilla was moved there last year, Newsweek reported that an entire block was cleared out for him. Mike Maloney was a control center supervisor at the brig in the early 1990s. When he was there, many inmates were in for drug use and sexual abuse. He recalled that the brig was "one of the cleanest and well kept buildings on the Weapons Station. It's very well lit, and doesn't give off any of the feelings of a jail. While it's not a luxury hotel, it's not an old style jail you see at Alcatraz. There are no bars; the cells all have doors with windows." Maloney's most vivid memory was when he went to work June 7, 1993, and saw the "sheriff, police and state police all in the parking lot and being told that someone had escaped." That prisoner was J.J. Willis, charged with the murder of his wife. Officials later learned that he had slipped through an unlocked door, after a detention officer went off for a break. Authorities caught Willis in Texas three weeks later, and a brig sailor eventually pleaded guilty to dereliction of duty and neglect. "The issues that allowed that to happen were fixed immediately," Maloney recalled. "It's a very secure facility." In 1992, the brig sought accreditation from the American Correctional Association. Accreditation amounts to a stamp of approval from an independent, non-governmental agency, and for more than three days, evaluators from the group had free run of the complex. "To give you an idea of how picky they are, if your inventory says you have 50 gallons of bleach, and you actually have 40, you not only fail that standard, you fail the entire accreditation," said Robert Verdeyen, a director of the association. Evaluators tested the brig on more than 450 standards. The brig scored a perfect 100. Three years later, evaluators were back again, and the brig earned another perfect score. At the time, no facility in the 128-year history of the American Correctional Association had achieved two 100s in a row. The brig also earned perfect scores in 1998 and 2001. "It's a world record," Barnes said. "No one has come close." The military's public affairs machine is vast and experienced and usually quick to tout such shining stars. But for the past year and a half, that machine has stopped spinning the brig's story. "I could lose my job if I say any more," a spokeswoman at the Naval Weapons Station half-joked, after saying nothing more than "all the roads are barricaded around there." The secretive atmosphere extends outside the brig's walls. When a leader of a bible study group from St. Andrew's Episcopal Church was asked about his work with brig inmates, he said, "I was told not to say anything." When Minnie Blackwell, the mayor of Hanahan, asked a brig captain about how the military would coordinate with local law enforcement in an escape or any other trouble, "he didn't agree with me that there was a need for open communication." BRIG'S ENEMY COMBATANTS From above, the brig is a curious site. The triangle-shaped cell blocks flow around courtyards and other buildings like teeth on a gear. Nearby is the new SPAWAR complex, where engineers for the Navy work on top secret electronics projects. The brig is about 190,000 square feet, twice the size of a Wal-Mart. Less than a half a mile away is Hanahan's Gold Cup Springs neighborhood. Somewhere in the brig complex is Yaser Hamdi, who may have no idea that he is at the center of a major constitutional debate. Hamdi, 23, was born in Louisiana. His father, a Saudi Arabian, was in the United States at the time, working as a chemical engineer. Hamdi was 3 when he and his family moved back to Saudi Arabia. In the fall of 2001, he was taken into custody in Afghanistan after a Taliban unit surrendered to the Northern Alliance. He was held in Cuba as an enemy combatant until officials discovered he was an American citizen. He then was flown to a small brig in Norfolk, Va., where Frank Dunham, a federal public defender in Virginia, took his case. "I've never seen, nor heard from him," Dunham said recently. "They fought tooth and nail to keep me from having access to my guy." The government's treatment of Hamdi was curious, Dunham said, especially in light of its handling of another American picked up in Afghanistan, John Walker Lindh. Lindh's case went through traditional criminal justice channels. His family hired a prominent lawyer from California who mounted a spirited defense. Lindh eventually pleaded guilty and is now serving 20 years in federal prison. "That's the way the American system is supposed to work," Dunham said. Last year, Dunham asked U.S. Circuit Judge Robert G. Doumar for access to his client. "Your honor," he said during one hearing, "he could have been selling lemonade and hot dogs on the side of the road in Afghanistan for all we know." Doumar asked the government to privately show him the evidence they had against Hamdi. The government refused. Doumar fired off an order demanding that the government allow Hamdi to see his lawyer. "This case appears to be the first in American jurisprudence where an American citizen has been held incommunicado and subjected to indefinite detention in the continental United States, without charges, without any findings by a military tribunal, and without access to a lawyer." Instead of allowing Dunham to see his client, the government appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In its argument to the court, the government submitted a statement from Army Col. Donald Woolfolk, then acting commander of the task force running the detention and interrogation operation in Guantanamo. Woolfolk said that allowing Hamdi to meet with a lawyer would create "substantial harm" to U.S. interests and disrupt the interrogation process. Hamdi had been held in detention centers in Afghanistan, Guantanamo and Norfolk, Woolfolk said, adding that Hamdi could use a lawyer to pass information to enemies about those facilities. Woolfolk then added that the military had suspended "active interrogation" because of the legal challenges. More than 100 legal scholars wrote to the 4th Circuit arguing that the government's treatment of Hamdi was unconstitutional. But the panel, the last stop before the Supreme Court, eventually upheld Bush's decision to classify Hamdi as an enemy combatant and hold him incommunicado "for at least the duration of hostilities." The federal courts, the judges ruled, "have many strengths, but the conduct of combat operations has been left to others." It was a huge victory for the Bush administration. "We have a ruthless enemy that wants to kill us," said Mark Corallo, Attorney General John Ashcroft's chief spokesman. "When you're a nation at war, you have to conduct business on a war footing." Defense lawyers, he said, "can rant and rave that these people should have access to lawyers, but when have we ever done that? In World War II, if we captured Japanese and German prisoners and had them all lawyered up, there would be chaos. It would be silly, absurd." On July 30th, the military quietly moved Hamdi from Norfolk to the brig in Hanahan. Four weeks later, The Post and Courier learned about the transfer and was the first to disclose it. "There was no announcement because it was considered a simple move," a military spokesman said at the time. "There was no intent to be surreptitious." Dunham still has Hamdi's case, though, and recently asked the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the matter. His argument leaned heavily on history, and how opposition to the King of England's unbridled detention of citizens led to the concept of habeas corpus, the right to publicly challenge one's confinement. England's refusal to honor such writs was one of the grievances that led to the American Revolution. "The government is saying 'Trust us,' but our Anglo-American tradition is that we don't trust the government," said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights. "America is based on a system of checks and balances, and the entire American judicial system is based on accountability and having your day in court." But Corallo said the government isn't targeting innocent people. "And people don't just disappear in America. If all this was done in secret, how come you are calling? How come we announce these things? This is not the Soviet Union or some tin-pot dictatorship. We do things in the open. If we didn't there would be hell to pay. It would lead to conspiracy theories. This country is too open, and there are too many good people who work in the government and media to allow that to happen." FRIENDLY FORUM? Why is the military housing its terrorism suspects in Hanahan instead of the military's long-term prison in Fort Leavenworth or its other brigs? The Pentagon won't say, but some lawyers for the detainees suspect it was done in part to ensure that legal challenges are heard by the more conservative 4th Circuit. "The speculation is that the government is shopping for a friendly forum," said Larry Lustberg, an attorney for al-Marri. Al-Marri's case has a slightly different flavor than Hamdi's and has raised questions about whether federal prosecutors are using the threat of enemy combat designation as a hammer to force terrorism suspects to plead guilty. Unlike Hamdi, al-Marri was born in Qatar and is not a U.S. citizen. As such, he shares the same status as the enemy combatants in Guantanamo who hail from more than 30 countries. Unlike those held in Cuba, al-Marri's case started in the U.S. criminal justice system. The FBI had al-Marri on its radar screen soon after the 9-11 attacks and searched his apartment in December 2001. FBI agents found a laptop that contained lectures by Osama bin Laden, bookmarked Web sites about industrial chemicals and hundreds of credit card numbers, many of which had been subjected to fraud. According to a 13-page indictment, calls also were made from al-Marri's cell phone number to an al-Qaida lieutenant who sent money to the Sept. 11 hijackers. The indictment painted al-Marri as a "sleeper cell" operative. At first, al-Marri was allowed to see his attorney and prepare a defense. Lustberg said his client was "gentle, extremely friendly, and he was most upset about being denied things, like access to sunlight, which he had not seen for more than a year. He had been denied all contact with his family and wasn't getting religious materials like the Koran and a prayer rug. Those were the things he was most focused on, even more than the case." Al-Marri was scheduled to go on trial in July, but on June 23, prosecutors told the court they were dropping the charges. The Bush administration had designated al-Marri an enemy combatant. Al-Marri then was moved to the brig in Hanahan. "They snatched him," Lustberg said. "Right before trial, he was going to be afforded all the protections of the Constitution, and now he has been deprived of all of them." Corallo, the Justice Department spokesman, denied any inconsistency in the government's treatment of terrorism suspects, or that it uses the threat of enemy combatant designation to force guilty pleas. "Every case is decided on a case-by-case basis." Before removing someone from the criminal justice system, the president and his advisers study whether sensitive information could be revealed in a courtroom setting, he said. "The good thing about our country is that unlike our foes, we have an executive branch that is overseen by the legislative branch. The courts also have oversight. Granted, this oversight is limited, but they do have some oversight." BRIG AS WAREHOUSE Padilla has been in the brig the longest, nearly a year and a half, and is the facility's most famous inmate. After his arrest, Ashcroft announced, "We have disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive dirty bomb." Padilla first was arrested as a "material witness" and given access to an attorney, who met with him for about 20 hours. On June 9, 2002, he was transferred to military custody on the basis of a one-page order from the president and moved to the brig. Padilla isn't a particularly sympathetic character. Born in Brooklyn, he joined a Latino gang in Chicago. While in Florida, he was sent to prison after a road- rage shooting. Federal authorities said he converted to Islam in prison and eventually traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, where he learned to wire explosives. In Padilla's case, the government isn't interested in his rehabilitation -- the brig's forte. In court papers, the government says holding him "prevents him from continuing to aid the enemy in executing attacks against the United States." His detention is "in no sense 'criminal' and has no penal consequences whatsoever." According to media reports, which the military will neither confirm nor deny, when Padilla arrived at the brig, he was placed in an isolation cell with a lamp burning 24 hours a day and round-the-clock security. Despite his unsavory past, Padilla has picked up support from human rights groups and constitutional scholars. In a report this summer, Amnesty International said holding someone incommunicado for years can be akin to torture, and that access to a lawyer helps the innocent from being jailed and suspects from being held in inhumane conditions. Eugene Fidell, a military law expert and president of the National Institute for Military Justice, doesn't know anything about how Padilla and the other designated enemy combatants are being treated, but when he met his client, Capt. James Yee, in a conference room in the brig last month, he was appalled to see Yee in leg irons, "the kind that go clank when you walk." Fidell learned that Yee was in solitary confinement, which typically means 23 hours of confinement and one hour of exercise. He was allowed to read only a Koran. "This was entirely unwarranted," he said. Yee, a West Point graduate and Muslim chaplain, had been assigned to minister to the detainees in Guantanamo. In September, federal agents arrested him in Jacksonville and reportedly found sketches of the camp and documents related to the captors and their interrogators. News reports painted Yee's case in terms of espionage. But on Oct. 10, Yee was charged with a more innocuous offense: disobeying orders by taking classified material to his home and not putting it in proper security containers. "In a normal environment, he wouldn't be behind bars. He's a member of the clergy charged only with orders violations," Fidell said. Fidell said that he believes Yee has since been placed in a lower security status, and that brig officials are now giving him a censored version of USA Today. The fact that it's being censored, Fidell said, "is ridiculous." Yee also was allowed to meet with his family. "What sets his case apart from the other detainees in the brig and those in Guantanamo," Fidell said, "is that Capt. Yee has lawyers, that he can meet with his lawyers, and that he has a lot of his rights." Whether the brig will warehouse more enemy combatants and others nabbed in the nation's terrorism dragnet is hard to predict, especially in light of the military's policy of saying virtually nothing about the brig or its plans for it. This climate of secrecy only hurts the government's efforts, said Alistair Hodges, a spokesman for Amnesty International. "People smell a rat, even if there isn't one." Ultimately, what happens at the brig and the people inside might have a great deal to do with how the nation frames the terrorism struggle. The Bush administration defines the conflict as a war. "Al-Qaida made the battlefield the United States," a government prosecutor said last week in Padilla's hearing before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. During that hearing, Judge Rosemary Pooler didn't seem convinced. "If, in fact, the battlefield is the United States, I think Congress has to say that, and I don't think they have yet." Amnesty International and others argue that the conflict should more properly be defined as an international police action, and that by militarizing the fight against terrorism, the Bush administration has put itself -- and detainees like Hamdi, al-Marri and Padilla -- in a difficult spot. "The prospect is chilling," said Dunham, Hamdi's lawyer. "If the chief executive calls you an enemy combatant, you can be held indefinitely, because that's how long the war on terror probably is going to go." Copyright © 2003, The Post and Courier, All Rights Reserved. * * * Sunday Mercury (Midlands, UK): November 23, 2003 DAD LEARNS BEGG WON'T BE FREED By Caroline Wheeler http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/content_objectid= 13654043_method=full_siteid=50002_headline=-Dad-learns-Begg-won-t-be-freed- name_page.html The father of Midland terror suspect Moazzam Begg was last night told his son would NOT be among detainees being released from Guantanamo Bay. Azmat Begg, 60, of Sparkhill, Birmingham, said he had been told by the Foreign Office that no Britons will be freed by the Americans despite rumours to the contrary. On Friday US ambassador Pierre-Richard Prosper announced that up to 24 detainees would be released but declined to say what nationalities were involved. "We expect to see almost two dozen individuals released in the coming weeks," he said. "These are people who no longer pose a threat to the international community." Mr Prosper added that several dozen other prisoners who posed a "medium-level threat" would also be released to the custody of their own countries for continued investigation. But following days of speculation that his son could be freed, Mr Begg said the Foreign Office had shattered his dreams of having his son home by Christmas. Last night the retired bank manager said: "I have received calls from many journalists over the last few days and things seemed to be looking positive. "But last night I called the Foreign Office to be told that no Britons were among those detainees about to be released from Camp Delta. "I can't understand what has happened. I want to know what is going on with my son." Yesterday a leading human rights campaigner called on the Prime Minister to seek more information about the fate of British detainees in Guantanamo Bay. Stephen Jakobi, director of Fair Trials Abroad, said: "It is good news the Americans are working to release those who we are concerned about. "But we are left with the big question of what is actually happening with the Brits because we have no news about that. Last night a spokesman for the Home Office refused to comment on claims no British detainees are going to be released. He added: "Discussions are still underway between the US and UK administrations concerning the detainees being held by the Americans in Guantanamo Bay." Moazzam Begg is one of four Britons from the Midlands being held in Guantanamo Bay. The others are Asif Iqbal, Ruhal Ahmed, Shafiq Rasul, from Tipton. * * * Toronto Star: November 23, 2003 NEW CANADIAN HEROINE EMERGES FROM ARAR CASE by Haroon Siddiqui http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename= thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1069542607028&call_pageid= 968332188854&col=968350060724 I first heard her on CBC-Radio. She was as calm as the subject matter was unsettling ? her husband's unknown fate in a jail in a far-off land of torture. She was as methodical as his story was complicated, even convoluted. She sounded patient when impatience and anger would have been perfectly understandable. Then I saw her on television. She cut right through the thicket of stereotypes that would have trumped a less confident hijab-wearing Muslim woman, the wife of a man accused, with no public proof, of terrorist connections. When Maher (pronounced May-herr) Arar returned to Canada after 374 days in a Syrian jail and held a news conference in Ottawa Nov. 4 detailing the horrors he had been through, she sat beside him. "If it were not for her, I believe I'd still be in prison." The next day Alexa McDonough, former leader of the New Democratic Party, rose in the House of Commons to laud Monia Mazigh: "We pay tribute to this remarkable woman." Despite her high visibility, though, there has been little said or written about Mazigh herself. "She has inspired Canadians with her unrelenting efforts to raise awareness of what happens when the rights of citizens are trampled in the name of so-called national security. We are all deeply indebted to Monia Mazigh," McDonough said. So I talked to her and those who know her. Riad Saloojee of the Canadian section of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the first group to take up the Arar case, has come to know the family well. He said in an interview he looks up to Mazigh as "a new role model, an archetypal new Canadian heroine for the new Canada -- one who's committed to her faith but stands for universal values," as does Canada. McDonough, who championed the Arar case in Parliament, said in an interview: "Monia is a communicator's dream: she's highly intelligent and focused. She has an intensity about her. She has a sense of humour. She's humble and unassuming. She's extremely articulate" -- in French, English and Arabic. At a meeting when we were discussing the Arar case, a lawyer in the room said, "This woman belongs on the Supreme Court of Canada. She has a wisdom beyond her years, and an impeccable sense of justice and how it is supposed to work." But Dr. Mazigh, 34, is a Ph.D. in financial economics from McGill University, who has taken time off to raise her two children, daughter Baraa, 6, and son Houd, 20 months. Never an activist, she was a private person until she got a phone call, while holidaying in her native Tunisia, from her mother in Ottawa that Arar had been detained in New York. "I was shocked and surprised," she said in a phone interview. "But I thought it would be a matter of days -- it might be related to the new immigration laws." She understood the gravity only when she returned home and a lawyer, arranged by the Canadian consulate in New York, called to say, "there were rumours that he might have been deported to Syria." As she started dealing with Ottawa, she said her biggest frustration was that "they were all hiding behind the fact that he was a Syrian citizen." But Syria, like many states, does not let its natives renounce their original citizenship. "He never wanted to go to Syria. He did not go there by choice. He had been kidnapped and sent there." Mazigh did realize the implications of the post-9/11 era: "If you mention 'terrorist,' people are going to be afraid of you. Who's going to care about a Canadian Syrian-born Muslim? "Very few people would listen to my story." But, "I called my MP every day. They don't call me back. But I call. I write letters. "I decided I was going to do that all my life" -- if she had to. Two more things kept her going: her children and her faith. "My children. I was upset seeing them growing up without their father. And I worried about their future, that they were going to be treated in the same manner as their father. "I did not want them to be treated like second-class citizens. I did not want them to be accused or suspected of being a terrorist because of their origin, because they are Muslim and they bear a name that has an Arabic sound." Secondly, "my faith helped me a lot, Alhamd-o-lillah (thanks be to Allah) ... "No, I did not pray more or read more Qur'an. I've to be honest with you. I am a normal person -- I pray, I fast (for the month of Ramadan). But I had many spiritual discussions with myself. I felt closer to my Creator. "My faith kept me strong and, Inshallah (Allah willing), will keep me strong in the coming days." What was her worst moment? "Every day was very bad ... "But nothing seemed to me worse than seeing my husband's rights being deprived. I was very upset, angry and very concerned when I didn't see any action (by the government on his behalf). I never heard of a Canadian being deported to Ireland because he is of Irish descent. "Of course, it's the Americans who did that (sent Arar to Syria). But why was there not strong action to bring him back home? "To me, it was about due process. A Canadian citizen travelling on a Canadian passport must be treated according to Canadian values." She said she kept telling politicians and bureaucrats: "You know, if this man has done something wrong, bring him to Canada and judge him here." Her spirits were uplifted as a Maher Arar Support Group sprang up, run by the Ottawa-based Solidarity Network, and supported by the Canadian section of the International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group. Her faith in Canada was fully restored, she said, the day she testified before a House of Commons committee. "I was amazed that so many politicians from different parties spoke up and offered to help. It was not party politics. They were taking up the case of a Canadian." Told of the characterization of her as a new Canadian heroine, she said: "Oh, my goodness," and fell silent. Three days after McDonough's tribute to her in Parliament, Mazigh was also lauded in a sermon at Masjid Toronto at Dundas and