MISCELLANEOUS NEWS REPORTS * 2004.08.01 to 2004.08.31 misc_digest_2004_8.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/ ================================================================================ Hampton Roads Daily Press / AP: August 30, 2004 APPEALS COURT DELAYS ENEMY COMBATANT CASE UNTIL SEPT. 27 By Sonja Barisic, Associated Press Writer http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/ dp-va--enemycombatant0830aug30,0,3479432.story NORFOLK (AP) -- A federal appeals court today delayed for a month a hearing in the case of a U.S. citizen captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Last week, a federal judge in Norfolk said he would postpone the hearing for Yaser Esam Hamdi for one day, to Tuesday. The government promptly appealed, seeking more time. Federal officials said an agreement to release Hamdi was imminent but the sensitive nature of the case limited how quickly a settlement could be reached. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond ruled today that under federal rules of appellate procedure, the U.S. District Court in Norfolk will not have jurisdiction in the case until Sept. 27. That is when the appellate court will issue a mandate, giving jurisdiction to the district court. The 4th Circuit stayed all proceedings in the case before the district court until the mandate is issued. The Justice Department had no comment on the ruling, a spokesman said. Hamdi's attorney, Frank Dunham Jr., did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar had ordered the government to bring Hamdi from a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., to his court today unless an agreement to release him was reached by then. Doumar postponed the hearing date until Tuesday after an hourlong conference call Friday with attorneys for both sides. The Supreme Court ruled in June that enemy combatants may not be indefinitely detained without legal rights. The ruling gave Hamdi, who has been held without charges, the right to fight his detention in federal court. Hamdi contends he is a civilian who never took up arms against the United States and that he had been trying to get out of Afghanistan when he was captured on a battlefield there during the fight against the Taliban regime. Born in Louisiana in 1980 to Saudi parents, Hamdi grew up in Saudi Arabi * * * BBC: August 28, 2004 - 12:19 GMT LEGAL HISTORY AT GUANTANAMO BAY By Daniel Lak, BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/3607624.stm It's been nearly three years since the attacks in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001. America quickly declared a war against terrorism and used its massive military might to topple the Taleban in Afghanistan, the regime that hosted al-Qaeda. Hundreds and hundreds of men were arrested during that campaign, and many of them now live in this once-obscure corner of Cuba. Open process? I say "live" when, of course, I really mean detained. Arabs, Pakistanis, Malays, Africans, Britons and Australians are among the inmates here. And finally this past week, four of them got their day in court that everyone from Amnesty International to the British government said was long overdue. I went to Guantanamo Bay with a gaggle of 65 journalists, some human rights activists and representatives of foreign governments. These were preliminary hearings We were there to see the trials, of course, but our presence also helped support the American government claim that a truly open legal process was taking place. Open is perhaps a bit over-optimistic. All of us covering the trial had to be escorted everywhere on the base, even on the requisite outings to the local bar. The human rights observers could watch court proceedings, but they could do little else. The diplomats were seldom seen and the scurrying civilian types from Washington who watched the hearings every day were impossible to talk to. They seemed, shall I say, spooked by our curiosity. Al-Qaeda link? The court proceedings were preliminary hearings, the beginnings of the process and they were fascinating. Legally obscure, often complex and ridden with military acronyms, but redeemed always by the chance to see the detainees from Guantanamo Bay in the flesh - men accused of horrible crimes - as human beings, rather than stereotypes. Among the various dramas, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni, admitted he was Osama Bin Laden's driver but denied being a member of al-Qaeda. Ali Hamza al-Bahlul - also a Yemeni - spoke rivetingly in Arabic and seemed to say he was from al-Qaeda. But a shocked military judge stopped him and recessed the court, just as he was about to say what his role in 11 September had been. Father's support Most fascinating to me and other reporters was David Hicks, a 29-year-old Australian. Now we may well be guilty of the charge that this was because he was a white- skinned convert to Islam, as opposed to an Arab or a Pakistani, who perhaps had rather more reason to take up arms in a militant religious cause. But you can't help but wonder how a middle-class upbringing in Adelaide leads to Afghanistan and war crimes charges. How did Hicks come to be charged with war crimes? David had good lawyers, but he also had the potent advocacy of his father, Terry Hicks, who came all the way from his home in Australia to see his son for the first time in nearly five years. The elder Mr Hicks was engaging, compassionate and intelligent. He was also funny. Asked by a solemn American reporter how David came to Guantanamo Bay - meaning what events in his life had brought him to such a place - Mr Hicks replied in his laconic accent: "He flew... I mean, it's a long way to swim." The 54-year-old man also shed tears a few times in public and kept insisting that his son was not a killer or a dangerous man. But you could also sense an undercurrent of something else - perhaps a troubled history between parent and child and a father's feelings of guilt - I'm not sure. Legal obstacles My last encounter with Terry Hicks was on a small plane leaving Guantanamo. As we banked over the Caribbean Sea, the entire Naval base was spread out below us. Terry Hicks wiped away the tears We could see the buildings of Camp Echo, where David was being held. Mr Hicks's lawyer pointed that out, and the detainee's father waved and took a photo. He also wiped away a stray tear as the plane tiled back upright and the wing hid Camp Echo. I'll be back to Guantanamo Bay for the military trials, once they start - if they start. America's legal community is using every means it can to stop this process - the courts, advocacy, even citing the objections of foreign governments such as Britain's to the process. My own view is that David Hicks and his fellow inmates will stay in that weird little corner of Cuba for some time to come. Many of them will face the full legal process, no matter what the controversy and concerns. For many Americans, the outrage over 11 September has not faded with time. Even bringing the detainees to trial is proving to be a huge legal challenge - a minefield, if you like. Each new case raises new points of law and with nearly 600 people awaiting trial in Guantanamo Bay, it could be years or even decades before they get their days in court. From Our Own Correspondent was broadcast on Saturday, 28 August, 2004 at 1130 BST on BBC Radio 4. Please check the programme schedules for World Service transmission times. * * * BBC -- August 29, 2004 TRIALS AND ERRORS AT GUANTANAMO * Military tribunal's first week trying suspects is marked by confusion and inexperience. By John Hendren, Times Staff Writer http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/ la-na-gitmo29aug29,1,6134226.story GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba -- Nuremberg it was not. Unlike the Nazi war crimes trials, which were conducted by seasoned legal specialists with the world looking over their shoulders, the opening round of the tribunals at Guantanamo Bay naval base last week seemed mired in uncertainty, inexperience and confusion. As one session ended, the presiding officer appeared to be so blindsided by a defense maneuver that he sat with his face in his hands before issuing a ruling. Repeatedly, the translation system broke down. At one point, a defendant unexpectedly fired his court-appointed lawyer and began to blurt out a confession before officials could bring the situation under control. And the outside world got only glimpses of the proceedings, which were carried out under such tight restrictions that no photographic, video or audio records of what went on are ever to be released. After four days, the few international observers allowed to attend threw up their hands in disbelief and declared the system "fatally flawed." "There were times when I actually had to think to myself, 'They're actually planning on prosecuting people in this forum,' " Jamana Musa of Amnesty International said. "It was mind-boggling." Army Col. David McWilliams, chief spokesman for the commission, said the week proved that the panel's proceedings were "rounded but needed to be refined." The Nuremberg Tribunals, which convened in Germany on Nov. 20, 1945, were conducted under the auspices of the United States, France, Britain and the Soviet Union. As that tribunal opened, records show, the presiding officer noted that a copy of the indictment had been furnished to each defendant in German, that all the defendants had counsel -- in almost all cases, counsel of the defendants' own choosing -- and that the prosecutors had made available to "defending counsel the numerous documents upon which the prosecution rely, with the aim of giving to the defendants every possibility for a just defense." The proceedings last week against four accused members of Al Qaeda taken into custody in Afghanistan employed a military commission, or tribunal, system not used for more than 50 years. The commission system was used in a few cases during World War II, notably against a group of Nazi saboteurs captured on the East Coast, and had been abandoned until President Bush revived it to prosecute terrorist suspects after the war in Afghanistan. As a result, the five-member panel of military officers convened for the first trials last week had few precedents to follow and often seemed uncertain what rules or legal procedure should be followed. On Thursday, defendant Ali Hamza Ahamad Sulayman al Bahlul refused his military lawyers' aid and got halfway through what appeared to be a confession before the presiding officer cut him off. Army Col. Peter Brownback III appeared to have been caught off guard by the defendant's action and told his four fellow commission members serving as judges to disregard the statement. "People of the entire globe, know that I testify that the American government put me under no pressure. I am from Al Qaeda and the relationship between me and Sept. 11th..." Bahlul said, before Brownback stopped him. Earlier, questioning of the lone alternate member of the commission highlighted the limited legal backgrounds of panel members. A defense attorney, Navy Cmdr. Charles Swift, asked the alternate if he understood the primary source of international law. "Do you know what the Geneva Convention is, sir?" Swift asked. "Not specifically. No, sir," Lt. Col. Curt S. Cooper answered. "And that's being honest." That incident and others led observers from nongovernmental organizations to call for an all-lawyer panel. "We've asked five very able commission members, who have essentially no legal training, to decide complex questions of constitutional and international law," said Deborah N. Pearlstein, an observer with Human Rights First. "And they are struggling with the definition of 'jurisdiction,' of 'due process.' Those terms are so basic. It calls the credibility of the entire process into question when we don't even have a baseline to start." Commission spokesman McWilliams acknowledged some of the problems: "Not only are we using a form of tribunal that hasn't been used since World War II, we're also holding these proceedings in an isolated location. "We need to ensure we're comfortable with translation, but I think the legal process did exactly what it needed to do. It allowed for zealous defense under public scrutiny." That scrutiny had its limits. On the orders of retired Maj. Gen. John Altenburg, who has authority over the commissions, fewer than 100 people witnessed each session. In addition, no one outside the courtroom and neighboring viewing room is ever to see or hear the proceedings. The trials were not televised, broadcast or photographed. No Nuremberg-like images of alleged war criminals were recorded. Five human rights workers and 54 journalists from 37 news organizations descended on this U.S.-occupied sliver of Cuba to witness the proceedings. But they had to write fast. Reporters were allowed only pen and pad. Video cameras carried the courtroom scenes to the viewing room, but no recording was made, officials said. Only a written transcript is to be kept, and an audio recording for court reporters, undisclosed until a dispute over translation erupted Thursday, will never be released to the public, McWilliams told reporters. With the fledgling commission struggling to establish its own precedents on the fly each day, many questions were referred to Washington. For example, Altenburg will now decide whether Bahlul can represent himself, as well as what to do about a request to alter the rules so that one defendant can hire a Yemeni lawyer. Legal experts said there could be significant delays while that happens. "It does sound to me that there was a severe lack of preparation," said Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, a nonprofit organization of lawyers who participate in military trials. "There was less familiarity with the details of the governing regulations than I would have thought." Under Bush's executive order creating the commissions, Altenburg must also decide on any efforts to unseat panel members on grounds of conflict of interest. Lawyers for the first two defendants -- Australian David Hicks and Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen -- challenged the fitness of four of the five panel members and one alternate. Defense lawyers argued that two commissioners who had served military tours in Afghanistan were too closely linked to the war there, and to the Sept. 11 attacks, to be impartial. Hicks' lead attorney, New York criminal lawyer Joshua Dratel, previewed an additional motion to get the entire panel thrown out for its lack of legal expertise. That argument might be a tough sell with Altenburg, who had appointed all the panel members. Defense lawyers also have questioned his friendship with presiding officer Brownback. Asked how Altenburg could reconsider his own decision, the chief Pentagon legal officer for the commissions, Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway, said he might see new information. "You have to understand that the information that was disclosed during the course of the proceedings may be in addition to and contrary to the information that the appointing authority had available when the people were selected," Hemingway said. "Certainly [the fact] that the individual served in a combat zone, I would not consider necessarily to be disqualifying." For historians -- and aficionados of courtroom drama -- the secrecy entails a significant loss. There were some electrifying exchanges during the week, such as when two defense lawyers took the rare step of cross-examining the panel's equivalent of a judge, then told him they would seek to remove him, along with three of the four other panel members and the lone alternate member. And, after allowing Brownback to close the first day of hearings, defense attorney . Swift rose to ask one more question. Having said that he planned to file a motion to remove Brownback because the presiding officer allegedly had told a group of other defense attorneys that speedy trials were not an issue at Guantanamo, Swift said he had a tape of the exchange and wondered whether Brownback would send it to Altenburg. After 70 seconds of silence with his head sometimes buried in his hands, Brownback said he would, "although the tape was made without my consent." * * * The Independent (UK): August 29, 2004 GUANTANAMO BRITONS' LAWYERS FACE AMERICAN GAGGING ORDER By Andrew Buncombe in Washington http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=556260 A lawyer will today fly to Guantanamo Bay to visit two British prisoners incarcerated there for more than two years. But because of a gag order imposed by the Bush administration, the lawyers will be able to share only the barest of details of what the prisoners tell them - even with their families. Lawyer Gita Gutierrez will fly to the naval base for a meeting with Feroz Abassi and Mozzam Begg. It will be first time that the two men have spoken with anyone other than soldiers, intelligence officials and diplomats since they were imprisoned more than two-and-a-half years ago. Five other British prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay earlier this year said there was widespread abuse at the camp, similar to that perpetrated on Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib jail near Baghdad. But even if the Britons still incarcerated make similar claims, the lawyers will not be able to raise the issues. "It's the most restrictive gag order possible," said Jen Nessel, a spokeswoman for the Centre for Constitutional Rights in New York, which has been petitioning the US government on behalf of a number of prisoners. "They will not even be able to tell [Mr Begg's father] Azmat what the state of his son's health is." Louise Christian, a London-based solicitor who represents two prisoners, added: "The problem is that there are a lot of restrictions being placed on the visits. And they have still not been told what the charges against them are or why they are being held at Guantanamo Bay." Ms Gutierrez is one of three lawyers who were due to travel to the US naval base in Cuba this weekend. Brent Mickum, who was due to meet another British prisoner, Martin Mubanga, and Joe Margulies, who was to have spoken to an Australian prisoner, postponed their visits after being told by US government lawyers that if they made the trip they could not be guaranteed any further meetings with their clients. The lawyers said the decision by Department of Justice lawyers had ignored a recent ruling by the US Supreme Court which declared that the prisoners at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their imprisonment. "It is a preposterous situation. The government's behaviour is shameful," said Mr Mickum, who was also due to visit two British residents held at the prison camp, Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil al-Banna. The visit of Ms Gutierrez comes as the Pentagon last week started military tribunal proceedings against four other prisoners, including Australian David Hicks. Mr Begg and Mr Abassi are among up to 11 other prisoners who are likely to face tribunals, the first such hearings to take place since the Second World War. Mr Begg's father was in New York where he attended the US premiere of the play Guantanamo Bay: Honour Bound to Defend Freedom, in which the character of Mr Begg was played by the actor Harsh Nayyar. The play, which opened at the Tricycle Theatre in London, was written by Victoria Brittain and Gillian Slovo and received glowing reviews in many leading US papers. The play is based on the recollections and letters of several British prisoners who were or are incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay. Last March, five British prisoners were released without charge from Guantanamo. In addition to Mr Begg, Mr Abassi and Mr Mubanga, another British citizen, Richard Belmar, is being held there there. The Independent on Sunday previously revealed that Mr Mubanga had told his family about alleged physical and sexual abuse at the prison in a series of letters in which he used a mixture of London street slang, Cockney, Jamaican patois and rap lyrics in order to get his letters past the military censor. The Foreign Office has confirmed that it is investigating allegations of abuse that Mr Mubanga recently made to a British official who was visiting the prisoners. But Ms Christian said the Foreign Office was refusing to reveal the nature of the alleged abuse because it did not want to breach Mr Mubanga's data protection rights. "It's ridiculous," she said. "Why are they able to talk about some aspects of his incarceration but not the abuse?" A Foreign Office spokeswoman said that she could not provide details of Mr Mubanga's allegations in order to protect "consular confidentiality". "We only ever provide the basic facts," she said. * * * The Advertiser (Aus): August 29, 2004 HICKS' LAMENT AS HIS FATHER BLASTS DOWNER http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,10602446 ^911,00.html TERROR suspect David Hicks has told his father he is sorry for all the trouble he has caused. "He said, 'I'm sorry for all the stress and everything else I've caused the family'," his father, Terry, said yesterday. "I said, 'You don't have to apologise. We're with you and so are thousands of other people'. "This is something that happened. This could happen to anyone. It's just unfortunate it was us." Mr Hicks said he was angry at the Australian Government for claiming last week his son had not been abused by his US captors. His son had given him a detailed account of "10 hours of absolute hell" he endured following his capture in Afghanistan in December 2001. Mr Hicks and his wife, Beverly, are in Florida on their way back to Adelaide after seeing David arraigned by a military tribunal in Guantanemo Bay, Cuba, on three terror-related charges. After not seeing his 29-year-old son for five years, he met him twice last week. Mr Hicks said the worst aspect of the reunion was David's story of being abused in Afghanistan. "What he told us of his treatment on his capture is just absolutely shocking," he said. "He was stressed telling us but he wanted to get it out. It's not fit to print." Last week, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer brandished a Pentagon report saying there was no evidence Hicks and the other Australian detainee Mamdouh Habib were abused by their US captors. But Mr Hicks said David's account matched that given by three British detainees released earlier this year who said David had been beaten. David, who has been in solitary confinement for more than six months, had never read or heard the comments by the British. "Mr Downer ought to get off his a . . . and get down there and find out for himself," Mr Hicks said. He said his son told him he was taken off a prison ship back to Afghanistan. Hooded and manacled, he was beaten and abused by two Americans. "He said it was the Americans. They were definitely American accents and he endured a hell of a bloody time with that," Mr Hicks said. "He took it." Watching the proceedings this weeks convinced him the military tribunals were the "biggest load of bull . . . . out". Lawyers for Hicks and three other detainees challenged the fitness of the five commissioners as well as the fairness of the process. The presiding officer, Colonel Peter Brownback, is the only lawyer and a good friend of the Appointing Authority John Altenburg, who makes all the decisions on the fitness of commissioners and legality of the process. Of the others, three are colonels who were involved with the war in Afghanistan and one lost a friend in the September 11, 2001 attacks. One, Commissioner Colonel Thomas Bright, helped organise shipping Hicks from Afghanistan to Guantanamo. Mr Hicks wants to return for subsequent hearings, the next of which is scheduled for November 2, but said "the finances aren't real flash". "We'll work something out," he said. * * * Newsday: August 28, 2004 DON'T STOP AT RUMSFELD: BLAME FOR ABU GHRAIB GOES HIGHER Editorial http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpqabu283945107aug28,0,7477984.story Independent assessments of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib should lay to rest White House attempts to limit blame to a few bad apples on the night shift. A panel headed by former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger found the Pentagon's civilian and military command responsible for conditions that led to "egregious abuses" at the U.S.