MISCELLANEOUS NEWS REPORTS * 2004.03.01 to 2004.03.31

    misc_digest_2004_3.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/

    * Baltimore Sun: http://www.sunspot.net/
    * Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/
    * Chicago Tribune: http://www.chicagotribune.com/
    * Dawn (Islamabad): http://www.dawn.com/
    * Hartford Courant: http://www.ctnow.com/news/
    * Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/
    * 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 Age (Melbourne): http://www.theage.com.au/
    * The Guardian (UK): http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardian/
    * The Independent (UK): http://www.independent.co.uk/
    * The Mirror (UK): http://www.mirror.co.uk/
    * The Observer (UK): http://www.observer.co.uk/
    * The Scotsman (Edinburgh): http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/
    * The Telegraph (UK): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
    * Toronto Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/

================================================================================


The Christian Science Monitor:

March 31, 2004 edition

GUANTANAMO HOLDS FAMILY AT BAY
Mother, lawyer, try to learn more about Kurnaz, one of an estimated 20 European
detainees at Camp X-Ray.

By Andreas Tzortzis, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0331/p06s01-woeu.html

BREMEN, GERMANY -- The impersonal white postcards bearing the return address
"Camp X-Ray" stopped arriving more than a year ago.

Rabiye Kurnaz took little comfort from the short, vague messages she received
from her son, who has been a detainee at the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay for
nearly two years, but they let her know he was alive. Since then, Mrs. Kurnaz
has all but given up trying to contact Murat or understand why he's being held.

"My youngest son often asks, 'What is he doing there, Mama?' " says Rabiye
Kurnaz. "And I have to answer: 'I don't know.' "

Neither do Mr. Kurnaz's friends, his lawyer, nor German investigators. Since
January 2002, Kurnaz, who just turned 22, has been one of more than 600
prisoners held in legal limbo. A German resident alien, born and raised in
western Germany, yet holding Turkish citizenship, is one of an estimated 20
Europeans at Guantanamo Bay.

Their detention has been a flashpoint in the transatlantic relationship
virtually since the camp's inception. Senior diplomats and judges, as well as
human rights groups, have not minced their words in criticizing both the camp
and treatment of prisoners.

Last fall, the European Parliament took the Bush administration to task for
denying prisoners access to legal review.

"Even the worst criminals must have the right to a fair trial," said Graham
Watson, who heads the liberal democrat group in the parliament.

In November, the US Supreme Court agreed to review a case brought on behalf of
16 Guantanamo Bay defendants challenging the Bush administration's right to hold
them without due process. In the coming weeks, Kurnaz's lawyer, Bernhard Docke,
will decide whether to add his client's name to the list of prisoners who have
filed suit.

The Court's decision has already produced some results, say lawyers for the
detainees. Since November, 60 prisoners have been freed, according to the
Pentagon, which says the releases are simply part of an ongoing process. By
comparison, 44 were released between October 2002 and July 2003.

Among the recent releases were five British prisoners, two of whom are named in
the suit before the Supreme Court. The Spanish, Danish, and Russian governments
have also lobbied successfully for the release of their citizens.

But for the past two years, Mr. Docke, Kurnaz's slight, bespectacled human
rights lawyer, has been able to do little more than gather information on his
client in 10 thick binders.

"I'm in an absurd situation," says Docke, sitting in his airy, bright Bremen
office. "I don't know the charges, my client, or whom to sue. It's something
between Kafka and Orwell."

As perplexing is Kurnaz's path from well-adjusted teen to "Detainee JJJFA."

The eldest of four children, he was spoiled by his mother and father, who live
in a simple, three-level brick home not far from the DaimlerChrysler plant where
his father works.

He fitted seamlessly into the multicultural landscape of the city, whose
shipyards and car plants attracted thousands of Turkish "guest workers" invited
by the German government to work in the 1960s and 1970s. The city had many sons
like Murat, who mixed Friday prayers at the mosque with Saturday night discos
and German girlfriends.

Together with his friend Selcuk Bilgin, he developed a liking for dogs and
lifting weights at the local gym.

"It helped his self-confidence," says Fuat Avsar, the gym owner who became a
sort of big brother to Kurnaz. "Then, a few months before the World Trade Center
attacks, things changed."

The 19-year-old stopped attending the family mosque, opting instead for a
Moroccan mosque that was not on the radar screen of local law enforcement until
Kurnaz's capture. Since then, the Abu Bakr Mosque has been watched by agents
from Germany's Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Prosecutors
launched an investigation of an Imam at the mosque following Kurnaz's capture,
suspecting him of pushing young Muslims into attending militant Koranic schools
in Pakistan. The investigation was eventually called off, but the mosque remains
under observation.

A German investigator interviewed in 2002 about Kurnaz said it was at Abu Bakr
that Kurnaz found the "true Islam" he was looking for. He grew a beard and began
selling videotapes at his gym, documenting Serb atrocities against Bosnian
Muslim women and children during the Bosnian War.

"This happened in less than a few weeks," says Mr. Avsar, who told Kurnaz he
wasn't allowed in the gym anymore. "Then, suddenly, he was gone."

On Oct. 3, 2001, Rabiye Kurnaz woke up to find her son's bed empty. Already wary
of the changes in her son, she remembered him saying he wanted to travel to
Pakistan to "see and live the Koran," and began to worry. A call to Bilgin's
wife confirmed her fears: Bilgin and Kurnaz were on their way to Karachi.

Border guards stopped Bilgin at Frankfurt airport because of a warrant for an
unpaid fine. Kurnaz went on without him.

Rabiye Kurnaz received a phone call from her son in November, saying he was
planning on extending his trip one month. The next correspondence was from a
prison camp in Afghanistan, where he was being held by US forces.

German investigators familiar with the case said Kurnaz was going from madrassah
to madrassah in Pakistan before being arrested and turned over to the Americans
somewhere near the Karachi airport in late November. They doubt, however, that
he ever made it to Afghanistan, much less get involved in any fighting,
according to the investigator, who did not want to be named.

Since the two postcards, Rabiye Kurnaz has received nothing more from her son.
German Foreign Minister Joshka Fischer sent an apologetic note two years ago
that his hands were tied, because Kurnaz is a citizen of Turkey. The Foreign
Ministry in Ankara told Rabiye Kurnaz in February that they would begin lobbying
on his behalf, two years after she had begun bombarding them with e-mails and
letters.

After the US government's release of the British prisoners two weeks ago, Rabiye
half-hoped Murat would be next. She began cleaning up his room, now filled with
bicycles and storage boxes, and packed a suitcase in case she needed to travel.
Kurnaz wasn't released. His younger brother has since eaten the chocolates she
had bought for him. Rabiye Kurnaz remains resolute.

"I'm definitely hopeful that he'll come home," says Kurnaz. "I just don't know
when, and in what state."

* * *


The Olympian (Olympia, WA):

March 31, 2004

ARMY CHAPLAIN YEE APPEALS REPRIMAND
Little time was given to prepare case, defense team argues

By Christian Hill, The Olympian

http://www.theolympian.com/home/news/20040331/southsound/15778.shtml

A Muslim Army chaplain reprimanded last week for committing adultery and storing
pornography on his government-issued laptop has appealed the decision.

On March 19, the military dropped criminal charges that Capt. James Yee
mishandled classified documents while counseling al-Qaida and Taliban fighters
at the naval prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

His defense team filed the appeal Sunday.

Yee's wife and 4-year-old daughter live in Olympia, and Yee is scheduled to
return to his former duty station at Fort Lewis.

Army officials didn't give Yee's defense enough time to prepare its case, Eugene
Fidell, one of Yee's civilian lawyers, argued in the appeal.

After the Army dropped the charges, it scheduled an Article 15 hearing, the
military's method of dealing with minor infractions.

Yee pleaded not guilty to both charges at that hearing last week. Maj. Gen.
Geoffrey Miller, former commander of Joint Task Force Guantanamo, which operates
the island naval prison, then found Yee guilty of both counts and issued the
reprimand.

"The Army's last-minute notice unfairly prejudiced Chaplain Yee because it
denied him the opportunity to prepare and present affirmative evidence in his
defense," Fidell wrote in the appeal.

Raul Duany, spokesman for Southern Command, hadn't seen the appeal and declined
to comment.

He did note that Yee was open to a commander's decision for both minor charges
in the terms of a proposed settlement that Fidell inadvertently e-mailed to
media outlets earlier this month. That settlement was never finalized.

"In essence, we feel that Yee got what he requested," Duany said.

A reprimand stays on a soldier's military record and can be a factor in
promotions.

In the appeal, Fidell argued the Army's "last-minute 'rush act' " prevented Yee
from obtaining a forensic computer expert to testify about the pornography
charge. Another such expert testified on behalf of the prosecution during an
earlier hearing to determine whether Yee would face a court-martial.

Fidell also argued the adultery charge couldn't be sustained because, under
court-martial rules, the relationship must be "directly prejudicial to good
order and discipline or service-discrediting."

He also accused Miller of holding improper communications with the lead
prosecutor during the two military proceedings against Yee, asking him to stay
behind while everyone else left the room.

Military officials initially tied Yee to a possible espionage ring operating in
Guantanamo when his arrest was made public in late September. He was held for 76
days in pretrial confinement in a naval brig in South Carolina before his
release in November.

None of the six charges he faced related to spying. Miller said he dropped the
charges against Yee because issues of national security could be aired in public
if the case proceeded.

Army regulations say that an appeal should be decided within five calendar days.
It's unclear who would review and decide the appeal.

Fidell has asked Gen. James Hill, commander of Southern Command, to recuse
himself from considering the appeal because of his prior involvement in the
case.

Christian Hill covers the city of Lacey and the military for The Olympian. He
can be reached at 360-754-5427 or at chhill@olympia.gannett.com.

* * *


Salon:

March 31, 2004

CREEPIER THAN NIXON

The man who brought down Richard Nixon says Bush and "co-president" Cheney are
an even greater threat to the country.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

An Interview with John Dean by David Talbot

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/31/dean/index_np.html

As Richard Nixon's White House counsel during the Watergate scandal, John Dean
famously warned his boss that there was "a cancer on the presidency" that would
bring down the administration unless Nixon came clean. In his new book, "Worse
Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush," Dean warns the country
that the Bush administration is even more secretive and authoritarian than
Nixon's -- in fact, he writes, it's "the most secretive presidency of my
lifetime."

"To say that the [Bush-Cheney] secret presidency is undemocratic is an
understatement," he adds. "I'm anything but skittish about government, but I
must say this administration is truly scary and, given the times we live in,
frighteningly dangerous."

Dean's new book is being published, appropriately, as the country is being
treated to another spectacle of Nixonian smearing and stonewalling by the Bush
White House. Rather than come clean about its pre-9/11 security policies, the
administration has engaged in a frenzied counterattack on its whistle-blowing
former terrorism chief, Richard Clarke, while refusing to let National Security
Advisor Condoleezza Rice testify before the bipartisan panel investigating the
terror attack until the political pressure became overwhelming.

Dean conversed with Salon by e-mail from his Los Angeles home.

SALON: How is the Bush-Cheney administration more secretive than Nixon's?

DEAN: A few examples make the point. Nixon became a secretive president, as his
presidency proceeded, while Bush and Cheney were secretive from the outset.
Nixon actually tried to reduce the excessive national security classification of
documents (through a panel headed by the man who is now chief justice of the
United States), while Bush and Cheney have tried to increase classification (and
9/11 does not hold up as the reason for much of it). Nixon only abused executive
privilege (the power of a president to withhold information from his
constitutional co-equals) after Watergate, while Bush and Cheney have sought to
abuse the privilege from the outset. Nixon was never taken to court by the
General Accounting Office for refusing to provide information about executive
activities, while Bush and Cheney forced GAO to go to court (where GAO lost
under a recently appointed Bush judge). Nixon believed presidential papers
should be available for historians, but Bush has undermined the laws to make
such records available to the public.

While Nixon's presidency gave currency to the term "stonewalling," Bush and
Cheney have made stonewalling their standard procedure, far in excess of Nixon.
In short, in every area one looks, Bush and Cheney are more secretive than Nixon
ever imagined being. I have mentioned but a few.

SALON: Why have Congress and the press allowed Dick Cheney to get away with his
stonewalling tactics on the energy task force, Halliburton, duck hunting with
Justice Scalia, and other questionable aspects of his vice presidency?

DEAN: I would add to the list Cheney's outrageous stonewalling about his health,
which we know is bad, notwithstanding his effort to keep the details secret. The
Congress lets Cheney do anything he wants because Republicans control it, and
Cheney is their heavy in the White House for getting things done. Cheney, so
long as Republicans control, will not have to answer, but should we return to
divided government in 2004 or 2006 and Cheney is still in the White House, that
will end.

There has never been a vice president -- ever (and even including Spiro Agnew
who was Nixon's) -- who needed to be investigated more than Cheney. Nor has
there ever been such a secretive vice president. Dick Cheney is the power behind
the Bush throne. Frankly, I am baffled why the mainstream news media has given
Cheney (not to mention Bush) a free ride. I don't know if it is generational, or
corporate ownership, or political bias, but it is clear that Cheney has been
given a pass by the major news organizations.

SALON: Do you feel the vice president has, after more than three years of
secretive governing from an undisclosed location, become a political liability
to the president? How likely is it that Bush will drop him from the ticket this
year?

DEAN: Dick Cheney is a political disaster awaiting recognition. In the book, I
set forth a relatively long list of inchoate scandals, not to mention problems
worse than scandals. They all involve Cheney in varying degrees. Bush can't dump
Cheney, for it is Cheney, not Rove, who is Bush's backroom brain. He is actually
a co-president. Bush doesn't enjoy studying and devising policy. Cheney does.
While Cheney has tutored Bush for almost four years, and Bush is better prepared
today than when he entered the job, Cheney is quietly guiding this
administration. Cheney knows how to play Bush so that Cheney is absolutely no
threat to him, makes him feel he is president, but Bush can't function without a
script, or without Cheney. Bush is head of state; Cheney is head of government.

If, say, the Securities and Exchange Commission's current investigation of
Halliburton's accounting also discovers that Cheney engaged in insider trading
when he left Halliburton (which the facts suggest is highly likely), and this
matter erupts before the Republican convention, then Cheney might be forced to
step aside. Cheney always has his bad-health excuse anytime he wants to take it
-- because it is a fact. He has a certain immunity as vice president, but if he
were to be dropped from the ticket (or he and Bush lose), I believe Cheney would
have serious problems which he would no longer be able to deflect. Thus, he will
stay and fight like hell to win.

I quote Cheney from his time in the Ford White House when he said, "Principle is
okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn't do any good if you lose." I
think this statement sums up Cheney's thinking nicely.

SALON: You write that Bush and Cheney have not leveled with America about their
true agenda. What is it?

DEAN: Because of their secrecy, it takes a lot of work to connect the dots. I've
not connected them all, but enough of them to know that the only agenda they had
during the first term was to get a second term -- which meant secretly taking
care of their major contributors. Should they get a second term, we know their
secret agenda, for they have quietly stated it: They intend to make sure the
Republicans control the federal government (all three branches) indefinitely, if
possible. In short, the Bush-Cheney agenda is about perpetuating Republican rule
by taking particularly good care of major contributors who share their views of
the world.

SALON: Karl Rove also plays a unique role in the Bush administration. One close
observer says in your book that he's "Haldeman and Ehrlichman all in one."
Explain.

DEAN: Rove's unique role is that he is a political guy making policy decisions
for political reasons. Decisions in the Bush White House are made not based on
what is best for the public interest, rather what will get the president the
most mileage with his base, and best political advantage. Not since Nixon's so-
called responsiveness program -- which was uncovered during the Watergate
investigation -- have we had such overt political decision-making.

The reference to Haldeman and Ehrlichman as explaining Rove was a quip from a
friend of mine from the Nixon White House who has had dealings with Rove. Since
Rove is a revengeful fellow, my friend will remain nameless. But my friend was
telegraphing a lot of information about Rove with this bit of shorthand -- for
anyone who has any knowledge of the Nixon White House and Watergate, they know
Haldeman and Ehrlichman were the heavies. First, it is a compliment in that both
Haldeman and Ehrlichman were very smart, and highly efficient. But what it tells
us is that Rove is ruthless, for both Haldeman and Ehrlichman were that too.

Both Haldeman and Ehrlichman saw the world through a political lens, and what
was most likely to help Richard Nixon get reelected. So does Rove. Haldeman was
involved with procedure (broadly speaking, I mean who was doing what at the
White House, arranging the presidential travel and appearances for maximum
political benefit, and constantly mindful of the president's image and making
him look good), and Ehrlichman was the substance guy (who developed domestic
policies, but accounting for the political impact). Rove controls both.

Had Haldeman and Ehrlichman not received the longest sentences of any of those
involved in Watergate, Rove would probably be pleased by the comparison.

SALON: Karl Rove first came to your attention during Watergate. In what ways is
he the reincarnation of Nixon dirty tricksters like Charles Colson and Donald
Segretti?

DEAN: He is way beyond anything Nixon had at his disposal. He is closer to a
behind-the-scenes Nixon operator named Murray Chotiner, who could cut off an
opponent at the knees so quickly the person did not immediately realize he had
been crippled. As I note in the book, the first time I heard the name Karl Rove
was when I was asked if I knew anything about him by one of the Watergate
special prosecutors who was investigating campaign dirty tricks. I didn't have
any knowledge. But I recalled that question when working on this book, and
located a memorandum in the files of the Watergate prosecutor's office that
indicates they were asking others as well about Rove. Based on my review of the
files, it appears the Watergate prosecutors were interested in Rove's activities
in 1972, but because they had bigger fish to fry they did not aggressively
investigate him.

Colson was brutal, cruel and vicious before he found God (during Watergate).
While he once famously said he would run over his grandmother to get Nixon
reelected, today I suspect he'd run over his grandmother to convert a few
heathens to Christ. Segretti did not engage in the kind of dirty politics that
Colson liked to play. Segretti was a political prankster, who only by accident
got associated with Watergate. Nothing that Segretti did, that I know of, could
be called sinister. Colson, on the other hand, was as nasty a political
operative as could be found. Indeed, to this day we don't know the full extent
of Colson's activities. He even refused to tell Nixon some of the things he had
done (while boasting to Nixon he had done things he didn't want to tell the
president). Colson walked out of the White House with any of his papers and
records that might cause him a problem. Karl Rove, from what I've seen, makes
Colson look like a novice.

SALON: Bush has managed to stay above the ugly tactics used against opponents
like John McCain and now John Kerry. Does he privately give them his blessing?

DEAN: Of course. All candidates control their campaigns, and if they don't want
such activity, it doesn't occur. As I discovered in talking to people about
Bush, he is a highly sophisticated political operator. I've noted in the book
that Rove gets the credit for being Bush's political brain. It's an arrangement
both men like, because it raises Rove's importance as a political operator, and
lowers Bush's exposure. In truth, Bush is probably more politically savvy than
Rove. Both men learned their politics from Lee Atwater, who ran Bush senior's
1988 campaign. Atwater made dirty politics into an art form, by which I mean he
provided those for whom dirty deeds were done deniability while Atwater's people
tore up an opponent's pea-patch and everything else. I expect the 2004
presidential campaign to make Richard Nixon look like a high-road campaigner.

SALON: At least until recently, the Bush administration has successfully used
the public's fear of terrorism to advance its agenda. You go so far as to agree
with Gen. Tommy Franks' dark prediction that another major terror attack on U.S.
citizens will drive the country to suspend the Constitution. Why do you fear
that?

DEAN: As I state in the book, I agree for reasons that probably differ from
those of Gen. Franks. The short summary of what is really a thread that runs
through the book is that when you have a presidency that has no regard for human
life, that develops and implements all (not just national security) policy in
secrecy, and is driven by political motives and a radical philosophy, it is
impossible not to conclude that they will overreact -- and at the expense of our
constitutional safeguards. Bush and Cheney enjoy using power to make and wield
swords, not ploughs. They prefer to rule by fear. We've had three years to take
the measure of these men. I've done so and reported what I found in a book I
never planned to write, but because others were not talking about these issues,
I believed they needed to be placed on the table.

Bush and Cheney have exploited terrorism ever since 9/11. Now they are
exploiting it to get reelected. Should there be an even more serious threat,
they have found that when Americans are frightened they can be governed like
sheep, which suits Bush and Cheney perfectly. Rather than taking the terror out
of terrorism by educating and informing Americans, they have sought to make
terrorism as frightening as possible -- using terrorism to launch a war of
aggression that is breeding a new generation of terrorists and getting the
Congress to pass the most repressive new laws imaginable and calling it an act
of patriotism.

SALON: Do you think Bush has an enemies list? Are you on it?

DEAN: I don't believe that Bush, Cheney or Rove are foolish enough to actually
maintain such a list -- as was foolishly done in the Nixon White House. But I
believe they have long memories. As to how they feel about me, I could care
less. As I explain in the book, I used many of my sources on background because
this is a White House that takes revenge, and its supporters and surrogates play
as dirty as they can get away with. The truth for this White House is not very
pleasant, and my writing about it will not be appreciated. I didn't write this
book for those who believe that Bush and Cheney have got it right, and don't
want to hear otherwise. Rather I wrote it because a lot of people suspect that
they've gotten it wrong, and needed someone who knows the workings of the White
House to explain what is going on and why.

SALON: If the Bush-Cheney scandals are "worse than Watergate," why hasn't this
administration produced a whistle-blowing John Dean?

DEAN: First, I make very clear in the book that while the underlying conduct is
worse than Watergate, it has not -- yet -- erupted into a scandal like
Watergate. Like anyone at the White House, yours truly included, you first try
to work within the system -- to right things you know are wrong. Take former
terrorism czar Richard Clarke. He certainly tried to get the Bush administration
to address the problems of terrorism sooner rather than later, but failed. After
leaving government he remained troubled about the Bush administration's failures
to deal with terrorism, for he knows better than most that the war in Iraq only
added to the problems. So he testified truthfully before the 9/11 commission --
which is all I did. Or take former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. He tried to
work within the system. However, he was fired for telling the truth and
expressing his well-founded concern about Bush's excessive tax cuts for the
upper incomes. This is a presidency that does not like the truth told about
their activities.

If, as I believe to be the case, things are going to get rough for Bush and
Cheney given the potential scandals they face, others like Clarke and O'Neill
may fill the role I found myself having to fulfill. But the stakes are higher
now. No one died because of the abuses of power known as Watergate. Too many
have died (and more in the future may) because of the abuses of power by this
presidency. That's why their abuses are worse than Watergate.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

[ About the writer: David Talbot is Salon's founder and editor in chief. ]

* * *


The Guardian (UK):


March 31, 2004

MAYBE NONE OF THEM ARE TERRORISTS
Even the US military's own lawyers realise Guantanamo is an own goal

by Isabel Hilton, The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1182349,00.html

Consider this theoretical possibility: if no weapons of mass destruction have
been found in Iraq, is it also possible that there are no al-Qaida terrorists in
Guantanamo? It seems far fetched, put so bluntly. If only by chance, it would
seem likely that some of the detainees might be terrorists. The US secretary of
defence, Donald Rumsfeld, argues that the inhumane incarceration, the secrecy
and the abuse of any principles of justice are all justified by the fact that
these prisoners are the hardest of hard cases. But given what we know of those
who have been released, the refusal of the US to open the evidence to challenge,
and the secrecy that surrounds the prison and all who languish there, the
proposition is worth considering. And since none of us have been allowed to know
much, it is worth listening to those who know a little more.

Lt Commander Charles Smith of the US navy is one of the five serving officers
assigned to the defence of Guantanamo prisoners who attended a meeting in Oxford
last weekend to discuss the realities rather than the myths of Guantanamo. Smith
has visited Guantanamo Bay several times and has come closer than most non-
inmates to what happens there.

When the military defenders were first assigned, they seemed like another
implausible piece of the rigged and unfair process. The defenders, after all,
are subject to military discipline and signed up to the military worldview.
Their ultimate boss is the same Donald Rumsfeld who has already announced that
even should a prisoner be found not guilty, he would not necessarily release
him.

The military defenders may never get their day in court with their clients, but
they have already done invaluable service by denouncing Rumsfeld's system as
impossibly unfair and challenging it in the US supreme court. But their concerns
go deeper.

Smith, a military defence attorney for more than seven years, went to Guantanamo
expecting his client to be a hardened terrorist. Instead, he met a Yemeni
migrant who had got a job driving agricultural workers on Osama bin Laden's farm
near Kandahar and had ended up as one of several drivers who chauffered the man
himself. Appalled by September 11 and by Bin Laden's reaction to it, he left his
job as soon as he safely could, then, as war was imminent, took his wife to
safety in Pakistan. He had returned to Afghanistan to try to sell his car and
pack up when he was detained and handed over to US forces.

It makes sense to Smith that his client should have been detained as a
potentially valuable intelligence source and a useful witness. But, he says:
"Would you charge Al Capone's chauffeur with Al Capone's crimes? I had to ask
myself, after I'd met him, is this really the best they've got? Are there no
real terrorists in Guantanamo Bay?"

Out of more than 600 people, only six have been designated for trial. Nearly 100
detainees have been released with no more explanation than had been given for
their detention. One Afghan detainee was handed $100 by a US military officer as
he arrived at Kabul airport, as though he were a taxi driver being tipped for
carrying his bags.

The Tipton Three have given accounts of dreadful ill-treatment during their
incarceration. Despite months of often violent interrogation - carried out, they
say, with the participation of British officials - they too were accused of
nothing. Now among those who have been deemed appropriate for trial - the inner
circle of the hard core of the hardest of the hard - we find men like Smith's
client, men who look strangely like innocent bystanders. It is, as Smith puts
it, profoundly troubling.

Why should we care about this? We are, after all, confronted with a genuine
threat from terrorism, and perhaps the Guantanamo detainees are not such a high
price to pay for security. That, at least, appears to be the view of the US
administration. But Guantanamo is not only a manifest affront to justice; it is
the thin end of the wedge. In addition to those held at Guantanamo there are
13,000 prisoners in Iraq, detained without trial, and an estimated 6,000 in
Afghanistan of whose fate almost nothing is known. "Evidence" obtained in secret
interrogations - that we now know are so abusive that they amount to torture -
is beginning to appear in other cases in other countries. If Guantanamo is
allowed to stand, it could undermine justice across the world - without
enhancing our security one iota.

If the fiasco of the phantom weapons of mass destruction has taught us anything,
it is that those who hide behind intelligence may have bad motives, bad
intelligence - or both. Good intelligence is a vital instrument against
terrorists and too important to be misused. Judicial safeguards are not only
civilised and ethical instruments, they are also a means of ensuring, as far as
possible, that the court arrives at the truth. Without those safeguards, the
wrong people get locked up - and, equally to the point - the wrong people stay
free.

It is the duty of the legal defence to challenge the prosecution's facts and the
interpretation of the facts. If the facts do not withstand the challenge, the
accused goes free and, in a perfect world, the police redouble their efforts to
catch the real perpetrator. But imagine if there is no defence - or if the
defence is deliberately crippled. Translate that to terrorism and it is clear
that Guantanamo is a huge obstacle to anyone who is serious about defeating
terrorism.

It may not be pretty, the US administration argues, but this is war: the
interrogation may lack the usual safeguards, but it has provided a rich harvest
of invaluable information. Perhaps. But that is not the view of several
experienced FBI officers who have taken part in interrogations and who,
concluding swiftly that Guantanamo was a waste of time, left to pursue the fight
against terrorists in the real world.

After two years of appalling conditions, uncertainty and manifest injustice, any
prisoner - especially an innocent one - will despair. In those conditions, he
may talk, but, as any psychiatrist will testify, the information is unreliable.
What an interrogator may perceive as a breakthrough may simply be a prisoner in
despair of the truth, offering false confession, false accusation, invented
testimony.

"Why should an American care about a Yemeni?" asked Charles Smith. "Because the
only way you can know you have the right man is with a fair, independent
hearing. If my client seeks his rights, he may be denied a hearing at all: the
president can detain him indefinitely."

And why is he so determined to fight Guantanamo? "I agree with the president,"
he said. "Al-Qaida can't alter America. Only we can alter America. I have met
the enemy, and he is us."

isabel.hilton@guardian.co.uk

* * *


Los Angeles Daily News:

March 30, 2004

HOUSE SEEKS ACCOUNT OF DETAINED CITIZENS

By Lisa Friedman, Washington Bureau

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~20954~2051981,00.html

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. attorney general would have to tell Congress exactly how
many U.S. citizens are being detained because of suspected terrorist ties, under
legislation the House passed Tuesday.

The provision, authored by Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Pasadena, also requires the
Justice Department to explain the standards used to distinguish enemy combatants
from criminal defendants.

The move comes as the Supreme Court prepares to examine the Bush
administration's anti-terrorism policies by hearing the cases of Jose Padilla
and Yaser Esam Hamdi, who have been held without charges by the U.S. military as
suspected terrorists.

Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First in Washington, D.C.,
called the provision's passage "an expression of congressional concern about the
administration's secrecy regarding the people that it is holding."

The bill also includes language by Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Thousand Oaks,
boosting the Justice Department's mandate to capture terrorists involved in acts
outside the United States that harm Americans.

The provisions by Schiff and Gallegly were included in legislation reauthorizing
the Justice Department's operations through 2006. The House passed the bill in a
voice vote. It remains jammed, however, in the U.S. Senate where lawmakers
continue to debate cuts to law enforcement grants.

"The question is, is that bill going to move? I don't think so," said Massimino.
"I do think there is a growing discomfort on the part of some members of
Congress with the secrecy and the prolonged period of time that the government
has been holding people without any real sense of movement or process."

The cases of Padilla and Hamdi will be argued before the Supreme Court on April
28.

Lisa Friedman, (202) 662-8731 lisa.friedman@langnews.com

* * *


Washington Times:

March 30, 2004

CHICAGO, L.A. TOWERS WERE NEXT TARGETS

By Paul Martin, The Washington Times

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040330-120655-9785r.htm

LONDON -- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, al Qaeda's purported operations chief, has
told U.S. interrogators that the group had been planning attacks on the Library
Tower in Los Angeles and the Sears Tower in Chicago on the heels of the
September 11, 2001, terror strikes.

Those plans were aborted mainly because of the decisive U.S. response to the New
York and Washington attacks, which disrupted the terrorist organization's plans
so thoroughly that it could not proceed, according to transcripts of his
conversations with interrogators.

Mohammed told interrogators that he and Ramzi Yousuf, his nephew who was behind
an earlier attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, had leafed through almanacs
of American skyscrapers when planning the first operation.

"We were looking for symbols of economic might," he told his captors.

He specifically mentioned as potential targets the Library Tower in Los Angeles,
which was "blown up" in the film "Independence Day," and the Sears Tower in
Chicago.

A British newspaper over the weekend published a detailed account that it said
was taken from transcripts of the interrogation of Mohammed, who was captured
last year in Pakistan.

The transcripts are prefaced with a warning that Mohammed, the most senior al
Qaeda member yet to be caught, "has been known to withhold information or
deliberately mislead."

According to the transcript, Mohammed has maintained that Zacarias Moussaoui,
the French-Moroccan facing trial in the United States as the "20th hijacker,"
had been sent to a flight school in Minnesota to train for a West Coast attack.

That would buttress Moussaoui's contention that he is improperly charged with
participation in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, because
he was preparing for a different al Qaeda operation.

The new transcripts confirm an earlier report by the Associated Press that al
Qaeda originally had planned to crash hijacked airliners into targets on both
coasts.

The London Sunday Times said the transcripts covered interrogations conducted
during a period of four months after a bleary-eyed Mohammed was captured in a
pre-dawn raid a little more than a year ago.

The confessions reveal that planning for the September 11 attacks started much
earlier and was more elaborate than previously thought.

"The original plan was for a two-pronged attack with five targets on the East
Coast of America and five on the West Coast," he told interrogators, according
to the transcript.

"We talked about hitting California as it was America's richest state, and [al
Qaeda leader Osama] bin Laden had talked about economic targets."

He is reported to have said that bin Laden, who like Mohammed had studied
engineering, vetoed simultaneous coast-to-coast attacks, arguing that "it would
be too difficult to synchronize."

Mohammed then decided to conduct two waves of attacks, hitting the East Coast
first and following up with a second series of attacks.

"Osama had said the second wave should focus on the West Coast," he reportedly
said.

But the terrorists seem to have been surprised by the strength of the American
reaction to the September 11 attacks.

"Afterwards, we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the
run," Mohammed is quoted as saying.

Al Qaeda's communications network was severely disrupted, he said. Operatives
could no longer use satellite phones and had to rely on couriers, although they
continued to use Internet chat rooms.

"Before September 11, we could dispatch operatives with the expectation of
follow-up contact, but after October 7 [when U.S. bombing started in
Afghanistan], that changed 180 degrees. There was no longer a war room ... and
operatives had more autonomy."

Mohammed told interrogators that he remained in Pakistan for 10 days after
September 11, 2001, then went to Afghanistan to find bin Laden.

When he was captured in March last year in the home of a microbiologist in
Rawalpindi, Pakistan, the 37-year-old was unshaven and wearing a baggy vest.

The interrogation reports also indicate that Mohammed had introduced bin Laden
to Hambali, the Indonesian militant accused in the terror attack that killed
more than 200 people in Bali, Indonesia, in October 2002.

Mohammed was running a hostel filtering al Qaeda recruits in Peshawar, Pakistan,
when he scouted Hambali, whose real name is Riduan Ismuddin and who ran the
Islamist group Jemaah Islamiyah in Asia.

Later, Mohammed moved to Karachi, Pakistan. There, posing as a businessman
importing holy water from Mecca, Saudi Arabia, he acted as a fund-raiser and
intermediary between militants and sponsors in the Gulf.

His first planned anti-American attack was Operation Bojinka (Serbo-Croatian for
"big bang") -- a plot to blow up 12 U.S. airliners over the Pacific.

Yousuf and Hambali were involved in the scheme, which failed when the
conspirators' Manila bomb factory caught fire. The men fled to Pakistan, where
Yousuf was arrested.

* * *


The Guardian (UK):

March 30, 2004

'HE IS NOT GUILTY AND HE IS NOT INNOCENT'

When Guantanamo chaplain Captain James Yee was arrested allegedly with secret
documents about the prison, he was threatened with execution and branded a
traitor. So why after months in jail was he only charged with adultery and
quietly released? A strange and troubling tale from the new American era of
homeland security...

By Oliver Burkeman, The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1180772,00.html

Captain James Yee became a prime target in the war against terror one morning
last September, although nobody deemed it particularly important to inform his
wife, Huda Suboh, who drove to an airport outside Seattle later that day to meet
a plane her husband had never actually boarded. Yee had been due home on leave
from his job as a Muslim army chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, but several days would
pass before Suboh found out why he never showed up. He had been arrested and
detained en route, suspected of espionage and aiding America's enemies.
According to military officials, a search of his bags had revealed pages and
pages of classified information - detailed maps of the base, diagrams of the
cells, and notes on individual inmates. The implication was clear. Yee was up to
no good, and may have been plotting a jailbreak of barely comprehensible
audacity.

Falls from grace do not come much more precipitous. Despite their differing
faiths, Yee, now 36, had been the answer to George Bush's prayers: a Chinese-
American convert to Islam, he was regularly wheeled out in media interviews as
living proof that Washington was not at war with Muslims. ("When I go into the
field," he told one reporter, "I have a copy of the Koran, and next to it, a
copy of the US Constitution.") Now the Guantanamo chaplain seemed to have
confirmed the worst anti-Islamic prejudices, and imperilled his country at the
same time. He was detained for months in a navy brig, spending a large
proportion of the time in solitary confinement and shackled in leg-irons.
Pentagon lawyers threatened the death penalty, which was unsurprising, because
Yee's case was deeply alarming. It still is, but for different reasons. Earlier
this month, the army quietly dropped all criminal charges against him;
yesterday, he launched a legal battle to clear his name entirely. The military
has offered no evidence for its allegations that he was a spy or a traitor, no
apology - and no explanation for one of the strangest and most troubling tales
from the new American era of homeland security.

President Bush's war was not Yee's first. A graduate of the prestigious West
Point military academy, he had already served in a battalion in Saudia Arabia
during the 1991 Gulf war. He was raised a Lutheran, but had drawn close to
Islam, and after the conflict he left the army to study the Koran in Damascus
for four years. "And not at some dinky school either - a real high Koran
school," says his mother, Fong Yee, in the unmistakable tones of her Brooklyn
birthplace. Speaking from her home in Springfield, New Jersey, she is plainly
boiling with rage. "And when he came back, Jimmy was invited to the Pentagon. He
was invited to rejoin the army. I got a commendation letter from General Miller"
- Geoffrey Miller, who would later spearhead the prosecution of her son - "about
how well he was doing. I got that in March. And then in September they arrest
him."

Sent to Guantanamo in November 2002, Yee appears to have thrown himself into his
duties. For 10 months, he was the only Muslim chaplain there, and in this role
he arranged for ritual calls to prayer to be broadcast over Camp Delta's PA
system. He checked that the inmates' dietary requirements were being met, and
led a handful of Muslim troops in prayer. "He was called by the guards when
there were problems," Father Raymond Tetreault, a Catholic chaplain who served
alongside him, recalled in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. Yee would
chide camp guards for insensitive behaviour, Tetreault remembered. He would
upbraid them, for example, if they manhandled detainees' copies of the Koran.
That seems to have been the only outward indication of any tension between Yee
and his colleagues - until September 10 the next year, when he was stopped at an
air base in Florida in possession of documents "that a chaplain shouldn't have",
as one military official later put it to CNN.

By the time the story became public, through a leak to the Bush-friendly
Washington Times newspaper, the seriousness of Yee's situation was evident. The
Washington Times had obtained documents listing the proposed charges against Yee
- espionage, spying, and aiding the enemy - and broke the news that he had been
sent to a navy jail at Charleston, in South Carolina.

At first, Yee was considered to present a high security risk, and for many of
his 76 days in confinement he wore manacles and leg-irons. "That hell will never
be wiped out of his mind," says Fong Yee, who with her husband Joseph eventually
obtained the right to visit James, once. "There was so much disrespect
perpetrated on Jimmy. Nothing he could do except pray and read the Koran."

But with Yee now safely incarcerated, the army's zealous pursuit of the chaplain
took a baffling turn. When charges were finally brought, they did not include
espionage, but instead only a much lesser accusation of "mishandling classified
documents". Exactly how secret the documents were proved to be somewhat
mysterious, too: the Pentagon postponed Yee's trial five times while it tried to
answer this question itself. "Think about it," says Gary Solis, a former
prosecutor in the Marines who now teaches law of war at Georgetown University in
Washington. "They charge him with having classified documents, but they don't
know if they're classified or not. Now, I don't want to slam our military too
badly in the foreign press, but does this not represent a certain lack of
competence?" The army itself did not seem to treat the seized papers as if they
posed a threat to national security. In the middle of trial preparations,
military prosecutors accidentally delivered some of them to the home of Eugene
Fidell, Yee's defence lawyer.

Before the status of the documents could be determined, though, Yee received two
further blows from an unexpected direction: he was charged with adultery, and
with downloading pornography on to an army computer. (He denied both.) At a
hearing attended by his wife and their daughter Sarah, now four, Yee listened as
a female soldier, who had been granted immunity in exchange for her testimony,
detailed an alleged affair with him. In 20 years as a military lawyer, Solis
says, he had never seen an adultery accusation used in this way: the archaic-
sounding charge is almost always used against soldiers to back up a far more
serious one, such as rape. The prosecution was beginning to look desperate. "It
was just a very shabby attack on Yee," Solis says. "They said, 'Hey, our case
has turned to crap, but oh wait, we have this.' They picked something to
embarrass and humiliate him that was entirely unrelated." Yee's security status
was downgraded, and he was eventually released, with severe restrictions on his
movements.

Back at their home in Springfield, people were beginning to treat Yee's parents
with suspicion, but it was not in Fong Yee's nature to let them gossip
undisturbed. "You'd go to the mall," she says today, "and people would recognise
that I'm [south-east] Asian, and you'd hear them whisper about how she looks
like that chaplain who was a spy. I'd go stand behind them in line and just put
my nose in and say, 'You know, I feel like you're talking about me. I wonder if
you'd like some information about the case?'" She believes the army was
motivated by "paranoia" about Islam, though Yee's religious choices had never
been a family issue. "I raised him a Christian. Big deal!" she says. "That's
what mothers are supposed to do: raise 'em something, and then they're free to
choose."

Earlier this year, Fidell offered prosecutors a deal: drop the charges against
his client, and he would submit to a lie-detector test to prove he knew nothing
about espionage plots at Guantanamo. The army, Joseph Yee says, "just didn't
know how to back off and say they'd made a mistake".

And then, the Friday before last, just short of 200 days since Yee was first
detained, General Miller authorised the army's southern command, based in Miami,
to issue a statement. It was released on a Friday evening, traditionally the
best time in the American news cycle to bury a story. The army would not, after
all, be presenting evidence relating to any maps, notes or diagrams Yee was
allegedly carrying. "Citing national security concerns that would arise from the
release of the evidence," it read, "Miller decided to drop these charges."

The pornography and adultery charges, meanwhile, were relegated to a non-
criminal hearing, which took place last week. He was found technically guilty,
but the army opted to impose none of the punishments within its power - docking
his pay, for example, or confining him to barracks for several weeks. He
received a written reprimand, and launched an appeal against it yesterday. A
case that had begun with the threat of the death penalty had ended with the
lightest ticking-off it was within the court's power to give.

"In the end, they didn't even have the good grace to dismiss the charges in a
gentlemanly way," Solis says. "In law, we have a saying: bad cases never get
better, only worse. This case was bad from the beginning. And when it turned
worse, the lawyers didn't have the sense to back off. Instead, they did whatever
it took to make Yee look bad." Yee is not giving interviews, but Fidell told
reporters his client had been "the victim of an incredible drive-by act of legal
violence".

Lieutenant Bill Costello, a spokesman for southern command, insists the Yee
family are "absolutely not" entitled to an apology. "The risk to our national
security and our operations at Guantanamo Bay and the war on terror that would
have been jeopardised, merely to prosecute Chaplain Yee, was weighed - and
overwhelmingly it was not worth the risk." On the document-mishandling charges,
Costello says, "He's not guilty and he's not innocent."

"That's beneath contempt as an official statement," says Fidell. "It shows
exactly the tin ear that has characterised the government's actions in this
case." (Pressed on the matter, Costello subsequently concedes that Yee is indeed
innocent until proven guilty.)

The terms of Yee's reprimand allow him to return at once to resume his job at
his home base of Fort Lewis, in Washington state. When I spoke to Joseph Yee,
midway through the proceedings, he seemed to discount this as a possibility for
his son - even though leaving the army, he said, might break his heart. But now
there is an iron determination in Fong Yee's voice. As usual, she says, she
wouldn't seek to determine James's choices in life. "But if it was me? I would
stay in the army. You know, I liked my job before you stepped on me. I loved it.
So I'm not going to leave it now. I would want the government to see what an
honourable person looks like. I would say: 'You made a big mistake. Now let me
carry on doing my job in a respectful and patriotic way.'"

* * *


Reuters:

March 29, 2004

ARMY GUANTANAMO CHAPLAIN YEE APPEALS PUNISHMENT
By Will Dunham

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4690330
&section=news

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Army should throw out the reprimand given to a
Guantanamo Bay Muslim chaplain because the U.S. general who punished Capt. James
Yee on adultery and pornography charges was biased and the proceedings were "a
hoax by any standard," his lawyers said on Monday.

Yee's lawyers, in an appeal filed late on Sunday, said Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey
Miller's March 22 decision to put a written reprimand in Yee's permanent
military record should be set aside as "unjust and disproportionate" and "a
grave miscarriage of justice," and the charges against Yee dismissed.

Miller commanded the prison facilities at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, where Yee, 36, ministered for 10 months to foreign terrorism suspects.
Miller left the post two days after deciding Yee's case.

Army Gen. James Hill, who heads Miami-based U.S. Southern Command and is
responsible for Guantanamo operations, normally would decide the appeal. But
Yee's lawyers asked Hill to recuse himself in light of his prior involvement in
the case.

Yee's legal team, headed by Eugene Fidell, said Miller also was not impartial.

"His insistence on retaining the case regardless of the truncation of Chaplain
Yee's rights confirms his inability to bring to bear the requisite
impartiality," they said.

"The proceeding that ensued is a hoax by any standard."

The appeal faulted Miller for giving Yee only three days notice of a nonjudicial
punishment hearing after dismissing all criminal charges against him, depriving
the defense of time to prepare a case.

It said the Army gave Yee's lawyers the evidence it planned to use just 11
minutes before the start of the hearing, and accused Miller of improperly
consulting in private with an Army prosecutor during the proceedings.

In the administrative hearing last week, Miller found Yee guilty of committing
adultery and downloading pornography on a government computer, but the decision
did not represent a criminal conviction under military law.

Miller only three days earlier dismissed all six criminal charges against Yee,
including mishandling classified information and the lesser adultery and
pornography charges. This marked the collapse of the Army's espionage case
against Yee that began with accusations in court documents of spying, mutiny,
sedition, aiding the enemy and espionage.

The appeal said Yee already has been severely punished since his arrest last
September, noting he spent 76 days in solitary confinement at a Navy brig in
South Carolina

* * *


Melbourne Herald Sun:

29 March, 2004

AL-QAEDA CHIEF REVEALS FULL 9/11 PLAN
By Christina Lamb

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/
0,5478,9109387%255E401,00.html

IT makes a chilling picture. The mastermind behind the September 11 attacks has
told interrogators that he and his terrorist nephew leafed through almanacs of
US skyscrapers when planning the operation.

Sears Tower in Chicago and Library Tower in Los Angeles - which was "blown up"
in the film Independence Day - were both potential targets, according to
transcripts of interrogations of al-Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed. "We were looking for symbols of economic might," he told his captors.

He recounted sitting looking at the books with Ramzi Yusuf, his nephew by
marriage, who was the man behind the first World Trade Centre bombing in 1993.
In that attack Yusuf succeeded only in ripping a crater into the foundations
with a van bomb.

"We knew from that experience that explosives could be problematic," Khalid
said, "so we started thinking about using planes."

When he was captured last March in the house of a microbiologist in Rawalpindi,
Pakistan, the paunchy 37-year-old was unshaven and wearing a baggy vest. He
looked more like a down-and-out than one of the most dangerous men in the world.

The interrogation reports make clear, however, that he was not only the chief
planner for September 11 but also introduced Osama bin Laden to Hambali, the
Indonesian militant accused of orchestrating the Bali bombing 13 months later.

To date, Khalid is the most senior al-Qaeda member to have been caught. Until
now there has been no word of where he is being held or what, if anything, he is
saying.

Although the interrogation transcripts are prefaced with the warning that "the
detainee has been known to withhold information or deliberately mislead", it is
clear that he is talking - and that the September 11 conspiracy was much more
extensive than has previously been revealed.

The confessions reveal planning for the atrocity started much earlier than
anyone had realised and was intended to be even more devastating.

"The original plan was for a two-pronged attack with five targets on the east
coast of America and five on the west coast," he told interrogators.

"We talked about hitting California as it was America's richest state and bin
Laden had talked about economic targets."

Bin Laden, who like Khalid had studied engineering, vetoed simultaneous coast-
to-coast attacks, arguing that "it would be too difficult to synchronise".

Khalid switched to two waves: hitting the east coast first and following up with
a second attack. "Osama had said the second wave should focus on the west
coast," he said.

Zacarias Moussaoui, a French-Moroccan who had lived in London, was sent to the
Pan Am international flight school in Minnesota to train for the west coast
attack, according to Khalid. His instructor alerted the FBI, however, after the
Moroccan showed no interest in landing planes - only in steering them. He was
arrested in August 2001.

Until now it had been widely believed that Moussaoui was meant to have been the
20th hijacker on September 11. The revelation by Khalid that he was part of a
"second wave" is lent weight by the FBI's recent arrest of two other men who
were allegedly part of the west coast conspiracy.

Despite the setbacks, Khalid described the September 11 attack as "far more
successful than we had ever imagined".

Khalid, whose family came from Pakistan, was born in 1965 in Kuwait City, where
his father was a preacher. He joined the Muslim Brotherhood as a teenager and
went to the US to study engineering in North Carolina.

At that time the Afghan jihad against the Russians was in full flow. After
graduating, Khalid headed for one of bin Laden's guesthouses in the Pakistani
frontier town of Peshawar. He has told interrogators it was there that he first
met Hambali.

In 1992 Khalid moved south to Karachi. Posing as a businessman importing holy
water from Mecca, he acted as a fundraiser and intermediary between young
militants and wealthy sponsors in the Gulf.

Yusuf's attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre inspired him to conceive his
own operations. The first was a plot to blow up 12 American airliners over the
Pacific. Both Yusuf and Hambali were involved. It failed after their Manila bomb
factory caught fire. The men fled to Pakistan where Yusuf was arrested.

Undeterred, Khalid decided to start working on something "far more spectacular"
for which he "hoped to persuade bin Laden to give him money and operatives". He
also decided to introduce Hambali to bin Laden.
-Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker, was believed to have been plotting a
wider wave of attacks on the US west coast before he was arrested / AP

Hambali headed Jemaah Islamiah, which wanted to unite Southeast Asia under an
Islamic banner.

Khalid told interrogators: "I was impressed by JI's ability to operate
regionally and by Hambali's connections with the Malaysian government. He told
me that his group had a training camp in The Philippines and a madrasah
(religious teaching) program in Malaysia on the border with Singapore.

"In 1996 I invited Hambali to Afghanistan to meet Osama. He spent three or four
days with him and it was agreed that al-Qaeda and Hambali's organisation would
work together on 'targets of mutual interest'."

Hambali, who had been operating on a shoestring, was provided with a new car,
mobile phones and computers.

Bin Laden was apparently impressed by Khalid's networking and ideas and made him
head of al-Qaeda's military committee. From then on he was a key planner in
almost every attack, including the simultaneous bombings of the US embassies in
Kenya and Tanzania in 1988. Bin Laden dubbed him The Brain.

The big challenge was to attack Americans on their own soil. Initially Khalid
proposed leasing a charter plane, filling it with explosives and crashing it
into the CIA headquarters. But the plan expanded.

Bin Laden pointed out that on a visit to the US in 1982 he had been to the
Empire State Building in New York and was astonished by how unprotected such key
landmarks were.

A committee, known as the shura, was formed comprising bin Laden, Khalid and
four others. It met at what was known as the war room in bin Laden's camp
outside Jalalabad in Afghanistan. The plan for a two-pronged attack was formed.
"We had scores of volunteers to die for Allah but the problem was finding those
familiar with the West who could blend in as well as get US visas," Khalid told
his interrogators.

Two Yemenis and two Saudi pilots, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, were
selected and given commando training in Afghanistan. "All four operatives only
knew that they had volunteered for a martyrdom operation involving planes,"
Khalid said.

In 1999 the two Yemenis were refused US visas; but a few months later four jihad
recruits from Hamburg arrived in Quetta, Pakistan. Led by Mohammed Atta, an
Egyptian, they had originally planned to go to Chechnya to fight the Russians,
but a former mujaheddin in Germany had given them an introduction to bin Laden.

After meeting the al-Qaeda leader in Kandahar, they delivered the baia, the oath
of allegiance required to gain access to his inner circle, and were invited to
his Ramadan feast. He told them that they had been selected for a top-secret
mission and promised that they would enter paradise as martyrs. They were
instructed to go home and destroy their passports so their trip to Pakistan
would be undetected. They were then to shave off their beards, go to the US and
obtain pilot's licences.

Khalid told interrogators he had provided them with a special training manual
which included information on how to find flight schools and study timetables.

Three of the four were granted US visas and travelled to the US. The fourth,
Ramzi Binalshibh, failed and returned to Afghanistan, where he communicated with
them through internet chat rooms.

In the spring of 2000, after a planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, bin Laden
scaled back the plan from two-prong to two-wave because they had been unable to
get enough potential pilots into the US. Moussaoui succeeded in entering the US,
but the order went out for potential recruits who were not Arab, Khalid told his
captors.

A date was set for the first-wave attack, codenamed Porsche 911, and a message
went around the world for followers to return to Afghanistan by September 10.

The messages were intercepted by several Western intelligence agencies but none
apparently realised their significance.

When the suicide planes struck on September 11, al-Qaeda seems to have been
taken by surprise - both by the success of the attacks and by the US reaction.

"Afterwards we never got time to catch our breath, we were immediately on the
run," Khalid said.