Bay. Farhad Khadim, a volunteer imam who takes turns leading the Friday prayer, told the congregation Mazigh had turned public perception of a Muslim woman on its head. Told about that, Mazigh said she was forced by circumstances to play a public role. "I hope I used it the right way," she said, and urged Muslim men to "encourage their wives and daughters to raise their voices, and be outspoken." But, in a post-feminist sensibility, she emphasized that she did not see the issue as gender warfare. Nonetheless, "Muslim attitudes here must change. We have to take the wonderful opportunity of democratic Canada to get educated and protect our rights." Finally, how is Arar doing? "Alhamd-o-lillah, every day is a new day." * * * NEWS.com.au: November 22, 2003 [ @ 22:00 GMT ] GUANTANAMO RELEASE, NO COMMENT The US Department of Defence said today it could not confirm at the moment reports of an impending release of some foreign prisoners held by the US military at its base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "As of right now, I don't have any information on that," a department spokesman said on condition of anonymity. The US ambassador at large for war crimes, Pierre-Richard Prosper, was quoted today as telling Spanish media that the United States will release around 20 of the 650-odd prisoners being held in Guantanamo in the coming week. Agence France-Presse [ @ 20:00 GMT ] * * * Hindustan Times (New Dehli): November 22, 2003 - US FREES FIVE PAK DETAINEES FROM GUANTANAMO BAY ISLAMABAD -- Five Pakistanis held by the US military at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre in Cuba returned home on Saturday, senior interior ministry official Brigadier Iqbal Cheema said. "As a result of persistent efforts by the government of Pakistan and its parleys with the US government, five more Pakistanis detained at Camp X-ray in Cuba have returned home," Cheema told AFP. The United States has so far released 21 Pakistanis since November last year while 37 were still in Camp X-ray, officials said. The government would continue to make efforts to secure the release of all Pakistanis, Cheema added. Security officials said the Pakistanis who arrive late on Saturday will be interrogated before they are allowed to rejoin their families. A total of 58 Pakistanis were captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 after the fall of hard-line Taliban regime in a US-led campaign. They were suspected of being members of the Taliban militia allied with Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda network. The first Pakistani prisoner, Mohammad Sagheer, was released in November last year, and more were freed later in batches this year. Sagheer, 53, has filed a case in a local court seeking 10.4 million dollars in damages from the United States for his "illegal detention, torture and humiliation." Thousands of Pakistanis, many of them young students at religious schools in remote rural areas, went to Afghanistan to support the Taliban against the US-led coalition. * * * Los Angeles Times: U.S. SEEKS ADVICE FROM ISRAEL ON IRAQ * As the occupation grows bloodier, officials draw on an ally's experience with insurgents. By Esther Schrader and Josh Meyer, Times Staff Writers http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/ la-fg-usisrael22nov22,1,7715171.story WASHINGTON -- Facing a bloody insurgency by guerrillas who label it an "occupier," the U.S. military has quietly turned to an ally experienced with occupation and uprisings: Israel. In the last six months, U.S. Army commanders, Pentagon officials and military trainers have sought advice from Israeli intelligence and security officials on everything from how to set up roadblocks to the best way to bomb suspected guerrilla hide-outs in an urban area. "Those who have to deal with like problems tend to share information as best they can," Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, said Friday at a defense writers breakfast here. The contacts between the two governments on military tactics and strategies in Iraq are mostly classified, and officials are reluctant to give the impression that the U.S. is brainstorming with Israel on the best way to occupy Iraq. Cambone said there is no formal dialogue between the two allies on Iraq, but they are working together. Indeed, the U.S. is loath to draw any comparison between what it says is its liberation of Iraq and what the international community has condemned as Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But Israeli and American officials confirm that with extremists carrying out suicide bombings and firing rocket-propelled grenades and missiles on U.S. forces in Iraq, the Pentagon is increasingly seeking advice from the Israeli military on how to defeat the sort of insurgency that Israel has long experience confronting. The Israelis "certainly have a wealth of experience from a military standpoint in dealing with domestic terror, urban terror, military operations in urban terrain, and there is a great deal of intelligence and knowledge sharing going on right now, all of which makes sense," a senior U.S. Army official said on condition of anonymity. "We are certainly tapping into their knowledge base to find out what you do in these kinds of situations." Many of the tactics recently adopted by the U.S. in Iraq -- increased use of airpower, aerial surveillance by unmanned aircraft of suspected sites, increased use of pinpoint search and seizure operations, the leveling of buildings used by suspected insurgents -- bear striking similarities to those regularly employed by Israel. Two Israeli officials -- one from the Jerusalem police force and a second from the Israel Defense Forces -- confirmed on condition of anonymity that U.S. officials had visited Israel to gain insight into police and military tactics. They also said Israeli officials have visited Washington to discuss the issues. U.S. officials were particularly interested in the "balancing act" that Israeli officials say they have tried to pursue between fighting armed groups and trying to spare civilians during decades of patrolling the occupied territories. "There are routine channels that have been there for years, and those channels have been energized," an Israeli official said of the communications. "The American military has been very interested in our lessons ... in how do you do surgical strikes in an urban zone, how do you hit the bad guy with minimum collateral damage." Some U.S. officials acknowledge that they blanch at the idea of the Pentagon adopting tactics from Israel, a nation regularly criticized for security tactics it employs to battle armed groups it has never managed to quell. And even Israeli officials acknowledge that they are somewhat reluctant to give advice. "After all," one Israeli official said, "we've made plenty of mistakes ourselves." Indeed, criticism of the Israeli army's tactics against Palestinians has been mounting within Israel. The current chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon, along with a group of retired heads of the Shin Bet internal security service and even some active-duty soldiers say the methods have been unduly harsh and threaten to destroy Israeli and Palestinian society if no solution is found to the conflict. But such concerns have not slowed the flow of information between Washington and Jerusalem. When Iraqi insurgents began firing from vehicles on U.S. troops at checkpoints, U.S. officials were prompted to reinforce their ties to the Israeli military and glean tips on how to prevent such attacks, Israeli officials said. Now, in frequent meetings with their American counterparts, Israeli army officials share ideas on how to protect soldiers from attacks and booby traps, Israeli officials said. U.S. military officials also have reviewed a common Israeli tactic of conducting house-by-house searches for armed fighters by knocking down interior walls with a portable battering ram. The tactic eliminates the need to pass through doors and windows -- one of the most dangerous aspects of urban combat, because of possible booby traps. In the last week, U.S. soldiers began leveling houses and buildings used by suspected guerrillas, a tactic long employed by the Israeli military in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, where they use bulldozers to knock down the homes of militants or their families. "The Americans learned a lot from the Israelis' use of them [bulldozers] in urban combat," a former Israeli official said. "Israelis learned that if you have fighting in an urban area, you just take down the house." This spring, U.S. soldiers, anticipating that they could be fighting on the streets of Iraqi cities, traveled to Israel to train in a mock Arab town that the Israeli army uses to simulate the urban battlefields of the West Bank and Gaza, U.S. and Israeli officials said. That training was an extension of the growing use of Israeli military ranges by the U.S. over the last decade. During that time, said Lenny Ben-David, a former Israeli deputy chief of mission at the embassy in Washington, Israeli military ranges have been increasingly used by American helicopter pilots for training, because they could not fly at night in places like Germany. "There are bases in Israel that for the last couple of years would be turned over to a foreign army for a few days, a week or so. The Israelis would be hosts. The U.S. is one of them," said Ben-David, now a private security consultant. "They could use equipment, they could use facilities, use the ranges. You'd get a mix of pilots and they would sit and talk tactics." After years of working closely together at all levels, the Israeli and U.S. militaries in some respects think increasingly alike, said Shoshana Bryen, director of special projects at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a nonprofit group in Washington interested in links between U.S. and Israeli defense tactics and policy. "Part of what's going on here is the culmination of years of picking each other's brains," Bryen said. "There is no sudden alliance, but what you end up with over the long term is a lot of guys from both countries who think and look at things the same way. After 9/11 they discovered they had more things to talk about." For generations the Israeli military has enjoyed close relations with the Pentagon, which prides itself on its ability to learn from, not just preach to, the armed forces of its allies. At any time, dozens of Israeli officers are studying at Pentagon-run war colleges and training centers. American special forces regularly train with their Israeli counterparts, both in the U.S. and in Israel. After the Israelis used unmanned drones in battlefield situations in Lebanon in 1982, the Pentagon studied the tactic. Some of the sensor technology that the United States military uses to protect the perimeters of its bases was pioneered by Israel. Much of the information shared with the U.S. involves the defensive tactics and training that Israel has constantly updated for its troops and police in the occupied territories, where they are familiar not only with the most current tactics and code of ethics but the international laws that apply as well, the two Israeli officials said. This month, for example, Lt. Col. Amos Guiora, the commandant of the Israeli army's School of Military Law, was in Washington to demonstrate some new software developed by the Israelis to train commanders how to conduct themselves in the occupied territories. During his visit, he showed the software to a group of American officials, he said. "I'll say only this," he said. "They saw it, and they were impressed." Israel's defense minister typically visits the Pentagon three to four times a year. The current defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, met Nov. 10 with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Officials privy to the meeting said the subject of Iraq came up, but declined to elaborate. The two nations also compare notes on battle operations and equipment, particularly if something goes wrong. "After some incidents, if there is a failure in the system -- an F-16 goes down -- there is discussion, cooperation among the armies that use these and the United States," Ben-David said. "It used to be that generals and admirals would come by in almost state-like visits," said Ben-David, who in his consulting works with Israeli and U.S. officials. "But the relationship is such that you now get line-type soldiers coming here to meet with their counterparts." [ Times staff writer Laura King in Jerusalem contributed to this report. ] * * * The Scotsman (UK): November 22, 2003 HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVIST CHALLENGES BLAIR OVER BRITISH GUANTANAMO DETAINEES By Ben Mitchell, PA News A leading human rights campaigner today called on the prime minister to seek more information about the fate of British detainees in Guantanamo Bay following the announcement by a US envoy that up to two dozen prisoners are set to be released. Stephen Jakobi, director of Fair Trials Abroad, said that no details had been released by either the UK or US governments about the detention of nine British citizens in the Cuban naval base since negotiations between the two countries began in July this year. US ambassador at large for war crimes Pierre-Richard Prosper yesterday announced at the US Embassy in Madrid that up to two dozen detainees would be released, according to the Associated Press. But he declined to say what nationalities the detainees were or to specify the date of their expected release. He said: "We expect to see almost two dozen individuals released in the coming weeks who no longer pose a threat to the international community." Mr Prosper added that several dozen other prisoners, who posed a ‘medium-level threat' would also be released to the custody of their own countries for continued investigation and prosecution. Prosper was in Madrid to meet with Spanish officials from the Interior, Justice and Foreign Ministries to discuss the case of a Spanish citizen held in Guantanamo, according to AP. Mr Jakobi said no information had been given about the fate of the nine British citizens at Guantanamo but the US ambassador had confirmed that the one Spanish citizen detained, who is from Spain's north African enclave of Ceuta, was not among those scheduled to be released. Mr Jakobi said: "It is good news that the Americans are working to release those who we at Fair Trials Abroad are concerned about. "But we are left with the big question of what is actually happening with the Brits as we have no news about that. "As far as the world knows, Tony Blair has got nowhere since he started negotiations in July. "Of EU citizens at Guantanamo Bay, 90 per cent are either British or French so it seems extraordinary that Spain knows what is going on but the British do not. "We would be much happier if we knew everyone was getting the same treatment, so let's hear it from Tony Blair." Mr Jakobi also called for united discussions with the US government between all the EU countries with detainees at Guantanamo . He said there were currently nine British citizens at the Cuban camp, with one expected to arrive in the near future, with six French, one Swedish citizen, one Spaniard and one Dane. * * * NEWS.com.au: November 22, 2003 24 GUANTANAMO PRISONERS TO BE FREED http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7942121^1702,00.html Madrid (AP) - The United States will release a dozen prisoners from the American navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in the coming weeks, a US envoy said today. More than 600 prisoners are held incommunicado in Guantanamo Bay following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. They are accused of links to al-Qaeda or the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan. About 64 have been freed and sent to their home countries. "We expect to see almost two dozen individuals released in the coming weeks who no longer pose a threat to the international community," said Pierre-Richard Prosper, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes at a press conference at the US embassy in Madrid. He declined to say what nationalities the detainees were, or to specify the date of their expected release. Several dozen other prisoners will be sent to their home countries for a lengthy process of investigation, detention and prosecution, Prosper said. He described these detainees as posing "a medium-level threat" to the international community. Prosper was in Madrid to meet with Spanish officials from the interior, justice and foreign ministries to discuss the case of a Spanish citizen held in Guantanamo. He confirmed the man, who is from Spain's North African enclave of Ceuta, was not among those scheduled to be released. "We believe he poses a significant threat to Spain, to the US and to the international community," Prosper said. "We're disturbed by the information we have and the depths of the contacts we know he has with al-Qaeda." Prosper said discussions with the Spanish government will focus on whether the Spaniard should remain in Guantanamo or be prosecuted in Spain. He acknowledged that Madrid had pressured the United States to study the Spanish citizen's case. Although Spain has been a staunch supporter of the Bush administration and its war on terror, Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio recently issued fierce criticism of the US, labelling the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo a "major error" and complaining that the prisoners were being held in what she called legal limbo. Prosper downplayed Palacio's remarks. "We've appreciated her frankness," he said. "Friends should tell friends what they think." Prosper said the detainees represent a threat to the world and that their release must be considered carefully as, he said, "lives depend upon the decision that will be made". "We understand that there are people who want us to move quickly and we're trying. But we need the best decision we can, because what we would not want to see occur is that we release someone and the very next day he's in the next plane in the next tall building in the next capital of Europe, the United States, Middle East or anywhere else," he said. * * * AFP: November 21, 2003 RIGHTS GROUP QUESTIONS HOUSE DEMOLITIONS IN IRAQ, PENTAGON DENIES COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT http://www.spacewar.com/2003/031121205624.nx0avmmg.html WASHINGTON (AFP) - Amnesty International said Friday US forces appeared to be destroying houses in Iraq as a form of collective punishment for attacks on US troops and warned that that would violate the Geneva Conventions. A Pentagon spokesman emphatically denied it. The human rights group said it had sent a letter to US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld demanding clarification whether the demolitions as a form of collective punishment or deterrence was officially permitted. "If such proved to be the case, it would constitute a clear violation of international humanitarian law," the group said in the letter. A Pentagon spokesman acknowledged that US forces had destroyed "facilities," including houses, in the course of recent military operations but emphatically denied they were intended as a form of collective punishment or retaliation for attacks. "We have destroyed facilities that were being used by former regime loyalists or terrorists either as a place from which to stage attacks, or as a safe house to avoid capture, or as a facility from which to construct improvised explosive devices," said Lieutenant Colonel Jim Cassella. "The idea that this is some type of collective punishment is just absolutely without merit," he said. "In some cases there have been incidents where these thugs have been using homes to do this, and in all cases where that happened the people who lived there were evacuated and then afterwards were relocated," he said. "But what we are doing here is attacking the terrorist infrastructure to deny them the ability to plan, organize and initiate attacks," he said. Amnesty International said it had learned that 15 houses were destroyed in the Tikrit area since November 16 in military operations. It said in one case a family in the village of al-Haweda was reportedly given five minutes to evacuate their house before it was razed by tank and helicopter fire. The organization said it received reports of a November 10 incident in which soldiers gave people living in a farmhouse near the town of al-Mamudiya south of Baghdad 30 minutes to leave. The farmhouse was bombed and destroyed later in the day by F-16 fighters, it said. It said the bombing appeared to have been carried out in retaliation for an attack several days earlier on a convoy in which a US officer was killed. Six people were arrested at the farmhouse a day after the convoy attack when weapons were found in a truck outside. More weapons and ammunition were said to have been found in a search of the house, Amnesty said. "It seems that the destruction of the Najim family house was carried out as collective punishment and not for 'absolute military necessity'," Amnesty said. The organization noted that Article 33 of the fourth Geneva Convention states: "Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited." Article 53 states: "Any destruction by the occupying power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations." Copyright 2003 Agence France-Presse. * * * The Times (UK): November 21, 2003 AMERICA'S GUILT: THE PRISONERS IN A LEGAL BLACK HOLE By Kenneth Roth http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2003/us112103.htm President Bush yesterday described more than 600 detainees at Guantanamo Bay as "illegal non-combatants picked up off of the battlefield". But there is another glaring illegality here -- which is entirely the responsibility of the US Government. At Guantanamo, hundreds have been held without charge for two years, abandoned in a legal black hole. Before arriving in London, Bush insisted that the proposed military commissions for prosecuting these prisoners held at the US base would be "in line with international accords". Nothing could be further from the truth. As currently proposed, these tribunals would trample the most basic principles of international law. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, has had tough talks with Washington, hoping to secure fair trials for two Britons, Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg. He got a guarantee that the pair will not be executed and will be allowed confidential access to their lawyers. Otherwise, the US Government sent him home empty-handed. That bodes poorly for all other Guantanamo detainees, including seven Britons, who could be brought before the commissions. Tony Blair told the Commons last month that we had to realise "there is a reason why these people have been detained". The depressing fact is that there is no way for us to judge whether that is true. Any charges against the detainees have not been made public, and the stories told by prisoners eventually released from Guantanamo suggest that the flimsiest of reasons for detention sometimes suffice. The military commissions' rules would not allow defendants to have their cases reviewed by independent civilian courts, even on appeal. This is why the commissions are profoundly unjust. Even US court-martial verdicts can be appealed to a civilian court. But these military commissions would allow appeal only to Bush, the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, or their appointees. Bush and Rumsfeld have already proclaimed the guilt of those at Guantanamo, calling them "bad people" and "the worst of the worst". In short: the US Government, with hardly an open mind, has made itself prosecutor, judge and jury. Under prodding from Lord Goldsmith, Bush would consider appointing civilians to an appeal panel of judges. But these judges could be removed by Bush, and thus still have no independence. As for the trial itself, the rules do not ensure that a suspect can see all evidence against him -- leaving him in the extraordinary position of having to defend himself in the dark. The only person allowed to see all the secret evidence would be a lawyer appointed by the Pentagon, but that lawyer cannot discuss that evidence with the suspect. That makes it impossible for the suspect to marshal key facts that might prove his innocence. A suspect can hire his own lawyer, but he also would not have access to the most secret evidence, even after a full security vetting. Trials conducted in these circumstances would be a grotesque parody of justice. Repatriation for Abbasi and Begg would help those two men, not least because they might well be released for lack of evidence that could be used in a British court. It would, however, leave the broader concerns unaddressed. Defeating terrorism means convincing the world of the importance of the rule of law. The Bush Administration severely handicaps this effort if, in the process of fighting terrorism's violation of the right to life, it so fundamentally violates the right to a fair trial. Blair must use his political capital in Washington to make that point -- not discreetly, but loudly enough to be heard, at last, by the rest of the world. [ The author is executive director of Human Rights Watch. ] * * * CBC: November 21, 2003 ARAR'S WIFE DENIES LEAKED CIA ALLEGATIONS http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ot_arar20031121 OTTAWA - Countering recent leaks to U.S. media, the wife of Maher Arar denies her husband was carrying any documents linking him to al-Qaeda when he was stopped by U.S. agents in New York's Kennedy airport. Arar is the Ottawa man who was deported by U.S. officials to Syria against his will in the fall of 2002. The Syrian-born Canadian was returned home last month after he was released without explanation. He had spent 10 months and 10 days in Syrian prison, and has said he was tortured and forced to sign false confessions. In recent weeks, there have been a number of leaks about Arar's case in Canada, generally believed to have come from RCMP or CSIS sources. Now U.S. agents are increasingly doing the same thing, to Washington Post reporter Dana Priest. She said the leaks are in response to growing questions about the case in the States. In the latest leaks, unnamed sources in the CIA claim to have received assurances from Syria that Arar would not be tortured. The people leaking the alleged information may be concerned that Arar's deportation to Syria -- a country known to use torture -- was a move that violated U.S. laws, said Priest. "This is the legal loophole, if you want to be cynical about it," she said. "It's the legal permission ... to say, 'Well, even though it's Syria, the Syrians have told us they won't do that.'" Accepting such guarantees if they existed, she said, would be disingenuous. "The president of the United States was just last week criticizing the Syrians for their long history of torture," said Priest. The agents also told the Post their actions against Arar were justified by the discovery of contact information for known al-Qaeda members in his possession. Arar's wife Monia Mazigh says that's a fabrication. "After one year to hear it for the first time, I think it's really ridiculous to say that. They never asked him about that," she said. The Arar story is just now receiving more attention in the U.S., both in the media and in Congress. Priest expects the profile of Arar's story to grow as more Americans think about the implications for them. * * * The Daily Northwestern (Northwestern University): November 21, 2003 SPEAKER ARGUES GUANTANAMO CAPTIVES HELD ILLEGALLY By Tina Peng Northwestern Law Prof. Douglas Cassel declared that a Supreme Court ruling over prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay will have international implications for human rights during a Thursday night discussion that turned into debate over the apathy of NU's student body. "U.S. Prisoners in Guantanamo: Must we abandon the rule of law to fight terrorism?" was sponsored by Amnesty International and addressed the 600 suspected terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay without access to the American legal system due to the naval base's Cuban location. Cassel, who represents several prisoners' families who are suing for American jurisdiction over Guantanamo, formulated one of seven writs of "friend of the court" that influenced the Supreme Court's Monday decision to take their case. He said the case would determine not only the prisoners' legal status but also the American position on international ideas of due process and habeas corpus, or the right to inquire whether a person is being imprisoned lawfully. "It's a historic moment for the rule of law in the U.S. When push comes to shove, when times are rough, do we stand for these principles we say we believe in?" he asked an audience of about 40 students and Northwestern community members gathered in Swift Hall. Cassel argued that the American government's refusal to grant its prisoners habeas corpus violated basic human rights, citing an international tradition and relating Guantanamo Bay to the Japanese internment camps of World War II. Further, he said, the government's actions set a dangerous precedent for other countries. When former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed was accused of denying prisoners due process and subjecting them to other injustices, Mohamed defended himself by saying that he was following America's example. At the end of his talk, Cassel exhorted audience members to write letters to their congressmen and noted the success of Amnesty International's letter- writing campaigns. "You guys make a difference. Each of you can decide for yourselves. Which tradition do you want yourself to be associated with?" he asked. "Which tradition do you want your country to stand for?" Medill freshman Kendra Marr said she believed the speech accomplished its main objective. "I came to the lecture not knowing much about Guantanamo Bay," she said. "I feel more informed and more empowered to do something now." Chicago resident Jay Johnson, however, strongly opposed Cassel's argument, arguing the Guantanamo prisoners were terrorists and deserved to be treated as such. "Better them than the three thousand in New York who are no longer with us," he said. "I'm not going to help our enemies kill us. I'm an American citizen." Audience discussion culminated in a heated argument when a local high school teacher and Amnesty International advisor said that the event's low turnout was indicative of a campus wide passivity. "When I was in college, this meeting would have been packed. It's not even half full!" he exclaimed. NU students rose to their own defense, attributing the turnout to a number of other events being held at the same time and saying that their attendance was a sign of their interest and passion. Cassel joked that he was impressed with the number of people in the audience. "Usually I'm talking to three or four people, and I think that's a high turnout," he said. * * * Seattle Post-Intelligencer: November 21, 2003 WIFE OF GUANTANAMO CHAPLAIN SPEAKS OUT AGAINST CHARGES By Sam Skolnik, Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/149300_yee21.html The wife of James Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at the Guantanamo Bay prison for terror suspects, proclaimed her husband's innocence yesterday and lashed out at the U.S. government for the way it's treated him. Flanked by a cadre of angry Muslim and Chinese American activists, Huda Suboh described her ordeal after agents arrested Yee, a former Fort Lewis chaplain accused of taking classified information home and wrongly transporting the information. Dan DeLong / P-I Huda Suboh, the wife of Capt. James Yee, holds her daughter Sarah, 4, as she denounced the treatment of her husband by U.S. authorities. She said that her husband, who was an Army chaplain to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, is innocent. At a news conference held at the Islamic School of Seattle, Suboh said that after arriving at Sea-Tac Airport on Sept. 10 to meet Yee, her husband never showed up and could not be reached. Soon after she took a cab back to the couple's Olympia home with their young daughter in tow, the FBI showed up to question her and search their apartment. At that point, she said, they wouldn't tell her where Yee was or what trouble he was in. "I had no idea where's my husband," said Suboh, who is Syrian. "I was all alone. I cried." In what is believed to be her first public remarks, Suboh, wearing a tan head scarf and black wool coat, said the intense media coverage -- in which she heard her husband had repeatedly been referred to as an alleged spy -- deeply angered her. "I felt like they were just taking a knife and stabbing my heart, the pain was so great," Suboh said. Yee, who is being held in a Navy brig in South Carolina, was detained Sept. 10 at Jacksonville Naval Air Station after getting off a flight from Guantanamo Bay. He had served as chaplain at the prison from November until then. He was held for a month before being charged. Federal officials have declined to elaborate on the charges against Yee, though his arrest was one of three made after an investigation into espionage allegations at the prison. He has not been charged with spying. But in an indication that the government may now believe his alleged crimes are less serious, the Army recently lowered his detention security status. The two charges against Yee, a 35-year-old West Point graduate, carry a maximum of two years in prison and a bad-conduct discharge. The event yesterday -- held after iftar, the breaking of the daylong fast for that day of Ramadan -- allowed several Chinese- and Muslim-American community activists to vent their frustration at Yee's arrest and treatment. Several compared Yee, who is of Chinese parentage, to Wen Ho Lee, the Chinese American scientist who in 1999 was initially accused of mishandling nuclear weapons codes. "There's a system for 'regular Americans' and another system for those of us who look like us, OK, different," said Cecilia Chang of the San Francisco-based group called Justice for New Americans. Yee has been called "an alleged spy with no evidence whatsoever," said Chang, who worked on behalf of Lee, a friend. "This is hypocrisy. Don't tell me this is justice for all." Shaheed Nurridin, a friend of Yee's, said Yee had been proudly working in "his dream job," all the more reason to doubt the government's shadowy accusations against him. "He's been shackled, incarcerated for having compassion to help his fellow Muslims," Nurridin said. "Every human being should be outraged about what is happening." [ P-I reporter Sam Skolnik can be reached at 206-448-8176 or samskolnik@seattlepi.com ] * * * Toronto Globe and Mail: November 21, 2003 U.S. TRUSTED SYRIA'S ASSURANCES ON ARAR: ASHCROFT By JEFF SALLOT Ottawa -- U.S. Attorney-General John Ashcroft says the Bush administration received -- and believed -- assurances from Syria that it would not torture Maher Arar before deporting the Ottawa man to that Middle Eastern country. His statement Thursday was met with derision by human-rights groups because it appears to be at odds with official U.S. government reports that say torture is a routine interrogation tool in Syria. Mr. Arar, 33, a Syrian-born Canadian software engineer, says he was tortured and kept in solitary confinement in a dark, small, rat-infested prison cell in Damascus for more than 10 months. He says he pleaded with U.S. officials to deport him to Canada because he feared torture in Syria. Nevertheless, Mr. Ashcroft maintained that the deportation order was legal because the Syrians promised that Mr. Arar would not face torture if he was returned to the country of his birth. Noting the Syrian government's recent denial that Mr. Arar had been tortured, Mr. Ashcroft told reporters "that statement is fully consistent with the assurances that the United States government received prior to the removal of Mr. Arar." As recently as two weeks ago, U.S. President George W. Bush denounced the Syrian regime for leaving its people "a legacy of torture, oppression, misery and ruin." The U.S. State Department, in its most recent report on human-rights abuses in Syria, said torture is common and the methods include beatings, electric shocks, pulling out fingernails, forcing objects into the rectum, and bending prisoners into the frame of a wheel while whipping exposed body parts. It is illegal for the U.S. government to deport any individual to a country where it can expect the person will be tortured, said Joe Stork, a Middle East expert with Human Rights Watch. The use of torture is "well documented in the case of Syria and it is pretty shameful" for the U.S. to have deported Mr. Arar to that country, Mr. Stork said. "It is preposterous that U.S. authorities would even consider asking the Syrian government -- a government that Washington itself has identified as having an abysmal human rights record -- to give that kind of assurance" that Mr. Arar would not be tortured, Alex Neve, the secretary-general of the Canadian branch of Amnesty International, said. "It is outrageous that anybody in the U.S. government would believe such promises from a government like Syria, which regularly, consistently and cavalierly [flouts] international human-rights obligations," Mr. Neve said. The Arar case is receiving attention in U.S. news media and has started to raise uncomfortable questions for the Bush administration. Mr. Ashcroft defended the decision to deport Mr. Arar to Syria on national security grounds even though he was travelling on his Canadian passport when he was arrested in September, 2002, at New York's John F. Kennedy International Airport. "Mr. Arar was the subject of a lookout list for being a member of a known terrorist organization," Mr. Ashcroft said. Thus, the deportation, he said, was "fully within our laws and the applicable international treaties and conventions." Mr. Ashcroft said he believes Canada has a "better understanding of our actions" after his meeting Wednesday with Solicitor-General Wayne Easter. Earlier in the day, Mr. Easter told CTV's Canada AM that he did not think Mr. Arar had been treated fairly by the Americans. But Mr. Easter, who is the minister responsible for both the RCMP and CSIS, said Canada will continue to share intelligence with the Americans in anti-terrorism and criminal investigations.U.S. officials have said Mr. Arar was deported as a suspected member of the al-Qaeda terrorist network, an allegation he denies. Mr. Arar has never been charged with an offence in any country, although it would be illegal in both Canada and the U.S. to belong to or support al Qaeda. The Canadian government considers Mr. Arar to be innocent, said Amy Jarrett, a spokeswoman for Mr. Easter.Meanwhile, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham told the Chicago Council for Foreign Relations that the war on terrorism must not lead to the repression of Muslim communities in Canada and the United States. * * * The Moscow Times (Russia) -- November 21, 2003 - Page 9 http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/11/21/009.html Letters U.S. TYRANNY In response to "Global Eye," a column by Chris Floyd on Nov. 14. [ http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2003/11/14/120.html ] Editor, I agree with Floyd that it is a great scandal that much of the public here in the United States remains so complacent in the face of such tyranny, but I am also aware that many of us here have not been silent -- and I myself have been speaking out as best I can for two years now. Secondly, the tyranny is not merely unconstitutional and illegal under international law, it is fully illegal under U.S. criminal law as well: The War Crimes Act of 1996 as amended by the Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997 makes it a federal felony for any U.S. citizen to commit a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, violate Articles 23, 25, 27 or 28 of the 1907 Hague IV Annex (laws and customs of war) or violate the International Convention Against Torture -- and the Bush administration is committing countless violations of that law by official policy. Thirdly, except for a low-key mention in passing some months ago in The Miami Herald, no one in the mainstream press, either here in the United States or abroad, has reported those facts -- and I consider that a very great scandal indeed. Charles Gittings Oakland, California * * * November 20, 2003 ANALYSIS: GUANTANAMO DETAINEES IN LIMBO By Nicholas M. Horrock, UPI Chief White House Correspondent WASHINGTON, Nov. 20 (UPI) -- Perhaps delayed by the U.S. Supreme Court, President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair said they reached no agreement Thursday on what to do with nine British citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. Blair, who has been severely criticized in some British circles for allowing the men to be held without charges for nearly two years, defended how he and Bush had been handling the issue at a news conference in London. "The very fact that we are in discussion about making sure there are fair procedures for trial ... is an indication that we actually treat people differently. So, even though this arose out of this appalling, brutal attack on America on September the 11th, nonetheless, we make sure that justice is done for people." Bush chimed in, "Justice is being done." Calling the men "illegal non-combatants picked off a battlefield," Bush said they were being treated in a "humane fashion," adding that the United States was "sorting through them on a case-by- case basis. There is a court procedure in place that will allow them to be tried in a fair fashion." Liberal Democrat Party Charles Kennedy said later Thursday that Bush offered in a meeting with him to fly nine Britons detained in Guantanamo Bay back to their country if the British government is not satisfied with arrangements for their trial. Briefing journalists on his discussion with the U.S. president, Kennedy said Bush would declare "here are the tickets, and they can come back to Britain." The fate of these detainees and some 651 others held in the island prison without charges, trials, lawyers or access to their families has made them an international cause celebre in legal and anti-war circles. Two of the British detainees, Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal; Australian citizen Terry Hicks, and 12 Kuwaiti nationals at Guantanamo sued Bush and the U.S. government through friends and families seeking release from illegal incarceration. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case and a hearing will be scheduled in the next several months. The U.S. government claims that the detainees are not covered by the Geneva Convention or U.S. law, and though the base is located in Cuba, the Department of Defense said Cuban courts have no authority. Several people have called it a "legal black hole." This may explain the delay in deciding how to handle this sensitive case. On July 17, the two leaders discussed the case the week after Bush had named two of the British citizens to be tried in military commissions. In July, Bush agreed not to try any British citizen until the issues was resolved. But the delays have caused difficulties, according to the International Commission of the Red Cross. ICRC officials are the only outsiders who have been able to talk to the detainees. In an unusual statement in October, the ICRC said the long incarceration, with repetitive interrogations, no charges and no outside contact has caused a "worrying deterioration" among the detainees. When United Press International visited the prison this month, the U.S. command said there had been 31 suicide attempts by 21 men. No prisoner has died, it said, but one man has serious, long-term medical difficulties resulting from his attempt. Hicks has been on repeated hunger strikes, according to his father and prison officials, and another inmate was on a hunger strike. The two British detainees ordered for trial in July by Bush are Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, according to family members and a British Embassy official. Abbasi, the BBC reported last summer, is 23, was born in Uganda and moved to Britain when he was 8. "After A-levels at the John Ruskin college, he took a 2- year computing course at Nescott College in Epsom," the BBC said. In November 2002, a British court of appeal found his imprisonment "legally objectionable," but failed to order the government to intervene, the BBC said. Begg, 35, is from Birmingham. This father of four was picked up by the CIA in Pakistan in February 2002 and moved to Guantanamo. Other Britain citizens held at Guantanamo Bay are Ruhal Ahmed, 20, who went to Afghanistan in 2001 with Rasul, 24; Iqbal, 20; and Munir Ali, 21. All are from Tipton. The Guardian said they were held by U.S. Special Forces in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Richard Belmar, 23, of London, was seized in Pakistan, the BBC reported. Also from London was Tarek Dergoul, 20; and Martin Mubanga, 29, and Jamal Udeen, 35, both from Manchester. The main objection to handing them over to the British, according to U.S. sources, was the secrecy of the proceedings and the death penalty. Najeeb bin Mohamed Ahmed al-Nuaimi, a Qatari lawyer who represents some 95 of the detainees at the request of their families, told UPI that he believes none of them will face the death penalty. Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International * * * Toronto Globe and Mail: November 20, 2003 OTTAWA HANDED ARAR FILE TO U.S. By Paul Koring and Jeff Sallot Washington and Ottawa -- Solicitor-General Wayne Easter admitted Wednesday that Canada provided U.S. intelligence agencies with a dossier of information about Maher Arar, the Canadian who was subsequently arrested and deported to Syria where he was tortured for months. After meeting yesterday in Washington with U.S. Attorney-General John Ashcroft, Mr. Easter made the admission when he insisted that Canada was not alone in giving information to the Americans. The dossier on Mr. Arar "didn't just come from Canada alone," Mr. Easter said, without indicating which other nations had provided the Americans with information about Mr. Arar. "I've always admitted that certainly we do exchange information with the security and law-enforcement agencies in the United States in order to protect out national security," Mr. Easter said. Although he refused to explain what threat -- if any -- Mr. Arar posed to national security in either Canada or the United States, he emerged from the meeting with Mr. Ashcroft saying the United States remains certain that it did the right thing by deporting him to Syria. Mr. Ashcroft chose not to join Mr. Easter at a postmeeting news conference. "Mr. Ashcroft assured us that, from his perspective, the decisions that were made were certainly made within the context of the laws of the United States and [he] feels there were no laws broken," Mr. Easter said, adding "he feels that they were operating under their mandate in the interest of their laws and their national security." The incident has chilled already difficult relations between Washington and Ottawa and has caused political uproar in Canada. What remains unclear is whether senior Canadian officials were aware of, or even okayed, the high-level U.S. decision to deport Mr. Arar to Syria, a country known to torture prisoners. Mr. Arar, who also holds Syrian citizenship, was arrested Sept. 26, 2002, in New York as he was returning to Canada from a visit to Tunisia. Supporters of Mr. Arar said they have always suspected the Canadian government helped the Americans. "We have always believed this was the case, but finally Mr. Easter has admitted some information was passed," said Riad Saloojee, the executive director of the Canadian section of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. The questions now are: "What was that information? Was it determinative in the decision to deport him to Syria?" Mr. Saloojee said. Another key missing piece is whether the White House advised or even consulted the Canadian government before ordering Mr. Arar deported to Syria. A top U.S. Justice official signed an unusual order allowing Mr. Arar to be deported to Syria. To do so, the Justice Department needed to determine that sending Mr. Arar back to Canada would be "prejudicial to the interests of the United States." That order, reported yesterday by The Washington Post, was signed by then deputy attorney-general Larry Thompson, acting on Mr. Ashcroft's behalf. Mr. Thompson, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, refused to answer questions yesterday about the deportation of Mr. Arar. Prime Minister Jean Chretien has demanded an explanation from the U.S. government, saying: "It's awful what they've done" by deporting Mr. Arar to Syria. He has also suggested that his government played no role in the affair. "It is the Americans who did it, not the Canadians," Mr. Chretien said. The extent of Canada's role remains unclear, however. Mr. Easter's admission that Canadian information -- presumably intelligence files from either the Canadian Security Intelligence Service or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police -- about Mr. Arar was given to U.S. agencies confirms a version of events provided by U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci. "Mr. Arar is very well known to Canadian law enforcement. They understand our handling of the case. They wouldn't be happy to see him come back to Canada," he has said. Mr. Easter has ruled out a public inquiry. Yesterday he repeatedly referred to the importance of protecting the rights of Canadians but, in much stronger terms, he warned of the dangers of failing to give the United States information about to terrorism and terrorist suspects. "We cannot as a country in Canada, in terms of our economic livelihood, lose our focus on the national security issues," he said. * * * BLAIR: CUBA DETAINEE DEAL SOON Video (Real media): http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39590000/rm/_39590653_powell22_robbins_vi.ram The foreign secretaries presented a united front on the News at Ten Tony Blair has said the issue of UK citizens interned at Guantanamo bay will be resolved soon. The prime minister's comment came after the US hinted it may release the Britons being held by the US at Camp Delta in Cuba for trial in the UK. The offer was indicated by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, visiting the UK along with US President George W Bush. Speaking at a joint news conference with Mr Bush, Mr Blair said talks were still ongoing about the issue. Mr Bush defended the treatment of the detainees saying they were being treated "humanely". Mr Blair said: "We are in discussions about this. It will be resolved in one of two ways. It is not going to be resolved today, but it will be resolved at some point soon Tony Blair "Either they will be tried by the military commission out there, or alternatively, they will be brought back here. "It will be resolved at some point or other. It is not going to be resolved today, but it will be resolved at some point soon." Mr Bush stressed that the US was still sorting through the detainees on a "case by case basis". "There is a court procedure in place that will allow them to be tried in a fair fashion," he said. Working together? "As to the issue of the British citizens, we are working with the British Government." Mr Bush faced a human rights demonstration by 60 members of Amnesty International as he arrived at Downing Street. The protesters were there to highlight their opposition to the fact the detainees at Guantanamo have been held without charge or legal representation. Stephen Bowen, Amnesty's campaigns director, said: "Our central message is that the Guantanamo Bay detainees should be charged or released, and any trials should be civilian, not military." The father of British detainee Moazzam Begg, Azmat, said: "I would say to Mr Bush, please think about what you are doing to the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else in the world." Mr Begg added his son, who is from Birmingham, should be tried in England. 