-run prison. That includes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. A separate Army investigative report said the involvement of intelligence operatives with wider latitude in interrogation techniques also contributed to abuses at Abu Ghraib. But responsibility goes farther up the line than that: All the way to President George W. Bush. "The abuses were not just the failure of some individuals to follow known standards, and they are more than the failure of a few leaders to enforce proper discipline," the Schlesinger panel said. "There is both institutional and personal responsibility at higher levels." Actually, at the highest level. Bush set the stage for abuse in February 2002 when he declared that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al-Qaida prisoners and the Taliban were unlawful combatants unqualified for prisoner of war status. When the man at the top says the rules don't apply, abusive excesses are a predictable result. Rumsfeld approved stronger interrogation techniques in December 2002 that migrated to Abu Ghraib, which was by then "seriously overcrowded and under- resourced." With 50,000 prisoners in all and 300 allegations of abuse, it's clear that most were not mistreated. But Bush's insistence that his word is law in the war on terrorists has cost the nation a big chunk of the moral high ground. * * * The Age (Melbourne) / AAP: August 28, 2004 HABIB'S US LAWYER CANCELS GUANTANAMO TRIP http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/08/28/1093518147374.html (AAP) The American civil lawyer for Sydney terrorist suspect Mamdouh Habib has cancelled a visit to his client at a US detention centre in Cuba because US authorities have not said what Habib is accused of. Joe Margulies' visit on Monday was to be the first legal access granted to Habib, who has been held at the US prison camp as a suspected terrorist since his arrest in Pakistan in 2001. The visit was ordered by the US District Court that is questioning the legality and merit of Habib's prolonged detention without charge. Habib's Australian lawyer Stephen Hopper said Mr Margulies cancelled the court- ordered visit because it would be a waste using their one allowed visit when no information had been provided. ''The Americans have refused to provide Mr Margulies with any particulars about what Mamdouh's meant to have done,'' Mr Hopper said. ''They have also told Mr Margulies that he gets one visit with Mamdouh.'' Mr Hopper said American authorities had not given Mr Margulies a deadline of when he could expect the information about what Habib was supposed to have done. But numerous requests had so far gone unanswered, he said. ''The Americans are playing hardball and they just don't want to cooperate with the court process,'' Mr Hopper said. The information the two lawyers had requested would provide an insight into what Habib was accused of and what grounds America said it had to detain him. Mr Hopper said if it was not forthcoming, the matter would return to the US District Court and further applications would be made. The cancellation comes days after US authorities knocked back a request by Mr Hopper to join Mr Margulies on the visit on the basis a US military lawyer was yet to be appointed for Habib. The Australian government had agreed to fund Mr Hopper's trip. Habib was arrested in Pakistan in October 2001 on suspicion of training with terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda. He has alleged he was taken to Egypt where he was tortured before being moved to Guantanamo Bay. He has not been charged, but has been earmarked to face a US military commission like the one hearing the case of fellow Australian terrorist suspect David Hicks. * * * Channel News Asia / AFP -- August 28, 2004 LAWYER PLEADS FOR HELP TO DEFEND AL-QAEDA ACCOUNTANT AT US TRIBUNAL http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/103583/1/.html GUANTANAMO BAY US NAVAL BASE, Cuba : A lawyer for an accused Al-Qaeda accountant from Sudan made a plea for extra help defending him against warcrimes before a US military tribunal. Military authorities announced meanwhile that another nine Al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees would soon be charged and that some major names would soon follow. The military-appointed lawyer for Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al-Qosi was the second this week to urge faster action by military authorities to provide help to defend detainees at the Guantanamo Bay US Naval Base in Cuba. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Sharon Shaffer said she had already had one official request for an assistant counsel denied since was named to defend Qosi in February. She has also had requests for access to witnesses and evidence denied. On top of seeking evidence from the US military, Shaffer also went to Sudan with just a translator to seek information. Normally such work would be done by a researcher. Qosi is charged with conspiracy to attack civilians, carry out murder and commit terrorism. According to military prosecutors, Qosi joined Al-Qaeda in 1989 and arranged for the transfer of funds for Osama bin Laden's group and was an accountant for a Sudanese front company. His next hearing was set for October 4. Shaffer had been told she would be moved from defending Qosi to become an Air Force judge and so stopped preparing the case in July. It was only two days before Friday's hearing that she was told she would be stay to help the Sudanese. She told the tribunal the "conflict" over her future was now over. "My own issues over the lack of resources to adequately prepare this case are not," she complained. Presiding judge Colonel Peter Brownback emphasized that the planned trial date of December 7 had to be conditional on Shaffer getting support. Lieutenant Commander Charlie Swift, who is defending bin Laden's personal driver, Salim Ahmad Hamdan, also complained about lack of a deputy defence counsel and a researcher when Hamdan, a Yemeni, was formally charged on Tuesday. Colonel Will Gunn, chief defence counsel at the military commissions, said he wanted two defence lawyers and a legal assistant for each defendant. Four Guantanamo detainees, also including Australian David Hicks, have this week been before military commissions that have been strongly criticized by defence lawyers and human rights activists. Eleven are close to being charged and after the hearing chief prosecutor Colonel Bob Swann said another nine cases would be declared ready for charges "in the next couple of weeks". He indicated some major names would soon be recommended for warcrimes prosecution. Swann did not give details but observers speculated that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an alleged mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington could be among them. "In the next group after that there will be names that you recognize," Swann told reporters. "The American people will recognize the names of these people." Mohammed was believed to be al-Qaeda's third in command before his capture in Pakistan in March last year. He was handed over to US authorities who have since detained him at an undisclosed location. A Defence Department spokesman said meanwhile that only a small proportion of the 585 detainees at Guantanamo would appear before the tribunals. "It is very unlikely that the majority would go to the military commissions," said spokesman Colonel David McWilliams. All of the detainees are going through review tribunals to decide if they were properly named "enemy combatants". Administrative tribunals will soon start to decide if the detainees are still a "threat" to the United States. * * * Boston Globe: August 27, 2004 GUANTANAMO COVERAGE TO BE RESTRICTED US will impose curbs on media By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/08/27/guantanamo_cove rage_to_be_restricted/ WASHINGTON -- Although the Defense Department has invited journalists and human rights observers to the terrorism trials that began this week at the Guantanamo Bay naval base, the department has also imposed a censorship policy that limits the openness of the first military commissions since World War II. Facing skepticism about whether the commissions will be just, the military has repeatedly cited the presence of observers to demonstrate a commitment to fairness. That defense was on display at a news conference yesterday, when the legal adviser to the commission's appointing authority, Brigadier General Thomas L. Hemingway, was asked about translation problems at preliminary hearings. "I think the public has been able to see that these proceedings are open, that there's transparency, that counsel on both sides are capable, and that the government is doing everything we possibly can to see that any issues with translation are properly resolved," Hemingway said.. But the military has also imposed strict limitations on how much of the proceedings the public will see or read about. Although the observers are at the base, portions of the trials are closed to them. Network cameras and news photographers are not allowed in the courtroom. A military security officer can go through photographs and footage, and can order the deletion of images deemed sensitive. Each of the observers also had to sign a five-page list of "ground rules." They agree not to publish or discuss anything mentioned in open court that the presiding officer decides should have been kept secret. The military reserves the right to seize notebooks from human rights observers. The notebook seizure policy was to have applied to reporters as well, but they strongly objected. The presiding officer compromised: Reporters would cross out such information in their own notebooks while a military press officer looks on. The penalty for failure to comply: Both the reporter and the news organization would lose access to the commissions. Colonel David McWilliams, a spokesman at Guantanamo, said the restrictions are necessary for reasons of national security. For example, he said, a witness in open court might inadvertently reveal an active intelligence source or a classified operation. "The restrictions are only those essential for force protection, information security, or operational security," McWilliams said. "I emphasize the 'essential.' We're being very careful not to throw up artificial barriers." Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said she recognized the argument that the public would know even less if journalists did not agree to abide by military conditions. Still, she criticized the arrangement of reporters allowing the military to retroactively declare off-limits information that came out in open trial as a step too far. "I'm really troubled by the notion of journalists agreeing to restrictions of this nature in exchange for access," Kirtley said. "It seems to me that this is very different from an ongoing military operation where reporting real-time information would actually endanger the mission. A trial is very different." So far, the restrictions remain largely theoretical. There have been several closed sessions this week during Defense Department questioning of commission members, and McWilliams said some network footage of a news conference was erased when officers realized that Guantanamo security badges, which are not supposed to be shown, were in view. The hearings have been about trial motions, not evidence, so there has been no use of the retroactive editing of protected information. But Kirtley said reporters should still tell viewers or readers about the restrictions in every story. "Every time a journalist makes a concession like this, it means that the public is going to get less information than they normally would," Kirtley said. Ken Hurwitz, president of Human Rights First, said that it is too early to tell whether the same policy will prevent human rights observers from doing their jobs. "Of course they're using us as window dressing," Hurwitz said. "The point is, obviously, we're doing the best we can." His group's representative, Deborah Pearlstein, said that the military officials involved in the commissions "seem to be really good, decent people, people who are trying to do the right thing," even as she criticized the "impossibly bad and flawed" system. * * * Baltimore Sun: August 24, 2004 MEMO PURPORTEDLY FORESAW IRAQ ABUSES 'Gloves are coming off' at Abu Ghraib prison By Todd Richissin and Gail Gibson, Sun Foreign Staff http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.abuse24aug24,1,4325631.story MANNHEIM, Germany - In the months before the scandal broke over photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners, an intelligence supervisor at Abu Ghraib prison sent a memo to interrogators telling them "the gloves are coming off," regarding the treatment of detainees, an attorney for one of the accused said yesterday. Paul Bergrin, an attorney for Sgt. Javal S. Davis, a onetime Morgan State student scheduled to appear in court here today, said he received a copy of the memo from "clandestine sources" in the intelligence community and planned to introduce it into evidence today. The authenticity of the memo could not be independently confirmed. The memo appears to be the first known document to support contentions by several Western Maryland-based soldiers charged in the case that members of the 372nd Military Police Company were merely following directions from intelligence officers bent on "softening up" detainees for interrogation. 'A smoking gun' The memo imploring intelligence officers and military police to gain more information supports that contention, Bergrin said. "It's a smoking gun," he said. "What this memo does is corroborate our position - which has been our position all along - that very aggressive interrogation techniques were being employed at Abu Ghraib prison and those techniques were called for at the highest levels." Bergrin, who provided the memo to The Sun, said it was not given to him by prosecutors as part of the normal process of sharing evidence with the defense, and added that he plans to raise that issue in court today. Meanwhile, one of the Maryland soldiers subsequently charged with abuse, Staff Sgt. Ivan L. "Chip" Frederick II, said in a statement yesterday that he will plead guilty to some of the charges. He is scheduled to appear in a military courtroom here today. He would be the second of seven members of the company charged in the case to admit guilt. Frederick acknowledged that what he did was wrong and asked fellow soldiers to understand that Spc. Joseph M. Darby was right to report the abuses. "I have accepted responsibility for my actions at Abu Ghraib prison. I will be pleading guilty to certain charges because I have concluded that what I did was a violation of law," Frederick said in a statement issued to the Associated Press. "I am hopeful that all those within the Army who contributed to or participated in the chaos that was Abu Ghraib will also come forward and accept responsibility. "Lastly, I am concerned for the well-being of Specialist Darby and his family. I just learned that he was placed in protective custody because of threats against him. To all who have supported me, I want you to know that I have no bad feelings toward Specialist Darby and neither should you. He did what he thought was right, and it was right. I ask you to accept that and move on." 'Willing to take licks' Frederick's uncle, William "Bill" Lawson, said his nephew decided to accept responsibility for his actions, though he will plead guilty to only some of the charges against him. Lawson did not specify which charges, nor did a statement released by Frederick's civilian attorney, Gary Myers. Frederick, 37, of Buckingham, Va., is charged with maltreating detainees, conspiracy to maltreat detainees, dereliction of duty and wrongfully committing an indecent act. "Basically, what Chip is saying is, he's willing to take responsibility for what he did, and he is willing to plead guilty to some of the charges," said Lawson, who has served as the family's spokesman since the scandal erupted four months ago. "Which is what we've said all along - that he's willing to take his licks for what he did." Frederick's court appearance today had been scheduled for pretrial motions. It was unclear whether the judge would hear his guilty plea today. Lawson said his nephew's decision to plead guilty was honorable, and that higher-ranking officers should follow Frederick's lead and admit their culpability in the scandal. "It started at the top and worked its way down from somebody, and they should come forward and admit what they did and show some honor," Lawson said. In June, a military judge in Baghdad ruled that Bergrin had the right to question top generals serving in Iraq. Bergrin said he will seek an order today allowing him to interview Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and other high-ranking members of the department. A 'wish list' The memo he provided yesterday asked for a "wish list" by Aug. 17, 2003, of "what techniques would they feel would be effective." At that time, the U.S. military was facing increasingly deadly attacks by insurgents, and the top military intelligence officer at the time, Col. Steven Boltz, made it clear that he wanted the detainees broken, according to the memo. The memo is undated but is believed to have been written last year, a few weeks before Gen. Barbara Fast was placed in charge of intelligence in Iraq, relieving Boltz. Bergrin interviewed Fast this week, he said, and she denied any knowledge of the memo. "I find that incredible," Bergrin said. "Incredible and not believable. This was a memo that directly addresses what her own intelligence officers are doing to save American lives and she knows nothing about it?" The memo was signed by Capt. William Ponce Jr., reported to be a member of the intelligence staff of Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. It was addressed to "ALCON," military parlance for "all concerned." "The gloves are coming off gentleman (sic) regarding these detainees. Col. Boltz has made it clear that we want these individuals broken," said the memo. "Casualties are mounting and we need to start gathering info to help protect our fellow soldiers from any further attacks." Efforts to locate Ponce were unsuccessful yesterday. E-mail queries sent to addresses listed under Ponce's name on the memo did not go though. Two soldiers' support Bergrin's contention has also been supported by two members of the 205th Intelligence Brigade, based in Wiesbaden, Germany. Speaking on condition that they not be identified, the soldiers told The Sun that other interrogators let military police know that they expected detainees to be "softened up" before questioning. All those concerned believed the term "softened up" to include physical abuse, the soldiers said. Last week, they said the techniques employed by military police and interrogators included threatening to house the children of detainees in the general population section of Abu Ghraib, where rapes of young men were considered common. "So a detainee's walking to the [interrogation] booth and on the way someone's holding his son and shines a flashlight on his face and says, "If you want to cooperate, he doesn't have to go to general population,'" one of the soldiers told The Sun. A further account of the role of interrogators is the subject of another army investigation, by Maj. Gen. George R. Fay, expected to be released this week. Along with Frederick, Davis was scheduled to appear during the second of two days of hearings in Germany involving four members of the 372nd. The hearings were moved to Mannheim from Baghdad for yesterday and today only, unless the judge in the case, Col. James L. Pohl, grants requests by several defendants to move the cases out of Iraq. Yesterday, Pohl denied that request by attorneys for Spc. Charles A. Graner, who while a corporal was accused of taking many of the photographs that eventually became public. Pohl said he would reconsider the request if a suitable panel - the military term for jury - could not be found in Iraq. A judge's frustration Pohl was clearly frustrated yesterday by the pace of the government's investigation into the abuses and told prosecutors that further delays could lead him to temporarily dismiss charges against at least one of the accused soldiers. He was especially critical of the Army's Criminal Investigation Division for assigning only one person to review "hundreds of thousands" of computer files - including documents and e-mail - from a secured computer server handling electronic traffic from Iraq. "It seems to me the government has to figure out what it wants to do," the judge said. "If it wants to prosecute the case, it needs to devote sufficient resources for the investigation." Otherwise, the judge said, he would "seriously reconsider" a motion by Graner's attorney, Guy Womack, to dismiss the charges at the next hearing, scheduled for Oct. 21 in Baghdad. The judge rejected a motion to disallow evidence - photographs recovered from the personal computer Graner had with him in Iraq - obtained by military investigators. Womack had argued that Graner was too tired to grant consent to search the computer and that there were irregularities on some of the legal paperwork seeking his client's permission for the search. Spc. Megan Ambuhl also appeared in court. The judge granted a request by her attorneys, Capt. Jennifer Crawford and Harvey Volzer, to dismiss two charges against her because of prosecution errors during her Article 32 hearing, the military equivalent to a grand jury proceeding. Pohl, though, declined to prevent prosecutors from bringing the charges again. Prosecutors said they would hold a new Article 32 hearing to reinstate the charges. * * * Baltimore Sun: August 24, 2004 PURPORTED ARMY MEMO ON INTELLIGENCE http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.memo24aug24,1,2791834.story Here are excerpts from the memo supplied by Paul Bergrin, attorney for Sgt. Javal S. Davis, a member of the 372nd Military Police Company charged in the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. ALCON Just wanted to make sure we are all clear on the task at hand. 1 - A list identifying individuals who we have in detention that fall under the category of "unlawful combatants": In order to properly address your request for a legal definition of the term "unlawful combatant," I must first provide you with a framework of definitions with which to work. According to the Law of Land Warfare, the term "combatant" is defined as anyone engaging in hostilities in an armed conflict on behalf of a party to the conflict. Combatants are lawful targets, unless out of combat. With that said, "lawful combatants" receive protections of the Geneva Conventions