THE WASHINGTON POST -- 2003

post_digest_2003.txt

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

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


December 31, 2003; Page A01

ASHCROFT RECUSES SELF FROM LEAK CASE
U.S. Attorney To Oversee Probe

By Dan Eggen and Mike Allen, Washington Post Staff Writers

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42104-2003Dec30.html

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft recused himself yesterday from a politically
charged investigation into the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity, and
his deputy announced the appointment of a special prosecutor in the case.

The probe into the disclosure of Valerie Plame's CIA affiliation to a newspaper
columnist will be overseen by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald of Chicago,
who will act as a de facto attorney general on the case and will not be required
to consult Ashcroft or other senior Justice Department officials while
conducting the investigation, officials said.

Ashcroft's decision came abruptly after months of complaints from Democrats that
the former Missouri senator's close ties to senior White House aides should
disqualify him from overseeing the investigation, which has included FBI
interviews of presidential adviser Karl Rove and other senior White House aides.

Justice Department officials declined to elaborate yesterday on what
specifically prompted the change in course, and Ashcroft made no public
comments.

Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey Jr., who announced the decisions at a
news conference, said: "The issue surrounding the attorney general's recusal is
not one of actual conflict of interest that arises normally when someone has a
financial interest or something. The issue that he was concerned about was one
of appearance. . . . That's the reason he decided, really in an abundance of
caution, that he ought to step aside."

Comey also said: "It's fair to say that an accumulation of facts throughout the
course of the investigation over the last several months has led us to this
point." But he said officials could not provide details because "we don't want
people that we might be interested in to know that we're interested in them. We
also don't want to smear somebody who might be innocent and might not be
charged."

It was Comey's decision to name a Justice Department official to lead the
investigation rather than have an independent special counsel as many Democrats
had demanded. He said Fitzgerald will operate more quickly and have fewer
restrictions on his investigation than an outside prosecutor would.

Several outside legal experts said the decision signals that investigators may
be narrowing their focus to one or more likely suspects, and that some of those
people may have ties to Ashcroft. Officials said the recusal order applies to
Ashcroft and his entire personal staff, which includes a number of longtime
political aides from his days as a Republican senator.

"It is a reasonable surmise that they may be honing in on someone who is in a
position connected with the administration itself, rather than a career civil
servant," said Floyd Abrams, a New York media lawyer who has represented
journalists in leak cases. "A political appointee, rather than a career civil
servant, would be more likely to lead to consideration of a recusal."

The recusal marks the latest twist in the ongoing saga of Plame, whose identity
as a CIA officer was disclosed by unidentified senior administration officials
to columnist Robert Novak, who published her name on July 14. Willful disclosure
of such information is a felony.

Plame is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a prominent critic of
the Bush administration's Iraq policies who concluded during a 2002 mission to
Africa that there was little evidence that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium
there. Wilson has said he believes his wife's identity was disclosed in
retaliation for his public discussions of those findings.

In an interview yesterday, Wilson said that Ashcroft made the right decision to
recuse himself. "You want an outcome that cannot be challenged or cannot be
subject to the perception or accusation that there was a potential conflict of
interest," he said.

Several leading Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle
(D-S.D.), offered measured praise for the decision to name a special prosecutor,
although most said it came too late in the three-month-old investigation. Sen.
John F. Kerry (Mass.), a presidential candidate, assailed Ashcroft for "foot-
dragging" and said that choosing a U.S. attorney to conduct the probe amounted
to "a half-measure" that is "nowhere near good enough to restore public
confidence."

Comey said that he and Ashcroft discussed the need for a recusal in the Plame
case during the past week. Comey also said Fitzgerald, who is a close friend and
former colleague, will enjoy greater independence than an outside special
counsel, who would have been required to seek approvals from senior Justice
Department officials on matters including media subpoenas and grants of
immunity.

Fitzgerald will not have to do so, Comey said, and will be free to choose his
own team of investigators or continue with those already in place. The Plame
investigation has been led by career counterespionage prosecutor John Dion and
has included a team of 12 FBI agents. Officials recently added a fourth
prosecutor to the case, and the FBI has told people who have been interviewed
that they may soon be called to testify before a grand jury.

Comey said his mandate to Fitzgerald was simple: "Follow the facts, wherever
they lead, and do the right thing at all times,"

As U.S. attorney in Chicago, Fitzgerald has overseen the investigation of former
Illinois governor George H. Ryan, who was indicted this month by a federal grand
jury on charges of racketeering, mail and tax fraud, and lying to law
enforcement officials. He previously spent 13 years as a prosecutor in the
Southern District of New York, where he helped lead the prosecution of the 1998
U.S. embassy bombings and other terrorism cases. Comey described him as "Eliot
Ness with a Harvard law degree and a sense of humor."

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago said Fitzgerald was not
granting interviews yesterday.

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said Bush, who is spending the week at his
Texas ranch, was informed of the decision by his staff about an hour before
Comey's appearance. "The White House was not consulted on the decision," he
said, adding that the Justice Department notified the White House "as a
courtesy." Comey said attorneys at the State Department, the Pentagon and the
CIA were also notified.

Republican legal sources who have discussed the case with the White House and
the Justice Department said the announcement will have the effect of providing
political cover for the administration if no indictment is issued. One of these
sources added that administration officials had expressed a desire to
"depoliticize" the issue before the presidential campaign begins in earnest.

[ Allen reported from Crawford, Tex. ]

* * *


Wednesday, December 31, 2003; Page A02

TRIBUNALS' REVIEW PANEL PICKED
Former Attorney General Bell Among 4 Named

By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer

The Pentagon announced yesterday the last major steps in creating a military
court system to try suspected terrorists, including approximately 600 detainees
held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Defense officials said they have appointed four civilian lawyers to serve on a
review panel that will hear appeals of decisions made by military tribunals, or
commissions, as U.S. officials call them. They are Griffin B. Bell, who was
attorney general during the Carter administration; former transportation
secretary William T. Coleman Jr.; Frank J. Williams, chief justice of the Rhode
Island Supreme Court; and Edward G. Biester Jr., a former Pennsylvania attorney
general and member of Congress who is a judge in the Court of Common Pleas in
Bucks County, Pa.

One or two more people might be named to the panel, a Pentagon official said.
Appeals of tribunal cases will be automatic, with each ruling to be reviewed by
three members drawn from the appeals panel.

"I suspect from your point of view, from the media point of view, the next major
step would indeed be charging" some of those who have been detained, said a
senior defense official who briefed reporters on the condition that his name not
be used.

The members of the new review panel will be commissioned as major generals in
the Army for the duration of their two-year terms, the Pentagon official said.
He said he is not aware whether there is any precedent for that action.

"The reason . . . that we have made them military officers is that the military
commission process is designed to be within the military," the Pentagon official
said. There was no review panel or system of appeals for the commissions created
during World War II, the last time the U.S. government had military tribunals,
he said.

Eugene Fidell, a Washington lawyer specializing in military law, said he found
it "odd" that the Pentagon found it necessary to make generals of several
prominent civilian lawyers. "The fact that they're drafting civilians and
camouflaging them as military casts a shadow of doubt over the proposition," he
said.

A second Pentagon official contended that the overall process provides more
rights to defendants than did the World War II system. He cited, among other
things, the right to call witnesses and to conduct cross-examinations, as well
as the presumption of innocence.

"If you look at our rules and procedures, they are designed, you know, to
provide the full and fair trial of the individual," he said. "So there are a
number of procedures here that I think comport with what we consider to be
appropriate judicial processes today. . . . Some of these were not present in
the World War II proceedings."

David Sheldon, a military lawyer in Washington, sharply disagreed with that
characterization. He said the creation of an appeals mechanism is just "window
dressing" on a fundamentally flawed process.

"If the trial itself isn't conducted in accordance with the rules that govern
court-martials, how can the process be fair?" he asked.

In addition, the Pentagon said retired Army Maj. Gen. John D. Altenburg Jr., a
former military lawyer, will succeed Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz
as the overall supervisor of the tribunal process, and that Air Force Brig. Gen.
Thomas L. Hemingway, another lawyer, has been brought out of retirement to be
Altenburg's legal adviser.

* * *


December 26, 2003; Page A01

LEAKS PROBE IS GATHERING MOMENTUM

By Mike Allen and Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writers

The Justice Department has added a fourth prosecutor to the team investigating
the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity, while the FBI has said a grand
jury may be called to take testimony from administration officials, sources
close to the case said.

Administration and CIA officials said they have seen signs in the past few weeks
that the investigation continues intensively behind closed doors, even though
little about the investigation has been publicly said or seen for months.

According to administration officials and people familiar with some of the
interviews, FBI agents apparently started their White House questioning with top
figures -- including President Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove -- and then
worked down to more junior officials. The agents appear to have a great deal of
information and have constructed detailed chronologies of various officials'
possible tie to the leak, people familiar with the questioning said.

The Justice Department has added a prosecutor specializing in counter-
intelligence, joining two other counter-intelligence prosecutors and one from
Justice's Public Integrity section.

Agents investigating the matter have been increasingly apparent at CIA
headquarters in Langley over the past three weeks, officials said. "They are
still active," a senior official said.

But sources said the CIA believes that people in the administration continue to
release classified information to damage the figures at the center of the
controversy, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, Valerie Plame,
who was exposed as a CIA officer by unidentified senior administration officials
for a July 14 column by Robert D. Novak.

Wilson, a prominent critic of the administration over Iraq, has said that was
done to retaliate against him for continuing to publicize his conclusion, after
a 2002 mission for the CIA, that there was little evidence Iraq had sought
uranium in Africa to develop nuclear weapons.

Sources said the CIA is angry about the circulation of a still-classified
document to conservative news outlets suggesting Plame had a role in arranging
her husband's trip to Africa for the CIA. The document, written by a State
Department official who works for its Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR),
describes a meeting at the CIA where the Niger trip by Wilson was discussed,
said a senior administration official who has seen it.

CIA officials have challenged the accuracy of the INR document, the official
said, because the agency officer identified as talking about Plame's alleged
role in arranging Wilson's trip could not have attended the meeting.

"It has been circulated around," one official said. CIA and State Department
officials have refused to discuss the document.

On Oct. 28, Talon News, a news company tied to a group called GOP USA, posted on
the Internet an interview with Wilson in which the Talon News questioner asks:
"An internal government memo prepared by U.S. intelligence personnel details a
meeting in early 2002 where your wife, a member of the agency for clandestine
service working on Iraqi weapons issues, suggested that you could be sent to
investigate the reports. Do you dispute that?"

On Monday, the Senate minority leader and the ranking Democrat on the Armed
Services Committee sent a letter to Attorney General John D. Ashcroft demanding
more information about the probe. "We request that you provide us with an
overall status of the investigation, including the number of people the Justice
Department has interviewed, the number of briefings you have received, the
general types of information you are briefed on, what conditions you have placed
on the scope of these briefings to ensure the independence of this
investigation, and whether you have discussed this case with senior
administration officials outside the Justice Department," wrote the senators,
Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Carl M. Levin (Mich.).

The senators said that it is an apparent conflict of interest for Ashcroft to be
briefed on the subject, and again requested a special counsel to prosecute the
case, which Ashcroft has so far opposed.

FBI agents have told people they have interviewed that they may be asked to
testify before a grand jury, according to sources close to the case. That could
indicate that prosecutors believe they have a case, or it could be a routine
method of getting testimony on the record even though no indictment is ever
sought.

White House officials profess to be unconcerned about the outcome of the
investigation. Some administration officials said they believe charges will
eventually result, although it could be as long from now as 2005. A Republican
legal source who has had detailed conversations about the matter with White
House officials said he "doesn't get any sense at all that they're worried or
concerned, or that they're covering up."

Still, the White House is eager for the findings to emerge soon, or wait until
after the November election. "The only fear I've heard expressed is that the
investigation will be too slow or too fast and will kick into a visible mode in
a way that is poorly timed for the election," the Republican said. "If they
prosecuted someone tomorrow, I don't think the White House would care. And they
can do it in December 2004. They just don't want it to become an issue in the
election."

FBI agents showed up unannounced last week at the home of a private citizen who
was believed to have some knowledge of White House handling of Plame's identity,
according to a source involved in the investigation. The source refused to
identify the person who was interviewed, but said it was a man who had only
peripheral knowledge of the case and had discussed it with officials in the
White House.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is also preparing a report that is
likely to cover both Wilson's mission to Niger and the subsequent leak of
Plame's name. The report is still months from completion, officials said.

Capitol Hill aides in both parties said Wilson had badly hurt his credibility
with his apparently enthusiastic participation in a spread in the January issue
of Vanity Fair that includes a glamorous photo of him and his wife outside the
White House, a scarf and dark glasses shielding her. In another photo in the
magazine, she shields her face with the front section of The Washington Post as
he eats breakfast barefoot on their deck with the Washington Monument in the
distance.

Wilson is quoted as saying he is "appalled at the apparent nonchalance shown by
the president of the United States on this." The article includes Wilson's
steamy account of his early romance with Plame. Congressional aides said the
article bolstered the contention of Wilson's critics that no one had done more
than him to draw attention to Plame, and that the couple had eagerly contributed
to their celebrity.

Wilson, in an interview, defended his participation in the glossy magazine's
article. "The Republicans are going to say anything to deflect attention from
the crime, which was exposing a CIA operative," he said, adding that his wife's
"cover was completely blown" before the article appeared.

"My only regret about the Vanity Fair photo is that after all my wife and I have
been through on this, that she had to be clothed as generic blonde in order to
deal with the genuine concern that some wacko on the street might easily
identify her," he said. "It was just in the interest of personal security."

Staff writers Walter Pincus and Susan Schmidt contributed to this report.

* * *


December 23, 2003; Page C01

HOLDING THEIR GROUND

As Critics Zero In, Paul Wolfowitz Is Unflinching On Iraq Policy

By Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post Staff Writer

In late September, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz appeared in
Manhattan at an event sponsored by the New Yorker magazine. As he began to
speak, he was interrupted by shouts of "War criminal!" and "Murderer!"

"I can't resist," he said evenly, surveying the audience. "This is what is
wonderful about this country. It is -- "

Another shout: "Shame on you."

Wolfowitz drove on: " -- and what is finally wonderful is 50 million, roughly 50
million Afghans and Iraqis, are finally able to speak this way without having
their tongues cut out."

A few minutes later, a young man ran to the base of the stage, jabbed a finger
at Wolfowitz and shouted: "You should be tried for treason, you Nazi!"

If Wolfowitz was jarred by the attack, he showed no sign of it. Rather, he
looked a bit distant as he coolly responded: "Frankly, my own reading of history
is that exactly this kind of tactic is what the Nazis did and what the
totalitarians did in trying to stop people from listening and talking."

Saddam Hussein, he went on to say, was a malevolent dictator who clearly needed
to be removed for the good of both the American and the Iraqi peoples. "I think
anyone with the slightest bit of moral sense understood what an evil man Saddam
was and how much better off the world would be with him gone." Later in the same
session, he added, "To me, it's almost beyond argument."

No deputy secretary of defense has ever held the prominence that Wolfowitz has
had over the last two years. He is widely seen inside the Pentagon as the most
likely replacement if Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld steps down.

And no figure in the administration, with the possible exception of Vice
President Cheney, is as closely identified with the drive to invade Iraq and
depose Hussein. "This is Wolfowitz's baby," said one person who has served as a
senior official of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-led occupation
power in Iraq. "He feels responsible for it."

To understand Paul Wolfowitz and the policies he advocates, notes a friend and
former colleague, it is important to understand that Wolfowitz believes there is
real evil in the world, and that he is confronting it. The lesson that Wolfowitz
took away from the Cold War, says Eliot Cohen, who knew him at Johns Hopkins
University, where Wolfowitz was a dean before moving to the Pentagon, is "that
the world really is a dangerous place, and that you have to do something about
it."

Paired with that is his belief that the United States can best respond to
totalitarianism by emphasizing freedom and democracy. Wolfowitz possesses "a
basic optimism about the potential of human beings for moderation and self-
governance, and a belief in the universal appeal of liberty," Cohen says.

That combination of a hardheaded view of some men with an idealistic faith in
mankind, Cohen concludes, adds up to "a distinctively American take on the
world."

So when Wolfowitz talks with great intensity about Iraq, it isn't just because
his political future and his place in history are likely to be determined by the
course of events there. He sees the U.S. invasion as part of a larger campaign
against terrorism, and that post-Sept. 11, 2001, fight as the third great
American struggle against totalitarianism, the new century's successor to the
great fights against Nazism and Soviet communism. A recent conversation with him
in his Pentagon office skipped among those three eras, moving from the Holocaust
to the crimes of Hussein to the Cold War's Cuban missile crisis.

"The differences are as great as the similarities" in those three struggles, he
says. But there is a basic similarity in that "we're dealing with a fundamental
existential threat to our way of life, to our values."

The main parallel, he says, is "not so much in the nature of the enemy we're
confronting as in the nature of the challenge it presents to us. That is, it
really does require mobilization of a major effort on our part. It requires
contemplating a long-term struggle."

This isn't just theorizing. Wolfowitz's own life runs through all three of those
confrontations.

Though he didn't say so that day in New York when he was accused of being a
Nazi, he lost most of his extended family in the Holocaust, with his line
surviving because his father had emigrated from Poland in 1920 as a child.

Wolfowitz, who just turned 60, shies away from discussing his family's losses.
Asked about it, his response is seemingly off point. "The event that happened in
my college years that had the biggest single impression on me, even more than
Kennedy's assassination, was the Cuban missile crisis" -- that is, the prospect
of nuclear holocaust. Pressed, he says, "It was a fairly poor family in Poland."
Does he know how many relatives were lost, and where? "I really don't," he says.

Some observers of Wolfowitz speculate that one lesson he took from the Holocaust
is that the American people need to be pushed to do the right thing, because by
the time they entered World War II, it was too late for millions of Jews and
other victims of the Nazis.

Asked about this, Wolfowitz agrees but expands on the thought -- and connects it
to Iraq. "I think the world in general has a tendency to say, if somebody evil
like Saddam is killing his own people, 'That's too bad, but that's really not my
business.' " That's dangerous, he continued, because Hussein was "in a class
with very few others -- Stalin, Hitler, Kim Jong Il. . . . People of that order
of evil . . . tend not to keep evil at home, they tend to export it in various
ways and eventually it bites us."

During the concluding phases of the Cold War with the Soviet Union, under
Presidents Carter, Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Wolfowitz served in a series of
posts at the State Department and the Defense Department.

"We learned in the last century that democracies cannot live peacefully and
undisturbed in a world where evil people control whole nations and seek to
expand their bloody rule," he said in a speech last month. "We may have
forgotten that lesson in the euphoria over the end of the Cold War." But, he
added, we were reminded of that harsh lesson by Sept. 11.

Middle East Goals

Wolfowitz has been in the limelight in recent weeks because it was his signature
on a controversial Pentagon document that barred companies from Russia, Canada,
France and Germany from bidding on prime contracts for postwar reconstruction in
Iraq. In the interview, he expresses some puzzlement about the splash that move
made. "Why it struck people as news was a little bit of a mystery," he says. It
was the right policy, he continues, and it wasn't intended to punish any
countries but rather to reward more than just American companies. "By the way,
it wasn't my decision," he adds, though he says he agrees with it. "This was an
administration decision. . . . I was simply signing the implementing
instruction."

The contract action does fit into his view of the Cold War. One of the lessons
of that conflict, he wrote in an essay three years ago, was the necessity of
"demonstrating that your friends will be protected and taken care of, that your
enemies will be punished, and that those who refuse to support you will live to
regret having done so."

That calculating approach surprises some who see him as an idealistic academic.
Indeed, he is a second-generation Ivy League intellectual, a former Yale
political scientist who is the son of a Cornell mathematician.

"Wolfowitz comes across as smart, likable, well-meaning and deep," Wesleyan
University Professor Phyllis Rose wrote with a touch of puzzlement in a recent
issue of the American Scholar, the journal of the Phi Beta Kappa Society.

He can also mystify some of his colleagues in government. "A lot of us know him
and like him as a person, but some of the policies he advocates are very
difficult to understand or deal with," said a senior State Department official
who had worked with Wolfowitz. "He's a man full of contradictions."

But to Wolfowitz, there is no contradiction between calculated policies and
idealistic goals. Rather, he contends, they can reinforce each other. Indeed,
Wolfowitz is most confrontational when he is most idealistic.

Nowhere is that more evident than in his advocacy of transforming the politics
of the Middle East, a policy that frequently is attacked as unrealistically
idealistic. As he put it to the Jerusalem Post earlier this year, "The idea that
we could live with another 20 years of stagnation in the Middle East that breeds
this radicalism and breeds terrorism is, I think, just unacceptable."

Pentagon insiders say this vision of a democratic transformation of the troubled
region is probably the biggest single area of discrepancy in policy views
between Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, who is said to doubt that such a sweeping change
is possible. Asked whether there is daylight between him and his boss on this
issue, Wolfowitz said, "Democracy in the Middle East is the president's policy,
and we both support it enthusiastically."

Some see Wolfowitz's views on the Middle East as dangerously naive. "Wolfowitz
doesn't know much about the business he's in," says retired Marine Gen. Joseph
Hoar, a former chief of the Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for
the region. "He knows very little about war fighting. And he knows very little
about the Middle East, aside from maybe Israel."

Likewise, the latest issue of Parameters, the official journal of the U.S. Army
War College, carried some tart commentary aimed at Wolfowitz and his colleagues.
Jeffrey Record, a former staffer for the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote
that "the Bush Administration, and more specifically the civilian leadership of
the Pentagon, made faulty assumptions about postwar Iraq and failed to plan
properly for Iraq's reconstruction." He particularly faulted "the 'liberation'
scenario peddled by the Defense Department's neoconservative naifs."

Wolfowitz responds, "I think I know a lot about Islam, as a whole, and I know a
lot about the Middle East. I've been following it for a very long time." He also
notes that the experts frequently have been wrong about whether one Arab state
would attack another, as Iraq did to Kuwait in 1990, or what the reaction of the
"Arab street" would be to the U.S. invasion of Iraq this year.

But to Wolfowitz, trying to change the Middle East is far from unrealistic.
Rather, it is using universal ideals to achieve the practical end of curtailing
terrorism. Just as much of East Asia democratized in the 1980s and 1990s, so too
is there a chance that the Middle East could change radically. "It could," he
says. "And it's certainly worth a try."

"Change has to start someplace," he says. "The status quo . . . produced [Osama]
bin Laden and produced thousands of people eager to kill themselves in order to
kill Americans."

Intellectual Combatant

Another charge, sometimes muttered in the military, is that Wolfowitz and his
hawkish colleagues would act differently if they had ever been in combat.
Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, for example, says that if Wolfowitz and
others in the administration -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their advisers -- had
experienced combat as young men, they might have thought longer about invading
and occupying Iraq. "I think it would have changed them," says Zinni, one of the
more prominent critics of Bush administration policy in Iraq. "I just wish
somebody in that chain of command would have seen combat at that time." He
believes this is a moral issue. "They were my contemporaries. They should have
been there, and they found a way not to serve. And where are their kids? Are
their kids serving? My son is in the Marines."

Wolfowitz responds calmly to this charge. He notes that he has visited soldiers
badly wounded in Iraq. "I am not at all unmindful of what it means to send
American kids into combat," he says. "I go up to Walter Reed enough to see some
of the consequences."

And he is careful not to be dismissive of his critics. "I think that those
people who have experienced war have an even deeper distaste for it. And that is
something I have a lot of respect for and a lot of time for."

But there are other considerations that must be kept in mind. And that takes him
back to the Nazis. "Certainly the failure to confront Hitler was largely from
fear of what the consequences would be, and that led to much greater
consequences."

Wolfowitz has shown physical courage on his two trips to Iraq, not only coming
under rocket attack in his hotel in October, but also walking some streets and
mixing with crowds.

But the specialty he has chosen is intellectual combat. In the campaign against
terrorism, he said in a speech last month, "there is definitely an element of it
that is in the realm of the battle of ideas, not just the battle of guns and
bullets."

And so he charges into the fray. Appearing at Georgetown University in October,
he stood on a stage and listened as a student denounced him. "I think I speak
for many of us here when I say that your policies are deplorable," she said,
standing at a floor microphone. "They're responsible for the deaths of
innocents" -- here a wave of applause -- "and the disintegration of civil
liberties."