"Osama declared Tony Blair our principal enemy and London a target."
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,
to US interrogators
He said the war on terrorism and the US bombing of Afghanistan completely
disrupted their communications network. Operatives could no longer use satellite
phones and had to rely on couriers, although they still used internet chat
rooms.

"Before September 11 we could dispatch operatives with the expectation of
follow-up contact but after October 7 (when the bombing started) that changed
180 degrees. There was no longer a war room or shura and operatives had more
autonomy."

He told interrogators that he remained in Pakistan for 10 days after September
11, then went to Afghanistan to find bin Laden: "I went to Jalalabad, Tora Bora,
looking for him and then eventually met him in Kabul."

The al-Qaeda leader instructed him to continue operations - with Britain as the
next target.

"It was at this time we discussed the Heathrow operation," Khalid said. "Osama
declared (British Prime Minister Tony) Blair our principal enemy and London a
target."

He arranged for operatives to be sent from Pakistan and Afghanistan to London,
where surveillance of Heathrow airport and the surrounding areas began. However,
he claimed, the operation never got beyond the planning stages. "There was a lot
of confusion," he said. "I would say my performance at that time was sloppy."

One priority was to get Hambali out of Afghanistan. In November 2001, Khalid
arranged for him to go to Karachi. There he gave him $US20,000 and a false
Indonesian passport with which he could travel to Sri Lanka and on to Thailand,
from where he would help to organise the Bali nightclub bombing the following
year. They kept in touch through Hambali's younger brother, who was in Karachi.

The net was closing in around Khalid. Another shura member, Abu Zubayda, was
arrested in Faisalabad in March 2002. Six months later Binalshibh was seized in
a Karachi apartment he shared with Khalid.

Khalid escaped, but his flight came to an end in the early hours of March 2 last
year in Rawalpindi.

Questioned for two days by Pakistan's military intelligence, who say he did
nothing but pray repeatedly, he was flown blindfolded to Bagram, the US base in
the mountains above Kabul.

It is not clear how long he was held there, nor what methods were used to make
him talk. Afghans freed from Bagram claim to have been subjected to sleep
deprivation and extremes of hot and cold. There have also been reports of truth
drugs.

* * *


Contra Costa Times:

March 27, 2004

AIRMAN IS JAILED UNTIL DATE OF TRIAL

By Scott Marshall, Contra Costa Times

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/8291320.htm

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE - A military judge ordered the government Friday to give
significantly more information to attorneys for an airman accused of trying to
spy for Syria, furthering the case toward a June trial.

Damaging revelations came to light in testimony in the third day of pretrial
hearings in the case of Senior Airman Ahmad I. Halabi, 25, a Syrian-American
accused of attempted espionage, mishandling classified information and lying
about his actions.

Col. Barbara Brand cleared the way for defense attorneys to finish preparing to
represent Halabi and ruled that Halabi will remain jailed until his trial. He
still will not be allowed to speak Arabic unless a translator is present. The
restriction is intended to ensure he does not discuss the case or matters
relating to national security without those monitoring him understanding.

Halabi, a native Arabic speaker, was a supply clerk before he was temporarily
reassigned to be a linguist at the U.S. prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
where more than 600 suspected Taliban and al-Qaida members and other detainees
are being held.

Halabi's civilian attorney, Donald Rehkopf Jr., argued that Halabi was never
trained how to handle secret information and found himself translating documents
and conversations for the detainees.

The lead investigator in the case, Air Force Special Agent Lance Wega, testified
Friday that Halabi had a passage with him from a book prosecutors referred to as
"The Book of Jihad" that read: "Whenever the prophet intended to go on an
expedition, he always pretended to be going somewhere else."

Other testimony revealed that Halabi had repeatedly tried to hook up his
personal laptop to government computers at Travis Air Force Base and in Kuwait
and that he had disregarded orders and traveled to Kuwait City, for which he was
reprimanded. He also sent what a prosecutor referred to as an encrypted e-mail
that read: "I met someone. I gave them the item."

Halabi's personal Web site was accessed and altered Sept. 16 from a computer at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, where he is being held. The judge cited that in her
decision to keep Halabi jailed.

The judge Friday also granted defense requests to allow a computer consultant to
help them analyze more than 30,000 pages of documents in the case.

* * *


Reuters:

March 27, 2004

FRENCH LAWYER SAYS HE WILL DEFEND SADDAM
By Noah Barkin

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4677009

PARIS (Reuters) - The French lawyer known for defending Nazi war criminal Klaus
Barbie and guerrilla Carlos the Jackal said Saturday that Saddam Hussein's
nephew had chosen him to represent the deposed Iraqi president.

Jacques Verges told Reuters in a telephone interview he had received a letter
from Ali Barzan al-Tikriti, whose father Barzan al-Tikriti is Saddam's half-
brother, asking him to defend the former Iraqi dictator, captured by U.S. forces
in December.

The U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council in Baghdad is setting up a war crimes
tribunal to try Saddam on charges which may include genocide and crimes against
humanity.

Washington has said the 66-year-old Saddam, whose interrogation is being led by
the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), should be tried in Iraq.

Verges, who is also defending former Iraqi deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz,
said he had accepted the job of defending Saddam and suggested his strategy
would focus on the role played by the United States and other countries in
supporting the Iraqi leader in the 1980s.

"We know very well that the Anglo-Americans armed Saddam Hussein, that the
chemical weapons were sold by the allies," Verges said in a telephone interview.

SIGHTS ON RUMSFELD

Washington helped Saddam obtain intelligence and military equipment and,
according to a U.S. Centers for Disease Control document in the U.S. Senate
record, Iraq also obtained from the United States biological agents that could
have been turned into weapons.

The United States was at the time supporting Iraq in its war against the old
U.S. foe Iran, at a time when Saddam used chemical weapons against Iranian
forces and Iraqi Kurds.

Britain, France, Germany, Italy and the former Soviet Union also supplied Iraq
with equipment, expertise and funding over the years.

The West's close military and commercial relationship with Saddam ended when
Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.

Verges singled out Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a key advocate of last
year's U.S.-led war to oust Saddam, for his role 20 years ago as a special envoy
of U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

He said that if a trial of Saddam took place, Rumsfeld would have to "take a
seat next to the leader."

Verges decried U.S. treatment of Saddam since his capture and said he feared the
former dictator could be killed before he had a chance to stand trial.

The United States declared Saddam a prisoner of war last month, meaning he has
certain rights under the Geneva Convention on treatment of such detainees. But
U.S. officials have said they do not rule out the possibility that the United
States might re-evaluate that status in the future.

Verges has taken on tough cases before. Barbie, known as the "butcher of Lyon,"
was jailed for life in 1987 for crimes against humanity in Nazi-occupied France.

Carlos the Jackal, whose real name is Illich Ramirez Sanchez, is serving a life
sentence in France for a string of deadly attacks in Europe in the 1970s and
1980s.

Charges against Saddam could cover his campaign against Iraqi Kurds in the
1980s, the use of chemical weapons on Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians, the
crushing of Kurdish and Shi'ite Muslim uprisings in 1991 and the oppression of
minority groups in the south and north of the country.

The United States and Britain cited Iraqi chemical and biological arms as their
justification for invading the country last March. No such weapons have come to
light since they toppled Saddam, despite intensive searches.

* * *


Fairfield / Suisun City Daily Republic:

March 26, 2004

JUDGE WON'T DISMISS CASE AGAINST AIRMAN
By Ian Thompson

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/articles/2004/03/26/news/news2.txt

TRAVIS AFB -- Military Judge Col. Barbara Brand tossed out a motion to dismiss
the case against Travis Air Force Base Senior Airman Ahmad I. Al Halabi
Thursday, calling a dismissal "a drastic remedy."

Al Halabi's lawyers asked for the dismissal, contending they weren't being given
adequate access to government evidence that would help them build their defense.

Brand stated that contrary to the defense team's allegations, the prosecution
team has acted in good faith when it came to showing Al Halabi's attorneys what
they had.

Al Halabi, 25, a native of Syria, was a supply clerk with the 60th Logistics
Readiness Squadron when he was temporarily assigned to Guantanamo Bay as a
translator for detainees kept there.

He was arrested in July 2003 at Jacksonville Naval Air Station, Fla., while on
his way back to Travis AFB prior to heading to Syria to get married.

Air Force Office of Special Investigations agents stated Thursday he was caught
carrying a laptop computer with 180 e-mail messages from detainees on it.

Al Halabi now faces 17 counts of espionage, lying to investigators and trying to
deliver the notes to Syria.

Although not given carte blanche, Brand said Al Halabi's lawyers have been given
access to the evidence the prosecution plans to use in stating its case against
the Travis AFB senior airman.

How Air Force and other government investigators went about classifying the
evidence had been inconsistent, but steps were now being taken to ensure
consistency and adequate access, Brand said.

Brand called the case a complicated one "that has continued to evolve since the
arrest" of Al Halabi.

Questioning of OSI special agents by defense counsel Maj. Kim London showed that
Al Halabi's investigation is still a work in progress with both a criminal
investigation and a counter-intelligence investigation still going forward.

Brand asked OSI Special Agent Lance Wega to get back to her with a date when the
OSI expects to wrap up the investigation and compile a final report on the case.

While a good number of the charges initially levied against Al Halabi were
dropped earlier this year, his lawyers are concerned that they could be brought
back depending on what the investigation comes up with.

They are also concerned this could result in Al Halabi being to trial again on
other charges.

"We are going to trial with the specter of another trial hanging over us," said
Maj. James Key, one of Al Halabi's defense lawyers.

As for the motion to release Al Halabi from confinement, Brand said she would
take up that subject at another time.

Argument of the pre-trial motions continues today. Al Halabi's court martial is
tentatively scheduled for late April at Travis AFB.

Al Halabi was the first of four Guantanamo Bay workers arrested as part of an
investigation into possible security breaches at the prison.

Last week, the U.S. Army dismissed charges against Capt. James Yee, 35, a
Washington state-based Army chaplain linked to an espionage ring at Guantanamo
and initially charged with mishandling classified information. The government
cited "national security concerns that would arise from the release of the
evidence" if the case proceeded.

Army Reserve Col. Jack Farr was charged in November with transporting secret
documents without proper containers and lying to investigators after he
allegedly was found with classified papers in his bags.

Ahmed F. Mehalba, a civilian linguist, faces charges in federal court of lying
to investigators and mishandling classified data after secret files allegedly
were found on his computer when he landed in Boston on a flight from Egypt. He
has pleaded innocent.

[ The Associated Press contributed to this report. Reach Ian Thompson at
427-6976 or at ithompson@dailyrepublic.net ]

* * *


St. Johnsbury (VT) Caledonian-Record:

March 26, 2004

LSC STUDENT RECALLS ROLE AT GUANTANAMO
By Jeanne Miles, Staff Writer

http://www.caledonianrecord.com/pages/local_news/story/70c05e5bc

LYNDON CENTER VERMONT - Greta Kipp is not your typical college student.

She came to Lyndon State College with a background quite different than most
students.

The Irasburg native served as a human intelligence collector at Guantanamo in
Cuba for one year and shared her experiences Wednesday afternoon at the college
as part of a series of conversations dealing with global studies and the
continuing war against terror.

Sgt. Kipp joined the Army in 1998. She attended various training schools and
studied the Arabic language. She was deployed to Guantanamo in January 2002 and
stayed until the following February. Kipp was discharged from the Army in
December 2003.

Kipp told the large group of people gathered in the Burke Mountain Room at LSC
that she was by no means an expert on the subject and was not representing the
Army and would not answer any questions which might compromise anyone's safety.

When Kipp arrived in Guantanamo, she was one of five interpreters. At the time,
there were 370 detainees waiting to be interviewed.

"It was a fast and furious operation," Kipp said.

Even so, it took a very long time. Many of the men who had been captured in
Afghanistan and taken to Guantanamo were injured, ill or malnourished, Kipp
said. They needed medical care immediately.

At first, Kipp said she strictly was a translator for the Department of Defense.

"Every department has it own intelligence groups," Kipp said. "This can be a
problem because not everyone likes to share information."

Kipp would interview 10 detainees a day. During the year she was there, about
700 men were questioned. Now, the government is using civilian translators, who
also give cultural advice.

At first, Kipp said, the men complained because she would come to them with her
sleeves rolled up, baring her arms. This was something no woman would do in
their home country. Kipp rolled down her sleeves and they began to get to know
her.

The conversations would begin with small talk about the weather or the food.

"In Islam, there are hundreds of greetings and a person may exchange 20 of these
before the conversation can begin," Kipp said.

It was through the small talk that questioners would look for weaknesses to get
the men to open up.

"All we wanted to know is who they were," Kipp said.

All the men detained at Guantanamo had committed crimes, Kipp said. What the
government wanted to know was whether these crimes were linked to larger, terror
organizations. The men came from countries all over the world: Indonesia,
England, North Africa, Chad and Somalia, to name a few.

Kipp said that accusations that the United States used brute force in the
interrogations are not true. Neither are the reports from British detainees who
claimed living conditions were horrendous once they got back home. Claims that
they were kept in wire cages with rats, scorpions and snakes running rampant
just are not true, Kipp said.

"It frustrates me to read about what they say about their living conditions,"
Kipp said. "They had better living conditions than the soldiers who were
guarding them. They ate the same food and received good medical care."

In response to a question about the violation of these men's rights under the
Geneva Convention, Kipp said, because the men were not wearing uniforms, they
were considered "illegal combatants." No trials will be held, but rather
military tribunals, either in the United States or the home country. Kipp did
say the United States may have gone outside the law. "We skipped the part about
an international tribunal to determine if these men were prisoners of war or
whatever."

Kipp said there is no one answer as to why this country is hated. Reasons given
to her were our support of Israel, our occupation of the Middle East and the
fact that the lifestyle in the United States goes against all their religious
beliefs.

"We are the infidels," Kipp said.

Guantanamo will be a permanent base to house detainees from future wars, Kipp
said. And she is sure there will be future wars. "The war on terror is never
going to end."

* * *


Sacramento Bee:

March 25, 2004

SPY SUSPECT TREATED UNFAIRLY, LAWYER INSISTS

By Sam Stanton and Denny Walsh, Bee Staff Writers

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/8639824p-9567820c.html

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE - He is held in an 8-by-11 1/2-foot steel room with no
windows and little ventilation, his moves monitored by two cameras.

His furnishings consist of a steel bunk, foam mattress, metal table and portable
camp toilet. He has not been given access to much of the evidence that may be
used against him, and he is not allowed to speak Arabic, his native tongue,
without an interpreter present.

These are the conditions under which Senior Airman Ahmad I. Al Halabi, a 25-
year-old interpreter accused of spying, is confined while he awaits trial at
this Fairfield-area air base, according to his civilian defense attorney, Don
Rehkopf. As hearings in the case resumed Wednesday, Rehkopf repeated his
contention that Al Halabi is being treated unfairly and renewed calls for the
government to drop all charges against the airman.

For most of the past eight months, Al Halabi has been held at Vandenberg Air
Force Base in central California, where he is provided a larger cell and more
access to his attorneys, Rehkopf said. But the attorney lambasted conditions at
Travis, where Al Halabi was transferred Monday in preparation for the hearings.

"He is in a room that they would not allow a working Air Force dog to live in,"
Rehkopf said.

"It's like living inside a filing cabinet."

Air Force officials say the slight, bespectacled Syrian native is a spy who used
his position as an interpreter at the Naval base in Guantanamo, Cuba, to
secretly gather classified information about the prison there that holds 600
suspected Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. The government contends Al Halabi was
plotting to return to Syria to deliver that information when he was arrested in
Florida in July.

Air Force officials say they are trying to give Al Halabi a fair trial but need
to be tight-lipped in the interests of national security. An Air Force
investigator said Wednesday that the espionage probe against Al Halabi is still
under way. "We're trying to guarantee speed and fairness, and the key to that is
fairness, not speed," said Air Force spokesman Col. John Kellogg.

Al Halabi's attorneys contend he is the unwitting victim of the government's
overzealous campaign against terrorism. They say he was pressed into sensitive
duties at the nation's most secure prison without proper training.

"He was a supply clerk," Rehkopf said. "He was not trained in any way, shape or
form to deal with classified material. He was not trained to deal with
prisoners, but that was part of his daily routine." Wednesday's hearing was the
first in a series of scheduled court sessions on defense motions asking that the
charges be dismissed. The trial is scheduled to begin in late April.

Al Halabi's attorneys say his defense has been hampered by the government's
refusal to provide them access to evidence, as well as policies that prevent
Rehkopf from talking to Al Halabi's two military attorneys about evidence
pertaining to certain classified material. "I ask questions and my co-counsel
says, 'Sorry, you're not cleared to talk to about that,' " Rehkopf said.

Rehkopf, who has handled court-martial cases for 28 years, said the restrictions
are virtually unprecedented. "I've never had an issue like this come up before,
never," Rehkopf said.

Lt. Col. Bryan Wheeler, lead prosecutor, disputed Rehkopf's contentions, telling
Judge Barbara Brand he had spoken to his superiors about the amount of evidence
the defense has received.

"This is more than adequate for the defense to prepare its case," Wheeler said.

But subsequent testimony exhibited how difficult it can be for the defense to
get information.

Defense attorney Maj. Kim London was rebuffed repeatedly as she questioned Air
Force Special Agent Lance Wega, lead investigator in the case. In a series of
questions, London asked Wega to divulge who was interviewed, who was not, and
what they said.

His routine response: "That information I cannot reveal in this setting, ma'am.
It's sensitive and in some cases classified."

Rehkopf told reporters he believes the government's decision late Friday to drop
charges against Army Capt. James Yee, one of three Guantanamo workers who fell
under suspicion of misusing classified information, may signal hope for Al
Halabi.

"Basically, all three were charged with the same thing," Rehkopf said. "Our
position is the evidence they had against Captain Yee is essentially the same."

Al Halabi worked for Yee, a Muslim chaplain who counseled suspected terrorists
at the base, Rehkopf said.

Al Halabi, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was arrested in Florida in July while en
route from Guantanamo to San Francisco and then Syria, where his family says he
was planning to marry.

The government said he had improper contact with the Syrian embassy as part of
his spying; the defense said he simply was arranging for a visa so he could
travel to Syria for his wedding.

Rehkopf said he has not been allowed to talk to Al Halabi about his dealings
with Yee because of security restrictions and that he cannot talk to Yee unless
the government agrees to grant Yee immunity from further prosecution in exchange
for his testimony.

"That's one of the idiotic restrictions," Rehkopf said. "I think (the dismissal
of the Yee case) affects us significantly, but that's a matter that's in dispute
because I can't talk to Captain Yee."

Hearings on the defense motions are scheduled to continue through Friday.

* * *


San Jose Mercury News:

March 25, 2004

JUDGE REFUSES TO DISMISS CASE AGAINST AIR FORCE TRANSLATOR

Jim Wasserman, Associated Press

http://http300.edge.ru4.com/smartserve/ad?placement=si-0088-101&invocation=
1000&pr=

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) - A military judge on Thursday refused to
dismiss espionage and other charges against a U.S. Air Force translator who
worked at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Col. Barbara Brand said a dismissal of all 17 counts, including espionage, lying
and misconduct against Senior Airman Ahmad Al Halabi was too severe a remedy for
his lawyers' claims that the government isn't providing them with enough
information.

"It moves the case forward to where it can be resolved in the very formal
process of a court martial," said Col. John Kellogg, an Air Force attorney.

In seeking to have the charges against his client dismissed, Donald G. Rehkopf,
a civilian and the lead defense attorney, said his military counterparts have
greater access to evidence than he does and he's unable to present a meaningful
defense.

But the judge said Thursday the government has made a good faith effort to
provide Rehkopf with the volumes of classified evidence in the evolving case
against the airman.

Al Halabi's court martial is set to begin April 27.

A naturalized American born in Syria, Al Halabi, 25, was arrested last July at
Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida at the start of a leave, when he was
heading to Syria to get married. He was arraigned in January and has not yet
entered a plea.

He's been in custody for attempting to deliver more than 180 e-mail messages
from detainees to Syria, and for failing to report contacts with the Syrian
Embassy to his superiors. He's also accused of repeatedly lying to Air Force
investigators.

Al Halabi worked as a supply clerk while stationed at Travis, but as a native
Arabic speaker he was recruited for temporary duty as a translator at Guantanamo
Bay, where more than 600 suspected Taliban and al-Qaida members are being held
by the U.S. government.

From November 2002 through July 2003, Al Halabi translated letters to and from
prisoners, provided library books, translated for military police during camp
"riots" and at the medical clinic for sick or injured prisoners, including more
than one attempted suicide, according to court filings.

Al Halabi was the first of four Guantanamo Bay workers arrested as part of an
investigation into possible security breaches at the prison.

Last week, the U.S. Army dismissed charges against Capt. James Yee, 35, a
Washington state-based Army chaplain linked to an espionage ring at Guantanamo
and initially charged with mishandling classified information. The government
cited "national security concerns that would arise from the release of the
evidence" if the case proceeded.

Army Reserve Col. Jack Farr was charged in November with transporting secret
documents without proper containers and lying to investigators after he
allegedly was found with classified papers in his bags.

Ahmed F. Mehalba, a civilian linguist, faces charges in federal court of lying
to investigators and mishandling classified data after secret files allegedly
were found on his computer when he landed in Boston on a flight from Egypt. He
has pleaded innocent.

* * *


San Francisco Chronicle:

March 25, 2004

ACCUSED SPY'S LAWYER BLASTS GOVERNMENT
He says defense is being denied crucial evidence

By Kelly St. John, Chronicle Staff Writer

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/25/BAGRC5QQOM1.DTL

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE -- The government's refusal to share its evidence against
Senior Airman Ahmad I. Al Halabi, an Air Force translator accused of spying at
Guantanamo Bay Prison camp, is so stifling to his defense that the charges
against him should be dismissed, Halabi's attorney told a military judge
Wednesday.

"I've been doing military cases for 28 years. I've never encountered even one-
one hundredth of this difficulty before," Donald G. Rehkopf Jr., Al Halabi's
civilian attorney, said outside the courtroom at Travis Air Force Base.

Al Halabi, 25, is charged with 17 crimes, including espionage, that could send
him to prison for life if he is convicted. Rehkopf said Al Halabi will plead not
guilty.

Rehkopf said his ability to defend Al Halabi was being compromised because the
government had inappropriately classified many documents in the case and barred
him from discussing the material with Al Halabi or two Air Force lawyers aiding
in Al Halabi's defense.

Rehkopf said he had not gained access to the prosecution's evidence until
Monday. He also said military lawyers working alongside him had reviewed
documents and questioned witnesses but could not share the information with him
because he lacked the proper security clearance.

Moreover, Rehkopf said, he is barred from talking with his client about Capt.
James Yee, an Army chaplain who had been accused of being part of an espionage
ring at Guantanamo Bay until the charges against him were dropped Monday. Al
Halabi worked under Yee's supervision for four to five weeks, Rehkopf said.

Al Halabi, who was born in Syria and speaks fluent Arabic, was a supply clerk at
Travis Air Force Base when he was reassigned to work as a translator at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the government is holding some 600 suspected members
of al Qaeda and the Taliban. He translated documents and served as an
interpreter from November 2002 until July 2003, according to court documents.

Al Halabi is accused of trying to deliver nearly 200 messages on a laptop
computer from Guantanamo detainees to Syria. He also is accused of trying to
deliver secret documents about prison camp operations and other personal
information about detainees to Syria.

Al Halabi was arrested at Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida in July as
he prepared to leave for Syria, where he was to be married. He faces 17 counts
of espionage, making false official statements, disobeying orders, mishandling
classified documents and lying on a credit application.

Rehkopf hinted Wednesday at a strategy for defending Al Halabi: suggesting he
was given a job he was not trained to perform.

"He was a supply clerk," Rehkopf said. "He was not trained in any way, shape or
form to deal with classified material or with prisoners, but that was part of
his daily routine."

Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy declined to comment, saying the
Air Force did not want to taint Al Halabi's trial or the pool of jurors that
might hear the case.

One of Al Halabi's Air Force attorneys, Maj. Kim London, spent the afternoon
questioning Lance Wega, the FBI agent who led the investigation into Al Halabi.

Wega confirmed that FBI policy had barred at least one FBI agent from sharing
with the defense details of his interview of Al Halabi. He also said
investigators had never interviewed Capt. Tariq Hashim, one of Al Halabi's
supervisors at Guantanamo. Wega also confirmed that some documents about Al
Halabi had not been turned over to the defense because they "are classified and
not related to the charges."

Col. Barbara Brand, the military judge presiding over the case, is not expected
to rule on the dismissal motion until at least Friday.

Al Halabi was moved to Travis on Monday from Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa
Barbara County. Rehkopf condemned the conditions under which Al Halabi is being
held, noting that his cell measures 8 feet by 11 feet and has metal walls, no
ventilation and two security cameras.

"He is in a room that they would not allow an Air Force military working dog to
be confined in," Rehkopf said.

Al Halabi's attorneys also have filed motions seeking Al Halabi's release from
custody and allowing him to speak Arabic, which he has been barred from doing.

The prohibition means he cannot speak with his fiancee and his elderly father
without a translator, Rehkopf said.

[ E-mail Kelly St. John at kstjohn@sfchronicle.com ]

* * *


Reuters:

March 24, 2004

LAWYER WANTS GUANTANAMO SPYING CASE DROPPED
By Adam Tanner

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4652230

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (Reuters) - A lawyer for a Syrian-American airman
accused of spying while working as a translator in Guantanamo, Cuba, on
Wednesday asked a military court to dismiss the case because he lacks access to
important documents he needs to defend his client.

Civilian attorney Donald Rehkopf made the request in one of several pretrial
motions delivered to Military Court Judge Barbara Brand at a hearing at Travis
Air Force Base, 50 miles north of San Francisco, in the case of Senior Airman
Ahmad al Halabi, who is charged with espionage.

Halabi, who is in a military prison pending trial, is charged with espionage
connected to his work at Guantanamo, the military base where the United States
maintains a prison camp for suspected al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. He formerly
worked as a lowly supply clerk at Travis Air Force Base.

He faces life in prison if convicted of the charges, which include carrying jail
maps, letters and other sensitive documents from Guantanamo, where about 610
foreign suspects are being held. His trial is scheduled to begin on April 27.

Halabi is one of three men, including another Arabic translator and an officer
in the unit interrogating prisoners, charged in connection with their work at
Guantanamo.

He appeared in military court with a dark blue Air Force uniform, closely shaved
hair and glasses. He politely replied "yes ma'am" and "Yes, your honor" to the
judge, a former Kentucky high school math teacher.

CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST OTHER SUSPECT

Last week, the U.S. Army dropped all criminal charges against a fourth man,
Muslim Army chaplain Capt. James Yee, after earlier accusing him of spying,
mutiny, sedition, aiding the enemy and espionage.

"I cannot talk to my client about many things that are relevant," Rehkopf said
before the hearing started. "I cannot talk to my client about anything about
Captain Yee."

"That's one of the idiotic restrictions," Rehkopf added, saying Halabi worked
full-time for Yee for about five weeks.

Prosecutor Lt. Col. Bryan Wheeler disagreed with Rehkopf's assessment about his
access to important documents. "This is more than adequate for the defense to
conduct the defense they need to in this case," he said of what has been
provided to date.

The court heard from the investigator in the case, military special agent Lance
Wega, 29. When he was asked why the investigation had not interviewed Halabi's
supervisor, Capt. Tariq Hashim, Wega declined to answer, saying the information
was sensitive and classified. The judge then met with the witness and lawyers in
private chambers.

Rehkopf also asked the court to lift restrictions barring his client from
speaking his native Arabic so that he could communicate with his father and his
fiance, who do not speak English. He also complained about the windowless steel
jail cell Halabi inhabits during days around court proceedings at Travis.

In December the U.S. military dropped three charges against Halabi, 24,
including one that he gave baklava pastries to prisoners. He still faces 17
counts, including espionage, failure to obey an order, retaining documents
without authority, making false statements, and making a fraudulent credit
application.

* * *


The Guardian (UK):

Thursday March 25, 2004

US MAJOR ATTACKS GUANTANAMO JUSTICE
Lawyer chosen by Pentagon says detainees face unfair trial

By Tania Branigan, The Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1177277,00.html

A US military lawyer representing a detainee at Guantanamo Bay said yesterday
that his client could not receive justice under the existing system of military
commissions.

"The system is not set up to provide even the appearance of a fair trial," said
Major Michael Mori, who was appointed by the Pentagon to defend the Australian
detainee David Hicks.

"If there's credible evidence, take him to an established justice system," he
said at a press conference in London given by lawyers acting for the prisoners.
"If it's not credible, that doesn't justify changing the rules."

Two of the four Britons still being held at the US detention camp, Martin
Mubanga and Richard Belmar, have been named as potential defendants in military
hearings. The cases against the other two, Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi, have
been suspended pending further talks with Britain.

The government has said all four men should be returned to Britain or given fair
trials. It said it was not satisfied with the current commission rules.

Michael Ratner, the lawyer representing detainees in a US supreme court case
next month, told the press conference: "The idea the British government would
let them go forward [for trial] is shocking."

The hearings are unlikely to proceed until the American supreme court has ruled
on whether US courts should have jurisdiction over the American naval base in
Cuba.

"There's no such place in the world as a law-free zone," said Mr Ratner, the
president of the New York-based Centre for Constitutional Rights.

But Major John Smith, a military lawyer and the Pentagon's spokesman on the
commissions, told the Guardian the detainees would receive "full and fair
trials", as President George Bush had promised.

He said: "The fact Major Mori is out there arguing his client's case says a lot
about the fact these will be fair trials and shows we have provided vigilant
defence lawyers. I support his zealous defence but absolutely disagree with his
assertions."

He claimed Maj Mori had misrepresented the system. "Different doesn't always
mean unfair," he said. "It's very easy to be critical of the process because
people haven't seen it in action."

Earlier Maj Mori said that labelling the defendants as terrorists had allowed
the US government to lower its standards of justice. He said the system lacked
checks and balances, such as a truly independent appeal process.

"The appointing authority, who approves the charges, is the same person who gets
to rule on defence motions," he said. "He is basically reviewing his own
decisions ... it's like letting the bowler call leg before wicket.

"When you use an unfair system, all you do is risk convicting the innocent and
providing somebody who is truly guilty with a valid complaint to attack his
conviction. It doesn't help anyone."

The major said he was afraid the prosecution would present hearsay evidence in
statements taken from detainees in Cuba whom he would be unable to cross-
examine.

Other lawyers expressed concern that after two years without access to lawyers
detainees were likely to invent information. Three of the five released Britons
have claimed to have signed false confessions after lengthy interrogation and
solitary confinement.

The Pentagon has dismissed the fears, saying evidence would be ruled out if it
was not "of probative value to a reasonable person".

Joseph Belmar, the father of one of the Britons still being held in Cuba,
accused the US of trying to smear detainees.

The Daily Telegraph recently quoted a senior US official as saying that one
Briton - subsequently identified by the Guardian as Richard Belmar - had trained
at a terrorist camp in 1998.

But Mr Belmar said his son had never been outside the UK until he visited
Pakistan in 2001. "All this is a lie," he said. "They are trying to build up
something against him so they can bring charges."

Mr Ratner said: "The government is trying to come up with anything they can to
justify their position. Why don't they charge people if they have information?"

* * *


International Herald Tribune:

March 25, 2004

UN AGENCY RAPS ISRAEL FOR KILLING

http://www.iht.com/articles/511815.htm

GENEVA (AP) -- The top human rights body for the United Nations on Wednesday
condemned Israel for its killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the spiritual leader of
the Palestinian militant group Hamas.

By a 31-to-2 vote, the UN Human Rights Commission overwhelmingly backed a
resolution by the Organization of the Islamic Conference and by Cuba and
Zimbabwe. The United States and Australia were the two countries that voted
against.

Israel killed Yassin in a predawn missile attack Monday as he left a Gaza City
mosque. Seven other people died in the strike and 17 were wounded.

Developing countries - most of the watchdog's membership - mustered 31 votes in
favor of the resolution, which said Israel's action was a violation of the
Geneva Conventions on warfare.

Besides African and Middle East countries, those voting in favor included China,
Russia, India, Argentina, Brazil and Chile. Eighteen countries, mostly from
Europe, abstained. The remaining two members of the 53-nation commission - Gabon
and Sierra Leone - did not vote.

The Israeli ambassador, Yaakov Levy, slammed the decision, noting that Israel
regularly is singled out during the commission's annual session. He said
countries eager to divert attention from their own human rights records
regularly engaged in "Israel-bashing."

The commission also issued a general condemnation of Israel's policy of targeted
killings of Palestinians.

* * *


Toronto Globe & Mail:

March 25, 2004

PURSUING MS. O'NEILL

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040325/
EOTTAWA25/TPComment/Editorials

Journalism 101 will have to rewrite its curriculum to teach young reporters how
to recognize when the RCMP is spying on them, in light of revelations this week
from an Ottawa courtroom. Clue number one: a peculiar clip-clop sound behind you
as you walk to work. (A small pocket mirror may come in handy on those
occasions.) Giggling from an unidentified third party during a telephone call
may be suspicious. And if a man wearing a red tunic and carrying sidearms
happens by and picks up your garbage, call your local waste-management authority
to verify any changes to its uniform.

No, Canada is not a police state, as Prime Minister Paul Martin pointed out two
months ago after 10 Mounties raided the home of Ottawa Citizen reporter Juliet
O'Neill. But the unsealing of search warrants used to gain permission for that
raid show that the absurd events associated with police states can happen here.

On three separate occasions, an RCMP officer hauled away a total of seven
garbage bags from Ms. O'Neill's house, then analyzed the contents. Officers
followed her when she left home to go to work. They scoured the Internet for
evidence of illicit e-mails. The Truth Verification Section of the RCMP's
Behavioural Sciences Branch was certainly busy. (No, we did not make up that
name.)

And what truth was so important that the constitutional right to free speech --
which includes a free press and, by extension, the right to keep secret one's
confidential sources -- should be treated so shabbily? It all had to do with the
disappearance and torture of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen whom the United
States had deported to Syria. Ms. O'Neill had written a story citing a leaked
document that contained incriminating information that Mr. Arar had allegedly
provided under torture. (Mr. Arar later said, credibly, that he confessed only
because he was being tortured. The Canadian government has since called a public
inquiry into Canada's role in his ordeal.) Under the Security of Information
Act, both the person who gave that document to Ms. O'Neill and Ms. O'Neill
herself could be charged. Yet her story in no way put Canada's security at risk.

Sifting through Ms. O'Neill's garbage, trailing her through downtown Ottawa,
reading her private e-mails, and then showing up in force at her home, searching
her lingerie drawer, even pulling back the quilt on her bed -- all this occurred
because of a refusal to grasp the Constitution's meaning. Canada has a free
press, and the RCMP's Truth Verification Section has no place in its bedrooms,
or other personal spaces.

* * *


San Jose Mercury News:

March 24, 2004

JUDGE HEARS ARGUMENTS OVER WHETHER TO DISMISS CASE AGAINST AIRMAN

By Kim Curtis, Associated Press

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/8267929.htm

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. - The lead investigator in the case against an
accused spy refused to answer a defense lawyer's questions late Wednesday,
forcing an early adjournment at the hearing for dismissal of the charges against
the airman.

Senior Airman Ahmad I. Al Halabi, a former Arabic translator at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, faces 17 counts of espionage, lying and attempting to deliver notes from
prisoners held at the detention camp to Syria.

Al Halabi, 25, who wore his dress uniform, said little in court Wednesday. He
appeared to be silently praying during a morning break.

His lawyers said they want charges dismissed because the government has failed
to provide access to their evidence against Al Halabi.

Maj. Kim London, a defense attorney, appeared frustrated when Special Agent
Lance Wega refused to answer her questions about why Al Halabi's boss at
Guantanamo was never interviewed. Wega said that information was sensitive and
he couldn't answer in open court, forcing the judge to move the proceedings to
her chambers.

"I cannot talk to my client about many things that are relevant," lead attorney
Donald G. Rehkopf of Jr. of Rochester, N.Y. said earlier Wednesday.

His co-counsel, two military lawyers, often cannot share what they've learned
with Rehkopf, he said. And, in many cases, the prosecution decides what's
relevant and what's not.

A naturalized American born in Syria, Al Halabi was arrested last July at
Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida at the start of a leave, when he was
heading to Syria to get married. He was arraigned in January and has not yet
entered a plea.

He's been in custody under suspicion of espionage, lying and disobeying orders.
He's also accused of failing to report his contacts with the Syrian Embassy to
his superiors and of repeatedly lying to Air Force investigators.

The supply clerk who was stationed at Travis is a native Arabic speaker and was
recruited for temporary duty as a translator at Guantanamo Bay, where more than
600 suspected Taliban and al-Qaida members are being held by the U.S.
government.

From November 2002 through July 2003, Al Halabi translated letters to and from
prisoners, provided library books, translated for military police during camp
"riots" and at the medical clinic for sick or injured prisoners, including more
than one attempted suicide, according to court filings.

"He was a supply clerk," Rehkopf said. "He was not adequately trained to deal
with classified material. He was not adequately trained to deal with prisoners,
yet that was part of his daily routine."

Other defense motions to be addressed this week include: a request to release Al
Halabi from confinement and to lift the restriction that prevents him from
speaking Arabic. He must rely on translators to speak to his father, who lives
in Detroit, and his fiance.

The prosecution's case is unclear. Lawyers refused to comment or release any
court filings.

"To protect the rights of the accused, the Air Force is very limited as to what
it can say," said Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy.

Al Halabi was the first of four Guantanamo Bay workers arrested as part of an
investigation into possible security breaches at the prison.

Last week, the U.S. Army dismissed charges against Capt. James Yee, a Washington
state-based Army chaplain linked to an espionage ring at Guantanamo and
initially charged with mishandling classified information. The government cited
"national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence"
if the case proceeded.

Yee, a 35-year-old Chinese-American, was reprimanded Monday after being found
guilty of two minor charges, adultery and improperly downloading pornography
onto an Army computer.

Rehkopf said Wednesday he's offered immunity to Yee for his testimony. Al Halabi
worked directly for Yee for more than five weeks. He also said the dismissal of
the Army's case "significantly" affects his client's case, but he would not
elaborate.

Army Reserve Col. Jack Farr was charged in November with transporting secret
documents without proper containers and lying to investigators after he
allegedly was found with classified papers in his bags.

Ahmed F. Mehalba, a civilian linguist, faces charges in federal court of lying
to investigators and mishandling classified data after secret files allegedly
were found on his computer when he landed in Boston on a flight from Egypt. He
has pleaded innocent.

* * *


San Jose Mercury News:

March 23, 2004

ARABIC TRANSLATOR WANTS CHARGES DISMISSED BY AIR FORCE

By Kim Curtis, Associated Press

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/
northern_california/8256857.htm

TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) - Defense lawyers want all charges dropped
against a U.S. Air Force Arabic translator, accusing the government of refusing
to share evidence it has gathered against Senior Airman Ahmad I. Al Halabi.

"The government has not and is not acting in good faith or with due diligence,"
his lawyers said in their request for dismissal filed earlier this month.

Al Halabi's lawyers, two Air Force officers and one civilian, argue the
government has inappropriately classified much of the relevant material, which
effectively prohibits his lead attorney from providing any "meaningful
assistance" in the case.

"They still haven't clarified completely what my access is," said Donald G.
Rehkopf Jr. of Rochester, N.Y. "We're doing this piecemeal. I can't talk to my
client about things. I can't talk to my co-counsel about things. We've made very
little progress."

A naturalized American born in Syria, Al Halabi was arrested at Jacksonville
Naval Air Station in Florida at the start of a leave, when he was heading to
Syria to get married. He was arraigned at Travis in January and court-martial
proceedings against him are scheduled to resume Wednesday.

Al Halabi, 25, has been in custody since last July under suspicion of espionage,
lying and disobeying orders. He's also accused of failing to report his contacts
with the Syrian Embassy to his superiors and of repeatedly lying to Air Force
investigators. He's being held at Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern
California under "uniquely onerous and oppressive conditions," according to his
lawyers.

An Air Force spokesman did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Al Halabi, a supply clerk stationed at Travis and a native Arabic speaker, was
recruited for temporary duty as a translator at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more
than 600 suspected Taliban and al-Qaida members are being held by the U.S.
government.

From November 2002 through July 2003, Al Halabi translated letters to and from
prisoners, provided library books, translated for military police during camp
"riots" and at the medical clinic for sick or injured prisoners, including more
than one attempted suicide, according to court filings.

He was the first of four Guantanamo Bay workers arrested as part of an
investigation into possible security breaches at the prison.

Last week, the U.S. Army dismissed charges against Capt. James Yee, a Washington
state-based Army chaplain linked to an espionage ring at Guantanamo and
initially charged with mishandling classified information.

The government cited "national security concerns that would arise from the
release of the evidence" if the case proceeded.

Yee, a 35-year-old Chinese-American, was reprimanded Monday after being found
guilty of two minor charges, adultery and improperly downloading pornography
onto an Army computer.

Army Reserve Col. Jack Farr was charged in November with transporting secret
documents without proper containers and lying to investigators after he
allegedly was found with classified papers in his bags.

And Ahmed F. Mehalba, a civilian linguist, faces charges in federal court of
lying to investigators and mishandling classified data after secret files
allegedly were found on his computer when he landed in Boston on a flight from
Egypt. He has pleaded innocent.

* * *


Boston Globe:

March 23, 2004

A REPRIMAND, NO APOLOGY FOR CHAPLAIN

By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/03/23/a_reprimand_no_apology_for
_chaplain/

WASHINGTON -- Army Captain James "Yousef" Yee asked for an apology but received
a reprimand yesterday, as the strange legal saga of the Muslim chaplain once
suspected of the grand crime of spying at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp reached
a whimper of a conclusion over sex offenses.

Outgoing Guantanamo commander Major General Geoffrey Miller, who dismissed all
criminal charges against Yee last week, decided during an administrative hearing
yesterday to place a reprimand in his permanent service record over charges that
Yee downloaded porn onto his government-owned laptop and had an extramarital
affair last summer.

The sex-related offenses, discovered during the course of the investigation into
more serious national security fears, were all that remained of a case that
began explosively in September, when Yee was arrested in Jacksonville upon the
suspicion of being a spy in the war on terrorism.

He spent 76 days in solitary confinement at a South Carolina brig, some of it in
leg irons, while government officials speaking anonymously told reporters he was
suspected of treason. In fact, no such evidence was produced.

Yee's lead lawyer, Eugene Fidell, vowed to appeal and called yesterday a "missed
opportunity" for the government to begin making amends. Fidell said he would
pursue the case in the military system and, if necessary, the civilian courts
until "someone in a position of authority" decides to clear his client's name.

"This officer is a victim of an incredible drive-by act of legal violence, and
the way the system has functioned in this case affords him no effective remedy
other than the remedy in the court of public opinion," he said. "We look to the
court of public opinion to cast the decisive vote and to condemn the chain of
events that this officer has had to experience -- and his family -- over the
past six months."

Miller, who has been reassigned to oversee detention operations in Iraq,
personally conducted the hearing at a liaison office for the US Southern
Command, which oversees the Cuba base, in Arlington, Va.

In a cramped conference room, Miller sat at the head of the table just inches
from Yee, who sat rigidly throughout the proceedings and showed no emotion as
Fidell appealed for an acquittal based on "judgment, clemency, broadest
discretion, mercy, and recognition of all the facts and circumstances, in
recognition of the high burden that has been placed on Chaplain Yee and his
family."

Qaseem Uqdah, the executive director of the American Muslim Armed Forces and
Veterans Affairs Council, which recruits Muslim chaplains for the military,
testified that Yee had been an "outstanding chaplain" who had played a valuable
"mentoring" role after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But Miller said the facts were clear. "Captain Yee, you are guilty," the general
said, and Yee swallowed hard.

However, Miller chose to throw out one of the three charges against Yee, saying
it was redundant because it also concerned the act of downloading porn onto a
government computer. And he declined to punish the chaplain more severely than
by a written reprimand, though he could have ordered him confined to quarters
for a month, docked his pay, or suspended him from duty for two months.

Fidell said he would appeal the punishment to General Jay Hill, head of the US
Southern Command.

The case made headlines around the world when Yee was arrested, but it devolved
into a sex-story sideshow by the December pre-court martial hearing.

The only national security charges ultimately filed against Yee had to do with
improperly handling classified materials. But the military never proved the
papers in question were classified before dropping the charges last week.

"Of course I'm disappointed in the outcome of this [hearing]," Yee said, "but
again I would continue -- myself and my family -- to express the enormous amount
of thanks to all of those here and abroad who have supported us and continue to
support us throughout this whole ordeal."

* * *

ABS-CBN News (Phillipines):

March 24, 2004

THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY

By Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=Opinion&OID=47585

The cases against Bush involve holding US citizens without charges, enforcing
free-trade treaties despite environmental concerns, and abducting foreigners
charged with US crimes.

Compared with the cases President Bush has to face, the Roa-Bernardo suit filed
against President Arroyo is just like a bothersome fly. American presidents, in
fact, have dared to test the limits of presidential power. They have relied
chiefly on commander-in-chief prerogatives and sometimes on an undefined concept
of "inherited powers." Thus it was that Arthur Schlesinger coined The Imperial
Presidency as title for his Pulitzer Prize-winning work. (Marcos did, too, and
it lost him the presidency.)

During Nixon’s watch, however, attempted claims to "historical sovereign powers"
were rejected by the Supreme Court. Nixon, in the name of national security,
claimed the power to wiretap without judicial approval. He was rebuffed even by
his own Supreme Court appointees.

Nixon also sought to block the publication of the Pentagon papers. He lost this
one, too, in what is now the classic case of New York Times Co. v the United
States. Similarly, when he refused to turn over taped conversations to the
Watergate special prosecutor under the claim of "executive privilege," he lost
the case. Shortly thereafter, and threatened with impeachment, Nixon resigned.

Today the fight against terrorism is driving President Bush to act imperial.
Supreme Court observers are now watching how the Court will handle the mounting
number of cases. At present there are at least five cases before the Supreme
Court which seek to test the limits of presidential power. First, there is the
case of Mohamed Kamel Baellahouel. The complainant wants the Court to determine
whether he has been illegally secretly jailed.

Next is the case of Yaser Hamdi, an American citizen captured in Afghanistan,
who has been denied the right to meet with a lawyer. The contention of the
government is that domestic courts have no authority to question the military’s
determination that a citizen is an enemy combatant. If the government wins this
case, a citizen declared to be an enemy combatant can be denied procedural
protections under the Bill of Rights.

Similar to the Hamdi case is that of Jose Padilla, also an American citizen,
being held as an enemy combatant. Padilla was arrested upon deplaning in Chicago
and has since been in detention under the government’s claim that the President
has the power unilaterally to order the detention.

The case of the Guantanamo detainees is also before the Supreme Court. The Court
is being asked to review a federal court ruling that alien detainees being held
in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba do not have the right to be heard by a court. The
ruling is being challenged as a violation of the Constitution and of treaty
obligations. Another high-profile case involves the right of the vice president
(and indirectly of the president) to refuse to turn over documents in a civil
suit. The case involves information about the government’s energy policy. The
government’s contention is that revelation of information could compromise the
President’s powers.

All these cases test the limits of the President’s powers. The Supreme Court has
voted to take them up. A legal writer for the Los Angeles Times sums up the
tenor of these cases thus: "They involve imprisoning foreign fighters at
overseas bases, holding American citizens without charges in military brigs,
preserving the secrecy of White House meetings, enforcing free-trade treaties
despite environmental concerns, and abducting foreigners charged with US
crimes."

As in the case of President Arroyo, the cases have been filed right in the
middle of a presidential campaign and can affect election results. We will see
who of the two will survive the onslaught.

* * *


Reuters:

March 22, 2004

ARMY PUSHES GUANTANAMO CHAPLAIN ADULTERY CASE

By Will Dunham

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4625726

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military, after dropping criminal charges
against a Muslim Army chaplain who tended to Guantanamo prisoners, pressed
forward on Monday with possible disciplinary action on adultery and pornography
accusations.

Lt. Col. Bill Costello, a spokesman for U.S. Southern Command, said the Army was
pursuing the charges, which at best could trigger mild disciplinary action,
because the nonjudicial hearing involved does not "require the introduction of
evidence that would have compromised national security."

Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller was set to consider evidence on whether Capt.
James Yee had an extramarital sexual affair with a female officer and stored
pornographic images on a government computer, said Costello.

Miller commands the task force overseeing the prison at the U.S. naval base at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the United States holds roughly 610 foreign
terrorism suspects. Yee worked with prisoners there for 10 months.

Yee was arrested last September in Florida as he returned from Guantanamo.
Military authorities accused him in a court document of spying, mutiny,
sedition, aiding the enemy and espionage, and told Yee's lawyers he could face
the death penalty. Yee spent 76 days in a Navy brig but the Army failed to
follow through with formal espionage-related charges.

Late on Friday, the Army dropped all criminal charges against the 36-year-old
West Point graduate. The Army dropped six counts, including mishandling of
classified information and lesser adultery and pornography charges.

Miami-based Southern Command said the decision to drop the charges stemmed from
"national security concerns that would arise from the release of the evidence"
against Yee.

Yee's lawyer, Eugene Fidell, said it marked a complete vindication for Yee, and
that the Army owed him an apology.

The hearing was set for Monday night in Arlington, Virginia.

"General Miller alone will decide the facts of the case, and he can impose
punishment at the conclusion of the proceedings," Costello said.

Such so-called Article 15 proceedings are reserved for minor offenses in the
military and do not involve criminal charges.

If Miller finds that Yee committed these actions, Yee faces a possible written
or oral reprimand, confinement to quarters for 30 days or restricted movement
for 60 days, and forfeiture of half his pay for two months, Costello said.

* * *


Seattle Post-Intelligencer

March 22, 2004

YEE OWED APOLOGY FOR HIS ORDEAL

By Robert L. Jamieson Jr., Seattle Post-Intelligencer Columnist

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/jamieson/165754_robert22.asp

Oops.

The government's blunder posse is at it again.

They took a loyal Army man and dragged his name through the mud. They trumped up
charges that fizzled. They failed to realize how their prosecutorial zeal hurts
innocent people.

I'm referring to the government's embarrassing case against Capt. James Yee, the
Muslim chaplain from Fort Lewis who was accused of doing all sorts of sinister
things.

For the longest time we were told that Yee, who ministered to terror suspects at
the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, mishandled classified information.

He might have been part of some espionage ring, the government suggested. He
might have been trying to infiltrate the military base. On top of that, the
government huffed about how he was an adulterer and had computer porn.

In this modern-day witch hunt -- and that's what this was -- Yee was made out to
be despicable, morally bankrupt and possibly traitorous. Un-American, even. Then
on Friday night the military issued a terse statement saying it had suddenly
decided to drop all charges against him. Just like that.

It was as if Uncle Sam were saying: "Oh, never mind. You can have your life
back, Mr. Yee -- now that we've worked it over with the wrecking ball for six
months."

Oops.

No apology was offered with the dismissal of charges, which came down at the end
of the week -- a time when the Bush administration likes to release news it
would prefer to see buried deep in the weekend news cycle.

A government statement mentioned some mumbo jumbo about "national security
concerns" that would have arisen had the Yee case gone to trial. Sensitive
information, the government suggested, might have tumbled into public view.

Please.

Shouldn't the brains in the Beltway have considered that distinct possibility
before launching their Yee crusade? Before accusing him of taking classified
data and painting him as a public enemy -- which, given the ease of the
dismissal, he clearly is not?

Talk about a lame excuse.

Even if one were to buy the government's explanation, it is disturbing to see
the diligence the government exercises when it comes to protecting its own
secrets. Compare that with the cavalier treatment Yee and his family faced
during what became a vicious, public character assassination.

Yee was a target because he is Muslim. Unfortunately, anything or anyone
connected with Islam these days has become fair game in the war on terrorism.

His Asian heritage -- Yee is Chinese American -- stirred recollections of
another case of government overreach: the espionage investigation of Wen Ho Lee,
a scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Lee, who is Chinese American, pleaded guilty to a single felony count of copying
classified documents onto computer tapes without authorization.

But the FBI bungled the case by focusing exclusively on Lee. The agency was
forced to drop nearly 60 counts of felony espionage against him. A judge
apologized to the scientist for "abuse of power" by the Feds.

Whether we're talking about Lee or Yee, dropping charges seems to be becoming
bad government form.

But for the people who are targeted, the overzealous prosecution turns into a
persecution hell that could have been avoided with a modicum of restraint.