and gain combat immunity for their warlike acts, as well as become prisoners of war if captured. In comparison, "unprivileged belligerents," commonly referred to as "unlawful combatants," may be treated as criminals under the domestic law of the captor. Unprivileged belligerents may include spies, saboteurs, or civilians who are participating in the hostilities. The term "unlawful combatant" is not referenced, nor is it defined. The term that properly describes these type of individuals is "unprivileged belligerents," and as stated before they may be treated as criminals under domestic law. 2 - An additional list identifying who we have detained who are "Islamic extremist" 3 - Immediately seek input from interrogation elements (Division/Corps) concerning what their special interrogation knowledge base is and more importantly, what techniques would they feel would be effective techniques that SJA could review. (basically provide a list). Provide interrogation techniques "wish list" by 17 AUG 03. The gloves are coming off gentleman regarding these detainees. Col. Boltz has made it clear that we want these individuals broken. Casualties are mounting and we need to start gathering info to help protect our fellow soldiers from any further attacks. I thank you for your hard work and your dedication. William Ponce Jr. CPT (P), MI, USA * * * Reuters: August 24, 2004 BIN LADEN DRIVER GOES BEFORE US TRIBUNAL By Jane Sutton http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6056969 U.S. NAVAL BASE, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Reuters) - The United States convened its first war crimes tribunal since World War II on Tuesday and formally charged a Yemeni described as Osama bin Laden's driver with conspiracy to commit murder as a member of al Qaeda. Salim Ahmed Hamdan went before a controversial panel of five U.S. military officers for a pretrial hearing at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, in southeastern Cuba, where he has been held for more than two years. The United States has charged four of the 585 al Qaeda or Taliban suspects at Guantanamo with conspiracy to commit war crimes, a charge that carries a maximum penalty of life in prison. Later this week the other three may go before the military tribunals authorized by President Bush for trying foreign militants after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington in which 3,000 people were killed. Human rights groups called the tribunals flawed because there is no independent judicial review and said the rules were stacked to produce convictions. They say the process is unfair because it applies only to non-U.S. citizens. The American Bar Association said the rules were being written by Washington policymakers rather than experienced military prosecutors, and ignored the long- standing judicial code used in other U.S. military courts. "It's brand new, it's broken and it's flawed," said Neal Sonnett, who was observing the hearings for the association. The United States alleges Hamdan met bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1996 and became a personal driver and bodyguard for him and other high-ranking al Qaeda members. With close-cropped black hair and a bushy mustache, Hamdan wore an ankle-length white robe and tan suit jacket for the hearing. He was not in handcuffs nor chains. TRIBUNALS CHALLENGED The lawyer assigned by the Pentagon to defend Hamdan, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, has filed suit in U.S. federal court arguing that any trial should be held in that court rather than before a military tribunal. He planned to ask the tribunal to delay Hamdan's trial until that lawsuit is resolved. Swift also planned to ask in the hearing that the charges be dropped on grounds that the tribunal officers and rules had been improperly influenced by Bush administration officials. The military tribunals for suspects detained in the war on terror were set up under rules the Pentagon said were aimed at safeguarding information that threatens national security. Defense lawyers will be allowed to see and question secret evidence during the trials but the defendants will not. The media has been given permission to cover the hearings but under tight reporting restrictions. "Each of the accused will get a full and fair trial in a manner that is designed to protect our national security," said Lt. Susan McGarvey, a spokeswoman for the tribunal. Human rights groups are concerned over a host of issues. "U.S. nationals who may have been picked up in the same place doing the same thing are subject to a completely different system of justice," said Jumana Musa, observing the tribunals for rights group Amnesty International. The last U.S. war crimes tribunals took place in 1942, when eight Germans were captured after sneaking into New York and Florida by submarine to blow up railroads, bridges and factories. They were tried in secret by a military tribunal and six were executed. One was sentenced to life and another to 30 years in prison, but because they cooperated with prosecutors they were granted clemency six years later and deported. Hamdan was captured in November 2001 during the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and is charged with a single count of conspiring to commit murder, attacks on civilians and terrorism. According to the charges, he received arms training at an al Qaeda camp and ferried weapons and ammunition to al Qaeda members. Two other defendants, Ali Hamza Ahmed Sulayman al Bahlul of Yemen and Ibrahim Ahmed Mahmoud al Qosi, a Sudanese citizen, are accused of being bin Laden bodyguards. The third defendant is Australian David Hicks. * * * The Lancet: August 21, 2004 (Vol. 364, No. 9435) ABU GHRAIB: ITS LEGACY FOR MILITARY MEDICINE By Steven H. Miles http://www.thelancet.com/journal/journal.isa The complicity of US military medical personnel during abuses of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay is of great importance to human rights, medical ethics, and military medicine. Government documents show that the US military medical system failed to protect detainees' human rights, sometimes collaborated with interrogators or abusive guards, and failed to properly report injuries or deaths caused by beatings.1-23 An inquiry into the behaviour of medical personnel in places such as Abu Ghraib could lead to valuable reforms within military medicine. THE POLICIES As the Bush administration planned to retaliate against al-Qaeda's terrorist attacks on the USA, it was reluctant to accept that the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War would apply to al-Qaeda detainees.24 In January, 2002, a memorandum from the US Department of Justice to the Department of Defense concluded that since al-Qaeda was not a national signatory to international conventions and treaties, these obligations did not apply.4 It also concluded that the Convention did not apply to Taliban detainees because al-Qaeda's influence over Afghanistan's government meant that it could not be a party to treaties. In February, 2002, the US president signed an executive order stating that although the Geneva Conventions did not apply to al-Qaeda or Taliban detainees, "our nation . . . will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles . . . the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva."5 This phrasing subordinates US compliance to the Geneva Convention to undefined "military necessity." An August, 2002 Justice Department memorandum to the President and a March, 2003 Defense Department Working Group distinguished cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment, which could be permitted in US military detention centres, from torture, which was ordinarily banned except when the President set aside the US commitment to the Convention in exercising his discretionary war-making powers.3,7 These memoranda semantically analysed the words "harm" or "profound disruption of the personality" in legal definitions of torture without grounding the terms on references to research showing the prevalence, severity, or duration of harm from abusing detainees.25-30 Also, the memoranda do not distinguish between coercive interrogation involving soldiers from those employing medical personnel or expertise. For example, both documents excuse the use of drugs during interrogation.3,7 Neither document mentions medical ethics codes or the history of medical or psychiatric complicity with torture or inhumane treatment.25,26,31,32 In late 2002, the Secretary of Defense approved "Counter Resistance Techniques" including nudity, isolation, and exploiting fear of dogs for interrogating al- Qaeda suspects at Guantanamo.6 In April, he revised those techniques and advised those devising interrogation plans to give consideration to the view of other countries that some of the authorised techniques such as threats, insults, or intimidation violate the Geneva Convention. He added, "Nothing in this memorandum in any way restricts your existing authority to maintain good order and discipline among detainees."6 . The Interrogation Rules of Engagement posted at Abu Ghraib stated: "[Interrogation] Approaches must always be humane . . . Detainees will NEVER be touched in a malicious or unwanted manner . . . the Geneva Conven-tions apply."11 These rules were imported from the US operation in Afghanistan and echoed the 2003 memo by the Secretary of Defense. They stated: "Wounded or medically burdened detainees must be medically cleared prior to interrogation" and approved "Dietary mani-pulation (monitored by med)" for interrogation.11 Defense Department memoranda define the latter as substituting hot meals to cold field rations rather than food deprivation but there are credible reports of food deprivation.6,19,33 Although US military personnel receive at least 36 min-utes of basic training on human rights, Abu Ghraib military personnel did not receive additional human rights training and did not train civilian interrogators working there.1,15,17 Military medical personnel in charge of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan denied being trained in Army human rights policies.17 Local commanding officers were unfamiliar with the Geneva Convention or Army Regulations regarding abuses.13-15 Arab language synopses of Geneva protections were not posted in the cellblocks in Iraq and Afghanistan as required by Army regulation.2,10,13,17 THE OFFENCES Confirmed or reliably reported abuses of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan include beatings, burns, shocks, bodily suspensions, asphyxia, threats against detainees and their relatives, sexual humiliation, isolation, prolonged hooding and shackling, and exposure to heat, cold, and loud noise.1,14,19,24,33,34 These include deprivation of sleep, food, clothing, and material for personal hygiene, and denigration of Islam and forced violation of its rites.19 Detainees were forced to work in areas that were not de-mined and seriously injured.34 Abuses of women detainees are less well documented but include credible allegations of sexual humiliation and rape.13,14,35 US Army investigators concluded that Abu Ghraib's medical system for detainees was inadequately staffed and equipped.8,11,13,16,17 The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) found that the medical system failed to maintain internment cards with medical information necessary to protect the detainees' health as required by the Geneva Convention; this reportedly was due to a policy of not officially processing (ie, recording their presence in the prison) new detainees.16,34 Few units in Iraq and Afghanistan complied with the Geneva obligation to provide monthly health inspections.17 The medical system also failed to assure that prisoners could request proper medical care as required by the Geneva Convention. For example, an Abu Ghraib detainee's sworn document says that a purulent hand injury caused by torture went untreated. The individual was also told by an Iraqi physician working for the US that bleeding of his ear (from a separate beating) could not be treated in a clinic; he was treated instead in a prison hallway.20 The medical system failed to establish procedures, as called for by Article 30 of the Geneva Convention, to ensure proper treatment of prisoners with disabilities. An Abu Ghraib prisoner's deposition reports the crutch that he used because of a broken leg was taken from him and his leg was beaten as he was ordered to renounce Islam. The same detainee told a guard that the prison doctor had told him to immobilise a badly injured shoulder; the guard's response was to suspend him from the shoulder.21 The medical system collaborated with designing and implementing psychologically and physically coercive interrogations. Army officials stated that a physician and a psychiatrist helped design, approve, and monitor interrogations at Abu Ghraib.15 This echoes the Secretary of Defense's 2003 memo ordering interrogators to ensure that detainees are "medically and operationally evaluated as suitable" for interrogation plans.6 In one example of a compromised medically monitored interrogation, a detainee collapsed and was apparently unconscious after a beating, medical staff revived the detainee and left, and the abuse continued.22 There are isolated reports that medical personnel directly abused detainees. Two detainees' depositions describe an incident where a doctor allowed a medically untrained guard to suture a prisoner's lacertation from being beaten.22,23 The medical system failed to accurately report illnesses and injuries.34 Abu Ghraib authorities did not notify families of deaths, sicknesses, or transfers to medical facilities as required by the Convention.34,36 A medic inserted a intravenous catheter into the corpse of a detainee who died under torture in order to create evidence that he was alive at the hospital.37 In another case, an Iraqi man, taken into custody by US soldiers was found months later by his family in an Iraqi hospital. He was comatose, had three skull fractures, a severe thumb fracture, and burns on the bottoms of his feet. An accompanying US medical report stated that heat stroke had triggered a heart attack that put him in a coma; it did not mention the injuries.38 Death certificates of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq were falsified or their release or completion was delayed for months.24,39 Medical investigators either failed to investigate unexpected deaths of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan or performed cursory evaluations and physicians routinely attributed detainee deaths on death certificates to heart attacks, heat stroke, or natural causes without noting the unnatural aetiology of the death.40,41 In one example, soldiers tied a beaten detainee to the top of his cell door and gagged him. The death certificate indicated that he died of "natural causes . . . during his sleep." After news media coverage, the Pentagon revised the certificate to say that the death was a "homicide" caused by "blunt force injuries and asphyxia."24 In November, 2003, Iraqi Major General Mowhoush's head was pushed into a sleeping bag while interrogators sat on his chest. He died; medics could not resuscitate him, and a surgeon stated that he died of natural causes.42 6 months later, the Pentagon released a death certificate calling the death a homicide by asphyxia.42 Medical authorities allowed misleading information released by military authorities to go unchallenged for many months.24 In 2004, the US Secretary of Defense issued a stringent policy for death investigations.43 Finally, although knowledge of torture and degrading treatment was widespread at Abu Ghraib and known to medical personnel,13,41,44 there is no report before the January 2004 Army investigation of military health personnel reporting abuse, degradation, or signs of torture. THE LEGACY Pentagon officials offer many reasons for these abuses including poor training, understaffing, overcrowding of detainees and military personnel, anti-Islamic prejudice, racism, pressure to procure intelligence, a few criminally-inclined guards, the stress of war, and uncertain lengths of deployment.1,2,13,16,17 Fundamentally however, the stage for these offences was set by policies that were lax or permissive with regard to human rights abuses, and a military command that was inattentive to human rights. Legal arguments as to whether detainees were prisoners of war, soldiers, enemy combatants, terrorists, citizens of a failed state, insurgents, or criminals miss an essential point. The US has signed or enacted numerous instruments including the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights,45 the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment,46 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners,36 the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,47 and US military internment and inter-rogation policies,8-10 collectively containing mandatory and voluntary standards barring US armed forces from practicing torture or degrading treatments of all persons. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."45 The Geneva Convention states: "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction . . . The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; . . . Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment . . . No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."48 Furthermore, the US War Crimes Act says that US forces will comply with the Annex to the Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War both of which bar torture or inhumane treatment.48-50 Pentagon leaders testified that military officials did not investigate or act on reports by Amnesty International and the ICRC of abuses at Abu Ghraib and other coalition detention facilities throughout 2002 and 2003.1,24,33,34 The command at Abu Ghraib and in Iraq was inattentive to human rights organisations' and soldiers' oral and written reports of abuses.51 After the ICRC criticised the treatment of Abu Ghraib detainees, its access to detainees was curtailed.1 The role of military medicine in these abuses merits special attention because of the moral obligations of medical professionals with regard to torture and because of horror at health professionals who are silently or actively complicit with torture. Active medical complicity with torture has occurred throughout the world. Physicians collaborated with torture during Saddam Hussein's regime.52 Physicians' and nurses' professional organisations have created codes against participation in torture.25-26,31,53,54 Physicians in Chile, Egypt, Turkey and other nations have taken great personal risks to expose state-sponsored torture.25,26,55 Health professionals have created organisations including Physicians for Human Rights and Amnesty International's Health Professionals Network. Numerous non-medical groups have asserted that healers must be advocates for persons at risk of torture.25,26,31,32,56 Military personnel treating prisoners of war face a "dual loyalty conflict".57 The Geneva Convention addresses this ethical dilemma squarely: "Although [medical personnel] shall be subject to the internal discipline of the camp . . . such personnel may not be compelled to carry out any work other than that concerned with their medical . . . duties."48 By this standard, the moral advocacy of military medicine for the detainees of the war on terror broke down. If Abu Ghraib is to leave a legacy of reform, it will be important to clarify how the breakdown occurred. The emerging evidence points to policy and operational failures. High-level Defense Department policies were inattentive to human rights and to the ethical obligations of medical care for detainees.6 One policy empowered interrogators to evaluate and refuse the request of a person under interrogation for medical evaluation. Another directed clinicians to authorise and monitor interrogations which, although proposed as a safeguard, allowed medical judgment to determine the harshness of interrogation.57 It will be important to establish whether and how, senior military medical officers reviewed, challenged, or tempered those policies. At the operational level, medical personnel evaluated detainees for interrogation, and monitored coercive interrogation, allowed interrogators to use medical records to develop interrogation approaches, falsified medical records and death certificates, and failed to provide provide basic health care.58,59 Which medical professionals were responsible for this misconduct? The US Armed Forces deploy physicians, physicians' assistants, nurses, medics (with several months of training), and various command and administrative staff. International statements assert that every health-care worker has an ethical duty to oppose torture. For example, the UN Principles of Medical Ethics Relevant to the Protection of Prisoners Against Torture refers to "health personnel," "particularly physicians" but it also names physicians' assistants, paramedics, physical therapists and nurse practitioners.32 Likewise, the Geneva Convention refers to the duties of physicians, surgeons, dentists, nurses, and medical orderlies.48 Furthermore, the US Armed Forces medical services are under physician commanders and each medic, as with civilian physicians' assistants, is personally accountable to a physician. Thus, physicians are responsible for the policies of the medical system; military medical personnel are should abide by the ethics of medicine regarding torture.41 Abu Ghraib will leave a substantial legacy. Medical personnel prescribed anti- depressants to and addressed alcohol abuse and sexual misconduct in US soldiers in the psychologically destructive prison milieu.44 The reputation of military medicine, the US Armed Forces, and the USA was damaged. The eroded status of international law has increased the risk to individuals who become detainees of war since Abu Ghraib because it has decreased the credibility of international appeals on their behalf. Although the US Armed Forces' medical services are mainly staffed by humane and skilled personnel, the described offences do not merely fall short of medical ideals; some constitute grave breaches of international or US law. Various voices call for courts martial, a special prosecutor, or compensation. Such measures will be inadequate if unaccompanied by even more ardently pursued reform. Such reform must begin with a comprehensive investigation. At this time, it is not possible to know the absolute or relative prevalence of the various abuses or fully assess the performance of military medical personnel with regard to human rights abuses. Army investigations have looked at a small set of human rights abuses, but have not investigated reports from human rights organisations, nor have they focused on the role of medical personnel or examined detention centres that were not operated by the Army.13-17 Six more investigations are underway.59 The Army's Miller and Ryder Investigations remain classified.17 Several thousand pages of the Army's Taguba Investigation appendices are unavailable.13 Several secret detention centres that remain unmonitored. The US military medical services, human rights groups, legal and medical academics, and health professional associations should jointly and comprehensively review this material in light of US and international law, medical ethics, the military code of justice, military training, the system for handling reports of human rights abuses, and standards for the treatment of detainees. Reforms stemming from such an inquiry could yet create a valuable legacy from the ruins of Abu Ghraib. REFERENCES 1 Senate and House Armed Services Committee. Transcripts of Open Hearings. May 7, 11, 19, 2004. http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/iraqfront.html (accessed July 6, 2004). 