When she finished, Wolfowitz calmly responded: "I have to infer from that you
would be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power." Here others in the
audience cheered and clapped even louder. It was like watching a Parris Island
drill instructor drop a recruit with a flick of his wrist.

[ Staff researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this article. ]

* * *


December 21, 2003; Page B06

Editorial
FAIRNESS FOR DETAINEES

THE MILITARY has held Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen, for 18 months without
charge, without access to a lawyer and without any ability to address the
allegations against him. It has also refused to create an open and fair process
for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Instead, it has asked for limitless
deference from the courts: It's none of any judge's business what the military
does at Guantanamo, the administration has maintained, nor should judges look
behind the government's allegations that an American citizen like Mr. Padilla is
an enemy combatant who can be detained indefinitely. No surprise, then, that
federal courts of appeals are beginning to lose patience. On Thursday, two such
courts pushed back hard: The 9th Circuit in California declared that it had
jurisdiction over lawsuits by Guantanamo detainees, and the 2nd Circuit in New
York declared that President Bush cannot detain Mr. Padilla as an enemy fighter.

Both courts are correct that the current situation is untenable. Unfortunately,
both also overreached in their understandable desire to rein in the executive
branch. The administration's failure to create a meaningful and open process for
detainees at Guantanamo is lamentable. It has skirted international law,
violated norms of fairness and compromised U.S. standing to comment on human
rights in other nations. That doesn't mean, however, that U.S. courts have
authority over foreigners held outside the United States, as the 9th Circuit
decision suggests. In any event, the Supreme Court is already hearing the exact
question the court decided, so the 9th Circuit decision has little practical
import.

The Padilla decision, by contrast, matters enormously. Again, the court was
right to be offended by the current state of affairs, but the 2-to-1 majority in
this case also went too far. Civil libertarians were quick to cheer the ruling.
But their victory could well prove Pyrrhic.

The government believes Mr. Padilla was plotting a "dirty bomb" attack on behalf
of al Qaeda when he was arrested by civilian authorities in Chicago last year.
Before his case could wend its way through the courts in the normal fashion, Mr.
Bush designated him an "enemy combatant" and he was whisked to a military brig.
A trial court judge rightly ruled that this was unacceptable -- that any
American citizen must be given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the
allegations against him before being consigned to indefinite detention. The 2nd
Circuit would have struck a blow for civil liberties by affirming this judgment,
which the government hotheadedly appealed.

Instead, however, it went further. The court denied that Mr. Padilla, by virtue
of being arrested domestically outside of a zone of combat, can be held by the
military at all. Federal law, the two-judge majority argued, prohibits the
detention of Americans without an act of Congress, and the congressional
authorization to use force against the perpetrators of Sept. 11 did not
specifically permit domestic detentions.

The argument is a big stretch. As Judge Richard C. Wesley pointed out in
dissent, the authorization allows President Bush "to use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, and persons he
determines" were responsible for the attacks "to prevent any future acts of
international terrorism" against this country. It's hard to see how this would
not cover a person the government believed to be planning an attack on al
Qaeda's behalf. The laws of war and American constitutional law alike recognize
that part of fighting wars is catching and holding the other side's fighters.

The majority is right to be concerned about this, given that the war being
fought is of indefinite duration and against a shadowy, non-state enemy. The
correct response, though, is not to effectively deny that the war is taking
place or that U.S. enemies may seek again to strike on U.S. soil. Instead, the
president's power to detain must be constrained in reasonable ways, by the
courts and by Congress. The court should have, as Judge Wesley pointed out,
addressed "the real weakness of the government's appeal," i.e., the military's
contention "that Mr. Padilla can be held incommunicado for 18 months with no
serious opportunity to put the government to its proof."

Congress should no longer sit on the sidelines as the administration and courts
debate these issues. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) has introduced a thoughtful
bill that would authorize the detention of enemy combatants -- and guarantee
them fair process, counsel and judicial review. Giving his bill a hearing and a
serious discussion would be a good place to start.

* * *


December 21, 2003; Page A23

3 CHARGES DROPPED AGAINST GUANTANAMO TRANSLATOR

Associated Press

The Air Force has dropped three counts in an espionage case against a Syrian-
born airman who worked as a translator at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison camp
for terrorism suspects.

Dropped was the single count in the charge that accused Senior Airman Ahmad I.
Halabi of aiding the enemy, a capital offense. Also dropped were counts that
dealt with e-mailing information about Guantanamo detainees and committing
espionage by transmitting information to unauthorized recipients.

Halabi still faces 17 of the 30 charges filed against him following his arrest
in July after nine months as an Arabic translator at the prison. They include
other espionage counts, disobeying an order, making false official statements,
mishandling classified documents and lying on a credit application.

He is being held at Travis Air Force Base in California, his home base, where
his court-martial will be held.

Air Force Lt. Gen. William Welser III, commander of the 18th Air Force at Scott
Air Force Base, Ill., convening authority for Halabi's general court-martial,
gave no rationale for his decision to drop the charges Friday.

"A convening authority has the discretion to withdraw charges after a case is
referred for trial," Master Sgt. Scott King, a spokesman at Travis, said
Saturday in an e-mailed statement.

He said such decisions can follow a commander's decision that, "based on
additional evidence or a change in circumstances, pursuing certain charges may
no longer serve to promote justice, assist in the good order and discipline of
the armed forces or be consistent with national security."

Donald G. Rehkopf Jr., Halabi's civilian lawyer, said the impact of Welser's
decision was significant because it went at "the very gut charge of how he was
alleged to have done whatever it is they claim or think that he did."

"The common denominator in those three all involved his allegedly having sent e-
mails with classified materials in them. From day one we denied it ever
occurred," Rehkopf said from his home in Rochester, N.Y.

Halabi, a naturalized American, was arrested July 23 at Jacksonville Naval Air
Station in Florida at the start of a leave from Guantanamo, the first of four
service personnel to be arrested by investigators looking into possible security
breaches. He was heading to Syria to be married.

Rehkopf said the Halabi case recalls that of a Muslim chaplain, Army Capt. James
Yee, who was arrested with documents that were said to have been classified.
Serious charges against Yee recently were lowered to mishandling classified
information, disobeying orders, committing adultery and storing pornography on
his military computer. He has pleaded not guilty.

The lawyer said both Yee and Halabi had documents with them that were not
stamped with security classifications but were considered classified by
investigating officers.

After Halabi's arrest, "They went literally berserk with the classification
stamp," Rehkopf said. "They classified anything and everything" that Halabi had.

One document classified SECRET NOFORN, which means "secret, not to be viewed by
non-Americans," was a photograph of Halabi's fiancee, who lives in Syria

* * *


December 19, 2003; Page A01

SEIZED CITIZEN IS ORDERED RELEASED
Bush Overreached Powers, Court Says

By Michael Powell and Michelle Garcia, Washington Post Staff Writers

NEW YORK, Dec. 18 -- A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that President Bush
does not have the power to declare an American citizen seized on U.S. soil an
"enemy combatant" and hold him indefinitely in military custody.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in a 2 to 1 ruling, gave the
administration 30 days to release Jose Padilla, who allegedly plotted to explode
a radioactive "dirty bomb." He has been confined to a South Carolina brig
without access to an attorney for 19 months.

"The President's inherent constitutional powers do not extend to the detention
as an enemy combatant of American citizens without express congressional
authorization," the court concluded in a decision signed by Judges Barrington D.
Parker and Rosemary S. Pooler. "Padilla will be entitled to the constitutional
protections extended to other citizens."

Thursday's ruling constitutes one of the strongest judicial rebukes of the
administration's tactics in the war on terrorism -- in this case, its policy of
aggressively detaining suspects without formal charges and without access to
lawyers or their families.

Also Thursday, a federal appeals court in California ruled that a detainee at
the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be granted a court hearing,
and held open that possibility for all 660 alleged al Qaeda and Taliban fighters
there. [See story, Page A19.] But the U.S. Supreme Court has already agreed to
review the same question.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the ruling in the Padilla case
is "troubling and flawed" and that the Bush administration will seek a stay. He
suggested that the Justice Department would appeal the decision to the Supreme
Court if necessary.

"Let's remember," McClellan said, "we're talking about an individual who was
involved in seeking to do harm to the American people. And the president has
repeatedly said that his most solemn obligation . . . is to protect the American
people."

If the 2nd Circuit's decision is not stayed -- many expect it will not be -- the
Justice Department apparently would face three choices. It could hold Padilla as
a material witness, charge him with a crime or set him free.

"The pendulum is swinging back," said Elisa Massimino of the Lawyers Committee
for Human Rights, which filed a brief in the case. "Even in a post-9/11 world,
the president does not stand above the law and the Constitution."

Neal R. Sonnett, chairman of the American Bar Association's Task Force on
Treatment of Enemy Combatants, stressed that he does not argue that Padilla, a
former gang member who has served prison time for homicide, is necessarily
innocent of conspiring with al Qaeda. The question, he said, is whether Bush and
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld have defined their war on terrorism so
broadly as to blur constitutional distinctions.

"None of us want to see a dirty bomber walk free," Sonnett said. "But the
government cannot declare that the entire world is a combat zone in which the
Constitution doesn't apply."

Previously, the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ratified the conditions
under which another enemy combatant, Yaser Esam Hamdi, has been held. But Hamdi,
who is also a U.S. citizen and is held in the same brig as Padilla, was captured
on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The 2nd Circuit Court said in its ruling
Thursday it was not addressing Hamdi's case.

Earlier this month, the Defense Department reversed course and announced it will
provide Hamdi a lawyer because it has finished interrogating him.

Bush has designated as an enemy combatant one other person, Ali Saleh Kahlah
Marri, a Bradley University graduate student accused of being an al Qaeda
sleeper agent.

Padilla was captured at O'Hare International Airport on May 8, 2002, and was
accused of scouting sites for the detonation of a radioactive bomb. He was
brought to New York, where he was held as a material witness but never formally
charged. A federal judge assigned him a lawyer, but three weeks later Bush
designated Padilla an enemy combatant. He was taken to the military prison,
where he remains.

The administration and its supporters have argued that al Qaeda presents a
threat unique in American history, given the cataclysmic nature of its intent
and the ability of sleeper agents to burrow deep into American society. The war
zone, they say, cannot be restricted to nations far from U.S. borders.

Judge Richard C. Wesley, in his dissent, argued that Padilla must have access to
a lawyer. But he also wrote that Congress in September 2001 gave Bush the power
to prosecute the war and did not limit that zone to foreign soil.

"The court put great weight on the fact that he wasn't carrying an explosive
device," said Ruth Wedgwood, a former federal prosecutor and a professor of
international law at the John Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies.
"But that isn't how al Qaeda does things.

"In the case of catastrophic terrorism," she said, "citizens of the United
States have a human right not to be victims."

Frank J. Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, predicted that
Thursday's ruling could handcuff authorities.

"I worry that by giving them the status of criminal defendants . . . you
establish a set of rights and prerogatives that I fear can be potentially
helpful . . . [to] their campaigns in the United States," he said.

The federal appeals judges, however, addressed much the same questions while
listening to oral arguments a month ago. In retrospect, their concern -- that
federal courts were asked to change the rules that govern society --
foreshadowed Thursday's opinion.

The Justice Department has argued that wartime presidents often assert
extraordinary powers, and that the Constitution anticipates this. In World War
II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt declared seven captured German spies enemy
combatants, even though one held U.S. citizenship. In the Civil War, President
Abraham Lincoln detained thousands of men.

But the appellate judges Thursday rejected this argument. During the Civil War,
the court stated, Lincoln stepped in where courts had ceased working. More to
the point, the panel noted that only Congress can grant the president
extraordinary expansion of powers.

Congress "understood that in times of war -- of serious national crisis --
military concerns prevailed," the court stated. But "absent express
congressional authorization, the President's Commander-in-Chief powers do not
support Padilla's case."

Except for Padilla himself, no one in this case has occupied a more curious
position than his attorney, Donna Newman. Nineteen months ago, she sat down with
her new client for more than 20 hours. She has not seen him since.

"I'm looking forward to a conference with him," she said. "And I won't have to
wear a military uniform to meet my client, either."

* * *


December 19, 2003; Page A22

Analysis
WAR ON TERRORISM'S LEGAL TACK IS REJECTED
Court Challenges Declaration and Detention of U.S. Citizen as Enemy Combatant

By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer

In ordering the Bush administration to charge al Qaeda suspect Jose Padilla,
declare him a material witness or set him free within 30 days, a New York
federal appeals court has directly challenged the administration's legal
approach to the war on terrorism -- and intensified the clash between the
executive and judicial branches, which will ultimately have to be settled at the
Supreme Court, legal analysts said yesterday.

The administration's assertion of authority to declare a U.S. citizen within the
United States an enemy combatant, and to hold him or her indefinitely and
incommunicado, has always been the most controversial of its legal claims,
attracting criticism from across the ideological spectrum.

And the 2 to 1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd
Circuit attacked that claim at its roots.

In an opinion that encapsulated the misgivings about the administration's
assertions of executive power that many judges and lawyers have expressed almost
since the war began, Judges Rosemary S. Pooler and Barrington D. Parker rejected
President Bush's view that the Constitution gives him the authority as commander
in chief to decide on his own who is an enemy of the United States in wartime --
or even to decide where the battlefield begins and ends.

"Presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum," Pooler and Parker wrote.

Rather, the court ruled, Bush needs express authorization from Congress to fight
the war at home by detaining U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. The Sept. 18, 2001,
joint resolution authorizing the president to use force against all "persons"
linked to al Qaeda is not sufficient -- especially given that a federal law
passed in 1971 bans the detention of citizens without express congressional
authorization.

The court noted that the 1971 law had been passed in part to make amends for the
mass detention of Japanese Americans during World War II.

Yesterday's ruling was the first time any court of appeals had rebuked the
president so directly and so broadly on these issues. And Padilla, as the only
U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil and declared an enemy combatant, presents a
clearly defined test case of a policy whose wider application will probably
depend on what the courts say.

Even the dissenting judge on the 2nd Circuit court, Richard C. Wesley -- while
agreeing that the president does have the authority to detain Padilla as an
enemy combatant -- rejected the administration's claim that he should have no
right to counsel.

As a result, legal analysts said, the 2nd Circuit ruling was a more significant
event than the ruling yesterday by the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit, which said that al Qaeda and Taliban detainees being held
by U.S. authorities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a right to sue for their
freedom in federal court. The Supreme Court has already agreed to rule on that
question next year, so its opinion will quickly overtake the 9th Circuit's.

"The 2nd Circuit has struck a body blow to the whole theory of fighting the war
on terrorism, which was to move it out of the criminal justice system and treat
it as a war," said John C. Yoo, a former Justice Department official who helped
design the administration's approach. "The 2nd Circuit essentially said, no,
this is like crime. And if that sticks, a lot of other pieces that underlie what
the government does in the war on terror are going to collapse, too."

That is precisely what civil libertarians are hoping for.

"War with terrorists is a metaphor that takes you too far," said Susan Herman,
general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, which supported Padilla
in the 2nd Circuit. "Presidential powers during war are usually limited because
it's war with another country, Congress has declared war . . . and the war has a
time limit. At some point, it's clear when you release detainees and repatriate
them."

The 2nd Circuit opinions demonstrated how much the constitutional issues in
Padilla's case hinge on difficult, subjective questions of place and time. A key
question is: If the United States is at war, where is the battlefield?

Bush -- pointing to the obvious fact that the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon are on U.S. soil, and that the attacks on them were carried out by
terrorists acting from within the United States -- argues, in effect, that
American soil is a war zone.

The 2nd Circuit majority rejected that, saying Padilla, who was unarmed when he
was picked up by the FBI in Chicago, had been detained "outside a zone of
combat."

Pooler, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, and Parker, who was nominated by
Clinton and appointed by Bush, after his nomination stalled in the waning days
of the Clinton administration, treated the Sept. 18 joint declaration by
Congress as essentially an authorization for Bush to use force abroad against
terrorism -- noting that the declaration lacked any specific mention of
detaining people in the United States.

But Wesley, appointed by Bush, countered in his dissent that "[i]t seems clear
to me that Congress understood in the light of the 9-11 attacks the United
States had become a zone of combat."

He added that "congressional authorization is not necessary for the Executive to
exercise his constitutional authority to prosecute armed conflicts when, as on
September 11, 2001, the United States is attacked."

Congress could not have intended to authorize the president to send soldiers to
shoot al Qaeda suspects around the world while denying him the right to detain
them in the United States, Wesley wrote.

* * *


December 19, 2003; Page A19

DETAINEE TO GET HEARING
9th Circuit Ruling Could Lead to Court Dates for Others at Guantanamo Bay

By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer

In the first ruling of its kind, a federal appeals court yesterday decided that
a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba should be granted a court
hearing in the United States inquiring into his detention, and raised the
possibility that all the 660 or so prisoners there could likewise be given court
dates in this country.

But legal observers said that the 2 to 1 decision by a three-judge panel in San
Francisco almost certainly will become moot after it is inevitably folded into a
pending U.S. Supreme Court case that is expected to take up similar issues
sometime in the spring.

Yesterday's decision was written by Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit, one of the nation's most liberal appeals courts.
The case was filed by the U.S.-based brother of a Libyan detainee at Guantanamo
Bay named Falen Gherebi.

The decision contains powerful language raising questions about the U.S.
government's policy of holding the prisoners in Cuba without allowing them
lawyers or access to U.S. courts, and it echoes concerns raised by human rights
activists around the world.

"We simply cannot accept the government's position that the executive branch
possesses the unchecked authority to imprison indefinitely any persons, foreign
citizens included . . . without permitting such prisoners recourse of any kind
to any judicial forum," Reinhardt said in the ruling, joined by one other judge.

Until the U.S. Supreme Court agreed last month to hear its Guantanamo case,
previous federal court decisions inquiring into some of the same legal questions
had established that the Guantanamo Bay captives have no right to habeas corpus
hearings. Judges in the previous cases cited a 1950 Supreme Court decision
establishing that foreign nationals imprisoned by the United States in foreign
countries had no habeas corpus rights in U.S. courts.

The U.S. government maintains that the Guantanamo Bay naval base, leased from
Cuba since 1903, is on foreign soil, but the Ninth Circuit panel said the fact
that the United States controls the prison there means the captives have certain
rights. A dissent by one judge on the three-judge panel agreed with the
government position.

Some legal experts said the fact that it was the Ninth Circuit that rendered
yesterday's decision might make it harder for the lawyers of detainees' families
in the upcoming Supreme Court case to win over some of the conservative justices
they need to prevail.

"The Ninth Circuit has such a liberal reputation that yesterday's decision might
. . . give some of the conservative justices an incentive to vote against"
granting habeas corpus, said one lawyer working on the case.

The pending Supreme Court case springs from two proceedings filed on behalf of
16 British, Australian and Kuwaiti detainees whose relatives asked that they be
given the right to demand their freedom in U.S. courts.

Meanwhile, the Pentagon announced yesterday the appointment of a military
defense lawyer to represent one of the 660 detainees who might be tried before
special military tribunal. The name of this prisoner, Salim Ahmed Hamdan of
Yemen, had not publicly emerged before. The assignment of Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles
Swift as his attorney indicates Hamdan could be one of the first to be taken
before a tribunal, officials said.

One other detainee, David Hicks of Australia, has been assigned an attorney.

* * *


December 19, 2003; Page A42

RUMSFELD VISITED BAGHDAD IN 1984 TO REASSURE IRAQIS, DOCUMENTS SHOW
Trip Followed Criticism Of Chemical Arms' Use

By Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer

Donald H. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver a
private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States'
public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail
Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly
declassified documents.

Rumsfeld, then President Ronald Reagan's special Middle East envoy, was urged to
tell Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that the U.S. statement on chemical
weapons, or CW, "was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of
lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs," according to a cable to
Rumsfeld from then-Secretary of State George P. Shultz.

The statement, the cable said, was not intended to imply a shift in policy, and
the U.S. desire "to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq's choosing,"
remained "undiminished." "This message bears reinforcing during your
discussions."

The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the nonprofit
National Security Archive, provide new, behind-the-scenes details of U.S.
efforts to court Iraq as an ally even as it used chemical weapons in its war
with Iran.

An earlier trip by Rumsfeld to Baghdad, in December 1983, has been widely
reported as having helped persuade Iraq to resume diplomatic ties with the
United States. An explicit purpose of Rumsfeld's return trip in March 1984, the
once-secret documents reveal for the first time, was to ease the strain created
by a U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons.

The documents do not show what Rumsfeld said in his meetings with Aziz, only
what he was instructed to say. It would be highly unusual for a presidential
envoy to have ignored direct instructions from Shultz.

When details of Rumsfeld's December trip came to light last year, the defense
secretary told CNN that he had "cautioned" Saddam Hussein about the use of
chemical weapons, an account that was at odds with the declassified State
Department notes of his 90-minute meeting, which did not mention such a caution.
Later, a Pentagon spokesman said Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but
with Aziz.

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said yesterday that "the secretary said what he
said, and I would go with that. He has a recollection of how that meeting went,
and I can't imagine that some additional cable is going to change how he recalls
the meeting."

"I don't think it has to be inconsistent," Di Rita said. "You could make a
strong condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, or any kind of lethal
agents, and then say, with that in mind, 'Here's another set of issues' " to be
discussed.

Last year, the Bush administration cited its belief that Iraq had and would use
weapons of mass destruction -- including chemical, biological and nuclear
devices -- as the principal reason for going to war.

But throughout 1980s, while Iraq was fighting a prolonged war with Iran, the
United States saw Hussein's government as an important ally and bulwark against
the militant Shiite extremism seen in the 1979 revolution in Iran. Washington
worried that the Iranian example threatened to destabilize friendly monarchies
in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Publicly, the United States maintained neutrality during the eight-year Iran-
Iraq war, which began in 1980.

Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold
military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological
agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet
diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve
relations with Hussein.

Tom Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archives, a Washington-
based research center, said the secret support for Hussein offers a lesson for
U.S. foreign relations in the post-Sept. 11 world.

"The dark corners of diplomacy deserve some scrutiny, and people working in
places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Uzbekistan deserve this kind of
scrutiny, too, because the relations we're having with dictators today will
produce Saddams tomorrow."

Shultz, in his instructions to Rumsfeld, underscored the confusion that the
conflicting U.S. signals were creating for Iraq.

"Iraqi officials have professed to be at a loss to explain our actions as
measured against our stated objectives," he wrote. "As with our CW statement,
their temptation is to give up rational analysis and retreat to the line that
U.S. policies are basically anti-Arab and hostage to the desires of Israel."

The declassified documents also show the hope of another senior diplomat, the
British ambassador to Iraq, in working constructively with Hussein.

Shortly after Hussein became deputy to the president in 1969, then-British
Ambassador H.G. Balfour Paul cabled back his impressions after a first meeting:
"I should judge him, young as he is, to be a formidable, single-minded and hard-
headed member of the Ba'athist hierarchy, but one with whom, if only one could
see more of him, it would be possible to do business."

"A presentable young man" with "an engaging smile," Paul wrote. "Initially
regarded as a [Baath] Party extremist, but responsibility may mellow him."

[ Staff writer Vernon Loeb contributed to this article. ]

* * *

December 18, 2003

COURT: U.S. CANNOT HOLD PADILLA AS A COMBATANT

By Fred Barbash, Washington Post Staff Writer

A federal appeals court ruled today that the Bush administration overstepped its
authority by detaining Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen seized in Chicago nine
months after the bombing of the World Trade Center and locked up incommunicado
as an "enemy combatant" for allegedly plotting to explode a "dirty bomb" in the
United States.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, said the
administration has no inherent constitutional power to sidestep the normal
procedures required to imprison a U.S. citizen seized on American soil.

It also rejected the government's claim that it possessed legislative authority
to lock up Padilla by virtue of the congressional joint resolution authorizing
the war against Iraq.

The appellate panel said that the president's power as commander in chief does
not override "the domestic rule of law." Congress and the courts, it said,
cannot simply be bypassed.

The court ordered Padilla released within 30 days or, in the alternative,
charged with something specific by the government under normal criminal
procedures.

The Bush administration quickly criticized the ruling. "We believe the 2nd
Circuit ruling is troubling and flawed," White House press secretary Scott
McClellan told the Associated Press. "The president has directed the Justice
Department to seek a stay, and further judicial review."

Despite the government's pledge of an appeal, the ruling was a significant
defeat for the administration in its battles with civil liberties organizations
over the extent of the president's powers during a war.