"I hope nobody has to go through an experience like this," Yee's wife, Huda
Suboh, told me late Friday after she received the news about her husband.

She called and shared a message she wanted the government to hear:

"If you are going to charge someone, please be sure you have enough evidence.
Because we suffered. We really suffered. We suffered for nothing."

Yee spent 76 days in solitary confinement while the government tried to build
its case.

His wife remained at their Olympia home, stressed out and lonely.

"It was very hard, especially at the beginning when they talked about him being
a spy," she said. "From the beginning, I knew he was innocent. It was horrible."

The ordeal was made worse because of how much faith her husband has in America
and the Army. "He was so excited and happy about his work," Huda said. "Military
life can be difficult. But he never complained. He liked the job. He wanted to
help people. He was proud to be American. Proud to be a Muslim."

Her husband's family even received glowing letters from military commanders.
"They said he did a good job. They told his mother and father that they should
be proud of him. That was before all of the trouble. And it broke my heart when
this happened. They treated him like a terrorist."

Huda believes the U.S. Army threw in the allegations about her husband's
involvement in pornography and adultery in order to discredit him even as
Muslims across the country rallied to his defense.

"For Muslims those are big deals," she said, referring to the alleged vices.
"They wanted to make Muslims not support him anymore. That's what I feel ... I
trust him. I think nothing happened. I really know him -- I know my husband more
than I know myself. It was so unfair in a case like this for them to bring those
silly charges."

As she spoke I couldn't help but feel her family's pain. To think, this whole
mess could have been avoided had the government not railroaded a proud American
soldier.

For that "oops" the Yee family deserves a sincere apology.

Is the government big enough to say -- as it well should -- "We're sorry"?

[ P-I columnist Robert L. Jamieson Jr. can be reached at 206-448-8125 or
robertjamieson@seattlepi.com ]

* * *


The Observer (UK) --

March 22, 2004

CAUGHT IN THE CROSSFIRE
Since Tarek Dergoul returned to Britain from Guantanamo Bay,
his lawyer and publicist have been at loggerheads.

By Robert Verkaik

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=503812

The human rights lawyer Louise Christian and the publicist Max Clifford make
unlikely bedfellows. Christian has built her career advising on unpopular and
difficult causes, while Clifford has made a fortune representing the interests
of minor celebrities to popular newspapers.

They were thrown together this month when they both found themselves instructed
by the family of Tarek Dergoul, one of the five Britons released from Guantanamo
Bay. Inevitably it led to an acrimonious and public falling out. Christian
accused Clifford of taking advantage of her client while Clifford retorted that
Christian had no experience of handling the media.

The truth is that for almost two years Christian has been tirelessly campaigning
for the return of all the Guantanamo Britons, dealing personally with
journalists. But in the build-up to the men's return the Dergoul family had
become besieged by the press who were offering increasingly larger sums of money
for the 26-year-old's story.

In the end it was Tarek's brother, Halid, who in desperation turned to Clifford
for help, shortly before the military aircraft carrying the men touched down at
RAF Northolt in Middlesex.

It had been a busy week for Britain's best known publicist. He had helped
"place" a photograph in a Sunday newspaper of a Leicester City footballer
dancing with one of the women who later accused him of rape. And had advisedpop
star Bryan McFadden about his exit from boyband Westlife.

Clifford's belated appearance as the mouthpiece for the Dergoul family clearly
irritated Christian, who was concerned that the PR man might compromise her
legal representation. Nevertheless, Clifford pressed ahead with a round of TV
and newspaper interviews in which he claimed that Dergoul's story would include
links to Osama bin Laden himself. This incensed Christian, who claims that
Clifford's reported comments were shown to Tarek while he was being questioned
at Paddington Green police station.

Christian says that while there is no evidence against her client, she is
concerned that anti-terrorist officers might have seized upon Clifford's
comments. "Tarek was extremely upset," she says: "Having been interviewed 40
times already [at Guantanamo] it was extraordinary that someone who was claiming
to represent him was saying that. I think what he did was despicable and evil to
try to take advantage of someone who was so vulnerable."

Christian e-mailed and telephoned Clifford to say Dergoul no longer required his
services. "But when I rang again he put the phone down on me," says Christian.

But Clifford has said that it was for the family to make that decision, not
Christian who he claimed was "making a difficult situation impossible". So far
Christian appears to have got her way.

Tarek is still the only one of the five men released from Guantanamo who hasn't
sold his story. One of the reasons for this might be his fragile state of mind.
His two-year detention and the amputation of one of his arms after "botched"
medical treatment has left his family concerned about his mental health. Only
now has he started to try to give an account to his family of the "horrific
things which happened to him during detention at Bagram, Kandahar and Guantanamo
Bay".

Christian says this includes an account of interrogations at gunpoint, beatings
and inhuman conditions. She says: "Tarek finds it very difficult to talk about
things and his family believe his mental health has been severely affected by
the trauma."

The other four Britons returned from Guantanamo are rumoured to have been paid
£100,000 each for selling their stories.

The first to strike a deal with the tabloid media was Jamal al Harith, a 37-
year-old divorced father of three from Manchester. He told the Mirror how US
soldiers brought in prostitutes to the camp, and paraded them naked in front of
devout Muslims.

Two of the so called Titpon Three, Asif Iqbal, 22, and Shafiq Rasul, 26,
represented by solicitor Gareth Peirce, chose to sell their stories to The
Observer and The Mail on Sunday. The third, Ruhal Ahmed, 22, also took part in
the interview with The Observer, but his solicitor Greg Powell does not know if
he made any money from it.

All five former detainees are understood to be now considering taking legal
action against the US and the UK for breaches of their human rights. If they win
they could be in line for compensation.

Central to their case will be the legal status of Guantanamo Bay. The US
administration has consistently argued that there is no civil law jurisdiction
over the US controlled naval base. But lawyers for the detainees say this
creates a legal black hole.

Next month the US supreme court is to hear a case expected to settle the issue.
If the court rules in favour of the lawyers representing the foreign-born "enemy
combatants" their detention at Camp Delta and the planned military commissions
will be subject to review by civil law.

For the five freed British detainees it would mean a chance to fight their case
in the US and have any damages determined by the usually generous US jury system
- although this might be a double-edged sword as many Americans still regard the
British suspects as Taliban collaborators.

Phil Shiner, the lawyer who is representing Iraqi families in their claim
against the UK government for the deaths of relatives after the end of the war,
says that the Guantanamo case represents "uncharted waters." He argues if his
clients can bring a case in this country the Guantanamo five should be allowed
to sue in America and possibly even in the UK.

Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, says if the
detainees can show collusion between the US and UK administrations over their
continued detention then it might be possible to bring a claim under the Human
Rights Act in a British court.

"If they can show they were interrogated by British intelligence officers or
that the UK was compliant in their continued unlawful detention then they have
stronger chance of success," says Carter.

But whatever the releasees decide to do next it seems it will not involve
Clifford. Not as long as Christian has anything to do with the case. She
promises: "Max Clifford has never met Tarek Dergoul and he never will."

* * *


Chicago Tribune:

Published March 22, 2004

INQUIRIES EXAMINE BUSH'S JUSTIFICATION FOR IRAQ WAR

By Cam Simpson, Washington Bureau

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0403220122mar22,1,6513295.sto
ry?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

WASHINGTON -- In the halls of Congress and just down the street at a federal
courthouse off Pennsylvania Avenue, the Bush administration faces a string of
inquiries tied to the still-elusive weapons of mass destruction used as the
primary justification for the invasion of Iraq.

All but one of those probes focus on how the administration could have been so
wrong, given the failure to locate any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons
in Iraq in the year since the war began.

The other probe is a criminal grand jury investigation stemming from the leak of
a covert CIA officer's identity after her husband embarrassed the White House
over a piece of intelligence on Iraq trumpeted by President Bush in his State of
the Union address last year. The White House was forced to retract the claim.

On Capitol Hill, the House and Senate intelligence committees have been
scrutinizing prewar intelligence that the Bush administration said indicated
Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Both probes began about eight months ago. But they gained renewed attention and
urgency after the CIA's chief weapons hunter, David Kay, resigned his post in
January, saying he did not believe banned stockpiles existed before the
invasion. Perhaps just as important to both probes, Kay also said he believed
prewar intelligence on Iraq was probably "all wrong."

The House investigation may not be finished until after the presidential
election in November, sparing Bush further potential political damage on an
issue that polls show is affecting his credibility.

And the House committee's focus is fairly limited and straightforward: Why did
America's intelligence agencies make crucial and apparently mistaken judgments
about Hussein's capabilities, judgments used to justify a pre-emptive attack?

Senate report coming

An early version of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report could be wrapped
up in weeks. Like the House probe, the Senate's investigation centers on the
intelligence used to build the foundation for war. But after months of wrangling
between Republicans and Democrats on the normally bipartisan panel, its mission
has been stretched to include whether administration officials overstated the
threatbeyond the judgments reached among intelligence professionals.

In addition to those investigations, Bush earlier this year gave in to pressure
from Democrats and created a special commission to study the prewar
intelligence, as well as intelligence on other weapons issues. The panel won't
finish until after the election.

CIA investigating self

CIA Director George Tenet, who has admitted mistakes on Iraq intelligence but
defends his agency, hired a former senior CIA official to lead an investigation
into the assessments. And Democrats on two other Capitol Hill panels are
conducting informal inquiries of their own, though they will probably draw
little attention.The Bush administration may not suffer the same fate as the
Clinton White House, where scandals were prevalent, in part because the GOP
controlled Congress and its committees. But the most potentially damaging
inquiry for the White House is out of the hands of elected politicians.

Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was appointed as a special
counsel in January to investigate the White House leak case and has convened a
grand jury in Washington. He is investigating whether anyone broke the law in
unveiling the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA officer who worked on
weapons of mass destruction issues, to columnist Robert Novak and other
journalists last summer.

Plame is the wife of Joseph Wilson, the former U.S. ambassador who made a
special trip to Africa to investigate claims that Hussein attempted to purchase
uranium. The leak came after The New York Times published an opinion-page
article by Wilson in which he attacked the uranium report, which Bush cited in
his speech. Within days of Wilson's disclosures, the White House was forced to
retract that portion of the address.

Phone records subpoenaed

Newsday, whose journalists have been the focus of some inquiries in the case,
reported earlier this month that Fitzgerald's grand jury has subpoenaed the
records of Air Force One telephone calls made a week before Plame's name was
published in Novak's column.

The newspaper, which is owned by Tribune Co., also said the grand jury
subpoenaed records related to the group assembled at the White House in August
2002 to develop a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Hussein.

* * *


CBS News:

March 21, 2004

60 Minutes
Clarke's Take On Terror

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

(CBS) In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-
terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being
told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on
60 Minutes.

The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the
conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials
were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet
to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-
election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He
ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done
something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against
terrorism."

The No. 2 man on the president's National Security Council, Stephen Hadley,
vehemently disagrees. He says Mr. Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists,
and is making the U.S. homeland safer.
Clarke says that as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense
Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al
Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.

Clarke suggests the idea took him so aback, he initally thought Rumsfeld was
joking.

Clarke is due to testify this week before the special panel probing whether the
attacks were preventable.

His allegations are also made in a book, "Against All Enemies," by Free Press, a
subsidiary of Simon & Schuster. Both CBSNews.com and Simon & Schuster are units
of Viacom.

Clarke helped shape U.S. policy on terrorism under President Reagan and the
first President Bush. He was held over by President Clinton to be his terrorism
czar, then held over again by the current President Bush.

In the 60 Minutes interview and the book, Clarke tells what happened behind the
scenes at the White House before, during and after Sept. 11.

When the terrorists struck, it was thought the White House would be the next
target, so it was evacuated. Clarke was one of only a handful of people who
stayed behind. He ran the government's response to the attacks from the
Situation Room in the West Wing.

"I kept thinking of the words from 'Apocalypse Now,' the whispered words of
Marlon Brando, when he thought about Vietnam. 'The horror. The horror.' Because
we knew what was going on in New York. We knew about the bodies flying out of
the windows. People falling through the air. We knew that Osama bin Laden had
succeeded in bringing horror to the streets of America," he tells Stahl.
After the president returned to the White House on Sept. 11, he and his top
advisers, including Clarke, began holding meetings about how to respond and
retaliate. As Clarke writes in his book, he expected the administration to focus
its military response on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. He says he was surprised
that the talk quickly turned to Iraq.

"Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said to Stahl. "And we
all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan.
And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are
lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in
lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.

"Initially, I thought when he said, 'There aren't enough targets in-- in
Afghanistan,' I thought he was joking.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection, but the CIA was
sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there saying we've
looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no
connection."

Clarke says he and CIA Director George Tenet told that to Rumsfeld, Secretary of
State Colin Powell, and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Clarke then tells Stahl of being pressured by Mr. Bush.

"The president dragged me into a room with a couple of other people, shut the
door, and said, 'I want you to find whether Iraq did this.' Now he never said,
'Make it up.' But the entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that
George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this.

"I said, 'Mr. President. We've done this before. We have been looking at this.
We looked at it with an open mind. There's no connection.'

"He came back at me and said, "Iraq! Saddam! Find out if there's a connection.'
And in a very intimidating way. I mean that we should come back with that
answer. We wrote a report."

Clarke continued, "It was a serious look. We got together all the FBI experts,
all the CIA experts. We wrote the report. We sent the report out to CIA and
found FBI and said, 'Will you sign this report?' They all cleared the report.
And we sent it up to the president and it got bounced by the National Security
Advisor or Deputy. It got bounced and sent back saying, 'Wrong answer. ... Do it
again.'

"I have no idea, to this day, if the president saw it, because after we did it
again, it came to the same conclusion. And frankly, I don't think the people
around the president show him memos like that. I don't think he sees memos that
he doesn't-- wouldn't like the answer."

Clarke was the president's chief adviser on terrorism, yet it wasn't until Sept.
11 that he ever got to brief Mr. Bush on the subject. Clarke says that prior to
Sept. 11, the administration didn't take the threat seriously.

"We had a terrorist organization that was going after us! Al Qaeda. That should
have been the first item on the agenda. And it was pushed back and back and back
for months.

"There's a lot of blame to go around, and I probably deserve some blame, too.
But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for,
urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the
impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on.

"I blame the entire Bush leadership for continuing to work on Cold War issues
when they back in power in 2001. It was as though they were preserved in amber
from when they left office eight years earlier. They came back. They wanted to
work on the same issues right away: Iraq, Star Wars. Not new issues, the new
threats that had developed over the preceding eight years."

Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his
urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the
second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to
deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No,
no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that
little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United
States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said,
'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi
terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting
al Qaeda, ever."

When Stahl pointed out that some administration officials say it's still an open
issue, Clarke responded, "Well, they'll say that until hell freezes over."
By June 2001, there still hadn't been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even
though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous
chatter.

The CIA director warned the White House, Clarke points out. "George Tenet was
saying to the White House, saying to the president - because he briefed him
every morning - a major al Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United
States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead. He said that in
June, July, August."

Clarke says the last time the CIA had picked up a similar level of chatter was
in December, 1999, when Clarke was the terrorism czar in the Clinton White
House.

Clarke says Mr. Clinton ordered his Cabinet to go to battle stations-- meaning,
they went on high alert, holding meetings nearly every day.

That, Clarke says, helped thwart a major attack on Los Angeles International
Airport, when an al Qaeda operative was stopped at the border with Canada,
driving a car full of explosives.

Clarke harshly criticizes President Bush for not going to battle stations when
the CIA warned him of a comparable threat in the months before Sept. 11: "He
never thought it was important enough for him to hold a meeting on the subject,
or for him to order his National Security Adviser to hold a Cabinet-level
meeting on the subject."

Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the
inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

In that meeting, Clarke proposed a plan to bomb al Qaeda's sanctuary in
Afghanistan, and to kill bin Laden.
The president's new campaign ads highlight his handling of Sept. 11 -- which has
become the centerpiece of his bid for re-election.

Does a person who works for the White House owe the president his loyalty?
"Yes... Up to a point. When the president starts doing things that risk American
lives, then loyalty to him has to be put aside," says Clarke. "I think the way
he has responded to al Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what
he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe. Absolutely."

Hadley staunchly defended the president to Stahl: "The president heard those
warnings. The president met daily with... George Tenet and his staff. They kept
him fully informed and at one point the president became somewhat impatient with
us and said, 'I'm tired of swatting flies. Where's my new strategy to eliminate
al Qaeda?'"

Hadley says that, contrary to Clarke's assertion, Mr. Bush didn't ignore the
ominous intelligence chatter in the summer of 2001.

"All the chatter was of an attack, a potential al Qaeda attack overseas. But
interestingly enough, the president got concerned about whether there was the
possibility of an attack on the homeland. He asked the intelligence community:
'Look hard. See if we're missing something about a threat to the homeland.'

"And at that point various alerts went out from the Federal Aviation
Administration to the FBI saying the intelligence suggests a threat overseas. We
don't want to be caught unprepared. We don't want to rule out the possibility of
a threat to the homeland. And therefore preparatory steps need to be made. So
the president put us on battle stations."

Hadley asserts Clarke is "just wrong" in saying the administration didn't go to
battle stations.

As for the alleged pressure from Mr. Bush to find an Iraq-9/11 link, Hadley
says, "We cannot find evidence that this conversation between Mr. Clarke and the
president ever occurred."

When told by Stahl that 60 Minutes has two sources who tell us independently of
Clarke that the encounter happened, including "an actual witness," Hadley
responded, "Look, I stand on what I said."

Hadley maintained, "Iraq, as the president has said, is at the center of the war
on terror. We have narrowed the ground available to al Qaeda and to the
terrorists. Their sanctuary in Afghanistan is gone; their sanctuary in Iraq is
gone. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are now allies on the war on terror. So Iraq has
contributed in that way in narrowing the sanctuaries available to terrorists."
Does Clarke think that Iraq, the Middle East and the world is better off with
Saddam Hussein out of power?

"I think the world would be better off if a number of leaders around the world
were out of power. The question is what price should the United States pay,"
says Clarke. "The price we paid was very, very high, and we're still paying that
price for doing it."

"Osama bin Laden had been saying for years, 'America wants to invade an Arab
country and occupy it, an oil-rich Arab country. He had been saying this. This
is part of his propaganda. So what did we do after 9/11? ... We stepped right
into bin Laden's propaganda," adds Clarke. "And the result of that is that al
Qaeda and organizations like it, offshoots of it, second-generation al Qaeda
have been greatly strengthened."

When Clarke worked for Mr. Clinton, he was known as the terrorism czar. When Mr.
Bush came into office, though remaining at the White House, Clarke was stripped
of his Cabinet-level rank.

Stahl said to Clarke, "They demoted you. Aren't you open to charges that this is
all sour grapes, because they demoted you and reduced your leverage, your power
in the White House?"

Clarke's answer: "Frankly, if I had been so upset that the National Coordinator
for Counter-terrorism had been downgraded from a Cabinet level position to a
staff level position, if that had bothered me enough, I would have quit. I
didn't quit."

Until two years later, after 30 years in government service.

A senior White House official told 60 Minutes he thinks the Clarke book is an
audition for a job in the Kerry campaign.

"I'm an independent. I'm not working for the Kerry campaign," says Clarke. "I
have worked for Ronald Reagan. I have worked for George Bush the first, I have
worked for George Bush the second. I'm not participating in this campaign, but I
am putting facts out that I think people ought to know."

60 Minutes received a note from the Pentagon saying: "Any suggestion that the
president did anything other than act aggressively, quickly and effectively to
address the al Qaeda and Taliban threat in Afghanistan is absurd."

* * *


Newark Star-Ledger:

Sunday, March 21, 2004

SHE WAITS TO HEAR, 'WE'RE SORRY'
Mother of cleared Muslim chaplain says Army owes her son an apology

By Brian Donohue, Star-Ledger Staff

http://www.nj.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-14/1079855653325042.xml
?starledger?ntop

A day after the Army dropped its charges that Muslim chaplain Capt. James Yee
mishandled secrets at a prison for terror suspects, his mother said military
officials owe him and the family an apology.

Fong Yee of Springfield called the dismissal of charges against her 35-year-old
son "a victory," but said the family remains "crushed" by the six-month ordeal.

Yee, who grew up in Springfield, was assigned to counsel detainees at the prison
camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, when he was arrested Sept. 10 as part of an
investigation into suspected espionage. When he was charged a month later, the
accusation was that he violated regulations for handling classified materials.

Those charges were dropped Friday by Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, commander of the
joint task force that oversees the Guantanamo base. Military officials said they
could not proceed with the case because presenting evidence in court would raise
national security concerns.

At the Springfield home where Yee was raised, his mother said yesterday there
was little celebration. She chided military officials for branding her son a spy
and jailing him for 76 days, then dropping the charges without clearing his
name.

"Realize you made a mistake and apologize," Fong Yee said in a telephone
interview. "What's wrong with that? It's an honorable thing to do. That's just
basic human decency."

Instead, she said, officials have continued to say that Yee may have been
carrying classified documents at the time of his arrest, adding to what she
called a pattern of efforts by the military to save face even as its case
unraveled.

"People will always remember this spy stuff," she said. "I want to impress on
the government how many people that they hurt."

Fong Yee is one of 15 children. Her husband, Joseph, is one of seven. She
recounted a long list of extended family members whose family name will remain
associated with the high profile case.

On Friday Capt. Yee's wife, Huda, said the case has taken both a financial and
an emotional toll on the family. Huda Yee and their 4-year-old daughter live in
Olympia, Wash., near Fort Lewis, where Yee was stationed before his Guantanamo
assignment and to which he will now be reassigned.

Lt. Col. Bill Costello, spokesman for U.S. Southern Command, declined to comment
on statements by the family. "I'm sure that's their take on things," he said.
"It's not appropriate for me to respond."

Attempts to reach James Yee through his lawyer were unsuccessful.

In Springfield, Yee's parents are regulars at Holy Cross Lutheran Church, where
their son was known as a devout Christian before he converted to Islam following
a stint in the Gulf War. James Yee is a 1986 graduate of Jonathan Dayton
Regional High School.

The Rev. Remo Madsen of Holy Cross Church said yesterday he was pleased that Yee
was cleared and allowed to remain in the military service.

"That's a positive, but there's still a cloud," he said. "A dark cloud has gone
away and some of the sun is in. But we haven't seen full sunshine yet."

The dropping of the charges Friday evening marked a dramatic end to a case in
which the West Point graduate was initially described as a suspect in an
espionage ring.

No charges of spying were ever brought against him, and in the end military
officials said they could not proceed with the case because turning over
evidence to Yee's defense attorneys could lead to the release of classified
information.

Yee's attorney has sharply disputed that assertion, saying prosecutors could
have presented the case in closed hearings designed to prevent any leaks.

The attorney, Eugene Fidell, noted that government officials had never completed
a review of the documents Yee carried to determine if they were, indeed,
classified.

The chaplain still faces administrative punishment on two lesser charges --
viewing pornography on his laptop computer and committing adultery. Penalties
could include a reprimand, confinement to his quarters, or docked pay.

Fong Yee said she believes neither of the charges, pointing out that the female
naval reservist who testified at a preliminary hearing in December about her
affair with Yee had been granted immunity in exchange for her testimony.

Fong Yee said she had spoken briefly with her son since the decision, and was
unsure whether he will decide to remain in the military.

"It's Jimmy's choice if he stays," she said. "If it was me, I would stay on the
job because my presence would be a reminder to the government that I am an
honorable person, I am not going to get even, I am on the job and it reminds the
government that they were wrong."

[ Staff writer Katie Wang contributed to this report. ]

* * *


March 22, 2004

HICKS, HABIB STILL A THREAT, SAYS US

By Mike Seccombe and Brigid Delaney

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/21/1079823240102.html

The two Australians being held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay are still
believed to pose a terrorist threat to the US and are likely to be charged, the
US ambassador, Tom Schieffer, said yesterday.

David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib have been held without charge at the Cuban
military base since 2001 after being detained in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Mr
Hicks has been listed to appear before a US military tribunal.

Mr Schieffer said the release of five of nine Britons held at Guantanamo Bay, as
well as a handful of American and Dutch citizens, had nothing to do with their
nationalities.

"They have been released because they are believed to be lesser threats to the
United States or that they can be turned over to their home countries," he said.

Mr Schieffer said he believed Mr Hicks was suspected of either killing or
threatening to kill Americans, and both he and Mr Habib were still perceived
"threats to both the United States and our allies".

Mr Hicks and Mr Habib had both been notified they could face charges, he said.

Later a spokesman for the federal Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock, said the
Australian Government had no idea what charges could be laid against the men.

Nor had the Government been given any firm idea how long the process might take.

"We are pushing them to do it as soon as possible," Mr Ruddock's spokesman said.

Mr Schieffer denied claims by the Indonesian Government that the US had impeded
further investigations into the spiritual leader of Jemaah Islamiah, the Muslim
cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, by refusing to hand over another senior JI figure,
Hambali, captured in Thailand last August.

"Whether or not Hambali is there, I think there is ample evidence that would
link Abu Bakar Bashir to many, many bombings and many, many terrorist
incidents," he said.

Mr Schieffer's comments came on the first day of a visit to Australia by a
Muslim cleric in the US, the New York-based president of the American Sufi
Muslim Association, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

Imam Rauf said he believed terrorists acted out of a sense of injustice and
oppression - and to alleviate these frustrations was a mammoth task.

Referring to the Bali and Madrid bombings, he said: "I regard this militancy as
a frustration of legitimate hurts.

"There are a large number of people who are underemployed or unemployed. They
see vast differences of wealth, and that feeds a desire for a correction. When
they are not able to participate in the wealth of a nation, this general
frustration can evolve into mutiny."

"It's the equivalent of sending a man to the moon. It will involve the
articulation of policy and particular steps that people can see."

Imam Rauf is here as part of a two-week visit organised by the NSW Government to
promote tolerance and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims.

* * *


The Observer (UK):

March 21, 2004

US AFGHAN ALLIES COMMITTED MASSACRE

American experts find that Northern Alliance warlords slaughtered prisoners of
war

By David Rose

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1174554,00.html

Dramatic corroboration of the massacre of Afghan prisoners by the US-backed
Northern Alliance at the start of the war in 2001 was last night provided by
American pathologists commissioned to investigate the claims by the UN.

A vivid account of the slaughter was provided to The Observer last week by three
Britons who were released from the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba
more than two years after they were first seized in Afghanistan. They told how
they narrowly escaped the massacre before being handed over to American forces
and flown to Guantanamo Bay.

Forensic anthropologist William Haglund, who earlier led inquiries into mass
graves in Bosnia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka and Sierra Leone, told The Observer how he
dug into an area of recently disturbed desert soil outside the town of
Shebargan, and exhumed 15 bodies, a tiny sample, he said, of what may be a very
large total.

Thanks to the cold and arid climate, they were well enough preserved to carry
out autopsies. Haglund's conclusion 'that they died from suffocation' exactly
corroborates the stories told by the Guantanamo detainees in last week's
Observer .

'They are the first survivors to describe what we already believed happened to
the victims we discovered,' Haglund said yesterday. 'The time has come for a
full investigation, under the protection of the international community.'

Asif Iqbal, Shafiq Rasul and Ruhal Ahmed, from Tipton in the West Midlands, told
in their interviews how weeks before they were handed over to the Americans,
they were captured by Northern Alliance forces led by General Abdurrashid Dostum
in November 2001, as they tried to flee war-torn Afghanistan.

At Shebargan, they were herded into two of several truck containers. Then, Iqbal
said, the doors were sealed. He and the others lost consciousness, and when he
came to he was 'lying on top of dead bodies, breathing the stench of their blood
and urine'.

'We lived because someone made holes with a machine gun, though they were
shooting low, and still more died from the bullets. When we got out, about 20 in
each container were still alive.'

Haglund visited the mass grave at Shebargan twice in 2002, in the wake of the
coalition's war against the Taliban. On the first occasion, he was part of a
team from the US-based Physicians for Human Rights, which identified dozens of
mass graves in northern Afghanistan, many containing the remains of prisoners
killed by the proxy warlord forces backed by Britain and America.

The team also inspected the Northern Alliance prison at Shebargan in January,
2002, while the 'Tipton Three' were still there. Their findings, said John
Heffernan, another team member, also corroborate the Tipton men's story. 'There
were nearly 3,000 of them being held in squalid conditions under the control of
Dostum, whose palatial headquarters were across the street,' Heffernan said.

Iqbal and Rasul told how they had been marched through the desert towards
Shebargan past huge ditches already filled with bodies. Heffernan said: 'After
taking into account the thousands crowded into the dilapidated prison, the
whereabouts of many taken captive remained unknown. We began to suspect some
might have met their fate on the way there. After we left the prison and
travelled down the road a few miles into the desert, we smelled the unmistakable
odour of decaying flesh and soon found bulldozer tracks and skeletal remains.'
Haglund came back under United Nations auspices a few months later.

By chance, on the day he arrived at Shebargan, Dostum had gone into the
mountains, he said, leaving behind a military escort which allowed him to open
the grave. 'I uncovered one small corner, exposing 15 remains which were quite
complete, and did autopsies on three. There were no signs of trauma and these
were all young men. This is consistent with death by asphyxiation.

'I told Dostum's security chief that they had died from suffocation, and there
was this big silence hanging over the desert.'

The details about elements of the Tipton Three's story assumed a new importance
last week, after the Sun published claims by a US Embassy spokesman, Lee
McClenny, that the three had trained at an al-Qaeda camp in 2000. They told The
Observer last week that they had all confessed to this accusation only after
months of solitary confinement and 200 separate interrogation sessions, only to
have it finally disproved by MI5, which brought documents showing they had been
in Britain at the time.

After making his claims in the Sun, McClenny refused to answer further questions
from journalists, while Lt Col Leon Sumpter, the US spokesman at Guantanamo Bay,
said any allegations concerning detainees were highly classified, even after
their release: 'I don't know how the Embassy got this,' he said. 'It didn't come
from us, and we knew nothing about it.' McClenny's letter was widely criticised
as an attempt to nullify the Tipton men's stories of abuse at American hands.

* * *


The Herald Sun (Melbourne):

March 21, 2004

HICKS'S FATHER DOUBTS SWITCH
By Matthew Schulz

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/sectionindex2/0,5443,dhscontacts^^TEXT,00.html

AUSSIE terror suspect David Hicks's father says suggestions his son has
renounced Islam may be linked to constant pressure by US interrogators.

Three British former inmates released this month from the US detention camp at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, made the claim to English newspapers this week.

Shafiq Rasul said David Hicks had shaved off his beard and no longer prayed to
Allah, and kept sane by catching mice.

Hicks was arrested in Afghanistan in 2002 and taken to the high-security US base
after joining the fundamentalist Muslim Taliban regime.

Shortly before that, Hicks wrote to his parents to say the highest point in
heaven was "to go fighting in the way of God against the forces of Satan".

But Terry Hicks, from Adelaide's northern suburbs, said he had not confirmed the
claims, and believed his son's action could have been to, "just let the American
intelligence hear what they want to hear".

Mr Hicks said, "To me it's strange that these reports are coming out, but you
can renounce something just for the sake of, 'Leave me alone -- I've told you
what you want to know'. "

He agreed his son had lost his beard, but "he still has a goatee".

The US will not allow Mr Hicks to visit David in the camp's maximum security
Camp Echo.

Mr Hicks said his son was now taking vitamin and supplements after shedding
25kg.

He said the weight loss could be linked to the food regime at the camp.

The Adelaide man addressed a 3000-strong anti-Iraq war rally in the city
yesterday, as part of a campaign to highlight the plight of 600 inmates at
Guantanamo Bay.

The turnout gave him heart that after two years without charges, Australians
were starting to see his son was no "demon".

* * *


Toronto Globe and Mail:

March 20, 2004

FEARS OF TERROR CELL FADE AS TWO ARE FREED
Men jailed in Syria expected in Canada

By Colin Freeze

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040320/ARAR20/
TPNational/Canada

Fears that Ontario might have harboured a terrorist cell, once thought to have
included Maher Arar, seem to have disintegrated, now that two acquaintances are
to return to Canada as free men.

Two Arab Canadians who spent most of the past two years as prisoners after their
arrest on flying into Syria have been released to their family homes in the
region. They are expected to return to Canada soon.

Abdullah Almalki was quietly released from a Syrian jail last week after nearly
two years in custody. He is not yet cleared to return to Canada, though he is
said to be trying to do so.

Ahmad Abou El-Maati was freed early this year and is ready to return to Toronto
as early as this weekend.

Contacted in Cairo yesterday, Mr. El-Maati was pleased to hear that Mr. Almalki
had been freed. "Wow. When was this?" he said. "Good."

Mr. El-Maati, a 39-year-old former Toronto truck driver, had been under close
scrutiny in Canada, suspected of links to terrorism. He said he knew the other
two men, but "not very well. They were just friends."

He said he very much wants to tell his story, but only once he returns.

"I guess the RCMP and CSIS [Canadian Security Intelligence Service] have lots of
things to explain, actually," he said.

All three men were subjects of a counterterrorism investigation in Ontario in
the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Properties were searched, but no
charges were ever laid.

Yet suspicions about the men seem to have been passed along to other countries
to which they travelled.

The men were arrested separately as they disembarked from international flights
in 2001 and 2002.

Mr. Arar was the first to be released, and his account of torture has led to a
Canadian public inquiry into his case.

The terms of the inquiry are broad -- they include any "circumstance directly
related to Mr. Arar that the commissioner considers relevant" -- and it is
likely that the detentions of the other two men will come up.

U.S. deportation documents do not say precisely why Mr. Arar was sent to Syria
after he was arrested in New York on suspicion of terrorism, but do point out
that he knew Mr. Almalki and Mr. El-Maati.

Saying he hardly knows either man, Mr. Arar has explained that he once bumped
into Mr. El-Maati at a garage in Montreal, and that he once lunched in Ottawa
with Mr. Almalki, whose rental lease he signed years ago.

The RCMP probe seems to have focused mostly on Mr. El-Maati, who has complained
that spies were dogging him in Canada in the summer of 2001, especially after he
was interrogated by U.S. border guards.

A map of Ottawa was discovered in the transport truck he was driving and appears
to have caused concern that he planned to launch a terrorist strike there. He
denied the map was his, and his employer drafted a letter saying that the
truck's previous driver had an Ottawa route.

Mr. El-Maati flew to Syria in the fall of 2001, where he was immediately
arrested. He has since said he was tortured there by captors who asked questions
that seemed to be based on information that first surfaced in North America.

Aly Hindy, an Islamic religious leader in Toronto, said his friend first came
under suspicion because he was known to have spent time in Afghanistan. But the
imam said that Mr. El-Maati was never part of any plot, though he was tortured
into admitting as much.

"They tortured him until he told them, 'What do you want me to say?' Imam Hindy
said in a recent interview. ". . . He said, 'What if I used a truck?' They said,
'Okay, very good idea but which building are you going to hit?'

". . .So he said, 'How about the Parliament Buildings?' They said, 'Oh, it's a
very, very good idea.'

"So he wrote everything and signed, and after that they didn't touch him and
they sent him to Egypt," Imam Hindy said.

* * *


Saturday, March 20, 2004 - Page A16

KHADR WANTS HIS FAMILY BACK IN CANADA

By COLIN FREEZE

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040320/KHADR20/
TPNational/Canada

Saying that he hopes his fundamentalist family can still be reunited and
rehabilitated in Canada, Abdurahman Khadr is asking Ottawa to do more to make
that happen.

The young man who describes himself as the "black sheep of an al-Qaeda family"
said at a Toronto press conference yesterday that he wants his mother, sister
and three brothers returned to the country of their citizenship to be cleansed
of a fanatical "mindwash" they received in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"My family deserves one last chance," he said. "This is the life they have been
dragged into, you know, by my father. It was a life where you had to hate an
American to be part of it."

The 21-year-old returned to Canada last fall to talk of the time he had spent in
al-Qaeda training camps and as a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His father,
Ahmed Said Khadr, was an Egyptian immigrant to Canada who years ago moved his
family to Afghanistan after befriending Osama bin Laden.

The father, who had urged his sons to become Islamic holy warriors, was killed
in a battle with Pakistani security forces last fall. This month, Abdurahman
revealed that he had turned his back on his family to work for the U.S. Central
Intelligence Agency before coming back to Canada.

The less rebellious Khadr brothers have been less lucky. The youngest, 14-year-
old Karim, was wounded in the same battle that killed his father.

"Karim has been through a lot, and I think he should be brought back to Canada,"
Mr. Khadr said yesterday, adding that with the right treatment his brother could
walk again. "I know that Canada has the best health-care system."

His 17-year-old brother, Omar, has been detained at Guantanamo for nearly two
years on allegations that he fatally wounded a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan. "For
Omar, I don't want you to let him go on the street; I want you to take him to
court," Mr. Khadr said."I trust the Canadian courts more, so I would want him to
be tried here in Canada."

* * *


Fairfield - Suisun City Daily Republic:

March 19, 2004
EVIDENCE DISPUTE CONSUMES TRAVIS ESPIONAGE CASE
By Ian Thompson

http://www.dailyrepublic.com/articles/2004/03/19/news/news4.txt

TRAVIS AFB -- The Air Force continues to hide evidence from attorneys for a
Travis Air Force senior airman suspected of espionage, the defense team charged
in motions filed this month.

Attorneys for Senior Airman Ahmad I. Al Halabi want the government to drop the
charges against him because the Air Force is keeping evidence and witnesses away
from the defense team or not turning information in in a timely manner, the
motion said.

What access they did get "was not meaningful" and the limited number of
documents they got "does not begin to cover the amount of information that the
government currently claims is classified," it said.

Al Halabi, 24, served as a supply clerk with the 60th Logistics Readiness
Squadron at Travis AFB before being sent to the detention facility at Guantanamo
Bay to serve as a translator. He was arrested at Jacksonville Naval Air Station
on July 23, 2003, while on his way to Syria to get married.

The airman was arraigned Jan. 15 on 17 counts of espionage, lying and disobeying
orders for allegedly trying to deliver more than 180 written and e-mail messages
from detainees at Guantanamo Bay to Syria.

He is also accused of trying to deliver secret documents about prison camp
operations, and names and other personal information about detainees, according
to charges filed against him.

Neither Travis AFB or 18th Air Force officials responded to inquiries as of
Thursday afternoon.

The motion to dismiss is one of several expected to be heard Wednesday morning
in a Travis AFB courtroom before a military judge. The court-martial itself is
expected to start April 23.

Al Halabi's attorneys also filed a motion asking that a judge release him from
pretrial confinement because the security reasons for putting him in confinement
no longer apply. In July 2003, the government demanded his confinement because
officials feared he would continue transmitting classified information, but the
government later dropped that charge.

The government has to decide whether to withhold classified information or
prosecute Al Halabi, said the motion to dismiss, which Donald Rehkopf, Maj. Kim
London and Maj. James Key filed two weeks ago.

If the Air Force doesn't want to hand over the evidence the defense is asking
for, then "the prosecution of this accused must cease."

The lack of access to classified documents has frustrated Al Halabi's defense
team since the beginning, particularly because the defense attorneys have the
security clearances needed to examine the evidence.

At the Jan. 15 arraignment, Military Judge Col. Barbara Brand set a deadline of
Feb. 25 for the government to turn over any case-related classified documents to
the defense lawyers.

While the government handed over some of the requested documents by the
deadline, the defense didn't get all it asked for.

The evidence the defense is demanding runs the gamut from e-mails supposedly
seized from Al Halabi's laptop computer to the warrant for the search of Al
Halabi's sister's house.

According to the motion document, government investigators broke into her house
while the woman was testifying at a hearing about "about how well the American
government treats its citizens."

"Even after the raid was over, the government did not have the courtesy to
inform her before she left the hearing to return home," the motion document
stated.

When the sister and her daughter got home, they thought their house was
burglarized, according to the motion documents.

In a related action, Air Force prosecutors filed a motion last week asking the
judge to exclude any mention of a probe of an Office of Special Investigations
agent who was one of those working on Al Halabi's case, the Washington Post
reported.

OSI Special Agent Marc Palmosina is under investigation for allegedly keeping
classified documents on a compact disc at home, the newspaper reported. The
documents were related to a case Palmosina was working on before he was sent to
Guantanamo Bay.

[ Reach Ian Thompson at 427-6976 or ithompson@dailyrepublic.net ]

* * *


The Guardian (UK):

Friday March 19, 2004

GUANTANAMO BRITONS FURIOUS AT US 'PROPAGANDA'

By Tania Branigan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1173051,00.html

The MP and a lawyer for Britons released from Guantanamo Bay have accused the US
of issuing "propaganda" after it told a newspaper that four of the men were
trained al-Qaida or Taliban fighters.

The US embassy in London, with White House approval, took the unusual step of
releasing detailed allegations, in a letter to the Sun, stating that the Britons
had received weapons training and had been caught with Taliban forces in
Afghanistan. The claims prompted the shadow home secretary to ask David Blunkett
why he had concluded that the men posed no threat to British security.

"If the evidence from the US embassy is accurate - and it is hard to see how
they could get it wrong - then the home secretary has some serious questions to
answer," said David Davis.

But Mr Blunkett stood by his assessment that none of the men was a threat.

Relatives of the men dismissed the US claims as "lies", and lawyers accused the
US of issuing the claims in retaliation after the Britons told newspapers of
punishment beatings and psychological torture at the American detention camp in
Cuba.

"They're desperate," said Clive Stafford Smith, the lawyer who represented
Shafiq Rasul and Asif Iqbal, both from Tipton, in the US. "They can't get away
any more with silence and secrecy so now they're going on a propaganda offensive
to divert attention from what they are really doing."

Adrian Bailey, the MP for the "Tipton three", said: "I'm un happy that there is
a propaganda battle between the men's families and the US government. The
Americans have made allegations about their past record. But they have had them
for two years and interviewed them and released them on the basis they're not a
threat. British authorities have been through a process to confirm that."

Lee McClenny, press counsellor at the London embassy, said in his letter that
one Briton had been taught to use an AK-47 rifle and pistol at an al-Qaida safe
house in Kabul. Two others learned to use Kalashnikovs at a camp in Afghanistan
in autumn 2000, returning with a third man the following year "to fight jihad
with the Taliban".

He added that one man "states he considers the UK and US governments to be his
enemies and travelled to Afghanistan after 9/11 for an organisation known to be
associated with al-Qaida. He also associated with al-Qaida extremists in the
UK". Mr McClenny told the Guardian he was responding to direct questions from
the Sun, adding: "The Home Office has said [the men] do not represent a threat
to the UK. That does not indicate the circumstances of their situation [when
detained]."

Greg Powell, who represents Rhuhel Ahmed, from Tipton, said: "We should bear in
mind that the so-called information available from Guantanamo Bay was obtained
as a result of a regime of torture."

Louise Christian, the solicitor acting for Tarek Dergoul, from east London,
said: "The allegations made by the US can only be based on things obtained under
duress. We knew from the detailed accounts given already that false confessions
have been made in Guantanamo Bay."

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We are not going to comment on security issues.
They were interviewed by the Metropolitan police and released."

* * *


Reuters:

March 19, 2004 - 08:57 PM ET

US DROPS CHARGES AGAINST GUANTANAMO MUSLIM CHAPLAIN
By Will Dunham

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4610565

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military on Friday dropped all criminal charges
against Muslim Army chaplain Capt. James Yee, who ministered to Guantanamo Bay
prisoners, marking the final collapse of the espionage case against him.

Miami-based U.S. Southern Command said the Army abandoned charges of mishandling
classified information, as well as lesser charges of adultery and storing
pornographic material on a government computer, stemming from Yee's work at the
U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In all, the military had brought six
counts against Yee.

Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the commander of the prison facility at
Guantanamo where the United States houses about 610 foreign terrorism suspects,
dismissed the charges, citing national security concerns that would arise from
the release of the evidence, Southern Command said in a statement.

"They collapsed. Chaplain Yee has won his case," Yee's civilian lawyer, Eugene
Fidell, told Reuters. "This represents a long overdue vindication. In our view,
he's entitled to an apology and we'll be looking forward to receiving one."

Asked if Yee would get an apology, Col. Bill Costello, a Southern Command
spokesman, said, "I don't know."

"General Miller and the government prosecutors and security officials determined
that we would have had to release sensitive material if the case were to proceed
on the charges of mishandling classified material. And because we wanted to
adequately protect national security, we decided not to go forward," Costello
said.

Fidell said that "we reject the notion that security concerns played any role in
this decision," instead saying the government's case went "up in smoke."

Yee, 36, was arrested on Sept. 10, 2003, at Jacksonville Naval Air Station in
Florida as he arrived back in the United States from Guantanamo, and military
authorities accused him in a court document of spying, mutiny, sedition, aiding
the enemy and espionage.

LEG IRONS AND HANDCUFFS

But even as Yee spent 76 days in a Navy brig in South Carolina -- much of it in
leg irons and handcuffs -- the Army never brought espionage-related charges
against him.

Yee, who also uses the first name Yousef, is a 1990 graduate of the U.S.
Military Academy at West Point, New York. Raised a Lutheran in New Jersey, the
Chinese American converted to Islam while in the Army at about the same time he
served in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 Gulf War.

Costello refused to say that the military believed Yee was an innocent man. "The
belief is that he had sensitive information that he did not have the authority
to maintain and he did not safeguard it," he said.

"Although Miller considered Yee's offer to undergo a debriefing in exchange for
the government dropping the charges, granting him immunity and supporting his
resignation, relevant law enforcement agencies could not support Yee's request
for immunity," the Southern Command statement said.

Yee's lawyers had offered to have Yee submit to 30 days of polygraph exams for
questioning on spy-related issues.

Southern Command said Yee will face nonjudicial proceedings on the allegations
relating to adultery and storing pornography in a step that does not involve
criminal charges.

During a pretrial hearing in December, prosecutors produced witnesses including
Lt. Karyn Wallace, who testified that she and the married chaplain had a sexual
affair. She was granted immunity by prosecutors.

But a military judge suspended the pretrial proceedings, and the military
struggled with how to proceed in the case.

Yee ministered to the prisoners at Guantanamo, where the United States holds
non-U.S. citizens caught in what President Bush calls the global war on
terrorism, during 10 months of duty there.

Yee was one of four men charged with security violations connected to work at
Guantanamo.

* * *


CNN:

March 19, 2004

SOLDIERS LIKELY TO FACE ABUSE CHARGES OVER PHOTOS

From Barbara Starr, CNN Washington Bureau

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/19/iraq.prison.abuse/

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Criminal charges are being prepared against six U.S. Army
soldiers for alleged abuse of Iraqi detainees at Abu Gharib prison in Baghdad,
U.S. military officials told CNN.

The charges are expected to include indecent acts, assault, cruelty,
maltreatment, conspiracy, and dereliction of duty.

Multiple sources said the allegations involve soldiers who took photographs of
Iraqi prisoners, including pictures that show the prisoners partially clothed or
physical contact between soldiers and detainees.

One source said "less than two dozen detainees" were subjected to the alleged
abuse, which was reported by U.S. Army soldiers who witnessed it.

Draft charge sheets have been prepared, but it's not clear yet if the charges
have been formally filed against the soldiers under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.

Nine additional military personnel and two civilian employees may also be facing
severe administrative action, according to U.S. military sources.

Eight of them are expected to receive letters of reprimand that effectively will
end their military careers.

A civilian translator and a civilian interrogator are expected to be fired.

The Army's Criminal Investigative Division's investigation concluded there is
sufficient evidence to recommend charges. But a final decision will be up to
commanders.

A formal announcement is expected in the next few days -- as soon as the
paperwork is approved by commanders in the region.

All of the military personnel are believed to be members of the 800th Military
Police Brigade, which was guarding Abu Gharib prison until recently.

CNN has previously reported that 17 personnel at the prison were relieved of
their duties, including a battalion commander, a company commander, three non-
commissioned officers, and 12 military police directly involved in guard duties.

Prisoners held by the United States in Iraq are accorded the rights of dignity
and may not be held up to public ridicule under the Geneva Conventions.

A source indicated that taking pictures would be considered criminal activity
unless it could be demonstrated it was done for official reasons related to
processing and handling of detainees.

The Pentagon official said some computer drives were seized by the CID in the
search for the photographs and additional evidence of abuse.

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, head of coalition forces in Iraq, has also ordered an
investigation to determine whether any problems exist in the chain of command.

* * *


Slate:

March 19, 2004

GITMO' BETTER BLUES
The folly of the new Guantanamo trials.

By Neal Katyal

http://slate.msn.com/id/2097397/

The rush to create the fig leaf of justice at Guantanamo Bay has begun. Next
month, the Supreme Court will review the Bush administration's claim that no one
at Guantanamo is entitled to civilian court adjudication of their detentions. On
the eve of the Supreme Court deadline for filing its brief defending that
policy, the administration announced a newly minted procedure for annual reviews
of detentions. The irony of this and other actions (including the decision
announced the day before another Supreme Court filing deadline, to allow Jose
Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber," access to a lawyer) should not be lost: By
modifying its policies in the past months, the administration has made the
definitive case for civilian review of Guantanamo. The only due process that's
happened there came only after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

But don't let these initiatives lull you into thinking that the administration
has suddenly decided to follow the rule of law. The most dramatic step -- and
one likely to be trumpeted by the government at oral argument -- was their
decision to bring the first charges against detainees: charges based on the
offense of conspiracy, to be heard by the first military commission since World
War II. As some readers of Slate know, I am a big fan of the conspiracy doctrine
in general. But despite the tremendous merits of our civilian conspiracy law,
these military charges are unconstitutional, inconsistent with international
law, and unwise.

They will demonstrate what critics of the military tribunals have been saying
all along: that the administration has sought to create an end run around
guarantees of fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution and universally
accepted agreements such as the Geneva Conventions.

Continue Article


There are three main problems with the conspiracy indictments at Guantanamo. The
first is their targets. One would have thought that, having decided to rock the
constitutional order and flout international law, the administration would have
at least reserved the military tribunals for the worst offenders -- Osama Bin
Laden and the like. Instead, charges have been filed against, if the
prosecutor's claims prove accurate, someone armed with a TV camera (a
videographer of the Cole bombing) and Bin Laden's accountant -- both of whom
also allegedly served as his bodyguards. While glorifying the Cole bombing and
moving al-Qaida money are certainly bad acts, if there were any evidence that
these two men actually engaged in serious war crimes, it would be in the
indictment. It's not. Instead, the government can only allege the amorphous
crime of aiding of al-Qaida.

Contrast these vague indictments with the position of Assistant Attorney General
Herbert Wechsler during World War II. Wechsler, perhaps the most important 20th-
century scholar of American criminal law, deplored a Pentagon proposal to file
conspiracy charges against Germans who were not "prime leaders." To Wechsler,
such charges could not be based on ideas drawn from American conspiracy law
without "proof of personal participation in a specific crime." In the absence of
such proof, he said, "the force of the broad criminal charge against the leaders
may be seriously weakened in the eyes of the world," especially "if too many
individuals are included in it." Today there is no Wechsler in the
administration advising restraint -- striking, in light of America's recent
experience with the Independent Counsel Act, another device that encouraged
overzealousness at the price of balance and fairness. Fairness and process, of
course, can give way in an emergency or when the matter concerns Bin Laden or
his close associates. But a cameraman and an accountant, even if they double as
bodyguards, just don't come close.

The second problem is in the substance of the conspiracy charges. The Department
of Defense, bowing to the will of the prosecutors, defined the offense of
conspiracy in the broadest terms possible. This definition is similar to the one
the United States proposed to use at Nuremberg, with disastrous results. When
the Americans proposed it then, it was roundly criticized by our allies. And
when a variant of it was used at trial, the Nuremberg judges ruled that there
could be no such offenses as conspiracy to commit war crimes or conspiracy to
commit crimes against humanity. Even U.S. Attorney General Francis Biddle, who
sat as a judge, wanted to throw out the conspiracy charges altogether. The
result of the Nuremberg ruling was to confine conspiracy only to very limited
acts and only against high-level German officials, directly involved in specific
acts of aggression. This glaring deficiency will pose problems because the
Supreme Court has acknowledged that military commissions can, at most, only try
violations authorized by Congress or international law, and the current
conspiracy charges do not fit either category.

To make matters worse, the conspiracy charges in both of the indictments are
based largely on conduct that occurred before 9/11, yet military commissions can
only adjudicate violations of the laws of war. It is a tremendous stretch to
argue that this war began in 1999 or 1989. (No doubt that claim would be news to
former President Clinton and his national security team. Indeed, it would
apparently be a surprise even to President Bush, who, in justifying his
campaign's use of 9/11 imagery, stated at a March 6, 2004, press conference,
"The terrorists declared war on us that day.") Again, Wechsler is instructive:
"Atrocities committed prior to a state of war" ... "are not embraced within the
ordinary concept of crimes punishable as violations of the laws of war."