2 Taguba Testimony US Senate. Transcribed by eMediaMillWorks Inc. http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/040511iraq_senate.html (accessed July 8, 2004). 3 Department of Defense. Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy and Operational Considerations. March 6, 2003. http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/home.asp (accessed June 17, 2004) 4 Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Memorandum for General Counsel Secretary of Defense. Application of Treaties and Laws to al-Qaeda and Taliban Detainees. January 9, 2002. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025040/site/newsweek (accessed June 15, 2004). 5 Bush G. Memorandum for the Vice President. Humane Treatment of al Queda and Taliban Detainees. (accessed June 24, 2004). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/020702bush.pdf 6 A set of Department of Defense Department correspondence with attachments. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dodmemos.pdf (accessed July 8, 2004). 7 Office of the Assistant Attorney General. Memorandum for Robert R Gonzales Counsel to the President. Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A. Aug 1, 2002. US Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel. (accessed June 17, 2004). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf 8 Military Police Internment/Resettlement Operations FM 3-19.40 (accessed July 4, 2004). http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-19-40/index.html 9 US Army Field Manual 1987 34-52. Chapter 1. Interrogation and the Interrogator. (accessed July 6, 2004). http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/fm34-52/chapter1.htm 10 Army Regulations. Enemy Prisoners of War, Retained Personnel, Civilian Internees and Other Detainees. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/ar190-8.pdf 11 Joint Interrogation & Debriefing Center slides. (accessed July 19, 2004). http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040709/205th_fob_slides_2.pdf 12 Proper treatment of the Iraqi people during combat operations. Brigadier General Karpinski (Abu Ghraib, January 19, 2004. (accessed July 19, 2004). http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040709/bg_karpinski_memos.pdf 13 Article 15-6 Investigation of the 800th Military Police Brigade (The Taguba Report). http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html#FRother2.19 (accessed July 21, 2004). 14 Captain Donald J. Reese's sworn statement and interview. (Appendix to Taguba investigation) http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040709/CPT_Reese.pdf (Accessed July 19, 2004). 15 Colonel Thomas M. Pappas' sworn statement and interview. (Appendix to Taguba investigation) http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040709/Pappas.pdf (accessed July 19, 2004). 16 Maj. David W. DiNenna's sworn statement and interview. (Appendix to Taguba investigation) http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040709/ss-dinenna.pdf (accessed July 19, 2004). 17 US Army Inspector General.Detainee Operations Investigation July 21, 2004 (accessed July 29, 2004). http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/armyinspector.detainee.report.pdf 18 Preferred charges against Specialist Jeremy Sivits, Corporal Charles Graner, Sergeant Javal Davis. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/prison-probe.htm (accessed July 6, 2004). 19 Sworn statements of Abu Ghraib detainees. (accessed June 29, 2004). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- srv/world/iraq/abughraib/swornstatements042104.html 20 Sworn statement of Abu Ghraib Detainee #...1430/21 Jan 04. (accessed July 8, 2004). http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/abughraib/10.pdf 21 Sworn statement of Abu Ghraib detainee Ameen Sa'eed Al-Sheikh given on January 16, 2004. (accessed July 8, 2004). http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/abughraib/151362.pdf 22 Sworn statement of Abu Ghraib detainee Shalan Said Alsharoni, Detainee #150422, 1630/17 Jan 04. (accessed July 21, 2004). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/abughraib/150422.pdf 23 Sworn statement of Abu Ghraib detainee Mustafa Jassim Mustafa, Detainee #150542, 1610/17 Jan 04. (accessed July 21, 2004). http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/world/iraq/abughraib/150542-1.pdf 24 Human Rights Watch. The Road to Abu Ghraib. June 2004. http://hrw.org/reports/2004/usa0604/ (accessed June 15, 2004). 25 British Medical Association. Medicine Betrayed. Zed Books, London, 1992. 26 Stover E, Nightingale EO (eds). The Breaking of Bodies and Minds. American Association for the Advancement of Science. WH Freeman, New York, 1985. 27 Eisenman DP, Gelberg L, Liu H, Shapiro MF. Mental health and health-related quality of life among adult Latino primary care patients living in the United States with previous exposure to political violence. JAMA 2003; 290: 627-34. [PubMed] 28 Silove D, Steel Z, McGorry P, et al. The impact of torture on post-traumatic stress symptoms in war-affected Tamil refugees and immigrants. Comp Psychiat 2002; 43: 49-55. [PubMed] 29 Moisander PA, Edston E. Torture and its sequel--a comparison between victims from six countries. Forensic Sci Intl 2003; 137: 133-40. [PubMed] 30 Shrestha NM, Sharma B, Van Ommeren M, et al. Impact of torture on refugees displaced within the developing world: symptomatology among Bhutanese refugees in Nepal. JAMA 1998; 280: 443-8. [PubMed] 31 World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo. Guidelines for Medical Doctors Concerning Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment Adopted by the 29th World Medical Assembly Tokyo, Japan, October 1975 http://www.wma.net/e/policy/c18.htm (accessed June 15, 2004). 32 United Nations General Assembly. Principles of medical ethics relevant to the protection of prisoners against torture (1983) http://www.cioms.ch/frame_1983_texts_of_guidelines.htm (accessed June 15, 2004). 33 Amnesty International. Iraq: Memorandum on Concerns relating to law and order. (undated) http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/iraq/document.do?id= BDCA0DAE195EFCA280256DF000689594 (accessed June 15, 2004). 34 International Committee of the Red Cross. Report of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the Treatment by the Coalition Forces of Prisoners of War and Other Protected Persons by the Geneva Convention in Iraq during Arrest, Internment, and Interrogation. February 2004 http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/News/International%20News/Mideast%20a nd%20N.%20Africa/Iraq%20conflict/Red%20Cross%20report.pdf (accessed June 15, 2004). 35 Harding L. Focus shifts to jail abuse of women. The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1214698,00.html May 12, 2004 (accessed July 6, 2004). 36 First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 1955. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_comp34.htm (accessed June 18, 2004). 37 Springer J. MP Captain Tells of Efforts to Hide Details of Detainee's Death. Washington Post June 25, 2004; Page A18 38 Fisher I. Searing uncertainty for Iraqis' missing loved ones. New York Times. June 1, 2004 A1,8. 39 Myers SL, Jehl D, Schimitt E, Zernike K. Military completed death certificates for 20 prisoners only after months passed. New York Times May 31, 2004. A8. 40 Harding L. How Abu Ghraib torture victim faces final indignity: an unmarked grave. June 1, 2004. The Guardian. (accessed July 21, 2004). http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1228666,00.html 41 Lifton RJ. Doctors and torture. New Engl J Med 2004; 351: 415-16. [PubMed] 42 Moffeit M. Brutal interrogation in Iraq. Denver Post. May 19, 2004 A1. 43 Rumsfeld D. Secretary of Defense Memorandum for Secretaries of the Military Departments...Procedures for the Investigations of Deaths of Detainees in the Custody of Armed Forces of the United States. June 9, 2004. http://www.npr.org/documents/2004/doddetaineedeath040609.pdf (accessed June 25, 2004). 44 John Simerman. Soldier: Leadership did little to reduce Iraqi inmate abuse. Knight Ridder Newspapers. May 10, 2004. http://www.news-leader.com/_monday/0510-FormerMPde-83639.html (accessed June 8, 2004). 45 United Nations. Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html 46 Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment 1988. http://www.unhchr.ch/ html/menu3/b/h_comp36.htm (accessed Aug 12, 2004). 47 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984). http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm (accessed July 1, 2004). 48 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 1949. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm (accessed July 1, 2004). 49 Annex to the Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land. http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/hague/hague5.html (accessed Aug 12, 2004) 50 War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C Section 2441). http://www2.uakron.edu/low/War%20Crimes%20Act%20of%201996.doc (accessed July 29, 2004). 51 Danner M. The logic of torture. New York Review of Books 2004 51:11 (June 24) 70-75. 52 Reis C, Ahmed AT, Amowitz LL, et al. Physician participation in human rights abuses in southern Iraq. JAMA 2004; 291: 1480-1486. [PubMed] 53 The Manual on Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (The Istanbul Protocol) 1999. http://www.unhcr.ch./pdf/8istprot.pdf (accessed July 22, 2004). 54 American College of Physicians. The role of the physician and the medical profession in the prevention of international torture and in the treatment of its survivors. Ann Int Med 1995; 122: 607-13. [PubMed] 55 Ahmad K. Human-rights groups express alarm at prosecution of Turkish doctors. Lancet. 2000; 355: 1167. 56 Sagan LA, Jonsen A. Medical ethics and torture. New Engl J Med 1976; 294: 1427-30. [PubMed] 57 International Dual Loyalty Working Group. Dual Loyalty & Human Rights In Health Professional Practice; Proposed Guidelines & Institutional Mechanisms http://www.phrusa.org/healthrights/dual_loyalty.html (accessed July 29, 2004). 58 Slevin P, Stephens J. Detainees' medical files shared: Guantanamo interrogators' access criticized. Washington Post June 10, 2004; Page A01. 59 Military Investigations into Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody. http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/torture/investigations.htm (accessed July 29, 2004). * * * Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot: August 20, 2004 JUDGE SETS DEADLINE FOR HAMDI TO GET DAY IN COURT By Tim Mcglone, The Virginian-Pilot http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=74552&ran=163511 NORFOLK -- A federal judge has ordered the government to bring Yaser Esam Hamdi to his courtroom on Aug. 30 unless an agreement is reached beforehand on the release of the American-born man accused of being a Taliban fighter. U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar, following the orders of the U.S. Supreme Court, has granted a hearing on Hamdi’s challenge to his nearly three-year detainment in solitary confinement. Hamdi, a 23-year-old dual citizen of the United States and Saudi Arabia, was captured on the Afghanistan battlefield and labeled an "unlawful enemy combatant" by the U.S. military. The U.S. government has accused him of fighting for the Taliban regime during the fall 2001 battle to root out Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan. He has been in U.S. military custody ever since, first at the Norfolk Naval Station brig and now at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. He had been allowed no outside visitors other than Red Cross workers until earlier this year when the government relented and allowed attorneys in to see him. No criminal or military charges have been filed against him. The Aug. 30 court hearing would be Hamdi’s first public appearance since his capture. During a conference call Thursday morning between Doumar and the attorneys involved, the judge indicated that Hamdi’s rights under the Supreme Court ruling are being violated every day he spends in jail without a court hearing. "He is not going to spend another day, another month, in jail without some sort of hearing," Doumar said, according to a transcript of the conversation. The judge said he would not tolerate any more delays. "Hamdi will be present," he said. "Period. If it’s settled before then and the matter is closed, then that’s – it closes the matter." The government has fought any attempt by Hamdi to have his day in court. Hamdi challenged his detention, first winning before Doumar in 2002 only to have that decision overturned by a federal appeals court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in late June that so-called enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detentions in court. Since that ruling, Hamdi’s attorney, federal public defender Frank W. Dunham Jr., has been negotiating Hamdi’s release with the U.S. government. The two sides, however, remain apart on several issues. The government is considering a proposal made by Dunham and Hamdi. The government planned to respond to their terms for release by Wednesday, Dunham said Thursday during the conference call. Dunham said that is cutting it close to the judge’s Aug. 30 deadline. A number of government agencies, including the White House, Pentagon, and Justice and State departments, as well as the Saudi government, must agree to the terms of the proposal. Among the items being negotiated is whether Hamdi will drop his lawsuit alleging civil rights violations, renounce his U.S. citizenship and leave the country permanently, officials involved in the negotiations said. They also said the Saudi government has agreed to take Hamdi back. Hamdi’s parents and four siblings live in the Persian Gulf coast town of Jubail. Hamdi was born in Louisiana while his father was there working for a petroleum conglomerate. The family moved back to Saudi Arabia when Yaser was 3 years old. A Pentagon spokesperson did not return a call seeking comment Thursday. Hamdi told military interrogators that he traveled to Afghanistan during his 2001 summer break from college to train with and fight for the Taliban, according to court records. His family maintains that he was on a humanitarian mission when he was captured by Taliban fighters and forced to take up arms against American and Northern Alliance forces. [ Reach Tim McGlone at 446-2343 or tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com ] * * * Hampton Roads Virginian-Pilot: August 19, 2004 UNDERDOG PUBLIC DEFENDER SCORES BIG IN HAMDI CASE by Bronwyn Lance Chester http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=74537&ran=123943 After the government’s Supreme Court fumble, the Hamdi case has finally reached the two-minute warning. And -- surprise, surprise -- Uncle Sam is punting. It may astonish Americans to learn that, after wasting thousands of taxpayer dollars fighting tooth and nail to keep U.S. citizen and "enemy combatant" Yaser Esam Hamdi locked up for three years without charges, the government is now negotiating his release. Just four short months ago, then-Deputy Solicitor General Paul Clement told the Supreme Court that Hamdi, because of his intelligence value, must be held to prevent him from "rejoining the battlefield" while America still has troops in Afghanistan. Hamdi was turned over to U.S. forces by Northern Alliance fighters, who were paid a bounty for every suspected Taliban member they handed in. But because the facts in his case are classified, his own lawyer couldn’t even detail them to the Supreme Court. Now, after the government’s stunning loss, instead of giving Hamdi the hearing mandated by the high court, it has become, in effect, the plea bargainer, negotiating "everything from the clothes he’ll wear to who’ll pay for his plane ticket" said his attorney, federal public defender Frank W. Dunham Jr. Talk about backpedaling. The Hamdi case played on many Americans’ worst suspicions of government: that powers in Washington, if given half a chance, will destroy people’s lives to prove a point. The government is cutting its losses. Its bargaining for Hamdi’s release is a commendable realization of the trouncing it received at the Supreme Court’s hands. Every American who cherishes his constitutional rights should have applauded Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion in the Hamdi matter: "A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens." Given that the suit appears to be drawing to a close, it seemed time to sit down with the unlikely underdog who threw this Hail Mary pass and ended up with a landmark-case touchdown. Dunham, the first federal public defender in the Eastern District of Virginia’s history, was busy setting up his new office when he was handed Hamdi’s case in 2002. The 61-year-old former prosecutor says, "If I’d known what it was going to be at the outset, I’d have probably left it to the ACLU or someone else because it doesn’t strictly fall within our charter." Instead, Dunham shepherded Hamdi’s case all the way to the Supreme Court, where his eloquent, impromptu and uninterrupted rebuttal -- unusual in a setting where justices like to interject -- is already the stuff of legal legend. Over a bowl of she-crab soup Tuesday in Norfolk, Dunham didn’t give specifics on conditions being negotiated for Hamdi’s release. But he hasn’t denied in other press reports whether those terms might include Hamdi’s renunciation of U.S. citizenship, his deportation to Saudi Arabia and a possible agreement not to sue Uncle Sam for violating his civil rights. Dunham -- for the record, a Republican -- speaks passionately, however, about the significance of the case that will make his client’s name a fixture in legal textbooks. "The Bush administration’s position was that international law can limit the constitutional rights of an American citizen. "When it comes to a U.S. citizen, the compact between the people and the government is the Constitution. And you can’t apply international law to lessen the rights of a U.S. citizen." When asked what he believes the impact of Hamdi’s case to be, Dunham grows introspective. He says constitutional scholars will study O’Connor’s opinion and the dissent of Justices Antonin Scalia and John Paul Stevens, who went even further, declaring that the government should charge Hamdi with a crime or let him go. Those opinions, Dunham said, give Americans "reaffirmations that we haven’t had in 200 years of who we are as citizens, and what our relationship is to our government. "That we’re not pawns to be moved around for the convenience of the greatest good. That each individual citizen has rights that can’t be taken away, no matter how convenient it may be for the vast majority of others." [ Bronwyn Lance Chester is an editorial writer for The Virginian-Pilot. Reach her at 446-2307 or e-mail her at bronwyn.chester@pilotonline.com ] * * * The New Standard: AS ‘HELP THE NEEDY’ CHARITY TRIAL NEARS, CASE FURTHER POLITICIZES by Madeleine Baran http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=846 Aug 18 - In the eighteen months since Central New York oncologist Rafil Dhafir was arrested and charged with violating the US embargo against Iraq, he has been sitting in a Syracuse jail, ignored by most of the national media, as prosecutors continue to add charges threatening him with a maximum sentence of almost 300 years in prison. Having been denied bail for a fifth time on August 16, it appears Dhafir will remain behind bars until his September 27 trial date. Now that a new motion for dismissal has attracted some attention, Dhafir’s supporters are hoping the case -- which some say is the most complicated and questionable prosecution of a Muslim charity in the post-September 11 era -- may be the last chance to see the case thrown out before it reaches trial. Federal investigators arrested Dhafir, a 56 year-old US citizen born in Iraq, in February 2003, after what they boasted was a three-year investigation into his charity, Help the Needy. Dhafir, the organization’s founder and president, says Help the Needy sent humanitarian aid to Iraq, which was under severe sanctions supported by the US government at the time. The flow of food and medical supplies was severely restricted. Prosecutors allege that Dhafir passed at least $160,000 of the money raised by his charity to friends and relatives in his home country, in violation of an act prohibiting Americans from sending money to Iraq. Humanitarian aid in other forms could be legally distributed with a license from the US government. Help the Needy, like many other Iraq charities, had no such license. Although Dhafir has not been charged with any terrorism-related crimes, politicians have continually linked his case to the government’s so-called "war on terror." However, prosecutors have not claimed that any of the Help the Needy donations funded either the Iraqi government or terrorist groups. In fact, evidence uncovered in a government investigation appears to indicate that money went toward food and other supplies for needy families. As the investigation continued, links to terrorism never materialized, but prosecutors added additional charges, including allegations that Dhafir filed a false non-profit request with the IRS, billed Medicare for chemotherapy sessions at his clinic when he was not present, and made false statements to a medical auditor. In April, prosecutors charged Dhafir with using a portion of Help the Needy money to purchase real estate in Syracuse. Judges have now denied Dhafir bail on five occasions, stating that the doctor, who has strong ties to Central New York, is a "flight risk." Dhafir has not been able to have private access to a lawyer because, he says, his Muslim faith prohibits him from consenting to the requisite strip sear. If he continues to refuse the search, he may not be able to attend his own trial. Dhafir says he is not guilty of any of the charges. Since his arrest eighteen months ago, Dhafir’s case has been an enigma. Unlike others who have violated the embargo against Iraq, including members of the peace group Voices in the Wilderness, Dhafir is facing serious prison time. And, unlike other Muslims denied bail and facing potentially even more serious charges, like Jose Padilla and Yaser Hamdi, Dhafir has attracted little widespread attention or support. Motion for Dismissal In a motion filed July 29, Dhafir’s lawyer, Deveraux Cannick, requested that all charges against Dhafir be dismissed, based on claims that the federal government targeted Dhafir for "selective prosecution." The defense alleges that other concerned American citizens who have also violated the embargo against Iraq have not been criminally prosecuted, and have instead received small civil penalties. In fact, the best-known organization providing aid to needy Iraqis, Voices in the Wilderness, has never been criminally charged, and has only received fines for its numerous -- and very public -- violations of the embargo. "Other people did the same thing and they were treated differently, to say the least," said Dhafir friend and supporter Mohamed Khater. "Did any one of them spend a day in jail? No." The motion also notes that 57 corporations have violated sanctions imposed on various countries but also received only small fines, even though some companies worked directly with the