The decision does not apply to other controversial detainees with cases pending
in the courts, such as that of Yaser Esam Hamdi, who were captured in
Afghanistan on a battlefield. Padilla and Hamdi are the two U.S. citizens among
more than 650 suspected "enemy combatants" seized in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Most of them are detained at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to consider a challenge to the
administration's authority to detain prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. A federal
appeals court had ruled in the government's favor.

The FBI took Padilla into custody in May, 2002, when he arrived at O'Hare
International Airport in Chicago. The agents at first served Padilla with a
material witness warrant -- alleging a connection with al Qaeda -- and
transported him to a federal detention center in New York City. On June 9, two
days before a judge was to hear a court challenge to Padilla's detention,
President Bush designated him as an "enemy combatant," relying, on two sources
who told them that Padilla had met with al Qaeda members to hatch a plan to
detonate a dirty bomb. Padilla was taken to a naval brig in South Carolina.

Donna Newman, a public defender appointed to represent Padilla in New York,
pursued the case without being allowed to see Padilla, bringing the habeas
corpus petition that produced today's ruling.

Appellate Judges Rosemary S. Pooler and Barrington D. Parker wrote for the
panel.

"As this Court sits only a short distance from where the World Trade Center once
stood, we are as keenly aware as anyone of the threat al Qaeda poses to our
country and of the responsibilities the President and law enforcement officials
bear for protecting the nation. But presidential authority does not exist in a
vacuum, and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be
aggressively pursued, but whether the President is obligated, in the
circumstances here, to share them with Congress."

Contrary to the government's argument, they said, the president does not have
"inherent constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief to detain American
citizens on American soil outside a zone of combat."

While considerable "deference" must be given to the president's authority, the
court said the deference does not include allowing him to sidestep the federal
courts and the Congress.

Indeed, it said, "separation of powers concerns are heightened when the
Commander-in-Chief's powers are exercised in the domestic sphere."

The panel rejected the administration's argument that a 1942 Supreme Court case
involving the military tribunals during World War II supported the government's
position.

Conceivably, but not necessarily, the Congress might have the authority to enact
a law allowing detentions such as Padilla's, the panel said.

But Congress has not passed such legislation. Nor can the authority be found in
other acts of Congress, such as the joint resolution authorizing the war in
Iraq.

"We would need to find specific statutory authorization in order to uphold the
detention," the panel said.

" . . . We disagree with the assumption that the authority to use military force
. . . includes the authority to detain American citizens seized on American soil
and not actively engaged in combat."

Judge Richard C. Wesley dissented. "In my view," he wrote, "the President as
Commander in Chief has the inherent authority to thwart acts of belligerency at
home or abroad that would do harm to United States citizens."

* * *


December 18, 2003; Page A20

AUSTRALIAN AT GUANTANAMO IN 'LEGAL AND MORAL BLACK HOLE,' LAWYER SAYS

By Michelle Garcia, Special to The Washington Post

NEW YORK, Dec. 17 -- The first attorney to meet with a detainee at the
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, prison Wednesday characterized his client's situation as a
"legal and moral black hole."

At a news conference after his return from a five-day trip to the U.S. Navy
facility, Stephen Kenny, the civilian attorney representing Australian David
Hicks, criticized the legal process for detainees.

"They do not get the same standard of justice that has been afforded to an
American citizen," Kenny said, referring to John Walker Lindh, who was
prosecuted in U.S. criminal courts. "The usual rules of evidence do not apply
here [and] . . . there is no normal avenue of appeal. The process does not
measure up to minimum international standards."

Hicks, 28, a former ranch hand and alleged Taliban fighter, was captured in
Afghanistan two years ago and has been held at the prison, which houses 660
detainees. He is one of six men designated as eligible to face trial in military
tribunals.

Government officials granted Kenny, who is also Australian, permission to visit
his client. Hicks also has been assigned a military lawyer. The Bush
administration has assured the Australian government that Hicks will not face
the death penalty, and has allowed him to talk with his parents by telephone.

Kenny said the legal team hopes to negotiate Hicks's return to Australia "with
no restrictions." No charges have been filed against Hicks, but Kenny speculated
that military prosecutors may ultimately accuse him of conspiracy.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a lower court ruling that
held that Guantanamo detainees are beyond the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

Kenny said he met with Hicks in his cell. He said Hicks "has not been ill
treated . . . if you ignore the isolation, the lack of access to the outside
world and denial of his basic human rights." In a letter to his parents, Hicks
said he has been separated from other detainees.

Kenny said his client was in "reasonable good spirits although quite depressed
about his conditions."

Maj. John Smith, a spokesman for the Pentagon's office of military commissions,
said all of Kenny's public statements regarding detainees must be cleared with
the Defense Department. He said the department had denied Kenny permission to
comment on two areas relating to security procedures.

Kenny said he could not discuss a report in The Washington Post last week that
government officials had attempted to secure a plea agreement with Hicks before
he met with his legal counsel. But said he could not "discredit" the report.

"There were clearly discussions between him and interrogators about his future,"
he said, adding that Hicks did not seem to fully grasp his situation.

Kenny said that if he cannot strike a deal with U.S. authorities, there is no
guarantee that Hicks ever will appear before a military tribunal. He has asked
that Hicks be tried in Australia, and has called on the United Nations to
intervene.

Hicks "could simply be held there without trial and without charge," Kenny said.
"It appears that Saddam Hussein will be afforded a fairer trial than Hicks."

* * *

Wednesday, December 17, 2003; Page A14

U.S. MIGHT COMPROMISE IN MOUSSAOUI DISPUTE
Middle Ground Possible on Witness Access

By Jerry Markon, Washington Post Staff Writer

Federal officials yesterday expressed support for a possible middle ground that
could resolve the dispute over key al Qaeda witnesses that has stalled the
prosecution of alleged Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

A compromise allowing Moussaoui access to statements made by the detainees,
without letting him or his attorneys interview the witnesses in person, "would
be a very reasonable accommodation of the issues swirling around this case,"
said a senior Justice Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The witness access issue has dramatically slowed the only U.S. criminal
prosecution directly related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Prosecutors
refused to turn over the three detainees being sought by Moussaoui. As a result,
a federal judge in Alexandria in October eliminated the possibility of the death
penalty for Moussaoui and the introduction of any evidence that he took part in
the hijackings.

The government appealed that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit, based in Richmond. A three-judge panel has not issued a ruling, but
members indicated during oral arguments this month that they might order that
alternative versions of the witness statements, known as "substitutions," be
fashioned.

An earlier effort by prosecutors to craft substitutions was rejected by a
federal judge, who said that giving the jury statements from the witnesses would
not equate to letting jurors see them testify. The comments yesterday by senior
officials, at a briefing for reporters, were the clearest public indication that
the government would support another effort at finding a middle ground.

Also at yesterday's briefing, officials said the government is likely to allow
Jose Padilla, whom the government has designated an "enemy combatant," to have
access to a lawyer when his value as an intelligence source has been exhausted.
The interrogation of Padilla, who allegedly plotted to detonate a dirty bomb,
has not yet reached that point, officials said.

The government this month reversed its position in a similar enemy combatant
case, saying that a U.S. citizen jailed after being captured with Taliban
soldiers in Afghanistan, Yaser Esam Hamdi, would be allowed to consult a lawyer.
Government officials had argued for more than a year that he was not entitled to
counsel.

A compromise in the Moussaoui case could settle the main issue that has
prevented it from reaching trial, because it would enable the government to
avoid having to give Moussaoui, an admitted al Qaeda sympathizer, direct access
to the three witnesses. Prosecutors have said that would interrupt key
interrogations.

But defense attorneys have said Moussaoui must have direct access to the
witnesses, because they have evidence that could clear him of any involvement in
the Sept. 11 attacks. Defense attorneys told the appeals court that allowing the
government to execute Moussaoui without granting him the access would be
unprecedented.

"It's hard for us to consider substitutions for witnesses that we can't see or
talk to," Edward B. MacMahon Jr., an attorney for Moussaoui, said yesterday.
"They've already tried this with the district judge, and she has rejected those
efforts already."

Moussaoui was charged in December 2001 with conspiring with al Qaeda in the
Sept. 11 attacks. The sanctions imposed on the Justice Department evolved from a
series of rulings by U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who granted defense
motions to depose the captured al Qaeda operatives.

Government attorneys strongly objected, arguing that Brinkema had overstepped
her authority because the judiciary could not second-guess military decisions.

Government officials have said they probably will move the Moussaoui case to a
military tribunal if they lose. But the senior Justice Department officials
reaffirmed yesterday that they are making every effort to keep the case in the
criminal justice system.

* * *


December 17, 2003; Page A34

CANADIANS' CULTURE OF TOLERANCE IS TESTED BY CASES AGAINST ARABS

By DeNeen L. Brown, Washington Post Foreign Service

TORONTO -- Hassan Almrei, a Syrian who immigrated to Canada on a fake passport,
sat in a glass cage in a courtroom, watching lawyers in flowing black robes
argue his case.

A tall man thinned by a hunger strike, Almrei, 29, listened intently as
prosecutors accused him of having links to terrorists, and demanded he be
deported to Syria, where he was born. His attorney, Barbara Jackman, argued it
would be inhumane to send the man to a country known for torture.

From time to time, Jackman leaned through the window of the cage to talk with
her client. Almrei, who had failed as a small restaurant owner in Toronto,
admitted in an affidavit that he lied to government agents about his activities,
but denied he was a terrorist.

The prosecution of Almrei and other Canadian immigrants of Arab descent
underscore the tensions in a larger debate in Canada about how to deal with
immigrants accused of involvement in terrorism. Canadians pride themselves on
ideals of tolerance, inclusion and the belief that immigrants should have the
same rights as Canadian citizens. At the same time, the country is wrestling
with how to protect national security and answer critics who contend that the
country's liberal immigration policies make Canada easy prey for terrorists.

"Two years after September 11, there is a failure to come up with a policy on
terrorism here, at home, and globally," said Wesley Wark, a professor of
international relations at the Munk Center for International Studies at the
University of Toronto. "There is a great deal of divisiveness in Canada about
how Canada wants to pursue the war on global terrorism."

In the past few months, Canada has been forced to deal with a series of cases
including that of Maher Arar, a Canadian Syrian arrested in the United States,
accused of having links to terrorists, then taken by U.S. agents to Syria where
he says he was tortured. Arar's secret deportation to Syria incensed many
Canadians, who said the United States had not respected Arar's Canadian
citizenship.

Jean Chretien, then the prime minister, angrily criticized the United States for
deporting Arar, and critics demanded details about Canada's intelligence
relationship with the Bush administration. Many Canadians were also angered that
U.S. officials appeared unapologetic about how they handled the Arar case. Arar,
who denies the accusations, has filed a lawsuit against Jordan and Syria for
torture. He also plans to sue the United States for violating his rights.

"The response in Canada was 'How dare they?' " said John Thompson, director of
the MacKenzie Institute, which studies organized violence and political
instability.

The Arar case also has cast a shadow over other recent cases against Canadians
of Arab descent accused of terrorism. Soon after Arar was freed by Syrian
authorities, another Canadian citizen, Abdul Rahman Khadr, 20, said U.S.
authorities sent him against his will to Afghanistan after he was freed from the
U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he had been detained for alleged
links to al Qaeda. Khadr said he had told U.S. authorities he wanted to return
to Canada upon his release.

Canada's Foreign Ministry said Khadr had requested to be sent to Afghanistan,
where he was captured in November 2001. Khadr's brother, Omar, 17, is still
being held at Guantanamo Bay, accused of killing a U.S. soldier with a grenade
during a shootout in Afghanistan. Their Egyptian-born Canadian father, Ahmed
Khadr, is an alleged leader of al Qaeda wanted by the United States.

Martin Rudner, director of the Canadian Center for Intelligence and Security
Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa, said attorneys in each of the cases
accuse the Canadian government of failing to protect its citizens. "In the case
of Khadr and Almrei, the legal representation uses the Arar case to say there is
a huge problem with how the Canadian government is operating," Rudner said. "In
the Khadr case, once again the Canadian government seemed unable or unwilling to
assist Khadr, and the United States simply plopped him back in Afghanistan and
left him to his own devices to find his way back to Canada. I don't think that
is the case. But questions were raised about Canada's ability to protect its
citizens."

Another Syrian-born Canadian, Abdullah Almalki, is being held in a Syrian
prison. His relatives have demanded that Canada push harder for Almalki's
release. Canadian Muslims are also urging the Canadian authorities to seek the
release of Ahmad Abou El-Maati, an Egyptian Canadian who was arrested in Syria
soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States and accused of ties
to terror groups. Syria turned El-Maati over to Egyptian authorities two months
after he was arrested.

Canada portrays itself as a socially liberal society. It is nation of
immigrants, legal and illegal, who are seen as essential to its growth.
Immigrants and those who work to legalize their status play a major role in
shaping Canadian politics. Since the 1960s, when then-Prime Minister Pierre
Trudeau opened Canada's doors to more immigrants of color, millions have
immigrated to Canada, changing the face of its society. Recent government
statistics show that immigrants from West and Central Asia and the Middle East
grew from 13,360 in 1961 to 162,220 in 2001. The number of immigrants from
Southeast Asia grew from 14,095 in 1961 to 185,665 during that period.

Unlike in the United States, where many immigrants feel pressure to assimilate,
Canada encourages people to maintain their cultural identities.

"It gives us great strength, but also exposes several vulnerabilities," said
Rudner, who said terrorist groups have exploited Canada's tolerance.

Critics of Canada's immigration policies trace the problems to a 1985 Canadian
Supreme Court decision that they say allows criminals to exploit the system.

The court "said that anybody who reaches Canada is entitled to all the same
rights and legal protection of Canadian citizens regardless of their status.
That was a flare that went up that told people around the world we are an easy
mark and we have had an uncontrollable refugee problem every since," said
Thompson, of the MacKenzie Institute.

"Once someone gets into the country illegally, it's enormously hard to find
them, and once we find them, it's enormously hard to get them out," Norman
Inkster, former commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police told a
discussion group of the Couchiching Institute on Public Affairs.

As Canada grows more diverse, more cosmopolitan, Thompson says it has imported
more of the world's conflicts. The 1985 bombing of an Air India flight that
killed 329 people was one of the most notorious acts of alleged international
terrorism prior to the September 11 attacks.

The Air India bombing was allegedly planned in Canada by militant Sikh
separatists who wanted to retaliate for an Indian government raid on the Golden
Temple of Amritsar,, the Sikh faith's holiest shrine. Still, Thompson said,
there is a certain naivete among some Canadians outside of intelligence and
police circles that terrorism could never occur in Canada. "There has always
been disillusions about security in Canada, that Canada is always deemed to be
safe from the world's troubles, that violence could never occur here," Thompson
said. "The feeling is we are peacekeepers, we are doing this out of altruism and
the world loves us for it."

There is a sentiment among Canadians that even if accused terrorists are guilty,
they deserve the same rights as any other Canadian until they are convicted. The
argument is similar to one in the United States, where civil libertarians
express concern that homeland security measures and the Patriot Act will erode
the constitutional presumption of innocence. In addition, there is a pride here
in trying to avoid stereotyping people based on their background.

"A lot of Canadians have difficulty understanding we are under threat," Thompson
said. "Osama bin Laden mentioned Canada as a target this year."

On the seventh floor of the federal courthouse in downtown Toronto, the
conflicts were evident. A Muslim community leader argued that Almrei should be
freed on bail.

"In my opinion this word, al Qaeda, has been invented," said Aly Hindy, an imam
at a mosque in Scarborough. "Young people, you ask them their religion and they
say, 'I'm a Muslim, but I'm not a terrorist.' We have to distinguish between
people fighting for freedom and people liberating their own country and people
doing terrorism."

Almrei submitted an affidavit admitting that he underwent weapons training in
Afghanistan, that he lied to Canadian agents who interrogated him, that he lied
to gain refugee status in Canada and that he helped another man suspected of
terrorism obtain a fake passport.

"Canada has a duty to ensure this country does not become a safe haven for
terrorists," said Donald MacIntosh, a prosecutor. "Even if Mr. Almrei were to be
at risk of torture, the extraordinary danger he poses to the security of Canada
requires he not be allowed to remain in Canada."

Jackman, Almrei's attorney, said Canada was being hypocritical as it tries to
deport Almrei to Syria while complaining that the United States deported Arar to
Syria. "They torture first and ask questions later, or they ask questions while
they're torturing," Jackman said.

A federal judge decided to delay the deportation saying, "The undisputed
evidence on general conditions in Syria shows that the human rights record of
Syria is poor, and that detention and torture are not uncommon. It is unlikely
that Syrian authorities would release him."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


December 13, 2003; Page A08

MILITARY URGED TO TRY OR FREE 660 DETAINEES
Senators Visit Cuba Center

By R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post Staff Writer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60970-2003Dec12.html

Three senators who just returned from visiting the U.S. military's detention
center in Cuba urged the Bush administration yesterday to accelerate the trial
or release of more than 660 detainees there, including at least 200 men who have
been held for more than two years.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who visited the Guantanamo Bay prison Wednesday with
Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), said that after
such lengthy detentions, the suspects -- all of whom have been held without
charge -- had an inherent right to be told of their legal status.

McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said a senior administration official told
him before the trip that the military has been unable to develop cases against
as many as a third of the detainees and that they will have to be released.

"They are human beings. There is such a thing as human rights," McCain said.

The lawmakers wrote Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the detainees
appear to have been treated in humane fashion. Only two have been subjected to
sleep deprivation, they said in interviews, a tactic that is allowed only with
Rumsfeld's approval.

McCain said the detention conditions "are adequate and in some cases more than
adequate."

But their letter said that "we firmly believe it is now time to make a decision"
about the detainees' fates.

They said expeditious trials would help convince other nations that the
detainees are being treated fairly and would serve as a deterrent to terrorist
activities by others. "We need action, more action," Graham said. "To drag on
into next year would be unacceptable."

McCain noted that the military has a shortage of Arabic speakers in Guantanamo
Bay to interrogate prisoners, but he said this was the case everywhere in the
military and blamed bureaucratic gridlock for the pace of administration
decision making.

It takes the consent of many officials -- in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence
Agency, the Army secretary's office, Rumsfeld's office and elsewhere -- to
approve the discharge of a detainee, and any one of the officials can veto it,
McCain said. "No one wants to be responsible for the release of someone who
turns out to be a terrorist," he explained. "All bureaucracies find the safest
harbor [in doing] . . . nothing."

The senators visited Guantanamo Bay at a time the White House is reviewing the
Pentagon's strategy for dealing with the detainees, according to several
officials. Washington has been under growing pressure from Europe and the Middle
East to guarantee that citizens held in Guantanamo Bay will be given due
process.

McCain and Graham, a former Air Force judge, said all the detainees held there
were arrested in Afghanistan, but they come from 44 countries. Only one, an
Australian, has been allowed access to an attorney; the visit was this week. All
are men, but a woman recently arrested in Afghanistan as a suspected member of
al Qaeda is to join them.

Three of the detainees are aged 13 to 15 who were "kidnapped into" a terrorist
organization and treated brutally, Graham said. He said they are slated for
discharge early next year into the custody of United Nations officials who have
organized a special program for child combatants.

A total of 88 men have been discharged since the detention center was
established in January 2001; four of the 88 were jailed in Saudi Arabia. The
most recent release of 20 men was July 18. A spokeswoman for the Defense
Department, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Barbara Burfeind, declined to comment on reports that
additional detainees were slated for release soon, citing security concerns.

But she said that each detainee is under "continuous assessment" to determine if
he meets three criteria for release: He must be judged to pose no threat to the
United States, to be incapable of providing further intelligence information and
to have been uninvolved in criminal activity.

"At this time, there is no release pending," Burfeind said.

Although the Pentagon has declined to address the nationalities of any
detainees, the lawmakers said they were told the most dangerous among them were
Saudi, Yemeni and Pakistani. Of these, Graham said, "the Saudis are definitely
the toughest." Several of those held were said by the military to be connected
to the terrorist plot of Sept. 11, 2001, the lawmakers said.

Army Maj. John Smith, a spokesman for the military tribunals being formed to try
detainees, said no decision has been made about when the trials will begin.
Several men have been designated as eligible for the military commissions, as
the Pentagon calls them. "Everybody is working expeditiously," he said.

But a congressional staff member said a senior military official confided before
the trip that the commissions were "woefully short" of prosecutors and other
needed staff.

* * *


Thursday, December 11, 2003; Page A43

NOBEL HONOREE SOUNDS ALARM
Iranian Peace Laureate Cites Loss of Freedoms Since 9/11

By Doug Mellgren, Associated Press

OSLO, Dec. 10 -- An Iranian human rights activist, Shirin Ebadi, accepted the
Nobel Peace Prize on Wednesday with a warning that civil liberties and human
rights must not be allowed to fall prey to the war on terrorism in the aftermath
of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States.

Without naming the United States, Ebadi cited the prisoners from the war on
terrorism held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the site of a U.S. naval base, "without
the benefits of rights."

Ebadi, the first Muslim woman and the first Iranian to win the award, said that
even Western democracies have allowed their strong traditions of freedom and
basic rights to be eroded.

"Regulations restricting human rights and basic freedoms . . . have been
justified and given legitimacy under the cloak of the war on terrorism," she
said, speaking Persian.

"The concerns of human rights advocates increase when they observe that
international human rights laws are breached not only by their recognized
opponents," but by "Western democracies . . . which count themselves among the
initial codifiers of the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights," she said.

Ebadi said she accepted the prize, which includes a $1.4 million award, on
behalf of all women, Iranians, Muslims and others who strive for human rights
worldwide.

"Undoubtedly, my selection will be an inspiration to the masses of women
striving to realize their rights, not only in Iran but throughout the region,"
said Ebadi, who was cited for her work as an advocate of democracy and the
rights of women and children.

In Stockholm, meanwhile, 10 Nobel laureates, including six Americans, received
Nobel prizes in medicine, physics, chemistry, literature and economics from King
Carl XVI Gustaf, the Swedish monarch. After the ceremony at a concert hall, the
laureates attended a banquet with the royal family and a host of dignitaries,
including former vice president Al Gore.

In Iran, state television reported that Ebadi had received the award but carried
no pictures of the ceremony, apparently because she did not wear a head scarf.
Hard-line vigilantes had issued statements vowing to punish her if she did not
wear a scarf, according to newspaper reports.

Asked in parliament about the award, Iranian Vice President Mohammad Ali Abtahi
said, "It's a source of pride for Iran that an Iranian is given the Nobel Peace
Prize."

Iranian reformers have looked to Ebadi to rally resistance to hard-liners who
oppose changes to the conservative Islamic government and who have denounced her
as a "Western mercenary." She recently was given police bodyguards after
receiving death threats.

In Stockholm, J.M. Coetzee became the second South African to receive the
literature prize, after Nadine Gordimer, who won in 1991. Coetzee, an intensely
private man, attended the prize ceremony but was not at the traditional news
conference.

American Paul C. Lauterbur and Briton Sir Peter Mansfield received the award in
medicine. Alexei A. Abrikosov of the United States and Russia, Anthony J.
Leggett of the United States and Britain, and Vitaly L. Ginzburg of Russia
received the physics prize. Americans Peter Agre and Roderick MacKinnon won the
chemistry prize, and American Robert F. Engle and Briton Clive W.J. Granger
shared the Nobel Memorial Prize in economics.

* * *


Tuesday, December 9, 2003; Page A26

Letter to the Editor

PLENTY OF POWERS TO COMBAT TERRORISM

The Nov. 30 editorial "A New Approach," calling on Congress to deal with "enemy
combatants," overlooked the fact that existing law has proved more than adequate
to deal with terrorism. The criminal justice system has produced guilty verdicts
against every terrorist charged to date, and as the U.S. District Court's
decision in the Moussaoui case shows, alleged al Qaeda conspirators can be
successfully prosecuted, consistent with due process, without interfering with
the government's interrogation of other al Qaeda captives.

In the Patriot Act, Congress has already determined when suspected terrorists
may be detained without being charged. It provided for limited detention of
noncitizens suspected of terrorism, a provision the government has yet to use.
In 1971 the government prohibited the detention of U.S. citizens unless it was
specifically authorized by an act of Congress, and the congressional
authorization to use military force against the Taliban and al Qaeda implicitly
authorized detention of citizens found on the battlefield, but not elsewhere. It
is now up to the courts to enforce these enactments. No need to rewrite these
laws has been shown.