There are good reasons why the laws of war, unlike American civilian law, place
powerful limits on the conspiracy doctrine. Recall that the civilian offense is
based largely on a theory of deterrence -- that draconian punishments will scare
people into avoiding association with criminal organizations. But these
arguments fail with respect to the military proceedings at Guantanamo. For one
thing, the idea that other would-be war criminals are watching the proceedings
at Guantanamo and modifying their conduct is far-fetched, especially if, as the
Pentagon has asserted, the proceedings may be closed to public view. For
another, deterrence works best when the perceived costs of the action exceed the
perceived benefits, and it is very difficult to make a claim that the
speculative risk of punishment in U.S. military courts would change the calculus
of future war criminals (particularly when military operations against them are
already ongoing). This isn't to say that there is no upside to conspiracy
charges, only that the benefits are more attenuated than they are in ordinary
criminal cases and eroded by serious risks of error. And if there are cases in
which the advantages of a conspiracy charge become apparent, then the
administration is free to use the civilian offense of conspiracy -- one written
into law by Congress instead of drafted by a Pentagon bureaucrat -- in a
standard criminal action.

The third and final problem with the Guantanamo tribunals lies in the procedural
rules. American criminal law has been able to develop a vibrant offense of
conspiracy only because of its strong commitment to criminal procedural
guarantees. So, while charges can be somewhat vaguer in a civilian conspiracy
trial and hearsay evidence may be admitted, the standard checks on prosecutorial
and judicial abuse exist -- indictment by a grand jury, the right to a jury
trial, the right to confront witnesses, the right to obtain exculpatory
evidence, and so on. Those of us who defend a broad substantive offense of
conspiracy treat these procedural rights as preconditions before such a wide-
ranging offense could be established. Yet the military tribunals offer no such
guarantees.

The administration thus gives birth to a legal Frankenstein. It picks its
jurisdictional theory -- that no one can have civilian review -- from 1950,
before we had earth-shattering developments in international law (e.g., the
Geneva Convention's ratification and its worldwide acceptance) and domestic
military law (the 1951 Uniform Code of Military Justice). It picks its
procedural theory from the same time period -- before the massive revolution in
procedural rights in American criminal trials. And it derives its substantive
law -- the offense of conspiracy -- from no real time period at all; it's
inspired by cases brought in the 1970s against organized crime. This mix-and-
match cannot produce even the closest approximation to fairness.

The chief criticism of the tribunals has always been that the president cannot
have the unilateral power to define offenses, pick prosecutors, select judges,
authorize charges, select defendants, and then strip the civilian courts of all
powers to review tribunal decisions. This principle goes all the way back to the
Declaration of Independence, which listed, among the founders' complaints
against King George, that he "has affected to render the Military independent of
and superior to the Civil Power"; "depriv[ed] us, in many Cases, of the benefits
of trial by jury"; "made Judges dependent on his Will alone"; and "transport[ed]
us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences." For these reasons, the
Supreme Court said during the Civil War that if tribunals are ever appropriate,
it is up to Congress to define how and when they are to be used. The current
administration has argued that this constitutional history and structure is not
relevant because military necessity permitted it to act without explicit
congressional authorization.

But charges aren't being brought against planners of the Sept. 11 attacks or
other terrorist atrocities. Instead, the president is using these tribunals
against minor offenders, where the claim of military necessity is weak. To boot,
charges are being brought nearly two and a half years after Sept. 11,
dramatically undermining the arguments for avoiding congressional delay. And if
the administration prevails at the Supreme Court, the rules for the military
commissions -- from the definition of substantive offenses to the procedural
rules and review guidelines -- will be slanted even more in favor of the
prosecution than they already are.

Times of crisis demand special responses. But when the crises are long in scope,
without a definitive end, and when time permits national deliberation and
decision-making, both constitutional and pragmatic values are best served by
having our nation's representatives and judges consider that response -- not
resorting solely to executive decree. The conspiracy charges are the most
dramatic step yet in the slide down a dangerous anticonstitutional spiral.

Neal Katyal teaches law at Georgetown University. He is chief counsel to the
military defense lawyers in the Guantanamo case pending at the U.S. Supreme
Court.

* * *


Toronto Globe and Mail:

March 19, 2004

TEEN BROTHER IN PAKISTAN NEEDS HELP, KHADR SAYS
Canadian Press

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040319.wterr0319/BNStory/Natio
nal/

Toronto -- A Canadian whose family has strong ties to the al-Qaeda terrorist
network pleaded with the federal government Friday to help his paralyzed 14-
year-old brother return to Canada from Pakistan.

Abdurahman Khadr, 21, described his brother Karim, who was badly injured in a
clash with security forces that killed their father, as an innocent victim.

"As a child, forget what his father or his mother thinks," Mr. Khadr said at a
news conference. "As just a child, a Canadian child, I think he needs help."

Karim has been in a hospital in Pakistan since the shootout last October.

Mr. Khadr, who lives in Toronto, also pleaded with the Canadian government to
ensure his mother and sister, who have expressed sympathy for al-Qaeda, are able
to return from Pakistan. He said he worries they are under the spell of Muslim
extremists and need to be away from them.

The Canadian government has denied them passports because they have repeatedly
lost previous ones.

"My mother and my sister, they haven't done anything and I'm trying to save them
before they do something," he said, noting they may try to travel illegally.
"That's why I want them to come back to Canada -- to be away from that influence
of al-Qaeda."

Last year, Mr. Khadr raised eyebrows with a story that he was arrested by U.S.
forces in Afghanistan, imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay on suspicions of being a
terrorist and then dumped without documents in Afghanistan. He later said he had
lied, and in fact had been working undercover with the CIA that whole time.

In a recent CBC-TV documentary, members of his family admitted to being involved
with and sympathetic to al-Qaeda. Mr. Khadr, however, said he firmly rejected
the hatred generated by Muslim extremists.

* * *


The Scotsman (Edinburgh):

March 19, 2004

GUANTANAMO TRIAL WOULD PROVOKE ATTACKS, SAYS FATHER

By Tomos Livingstone, Welsh Affairs Correspondent, PA News

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2672212

The father of a British man being held in Guantanamo Bay said today that if he
was tried by a US military tribunal it would provoke further terrorist attacks.

Azmet Begg says his son Moazzam, who has been held for two years, should be
returned to the UK for a fair trial here.

Mr Begg, speaking at a press conference in Aberystwyth, said he had not been in
touch with the British men released from the camp, saying they are "different
people" from his son.

Mr Begg said: "I am not asking any favours, any mercy, all I am saying is bring
him back to this country where he belongs.

"If necessary, bring him to the court. If he is found guilty, he must be
punished. What else could be fairer than that?"

Asked about the possibility of his son being tried by a US military tribunal, he
said: "What will happen is terrorists will take advantage of that situation.

"They will say ’he was our man, we have a good reason to attack’. This is what
will happen.

Mr Begg said he had recently received a letter from his son, dated October,
which said he had now been denied his "luxury" of being allowed to run to keep
fit in the camp.

Mr Begg, from Sparkhill in Birmingham, said his son had had no contact with
Islamic extremists.

"I raised him, who knows him better than me?" Mr Begg said.

"Does Mr Bush know him better than me? Does Mr Blair? No."

Asked about the other released Guantanamo Bay prisoners, he said: "We haven’t
met them, but I will try to and see them. They are different people from our
family, we didn’t know them before."

* * *

CBC:

March 19, 2004

ANOTHER OTTAWA MAN FREED FROM SYRIAN PRISON

http://ottawa.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ot_almalki20040319

OTTAWA - Another Ottawa man has been set free after being held without charges
in a Syrian prison for almost two years.

Abdullah Almalki's lawyer, Michael Edelson, says his client was released a week
ago. The 32-year-old has been reunited with his parents, who flew to Damascus
from Ottawa. Almalki's family fears his new-found freedom could be in jeopardy
if he's given too much attention -- the kind of attention Maher Arar received
when he was freed from a Syrian prison last October. A spokesperson for the
department of foreign affairs says the family has asked the department not to
comment about Almalki's release. Edelson says there will be no comment until
after his client is safely out of Syria. Almalki was arrested in the Syrian
capital almost two years ago when he landed there to visit relatives. According
to his family, Almalki was previously the subject of anti-terrorist
investigations in Ottawa. Maher Arar revealed in October he had seen Almalki in
prison. He said Almalki was thin and weak, and that Almalki told him he'd been
tortured.

* * *


March 18, 2004

Conservative Party (UK):

DAVID DAVIS DEMANDS STATEMENT ON GUANTANAMO FOUR

http://www.conservatives.com/news/article.cfm?obj_id=93636

David Davis has called on the Home Secretary to explain why four Guantanamo Bay
prisoners were released on their return to Britain - when the Americans claim
they were trained terrorists.

The Shadow Home Secretary made the move after the United States embassy in
London said the former suspects, now released onto the streets of the UK, were
schooled in terrorism tactics by Al Qaeda or Taliban leaders in Afghanistan.

American insistence that the four had been taught to use weapons came just days
after the Metropolitan Police decided to free the four former Camp X-Ray inmates
without charge, after a short period of questioning.

Firing off a letter to the Home Secretary calling for an early statement, Mr
Davis said: "If the evidence from the US Embassy is accurate - and it is hard to
see how they could get it wrong - then the Home Secretary has some serious
questions to answer. He has to explain exactly how he came to the view that
people trained in terrorist tactics, with a track record of setting up to fight
the armed forces of Britain and her allies, are no threat to the security of the
British people."

He told conservatives.com: "It would also seem that there is at least a prima
facia case to be brought for treason and Mr Blunkett ought to explain to
Parliament and to the public whether he has asked the Crown Prosecution Service
to assess this, and if not why not?

"In the aftermath of Madrid, it is vital that the Government shuts down every
possible avenue of terrorist attack, and makes clear to would be terrorists that
their activities will not be tolerated".

* * *


The Telegraph (UK):

March 19, 2004

GUANTANAMO SUSPECT NOW 'TOO SCARED TO GO HOME'
By Nick Britten

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/03/19/nguan19.xml

The father of one of the detainees said yesterday that his son had become a
fugitive, too scared to come home in case he is killed.

Riasoth Ahmed attacked the American authorities for claiming that his son,
Ruhal, 22, was a trained fighter.

He said that Ahmed, who is still at a secret address following his release by
the British authorities last week, was in a "horrible situation", forced to keep
away from his home in Bath Road, Tipton, for his own safety.

Mr Ahmed, 65, said: "It is all lies. If he is guilty then why did they decide to
release him? The Americans found nothing and the British police let him go, so
why are they saying this now?

"They keep saying all this rubbish, it is terrible and it is destroying his
life.

"He can't even come home because everyone knows where we live and someone might
try and kill him or harm us. It is a very frightening time.

"He is not very well and I think he has been mentally affected. He is talking in
a strange way and he is not the same boy I once knew."

A relative of Shafiq Rasul, 26, who answered the door at his home in Victoria
Road, Tipton, dismissed the latest allegations. The man, who declined to be
named, said: "It's a load of lies."

An elderly relative of Asif Iqbal, 22, who answered the door at the family home
in nearby Wellington Road, said no one would comment.

When the men return home they will face monitoring by anti-terrorist officers
and West Midlands Police.

Surveillance cameras have been set up outside the homes of Asif Iqbal, Ruhal
Ahmed and Shafiq Rasul and officers are in regular touch with the families.

A police spokesman said the cameras had been set up to "maintain public safety".

With the British National Party trying to use the men to whip up support for
their cause, officers are primed for the possibility of racial trouble.

A former colleague of the three men, who worked at the mail sorting depot Hayes
DX in Tipton, claimed that they spoke openly of their admiration for Osama bin
Laden.

The employee, who refused to be named, said: "It was common knowledge throughout
the building that they were planning to go to Afghanistan.

"They had been quite open about wanting to head off after September 11. There
were three guys who left here, Iqbal, Ahmed and Ali [Munir Ali, a friend who
flew to Pakistan at the same time but has not been heard of since].

"Although Iqbal and Ahmed were captured, the rumour is that Munir Ali was shot
by American forces. We all know he hasn't come back."

Adrian Bailey, MP for West Bromwich West, said that an "unfortunate propaganda
war" had broken out.

He said: "It was always likely that once the Tipton Three made accusations
against the American government there would be a counter from the US government.
Obviously if the Americans thought there was anything serious with which to
charge the men, they had every opportunity to do so, as did the British
Government, but no charges were brought."

* Forty Muslim graves were found vandalised yesterday, with headstones smashed
and pictures removed. Police said the vandalism, at a cemetery in Charlton,
south-east London, was motivated by religious hatred.

* * *


The Scotsman (Edinburgh):

March 18, 2004

FREED TERROR CAMP BRITONS DISMISS AL QAIDA LINK
By Owen Fairclough and Alex Thompson, PA News

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2667728

(PA News) The families and legal representatives of four of the freed British
Guantanamo Bay detainees were united tonight in their rejection of fresh
allegations that the men were trained al Qaida and Taliban fighters.

They spoke out after the US embassy in London said the four battled against
coalition forces in Afghanistan during the military action in the wake of
September 11.

The Sun named the four as the so-called Tipton Three from the West Midlands --
Ruhal Ahmed and, Asif Iqbal, both 22, and 26-year-old Shafiq Rasul -- as well as
Tarek Dergoul, 24, from Bethnal Green, east London.

All four were questioned by anti-terrorist police in London following their
arrival back in Britain on March 9 from a detention camp in Cuba where they had
been locked up for more than two years.

They were released without charge just over 24 hours later. A fifth British
detainee, father-of-three Jamal al Harith, 37, from Manchester, was not held for
further questioning.

According to a statement given to the newspaper by embassy press counsellor Lee
McClenny, one of the four trained at an al Qaida safe house in Kabul in
September 2001 where he learned how to use an AK-47 and pistol.

Mr McClenny described him as a "weapons-carrying fighter" who was captured in
the Tora Bora mountain complex after being wounded while engaging American
troops.

Two others spent 40 days between September and October 2000 at a military camp
in Afghanistan where they learned how to use Kalashnikovs and observed hand
grenade, landmine and rocket-propelled grenade demonstrations, it was claimed.

The embassy statement says: "These two and a third returned to Afghanistan
shortly after September 11, 2001, to fight jihad with the Taliban.

"They lived in caves for several weeks and were issued Kalashnikovs and
ammunition.

"They stayed with their unit, commanded by a known Taliban leader, for three
weeks and were captured near Konduz."

Ruhal Ahmed’s father, Riasoth, who, along with the other families, had protested
their sons’ innocence, rejected the latest allegations.

Speaking from his home in Tipton, 65-year-old Mr Ahmed said: "The Americans held
him for 18 months and they found nothing and the British police let him go, so
why are they saying this now?

"They are making things much worse for his life because it is all lies."

Greg Powell, who represented Ruhal Ahmed while he was questioned at the high-
security Paddington Green police station last week, added: "With regard to
alleged information, we should bear in mind that the so-called information
available from Guantanamo Bay was obtained as a result of a regime of torture."

West Bromwich West MP Adrian Bailey, who represents the three Tipton men, said a
"propaganda war" was developing between the families of the detainees and the
American government.

The Labour MP added: "I am satisfied, given the length of time spent and
questioning undergone in Camp Delta, and by police and security services in
Britain, that there will be very little purpose in further questioning.

"I can’t believe the comments that were made to The Sun would not have been made
to the British police and security services."

A relative of Mr Rasul who answered the door at the family home in Victoria
Road, Tipton, today dismissed the latest allegations.

The man, who declined to be named, said: "It’s a load of lies."

Asked if Mr Rasul had ever handled weapons, the relative replied: "If the
Americans had known that, would they have released them?"

An elderly relative of Mr Iqbal who answered the door at the family home in
nearby Wellington Road said no one would comment.

But Gareth Peirce, who represents Mr Rasul and Mr Iqbal, accused the US of
trying to "divert attention" from suspected human rights abuses of the prisoners
on Cuba.

Ms Peirce said in a statement: "Now that testimony has begun to emerge from
released prisoners as to what has in fact been going on there, involving the
sustained ill-treatment of every kind, torture and coerced untrue admissions, it
is not surprising that the US government seeks to divert attention."

Louise Christian, the lawyer acting for Dergoul, rejected the allegations and
claimed her client had been beaten while in captivity.

She said: "Tarek has been interrogated for two-and-a-half years under conditions
of extreme coercion and at gunpoint.

"The allegations made by the US can only be based on things obtained under
duress."

Prime Minister Tony Blair’s official spokesman said: "The Home Secretary has
said that the British Government will take whatever steps are necessary to
protect national security and public safety.

"I’m not going to get into discussions about individual cases."

* * *


Reuters:

March 18, 2004

ONE YEAR ON, IRAQIS LIVE IN FEAR, AMNESTY SAYS
By Lucy Fielder

http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp;:4059cc29:e25263b0ea5ba899
?type=worldNews&locale=en_IN&storyID=4598376

BEIRUT (Reuters) - U.S.-led forces in Iraq are using the climate of violence a
year after the war began to justify violating human rights they should uphold,
Amnesty International said on Thursday.

The rights group said violence, injustice and hardship dominate daily life in a
country where civilians are trapped between occupying forces who act with
impunity and armed insurgents who carry out indiscriminate attacks.

"Violence is endemic, whether in the form of attacks by armed groups, abuses by
the occupying forces or violence against women," Amnesty said in a report,
released at its Beirut regional headquarters three days before the war
anniversary.

Amnesty condemned armed groups carrying out bloody attacks on occupation and
Iraqi forces, international agencies and civilians -- such as bombings of
Shi'ite worshippers that killed 181 people earlier this month.

But it added: "In response, (U.S.-led) Coalition Forces appear in many cases to
be using the climate of violence to justify violating the very human rights
standards they are supposed to be upholding.

"They have shot Iraqis dead during demonstrations. They have tortured and ill-
treated prisoners and detainees," it said. Homes were demolished in revenge for
insurgent attacks.

"TOTAL IMPUNITY"

Iraqi courts are forbidden to hear cases against foreign troops or officials in
Iraq, by order of the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, Amnesty said.

"In effect, U.S. soldiers are operating with total impunity," it said.

More than 10,000 Iraqi civilians were thought to have been killed in the war and
ensuing insecurity, the rights group said, although no precise figures were
available.

The report refers to a "new generation of missing people in Iraq" -- those held
in occupation detention centres, mostly on suspicion of links to attacks on
occupation forces.

Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, Iraq's most notorious under Saddam Hussein, changed
its name but little else, Amnesty said. Inmates are held without charge or
access to lawyers. Outside, their relatives wait for months for news of their
fate.

Relatives of many in the jail say they were picked up in indiscriminate raids,
the report said.

Beatings, electric shocks, sleep deprivation and execution threats are among
torture used by U.S. forces and their allies, according to victims' accounts set
down in the report.

U.S. authorities in Iraq stress political progress, pointing to a new
transitional constitution and a schedule for elections and handing power back to
Iraqis and Amnesty also pointed to positive developments.

It listed the fact that dozens of non-governmental organisations had started up,
along with more than 80 newspapers and scores of political parties and religious
groups -- a far cry from Saddam's repressive rule that the U.S.-led war ended.

A Cairo-based Arab human rights group said in a separate report that it was
concerned about abuses in Iraq.

The Arab Organisation for Human Rights (AOHR) said interviews with a range of
officials, religious leaders and ordinary Iraqis had produced accounts of
attacks on civilian areas that had led to deaths, including "wrongful killings
that the occupying forces were involved in".

It said the U.S.-led forces had violated the Geneva Conventions "through
continuous meddling in judicial affairs, carelessness about their duty to
preserve security and their unwillingness to stop lawlessness".

The Arab rights group also said it was worried about increasing sectarian strife
in Iraq.

"The biggest danger from occupying powers' practices, as perceived by the
delegation, remains kindling factional strife between sects and races in the
country by adopting the principle of factional allocations in political and
public posts," it said.

[ Additional reporting by Edmund Blair in Cairo ]

* * *


Sacramento Bee:

March 18, 2004

AIR FORCE CRITICIZED IN SPY CASE
The suspect's lawyers say their efforts are being hampered.

By Sam Stanton, Bee Staff Writer

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/8559011p-9487465c.html

One week before his court-martial on espionage charges is set to resume, Senior
Airman Ahmad I. Al Halabi's attorneys are charging the Air Force with impeding
their efforts to defend him by hiding or slowing access to evidence.

In unusually strong language about the Air Force's behavior in the alleged
spying case, the defense says it has been stymied in its efforts to get at
evidence and witnesses who can clear Al Halabi. They have asked that charges
against him be dropped.

Lawyers for the 24-year-old Syrian-born translator say their client has been the
victim of a hysterical witch hunt for spies at the Navy base in Guantanamo,
Cuba, and that government agents went as far as to break into his sister's home
in search of evidence against him.

"The government needs to make a fundamental decision here," defense attorney
Donald Rehkopf wrote in a motion filed at Travis Air Force Base last week. "If
the executive branch wants to withhold classified information, that is its
prerogative under Article II of the Constitution."

"But, the prosecution of this accused must thereby cease."

Officials at Travis, where the court-martial is set to resume Wednesday, did not
respond to a request for comment or for access to motions filed by the
prosecution in the case.

In the past, the government has characterized its case against Al Halabi as a
serious matter that resulted in a review of security procedures at Guantanamo,
where more than 600 prisoners with suspected Taliban or al-Qaida ties are being
held.

The government also contends that release of some information about the case has
been delayed by the Air Force's continuing investigation.

Air Force officials also have sought to limit release of information about the
case, citing the classified nature of much of the evidence and national security
concerns.

Al Halabi, detained in Florida July 23 as he was traveling from Guantanamo to
his planned wedding in Syria, faces 17 charges, including spying, stealing
classified information and trying to pass information about Guantanamo detainees
to Syrian officials.

Officials are expected to begin hearing motions in his case Wednesday at Travis,
with the trial expected to begin April 27.

Al Halabi's defense attorneys, however, who complained at a previous hearing
that they had been blocked from seeing much evidence in the case, have renewed
their complaints against the Air Force in a series of motions that will be heard
next week, including one that asks the Air Force judge presiding over the matter
to dismiss the case and set him free.

Among the complaints included in the motions is the treatment of Al Halabi's
sister, who was called to testify last September at an Article 32 hearing at
Vandenberg Air Force Base to determine whether he would face court-martial. The
Air Force believed Al Halabi had mailed items to his sister that included
classified materials she might "somehow pass on to the enemy," the defense
motion states.

"Knowing that she was at the Article 32, with no notice to the defense or to the
residents, the government broke into her house (literally broke a window for
entry) the very day she was testifying at the Article 32 for the defense, and
ransacked it as they searched every nook and cranny," the motion contends.

"Ironically, she was testifying about how well the American government treats
its citizens while the government herein ransacked her house. Then, even after
the raid was over, the government did not have the courtesy to inform her before
she left the hearing to return home."

When Al Halabi's sister got home, her young daughter was traumatized by the
break-in because she feared they had been burglarized, the defense claimed.

"The search resulted in no evidence to support the government's allegations
against her and (Senior Airman) Al Halabi," the defense motion continued. "In
fact, nothing at all was seized from the house."

The defense has sought since Al Halabi's arrest to portray the case against
their client as flimsy and a result of the government's efforts to uncover a spy
ring at the Cuban base. As part of those efforts, the defense claims, potential
witnesses at the base have been intimidated by repeated questioning and warnings
about security breaches.

When Maj. Kim London, a defense attorney, went to the base in November, she ran
into a wall of fear because of the government's efforts to ferret out spies, the
defense claims.

"Almost every witness and 'potential' witness in this case at GTMO was
interrogated multiple times and many had been polygraphed by these agents,
despite the fact they were potential witnesses in this criminal case," the
defense contends.

Al Halabi's lawyers also renewed their complaints that the government has
wrongly withheld evidence it claims is classified, even though attorneys in the
case have all received security clearances from the government.

Numerous requests for access to evidence have been met with the same reply, the
defense contends: "Relevancy to this case not yet shown to the government."

[ The Bee's Sam Stanton can be reached at 916-321-1091 or sstanton@sacbee.com ]

* * *


Mlive.com --

March 18, 2004

CRITICS OF TRIBUNALS GAIN UNLIKELY ALLIES: LAWYERS IN UNIFORM
By Jess Bravin, The Associated Press
The Wall Street Journal

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/business/index.ssf?/newsflash/get_story.ssf
?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?f0035_BC_WSJ--JAG-Lawyers&&news&newsflash-financial

On Jan. 31, a military officer showed up at the cell of Osama bin Laden's former
driver in Guantanamo Bay with an unusual mission: to try to set the man free.

Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift is a Navy lawyer assigned to defend Salim Ahmed Hamdan
before a military tribunal. After 15 meetings with his client, Cmdr. Swift says
he's shed any misgivings he harbored about Mr. Hamdan, a 34-year-old Yemeni who
has been in detention since being captured in Afghanistan in late 2001.

Cmdr. Swift, 42, plans to argue that statements made against his client by other
detainees were coerced and that Mr. Hamdan was merely a poorly educated
functionary desperate for a job to support his family. "He has two beautiful
kids -- one's 4, one's 2," Cmdr. Swift says, noting that his client has never
met his younger child.

In November 2001, when President Bush authorized the first U.S. military
tribunals since World War II, the process drew fire from human-rights groups and
some legal experts. Now the critics have an unexpected set of allies: the
detainees' five military lawyers, who have launched a surprisingly vigorous
assault on the system that hired them.

The five JAGs -- as members of the Judge Advocate General's Corps, the
military's legal arm, are known -- have attacked the tribunals as inherently
unfair, contrary to international law and susceptible to political influence. In
a brief they submitted to the Supreme Court, Cmdr. Swift wrote a section
comparing the president with King George III and likening the treatment of
tribunal defendants to the injustices that helped spark the American Revolution.

Ultimately, the JAGs are expected to challenge virtually every aspect of the
administration's policies on Guantanamo detainees, from the denial of
protections of the Geneva Conventions to the interrogation methods used in
extracting statements. As the first trials draw near, the JAGs' approach could
force the administration either to answer in open court or risk undercutting its
longstanding promise that the tribunals will be "full and fair."

Citing national-security concerns, Mr. Bush decreed the tribunals free from
federal court review, "the principles of law and the rules of evidence" used in
civilian trials and the rights afforded U.S. military defendants in courts-
martial. That gives the tribunal members, who are military officers selected by
the Pentagon, vast leeway to consider hearsay, unsworn statements and other
evidence that wouldn't pass muster under normal court procedures. Defendants are
entitled to a military defense lawyer and, at their own expense, a civilian
lawyer who can pass security checks. But they aren't guaranteed the right to see
all the evidence against them.

As military officers defending accused enemies of the U.S., the JAGs say they
are motivated by a mix of patriotic duty, personal values and a desire to help
shape legal history. Air Force Col. Will Gunn, the Harvard-trained lawyer who
heads the defense office, says he wants to show future generations that "even
under fire we held firm to our ideals."

For Cmdr. Swift, the cause is in part personal. He says the hazing he
experienced as a first-year "plebe" at Annapolis gave him "an affinity for
people who get in trouble." As the navigator on the frigate Rathburne in 1989,
he bailed out four sailors jailed in Malaysia for possessing a marijuana
cigarette, sparing them a potential life term. He says the experience made him
realize that "I'm a defense attorney. In my heart I've always been."

The JAGs know they are in a tricky position. People may wonder why they are
defending presumed enemies of the U.S., while others may believe they are merely
putting on a show to lend legitimacy to the process. Indeed, the Defense
Department has cited their vigorous stance as evidence that the tribunal system
is just.

The JAGs say they are fighting to win. "I have absolutely no desire to be the
loyal opposition," says Navy Lt. Cmdr. Philip Sundel, 39, one of two JAGs
assigned to defend Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul, a Yemeni accused of
producing al Qaeda propaganda videos. "I do not want to be the person whose
impassioned but unsuccessful arguments help show the system was fair."

So far, the JAGs have won praise from human-rights groups and legal experts who
initially expected to see little more than a perfunctory defense. "I was shocked
to discover just how good these military lawyers were," says Neal Katyal, a
Georgetown University law professor and national-security adviser in the Clinton
Justice Department who helped the JAGs draft their Supreme Court brief.

In December, the government denied the JAGs permission to hold a joint press
conference where they planned to criticize tribunal rules. Maj. Michael Mori,
the Marine lawyer representing Australian prisoner David Hicks, is publicly
complaining that prosecuting foreigners before tribunals considered unfit for
American defendants represents a double standard. Referring to the U.S. Army
officer who served only 3 1/2 years for the 1968 My Lai massacre in Vietnam,
Maj. Mori asks, "How hard do we hold our own people accountable? How many people
did Lt. (William) Calley kill?"

The Pentagon declined to comment on the JAGs' defense tactics. The tribunal
system's top lawyer, retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hemingway, says they
should only speak publicly to help their clients, not aim "to make a big
splash."

So far, President Bush has deemed only six of the roughly 660 prisoners at
Guantanamo to be eligible for prosecution before tribunals, or commissions, as
they are formally known. Four have been assigned lawyers, although only two have
been charged. No trial dates have been set, but a courtroom stands ready at the
sealed-off navy base on Cuba's southern coast.

To assemble the defense team, each military branch -- all have their own JAG
corps -- was asked to nominate a handful of candidates. They were interviewed by
Col. Gunn and approved by the Pentagon's general counsel, William J. Haynes II.
Even within the military, Col. Gunn says, there was "a perception that they're
probably not going to put their best over there."

What's more, the JAGs, including Col. Gunn, each had to consider what effect
their new job might have on their military careers. Instead of moving into a top
post in the Air Force JAG Corps, as he had expected, "I am now being asked to
coordinate the defense efforts of ... people who are identified as enemies of
the nation," Col. Gunn says. That's "a fairly high-risk proposition."

Most of the defense JAGs say they expect to remain in the military after the
trials.

From their nondescript offices in a Pentagon annex, decorated with service
pennants and maps of Afghanistan, the attorneys spent months scouring texts on
World War II tribunals and modern commentaries on the law of war. They sought
out Arabic interpreters and outside attorneys skilled in the complicated
constitutional, criminal and military issues they are facing. None was assigned
a specific defendant until December.

Along the way, the JAGs say, they have continually run into impediments in the
tribunal procedures, which were devised by lawyers working for Mr. Haynes, whom
President Bush has nominated to a federal appeals court. For one, the general
counsel selected, and now oversees, both Col. Gunn and the chief prosecutor,
Army Col. Fred Borch. The defense lawyers maintain that they should report to a
separate agency, such as the Army or Navy JAG Corps, as is standard procedure in
the regular military justice system.

"I have to ask the person who drafted the military commission instructions
whether I can do certain things to fight against the military commission
instructions," says Cmdr. Sundel. The connections between Bush administration
political appointees, the prosecution and the tribunal judges seem "a little
incestuous," he says.

The defense JAGs also complain that they are required to tell the tribunal
apparatus anything they may plan to say to people outside the office. The
information must be screened for what the Pentagon calls "protected
information," a category created for the tribunals that covers material the
government deems relevant to national security. This forces the JAGs to decide
between disclosing "exactly what I'm going to say" in a conversation with an
outside legal expert, for instance, or not asking to having the conversation at
all, says Cmdr. Sundel.

The JAGs say they are especially troubled by regulations that deny Col. Gunn the
attorney-client privilege with tribunal defendants. Col. Gunn acknowledges his
staff's dilemma: "Is the boss a government plant to provide high-level officials
with information about what they're going to do with their cases?" His solution
has been to keep a distance from much of the legal work undertaken by the JAGs.

Gen. Hemingway says many of the lawyers' concerns are overblown. Regarding
protected information, for instance, he says, "We're trying to set up some
training programs for them to reduce whatever fog they feel exists in that
area." He says the Pentagon designed "a very, very effective process" and that
he sees no reason "to scrap what we've already done and go back to something
that they assert would be more comfortable."

Still, the defense JAGs say the tribunal system allows for the potential of
conflicts of interest that wouldn't be tolerated in courts-martial. In naming
the panel that will review tribunal verdicts, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
appointed lawyers with whom he has longstanding relationships, the JAGs say.

"There is an enormous number of people in this country that would have been
fully qualified to sit on the review panel," says Cmdr. Sundel. "Yet they
couldn't move beyond picking their friends."

Panel member William Coleman, who served with Mr. Rumsfeld in President Ford's
cabinet, says their history together won't influence his decisions. "I started
my career as a law clerk to Mr. Justice (Felix) Frankfurter, so I'm well aware
of the responsibilities" judges have to act ethically, says Mr. Coleman.

Gen. Hemingway says the panel members, who also include Rhode Island's chief
justice, a former Pennsylvania congressman and President Carter's attorney
general, are "very, very distinguished members of the bar" whose "reputation
speaks for itself."

Prof. Katyal offered his services to the defense last May. After receiving
clearance from Col. Gunn, he began meeting with the JAGs to discuss legal
attacks on the tribunals. They saw an opening in November, when the Supreme
Court agreed to decide whether federal courts held jurisdiction over non-U.S.
citizens jailed at Guantanamo, in a case brought by relatives of the detainees.

Prof. Katyal urged the JAGs to file their own brief before the high court,
arguing that apart from the legality of offshore detention without charge,
civilian courts should have the power to review decisions of military tribunals.
The JAGs agreed, debating only whether they should notify Mr. Haynes of their
plans in advance. When they did, "questions were raised by the general counsel's
office about whether it would be appropriate," says Army Maj. Mark Bridges, one
of the defense JAGs.

The team resolved to prepare a brief and submit it as private citizens if
necessary. They worked on the project out of uniform at Prof. Katyal's law-
school offices. Sometimes, after work, they met at an Irish pub near Georgetown
to discuss the brief over beers or coffee. The effort "reminded me of law
school," says Cmdr. Swift.

Ultimately, the Bush administration allowed the team to submit the brief in
their official capacity.

Aware of the vast cultural gap he faced with his new client, Cmdr. Swift read up
on Arab culture and searched for a way to connect with his client. Mr. Hamdan
knew of Islamic Sharia law but had no grasp of the adversarial legal system used
by the U.S., Cmdr. Swift says. So the lawyer found a common denominator: their
mutual love of chess, which allowed him to explain the roles of the prosecution
and defense. "It's been the first metaphor that really works," Cmdr. Swift says.

Pentagon officials have said they expect to strike plea bargains with some
defendants willing to testify against others. Although he has not himself been
charged, Mr. Hamdan is identified as a co-conspirator in charges issued last
month against two other Guantanamo prisoners accused of helping Mr. bin Laden
run his terrorist network. A Pentagon spokesman declined to discuss the
specifics of Mr. Hamdan's case prior to charges being filed.

Should Mr. Hamdan stand trial, Cmdr. Swift is preparing a double-barreled
defense, attacking the procedures and evidence while arguing that his client was
a hired hand ignorant of Mr. bin Laden's schemes.

Cmdr. Swift says he will contest statements extracted from other prisoners as
coerced. Detainees who don't talk to interrogators "get up to 30 days in
solitary (confinement)," he says, something especially onerous to Muslims used
to a communal culture. Moreover, he adds, posters at Guantanamo promise "Freedom
through Cooperation," a strong hint that detainees should give incriminating
statements. "What is the incentive not to tell them exactly what they want to
hear?" he asks.

Pentagon officials say Guantanamo prisoners are treated humanely and that the
U.S. complies with an international treaty banning torture. But they acknowledge
that interrogators can use such harsh techniques as forcing prisoners to stand
in uncomfortable "stress" positions and depriving them of sleep.

Cmdr. Swift says his client left Yemen in 1995 or 1996 for Tajikistan, where he
sought to aid Islamic fundamentalists fighting the former Soviet republic's
post-Communist government. But "weather and politics" closed the border, Cmdr.
Swift says, and a dejected Mr. Hamdan planned to return home when he was offered
a job as a driver. The client: Mr. bin Laden.

At the time, Mr. bin Laden was known to many Muslims as a wealthy benefactor who
had aided the Islamic resistance to the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s. To
Mr. Hamdan, a steady paycheck from such a boss sounded better than returning to
impoverished Yemen, Cmdr. Swift says.

Cmdr. Swift declines to say how much Mr. Hamdan knew about Mr. bin Laden's
affairs. But he argues that the terrorist kept his plans secret. Moreover, he
says, "Osama bin Laden didn't just blow people up. One of his appeals -- and one
of our problems in catching him -- is that he also does things like build roads
and set up agricultural co-ops and stuff like that."

Many people had dealings with Mr. bin Laden, he adds, "from (Mohammed) Atta who
is sitting there beside him planning a horrific attack, to the guy in town who
may have sold him a tea beverage in Kandahar," says Cmdr. Swift. "Are you guilty
because you liked or worked for a bad man

* * *


The Sun (UK):

March 18, 2004

ON THE LOOSE... 4 BRITS TRAINED TO FIGHT OUR MEN WITH AN AK-47

By Trevor Kavanagh, Political Editor

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004122653,00.html

FOUR Guantanamo Bay prisoners freed in Britain toted AK-47 rifles in the ranks
of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, America claimed last night.

All four were steeped in the guerilla tactics of Osama Bin Laden -- and ready to
take on Allied troops.

At least one of the men, captured in Afghanistan, has admitted being a sworn
enemy of the British and US governments.

The four are Shafiq Rasul, 26, Asif Iqbal, 22, Ruhal Ahmed, 22 -- dubbed the
Tipton Taliban because they come from the West Midlands town -- and Tarek
Dergoul, 26.

All DENY any involvement with terror groups. But alarming new evidence about
their true loyalties came in response to questions put by The Sun to the
American administration through its embassy in London.

The detailed letter by spokesman Lee McClenny was approved by the White House.

He wrote: "One of the five trained with an AK-47 and pistol at an al-Qaeda safe
house in Kabul in September 2001."

The man, he said, was a "weapons-carrying fighter" at Tora Bora, the infamous
stronghold where terror chief Osama Bin Laden hid from coalition forces
including the SAS.

Mr McClenny continued: "This person was wounded in battle with Coalition forces
and was subsequently captured in the Tora Bora mountains.

"Two of the others trained for 40 days in September-October 2000 at a military
camp in Afghanistan, learning to shoot a Kalashnikov, and observing hand
grenade, landmine and rocket grenade demonstrations.

"These two and a third returned to Afghanistan shortly after September 11 2001
to fight jihad with the Taliban.

"They lived in caves for several weeks and were issued Kalashnikovs and
ammunition.

"They stayed with their unit, commanded by a known Taliban leader, for three
weeks and were captured near Konduz."

The details emerged as Met police chief Sir John Stevens warned a Madrid-style
bombing is "inevitable" in Britain.

The released Brits are selling their stories to sympathetic newspapers for up to
£1million. But The Sun’s exclusive evidence shows the four men may STILL
represent a major danger to British lives.

Mr McLenny wrote: "One of the individuals states he considers the UK and US
governments to be his enemies and travelled to Afghanistan after 9/11 for an
organisation known to be associated with al-Qaeda.

"He also associated with al-Qaeda extremists in the UK."

All four were freed from America’s Guantanamo Bay detention camp last week
despite protests from Home Secretary David Blunkett, Defence supremo Geoff Hoon
and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.

They were overruled by Tony Blair after a Cabinet clash.

One minister said: "God knows why we are bringing these people back to Britain.
The best thing that could happen is that they fell out of the plane somewhere
over the Atlantic."

In the letter, America makes it clear the four detainees were released against
White House wishes. Mr McClenny wrote: "Her Majesty’s Government agreed to
accept their transfer and to take responsibility to ensure they do not pose a
security threat to the United States or our allies."

The men will need round-the-clock surveillance costing £1million a year.

American administration officials were astonished that Britain released them
without charge. Mr Blunkett publicly insisted the four posed "no threat" to the
British public.

But in private, he and other ministers warned they should not have been set
free.

American sources, backed by unimpeachable British intelligence, have also
rejected allegations of torture of the detainees in Guantanamo as "total
fabrications".

One insider said: "These were not people who happened to be in the area and were
picked up in some innocent encounter. They were treated as illegal enemy
combatants and the object was to gain information."

Altogether five Britons were released last week.

Father-of-three Jamal Al Harith, 37, from Manchester, was released soon after he
arrived back in the UK. He is NOT one of the four accused in the letter by the
U.S.

Rasul, Iqbal, Ahmed and Dergoul, from Hackney, East London, were interrogated at
London’s top security Paddington Green Police Station before being released.

They have claimed in interviews they entered Afghanistan to give humanitarian
aid after going to Pakistan to attend Iqbal’s arranged marriage.

Dergoul’s solicitor, Louise Christian said last night: "I have a client who is
so traumatised he is finding it difficult to say anything about what has
happened to him. I have no comment to make at present on his behalf but I am
willing to look at your letter."

Ms Christian was emailed a copy of the letter but had failed to respond last
night.

Jamal Al Harith said in a statement issued through his agent David Rigg: "This
letter does not appear to refer to me at all."

Rasul and Iqbal’s lawyer, Gareth Peirce was contacted several times last night
for comment but was in a meeting. A copy of the US embassy letter was emailed to
an assistant.

Ahmed’s legal representative Greg Powell was also called on his practice’s
emergency number but did not repond to two pager requests.

The Home Office last night refused to comment on the dossier and said all
information about the detainees was "highly classified".



THE grave allegations made by the American government are of overwhelming public
interest.

It is The Sun’s duty to bring them to the nation’s attention at a time when
security is at the highest alert.

Serious questions must be answered by our Government about why it put pressure
on the U.S. to free men the Americans say are trained in terrorism.

Nothing is proved against the four men.

But if they ARE dangerous, why are they not under lock and key?

* * *


(Filed: 18/03/2004)

GUANTANAMO BRITONS 'TRAINED BY MILITANTS'
By David Rennie in Washington

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml
?xml=/news/2004/03/18/nterr218.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/18/ixnewstop.html

Four of the British Guantanamo Bay detainees released last week were armed and
trained by Islamic militants in Afghanistan, US officials told reporters last
night.

Officials at the American Embassy in London sent a letter containing detailed
allegations about the four men, from East London and the West Midlands town of
Tipton, to The Sun newspaper.

The four - Tarek Dergoul, 26, Ruhal Ahmed, 22, Asif Iqbal, 22, and Shafiq Rasul,
26 - have all strongly denied any contact with terrorists.

A fifth detainee released last week, Jamal al-Harith, 37, was released soon
after returning to Britain last week, and was not even questioned by anti-
terrorism officers. He is not one of those accused in the embassy letter.

The US embassy letter, signed by the embassy press counsellor, Lee McClenny,
alleged that one of the four trained with an AK-47 rifle and pistol at an al-
Qa'eda safe house in Kabul in September 2001, and was a "weapons carrying
fighter at Tora Bora", wounded in battle with coalition forces.

Two of the others trained for 40 days in autumn 2000 at a military camp in
Afghanistan, the letter claims, learning to shoot a rifle, and watching weapons
demonstrations. They are described as being captured near the Afghan city of
Kunduz, after spending three weeks with a known Taliban unit.

One is linked in the letter to "an organisation known to be associated with al-
Qa'eda", and is alleged to have called the US and British governments his
enemies.

Last week, senior administration officials in Washington told The Telegraph that
four other detainees still being held at the prison camp were veterans of al-
Qa'eda training camps, who had been judged too dangerous to be released by US
and British intelligence and security agencies.

British officials privately expressed agreement that the four were not innocents
abroad, though they played down any idea of a close connection with al-Qa'eda.

They also disputed The Sun's description of a trans-Atlantic rift over last
week's release of the five.

A lawyer for one of the accused four, Tarek Dergoul, told The Sun: "I have a
client who is so traumatised he is finding it difficult to say anything about
what has happened to him. I have no comment to make at present on his behalf."
Lawyers for the others were unavailable for comment last night.

A spokesman for the US Embassy in London confirmed last night that Mr McClenny
had written a letter to The Sun but were unable to comment on its contents.

* * *

The Scotsman (UK)

March 18, 2004

GUANTANAMO TERROR CLAIMS 'A RESULT OF TORTURE'

By Ju-Lin Tan, PA News

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2665251

A lawyer for one of the British detainees held in Guantanamo Bay dismissed fresh
allegations about the men today, insisting that US intelligence was gathered
through "torture".

Greg Powell, acting for 22-year-old Ruhal Ahmed, spoke out following allegations
that the former detainee was a trained al Qaida or Taliban fighter.

He said: "It was the assessment of the US and British security services, which
was considered carefully by the Home Secretary, that my client Ruhal Ahmed did
not present any kind of security risk.

"With regard to alleged information, we should bear in mind that the so-called
information available from Guantanamo Bay was obtained as a result of a regime
of torture."

A US embassy spokesman has claimed that four Britons released from the Cuban
detention camp were trained to use a variety of weapons in Afghanistan,
according to The Sun.

The spokesman told the newspaper today that one Briton was taught to use an
AK-47 rifle and pistol at an al Qaida safe house in Kabul, while three others
fought with the Taliban using Kalashnikovs.

The four invididuals were not named by the spokesman but were identified by The
Sun as Ahmed, Asif Iqbal, 22, Shafiq Rasul, 26, and Tarek Dergoul, 26.

A Home Office spokeswoman said: "We do not have anything to say at this stage.
The men were all questioned and released by the Metropolitan Police. We
certainly would not have anything to add at this stage."

* * *


Los Angeles Times:

March 17, 2004

WHITE HOUSE LIKENS TERROR CASE TO WWII

By Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The case of a terrorism suspect arrested on U.S. soil and
held in secret as a wartime enemy prisoner recalls treatment of German saboteurs
caught in the United States during World War II, the Bush administration told
the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The court will hear arguments next month in the case of Jose Padilla, a former
Chicago gang member and convert to Islam who was captured as he got off an
international flight at Chicago's O'Hare airport.

The government claims Padilla was part of a plot to detonate a radioactive
"dirty bomb" in the United States and that he is affiliated with the al-Qaida
terrorist network.

The Supreme Court upheld a president's authority to hold and try the group of
the Germans captured before they could carry out any planned sabotage. One of
the eight was also an American citizen, as Padilla is.

"The court's opinion ... confirms the military's authority to detain Padilla as
an enemy combatant," Solicitor General Theodore Olson wrote in a court filing
Wednesday. "The court held that the authority to detain an enemy combatant is
undiminished by the individual's American citizenship," Olson wrote.

Padilla has been held substantially incommunicado at a military brig in South
Carolina. His lawyers say he is in legal limbo -- neither able to defend himself
in a criminal court nor part of the group of foreign-born terrorism suspects who
could be tried before military commissions.

President Bush has authority in commander in chief to prosecute the fight
against terrorism, and Congress has backed him up, Olson argued. That authority
extends to enemies captured outside the traditional boundaries of a battlefield,
Olson argued.

"As the Sept. 11 attacks make manifestly clear, ... al-Qaida eschews
conventional battlefields combat, yet inflicts damage that, if anything, is more
devastating," Olson wrote.

The Padilla case will be argued along with the appeal of another American
charged as an enemy combatant, Yaser Esam Hamdi. He was picked up on the
battlefield in Afghanistan.

Lawyers for both men claim their treatment is unconstitutional. Hearing the
cases together will simultaneously address the rights of U.S. citizens captured
abroad and at home. A ruling is expected by summer.

The case is Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 03-1027.

* * *


San Jose Mercury News:

March 17, 2004
PAKISTANIS HOME FROM GUANTANAMO DETAINED

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/8208294.htm

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Authorities have detained all three Pakistanis who
returned home this week after being freed by the United States from its
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, Pakistan's Interior Ministry said
Wednesday.

The three men were included among more than 50 Pakistanis who were captured in
Afghanistan during the U.S.-led war after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. U.S.
authorities later transferred the men to Guantanamo Bay to investigate their
links with al-Qaida.

In the past two years, U.S. authorities have released about two dozen
Pakistanis, the last three on Monday.

Interior Ministry spokesman Abdul Rauf Chaudhry said the three Pakistanis are
facing questioning.

"We will not release them immediately," he told The Associated Press. "These
people will remain in our custody for some time for security reasons."

* * *


Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

March 17, 2004

TRIAL RULES WILL STACK DECK AGAINST DETAINEES

By Ellen S. Podgor and Stephen R. Glassroth

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0304/17_guantanamo.html#

The U.S. military is about to drop the judge's gavel and start proceedings
against detainees in Guantanamo, Cuba.

But will the detainees, captured in Afghanistan, receive "a full and fair
trial," as the U.S. government claims? Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claims
that the proceedings "will not be 'a kangaroo court.' " But is this accurate?

Instead of deciding to use existing military rules and procedures, officials at
the Department of Defense designed a whole new process for these trials. They
call it "military commissions." They have effectively scrapped the Uniform Code
of Military Justice, a long-standing set of procedures, and in its place put a
new set of rules that circumvents important judicial processes.

The military commissions of Guantanamo are designed, legislated and operated by
our military and have no outside civilian oversight. Ask yourself:

    * Would we be satisfied if another country's military chose all the players
      in a tribunal prosecuting one of our soldiers or civilians?

    * Would we accept the commission if there was no neutral magistrate
      determining guilt or innocence?

    * Would we accept that defense counsel had no ability to contest the
      tribunal process before a neutral body?

    * Would we peacefully allow a soldier or U.S. citizen to be denied appellate
      review by a civilian body, one that was not controlled by the military?

    * Would we be complacent if the government of the country trying our
      soldiers and civilians suddenly decided not to use its existing rules,
      rules that meet international norms, and instead adopted a new process
      that had not been tried?

    * Would we be satisfied just because their military called it a "full and
      fair trial" process?

Ironically, the U.S. military objected to the International Criminal Court on
the basis of procedural rights that might be denied our soldiers, dooming U.S.
participation in that body.

Yet, the military commissions of Guantanamo could impose the death penalty on
some individuals, depending on the country the person comes from. This hardly
sounds like equal justice for all. And is it equal justice to have some
detainees receive a foreign attorney consultant while others are deprived of
this right?

The military commissions of Guantanamo have yet to try anyone, despite the
incarceration of individuals for more than two years without being able to even
speak with a defense lawyer. We would never accept a system that held our
citizens for that long without charging them with a crime and a system that
failed to provide a speedy trial. Nor would we be complacent if legal counsel
for our citizens were first appointed two years after they were incarcerated,
and during that period they were subject to continued interrogation.

Some of these questions and problems may be resolved this month or next, when
the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on cases concerning the detainees. But in
the interim, Maj. Michael D. Mori, who has been assigned to represent Australian
detainee David Hicks, is one of several courageous military lawyers on the front
line facing the task of defending individuals being prosecuted under this flawed
system.

Although these military lawyers do not face guns, enemy aircraft or suicide
bombs, they face the extraordinary task of securing freedom for all of us. They
are the ones making sure that our government remembers James Madison's words of
February 1788: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and
judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether
heredity, self-appointed, or elective may justly be pronounced the very
definition of tyranny."

[ Ellen S. Podgor is a law professor at Georgia State University. Stephen R.
Glassroth is a criminal defense attorney in Montgomery. Podgor and Glassroth are
both board members of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. ]

* * *


Los Angeles Times:

March 17, 2004

AFGHANS WALK FREE IN KABUL AFTER LONG GUANTANAMO DETOUR

* The 23 suspected Taliban were never charged. One alleges abuse, others
disagree.

By Hamida Ghafour, Special to The Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/
world/la-fg-afghans17mar17,1,4372803.story

KABUL, Afghanistan -- Twenty-three Afghans who had been held by the U.S. at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were freed from custody here Tuesday, many sporting denim
jackets given to them by the American military.

The men, who were flown home by U.S. aircraft, had been detained as Taliban
suspects for up to two years but were not charged. A U.S. military spokesman
said they were released because they were no longer considered risks.

Upon being freed, several said they had been treated with honor by their
captors, although one complained of torture and other forms of mistreatment.

"If you compare it to life in the village, it was good, except we didn't have
any freedom," said Haji Osman, 35, who added that he was never told what he was
accused of but said he bore no resentment. "The food was fresh chicken, fish,
meat, rice and even bananas and oranges. I had no serious medical problems, just
a toothache and headache and was given tablets on those occasions. I lacked
nothing."

Another released prisoner, known only as Mohammed, countered, "The treatment was
so bad, I can't find words to explain it. There was no respect for our culture
and religion -- animals were treated better than us. If we did not follow their
orders, they would beat us."