governments of the countries being punished. The motion mentions a number of corporate fines, including $50,000 for ExxonMobil’s exports to Sudan and about $14,000 for ChevronTexaco’s deals with Cuban and Iraqi officials. Such fines are common. In 1995, for example, Halliburton paid $1.2 million to the US government and $2.61 million in civil penalties for shipping oilfield equipment to Libya in violation of a US trade embargo. Rather than receiving prison sentences, corporate officials convicted of violating international sanctions -- even on a relatively massive scale -- typically receive monetary fines. The defense argues in the request for dismissal that "the government singled [Dhafir] out for prosecution because of his race, religion and cultural background." In a February interview with The NewStandard, Dhafir expressed similar sentiments. "People should realize that this is a trumped up charge," he said. "This is part of a campaign against Muslims and Arabs." Assistant US Attorney Michael Olmsted said the motion lacked merit, and noted that members of Voices in the Wilderness did not live in the same district, and therefore would not be subject to prosecution by the prosecutors handling the Dhafir case. He added that most activists tend to send supplies, not money, and that he considers sending money to be a more serious offense. "The attempt to restrain money going into Iraq is more urgent," he said. "You can’t convert a pallet of penicillin into anything else." Dhafir maintains that he only sent material aid to Iraq, never money. Insinuations of Terror Continue David Weissbrodt, former member of the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, believes the case could fit into a larger pattern of increased prosecutions for embargo violations under the Bush administration. Weissbrodt cited recent crackdowns on Muslim charities and on US citizens charged with violating the Cuba embargo as examples. "[The government] is using to the hilt every single tool," he said, "and ignoring any protections of the Constitution or international law except when they are compelled to do so." Although Dhafir has not been charged with any terrorism-related crimes, politicians have continually linked his case to the government’s so-called "war on terror." Earlier this month, in fact, New York Governor George Pataki grouped Dhafir with two Muslims in Albany charged with trying to purchase shoulder-fired missiles, and a group of Muslim men convicted for attending an Al-Qaeda training camp. "We saw with the arrest in Syracuse of money-laundering efforts to help terrorist organizations, and today we see here, again," Pataki said, "those among us who seek to help terrorists to conduct horrible acts against the people of America and against our freedom." Pataki concluded with a forward-looking public reassurance, "And we'll continue to be aggressive and proactive in going after those who would look to do us harm. In a statement emailed to Syracuse area activists, Cannick, Dhafir’s attorney, said he was "extremely disappointed" with Gov. Pataki’s comments, and added, "You would think that he or his staff would check the facts before making statements that suggest that Dr. Dhafir's case, or Dr. Dhafir himself, has any involvement with terrorism. But if trying to feed hungry people and provide aid to dying children makes him a terrorist, then so be it." Defense Strategies As the trial date nears, activists in Syracuse say they hope to attract greater public attention, arguing that, without national outcry, Dhafir will likely be convicted and spend the rest of his life in prison for charges that normally result in fines. "If we can raise the specter of what’s going on with Dr. Dhafir to a national level, I think the government will balk," said local activist Madis Senner, who runs a web site devoted to freeing Dhafir. However, he added, echoing the thoughts of many local activists, "That’s a big wish." Some local activists say they have been hampered in their efforts in part because of actions by the defense. Several activists said Cannick, Dhafir’s attorney, told them to call off a protest supporting Dhafir late last fall. Senner said Cannick told local activists, "Don’t do any rallies, letter writing, nothing." Senner commented, "I think everybody questioned that." Until this past week, Cannick also did not allow reporters to interview Dhafir. Back in February, after Cannick failed to return numerous phone calls, Dhafir’s friends arranged for this reporter to interview him. At the time, Dhafir appeared eager to tell his story and,until this month, it was the only media interview he had participated in since his arrest. For nearly a year and a half there did not appear to be any campaign by the defense to publicize the case. Since February, Cannick has not returned repeated calls for interviews with The NewStandard. However, Dhafir’s supporters say the strategy appears to be changing as the trial date approaches. "I think [Cannick’s] gotten friendlier to the media," Senner said. "We’ll get people out there raising noise and making commotion." Khater added that Cannick may have decided to change his strategy once he realized how many false allegations the government has spread about the case. Local activists are planning rallies in support of Dhafir. Senner has enlisted people who have violated the embargo against Iraq but never been jailed for it to contact US District Judge Norman Mordue and the local media with their stories. In the meantime, Khater, who visits Dhafir each week, said the doctor is "in good spirits" and remains certain that he will be vindicated. [ The website maintained for Rafil Dhafir can be found at: http://www.jubileeinitiative.org/FreeDhafir.htm Madeleine Baran's previous feature on this story: http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=165 ] * * * The Telegraph (UK): August 15, 2004 RUMSFELD ESCAPES BLAME IN 'WHITEWASH' ABU GHRAIB REPORT By Julian Coman in Washington http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/15/wrum15.xml A Pentagon report on prisoner abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison is being labelled a whitewash before it has even been released. The report is the result of the internal inquiry launched by Gen George Fay in April after the now notorious images of mistreated Iraqi prisoners were broadcast around the world. Critics are arguing that its final conclusions, some of which were leaked last week to the Baltimore Sun, amount to a deliberate cover-up to protect senior military and civilian figures in the Pentagon. Due to be published by the end of the month, the report will call for disciplinary procedures to be launched against up to two dozen military intelligence officers, all of whom arrived at Abu Ghraib last October, when the worst abuses began. But no action against senior military figures will be called for. Even more controversially, the role of the Secretary of Defence, Donald Rumsfeld, has been judged to be outside the investigation's remit, despite allegations that extreme treatment of prisoners was authorised at the highest levels. Last month, Brig-Gen Janis Karpinski, the commander formerly in charge of Abu Ghraib, alleged that Mr Rumsfeld had authorised the use of "dogs, food deprivation and sleep deprivation". "This is a whitewash - a carefully orchestrated one," said a lawyer who has liaised with military officials involved in the case. "People in the Pentagon have been coming to me in a fury because of the way this has been handled. By naming military intelligence officials as well as the seven military police who have been charged, it will look like action has been taken. But basically it's still the same storyline of just a few bad apples, way down the food chain." The decision to limit the investigation to military personnel has caused huge controversy within the Pentagon. "Some of the military lawyers are incandescent," said one Pentagon adviser. "There's been a deliberate attempt to make sure the buck stops well before it gets to the doors of the civilian hierarchy." Critics of Mr Rumsfeld allege that a high-level Pentagon decision to toughen up interrogation conditions in Iraq was taken last autumn. Senior civilians at the Department of Defence sanctioned the transfer of Major-Gen Geoffrey Miller from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, where he allegedly told senior officers that he was authorised to "Gitmo-ise" interrogation procedures. A separate Pentagon investigation into the Abu Ghraib scandal, chaired by the former CIA director James Schlesinger, is expected to criticise Mr Rumsfeld and senior aides for failing to set clear interrogation rules for Iraq. But according to the rules by which this investigation, unlike the Fay report, was set up, Mr Schlesinger's panel is not allowed to enter into "matters of personal accountability". Speaking under condition of anonymity, Pentagon officials said last week that military intelligence officials found to have orchestrated detainee abuse will face sanctions such as loss of pay and reduction in rank. The most serious misdemeanours will lead to court martial. Almost all the officials named in the report belong to the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. Its commander, Col Thomas Pappas, has already received a written reprimand for failing to ensure that the Geneva Conventions were followed. Of the seven military police already charged, Cpl Jeremy Sivits has pleaded guilty and been sentenced to a year in prison. Pte Lynndie England, who was pictured dragging a naked Iraqi man through the prison on a leash, is awaiting trial. "The handling of the Fay inquiry has been a very smooth operation," said a lawyer familiar with the report. "The focus has been kept on Iraq and on the 'grunts' in uniform." * * * The Independent (UK): August 15, 2004 GUANTANAMO BAY BRITONS TO SEE LAWYERS AFTER MORE THAN TWO YEARS WITHOUT TRIAL By Severin Carrell http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=551562 Three British men held without charge at Guantanamo Bay are to see their lawyers for the first time within days, at the start of a new legal battle to get the men released. Two American lawyers are preparing to fly to the US detention centre in Cuba to see Moazzam Begg, Feroz Abbasi and Martin Mubanga, who have been held as alleged al-Qa'ida terrorists without access to lawyers since 2002. Clive Stafford Smith, the British-born, US-based lawyer who has led the legal battle for all the British detainees, has been barred from access to Guantanamo Bay. After a year of legal wrangling, the Pentagon has refused to grant him security clearance. The two attorneys, Brent Mickum and Gitanjali Gutierrez, hope to arrive in Guantanamo Bay this week. They plan to check allegations that their clients have been tortured, deprived of humane living conditions and are suffering from severe mental problems. Last week, The Independent on Sunday revealed that Mr Mubanga, a Muslim convert arrested in Zambia in March 2002, had told his family of threatened sexual and physical abuse by guards by writing letters home in a mixture of patois and slang to escape US censors. Yesterday, Azmat Begg, the father of Moazzam Begg, from Birmingham, said British diplomats are investigating claims that his son is mentally ill after more than two years of solitary confinement at Bagram airbase, Afghanistan, and in a high- security unit, Camp Echo, at Guantanamo. Diplomats told Mr Begg last week that his son was being seen by a psychiatrist. "I want the lawyer to ask about his mental and physical health, and his well- being. I also want to know why he's being kept there and what wrong he has done," he said. The lawyers' visit follows a highly critical judgment by the US Supreme Court in June on the Pentagon's refusal to allow any of the 600 detainees in Guantanamo Bay the right to challenge their imprisonment. The Britons' lawyers have begun court proceedings to get the men the right to challenge their detention. The Pentagon reacted to the Supreme Court ruling by holding a series of secret military hearings at Guantanamo into whether the prisoners are being properly held as "enemy combatants", and can therefore be held without trial - a process dismissed as a sham by human rights groups. On Friday, the Pentagon announced that the first four men given hearings had been again classified as enemy combatants and would not be released. Of the 25 men so far given hearings, at least 11 have refused to take part. Ms Gutierrez, from a law firm in New Jersey, will represent Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi. Mr Mickum, from New York, will see Mr Mubanga as well as two detainees who have lived in the UK for years but have Iraqi and Jordanian nationality. Both lawyers are still arguing with the US Department of Justice about whether they will be allowed a private meeting with their clients, whether they can be recorded, what they can say publicly afterwards and whether the US can see their notes. The lawyer representing the fourth Briton still at Guantanamo, Richard Belmar, is yet to get clearance to fly there. Mr Begg learnt in a recent letter from his son that the camp authorities had withdrawn a guard from his son's cell because they had begun talking, and put in a CCTV camera instead. A small new window just installed in his cell - after two years without any access to natural light - was glazed with frosted glass. His son had also complained about poor food rations. * * * August 13, 2004 Lawyers for detainees seek to delay tribunals Government accused of hindering defense By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/08/13/ lawyers_for_detainees_seek_to_delay_tribunals/ WASHINGTON -- Lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees going before the first military tribunals since World War II are seeking to delay the trials, disqualify a key official, and make public as much of the evidence against their clients as possible, motions posted on a Pentagon website this week reveal. Four detainees who have each been held for more than two years since being captured in Afghanistan are set to go to trial this fall or early next year for their alleged involvement with Al Qaeda. The motions will be decided by the presiding officer, retired Army Colonel Peter Brownback III, at hearings at Guantanamo Bay the week of Aug. 23. The tribunals, which the military is calling "commissions," have drawn intense scrutiny from human rights activists. The military is seeking to try David Hicks, an Australian who joined Muslim guerrilla movements in Chechnya and Afghanistan, first. The other three defendants, all accused of being personal aides to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, will follow. A Pentagon spokesman said the military would not comment on the motions because the presiding officer had not yet ruled on them. Military defense lawyers involved could not be reached yesterday. Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute for Military Justice, said the motions show the defense lawyers are mounting an attack on the the process structure, as well as the conduct of prosecutors and the presiding officer. "This signals there is going to be skirmishing about the extent to which these proceedings can be conducted in secret and about the timeliness of the government's disclosure of evidence," Fidell said. "The defense argument obviously looks like it's going to be that 'there was foot-dragging by the government and our ability to prepare was compromised.' " For example, one defense lawyer, Navy Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift, strongly objected to a prosecutor's effort to prevent the defense from asking questions about the manner in which the detainees were interrogated. Swift is defending Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni whom the military accuses of being bin Laden's driver. The same prosecutor, Navy Commander Scott Lang, is also handling the case of Ali al Bahlul, a Yemeni who was allegedly a bodyguard for bin Laden. In that case, he asked the presiding officer to order the defense team to prevent both classified documents and those marked "For Official Use Only" from reaching the public. In another defense motion, Swift moved to disqualify the presiding officer's assistant, who is not named, for allegedly acting as an unauthorized legal adviser to the presiding officer. Swift also attacked the presiding officer's apparent intention to decide legal questions -- such as ruling on these motions -- on his own, then join the other four members of the commission to decide the facts of the case. Such a procedure, he suggested, would make him a de facto judge who then takes part in the jury deliberations, which "is not in keeping with Anglo-American notions of justice and the deliberative process." The defense motions also depict an extremely difficult work environment, marked by problems in obtaining access to evidence, clients, and translators. Those conditions make "speedier preparation impossible," one said. For example, Hicks's civilian defense counsel, Joshua Dratel, wrote that the government gave him an illegible copy of a piece of evidence. The last time he visited Guantanamo, he asked to see the original but it was lost. "During our last visit, the evidence could not be found, so I will try to accomplish the review this time," Dratel wrote. "What typically would take a few hours [in meeting with a client] requires a visit to [Guantanamo] that takes at least a few days." Navy Lieutenant Commander Philip Sundel, who is defending Bahlul, requested a delay of one trial from the prosecution's proposed start date of Nov. 8 to July 2005. "Due to government inaction in providing an interpreter, counsel have been unable to communicate with Mr. al Bahlul since mid-April," Sundel wrote, noting he had only met with his client for two days since taking the assignment. "Consequently, counsel have been unable to take even the beginning steps toward preparing the case for litigation." * * * Kansas City Star -- August 11, 2004 LAWYERS WORK TO FREE [YASER HAMDI] Sonja Barisic, The Associated Press http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/9373967.htm NORFOLK, Va. - A U.S. citizen captured on the Afghanistan battlefield might soon be allowed to walk free after three years in custody, bringing an end to one of the Bush administration's longest and hardest-fought legal battles to arise from the war on terrorism. Lawyers for the government and for Yaser Esam Hamdi informed a federal judge Wednesday they've been negotiating his release since the Supreme Court said enemy combatants could not be indefinitely detained without legal rights. In court papers filed jointly, the lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Robert G. Doumar to stay all proceedings in the case for 21 days so they can try to complete efforts to reach a mutually acceptable resolution. "The thought is, what does he need any further legal proceedings for if the government agrees to release him?" Hamdi's attorney, federal public defender Frank Dunham Jr., said in a telephone interview. Allowing Hamdi to walk free would represent a remarkable reversal of fortune for the White House, which had won its legal arguments in Hamdi's case in a lower court and had painted the Supreme Court ruling - when it first came down - as a partial victory. As the first American citizen detained as an enemy combatant, Hamdi was the test case for what the Bush administration claimed was its prerogative to hold potentially dangerous terrorists for as long as necessary without charges or trial, and without the ordinary legal rights due an American citizen accused of a crime. The legal fight over Hamdi was always about the scope of presidential power instead of the specifics of his case. Nonetheless, the administration called him a "classic battlefield detainee" captured with an automatic weapon and presumed to be a danger. Dunham said he thinks an agreement to release Hamdi is close. "I'm a fan of Yogi Berra," he added. "It's never over 'til it's over. The fact that we're talking to them and they're talking to us doesn't mean we've got an agreement." Lawrence R. Leonard, the managing assistant U.S. attorney in Norfolk, did not immediately return calls seeking comment. A Justice Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the case is pending before a court, said any prisoner of war or enemy combatant, including Hamdi, could be released when "they are determined to be of no further value and no longer a threat to the United States." Although prosecutors could bring criminal charges against some such prisoners, that decision would depend on the evidence available and whether U.S. national security interests would be best served by having the person go on trial in open court, the official said. But Michael Greenberger, who worked on counterterrorism projects in the Clinton administration's Justice Department, said letting Hamdi go now is a concession that the legal argument failed and that Hamdi himself is not a threat. "I think if you went to mat on this and made it a cause celebre, refused him access to counsel and process and ... in the next breath you hear he may be released, that's a major embarrassment to the United States," Greenberger said. The administration may also be cutting its losses, since a renewed federal court fight over Hamdi might result in another defeat for the government, Greenberger said. Hamdi remains in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. He was transferred there from the brig in Norfolk. Hamdi was born in Louisiana in 1980, while his Saudi father worked in the oil industry there. He grew up in Saudi Arabia. He was captured on the battlefield during the war with the Taliban in Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. Hamdi was sent to the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, before American authorities verified he was a U.S. citizen. The Department of Defense says 129 Guantanamo detainees have been released outright and 27 others have been released to the custody of other governments. In its June 28 ruling, the Supreme Court said the war on terrorism does not give the government a "blank check" to hold a U.S. citizen and foreign-born terror suspects in legal limbo, a forceful denunciation of Bush administration tactics since the Sept. 11 attacks. The ruling gave Hamdi the right to fight his detention in a federal court. The justices sent back to a lower court the case of another U.S. citizen in custody, Jose Padilla, the former Chicago gang member who was held as an enemy combatant amid allegations he sought to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb" in the United States. John Walker Lindh, the American-born Taliban soldier captured in Afghanistan at roughly the same time as Hamdi, was almost immediately transferred from military custody and charged in a civilian court. He received a 20-year sentence in 2002 after pleading guilty to supplying services to Afghanistan's now-defunct Taliban government and carrying explosives in commission of a felony. [ AP writer Curt Anderson in Washington contributed to this report. ] * * * August 11, 2004 US NEGOTIATING [YASER HAMDI'S] RELEASE By James Vicini http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5942680 WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration is negotiating to release from custody Yaser Esam Hamdi, whose case led to the Supreme Court ruling that Americans held in this nation as "enemy combatants" must be able to contest their detention, according to court papers filed on Wednesday. Hamdi, a U.S. citizen