The only area in which Congress has not acted is military commissions.

There Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and others have introduced a bill that would
provide the necessary legislative authorization for such commissions and
guarantee minimal due process, if military courts-martial are inadequate to try
suspected terrorists captured on the battlefield.

It is naive to think that in the heated atmosphere of an upcoming election,
Congress could accomplish anything other than score political points at the
expense of any reasoned and fair approach to the detention of "enemy
combatants."

KATE MARTIN

Director

Center for National Security Studies

Washington

* * *


December 6, 2003; Page A06

DEALS REPORTED AFOOT FOR DETAINEES
But Lawyers Question Pacts for Clients Without Access to Counsel

By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40032-2003Dec5.html

The first few detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison designated for trial soon
before special military tribunals have been negotiating plea bargains with their
U.S. captors under which they would acknowledge working with the al Qaeda
terrorist network or the Taliban, according to several of the men's defense
lawyers and other legal sources.

U.S. officials hope that plea agreements with two British prisoners and one
Australian held at the U.S. military jail in Cuba will result in them publicly
expressing regret for their actions in court, informed sources said. One U.S.
goal is to show that cooperating with interrogators results in reduced
sentences, they said.

The men's discussions about guilty pleas have been taking place without their
having access to legal advice, and their attorneys, who are making plans to
visit some of the men at the jail for the first time, said they could well end
up trying to dissuade the captives from following through.

"It's quite unusual for someone [to enter into a plea agreement] without any
legal advice," said Stephen Kenny, a lawyer for David Hicks, 28, an Australian
former kangaroo skinner and ranch hand. U.S. and Australian officials have said
he confessed to training with al Qaeda and fighting for the Taliban. "He's been
in a cage for two years. This [plea deal] could be very unfair to David," Kenny
said.

Human rights activists have long denounced U.S. policy toward the detainees at
Guantanamo Bay because U.S. officials refuse to say when the captives will be
freed and they are denied access to U.S. courts. Last month, the U.S. Supreme
Court said it would review the rights of the detainees in a case brought by some
of their relatives.

Lately, however, U.S. officials have stepped up the release of detainees to
their home countries, bringing the total to more than 80. The effort to get the
military trials underway also would address the criticism that the prisoners
should be released or charged.

Kenny, who practices law in Hicks's hometown of Adelaide, said U.S. or
Australian officials he declined to identify told him of his client's desire to
plead guilty. Likewise, attorneys for a British detainee, Moazzam Begg, said
they, too, have been told by U.S. or British "official sources" that he and
another detained Briton are discussing plea agreements.

In July, U.S. officials designated six of the 660 Guantanamo Bay detainees as
eligible to appear before military tribunals (or, in government parlance,
commissions). Only three of the six were publicly identified: Hicks, Begg and
fellow British citizen Feroz Abassi.

Earlier this week the Pentagon announced it had appointed an experienced Marine
litigator, Maj. Michael Mori, to represent Hicks -- the first government defense
lawyer assigned to any of the Guantanamo Bay captives. Mori and Kenny are
expected to visit Hicks in Cuba soon.

The private lawyers, mostly human rights advocates with long records of
criticizing the United States for the detainees' situation at Guantanamo Bay,
were hired by the detainees' families, who from the start dismissed any
possibility that their relatives were affiliated with al Qaeda or the Taliban.

Lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who represents Begg, said that his client can
decide to plead guilty if he chooses. But he said he all but assumes any
confession his client made was coerced and is a lie. As the Begg family's
attorney, he said, "I could say to him, 'We know you didn't do it.' "

Smith said that interrogators had certainly warned his client that " 'these
damned defense lawyers will try to talk you out of pleading.' . . . This is all
part of a Stalinist show trial, in which you're tried in public only if you
agree to plead guilty."

Smith said nongovernmental "sources" whom he declined to identify told him that
Begg plans to plead guilty to a plot in which he would have helped arrange for
an unmanned drone aircraft to fly over London spraying weapons-grade anthrax
spores. Security experts say such a sophisticated operation is almost surely
beyond the current known capabilities of terrorists, and Smith said it was
"clearly a fantasy."

Maj. John Smith, a spokesman for the Pentagon's military commissions office,
declined to comment on detainee interrogations but said officials cannot have
reached any formal plea agreements because the prisoners have not yet consulted
lawyers.

Last month, after lengthy consultations with the Australian government, the
United States announced a deal under which Hicks would not face the death
penalty and would serve any prison time in his homeland. U.S. officials have
reached a similar arrangement for the British detainees.

Hicks, a Muslim convert who traveled the world fighting with Islamic guerrilla
movements from Kosovo to Kashmir, was captured in late 2001 fighting with the
Taliban, U.S. officials said. His family denied he had dealt with terrorists,
but this summer Australian officials announced he had confessed to training with
al Qaeda.

Begg's family said he was helping to build a school in Afghanistan in 2002 when
he was pushed into the trunk of a car in Pakistan by four men, including two
with American accents. He called his father in England with his cell phone from
the trunk, and months later showed up in Cuba.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


December 4, 2003; Page A08

GUANTANAMO BAY DETAINEE IS FIRST TO BE GIVEN A LAWYER
Move Is Sign That Australian Alleged Al Qaeda Fighter May Be Tried by Tribunal

By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer

An Australian detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba last night became
the first prisoner there to be given a lawyer, a strong indication that he is on
track to be the first alleged al Qaeda fighter in detention to go before a
military tribunal, according to informed sources.

But a source said Muslim adventurer and former cowboy David Hicks may never be
tried before one of the special military courts because the U.S. government is
working on a plea bargain with him. He has been accused of associating with al
Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Hicks, 28, has been cooperating with U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay for
months, U.S. officials said. The source said that he has told them he is willing
to plead guilty to some charges in a deal with prosecutors.

Maj. John Smith, a spokesman for the Pentagon's military commissions office,
said last night that military officials had not reached any formal plea
agreement with Hicks. "We don't have plea agreements with people not represented
by defense counsel," he said.

One military official said that no formal offer had been made to Hicks, and that
"arranging a plea agreement is not part of [the lawyer's] detailing" to
represent Hicks.

The official added that "I don't know what Hicks has said [to U.S. officials]
about what he wants to do" in terms of a possible plea agreement.

Earlier this year President Bush designated Hicks as one of six Guantanamo Bay
prisoners who could be tried before a military tribunal.

Government officials said that under the rules for the tribunals, prisoners
cannot enter into a plea bargain until they receive legal counsel, and in
Hicks's case he has not even met with his lawyer, Marine Corps Maj. Michael
Mori. Hicks also has not been charged with any crime to which he could plead
guilty.

Government sources have said for some time that they hoped to arrange a plea
agreement as part of the first military tribunal case at Guantanamo Bay to
demonstrate to the world that the United States is serious about prosecuting
terrorists but will reward those who cooperate.

"The government people want to start out strong by having Hicks go public with
what he has done, say that he regrets it and say he is getting a good deal" from
the U.S. government, one source said. "There would be a quid pro quo in this."

The next step in the tribunal process is for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D.
Wolfowitz to declare which of the six previously designated detainees is to be
tried in one of the special courts. Besides Hicks, two of the others are
Britons, but the nationalities and identities of the remaining three have never
been confirmed.

The tribunals have been delayed for months, in part because officials want to
announce them in tandem with announcements that other prisoners will be
repatriated to their home countries, either to be freed or jailed pending trial
there.

U.S. plans for the tribunals have sparked an international outcry, as legal
experts said they lack some protections standard in most courts. Appeals of
convictions, for example, do not go through the courts -- they go through the
Pentagon to the president.

Last month, U.S. officials, after lengthy negotiations with Australian
officials, announced a number of concessions for Hicks -- if he were convicted,
he would not face the death penalty, for example, and he could speak to his
family by telephone.

Hicks's family in Adelaide has proclaimed his innocence ever since he was
captured fighting with the Taliban in Afghanistan in late 2001. But earlier this
year U.S. officials said he had provided extensive information about how he
received intense training at al Qaeda terrorist camps in Afghanistan.

Hicks, a former rodeo rider and kangaroo skinner who converted to Islam, spent
much of the 1990s traveling the world to join Muslim guerrilla movements in
Kosovo and in Kashmir, a disputed border region claimed by Pakistan and India.
He traveled to Afghanistan in 2000, when U.S. and Australian officials said he
trained with al Qaeda.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


December 4, 2003; Page A10

DECISION TO ALLOW LAWYER FOR 'ENEMY COMBATANT' IS NEW POLICY

By Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer

In announcing that an alleged Taliban fighter will be given access to a lawyer,
the Pentagon ended nearly two years of legal debate within the Bush
administration and established new policy on the treatment of U.S. citizens
detained as "enemy combatants" in the war on terrorism.

The announcement late Tuesday significantly modified one of the government's
most controversial anti-terrorism positions: that it may hold alleged enemy
combatants indefinitely without representation, even if they are U.S. citizens.
The move also increases the chances that the U.S. Supreme Court, which is
considering whether to review the case, will find the government's treatment of
detainees reasonable, according to administration officials and legal experts.

But defense lawyers and civil liberties advocates said yesterday that the
decision does not go far enough in protecting Yaser Esam Hamdi's constitutional
rights. He has been held in military custody since November 2001 with no access
to a lawyer.

Critics said the government's announcement also does little to answer the larger
question of how those detained in the war on terrorism should be treated by
civilian and military courts, and whether the same rules will apply to another
U.S. citizen being held as an enemy combatant in the same military brig --
alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. (The only other person designated by
President Bush as an enemy combatant, Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, a Bradley
University graduate student accused of being an al Qaeda sleeper agent, is not
an American citizen.)

In a court brief filed yesterday, the Justice Department argued that the
Pentagon's decision to grant Hamdi access to a lawyer has no bearing on the
government's right to detain him without further hearings.

"Common sense is beginning to take hold, but it's only halfway there," said
Frank W. Dunham Jr., the public defender who has been seeking to represent
Hamdi. "I see it as a welcome shift on the part of the government in realizing
it can't just run roughshod over everybody. . . . But the next shoe that needs
to fall is an architecture by which these people can be sorted out."

Hamdi surrendered with a Taliban unit in Afghanistan in November 2001, and the
military determined in early 2002 that he is an American citizen. After Bush
declared Hamdi an enemy combatant, senior lawyers at the Defense Department and
U.S. intelligence agencies were successful in persuading the White House to back
a policy that denied Hamdi access to a lawyer and provided no promise that he
would ever get one, according to sources familiar with the debate.

That position drew opposition from senior lawyers at the Justice Department and
some other agencies, who, sources said, believed that it was unacceptable to
indefinitely deny counsel to Hamdi and Padilla, a former street gang member
accused of plotting to detonate a bomb wrapped in radioactive material inside
the United States. Such misgivings only strengthened as Hamdi's detention
approached and then passed the two-year mark, officials said.

Yet the government succeeded in persuading the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit in July that Hamdi was not entitled to an attorney and that the courts
should leave such decisions up to the executive branch.

One administration official said that Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was
among those who argued in favor of providing a lawyer in such cases, after
interrogations were completed. Viet D. Dinh, a former senior Justice official
who teaches law at Georgetown University, has made similar arguments in recent
speeches and panel discussions.

But administration officials also stressed yesterday that the decision was a
matter of policy, not law. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "Our
position has been, and remains, that enemy combatants are not legally entitled
to access to counsel. . . .

"The decision to provide counsel, in this case, was based solely on the
Department of Defense's conclusion that Hamdi had no further intelligence value,
and that providing access to counsel would not compromise national security in
any way," McClellan said.

David B. Rivkin Jr., a former lawyer in the first Bush White House who filed a
brief supporting the administration in Hamdi's case, said the Pentagon decision
"underscores the basic legal and moral integrity of the government's position."

"They've always said there's no entitlement to a lawyer in this context," Rivkin
said. "On the other hand, nothing stops them from giving access to a lawyer once
the interrogation is over."

But many defense lawyers who have been critical of the Bush administration's
anti-terrorism policies said the courts should play a role in reviewing such
decisions, particularly in the case of U.S. citizens. Hamdi was born in
Louisiana, although U.S. officials say he also held Saudi citizenship.

"The Pentagon's insistence that the access to counsel is not required by law,
and is available only at the government's discretion, misses the critical
point," said Deborah Pearlstein, director of the U.S. Law and Security Program
of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. "The point is that the rule of law is
a matter of right, not a matter of grace."

The Defense Department's new policy was first hinted at two weeks ago, during a
federal appeals court hearing for Padilla, who is alleged to have conspired with
the al Qaeda terrorist network to set off the radiological bomb. But one of the
lawyers attempting to represent Padilla said yesterday that the government has
not yet indicated whether it will allow him access to counsel.

"The government has been attempting to erect an absolute wall between anyone
they designate as an enemy combatant and legal counsel," said defense lawyer
Andrew Patel. "This is certainly a tearing down of that wall. . . . But what it
ultimately means for Mr. Padilla is too early to say."

* * *


December 3, 2003; Page A01

U.S. ALLOWS LAWYER FOR CITIZEN HELD AS 'ENEMY COMBATANT'
Reversal Comes on Eve of Court Filing

By Jerry Markon and Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writers

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29796-2003Dec2.html

The Bush administration reversed course last night in one of the most closely
watched cases in the war on terrorism, saying a U.S. citizen jailed after being
captured with Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan would be allowed access to a
lawyer.

Government officials had argued for more than a year that Yaser Esam Hamdi was
not entitled to counsel after they had designated him an "enemy combatant." The
change in policy came on the eve of a government filing due today at the U.S.
Supreme Court, which had been asked by a federal public defender in Virginia to
review Hamdi's detention.

In a brief statement, Defense Department officials said Hamdi would be allowed
to see a lawyer "as a matter of discretion and military policy." But the
statement emphasized that the government did not feel obligated to make a lawyer
available and that the decision "should not be treated as a precedent."

While it is rare for the administration to reverse itself on a major component
of the anti-terror crackdown begun after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the
decision likely will improve the government's position before the Supreme Court.

Hamdi's case has come to symbolize the conflicting arguments in the ongoing
anti-terror efforts. The government convinced a federal appeals court in
Richmond that the military -- and not the courts -- had the sole authority to
wage war and that courts should defer to battlefield judgments. More than 100
law professors and other legal experts argued that no U.S. citizen could be held
without a lawyer.

The public defender seeking to represent Hamdi, Frank W. Dunham Jr., said he
intends to press forward with his Supreme Court petition because it also calls
for Hamdi to be allowed to contest his combatant designation in a civil or
military court.

"I think this takes some of the sizzle out of our petition, but it doesn't moot
it," Dunham said last night. He was told late yesterday that he would be allowed
for the first time to see Hamdi in the next several days. Hamdi is being held at
the Charleston Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, S.C., after a transfer
from the brig in Norfolk.

Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the law professors who had joined Dunham in arguing
Hamdi's case before the courts, praised the government's decision but said
Hamdi's effort to challenge his detention packs more legal significance.

"If the government wins and can hold Hamdi without any due process, then having
a lawyer doesn't mean very much," he said.

The move does not affect the cases of the two other men still known to be held
as so-called enemy combatants: Jose Padilla, who allegedly plotted to detonate a
dirty bomb, and Bradley University graduate Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who was
placed under military control in June after President Bush said he was an al
Qaeda sleeper agent.

One administration official said the Pentagon's reversal came after months of
pressure from Justice Department lawyers, who felt that Hamdi or any other U.S.
citizen detained as an enemy combatant should be provided a lawyer after
national security concerns have waned. "There's a general understanding that
this is the correct policy for U.S. citizens," the official said. "It's the
right thing to do."

The Defense Department had argued against such a policy, the official said, but
apparently reversed course. Pentagon officials acknowledged in the statement
that the department had "completed its intelligence collection with Hamdi" and
had determined that giving him access to a lawyer would not harm national
security.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to comment on any aspect of the
agency's deliberative process or whether Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
had signed off on it. He also declined to say whether the new policy was
intended to head off the Supreme Court appeal.

A change in policy was first hinted at two weeks ago during a federal appeals
court hearing in New York for Padilla.

Deputy Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, arguing for the government, suggested
that Padilla might be granted access to a lawyer once his value as an
intelligence source ended, although he said the decision should be up to the
executive branch and not the courts.

While fighting with Taliban troops in Afghanistan, Hamdi was captured by
Northern Alliance forces in November 2001. He was placed in the Navy brig in
Norfolk when it was learned that he was born in Baton Rouge, La. His case
entered the legal system after Dunham saw news reports about Hamdi's arrival in
Virginia and tried to see him.

The government objected and justified Hamdi's detention with a Defense
Department declaration that Hamdi had joined a Taliban military unit, received
training, and acknowledged loyalty to the Taliban when captured.

A federal judge twice ordered the military to grant Dunham access to Hamdi, but
a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond
ruled in January that the Constitution gives the executive branch the
responsibility to wage war and that the courts must yield to the military. It
was considered an important victory for the government in the war on terrorism.

By an 8 to 4 vote, the full slate of active 4th Circuit judges let the decision
stand in July, which paved the way for the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Staff writer Vernon Loeb contributed to this report.

* * *


December 2, 2003; Page A10

HIGH COURT TO CONSIDER ARRESTS ABROAD
Alien Tort Act Used in War on Terrorism, Suits for Damages in Human Rights Cases

By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer

The Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will consider whether U.S. law
permits the federal government to track down alleged criminals or terrorists and
arrest them abroad, with or without the other country's consent.

The court said it will review a federal appeals court's decision earlier this
year that upheld a damages award to a Mexican national who was seized in Mexico
at the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's behest and delivered to the United
States to stand trial on drug-related murder charges.

The court's decision escalates the justices' involvement in the legal
controversies swirling around the U.S. war on terrorism and could produce a
historic decision on the allocation of overall foreign policy power between the
president and the courts.

The court acted in response to a Bush administration request that it intervene
in favor of executive power -- in contrast to the court's other recent
intervention in the war on terrorism, when it agreed to hear an appeal by
suspected terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay naval base in spite of a Bush
administration plea to stay out of an area where the executive branch should
hold sway.

In his appeal of the ruling by the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for
the 9th Circuit, U.S. Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson wrote that "threats to
the Nation's security . . . are now, more than ever, transnational phenomena"
and that "transborder arrests" are a rarely used but sometimes vital means of
capturing terrorists and drug traffickers.

By exposing U.S. officials or those who assist them to the threat of costly
lawsuits, Olson wrote, the 9th Circuit ruling would make it more difficult even
to contemplate such arrests, thus providing "terrorists or other criminals who
hid in countries unwilling or unable to apprehend them . . . a safe harbor from
federal law enforcement agencies."

The court's eventual opinion might determine not only how much power the federal
courts have to limit the tactics federal law enforcement may use to pursue
wanted terrorists -- such as Osama bin Laden and his associates -- but also how
much power they have to hold U.S. and other corporations accountable for their
foreign conduct.

The 1789 statute the court will interpret in the case has been used to sue both
foreign and American individuals for alleged violations of human rights abroad
-- and to sue multinational firms for their alleged complicity in the human
rights abuses of countries where they invest.

The statute, the Alien Tort Act, gives the U.S. district courts "jurisdiction of
any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law
of nations or a treaty of the United States."

Though rarely invoked throughout most of U.S. history, the law has been
interpreted by several federal appeals courts since 1980 to open the federal
courts to suits for monetary damages based on alleged violations worldwide of
internationally recognized human rights norms.

Among the defendants who have been sued are Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serb
leader allegedly responsible for mass killings of Muslim civilians, and Unocal,
the petroleum multinational, which is fighting a lawsuit over its alleged
collaboration with the use of forced labor by Burma's government on a natural
gas pipeline.

That interpretation of the Alien Tort Act is vigorously defended by human rights
and environmental activists, who see it as a powerful tool for reining in the
unlawful conduct of individuals, companies or government officials that might
otherwise escape justice.

In a friend-of-the-court brief, the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights urged the
court to back what it called "the traditional understanding" of the law. The
committee said that "this case presents compelling issues of justice for victims
of human rights." It was joined in the brief by the Rutherford Institute, a
Virginia-based civil liberties organization.

But the Bush administration has made limiting the scope of the Alien Tort Act a
high priority since the beginning of the war on terrorism, in which the United
States has deployed its law enforcement and intelligence officers around the
world in a campaign to round up alleged members of al Qaeda. According to
published reports, the United States has sometimes turned suspects over to
governments believed to use brutal methods of interrogation.

A friend-of-the-court brief submitted by a group of prominent business
organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National
Association of Manufacturers, argued that "over the past decade, the Alien Tort
[Act] has become a serious impediment to U.S. companies investing abroad."

The Lawyers Committee and attorneys for Humberto Alvarez-Machain, the Mexican
arrested by the DEA but later acquitted, countered in their briefs that this
threat to business is overblown, because federal courts have consistently thrown
out suits that present overly sweeping claims. But businesses object that they
are harmed just by the cost of going to court to get those suits dismissed.

Until now, the Supreme Court had stayed out of the battle over the law. As
recently as 2001, the court turned down an appeal by Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.
of a suit by the survivors of Ken Saro-Wiwa, the human rights activist executed
by Nigeria's government in 1995.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, several federal appeals judges who oppose the current
interpretation of the Alien Tort Act have written dissenting or concurring
opinions urging the justices to issue a definitive ruling on it.

The cases are Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, No. 03-339, and U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain,
No. 03-485, consolidated. Oral argument is to take place in the spring, and a
decision is expected by July.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


December 2, 2003; Page A22

EX-DETAINEE TELLS OF TRAINING AT AFGHAN CAMP

By DeNeen L. Brown, Washington Post Foreign Service

TORONTO, Dec. 1 -- A Canadian man who was held as an "enemy combatant" and
recently released from U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, admitted Monday
that he underwent training at a camp in Afghanistan that was linked to al Qaeda,
but denied being a terrorist.

Abdur Rahman Khadr, 20, said at a news conference in Toronto that he learned how
to use assault rifles at a camp set up originally to train resistance fighters
against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Khadr said such training was
common for boys living in Afghanistan, where he was born to Canadian citizens.

"Everybody went to training camps in Afghanistan to fight against the Russians
and kick them out of Afghanistan. That doesn't mean every person in the camps
are trained to kill Americans," Khadr said. "Who were the camps made by?
Americans. It was a very normal thing. People who came to the training camps
were not all al Qaeda."

Khadr's release prompted a debate in Canada after his family accused the
Canadian government of not doing enough to help him return home, even though he
is a Canadian citizen who has no other nationality.

Khadr, wearing a white button-down shirt, said he had been traumatized ever
since he was detained in Afghanistan in November 2001 by U.S.-allied Northern
Alliance forces. He said he was tortured in their custody. In March 2003, he
said, he was turned over to U.S. officials and taken to the U.S. naval detention
center at Guantanamo Bay.

He remained there until last month. About three weeks ago, he said, officials at
Guantanamo told him that he would be set free soon. "I said, 'Where?' They said,
'That is not any of your business.' "

Khadr said he informed U.S. officials at Guantanamo that he wanted to return to
Canada, but was told Canada did not want him back.

U.S. officials have said they would not comment on individual cases of detainees
at Guantanamo Bay for security reasons. Canadian officials said Khadr had told
U.S. officials he wanted to return to Kabul, the Afghan capital, where he lived
before being arrested.

Two weeks ago, Khadr said, he was shackled and taken to an airplane with his
head covered. "When I opened my eyes I was in Kabul," he said. He was kept in
isolation for 24 hours before being released without money or identification, he
said.

Khadr said that after a friend in Kabul gave him money, he paid a smuggler $500
to take him to Pakistan. But the guards at the Canadian Embassy in Islamabad
turned him away, he said.

Khadr said he later traveled with smugglers to Iran, Turkey, Bulgaria and
finally Bosnia, where he walked into the Canadian Embassy and received help to
fly to Canada. He arrived in Toronto Sunday morning.

Khadr said he would not talk about conditions at Guantanamo to avoid
jeopardizing the release of his brother Omar, 17. The younger brother is accused
of killing a U.S. soldier during a gun battle with American forces in
Afghanistan. While the two brothers were at Guantanamo, Khadr said, they spoke
through a fence.

"He is a juvenile. He's been shot three times," Khadr sad. "My brother is a kid.
He is very young. He's not supposed to be in that kind of jail. I think he
should be released. I want the Canadian government to get my brother back."