'Difficult' Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, who met Mr Bush for 30 minutes on Wednesday, said Mr Bush had told him he hoped the Guantanamo controversy could be resolved "in the next week or two". We expect to be resolving this in the near future Colin Powell Guantanamo cases go to US Supreme Court That was a message repeated by Tory leader Michael Howard who stressed, after his meeting with Mr Bush, that no decision has been made as yet. "Returning the British prisoners is an option they are considering and it may be what they end up doing," he told BBC Breakfast. "But I don't think they have decided it yet and because I don't like raising expectations which might be disappointed, I'm cautious about all that." A US official said the issue was still under discussion, and several options were being considered. "There have been no decisions made yet," the official said. The nine Britons are among hundreds of non-US prisoners who have been detained at Guantanamo Bay, suspected of being linked to the al Qaeda network. Political pressure call The lawyer for another detainee, Feroz Abassi, from Croydon, south London, said his family would be "hugely pleased" that the Americans could be prepared to return him to the UK. Louise Christian said: "All that remains now is for our prime minister and our foreign secretary to insist that that is what happens." She said the detainees had been held and interrogated without access to a lawyer for two years, and that their proposed military commission trials "breached every requirement for a fair trial in every respect". The Bush administration has previously said the detainees at the camp in Cuba are "enemy combatants" ineligible for due legal process. Mr Powell and Mr Straw put on a united front when interviewed together for the first time for the BBC's News at Ten. Mr Straw told the BBC the two politicians talked almost every day but "neither side grandstands" about it. * * * BBC: November 20, 2003 - 16:49 GMT LEGAL QUESTIONS OVER GUANTANAMO BRITS By Jon Silverman, Legal affairs analyst Hints that nine Britons detained at Guantanamo Bay for 20 months on suspicion of terrorism, might be repatriated to the UK have raised as many legal questions as they answer. On the one hand, human rights lawyers campaigning on behalf of the detainees, would be delighted if they were handed over to British jurisdiction to face "due process". On the other, any suggestion that the government - through its principal law officer, the Attorney-General - had entered into a binding deal with the US authorities which circumscribed the men's legal rights, would provoke a storm of protest. The director of Fair Trials Abroad, Stephen Jakobi, said: "The suggestion that the nine might be sent back home is a tantalising one. But a decision will have to be made very quickly because the trial process in the US is due to get underway as early as January." January is also the scheduled date for a Supreme Court hearing to determine whether the men can challenge their status as military detainees in the courts. President Bush - who has described them as illegals "picked up off the battlefield " - has hinted that he might await the Supreme Court's ruling before making any decision about the fate of the Britons. But that ruling could be months away. Torture? So, what are the options for the nine if they are returned to the UK? If President Bush is correct and any of the nine took up arms against their country, they could be charged with treason. It is not necessary for the country to be formally at war for the crime of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" to be committed. If a clear al-Qaeda connection could be proved against any of them, he could be prosecuted under the Terrorism Act 2000 which proscribes certain organisations. But what if the evidence has been gathered under circumstances amounting to torture? Could it be used in a British court? Last month, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that, in the case of ten men held without trial since December 2001, evidence obtained under duress would not necessarily be dismissed by a court. One thing is clear. The fate of the Guantanamo detainees represents virgin legal territory and, if they are sent home to be prosecuted, there are likely to be challenges up to and including the highest court in the land, the House of Lords. * * * NEWS.au.com: November 21, 2003 GUANTANAMO 'SPY' PLEADS INNOCENT From a correspondent in Massachusetts A LINGUIST at Guantanamo Bay who helped interrogate suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters today pleaded not guilty to spying-related charges. Ahmed Fathy Mehalba, 31, entered the not guilty plea during a brief appearance before a federal judge in Massachusetts. Mehalba was formally indicted last week on charges of gathering, transmitting or losing defence information and two counts of making false statements. A translator at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, Mehalba was arrested at Boston's Logan International Airport in late September after federal airport agents found compact discs with what appeared to be classified information in his luggage. A naturalised US citizen from Egypt, Mehalba had flown in to Logan from Cairo, via Milan, Italy. * * * Richmond Times-Dispatch: November 20, 2003 SENATE PANEL STUDIES HAYNES A ruling on his nomination to the 4th Circuit could be delayed until next year By Peter Hardin, Times-Dispatch Washington Correspondent http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename= RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031772204738&path=!news&s= 1045855934842 WASHINGTON - The Pentagon's top lawyer, William J. "Jim" Haynes II, received a mixed welcome yesterday when the Senate Judiciary Committee examined his nomination for the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Bush administration's treatment of detainees and prosecution of enemy combatants since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks drew sharp questioning from Democrats, while it was supported by Republicans. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the panel's senior Democrat, also contended that the Bush administration is interested in making the Richmond-based court its favorite forum on detentions and civil-liberty decisions and for "its efforts to avoid substantive review" of its actions. Haynes, in turn, generally defended the challenged policies as appropriate in a war "unlike virtually any in the past . . . that straddles the line between law enforcement and international conflict." He is Pentagon general counsel. With Congress expected to end its session soon, it is likely that the Judiciary Committee will not vote until next year on the 45-year-old Texas native's nomination, and that yesterday's arguments offered but a preview of future debate. Haynes was nominated by Bush in September for the appellate bench that is one level below the U.S. Supreme Court. It has gained a reputation as the most conservative circuit in the nation. Haynes was chosen to take the seat of H. Emory Widener Jr. of Abingdon. When nominated, Haynes lived in the District of Columbia. He has purchased a home in Northern Virginia and moved there, supporters said. Virginia Sens. George Allen and John W. Warner, both Republicans, both backed Haynes in testimony yesterday. Allen saluted him as an "outstanding nominee" and maintained that some of Haynes' experience since Sept. 11 would provide the 4th Circuit with "invaluable insight" in cases involving national security or the military. But Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., voiced concern that Haynes shares responsibility "for three of the most controversial policies" of Bush's administration. They involve, Kennedy said, the "indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without counsel or judicial review," a "refusal to treat any of the hundreds of persons detained at Guantanamo as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions," and the Pentagon's military tribunals plan, which "has drawn condemnation of human rights organizations and our closest allies." Sen. Russell D. Feingold, D-Wis., grilled Haynes about Bush's decision to detain three men, including two U.S. citizens, as enemy combatants and to "hold them in a military facility indefinitely without charges, access to counsel or right to trial." Haynes emphasized the unusual circumstances of the war against terrorism. In dealing with al-Qaida and "other terrorists with global reach . . . those people detained in this conflict are properly detained," he told the committee. Those held at Guantanamo are provided the "fundamental guarantees" of the Geneva Convention, he said. In reply to Feingold, Haynes said that in war, different rules apply than in criminal justice prosecutions in part because of the need to detain those people tied to the enemy to gather intelligence and protect against future attacks. Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who chaired the hearing, led the way among Republican committee members in voicing support for the Bush administration's handling of detainees and enemy combatants, and he was supportive of Haynes individually. Leahy did not attend but submitted a written statement. "Some have suggested," he said, "that Mr. Haynes was hand picked for the 4th Circuit by the president's advisers because of his intimate knowledge of this administration's plans with respect to military tribunals and treatment of detainees." The 4th Circuit has heard appeals in the detention case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, designated an enemy combatant, and the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, charged in connection with the Sept. 11 attacks, Leahy noted. Meanwhile, it was uncertain whether the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote this year on the nomination of Claude A. Allen of Virginia, deputy secretary of Health and Human Services, for another seat on the 4th Circuit. If the panel holds a scheduled meeting Monday, a vote on his nomination could come then. Contact Peter Hardin at (202) 662-7669 or phardin@mediageneral.com * * * ABC (Aus) Online: November 20, 2003 GUANTANAMO POLITICAL DEALS: LEGAL IMPLICATIONS Reporter: Edmond Roy MARK COLVIN: The families of the two Australian detainees have reacted with scepticism, while their legal teams say there are still many unanswered questions. Australians Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks have now spent more than two years in detention without being charged. Edmond Roy reports. EDMOND ROY: For the families of David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, the news from London was at best hopeful, and at worst, dubious. Indeed the only the conclusion they both agreed on, given the lack of detail about the deal, was that Tony Blair had a better relationship with George W Bush, than John Howard. After all, as Terry Hicks, father of David Hicks put it, "how come our Prime Minister couldn't come away with a similar undertaking given his supposed close relationship with the American President?" Still legal experts see this as a move forward, even if it means moving into the dark. Jeffery Fogel is a member of the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York and is involved with David Hicks' legal team. JEFFREY FOGEL: There's nothing legal whatsoever about Guantanomo right now, but if your question is whether or not the decision by the United States to return one particular detainee or several to their home countries would have any legal impact on the others, the answer is not directly. Again, I would say that it would undermine the legitimacy of what the United States says that it's doing there when it starts cutting individual political deals. EDMOND ROY: Will this have any bearing on the case in the Supreme Court in the US? JEFFREY FOGEL: Yes. One would hope that the Supreme Court would take note of the fact that the United States was willing to cut political deals and therefore arguments directly to the court about the military necessity of what the British Court of Appeals has referred to as a "legal black hole" seems to undermine that and hopefully will have that impact on the court. EDMOND ROY: Assuming that is the case, what is the status of those people once they get to their home countries? JEFFREY FOGEL: That's a good question, because that will depend on the terms of whatever the agreement the United States works out. I assume some of the pressure that has come from countries like the United Kingdom and like Australia has been over the issue of whether or not anybody would be subject to the death penalty. There may be an agreement to return people as long as the home country may be committing itself to incarcerating them for a period of years, or perhaps there may even be a deal in the wind in which the individuals who are being detained there agree to plead guilty to some criminal law violation in their respective home countries and then get treated as ordinary criminals there. But I mean, again, we could be speculating from now until doomsday, but there are people who know and it would be appropriate for them to reveal to the world what's going on. EDMOND ROY: Those people in the know are not talking, at least not yet. And in the absence of such detail, the speculation of just what charge the Australians can be tried for, if they are brought back home is still open to question. For Steve Hopper, lawyer for Mamdouh Habib, this is easily answered. STEVE HOPPER: My view is that my client was in Pakistan when he was detained and he should have been subject to Pakistani law. What the Americans are saying the reason why they had to detain people in Guantanamo Bay was because Afghanistan didn't have a functioning legal system at the time, but that's not true in relation to my client Mamdouh Habib, he was in Pakistan and the Pakistanis could have tried him and charged him for a breach of their law if he had committed any such breach, but they chose not to do that. So under the norms of international law, my client should have been released and been allowed to return home to Australia. Yet he was kidnapped by the CIA and taken to Egypt and then removed from Egypt and taken to Afghanistan and then removed from Afghanistan and taken to Guantanamo Bay. It's one of the most outrageous breaches of human rights in the history of the western world. EDMOND ROY: For Mamdouh Habib's wife, Maha, the wait goes on. And she too believes her husband cannot be tried in Australia simply because he did not commit any crime. MAHA HABIB: He wouldn't be tried because I know he committed no crime. Crimes have been committed against us, against him, alright. And if he did commit any crime he would have been charged by now. Why are they keeping him there for? Why is my husband being kept away from us for almost two and a half years now? My daughter is three and a half, she hasn't seen her father since she was one year. Where is the human rights for my husband? MARK COLVIN: Maha Habib, wife of Guantanamo Bay detainee Mamdouh Habib, speaking to Edmond Roy. * * * The Gaurdian (UK): November 20, 2003 WAR CRITICS ASTONISHED AS US HAWK ADMITS INVASION WAS ILLEGAL Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1089042,00.html International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal. In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing." President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law. But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable. French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein". Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war. "They're just not interested in international law, are they?" said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war's legality last year. "It's only when the law suits them that they want to use it." Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event. Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq". The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law". Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been that the invasion was justified under the UN charter, which guarantees the right of each state to self-defence, including pre-emptive self- defence. On the night bombing began, in March, Mr Bush reiterated America's "sovereign authority to use force" to defeat the threat from Baghdad. The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has questioned that justification, arguing that the security council would have to rule on whether the US and its allies were under imminent threat. Coalition officials countered that the security council had already approved the use of force in resolution 1441, passed a year ago, warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to give a complete ac counting of its weapons programmes. Other council members disagreed, but American and British lawyers argued that the threat of force had been implicit since the first Gulf war, which was ended only by a ceasefire. "I think Perle's statement has the virtue of honesty," said Michael Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University who opposed the war, arguing that it was illegal. "And, interestingly, I suspect a majority of the American public would have supported the invasion almost exactly to the same degree that they in fact did, had the administration said that all along." The controversy-prone Mr Perle resigned his chairmanship of the defence policy board earlier this year but remained a member of the advisory board. Meanwhile, there was a hint that the US was trying to find a way to release the Britons held at Guantanamo Bay. The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future," he told the BBC. * * * The Gaurdian (UK): November 20, 2003 HOPES RAISED OVER GUANTANAMO BRITONS By Tom Happold and agencies http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1089345,00.html Speculation was mounting today that the nine Britons held in Guantanamo Bay by the US military may be sent home to face trial. The hopes were raised by the prospect of Tony Blair's meeting with George Bush this morning and Michael Howard's suggestion that it is an "option" the US president is considering. The Conservative leader, who met Mr Bush for talks yesterday, said: "Returning the British prisoners is an option they are considering and it may be what they end up doing. "But I don't think they have decided it yet and because I don't like raising expectations which might be disappointed, I'm cautious about all that," he told BBC Breakfast. Mr Howard's comments come as chained protesters dressed in orange boiler suits, ski goggles and surgical masks gathered outside Downing Street to demonstrate against the Camp Delta detention centre. Stephen Bowen, Amnesty International's campaigns director, said: "The Guantanamo Bay detainees should be charged or released, and any trials should be civilian, not military." Asked about the detained Britons last night, the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" about the issue, adding that they expected it to be resolved "in the near future". "With respect to the detainees I can assure you the president is very sensitive to the views of the prime minister and the British people," he told the BBC last night. "We also expect to be resolving this in the near future." Major John Smith, the US negotiator who has been involved in discussions over the men with the attorney general Lord Goldsmith, also said yesterday that the American chief prosecutor was working as quickly as possible to decide whether charges would be brought against the nine Britons. He rejected criticism of the way in which the men were being held, saying they were not entitled to access to defence lawyers because they were not criminal suspects but were being held under "the law of war". Major Smith said "no option had been ruled out", including their repatriation for trial in the UK. * * * The Gaurdian (UK): November 20, 2003 DETAINED MUSLIM CLERIC IS SPIRITUAL LEADER TO MILITANTS, HEARING TOLD By Audrey Gillan http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1088873,00.html A Muslim cleric who the government believes is an international terrorist and the most significant spiritual leader of Islamic militants in the UK began his appeal against detention without charge or trial yesterday. Abu Qatada, a Jordanian national who came to the UK seeking asylum in 1993, is said by the home secretary, David Blunkett, to be involved in the preparation, commission and instigation of terrorist activity as well as its support through fundraising. He is said to be a threat to the UK. Mr Qatada, born Omar Othman, refused the opportunity to appear at his appeal yesterday, saying that it was not being held before an open court and that the crown was determined to misprepresent him whilst failing to properly scrutinise Mr Blunkett. During a 40-minute hearing at the special immigration appeals commission, only a brief outline of the case against Mr Qatada was allowed to be heard. The rest of the two-week hearing will be held in secret and further evidence against him will be given to the judges without his lawyers present, a process the government justifies on the grounds of national security. No witnesses were called to testify to the veracity of the open evidence against him. Wyn Williams QC told the court that the home seretary believed Mr Qatada had links with terrorist groups around the world. He said: "The appellant is a spiritual adviser to terrorist groups and Islamist extremists in the UK and overseas. This advice, largely given in speeches and sermons, is often recorded and distributed, latterly via the internet as well as by audio and video tapes. The spiritual advice given by the appellant includes the issuing of fatwas which purport to confer religious legitimacy on terrorist acts. "The appellant also provides support to terrorist groups, including financial assistance, at times for specific terrorist operations, and recruitment. The appellant is a direct contact of members and supporters of terrorist groups and of Islamist extremists." He said Mr Qatada - who has been described elsewhere as Osama bin Laden's ambassador in Europe - had links with a number of terrorist groups. His videos were found in the Hamburg flat of Mohammed Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers. Ben Emmerson QC, for Mr Qatada, said his client was not a terrorist, nor was he a member of any group or organisation. "His purpose in life, he says, has been to speak the truth as he sees it, in accordance with Islamic teachings. One part of his teachings is to endorse the right of oppressed Muslim countries in other parts of the world to resist their