who was born in Louisiana and raised in Saudi Arabia, was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001 as a suspected Taliban fighter. He has been held in a U.S. military jail for more than two years. Hamdi would be sent back to Saudi Arabia when released, a Justice Department official said. In rejecting the Bush administration's arguments, the Supreme Court ruled on June 28 that Hamdi should get a fair opportunity to rebut the government's case for detaining him. It sent the case back to a federal judge in Virginia. In court papers filed with the judge, government attorneys and Hamdi's attorneys said that since the ruling they "have been engaged in negotiations to resolve this matter under terms and conditions acceptable to both parties" that would allow Hamdi's release from custody. They said they have not yet completed the negotiations. They asked the judge to put on hold all proceedings in the case for three weeks to allow the parties "to reach a mutually acceptable resolution." In the ruling, six of the nine Supreme Court justices found that U.S. citizens held in the United States as enemy combatants have the right to be represented by attorneys and the right to challenge that designation and their indefinite detention. Two justices went even further and said U.S. citizens held in the United States as enemy combatants must either be charged with a crime and tried, or released. Hamdi was born in the United States on Sept. 26, 1980, to Saudi parents. He was captured in Afghanistan in November 2001 while fighting with the Taliban, according to U.S. officials. He initially was taken to the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, where al Qaeda and Taliban suspects have been held, but he was moved to a U.S. military jail when U.S. officials discovered he had been born in Louisiana. He is being held in a military brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The Justice Department official said the United States has released other enemy combatants when they no longer are considered a threat and don't have any intelligence value. The official said Hamdi after his release would have to agree not to fight against the United States or assist those who would. * * * August 10, 2004 GUANTANAMO DETAINEE'S CASE MOVES FROM SEATTLE TO D.C. By Paul Shukovsky, Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/185528_guantanamo10.html A lawsuit asserting that the Bush administration's plan for trying suspected terrorists by military tribunals is an unconstitutional power grab was transferred yesterday from U.S. District Court in Seattle to the District of Columbia. The suit, which also directly challenges the prolonged solitary confinement of Guantanamo detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan on numerous grounds including violations of U.S. law and the international laws of war, is the first such case to reach a trial court. Documents unsealed last week include allegations from Hamdan that he was beaten and threatened with death. Navy lawyer Charles Swift, who was ordered to represent Hamdan on charges that he is an al-Qaida member, filed the suit in the Western District of Washington state because the lawyer has maintained his legal residence here since attending Seattle University law school. But U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik ruled in Seattle yesterday that he "must accept the guidance" of two higher appellate courts that "have expressed a clear preference for consolidating all Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas corpus challenges and related claims" to the District of Columbia District Court. The decision was made on procedural grounds having to do with the proper venue for cases of this type. But the subtext to the debate over location was the issue of "forum shopping," or seeking to choose a court that may handle it favorably. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is seen to be a more open forum in which to challenge the government. [ P-I reporter Paul Shukovsky can be reached at 206-448-8072 or paulshukovsky@seattlepi.com ] * * * August 10, 2004 CANADIAN HELD IN SYRIAN JAIL RETURNS HOME Detained for two years, Abdullah Almalki suddenly permitted to leave the country By Colin Freeze http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040810/ALMALKI1 0/TPNational/TopStories The latest Arab Canadian to be freed from Syria says he is "happy to be back safely in Canada" for the first time in more than two years. In an e-mail circulated to journalists, 33-year-old Abdullah Almalki said he would speak further only when he recovers "from the ordeals I have been through." The dual Syrian-Canadian citizen has been at the centre of an international intrigue spanning many years, many countries and similar detentions of other naturalized Canadians -- including Maher Arar, whose deportation from the United States to Syria is the subject of a judicial inquiry. Mr. Almalki and Mr. Arar were among several men investigated in Canada for possible links to terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. The RCMP made no arrests, but Mr. Almalki had apparently been placed on a terrorism lookout list by the time he left Canada later that fall. Mr. Almalki, a computer programmer based in Ottawa, spent several months in Malaysia before his arrest in a Damascus airport in May, 2002. He has told friends and family that in the two years that followed, the Syrians tortured him during interrogations. In the e-mail, Mr. Almalki fails to say when he returned to Canada, though some sources say he was on an Austrian flight last week. Although he makes no mention of Foreign Affairs officials who had been working on his case, he thanks the Canadian public and journalists for their interest in him. "I also would like to thank the Syrians for allowing me to return home to Canada," he wrote. Freed from prison in the spring, Mr. Almalki had been unable to leave Syria because he faced a charge that he was a security threat. He was acquitted last month only to be told that he would be conscripted into Syria's army. Canada had sent a diplomatic note asking the Syrians to reconsider drafting Mr. Almalki, but heard nothing back. "I'm pleased to see he has cleared the final hurdle," said Dan McTeague, an MP who travelled to Syria in March to push for Mr. Almalki's rights. "It's been a very terrible ordeal for him." Neither he nor Foreign Affairs officials had been told of Syria's decision to allow Mr. Almalki to return to Canada. It remains unclear just how Mr. Almalki triggered security concerns in the first place. He emigrated to Canada in his teens, and a decade ago he travelled to Pakistan, telling friends he was volunteering for a Muslim charity. At the time, however, the charity's Peshawar office was controlled by Ahmed Said Khadr, a Canadian who later emerged as a major al-Qaeda suspect before being slain by Pakistani agents last year. Another incident that may have prompted scrutiny was that a month before the 2001 attacks, a truck driver whom Mr. Almalki knew was detained by U.S. border guards, who had questions about a map showing schematics of Ottawa buildings. E-mail records since discovered show that in August, 2001, al-Qaeda leaders had asked an operative known as "Abu Bakr the Albanian" to scout out possible targets along the Canada-U.S. border. It is unclear whether this information was relevant to the case of the Kuwaiti-born truck driver, Ahmad Abou El-Maati, but Mr. El-Maati found himself under intense scrutiny after he returned to Canada and before he flew to Syria in November, 2001. He was arrested immediately. This spring, he returned to Canada to write a sworn statement, saying that the Syrians forced him to falsely confess to a bomb plot and implicate everyone he knows -- including Mr. Almalki and Mr. Arar. That information may have played a role in searches that took place in the winter of 2002, as the RCMP executed a warrant against Mr. Almalki and asked his friends and family about whether he sold electronic equipment to Pakistani military sources. But Mr. Almalki was abroad at the time and the RCMP never sought an arrest warrant against him. It was the Syrians who took him into custody as he flew into Damascus. * * * St. Paul Pioneer Press: August 8, 2004 NEW ST. THOMAS PROFESSOR HELPED WRITE DETAINEE MEMO Critics believe it led to mistreatment of prisoners By Bill Gardner, Pioneer Press http://www.twincities.com/mld/pioneerpress/living/education/9346865.htm A new University of St. Thomas Law School professor already is attracting attention as a co-author of a 2002 U.S. Department of Justice memo that concluded captured al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners are not entitled to protection of international treaties or federal laws. Robert Delahunty, who had worked for the Department of Justice since 1986, was hired by the University of St. Thomas last December and begins teaching on Aug. 16, the first day of the fall semester. He will teach torts, constitutional law and public international law. The memo, co-authored by Delahunty and another Department of Justice attorney, has been criticized by those who believe it provided the Bush administration with legal justification for mistreating prisoners and ignoring the Geneva Conventions. The other attorney, John Yoo, who recently also became a law professor, was the subject of a petition signed in May by students and other law professors at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. A recent story in the Minneapolis-based weekly City Pages noted Delahunty's connection to the memo, and the news has spread among the St. Thomas law school students and faculty, according to Tim Busse, director of external relations for the law school. "We've heard from a couple of students since then and from people in the law school community," Busse said. "A couple of people have expressed concern." Law School Dean Thomas Mengler released a written statement praising Delahunty's "long and distinguished career in three administrations as a lawyer in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel..." "I have not heard anything in the debate over the memorandum that alters my personal view that we made a very fine appointment when we hired Robert Delahunty in December," Mengler said. Efforts to reach Delahunty were unsuccessful. The New York City native holds undergraduate degrees from Columbia and Oxford universities. He earned his law degree at Harvard University. The Delahunty-Yoo memo may be the subject of more discussion when school resumes, Busse said. "I would expect we will probably hear more about it because that's what you do at a law school -- you debate things," Busse said. The school may raise the issue as part of the program, Busse said. "I won't be surprised if we somehow turn this into a teachable moment," he said. The St. Thomas law school, now in its fourth year, has 340 students and 25 faculty members. It is located in downtown Minneapolis. Bill Gardner can be reached at wgardner@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5461. * * * Seattle Times: August 6, 2004 DOCUMENTS ALLEGE US ABUSES AT GUANTANAMO BAY By Maureen O'Hagan, Seattle Times staff reporter http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001998241_guantanamo06m.html Documents containing allegations of beatings and psychological abuse of prisoners taken to Guantanamo Bay, along with a first-person account of life there, were unsealed yesterday by a federal judge in Seattle. "Despite the fact that I cooperated with the Americans," prisoner Salim Ahmed Hamdan wrote in one of the unsealed affidavits, "I was physically abused." The Defense Department said yesterday that Hamdan, one of four detainees who have been referred for trial, will face the military tribunal for the first time at the end of this month. Hamdan, a Yemeni national who says he was a driver on a farm owned by Osama bin Laden, says he did not take up arms against the U.S. He has been in what his lawyer describes as a "legal black hole" since being picked up in Afghanistan in October 2001. In June 2002, he was taken to Guantanamo, and, in July 2003, the government told him he would be tried, though he wasn't told of the charges against him -- conspiracy to attack civilians, murder by an unprivileged belligerent and terrorism -- until a year later. In December 2003, he was transferred to solitary confinement, where he's been ever since. A military defense lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, was permitted to visit him several times beginning in January, and those visits led to the first challenge to military tribunals, filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle. Swift filed in Seattle because Washington is his legal residence. The lawsuit demands that Hamdan be removed from solitary confinement and argues that his detention was unlawful, as are the rules written by the Bush administration governing military tribunals. Documents in the case were sealed. In May, a Seattle Times reporter, along with several other reporters, asked U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik to unseal them, saying the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, which had recently come to light, made it a matter of grave importance. The government took custody of the documents to determine whether they contained classified information, and, earlier this week, the Defense Department decided they could be released. In the records, Hamdan tells his story: He took a job in Jalalabad, Pakistan, as a driver for a man who turned out to be Osama bin Laden. Initially he drove farmworkers, but later drove the terrorist in -- chief, bin Laden, himself. He later was captured by Afghan soldiers and sold to the Americans. His hands and feet were bound "like an animal" with electrical wire that cut into his flesh, he wrote. He claims to have "cooperated in every way" with the Americans, pointing out places bin Laden lived and visited. Nonetheless, he said, he was kept in subfreezing temperatures, made to "sit motionless on benches with other prisoners for days" and threatened with "death, torture or prison." "When I did not know answers to the investigators' questions," he wrote, "the soldiers would strike me with their fists and kick me with their feet." He wrote that since being put into solitary confinement in December, he had "not been permitted to see the sun or talk with other people." "When I asked why I had been moved to this place, no one told me anything." His only human contact, a guard who did not speak his language, recently was replaced with a closed-circuit camera, according to the affidavits. "One month is like a year here, and I have considered pleading guilty in order to get out of here," he wrote. "I believe that I am a civilian. I have never been a member of [al-Qaida] and I am not a terrorist and I believe I should have a civilian trial, but any trial is better than what I have now." In another affidavit unsealed yesterday, Swift worried that solitary confinement is causing his client to lose his mind. He's threatened suicide and gone on a hunger strike, has bouts of "uncontrollable weeping," and grogginess that leaves him unable to concentrate, Swift wrote. Arguments in Swift's lawsuit are scheduled to be heard Sept. 8. It's unclear what effect the recent decision to bring Hamdan before a military tribunal in August might have on the lawsuit. * * * Seattle Post-Intelligencer: August 6, 2004 TERRORISM SUSPECT'S SUIT TELLS OF U.S. ABUSE Documents in Guantanamo case describe extreme isolation By Paul Shukovsky, Seattle Post-Intelligencer Reporter http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/185134_guantanamo06.html Recently declassified documents in a Seattle federal court describe the extreme isolation of an alleged al-Qaida member at a U.S. military prison that experts say constitutes torture and war crimes. The documents, unsealed yesterday at the request of the Seattle Post- Intelligencer and others, include U.S. Navy lawyer Charles Swift's firsthand observation at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison of the conditions of solitary confinement of his client, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a 34-year-old Yemeni who acknowledges chauffeuring Osama bin Laden at his Afghan farm. The court documents describing the alleged mistreatment of Hamdan are part of a lawsuit challenging his detention, the conditions of detention and his prolonged isolation in solitary confinement. The suit also directly challenges President Bush's plan to use military tribunals to try Hamdan and other alleged terrorists as an unconstitutional power grab that would fail to give him a fair trial. It is the first such case to reach a trial court and was filed in Seattle, which Swift calls home. The documents released yesterday also include a statement from Hamdan, who has been held in isolation for at least eight months. It describes in excruciating detail the mistreatment he says he has suffered at the hands of his American jailors. In 2001, as U.S. forces were fighting in Afghanistan, Hamdan says Afghan fighters captured him, hogtied him with electrical wire and sold him to American forces for $5,000. Once in U.S. custody, Hamdan maintains that American officials in Afghanistan: Beat him with fists and feet. Forced him to sit motionless on benches for days. Dressed him only in overalls in subfreezing temperatures. Showed him a gun and threaten him with death, torture and imprisonment. After six months, he was flown to Guantanamo. There, his life got worse. Hamdan told Lt. Cmdr. Swift that the eight months of solitary confinement at Guantanamo "was worse than anything he had experienced in Afghanistan ... and that he was going crazy." "I have not been permitted to see the sun or hear other people outside .... or talk with other people. I am alone except for a guard," Hamdan said last February in a court affidavit that was first sealed, then made classified in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Seattle. "One month is like a year here, and I have considered pleading guilty in order to get out of here," Hamdan said after two months in solitary. Now -- six months later -- even the guard is gone. A video camera mounted on a wall now monitors Hamdan, according to Swift's statement. Experts on torture and international law said yesterday that -- if true -- the death threats and solitary confinement described in court documents constitute war crimes, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions. They say the allegations also represent violations of the U.N. Convention Against Torture as well as U.S. law. And several international legal scholars said that criminal responsibility is not limited to those who committed the torture and can implicate the entire chain of command up to the president of the United States if they knew or should have known about the violations. Maj. Michael Shavers, a Pentagon spokesman, said yesterday: "The only thing I can give you on the record is an acknowledgment that we are aware of the documents. But we are not prepared to comment on the contents of the documents." Hamdan, after being in U.S. custody since the fall of 2001 without charges, was charged last month with conspiracy to attack civilians, to murder and to commit terrorism. He says he has never belonged to al-Qaida, was not a fighter, not a terrorist and has never taken up arms against the United States. Numerous press reports in recent months have revealed efforts within the Bush administration to develop legal theories shielding U.S. personnel from prosecution for using harsh interrogation techniques. Among them has been the hotly contested proclamation by the administration that the Geneva Conventions don't apply at Guantanamo. But several international law experts said that even if that proclamation is ultimately upheld, the alleged behavior clearly violates the International Convention Against Torture and U.S. law, which can carry penalties of up to life in prison or death for anyone in the chain of command that was involved. "The threatening with death would clearly constitute torture under the conventions," said Seattle University professor Ronald Slye. "There are cases that say solitary confinement for a long period of time can constitute torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Eight months is clearly cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment," said Slye. Before moving to Seattle, Slye worked for South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission and was associate director of the Center of International Human Rights at Yale Law School. International legal scholar Diane Marie Amann, who is on leave from the University of California-Davis to work as a visiting law professor at UCLA, said yesterday that "there is no doubt in my mind that if the allegations are true, there has been violations of U.S. law." She cited constitutional guarantees to due process of law, reasonable treatment while in custody, the War Crimes Act of 1996 and federal law codifying U.S. obligations under the anti-torture treaty. Amann noted that the legal definition of torture encompasses "severe mental or physical harm that causes chronic injury or damage." Two clinicians working with torture victims said yesterday the experiences described by Hamdan could easily create such lasting damage. "The type of torture which he describes can easily lead to long-term, psychological and physical damage including post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, increased risk of suicide and psychosis," said Dr. Miles Schuman, who has worked with the Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture documenting abuse in Central and South America and in Cambodian refugee camps in Thailand. "The threat of being killed, as well as the solitary confinement, are among the worst forms of torture in terms of the psychological impact of such human degradation," said Schuman, who was reached yesterday at a clinic for natives in the Northwest Territories. Schuman said forcing Hamdan to be immobile for prolonged periods would cause extremely painful muscle spasms. And it also would put him at greatly increased risk of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, a frequently fatal condition. Dr. Megan Berthold of the Los Angeles Program for Torture Victims said yesterday that "some people who have experienced this type of treatment will go on to have permanent psychological disorders." "People who have gone through these kind of experiences frequently experience major depressive disorders" including extreme hopelessness and an elevated risk of suicide, she said. It may already be too late for Hamdan judging by Swift's court statements, which note the prisoner has lost weight, shown marked mood swings between depression and agitation and was alternately socially withdrawn and clinging when he visited his client. [ P-I reporter Paul Shukovsky can be reached at 206-448-8072 or paulshukovsky@seattlepi.com ] * * * Los Angeles Times -- August 5, 2004 CHAPLAIN'S CASE FOCUS OF SCRUTINY BY PENTAGON * Heeding lawmakers' calls, a top official is to investigate the Muslim's treatment in Cuba. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-yee5aug05,1,5202969.story WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon's inspector general plans to investigate the treatment of a Muslim chaplain put in solitary confinement for 76 days and then cleared in an espionage probe at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a letter to lawmakers released Wednesday. House and Senate Democrats have been pushing for an investigation into the case of Capt. James Joseph Yee, who submitted his resignation to the Army on Monday. Yee was arrested last year and charged with mishandling classified material and other crimes in a suspected espionage ring at the base, but the criminal charges were later dropped. He was then reprimanded for adultery and downloading pornography, but an Army general threw out that reprimand. "We will conduct an investigation into the issues raised with respect to your correspondence," John R. Crane, an assistant inspector general, wrote in a July 29 letter to House Democrats who sought the inquiry. He wrote that because of "other ongoing and urgent matters," the probe would start in the fall. Meanwhile, three Britons freed from Guantanamo Bay claimed Wednesday that they suffered systematic brutality and were kept in cages in the sweltering Cuban heat during their detention at the U.S. military facility. In a report released by their lawyers, the men alleged that brutal treatment forced them to make false confessions. "The idea that these three people were kept in this prison, this gulag, and forced to make false confessions is amazing," Michael Ratner, head of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said at a news conference at the group's Manhattan offices. Asif Iqbal, Rhuhel Ahmed and Shafiq Rasul, friends from England, were released from the U.S. detention facility in March after being held for more than two years. They were detained in late 2001 in Afghanistan. Officials did not explain how the men wound up there. Maj. Michael Shavers, a Pentagon spokesman, said U.S. policy condemned abuse of detainees. He declined to address specific allegations of abuse or say whether any had been, or would be, investigated. * * * Los Angeles Times: HE'S IN THE RACE; HE'S JUST NOT HERE * Tom Umberg, seeking his old Assembly seat, has been called to Army Reserve duty for terrorism prosecutions. By Jean O. Pasco, Times Staff Writer http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-umberg5aug05,1,870374.story You've heard of the absentee voter? Tom Umberg will have to be the absentee candidate. Umberg is the Democratic nominee for assemblyman from Santa Ana, who held the same seat from 1990 to 1994, interspersed with stints in the Army Reserve. Now the Pentagon has ordered him to report to the office of military commissions, the unit prosecuting suspected terrorists in custody at the U.S. base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. His new job starts Sunday. In 1990, Umberg was sworn in to his Assembly seat and immediately left for a two-week tour of Army duty. The same day, his wife, Robin, who, like him, is a colonel in the Army Reserve, was activated and spent the next seven months at a military hospital in Colorado nursing soldiers wounded in the Persian Gulf War. This time, Umberg, a managing partner at the Newport Beach law firm of Morrison & Foerster, will leave behind Robin, their 15-year-old son and a campaign in which others will now walk precincts, address forums and appeal for campaign funds on his behalf. The couple also have two children in college. "I'm lucky I'm blessed with the support of family and friends," Umberg said Wednesday. "I don't think voters will hold it against me." Umberg, an assistant U.S. attorney before his first stint in Sacramento, declined to give specifics about his new assignment or how long he would be gone. Sources familiar with the deployment said it would last through the Nov. 2 election. Trials of the suspects are being held at the Guantanamo base. Surviving as an absentee candidate will be easier because Umberg previously represented the district and is known to many voters, said campaign manager Benny Enriquez. Also, Democratic voters in the 69th Assembly District, centered in Santa Ana, have a 19-percentage-point registration advantage over Republicans. Umberg's GOP rival, Santa Ana businessman Otto Bade, said he'll miss Umberg on the campaign trail. "When you're called to duty, you've got to go," said Bade, who served in the Marines during the Vietnam War. A former Army prosecutor, Umberg was an unsuccessful candidate for state attorney general in 1994. He managed President Clinton's reelection campaign in California in 1996 and served from 1997 to 2000 as an assistant drug czar for the Clinton administration. * * * August 4, 2004 GUANTANAMO PRISONERS LOSE BID TO BLOCK U.S. MILITARY HEARINGS by Jeff St.Onge http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aYkE6GgAa9VY&refer= top_world_news Aug. 4 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. judge refused to block military hearings for hundreds of terror suspects being held at a Navy base in Cuba who want their cases handled in the federal courts, a lawyer for some of the prisoners said. The Supreme Court ruled in June that prisoners held as enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts. The Defense Department then set up military hearings at the Guantanamo Bay naval base to determine whether prisoners are being rightfully held. The proceedings started last week and may take up to four months. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon in Washington yesterday rejected an emergency request by the detainees to block the military proceedings, saying the issue can resolved later in the courts, said Jeff Fogel, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. The human-rights group represents more than 50 of the 650 Guantanamo prisoners. "The judge's ruling was that all of the complaints we had about the military hearings can be dealt with later," Fogel said. "The judge said he's not rejecting our arguments." Lawyers for two Algerian detainees argued yesterday that prisoners don't have a fair chance to defend themselves, Fogel said. The cases of the two men, Lakhdar Boumediene and Mohammed Nechla, are already in federal court with a hearing scheduled next week on their right to be represented by a lawyer and under what conditions, Fogel said. Many of the 650 inmates have been held for more than two years at Guantanamo Bay, which is on Cuban soil and under U.S. control. The Supreme Court rejected the Bush administration's argument that the U.S. can hold American or foreign citizens seized after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks without a hearing. The case is: Boumediene v. Bush, case no. 04-cv-01166 in U.S. District Court in Washington. [ Jeff St.Onge: jstonge@bloomberg.net Editor Pat Oster: poster@bloomberg.net ] * * * Chicago Sun-Times / AP: August 4, 2004 GUANTANAMO TRIBUNALS GET OK TO CONTINUE By Gina Holland http://www.suntimes.com/output/iraq/cst-nws-gitmo04.html WASHINGTON (AP) -- A federal judge refused on Tuesday to stop military tribunals that will decide if the Pentagon can continue to hold hundreds of terror suspects at a Navy base in Cuba. Judge Richard Leon rejected a request from lawyers for a group of Algerian detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to halt the Combatant Status Review Tribunals that began last week. The tribunals are to determine whether the prisoners are being held properly. Human rights lawyers have argued the tribunals could hurt detainees' chances eventually to win their freedom through the filing of separate lawsuits in federal court. The military has said the tribunals will be neutral, and any detainee found to be wrongly held will be freed. They were set up after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the detainees can challenge their detention in U.S. courts. Lawyers for at least two groups of detainees have asked federal judges to intervene and stop the tribunals. Leon rebuffed government lawyers who argued that civilian courts lacked jurisdiction, and he told defense attorneys that statements the detainees make during the military hearings can be excluded from hearings they may eventually have in federal courts, lawyers Robert Kirsch and Melissa Hoffer said. In a similar request filed Monday on behalf of other detainees, lawyers argued that the military hearings are "designed to prevent this court and other district courts from conducting the . . . proceedings envisioned by the Supreme Court." "These tribunals are a sham," said Jeffrey Fogel, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents 53 of the nearly 600 prisoners at Guantanamo. * * * Seattle Post-Intelligencer: August 3, 2004 ABU GHRAIB GENERAL CLAIMS CONSPIRACY By Michael Mcdonough, Associated Press Writer http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apeurope_story.asp?category=1103& slug=Britain%20Prisoner%20Abuse%20Karpinski LONDON -- The general who headed the U.S. military prison at Abu Ghraib said in an interview broadcast Tuesday that there had been a conspiracy to prevent her knowing about prisoner abuse at the jail. Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, who was suspended by the Pentagon in May, has denied knowing about any mistreatment prisoners until photographs surfaced at the end of April. U.S. investigators have not implicated Karpinski directly in any of the abuses. Karpinski told British Broadcasting Corp. radio that she had information suggesting officials took action to keep her in the dark about the mistreatment. "I have been told there's a reliable witness who's made a statement ... indicating that not only was I not included in any of the meetings discussing interrogation operations, but specific measures were taken to ensure I would not have access to those facilities, that information or any of the details of interrogations at Abu Ghraib or anywhere else," Karpinski said. She didn't identify the witness. "Correct," Karpinski responded when asked if she thought there was a conspiracy at senior level to stop her knowing what was going on. "From what I understand ... it was people that had full knowledge of what was going on out at Abu Ghraib who knew that they had to keep Janis Karpinski from discovering any of those activities," she added. Asked whether she thought the conspiracy reached up to the Pentagon or the White House, she said: "The indication is that it may have." Karpinski also dismissed an Iraqi man's allegation in a federal lawsuit that she witnessed abuses at Abu Ghraib. In a videotaped deposition, Saddam "Sam" Saleh Aboud said he endured beatings at the prison. During one session, his hood was removed and he said he saw Karpinski. She rejected that claim. "There's no truth to his statement," Karpinski told the BBC. "There was never a time when I witnessed any abuse at Abu Ghraib or at any other facility anywhere. "I was never at a location where, if a prisoner was in a detention cell, he would have been hooded. That never took place." She added that for security reasons she had never visited Abu Ghraib after dark and that she now believed most of the abuse had occurred in the early hours of the morning. A military hearing opened Tuesday in the United States to begin gathering evidence to see if one of the soldiers in the photographs, Pfc. Lynndie England, should be court-martialed. She was photographed smiling and giving the thumbs-up sign in the presence of naked, hooded detainees. * * * Reuters: August 3, 2004 UK EX-DETAINEE SEEKS GUANTANAMO "ABUSE VIDEOS" By Andrew Cawthorne http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L03125290.htm LONDON, Aug 3 (Reuters) - Lawyers for a former British detainee alleging torture at Guantanamo Bay urged Washington on Tuesday to hand over videos they say show U.S. captors assaulting Muslim prisoners. "It is essential that the British government actually sees the videos and does not just rely on what the U.S. government tells them is in them," said lawyer Louise Christian, who is representing former inmate Tarek Dergoul. "We know these videos exist because the commander of Guantanamo Bay has confirmed this," she added. Rights campaigners fear tactics at Guantanamo Bay may have been similar to those notoriously used at the Abu Ghraib jail near Baghdad where photos and videos emerged earlier this year of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. The U.S. military denies abuse at Guantanamo. Dergoul -- one of five Britons released from the prison for terrorism suspects in March -- said he was repeatedly attacked by a punishment squad known as the Extreme Reaction Force during his 22-month detention without charge. "When the ERF were called, they were always accompanied by someone with a video camera," said the 26-year-old, who was first detained in Afghanistan. Britain's Foreign Office said it has asked Washington to confirm whether footage exists from Guantanamo and, if so, to give them access. "We don't have an answer yet," a spokesman said. Dergoul's lawyers released a statement on Tuesday detailing claims he first made soon after release. PORNOGRAPHY AND PEPPER-SPRAY Dergoul's allegations against guards include that they: * Stripped and photographed him naked. * Deliberately touched his private parts. * Put a "three-piece chain" round his limbs and waist. * Gave forcible injections and denied medical treatment. * Left him with no blankets in freezing conditions. * Threatened to send him to Morocco or Egypt for torture. * Insulted the Koran, Allah and Muslim prayers. * Showed pornographic images. * Beat him and used pepper-spray or mace. * Forcibly shaved him and deprived inmates of sleep "They put me on the floor and jumped on me. I was knocked out and lost consciousness as a result of being beaten," said Dergoul in a typical part of his lengthy testimony. His accounts echo those of two other former British inmates who wrote an open letter to President George W. Bush alleging the use of shackles, dogs and loud music to torture them. "The picture which emerges ... is one of a systematic regime of abuses directed and ordered by the top command and aimed at forcing detainees to make false statements in interrogations," Christian said. London notes that no such claims were made during eight visits to British detainees at the U.S. military base in Cuba. "That said, obviously we take all accusations of abuse seriously," added the Foreign Office spokesman. "At our request, the Americans are examining the allegations in detail and intend to respond." Britain is negotiating over the fate of four more Britons among some 600 inmates at Guantanamo suspected of fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan or supporting al Qaeda radicals. * * * San Francisco Chronicle: August 3, 2004 EXECUTIVE GRILLED ON FIRM'S ROLE IN IRAQ TORTURE by Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/08/03/ BAG5781RDQ1.DTL Sacramento -- Iraq's prison torture scandal came to California on Monday, as executives of a company tarnished in the controversy came under heavy fire from officials of the state's two largest public pension funds. State Treasurer Phil Angelides led a team of pension fund board members in questioning Kenneth Johnson, president of U.S. operations of CACI International, a defense contractor based in Arlington, Va., that saw one of its employees implicated in the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. The California Public Employees' Retirement System, with $162 billion in assets, and the California State Teachers' Retirement System, with $114 billion in assets, are the largest and third-largest public pension funds in the nation, respectively. CalPERS currently owns 209,100 shares of CACI, and the teachers' fund owns 77,882 shares of the firm -- worth a total of $11.6 million at Monday's closing stock price of $40.43. The meeting Monday at times resembled a hostile interrogation itself, as Angelides repeatedly interrupted Johnson and the company's lead attorney, William Koegel. "It seems like interrogation is a high-risk activity that is way out of your core business and has minimal return," he said. "Why are you even in it in the first place?" Johnson replied that the company's work in Iraq is highly profitable. "Iraq is a very fertile opportunity for growth," he said. CACI, which employs more than 9,000 people, reported revenues of $843 million in 2003, he pointed out, and is expected to gross about $1.5 billion in 2004 -- an increase attributed in part to large defense contracts in Iraq. In addition to providing interrogators to the U.S. military -- which accounts for less than 1 percent of the company's total revenues -- CACI furnishes a wide range of information services and analysis to help the 140, 000 American troops throughout Iraq. Business in Iraq, Johnson said, "has gone considerably better than even we had hoped for. ... We've been in the right place at the right time." Angelides shook his head and interrupted again: "No, you've been in the wrong place at the wrong time." CACI has been under the glare of unwelcome publicity because of Steven Stefanowicz, a CACI employee who was working at Abu Ghraib as an interrogator. A report by Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba found that Stefanowicz had commanded military police when torture took place and recommended that he be fired and stripped of his security clearance. But civilian contractors working abroad fall into a legal black hole and are out of reach of most forms of military and civilian justice. Johnson noted that Stefanowicz has not been charged with any crime. In contrast, seven American soldiers have been formally accused of abusing Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. One has pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year in prison and given a bad conduct discharge. The remaining six await possible legal action. Johnson said that 19 CACI interrogators were still working in Iraq, mainly at Abu Ghraib. Twelve other company interrogators, including Stefanowicz, have returned to the United States and are still working for the company, though Johnson said Stefanowicz was no longer an interrogator. Janice Hester Amey, the principal investment officer of the state teachers' retirement fund, pressed Johnson about what steps the company had taken to prevent further abuse from occurring. Johnson said that he now personally reviews and approves every hire and that all employees being sent to Iraq must undergo a one-week "charm school" run by the Army at Fort Bliss, Ga., which includes some human rights training. Also, he said, the company now requires its Iraq-bound employees to sign a form indicating they have read a company-supplied synopsis of the Geneva Conventions. Angelides said that at the next CalPERS board meeting, on Sept. 1, he might recommend that the fund sell its CACI holdings. "Either CACI needs to get out of this line of business, or our pension funds need to get out of this company," he said. Angelides is expected to be a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor in 2006, and his critics have accused him of using his position at the public pension funds to grandstand on liberal human rights issues. Timothy Quillin, a defense industry analyst at Stephens Inc. in Little Rock, Ark., noted that there was no proof of legal wrongdoing by CACI, but he said Angelides' arguments had merit from a bottom-line perspective. "The more legitimate concern is whether the outsourcing of military jobs has gone too far, whether there will be a political backlash against contractors in front-line assignments," Quillin said. "It's pretty unlikely that there will be significant growth in this type of business in the future, and it could decline." [ E-mail Robert Collier at rcollier@sfchronicle.com ] * * * Boston Globe: August 3, 2004 MUSLIM CHAPLAIN RESIGNS FROM ARMY Decries treatment in failed spy case By Charlie Savage, Globe Staff http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/08/03/ muslim_chaplain_resigns_from_army/ WASHINGTON -- The Muslim chaplain in the Army who was once accused of being a spy at the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay Navy Base submitted a letter of resignation yesterday saying that he had never received an apology for being locked up for 76 days before the case against him collapsed and that his personal belongings in Cuba were not returned. Army Captain James Yee notified his commanding officer that he will seek a discharge from the military in January, citing the espionage allegations against him that were leaked to the media in September 2003 and that "irreparably injured my personal and professional reputation and destroyed my prospects for a career in the United States Army." The letter from Yee, who has been stationed at Fort Lewis, Wash., since court- martial proceedings against him foundered earlier this year, is his first publicly available comments about his case because he is under orders not to make any speech that would be "disrespectful" toward military authorities or other officials or to criticize military policy in a "disloyal" manner. "My ability to defend myself against this pattern of unfairness has been impeded by official correspondence, the clear purpose of which is to chill the exercise of my right to free speech," Yee wrote. "I have waited for months for an apology for the treatment to which I have been subjected, but none has been forthcoming. I have been unable even to obtain my personal effects from Guantanamo Bay, despite repeated requests." There was no immediate response from the military. Yee formerly ministered to Muslim soldiers and about 650 accused members of Al Qaeda and Taliban imprisoned at Guantanamo. He was arrested on Sept. 10 at Jacksonville Naval Air Station after a customs agent, tipped off by waiting FBI and military counterintelligence officials, searched his bag. Yee allegedly had papers with information thought to be related to the prison. The military, which has never explained why it first grew suspicious of Yee, took him to a Navy brig in South Carolina, where he was locked up for 76 days -- much of it in maximum-security solitary confinement. The Washington Times broke the story of Yee's arrest in a front-page article on Sept. 20, citing an anonymous source to incorrectly report that the chaplain had been charged with "sedition, aiding the enemy, spying, espionage, and failure to obey a general order." In fact, Yee was never charged with any of those crimes. The Army accused him of mishandling classified information by taking papers home and transporting them without the proper covers. Later, allegations of adultery and downloading pornography onto his government computer were made during the investigation. Yee's lawyer, Eugene Fidell, has said that the morality charges were a face- saving gesture by military officials after they were unable to prove their national security case against Yee. Early this year, the then-Guantanamo commander, Major General Geoffrey Miller, downgraded the case to administrative proceedings and dropped the charges relating to classified materials. The military never said what the evidence taken from Yee at the time of his arrest showed. In March, Miller found Yee guilty of adultery and accessing porn on his government computer and ordered him punished by placing a letter of reprimand in his permanent file. A higher general later set that reprimand aside. In a related development, the Center for Constitutional Rights, which in June won a Supreme Court decision opening the doors of US courts to Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detention without trial, asked a judge yesterday for an order preventing the military from holding a combatant status review tribunal for three of its clients -- all British citizens -- until those detainees meet with their lawyers. The tribunals, which began last week in response to the Supreme Court decision, are the first judicial-like proceedings the detainees have had in the more