Mohammed, 27, said that some prisoners were prevented from sleeping for up to 45
days at a time and that a copy of the Koran was mutilated. He added that one
American officer had taunted him by saying that the Taliban had been driven out
of Kabul, the capital, so beautiful Afghan women could walk freely on the
streets.

The former captives were flown to Bagram air base, north of Kabul, on Monday
night and kept in a Kabul prison before being released to the custody of the
International Committee of the Red Cross. Three additional captives, from
Pakistan, were flown home from Bagram.

"They no longer were deemed a threat, and they no longer had intelligence
value," said Maj. Michael Shavers, a spokesman for the Pentagon.

A Red Cross representative said the group was the largest yet to be released
from Guantanamo. So far, 110 suspects have left detention there, and 610
prisoners, whom the Pentagon calls "enemy combatants," remain.

The Afghan prisoners were members of the Pushtun tribe from the southern areas
of the country, with ethnic and cultural links to the ousted Taliban regime.

Osman, who owns a clothing shop in the southeastern province of Paktika, said he
was sitting at home 15 months ago when soldiers came to his house and said they
wanted to ask him two questions at their military camp. Instead of being
returned home, he was taken to Guantanamo. There, he said, he was housed with 47
other inmates. Suspects who were considered dangerous were kept alone in their
cells.

Last weekend, he said, "they just told me in my camp, 'You were captured by
mistake. We apologize and the crimes which you have been accused of have not
been proven. You can go home.' "

Osman's cousin, 18-year-old Noor Aslam, was kept in a cell by himself. He also
said he didn't know what crime he was accused of.

"We were in the rooms most of the time but were given 30 minutes a day to take a
walk and a shower. I was praying sometimes, reading the Koran and sleeping. I
was thinking all the time, how can I get out? But there was no way to escape. We
were surrounded by water."

Their cousin, Mohammedullah, said the Americans often received false tips. "Our
people frequently feud with one another," he said, "and the best way to gain
revenge is to tell the Americans someone is a Taliban or Al Qaeda."

* * *


Arizona Republic:

March 16, 2004

Opinion

DUE PROCESS AWOL AT GUANTANAMO BAY
By O. Ricardo Pimentel

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0316pimentel16.html

It took two years to determine that five British men being held as enemy
combatants at Guantanamo Bay should be returned to their country for possible
prosecution. It took only a couple of days for British authorities to release
them without charges.

It took one year for the military at Guantanamo to recently determine that three
Afghan youths should be released and repatriated.

And, of course, to raise these issues is to be soft on terrorists.

No, this is about recognizing that we are letting fear rule our reason.

One of the Afghan youths, Mohammed Ismail Agha, 15, told the New York Times that
he is not bitter. He was released two weeks ago with two other youths, 13 and
15.

The rest of us should be bitter on his behalf, and on our own, because his
treatment demeans us all.

A military spokesman said one of the youths was trying to buy arms for the
Taliban when he was picked up.

He denies this, saying he and his companion were at a camp of a bandit who dealt
with both Taliban and anti-Taliban groups. The third, Agha, says he was a
dishwasher at a camp for a short time, sent by his uncle to earn money. He was
wrongly fingered there by a local official.

We're at war, the Pentagon says. At the same time, however, it says that these
are not prisoners of war.

They're not criminals per se either. If they were, we'd have to charge and try
them.

During Agha's imprisonment, we taught him to read and write. And this will be
enough to salve a bunch of consciences out there.

So, how does Agha feel about Americans?

"They were good people, and they were giving me some lessons," he told the
Times. "I am angry with the Afghans who handed me over to the Americans. The
Americans did not know what was happening."

Well, you know. It only took us a year or so to determine that he apparently
shouldn't have been there at all.

The tragedy here is that allowing people such as Agha due process and legal
representation might have prevented the imprisonment altogether. Ditto for the
five Britons released two weeks ago. They tell stories of brutal treatment by
their U.S. captors, charges we deny.

There are about 650 people remaining in Guantanamo. The Pentagon says that
between 100 and 300 of the least dangerous might be repatriated for possible
prosecution in their own countries.

Prosecution? This connotes that a crime has been committed for which they should
be charged and tried. What a concept.

But the Pentagon also says it will hold indefinitely the remaining "worst of the
worst." Terrorists, in other words.

Given how long it took to release these eight, you tell me why we should trust
anyone at Guantanamo.

It is encouraging that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, with Supreme Court
rulings looming, says that a three-member military panel will evaluate yearly
whether prisoners continue to be a threat. A system for reviewing detentions is
better than no system at all.

Still, it is not what anyone should call due process. No civilian lawyers
launching vigorous defenses. Just military folks.

You'll have to forgive the detainees, their families and civil rights advocates
if they believe that this amounts to dealing from the bottom.

Two federal courts have said the government is quite right that the Guantanamo
prisoners are not entitled to constitutional rights. They bought the
government's argument that the base is outside U.S. territory. The U.S. Supreme
Court is set to hear arguments on this issue next month.

It will essentially be pondering a technicality.

Guantanamo is filled with U.S. troops who keep Cubans from reclaiming that tip
of their island. Of course it's U.S. territory.

Though not bitter, Agha says the United States should compensate his father for
the money he borrowed to try to find him.

We should pay more than that. The best payment would be a just Supreme Court
ruling this year. It should make clear that we cannot hold anyone indefinitely -
POWs, enemy combatants, immigrants or criminals - without due process that is
both transparent and respects basic human rights.

Oh, yeah. They're just foreigners.

[ Reach Pimentel at ricardo.pimentel@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8210. His
column appears Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays. ]

* * *


March 16, 2004

GUANTANAMO CAPTIVE 'WORKED WITH CIA'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3514442.stm

A Canadian man recently released from Guantanamo Bay in Cuba has been telling
the BBC how he worked there undercover for the CIA.

Abdurahman Khadr, the son of alleged former senior al-Qaeda member Ahmed Said,
is now back in his native Canada.

He was initially detained in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taleban, and was
first interviewed by British forces.

He told BBC World Service's Outlook programme he was subsequently held in a
"series of jails" before agreeing to work with the CIA.

He says the CIA initially planned to send him to Pakistan.

"That didn't work out, and they decided to send me to Cuba to work for them
there."

The BBC asked the CIA for its reaction to Mr Khadr's comments but it said it
would not comment on such matters.

FRUSTRATED

Mr Khadr said he was handed over to the American troops on 12 March, 2003.

"They put me next to people which were stubborn and wouldn't talk to them, and
try to talk these people into saying stuff to me," he said.

"Then I would tell it to the CIA."

At other times he said he would also be asked to identify which of the
Guantanamo inmates were considered terrorists and which were innocent civilians.

However he said he had no success because of the way the US military ran the
camp.

"I wasn't able to find anything from anybody," he says.

'TOTAL CONTROL'

Mr Khadr also described how it felt to be an inmate in Guantanamo.

"You know that you cannot go anywhere and you are totally under the control of
the person that's interrogating you."

"Everything is in his hands. You can be the most co-operative person. But call
him a "stupid American," or something that is personal, and he would write back
to the Defense Ministry that this person isn't co-operating. They will keep you
there for two or three years."

Mr Khadr said the interrogators themselves had told him this.

He also said that if some prisoners were stubborn but liked by the
interrogators, they would be released.

Mr Khadr said he mixed with the other prisoners for about three months.

He got so depressed by his lack of success that he said on one occasion he tried
to hang himself. As a result he was moved to the camp's psychiatric block.

For a long time, his pleas to be released fell on deaf ears, he said.

"Their explanation was always that 'you are having a good life, this is just a
little while and then you are good... you will have money and everything'.

"That's when I said 'take the money, keep it, just let me go. If you don't in
one week I will talk - I will talk to everybody, the ICRC, the Canadians, even
the MPs that come to the block'."

Mr Khadr's Egyptian-Canadian father, Ahmed Said, is thought to have been a
senior member of al-Qaeda, who, in the 1980s, moved his family to Pakistan, then
Afghanistan. Mr Khadr has said he personally knew al-Qaeda head Osama bin Laden.

He also said his father, who is now dead, described him as a "cancer" as he
asked too many questions.

Mr Khadr said he was horrified by the events of 11 September 2001, but was told
by his father the people who died were "collateral damage."

He told the Outlook programme that although he was "worried" about reprisals
from either the Americans or al-Qaeda, he did not feel in undue danger.

"I believe in God, I believe in Allah very much."

"I believe nothing will happen to me except what is written for me."

* * *


Mehr News Agency:

March 16, 2004

RED CROSS PURSUING ISSUE OF IRANIANS DETAINED IN IRAQ

http://www.mehrnews.com/wfNewsDetails_en.aspx?NewsID=66320&t=Political

TEHRAN, March 16 (Mehr News Agency) -- Lucus Petridis, an official of the
International Red Cross Society based in Iran, announced here Saturday that the
Red Cross would be pursuing the issue of the Iranian pilgrims detained by U.S.-
led coalition forces in Iraq.

He told the Mehr News Agency that relatives of the detainees should contact the
Red Cross office in Tehran in order to create identification files for each
missing family member.

"This will allow us to determine if they have met our representative in Iraq,
who is responsible for reporting on the health conditions of detainees," he
said.

He stated that relatives must create identification files for each detained
family member if they want to contact them through letters delivered by the Red
Cross.

According to the Geneva Conventions, a representative of the International Red
Cross Society is authorized to meet all documented Iranians detained by U.S.-led
coalition forces, he added.

JH/DWN/HG

End

* * *


ChannelNewsAsia.com:

March 16, 2004

AFGHANS FREED FROM GUANTANAMO ACCUSE US OF MISTREATMENT

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/75710/1/.html

KABUL (AFP) - Twenty-three Afghan men freed from Guantanamo Bay protested their
innocence and accused the US of mistreating them as they prepared to travel back
to their villages, many after more than two years behind bars.

The group, believed to be the largest single release of Afghans from the US
military detention centre in Cuba, arrived at Bagram airbase Monday night where
they were met by officials from the International Committee of the Red Cross
(ICRC).

Aged mostly between 25 and 50, they were brought to the ICRC compound in Kabul
and given clothes and cash to pay for their journeys to their home towns, most
of which are in southern areas of Afghanistan still wracked by Taliban violence.

"I'm an innocent and poor man," said bearded Mohammed Wazir, 60, from southern
Helmand province. "I was in my home, unaware of Taliban and Al-Qaeda when I was
caught," he told AFP at the ICRC compound.

"If I'm a Taliban or Al-Qaeda I want to be punished, if I'm not, then they
should compensate me. The two-and-a-half years that I have spent in pain and
soreness -- who is going to pay?"

More than 600 prisoners are still being held as "enemy combatants" at Camp
Delta, a maximum security prison at a US naval base at Guantanamo. The US has
come under pressure from rights groups over its treatment of prisoners there.

On Monday the Pentagon dismissed as "lies" charges levelled by recently released
Britons that they were beaten and maltreated while in custody there.

But Mohammad Osman, one of the newly freed Afghans, said: "It was a jail, not
only a jail but a very bad jail."

Another former inmate, 27-year-old Mohammed, said US officials mistreated
prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.

Mohammed, who like many Afghans uses only one name, said he was captured by
anti-Taliban Northern Alliance soldiers who later handed him over to US troops.
He had been searching for his brother, a Taliban fighter, when he was caught in
northern Kunduz province in late 2001, he said.

"The American inspectors behaved very badly -- they were mentally torturing us,"
he told AFP.

"I'm very happy at being released but even recalling the past two and half years
that I spent there is very painful for me," he said.

There were still hundreds of "innocent" people behind bars at Guantanamo Bay, he
added.

"They are all innocent people just like me -- if I was a Taliban and Al-Qaeda
why did they release me? The others still in jail are just like me."

Pentagon officials announced Monday that 23 Afghan and three Pakistani nationals
had been released from the detention centre.

"They no longer were deemed a threat and they no longer had intelligence value,"
Pentagon spokesman Major Michael Shavers said.

The releases come less than a week after five Britons were turned over to
British authorities, flown to London and quickly released without charge.

By the Pentagon's tally, 119 detainees in different groups have been released so
far. Among them were three Afghan teenagers released in January.

ICRC spokeswomen Jessica Barry said the latest group was the largest to be
released from Guantanamo Bay. "We have done this several times but this is the
biggest group to be released," she said.

* * *


Reuters:

March 16, 2004

GUANTANAMO AFGHANS COMPLAIN OF ABUSE
By David Brunnstrom

KABUL (Reuters) - Twenty-three Afghans held at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo
Bay for up to two-and-a-half years have been released in Kabul and some have
complained of being unfairly detained and treated worse than animals.

The men were among 26 prisoners flown back from Cuba at the weekend having been
detained without charge or representation. Three Pakistanis went to their
country after arriving with the group at the U.S. base at Bagram north of Kabul
on Monday night.

The men were captured and taken to Cuba on suspicion of being Islamic militants
after U.S.-led forces invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the fundamentalist
Taliban regime in 2001.

"We don't know what our crime was," said one of the former prisoners, Lall Gul,
on Tuesday. "They just arrested us and took us to Guantanamo prison."

The group, most of whom wore long straggly beards favoured by conservative
Muslims, was formally freed by Afghan police on Tuesday morning. Some declined
to speak to journalists, but others angrily protested their innocence.

A 27-year-old from the southern Helmand province, who gave his name only as
Mohammad, told Reuters he had been captured by forces of pro-government warlord
Abdul Rashid Dostum in 2001 and handed over to the Americans.

He said prisoners were psychologically and physically tortured. "The treatment
was so bad I can't find words to explain it. The psychological torture was worse
than the physical."

"There was no respect for our culture and religion -- animals were treated
better than us. If we did not follow their orders, they would beat us."

FRIENDS STILL DETAINED

He said one U.S. officer had tried to provoke him by saying U.S. forces had gone
to Afghanistan to end the Taliban's confinement of women in their homes, and
beautiful women could now be seen walking openly in the streets of Kabul.

He said he had left seven innocent friends in Guantanamo and added: "I am not
happy I have come back without them."

The United States has denied any mistreatment of Guantanamo inmates, saying they
had been treated according to obligations under the Geneva Convention.

Some of the released men clutched copies of the Koran after interviews with the
Geneva-based International Committee of the Red Cross, which monitored their
treatment in captivity.

The ICRC provided the men with clothes to supplement the denim jackets and
tennis shoes given to them on leaving Guantanamo, and also taxi fares home.

Most are from Afghanistan's southern provinces bordering Pakistan, which are
still troubled by Taliban insurgency.

Mohammad accused the United States of targeting Islam.

"This is not an issue of the Taliban or al Qaeda, it is a matter of Islam," he
said.

Asked what he thought of the Americans and their presence in Afghanistan, he
replied: "I do not want to talk about my personal feelings towards the Americans
-- it is in my heart."

The Guantanamo prison was set up after President George W. Bush declared a
global war on terrorism in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the
United States. More than 600 people are still detained, most captured in
Afghanistan.

ICRC spokeswoman Jessica Barry said the organisation wanted to see the status of
those still held "clarified", but declined to comment on their treatment

A Pentagon spokesman did not say specifically why the 26 were released except to
say: "They're no longer a threat to the United States, They have no intelligence
value."

The Pentagon said 119 detainees had been freed since the facilities opened in
January 2002, with 12 others transferred for continued detention in their home
countries.

* * *


March 16, 2004

Washington Times:

ARMY, CAPTAIN NEAR DEAL IN ESPIONAGE CASE
By Rowan Scarborough

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040316-120512-9392r.htm

Capt. James Yee and prosecutors are near an agreement under which the Army would
drop its most serious criminal charges against the Muslim chaplain and he would
agree to undergo up to 30 days of counterintelligence interrogations and a
polygraph test.

Once accused of spying, Capt. Yee ultimately was charged with adultery and
mishandling classified information while assigned to Task Force Guantanamo,
where he tended to the religious needs of Taliban and al Qaeda detainees.

Capt. Yee was undergoing a pretrial hearing, called an Article 32, in December
at Fort Benning, Ga., when a military judge suspended the proceedings because
prosecutors had not performed a required classification review of documents
seized from the chaplain.

Negotiations ensued between U.S. Southern Command, which oversees the detention
center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and Eugene R. Fidell of Washington, Capt. Yee's
civilian attorney.

The deal would have the government drop the classified-information charges.
Capt. Yee would be subjected to administrative punishment on charges of
committing adultery and storing pornographic material on his computer. He would
resign from the Army with an honorable discharge.

The agreement would also give him immunity from charges stemming from his
answers to questions about whether he engaged in espionage.
The military originally accused Capt. Yee of five espionage-related charges and
implied to his military attorneys that he might face the death penalty.

At the closed magistrate hearing, prosecutors presented a confinement document,
a copy of which was viewed by The Washington Times. It listed charges of spying,
espionage and aiding the enemy. Based on the government's submission, the
magistrate ordered Capt. Yee held in a Navy brig, where he stayed for 76 days.

But when the military brought formal charges, none of those accusations
appeared. Prosecutors charged Capt. Yee, a West Point graduate, with less
serious offenses of mishandling classified material.

The material, which included a list of detainees, was seized by authorities when
Capt. Yee arrived in Florida on leave from his duties at Guantanamo Bay. The
Pentagon has classified the names of detainees so as not to provide the
information to the enemy.

Mr. Fidell has repeatedly said his client is innocent of espionage charges.
The Army has transferred Capt. Yee from Fort Benning to Fort Meade, Md.

* * *


The Australian:

March 16, 2004

GUANTANAMO ABUSE 'LIES': US
From correspondents in Washington

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/
0,5744,8981149^1702,00.html

(AFP) THE Pentagon today dismissed as "lies" charges levelled by recently
released Britons that they were beaten and maltreated in US military custody,
and it said the allegations would not be investigated because they lacked
credibility.

The five who were released last week from a US detention centre for suspected
Taliban and al-Qaeda prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, made the allegations in
interviews with British newspapers and in a statement issued by a lawyer for one
of the five.

"These allegations are fabrications. These are lies," said Major Michael
Shavers, a Pentagon spokesman.

"All the detainees were treated humanely and to the extent appropriate
consistent with military necessity in accordance with the third Geneva
Convention of 1949," he said.

"Because these are lies and fabrications, they are not credible. If they were
credible allegations of illegal conduct, then we would investigate," he said.

Asked how the Pentagon could determine whether the allegations were lies without
an investigation, the spokesman said: "We do not do what they are alleging."

The Britons were taken into US military custody two years ago in Afghanistan and
flown to a maximum security detention centre at Guantanamo along with hundreds
of other suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters.

After deciding they no longer posed a threat, the US military on March 9 flew
five British detainees to London, where they were quickly released without
charges by British authorities. Four other British detainees remain at
Guantanamo.

In an interview with The Observer yesterday, Asif Iqbal, Ruhal Ahmed and Shafiq
Rasul, childhood friends from the town of Tipton in central England, said they
were regularly mistreated from the moment they were handed over to US forces in
Afghanistan in late 2001.

After being taken to a US detention centre in the Afghan city of Kandahar, they
were forced to kneel bent forwards for hours with their foreheads touching the
ground, Rasul told The Observer.

"I lifted my head up slightly because I was really in pain. The sergeant came up
behind me, kicked my legs from underneath me, then knelt on my back," he said.

"They took me outside and searched me while one man was sitting on me, kicking
and punching," he said.

Tarek Dergoul, 26, said in a statement issued through his lawyer he had endured
"botched medical treatment, interrogation at gunpoint, beatings and inhuman
conditions".

Another released Briton, 37-year-old website designer Jamal al-Harith, said in a
newspaper interview on Saturday he had experienced beatings and degrading
treatment during his two years in custody at the centre.

* * *


The Mirror (UK):

March 15, 2004

CAMP ECHO
Cuba Brits are held in solitary 'at prison worse than Delta'

By Alexandra Williams

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14053349_method=
full_siteid=50143_headline=-CAMP-ECHO-name_page.html

TWO of the four Britons still at Guantanamo Bay are being held in a prison worse
than Camp Delta, it was claimed yesterday.

Moazzem Begg and Feroz Abbasi are allegedly locked up 24 hours a day in tiny
cells at grim Camp Echo with military police outside the doors.

They are kept in solitary confinement at the ultra-high security jail while
awaiting trial on suspicion of being terrorists.

Claims about Camp Echo, located just outside the main facility, are made by
three British prisoners who were released from Guantanamo last week.

Ruhal Ahmed, Asif Iqbal, both 22, and 26-year-old Shafiq Rasul - all from Tipton
in the West Midlands - also back up accounts of torture in the camps told by
freed Briton Jamal al-Harith, 37, in Friday's Mirror.

And Shafiq spoke of their nightmare 22-hour flight to Cuba after they were
arrested in Afghanistan in 2001.

He said they were chained to the aircraft floor with their hands and legs
shackled. They wore goggles, earmuffs, a surgical mask and body belt and were
denied access to a toilet.

Shafiq added: "People wet their pants. I was in pain. The guards told me to
sleep but the belt was digging into me. When I got to Cuba I was bleeding. I
lost feeling in my hands for six months."

He claimed the inmates had to survive on meagre rations when they first arrived
at the camp.

In an interview with the Observer, he added: "They'd give you this big plate
with a tiny pile of rice and a few beans."

The three also claimed they spent three months in Camp Delta's isolation block
after being wrongly identified in a photo with Osama bin Laden.

And Ruhal said he was given solitary confinement after scrawling "have a nice
day" on a polystyrene cup.

The three claimed they were quizzed for up to 12 hours at a time by MI5.

Shafiq was told by interrogators his passport was found in Afghanistan among al-
Qaeda membership forms.

And he said one asked him: "If I wanted to get hold of surface-to-air missiles
in Tipton, where would I go?"

* * *


The Scotsman (Edinburgh):

March 15, 2004

CALLS TO CONTROL US 'TERROR CAMP'
By Claire Smith

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=299332004

HUMAN rights organisations have renewed calls for conditions at Guantanamo Bay
to be brought under international scrutiny, after new claims of beatings,
inhumane treatment and interrogations at gunpoint.

Five Britons were flown home from the US detention camp in Cuba last week, and
have all been released without charge.

Yesterday Rhal Ahmed, 22, Asif Iqbal 22 and Shafiz Rasul 26, from Tipton in the
Midlands, told of being interrogated more than 200 times, and of being kicked,
punched and forced to kneel for hours.

The three claim to have been questioned by both British and US forces, both at
Guantanamo and at a holding camp in Kandahar.

Mr Ahmed said an MI5 officer in Kandahar had forced him to kneel at gunpoint
while another stood on the backs of his legs.

Last week the first of the five released by the British authorities, Jamal al-
Harith, 37, claimed prisoners at the camp were subjected to a regime of
interrogations and abuse which amounted to torture.

Yesterday in an interview, boyhood friends Mr Ahmed, Mr Iqbal and Mr Rasul said
that after capture they were transported to Guantanamo. There they said they all
gave false confessions after hundreds of hours of interrogation.

They claim they were shackled and bound and forced to kneel for hours with their
heads a few inches from the ground or risk being kicked and beaten.

Conditions for the three men became more severe after the US authorities became
convinced they had been spotted in photographs with Taleban leaders. But at the
time the photographs were taken the three had all been in Britain.

The US has refused to give inmates at Guantanamo the status of prisoners of war
or to afford them the rights of civilians. Instead it calls them: "unlawful
combatants", which is not a term recognised under international law.

A spokesman for the civil rights group Liberty said: "The Americans were holding
the prisoners illegally and the British, by taking part in the process, were
complicit in that illegality."

* * *


The Guardian (UK):

March 15, 2004

MINISTERS FACE NEW ACTION OVER CAMP DELTA BRITONS

Solicitor for two detainees gives government seven days to respond to threat of
judicial review proceedings over interrogations

By Tania Branigan, The Guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/story/0,1320,1169396,00.html

The solicitor for two of the four Britons still held at Guantanamo Bay will
today threaten the government with fresh legal action to end its "complicity and
participation" in their detention.

Louise Christian, who acts for Feroz Abbasi and Martin Mubanga, is giving
ministers seven days to respond to a threat of judicial review proceedings,
citing the repeated interrogations of British nationals by MI5 officials.

Her case will be strengthened by the claims of three Britons released last week
that they signed false confessions following two years of relentless
interrogation.

Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, all from Tipton, said that after
three months of solitary confinement they "admitted" attending a meeting between
Osama bin Laden and Mohamed Atta, the leader of the September 11 hijackers -
despite having been in the UK at the time. The US military only believed their
alibis when MI5 proved that the men could not have been present.

Mr Ahmed, 22, said the men had each been questioned around 200 times and
recounted interrogation in Afghanistan by officials who said they were from MI5
and the Foreign Office.

"All the time I was kneeling with a guy standing on the backs of my legs and
another holding a gun to my head," he said. "These accounts have made our case
much stronger," Ms Christian said.

"It was MI5 who brought forward evidence that the Tipton three were in England
when they were supposed to be meeting bin Laden. They must be aware of the
danger of people being forced into false confessions."

She added: "Last time we were simply asking for an order for the British
government to make protests. All indications are [now] that it does have control
[of the detainees' situation] and is refusing to press their case or bring them
home."

Mr Abbasi and Moazzam Begg have been named as possible defendants in trials by
military commissions. A previous legal plea on Mr Abbasi's behalf failed on the
grounds that the foreign secretary had acted on his request for help, and could
not be ordered to make specific representations on human rights - although the
court of appeal condemned the detention as "legally objectionable".

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said that Britons have not complained about abuses
to consular officials visiting them. The government is still negotiating with
the US and wants the Britons to be returned to Britain or given a fair trial.

But Stephen Jakobi, director of Fair Trials Abroad, said the false confessions
made it clear that "no matter how the trial rules are changed now or where the
trial took place, no conviction could possibly be safe".

Azmat Begg, Moazzam's father, said: "They have been keeping my son for two years
under duress. How could he give proper evidence?"

Mr Rasul, 26, told The Observer he lied because "I'd got to the point where I
just couldn't take any more." He said: "I said yes, it's me. Go ahead and put me
on trial. Other detainees desperate to get out were making allegations, making
stuff up that they thought would help them to get out of the camp."

The US government has denounced claims of abuse by the other British detainees -
Jamal Udeen, from Manchester, and Tarek Dergoul, from London - as lies. But
there are similarities between the stories of former prisoners, such as accounts
of regular beatings and interrogation at gunpoint.

The three men had been visiting Pakistan when war broke out and said they went
to Afghanistan to take aid to the villagers, insisting they never fought there.

But they were rounded up by Northern Alliance troops and crammed into truck
containers with hundreds of other prisoners, most of whom suffocated. Only
around 20 out of 300 men in each unit survived to be handed over to US troops,
they estimated. "We were like zombies," Mr Iqbal, 22, said. "We stank, we were
covered in blood and the smell of death."

* * *


Sydney Morning Herald:

A new film about Mr Hicks will show the public in Australia and the US he is not
the "demon" he has been made out to be, his father said today.

Terry Hicks will attend the film's premiere tonight at Parliament House in
Sydney, along with his wife, Bev, and their son's lawyer, Major Michael Mori.

The President Versus David Hicks attempts to trace Mr Hicks's path before his
capture by the US.

"It's something to make the public aware that David is not what they're saying.
The Government have demonised him from the start," Terry Hicks said yesterday.

He said the documentary was also attracting attention in the US, where he was
interviewed on the current affairs show 60 Minutes last week, which also showed
clips of the film.

* * *


The Observer (UK):

March 14, 2004

World exclusive: Inside Guantanamo
HOW WE SURVIVED JAIL HELL

For two years the Tipton Three have been silent prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
Now, in this remarkable interview with David Rose, they describe for the first
time the extraordinary story of their journey from the West Midlands to Camp
Delta

Part 1 - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1168937,00.html
Part 2 - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1169122,00.html

[ Part 1 ]

'When I woke up I didn't know where I was. I'd lost consciousness at the side of
the container, but when I woke up I was in the middle - lying on top of dead
bodies, breathing the stench of their blood and urine.

'They'd herded maybe 300 of us into each container, the type you get on ordinary
lorries, packed in so tightly our knees were against our chests, and almost
immediately we started to suffocate. We lived because someone made holes with a
machine gun, though they were shooting low and still more died from the bullets.
When we got out, about 20 in each container were still alive.'

In a safe house in southern England at the weekend, Asif Iqbal was describing
his survival, together with his friends Ruhal Ahmed and Shafiq Rasul, after a
massacre by US-backed Northern Alliance forces in Afghanistan - the start of a
26-month nightmare which ended last week with their release from the American
detention camp at Guantanamo Bay.

Their faces gaunt with accumulated stress and exhaustion, they spoke softly,
still stunned by the change in their circumstances: 'I just can't believe we're
sitting here,' Ahmed says. 'This time last week, we were in the cages at
Guantanamo.'

The horror of their story needs no embellishment. One day, perhaps, there will
be an inquiry into Guantanamo. Until then, some of their allegations - which, it
can be assumed, America is likely to deny - cannot be corroborated. However,
many of the experiences they describe, including gunpoint interrogations in
Afghanistan and random brutality both there and in Guantanamo, have been related
in identical terms by other freed detainees. Last October I spent four days at
Guantanamo. Much of what the three men say about the regime and the camp's
physical conditions I either saw or heard from US officials.

Having escaped the truck container massacre, they endured near-starvation in a
jail run by the Afghan warlord, General Dostum. When the Red Cross appeared and
promised to make contact with the British Embassy in Islamabad they thought they
were going home. Instead, with the apparent agreement of British officials, they
were handed over to the Americans, first for weeks of physical abuse at a
detention camp in Kandahar, followed by more than two years in the desolation of
Guantanamo.

Month after month they were interrogated, for 12 hours or more at a time, by
American security agencies and, repeatedly, by MI5 - in all, they say, they
endured 200 sessions each. But when they re-emerged to freedom on Wednesday
after two final days of questioning at Paddington Green police station, every
apparent shred of evidence had melted away. Iqbal, Rasul and Ahmed, together
with the other early arrivals at Guantanamo, had been described by US Defence
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as 'the hardest of the hard core', lethal terrorists
'involved in an effort to kill thousands of Americans'. Even last week the
British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, was claiming America had been justified
in holding them.

Yet despite the denial of legal rights or due process, the authorities on both
sides of the Atlantic have been forced to accept what the three men said all
along - that they were never members of the Taliban, al-Qaeda or any other
militant group. The Americans had justified their detention by claiming they
were 'enemy combatants', but they were never armed and did not fight.

'They formally told us we were going home last Sunday [several weeks after this
news was relayed to the media],' Rasul said. 'We had a final meeting with the
FBI, and they tried to get us to sign a piece of paper which said something like
I was admitting I'd had links with terrorism, and that if I ever did anything
like this again the US could arrest me.' Like the other two detainees freed last
week, Tarek Dergoul and Jamal al-Harith, they refused.

'They took us to the airport in chains,' said Rasul, 'and when we got there this
huge plane was surrounded by armed men. As we walked towards the steps they had
guns trained on us. This military police guy hands us over to the British, takes
off our shackles and tells the Brit he can put on the handcuffs. But the British
policemen say, "no, no, there's no need for handcuffs". We walk up the steps and
they're not even touching me.

'For the first time in two years I'm walking somewhere without being
frogmarched. We get to the door and someone says: "Good morning. Welcome
aboard." '

Capture

Rasul, 26, Ahmed, 22, and Iqbal, 22, were boyhood friends from the Midlands town
of Tipton. In Septem ber 2001 they travelled to Pakistan ahead of the marriage
Iqbal's parents had arranged for him to a woman in Faisalabad. Ahmed was to be
best man; Rasul hoped to do a computer course after the wedding.

The three were in no sense fundamentalists: their brand of Islam, they say, was
never that of the Taliban. But like many young Muslims in Pakistan they crossed
the border into Afghanistan in October 2001, as it became clear that, in the
wake of the 11 September attacks on America, one of the poorest countries in the
world was about to be attacked. They had no intention of joining the fighting,
they insist, but only of giving humanitarian aid. In England, none of them was
rich, but in Asia, the little money they had could go a long way. For a short
time they used the savings accumulated for their trip to buy food and medical
supplies for Afghan villagers.

But in Taliban-led Afghanistan one aspect of their appearance made them
dangerously visible - they had no beards. Travelling through a bombed landscape,
they tried to escape in a taxi. But instead of reaching safety they were driven
further into danger - to the city of Kunduz, which was promptly surrounded and
bombarded by Dostum's troops. Aware that a bloodbath was imminent, they tried to
leave on a convoy of trucks but their own vehicle was shelled, killing almost
everyone on board. 'We were trapped,' says Iqbal. 'There was nothing we could do
but give ourselves up. They took our money, our shoes, all our warm clothes, and
put us in lines.'

They were part of a vast column of prisoners, around 35,000, says Rasul: 'You'd
look down the slope and there were lines and lines of people, as far as the eye
could see. We went through the mountains and the open desert. There were these
massive ditches full of bodies. We thought this was the end. We thought they
were going to kill us all.' Many of the prisoners were wounded and died by the
wayside.

After two days they ended up outside Shebargan prison and crammed into the
containers - it was night, says Iqbal, and the massacre began under the glare of
spotlights which the three men claim were operated by American special forces.
'The last thing I remember is that it got really hot, and everyone started
screaming and banging. It was like someone had lit a fire beneath the
containers. You could feel the moisture running off your body, and people were
ripping off their clothes.'

When he came to, Iqbal had not drunk for more than two days. Maddened by thirst,
he wiped the stream ing walls with a cloth, and sucked out the moisture, until
he realised he was drinking the bodily fluids of the massacred prisoners. 'We
were like zombies,' Iqbal says. 'We stank, we were covered in blood and the
smell of death.'

Freed from the trucks which had become mass graves, they were taken into
Shebargan prison, where they were held in appalling conditions for the next
month. Much was open to the elements, and to make room inside its bare communal
cells the prisoners lay down in four-hour shifts. They were fed a quarter of a
naan bread a day, with a small cup of water: sometimes, says Rasul, there were
fights over the rations. Often snow blew into the buildings.

Rasul says: 'There were people with horrific injuries - limbs that had been shot
off and nothing was done. I'll never forget one Arab who was missing half his
jaw. For 10 days until his death he was screaming and crying continuously,
begging to be killed.'

A few days earlier Taliban prisoners had organised the uprising against their
captors at Qala-i-Jhangi Fort at Mazar-e-Sharif, and western reporters paid a
visit to Shebargan. They seemed blind to the misery there, Rasul says. 'All they
seemed to be interested in was if any of us knew the American Taliban John
Walker Lindh.'

After 10 days the Red Cross arrived, bringing some improvement and an increase
in the water supply. But by now all three were malnourished and suffering from
amoebic dysentery. Ahmed says: 'We were covered with lice. All day long you were
scratching, scratching. I was bleeding from my chest, my head.' Iqbal adds: 'We
lost so much weight that if I stood up I could carry water in the gap between my
collar bones and my flesh.'

Prisoners died daily: of the 35,000 originally marched through the desert, only
4,500 were still alive, the three men estimate. All this time they could see
American troops 50 metres from their prison wing on the other side of the gates.

Beatings

After a month of this living hell, on 27 or 28 December, the Red Cross spoke to
the three and promised they would contact the British Embassy in Islamabad and
ask them to intervene on their behalf and notify their families that they were
alive. Rasul's brother, Habib, says he had contacted the Foreign Office at the
end of November and asked for help in tracing his missing brother.

In fact, very soon, the three would meet British officials. But Habib would be
told nothing until February 8 - three weeks after his brother's arrival in
Guantanamo.

Two days after the three talked to the Red Cross, Dostum's troops put them in
chains, marched them through the main gate and handed them over to American
special forces. Ahmed says: 'They put something like a sandbag over my head so
you could see nothing. Then we got thrown on to a truck. They taped the sacks at
the bottom of our necks, making it difficult to breathe.'

The Americans took them to Shebargan airport, where they were beaten, then
loaded on a plane. 'I wanted to use the toilet,' Rasul says. 'Someone smacked me
on the back of my head with his gun. I started peeing myself.'

Trussed like chickens, their chains replaced by plastic ties, they were flown to
the US detention centre at Kandahar. The weather was freezing. Wearing only thin
salwar kameez, with no socks or shoes, they were tied together with a rope and
led into the camp, where they waited to be processed.

In the very different setting of a sitting room in suburban England, Iqbal
demonstrates how they were made to kneel bent double, with their foreheads
touching the ground: 'If your head wasn't touching the floor or you let it rise
up a little they put their boots on the back of your neck and forced it down. We
were kept like that for two or three hours.'

Rasul adds: 'I lifted up my head slightly because I was really in pain. The
sergeant came up behind me, kicked my legs from underneath me, then knelt on my
back. They took me outside and searched me while one man was sitting on me,
kicking and punching.'

All this time they were still wearing their hoods. Then one soldier took a
Stanley knife and cut off their clothes. Naked and freezing, they were made to
squat while the soldiers searched their bodily cavities and photographed them.
At last, they say, they were frog-marched through a barbed wire maze and put
into a half-open tent where they were told to dress in blue prison overalls.

They had not washed since the container massacre a month earlier. There, Iqbal
had sustained a ricochet wound to the elbow. Displaying an ugly purple scar, he
explains that by the time he reached Kandahar, it had become infected. It was
late at night by the time they had been processed, but next morning, they say,
they were taken straight to their first interrogation. Rasul says: 'A special
forces guy sat there holding a gun to my temple, a 9mm pistol. He said if I made
any movement he'd blow my head off.'

Each endured several such sessions at Kandahar: each time, they say, they were
questioned on their knees, in chains, always at gunpoint. Often they were kicked
or beaten. (Other released detainees have described Kandahar in similar terms.)

Not all their interrogators were American. Iqbal and Rasul also describe an
English officer in a maroon beret who said he was a member of the SAS. 'He had a
posh English accent,' Rasul says. 'He mentioned the names of British prisons
like Belmarsh and said we'd end up there.' Iqbal says the SAS officer told him:
'Don't worry, you won't be beaten today because you're with me.'

Ahmed says he was also questioned by an officer from MI5 and another Englishman
who said he was from the British Embassy. 'All the time I was kneeling with a
guy standing on the backs of my legs and another holding a gun to my head. The
MI5 man says: "I'm from the UK, I'm from MI5, and I've got some questions for
you." He says he was called Dave. He told me: "We've got your names, we've got
your passports, we know you've been funded by an extremist group and we know
you've been to this mosque in Birmingham. We've got photos of you." None of this
was true.

'The second occasion was on the morning I left - they said I was going home. In
fact I was on my way to Cuba.'

As Muslims, they were shocked when in repeated 'shakedown' searches of the
sleeping tents, copies of the Koran would be trampled on by soldiers and, on one
occasion, thrown into a toilet bucket. Throughout their stay at Kandahar the
guards carried out head-counts every hour at night to keep the prisoners awake.

Rasul says: 'You'd just be dozing off and then you were made to get up, and
that's the way it was all the way to morning.'

To Cuba

At 3AM on 13 January 2002, Rasul was moved to a new tent with Iqbal. Next
morning their numbers were called out and they were made to sit while soldiers
chained them tightly, sat them in a tent and attached another chain to a hook on
the floor. 'These guys came in with clippers,' Rasul says, 'they shaved my hair
and my beard; they cut all my clothes off and threw this medication over me, to
kill the lice. Then they unlocked me from the floor and led me into another tent
naked where they forced me to squat again and did another intimate cavity
search.'

Instead of the blue overalls they were dressed in orange jumpsuits, chained and
cuffed and made to wear thick gloves taped to their sleeves. Then, says Rasul:
'They made us sit outside on the gravel while they processed everyone. We had no
water all day, but towards the end they gave us an MRE [a ready-to-eat US army
meal] but no spoon. I had to try and trough it like an animal.'

The restraint device they were now forced to wear would become extremely
familiar for the next 26 months - the 'three-piece suit', a body belt with a
metal chain leading down to leg-irons with hand-shackles attached to it. Rasul
says: 'I told the guard they'd put it on much too tight and he said: "You'll
live." '

Before boarding a military aircraft they were dressed in earmuffs, goggles and
surgical masks. Inside, they were chained to the floor with no backrests, and
even when they requested the toilet, they were not released from their chains.
'Basically people wet their pants. You were pissing all over your legs.'

'The only thing that relieved the sensory deprivation and occupied me for the
22-hour flight was that I was in serious pain,' Rasul says. 'The guards told me
to go to sleep but the belt was digging into me - when I finally got to Cuba I
was bleeding. I lost feeling in my hands for the next six months.'

Rasul and Iqbal were on the second flight to the new Camp X-ray - the first had
been three days earlier. (The Australian David Hicks and another British
prisoner, Feroz Abbasi, were on that first flight.) Ahmed followed on 10
February on the fifth flight from Kandahar to Guantanamo Bay. 'When I got
there,' he says, 'I was half dead. We had a two-hour stopover somewhere in
Turkey. As we were being frog-marched from one plane to another, one of the
guards stamped on the metal body bar of my three-piece suit so the leg-irons bit
deeply into the flesh of my ankles.'

But Ahmed, at least, had been told where he was going. When Rasul and Iqbal
landed they had no idea where they were: 'All I knew was that I was somewhere
with intense heat,' Rasul says. 'An American voice shouted: "I am Sergeant so-
and-so, US Marine Corps, you are arriving at your final destination." '

The Guantanamo airstrip lies a three-mile ferry journey across the bay from the
detention facilities, a journey the prisoners made in a school bus. Iqbal says:
'The boat was moving in the swell, making the bus rock and the American guy
says: "Stop moving." I couldn't stop, so he hit me.' Rasul made the mistake of
telling a guard he was English. 'Traitor,' he yelled. Later, when Ahmed took the
ferry, he heard a guard whispering: "This motherfucker speaks English."
Repeatedly the guard kicked his leg: 'I couldn't move it for days, it was so
badly bruised.'

At last they arrived at Camp X-ray, and became part of the group of orange-
jumpsuited prisoners kneeling in the dust, still shackled and blindfolded, whose
images went round the world. Rasul says: 'They made us kneel in that awkward
way, and every time you moved, someone would kick you.

'The sun was beating down and the sweat was pouring into my eyes. I shouted for
a doctor, someone poured water into my eyes and then I heard it again: "Traitor,
traitor." ' Rasul was the last one processed, and by the time he got to his cage
it was dark. First he was stripped naked and, still wearing his goggles and
chains, he was given a piece of soap and told to shower for the first time since
his capture. 'I looked around and I thought what the hell is this place?'

Iqbal recalls the moment his goggles were finally removed: 'I look up and I see
all these other people who hadn't yet been processed in orange suits and goggles
and I think I'm hallucinating.' Two days after arriving in Guantanamo Bay, with
his family still desperate for information as to his whereabouts, Rasul was
taken in his three-piece metal suit to an interrogation tent. 'I walk in and
this guy says: "I'm from the Foreign Office, I've come from the British Embassy
in America, and here is one of my colleagues who's from the embassy as well."
Later he added his colleague was actually from MI5.'

Rasul asked where he was and the British officials replied: 'We can't disclose
that information.' His family heard nothing for another three weeks. It would be
many months before the British Government - which, in public, was voicing deep
concerns about the lack of legal process at Guantanamo, and claiming it was
trying to exert diplomatic pressure - would confirm that its own Security
Service had connived from the outset.

Camp X-ray

In the early days at Camp X-ray, the conditions of detention were extreme.

The detainees were forbidden from talking to the person in the next cell and,
Rasul recalls, fed tiny portions of food: 'They'd give you this big plate with a
tiny pile of rice and a few beans. It was nouvelle cuisine, American-style. You
were given less than 10 minutes to eat and if you hadn't finished the Marines
would just take your plate away.' After a few more days Rasul was questioned
again by MI5. The officer asked how he was. 'I started crying, saying I can't
believe I'm here. He says: "I don't want to know how you are emotionally, I'm
only interested in your physical state." '

After about a week the prisoners were allowed to speak to detainees in adjacent
cells, and a few weeks later still were given copies of the Koran, a prayer mat,
blankets and towels. Yet all witnessed or experienced brutality, especially from
Guantanamo's own riot squad, the Extreme Reaction Force. Its acronym has led to
a new verb peculiar to Guantanamo detainees: 'ERF-ing.' To be ERFed, says Rasul,
means to be slammed on the floor by a soldier wielding a riot shield, pinned to
the ground and assaulted.

Iqbal and Rasul were at opposite ends of the same block and were forbidden from
talking to each other. There was almost nothing to do. 'Time speeds up,' Rasul
says. 'You just stare and the hours go clicking by. You'd look at people and see
they'd lost it. There was nothing in their eyes any more. They didn't talk.'

As the weeks of detention became months they would sometimes see psychiatrists.
The response to any complaint was always the same: an offer to administer
Prozac. (On my visit to Guantanamo, the camp medical staff told me that at least
a fifth of the detainees were taking anti-depressants.)

It was almost impossible to master the rules and know how to avoid punishment.
There was only one rule that mattered, Rasul says: 'You have to obey whatever US
government personnel tell you to do.'

In mid-2002 the prisoners were moved from the open cages with mesh walls at Camp
X-ray to the pre-fabri cated metal cellblocks of Camp Delta. There, the standard
punishment was transfer to solitary confinement in the sensory deprivation
isolation wing. Once, Ahmed says, he was given isolation for writing 'Have a
nice day' on a polystyrene cup. This was deemed 'malicious damage to US
government property'. On another occasion, he was punished for singing.

The cells were about the size of a king-size mattress, made of mesh and metal,
exposed to the relentless tropical heat, with no air conditioning. They
contained a hole in the floor for a toilet, a tap producing yellow water which
was so low they had to kneel to use it, and a narrow metal cot. Apart from
interrogation, the only break in this confined monotony were showers and 20
minutes' exercise, two or three times a week. 'When we were on a block with
English speakers, we'd go over the conversations again and again,' Ahmed says.
'Often they'd start by someone asking if you remembered a particular kind of
food. Soon you'd exhaust the possibilities, repeat the same stories four or five
times.'

Even this, however, was better than the isolation punishment block, or the fate
which Iqbal endured for five months in 2002 - being placed in a wing where all
the other prisoners spoke only Chinese.

The three Britons were visited at least six times by MI5 and Foreign Office
staff, Rasul says: 'Every time the Foreign Office came we asked about what was
going on, and whether we had solicitors. His reply was "I don't know, all I know
is what's been on TV. Your case hasn't been on TV." '

In fact, their families had engaged lawyers in Britain and America soon after
learning of their whereabouts in February 2002, and a federal lawsuit was
launched in their name which, had they not been released, would have been argued
before the Supreme Court next month. They were told of this by a guard a few
weeks ago, almost two years after the suit was first filed.

In September 2003 Rasul was visited on consecutive days, first by the man from
the Foreign Office, then by an MI5 officer. He asked the Foreign Office man
about his legal status and was told: 'You should ask the MI5 guy who's coming
tomorrow.' When he did so next day, the MI5 agent said: 'You should have asked
Martin from the Foreign Office yesterday.' How long had they thought they would
be at Guantanamo? I asked the three men. They reply in unison: 'Forever!'

[ Part 2 ]

Interrogation

For the second six months of 2002, the interrogations ceased. But from the
beginning of 2003, interviews with MI5, the FBI, the CIA and US military
intelligence became increasingly frequent. Rasul says: 'They kept taking us and
taking us, showing us photos saying: "This guy says you've done this, this guy
says you've done that" - what they meant was that other detainees desperate to
get out were making allegations, making stuff up that they thought would help
them get out of the camp.'

Last year the Americans introduced a formal system of rewards for co-operation
with interrogators, so that detainees would be given an increasing number of so-
called 'comfort items' such as books, extra clothes and utensils in return for
their testimony. (The books, best-selling novels, usually came with pages torn
out, which the censor had deemed too subversive or exciting.)

Experts on the psychology of interrogations and false confessions say that for
pris oners who were already depressed and isolated by more than a year of
arduous incarceration, this system seems almost calculated to produce
fantastical accounts. Professor Gisli Gudjonsson of King's College London is
perhaps the world's leading authority in this area, and he has testified in
dozens of trials and helped expose numerous miscarriages of justice. One of the
methods which his research has shown to be particularly prone to generating
unreliable testimony is the use of deception, where an interrogator will claim
he has incontrovertible proof of a suspect's guilt when in reality this does not
exist.

Such methods, the three men say, were employed against them time and time again.
For example, Rasul says, he was told that photographs of him and an 'al-Qaeda
membership form' and his passport had been found in a raid on an Afghan cave.
'Actually I'd left my passport in Pakistan. Then the interrogator told me that
next to my file they'd found my brother Habib's al-Qaeda file. The interrogator
said he wasn't lying, and that next time he'd bring it with him. When it came to
the next time, he claimed he'd made a mistake.'

The interrogators also used the good cop/bad cop routine. 'It was scary although
I knew what they were doing. I think they tried it more with some of the Arabs
and the young kids.'

Less funny were the conditions in which interrogations were conducted, in so-
called 'booths' behind the cell blocks. Throughout their interviews, the
detainees wore their three-piece suits, and were shackled to the floor.

In 2003, many more interrogators were brought in, some of them young and
inexperienced. 'You'd look at these guys in their shorts and polo shirts and
think: 'This guy's an interrogator? He's only 20 years old,' says Rasul. 'About
two months ago one guy asked me: "If I wanted to get hold of surface-to-air
missiles in Tipton, where would I go?" I started arguing with him. Did he really
think I lived in some sort of war zone. I was scared in the interrogations but
towards the end the questions just seemed stupid.'

However, last summer the situation of the Tipton Three suddenly took a seri ous
turn for the worse. The Americans had a video of a meeting in August 2000
between Osama bin Laden and Mohamed Atta, the leader of the 9/11 hijackers.
Behind bin Laden were three men, and in May 2003 someone alleged they were none
other than Iqbal, Rasul and Ahmed.

For the previous two weeks, Rasul had been in the relatively comfortable
conditions of Camp Four, the lower-security section of Guantanamo where
prisoners are freely allowed to associate and play football and volleyball.
Suddenly he and the others found themselves in solitary confinement in the
isolation block for three months. Finally, Rasul says, a senior interrogator
arrived from Washington and played him the video. He protested that the men in
the video looked nothing like him and his friends, and none of them had worn
beards. More to the point, in August 2000, when the video was shot, he had been
working in a branch of the electronics store Curry's, and was enrolled at the
University of Central England - a fact, he suggested, his interrogators could
easily check. Instead, he says: 'They told me I could have falsified those
records, that I could have had someone working with me at Curry's who could have
faked my job records.' I'd got to the point where I just couldn't take any more.
Do what you have to do, I told them. I'd been sitting there for three months in
isolation so I said yes, it's me. Go ahead and put me on trial.' The other two
made similar confessions.

Last September it was MI5 which for once helped them when they arrived at the
camp with the documentary evidence which showed they could not have been in
Afghanistan at the relevant time. Rasul says: 'We could prove our alibi. But
what about other people, especially from countries where such records may not be
available?'

There is also the danger that false testimony from one inmate, extracted by the
Guantanamo incentives system, may breed a false confession from another. Iqbal
recalls: 'One inmate said I had been in the Farouk terrorist training camp in
Afghanistan. It led to a whole series of interrogations where they tried to
persuade me that I had been. The way the system is it's accusation after
accusation; if this one won't work maybe this one will, if that won't work try
this one, until they finally get their confession.'

For those who do confess, and fail to sustain their alibis, trial by an American
military commission and a possible death penalty awaits. Those who have been
charged are no longer at Camp Delta, the three men reveal. They have been moved
to a new, super-maximum security facility outside the main compound - Camp Echo.
A few men have been returned thence to the main Guantanamo Camp; they describe a
white-walled, sound-absorbent hell of 24-hour solitary confinement in cells
smaller than Camp Delta's, with a guard permanently stationed outside each cell
door. Camp Echo's current inmates, say the three men, include the Britons Feroz
Abbasi and Moazzem Begg, and the Australian David Hicks. One detail of Hicks's
life inside Guantanamo Bay reveals the desperate measures prisoners go to retain
their sanity. He occupies his mind all day by catching and killing mice. More
than a year ago, the three men said, Hicks renounced Islam and shaved off his
beard. He no longer answers the call to prayer. 'He's just a little guy with a
very deep voice,' says Rasul. 'If you met him you'd think he was the typical
kind of Aussie you might see drinking Fosters in a bar.'