oppressors... He entirely denies any involvment in terrorism, incitement of terrorism or the logistical, ideological or moral support of terrorism." Mr Emmerson said his client had been monitored by security services since the mid-1990s and "his actions had a large degree of tacit approval". It was a "complete distortion of his teachings for the secretary of state now to suggest that he is a spiritual leader preaching violence against the UK". Mr Qatada, a father of five, has been held in Belmarsh high security prison, south-east London, since October of last year. He went missing the day before the law under which he is currently being held, the Anti Terrorism Crime and Security Act, 2001, was rushed through parliament. * * * NEWS.com.au: November 20, 2003 PM URGED TO BRING HOME HICKS, HABIB The federal government was today urged to seek the return of two Australians from a US military prison after it signalled it was close to releasing British detainees. But Prime Minister John Howard said Australia was not in a position to prosecute Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks if they returned home. In London, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said he expected the future of British detainees at Guantanamo Bay to be resolved soon, raising hopes British citizens would face trials at home. The two Australians are among 660 people detained as enemy combatants by US forces during the war on terror in Afghanistan. Federal Opposition Leader Simon Crean said Mr Howard should use his influence with US President George W Bush to seek the return of Hicks and Habib. "It's what I argued to President Bush when he was here and what I've called on the prime minister to do," Mr Crean told reporters in Melbourne. "If, in fact, the British have been successful, then the Australians should be straight in it, insisting on the same applying to Australians held in Guantanamo Bay." Mr Howard discussed the issue with Mr Bush during the US President's Australian visit in October. But he said the US had not offered to return the two men. He said their return was unlikely because it would be difficult to bring a successful prosecution under Australian law. "The reality is that these people appear to be in breach of laws for which they can be prosecuted in the United States," he told reporters. "There is no automatic right to repatriate an Australian to this country who is charged with an offence in another country. "We are working with the Americans to ensure that any military commission trial of these two people is conducted in a way that guarantees that justice will be done." In Adelaide, Mr Hicks's father Terry Hicks said Mr Howard should push to bring the two men home for trial. "If the British have been offered back, then I should say the Australian prime minister should be saying, hey, get our people back," Terry Hicks told ABC radio. Greens Senator Bob Brown said the move to return British detainees proved Mr Howard was content for Australia to be second-rate in its treatment of prisoners held overseas. "Mr Howard is saying Australian citizens and our laws are subservient to America's," Senator Brown told reporters. AAP * * * November 20, 2003 ABC (Aus) Online: US OFFERS BRITAIN RETURN OF GUANTANAMO DETAINEES The World Today - Reporter: Graeme Dobell HAMISH ROBERTSON: The United States is offering to hand Guantanamo Bay detainees back to Britain if London asks for their return. The BBC is reporting the offer as part of the visit to London by President Bush, describing it as a potential political nightmare for the Blair Government. The offer raises questions for the Australian Government too, in dealing with the fate of the two Australians detained without charge at the US Naval base in Cuba. The news came as counter-terrorism ambassadors from Australia, Japan and the United States were sitting down in Canberra today for their first-ever trilateral talks on terrorism. Graeme Dobell reports. GRAEME DOBELL: There are two Australians held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, and nine British citizens. The British Government has taken a different stance to that of Australia, protesting at the proposal for military tribunals to hear charges against the detainees. And the BBC, reporting an interview in London with US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, says America is signalling its commitment to a fair and open trial, even if that means sending the detainees back to Britain for trial. Mr Powell. COLIN POWELL: With respect to the detainees, I can assure you that the President is very sensitive to the views of the Prime Minister and the British people about the detainee issue and we also expect to be resolving this in the very near future. GRAEME DOBELL: A US offer to hand the detainees back for trial would create significant political problems for the Blair Government, according to the BBC's Diplomatic Correspondent, James Robbins. JAMES ROBBINS: Nine Britons are among over 600 foreigners held at Guantanamo Bay, captured in America's war on terror. Military tribunals have been threatened and rejected by Britain. If Mr Bush offers full, open American trials, Tony Blair is off the hook. Getting them home would mean trials in Britain, a political nightmare. GRAEME DOBELL: The terrorism focus in Canberra today was on what Australia, Japan and the United States can do to fight terrorism in Asia. The three counter-terrorism ambassadors were holding their first common meeting, hosted by Australia's special ambassador, Les Luck. LES LUCK: We're hoping today to share some perceptions of the security environment as it is affected by terrorism in our region, to discuss the impact that some of our existing activities and forms of cooperation are having and perhaps most importantly to ask ourselves whether that impact is sufficient and whether there is more that we might in some way be able to do. So that's, in broad terms, the purpose of our gathering today. We're looking forward to having a very intensive discussion and to come out at the end of the day with a clear idea of each other's priorities, each other's activities and how we might perhaps work together even more effectively. GRAEME DOBELL: The US Counter-Terrorism Ambassador, Cofer Black, says the countries of East Asia have to show the will to tackle the terrorism threat and the aim of the US, Japan and Australia must be to build up that will. COFER BLACK: I think each nation has to develop its own assessments, make its own decisions. I think what we're looking at here specifically is the issue of the allocation of resources to fight the scourge of terrorism. Countries have to look at indigenous terrorist groups, as well as multilateral. There are obviously not enough resources of any one country to go around to address these threats and it becomes an issue of encouraging the will to address the highest priority threats to that country and that have an impact in the region. HAMISH ROBERTSON: US Counter-Terrorism Ambassador Cofer Black. * * * The Scotsman (UK): November 20, 2003 CHAINED PROTEST AGAINST BUSH'S GUANTANAMO BAY CAMP By Vik Iyer, PA News Chained protesters dressed in orange boiler suits were outside Downing Street today demonstrating against the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Wearing blacked-out ski goggles and surgical masks, the Amnesty International protesters were registering their opposition to the continuing detention, without charge or legal representation, of hundreds of prisoners at the US Naval base, Camp Delta, in Cuba. Amnesty members were distributing leaflets, explaining how human rights were being denied to those who were imprisoned. Stephen Bowen, Amnesty's campaigns director, said: "The government should see to it that policing during President Bush's visit respects the right to peaceful protest. "There should be no ‘exclusion zones' and Mr Bush should not be quarantined away from the protest." He added: "Our central message is that the Guantanamo Bay detainees should be charged or released, and any trials should be civilian not military." Also attending today's event was Azmat Begg, the father of detainee Moazzam, 35, from Birmingham, who is one of the first prisoners selected to face secret US military tribunals. Moazzam was arrested in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, where he was an aid worker, in February 2002. Human rights lawyer Louise Christian represents the family of a second Briton, Feroz Abbasi, from Croydon, also selected to face a military tribunal. She called on the Prime Minister to stand up for the rights of his citizens when he meets Mr Bush this week. The protest comes after a day after US negotiator Major John Smith, who has been involved in discussions over the men with Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, said the American chief prosecutor was working as quickly as possible to decide whether charges would be brought against the nine Britons held by the US in Cuba. He rejected criticism of the way in which the men were being held, saying they were not entitled access to defence lawyers because they were not criminal suspects but were being held under "the law of war". Maj Smith said that "no option had been ruled out" including their repatriation for trial in the UK. US Secretary of State Colin Powell also said Mr Bush was "very sensitive" to British sentiment, adding that they expected to be "resolving this in the near future." Earlier this week, actress Vanessa Redgrave joined the father of a Briton held in Guantanamo Bay in an impassioned plea to allow the terror suspect to be returned home for trial. * * * CNN: November 19, 2003 - 2251 GMT ARMY OFFICER SAYS HE THREATENED TO SHOOT IRAQI DETAINEE TIKRIT, Iraq (AP) -- An Army officer fought back tears Wednesday as he acknowledged threatening to shoot an Iraqi detainee to extract information about a planned attack, saying that to protect his troops, he would "go to hell with a gasoline can in my hand." Lt. Col. Allen B. West made the statement on the second day of a U.S. military pretrial hearing on accusations that he threatened Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi by firing his gun near the man. West is the most senior officer of the 4th Infantry Division to face such a proceeding. In addition to firing his pistol near Hamoodi, West also is accused of punching him during the August 20 interrogation in Taji, according to Lt. Col. Jimmy Davis, who presided at the hearing at a U.S. base in Tikrit. The case is being heard amid increasing criticism by human rights groups about the methods employed by American forces to quell resistance to the occupation of Iraq. The hearing, which is aimed at determining whether West should face court- martial, was declared closed late Wednesday by Davis, who is expected to issue a ruling in a few days. West, a decorated officer, was relieved of command of the 2nd Battalion, 20th Field Artillery Regiment. West, 42, of Atlanta, testified he had received information that Hamoodi, an Iraqi policeman, was allegedly involved in a plot to attack him and his troops. After being arrested, Hamoodi was interrogated but insisted he was not aware of the planned attack. West said he decided to question the prisoner himself, bringing a number of soldiers with him to the place where Hamoodi was being questioned. The soldiers punched the detainee to force him to talk. When Hamoodi refused to give any information, West said he led him out of the detention facility to a weapons' cleaning area and asked him to confess, suggesting he would shoot him if he did not talk by the count of five. West said he fired a warning shot and later fired a second shot into the sand near Hamoodi, who still professed his innocence. West said he only wanted to force the detainee to confess and added that when he saw him visibly shaken, he asked that the prisoner be helped. "I felt that there was a threat to my soldiers," West said. "I know that the method that I used was not the right method," West said, adding he was ready to face the consequences of his action. "To protect my soldiers, I'll go to hell with a gasoline can in my hand," he said, holding back tears as his quavering voice resonated across the silence of the room filled with soldiers. After confronting the detainee, West left and informed his commander that he had threatened a prisoner with his gun. He said he did not tell his commander that his soldiers hit the detainee. "I love the Army. I love my soldiers. ... I knew it was over," he said. Prosecutor Capt. Magdalena Przytulska said West should be tried, saying his actions implied that "we're no better than the enemy we're fighting." West's lawyer, Neal Puckett, recommended that the charges against his client be dismissed. During breaks in the hearing, sympathetic soldiers approached and comforted West. One group asked that their picture be taken with him. A female soldier approached West and hugged him outside the hearing room. A preliminary investigation alleged that West's actions were in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. West remained in Iraq after the incident and was assigned to other duties in the division, officials said. * * * BBC: November 19, 2003 CONCESSION ON GUANTANAMO BRITONS The foreign secretaries presented a united front on the News at Ten The US has hinted it may release the Britons being held by the US military at Guantanamo Bay if Tony Blair requests they be tried in Britain. The offer was hinted at by US Secretary of State Colin Powell, visiting the UK along with US President George Bush. Mr Powell told BBC1's News at Ten: "The president is very sensitive to the views of the prime minister and the British people about the detainees. "We expect to be resolving this in the near future." Exclusive The Bush administration has so far said the detainees at the camp in Cuba, many of whom were captured in Afghanistan at the end of 2001, are all enemy combatants ineligible for due legal process. The nine Britons could face military tribunals despite calls by relatives to have them tried in civilian courts. Mr Powell is visiting the UK with US President George Bush, who on Wednesday paid warm tribute to his British "allies". Mr Powell and his UK counterpart Jack Straw put on a united front when interviewed together for the first time for the BBC's News at Ten. Mr Powell said: "I can assure you that the president is very sensitive to the views of the prime minister and the British people about the detainees issue." Mr Straw told the BBC the two politicians talked almost every day but "neither side grandstands" about it. BBC correspondent John Simpson said the offer would help the prime minister look like he had real influence with the Americans. However, there was a "real possibility that the courts here couldn't hold anything against them and they would simply walk free". "It's a difficult choice for Blair," the correspondent said. * * * VOA: November 19, 2003 CASE ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES COULD BRING US SUPREME COURT INTO CONFLICT WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH Ted Landphair Listen to Ted Landphair's report (RealAudio) http://www.voanews.com/mediastore/landphair_guantanamo_19nov03.ram [ Last week, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal to lower- court rulings affirming the government's right to hold more than 650 foreign terrorist suspects. Their indefinite detention at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has outraged civil liberties groups and the families of the men - mostly Muslim - who are being held virtually incommunicado. The case could bring two powerful branches of government into direct conflict. ] WASHINGTON - In court briefings, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson, representing the executive branch, argued that the Supreme Court does not even have jurisdiction to hear the case, because the detainees are foreign nationals, whom the government calls "enemy combatants," in military custody outside the nation's borders. But legal analysts say the strong-minded high court may choose to flex the judicial branch's muscle and rule that it certainly does have authority over the case. Kenneth Jost covers legal affairs for CQ Press in Washington. He told VOA's Talk to America program that many of the detainees from 40 or more countries who were shipped to Guantanamo Bay for prolonged interrogation, have been in custody since the days after the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, more than two years ago. While they themselves have no standing before U.S. courts, family members of 40 Kuwaiti, British, and Australian prisoners filed suit on their behalf. "They claimed that Guantanamo Bay was, for all practical purposes, the United States," said Mr. Jost. "It's leased permanently to the United States by the government of Cuba. In one case, President Bush himself was named as the defendant. The government says Guantanamo Bay is outside the United States. And under an established Supreme Court decision handed down in 1950, aliens who are outside the United States just have no right to go into an American court." The American Center for Law and Justice has filed briefs supporting the Justice Department's position. The key point, says the group's chief counsel, Jay Sekulow, is that the Guantanamo Bay detainees are illegal combatants, not legitimate prisoners of war. "They're not part of a nation-state. This is a war on terrorism that's very different in that context," said Mr. Sekulow. "The idea that the courts would come in to second-guess the decision of the president would be, in our view, a violation of what's called the 'separation of powers.' This isn't the first time the Supreme Court's been called in to review this, and the court was very clear that these decisions are made by the president as commander-in-chief, not to be second-guessed by federal courts." Richard Willing, the Supreme Court correspondent for the USA Today newspaper, told VOA's Talk to America program that the relatives of the detainees were quite shrewd. They dangled what he called catnip in front of the justices to get them to take the case. That irrestible herb, he said, was the chance for the high court to assert its power against that of the presidency. "It's perfectly possible that the court could come back and say, 'You know what? We've looked at it, and we decide that the court back in 1950 was right. It applies here, and we don't have any jurisdiction," said Mr. Willing. "We'd just like to be the ones to say so, not the Administration. So that may be all we're hearing here - an indication once again of the fact that that we are a government divided into three co-equal parts." Darryl Jones, who is one of the lawyers representing the detainees, said some of the men were civilians who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time when the United States scoured the world for terrorists. "We have people, some of whom might not be enemy combatants, just sitting there without any [due] process being given to them. The United States military has primary jurisdiction - and in fact, the Geneva Convention gives them primary jurisdiction over these detainees, I don't dispute that. What I do dispute is that they can't sit on their hands and do nothing and then expect that these detainees will have no recourse whatsoever," said Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones says even if most of the detainees were enemy operatives in a terrorist war, Americans should be scrupulous about their fair treatment - if only because a denial of their basic rights could one day be used by enemy commanders to justify the mistreatment of American captives. But Jay Sekulow at the Center for Law and Justice says dictators don't pay much attention to protocol. "When U.S. soldiers were captured in Iraq, they were summarily executed," recalled Mr. Sekulow. "They weren't put in prison. They were shot in the head. If you'll remember, we saw them dragged through the streets of Baghdad and other places in Iraq. There was no compliance with international law. Yet these were American soldiers, in uniform, that were captured. It's a very different scenario. The demand there for Geneva Protection should have been made, as it correctly was." Next March, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments - not about the rights of these detainees in Cuba, but on the more narrow question of whether American courts even have the authority to look into their treatment. A decision is expected to follow in July, toward the end of the high court's term. * * * Newark Advocate: November 19, 2003 EDITORIAL [ http://www.newarkadvocate.com/news/stories/20031119/opinion/671191.html ] The Supreme Court's decision to look at the case of terrorism-war detainees challenging the lawfulness of their detention at a U.S. naval base in Cuba sends an unmistakable signal to the George W. Bush administration: U.S. officials must correct forthwith the legal status of the 660 "detainees" at Guantanamo Bay, or the high court may do it for them. To hold these men, including teenagers, without charges, incommunicado and for the duration of an open-ended war simply is not acceptable. Not only is it an affront to U.S. standards of justice, fairness and decency, but it's also dangerous to the welfare of our own troops serving abroad. There is no question of releasing these men, mostly enemies of the United States lawfully captured on a battlefield. It is the terms of their captivity that must be redefined, and soon. The failure to allow an outside party to review the decision to classify these men as unlawful combatants rather than prisoners of war violates the Geneva Conventions. What's more, putting the prisoners just offshore could be read as an attempt to evade U.S. laws. The Supreme Court intervention is but the final volley of warnings to the White House that it has overreached. The administration should take heed -- and act. --- 2003.11.19 -- CBG to the Editor of the Newark Advocate RE: Supreme Court may overthrow Bush's reign in Guantanamo (Nov.19, 2003) My compliments: your brief statement was one of the most intelligent comments on the subject of Guantanamo Bay to appear in any newspaper in two years. But let me add that the Bush administration is doing much more than making an "attempt to evade U.S. laws" -- these policies are in fact direct violations of 18 USC 2441, the War Crimes Act of 1996, as amended by the Expanded War Crimes Act of 1997, which makes it a federal offense to commit ANY grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. It is too late for the Bush administration here: what is needed is an independent counsel to indict and convict them for their war crimes. Charles Gittings Oakland, California Project to Enforce the Geneva Conventions (PEGC) http://63.206.217.42/geneva_project/ * * * Portland Oregonian: November 19, 2003 CONSTITUTION CALLS TO JUDGES AND TO NEWT By David Sarasohn You might think Monday -- when federal Judge Rosemary S. Pooler warned a high- level Justice Department official that "As terrible as 9/11 was, it didn't repeal the Constitution" -- was a bad day for the Bush administration on civil liberties. But then you'd have to wonder whether that was a worse day than last Tuesday, when former House Speaker Newt Gingrich -- Newt Gingrich! -- warned in the San Francisco Chronicle, "I strongly believe Congress must act now to rein in the Patriot Act, limit its use to national security concerns and prevent it from developing 'mission creep' into areas outside of national security." And then there's any day that somebody might read James Bovard's new book, "Terrorism and Tyranny," arguing, "The Bush administration converted a terrorist assault into a trump card against American privacy." Including, Bovard calculates, John Ashcroft using wiretaps and searches before getting search warrants almost 100 times more often than previous attorneys general. It seems an unfortunate thing is happening to the Bush policy on citizens' rights: People are noticing it. Monday, in a hearing in New York, a three-judge federal panel heard an appeal on behalf of Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen suspected of plotting to set off a "dirty bomb." Padilla has now been held 17 months without being charged or having access to a lawyer or to family. He is held simply as an "enemy combatant" -- or, as the president put it, "a bad guy." A lower court has ruled that Padilla is entitled to an attorney -- otherwise "a dictatorship will be upon us, the tanks will have rolled." Monday, Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement urged the judges to "trust the executive" in such matters. But Judge Barrington D. Parker argued, "Were we to construe the Constitution as permitting this kind of power in the executive with only modest judicial review, we would be effecting a sea change in the constitutional life of this country and making changes that would be unprecedented in civilized society." Almost as unprecedented as Gingrich attacking GOP attitudes