Rocco Galati, Khadr's attorney, said he heard reports that 100 prisoners at
Guantanamo, including three teenagers, were to be released soon. "We are hoping
one of the teenagers is Omar," Galati said.

Khadr's father, Ahmed Said Khadr, has been sought by U.S. officials on suspicion
of being an al Qaeda leader. The elder Khadr, who was born in Egypt but
immigrated to Canada in the 1960s, was arrested in 1996 in Pakistan in
connection with a bombing at the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad. Khadr said his
mother told him his father is dead.

* * *


November 30, 2003; Page A24

ARMY OFFICER'S ACTIONS RAISE ETHICAL ISSUES

By Vernon Loeb, Washington Post Staff Writer

Despite criticism from leading Republicans on Capitol Hill, senior Army leaders
are defending the filing of criminal charges against a battalion commander in
Iraq who fired his pistol near the head of an Iraqi detainee in an attempt to
frighten him into divulging information about a planned ambush against U.S.
forces.

The case, the focus of intense debate within the Army and in wider military
circles, has raised questions about acceptable conduct in wartime. This comes as
casualties increase in Iraq and the U.S. military battles a shadowy insurgency
against Iraqis loyal to deposed president Saddam Hussein and foreign fighters
linked to the al Qaeda terrorist network.

At least one member of Congress, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), a member of the
Armed Services Committee, said during a Nov. 19 committee hearing that the
commander, Lt. Col. Allen B. West, should be "commended for his actions and
interrogation."

Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), the committee's chairman, agreed during the hearing
on Army issues, which involved Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker and
acting Secretary Les Brownlee. "I think you're quite correct in your
observation," Warner said regarding Inhofe's comment. "All congressional offices
have a high level of concern about this case."

The same week, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed
Services Committee, and Rep. John M. McHugh (R-N.Y.), chairman of the
committee's subcommittee on total force, expressed concern about the case in a
letter to Brownlee.

"We are highly disturbed by media accounts that the Army is beginning criminal
proceedings against Lt. Col. Allen B. West for taking actions in Iraq that he
believed were necessary to protect the lives and safety of his men, and which he
apparently reported to his chain of command," the congressmen wrote. "To us,
such actions if accurately reported do not appear to be those of a criminal."

Four senior Army officials, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity,
defended the filing of criminal charges and said the military justice system
must be allowed to run its course without interference.

Following a preliminary hearing in mid-November in Tikrit, West now awaits a
decision by Maj. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division
in central Iraq, on whether the Army will court-martial him for aggravated
assault and communicating a threat, impose a lesser administrative sanction or
dismiss the matter. If convicted at court-martial, West could face eight years
in prison.

"The Army has to deal with this," one official said. "They cannot walk away from
somebody who fundamentally breaks the rules like this. The American Army on the
battlefield carries the values of the American people, and one of those values
is we do not abuse our enemy."

Even more disturbing than West's decision to fire his pistol near the head of
the Iraqi detainee, the official said, was West's admission during the
preliminary hearing that, before firing his pistol, he watched as his soldiers
beat the Iraqi in an attempt to get him to talk.

Given that level of "abuse," the official said, "the leadership will have to
take some kind of action. I'm not [necessarily] suggesting a court-martial, but
they'll have to take some kind of action."

"From a moral and ethical standpoint," another official said, "the U.S. Army can
never allow such purported behavior. As horrific as war is, we cannot go down
that slippery slope. Everything that we stand for as an Army and a nation would
be undermined."

West, relieved of his command, said during his preliminary hearing, known as an
Article 32 hearing under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, that he had used
poor judgment in seeking to intimidate the detainee, an Iraqi police officer
said by an informant to have information about a planned sniper attack on West's
troops.

"I know the method I used was not the right method," West testified. "I was
going to do anything to intimidate and scare him, but I was not going to
endanger his life."

Wiping tears from his eyes, West, 42, added: "If it's the lives of my men and
their safety, I'd go through hell with a gasoline can."

Neither West nor his attorney, retired Marine Lt. Col. Neal Puckett, could be
reached for comment. Odierno declined to discuss the case.

Odierno ordered a criminal investigation of West's conduct after receiving two
anonymous letters about West's Aug. 20 interrogation of the Iraqi, according to
an Army official. The letters questioned West's conduct and the broader command
climate in the 4th Infantry Division's Artillery Brigade.

Retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey said West's admission that he had allowed his
troops to punch the detainee was more serious than West's firing his pistol near
the detainee's head. "You can't physically maltreat prisoners, and we can't have
our officer corps tolerating that," he said. Gary Solis, a former Marine judge
advocate who now teaches the law of war as an adjunct professor at Georgetown
Law School, said: "Were West's actions unlawful? Yes. Clearly." But he also
said: "Were West's actions wrong? Not the same question, and a harder question,
but, yes, his actions were wrong."

He said West's actions warranted punishment, but "not by court-martial. Not by
incurring a federal conviction and perhaps losing retirement benefits he's spent
an honorable career earning. I would recommend nonjudicial punishment, what
Marines call a commanding general's mast, a financial fine and a career-ending
written reprimand."

One senior Army official agreed that a court-martial may not be warranted once
all the facts are considered. But second-guessing by members of Congress at this
point in the process, the official said, is "unfortunate."

"A key part is, what was in the mind of the leader?" the official said. "Did he
exercise reasonable judgment? Did he overreact? What is his reputation? Ten
people would probably have 10 answers. Only his chain of command is responsible
and accountable for his actions. They need facts to make a proper decision. Just
as I wouldn't judge the officer, I wouldn't judge the chain of command -- not
without facts."

* * *


December 1, 2003; Page A13

ARMY COLONEL AT PRISON CHARGED
Classified Material Allegedly Taken

By Susan Schmidt, Washington Post Staff Writer

An Army colonel who directed the collection of intelligence from Taliban and al
Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been charged with illegally removing
classified material, the fourth serviceman at the base accused of security
violations.

U.S. Army Col. Jackie D. Farr, a reservist heading home to the United States
after a six-month tour at Guantanamo, was accused of improperly transporting
classified material on Oct. 11 and with later making a false statement to
investigators. The charges, violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice,
were announced Saturday by the U.S. Southern Command.

Farr allegedly sought to transport the materials just weeks after the military
disclosed the arrests of a Muslim chaplain and two Arabic translators working at
Guantanamo. His alleged actions followed statements by government officials that
they were investigating possible security breaches by other service members.

A spokesman for the Southern Command, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Chris Loundermon, said Farr
remains on active duty at Guantanamo, electing to extend his tour of duty while
the investigation and charges against him are pending.

While few details of the incident were available, the charging document against
Farr states that he violated orders by attempting to transport unspecified
classified materials "without the appropriate locking container." On Oct. 29,
according to the charge sheet, he stated, " 'It was always locked up, in my
presence and none of it would have left the island,' or words to that effect,
which statement was totally false, and was then known by the said Colonel Jackie
Duane Farr to be so false."

A lawyer from the Army's Trial Defense Service assigned to represent Farr said
he could not yet comment on the facts of the case. "I have to determine what is
going on right now," Capt. Paul Golden said yesterday.

Loundermon said the charges have been referred to the commander of intelligence
and prison operations at Guantanamo, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who has a range
of options, including dismissing the charges, referring them to a court-martial
or conducting further investigation.

Farr, 58, became a military officer in 1978, according to the charging document.
His service history and home base were not available yesterday.

Last month, Air Force translator Ahmad I. Halabi was charged with espionage,
aiding the enemy and lying to military investigators. He is accused of trying to
ferry 180 letters from the prisoners and that he intended to use them "to the
injury of the United States or to the advantage of Syria." He is accused of
improperly possessing classified documents including jail maps and papers
describing prisoners' cell numbers. His attorneys have said he is innocent and
his actions were misconstrued.

Another translator, Ahmed F. Mehalba, a civilian working at Guantanamo, was
arrested on Sept. 29 at Boston's Logan International Airport allegedly carrying
a computer disc containing classified materials from the base. Army Capt. James
Yee, a Muslim chaplain, is charged with mishandling classified information. He
was released by the military last week after spending 11 weeks in a Navy brig.
Attorneys for those men have also asserted their innocence.

* * *


November 29, 2003; Page A01

A PRISONER OF PANIC AFTER 9/11
Algerian-Born Detainee Seen as Victim of Excess

By Michael Powell, Washington Post Staff Writer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A20028-2003Nov28

BATAVIA, N.Y. -- Benamar Benatta sits in a whitewashed cell, lost in a post-
Sept. 11 world.

Jailed the night of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the
Algerian air force lieutenant with an expired visa has spent the past 26 months
in federal prisons, much of that time in solitary confinement -- even though the
FBI formally concluded in November 2001 that he had no connection to terrorism.

Since the government first took Benatta into custody, the United States has
apprehended and released about 760 domestic detainees. More than 80 prisoners
have been released from the military jail where alleged al Qaeda and Taliban
fighters are held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It appears that no detainee has been
locked up as long as Benatta, although it is impossible to know because of
secrecy surrounding some material witnesses who may still be in government
custody.

He remains behind bars, awaiting a deportation hearing, unable to post a $25,000
bond.

"Two years ago, I had hopes. I was okay," said Benatta, 29, a pale, handsome man
who wore loose-fitting orange prison pajamas and spoke slightly French-accented
English during a two-hour interview at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility.
"Now I lie in my cell and think: 'What has become of me?' "

Benatta was among the 1,200 or so men detained by U.S. law enforcement agents in
the frenzied weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He had a most
unfortunate résumé: An Algerian and a Muslim, he was an avionics technician, and
-- like most of the others -- he lacked proper immigration papers.

The Canadians had held Benatta since he arrived at the Peace Bridge crossing
near Buffalo and applied for asylum the previous week. They turned him over to
federal agents. A few days later, prosecutors sent him south to New York City,
where he was placed in solitary confinement.

It was as though Benatta became invisible. His name never appeared on lists of
detainees. His family in Algeria believed he had vanished. No defense attorney
knew of his existence until a federal defender in Buffalo was assigned his case
in late April 2002.

The federal government has few explanations for what happened. In legal briefs,
the U.S. attorney in Buffalo blamed some of the delays on bureaucratic wrangling
between prosecutors and the U.S. Marshals Service, and the confusion that
followed the terrorist attacks. But in the documents, U.S. Attorney Michael A.
Battle of the Western District of New York ultimately acknowledged that such
conditions could "not justify violating the defendant's rights."

Two years after the attacks, federal Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder Jr.
would examine Benatta's case and find a study in governmental excess.

Schroeder issued an unsparing report in September, writing that federal
prosecutors and FBI and immigration agents engaged in a "sham" to make it appear
that Benatta was being held for immigration violations. Prosecutors trampled on
legal deadlines intended to protect his constitutional rights and later offered
explanations for their maneuvers that "bordered on ridiculousness," Schroeder
wrote. And he found that the government compounded its mistakes by failing to
act once it was clear that Benatta was not an accomplice to terrorists.

"The defendant in this case undeniably was deprived of his liberty," Schroeder
wrote, "and held in custody under harsh conditions which can be said to be
oppressive." To keep Benatta imprisoned any longer, the magistrate concluded,
"would be to join in the charade that has been perpetrated."

Battle filed papers in October objecting to Schroeder's "harsh" criticism of his
prosecutors, several of whom were identified by name.

Soon after, however, Battle accepted Schroeder's report and dropped the two
criminal charges alleging that Benatta possessed false identification papers.

Battle, through a spokesman, turned down a request for an interview. A former
federal prosecutor criticized by Schroeder also declined to comment, as did a
Justice Department spokesman in Washington. A spokesman for the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which assumed parts of the former
Immigration and Naturalization Service, noted only that Benatta now faces a
"removal hearing."

After the terrorist attacks, federal officials defended detentions for
immigration violations as central to preserving national security. "Let the
terrorists among us be warned: If you overstay your visa -- even by one day --
we will arrest you," U.S. Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said in October
2001.

Critics have long contended that the government crackdown infringed on the civil
rights of some detainees. Earlier this year, the Justice Department's own
inspector general examined the government's handling of some detainees and found
that many had been held without charge longer than is allowed by statute, and
that a number had been denied access to lawyers for long periods. Inspector
General Glenn A. Fine also found that the FBI took too long to investigate and
clear them of connections to terrorism.

The inspector general's report also said that corrections and court officers in
the New York region had subjected detainees to "patterns of verbal and physical
abuse."

Benatta said he did not talk with Fine's investigators. But the Algerian was
held in the same wing of the same prison they examined -- the Metropolitan
Detention Center in Brooklyn. His descriptions of being threatened and mocked by
corrections officers closely track the report's findings.

"This is one of the worst cases we've seen," said Elisa Massimino, Washington
director of the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, which has sued the
government to stop the holding of detainees without recourse to lawyers. "This
is a perfect example of how the government has played a shell game with
detainees for months and months."
Fleeing Algeria



Benatta landed in the United States on Dec. 31, 2000, an Algerian air force
lieutenant accompanying 39 men to classified training seminars at Northrop
Grumman Corp. in Baltimore. He held a six-month U.S. visa.

But Benatta did not return to Algeria. He would not discuss precise reasons for
overstaying his visa but noted that Algeria is plagued by terrible violence and
divided between an often-murderous Islamic fundamentalist movement and a
military implicated in human rights abuses.

"I had a problem with the terrorists who wanted to kill me and with the
military, which was beating and torturing people," he said. "My parents knew I
did not intend to come back."

Benatta said he moved to New York City, where he worked as a busboy and lived
with an Orthodox Jewish roommate in the Bronx. His visa expired on June 30,
2001. In what he described as a moment of desperation, he took a midnight bus to
Buffalo on Sept. 5 and filed for asylum in Canada. Canadian officials detained
him in a cell at their offices on the far side of the Peace Bridge, apparently
concerned that he was depressed and perhaps suicidal, while they investigated
his claim.

On the evening of Sept. 11, Benatta said, officers walked into his cell and
asked about his military background and the false identification papers he
allegedly carried with him. Within hours, he was on his way to a holding cell in
upstate New York, where an FBI agent showed him a photo of the World Trade
Center and told him of the attack.

"The agent warned that if I say I have no connection with this terrorism, I will
spend the rest of my life in prison," Benatta recalled. "I thought they would
offer me to the American people as the one who did this attack. I thought my
life was done."

The next days, in his telling, became a blur. Teams of FBI agents repeatedly
questioned Benatta. Guards put him in ankle chains and handcuffs, slung a chain
around his waist, and loaded him into an airplane to New York City. Dozens of
officers with rifles met him at Kennedy International Airport and took him to a
federal prison in Brooklyn.

In court papers, the government does not dispute the outlines of Benatta's
account. Schroeder discovered numerous violations of the detainee's rights
during those first weeks. He noted that INS lawyers did not file legal papers to
transfer Benatta until a week after he had arrived in New York, an action the
magistrate termed "a sham."

More broadly, Schroeder found "damning evidence" that INS lawyers improperly
"colluded" with the FBI and federal prosecutors to use immigration procedures as
a "subterfuge" to "spirit" Benatta to New York City. Once there, the government
"in essence arrested" Benatta for the purpose of conducting a criminal
investigation of him and did not allow him to speak with a lawyer.

These actions, Schroeder wrote, violated Benatta's Sixth Amendment rights to a
speedy trial. Federal prosecutors responded that the attorney general has the
unilateral power to determine where to hold an immigration detainee, an argument
Schroeder rejected.

At the high-security detention center in Brooklyn, Benatta was placed in a
solitary cell -- known by prisoners as "the box." His cell was illuminated 24
hours a day. The guards wrote "WTC" in chalk on his cell door and, he said, for
weeks they would knock loudly on the door every half-hour to wake him up.

He had no access to books, television or a lawyer. For weeks, he could not leave
the cell except when FBI agents arrived to interrogate him about his job,
ethnicity and religious beliefs.

"In the box, I had no right to shave, to shower, nothing," Benatta said.

"By the end of a month, I had a huge beard, and I couldn't even walk. You feel
in there that one day is one month."

He recalled being forced to strip while guards mocked him. He said guards
knocked his head against the elevator wall while he was in manacles and one time
pulled his waist chain so tight he had trouble breathing.

"For three or four months, you couldn't talk or they would punish you," he said.
"Then maybe things started to calm down."

Fine's report stated that "we believe there is evidence supporting the
detainees' claims of abuse." The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District
has declined to prosecute any prison guards.
Cleared, but Not Freed



On Nov. 15, 2001, the FBI cleared Benatta of any connection to terrorism. In a
document quoted in Schroeder's ruling, the FBI wrote: "Given the negative
searches and after consultation . . . with FBI General Counsel Hyon Kim and INS
prosecuting attorney Ann Gannon, the writer requests BENATTA be cleared of his
involvement in the captioned investigation." Battle agreed last month that "the
FBI's 9/11-related interest in Mr. Benatta ended" on Nov. 15, 2001.

But no one told Benatta. He remained locked in solitary confinement for another
five months and was never offered a lawyer, according to Schroeder.

Benatta betrays a rare flash of anger at the mention of those lost months. "I am
cleared after Nov. 16, and still they kept me in the box. Why do they do that?"

With the terrorism investigation concluded, prosecutors in Buffalo obtained a
grand jury indictment against Benatta on Dec. 12, 2001, on charges related to
carrying false identification papers. A warrant was issued for his arrest, but
federal officials never informed him and never offered him an attorney.

Benatta did not learn of the pending charges until April 2002, just before he
was transferred to Buffalo. Prosecutors with the Western District offered him a
plea bargain that would have carried a six-month sentence, essentially amounting
to time served. But Benatta refused. When he arrived in Buffalo, a judge had
assigned him a lawyer for the first time -- federal defender Joseph B. Mistrett.
He decided to fight the charge that he carried false papers.

"I'm not a criminal. Never," Benatta said. "Now I could choose to go to trial."

Mistrett took a liking to Benatta and began filing motions. "It's so outrageous
what happened to this guy," Mistrett said. "I was offended as an American
citizen."

But despite his efforts, 17 months passed before Schroeder ruled in favor of
Benatta, who lived during that time in a cell in the Batavia detention center,
where he read and studied law. Last month, Battle filed papers that all but
conceded that an injustice had been committed.

"The government agrees that the events of September 11th do not justify
violating the defendant's rights," Battle wrote. "Dismissal may be appropriate."

Benatta's worries are like floodwaters that never recede. He now faces a
deportation hearing and does not yet have an immigration lawyer. (Mistrett could
contest only the criminal charges.) As a military man gone AWOL, he would face a
grim fate should he land back in Algeria. "Look, I am in trouble," he said. "If
I am not executed right away, I will spend my life in prison."

Human rights advocates suggest Benatta likely is not exaggerating. More than
7,000 people disappeared last year at the hands of Algerian security forces,
more than the number recorded in any country in the past decade, according to
Human Rights Watch.

Yet Benatta, whose geography has been circumscribed for the past 26 months by
cinder blocks and barbed wire, does not sound particularly bitter. He said he
understands how, in the weeks and months after nearly 3,000 people died, panic
gripped a nation.

"I don't blame the United States. They've never had to deal with terrorists, and
3,000 people die; that's a lot."

Schroeder addressed the same concern in his decision. The FBI, he wrote, "would
have been derelict" if it had not investigated Benatta. But he added a caution:
"Under our Constitution, absent due process, the end cannot justify the means."

In October, when Battle announced he was dropping charges, a Buffalo reporter
asked whether he planned to apologize to Benatta. "I'm not going to address
that," the prosecutor said.

That's okay with Benatta. As his interview ended, he stood in Room V1O7 at the
Batavia detention center and waited for a guard to unlock the door. Peering back
at a reporter, he said: "I don't need an apology. I just want them to stop
accusing me."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 26, 2003; Page A17

PENTAGON TO REVIEW RULES FOR TRIBUNALS

By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14674-2003Nov25.html

The Pentagon said last night that it is undertaking a thorough review of the
rules governing military tribunals for accused al Qaeda fighters at the
Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, after U.S. military officials granted significant
concessions to Australian government negotiators who wanted a relaxing of the
legal rules that would apply in the military courts.

U.S. and Australian officials announced yesterday that two Australians held at
the jail will not face the death penalty if they are convicted before a U.S.
tribunal or commission. The Pentagon agreed in July that two British prisoners
at Guantanamo Bay who have been designated as possible defendants would not be
executed if convicted.

Military officials said last night the concessions granted to the British and
Australian detainees may not apply to other countries' citizens brought before
the tribunals. But international lawyers said it would be difficult politically
for Washington to execute other nations' citizens if it ruled out that
possibility for these two allies' nationals.

One of the Australian detainees, David Hicks, has been designated by the
Pentagon as being in an initial group of six captives eligible for trial by
tribunal.

U.S. officials said they agreed to several other concessions. If Hicks is
charged, he could talk by telephone with "appropriately cleared" family members,
who also could attend the trial. Prosecutors will not bar him from the courtroom
even during presentation of sensitive evidence. Military officials will not
monitor conversations between him and his attorneys, and if convicted he could
serve his sentence in Australia.

Some legal experts have criticized a number of the rules for the tribunals, such
as allowing U.S. officials to eavesdrop on defendants' conversations with their
attorneys.

"The Department of Defense is in the process of drafting clarifications and
additional military commission rules that will incorporate [various legal]
assurances where appropriate," the military said in a statement last night.

Military officials said they are gratified Australian Attorney General Philip
Ruddock said in a statement yesterday that "the rules governing the military
commission trials provide fundamental guarantees for the accused [that] are
similar to those found in our own criminal procedures." They include the
presumption of innocence, the right to a defense lawyer, a standard of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt and the right to call witnesses.

* * *


November 26, 2003; Page A23

ONE MAN AGAINST SECRECY
Newsletter Editor Works to Limit Classified Information

By Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14488-2003Nov25.html

Around lunchtime on Sept. 26, a security officer at the Space Vehicles
Directorate on Kirtland Air Force Base shot an e-mail to Steven Aftergood, who
was sitting in his frayed tweed chair at his computer, in his office on K
Street.

"Questions/concerns have been voiced by our scientists and engineers regarding
material on your web," the officer informed him. "Please advise on your
collection methods and who provides authorization to you allowing publication of
what is presently on your web site."

"Collection methods?" Aftergood chuckled, then responded: "Authorization for
publication of material on our web site is contained in U.S. Constitution,
Amendment 1.

"www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1.

"If you have other specific concerns, let me know."

Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on
Government Secrecy, is an army of one, the David in an era of Goliath-strength
government stealth.

Armed with a pocket-size copy of the Constitution, the Freedom of Information
Act and an investigator's patience for source-building, Aftergood is out to slay
what he sees as the arbitrariness of the U.S. system for classifying documents
to keep them secret.

To do that, he asks foundations and donors for $150,000 a year ("in a good
year") to keep his online newsletter, Secrecy News (www.fas.org/sgp/index.html),
and staff of one -- himself -- going. He often scoops the national media with
anecdotes about government attempts to keep information secret.

In fact, the government's classification chief, J. William Leonard, has
bookmarked Aftergood's Web site because it is usually easier to find critical
national security documents there than on government Web sites. As director of
the Information Security Oversight Office, Leonard has one goal for enhancing
his office's Web offerings: "I want my information to be posted on my Web site
before it's posted on Steve's. It's a matrix we have yet to meet."

"Steve is part of what we regard as the public interest groups," Leonard said.
"He's at the top of the list in terms of being the most thoughtful and most
comprehensive."

In a newsletter dated Oct. 28, Aftergood reported that the Congressional
Research Service, Congress's research arm, had taken down its online reports. In
typical Aftergood style, he retrieved numerous CRS reports from his archives and
posted them on his Web site, along with another organization's database of most
of the CRS reports ever published.

In the same issue, he revealed the Army had pulled its Center for Army Lessons
Learned (www.call.army.mil) Web page after The Washington Post reported on an
unusually blunt critique posted there about the inadequacies of U.S. military
intelligence on Iraq. The Web site returned, Aftergood noted later, minus the
report in question.

Another newsletter item hounded the Defense Science Board, traditionally packed
with industry CEOs and policy elites, for removing the names of its members from
its Web site. A DSB spokesman told Aftergood the names had been removed for
security reasons following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but was unable
to articulate how deleting names of corporate leaders who advise the government
would increase security against terrorism.

Aftergood persuaded the spokesman to send him a list of members, and he put it
online.

"What's important is not access to one particular document or another," he said.
"What's important is the deliberative process and the health of American
democracy when you impede access. Mundane information is the oxygen that permits
public participation in political life."