Freedom

Proof of the Tipton Three's alibis led to rapidly improving treatment. Every
Sunday after last September, Rasul says, they were taken to a shed they called
the 'love shack', and allowed to sit unchained on a sofa to watch movies on DVD.
They were allowed to read magazines, and were sometimes fed with hamburgers from
Guantanamo's branch of McDonald's.

Unaware of the stream of leaks to the media which suggested their release might
be imminent, they began to sense that the end of their ordeal might be drawing
near. Even then, they were still being interrogated regularly. Rasul says:
'They'd still show us pictures, try to get names. My last interrogation was on 5
March. But I could see the guy was getting desperate. At one point he said:
"Look, I'm from the CIA, I can get you anything. What do you want? Coke? Ice
cream?" '

For men who had been through Kunduz and Kandahar, this was not impressive. All
are convinced that there are no 'big-time' terrorists at Guantanamo: arguably
the most dangerous, in American eyes, says Ahmed, is a group of Taliban mullahs.
American intelligence sources have confirmed this view to me. The 'big-timers' -
men such as Khalid Shaikh Mohamed, architect of 9/11, have never been near
Guantanamo. One source says: 'Guantanamo may even be a bit of a front, designed
to divert al-Qaeda's attention. It takes everybody's attention away from more
important matters and locations where big fish are being held. The secrecy
surrounding it makes everybody think that very serious stuff is going on there.'

The three say some of the inmates have seen such suspects - not in Cuba, but at
Bagram airbase in Afghanistan. According to Iqbal, 'we spoke to people who'd
been with them there when they were being interrogated. They said they flew them
out of there alive, but in coffins.'

Reviled so publicly by Rumsfeld, now the Tipton Three must struggle to rebuild
their lives. Their home town, say their families, has become too dangerous:
effigies of men in orange jump suits have been strung from lampposts, while the
area is a strongholds of the extreme right-wing BNP.

For now they have been marvelling at the little things, Rasul says: sitting in
cars without chains and being able to operate the windows; finding that food
does not arrive automatically at set hours, and can be tasty and varied. This
weekend their dominant emotion is relief. As they come to reflect on the
experience over the coming weeks, it seems likely to turn to a burning,
righteous anger.

* * *


The Observer (UK):

March 14, 2004

World exclusive

REVEALED: THE FULL STORY OF THE GUANTANAMO BRITONS

By David Rose

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1169152,00.html

Three British prisoners released last week from Guantanamo Bay have revealed the
full extent of British government involvement in the American detention camp
condemned by law lords and the Court of Appeal as a 'legal black hole'.

Shafiq Rasul, Ruhal Ahmed and Asif Iqbal, the so-called 'Tipton Three', speaking
for the first time since their release at a secret location in southern England,
have disclosed to The Observer the fullest picture yet of life inside the camp
on Cuba where America continues to hold 650 detainees.

After more than 200 interrogation sessions each, with the CIA, FBI, Defence
Intelligence Agency, MI5 and MI6, America has been forced to admit its claims
that the three were terrorists who supported al-Qaeda had no foundation.

But fearful of reprisals - the extreme right wing BNP has a stronghold in their
hometown of Tipton in the West Midlands, and their families have warned them
they may not be safe back at home - they all declined to be photographed, and
are choosing a new location in which to rebuild their lives.

During an extraordinary 12-hour interview with The Observer last Friday, two
days after their release from Paddington Green police station where they were
held after being flown home from Cuba, the three men revealed that they were
interrogated by MI5 almost immediately after first arriving at Guantanamo Bay -
in the cases of Iqbal and Rasul, on 15 January 2002, and in Ahmed's case three
weeks later.

The British Government has repeatedly claimed it has been trying to use
diplomatic pressure to introduce more legal process at Guantanamo, including an
opportunity for detainees to show that imprisonment is unjustified.

But the picture painted by the three released prisoners is of a Security Service
which saw them as mere 'interrogation fodder', and questioned them repeatedly
throughout their 26-month stay.

Among other disclosures, the three men revealed:

· How early in their ordeal they survived a massacre perpetrated by
Afghanistan's Northern Alliance troops who herded hundreds of prisoners into
lorry containers and locked them in, so that people started to suffocate. Iqbal
described how only 20 of 300 prisoners in each container lived, and then only
because someone made holes in its side with a machine gun - an action which
killed yet more prisoners;

· The existence of a secret super-maximum security facility outside the main
part of Guantanamo's Camp Delta known as Camp Echo, where prisoners are held in
tiny cells in solitary confinement 24-hours a day, with a military police
officer permanently stationed outside each cell door. The handful of inmates of
Camp Echo include two of the four remaining British detainees, Moazzem Begg and
Feroz Abbasi, and the Australian, David Hicks;

· That they endured three months of solitary confinement in Camp Delta's
isolation block last summer after they were wrongly identified by the Americans
as having been pictured in a video tape of a meeting in Afghanistan between
Osama bin Laden and the leader of the 11 September hijackers Mohamed Atta.
Ignoring their protests that they were in Britain at the time, the Americans
interrogated them so relentlessly that eventually all three falsely confessed.
They were finally saved - at least on this occasion - by MI5, which came up with
documentary evidence to show they had not left the UK;

· That their first interrogations by British investigators - from both MI5 and
the SAS - took place in December 2001 and January 2002 when they were still
being held at a detention camp in Afghanistan. Guns were held to their heads
during their questioning in Afghanistan by American soldiers, and physical abuse
and beatings were rife. At this point, after weeks of near starvation as
prisoners of the Northern Alliance, all three men were close to death.

The Court of Appeal criticised the absence of any legal due process at
Guantanamo as a 'legal black hole' in a case brought on behalf of Abbasi last
year, while the laws lord, Lord Steyn, has described the camp in a speech as a
'monstrous failure of justice'.

In public, the British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has spoken of his
constant pressure on America to improve both physical and legal conditions,
urging them not to deny terror suspects a fair trial.

But the released prisoners told The Observer how MI5 interrogators, in sessions
lasting many hours, tried repeatedly to extract information they did not have
about Islamic groups in Britain and their supposed links with al-Qaeda.

Ahmed described an interrogation session which took place before he left
Afghanistan by an officer of MI5 and another official who said he was from the
Foreign Office: 'All the time I was kneeling with a guy standing on the backs of
my legs and another holding a gun to my head.

'The MI5 says: "I'm from the UK, I'm from MI5, I've got some questions for you,"
he told me: "We've got your name, we've got your passport, we know you've been
funded by an extremist group and we know you've been to this mosque in
Birmingham. We've got photos of you."' In fact, none of these claims was true.

The three men said that as far as they could see, there were few if any genuine
terrorists at Guantanamo Bay: perhaps at worst, a few mullahs who had been loyal
to the Taliban.

They voiced grave fears for the future of Begg and Abbasi, who are due to face
trials by American military commissions, saying that their own experience of the
Guantanamo interrogation and intelligence gathering process was 'almost a
recipe' for other miscarriages of justice.

Last night, a Foreign Office spokesman said he could not comment on the men's
claims to have been interrogated by British officials while they were still in
Afghanistan, saying he could not get access to the relevant files.

Whitehall security sources confirmed that MI5 has had regular access to
prisoners at Guantanamo Bay: 'I can say that the purpose of our being given
access to detainees in US custody is to gather information relevant to British
national security,' said one source.

* * *


The Independent (UK):

March 14, 2004

TIPTON DETAINEES WERE CAPTURED ON BOTCHED AID MISSION
Released British men tell of beatings, solitary confinement and threats to try
to make them confess

By Severin Carrell

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=501031

Three Britons held at Guantanamo Bay as alleged Taliban terrorists were captured
in northern Afghanistan after trying to mount a botched aid mission to help
Afghan civilians, The Independent on Sunday has been told.

The revelation came as the three men known as the "Tipton Three" spoke out for
the first time last night. Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed claimed to
have been beaten at Guantanamo Bay and to have been interrogated 200 times each.
They told two newspapers yesterday:

* They were kicked and beaten on several occasions by American troops.

* That the FBI tried to have them sign a piece of paper when they were released,
admitting links with terrorism.

* That they were kept for three months in solitary confinement in Guantanamo Bay
after other inmates made false accusations about them. They falsely confessed to
being at a meeting between Osama bin Laden and 11 September hijacker Mohammed
Atta under relentless interrogation.

* That other British inmates Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi were in a special
super-maximum security facility known as Camp Echo in Camp Delta.

The story of the three men, all close friends from the small Midlands town of
Tipton, emerged following their release last Tuesday after 26 months being held
at the American detention camp in at the US Navy base in Cuba.

Mr Rasul, Mr Iqbal and Mr Ahmed claim they had crossed into northern Afghanistan
from Pakistan in late October 2001 to take food and money to villagers caught up
in the allies' war with the Taliban. Instead, they found themselves swept up
with refugees and Taliban forces retreating under attack from US and Northern
Alliance troops, and became trapped in the Taliban's northern stronghold of
Kunduz. By mid-November, the city was under siege by General Abdul Rashid
Dostum's Northern Alliance forces and being targeted by US Air Force carpet-
bombing.

When Kunduz fell on 23 November, the three were among about 8,000 Taliban and
al-Qa'ida fighters taken prisoner by the Northern Alliance. As clean-shaven
foreigners unable to speak the local languages, they stood out, and were assumed
to be "foreign fighters". Gareth Peirce, their solicitor, said this was untrue.
She said: "They want everyone to know that they weren't fighting, they weren't
combatants and they weren't armed. They were never near a battlefield ­they were
trapped in Kunduz when it was besieged."

The men, along with 3,000 captives, were taken to the Alliance's notorious
prison at Shebarghan, close to Mazar-e-Sharif crammed into unventilated
container lorries. It is alleged that the other 5,000 prisoners died of
asphyxiation on board those lorries, or were executed or died from their wounds.

Asif Iqbal said: "They'd herded maybe 300 of us into each container, packed in
so tightly our knees were against our chests and almost immediately we started
to suffocate. We lived because someone made holes with a machine gun, though
they were shooting low and still more died from the bullets. When we got out,
about 20 in each container were still alive."

In the Alliance's prison, up to 110 men were housed in cells designed for 15
prisoners, or herded into corridors, in conditions that were condemned by US
human rights experts and the International Committee of the Red Cross as
"deplorable".

Doctors with the American organisation Physicians for Human Rights discovered
that dysentery, jaundice, stomach disorders and pneumonia were rife in the jail.
All the prisoners were malnourished, freezing and severely dehydrated, with
scores dying from lack of medical care.

The three Britons were interviewed by the ICRC at the jail in late December and
the Foreign Office was given their details. US special forces also arrived at
Shebarghan at that time to weed out the Taliban and al-Qa'ida leaders and
foreign fighters they wanted to take away for interrogation.

By 14 January 2002, the American units had left Shebarghan with dozens of
prisoners, including the three from Tipton. They were taken to the US base at
Kandahar, interrogated, and then flown in shackles to Camp X-Ray, the first
detention centre at Guantanamo Bay.

Mr Ahmed described an interrogations at the hands of MI5 at gunpoint before they
left Afghanistan. Mr Ahmed said "The MI5 says: ... we've got your name, we've
got your passport, we know you've been funded by an extremist group and we know
you've been to this mosque in Birmingham. We've got photos of you." But Mr Ahmed
said the claims were untrue.

When they arrived at Guantanamo Bay, Mr Ahmed said he was kicked, beaten and
called "traitor" when a guard realised he could speak English. He claimed he was
given isolation in the camp on one occasion for writing "have a nice day" on a
polystyrene cup.

Of their regular interviews with intelligence officials, Mr Rasul said: "They
kept [saying] 'this guy says you've done this, that guy says you've done that'
what they meant was that other detainees desperate to get out were making
allegations, making stuff up they thought would help get them out of the camp."

After three months in solitary confinement Mr Rasul said he falsely admitted to
having been on a videotape of a meeting between Atta and bin Laden out of
desperation that he could not convince the Americans he was in Britain at the
time. "I'd got to the point where I could not take it any more. 'Do what you
have to do', I told them. I'd been sitting there for three months in isolation
so I said 'yes it's me. Go ahead put me on trial'." MI5 later established the
trio had been in Britain when the meeting was held so the men were cleared of
the allegation.

Another British detainee released last Tuesday, Jamal al-Harith, has made more
allegations about mistreatment and beatings by the American troops. In an
unbroadcast section of an interview for ITV's Tonight with Trevor McDonald,
shown on Friday night, Mr Harith said the three Tipton men were treated worse
than him in Kandahar. At Guantanamo Bay, the British detainees were separated,
Mr Harith said, and the three Tipton men were nicknamed "The Beatles" by US
guards.

* * *


The Independent (UK):

March 14, 2004

Tipton man: MI5 held gun to my head
By Severin Carrell

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=501055

Three British men released from Guantanamo Bay last week have accused MI5
officers of trying to force them into making false confessions - including using
a handgun held to their heads during an interrogation.

The men, the so-called Tipton Three, also revealed that they narrowly survived a
massacre at the hands of Northern Alliance forces after they were captured in
the northern Afghanistan city of Kunduz.

The three, Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, all from the West Midlands
town of Tipton, arrived back in the UK on Tuesday after spending 26 months as
suspected Islamic terrorists in the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay in
Cuba.

They denied fighting for either the Taliban or al-Qa'ida and insisted they had
gone into Afghanistan in October 2001 to take aid to Afghani villagers. Instead,
they became swept up in the war against the Taliban, and were captured by the
Alliance when Kunduz fell. They were nearly suffocated when Alliance forces
herded them with thousands of other prisoners into shipping containers.

The three men allege that British diplomats failed to intervene when US forces
arrested the men at the jail. Instead, MI5 and Foreign Office officials
interrogated them at the US base in Kandahar.

* * *


The Independent (UK):

March 14, 2004

LORDS TO RULE ON 'TORTURE' EVIDENCE
By Raymond Whitaker, Foreign Editor

14 March 2004

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=501030

The House of Lords is to decide for the first time whether evidence obtained
under torture is admissible when it hears a legal challenge by 14 men held under
anti-terrorism legislation.

Security services have admitted in earlier hearings that intelligence that led
them to detain the suspects was obtained under duress from prisoners held in
Guantanamo Bay and the Middle East. Natalia Garcia, a solicitor for two of the
men, said: "We've argued that it was unfairly obtained but the reply was they
would assess it 'in the round'."

This week, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, will hear an appeal by the Home
Secretary against a ruling that one of the 14 should be released from Belmarsh
high-security prison because he had been held on "wholly unreliable evidence".
The Government says the 37-year-old Libyan, known only as M, should remain
detained as it regards him as a terrorist with al-Qa'ida connections.

Legal challenges against detention are heard by a special panel, but when it
goes into closed session on grounds of national security, neither the detainee
nor his lawyers can remain present. Nor are they allowed to know what
information is held against the prisoner. A Government-appointed barrister can
question the secrecy of the information; in one instance when this was
successful, said Ms Garcia, it turned out to be a press cutting.

To pass the anti-terrorism law, the Government had to suspend part of the
European Convention on Human Rights.

* * *


The Telegraph (UK):

March 14, 2004

ROLL UP, ROLL UP, IT'S THE GUANTANAMO BAY CIRCUS
By Rajeev Syal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml
?xml=/news/2004/03/14/nguan14.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/03/14/ixhome.html

The five British prisoners freed last week from American custody in Guantanamo
Bay are at the centre of a media bidding war involving publicists, solicitors,
book agents and television executives.

The media outside Paddington Green police station

Tarek Dergoul, Asif Iqbal, Shafiq Rasul and Ruhal Ahmed have been offered "six-
figure sums" for details of their treatment in the Cuban naval base and an
explanation of how, why and where they were initially detained. However, the
sums are likely to go higher the more lurid their accounts become.

Jamal Udeen has already sold his story to the Daily Mirror newspaper and the
television programme Tonight with Trevor McDonald for an initial payment of
£60,000. He is believed to be negotiating a separate book deal.

The five Muslim men were seized in Afghanistan and north Pakistan in late 2001
as suspected terrorists and transferred to Cuba in hoods, blindfolds and chains
that shackled them to the floor of the aircraft. They remained in Camp X-Ray and
Camp Delta on the US airforce base for more than two years until they were freed
last Monday.

Dergoul, 24, from Hackney, east London, released a statement on Friday claiming
that he had been mistreated while in the base. He said that he had been
interrogated at gunpoint, beaten and subjected to "botched medical treatment".

The American government denied his claims yesterday. Dergoul is expected to
release further claims of his mistreatment to the highest bidding newspaper.

Dergoul, who left his 9ft square cell in Guantanamo on Sunday night, walked into
another conflict in Britain - this time between his publicist and his solicitor.

The former care worker discovered that Max Clifford, the publicist, and Louise
Christian, a solicitor, were squabbling over who had the right to represent him
and damning each other to members of the press. Mr Clifford let it be known that
it would cost at least £200,000 for a newspaper to buy Dergoul's "explosive"
story and that Ms Christian's views were irrelevant.

"I am representing him. She [Ms Christian] doesn't know of my contacts with his
family," he said.

Ms Christian, a parliamentary candidate for the Socialist Alliance, told The
Sunday Telegraph that Mr Clifford had not even met Dergoul. "What would he
[Clifford] know?" she said.

Udeen, 37, a computer programmer from Manchester, met representatives from the
Daily Mirror and producers from Tonight with Trevor McDonald last Tuesday. His
solicitor negotiated a deal worth about £60,000, it was reported. The father-of-
three claimed that while held at Guantanamo Bay he was subjected to a brutal
regime including being chained to the floor during 12-hour interrogation
sessions and having an unknown drug administered by injection.

He also claimed that prostitutes were taken into the camp and used to degrade
and insult the detainees' religious beliefs. "It was a profoundly disturbing
experience for these men," he told the newspaper.

He claimed that he was not a terrorist, but was in fact travelling across
Pakistan in 2001 when he decided to leave because an American-led war was
imminent.

By mistake, he claimed, he travelled over the border into Afghanistan and was
imprisoned in Kandahar by the Taliban government after being identified as a
British citizen and accused of being a spy.

When the Americans arrived in the city, he was moved to an airbase before being
transferred to Cuba as an alleged terrorist.

Rasul, 25, unemployed, Iqbal, 20, a student, and Ahmed, 21, a former parcel
depot worker, have been inundated with requests for newspaper and television
interviews. The three young men from Tipton, an industrial suburb of
Wolverhampton, have appointed a "media manager" to negotiate potential deals
with newspapers.

Last week, Habib Rasul, the brother of Shafiq, said that the family was
overjoyed that he was free but that the media interest had been intense. "We are
looking forward to a little bit of privacy, but we haven't decided whether to do
an interview and with who. Shafiq is back, that's the important thing," he said.

Robert Kirby, a literary agent who handled book deals for John McCarthy, the
former Beirut hostage, said that the released detainees could look forward to
book and possible film deals.

"Separately, their stories could be worth £100,000 each. The Tipton boys
together could be worth £1 million. There are also possible film rights,
although one would have to exclude the US audience because of the nature of the
material," he said.

The police in Tipton have increased patrols around the former detainees' homes
after an effigy of a Guantanamo Bay inmate - wearing the distinctive orange
overalls - was found hanging by a noose from a lamp post.

All five men are expected to sue the British Government for compensation,
alleging that ministers failed to look after wrongfully held citizens. None has
so far applied for legal aid, but they would be eligible to do so, according to
a spokesman for the Legal Services Commission.

Four other Britons remain in Guantanamo Bay: Feroz Abbasi, 23, from Croydon,
south London, a former computer studies student; Moazzam Begg, 36, from
Sparkhill, Birmingham; Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London, a former
motorcycle courier; and Richard Belmar, 23, from Maida Vale, London, who
converted to Islam in his teens.

Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, denied allegations that America had
subjected British prisoners to psychological torture and beatings. "We do not
abuse people in our care Guantanamo Bay is not a resort, but at the same time we
do not abuse individuals," he said.

* * *


The Scotsman (Edinburgh):

March 14, 2004

THE 'TIPTON THREE' GO HOME - BUT NOW THE QUESTIONS START
By Nick Britten

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=295422004

Tipton, UK - JUST before midnight last Wednesday, Riasoth Ahmed received the
telephone call that he had been waiting 25 months for. His son, Ruhal, was being
released by the British intelligence services after 24 hours of detention
following his return from Guantanamo Bay.

Ahmed and two of his closest friends, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul, were free
men. They had travelled to Pakistan in the weeks following the September 11
terrorist attacks in America, but had been picked up by American special forces
in Afghanistan and taken to Cuba, accused of fighting for the Taliban or al-
Qaeda.

As they were reunited with their loved ones at a safe house on Thursday, they
were no doubt hoping, as Ahmed said the previous day, to draw a line under the
whole episode and move on.

But serious questions remain: why did the men, who all grew up and attended the
same school together, fly out to Pakistan so soon after September 11? What were
they doing in Afghanistan? And why did four men - another man, Munir Ali, has
not been seen for more than two years - travel to the same area, independently,
but within a few days of each other?

Along with two other men released last week, Tarek Dergoul, 26, from London, and
Jamal al-Harith, from Manchester, the "Tipton Three" might be able to return to
their homes free men, but their trial in the eyes of the British public has only
just begun. All claim to have legitimate reasons for being abroad - to attend a
wedding, to meet a prospective bride and to go on a computer course - but those
theories will now be put to the test.

In Tipton, a run-down former manufacturing town in the West Midlands, Ahmed, 22,
Rasul, 26, and Iqbal, 22, have become celebrity figures and the community is
broadly split down white and Asian lines. The Muslim community, seeing the whole
affair as a great miscarriage of justice, will welcome them back with open arms.
Others remain more sceptical.

Dr Mohammed Naseem, chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque, said the treatment of
the prisoners was "deplorable". "I think back to the times of Stalin and Hitler
when people were being taken away somewhere where no one knew where they were.
They were just disappearing and that is happening now."

Many locally fear the men’s return will reignite racial tensions in Tipton that
have calmed in recent years. The area is one of the poorest in Britain and the
issue has been seized upon by the British National Party. BNP support is growing
and last year it won two council seats in neighbouring wards. Attacks on Muslims
have increased and communities have closed inwards.

A bullet hole is still visible at a local Muslim association building, where
spokesman Khurshid Ahmed said moderates were trying to combat any fundamentalist
religious preaching in the area.

When the men were arrested and taken to Guantanamo Bay it was not hard to see
how disaffected Asian youths in Tipton could be swayed by the anti-Western
sentiment espoused by fundamentalist Muslim preachers. Unemployment, poverty and
deprivation was rife, anti-British and American feeling was at an all time high
and none had jobs with any long-term career prospects.

The BNP has predicted "major problems locally" and the police have stepped up
foot patrols around the Park Lane estate as well as installing CCTV cameras
outside each of the men’s family homes.

Ian Jones, a Labour councillor, has previously raised concerns about a mosque
set up inside a house in Wellington Road - where Iqbal lives. He feared it was
used to preach fundamentalism, claiming that it was "too much of a co-incidence
that all three of these men attended the same prayer meetings and all lived
within 250 yards of each other".

An effigy of a man wearing an orange boiler suit bearing the words "hang the
Tipton Taliban" was strung up on a lamppost last week and locals report cars
driven by "menacing-looking white men" making regular patrols around what is
almost exclusively an Asian area.

What is certain is that it will be very hard for the three men to slip back into
their previous lives.

Last week there were no signs of celebration, with the families refusing to come
out of their houses.

Ruhal Ahmed, struggling with his English and clearly bewildered by the mass of
cameras pointing at his front door every time it opened, said he was furious
that, having held his son for more than two years in Cuba, the authorities also
detained him for questioning on his return to Britain. "We are not terrorists,"
he said. "How do you think me and my family feel? My wife has been crying for
the last 18 months."

As the first accounts of life in Guantanamo Bay were published, thoughts turned
to the remaining four British detainees, who are now likely to face trial by
American tribunal: Feroz Abbasi, 23, from Croydon; Moazzam Begg, 36, from
Sparkhill, Birmingham; Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London; and Richard
Belmar, 23, also from London.

In an interview with the Daily Mirror, one of the five men released, al-Harith,
37, said detainees were shackled up for 15 hours a day, regularly beaten and
faced intense psychological pressure. He claimed they were held in wire cages
open to the elements and forced to drink foul water and food that was out of
date by up to 10 years.

He said: "The whole point of Guantanamo was to get you psychologically. The
beatings were not nearly as bad as the psychological torture - bruises heal
after a week - but the other stuff stays with you."

Al-Harith claimed devout Muslims were left traumatised after being forced to
watch naked prostitutes, and that they were threatened with injections of drugs
if they did not answer their interrogators’ questions.

The release of the five men by America was down to direct political involvement
by the British government, even though Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, cast
doubt on their innocence. He said: "Because... the police and Crown Prosecution
Service judged that there is insufficient evidence to mount a prosecution on
evidence that is admissible in the British court, it doesn’t follow from there
that therefore the original detention was unjustified. Not a bit."

David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, said ministers were still in negotiations
with their American counterparts regarding the remaining four. The government
won’t press for their release because they are deemed more of a security risk,
having been captured inside the "combat zone" in Afghanistan.

Abandoning their normal policy of refusing to comment on allegations against
detainees, the Americans, who claim the men trained at al-Qaeda camps in
Afghanistan, studying terrorist skills including bomb-making, assassination and
urban warfare, said they were convinced that if freed all four would pose "a
serious threat" to America and Britain.

Tony Blair has agreed with the British security services that, in line with the
American evidence, they were "more comfortable not having these people walking
the streets in the UK", a statement that was met with anger and ridicule in
equal measure by the men’s families and their lawyers.

However, Blunkett said he would press to ensure that the Britons receive a fair
hearing. He said: "The evidence that has been picked up is best used in the US,
not in Britain, because the people who evaluated that evidence are those who
were present and have been involved with the interrogation process.

"We have spelt out the process that we have adopted and the requirements that we
have built in for an appeal and legal representation. We’re still in the process
of discussion."

That is not enough for Begg’s father Azmat, who has been the most vocal
campaigner of any of the detainees’ relatives. Yesterday he returned home from
America where he spent time trying to secure his son’s release and has delivered
a letter to the White House asking President Bush to return Moazzam for trial in
a British court. In it, Begg, 65, said his son had been working as an aid worker
in Afghanistan, teaching and digging wells for villages.

He wrote: "Mr President, I do not plead for mercy, my son has not been charged
with any crime. I ask for justice. Before mercy comes justice, and my son has
been denied justice. Before the law you and I stand equal but in Guantanamo Bay
my son is helpless and powerless to prove his innocence." As he handed the
letter in, Begg said: "We are not against Americans or the English, we are
human."

His pleas are unlikely to cut any ice as President Bush has already designated
Abbasi, a former worshipper at Finsbury Park mosque, and Begg, who worked in an
Islamic bookshop in Sparkhill, to be among the first to stand trial before
military tribunals.

Five might be free but the story of the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay is a
long way from being over.

* * *


Arab News (Jeddah):

March 14, 2004

SAUDI GUANTANAMO DETAINEES HOPEFUL OF EARLY RELEASE
Staff Writer

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=41149&d=14&m=3&y=2004
&pix=kingdom.jpg&category=Kingdom

JEDDAH -- Saudi prisoners in Guantanamo are hopeful about their imminent
release, an Interior Ministry official said.

Saud Al-Mosaibeh said the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has
delivered 580 letters from the 124 detainees to their families in the Kingdom.

"The letters from the detainees revealed they were in high spirits, saying they
feel their release is imminent and that it was only a matter of time," Al-Watan
Arabic daily quoted him as saying.

The ICRC also delivered 685 letters from families to the detainees, according to
Al-Mosaibeh.

"As a result of pressure from the Saudi government on the United States, a Saudi
delegation visited Guantanamo and met with the detainees to check on their
conditions," he said.

Al-Mosaibeh said the Saudi delegation, in coordination with the ICRC, also took
pictures of the detainees.

Saudi citizens make up the largest group of detainees suspected of links with
the Al-Qaeda network and Taleban in Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

The United States says prisoners held in Guantanamo, most of whom were captured
in Afghanistan in 2001, are "unlawful combatants" and therefore not entitled to
the treatment guaranteed to prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

But Al-Mosaibeh said he had no information about any imminent release of Saudi
detainees.

* * *


icBirmingham:

March  14 2004

RACE HATE PARTY TARGETS TIPTON
By Tom Wells, Sunday Mercury

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/content_objectid=
14052087_method=full_siteid=50002_headline=-Race-hate-party-targets-Tipton-
name_page.html

A Midland MP has blasted attempts by the far-right BNP party to "cash in" on the
return of the so-called Tipton Taliban.

Last week, Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Ruhal Ahmed returned to Britain after
more than two years locked away inside Guantanamo Bay.

All three Tipton men were taken to the controversial Cuban base after being held
in Afghanistan on suspicion of terrorism charges in 2001.

Yet despite intensive interrogation by both American and British intelligence
officers they were dramatically released from custody without any criminal
charge on Wednesday night.

It was later revealed that they had only been questioned for ONE HOUR by cops in
what some critics described as a "public relations exercise".

The three men were believed to be with their families at secret locations last
night.

Since their return to the Midlands, BNP activists have carried out door-to-door
canvassing in Tipton ahead of the June council elections.

And last night the race-hate group issued an astonishing state-ment on their
website allegedly from West Midlands Police officer claiming cops were furious
that the three had been freed.

"Why did devout Muslims who knew and worked with each other all decide to go
over to Afghanistan at the same time, just weeks after September 11, when
everybody knew there was going to be a war in the region?" the 'policeman' said.

"Why haven't the authorities prosecuted them for treason? A special branch
officer told me that they have a great deal of evidence on what they had been
doing there.

"There is a feeling of frustration and some anger amongst local officers."

The BNP statement was instantly condemned by West Bromwich West MP Adrian
Bailey, who said it was typical of an "unrepresentative, minority party".

"It is appalling that the BNP should seek to make political gain out of the
return of these three men," he said.

"It is difficult for the families and for the community. Comments like this
don't improve matters, although I am satisfied that the people of Tipton will
reject any attempt by the BNP to cash in on this situation. There was always the
possibility, or rather the probability, that the BNP would try to take advantage
of the Tipton men.

"They are an unrepresentative minority party who will seek to exploit the
sensitivities surrounding our constituency.

"I would not be surprised if the BNP try to target this area in the run-up to
the June elections in a distasteful attempt to make gains."

Mr Bailey also said he had spoken to the families of the three Tipton men in the
days leading up to their release.

He added: "I have spoken to the families of Mr Ahmed and Mr Rasul in the run-up
to their return to the country and they have shown a quiet detachment to the
proceedings.

"There was no exuberance."

* * *


St. Petersburg Times:

March 14, 2004

FOR SOME DEFENDANTS, AN AMERICAN GULAG

By Robyn E. Blumner, Times Perspective Columnist

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/03/14/Columns/For_some_defendants__.shtml

In Bernard Malamud's masterpiece The Fixer, inmate Yakov Bok was subjected to
psychological torture in a Soviet gulag through the humiliations of constant
shackling and repeated strip searches.

The story I read in middle school comes back to me as I learn more about the
abusive and psychologically damaging treatment of Dr. Sami Al-Arian, a former
professor of computer engineering at the University of South Florida, who is in
federal prison on terrorism-related charges.

Denied bail and his right to a speedy trial, Al-Arian is being held in the
Special Housing Unit of the Coleman Federal Correctional Complex in Sumter
County. The SHU is the prison's disciplinary ward, typically reserved for
uncontrollable prisoners who have attacked guards or other inmates.

Al-Arian shares a 7-by-13-foot cell with co-defendant Sameeh Hammoudeh. The
amount of room they have for both of them violates the American Correctional
Association guidelines for a single prisoner. Here, they are warehoused for 23
hours a day, let out only for an hour of recreation five times a week. But even
then they are denied daylight. Their recreation cell is a cage adjacent to the
cellblock which is surrounded by a high wall and an opaque weather covering.

All done for their own safety, says the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

In a display of petty cruelty, whenever Al-Arian has a meeting with his lawyers,
the guards refuse to carry his legal documents. He is forced to walk bent over,
with his hands shackled behind him, balancing the paperwork on his back. "Like
an animal," says Linda Moreno, one of his lawyers. After the meeting he is strip
searched - sometimes with other prisoners and guards watching.

But this is actually a step up. He used to be strip searched after every non-
contact visit from family, too. Finally, a federal magistrate put a stop to it.

His privations and indignities have even caught the attention of Amnesty
International. In July, the group wrote a letter to the Director of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons calling the manner of Al-Arian's confinement "unnecessarily
punitive," charging that the "deprivations imposed on Dr. Al-Arian are
inconsistent with international standards and treaties."

I appreciate that Al-Arian is decidedly unsympathetic. The 50-count indictment
accuses him of heading the U.S. operations of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a
terrorist group responsible for murdering more than 100 people in Israel and its
territories. But right now Al-Arian is a pretrial detainee, presumed innocent,
and he is being subjected to conditions of confinement so harsh and unjustified
that there must be an ulterior motive. All signs point to a purposeful strategy
by the Justice Department to break him down psychologically and make it
difficult if not impossible for him to assist in his own defense.

This may help the government obtain a conviction, but it will inevitably prove
counterproductive in advancing our national security interests. Al-Arian is a
well-known Muslim figure and his treatment by our criminal justice system will
be watched around the world - and the Muslim world in particular. What is being
done to him now is unworthy of our system; and lays bare a hypocrisy: We preach
great principles of justice, fair-dealing and respect for human dignity to Arab
nations yet are willing to make them a pick-and-choose proposition over here.

The bulk of the government's case against Al-Arian and his co-defendants is
contained in more than 20,000 hours of audio recordings, the result of several
years worth of wiretapped phone conversations. Al-Arian, like any other
defendant, was granted the right to listen to this evidence in order to
participate in his own defense. But the prison has made a mockery of this,
persistently delaying his efforts by failing to maintain his recording equipment
in working order.

Earlier this month Al-Arian's cell was raided by guards wearing masks covering
their faces. His attorney claims that hundreds of pages of the notes he prepared
on his case were confiscated. The prison failed to respond to my inquiries on
this episode.

There is bias operating here. This is the same sort of mistreatment faced by
hundreds of immigrants swept up into detention facilities after 9/11. The Bush
administration has determined that a different set of rules should apply to
anyone suspected of aiding terrorism.

When I asked Andrew Patel, one of the attorneys for Jose Padilla, the American
who is being held without charge as a potential terrorist, about the confinement
conditions for his client, he said it's a taboo subject. Patel said he was told
not to discuss anything regarding conditions with Padilla.

The ban reminded me of a passage in The Fixer when Bok is visited by his wife.
"They forbade me to ask you any questions about your conditions in this prison,"
she lamented.

The thing all these men, Al-Arian, Hammoudeh, Padilla and Bok, have in common is
that they suffered in confinement without having been convicted of any crime.
Like the old Soviet system, for certain suspects, we punish first and do the
trial later.

mailto:blumner@sptimes.com

* * *


NEWS.com.au:

March 14, 2004
HICKS 'KILLED MICE' FOR HIS SANITY

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8965069^421,00.html

(AAP) AUSTRALIAN terror suspect David Hicks occupied himself in jail by killing
mice, a report said today.

Britain's Observer newspaper reported Hicks - who is detained in Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, awaiting a US military commission - went to desperate measures to maintain
his sanity.

Fellow inmate Shafiq Rasul, who has been returned to England, told the newspaper
Adelaide-born Hicks occupied his mind all day by catching and killing mice.

He said more than a year ago, Hicks renounced Islam and shaved off his beard, no
longer answering the regular call to prayer.

"He's just a little guy with a very deep voice," Rasul said.

"If you met him you'd think he was the typical kind of Aussie you might see
drinking Fosters in a bar."

Rasul said Hicks was housed in a white-walled, sound-absorbent cell in solitary
confinement with a guard permanently stationed outside his door.

He said interrogators had taken to using a formal system of rewards to get
cooperation.

But the best-selling novels they offered as incentives usually had pages torn
out, which the censor deemed too subversive or exciting.

Hicks, 28, was captured by the US among Taliban forces in Afghanistan in
December 2001.

His family has been meeting this week with his US military lawyer Major Michael
Mori and tonight, his father, Terry Hicks, wife Bev and Maj Mori will all attend
the screening of a new film about Hicks, which is to be released in Australia
and the United States.

Terry Hicks says the film will show "David is not the demon he has been made out
to be".

The documentary, The President Versus David Hicks, attempts to trace David's
path in the lead-up to him being captured by the US among Taliban forces in
Afghanistan in December 2001.

"It's something to make the public aware that David is not what they're saying,
the government have demonised him from the start," Terry Hicks said today.

"The documentary is retracing David's footsteps through his letters, it's really
myself following David.

"It's trying to trace his whereabouts and who he's had contact with.

"A lot of the stuff in the documentary shows there was nothing untoward with
what David was doing.

"A lot of the public are still listening to what the government are saying about
David.

"We're hoping the play and the film will shed a different light on it and what
(Attorney-General Philip) Ruddock's saying and show that what he is saying is
not true."

Terry Hicks said the documentary was also attracting attention in the US, where
he was interviewed on US current affairs show 60 Minutes last week, which also
showed clips of the film.

"It's created a huge amount of interest in the US," Mr Hicks said.

A play, X-ray, portraying David Hicks' life inside the Guantanamo Bay prison,
has also been running at Adelaide's Fringe Festival.

Mr Hicks said his family's meetings with Major Mori this week had been
beneficial.

He was pleased with the thorough job the US military lawyer was doing, including
publicly attacking the military tribunal system as unjust.

"I think Major Mori comes across as someone who, regardless of what part of the
military he's with, he's got a job to do and he's going to do it," Mr Hicks
said.

"He's not going to be told how to do his job."

Mr Hicks said he expected to be called to give character evidence on behalf of
David, although there was no indication yet of when a trial was likely to begin.

"I'll be one called to give evidence," Mr Hicks said.

"I think mainly as a character reference for David, his background, what he's
done from when he was a young lad right through, that type of thing."

* * *


icBirmingham:

March 13, 2004

FREED MAN TO SUE US
By Tony Deeley, Evening Mail

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/mail/content_objectid=
14049174_method=full_siteid=50002_headline=-Freed-man-to-sue-US-name_page.html

A Midland man held as a suspected terrorist for more than two years at Camp
Delta is to sue over his captivity and will sell his story.

The father of Ruhal Ahmed of Tipton said his son is to seek compensation from
both America and Britain and will listen to media offers.

Riasoth Ahmed made the announcement in a brief press conference with reporters
outside the family home in Bath Road yesterday.

Ruhal, aged 22, was among three Tipton men to arrive back in Britain on Tuesday
after being held at the infamous prison base in Cuba's Guantanamo Bay.

Along with Shafiq Rasul, aged 26, of Victoria Road and Asif Iqbal, 22, of
Wellington Road he was arrested on landing at RAF Northolt in West London and
held for questioning under the Terrorism Act.

The men, who were originally arrested in Afghanistan at the height of the Allied
campaign against the Taliban, were released without charge after just over 24
hours of questioning at London's high-security Paddington Green police station
and have since been in hiding.

Ruhal's father said that at an emotional first meeting following his son's
return both gave each other a big hug.

His son, who looked well and had undergone full medical checks, had spoken of
how cold he was after sun-soaked Cuba.

"He did not say very much apart from 'I am tired and in need of a rest'," he
said.

"He is going to sell his story. He has received quite a few offers."

Mr Ahmed, who thanked the press for their help in securing his son's release,
continued: "I am going to sue the US Government and probably the British
Government too. We feel they did not get him out quickly enough.

"He was held without charge and our Government looked into it - but not
properly."

Mr Ahmed expects his son home in about ten days.

* Yesterday theft and motoring charges brought against Ruhal before his seizure
by the Americans were dropped by Crown prosecutors.

* * *


BBC:

March 12, 2004
NO CHARGES ON GUANTANOMO DETAINEE

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/west_midlands/3506408.stm

Theft and motoring charges against one of the Tipton men freed from Guantanamo
Bay have been dropped.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) said Ruhal Ahmed had been charged with
driving without an MoT or insurance and theft from a car in 2001.

He was due to appear at West Bromwich Magistrates' Court in February 2002.

In a statement the CPS said that the 23-year-old's incarceration in Cuba meant
that a prosecution was no longer in the public interest.

CPS spokesman Vinny Bolina, said: "A two-year sentence would have been the
maximum stretch Ahmed would have served if he had been found guilty of the
offences.

Concerns over fairness

"Therefore we feel that, although he was not in the UK this two-year stretch is
adequate enough.

"Also the solicitor for Ahmed would have argued his client would not have had a
fair hearing because of who he is. We have taken all these matters into
consideration and made this decision."

The former factory worker had already left for Afghanistan when he was due to
face the charges. He was then apprehended by the US authorities.

Mr Ahmed and four other men who were detained, were flown home from Cuba on
Tuesday night.

They were arrested and questioned by anti-terrorist officers and released on
Wednesday.

* * *


The Guardian (UK):

March 13, 2004

Comment
THIS CREEPING SICKNESS
So now we know: torture is routinely used by the US in Guantanamo Bay

By Ken Coates

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1168592,00.html

Truly we live in dark times. A sure sign that the nights are getting longer,
even as springtime approaches, comes from the intensity of anxieties about
torture. All the time there are reports of new atrocities - in Sudan, among
British victims in Saudi Arabia, and of course in the war on terror. Later this
month in Geneva, the World Organisation Against Torture will tell the UN
Commission on Human Rights that "since the attacks of September 11, numerous
states have adopted or announced measures that are incompatible with their
obligations under international law". At the same time that we face new
atrocities in Madrid, we hear the voices of the first Britons released from
Guantanamo Bay where, according to former detainee Jamal al-Harith, they endured
a regime of unremitting cruelty.

He describes systematic humiliation, clearly aimed at corroding the humanity of
the victims, and which included exposing devout Muslims to insult by
prostitutes.

The Centre for the Rehabilitation of Victims of Torture in Copenhagen was the
first to provide systematic medical care for torture victims, and to research
its effects. "We thought that the aim of torture was to obtain information,"
states the centre's Dr Inge Genefke. "But no. The main aim of torture is to
break down, to destroy the identity, the personality."

After years of research, the centre concluded: "The target group of government-
sanctioned torture are leaders of ethnic minorities, human rights fighters,
union members, politicians, student leaders, journalists and others."

These were all selected because they were leading personalities, pursuing goals
inimical to government policies. Once broken, these victims "are full of
anxiety, depressions ... their families suffer. Others are intimidated, afraid
of being exposed to the same treatment, and do not dare to follow their more
courageous exemplars."

Despite this, many argue that the war on terror justifies such measures.
Distinguished columnists have suggested that sleep deprivation or lengthy
interrogations, known as "torture-lite", ought to be permissible.

In late 2002, the Washington Post revealed: "Deep in side the forbidden zone at
the US-occupied Bagram airbase in Afghanistan ... sits a cluster of shipping
containers protected by a triple-layer of concertina wire. The containers hold
the most valuable prizes in the war on terrorism - captured al-Qaida operatives
and Taliban commanders."

The newspaper went on to describe the process of "rendering", which sends
uncooperative prisoners to obedient allies where unsqueamish interrogations are
not deemed unlawful. Guantanamo Bay, outside normal legal constraints, holds
over 600 detainees who are beyond the reach of judicial processes anywhere in
the world.

A rgument continues about whether the US base in the British territory of Diego
Garcia is also used for such interrogations. The British government denies this,
but the allegations continue, echoed by numerous civil liberties groups.

Now, dictatorship is not the sole instigator of torture. In the age of empire,
behaviour that would have aroused universal disapproval in the metropolitan
power becomes "necessary" for controlling the the subject nations. Since such
behaviour might spread anxiety to the domestic population, who regrettably have
votes, it is best confined to unapproachable zones or distant islands under
strict military control. In Bagram there is clearly a different law from that
which applies in the continental US. Alas, other governments, like the British,
find it necessary to condone this.

But this behaviour spreads into the main body politic, and rots civil freedoms
there, too. It needs a high-security presence even at home, such as has been
established at Belmarsh. It needs fickle and opportunistic politicians, who find
difficulty in recognising what were yesterday deemed to be universal,
uncontested truths.

The war on terror is a perfect state of psychosis within which the darkness can
extend itself. It has no defined boundaries, no fixed territorial enemies: it
takes what yesterday were deemed to be simple crimes, and extends them mentally
to incriminate whole populations, social groups or religions.

There is only one antidote to this creeping sickness: the insistence upon
universal human rights, within whose spirit torture was outlawed by the 1984 UN
Convention Against Torture. Forbidden are any officially sanctioned acts "by
which severe pain or suffering,whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person".

But, forbidden or not, the 3,000 captives accused of sustaining al-Qaida have
commonly been fitted with hoods and gags, tied up in positions calculated to
cause pain and distress and systematically deprived of sleep.

Jamal al-Harith said: "The whole point of Guantanamo was to get to you
psychologically. The beatings were not nearly as bad as the psychological
torture - bruises heal after a week, but the other stuff stays with you."

We should join forces with those NGOs which are already demanding that the UN
inspect those installations where maltreatment of captives is suspected, and
bring such installations under its own jurisdiction.

[ Ken Coates is chairman of the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation and edits its
journal, the Spokesman.  www.russfound.org ]

* * *


The Guardian (UK):

March 13, 2004

BRITON ACCUSES AMERICAN CAPTORS
Freed Guantanamo prisoner also condemns British government

By Tania Branigan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1168501,00.html

A second Briton released from Guantanamo Bay last night savaged the United
States for gross breaches of human rights which he alleged included
interrogation at gunpoint.

Tarek Dergoul, 26, from London, also condemned the British government for
allowing his continued detention in Bagram and Kandahar in Afghanistan and then
the US base in Cuba and called for the release of remaining detainees.

The former care worker is in poor physical and mental health after his two-year
ordeal. He is believed to have had an arm amputated and have difficulty walking.

"Tarek Dergoul has started to try to give his family and solicitor, Louise
Christian, an account of the horrific things which happened to him during
detention at Bagram, Kandahar and Guantanamo Bay," said a statement released
last night.

"This has included an account of botched medical treatment, interrogation at
gunpoint, beatings and inhumane conditions.

"[He] condemns the US and UK governments for allowing these gross breaches of
human rights and demands the release of all the other detainees."

It added: "Tarek finds it very difficult to talk about these things and his
family believe his mental health has been severely affected by the trauma he has
suffered. We therefore appeal to the media to respect his privacy and not to try
and find him."

Mr Dergoul is not expected to speak to journalists in the foreseeable future.

The accusations will fuel international concern about the detention camp, coming
after claims of punishment beatings and psychological torture by another Briton.

Jamal Udeen, also known as Jamal al-Harith, told the Mirror: "The whole point
... was to get to you psychologically. The beatings were not nearly as bad as
the psychological torture - bruises heal after a week but the other stuff stays
with you."

He also said the men were asked to sign a confession that they were linked to
the Taliban and al-Qaida before their release. He refused: "I would rather have
stayed in Guantanamo than sign that paper."

A Pentagon spokeswoman described the allegations as "simply lies", while the
secretary of state, Colin Powell, said yesterday he believed the US treated
detainees "in a very, very humanitarian way". He told ITV1's Tonight With Trevor
McDonald: "Because we are Americans, we don't abuse people in our care."

US authorities have refused to allow independent human rights observers into the
military base in Cuba. The International Committee of the Red Cross has access
but does not comment publicly.

"If the problems are less than have been described, [the US] has everything to
gain from allowing people to look into conditions and talk about them," said
Steve Crawshaw from Human Rights Watch.

"We have obviously got no way of knowing whether the allegations are true or
not, but they are extremely serious and reinforce the need for access. Human
Rights Watch has never received permission."

Mr Udeen, 37, from Manchester, described being beaten up and put in isolation
for a month for refusing an injection because guards would not tell him what it
was.

"After a while, we stopped asking for human rights - we wanted animal rights,"
he said. The Mirror reported that he now stoops because his shackles were too
short.

In a separate interview with the ITV1 programme, shown last night, he described
be coming so used to detention that news of his release scared him.

"I thought, I've been in a cage for two years. I sort of didn't want to leave,"
he said.

Mr Udeen said he was interviewed 40 times by American agents, for up to 12 hours
at a time, and nine times by MI5 and British consular officials.

Four Britons and at least three British residents are among more than 600
detainees still held at the camp. The home secretary, Jack Straw, has said the
government will press the US for the British nationals - Feroz Abbasi, Martin
Mubanga, Richard Belmar and Moazzam Begg - to be released or given a fair trial.

Mr Belmar's solicitor, Muddassar Arani, said she was "sickened" by allegations
about the camp.

* * *

Atlantic Unbound:

March 12, 2004

Interviews: THE SOFTER SIDE OF ASHCROFT

http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/interviews/int2004-03-12.htm

Jeffrey Rosen, the author of "John Ashcroft's Permanent Campaign" (April
Atlantic), argues that it is not social conservatism but a quest for popular
approval that drives John Ashcroft's public life

.....

Ashcroft. In some quarters the very name is synonymous with narrow-minded
religious zealotry, insidious government overreach, and the obliteration of
civil liberties. After all, John Ashcroft, a man raised by his Pentecostal
minister father to abjure drinking, dancing, smoking, and sex outside of
marriage, and who has been quoted as saying "you can legislate morality," now
holds one of this country's highest, most powerful offices with profound
influence over legal and social issues. And he has used that position to
enthusiastically oversee the creation of the Patriot Act -- a piece of Big
Brotherish legislation that empowers the government secretly to snoop on its
citizens and prosecute them for the crimes thereby uncovered.

Or so his critics would have it. The reality, however, may be somewhat less
sinister. In his article in the April Atlantic, the law professor Jeffrey Rosen
seeks to sort fact from fiction with respect to our controversial Attorney
General. Rosen spoke with Ashcroft's former and current colleagues, studied his
political record, and met with him at his office in the Justice Department. He
was surprised to discover that neither personally nor professionally does
Ashcroft live up to his reputation as a vengeful ideologue.

Indeed, in his direct dealings with him, Rosen found Ashcroft to be affable --
"endearing" even, displaying appealing humility, an oddball sense of humor, and
such eccentric quirks as a habit of taking his shoes off and arranging them into
unusual positions on the floor. It also became clear to Rosen that the common
perception of Ashcroft as militantly committed to furthering a conservative
social agenda is for the most part held over from his years in the Senate when
he sought to court the Christian right in a possible bid for the presidency.

What has in fact guided Ashcroft throughout his career, Rosen argues, is not
ideology but political expedience. Prior to his term in the Senate, Rosen points
out, Ashcroft was the governor of Missouri, a position in which he regularly
disappointed conservatives in order to curry favor with the state's Democratic
majority, for example by expressing support for the National Endowment for the
Arts, and compromising on a number of hot-button social issues. Moreover, upon
assuming the position of Attorney General, Ashcroft did not seize the
opportunity to impose his own set of moral values on the rest of the country,
but instead pursued such unassailably popular objectives as safer neighborhoods
and drug-enforcement legislation.

As for the much-maligned Patriot Act, which Ashcroft helped usher into existence
and has since embraced as his capstone achievement, Rosen argues that it is not
nearly so extreme or outrageous as many believe. It was passed, Rosen points
out, in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when national
security was an especially urgent concern. And for the most part, the act
consists of minor technical refinements to domestic surveillance laws already in
place. (Under the Patriot Act, for example, if a suspected terrorist converses
on a land line and then switches to his cell phone, it is now permissible -- as
has long been the case in drug investigations -- for law enforcement agents to
follow the conversation from one device to the other.) In fact, most of the
changes encompassed in the Patriot Act, Rosen notes, were recommended years
earlier by the Clinton Administration.

But Rosen also emphasizes that in at least one respect the act is seriously
flawed and should be amended. Certain provisions within the act empower the
government to search an individual's private records simply by claiming that
such a search is in some way beneficial to the war on terror, and without having
to notify the targeted individual. Government abuse in such cases, Rosen warns,
while not inevitable, is a worrisome possibility.

In theory, an unscrupulous Attorney General who wanted to silence his critics
could certify that their medical, bank, and Internet records were relevant to a
terrorist investigation.... Banks and doctors and Internet-service providers
would be compelled to turn over the critics' data -- but prohibited from telling
the critics that their records were being searched. And if the Attorney General
found evidence of low-level crimes (say, minor financial misdoing), he could
threaten prosecution.