on constitutional protection. But there he was, in the newspaper of legendarily liberal San Francisco, warning: "We must ensure that the legal tools provided are not abused, and indeed, that they do not undermine the very foundation our country was built upon." Gingrich actually admires the Patriot Act. What concerns him is a General Accounting Office report that the new powers have been widely used in cases unrelated to terrorism, that unannounced searches and monitoring e-mails can be a great conveniences in other cases. "In our battle against those that detest our free and prosperous society," declares Gingrich, who you'd think would have the president's phone number, "we cannot sacrifice any of the pillars our nation stands upon, namely respect for the Constitution and the rule of law." But as Bovard warned on a visit to Portland last week, when the feds have new powers, it's hard to make the kind of distinction Gingrich has in mind. "The Patriot Act was the biggest bait-and-switch in American constitutional history," he said. "There are new surveillance powers that can be used against anybody violating any of the 3,000 federal laws." Bovard -- a libertarian whose last book was an attack on the Clinton administration, and who seems genuinely surprised to find himself more suspicious of John Ashcroft than Janet Reno -- argues that not only have the new powers touched other areas, it's hard to find much gain against terrorism. In April 2003, he notes, Ashcroft told the Senate of "478 deportations linked to the Sept. 11 investigations" -- but you'd think actual terrorists, as opposed to immigration law violators, would have been not just deported but prosecuted. Instead, sending illegal immigrants working in airports back to Mexico is billed as an antiterrorist victory. "Nothing happened on 9/11 to make the federal government more trustworthy or more competent," Bovard says. It's now more powerful, supposedly to protect America, but "There is no great judge in the sky that compensates us for lost liberty with more security." There are, however, judges down here, and -- as two of them noted Monday -- still a Constitution. The administration's worst day on those issues may be yet to come. [ David Sarasohn, associate editor of The Oregonian, can be reached at 503-221-8523 or davidsarasohn@news.oregonian.com. ] * * * The Scotsman (UK): November 19, 2003 'NO OPTION RULED OUT' FOR GUANTANAMO DETAINEES By Andrew Woodcock, Political Correspondent, PA News A senior US negotiator involved in discussions over the fate of British detainees at Guantanamo Bay today said that no option had been ruled out, including their repatriation for trial in the UK. Speculation is growing that an announcement may be made on the detainees during President George Bush's state visit to Britain, which enters its first full day today. Labour MP Geraint Davies, whose constituent Feroz Abbasi is among nine Britons being held at the US military base Camp Delta in Cuba, said he hoped that face- to-face meetings between Mr Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair would lead to progress on the detainees. US negotiator Major John Smith, who has been involved in discussions over the men with Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, said that the American chief prosecutor was working as quickly as possible to decide whether charges would be brought against the men. He rejected criticism of the way in which the men were being held. They were not entitled to access to defence lawyers because they were not criminal suspects but were being held under "the law of war", he claimed. Mr Bush named Mr Abbasi and fellow-Briton Moazzam Begg in July among six detainees who were eligible for trial before a military tribunal. But the hearings were put on hold after protests from Mr Blair, And discussions between Lord Goldsmith and US negotiators have since led to an assurance that the two men will not face the death penalty. Maj Smith told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What the President said when he met with the Prime Minister in July was that we are going to discuss all potential options for the resolution of the detainee cases. "So everything is open for discussion and no decisions have been made on those issues yet. "In the case of the UK, it is possible that repatriation may be appropriate in some cases, military commission in others or some other resolution could even be discussed." Discussions with Lord Goldsmith had led to "assurances, clarifications and modifications that will benefit the commission process", he said. Asked why the detainees had been denied access to legal representation during their two years of incarceration, Maj Smith said: "This is the law of war. It is not civilian peacetime criminal law enforcement procedures. "Under the law of war, when you capture someone who is fighting against you, you are able to interrogate them. There is not a requirement that there is a lawyer. "The reason is that their detention is not criminal. No-one at Guantanamo is detained for criminal reasons right now. They are detained to prevent them from continuing to fight against the US. "So at the point where we begin to look at someone as criminal and charge them, that is the point at which an individual is entitled to a lawyer." But Croydon Central MP Mr Davies pointed out that the US was not observing the internationally-recognised laws of war, contained in the Geneva Conventions, at Guantanamo Bay. He said that the US must allow defence lawyers access to the detainees, as well as to the evidence against them. "I think it is very important for the Americans, as the standard-bearer for freedom, democracy and justice, to hold a higher standard and not to dilute the right to a fair trial under external threat," he told Today. "If there is verifiable evidence available -- even if it is extracted without a lawyer but can be legally verified, that somebody has done something, then we should push ahead. "But there is no sign of any evidence." Mr Davies said he hoped this week's state visit would lead to a resolution of the situation. "I hope now we can bring it to a head, now that the two are together again, and either get the assurances we want or have repatriation," he said. * * * November 19, 2003 GUANTANAMO PRISONERS SPEAK OUT By Haroon Rashid, BBC correspondent in Peshawar A number of Pakistanis released from the US high-security prison in Cuba's Guantanamo Bay talk about their experiences: "I have no complaints against the Americans or the Afghans and I don't seek any compensation from anyone. I leave it to Allah to reward me," says Abdul Raziq. He is one of 11 Pakistanis released recently from the Camp Delta prison at Guantanamo Bay on the coast of Cuba. The US is holding more than 600 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, most of whom were detained during the Afghanistan conflict which followed the 11 September 2001 attacks on America. The holder of a master's degree in agriculture, Raziq says he was arrested in Afghanistan while on a preaching mission. "They tied me up and sent me to Kandahar [in south-eastern Afghanistan] and later to Cuba. I suffered because I could speak English," he says. Raziq, who hails from the tribal area of Malakand, has now vowed never to speak English again. After 21 months in prison in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo Bay, he says prison life was better in Camp Delta. Bitter experience "[In Afghan prisons] we did not have any facilities for bathing or ablutions. Food was short. But in [Guantanamo] we had all these facilities. We were allowed regular walks," Abdul Raziq says. But other former prisoners are not so sanguine about the time in Guantanamo Bay. Shah Mohammed says he has tried to commit suicide four times Abdul Mulla, for one, is extremely bitter. The taxi driver from Thana village in Malakand does not even want to talk about it. "What purpose will it serve? You are all infidels," he tells me. And 24-year-old returnee Shah Mohammed says the experience has left him mentally disturbed. He says he tried to commit suicide four times in Camp Delta. "The mental distress along with worries about home made me try to take my life," he says. And he says the mental wounds have not healed. "I wake up in the middle of the night scared to death. I find it difficult to forget my recent past." 'A lost man' Shah Mohammed's neighbours in his village say that he does not talk much since his return. "He is a lost man now," a neighbour told me. Shah Mohammed wants the US to compensate him. "They need to pay me for my mental miseries and lost time," he says. He is not the only Pakistani returnee from Guantanamo Bay to demand compensation from the US. Mohammed Sagheer, the first Pakistani to be released last year, has filed a case in a Pakistani court seeking $10.4m from the US. The 53-year-old man from Kohistan district says that he is living in penury. "My sons took loans to survive during my absence. Now the lenders are after them for their money," says Mohammed Sagheer. "I am in deep trouble." He is echoing the sentiments of many of the returnees from the Guantanamo Bay prison. The treatment of the prisoners has become the subject of international controversy with several human rights groups complaining about torture and open- ended detentions. US officials have denied torturing detainees, saying they are allowed to practise their religion and given good medical care. At least 40 prisoners have been returned to their home countries so far. * * * Atlanta Journal-Constitution: November 19, 2003 GROUPS AIR WORRIES ABOUT CIVIL LIBERTIES By Rebecca Carr, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution WASHINGTON -- An array of civil liberties groups criticized the Patriot Act on Tuesday, saying the legislation violates constitutional protections and is cloaked in "an aura of secrecy." But most of the groups testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee also conceded that the government's most controversial actions in its war on terrorism do not actually stem from the Patriot Act. "The phrase 'the Patriot Act' has become a symbol or a shorthand reference to the government's response to terrorism" since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, said James Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based nonprofit dedicated to promoting civil liberties in digital communications. "Many of the worst civil liberties abuses since 9/11 have occurred outside the Patriot Act." For example, it was President Bush's decision to hold Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen accused of plotting with the al-Qaida terrorist network to detonate a radioactive bomb in the United States, as an enemy combatant in a military jail without access to an attorney or his family. Yet the Patriot Act is often cited as the reason for Padilla's status, Dempsey said. Lawmakers from both sides of the political aisle agreed that much of the criticism leveled at the legislation goes beyond what is actually contained in the law. "An awful lot of criticism is not in the Patriot Act; in fact, it has nothing to do with the Patriot Act," said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), chairman of the Judiciary Committee. But critics, including conservatives such as former Georgia Republican Rep. Bob Barr and liberal-leaning voices like the American Civil Liberties Union, argue that the legislation needs to be amended to avoid infringing on guarantees provided in the Constitution. The act contains provisions that permit notification of property searches to be delayed and allow law enforcement agencies to obtain an array of records that civil liberties groups contend should remain private. The "aura of secrecy" surrounding the government's use of the law makes it difficult to cite specific examples of abuse, said Barr, now a fellow at the American Conservative Union, a nonprofit civil liberties group based in Virginia. "The Constitution and its Bill of Rights have taken some hits in the two years since 9/11," Barr said, "Hits that must be fixed." Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), too, said he was concerned by government secrecy surrounding the legislation. "The administration has attempted to defend its unprecedented levels of secrecy and unaccountability by repeatedly citing 9/11 and terrorism," Leahy said. "But their own actions threaten to erode the very liberty and democracy that terrorists are attacking." James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties group based in Washington, said the Justice Department had gone beyond the provisions of the Patriot Act. "John Ashcroft's Justice Department has unleashed a series of high-profile initiatives that explicitly target Arabs and Muslims and have resulted in the detention of thousands of people," Zogby said. Former Justice Department officials countered the criticism, testifying that the Patriot Act had given law enforcement powerful tools to hunt down terrorists and prevent another terrorist attack in America. "The Patriot Act enables terrorism investigators to move more nimbly and expeditiously," testified Robert Cleary, former U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, who supervised part of the investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. * * * The Independent (UK): 19 November 2003 MEANWHILE 4,000 MILES AWAY IN GUANTANAMO BAY, 660 PRISONERS HAVE NO IDEA WHEN THEY WILL BE FREED By Andrew Buncombe in Washington The Guantanamo Bay prison camp - established after the terror attacks of 11 September and the war in Afghanistan - was meant to be a temporary detention centre, somewhere to hold the "worst of the worst". Almost two years later, the camp has been transformed into a de facto permanent facility where 660 adults and three children are kept in a legal black hole, cut off from the outside world and with no idea whether they will ever be charged with a crime or released. Critics claim the prison, which operates with hardly any independent scrutiny, has become a live experiment in long-term interrogation where experts constantly seek to hone and improve their techniques. "It's like it has become a cold storage facility," said Richard Bourke, a lawyer in Louisiana representing two Australian citizens who are among the prisoners. "You hear comments from the camp commander about how they are constantly improving their interrogation techniques. They are just experimenting in areas that interest them." Guantanamo Bay and the nine Britons held there have become the focus of increasing tension between Britain and the US and will be a subject of talks between George Bush and Tony Blair this week. It was announced in the summer that two of the Britons, Moazzam Begg, 35, and Feroz Abbasi, 23, were among six prisoners selected to be tried by military tribunals, a process outside the normal judicial process and without the protection usually offered to defendants. In this process Mr Bush would act in effect as the ultimate arbiter on what would happen to the prisoners if convicted. Belatedly and with little apparent enthusiasm, the British Government has sought to obtain some safeguards for Mr Abbasi and Mr Begg. Until it was announced that they were to be placed before a tribunal, Britain did very little to help the nine, a position that was in stark contrast to the governments of other prisoners at Guantanamo, such as Sweden. Although the prosecution has been officially put on hold, the prisoners' lawyers remain extremely worried. Louise Christian, a solicitor representing the family of Mr Abbasi, said last night: "I am very concerned that he has made some sort of confession. The military tribunal process is technically on hold - just this morning I received another letter from the [UK] Attorney General that repeated the US denial that there has been some sort of a deal. But I am concerned that a confession has obtained under conditions that amount to coercion. They have been interrogated for nearly two years without a lawyer being present." Few critics claim that prisoners at Camp Delta, as the incarceration unit is known, suffer physical torture, though in the first six months of its operation interrogators used techniques known as "stress and duress" to intimidate and soften up their subjects. Such techniques include sleep deprivation, exposing prisoners to hot or cold conditions and making them sit or stand in uncomfortable positions. But lawyers and activists say the prisoners - to whom the Bush administration refuses to grant the protection of the Geneva Conventions - face a form of psychological torture by being refused information about their future or access to legal advice. There are regular reports of suicide attempts among the prisoners and recently Commander Louis Louk, the officer in charge of the prison's hospital, revealed that one in five of the prisoners received medication for what he termed "clinical depression". Against this backdrop the Bush administration received unprecedented criticism last month from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the only non-state organisation permitted to visit the camp, which said its refusal to inform prisoners about their future was causing an intolerable situation. "The main concern for us is that the US authorities have effectively placed them beyond the law," said Amanda Williamson, an ICRC spokes-woman. "After more than 18 months of captivity, the internees have no idea about their fate, no means of recourse through any legal mechanism. They have been placed in a legal vacuum, a legal black hole. This, for the ICRC, is unacceptable." Despite such criticism, the attitude of the US appears clear. While it has not yet charged a single prisoner held at Guantanamo Bay, there are no plans to release the majority of them soon. Although a handful of the oldest and most sick have been repatriated the US authorities are putting up long-term buildings at the base and replacing the razor wire and fencing with solid walls. Campaigners say that rather than building permanent prison facilities, the US should grant the prisoners legal access and allow them "due process". Wendy Patten, US advocacy director of Human Rights Watch, said it was essential that the US observed the Geneva Conventions, which would give the prisoners free and unfettered access to lawyers. "Here are a set of rules that governments abide by during times of war," she said. "The signal that the US sends out by refusing to observe them is that it is all right to pick and choose from the rules of war." Campaigners received a boost last week when the Supreme Court announced that it would examine whether Guantanamo Bay fell within the jurisdiction of the US courts. Lower courts had supported the claim of the Bush administration that Guantanamo Bay, technically leased from Cuba, was outside the jurisdiction and prisoners were not eligible for the protection of the US constitution. If the Supreme Court places Guantanamo Bay within US legal jurisdiction there is likely to be a flood of lawsuits demanding the US to charge the prisoners or release them. Ms Patten said: "The question is can the government carve out a place in the world beyond the law, beyond the reach of the courts that review the legality of such actions." * * * Baltimore Sun: November 18, 2003 4TH CIRCUIT'S REPUTATION IS POLITE, CONSERVATIVE Bush administration steers sensitive cases to friendly panel of judges http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/bal-te.court18nov18,0,6251492.story By Laura Sullivan, Sun National Staff RICHMOND, Va. - In the courthouse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Southern manners are everywhere evident - in the judges' polite diction and in their stern admonishments when lawyers, often from Baltimore, come to court too casually dressed. After oral arguments, the judges of this circuit, unlike those elsewhere, descend from the bench to shake each litigant's hand. Yet the courtesy and civility belie what has become the most aggressively conservative federal circuit, a benchmark for jurisprudence derived from the right and an arbiter of nearly all the Bush administration's terrorism cases. Now, with President Bush's nomination of a conservative Virginian, Claude A. Allen, to fill a seat that traditionally has gone to a Marylander, this court has become a focal point of Bush's bid to reshape the judiciary. Allen's prospects for having the Senate vote on his nomination this year faded yesterday after the Judiciary Committee put off its vote till next week at the earliest. Congress is set to adjourn Friday for the year, though that deadline could slip. Maryland's two Democratic senators, Barbara A. Mikulski and Paul S. Sarbanes, have waged intense resistance to Allen's nomination. In part, their opposition reflects a matter of state prerogatives: They say this vacancy on the 15-seat court rightfully belongs to Maryland. But that is not the only issue. The two senators want a moderate, if not liberal, judge, rather than a conservative like Allen to fill the seat held by Francis D. Murnaghan Jr. of Baltimore, a liberal, who died in 2000. At stake is whether the most conservative appellate court is to become even more conservative. Conservatives herald the Fourth Circuit, which handles appeals from Maryland to South Carolina, as a model of how difficult social and legal issues should be settled. They see a panel of judges with the courage to render proper rulings without regard for their popularity. Many liberals, though, see the Fourth Circuit as akin to the administration's rubber stamp. It is, they assert, a court that tends to side with government against the individual and business against the employee and to embrace a hard line on terror suspects and civil rights. The Fourth Circuit began attracting attention in the 1990s when it tried to overturn Miranda, the landmark 1966 Supreme Court ruling that requires the police to inform criminal suspects of their right to remain silent and to consult a lawyer. In recent years it ruled that the Virginia Military Institute could remain all- male, struck down the Violence Against Women Act, said the Food and Drug Administration could not regulate nicotine as a drug, upheld the presence of the Confederate flag on some Virginia license plates and has agreed to hear fewer death penalty appeals than most other circuits. "If you can stack the courts of appeals, you're going to get hundreds of decisions that come out not only in a conservative fashion but a highly doctrinaire fashion," said Michael Green-berger, a University of Maryland law professor who served in the Clinton Justice Department. "The presidency, the House of Representatives, the Senate and now the courts - never in American political history has it been the case that all four major powers of government are aligned in a doctrinaire position," Greenberger said. Over the past century, as the 13 federal appellate courts took on larger and more complex caseloads, they have become battlegrounds of social reform. In the 1960s and '70s, as Congress and the White House watched from the sidelines, it was the left-leaning appellate courts that took the first bold steps to dismantle McCarthyism and desegregate public schools. Today, the appellate courts are overwhelmingly conservative - a trend that reflects the many judicial choices of the Reagan and first Bush administrations - and have, for example, sided with the government on nearly every terrorism- related case. From Michigan to Virginia, the courts have ruled against the rights of enemy combatants, detainees in Guantanamo Bay and immigrants picked up and held, sometimes for a year, in sweeps after Sept. 11. The D.C. appeals court supported the government's stance that it does not have to reveal the identity of 700 people it picked up on immigration violations. But beyond the terrorism cases, the appellate courts - the last stop before the Supreme Court - decide most of the country's legal and social battles. The Supreme Court hears fewer than 100 cases a year. The appeals courts constitute the final word on more than 20,000 cases, from death penalty appeals to cases involving workers rights, environmental pollution, state's rights and civil reform. That Maryland is included in the most conservative of those courts, the Fourth Circuit, is largely a byproduct of an era when Marylanders considered themselves Southerners. Indeed, the facade that once adorned the seat of the Confederate government marks the entrance to the Fourth Circuit's courthouse, a vestige of one of the few buildings to survive the fire that burned the center of Richmond to the ground in the final days of the Civil War. It's a historical fact that residents here ascribe to the strength of the South, rather than to the building's tin roof. When the appellate courts were formed in 1891 to ease the Supreme Court's caseload, Congress matched Maryland with the Virginias and the Carolinas to create the Fourth Circuit, with a panel of three judges. As its docket grew, the Fourth Circuit gained more