than two years they have been held without charges. The tribunals allow detainees to challenge their individual designation as "enemy combatants" before a military panel with the help of a military official who is not a lawyer. Also yesterday, the Pentagon announced that it had transferred five Moroccan detainees to the control of their home government, reducing the total number of detainees left at Guantanamo to about 585. The military said the transfer had been arranged prior to the commencement of the combatant status review tribunals. * * * Seattle Times: August 3, 2004 MUSLIM CHAPLAIN JAMES YEE TO LEAVE ARMY By Ray Rivera, Seattle Times staff reporter http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001995341_yee03m.html Muslim chaplain James Yee yesterday said he will resign from the Army in January, ending a once-promising military career that was shattered when he was accused of espionage while ministering to Islamic prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. "In 2003, I was unfairly accused of grave offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and unjustifiably placed in solitary confinement for 76 days," Yee wrote in his resignation letter. "Those unfounded allegations -- which were leaked to the media -- irreparably injured my personal and professional reputation and destroyed my prospects for a career in the United States Army." The bitterly worded letter, released to the media by his civilian lawyer, was the first time Yee has been publicly critical of the Army over his treatment. He was returned to his home base at Fort Lewis after charges were dropped earlier this year and ordered not to say anything negative about the Army. Those orders, he wrote, have hurt his ability to defend himself and had the "clear purpose of which is to chill the exercises of my right to free speech." Yee, 36, declined interview requests through his lawyer yesterday. A West Point graduate and Army captain, Yee ministered to Muslim soldiers and prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, where the military is holding suspected Islamic terrorists. He was arrested in September carrying what authorities said were classified documents. He spent the next 76 days in a naval brig while investigators tried to link him to a possible Muslim spy ring at the prison camp. In the end, spying charges were never filed, and in March the Army dropped lesser charges of mishandling classified information and lying to investigators. A month later, an Army general overturned a noncriminal adultery and pornography reprimand, the only remaining blemish on Yee's record. Just two days before his arrest, Yee had received the highest-possible performance rating from his Guantanamo commanders. The Sept. 8 review, obtained by The Seattle Times, cited Yee's work developing religious support and funeral and burial procedures for prisoners. He also was lauded for representing the prison camp in media interviews and for conducting religious- and cultural-awareness briefings for commanders and soldiers. His efforts "were instrumental in making this detainee operation successful," wrote his senior rater, who was not named. "Yee is an asset to the army and should be promoted at the first opportunity." But after returning to Fort Lewis, he received a negative review, said his father, Joseph Yee. "How can they give him a bad evaluation when he's been in limbo for eight months?" the elder Yee said by phone from his home in Springfield, N.J. "He wasn't assigned to do anything." "It shows he'll never be promoted, so what's the sense of staying?" added his mother, Fong Yee. Yee's parents said he loved the military before his arrest. He chose West Point partly because he wanted to save money for his parents, who were putting other kids through college. He also loved the discipline and order he saw during a visit to the military campus. "He wanted to let things settle down and stay in the Army," Joseph Yee said. "He loved that job." Yee, who lives with his wife and daughter in Olympia, has made several public appearances since his arrest, including some at fund-raisers to help cover his legal bills. But in each of those appearances he has held his comments to thanking supporters and affirming his faith. "I thank everyone for their patience, and God willing, they'll be able to hear my story," Yee said at a fund-raiser in New York in June. In yesterday's letter, Yee said he has waited months for an apology from the Army but none has come. He also said he has yet to receive his personal effects from Guantanamo, which the Army has held since his arrest. U.S. Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, as well as a handful of House members, including Adam Smith, D-Tacoma, have asked the Pentagon to investigate the handling of Yee's case. So far, the Pentagon's only response has been to acknowledge that the requests have been received. Military officials did not return phone calls yesterday seeking comment. [ Ray Rivera: 206-464-2926 or rayrivera@seattletimes.com ] * * * NEWSWEEK: August 9, 2004 issue A BATTLE OVER BLAME Rumsfeld may be rebuked by his own commission investigating prison abuse By Michael Hirsh and John Barry http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5569687/site/newsweek/ James Schlesinger has always been a hawk. But in four decades of public life, the square-jawed former professor has also been known as mulishly independent, whether as Defense and Energy secretary or CIA director. (President Gerald Ford, annoyed by Schlesinger's arrogance, fired him.) All of which could add up to an unpleasant surprise for another old Washington lion who is not renowned for his humility: Donald Rumsfeld. In mid-August, the commission that Schlesinger chairs -- handpicked by Rumsfeld from members of his own Defense Policy Board -- is expected to issue its final report on abuses by U.S. interrogators stemming from the Abu Ghraib Prison scandal. NEWSWEEK has learned the Schlesinger panel is leaning toward the view that failures of command and control at the Pentagon helped create the climate in which the abuses occurred. The four-member commission's report is still being drafted and its final conclusions are not yet definite. But there is strong sentiment to assign some responsibility up the line to senior civilian officials at the Pentagon, including Rumsfeld, several sources close to the discussions say. The Defense secretary is expected to be criticized, either explicitly or implicitly, for failing to provide adequate numbers of properly trained troops for detaining and interrogating captives in Afghanistan and Iraq. His office may also be rebuked for not setting clear interrogation rules and for neglecting to see that guidelines were followed. The commissioners "are taking an unvarnished look at the issue as a whole," said a source close to the commission. "A more extensive look than some people had initially thought they might take." "Some people" includes Rumsfeld himself. The Defense secretary's original charter for the commission asked only for the Schlesinger team's "professional advice" and obliquely urged them to steer clear of "issues of personal accountability," which Rumsfeld said "will be resolved through established military justice and administrative procedures." (After Schlesinger argued about the charter language, Rumsfeld allowed that "any information you may develop will be welcome.") Rumsfeld also indicated that he expected members to spend most of their 45-day inquiry reviewing the findings of the other "procedures." These include five ongoing inquiries into abuses, none of which is designed to probe responsibility beyond the uniformed ranks. But the commission quickly struck out on its own, recruiting 20 investigators and sending them as far afield as Afghanistan and Iraq. They also reinterviewed most of the principal players in the abuse scandal -- including the commanders at Abu Ghraib, senior Pentagon civilians and Rumsfeld -- and obtained classified material that even the Senate Armed Services Committee hasn't yet seen. Pentagon spokesman Joseph Yoswa said he had no comment on the forthcoming report. As Schlesinger and his team rush to complete their draft report by Friday -- the final version is expected Aug. 18 -- participants say there's been a good amount of contention over how high to go and how tough to be. The central "philosophical debate," sources say, turns on whether Al Qaeda poses such a new challenge that the old rules of detention and interrogation are no longer adequate, or whether America should stick to its tradi -- tions and treaty obligations, even against an adversary that respects neither. Despite Schlesinger's willingness to criticize, to go "where the facts and information take them," as one source said, he tends to take the hawkish, this-is-a-new-war side. Arrayed with him is said to be commission director James Blackwell, a civilian contractor. On the traditionalist, Geneva side of the debate are former Defense secretary Harold Brown, a Democrat, and retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner. At one point, Schlesinger argued that Geneva Conventions did not apply to Afghanistan because the Taliban were not "reciprocating." He backed off when Brown countered that U.S. legal and moral standards conform to Geneva in any case. Rumsfeld has been widely criticized for paring down the occupation force for Iraq. Until now, however, that criticism has rarely extended to the prison-abuse issue. But some commissioners believe that the 800th Military Police Brigade, which ran the Iraqi prison system, was badly overstretched and not trained well for detention duty. Previously, the brigade's 372nd MP Company -- the main culprit in the Abu Ghraib abuses -- had served as traffic cops. Some on the commission also believe that Rumsfeld and senior officials failed early on to set up clear, baseline rules for interrogations -- an ethical "stop" sign, in a sense. This opened the way to abuse in an atmosphere in which President George W. Bush and senior officials were demanding that interrogators obtain better intel and were openly questioning the Geneva Conventions. The lack of direction from the top created confusion at Abu Ghraib and other prisons, according to testimony heard by the Schlesinger commission. Documents indicate that interrogation officials often undercut or ignored Army Field Manual 34-52, the standard doctrine setting interrogation guidelines in conformance with Geneva. One example is a classified assessment of Army detention operations in Iraq done in the late summer of 2003 -- a copy of which was obtained by NEWSWEEK. While the author, the then Gitmo commander Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, refers at one point to "providing a humane environment," he does not mention Geneva protections or the field manual when he recommends that MPs "set conditions" for "successful exploitation of the internees." The Schlesinger commission report is one of several slated for completion in the doldrums of mid-August, when few people are paying attention. But the report won't be the final word on abuse. The Senate Armed Services Committee will likely hold hearings in the fall, despite administra- tion pressure on the chairman, Sen. John Warner, to wrap his investigation up quickly. And those hearings -- with help from the Schlesinger team -- could well determine how history will view Rumsfeld's tenure. * * * August 1, 2004 OFFICER WAS AT CROSSROADS OF ABU GHRAIB COMMAND * Capt. Carolyn A. Wood received and distributed data on interrogations. Investigators hope she can help untangle events behind the abuse. By David Zucchino and Greg Miller, Times Staff Writers http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na- wood1aug01,1,2360805.story FT. BRAGG, N.C. -- As investigations into the abuse of prisoners at U.S. detention centers in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on, one indication of the ambiguity surrounding the issue is that an obscure captain in Army intelligence has become a potentially pivotal figure even though she's not accused of wrongdoing. The officer, Capt. Carolyn A. Wood, created a widely discussed PowerPoint chart at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison that spelled out what kinds of interrogation tactics were permitted under Army rules and what methods required special approval. But what is expected to make Wood, 34, a crucial witness for investigators is that her unique assignment at the sprawling facility last year put her, in the words of one colleague, "at the narrow center of the hourglass, receiving information from above and from below" in the prison chain of command. As a result, Wood may shed light on central questions in the wide-ranging inquiry: Did the decisions of senior commanders who wanted to increase the flow of intelligence from detainees play a role in the abuses? What interrogation techniques were approved? And who was responsible for ensuring that soldiers at military prisons followed the rules? Last month, a report by the Army inspector-general documented almost 100 cases of detainee abuse and wrongful death in U.S. detention facilities but called them "aberrations" committed by a few inadequately supervised troops. The report was met with skepticism by senators who didn't think it delved deeply enough. Wood began her career as a 20-year-old private, had no direct role in interrogating detainees, according to friends and colleagues. But her administrative job as reports officer put her in a unique position to monitor and shepherd the transmission of intelligence at the interrogation center. Sitting at a makeshift desk in a dilapidated building on the prison grounds, Wood was a conduit for day-to-day information collection, sending and receiving e-mail on a laptop computer. Friends and colleagues say she oversaw the production and distribution of intelligence reports from interrogations. "She would disseminate information, taking it from lower levels and then sending it up the chain of command, and then back down," said a friend of the captain's who was familiar with prison operations. Wood's chart, which was posted inside the prison, listed approved interrogation techniques from an Army field manual in one column and more coercive methods requiring commanders' approval in the second column. It became a sort of icon of the Abu Ghraib scandal. The appearance of Wood's chart, titled "Interrogation Rules of Engagement," during a Senate hearing May 19 seemed to surprise Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, then the top U.S. commander in Iraq. He testified that he had never seen the chart, hadn't approved it and had no idea who had created it. Wood apparently prepared the chart on her own initiative in late summer 2003, when there were no clear written guidelines beyond the standard Army field manual. The Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at Abu Ghraib, where Wood was the reports officer in charge, was not formally established until Sept. 20. The chart was posted in the interrogation center before Sanchez issued his first written regulations. Sanchez and other senior commanders have debated senators over whether Wood's compilation was approved by superiors and whether it contradicted Sanchez's rules. There is no direct evidence that Wood, who left Iraq in February and was stationed at Ft. Bragg until May, was involved in or condoned abuses. In fact, her preparation of the chart suggests that she understood the disjointed state of command at Abu Ghraib, which Sanchez has called "dysfunctional." The prison had one military police officer for every 8 1/2 detainees, compared with one MP per two detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Wood brought to Abu Ghraib a background as an intelligence officer at Bagram air base in Afghanistan, where interrogation techniques generally are harsher than those used in Iraq. That experience, coupled with her central role in Abu Ghraib and her training in "tactical exploitation" of intelligence, have made Wood an important source of information for investigators. Friends and colleagues, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the Army has ordered soldiers not to discuss her, described Wood as an efficient workaholic who had a knack for organization and neatness. "She's the type of person who would take it upon herself to try to organize a confusing situation by putting together that chart the way she did," a friend said. An interrogator who worked with Wood in Afghanistan said she provided file boxes for her colleagues to reduce office clutter. "She was very organizational," he said. "She got tired of people's stuff all over the place." These colleagues said Wood would not have tolerated the abuses documented in photographs taken at Tier 1A of Abu Ghraib. One interrogator said she sometimes argued the cases of detainees at Bagram who were considered for transfer to Guantanamo, where conditions are more severe. "I think she's a quality person. Sharp. Just a straight-line officer," he added. "I don't think she would have approved of anything like [the abuse] unless somebody above her told her it was going to happen that way." That characterization is challenged by the reported allegations of a military lawyer for one of seven members of the 372nd Military Police Company facing criminal charges over events at Abu Ghraib. At a hearing in Baghdad in April, the lawyer, Capt. Robert Shuck, said Wood was "involved in intensive interrogations of detainees, condoned some of the activities and stressed that that was standard procedure, what the accused [MP] was doing," the Washington Post reported in May, quoting from a transcript of the proceeding. In addition, investigators are conducting a criminal inquiry into the deaths of two detainees who were under the control of the unit Wood served with in Afghanistan in December 2002. One friend of Wood's said she had been questioned as part of the ongoing investigation headed by Lt. Gen. Anthony R. Jones, who was examining the role of military intelligence specialists at Abu Ghraib. The friend said Wood felt she was not sufficiently supported by commanders at the Senate hearings. Army spokesmen at the Pentagon, at Ft. Bragg and in Baghdad have refused to provide details about Wood or her role at Abu Ghraib. They have not allowed her photograph to be released. They said only that Wood had served as a military intelligence operations officer at the Bagram Collection Point in Afghanistan and was assigned to the 519th Military Intelligence Battalion at Abu Ghraib. Wood has declined interview requests. She was transferred to the 519th from a military intelligence unit in Tikrit, in northern Iraq, because the 519th was understaffed, a friend said. She reported to Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade. The head of the interrogation center, Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan, also reported to Pappas. Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, who conducted an earlier investigation of the prison, wrote that Pappas and Jordan were "directly or indirectly responsible" for detainee abuses because they failed to properly train or supervise soldiers under their command. Taguba also cited abuses by members of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center and the 205th brigade but did not name anyone pending the completion of Jones' investigation into "the extent of culpability of MI personnel." Wood was not mentioned among those interviewed by Taguba. Wood's position at the prison was elevated Nov. 19, when Sanchez gave Pappas and his military intelligence brigade "tactical control" of the prison for base protection and detainee security. A military police commander previously had been in charge of tactical control. Col. Marc Warren, the top Army lawyer in Iraq, who said he had spoken to Wood, told a Senate hearing in May that Wood prepared the chart "with all good intentions" but because it displayed the logo of Sanchez's command, it left the false impression that it had been approved by senior commanders. Warren added that the chart "was intended to be a prophylaxis -- there's really nothing insidious." Wood's role at Abu Ghraib does not seem to have imperiled her Army career. She is a Bronze Star recipient who served in Bosnia and earned a college degree while in the service. She made the leap from enlisted person to officer by completing the Army's demanding officer candidate school in 1999. In May, Wood attended a captain's course at the Command and General Staff College at Ft. Leavenworth, Kan., a base spokeswoman said. The course is required for promotion. Wood is currently training at the Army's military intelligence school at Ft. Huachuca, Ariz., a base spokeswoman said. At the Senate hearing, Sanchez was asked how a junior commander such as Wood could prepare such a specific list of regulations without consulting with senior commanders for approval. "Sir, it's difficult for me to understand it," the general replied. "You'd have to ask the commander." * * * The Independent (UK) -- August 1, 2004 FOREIGN OFFICE INVESTIGATES CLAIMS OF ABUSE OF BRITONS AT CAMP DELTA By Severin Carrell http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=546803 Allegations that US soldiers assaulted and abused British detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are being investigated by Foreign Office ministers, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. The Foreign Office has written to the Pentagon after the five Britons who were released from Camp Delta in March after more than two years in detention alleged they were kicked, punched and stood on by guards, interrogated at gunpoint, and taunted by naked female soldiers. Tarek Dergoul, an ex-detainee from east London whose left forearm and a toe were amputated by US forces in Afghanistan, told The Independent on Sunday that his head was forcibly shaved and that he was "beaten up and sprayed with Mace, and lacked medication". Ministers have asked the US authorities to locate videos which the ex-detainees say were filmed when they were being assaulted by the so-called Immediate Reaction Force - a feared unit of riot control guards allegedly used as a "punishment squad". In early July, British diplomats made further formal complaints about the ill- treatment of two Britons, Feroz Abbasi and Moazzam Begg, who are in solitary confinement in a special secure unit at the base and thought to be suffering from mental illnesses. These moves will add to the growing strain between London and Washington over the controversial detention camp after it emerged that Tony Blair has "unequivocally" demanded that Mr Begg, Mr Abbasi and two other Britons, Richard Belmar and Martin Mubanga, are released. The Prime Minister and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, say they believe that US plans to try Mr Begg and Mr Abbasi before military tribunals are illegal and breach basic rights to a fair trial. In late June, the US Supreme Court ruled that all 600 or so inmates at Camp Delta could challenge their detention without trial in US district courts. The Pentagon yesterday began holding hearings to determine whether any of the detainees can be released. The first military trials of alleged terrorists will begin on 23 August. The Government's new inquiries were highlighted in a letter to the lawyer for two of the former detainees, Louise Christian, last week from the Foreign Office minister Baroness Symons. She echoed earlier remarks by another minister, Chris Mullin, that the Government took the allegations about abuse seriously. * * * * * * * * *