Striking those provisions from the Patriot Act, Rosen argues, would be easy to
do and would not significantly impair the intelligence community's ability to
ferret out terrorism. But Ashcroft has little interest in making the change.
This by no means indicates, Rosen emphasizes, that Ashcroft has devious plans
for using the act to silence his critics; Ashcroft is convinced that "under his
watch the powers granted by the act could be used only for the noble purpose of
fighting evil." Rather, his reasons for resisting changes to the act are -- as
usual -- political. "'As I recall,' he told Rosen, 'About fifty-five percent
said this is being handled just about right; another twenty percent said, "Man,
we're not doing enough to make us safe." The same poll suggested that only 20
percent thought the act went too far.'" To a political animal like Ashcroft,
such polling data is persuasive.

We may have on our hands, then, an Attorney General who is bent not on imposing
his vision of righteousness on the rest of us, but on imposing on himself what
he believes the rest of us are willing to vote for.

Jeffrey Rosen is a law professor at George Washington University and the legal-
affairs editor of The New Republic. His new book, The Naked Crowd: Reclaiming
Security and Freedom in an Anxious Age, was published in January.

We spoke on March 3. -- Sage Stossel

.....

ATLANTIC: Ashcroft is such a polarizing figure that what gets written and said
about him often tends to be rather impassioned. By contrast, your take on him
seems very measured and neutral. Did you find yourself having to suppress
stronger feelings about him in order to strike that tone?

ROSEN: I was struck by the gap between the polarizing popular perception of him
and the benign perception of him on the part of those who actually know him. A
number of people I spoke to, both inside and outside of the Justice Department,
have told me that he's nothing like the ogre that he's made out to be. His
religious views and background have led him to be caricatured, but basically he
approaches his job much more like a savvy politician than as someone with a
religious agenda.

Talking to him in person I found him to be charming in an awkward way. He was
very accessible and a regular guy; a jock, really. Quite likeable. If anything
surprised me, I suppose it was how charmed I was by him. He's quite good at
connecting with people, and at expressing an interest in people. Anyone who has
come to know him talks about his odd but endearing sense of humor. It's a little
bumbling; he makes jokes that don't always quite hit the mark, but you
appreciate the effort. He also has a tremendous interest in sports and a quirky
thoughtfulness.

The further I got into the piece and the more people I talked to, the more I
became persuaded that the view of him as politically, as opposed to
ideologically, motivated was correct. On all the issues the right cares most
about, Ashcroft has disappointed them. Before 9/11, for example, he enforced
abortion clinic access laws, and in general he's devoted himself to universally
popular priorities -- like safe neighborhoods and the war on drugs -- that
aren't all that different from what Janet Reno's were. Over and over again, his
colleagues have told me that he's not some sort of zealot determined to efface
American liberties, but that he reads the polls pretty closely and tends to act
based on those. The fact that he cited poll numbers to me during our interview
convinced me that that was likely true. He surrounds himself with former Senate
aides who have spent a long time tending to his popularity. And he argues,
persuasively enough, that he and the Patriot Act are broadly popular in the
country as a whole.

From the vantage point of the liberal Northeast it's easy to get the impression
that he's universally reviled as a narrow-minded religious zealot. But you note
that he's popular with about half of Americans, and that he sees his detractors
as a "small and vocal minority." Is his perception accurate?

He's the most polarizing figure in the Bush Administration, but his popularity
ratings are almost identical to those of President Bush and Vice President
Cheney. Those opposed to him are mostly civil libertarian Democrats -- minus the
ones who favor a strong response in the war on terror -- and libertarian
conservatives.

ATLANTIC: Your observation about the role his religious background plays in
galvanizing opposition to him is I think quite accurate. I'm particularly
sensitive to this myself because my wife was raised in fundamentalist schools
and her mother was a member of The Assemblies of God, which is Ashcroft's
church. My wife is no longer a believer herself, but she has often been struck
by the degree to which secular America misunderstands and reviles
fundamentalists and evangelicals, and is unable to get past the unfamiliar
religious background to realize that, both politically and personally, religion
is a far less meaningful guide to a person's public positions than his or her
general political orientation.

My impression had always been that extremely religious people who move away from
the community in which their religious views were shaped often lose some or all
of their religion -- especially if they go on to become highly educated. Do you
(or your wife) consider it surprising that Ashcroft was able to make it all the
way through Yale and the University of Chicago law school without relinquishing
his strong beliefs?

ROSEN: It's an interesting question. It's true that there's often a negative
correlation, as you say, between levels of higher education and levels of
religious belief, especially as expressed in more fundamentalist denominations.
But on the other hand, there are many highly educated fundamentalists, and in
Ashcroft's case I imagine that the intensity of the religious education that
came from his father and his grandfather, both of whom were Pentecostalist
ministers, was decisive for him. This is especially apparent in his campaign
autobiography, On My Honor, which was written in preparation for his 2000 run
for the presidency. The book makes quite clear that his relationship with his
father has been the central one in his life. He worships the man -- he feels
that everything good in his life has come from his father's example. It's not an
unambivalent relationship, though. His father sometimes did odd things to teach
him lessons and to test him. For example, when they were flying on a small plane
together, his father deliberately took an unexpected nosedive just to remind him
of the importance of always paying attention and never taking anything for
granted. He also left the family to go on ministry for months at a time, an
ordeal that Ashcroft says hardened his mettle. But overall I think the strength
of his father's influence and the depth of his own belief allowed him to
maintain his faith throughout his time at Yale and Chicago.

ATLANTIC: You write at one point in the piece that Ashcroft shows "a
sophisticated sense of charity and understanding" when it comes to assessing
other politicians. Do you consider his strong religious orientation to be an
asset in certain ways in his role as Attorney General? Or is it mainly a
liability?

ROSEN: His belief has never prevented him from operating in a straightforward
and pragmatic way in any of the various political positions he's held. As State
Attorney General, as governor, and as senator, he's always been sensitive to the
demands of whatever constituency he's been facing, and he's proved able to
moderate, or even dramatically transform, his priorities based on the situation.
His record shows that he'll tack to the middle in some circumstances or to the
right in other circumstances, depending on what seems to be called for. He very
self-consciously went to the middle as governor because of the complexities of
Missouri politics, thereby earning the enmity of social conservatives for not
satisfying them. Then as senator he very self-consciously turned right in order
to position himself for a presidential run that would appeal to his social
conservative base. Much of the image of him as a conservative zealot comes from
that period.

So he has a pragmatic effectiveness as a politician, but he also has a
willingness to endure great criticism in the face of what he believes is right.
Certainly the strain of self-righteousness for which he's best known may be
excessive, but he feels enough confidence in the rightness of his cause that he
can be unphased by criticism, and seems even at times to welcome it as a sign of
his rectitude.

In some ways I think his religion is a political asset because most Americans
are religious, and because the Assemblies of God happens to be the largest
growing denomination of Christians worldwide. It's provided him with a base and
a moral chord. But it's a disadvantage to the degree that American religiosity
tends to be less openly fundamentalist and increasingly individualistic. So a
traditionalist of the Ashcroft variety is likely to polarize and unsettle as
many people as he attracts.

ATLANTIC: You also suggest at one point in the article that Ashcroft is
"temperamentally suited" to politics. In what sense did you mean that? Is it
that he instinctively craves popularity and public approval, or that he sees
politics as an opportunity to better the world through public service?

ROSEN: This is the question that I was never able to answer to my satisfaction.
Again and again in his campaign autobiography one encounters the refrain that
his father encouraged him to do great things -- to leave a lasting mark and to
justify himself in the most visible possible way. So, at the very least, it's
clear that his father instilled in him a strong sense of ambition and purpose.
And it seems that, for Ashcroft, politics was the way of fulfilling that. The
ministry might have been a more natural choice, but for whatever reason, quite
early on, he started running for office. There's a line somewhere in the book
where he says something like, "I began to run, and I'm not even sure why." This
led me to conclude that he runs because he is. It's simply what he's always
done. It comes partly from his upbringing, and it's somewhat hardwired in him,
but what exactly the sources are, even his friends have told me they can't say
for sure.

ATLANTIC: You note that the 9/11 attacks seemed to infuse Ashcroft with a
renewed sense of purpose. Is it your impression that he considers the Patriot
Act to be the fruit of that sense of mission, and his crowning achievement as
Attorney General?

ROSEN: I don't know. He certainly considers his overall response to 9/11 to be
his crowning achievement, and that includes not only the Patriot Act but all of
his efforts on behalf of terrorism prevention. He's worked to tear down the
walls that separate intelligence gathering from ordinary law enforcement. And
under him the Justice Department has brought a number of successful terrorist
prosecutions. He talks about going to bed every night thinking about the safety
of America and taking the job very seriously. And I think he does.

But, for better or worse, it's the Patriot Act that has become the most visible
symbol of his response to 9/11. When he went on tour defending the act last
summer (in response to concerns about the passage of an amendment in Congress
that would repeal the act's so-called "sneak-and-peek" provisions), Ashcroft and
the Patriot Act became closely associated in people's minds. He was asked to do
the tour by the White House, and he became enthusiastically committed to it. The
problem is, that enthusiasm has made it hard for him to engage in the kind of
reasoned compromises that I think would be better for everyone. When you go
stumping on behalf of something, you can hardly blame your critics for charging
you with politicizing it.

Both he and President Bush have refused to accept even such modest refinements
to the act as Senator Feingold's proposed Safe Act, which would resurrect the
pre-Patriot Act requirement that you have to show probable cause that someone is
a suspected spy or terrorist before you can conduct secret intelligence searches
on him. An amendment to the act along those lines would hardly represent a
dramatic weakening of our arsenal in the war on terror; the most controversial
provisions of the Patriot Act -- as Ashcroft himself points out -- have never
even been invoked. But a change like that would represent the kind of
willingness to compromise that Ashcroft has proved incapable of since he began
defending the act so enthusiastically. I really do think this is a case of him
being inadvertently victimized by his own enthusiasm. The tour wasn't undertaken
in bad faith, but the result of it is greater polarization and less of a chance
for reasoned compromise.

ATLANTIC: You suggest that although the Patriot Act has some (potentially
fixable) flaws, it is in most respects a sensible piece of legislation. You also
point out that it was passed without controversy and with only one dissenting
vote. Why -- and at what point -- did it metamorphose into such a lightning rod
issue?

ROSEN: It's remarkable isn't it? Because although there was some libertarian
criticism at the time it was passed, you certainly didn't have mainstream
Democratic politicians like Al Gore protesting it. That's because, in the
immediate wake of 9/11, politicians were responding to the public's demands for
security above all. It wasn't until people calmed down a bit that sober second
thoughts were possible. I wouldn't say that the whole act is sensible, but I
would say that it's not especially radical. To a large degree, it consists of
technical fixes of the kind that the Clinton-Gore Administration had asked for
-- allowing the same kind of surveillance authority for cell phones, for
example, as had long been available for regular phones.

The most troubling parts of the Patriot Act are the provisions that allow for
secret searches, without notice to the suspects, of any documents that the
government deems relevant to the war on terror. This represents a dramatic
expansion of secret search authority, which previously had only been allowable
against individuals who had been identified in advance as suspected spies or
terrorists. This is why Senator Feingold was upset to read reports that Patriot
Act authorities have been invoked not just to combat terrorism, but to
investigate lower-level crimes -- immigration offences and so forth. And I was
disappointed when I had the opportunity to talk to the Attorney General that he
seemed unconcerned by this phenomenon. I asked him, "Why not strike a balance?
Most people would be happy to support the Patriot Act if it were limited to
terrorism. But if it's used to go after low-level crimes like fraud, people are
afraid of mission creep, and slippery slopes, and politically vindictive
prosecutions by the government." But he dismissed the criticism. He said,
"What's wrong with prosecuting fraud? Lots of people spend their whole lives
saving up money. I think we should have broad authority to go after fraud and
money-laundering as well." That's a politician's response. It's intended to
resonate with the many people who believe that if something is illegal there's
no reason not to stop it by any means necessary. But the dangers of a zero-
tolerance society, where there's broad authority to engage in suspicionless
fishing expeditions, is one that America has experienced before -- most notably
in the Nixon Era, when Nixon scoured the tax returns of Vietnam protestors. The
fact that we haven't seen anything like the Nixon effect since 9/11 doesn't mean
we shouldn't be careful to avoid its recurrence.

ATLANTIC: Did it seem to you that there's no hope of his being persuaded to
reconsider his stance and to take a look at the act again?

ROSEN: You know, I did hope that he might. When I said, "Why not accept the
principle of the Safe Act? It's not such a tremendous compromise." He said, "I'd
have to look at it very closely before making a decision. And I'd have to be
convinced that it's absolutely consistent with national security."

I was disappointed to learn, just as the piece was closing, that Ashcroft had
announced that President Bush would oppose the Safe Act. He had seemed like the
sort of person who might be open to persuasion. He's not insensitive to those
concerns. People have said that during the debates over the Patriot Act he tried
to resist some of the most extreme proposals from the White House for broad
unilateral authority. But I think that when push comes to shove, he does what's
politically expedient.

ATLANTIC: How much of the controversy currently surrounding the act has to do
with its association with Ashcroft himself? Would the Patriot Act, or something
very much like it, have been introduced under a Gore Administration? And if so,
would it have provoked as much controversy?

ROSEN: The Patriot Act would have been passed by a Gore Administration. And I
imagine that it wouldn't have looked all that different. As I mentioned, many of
the provisions were proposed by Clinton-Gore, and most were supported by the
same law-enforcement and national-security lobby that would have been equally in
power in the immediate wake of 9/11. I don't see any reason why the most
controversial provisions wouldn't also have passed, because a number of Senate
Democrats were rolling over, and people like Senator Daschle were criticizing
objectors like Feingold for slowing down the process.

Would it have been as controversial if passed under President Gore? It would
have been wildly more controversial -- even more so than the current Patriot Act
-- among libertarians and evangelical conservatives. My heroes, Bob Barr and
Dick Armey, who did so much to try to resist some of the sections of the Patriot
Act, would have been even more critical of any such act if it had happened under
a Gore Administration. And they might have been joined by their friends at the
ACLU, which suggests that the coalition of critics wouldn't have looked all that
different.

The main difference is that those Democrats who are not instinctively civil
libertarians wouldn't have been able to use the Attorney General as a foil for
their partisan anxieties. In that sense, it might have been a little less
fractious. I don't like the politicizing of the Patriot Act by Democrats any
more than I like it by Ashcroft and the Republicans. I think it's important to
emphasize that both groups are responding to the same public pressures, and it's
unfortunate on both sides.

ATLANTIC: You talked about how Russell Feingold thinks the flaws in the act are
already being exploited by the Bush Administration and the Justice Department to
investigate ordinary criminals under the widened scope of the provisions. But
you suggest that Ashcroft seems genuinely convinced that the act would never be
abused in that way under his watch. What's your own take on how the act has been
used so far? Is Feingold being paranoid, or is Ashcroft being naive?

ROSEN: It's a good question and a hard question. The answer depends a lot on
what you consider an abuse. If you're concerned, as Feingold is -- and as I am
as well -- that it's dangerous for broad surveillance authority to be used for
low-level crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism, then you'd say the act
is being abused. But if you feel, as Ashcroft does, that any crime should be
combated using whatever means necessary, then you wouldn't consider it an abuse.

As for the other kinds of abuses people are concerned about, I have to say that
most of them are speculative. The nightmare scenario of vindictive prosecutions
where, for example, the Attorney General might decide to retaliate against law
professors who have criticized him by secretly searching their Internet records
and leaking them to the press, or by threatening them with vindictive
prosecution, hasn't really come to pass. There's no evidence that they intend to
retaliate against critics of the government the way that President Nixon
retaliated against his critics. In that sense, I'd have to say that fears about
some kind of "Nixon Effect" are a bit exaggerated, and that for the most part
the Patriot Act really is being used to go after geniune criminals, even if they
aren't always terrorists.

But the difficulty of measuring the success or failure of the act is complicated
by the difficulty of measuring prevention. How can you quantify crimes that
haven't been committed, or terrorist attacks that haven't taken place? The
Attorney General has testified that a number of acts have been prevented by the
Patriot Act. And there have been some successful prosecutions, as in the cases
against terrorist cells in Lakawanna, New York, and Portland, Oregon. But it's
not clear that those prosecutions wouldn't have taken place anyway.

ATLANTIC: At one point you discuss the irony of the fact that Ashcroft idolizes
Lincoln, but doesn't seem to grasp that a significant part of what made Lincoln
great was his legal acuity and the way he was able to bring that to bear on
government. Why do you think he fails to see that -- and to see the importance
of focusing on the finer points of the law in general?

ROSEN: When I apologized for the fact that a wonderful book I had brought him by
Daniel Farber, about Lincoln and the Constitution, was a bit technical, he joked
to me, "I'm not a very good technical lawyer." I think he was being modest
there. People who have worked with him have said he's certainly no fool, and
that he's quite willing to discuss and debate technical points of the law in a
range of areas. But I do think what distinguishes him from Lincoln is that
Lincoln, in his heart, was a constitutionalist. He began with the technical
arguments, and then made decisions about how to act. The justification shaped
the actions, rather than the other way around. When you read the precision of
Lincoln's justifications for his decisions, whether it was to suspend habeas
corpus, or to extend that suspension to an area of insurrection, or even to
expand it beyond an area of insurrection, the inexorable logic of his syllogisms
is thrilling to read; you have a sense of the restraining and uniting power of
law. Lincoln is our greatest President and our greatest constitutionalist not
because he was merely legalistic, but because in his mind the legalisms both
liberated and constrained the way he could respond to the greatest crisis in
American history. Ashcroft simply isn't engaged at that level, as his rather
politically minded defense of the Patriot Act shows. Before I talked to him, his
aides had told me that he'd enjoy discussing the technical details of the
differences between grand jury subpoenas and foreign intelligence warrants. But
he really didn't. He simply resorted to a politician's answer about fraud being
a serious crime. That struck me as significant. It convinced me of the
importance of an Attorney General who's devoted primarily to the restraining
force of law itself -- who believes in respecting the law above all.

ATLANTIC: I was wondering what Ashcroft's relationship with Bush is like. Both
of them seem to be very religious men who view the world in cut-and-dried terms
of good versus evil. Does that similarity in outlook affect their relationship
at all?

ROSEN: My sense is that Ashcroft admires Bush tremendously, and defers to him.
Even when they were both political rivals for the presidency, Ashcroft was quite
deferential to him. He seems, from all accounts, to revere the President's
political skills, and also to be determined to be a good soldier in every way
possible. So there's no evidence of anything but admiration on that score. Bush
is said to treat Ashcroft respectfully in meetings, and certainly appreciates
his loyalty. I don't have a strong sense of whether they're terribly personally
close. I don't think they are. They don't socialize as far as I can gather. Now,
this is complicated by the fact that Ashcroft's Justice Department and the White
House Counsel's Office have been at each other's throats for quite some time.
There's a strong rivalry between Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales's aides
have publicly criticized Ashcroft as a grandstander. They weren't at all
impressed by his attempt to steal the spotlight after the arrest of Jose
Padilla, the suspected dirty-bomber. They felt that Ashcroft was out for
himself, and was too addicted to the spotlight. Based on their criticisms,
Ashcroft did rein himself in and begin to clear his public appearances with the
White House, and to generally try to be disciplined and a good soldier. I don't
think this has directly affected his relationship with Bush, which seems to
remain good. But it's been a source of structural tension. Now, all this isn't
to say that any degree of appreciation the President has will translate into a
second term for Ashcroft.

ATLANTIC: If Bush were elected for a second term and you were in a position to
advise him, would you recommend that he keep Ashcroft, or replace him?

ROSEN: You know, if I were Karl Rove -- daunting thought -- I think I might
argue for keeping Ashcroft. He's a loyal soldier. He's generally popular. He's a
useful lightning rod who detracts the criticism of the small libertarian
minority that Bush is happy to inflame, and he keeps the social conservatives
happy. As Ashcroft aides note, if there's one effective domestic-policy
achievement in Bush's first term, it's the fact that we haven't had a second
terrorist attack. And people are broadly happy with the direction of the war on
terror. From a political point of view he's also been very effective in shoring
up his popularity.

But speaking for myself, I would argue that there's something unnecessary and
unfortunate about the polarization of the war on terror. I think it's not a
great idea to have a career politician as Attorney General. A less politically
inclined approach to the Justice Department might have led to sensible, moderate
compromises -- compromises that would not, in any way, threaten national
security, but would protect some of the constitutional values that both
Republicans and Democrats revere. But of course if I were the one making those
arguments, I wouldn't expect the President to listen.

[ Sage Stossel is an editor for The Atlantic Online. She draws the weekly
cartoon feature, "Sage, Ink." Her most recent interview was with Virginia
Postrel. ]

* * *


Slate:

March 12, 2004

DOMESTIC SILENCE
The Supreme Court kills evidence-based prosecution.

By David Feige

http://slate.msn.com/id/2097041/

On the third floor of the drab concrete box that is the Bronx Criminal Court,
Judges Ruth Levine Sussman and Diane Kiesel preside over courtrooms filled with
domestic violence cases -- often 75 in a single day. Like many veteran public
defenders, I hate domestic violence cases. They are highly charged, emotionally
complicated, and very hard to defend. They're hard to defend because these
courts dispense a rather specialized kind of justice. In these cases, specially
trained prosecutors plead cases before judges who've been specially trained to
be "especially sensitive" to a particular kind of crime. What that means in
practice is that many judges like Kiesel and Sussman who hear domestic violence
cases have attended seminars that make them ideologically sympathetic to the
prosecution. Part of that "special training" and "special sensitivity" seems to
be accepting the notion that prosecutors -- rather than the alleged victims
themselves -- know what is best for those alleged victims. Defending a domestic
violence case against a prosecutor who claims to speak for the victim, in front
of a judge who is generally sympathetic to the prosecution, can be bad for a
criminal defendant and pretty much ruin a public defender's day. Mercifully, the
U.S. Supreme Court, in the unlikely personage of Justice Antonin Scalia, just
made life in the domestic violence courts a lot more pleasant for both
defendants and public defenders.

One of the peculiar realities of domestic violence cases is that -- abused or
not -- the complaining witnesses often don't want their loved ones prosecuted.
Thanks to the Supreme Court, many more of those victims are about to get their
wish. This week's decision in Crawford v. Washington, which reversed the assault
conviction of Michael Crawford -- sentenced to 14 1/2 years in prison for
stabbing a man he believed had tried to rape his wife -- was overtly about the
Constitution's confrontation clause. But the ruling will radically change the
prosecution of domestic violence cases throughout the country, empowering
complainants to resist the demands of prosecutors and limiting the number of
cases that proceed with unwilling witnesses.

It is not uncommon for alleged victims and prosecutors to have divergent
agendas. This divergence can become particularly acute when prosecutors proceed
with a case despite an alleged victim's desires. Prosecutors are, of course,
within their rights to do this -- there is no question that once an arrest is
made, it is up to the state to prosecute or not, regardless of a victim's wishes
-- that's why criminal actions are captioned the People v. Someone or the United
States of America v. Someone Else. But while pursuing a prosecution despite the
express wishes of the alleged victim is rare in the average case, in domestic
violence cases it's commonplace.

Domestic cases are emotionally complex -- far more so than most criminal cases.
In the last decade or so, mandatory arrest policies -- designed to eliminate
police discretion in domestic incidents -- have dragged into the system a large
number of cases that might, in an earlier age, have died on the doorstep. As a
result, the system is deluged with cases in which the supposed victims either
don't consider themselves victims or want nothing to do with the prosecution of
their alleged abusers. Even in cases alleging serious abuse, the nuances of the
intimate relationship between the parties and the brutality of the system often
make complainants who start out cooperative ultimately wish the whole case would
just go away. As a consequence, domestic violence cases, more often than any
others, go to trial with unwilling or unavailable witnesses. Almost every day in
courts around the country, prosecutors reach into their bag of tricks in an
attempt to wheedle, cajole, or intimidate reluctant complainants in such cases
into testifying against their current or former intimate partners.

And when wheedling, cajoling, or intimidation doesn't work, prosecutors are left
with a difficult choice: They can try to force a complainant to testify by
securing what is known as a material witness order -- essentially an arrest
warrant -- or they can try to proceed without the witness. Though not unheard
of, dragging the alleged victim into court in handcuffs and forcing her to
testify is generally considered unseemly. It is also often counterproductive,
since a witness hellbent on avoiding testifying will rarely provide the kind of
performance prosecutors can rely on for a conviction.

Because of the reluctance to force resistant complainants to testify, in case
after case, in courtrooms around the country, prosecutors have been left to try
to prove their cases using a paper trail -- a call to 911, a criminal complaint
signed the day after the charges, or a domestic incident report signed the night
of the arrest. Judges, especially those trained to be "especially sensitive" to
the issues in domestic violence cases, almost invariably find these papers
reliable and admit them into evidence, facilitating an entire prosecution in
which the defendant never gets to ask the accuser a single question. This is
what's termed, in a rather Orwellian turn of phrase, an "evidence-based
prosecution," and it is precisely this sort of prosecution that the Supreme
Court has just shut down with the 9-0 decision in Crawford.

In a dense opinion studded with historical references, Justice Scalia held that
the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right of an accused to "be confronted
with the witnesses against him" meant just that -- that prosecutors who want to
use testimonial statements made by unavailable witnesses who haven't yet been
subjected to cross-examination, quite simply, can't.

For nearly a quarter century, prosecutors have capitalized on the old rule --
articulated 24 years ago in Ohio v. Roberts -- that a statement from an
unavailable witness can still be used if a judge found other indicia of
reliability. This left the majority of the case in the judge's hands. As Scalia
put it, "Admitting statements deemed reliable by a judge is fundamentally at
odds with the right of confrontation. Dispensing with confrontation because
testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a
defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes."

Indeed, in one of the most acerbic sections of the decision, Scalia dismisses
the Roberts rule, calling it "amorphous," "subjective," and "unpredictable." As
he notes, "Some courts wind up attaching the same significance to opposite
facts. For example the Colorado Supreme Court held a statement more reliable
because its inculpation of the defendant was 'detailed' ... while the Fourth
Circuit found a statement more reliable because the portion implicating another
was 'fleeting.' " The problem with such vague standards, as Scalia candidly
observes, is that they are "manipulable."

What Scalia was too polite to say, but what most veteran criminal lawyers
already know -- and what most first-year law students learn -- is that in the
criminal justice system, such flexible, subjective "standards" regularly devolve
into purely political decisions. In the context of domestic violence court, that
means that judges such as Kiesel and Sussman will regularly admit the calls,
complaints, and incident reports, preferring to find indicia of reliability
rather than force a prosecutor into the Hobson's choice of a material witness
order or a dismissal.

The Crawford decision, by insisting on the right of an accused to confront the
witness, rather than just a tape recording or police report, wipes away a
judge's ability to admit any of this evidence without the actual witness being
subject to cross-examination. As a consequence, prosecutors unwilling to arrest
and jail their own witnesses on material witness orders have lost one of the
most powerful weapons in their arsenal -- the fact that, at least until
Crawford, they often didn't need a victim's testimony to make a case.

Crawford was never styled as a populist opinion. On the contrary, Scalia seems
to profess a certain disdain for what he describes as "run of the mill assault
cases," explaining that the clear rule he annunciates is mostly necessary to
insulate the accused in the great state trials involving politically charged
issues -- those of, say, Sir Walter Raleigh or Jose Padilla. But as he fashions
a new bright-line rule for the big-ticket cases, Scalia either ignores or
forgets the sad daily truth of local domestic violence courtrooms: that
ideologically driven judicial decision-making is alive and well even in run of
the mill assault cases.

Whether he knew it or not, Scalia has, in essence, radically shifted the balance
of power from prosecutors to reluctant complainants, giving alleged victims more
control over the cases of their own victimization and greater freedom from the
paternalistic philosophy of prosecution that the Roberts rule enabled. So from
now on, when the complainant in a domestic violence case insists she's not
coming to court and just wants to drop the charges, I'll just smile as Judge
Kiesel says, "Case dismissed."

[ David Feige is a public defender in the South Bronx and a Soros media fellow.
He is currently at work on a book about the criminal justice system. ]

* * *


Mar 12, 2004

Reuters

POWELL SAYS UK GUANTANAMO PRISONERS NOT ABUSED

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4559343

(Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Friday he did not believe
accusations by a recently freed British inmate of Guantanamo Bay prison camp
that he had been treated in an inhuman fashion.

Jamal al Harith, the first of five Britons to go free on Tuesday told the Daily
Mirror newspaper in an interview published on Friday that animals in the prison
camp were given better treatment than inmates.

But Powell, in a taped interview conducted in Washington and broadcast on ITV
television, denied that the detainees, held for two years without charge, had
been treated badly or, as al Harith alleged, beaten.

"I think that unlikely," said Powell. "We don't abuse people who are in our
care. I think we have discharged all of our obligations under the Geneva
Convention to treat people in our custody, our detainees, in a very humanitarian
way."

Powell also defended holding the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, also called Camp
X-Ray, for such a long time.

"We think it was fully justified by the danger we were facing. And then now we
are in the process of releasing all of those who it is clear there will be no
charges on and they no longer pose any kind of a threat or danger to us," Powell
said.

A further four Britons remain at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Washington says they
are more dangerous than the five it decided to release.

Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo were captured in Afghanistan following the
2001 U.S.-led invasion aimed at rooting out Islamist militants suspected by
Washington of launching September 2001 attacks on the United States.

* * *


BBC:

March 12, 2004

GUANTANAMO MAN CONDEMNS TREATMENT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3506774.stm

About 600 people are still being held at Guantanamo Bay
One of the Briton's freed from Guantanamo Bay has said he received "horrific"
treatment while he was detained by the US government.

Tarek Dergoul from Bethnal Green, east London, said in a statement he was held
in inhuman conditions, interrogated at gunpoint and beaten.

The family of the 26-year-old believe his mental health has been "severely
affected" by his experiences.

The US denies claims of bad treatment at the camp in Cuba.

Mr Dergoul, who was arrested two years ago in Afghanistan on suspicion of
terrorism, was one of five Britons released by the US on Tuesday.

After returning to the UK the former care worker was freed without charge from
British police custody on Wednesday.

The statement from Mr Dergoul, which was released through his solicitor Louise
Christian, said: "Tarek Dergoul has started to try and give his family and his
solicitor Louise Christian an account of the horrific things which happened to
him during detention at Bagram, Kandahar and Guantanamo Bay.

"This has included an account of botched medical treatment, interrogation at
gunpoint, beatings and inhuman conditions.

"Tarek Dergoul condemns the US and the UK governments for these gross breaches
of human rights and demands the immediate release of all the other detainees at
Guantanamo Bay.

"Tarek finds it very difficult to talk about things and his family believe his
mental health has been severely affected by the trauma he has suffered."

The statement also said that Mr Dergoul's family do not anticipate he will be
speaking about his experience in the near future because of his "poor health".

A spokesman for US Southern Command in Miami, told BBC News Online: "We do treat
the detainees in a fair humane way, according to the Geneva Convention."

* * *


Peoria Journal Star:

March 12, 2004

THEFT OF MEMOS REFERRED TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

By Dori Meinert, Copley News Service

http://www.pjstar.com/news/topnews/b2e3u51s037.html

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Senate Judiciary Committee agreed Thursday to ask the
Justice Department to determine whether any crime occurred when two Republican
staffers secretly accessed 4,670 mostly Democratic computer files, including
nearly 2,000 belonging to Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

But late-night negotiations failed to reach a consensus on a bipartisan letter
asking for an independent prosecutor, congressional aides said.

Earlier in the day, Republican and Democratic members alike said they wanted to
present a unified front in responding to the breach of trust and confidentiality
they say occurred.

The committee's referral for possible criminal prosecution took place one week
after it received a report from Senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle detailing
how two former GOP committee staffers deliberately and secretly accessed
thousands of computer files, mostly belonging to Democrats. The memos discuss
political strategy for blocking judicial nominations.

Concluding a nearly four-month investigation, the report states that others may
have had access to the computer files. But Senate investigators don't have
subpoena powers to compel testimony as a grand jury would.

Durbin said he wanted to request a special counsel - someone with a reputation
for independence such as U.S. Attorney General Patrick Fitzgerald of Illinois -
to avoid any partisan conflicts.

"If Patrick Fitzgerald calls me and tells me there is nothing to prosecute, then
I'll accept that," Durbin told his fellow committee members Thursday.

Pickle recommended that the committee turn the report over to the U.S. attorney
for the District of Columbia.

But Durbin said one of his former staffers, whose computer documents were
stolen, went on to work for the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia.
Although he no longer works there, his wife still does, creating a conflict of
interest.

Former Republican staffers also work now work in the Justice Department,
creating a conflict there too, senators said.

Several Republicans said they would have no objections to Fitzgerald, whose
reputation for independence led to him to be chosen to investigation who outed
CIA agent Valerie Plume.

"The nature of this is unique and it might be in everyone's best interest if a
special counsel handles this," said Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio.

Hatch repeatedly said he wanted to "depoliticize" the issue. However, Hatch
initially wanted the committee to ask the Secret Service to investigate.

Democrats including Durbin wrote Ashcroft on Wednesday, demanding a special
counsel and stating that Ashcroft's direct involvement in the matter would be a
conflict of interest. That act angered some committee Republicans, who believed
it to be an overly partisan tactic.

* * *


The Mirror (UK):

March 12, 2004

MY HELL IN CAMP X-RAY

By Rosa Prince and Gary Jones

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14042696_method=
full_siteid=50143_headline=-MY-HELL-IN-CAMP-X-RAY-name_page.html

A BRITISH captive freed from Guantanamo Bay today tells the world of its full
horror - and reveals how prostitutes were taken into the camp to degrade Muslim
inmates.

Jamal al-Harith, 37, who arrived home three days ago after two years of
confinement, is the first detainee to lift the lid on the US regime in Cuba's
Camp X-Ray and Camp Delta.

The father-of-three, from Manchester, told how he was assaulted with fists, feet
and batons after refusing a mystery injection.

He said detainees were shackled for up to 15 hours at a time in hand and leg
cuffs with metal links which cut into the skin.

Their "cells" were wire cages with concrete floors and open to the elements -
giving no privacy or protection from the rats, snakes and scorpions loose around
the American base.

He claims punishment beatings were handed out by guards known as the Extreme
Reaction Force. They waded into inmates in full riot-gear, raining blows on
them.

Prisoners faced psychological torture and mind-games in attempts to make them
confess to acts they had never committed. Even petty breaches of rules brought
severe punishment.

Medical treatment was sparse and brutal and amputations of limbs were more
drastic than required, claimed Jamal.

A diet of foul water and food up to 10 years out-of-date left inmates
malnourished.

But Jamal's most shocking disclosure centred on the use of vice girls to torment
the most religiously devout detainees.

Prisoners who had never seen an "unveiled" woman before would be forced to watch
as the hookers touched their own naked bodies.

The men would return distraught. One said an American girl had smeared menstrual
blood across his face in an act of humiliation.

Jamal said: "I knew of this happening about 10 times. It always seemed to be
those who were very young or known to be particularly religious who would be
taken away.

"I would joke with the other British lads, 'Bring them to us - we'll have them'.
It made us laugh. But the Americans obviously knew we wouldn't be shocked by
seeing Western women, so they didn't bother.

"It was a profoundly disturbing experience for these men. They would refuse to
speak about what had happened. It would take perhaps four weeks for them to tell
a friend - and we would shout it out around the whole block."

Jamal added: "The whole point of Guantanamo was to get to you psychologically.
The beatings were not as nearly as bad as the psychological torture - bruises
heal after a week - but the other stuff stays with you."

HE was talking from a secret location after being reunited with his family. The
website designer, a convert to Islam, had gone to Pakistan in October 2001, a
few weeks after September 11, to study Muslim culture.

He accidentally strayed into Afghanistan - believing he was being driven to
Turkey - and was arrested as a spy, perhaps because of his British passport. He
was held in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and fell into US hands.

Now Jamal bears the scars of Guantanamo. He stoops into a hunch as he walks
because the shackles that bound him were too short.

As a punishment, inmates would be confined so tightly they would be forced to
lie in a ball for hours. During lengthy interrogation, they would be tethered to
a metal ring on the floor.

Jamal said: "Sometimes you would be chained up on the floor with your hands and
feet actually bound together. One of my friends told me he was kept like that
for 15 hours once.

"Recreation meant your legs were untied and you walked up and down a strip of
gravel. In Camp X-Ray you only got five minutes but in Delta you walked for
around 15 minutes."

Jamal said victims of the Extreme Reaction Force were paraded in front of cells.
"It was a horrible sight and it was a frequent sight."

He said one unit used force-feeding to end a hunger strike by 70 per cent of the
600 inmates. The strike started after a guard deliberately kicked a copy of the
Koran.

Rice and beans was the usual diet and the water was "filthy". Jamal added: "In
Camp X-Ray it was yellow and in Delta it was black - the colour of Coca-Cola.

"We had it piped through with a tap in each 'cage' but they would often turn the
water off as punishment.

"They would shut off the water before prayers so we couldn't wash ourselves
according to our religion.

"The food was terrible as well, up to 10 years out-of-date. They would open a
hatch and shove it through a section at a time.

"We had porridge and something they called 'like-milk', which was disgusting and
'like-tea' and a piece of fruit. The fruit had been frozen and pounded with
chemicals. An apple might look red but there was waxy white stuff all over it
and inside it would be black and brown.

"They would play tricks on people by denying them things - you might be the only
person on your block who didn't get any bread. I prided myself on never asking
them for anything. I would not beg." Jamal said they were told they had no
rights. "They actually said that - 'You have no rights here'. After a while, we
stopped asking for human rights - we wanted animal rights. In Camp X-Ray my cage
was right next to a kennel housing an Alsatian dog.

"He had a wooden house with air conditioning and green grass to exercise on. I
said to the guards, 'I want his rights' and they replied, 'That dog is member of
the US army'.

"You would be punished for anything - for having six packets of salt in your
cell rather than five, for hanging your towel through the cage if it wasn't wet,
even for having your spoon and things lined up in the wrong order."

Being forced to use a bucket as a toilet in view of other inmates and guards was
particularly embarrassing. Jamal said: "I never got used to it - we would all
put our towels and clothes around us.

"But the Military Police up in the tower would see us and would shout to each
other.

"We were only allowed a shower once a week at the beginning and none at all in
solitary confinement.

"This was very tough because you are supposed to be clean when you pray.

"Gradually the number of showers rose to three a week. They were always cold.

"You would be chained by two MPs while you were still in the cage before being
taken off for what they called 'rec and shower'.

"You could sometimes see the guards tampering with the shower heads to make
water squirt all over the inmate's clothes if he had put them up to protect his
privacy."

Inmates were issued with "comfort items" - known as CIs - like shampoo, towels,
a washcloth and boxer shorts. CIs would be removed as a punishment.

Jamal defiantly refused "treats", such as watching a James Bond film in a room
dubbed The Love Shack by inmates.

He added: "Some people were given pizzas, ice-cream and McDonald's, but they
didn't offer them to me. I guess they knew bribery would work with some and not
with others."

To pass the time, inmates would chat to each other, pray, read the Koran and
sing Islamic songs. In Camp X-Ray, they were given Mills and Boon-style romance
novels in Arabic, which they refused to read.

Describing medical treatment, Jamal said he knew of 11 men who had legs
amputated and two who lost toes and fingers. He was told that the Americans had
removed far more tissue than was necessary.

HE added: "The man in the cell next to me had frostbite in two fingers and two
toes. He also had it in his big toe, but they didn't treat that for a year by
which time they had to cut off much more than was needed.

"All the men who had lost limbs complained they would chop them off high up and
not bother to try to save as much as possible."

Jamal added that he didn't have close friends in Guantanamo, saying: "When I did
meet the other Brits, we would reminisce about home - particularly the food.

"We were all obsessed with Scottish Highland Shortbread - we wanted some so
much.

"One of the Brits told me he was asked why he was a Muslim, because he ought to
be praying to the Queen."

Jamal, who is divorced with daughters aged three and eight and a son of five, is
convinced his refusal to succumb to mind-games gave him the will to come
through.

He said: "It was very, very hard at times, but I tried to think about nothing
but survival.

"I kept my thoughts from home as much as possible because it would drive me
crazy.

"About a year into my time, I had a dream. A voice said, 'You will here for two
years'.

"In my dream I said, 'Two years! You're joking'. But when I woke up, I was
calmer because at least that meant I would be getting out one day.

"I was sent to Guantanamo on February 11, 2002 and left on March 9, 2004, so I
was there for just over two years, just like the voice in the dream said."

* * *


The Mirror (UK):

March 12, 2004

TERROR OF TORTURE IN CUBA CAMP
By Gary Jones and Rosa Prince

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14042698_method=
full_siteid=50143_headline=-TERROR-OF-TORTURE-IN-CUBA-CAMP-name_page.html

JAMAL al-Harith told last night how he suffered a brutal attack by US military
police because he refused to have a mystery injection.

A squad of five men used batons, fists, feet and knees in an assault that left
him with severe bruising.

During the beating the officers barked in automated unison: "Comply, comply,
comply. Do not resist. Do not resist."

Jamal told how the men swung into action after he politely refused a jab an
orderly was trying to give him because he didn't know what it was and he was fit
and healthy.

The squad was from the US military's Extreme Reaction Force, a unit trained to
hand out beatings and known to prisoners at Guantanamo as ERF.

Jamal said: "I could hear their feet stomping on the ground as they got closer
and closer to my cell. They were given a briefing about me refusing the
injection, then I heard them readying themselves outside.

"I was terrified of what they were going to do. I had seen victims of ERF being
paraded in front of my cell.

"They had been battered and bruised into submission. It was a horrible sight and
a frequent sight."

Jamal, who had been warned by interrogators they would inject him with drugs if
he did not answer their questions, cowered in his cell awaiting the inevitable.

When it came the full force of heavily protected men in riot gear, with batons
and shields, was used against him.

He said: "They were really gung-ho, hyped up and aggressive. One of them
attacked me really hard and left me with a deep red mark from my backbone down
to my knee. I thought I was bleeding, but it was just really bad bruising.

"I said to myself, 'You shouldn't have put yourself through that', but said
nothing to the ERFs. I didn't want to give them the satisfaction.

"There is principle and I wasn't going to take the injection so if they wanted
to beat me up that was down to them. This huge black bruise was there for days
after that."

But Jamal's ordeal didn't end there. Half an hour later as he was recovering, a
second ERF squad arrived to dish out more punishment.

HE SAID: "They accused me of biting a military policeman. I said nothing. I knew
it wouldn't help whatever I said.

"They laid into me again. When they were finished I sat down, picked up the
Koran and started reading. Then two guards put me in more chains and said: 'Will
you comply?'"

Jamal was taken to the feared isolation units, nicknamed ISOs, where those
accused of misbehaving are kept in solitary confinement with just a mat and
towel.

A toothbrush, toothpaste and soap, considered "comfort items", were denied.
Jamal admits this was the first time he cried, although he did not let the
guards see he was upset.

He added: "I sobbed a little, twice. Everything had been taken away from me. All
I had was my dignity."

Jamal told of the psychological torture used on those in the isolation unit by
guards who were trying to break their resolve.

Bright lights were left on in their cells overnight making it impossible to
sleep properly. And the rooms were turned very hot in the day or freezing in the
early morning by using fans in the ceiling.

Jamal said: "I'd wake up at 3am shivering like crazy. Just to keep a little bit
warm I'd try to sleep under a metal bed to protect me from the cold air that was
blowing in.

"I'd kept a towel which I hid from a guard to lie on. It wasn't much, but it
made things a bit better."

He was put in the isolation unit twice more. Once when he kept ripping off wrist
bands with his name and the number 490 written on and another time after guards
set up a group of detainees by pretending some spoons had gone missing. Jamal
said: "Non-compliance were the favourite words thrown at us."

Jamal told how he was interrogated on a regular basis by FBI and CIA agents and
later MI5.

On 40 occasions he was quizzed in chains, which were bolted to the floor, for up
to 12 hours at a time.

Jamal quickly became an expert in their interrogation techniques, often turning
questions on his tormentors.

He said: "They'd ask me the same thing over and over again. Sometimes I'd say
nothing and they asked me why I wasn't responding.

"I'd say: 'You're boring me, ask me something new and I will reply'." After the
Americans failed to glean any information, MI5 officers and British consular
officials interviewed him. On eight or nine occasions they tried to make him
admit he was involved in terrorism.

Jamal said: "They would say: 'Are you a terrorist?' I'd say 'no, get me out of
here'."

Speaking about his British interrogators, Jamal added: "They were a mixed bunch.
There was one young nervous guy who looked about 21. I called him Youth Training
Scheme MI5.

"He wasn't very professional and hadn't even checked out my background. One of
them did say they had run my name and details through every Interpol check, but
could find nothing. I told them that's because I'm innocent. There's nothing on
me. I haven't even got a parking ticket.

"The young guy got a bit frustrated with me and said: 'Are you trying to tell me
how to do my job?'

"One MI5 guy I just didn't want to talk to. He kept asking me questions and I'd
say 'it's in my file'.

"In the end I said: 'I'm not talking any more.' He replied: 'I've come all this
way from England to see you.' I only saw him for 10 minutes. He was very red
faced and angry."

Jamal said his US interrogators were much meaner in their approach to
questioning.

One told him after not getting the answers he wanted: "We are going to inject
you with drugs."

Jamal said: "They were trying everything they could to frighten me. They even
staged a mock beating up in the next room to me. They started shouting and
pulling a chair around, but I knew there wasn't anyone there because I couldn't
hear any chains clanking on the floor."

Another officer threatened Jamal with torture to get a confession. He told him:
"Then we will kill your family and you."

Jamal said: "Sometimes they'd joke about what they were going to do to me. But I
was determined to show no weakness. I didn't want to let them think they were
getting to me.

"Other times they'd play a good cop, bad cop routine. I tried to remain calm,
although I was fuming inside. It would been giving in to have lost my temper and
I never did, not once.

"I don't swear and I didn't fight back. It was only on principles that I stood
my ground.

"The mental torture was far tougher than any of the physical punishments. I knew
I was being treated a lot worse than any of the other detainees. They tried
everything to break me.

"Ridiculously, they even accused me of being an MI5 spy.

"I began to tease them a little because it was my way of coping. They could
never work out when I was serious or not.

I HAD three plaits in my beard. I suggested, although I didn't say it, that it
was for three people I had killed during drug deals in Moss Side, Manchester.

"I was making the whole thing up but they believed me. Next time I saw an
officer he said MI5 had confirmed the story.

"They couldn't get a handle on me and that frustrated them. In the end one said:
'Who are you?' And I said: 'I've been here for over one a half years and you're
asking who I am?'

"I took a stand against them because what they were doing to me was barbaric. I
wouldn't get down on my knees for the chains to be pulled around my body because
it was demeaning.

"About 20 per cent of us wouldn't co-operate. Eventually they backed down and we
would stand while the guards went on their knees to chain us up.

"That was a small victory. There weren't many, but they were memorable. I will
cherish them."

Despite the horror, Jamal said there were lighter moments.

One particular interrogation technique amused him. He said: "They started
playing different music to see how I would react.

"They started with country singer Kris Kristofferson which I said I quite liked.
Then some Fleetwood Mac songs.

"They watched my reactions on camera. I just said the music's great and even
started singing along. They didn't play it again."

In the isolation unit, Jamal met for the first time fellow British detainee
Tarek Dergoul.

He said: "He was suave and had a pencil moustache. We had a good chat about life
back in Britain."

Jamal was released on Tuesday after being flown from Cuba to RAF Northolt, West
London.

He arrived back with four other former Guantanamo Bay Britons - Asif Iqbal and
Ruhal Ahmed, both 22, and 26-year-olds Shafiq Rasul and Tarek.

They were freed on Wednesday night after being quizzed by anti-terrorist police
in London.

Four other British suspects are still being held in Cuba.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw last night said the US was right to keep the men
locked up and the release of the five did not necessarily prove their innocence.

He added: "The Americans as far as they were concerned had good reason for
detaining them."

Asked whether they were innocent, he replied: "I can't answer that question,
nobody can."

* * *


The Mirror (UK):

March 12, 2004

I WAS IN THE WRONG PLACE AT THE WRONG TIME

By Rosa Prince And Gary Jones

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_objectid=14042699_method=
full_siteid=50143_headline=-I-WAS-IN-THE-WRONG-PLACE-AT-THE-WRONG-TIME-
name_page.html

JAMAL al-Harith's incredible journey to Guantanamo Bay began in the tough
streets of Manchester's Moss Side.

He was born Ronald Fiddler in a family of Jamaican origin and grew up with his
father and two sisters after their mother walked out.

At 23, Ronnie began learning about Islam and converted soon afterwards, taking
the name Jamal al-Harith "just because I liked it".

He took a computer course alongside his religious studies and became a web
designer.

He visited several European countries before deciding to go further afield to
learn more about Muslims and how they lived.

He began studying the Koran and learned Arabic on a trip to Sudan.

The ill-fated trip to Pakistan in October 2001, just a few weeks after September
11, was his second and he planned to stay for three weeks, learning about Muslim
culture and studying the holy book.

Divorced Jamal, who has three children aged three, five and eight, said: "Yes, I
travelled to Pakistan in October 2001 but if that's my crime then you would have
to arrest whole planeloads of people.

"When I was interrogated, the Americans used to say 'How come you're so clean?
We've put your name and face through Interpol and we can't even find a speeding
ticket'.

"I told them: 'That's because I've never done anything wrong in my life. You
don't have anything on me and you still won't have anything on me when I walk
out of here' - and that's exactly what happened.

"I think that's why they were so hard on me. They couldn't bear to admit they
had made a mistake."

Jamal was in Quetta, on the border with Afghanistan and just four days into his
trip to Pakistan, when the Americans began bombing Taliban strongholds.

He decided to leave for Turkey and paid a local truck driver 4,000 rupees -
around £47 - to drive him.

He was told their route would take them through Iran, but he had no idea he
would be passing through Afghanistan.

A few days into the trip, the truck was stopped by an armed gang.

They grew excited when they saw Jamal's British passport and after looking at
his other possessions, which included a clockwork radio, accused him of being a
spy.

He was taken to a filthy jail, held in solitary confinement then transferred to
another prison.

He was again held in isolation and was beaten and interrogated, during which he
denied he had been spying against the Taliban for the British.

Jamal later told the Americans how a man he presumed was a US agent had died
after suffering a particularly brutal beating.

He said: "They tried to say the man wasn't an American, but I know he was. I am
sure I would have got the same treatment but I made sure that every time my
guards saw me I was praying.

"The Taliban liked me because I always had the Koran in my hands. I was beaten
very badly, but not as badly as most of the other inmates.

"Afghanistan finally fell and I was visited in jail by the Red Cross.

"There were a couple of Pakistanis in the prison and they were allowed to go
across the border.

"The Red Cross asked me if I wanted to go with them, but I had no money and no
way of getting back to Britain so I asked them to put me in contact with the
British Embassy in Kabul.

"That is incredible to me now - I could have gone home on my own."

Jamal stayed with the Red Cross in Kandahar for a week and, in phone calls to
the British Embassy was assured he would soon be put on a flight to Kabul and
then back to Britain.

But two days later, the Americans arrived. They drove him to a place described
by Jamal as "a concentration camp", complete with watchtowers and barbed wire.

He said: "I begged the Red Cross to get me out or at least contact the embassy
for me. On January 24, I was taken to a US air base and held there for another
three weeks.

"Then my interrogator told me I was being sent to Cuba, but it was just standard
procedure.

"I was assured it would take about two months to process me and then I could go
free. I believed him."

For the next two years, Jamal continued to protest his innocence.

He said his interrogators would often taunt him by promising he was about to go
home, only to pretend they had never said it.

But two weeks ago, Jamal and the four other Britons were met by the Red Cross
and told they were finally to be freed.

Before they were released, the Americans asked the five men to sign a piece of
paper confessing to links with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Jamal said: "This was given to me first by the Americans and then by a British
diplomat who asked if I agreed to sign it. I just said 'No'.

"I would rather have stayed in Guantanamo than sign that paper.

"That night, all the inmates sang Islamic songs for me, wishing me well.

"The next morning, as I walked past them in chains for the last time, they
shouted out: 'Don't forget us, Jamal. Tell the world, tell the Press, about what
is happening here'."

Jamal was the only one of the five men not to be arrested when they landed at
RAF Northolt in West London.

While Tarek Dergoul, 26, Ruhal Ahmed, 22, Asif Iqbal, 22, and Shafiq Rasul, 26,
were taken to Paddington Green police station, Jamal was questioned with his
solicitor.

"Then suddenly it was all over and they told me I could go," he said.

Jamal has vowed to sue America for compensation for his two lost years.

He said: "They deprived me of my liberty, interrogated and tortured me and let
me go without even a word of apology."