judges. In the 1960s and 1970s, it was known as one of the more liberal circuits. That era came to an end under the guidance of Sen. Jesse Helms, who helped stack the court with conservative judges from his home state of North Carolina, supported by Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. President Bill Clinton was hesitant, historians say, to nominate liberals for fear of looking weak on crime. Four of his nominees for the Fourth Circuit, all moderates, managed to win confirmation after contentious battles. Clinton slipped in a fifth, Roger L. Gregory, as the court's first black judge, through a "recess appointment" while Congress was out of session. The current President Bush renominated Gregory for the Fourth Circuit - the last federal appeals court to integrate racially - and the Senate confirmed the nomination. Three of Clinton's nominees on the court - Diana G. Motz, Robert B. King and M. Blane Michael - are the usual dissenters from conservative opinions. Some Republican senators who fought to block Clinton's picks for the Fourth Circuit argued that the then-10-member panel did not need more judges because its caseload was relatively light. (Federal judges enjoy lifetime appointments; H. Emory Widener Jr., 80, has served on the Fourth Circuit since 1972.) Sen. Charles E. Grassley, an Iowa Republican who made that argument, said he now thinks that Allen, the conservative Bush nominee, should be confirmed. He said a 15th judge is needed at a time when the circuit is handling terrorism issues. "There has been some dragging of feet on my part because of a feeling that the caseload of the Fourth Circuit wasn't as big as some of the others," he said. "So I was not anxious to get that seat filled during that period of time. Now, Sept. 11 has changed a lot of that." Grassley said the Fourth Circuit has also risen in importance in recent years. "It's more prominent because of the prosecutions and the centralization of the government's cases in these areas," he said. "And it has significance because it's been a more conservative circuit than a lot of circuits." In an interview, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who was chief judge of the Fourth Circuit until last spring and is a likely candidate for the administration's short list of Supreme Court nominees, said the court does not see itself that way. "We see ourselves," Wilkinson said, "as a court of judges who are meticulously interested in the individual case, and our job is first and foremost to follow the law. When I have a case before me, I am thinking about what the right resolution is for those people. I am certainly not thinking of being aggressive or reshaping the law on some larger plane." Wilkinson said he has become concerned about what he sees as growing political gamesmanship in the judicial confirmation process and in political life. "There is all too much harshness and partisanship in modern public life," he said. "Our handshake [at the end of oral arguments] is one way of saying that it is possible to have great respect and affection for people of differing views." That Southern etiquette will have to carry the court far these days. In the high-profile terrorism case of Yasser Hamdi, the American citizen captured in Afghanistan and held for the past year and a half as an enemy combatant without access to a lawyer, more than 100 legal scholars wrote to the court arguing that the government's decision to hold him incommunicado was unconstitutional. Fewer than a handful of scholars wrote in to support the government. The court ruled for the government; lawyers working on behalf of Hamdi have appealed to the Supreme Court. When Hamdi was removed from Guantanamo Bay, it surprised few that he was dropped off at the naval brig in Charleston, S.C., within the Fourth Circuit's jurisdiction. The government has since moved two other enemy combatants to the same brig: Ali al-Marri and Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen. Padilla's case is still in the Second Circuit in New York, despite the Justice Department's efforts to have it transferred to the Fourth. The government also brought two other terrorism cases - John Walker Lindh, the American who fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan; and Zacarias Moussaoui, who was accused of conspiring in the Sept. 11 attacks - to court in Alexandria, under the Fourth's rule. "It's a blatant case of forum shopping," said Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor who has tried cases in the Fourth Circuit. "That these cases are there shows how important the circuit is to [Attorney General John] Ashcroft and his policies. It has been an island of consistent and extremely conservative views. "For defense attorneys, when you've finished a case, you want to buy a T-shirt that says, 'I survived the Fourth Circuit.'" Despite its many high-profile cases, the court has not built a reputation as a highly prestigious court, as reflected in the lower numbers of top law students who apply to clerk there. Leading law school graduates, professors say, tend to be drawn instead to the circuit courts of New York, Chicago and Washington, which are known for broader, more complex rulings. Professors say the Fourth Circuit opinions are often narrowly tailored, the kind that seldom wind up in law school textbooks. Still, on any given day, as the judges peer down from their perch, lawyers can be assured they will always be addressed with a title and thanked afterward for having appeared. "It is certainly a court that has that Southern charm and dignity," said Frank Dunham, who has argued often before the panel, both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, and will do so in coming months defending Hamdi and Moussaoui. "Once in a while, they even tell you you made a great argument," he said. "Of course, that doesn't mean you're going to win." Copyright © 2003, The Baltimore Sun * * * Vive le Canada.ca: November 18, 2003 MAHER ARAR AND THE RCMP PUBLIC COMPLAINTS COMMISSION: A JOKE TOO BRUTAL FOR LAUGHTER by Robin Mathews for Vive le Canada.ca http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=2003111813314941 Filling the press and media in recent weeks, Maher Arar needs no introduction. A 33 year old Canadian citizen, Ottawa resident, he was obviously "observed" by the RCMP, and perhaps CSIS. He was abducted by US agents in New York, jailed there, shipped to Syria (his birthplace and a country in which he also has citizenship), imprisoned and tortured for a year. Then he was released, no charges against him being laid in Syria, the US, or Canada. The RCMP has begun a formal investigation of its own role in the matter. According to the Globe and Mail (Nov. 6, A4) "The Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP" has asked "the force to respond to allegations that it encouraged US officials to deport Mr. Arar..." The fact -- to begin -- of the investigation's totally inadequate scope tells much. It cannot review CSIS, the Foreign Affairs Dept., or any person or institution in the USA. Nonetheless, members of the Canadian Cabinet chant in unison that all is being taken care of by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission instigated investigation. If Maher Arar needs no introduction, the Commission obviously does. It is, some say, largely a sham. One might even suggest that when government is content to use the Commission, Canadians are not wrong to suspect a cover-up is in progress. Such unhappy statements are born out at the highest level of principle and legal philosophy. They are born out, also, in practical experience of the Commission's work. At the highest level of principle and legal philosophy it is held that no entity accused of wrong-doing can satisfy the demands of fair inquiry if the entity investigates itself. That is especially true in the contemporary world when the "entity" is a police force closely connected to the operations of the State. Reasonable Canadians, let us say, have reason to believe RCMP officers have acted, in a specific case, lawlessly, inadequately, and/or in some other fashion prejudicial to the constitutional rights of Canadians. The only place those Canadians can go for formal investigation of their grievances is to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. The Canadians with a grievance file a complaint. What happens? The RCMP, alone, without independent oversight or public representation, investigates itself. That is like a band of burglars who broke your door down, tied you up, and then looted your home being chosen to review the burglary and to judge if they were engaged in wrong-doing. The comparison does not present an exaggeration. In Canada, every day, police forces accused of wrong-doing investigate themselves in one of the on-going, unbelievable farces of Canadian life. I cannot exaggerate the importance of the principle involved which is daily violated in Canada. It is so compelling that all judges in Canada, Bar Associations, and Law Societies should have lodged permanent complaints to the federal government demanding the dissolution of the Commission and the creation of an independent, competent body to replace it. Those people and organizations are seriously delinquent -- and may be openly charged with delinquency -- for not having lodged complaints and keeping them loudly before the public. When people in the RCMP investigate people in the RCMP and write a report to the RCMP, the Report is then usually handed to the head of the Commission, Shirley Heafey, in Ottawa for the rubber-stamping it usually gets. When the issue is of very small political importance, the Commission may report that wrong-doing has occurred. And then what happens? Nothing. The whole process takes unlimited amounts of time. A reasonable and prudent Canadian might very well believe the process is used to stall, to obstruct, to erase, and to deaden the event in the memory of the public. The Commission, moreover, has no power whatever to require discipline or punishment of the RCMP officers involved in criminal behaviour or other unacceptable behaviour. The Report is sent to the Head man at the RCMP who yawns, blinks, and tells the Commission to get lost and mind its own business. End of the matter. Investigation successfully completed -- usually after years of "investigation". The somewhat-less-than-comic farce becomes brutal farce when the issues are large, the lawlessness of the RCMP extraordinary, and their behaviour tied in some way to major Canadian political interests or to RCMP links with foreign powers, especially in the USA (as is likely in the Maher Arar case). Just such a situation existed in a very large "completed" case about which we have beginning, middle, and end -- the so-called APEC Affair (the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Conference held in Vancouver in November1997). Formed by the USA to serve its own interests, APEC was to meet in Vancouver. US government and some US investors had close ties with the corrupt, dictatorial, war criminal, President Suharto of Indonesia. The US wanted him in Vancouver for a trouble-free visit. At that time -- it would seem -- Jean Chretien still believed that by accommodating the US in such smelly activities he could gain sympathetic trade-war initiatives from the US. (By the last two years of his time in office, Chretien had learned his lesson and became a changed man.) In 1997 he was alleged to be in direct communication with RCMP officers during the APEC event. The "security" activities seemed to be focussed on preventing any Canadians from getting even in view of President Suharto. In pursuit of that "ideal" the RCMP may very well have acted in a lawless manner even before the APEC meetings. During the event, it is alleged, the RCMP officers lost their cool and acted criminally against innocent Canadians. TV film of violent police action concentrated demands for a full investigation. The response of the Commission (headed by Shirley Heafey who was appointed directly by Jean Chretien himself) was -- unusually -- to have a set of public hearings and to have a three-person investigative panel appointed. Remember, Jean Chretien was believed by many to be a key figure, and the head of the Commission appointing investigators was directly appointed by him. The public hearings became a farce very early. Government agents and police were fully represented by as many lawyers as were needed and who were paid from the public purse. Canadians complaining of violent police activities were given no legal assistance. Before long, Shirley Heafey interfered in the work of the panel. Her interference was so serious that the panel resigned, declaring she made it impossible for the panel to do its work. To be precise, I will use the words of Gerald M. Morin, Chair of the panel: "I came to the conclusion that she [Ms. Heafey] had gone past her legitimate role and had encroached upon the decision- making role of the panel to the point that the panel's independence had been fatally compromised". ( Pepper in Our Eyes, UBC Press, 2000, p. 161) Mr. Morin details interference, and it is of a very serious nature. At that point Ms. Heafey should have been withdrawn as head of the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. Parliamentary investigation should have followed, the Commission dismantled, and a wholly new, independent body created. None of that happened. But many witnesses and principals in the APEC matter came to see the investigation as a sham and removed themselves. That action alone called into question the efficacy of the Commission's work. The Commission -- robbed of its investigative panel -- rustled through its list of approved names and came up with a single name as replacement. He was former judge, former advisor to the B.C. government, a Queen's Council, Ted Hughes. Mr. Hughes conducted a long investigation. He concluded it with a Report to Shirley Heafey on July 31, 2001. The Report is 453 pages long, to which are attached nearly 200 more pages of appendices and notes. Despite the fact that his position was compromised by Ms. Heafey's connection to Jean Chretien, Hughes makes a strange claim for independence. The Report is an embarrassment. In plain words, it is, all things considered,a whitewash of Jean Chretien, the people in his office, and of all police activity, providing extenuating reasons over and over for violent police action. It then blackwashes almost all of the demonstrators, almost never extending to any of them the profound sympathy it extends to any and every police officer. In addition, the Report is so constructed that even when Hughes cannot report anything else but police violation of law, he couches his consideration in language to erase, justify, or neutralize the infractions. To this eye, the bias of the Report leaps off the page. I will provide only one outrageous example of the work of Mr. Hughes. Around the time (Nov. 24) of the APEC Conference, Jaggi Singh was walking alone across the campus of UBC (where the conference took place). He was set upon by plainclothes RCMP officers, thrown to the ground, and then manhandled into a waiting police car and driven off to the UBC RCMP office. He was then charged with an offense that Mr. Hughes finally admits in his Report should probably have never been laid against Singh. With proper knowledge, Hughes says: "I believe that Mr. Singh would not have been arrested on November 24 or at any other time for the November 7 megaphone incident". Had the UBC RCMP detachment consulted about its plan to get Singh "with wise and seasoned heads ... I believe the plan would never have been implemented." (p. 435) That is a very, very serious admission -- the implications of which Hughes then runs away from. Mr. Singh was then driven into the City of Vancouver and three court officers, including a Provincial Court judge -- created and acted on a highly dubious charge, with which I insist they should have been unwilling to involve themselves. They had Mr. Singh sign an undertaking that he would not return to UBC campus for some time. That whole matter stinks to high heaven. Who were the arresters (in fact, the kidnappers)? Who were the court officers who assisted in the forced undertaking by Mr. Singh to avoid UBC campus? Mr. Hughes writes that "I am not prepared to, and cannot, question the decisions made by Crown Counsel, Justice of the Peace, and the Provincial Court Judge". (p. 206) But the terms of his appointment gave him full scope and responsibility to investigate and report on the matter, naming all of the people involved in the (probably criminal) activities. His terms state that he is "to inquire into all matters touching upon these complaints, to hear all evidence relevant thereto..." One of the major complaints concerned the arrest, detention, and charging of Jaggi Singh. No more need be said. The Report stands self-condemned. That example is only one of many. Hughes' Report (not surprisingly) was accepted by Shirley Heafey who wrote a brief "final" Report, embracing the totality of the Hughes Report and conclusions. (Good luck, Maher Arar.) I, myself, undertook a formal complaint to the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. I did so because I believed then (as I believe now) that the so-called case (2001-2002) against Glen Clark, Premier of B.C., as accepting the influence of someone seeking a casino license who did about $10,000.00 worth of work on a deck for Clark without full and complete payment was -- from start to finish -- a sham case. I believed then (and do now) that the whole issue was fabricated to destroy Clark's career as a politician and to destroy the power of the New Democratic Party in B.C. I believed then (as I do now) that portions of the RCMP were enrolled (consciously or unconsciously) in the fraudulent undertaking and needed to be independently investigated fully and completely. I filed a formal complaint that the RCMP had acted improperly in the matter. As a part of its involvement in the "gossip incrimination" of Glen Clark, the RCMP had been accompanied by a television crew when it went to Clark's house to serve and execute a search warrant. How did the television crew know to be on hand? A complaint was made on the matter. "E" Division of the RCMP in charge of the search did an investigation of "E" Division and found that "E" Division had done nothing wrong! If this sounds like madnesses in Alice in Wonderland, that is because it is very similar to them. What happened with my formal complaint? The RCMP set about - I was informed - investigating the RCMP in order to report to the RCMP. Each month I received a short note to tell me that the RCMP which was investigating the RCMP was still in the process of investigating the RCMP. It told me nothing more. This pattern was repeated. Then I was written from the same "E" Division by R.C. Cardey on March 6, 2001,told that the RCMP had put together "an evidentiary brief" of "twenty-nine volumes of documentation", and that no further investigation would be conducted. I had no reason to believe that any kind of investigation of my complaint had, indeed, been conducted, or - if it had been - that it was in any way a fair and just and reasonable investigation. No independent party had anything whatever to do with surveillance of the "investigation". For that reason and under the principle in our system that persons complained of for inadequate behaviour cannot satisfy fair and reasonable people by investigating themselves, I am at liberty to say I believe the whole of my complaint was treated in a fraudulent way, and no one can say I am being unreasonable. Incidentally, Mr. Cardey informed me in his letter of March 6, 2001 that if I wasn't satisfied with his letter, I could ask for a review by the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP by corresponding with their office in Surrey, B.C. That is in fact what I had done! More and more Alice in Wonderland. The lawyer for Glen Clark tried on more than one occasion to have the trial ended and the case thrown out as baseless and vexatious. I believe David Gibbons did the right thing and that Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Bennett (consciously or unconsciously) was caught in a web of malice. At the conclusion of the trial, the Vancouver Sun (August 30, 2002) reported that the surprising thing about Ms. Bennett is that she is a school parent advisory association member and a qualified minor hockey coach.( p.A4) Not everyone agrees with that judgement of the surprising things about her. Ms. Bennett did not pillory the accusers of Glen Clark for bringing a vexatious case against him -- a case that she found too weak to base a conviction upon. (The twenty-nine volumes of documentation gathered by RCMP "E" Division, apparently, were "busywork".) But she did make a judgement against Glen Clark, saying that his hiring of the neighbour in question to do the work on his deck was "an act of folly". And now -- briefly -- we have Shirley Heafey, Commission Chair, releasing just this week the slight-of-hand Report on the police action at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec in 2001. Let us call a spade a spade. The Report can only be -- at very, very best -- a sham in any democratic society worth the name. (A) It can only deal with police action, not with the forces setting the police on peaceful Canadians, and others. (B) The Chair of the Commission for Complaints against the RCMP is appointed directly by Jean Chretien who had to be implicated in the events of Quebec Summit. Ms Heafey, once again cannot be an independent party. The Report cannot, in principle, be an independent Report. (C) The Commission has no power whatever to censure, to discipline, or to otherwise punish police officers who engage in criminal activity. (D) MP Svend Robinson and others attacked are put in the outrageous position of having to seek justice, themselves, through civil suits, because the Criminal Justice System of Canada sees police officers of the RCMP who act criminally as people who are above the law. Poor Maher Arar. We may hear nothing, ever, about what the RCMP did to bring about the arrest, abduction, imprisonment, and deportation of Mr. Arar to Syria. On the other hand, we may hear of a Report sent to Ms. Shirley Heafey at the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP. And out of her office may come the information that for Mr. Arar to go to Tunisia and then to fly into New York was not an act of terrorism, but his arrest, detention, and torture were really his own fault for going to New York. We will doubtless be told that the RCMP which had investigated itself found it had acted impeccably.. Mr Arar has been viciously treated and violently abused. He has been the victim of huge injustice which may very well have been contributed to in substantial ways by actions of the RCMP. That his deeply disturbing experience has led to the RCMP investigating the RCMP in order to report to the RCMP and to the Commission for Complaints Against the RCMP is a joke too brutal for laughter. [ Robin Mathews publishes on culture, politics, the arts, and Canadian Intellectual history. He lives in Vancouver with his wife, a potter. His column appears regularly on Vive le Canada. Comments: rmathews@sfu.ca ] * * * Chicago Tribune: November 18, 2003 BUSH'S USE OF 'ENEMY' TAG RAISES CONCERN AT HEARING By Stevenson Swanson, Tribune national correspondent NEW YORK -- Upholding the government's decision to imprison a U.S. citizen indefinitely without access to an attorney would amount to "a sea change" in constitutional rights, a federal appellate judge said Monday in a hearing involving a former Chicago gang member suspected of plotting to detonate a radioactive dirty bomb. In one of the most closely watched legal challenges to the Bush administration's war on terror, a Justice Department attorney argued that President Bush, as commander in chief, had the power to declare Jose Padilla an "enemy combatant" and to order him held incommunicado as part of the government's effort to combat Al Qaeda. But two members of the three-judge panel hearing the appeal expressed misgivings about the "enemy combatant" classification, saying that only Congress had the power to make such a designation of a U.S. citizen. "When all is said and done, the power you are asking us to give to the president is congressional power," Judge Barrington Parker told Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement, who argued the government's case. "It seems to me breathtaking in its sweep. We would be effecting a sea change in the constitutional life of this country." The two-hour hearing by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel was held in a packed courtroom at the U.S. Federal Courthouse in lower Manhattan, a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center. Arrest in May 2002 Padilla, 33, was arrested in May 2002 at O'Hare International Airport and taken to New York, where he was held as a material witness in a grand jury inquiry investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A month later, Bush signed an order declaring him an enemy combatant, and he was transferred to a naval brig near Charleston, S.C. He has not been allowed to see his family or court-appointed attorneys. A six-page memo by a Pentagon official, containing the only evidence against Padilla that has been made public, says that Padilla met with Abu Zubaydah, a senior Al Qaeda leader, in Afghanistan to discuss a plan to explode a so-called dirty bomb in the U.S. Holding Padilla indefinitely is necessary to remove him from the ranks of potential terrorists and to give federal interrogators the opportunity to question him about Al Qaeda's workings and plans for future attacks, Clement told the judges. The government argued that the president has the well-established power to order that prisoners seized on a battlefield be held, as in the case of Yasser Hamdi, a U.S. citizen who was captured in fall 2001 while fighting with Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. He was later declared an enemy combatant and is also being held at the South Carolina naval brig. Earlier this year, a federal appellate court in Richmond, Va., upheld his status as an enemy combatant. New kind of war Although Padilla was arrested in the U.S., Clement said he still qualifies for the enemy combatant designation because the war on terrorism is a new kind of borderless conflict. "Al Qaeda made the United States the battlefield, and there's every indication that Al Qaeda wants to make it the battlefield again," Clement said. But Stanford University law professor Jenny Martinez, one of three lawyers arguing Padilla's case, said definition of a battlefield was overly broad. "The government's position has no limits," Martinez said. "The government can pick up any person and, as long as the president turns in a piece of paper, that person has no rights." Martinez, an international and constitutional law specialist, said other democracies combating terrorism have crafted legislation defining who can be detained on terrorism charges and guaranteeing those accused the right to counsel and to a judicial review of the charges against them. Of the three judges, Parker and Judge Rosemary Pooler, both appointed to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton, indicated from their questions and comments that the government had overstepped its authority in detaining Padilla. The third jurist, Judge Richard Wesley, who was appointed by President Bush, sent mixed signals. Pressed for answer Wesley pressed Clement to say how long Padilla would be detained. Clement refused to give a definite answer, but said Padilla could be allowed to see his attorneys if investigators finish interrogating him. But on a seemingly technical question that could prove crucial to the case, Wesley sided with the government. The Justice Department, which is appealing a district judge's ruling last year that Padilla be allowed to see his attorneys, argues that the case should be transferred to South Carolina, where Padilla is being held. If two of the three judges agree with the government's argument, Padilla's case would move to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., which ruled in the government's favor in the Hamdi case. Wesley said he saw no reason why the case was being argued in New York, because Padilla was held here for only a few weeks before he was moved to the South Carolina brig. "This should be litigated in South Carolina," he told Donna Newman, one of Padilla's attorneys. The judges did not say when they would issue a ruling. Copyright © 2003, Chicago Tribune * * * Boston Globe: November 18, 2003 PRETRIAL HEARING STARTS ON ALLEGATIONS MILITARY OFFICER MISTREATED IRAQI DETAINEE By Jim Gomez, Associated Press TIKRIT, Iraq (AP) A U.S. military court opened a hearing Tuesday into accusations that an American lieutenant colonel manhandled and threatened to kill an Iraqi detainee, allegedly firing his gun near the man to get information on a possible plot to kill him. Lt. Col. Allen B. West the most senior officer of the 4th Infantry Division to face such a proceeding attended the hearing with his lawyer in a U.S. military base in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit. West is accused of punching and firing a pistol near the prisoner, Yahya Jhodri Hamoodi, on Aug. 20 while he was being interrogated in Taji, according to Lt. Col. Jimmy Davis, who presided over the hearing. West also allegedly threatened to kill the detainee if he did not talk, Davis said, reading from a fact sheet. The hearing is to determine whether West should face court-martial. A preliminary investigation alleged that West's actions were in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. West remained in Iraq after the incident and was assigned to other duties in the division, officials said. Maj. Robert Reginelli, who investigated the case, testified during the Tuesday hearing that the detainee, who is an Iraqi policeman, alleged that West pointed a gun at him during questioning. Other soldiers covered Hamoodi's face with a shirt and began punching him in the body and head, Reginelli quoted the detainee as saying. The soldiers warned Hamoodi that he would be killed if he did not talk, Reginelli said. At one point, West led the detainee out of the detention facility into a weapons' cleaning area. West allegedly grabbed the detainee by the neck, forced him down on the sand and fired a round near him, Reginelli said, quoting Hamoodi. The detainee insisted he was not aware of the assassination plot, Reginelli said. West's driver, Pfc. Michael P. Johnson, testified he saw the officer fire into the sand near the detainee but he did not believe the officer really planned to kill him. "He was just scared," Johnson described the detainee. "I knew it was wrong." West's lawyer, Neal Puckett, refused to comment on the accusations. He said West would testify Wednesday in his own defense. Last weekend, three American soldiers were ordered to stand trial in January on charges of abusing Iraqi prisoners of war at the detention center at Camp Bucca in southern Iraq. The charges grew out of an alleged incident May 12 in which the three soldiers from the 320th Military Police Battalion allegedly punched and kicked Iraqi POWs. The soldiers said they acted in self-defense, that conditions were chaotic at Camp Bucca, and that guards had been harassed and assaulted daily by unruly prisoners. The three soldiers, Master Sgt. Lisa Marie Girman, 35; Staff Sgt. Scott A. McKenzie, 38; and Spc. Timothy F. Canjar, 21, are accused of dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment of enemy prisoners of war, filling false official statements, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice. A fourth soldier originally held on the same allegations, Sgt. Shawna Edmondson, 24, has received an other-than-honorable discharge from the military, which she requested rather than face martial proceedings. The 4th Infantry Division has jurisdiction over areas west and north of Baghdad, including parts of the violent so-called "Sunni Triangle." * * * Los Angeles Times: November 18, 2003 COURT QUESTIONS SUSPECT'S LABEL * White House decision to classify an alleged bomb plotter as an enemy combatant may be unconstitutional, appellate judges warn. By John J. Goldman, Times Staff Writer NEW YORK -- A federal appeals court Monday sharply questioned the Bush administration's decision to classify a U.S. citizen suspected in an alleged "dirty bomb" plot as an enemy combatant, thereby denying him access to legal counsel. One member of the three-judge panel called the administration's move placing Jose Padilla in military custody a "sea change in the constitutional life of the country." U.S. District Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. said the result could lead to changes that "have been unprecedented in civilized society." Padilla -- a 33-year-old, Brooklyn-born Muslim convert -- is accused of plotting with Al Qaeda operatives to explode a bomb containing radioactive material within the United States. He was arrested at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport upon returning from Pakistan in May 2002 and has been held in the U.S. Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. The government Monday was appealing a ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey that Padilla had the right to meet with lawyers and contest his status. Parker said that he believed that the power to declare a citizen an enemy combatant rested with Congress, not with the president. Judge Rosemary S. Pooler agreed, recalling the image of the World Trade Center on fire after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. "If the battlefield is the United States, I think Congress has to say that, and I don't think they have yet," Pooler said. "As terrible as 9/11 was, it didn't repeal the Constitution." Deputy Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, in arguing the government's position, countered that the president has a "reservoir of authority to respond when the battlefield is in the United States." "There is no sea change here," Clement said. The authority President Bush has used to hold combatants has been exercised, he said, "in virtually every military engagement in this nation's history." Clement said that in the past, such suspects were held for intelligence purposes, "over and over again ... without specific authorization from Congress." Jenny S. Martinez, an assistant professor at Stanford University Law School who argued for Padilla's right to counsel, said Bush was seeking "unchecked power to substitute military rule for the rule of law wherever and whenever he wants, without congressional authorization." "The Constitution demands that it be rejected," she said. Judge Richard C. Wesley, the third member of the panel, questioned why the Padilla case was being heard in Manhattan. "This should be litigated in South Carolina," he said. The judges are not expected to issue their ruling for weeks and could transfer the case to another court. "Here we have a situation where an American citizen was picked up on a material witness warrant [and] brought into this district," Parker said. "In the course of litigating his detention, two delegates from the Department of Defense showed up and took him to Charleston." "As far as I can see, that ... is unprecedented," the judge said. "Isn't this as unusual as it gets?" * * * The Independent (UK): November 18, 2003 GUANTANAMO BAY: 'SEND MY SON HOME' The families of two Britons held at the US base on Cuba are hoping to publicise their cause this week By Robert Verkaik Azmat Begg says he will never forget the terror of the last conversation with his son. Moazzam phoned him from the boot of a police car to say he had been arrested by Pakistani security services. Since then, almost two years ago, the only communication between Moazzam and his family has been a few precious, but heavily-censored, letters written during his detention at the American naval base in Guantanamo Bay. The 65-year-old retired banker from Birmingham says his son's letters are as much a cause for concern as they are a source of relief. "We are concerned he is in a state of depression. There are indications from the letters that he wants to die." The family suspect that Moazzam may have been tortured. "He said his fingernails were being treated and that he was using cream on his body. The main reason for the American authorities not to show prisoners to the public or to lawyers or relations is because their body is not in the right shape. They must have tortured them so badly it is not possible to show it to their relations." The story of Begg, argue his family and supporters, is a case of an innocent abroad who took his wife and three young children to Afghanistan to help educate the local people. Begg, 36, was a law student at Wolverhampton University before dropping out in his second year. After marrying a local girl he opened a bookshop in Birmingham, but started to feel the need to play a bigger part in the education of the children in poorer countries. So he took his young family to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. "The Taliban didn't allow any co-education so his wife wanted to teach the girls and he wanted to teach the boys," says his father. "But he ran into trouble with Taliban red tape. While he was waiting for clearance he took his family to a remote area of the country to make tube wells to improve their access to water." Then the American bombardment started and the family fled to Pakistan. It was while Moazzam was waiting in Islamabad to return to teaching that he was arrested, bundled into the boot of a car, taken to the American-controlled Bagram airbase, and then on to Guantanamo Bay. This week his lawyer, Gareth Peirce, the human rights solicitor who rose to prominence in helping to overturn miscarriages of justices including the Guildford Four, hopes to bring Moazzam Begg's case to the attention of George Bush. Last week, Begg and Peirce joined the family of another British Guantanamo detainee, Feroz Abbasi, to talk about their concerns. Abbasi's mother, Zumrati Juma, a nurse from Croydon, south London, says she received 11 letters from her son in one batch in August. Whole blocks of paragraphs were blacked out by the American censor. But it is the allusion to unknown events during his detention that worry her most. Juma says her son has indicated there is a reason why he had not written earlier, but could not reveal it. Her lawyer, Louise Christian, uses the newly-coined American term, "torture- lite", to refer to what she suspects Abassi may be describing. "The huge fear is that he has been pressured and coerced and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and this may have resulted in him making some sort of plea bargain." Christian says there is psychiatric evidence that Abbasi has been forced to confess to his interrogators. She has seen a report by an unnamed Pentagon psychiatrist that says he has "overcome much of his mistrust in recent months and exhibited much more outgoing behaviour and cooperation with a better mood and emotional disposition". During previous examinations, the psychiatrist notes, he had "exhibited withdrawn behaviour suggestive of recurrent depression". But Gisli Gudjonsson, professor of forensic psychology at the University of London, says it is unclear how Abbasi overcame the mistrust of his captors. He suggests one reason may be that he negotiated a deal with the authorities, or was persuaded to reveal incriminating material. News of Gudjonsson's involvement with the campaign to secure fair treatment for the Guantanamo detainees will have reached Washington. He is well known to American authorities as the psychologist who helped debrief US soldiers captured by the communist Vietnamese and made to confess to trumped-up spying charges. In Britain we know him better as the expert who provided evidence to show that the confessions of the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four were unreliable. The troubling accounts of two of the nine British men detained without trial may not move President Bush to tears. But they add to the moral pressure. Last week the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case for letting the courts have jurisdiction over the detention of Guantanamo detainees. Two days later, Tony Blair acknowledged that this was an issue that would not go away and was one that he was determined to tackle. Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar Council's human rights committee, believes a series of negotiations between the Attorney General and the Pentagon has failed to reach agreement. "Clearly the Attorney General believes anyone in Guantanamo Bay cannot have a fair trial - that's why he's been making such strenuous efforts on behalf of British citizens. The problem is that Lord Goldsmith is not a member of the Cabinet and it looks, sadly, as if his efforts have failed." This week's visit by Mr Bush provides the best opportunity yet to persuade the Americans to agree to the repatriation of the British detainees so they can face justice in this country. Christian asks what the Americans can be afraid of: "We have the most Draconian anti-terrorist laws in Europe." * * * November 18, 2003 Judges Debate 'Enemy Combatant' Standards NEW YORK (AP) -- A panel of federal judges waded into the question of whether the president has the power alone to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant (search), an issue the Bush administration considers vital in its war on terror. Three judges from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (search) suggested Monday that President Bush needs Congressional authorization to indefinitely hold 33-year-old Jose Padilla (search), accused in a dirty bomb (search) plot and designated an enemy combatant. Giving such power exclusively to the executive branch with only limited review by the courts, said Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr., would be "a sea change in the constitutional life of this country and ... unprecedented in civilized society." The three-judge panel was hearing an appeal of a lower-court ruling establishing that Padilla is entitled to see his lawyers and to challenge his designation as an enemy combatant. He has not seen a lawyer in 17 months. Padilla is accused of plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb," which uses conventional explosives to disperse radioactive materials. The former Chicago gang member was arrested in May 2002 and within days was moved to a naval brig in Charleston, S.C. In a two-hour hearing blocks from the World Trade Center site, Judge Rosemary S. Pooler said the president must go to Congress because it has the power to let the president make a U.S. citizen captured on American soil an enemy combatant. Deputy Solicitor General Paul D. Clement suggested that the urgency of the war against terrorism necessitated such moves. "Al Qaeda made the battlefields the United States and they've given every indication they're trying to make the United States the battlefield again," he said. Pooler recalled witnessing the 110-story towers burning on Sept. 11, 2001. "If, in fact, the battlefield is the United States, I think Congress has to say that, and I don't think they have yet," she said. The hearing marked the first time a U.S. government official has said someone such as Padilla could eventually have access to an attorney once the intelligence gathering process was complete. Jenny Martinez, a Stanford Law School professor who argued on Padilla's behalf, said the government believed its powers were almost limitless. "Under their theory, they can do this to any American. They can pick up any person off the street and, so long as the president turns in a piece of paper that says that that person is associated with Al Qaeda, that person has no rights and the courts are powerless to intervene," she said. "Your honors, that has never been the law in this country and it cannot be the law." Andrew Patel, another lawyer for Padilla, said the right to court proceedings "must be respected in periods of calm and in times of trouble." "Your honor, this is the land of the free and the home of the brave. That means something. Those words mean something," he said. Pooler responded, "As terrible as 9-11 was, it didn't repeal the Constitution, you mean." The third judge on the panel, Richard C. Wesley, suggested the case shouldn't have been brought in Manhattan. "This should be litigated in South Carolina," Wesley snapped. The judges weren't expected to issue their ruling for weeks, if not longer. While two of three judges expressed doubts about the government's arguments, they could still opt to refer the case to another court, as Wesley suggested. Only two other people have been designated enemy combatants since the 2001 terrorist attacks: Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar who has been accused of being an Al Qaeda sleeper agent, and Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana native captured during the fighting in Afghanistan. * * * Toronto Star November 18, 2003 ARAR CASE 'EMBARRASSMENT' TO U.S. Symbol of post-9/11 excess, rights group says Ouster of Bush's attorney-general demanded Tim Harper, Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- Maher Arar's treatment was described here yesterday as a symbol of post-9/11 excess in this country by a human rights group seeking the ouster of U.S. Attorney-General John Ashcroft. The Centre for Constitutional Rights stepped up its campaign for answers in the case of the Syrian-Canadian who was deported from New York to face torture in Damascus, as Canadian Solicitor-General Wayne Easter prepares for a meeting with Ashcroft tomorrow. In an interview published in The New York Times, Arar, an Ottawa computer consultant, said he was given an injection in a Brooklyn detention centre while being held there in September, 2002. He said guards would not tell him what they had injected him with. "This case crystallizes the danger of this period in U.S. history -- when you can be held on the flimsiest of evidence, or non-evidence, based on the suspicion that one might have done something," said Ron Daniels of the New York- based rights centre. "This is exactly the point -- Americans, even as they want to fight the war against terrorism, do not want to sacrifice what this country stands for in the pursuit of this war on terrorism. "Because if we do that, we have lost our soul as a nation." Canada is still demanding answers from Washington as to why Arar, a dual Syrian- Canadian national, was deported to Syria, where he was tortured during a 10- month stay in a dank, cramped cell he described as a "grave." One senior source in Ottawa said the future of intelligence sharing between the two governments could be at risk unless some answers are forthcoming from Washington. The outgoing government of Jean Chretien has refused calls for a public inquiry. For its part, the Bush administration maintains there was strong evidence Arar had links with suspected Islamic militants in Canada, a charge Arar has denied. He has never been charged and critics in the U.S. -- where the Arar case is gaining more attention -- accuse the government of breaking international law by, in essence, sub-contracting torture of suspects to other countries. "This has become an embarrassment to the justice department and the various intelligence agencies, and we hope members of Congress of the United States would raise their voices on this particular matter," Daniels said. The Centre for Constitutional Rights, which represents Arar as well as some of the so-called "enemy combatants" who are challenging the legality of their long detention without charge in the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, launched a "people's indictment" against Ashcroft yesterday. They say the Patriot Act, enacted hastily following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, tramples civil rights and they are trying to create a popular movement to force Ashcroft's removal from U.S. President George W. Bush's cabinet. Daniels' charge that intelligence agencies here are embarrassed echoed an assessment from an unnamed Bush official who told the Times the Arar case has become a public relations disaster for the government. "We need to say something because Arar is going to become shorthand for excess in the name of security, running roughshod over the rule of law," the source said. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has promised his Canadian counterpart, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham, some clarification on the case and is seeking more information from Ashcroft. The U.S. justice department would not say whether Ashcroft would provide an update, or any new information to Easter tomorrow. When Deputy Prime Minister John Manley raised the case privately last week with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, he was told Powell was handling the Arar file. Easter, while rejecting a call for a probe into the RCMP role in the Arar case, is considering a new watchdog agency to oversee how the Mounties use new security and intelligence-gathering powers under Canada's anti-terrorism law, the Star's Tonda MacCharles reports from Ottawa. That move would be a dramatic turnaround from two years ago when the Liberals drafted the Anti-Terrorism Act and gave police broader powers under the Criminal Code to investigate suspected terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. Then, the federal Liberal government flatly rejected the idea of setting up any separate oversight agency. It said existing complaints bodies, like the Public Complaints Commission, were enough to keep tabs on any potential abuses, or Canadians could seek redress in the courts. Easter has denied he has specific concerns about the RCMP but said the time had come to examine the "checks and balances" in place. * * * * * * * * *