Besides providing these daily morsels, Aftergood has been after the U.S.
intelligence community since 1997 to publish its annual aggregate intelligence
budget. He won the first release in 50 years when CIA Director George J. Tenet
released the 1997 annual budget, which was $26.6 billion. Aftergood has two
pending lawsuits on the matter.

CIA officials warn that releasing other annual figures would allow foreign
intelligence services to piece together a pattern. Also, they say, the CIA would
soon find itself compelled to release the underlying components of the budget.

"No other intelligence agency in the world has released as much information as
we have," said CIA spokesman Bill Harlow said. "Look at our Web site. There's
volumes of material there."

The CIA's position on the budget release, Aftergood says, illustrates his larger
point: "The intelligence budget total is a proxy for secrecy policy in general.
It's an indictment of how far classification policy has become decoupled from
real security threats."

A joint congressional inquiry into the events of Sept. 11, 2001, agreed that the
declassification system is broken and recommended that federal agencies report
to Congress "on proposals for a new and more realistic approach" to classifying
information, including ideas "to protect against the use of the classification
process as a shield to protect agency self-interest."

Included in that disclosure process, Aftergood says, should be the White House,
which has refused to release relevant copies of the President's Daily Brief to
Congress and independent investigators seeking to learn what U.S. intelligence
officials told President Bush about the threat from Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda
network before Sept. 11, 2001, and, separately, about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction.

"It's taken for granted that it's sacrosanct," Aftergood said. "The White House
should identify the sensitive information and sources" and remove those. But
"the idea that the whole thing should be secret is pure mystification."

Aftergood said he recognizes the need for secrecy in some situations, and has
been willing to practice what he preaches. Earlier this month, he received an
angry e-mail from a Sheppard Air Force Base official concerning his posting of a
Joint Staff manual on computer security: "Did you know that you have posted FOUO
[For Official Use Only] information on the public web site? It clearly states
this is a limited document NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE."

"Thank you for your message," Aftergood wrote back. "As a non-governmental
organization, we are not subject to DoD regulations concerning "official use
only" information. However, pending review, we have decided to remove this
document from our website."

"I'm not dogmatic about any of this," he said. "I don't look at this as a game.
I don't look at the government as the enemy. I'm interested in a rational
information policy that respects the American public."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *

CHAPLAIN'S RELEASE COMES WITH NEW CHARGES

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 26, 2003; Page A05

The U.S. military announced yesterday that it is releasing a Guantanamo Bay
prison chaplain from jail pending trial but added four new counts against him,
including a charge of adultery.

Eugene Fidell, attorney for Army Capt. James Yee, welcomed the decision to
release the Muslim chaplain after 11 weeks in a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C.
But he said the addition of the adultery charge, rare in military court cases,
amounts to "piling on" by military prosecutors.

Yee previously was charged with mishandling classified documents. He faces an
"Article 32 hearing" -- similar to a grand jury proceeding in criminal courts --
on the charges at Fort Benning, Ga., in the coming weeks. Pending the hearing,
Yee will work in the Fort Benning chaplain's office, officials said.

Yee is one of three people who worked at the U.S. Navy detention facility in
Cuba who have been charged in connection with security breaches there.

In addition to the adultery charge, Yee was accused of new counts of failure to
obey an order, making a false official statement and conduct unbecoming an
officer. Officials did not provide details about the adultery allegation, and
Fidell declined to discuss them.

The charge of conduct unbecoming an officer stems from pornography found on a
government computer Yee used, said Raul Duany, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern
Command, which is overseeing the case.

Conviction on all the charges could yield a sentence of 11 years in prison, but
experts on military law said that is highly unlikely.

* * *


November 25, 2003; Page A07

LAWYER ASKS BUSH TO FREE CHAPLAIN

An attorney for Army Capt. James Yee, the Guantanamo Bay prison chaplain jailed
on charges of mishandling classified documents, asked President Bush yesterday
to release the chaplain from a Navy brig pending his military trial, which is
scheduled for next year.

Lawyer Eugene R. Fidell said Yee, a Muslim chaplain who is charged with two
counts of failing to properly handle classified papers from the U.S. Navy prison
camp in Cuba, already has served more time in confinement than he would if
convicted on the charges.

Yee was arrested in Florida on Sept. 10 with the papers in his possession after
serving almost a year as the chaplain for alleged al Qaeda and Taliban fighters
detained at Guantanamo Bay.

"Those charges simply do not warrant pretrial confinement of any kind," Fidell
wrote in the letter, noting that members of the military found to have
mishandled classified data typically receive reprimands or revocation of their
security clearances.

Earlier this month, Fidell succeeded in getting Yee transferred from a maximum-
security cell at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., to a medium-security cell
where he now is allowed to read a censored newspaper, watch films, and make two
15-minute phone calls per day to family members or lawyers.

Two other men who worked at the detention facility are also being held in
connection with alleged security breaches there.

-- John Mintz

* * *


November 23, 2003; Page B06

Editorial
MR. PADILLA'S HEARING

AT LAST, a federal appeals court has treated the government's assertion of an
unbridled power to detain U.S. citizens with the skepticism it deserves. Last
week in New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit heard oral
arguments in the case of Jose Padilla, an American citizen arrested domestically
by civilian law enforcement who has been held incommunicado for the past year
and a half as an "enemy combatant." The government believes that Mr. Padilla was
planning a "dirty bomb" attack on behalf of al Qaeda. Since being whisked into
military custody in May 2002, he has not been allowed to speak even to his
lawyers or to respond in any forum to the allegations against him. The claim of
essentially unchecked executive power to lock up American nationals is perhaps
the single most dangerous position the Bush administration has taken since the
Sept. 11 attacks. So the evident difficulty the three-judge panel had with the
government's position is welcome.

Unfortunately, the judges focused on the wrong aspects of the government's
assertion. They aggressively questioned whether the military has the authority
to hold a citizen as an enemy combatant at all. This is a question the Supreme
Court has long since answered. The laws of war and the American constitutional
tradition alike recognize that part of fighting wars is capturing soldiers on
the other side. A decision that Mr. Padilla, even if he admitted to being an al
Qaeda fighter, could not be detained would in effect be a judicial denial that
America is at war. Such a decision, in addition to being wrong, would constitute
a Pyrrhic victory for civil liberties, for it would invite quick reversal by the
Supreme Court and thus risk validating the military's alarming behavior.

The problem here is not that Mr. Padilla is being held as an enemy combatant; it
is that the government is denying him any meaningful process for examining the
accuracy of its allegation. This is particularly troubling in the context of a
potentially perpetual conflict against a non-state, transnational enemy, one in
which distinguishing combatants from innocents can be difficult. Mr. Padilla is
being imprisoned indefinitely on the basis of the president's say-so alone. But
what if an enemy combatant designation were the product of some tragic mistake?
What if it were made maliciously? No court could provide relief, because no
court would even know whether Mr. Padilla admitted or contested the allegations
against him.

In the lower court, Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey struck a delicate balance to
which the appeals court should pay heed. If Mr. Padilla is really an al Qaeda
operative, Judge Mukasey wrote, his detention as an "enemy combatant" is lawful.
But the courts cannot simply accept the government's word. An American citizen
must be able to respond to the government's allegations and must have some
access to counsel in order to do so.

* * *

November 22, 2003; Page A01

VIRGINIA MAN'S MONTHS IN SAUDI PRISON GO UNEXPLAINED

By Caryle Murphy and John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writers

Shortly before his final exams at Saudi Arabia's University of Medina, Ahmed Abu
Ali told his parents that he was looking forward to coming home to Falls Church
for summer vacation. He joked with his younger sister about finding him a nice
woman to marry. And he promised a close friend they'd have a long-awaited
reunion at another friend's wedding in late June.

But the 22-year-old student never made it home. On June 11, Abu Ali was arrested
by Saudi authorities while taking one of his exams, and he has been in a Saudi
prison ever since.

The strongest clue about the reasons for his imprisonment came in July, from an
FBI agent testifying in federal court in Alexandria in the case of a group of
Northern Virginia men alleged to be part of a "jihad network." According to the
agent's testimony, Abu Ali told his Saudi interrogators that he had joined an al
Qaeda cell in Saudi Arabia and that he aspired to be a planner like Mohamed
Atta, the ringleader of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers.

Abu Ali's family and friends say that he has no connection to terrorism and that
the agent's claims make no sense to them. "If he had any of those thoughts the
government said he has, it should have come up on my radar screen long ago,"
said Saif Abdul Rahman, 25, an Alexandria resident who has known Abu Ali since
grade school.

With no public evidence or open court hearing in Abu Ali's case, the degree to
which he may have been involved in terrorism remains a mystery. Neither Saudi
nor U.S. authorities will say publicly whether charges have been filed against
him or tell his family what alleged acts led to his lengthy detention. His
rights as a U.S. citizen offer him no legal protection while he is in Saudi
custody. And U.S. law enforcement officials appear content to leave him where he
is.

Abu Ali has yet to see a lawyer, his parents say. And based on comments he has
made to them on the phone since his arrest, they fear he is being coerced into
saying things that aren't true.

"If you think our son is guilty, bring him to this country," said his mother,
Faten Abu Ali. "Don't have him in a country where we can't guarantee his
rights... Bring him into his own country in its courts, where justice can be
served."

In a written statement issued in response to a reporter's inquiries, the foreign
affairs adviser to Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah described the case as
"an ongoing investigation by both governments."

"The U.S. government is aware of the case of Abu Ali and why he is detained,"
wrote the adviser, Adel Al-Jubeir. "The U.S. government had access to the
suspect and continues to have access." He offered no further comment on the
investigation, although he denied that Abu Ali is being mistreated.

FBI spokesman Ed Cogswell said the bureau does not have any evidence that Abu
Ali has been mistreated while in Saudi custody. Citing national security,
Cogswell said he could not comment on why the student is being held or whether
the FBI has any plans to bring him to the United States.

FBI officials speaking on condition of anonymity said the bureau's agents have
worked on the case and observed some of Abu Ali's interrogations by the Saudis.

U.S. law enforcement officials have repeatedly said that their main focus in the
battle against al Qaeda is gathering intelligence from suspects rather than
charging them criminally. And they have acknowledged that in some cases, that
has led to suspected terrorists being interrogated in foreign prisons, where
they do not have U.S. legal protections and cannot refuse to answer questions by
invoking their right against self-incrimination.

The Saudi government's cooperation with U.S. anti-terrorism efforts increased
after bombings on May 12 in Riyadh that killed 35 people, and Saudi officials
have promised to intensify their crackdown on al Qaeda since another deadly
bombing Nov. 8 in the Saudi capital.

One reason U.S. officials have said they are interested in Abu Ali is his
alleged ties to the Northern Virginia men accused of conspiring to support al
Qaeda and wage "violent jihad" on behalf of Muslims abroad.

In that case, 11 men were charged in June in federal court in Alexandria with
supporting Lashkar-i-Taiba, a group that is fighting to wrest Kashmir from
Indian control and has been designated a terrorist organization by the U.S.
government. The men allegedly trained for military combat overseas by playing
paintball in the Virginia countryside.

Four of the defendants have since pleaded guilty to gun and conspiracy charges.
The remaining seven were named in a new indictment in September that accuses two
of the men of conspiring to provide material support to al Qaeda and the Taliban
by planning to go to Afghanistan to fight U.S. troops.

U.S. counterterrorism officials provide varying assessments of Abu Ali's
relative status as a terrorism suspect.

One U.S. law enforcement official said that "we view him as a player" with
significant ties to al Qaeda and to the Northern Virginia group. But a senior
FBI counterterrorism official characterized Abu Ali as "very peripheral."

The same official said that the Saudi government has filed terrorism charges
against Abu Ali. "I'm not aware of any information that he broke any U.S. laws,"
the official said. "But the Saudis have found a reason to charge him based on
his interviews. If he confessed to [al Qaeda] membership, they're going to hold
him."

Saudi officials initially said that Abu Ali was suspected in connection with the
May 12 bombings in Riyadh, but several U.S. law enforcement sources said the FBI
has concluded that Abu Ali probably did not play a role in them.

Kelly Shannon, a spokeswoman for the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Consular
Affairs, said a U.S. consular officer in Riyadh has "been visiting Ahmed, and
our consular office here has been working closely with the family." She declined
to give further information because of privacy restrictions.

For Omar and Faten Abu Ali, the allegations made against their son are hard to
believe. They said that Abu Ali does not hate his homeland and that while he is
a devout Muslim, he is not rigid or extremist in his beliefs. His mother, who
said she and her husband have raised their children to "think critically and not
to obey blindly," sees her son's predicament as part of a larger picture.

"We Muslims are facing a lot after 9/11, and we shouldn't be facing this," she
said. "For me, I'm sure my son is innocent... My own country is leaving him
there where he has no rights... 9/11 should not be a reason for Muslims to
suffer in this country and lose our rights."

Abu Ali's parents and four siblings live in a high-rise Falls Church apartment
building not far from Dar Al Hijrah mosque, which the family attends.

Abu Ali was born in Houston, where his parents were living after emigrating from
Jordan. Omar Abu Ali, now a U.S. citizen, works as a computer programmer at the
Saudi Embassy. His wife is a pharmacist and permanent legal U.S. resident.

Their son was valedictorian of his 1999 high school graduating class at the
Islamic Saudi Academy in Alexandria. David Kovalik, the academy's director of
education, described Abu Ali as "an exceptional student" who was "very strong in
science and math and just very personable; he helped others and was respectful
to teachers."

His parents were not thrilled when he told them he wanted to pursue a degree in
Islamic studies after high school and asked him how he expected to make a
living.

Bending to their wishes, he entered the University of Maryland at College Park
to study engineering in the fall of 1999 on a scholarship. But he wasn't happy
there, and the next year he transferred to the Institute for Islamic and Arabic
Sciences in America in Fairfax County. The institute, affiliated with al-Imam
Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, has a heavily religious-oriented
curriculum reflecting Saudi Arabia's conservative brand of Islam.

But Abu Ali wanted to study Islam in a more spiritual setting, his family said,
and he eventually enrolled at the University of Medina.

Five days after Abu Ali's June 11 arrest, 15 to 20 armed FBI agents searched his
family's apartment and confiscated several boxes of papers, books, cassettes,
two computers and family photographs. According to the search warrant, they were
looking for items related to al Qaeda, Lashkar-i-Taiba and the defendants in the
Virginia "jihad" conspiracy case.

Abu Ali's family said that he knows some of the defendants in the jihad case but
that this is not unusual because they were all in the same circle of young men
who attended Dar Al Hijrah. One defendant in that case, Randall Todd Royer, said
in an interview this year that Abu Ali had "played once or twice" with the
paintball group.

At bond hearings for two of the paintball defendants, prosecutors argued that it
was too risky to release them on bail -- partly because their phone numbers had
been found on Abu Ali's cell phone directory and both had said they had met him
in Saudi Arabia.

According to a transcript of a hearing on July 30, FBI agent Jim R. Sobchack
testified that Abu Ali "was a participant in some of the jihad training" alleged
in the Alexandria indictment.

Sobchack also testified that during FBI-observed interrogations, Abu Ali
"explained to the Saudis that he was there to join an Al-Qaeda cell. And in
fact, [he] had joined an Al-Qaeda cell and participated in weapons and
explosives training." Al Qaeda, Sobchack continued, "gave Mr. Ali a choice, and
that is he could either participate in a terrorist act or he could return to the
United States and form an Al-Qaeda cell in the United States."

Abu Ali "indicated that he would prefer to be a planner such as Mohamed Atta...
but that he would be willing to participate in an attack," Sobchack said.

In phone calls to his family on July 31 and Aug. 9, Abu Ali said he was fine,
was playing soccer with other prisoners and did not know why he had been
arrested. He also told his family not to "make the subject bigger than it is"
and that they should "consider him on a long trip in the jungle."

But his tone changed in a third call, on Aug. 23. According to his family, he
said, "Hurry, hurry, I'm facing a trial in two weeks... Get me a lawyer." He
later told them the trial had been postponed.

The family says they are confused because U.S. officials have told them that Abu
Ali has not been charged. They also say that he has denied making any confession
to the Saudis.

In an Oct. 10 call, he told his parents that FBI agents had interrogated him for
several hours and threatened to send him to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the
United States is holding detainees from the war on terrorism, or have him
declared an "enemy combatant," which would allow U.S. authorities to jail him
indefinitely without access to lawyers.

"Mom, what am I supposed to do?" Faten recalled her son saying on the phone. "I
have two countries against me!"

FBI spokesman Cogswell said he has no any information to corroborate Abu Ali's
claims that he was threatened with enemy combatant status.

Ashraf Nubani, a lawyer hired by the family, said he had not been able to get a
Saudi lawyer to meet with Abu Ali in prison. "I reached out to several attorneys
in Saudi Arabia, and they told us they couldn't touch [the case] at all," he
said. "It's too sensitive."

[ Staff writers Dan Eggen and Susan Schmidt contributed to this report. ]

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 22, 2003; Page A10

MOUSSAOUI DEFENSE WARNS OF 'LOOPHOLE'

By Jerry Markon, Washington Post Staff Writer

Attorneys for terrorism suspect Zacarias Moussaoui accused the government of
trying to create "a new loophole in our Constitution" by allowing national
security demands to trump a defendant's right to a fair trial, according to
court papers unsealed yesterday.

Moussaoui's attorneys were urging a federal appeals court to uphold a ruling
last month by U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in Alexandria. She
eliminated the death penalty as a possibility for Moussaoui, along with any
evidence that he played a role in the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings.

Brinkema took that step because the government refuses to let Moussaoui's
attorneys interview captured al Qaeda leaders. Some of them have said Moussaoui
played no role in the Sept. 11 assaults on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon but was to be part of a second wave of attacks.

The Justice Department has appealed the ruling, arguing that Moussaoui should
still be executed for his role in the conspiracy that killed nearly 3,000
people. Prosecutors say that allowing Moussaoui or his attorneys to question al
Qaeda figures would interfere with vital government interrogations and that
allowing Brinkema's ruling to stand would encourage other terrorism suspects to
try to avoid punishment in the same way -- by demanding access to al Qaeda
detainees.

In the briefs unsealed yesterday, defense attorneys called the government's
refusal to produce witnesses helpful to Moussaoui a "breathtaking and
unprecedented" expansion of executive branch power.

"The government's interest in protecting national security cannot override a
defendant's right to a fair trial," the lawyers said in the brief, filed with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in Richmond. "The founders
recognized that absolute power could never be placed in the hands of the
President," even in time of war.

Brinkema issued her ruling in response to the government's refusal to produce
three al Qaeda detainees sought as witnesses by Moussaoui's defense. She said
that Moussaoui could still be tried on charges of participating in a broad al
Qaeda conspiracy to attack the United States and that he could be sentenced to
life in prison.

Moussaoui, a French citizen, was indicted in December 2001 on charges of
conspiring with al Qaeda in the September 2001 attacks. Defense attorneys
contend, and Brinkema agrees, that the three witnesses have information vital to
his defense. Prosecutors say the witnesses actually implicate Moussaoui in the
conspiracy.

The Moussaoui case has a heavy legal and symbolic importance to the Justice
Department, which has made him a symbol of the need to extract punishment for
Sept. 11. Federal prosecutors in Alexandria have interviewed thousands of family
members of victims to prepare about 40 to testify at the trial, and prosecutors
said in their briefs that although Moussaoui's rights deserve protection, "the
criminal justice system ought to work for the victims as well."

Defense attorneys took exception: "Distilled to its essence, the government
argument is that however unfair the process may be for the defendant . . .
dismissal of the death notice was inappropriate because it will deprive the
victims of their entitlement to the ultimate punishment."

Prosecutors and defense attorneys are scheduled to deliver oral arguments to the
4th Circuit in Richmond on Dec. 3.

* * *


November 20, 2003; Page A24

MAN WAS DEPORTED AFTER SYRIAN ASSURANCES

By Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer

U.S. officials said yesterday that they decided to send a Syrian-born Canadian
citizen to Syria last year only after the CIA received assurances from Syria
that it would not torture the man.

Maher Arar, recently freed from prison, said he pleaded with U.S. authorities
not to send him to Syria precisely because he believed he would be tortured.
Arar has said he was tortured with cables and electrical cords during his 10-
month imprisonment.

U.S. law strictly prohibits sending people -- even on national security grounds
-- to a country where it is likely they will be tortured. Yesterday, a Justice
Department spokesman confirmed that the Syrian assurances allowed them to
legally send Arar to Syria.

Syrian has said it did not torture Arar. "We welcome statements by the Syrian
Embassy, as it is fully consistent with the assurances the U.S. government
received prior to his removal" from the United States, the Justice Department
spokesman said.

In a Nov. 7 speech, President Bush said Syria has left its people "a legacy of
torture, oppression, misery and ruin." Spokesmen at the Justice Department and
the CIA declined to comment on why they believed the Syrian assurances to be
credible.

Arar, who holds Canadian and Syrian citizenship, was en route to Canada, where
he lives, from Tunisia when he was detained on Sept. 26, 2002, at John F.
Kennedy International Airport in New York because he was on a terrorism watch
list. That Oct. 7, Larry D. Thompson, then acting attorney general, ordered his
deportation to Syria on national security grounds.

Canadian Solicitor General Wayne Easter said publicly for the first time
yesterday that Canada contributed information that led to Arar's arrest. Easter
discussed the case yesterday in a meeting in Washington with Attorney General
John D. Ashcroft. After the meeting, Easter told reporters: "This information
didn't just come from Canada alone. The information comes from sources
globally."

Arar's arrest and deportation have been heavily criticized in Canada, where
government opposition leaders have demanded an investigation. Some Canadians
have said the case has raised fears and outrage that a Canadian traveling
through the United States could be deported to a country known for torture.

Canadian officials said last month that they did not take part in the decision
to send Arar to Syria.

Correspondent Deneen L. Brown in Toronto contributed to this report.

* * *


November 19, 2003; Page A28

TOP JUSTICE AIDE APPROVED SENDING SUSPECT TO SYRIA

By Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer

A senior Justice Department official personally approved sending a Syrian-born
Canadian citizen suspected of terrorist links to Syria last year after
consulting with CIA officials, according to U.S. officials.

Then-Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson, in his capacity as acting
attorney general, signed the highly unusual order, citing national security and
declaring that to send the man, Maher Arar, home to Canada would be "prejudicial
to the interests of the United States," according to the officials, who spoke on
the condition of anonymity.

Arar, who holds dual Canadian and Syrian citizenship, was en route to Canada,
where he lives, from a trip to Tunisia when he was detained on Sept. 26, 2002 by
immigration officials at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York.
Arar, who was questioned at the airport because his name appeared on a
government watch list, was kept in a New York jail for more than 10 days and
then sent to Syria via Jordan.

One U.S. official said yesterday that when apprehended at the airport, Arar had
the names of "a large number of known al Qaeda operatives, affiliates or
associates" in his wallet or pockets.

While in custody in New York, Arar said, he repeatedly pleaded with U.S.
officials not to send him to Syria, a country with a record of torturing
prisoners that has been well documented by the State Department, because he
believed he would face such treatment.

Arar, who was released last month after an aggressive campaign by Canadian
officials to free him, is back in Canada. He has described in graphic detail how
he was tortured with cables and electrical cords and kept in a small cell he
described as a "grave" during his 10 months in prison.

The U.S. immigration law used to carry out the "expedited removal" of Arar
strictly prohibits sending anyone, even on national security grounds, to a
country where "it is more likely than not that they will be tortured," said a
U.S. official familiar with the law applied in the Arar case.

Justice Department officials would not comment on why Thompson would have signed
the order if Arar said he would be tortured in Syria and if U.S. authorities had
identified him to the Syrians as an al Qaeda member.

In response to questions, a Justice Department spokesman said "the removal of
Mr. Arar was accomplished after interagency consultation and in full compliance
with the law and with all relevant international treaties and conventions."

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft is scheduled to meet today with his Canadian
counterpart, Solicitor General Wayne Easter. The case has become a political
issue in Canada, where opposition parties have accused the government of
buckling to U.S. pressure. Prime Minister Jean Chretien last week officially
protested Arar's treatment, and Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham has asked
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell for an explanation.

Imad Moustafa, the charge d'affaires at the Syrian Embassy in Washington, has
denied Arar was tortured. But he said Syria had no reason to imprison Arar. He
said U.S. intelligence officials told their Syrian counterparts that Arar was an
al Qaeda member. Syria agreed to take him as a favor and to win goodwill of the
United States, he said.