He also plans to campaign for other detainees to be freed and given human
rights.

He said: "I can speak freely at long last and let the world know what's
happening there.

TO be honest I'd rather go on a camping holiday with my family, but I know I
have a grave responsibility to those still there.

"That's why I want my story told in the Daily Mirror."

Jamal, who has yet to be reunited with his two girls and a boy, said: "I want so
much to hug my children and tell them I love them.

"They think I have been on holiday. They don't know the truth.

"I woke up last night when I heard the keys of someone returning to their hotel
room. I woke up in a fright and thought one of the guards was coming to put on
my chains.

"I then realised that the light in the room was on. When locked up in our cages,
the lights were on as well, and I thought to myself: 'You can sleep in the dark
now' - and I switched it off."

Jamal added: "One thing good about being in Guantanamo, was that it made you
think. Time actually went very quickly.

"There was always something or other on your mind. It didn't pay to dwell on
things.

"I tried not to think about my family for two years, because it hurt so much.

"I tried to contain everything.

"It was very difficult, but I survived - and I survived well."

* * *


The Mirror (UK):

March 12, 2004

Editorial
A TALE TO SHAME THE FREE WORLD

http://www.mirror.co.uk/voiceofthemirror/

YESTERDAY saw another appalling reminder of the curse of terrorism.

The terrible toll in human life and suffering in Madrid unites people around the
world.

No wonder there is hatred for the fanatics who inflict such pain and misery.

Which is why some people are critical of the men who have just returned to this
country from the camp at Guantanamo Bay.

They assumed the five were linked to terrorists in Afghanistan because we knew
nothing about them or what happened to them. Until now.

Today the Mirror tells the story of Jamal al-Harith who has spent the past two
years incarcerated in the hell of Camp Delta.

He had gone on a visit to Pakistan - as he says, like thousands of other Britons
- but a truck he hired to get him out drove into Afghanistan.

That led to his capture by the brutal Taliban. He was lucky to survive.

When he was freed, it was only to be seized by the Americans and sent to Cuba.
Which is when a greater torment began.

What Jamal reveals about the treatment of prisoners at Camp Delta will shock
everyone who believes in the rule of law.

They were abused, beaten, threatened, tortured and humiliated.

Naked prostitutes were paraded in front of the most religious men. They were
mockingly told they had no rights.

Jamal suffered as much as anyone even though, as he says, he had never received
as much as a parking ticket before his incarceration.

Both President Bush and his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, contemptuously
dismissed everyone at Guantanamo as a dangerous terrorist.

That was a blatant lie and shames the United States - the leader of the free
world and supposed upholder of justice and decency.

Jamal al-Harith has exposed the disgrace of what has gone on at Camp Delta - and
is still going on to hundreds who remain there.

His story should make the international community insist that the Americans stop
their shameful behaviour.

And not just for the sake of justice. For there is a connection between the
prisoners there and the broken and bleeding bodies in Madrid.

Just as the free world must unite against terrorism, so it must stand together
to uphold civilisation and the rule of law.

We will not beat the terrorists by the scandalous and debasing treatment of the
Guantanamo prisoners.

All that does is convince the perverted minds of the fanatics that they are
right.

* * *


The Independent (UK):

March 12, 2004

NO PLANS TO RE-INTERVIEW FIVE GUANTANAMO PRISONERS, SAY POLICE

By Robert Verkaik and Ian Herbert

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=500349

The Britons freed from Guantanamo Bay were enjoying emotional reunions with
their families yesterday as police confirmed that they had no plans to re-
interview them.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, is believed to have
advised the Metropolitan Police that the evidence passed on to the UK
authorities by the Americans could not support a case against the men. Sir John
Stevens, the Commissioner of the Met, said yesterday there were "no plans" to
question further the four British Muslim men about terrorist matters.

He said that the Met's Anti-Terrorist Branch had treated the case like any other
criminal matter and looked at what admissible evidence was available. He added
that the four suspects were released after taking legal advice.

"In complicated cases like this we would be very awry not to take legal advice
at the highest level," Sir John said.

Lawyers and families of the freed detainees expressed their delight as the men
were reunited with their relatives after two years' forced separation.

Anti-terrorist officers arranged for them to be taken to secret locations of
their choice where they were reunited with their families.

Shafiq Rasul, 26, Rhuhel Ahmed, 23, and Asif Iqbal, 22, all from Tipton, West
Midlands, and Tareq Dergoul, 26, from east London, had been released on
Wednesday. It followed the release on Tuesday of Jamal al-Harith (also known as
Jamal Udeen), 37, from Manchester.

A relative of Mr Ahmed, who did not wish to be named, said: "We are delighted
that he has been released." At least one of the men was believed to be
finalising a lucrative media deal. It was reported yesterday that the former
prisoner had sold his story to the Daily Mirror and ITV for £60,000.

The others were expected to follow suit shortly.

Lawyers for all nine British detainees, including the four still being held in
Guantanamo Bay, repeated their claims that their detention at the American naval
base in Cuba was in breach of international law.

Louise Christian, for Mr Dergoul, described his treatment as "oppressive". This
was later echoed by Muslim community leaders.

Speaking to reporters, Dr Mohammed Naseem, chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque
and a well-known Muslim figure in the region, condemned the treatment of the
detainees. "I think it is tragic - it is deplorable what happened to them," he
said in Tipton.

"I think back to the times of Stalin and Hitler when people were being taken
away somewhere where no one knew where they were.

"They were just disappearing and that is happening now. We are doing the same
thing that Stalin and Hitler did."

The Tipton trio's MP, Adrian Bailey, said he understood that the men would be
taken to a safe house at a secret location. The MP for West Bromwich West said:
"I know the families have an arrangement for them to be accommodated and for
very understandable reasons, they are not divulging any details of that."

Ms Christian voiced concern for the detainees still being held at Guantanamo
Bay. She said: "What I am now thinking of is the other four people who have been
left behind, and their families.

"What their families must be thinking of is they are looking at this news
coverage and thinking that it should have been their family members who were
brought back as well, and that the British Government has betrayed their promise
to bring all nine British citizens back again."

Max Clifford, a publicist, said he had spoken to Mr Dergoul's brother Halid, who
described the former detainee as psychologically sound but in considerable pain.
He said: "I spoke to Halid yesterday evening. He had spoken briefly to his
brother earlier on and he said that mentally he seemed to be OK - considering
what he had been through - but physically he wasn't very good and that he was
having great difficulty walking."

Yesterday it also emerged that one of the Tipton trio, Mr Ahmed, would escape
prosecution over a theft charge and non-payment of compensation to a teenager he
had admitted assaulting near his hometown before he left for Pakistan.

Lawyers for Crown Prosecution Service said: "We decided not to proceed with the
matter because we feel he has already served two and half years at Guantanamo
Bay."

Mr Ahmed and Mr Iqbal, another of Tipton men detained at Camp Delta, were
members of a gang of four who turned on an innocent bystander after clashing
with another gang in Dudley. The case was heard at Wolverhampton Crown Court,
where it emerged that the victim suffered a broken jaw and collarbone after he
was beaten and kicked by his assailants.

Mr Ahmed admitted assault occasioning actual bodily harm and Mr Iqbal admitted
violent disorder. Mr Ahmed had made two payments to the victim before falling
into arrears.

The other criminal case that Mr Ahmed was accused of relates to the theft of
tyres and wheels from a Honda car in March 2001.

* * *


The Guardian (UK):

March 12, 2004

FREED BRITON TELLS OF BEATINGS
Guantanamo Bay returnees say police questions were 'charade'

By Tania Branigan and Rosie Cowan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1167732,00.html

One of the Britons freed from Guantanamo Bay spoke for the first time last night
of the full horror of his ordeal.

Jamal al-Harith told how US soldiers brought in prostitutes to the camp, and
paraded them naked in front of the many devout Muslims. The 37-year-old also
claimed he was kicked, punched and assaulted with batons.

He told the Daily Mirror that detainees were shackled for up to 15 hours at a
time in hand and leg cuffs with metal links to the skin. Mr Harith said
punishment beatings were meted out by guards and prisoners were subjected to
pyschological torture and mind games in an effort to break them.

Few if any of the Britons freed from Guantanamo Bay answered questions from UK
anti-terrorism officers before their release without charge, it has emerged. The
solicitor for one man described the interviews as a "meaningless exercise" and
suggested the police had been "just going through the motions".

Four of the Britons were arrested on arrival in the UK on Tuesday and held for
more than a day at a high-security police station in London. The fifth was
detained for just a few hours at the military airbase where their flight landed.
They are now recovering with their families.

The Metropolitan police commissioner said yesterday that there were no plans to
reinterview them. Sir John Stevens denied that the decision to arrest the men on
their arrival was politically influenced, and said the force had consulted
senior lawyers about the arrests.

"It was an exercise we considered necessary and so we had to do it. There were
reasonable grounds for arrest," he said. "They were treated like anybody else
would be in those circumstances."

But Robert Lizar, solicitor for 37-year-old Jamal Udeen, said the interview with
his client - who was not arrested but detained - was a meaningless exercise.

"He was detained under schedule seven of the [Terrorism] Act and it's an offence
not to give information, but we explained he was not going to do so. They have
already asked him the same questions over and over for a period of two years.
The nine hours [in UK custody] was just a continuation of the previous two
years."

Asked whether Shafiq Rasul, 26, and Asif Iqbal, 22, had answered questions while
under arrest, their solicitor, Gareth Peirce, said: "It would not have been
appropriate for any of them to feel obliged to answer questions given that they
have had over two years of repeated interrogation. In our view their arrest was
unlawful. It would not have been appropriate to be cooperating in illegality."

A solicitor for Rhuhel Ahmed, 22, has described the men's arrests in the UK as
"a charade".

The comments of the former detainees are unlikely to please US authorities. Ms
Peirce said her clients "undoubtedly feel [a] responsibility to provide evidence
about what has been going on".

Ms Peirce added: "What they have been through is absolutely extraordinary and
totally destabilising. The experience of returning hostages and people emerging
from wrongful detention is that the effects don't necessarily show up
instantly."

Louise Christian, who represents Tarek Dergoul, 26, said she was delighted at
his release but had mixed feelings as she has further clients at the detention
camp. More than 600 people are still held at the US naval base in Cuba as part
of the US "war on terror".

Several have been detained for more than two years without access to lawyers or
the outside world. The prisoners include at least three British residents and
four Britons: Richard Belmar, Martin Mubanga, Moazzam Begg and Feroz Abbasi. The
latter two have been named as possible defendants in trials by military
commissions.

The home secretary, David Blunkett, has said the government will continue to
press for the release of the remaining Britons or for them to be brought to a
fair trial, which would not include military commissions under the rules
initially proposed by the US.

* * *


The Times (UK):

March 12, 2004

CAMP DELTA BRITON: 'WE WERE CHAINED AND BEATEN'
By Andrew Clennell

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1035523,00.html

The first British Guantanamo Bay inmate to sell his story claimed last night
that inmates were given repeated punishment beatings and chained in irons for
hours on end.

Jamal al-Harith, 37, a divorced father-of-three from Manchester, said that
detainees were shackled with leg cuffs with metal links that cut into the skin.

He claims to have been questioned 40 times by FBI, CIA and MI5 agents and said
that while he was interrogated he was bolted to the floor for up to 12 hours at
a time.

As punishment in the camp, inmates were forced to lie in a ball for hours, he
said.

"Sometimes you would be chained up on the floor with your hands and feet
actually bound together. One of my friends told me he was kept like that for 15
hours once," Mr al-Harith told the Daily Mirror.

Mr al-Harith claimed the water served to inmates was foul - yellow in Camp X-ray
and black in Camp Delta - and that the diet was rice and beans.

"They would shut off the water before prayers so we couldn't wash ourselves
according to our religion," he said.

"They would play tricks on people by denying them things - you might be the only
person on your block who didn't get any bread.

"They actually said 'You have no rights here'.

"After a while we stopped asking for human rights - we wanted animal rights."

He went on: "You would be punished for anything - for having six packets of salt
in your cell rather than five, for hanging your towel through the cage if it
wasn't wet, even for having your spoon and things lined up in the wrong order."

He said inmates were forced to use a bucket as a toilet in view of other inmates
and guards.

"I never got used to it - we would all put our towels and clothes around us.

"We were only allowed a shower once a week at the beginning and none at all in
solitary confinement. This was very tough because you were supposed to be clean
when you pray. Gradually the number of showers rose to three a week. They were
always cold.

"You could be chained by two MPs while you were still in the cage before being
taken off for what they called 'rec and shower'."

Inmates were issued with "comfort items" - known as CIs - which would be removed
sometimes as a punishment, he said. These included shampoo, towels, washcloths
and boxer shorts.

Al-Harith said he refused "treats", such as watching a James Bond film.

"Some people were given pizzas, ice cream and McDonalds but they didn't offer
them to me. I guess they knew bribery would work with some and not with others."

In Camp X-Ray, he said inmates were given Mills and Boon-style romance novels in
Arabic, which they refused to read.

"When I did meet the other Brits, we would reminisce about home - particularly
the food.

"We were all obsessed with Scottish Highland Shortbread - we wanted some so
much.

"One of the Brits told me he was asked why he was a Muslim, because he ought to
be praying to the Queen."

Of his experience, he said: "It was very, very hard at times, but I tried to
think about nothing but survival.

"I kept my thoughts from home as much as possible because it would drive me
crazy.

"About a year into my time, I had a dream. A voice said: 'You will be here for
two years.

"In my dream, I said: 'Two years! You're joking'. But when I woke up, I was
calmer because at least that meant I would be getting out one day.

"I was sent to Guantanamo on February 11, 2002 and left on March 9, 2004, so I
was there for just over two years, just like the voice in the dream said."

Mr al-Harith was one of five detainees to be released without charge from
Paddington Green police station after being questioned by anti-terrorist branch
detectives.

Nine Britons were originally held at Camp Delta by the US. Four Britons remain
in custody there, despite calls by their families and human rights groups.


* * *


Salt Lake Tribune:

March 12, 2004

DEMOS REACH NEW DECISION ON FILE PROBE

By Christopher Smith, The Salt Lake Tribune

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Mar/03122004/utah/147019.asp

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats backed down Thursday from their call for U.S.
Attorney General John Ashcroft to remove himself from considering whether
criminal charges are warranted over computer memos pilfered by Republican
staffers of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Committee members of both parties instead agreed to ask the Department of
Justice to further investigate a report by the Senate Sergeant at Arms that
found two former aides to Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch -- Manuel Miranda and Utah
native Jason Lundell -- exploited a slack security system to download thousands
of confidential files from committee Democrats' computers and more than 100 of
Hatch's own files.

Some Democratic memos outlining plans to block judicial nominees were leaked to
conservative newspaper editorial writers.

The committee also is expected to send a bipartisan request to Ashcroft asking
him to consider appointing a prosecutor from outside his Washington office to
lead the criminal probe. Both parties suggested Northern Illinois District U.S.
Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who investigated the leak of CIA spy Valerie
Plame's identity to columnist Robert Novak.

The committee's Ashcroft letter was a conciliation after Hatch and other
Republicans rebuked Democrats for sending their own letter to Ashcroft Wednesday
night asking him to recuse himself from consideration of whether a criminal
investigation is warranted, due to potential conflicts as a former senator and
potential employer of committee staff. The committee had agreed last week to
speak as a whole to avoid politicizing the issue.

"I think the letter we put together was a mistake," apologized Sen. Dick Durbin,
D-Ill. "It was a mistake because to this point we've worked well on a bipartisan
basis and I would like to see this end on a bipartisan basis."

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, added that the Democrats' letter "may have
gone a little overboard."

Republicans, who were preparing to counter with their own letter to Ashcroft,
applauded the concession. Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Georgia, told Durban "it takes
guts to do that" and marveled he had not "heard this kind of dialogue for a long
time on this committee."

Members were unanimous in condemning the theft and apparent distribution of
confidential files from a shared network server and in wanting a prosecutor with
subpoena power to review the findings of the three-month-long probe by the
Senate's top law enforcement officer, William Pickle.

Democrats believe Pickle's report shows several federal laws were broken in the
cyber-espionage.

Hatch reiterated that while the improper access was wrong and unethical, he is
not yet convinced any law was broken and "I'm not sure a prosecutor will take
the case."

csmith@sltrib.com

* * *


The Scotsman (Edinburgh):

March 12, 2004

CUBA CAPTIVE TELLS OF GUANTANAMO 'TORTURE'

By Vik Iyer, Caroline Gammell and Owen Fairclough PA News

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2639432

A Briton detained at Guantanamo Bay spoke for the first time today about his
ordeal, accusing the US military of punishment beatings and psychological
torture.

Father-of-three Jamal al Harith, 37, from Manchester, was one of five Britons
released from the camp in Cuba after being incarcerated for more than two years.

He told The Mirror newspaper: "The whole point of Guantanamo was to get to you
psychologically. The beatings were not as nearly as bad as the psychological
torture -- bruises heal after a week but the other stuff stays with you."

The website designer said he accidentally strayed into Afghanistan, believing he
was being driven to Turkey. He was arrested there on allegations of spying.

A convert to Islam, Mr al Harith went to Pakistan in October, 2001, a few weeks
after the September 11 attacks to study Muslim culture.

He said: "Recreation meant your legs were untied and you walked up and down a
strip of gravel.

"They actually said that -- ‘You have no rights here’. After a while, we stopped
asking for human rights -- we wanted animal rights."

Mr al Harith claimed that devoutly religious men watched prostitutes touch their
own (the prostitutes’) bodies to humiliate the detainees.

The four other detainees were Tarek Dergoul, 26, a former care worker from
Bethnal Green, east London; Ruhal Ahmed, 22, a student from Tipton; Asif Iqbal,
22, a former parcel depot worker and 26-year-old Shafiq Rasul, both from Tipton
in the West Midlands.

Mr al Harith was freed on Tuesday evening, shortly after the men touched down at
RAF Northolt air base in west London.

The remaining four were arrested and questioned by anti-terrorist police at the
high-security Paddington Green police station in London before being released
late on Wednesday night.

Back in Britain, a relative of Ruhal Ahmed, who did not wish to be named,
described their joy at his freedom: "We are delighted that he has been
released."

Speaking to reporters outside the family’s terrace home in Bath Road, Tipton, Dr
Mohammed Naseem, chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque and a well-known Muslim
figure in the region, condemned the treatment of the detainees.

He said: "I think back to the times of Stalin and Hitler when people were being
taken away somewhere where no one knew where they were."

Meanwhile, Louise Christian, lawyer for one of the detainees, said she was
"absolutely delighted".

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: "What I am now thinking of is the other
four people who have been left behind, and their families."

Four remain in the custody of the US military at Guantanamo Bay despite calls by
their families and human rights lawyers for their release.

They are:

Feroz Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London, a former computer studies student,
captured at Kunduz, Afghanistan in 2001.

Moazzam Begg, 36, from Sparkhill, Birmingham, arrested in Pakistan in February
2002.

Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London, a former motorcycle courier.

Richard Belmar, 23, from Maida Vale, London, who converted to Islam in his
teens.

Home Secretary David Blunkett has said the Government will press the US either
for the release of the four or for them to be brought to trial.

However, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said yesterday that the UK authorities did
not know whether the five Britons were innocent.

He told Channel Four News: "Because it may be, as of last night, the police and
Crown Prosecution Service judged that there is insufficient evidence to mount a
prosecution on evidence that is admissible in the British court, it doesn’t
follow from there that therefore the original detention was unjustified. Not a
bit."

Asked whether the five were "innocent", he replied: "Well sorry I can’t answer
that question, nobody can. All I can say is that as of yesterday the police
decided not to start proceedings."

* * *


Reuters:

March 12, 2004

FREED GUANTANAMO PRISONER DENOUNCES CAMP

LONDON (Reuters) - A Briton flown home from U.S captivity in Guantanamo Bay says
conditions were so inhuman that animals in the prison camp were given better
treatment than the detainees, the Daily Mirror newspaper reports.

Jamal al Harith, 35, was the first of five men to go free on Tuesday shortly
after the group landed at RAF Northolt air base in west London having been
handed over to British custody by the United States. The others were released on
Wednesday.

"They actually said that -- 'You have no rights here'," Harith, from Manchester,
told the Daily Mirror. "After a while, we stopped asking for human rights -- we
wanted animal rights.

"In Camp X-Ray my cage was right next to a kennel housing an Alsatian dog. He
had a wooden house with air conditioning and green grass to exercise on.

"I said to the guards, 'I want his rights' and they replied, "That dog is a
member of the U.S Army'."

Held in captivity for two years, Harith also said he was assaulted with fists,
feet, knees and batons after refusing a mystery injection.

"One of them attacked me really hard and left me with a deep red mark from my
backbone down to my knee," he told the Daily Mirror. "I thought I was bleeding,
but it was just really bad bruising.

"The whole point of Guantanamo was to get to you psychologically. The beatings
were not nearly as bad as the psychological torture -- bruises heal after a week
-- but the other stuff stays with you."

A further four Britons remain at the Guantanamo prison in Cuba. Washington says
they are more dangerous than the five it decided to send home, who have all been
released without charge.

* * *


Newsday:

March 11, 2004

HER SON HAS BEEN SWALLOWED BY US

by Marie Cocco

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpqcoc113702981mar11,0,6696138.column

March 11, 2004 -- Rabiye Kurnaz can do little but bear witness.

She is far from home and speaks no English and so can be heard only through her
lawyer, Bernhard Docke. She can be prodded, gently, to talk about her 21-year-
old son, Murat, a son she has neither seen nor heard much about since he's been
held for more than two years at the American detention center for alleged "enemy
combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Kurnaz is to all appearances a middle-class mom with a husband who works at the
DaimlerChrysler auto plant near the family's home in Bremen, Germany. Her thick
blonde hair is piled atop her head; a heart-shaped pendant hangs from her neck.
She looks as though you might bump into her one Saturday at the mall.

Her son was, until late 2001, experiencing the pride and pains of youth's
journey to adulthood. He'd trained for a shipbuilding job but there was little
work and he wished instead to be a farmer. He played keyboard and guitar in a
band with friends, worked at a gym and was devoted to his dog.

Murat Kurnaz's interest in Islam deepened. He often argued with his Turkish
parents, who emigrated to Germany more than three decades ago, that they were
insufficiently devout. He left the family's home in October 2001 for Karachi,
Pakistan, where he said he planned to study the Koran.

The next word on Murat Kurnaz's whereabouts came from German authorities. They
notified the family that he'd been arrested and transferred to Guantanamo in
January 2002. At first the family received postcards from their distant son. I'm
OK, he would tell them. Don't worry.

It is the sight of these cards, retrieved from her lawyer's file, that causes
Rabiye Kurnaz to break down. There's been no word from her son since he wrote in
March 2002, a hiatus that brings on despair.

"He's probably suffering," she says through sobs. "And I am worried about his
mental state, caused by the uncertainty of his fate."

She does not ask that her son be freed. She wants only some news, some public
charge made against him, some word sent through German or Turkish authorities -
Murat Kurnaz was born in Germany but is a Turkish citizen - that there will be a
process to end this black uncertainty.

Her son is not one of the handful the United States has designated to be tried
in military tribunals. Nor is he one of those slated for release.

Kurnaz traveled here with other families of detainees under the auspices of the
American Civil Liberties Union and human rights groups. They are trying to
convince Americans that what our government is doing at Guantanamo defies all
laws - American and international - and human decency, too.

They do not charge physical mistreatment. They do not make a blanket claim of
innocence. They instead lay claim to the idea - enshrined in international and
American law and in Western history - that no government may hold anyone it
chooses for as long as it chooses without any recourse.

Murat Kurnaz's case seems typical of those who may have been swept up in
something in which they played little, if any, role. Docke said that after his
detention, German authorities researched whether Murat Kurnaz had ties to
terrorists in that country. They found none. He'd received no military training.
He was apparently picked up in Pakistan, not on the Afghan battlefield - though
Docke has been unable to determine the circumstances.

"We don't know exactly what happened in Pakistan," Docke says. "It's like
defending a phantom. It has the taste of the Middle Ages, in modern times."

This is how we fight the forces that wish to defeat modernity. We construct our
very own dungeon, a place where no evidence sees light and no imprisonment has a
fixed duration. Our own courts have differed on whether the goings-on at
Guantanamo are covered by American jurisprudence, or - as the Bush
administration argues - by no legal system at all.

The Supreme Court will hear the case next month. As spring blooms in Washington,
the court will decide if justice itself is to be reborn.

[ Marie Cocco is a nationally syndicated columnist and member of Newsday's
editorial board. Her e-mail address is cocco@newsday.com ]

* * *


The Guardian (UK):

March 11, 2004

ITV AND MIRROR TO INTERVIEW GUANTANAMO DETAINEE
By Lisa O'Carroll

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1167404,00.html

ITV and the Daily Mirror have secured an exclusive £60,000 deal with one of the
five Guantanamo Bay detainees released this week.

The interview with Jamal Udeen will run in the Mirror tomorrow and editor Piers
Morgan has described what he has to say about conditions in Camps X-Ray and
Delta in Cuba as "staggering".

Mr Udeen, a 37-year-old from Manchester, was freed without charge after being
briefly questioned by police under "port and border controls" following his
return to Britain on Tuesday night.

"What he has to say about Camp X-Ray is utterly, utterly sensational," said
Morgan. "This is a guy who, on the face of it, is completely innocent - all he
was guilty of was carrying a British passport and being in the wrong place at
the wrong time.

"His account of was it is like inside Guantanamo Bay is staggering. The way he
was treated, the methods that were used by the Americans, the general
dehumanisation process. It is just amazing," he added.

It is believed the Mirror has paid Mr Udeen around £40,000, with ITV's Tonight
with Trevor McDonald paying about half of that sum. The ITV interview will be
conducted by Martin Bashir tonight.

Morgan refused to comment on the precise amount paid, but said whatever the deal
it was in his view "a small amount of money for a guy who has been incarcerated
for the last two years".

Mr Udeen, who was born Ronald Fiddler, left Manchester to go backpacking in
Pakistan in September 2001. Within three weeks, coalition forces had found him
in jail in Kandahar, Afghanistan. He said the Taliban had jailed him, believing
he was a spy.

He and hundreds of other al-Qaida and Taliban suspects - including several
Britons - were flown to the American military's Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay in
Cuba and held without charge or without legal representation for the next two
years.

Disturbing pictures of prisoners wearing orange boiler suits, blindfolded and
handcuffed behind their backs have become the hallmark of their incarceration,
but the Mirror and ITV hope to give the first detailed account of the appalling
conditions inside the camp.

The first Afghan prisoners to be released from the controversial camp gave a
glimpse of the harrowing account of their treatment and living conditions in
interviews 15 months ago.

One man of 90 claims he was used as a hostage and kept alive on a drip so that
younger suspects could see him suffering. He was there for eight months and
believed he would die.

A fellow inmate told of "crucifixion" punishments, beatings to the soles of the
feet and reported that some detainees were forced to stand among practice
targets on the shooting range.

And in a Mail on Sunday interview last October, one Afghan prisoner told how
detainees were deprived of sleep, blinded with bright lights and forced to kneel
motionless for hours, sometimes at gunpoint, between interrogations.

If they moved they were sentenced to a further three hours of kneeling, bruising
their knees so badly they could not stand.

They spent most of their time in cramped 8ft x 6ft 8in cells and the living
conditions have been widely condemned by human rights groups, with the mental
health of detainees a major cause for concern.

A new Amnesty International report says the detainees are in legal limbo and
face a serious breach of their human rights.

They are routinely denied the right to see lawyers, although they could face
trial by special US military courts with power to pass the death sentence.

* * *


The Scotsman (Edinburgh):

March 11, 2004

LONG-TERM TRAUMA FEAR OVER FREED DETAINEES

By Caroline Gammell and Owen Fairclough, PA News

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2638481

The ordeal of Britain’s five former Guantanamo Bay detainees could have far-
reaching effects on the men, it was claimed today.

As pressure grew to sue those responsible for their internment, all five were
enjoying their first full day of freedom after being released.

But a lawyer for two of the men said their incarceration might lead to long-term
trauma.

Gareth Peirce, who represents Asif Iqbal, 22, a former parcel depot worker, and
26-year-old Shafiq Rasul, both from Tipton in the West Midlands, told BBC Radio
4’s Today programme: "Their story is an extraordinary one ...

"They have emerged from an extraordinary and terrifying ordeal that would
profoundly affect the strongest individual.

"The advice we have from those who are expert in returning hostages is that the
appearance at the beginning is deceptive, and that one has to provide support of
the kind that will help them and their families deal with all the unexpected
reactions that begin to kick in.

"There is a high, and then there might be a very profound low."

The pair, together with Jamal al Harith, 37, from Manchester, Tarek Dergoul, a
former care worker from Bethnal Green, east London, and Ruhal Ahmed, 22, a
student from Tipton, spent more than two years in US military custody.

All five were returned to the UK and released without charge.

Mr al Harith, was freed on Tuesday evening, shortly after the men touched down
at RAF Northolt air base in west London.

The remaining four were arrested and questioned by anti-terrorist police at the
high-security Paddington Green police station in London before being released
late last night.

Steven Watt, a British lawyer with the US-based Centre for Constitutional Rights
who represented Mr Rasul and Mr Iqbal in their fight for freedom, argued the men
should receive compensation.

He said: "I think they are owed something by the US government, but whether they
will ever be able to get it is another thing."

In America, Bob Edgar, general secretary of the US National Council of Churches,
added: "Now that they are out, under law, they ought to pursue whatever legal
remedies are due them, both in the international and domestic law setting."

Back in Britain, a relative of Ruhal Ahmed, who did not wish to be named,
described their joy at his freedom: "We are delighted that he has been
released."

Speaking to reporters outside the family’s terrace home in Bath Road, Tipton, Dr
Mohammed Naseem, chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque and a well-known Muslim
figure in the region, condemned the treatment of the detainees.

"I think it is tragic -- it is deplorable what happened to them," he said.

"I think back to the times of Stalin and Hitler when people were being taken
away somewhere where no one knew where they were.

"They were just disappearing and that is happening now. We are doing the same
thing that Stalin and Hitler did."

Dr Naseem said he was surprised the detainees were released within 48 hours of
arriving back on British soil.

"I must admit I was surprised because I have lost faith in the Government, but I
think that British law has shown its merit and I’m very proud of it."

Louise Christian, lawyer for one of the detainees released last night, said she
was "absolutely delighted".

However, she voiced concern for the detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay.

She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: "What I am now thinking of is the other
four people who have been left behind, and their families.

"What their families must be thinking of, is they are looking at this news
coverage and thinking that it should have been their family members who were
brought back as well, and that the British Government has betrayed their promise
to bring all nine British citizens back again."

Four remain in the custody of the US military at Guantanamo Bay despite calls by
their families and human rights lawyers for their release.

They are:

Feroz Abbasi, 23, from Croydon, south London, a former computer studies student,
captured at Kunduz, Afghanistan in 2001.

Moazzam Begg, 36, from Sparkhill, Birmingham, arrested in Pakistan in February
2002.

Martin Mubanga, 29, from north London, a former motorcycle courier.

Richard Belmar, 23, from Maida Vale, London, who converted to Islam in his
teens.

Home Secretary David Blunkett has said the Government will press the US either
for the release of the four or for them to be brought to trial.

* * *


Newsday:

March 11, 2004

RELEASE OF GUANTANAMO DETAINEES URGED

By Edith M. Lederer, Associated Press Writer

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/
sns-ap-un-guantanamo,0,4014331.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines

UNITED NATIONS -- Opponents of the U.S. policy of detaining terrorism suspects
without legal access urged Washington to follow-up its release of five Britons
with the return of all the estimated 660 people detained in Guantanamo, Cuba to
their home countries.

British actor Corin Redgrave, co-founder of the Guantanamo Human Rights
Commission, came to the United Nations Wednesday with relatives of three
detainees to demand justice for all those being held, a day after the United
States sent five British detainees home from the U.S. military's prison camp at
Guantanamo Bay. One was released immediately by British authorities and the
other four were freed late Wednesday.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next month from lawyers representing
foreign-born "enemy combatants" being held incommunicado in open-ended custody
at Guantanamo Bay. At issue is whether the prisoners can challenge their
detention in U.S. courts.

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said that designating the detainees as enemy
combatants "is a vital part of the war on terrorism," that the Supreme Court
should reaffirm.

Redgrave, the relatives, and Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based
Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil liberties legal group that represents
several detainees in the Supreme Court case, want immediate action -- and the
closure of the Guantanamo military prison.

"It is a total denial of human rights," Redgrave said of the U.S. policy. "Our
message is therefore very clear: Every detainee in Guantanamo must be
repatriated forthwith to their countries."

If there is evidence, the detainee should be tried in a proper court with due
process and punished if found guilty, he said, but if there is no evidence he
should be freed.

"We are very, very, confident that sooner rather than later ... they will be
free," Redgrave said.

Ratner said the Bush administration appeared to be playing favorites by
releasing detainees from countries that have supported the United States in Iraq
and elsewhere, like Britain.

"Those who are friends of the U.S." are getting out, but the French "because of
their position in the war, got nobody out," he said.

Redgrave, brother of actresses Lynn and Vanessa Redgrave, said it was also "a
paradox" that while Britain had been actively negotiating for the return of its
detainees, four Britons remain at Guantanamo.

U.S. officials have said they have wide legal latitude to interrogate the
detainees for an extended period since national security is at risk.

The relatives and civil rights activists started their U.S. campaign in
Washington, where Redgrave said two senators -- whom he refused to identify --
pledged support, and others promised to raise the issue in the Senate Judiciary
Committee.

Ratner stressed that Guantanamo is also an international issue because the
detainees come from 44 countries and international laws, including the Geneva
Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are being violated.

"Shouldn't the 44 countries come together through the United Nations and say,
`No! No longer should we have such an international prison camp?,'" he asked.

Andre Gerin, the mayor of Venissieux, near Lyon, where Sassi lived, said he came
to the United Nations "to question the silence and the indifference of the
French authorities."

"I would say the families are very disappointed from the lack of response from
governments, political and international institutions, including the United
Nations," he said.

Rabiye Kurnaz, mother of detainee Murat Kurnaz, said her son, who was born in
Germany but carries a Turkish passport, left Bremen 2 1/2 years ago and she
hasn't heard from him for two years.

"If he did something wrong, just give him a fair trial," she pleaded.

Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press

* * *


DemocraticUnderground.com:

March 11, 2004

WHY TORTURE DOESN'T WORK: A CRITIQUE OF ALAN DERSHOWITZ' CASE FOR TORTURE
By Jack Rabbit

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/03/11_torture.html

Alan Dershowitz, the renowned legal scholar and civil libertarian, has stirred
up a small hornets nest since the September 11 attacks by talking openly about
the possibilities of sanctioning torture in America. Dershowitz feels it is
incumbent on him to lead a discussion on a choice he feels is unpleasant but
necessary.

Torture is regarded by progressive civil libertarians as an abomination that
every civilized nation should outlaw. Modern international humanitarian law
categorically prohibits its use. The Rome Statute classifies torture as a crime
against humanity, the Third Geneva Convention (1949; Aritcles 3, 17, 87 and 130)
prohibits its use against prisoners of war and the Fourth Geneva Convention
(1949; Articles 3, 32 and 147) probhits it against civilians in situations of
armed conflict. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948; Article 5)
states unequivocally, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment." Gloss is put on these declarations
concerning torture by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), to which the United States is a party.

The Convention defines torture:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted
on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has
committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him
or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when
such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an
official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from,
inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

Dershowitz is regarded by many as a progressive civil libertarian. That he
should part company with others on a matter that many feel defines progressivism
has outraged more than a few. However, when one such as Dershowitz suggests that
we cast aside much of what we hold dear, perhaps we should give him a hearing.

Dershowitz' argument can be easily misconstrued if it is not read. An opinion
piece written by Dershowitz for the Los Angeles Times (November 8, 2001)
outlines his position; a reader can get a better idea of Dershowitz' thesis by
reading Chapter 4 of his recent book, Why Terrorism Works: understanding the
threat, responding to the challenge (Yale University, 2002, pp. 131-63; all page
numbers refer to this volume). It should be understood from the start that
Dershowitz is suggesting only "nonlethal" forms of torture aimed at extracting
information in national security cases, such as those involving a planned
terrorist attack, and other cases where the potential for loss of human life
would be catastrophic. Moreover, Dershowitz is very much aware of the
constitutional issues surrounding the use of torture; Dershowitz is quite aware
that no information extracted under torture could be used against the informant
in any criminal proceedings. Dershowitz deserves to be lauded for having his
priorities straight enough to opt, when presented with an exclusive choice of
one or the other, for preventing the execution of the crime and saving lives
over prosecuting and punishing the criminal.

Of course, that choice is one given in a hypothetical situation. Law professors
often present hypothetical situations as teaching aides. They provide neat,
clear cases where the student has no trouble recognizing how the legal principle
is applied to given facts. To advance his ideas about the proper use of torture,
Dershowitz uses the ticking bomb scenario. Mr. Dershowitz explains the case (p.
140) by quoting another scholar, Michael Walzer:

[A] decent leader of a nation plagued with terrorism is asked "to authorize the
torture of a captured rebel leader who knows or probably knows the location of a
number of bombs hidden in apartment buildings across the city, set to go off
within the next twenty-four hours. He orders the man tortured, convinced he must
do so for the sake of the people who might otherwise die in the explosions --
even though he believes torture is wrong, indeed abominable, not just sometimes,
but always."

Dershowitz argues that the hypothetical leader acted justly in this hypothetical
situation. Indeed, the facts given as they are might make a good case for
torture. Many of us who regard torture as a clear crime against humanity are
grasping to hold our own position in light of this case.

Since Dershowitz is not unaware of the constitutional problems inherent with
this position, he offers the legal remedy of controls and supervision over
torture. Rather than prohibit torture, as would a progressive civil libertarian,
he would legally sanction torture and allow judges to issue a warrant for its
use.

On the one hand, progressive civil libertarians seem stuck. Dershowitz' case for
legally supervised, nonlethal torture appears to be rooted in good logic in
which the conclusions fall neatly from their premises. However, the conclusion
reached is so odious that one still strives to reject it. To progressive civil
libertarians attempting to hold the line in the context of a national debate in
which Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft seek broad powers to abrogate civil liberties,
even to strip Americans of their citizenship, and mock the Third Geneva
Convention daily in Guantanamo, Dershowitz appears to have gone over to the dark
side.

On the other hand, Dershowitz' defenders, many of whom are less committed to
progressive principles and the rule of law than was Dershowitz in the past,
claim that the post-September 11 world has changed everything and that pre-
September 11 notions about civilized behavior regarding the treatment of at
least a certain class of criminal suspects is just not practical.

However, progressive civil libertarians need not concede a single point to
Dershowitz, let alone the supporters of Bush and Ashcroft. There are at least
three problems with Dershowitz' case for torture, all of which are fatal.

One problem with Dershowitz' argument is that it is based on a hypothetical
situation. Something so clear would seldom, if ever, exist in the real world. On
close examination, the ticking bomb case is exposed as absurd and the problems
of Dershowitz' case begins to disappear.

The ticking bomb scenario assumes a situation where the authorities know the
about a plotted crime, but still don't know enough to begin an effective
investigation. Somehow, we are supposed to believe that there might be a
situation where authorities have certain knowledge of a terrorist's guilt
without knowing exactly of what he's guilty. In this case, the authorities know
who with certainty (the terrorist leader they have in custody), they know what
(a series of bombs set to go off around the city), they know when (within the
next twenty-four hours), but they don't know exactly where. Does it seem
realistic that they would know who, what and when, but not where? Wouldn't the
same source of the information about the who, what and when not also know at
least some specific locations of the bombs and some other possible ones? It
seems unlikely that one would have information in such detail without knowing
more than this scenario allows.

Even in the scenario as given, we are told that the bombs are planted in some
undisclosed apartment buildings throughout the city. With so little time, the
authorities' efforts might be better spent evacuating any potential target in
order to save lives. Torturing the suspect won't help get people out of
apartment buildings.

Thus, the ticking bomb case fails to show how it is necessary to torture the
suspect in order to save lives.

Dershowitz also brings up the matter of Zacarias Moussaoui, who is currently in
custody and awaiting trial for his part in the September 11 attacks. Dershowitz
presents his argument in this case as follows (pp. 143-44, emphasis added):

The government decided not to seek a warrant to search his computer. Now imagine
that they had, and discovered he was part of a plan to destroy large occupied
buildings, but without any further details. They interrogated him, gave him
immunity from prosecution, and offered him large cash rewards and a new
identity. They threatened him, tried to trick him and tried every lawful
technique available. He still refused. They even injected him with sodium
pentothal and other truth serums, but to no avail. The attack now appeared to be
imminent, but the FBI had no idea what the target was or what means would be
used to attack it. We could not simply evacuate all buildings indefinitely. An
FBI agent proposes use of nonlethal torture . . . .

What Dershowitz has done is to take an actual case and embellish it into a
hypothetical one. This new scenario has one virtue of citing a specific person
widely believed to be involved in a specific catastrophe. Otherwise, it is every
bit as hypothetical and just as absurd as the ticking bomb case. It even helps
to illustrate what is wrong with previous scenario. Again, we are asked to
suppose that the authorities found the broad outlines of the plan on a suspect's
computer, but nothing else that would be useful to them. They have no way of
knowing who Mossaoui's contacts were (in spite of looking at his e-mail onb the
same computer and probably are also checking his telephone records as well) or
knowing who he might have talked with (in spite of also knowing where he lived
and probably contacting an employer). We are also supposed to believe they have
no information other than he is involved in a plot to destroy buildings, except
that they also know exactly when this event is to happen.

Is all this too hypothetical? Yes, it is.

Dershowitz' scenario with the Moussaoui case removes the level of urgency that
is inherent in the ticking bomb case. The authorities could pursue other leads
and possibly uncover the details of the plot before the catastrophe takes place.
There is no need to waste time interrogating an uncooperative suspect, by either
conventional or extraordinary means.

The second problem is that the information gained from a torture victim must be
regarded as unreliable. The authorities may torture a suspect (Dershowitz
suggests sterile needles placed under fingernails), and he may tell them
anything to get them stop. Since the situation is urgent, time is on the side of
the terrorist. If he is determined to kill people, he could tell them anything
or even nothing at all. The authorities would have to investigate what he says,
since they can't assume it is true. Of course, investigating the suspect's
statements takes time that the authorities don't have. Torturing the suspect
where time is an urgent factor gains the authorities nothing.

Dershowitz asserts that there are instances where torture has provided accurate
information that has prevented harm to civilians. However, that does not change
the fact the information gained under torture would still need to be
investigated in order to be verified. Normally, police won't take any voluntary
statement made by a suspect at face value unless they already have something to
corroborate it. Any statements made under the duress of torture should be
greeted with even more scrutiny. Says Dershowitz (p. 137, emphasis in the
original):

It is impossible to avoid the difficult moral dilemma of choosing among evils by
denying the empirical reality that torture sometimes works, even if it does not
always work. No technique of crime prevention always works.

In other words, Dershowitz is admitting that information gained from a torture
victim is not reliable. This is true both in Dershowitz' ticking bomb case,
where time is an urgent factor, and his hypothetical Moussaoui case, where it is
not, at least until the very end.

After making the categorical statement, "the tragic reality is that torture
sometimes works" (p. 137), Dershowitz fails to provide any example where he can
unequivocally say that the information gained through torture could not have
been gained by some other means. The case he cites in the most detail, one
arising from the Philippines in 1995 where a plot to blow up eleven passenger
jets over the Pacific Ocean was foiled, involved sufficient time for authorities
to investigate the plot based on information received. Dershowitz does not
elaborate on the facts of this case, which involve the torture of Hakim Abdul
Marud. The fact is that Marud was arrested by the authorities following a fire
that started in his apartment. The fire was started as a result of Marud mixing
chemicals, which was suspicious activity in the first place. The authorities
found the evidence of the bombing plot on Marud's laptop computer. Marud was
tortured for 67 days. Clearly, time was not a matter of urgency, as it is in the
ticking bomb scenario. As in Dershowitz' hypothetical case involving Massaoui,
the authorities in the Marud case began with time to pursue leads without
resorting to extraordinary methods of interrogation. It is entirely possible
that the authorities in this case, using more conventional methods of
investigation consistent with modern standards of civilized behavior, would have
prevented the catastrophe just the same. It is clear from the facts provided
that they had enough evidence to hold Marud and commence an investigation. Any
claim that torture was necessary to prevent a catastrophe in this case is not
provable.

The final problem with Dershowitz' argument is that it involves a time-consuming
process where time is urgent. In his admirable attempt to balance the needs of
modern society facing a threat from the likes of Osama with the demands of rule
of law in a democratic society, Dershowitz would not simply have the authorities
torture information out of a suspect, but would require that the process be
given legal sanction and supervision. Dershowitz revives an old and long
discarded concept from English law, the torture warrant. Torture was used to get
information from unwilling suspects and witnesses under British law prior to the
late eighteenth century. However, as Dershowitz points out (p. 156), the
requirement to convict under English law a criminal defendant was at that time
either the confession of the accused or the testimony of two eyewitnesses to the
crime; a case built entirely on circumstantial evidence was insufficient. This
no longer applies. Today, a case may be built entirely on circumstantial
evidence; for example, one of the many murders of which Charlie Manson was
convicted, that of Shorty Shea, was a case where the victim's body was not found
until many years after the trial.

However, Dershowitz does not seek to use torture to gain a conviction. He is
seeking to gain information to prevent a greater catastrophe. Nevertheless,
Dershowitz points out that under English law, the ability to authorize torture
was tightly controlled by the Privy Council in order to prevent local
authorities from abusing the rights of defendants. This is the model he would
use to institute torture in modern society. Dershowitz believes that if his
recommedations are followed, torture that would be used only in the most
extraordinary cases. As Dershowitz says (pp. 158-59):

I believe that most judges would require compelling evidence before they would
authorize so extraordinary a departure from our constitutional norms, and law
enforcement officials would be reluctant to seek a warrant unless they had
compelling evidence that the suspect had information needed to prevent an
imminent terrorist attack.

Nevertheless, Dershowitz does not propose any specific legal standards for the
issuing of a torture warrant. If we were examine what his hypothetical cases and
see what they have in common, we might arrive at a set of standards that could
possibly be used: the situation at hand is potentially catastrophic and the loss
of great numbers of human lives is at stake;there is a suspect whose culpability
is certain to a high standard of proof; and there is an element of urgency in
that the attack is imminent and there is no time to effectively pursue other
avenues of investigation.

In the ticking bomb case, this standard might be impractical. In that scenario,
the authorities have only twenty-four hours to get accurate information about
the location of a series of bombs and defuse them. In this twenty-four hour
period, the authorities would have to first get a warrant from a judge who would
demand before issuing the warrant that they first prove to him that there is an
imminent threat of a catastrophic event, that the suspect they hold has
information that would prevent the execution of the threat, and that there is no
time to try anything else; then they would have to torture the suspect; and
then, since information gained from a suspect under torture must be regarded as
unreliable, verify any information he provided. Perhaps after all that is done,
they will still have time to defuse the bombs. However, it might be more
practical to evacuate any building that even is remotely suspected of being a
target, the entire city if necessary. The use of torture with all its trappings
in the ticking bomb scenario becomes a reductio ad absurdum. The time-consuming
processes of obtaining a warrant, extracting information from the suspect
through torture and verifying the information simply defeat the purpose of
interrogating the suspect.

Dershowitz' hypothetical case involving Zacarais Moussaoui is a little more
problematic, if only because it is a little more difficult to ascertain from the
way Dershowitz lays it out exactly what the authorities could take to a judge.
Here, too, torture is not contemplated unless the threat is imminent; therefore,
we must apply all the problems that defeat the ticking bomb case to this one. In
addition, unless the authorities have a better idea of what is being threatened
than Dershowitz provides in the scenario, they couldn't possibly prove that
there is an imminent threat. The judge may want to ask them why they are holding
him in custody with no more evidence than Dershowitz indicates they have. Here
again, it seems improbable that the authorities have only the faintest
information of a plot with no other details. The FBI agents assigned to the case
in this scenario have been foolishly wasting time interrogating Moussaoui when
they could have been checking out his every move since arriving in the United
States, as real FBI agents would likely do.

Finally, we have the actual case of Hakim Abdul Marud in the Philippines, where
the use of torture may have prevented a terrorist attack; however, neither
Dershowitz nor his readers can say with certainty that it did, since nothing
suggests that any other investigative technique was applied. If the FBI had been
holding Marud under these rules, rather than Filipino intelligence agents with
no rules, Marud probably would not have been tortured. It is clear that when the
Filipino agents began torturing Marud, there was no imminent threat; after all,
no terrorist attack was executed during the 67 days they tortured him. This case
can't be use to demonstrate the strength of Dershowitz' thesis.

Dershowitz has thus failed to prove anything practical is to be gained by
allowing legally sanctioned torture in extraordinary circumstances. Since the
burden of proof is on him to demonstrate that there is any benefit to altering
current international conventions against the use of torture, the categorical
prohibition expressed by those conventions should thus be respected.

In addition, there are many pragmatic reasons to continue to oppose the
introduction of legally sanctioned torture. Dershowitz' own arguments are laced
with proposals for protections of the rights of a suspect who faces torture
because Dershowitz, rightly, recognizes that the potential for government abuse
is rampant should torture be allowed. Obviously, many states choose to disregard
international conventions. Dershowitz (p.153) even observes that only in a
democracy committed to civil liberties can this kind of discussion take place;
in such states as Egypt, Jordan, Burma and Zimbabwe, leaders are not responsible
to popular will and act as they see fit, often with less concern about national
security than the security of their own hold on power. These states are part of
the overall problem in the world today, not a model for any solution.

Besides traditionally tyrannical regimes, there is a deterioration of democratic
values among the leaders of states that not long ago seemed on the path to
becoming democratic and even in states long regarded as beacons of democracy. In
Russia, for which so many held high hopes when the Soviet Union collapsed,
Vladimir Putin is running virtually unopposed for President. Using terrorist
attacks from Chechnyan rebels as a pretext, Putin has contracted civil liberties
in Russia. More recently, opposition presidential candidates have complained of
intimidation. According to the London Observer, Putin is currently poised to
become "the most powerful Russian leader since Stalin." In the United States,
George W. Bush's authority as President rests not on a clear electoral victory
but on a narrow and dubiously reasoned Supreme Court decision. He has used his
power to enrich his corporations at state expense. Like Putin, Bush has used the
terrorist attacks against his nation as a pretext to erode civil liberties and,
unlike anybody else except possibly his British ally, Tony Blair, Bush has told
brazen lies to manipulate his country into a war of dubious necessity.

Leaders such as Putin and Bush should not be trusted with the ultimate authority
to sanction torture any more than Hosni Mubarak or King Fahd. Whether any
leader, elected or otherwise, should be so trusted is doubtful.

In the post-September 11 world, in which Mr. Bush's leadership has eroded
America's moral position as a beacon of human dignity, international
humanitarian law has replaced America as the great progressive hope of humanity.
While Bush unilaterally declares battlefield detainees to be illegal combatants
without rights under the Geneva Conventions and hurls them into dog kennels at
Guantanamo, while his Justice Department drafts legislation to give him the
right to strip an American of his citizenship, and while he contracts out to
nations known to scorn human rights standards for the purpose of torturing
terror suspects, international humanitarian law that upholds our hope by
declaring categorically that no human being should be subjected to torture or to
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This is the ideal to which
we should strive.

* * *


icBirmingham:

Mar 11 2004

TORIES QUESTION EU RESOLUTION

By Geoff Meade, The Birmingham Post

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100localnews/content_objectid=
14039697_method=full_siteid=50002_headline=-Tories-question-EU-resolution-
name_page.html

Conservative Euro-MPs last night called for more condemnation of al Qaida and
less of the United States after a European Parliament resolution criticised the
treatment of Guantanamo Bay detainees.

MEPs backed a resolution demanding the release or fair trial of the suspects
still being held by the Americans in Cuba. It accused Washington of breaking the
Geneva Convention and warned that EU-US relations will face "dire consequences"
over the handling of the detainees.

But Charles Tannock, the Tory's European Parliament spokesman on foreign
affairs, said: "This report is a thinly veiled attack on the United States of
America and its fight against terrorism.

"It should condemn al Qaida, who have killed and maimed thousands of innocent
people and concern itself with the rights of people in Europe to go about their
lives in safety without fear of another terrorist attack.

"This Parliament should be looking at ways to combat internationa