* * *


November 18, 2003; Page A03

APPEALS COURT WEIGHS CASE OF ENEMY COMBATANT
Judges Question Executive Branch Powers in Patriot Act

By Michelle Garcia, Special to The Washington Post

NEW YORK, Nov. 17 -- Two federal appeals judges sharply questioned whether the
president alone had the power to designate a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant,
and one of them noted that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks "didn't repeal
the Constitution."

A three-member appeals court panel peppered a government lawyer with questions
as it considered the case of Jose Padilla, who is suspected of conspiring with
al Qaeda to explode a radiological "dirty bomb." The government never formally
charged Padilla, 33, who has been locked for 18 months in a naval brig in South
Carolina, without access to family, friends or a lawyer.

Judge Rosemary S. Pooler questioned whether Congress intended to grant such
extraordinary powers to the executive branch. "If, in fact, the battlefield is
the United States, I think Congress has to say that, and I don't think they have
yet," she said, adding later that "as terrible as 9/11 was, it didn't repeal the
Constitution."

Another panel member, Judge Barrington D. Parker, said: "Were we to construe the
Constitution as permitting this kind of power in the executive with only modest
judicial review, we would be effecting a sea change in the constitutional life
of this country and making changes that would be unprecedented in civilized
society."

A lower court ruled that Padilla has a right to meet with a lawyer. The Bush
administration appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd
Circuit. Many legal observers expect the case to end up in the Supreme Court.

Deputy Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who traveled from Washington to argue
Monday's case, answered the judges' questions by evoking the image of a nation
at war. To allow suspects such as Padilla to talk with lawyers, Clement said,
would jeopardize the government's ongoing interrogation. "Al Qaeda made the
battlefield the United States, and they've given every indication they're trying
to make the United States the battlefield again," he said.

Clement, however, suggested for the first time that Padilla eventually might
gain access to a lawyer, once his value as an intelligence source ends. "Trust
the executive to make [a] judgment about intelligence value," Clement said. "The
authority to hold enemy combatants has always been held part and parcel of war
power."

Defense attorneys rejoined that the government has no right to deny an American
citizen access to a lawyer. "The government's position has no limits. Under this
theory, the government could do this to anyone at any time," said Jenny S.
Martinez, a law professor at Stanford University and member of Padilla's legal
team. "This new power of the government is really unprecedented."

For all of their sharp questioning of government lawyers, the judges also
evinced concern about tying the president's hands. Judge Richard C. Wesley asked
a series of questions during which defense attorneys conceded that a president
had the right to hold and interrogate a suspect who posed an imminent threat.

The federal government has never charged Padilla with a crime. FBI officials
took him into custody in May 2002, when he arrived at O'Hare International
Airport in Chicago. The agents served Padilla with a material witness warrant
and transported him to a federal detention center in New York City, where a
judge appointed Donna Newman as his legal representation.

But the defense attorneys never talked with their client. On June 9, 2002, two
days before a judge was to hear a court challenge to Padilla's detention,
President Bush designated him an "enemy combatant," and Padilla was taken to a
naval brig in South Carolina. Government officials have said they relied on two
sources, who told them that Padilla had met with al Qaeda members to hatch a
plan to detonate a dirty bomb.

Padilla's attorneys have challenged his designation as an enemy combatant,
saying that one has recanted his accusations and the other has a history of
providing false information. Wesley noted that the Patriot Act, passed by
Congress in 2001, places strict limits on how long a government may detain a
noncitizen without bringing charges. He contrasted that with the Padilla case.

"Isn't it curious," Wesley asked Clement, "that an alien is treated better than
a citizen?"

Padilla is one of three detainees the administration has designated enemy
combatants. The others are Ali S. Marri, a citizen of Qatar who was apprehended
while living in Illinois, and Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen captured by the
Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in November 2001. He also is being held at the
naval base in South Carolina.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled that the government could
hold Hamdi without accusing him of a crime or allowing him meet with attorneys.
Hamdi's case is now before the Supreme Court.

* * *


November 18, 2003; Page A26

BLAIR'S WIFE FAULTS BUSH'S OPPOSITION TO INTERNATIONAL COURT

By Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer

On the eve of President Bush's state visit to Britain, the wife of Prime
Minister Tony Blair strongly criticized the administration's campaign against
the International Criminal Court, saying its concerns are "not well founded."

Cherie Booth, a leading human rights lawyer, levied the criticism yesterday
during a panel discussion on human rights and international law at Georgetown
University. Most of her remarks were an academic and historical overview of the
development of international law, but she devoted a substantial portion to
countering Bush's arguments for rejecting the court.

The administration, which removed the United States from the treaty establishing
the court signed by President Bill Clinton, has argued that with peacekeeping
missions around the world, U.S. military personnel would be subject to whims of
an "unaccountable prosecutor and its unchecked judicial power." The
administration has not only rejected the court, designed to deal with war crimes
and genocide, but pressured countries to sign bilateral agreements that would
exempt the United States from the court's jurisdiction. Seventy countries have
signed such agreements, though few are in Europe.

One hundred thirty-two countries have signed the treaty creating the court, and
92 have ratified it. Judges and a prosecutor have been selected, and Booth said
its first case is likely to concern Congo.

Booth noted that Britain is a strong supporter of the court and has concluded
that its citizens are not threatened by its existence. "With time we can but
hope the U.S. will come to share that perspective with regard to its own people,
and recognize that the concerns it has expressed -- legitimate as they may now
seem -- are not well founded," Booth said. "The absence of the United States
means we all stand to lose."

Booth said the treaty establishing the court "has it flaws" but she was
"convinced the international criminal court with independent prosecutors putting
tyrants and torturers in the dock before independent judges reflects the postwar
[post-World War II] human rights aspiration come true. It is a shining example
of how human rights might be realized under international law."

Booth said that while the administration says the court will expose its citizens
to politically motivated prosecutions, "the U.S. appears unwilling to see there
are various safeguards built into the stature, which ensure that all states have
nothing to fear from the court."

The court, she said, would only take on a case if a country has no functioning
judicial system or if it refused to investigate a case without adequate
explanation. The court "buttresses but does not override national judicial
systems," she said.

"It seems inconceivable that a state committed to the rule of law, such as the
U.S., would refuse to investigate and prosecute its nationals should there be
reliable evidence that they had been involved in international crimes," she
said.

But in the speech earlier this month, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton
rejected this argument. He said this theory is untested, and "whether and under
what circumstances the ICC's prosecutor will accept assertions of national
jurisdiction remains essentially unknown."

* * *

November 15, 2003; Page A01

EX-SECURITY CHIEFS TURN ON SHARON
Government Policies 'Create Hatred,' Israeli Newspaper Is Told

By Molly Moore, Washington Post Foreign Service

JERUSALEM, Nov. 14 -- Four former chiefs of Israel's powerful domestic security
service said in an interview published Friday that the government's actions and
policies during the three-year-old Palestinian uprising have gravely damaged the
country and its people.

The four, who variously headed the Shin Bet security agency from 1980 to 2000
under governments that spanned the political spectrum, said Israel must end its
occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, that the government should recognize
that no peace agreement can be reached without the involvement of the
Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, and that it must stop what one called the
immoral treatment of Palestinians.

"We must once and for all admit that there is another side, that it has feelings
and that it is suffering, and that we are behaving disgracefully," said Avraham
Shalom, who headed the security service from 1980 until 1986. "Yes, there is no
other word for it: disgracefully. . . . We have turned into a people of petty
fighters using the wrong tools."

The statements to Israel's largest circulation Hebrew-language daily newspaper,
Yedioth Aharonoth, added to recent public criticism of Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon by Israeli political, military and civic leaders for his failure to stop
terrorism or negotiate peace as the uprising enters its fourth year.

Members of the Sharon government said they would not comment on the statements.

"I don't want to add more fuel to this," said a senior government official,
speaking on condition of anonymity. "These, of all people, should have known
this is the worst time to conduct public debate on these issues."

The official said creating the image that "Israel is falling apart at the seams"
could prompt Palestinian organizations to "intensify terrorist activity."

The former security chiefs said they agreed to the two-hour interview -- the
first time the four have ever sat down together -- out of "serious concern for
the condition of the state of Israel," according to Carmi Gillon, who ran Shin
Bet in 1995 and 1996.

Maj. Gen. Ami Ayalon, who headed the agency from 1996 until 2000 and is co-
author of a peace petition signed by tens of thousands of Israelis and
Palestinians, said: "We are taking sure and measured steps to a point where the
state of Israel will no longer be a democracy and a home for the Jewish people."

Shin Bet is Israel's dominant domestic security and intelligence service, with
primary responsibility for the country's anti-terrorism efforts. It often plans
and directs armed forces operations that support its own activities, including
raids into Palestinian towns and villages in search of alleged terrorists,
assassinations of suspected militants and interrogation of suspects. The current
Shin Bet chief, Avi Dichter, is one of Sharon's most trusted and influential
advisers, according to administration officials.

The four former Shin Bet leaders said they recognized the contradictions between
some of their actions as security chiefs and their opinions today.

"Why is it that everyone -- [Shin Bet] directors, chief of staff, former
security personnel -- after a long service in security organizations become the
advocates of reconciliation with the Palestinians? Because they were there."
said Yaakov Perry, whose term as security chief between 1988 and 1995 covered
the first Palestinian uprising, or intifada. "We know the material, the people
in the field, and surprisingly, both sides."

The security chiefs denounced virtually every major military and political
tactic of the Sharon administration, adding their voices to the dissent in
Israel against the prime minister's handling of a conflict that has claimed the
lives of more than 2,500 Palestinians and nearly 900 Israelis and foreigners.

In recent weeks, the country's top general has criticized Sharon's clampdown on
Palestinians in the West Bank; active and reserve Air Force pilots have publicly
declared the military's use of missiles and bombs to kill militants in civilian
neighborhoods to be "immoral"; activists have initiated independent peace
proposals, and opinion polls have indicated that faith in Sharon is plummeting.

Perry said the country is "going in the direction of decline, nearly a
catastrophe" in almost every area -- economic, political, social and security.
"If something doesn't happen here, we will continue to live by the sword, we
will continue to wallow in the mud, and we will continue to destroy ourselves,"
he said.

The four men said Israel should be prepared to initiate a peace process
unilaterally rather than wait for the Palestinians to bring a halt to terrorism,
which is Sharon's overriding prerequisite for negotiations.

"As of today, we are preoccupied with preventing terror," Gillon said. "Why?
Because this is the condition for making political progress. And this is a
mistake."

"You are wrong if you think that this is a mistake," interjected Shalom. "It is
not a mistake. It is an excuse -- an excuse for doing nothing."

The group was particularly critical of Sharon's attempt to sideline Arafat and
declare him "irrelevant" -- also a key tenet of President Bush's Middle East
policy.

"It was the mother of all errors with regard to Arafat," said Shalom, who has
worked as an international business consultant since leaving the government. "We
cannot determine who will have the greatest influence over there. So let us look
at the Palestinians' political map, and it is a fact that nothing can happen
without Arafat."

Israel should "stop talking about a partner already and do what is good for us,"
said Perry, now a bank chairman and businessman. "What is good for us is to be
able to protect ourselves in the most effective manner . . . to waste fewer
troops on guarding hilltops and settlements and three goats and eight cowboys."

The former security chiefs said the Jewish settlements that have proliferated
across the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are among the greatest obstacles to
peace. "Sharon has often talked about the fact that we will be required to make
painful compromises," Perry said, "and there are no painful compromises except
for evacuating settlements."

Several of the chiefs also condemned the 400-mile fence and barrier complex
Israel is erecting around the heart of the West Bank. Sharon has said the fence
is needed to stop terrorists from infiltrating Israel. However, its path veers
deep into the West Bank in several places.

"It creates hatred, it expropriates land and annexes hundreds of thousands of
Palestinians to the state of Israel," Shalom said. "The result is that the fence
achieves the exact opposite of what was intended."

Alluding to South Africa's former system of racial separation known as
apartheid, he added: "The Palestinians are arguing, 'You wanted two states, and
instead you are closing us up in a South African reality.' Therefore, the more
we support the fence, they lose their dream and hope for an independent
Palestinian state."

Ayalon, who is chairman of an irrigation systems company, said he considered
much of Israeli policy in the Palestinian territories "immoral, some of it
patently immoral."

"Terror is not thwarted with bombs or helicopters," said Shalom, who asked
rhetorically: "Why does this increase terror? Because it is overt, because it
carries an element of vindictiveness."

"The problem, as of today, is that the political agenda has become solely a
security agenda," said Gillon, who has also served as an ambassador. "It only
deals with the question of how to prevent the next terror attack, not the
question of how it is at all possible to pull ourselves out of the mess that we
are in today."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 13, 2003; Page A11

PRISON INTERPRETER IS INDICTED

By Jonathan Finer, Washington Post Staff Writer

BOSTON, Nov. 12 -- Ahmed F. Mehalba, a civilian interpreter at the U.S. Navy
prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was indicted Wednesday by a federal grand jury
on one count of mishandling sensitive information and two counts of making false
statements to federal officials.

Mehalba, a naturalized U.S. citizen, was arrested in late September at Boston's
Logan International Airport after a computer disc containing files marked
"secret" was found in his luggage as he returned home from a trip to Egypt. A
subsequent investigation turned up additional sensitive files on a personal
computer that Mehalba had once owned. The content of those files has not been
disclosed.

Mehalba is one of three people who had worked at the detention facility to be
charged with security breaches. Ahmad I. Halabi, an Air Force senior airman who
had served as an interpreter, was indicted last week on 20 counts that include
espionage and aiding the enemy. And Army Capt. James Yee, a Muslim chaplain, is
accused of trying to take home documents from the detention facility, which
holds alleged al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

"Today's indictment demonstrates our commitment to prosecute those whose actions
may compromise the security of the United States," Boston U.S. Attorney Michael
Sullivan said.

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said in a statement that the Justice
Department will continue to target those who mishandle "sensitive information
important to the war on terrorism."

At the time of his arrest, Mehalba, 31, was returning home to the Boston area on
a flight that had originated in Cairo, where he said he visited relatives. As an
employee of Titan Corp., he had translated documents and helped with
interrogations at the military prison, where 660 foreign nationals are held.

The indictment accuses Mehalba of having "unauthorized possession or control
over documents relating to the national defense" and of falsely stating that he
did not know how such files ended up on the discs he was carrying. He also lied
when he said he had not been given a security briefing and, therefore, did not
understand the meaning of the designation "secret," the indictment says.

Mehalba's lawyer, Michael Andrews, said his client will plead not guilty, adding
that the charges "confirm our position all along that this case doesn't involve
terrorism, and that he has not been accused of giving information to anyone or
being part of any group."

An arraignment has not been scheduled.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 12, 2003 -- 2:30 p.m ET

Transcript

OPINION FOCUS: MILITARY COMMISSIONS AND TERRORISM

Philip Lacovara, Former Deputy Solicitor General

With the Supreme Court's intervention in the trial of the 660 prisoners being
held at Guantanamo Bay, jursidictional lines, international law, and the role of
military tribunals have been brought into question.

Philip Lacovara, former deputy solicitor general of the United States in charge
of the government’s criminal and internal security cases before the Supreme
Court, will be online Wednesday, Nov. 12 at 2:30 p.m. ET to discuss the
subjective role of military tribunals in fighting terrorism.

Submit your questions and comments before or during the discussion.

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live
Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts;
guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Welcome to Live Online with Philip Lacovara. Mr. Lacovara is
ready to take your questions.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: In your Post editorial today, you allude to your service in
the 1980s as the American Bar Association's international human rights observer
at a "state security" trial in Yugoslavia, and how that experience (and another
in Turkey)convinced you of the importance of ensuring that the "antiseptic glare
of sunlight" shines on politically sensitive trials, including proceedings
before the Bush military commissions. Could you elaborate?

Philip Lacovara: Both of the trial at which I was an international trial
observer involved prosecution of dissidents charged by their governments with
creating ethnic dissension and "undermining the State." Meetings with human
rights defenders as well as with government prosecutors convinced me that the
State's willingness to open the trials to neutral observers assured greater
fairness and reliability.

_______________________

Williamston, Mi.: Have military tribunals been used before outside of a declared
war? The administration has made the argument that such tribunals have been used
before, thus justifying their use now. However, the "war on terrorism" is not
technically a declared war.

Philip Lacovara: Many countries have used military tribunals outside of
"declared" international wars, including the United States. This is where the
poential for abuse may arise. But the laws of war and international human rights
law (including the Geneva Conventions) recognize that these doctrines apply to
all forms of orgnaized international combat as well as insurgencies, even in the
absence of a formal "declaration of war" (e.g., Viet Nam, Korea, etc.).

_______________________

White Sulphur, Ky.: As I understand it, the US is able to hold the Guantanamo
prisoners indefinitely without charges and without legal representation because
the naval base there is not on US soil. If Cuba were to cede that territory to
the United States, would the rights of the prisoners change?

Philip Lacovara: On Monday the Supreme Court granted review, over the
government's objection, to decide whether US civil courts have the power to
determine how detainees at "Gitmo" in Cuba should be treated. If the US turned
over the base to Cuba, the rights of persons held there would be the subject of
agreement, which is how the US makes arrangements with other countries in which
we have bases. At present, though, the US position is that Cuban law does not
apply and that US law not apply either.

_______________________

Clemson, S.C.: I fundamentally agree with your premise that we should be
treating these people with more openness, but I do disagree with you on some
matters. You pointed out in your article about how the Japanese and Germans were
treated in WWII, but it really is different now. Back then it was not as easy to
get any info they might have gleaned out to their respective capitals, and in
the Japanese case the war was over, I believe, so the point there was moot. Now,
it would be much easier for these detainees to get any info they might come
across during discovery out to their compatriots, with consequent injury to the
US. We do need to find a way to protect operational security while protecting
civil liberties. What do you think?

Philip Lacovara: There is no doubt that there are some legitimate security
concerns as well as some investigative differences that distinguish the two
situations. That is why I urged the President to consider using military
tribunals in the first place. The issue, though, is how to assure fundamental
fairness in the prosecution of people accused of potentially capital crimes.
They may even be innocent. There is a wise maxim: a country willing to sacrifice
liberty in the name of security deserves neither.

_______________________

Springfield, Va.: Justice Brandeis once said "Sunlight is the best
disinfectant." Could you elaborate on the connection you draw between your
experience as the American Bar Association's observer (in the 1980s) of a
political trial in Yugoslavia (and another in Turkey) and your belief that the
Bush military commission proceedings should be open to public scrutiny?

Philip Lacovara: I was borrowing Justice Brandeis's concept. The willingness of
the authorities in Belgrade and Ankara, under international pressure, to hold
the trials in the open meant that neutral observers (including those from
abroad) could monitor the fairness of the procedures, the demeanor and
objectivity of the judges, the nature and strength of the evidence, and so
forth. Knowing that the "world was watching" the government officials
(prosecutors and courts) were on their best behavior.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do you think the President's and Attorney General's approach,
including the Patriot Act and the authorization of military commission trials,
presages an all-out assault on important civil liberties in this country and
abroad?

Philip Lacovara: I am reluctant to go that far. I certainly agree that the key
policy-makers in the Administration have a distinct bias in favor of anything
that appears "effective" in catching and punishing possible terrorists, and they
give much less weight to competing values of procedural fairness and reliability
in pursuing that quest. I no not think that there is a conscious plan to erode
civil liberties here or abroad as a national objective; the result is a
byproduct of some of the choices being made.

_______________________

Nederland, Colo.: Would some cases have different outcomes in military vs in
civilian tribunals? Why? Does the Bill of Rights only apply to citizens? Why?
Are people that for example, some favored Afghan warlord claims to us to be al
Qaida or Taliban fighters, not deserving of the same protections as Americans?
Are people captured while resisting invasion, whatever we think of their
government, past crimes etc., not deserving of the same protection?

Philip Lacovara: In some cases it does make a difference whether a person is
tried in a civil court rather than in a criminal court. For example, in civil
courts, persons charged with serious crimes are entitled to a jury trial and in
most instances the jury must be unanimous to convict. Under the president's
order estabishing miltary commissions to try suspected terrorists, trial is
before a panel of three to seven military officers, and conviction may be by
two-thirds vote. In addition, the president's order and the implementing
procedures specifically provide that the normal rules of evidence do not apply
and the military court may even consider out-of-court, unsworn hearsay.

_______________________

Oakland, Ca. [ Charles Gittings ]: The US War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 USC 2441)
makes it a federal felony for any US citizen to commit a grave breach of the
Geneva Conventions or to Violate the Int'l Convention Against Torture -- whether
inside or outside US territory.

Aren't the detentions and commissions BOTH in violation of that statute? It
seems that the treatment of Canadian Meher Arar also was -- and a violation of
Canadian laws as well.

Philip Lacovara: The federal criminal law enforcing the nation's obligation
under the laws of war speaks about "grave violations" by (or against) US
servicemen/women or nationals. A number of foreign governments have objected
that indefinite detention of their nationals at Guantanmo violates various
guarantees of international conventions. One of the reasons why the Bush
Aministration "unsigned" the international convention creating the International
Criminal Court (which is now in operation)was concern that US officials or
military personnel would be charged with "war crimes" -- with or without
justification.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Concerning the jurisprudential aspects of the War on
Terrorism, what would you do differently if you were the Attorney General or the
President?

Philip Lacovara: There are two fundamental differences. First, I would confine
the use of military commissions to trials of major fugures in the terrorist
movement, not just any of hundreds or thousands of "foot soliders." Civil courts
may be used for such purposes. Second, I think that it is essential to assure
that not only is justice done in military trials but that justice appear to be
done. This means assuring fairer procedures for defending against charges that
may carry the death penalty.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: Military Commissions have always "been guided by" the principles
of law, and the rules of evidence and procedure, that are applicable to then
current court-martial practice. Court-martial practice has changed drastically
since World War II, including the establishment of a military judiciary, a
civilian federal court (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) to oversee
all courts-martial, and much "modernized" procedural and substantive rules. Do
you think there is any possibility that the Administration will revamp the rules
promulgated for military commissions to more closely parallel current court-
martial practice under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Manual for
Courts-Martial? If not, what do you think is the potential for military
commnissions to be perceived as fair by the world community?

Philip Lacovara: You have put your finger on one of the reasons why I was
comfortable advocating the establishment of military commissions to try major
terrorist leaders. Since WWII, the entire military justice system has been
professionalized. The Administration's approach, however, sidesteps much of this
process (including the rules of evidence that apply in courts matrial and the
system for professional and ultimately civil judicial review of court martial
convictions).

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: What are the prospects for making the Bush administration
more responsive to human rights and rights to due process (not defined narrowly
as a "citizens only" right in our own constitution)?

Am I correct that opposition to the course taken by the administration is not
simply a partisan matter, but one where both right and left come together in
distrust of such broad license being exercised by the government?

How might the administration be swayed? (Apart from dangling large amounts of
campaign cash? -- Pardon the cynicism.)

Philip Lacovara: Concern for human rights is not exclusively identified with
either party or with the "left" but not the "right." The farthest "right"
libertarians also are skeptical about the heavy hand of government. How to
change the Administration's attitude: people who care about public policy need
to make this a priority issue. So long as people (especially voters) are
concerned primarily about their own jobs, finances, or persoanl security (as
understandable as these priorities are), no amount of argumentation or moral
suasion is likely to be suffcient. Any one in office needs to be convinced that
the voters care enough about the issue to make it a decisive factor when they
enter the voting both.

_______________________

Georgetown, D.C.: What goal do you think the Bush administration has in shutting
out the public eye in these tribunals? Do you believe it's simply an
overreaction to terrorist threats, or is there another motive involved, perhaps
the prevention of worse publicity?

Philip Lacovara: Of course the stated reason is to protect state secrets and
other undefined "national security interests" (as it is characterized in the
relevant orders). Much of that explanation is valid. But as I suggested in my op
ed piece and explained in response to an earlier question, closed proceedings
invite sloppy prosecutions and weak evidence. If I were trying a marginal case,
I would much rather do it behind closed doors, or at least be able to say about
a partially closed proceedings that the information presented in camera -- which
neutral observers cannot evaluate -- showed the defendant's guilt.

_______________________

Oakland, Ca. [ Charles Gittings ]: To follow-up on the War Crimes Statute, isn't
denying the prisoners POW status without a fair hearing before a competent
tribunal a grave breach?

And beyond that, the War Crimes Statute makes it a crime to violate 1907 Hague
IV Annex art. 23 which states that it is a crime to deny any enemy national any
right or action of law. Wouldn't that make even the judges in these cases
violators? Isn't our government sworn to uphold the law?

Philip Lacovara: A parallel to the situation in which the Guantanamo detainees
find themselves is the plight of Mr. Padilla, a US citizen arrested in Chicago
and ordered confined in a military brig in South Carolina for over a year
without charge and without access to counsel. The government's official
explanation for this detention incommunicado is that they need to isolate him
for years in order to leave him without hope and thus to make him more likely to
talk to interrogators. That is surely a questionable justification for
disregarding the accepted rules of law. The federal appeals court in New York
will be considering this issue next week.

_______________________

Columbus, Oh.: IN a recent book, CJ Rehnquist was not convinced that Ex Parte
Quirin was decided properly and that Quirin, like other SC cases from that era,
may be bad precedent.

In my opinion, this is especially true with the facts regarding Quirin (they
turned themselves in and the decision was made after some were already
executed).

My question is this: After September 11, can we expect this type of reasoning
from the CJ? My hunch is that we can. Your thoughts?

Philip Lacovara: The Chief Justice has probably given more thought to these
issues than any other current Justice and has written a book about law in times
of war. He seems uncomfortable with the ancient doctrine "inter armes leges
silent" (in the midst of war, the law remains silent). Most modern scholars
criticize the way the Supreme Court reached its decision in the Quirin case
(which came before the Court in 1942, at the low point for this country during
WWII), even if they do not question the legal conclusions reached. The Supreme
Court's willingness to grant review in the Guantanamo cases last Monday, over
the Bush Administration's opposition, suggests that at least several of the
Justices may be prepared to subject the Executive's claims of miltary necessity
to more searching scrutiny.

* * *


November 12, 2003; Page A14

EX-DETAINEE DETAILS FEARFUL PATH TO SYRIA
Torture Followed Handover By American 'Removal' Unit

By DeNeen L. Brown, Washington Post Foreign Service

OTTAWA, Nov. 11 -- On the luxury jet that flew Maher Arar from the United States
to the Middle East, where he was certain he would be tortured, members of a U.S.
"special removal team" put him in shackles, served him dinner and asked whether
he minded if they watched a movie.

"They put me in the back and made me watch a CIA movie," Arar said Tuesday in an
interview here. But Arar, a dual citizen of Canada and Syria, who was arrested
in New York last year and deported on accusations he was a terrorist, remembered
that he was not interested in the movie.

"At that time," Arar recalled, "I was thinking of what would happen once I
arrived in Syria and how am I to avoid torture."

Arar, 33, spent 10 months in a Syrian prison, where he said he was beaten with
an electric cable, forced to sign confessions that he had been to Afghanistan
and kept in a cell he called a grave. U.S. officials have said that Arar, who
was arrested on Sept. 26, 2002, was seized as part of a secret procedure known
as "rendition," in which terrorism suspects are turned over to foreign countries
known to torture people in their custody.

Arar was released from the Syrian prison and flown back to Canada last month. At
a news conference last week, he described his torture and maintained his
innocence of any involvement in terrorist activity.

The Center for Constitutional Rights in New York on Tuesday asked Congress and
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft to conduct a criminal investigation into the
role of intelligence agencies in the torture of Arar, who was never charged. The
organization also demanded that Ashcroft investigate "whether U.S. officials
condoned and aided torture."

"This is a legal and moral outrage," said Michael Ratner, the center's
president. "Not only does the treatment of Maher Arar and the practice of
rendition violate the Convention Against Torture, but it is antithetical to the
basic values of our democracy."

Arar, who was born in Syria, was arrested at John F. Kennedy International
Airport while traveling on his Canadian passport and making a connection en
route to Montreal. Arar said officials asked him about his work for a U.S.-based
computer company, confiscated his Palm Pilot and asked him about his relatives.
He said the officers did not identify themselves, but they had badges showing
they were from the FBI and the New York Police Department. They asked Arar about
his connection to Abdullah Almalki, another Canadian Syrian, who was arrested in
Syria in May 2002. He told them he knew Almalki casually.

In the interrogation room, they ignored his pleas for an attorney, Arar said.
"Then they put me in chains, on my wrists and ankles, like you see the
Guantanamo detainees in."

The next morning, the U.S. officials questioned him for eight hours about Osama
bin Laden, the Palestinians and Iraq, and asked about mosques where he had
worshiped.

Eventually, a U.S. immigration agent entered the room and told Arar he wanted
him to volunteer to go to Syria. "I said no way," Arar said. "I wanted to go
home. He said you are a special interest. They asked me to sign a form. They
would not let me read it, but I just signed it. I was exhausted and confused."

He was then driven in a van to the Metropolitan Detention Center in New York,
where he was strip-searched and given an injection, which officials did not
identify. Arar was given a document that accused him of being a member of al
Qaeda.

After a 3 a.m. hearing, he said, he was chained and driven in an armored truck
to an airport in New Jersey, where he was placed on a small jet. Arar said he
was flown first to Washington, which he determined from a video display showing
the location of the plane. The plane spent an hour on the ground in Washington
before a "special removal unit," a term he overheard, came on board.

"They did not introduce themselves," he said. "They did not have badges." Arar
overheard phone conversations. "They said Syria was refusing to take me directly
and I would have to fly to Jordan." The plane flew first to Portland, Maine,
then to Rome and finally to Amman, the Jordanian capital.

During the flight, Arar said, he talked with an agent who identified himself as
"Khoury," and who said his grandfather had moved to the United States from
Syria. "He was in charge. He was an old man in his fifties. Khoury appeared
sympathetic. He told them to take off the shackles and chains."

Arar told the man he was afraid of being tortured. "The man told me, 'Why don't
you talk to the Jordanians? They might be able to keep you in Jordan.' In his
eyes he felt sorry. But he was in the special removal unit. His job was to hand
over people."

When the plane landed in Jordan, Arar said, the U.S. authorities returned his
passport, his hand luggage and laptop computer. He said six or seven Jordanians
were waiting for him. He did not hear any conversations between the Americans
and the Jordanians. He was placed in a van parked a few feet from the plane.

"Just right away, after they handed me over, they put me in the van, they
started beating me," Arar said. He said he was blindfolded and remembers hearing
Arabic music playing in the van. Ten hours later, he arrived at the Syrian
border.

"I know because the accent changed," Arar said. He said he was taken to the
Palestine branch of the Syrian military intelligence. Over the next months, Arar
said, he was tortured, and spent six months in the small cell that he described
as a grave. "I thought when I went in the grave I would stay one or two days. I
realized that was my home. I had moments I wanted to kill myself. I was like a
dead person."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 12, 2003; Page A23

TRIALS AND ERROR

By Philip Allen Lacovara

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28547-2003Nov11.html

Two years ago this week, President Bush authorized trials by military commission
for people accused of membership in al Qaeda or attacks on the United States.
Six men have been identified thus far to appear before these commissions.

Shortly before the president issued his executive order, and just weeks after
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, I raised my voice in strong support of military
commissions. As deputy solicitor general in the Nixon administration, I had been
in charge of the government's criminal and internal security cases before the
Supreme Court. I understood how the Bush administration could invoke the laws of
war sanctioned by the Supreme Court to deal with international terrorists -- as
distinct from "mere felons" (including mass murderers) and legitimate combatants
entitled to protection under the 1949 Geneva Convention as prisoners of war. I
urged the administration to do so.

When I proposed using military commissions to try terrorists, I conceived of
trials with fair and reliable procedures designed to ascertain guilt -- or,
equally important, innocence. I knew there would be critics of this approach but
was confident that both legal and policy factors justified such trials.

Now, two years later, I reluctantly conclude that the administration's approach
to military commissions confirms many of the critics' worst fears.

The rules governing military commissions depart substantially from standards of
fair procedure. Most problematic, they undermine the basic right to effective
counsel by imposing significant legal constraints on civilian defense attorneys.
The rules negate normal attorney-client confidentiality and authorize the
withholding of key evidence from defendants and their civilian counsel. In
addition, the military commission rules permit the Defense Department to
restrict defense lawyers' ability to speak publicly about a case -- while
Pentagon officials face no such constraint.

While the government reserves the right to listen in on attorney-client
communications, defendants and their civilian counsel may be denied access to
relevant and even exculpatory information if the military concludes that
concealment is "necessary to protect the interests of the United States." The
rules also purport to bar the civil courts from any review of the eventual
judgments of the tribunals.

Not surprisingly, few eligible defense lawyers have decided to participate in
these cases, and the criminal defense bar has called for lawyers to boycott the
proceedings. In defending these military commissions, representatives of the
Bush administration constantly refer to the well-known Quirin case -- in which
the Roosevelt administration established a military commission during World War
II to try eight Nazi saboteurs who had sneaked into the United States and
thereby forfeited their status as soldiers entitled to be treated as POWs.

What they fail to note is that the Supreme Court decision in that case accorded
much more in the way of legal rights to those eight Nazis than the
administration is proposing today. The accused saboteurs retained the right to
confidential communications with their counsel, access to all relevant evidence
and Supreme Court review of the lawfulness of the proceedings against them. In a
subsequent case involving the notorious Japanese Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita, the
Supreme Court reaffirmed this important principle, granting even enemy leaders
the right to have civil courts review the lawfulness of their prosecution and
conviction by military commissions.

Surely if such procedural guarantees could be extended to acknowledged enemies
prosecuted under the Articles of War applicable during World War II, they also
can be accorded to the suspects the administration wants to put on trial before
specially constituted military commissions today. But they are not. Further
undermining the legitimacy of the process is the fact that the Defense
Department's instructions for the military commissions grant broad discretion to
the president and secretary of defense to close the entire proceeding, acting on
undefined "national security interests." Armed with this license to close the
trials, the Defense Department has also failed to respond to repeated inquiries
from human rights groups and others seeking authorization to attend military
commission trials as observers.

As a lawyer who has served as an international observer at "state security"
trials in Yugoslavia and Turkey, I know how important it is to ensure that the
antiseptic glare of sunlight be allowed to shine on politically sensitive
trials. Earlier assurances by senior administration officials that proceedings
before military commissions generally would be open, with some type of public
access provided, have given way more recently to vague statements that the issue
of access for impartial legal observers will be addressed once trials are
officially scheduled.

The administration's refusal to make a definitive commitment now suggests that
public access may become another casualty in the war on terrorism.

All of this needs to be scrutinized and sorted out quickly -- especially now
that the administration has identified six potential defendants for these
military trials. Given the stakes for both security and liberty interests, a
more precise and balanced -- and therefore more credible -- approach to military
justice certainly is in order.

The writer, a former deputy solicitor general of the United States and former
counsel to the Watergate special prosecutor, is a board member of the Lawyers
Committee for Human Rights. He will answer questions about this column during a
Live Online discussion at 2:30 p.m. today at www.washingtonpost.com.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 11, 2003; Page A01

JUSTICES TO RULE ON DETAINEES' RIGHTS
Court Access for 660 Prisoners at Issue

By Charles Lane, Washington Post Staff Writer

The Supreme Court has intervened directly for the first time in the Bush
administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism, announcing yesterday that
it will consider the legal rights of the 660 prisoners now held at a U.S. naval
base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Until now, lower federal courts have said that the Guantanamo detainees, all of
whom are foreign nationals, have no right to demand their freedom in U.S.
courts. But in a brief order, the court said it will review that conclusion.

Most of the prisoners were captured by the United States and its allies during
fighting or intelligence operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban in
Afghanistan and Pakistan, and they have been held without trial and interrogated
at Guantanamo under conditions of near-total secrecy. In the 22 months since the
prison was established, it has been a symbol of the administration's hard line
against terrorism and a target of condemnation by international human rights
organizations.

The court's announcement sets the stage for a potentially historic ruling in
which the justices must balance the president's assertion of his constitutional
powers as commander in chief against human rights claims based in part on
international law.

The Bush administration had urged the court not to review the case, arguing in
its brief that the "detention serves the vital objectives of preventing
combatants from continuing to aid our enemies and gathering intelligence to
further the overall war effort."

Briefs submitted on behalf of the detainees offered an equally dramatic view of
the stakes, suggesting that the United States risks its reputation as a beacon
of liberty and drawing parallels between the Guantanamo detentions and the
internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

In a separate terrorism-related case, the court announced it would not hear an
appeal by the Global Relief Foundation, an Illinois-based Islamic charity
accused of having al Qaeda links. The foundation's assets were frozen by the
Bush administration in December 2001.

Though the Guantanamo prison was set up to house detainees from Afghanistan and
Pakistan, military officials have transported to the jail suspected terrorists
captured in other countries, such as Bosnia.

Sixty-four inmates, mostly Afghans and Pakistanis, have been sent from the
prison back to their home countries to be released, and four more have been
flown to Saudi Arabia, where they are still jailed and may face trial. U.S.
officials are privately negotiating the return of scores more Guantanamo
detainees to their home nations.

Six hundred sixty prisoners are still held at the prison, as newly arrived
detainees replace those who are repatriated. The prison would be the site for
any future military tribunals -- cases in which accused terrorists are tried
before military judges. Any executions would take place there, too.

The Bush administration asserts that the Guantanamo detainees have no access to
U.S. courts because they are unlawful enemy combatants captured on foreign
battlefields and because Guantanamo is not American but Cuban territory.

Therefore, the administration argues, the prisoners may be kept at Guantanamo
for as long as President Bush considers it necessary to the war against al Qaeda
and its allies.

The administration has also said the detainees are not entitled to prisoner-of-
war status under international law, though it has said that it will treat them
in accordance with the Geneva Conventions and has allowed access to the
International Committee of the Red Cross.

The policy has attracted intense criticism both at home and abroad, with even
the Kuwaiti and British governments -- two of the closest U.S. allies in the
wars against terrorism and in Iraq -- expressing unease at some aspects of the
detention of their citizens. There have been 32 suicide attempts at the jail.

International human rights groups and other critics say there is no basis in
either U.S. or international law for holding people indefinitely without a
hearing. They say some Guantanamo detainees were not involved in either al Qaeda
or the Taliban, but were simply swept up in the chaos that enveloped Afghanistan
as the United States moved in and the Taliban government fell.

Yesterday's Supreme Court order consolidated two challenges to the Bush
administration's policy. The first case, Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334, was
initiated last year by the parents of two British citizens, Shafiq Rasul and
Asif Iqbal, and two Australians, Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks. The second case,
al Odah v. U.S., No. 03-343, was brought by the relatives of 12 Kuwaiti
nationals.

Both cases were dismissed by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, and
earlier this year a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit upheld that ruling without dissent.

The lower courts said the issue had been settled by a 1950 Supreme Court ruling
in which the court denied a writ of habeas corpus to German espionage agents who
had been captured by U.S. forces in China in 1945 and later jailed in occupied
Germany.

Constitutional guarantees of due process do not necessarily extend to every
place where people may be held by U.S. authorities, the lower courts said.

The Bush administration agreed, urging the Supreme Court to avoid "judicial
interference with military affairs."

But lawyers for the families of the Guantanamo detainees say the 1950 case was
different because the Germans had been convicted by a military commission, while
today's alleged terrorists have faced no legal process.

Also, they argue that Guantanamo, though technically still Cuban territory, is
so thoroughly controlled by the United States that it should be compared with
Guam and other overseas territories where U.S. courts have jurisdiction, rather
than with wartime China.

"The United States has created a prison on Guantanamo Bay that operates entirely
outside the law," lawyers from the New York-based Center for Constitutional
Rights argued in their appeal petition in Rasul v. Bush. "Within the walls of
that prison, foreign nationals may be held indefinitely, without charges or
evidence of wrongdoing, without access to family, friends or legal counsel, and
with no opportunity to establish their innocence."

The court exercised its prerogative to recast the questions presented in the
case, framing a single issue of whether the federal courts "lack jurisdiction to
consider challenges to the legality of the detention" of the Guantanamo
prisoners. This was a narrower issue than the prisoners' attorneys had posed,
and seems to mean that, even if the prisoners win at the Supreme Court, their
ultimate fate would still have to be determined by lower courts case by case.

Still, the high court's decision to review the Guantanamo cases, which required
the assent of at least four justices, was a mild surprise given that there was
no conflict among the lower courts that had considered the issue -- and that the
court previously declined to hear two other terrorism-related cases.

With more such cases pending at the court or working their way through the lower
courts, the justices may have felt that they could no longer remain on the
sidelines.

"Either a majority of the court feels that the law is so clear that it wants to
tell the world in no uncertain terms that President Bush is acting within the
law, or four members of the court really do question the outcome in the lower
courts and want to give it a good, hard look," said Michael J. Glennon, who
teaches national security law at Tufts University's Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy.

The cases are set to be argued at the court early next year and decided by July.

In the Global Relief Foundation case, the charity had sought a court order
unfreezing its assets. It argued that the government had improperly used its
foreign intelligence surveillance authority against a U.S.-chartered
corporation, and that the government should not be allowed to use classified
information in making the case against it.

But both a federal district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th
Circuit rejected those claims. The case is Global Relief Foundation v. Snow, No.
03-46.

[ Staff writer John Mintz contributed to this report. ]

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 11, 2003; Page A24

Editorial
JUSTICES AT GUANTANAMO

THE SUPREME COURT agreed yesterday to consider whether federal courts have any
power over the military's war-on-terrorism detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The decision was something of a surprise. The court's prior precedents make it
clear that U.S. courts have no jurisdiction over non-Americans detained abroad,
and lower court judges unanimously have deemed this case law as precluding their
review of the Guantanamo detentions. Any assertion of jurisdiction by the courts
would open a huge can of worms about where exactly to draw the jurisdictional
lines. Federal judges shouldn't be overseeing foreign and military affairs. But
the court's announcement yesterday ought to be a wake-up call to the military.

It is often a mistake to read much into a decision merely to hear a case; the
justices could simply have taken the matter because the case is of sufficient
importance that they felt obliged to resolve it from the top. But it's also
possible that some of the justices, like many other Americans, are alarmed by
the administration's obstinate refusal to be governed by reasonable rules at
Guantanamo, where it is holding about 660 people. Indeed, the Bush
administration has all but taunted the courts to step in. From the beginning, it
has refused to comply with the strict terms of the Geneva Convention, which
requires that detainees be given hearings before they are designated "unlawful
combatants." It has refused to disclose who is being held or under what
standards. There is no remotely neutral forum in which inmates can argue any
claim they might have that they are being held in error. None of the detainees
has a lawyer. And the much-ballyhooed system of military tribunals that the
administration announced two years ago has, so far, resulted in zero trials,
with only a handful ostensibly scheduled. The administration effectively asks
Americans to tolerate the indefinite detention of large numbers of people with
no charge, no accountability and no seeming urgency about making the rule of law
into a reality.

The laws of war do, as the administration contends, permit the detention of the
other side's fighters during hostilities. But those laws presuppose that
hostilities will eventually end and prisoners will be released. They don't help
much in a perpetual conflict against an adversary with whom peace is
unimaginable. Nor is the Supreme Court well placed to provide a solution. Such a
solution could and should come from the administration and Congress. Both have
failed in their duty to create a process that is fair and understandable,
thereby creating a risk that the courts will fill the legal void. Guantanamo
can't remain a lawless human warehouse forever.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *

Sunday, November 9, 2003; Page B06

Editorial

FREEDOM VS. TORTURE?

MAHER ARAR, a Canadian-Syrian dual citizen, was on his way to Montreal last fall
on a flight path that took him through New York City. Unbeknownst to him, he had
been placed on the terrorist watch list, and American immigration authorities
detained him on his arrival in New York. After reportedly concluding that they
lacked evidence to charge him with a crime, they decided to deport him. And
faced with a choice between democratic Canada, where he would presumably remain
free, and totalitarian Syria, which could be expected to lock him up and torture
him, authorities chose the latter. As a consequence, Mr. Arar was locked up for
10 months until pressure from the Canadian government secured his release. Now,
back in his adopted country, he alleges that he was savagely tortured during his
months as an unwilling guest of Syrian President Bashar Assad. His case has long
been a cause celebre in Canada, where many see in it evidence of American
arrogance and disrespect for human rights and for Canada.

Deporting someone to a vicious police state knowing the fate that awaits him
there is morally repugnant. America shouldn't be subcontracting torture. But
saying that much is the easy part. The harder question is what should be done
with a suspected al Qaeda associate in such circumstances. Sending Mr. Arar to
Canada, as a practical matter, meant setting him free, since there was little
prospect of bringing charges there either. Authorities faced this choice:
torture in Syria or freedom on the other side of the longest undefended border
in the world.

If credible intelligence linked him to al Qaeda, Mr. Arar could have been
designated an enemy combatant and held at Guantanamo Bay. The trouble with this
solution is that the legal process given alleged enemy combatants is so opaque
and unfair. The military won't provide data on who is being held at Guantanamo
or the standards used to keep people there. Were there some publicly understood
process for handling these cases, so that sending a suspected enemy combatant to
Guantanamo was not the same as dumping him into a legal black hole, authorities
would have an option for people such as Mr. Arar other than torture in Syria and
freedom in Canada.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 8, 2003; Page A21

AIR FORCE SPY CASE DRAWS FIRE

By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer

Lawyers for Ahmad I. Halabi, the Air Force translator at the Guantanamo Bay
prison who was charged with espionage this week, bitterly criticized the
military yesterday for what they said was a shoddy investigation of their client
and unfair treatment of him.

The crux of most of the 20 counts filed against Halabi, 23, is that he had in
his possession and on his computer highly classified documents about the alleged
al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at the naval facility in Cuba where he worked and
about operations there. But his attorneys said yesterday that they have serious
questions about whether many of the documents are classified.

Prosecutors have in recent weeks declared many innocuous documents in the case
to be secret and have said many documents previously designated secret were
mistakenly classified, Halabi's attorneys said. This raises the question of how
a supply clerk with almost no training in classified work could have understood
the rules on handling sensitive data, they said.

"If senior field-grade (military lawyers) cannot understand or figure this out,
how could Senior Airman Halabi have any clue about anything that the government
now claims he possessed was 'classified?' " Halabi attorney Donald Rehkopf Jr.
asked in a letter to Air Force officials this week.

Halabi is one of three people who worked at the prison to be charged with
breaches of security. All three are accused of possessing classified material
without authorization. Halabi could be sentenced to life in prison if convicted.

Military officials could not be reached for comment last night.

In the letter, Rehkopf said that to prepare for the court-martial of his client,
his attorneys needed to speak to at least 21 of the Guantanamo Bay prison's 660
inmates, a request that may conflict with the military's strict control over
access to the detainees.

Rehkopf added in the letter that officials were "intentionally perverting" the
process of turning over information to defense attorneys by improperly demanding
that they provide detailed reasons for needing the information.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 7, 2003; Page A20

AIR FORCE TRANSLATOR FACES TRIAL

By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer

An Air Force translator at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba has been formally
charged with 20 counts including espionage, aiding the enemy and lying to
military investigators, but the general who referred his case to a court-martial
determined that he should not face the death penalty if he is convicted.

Ten other charges were dropped against Senior Airman Ahmad I. Halabi, 23,
including some alleging that he aided the enemy and made false statements to
investigators. In August, Halabi was charged with 30 counts in a preliminary
phase of the case that is common under military law.

Last night Air Force officials declined to provide details about the charges
against Halabi, who is from Detroit but was born in Syria. He was arrested July
23 at a naval base in Florida after a nine-month tour of duty as an Arabic
translator for many of the 660 alleged al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at the
Guantanamo Bay prison. When he was detained, he was on his way to be married in
Syria.

Military officials have not specified who "the enemy" is in the aiding the enemy
charges, or for which foreign power he allegedly committed espionage. But court
documents say he was suspected of transmitting sensitive information about the
prison's operations to people from Syria and Qatar.

The charges also say he had 180 letters from the detainees that he should not
have had, and that he intended to use the letters "to the injury of the United
States or to the advantage of Syria." Moreover, the court documents list
numerous other classified documents he improperly possessed, including jail maps
and papers describing prisoners' cell numbers.

Halabi's attorneys say he is innocent. They said investigators have misconstrued
as sinister a number of contacts he had with Syrian officials in an effort to
arrange for his Syrian fiancee to move to this country.

The charges against Halabi include seven that he failed to obey a lawful order;
one that he aided the enemy; four that he committed espionage; five that he lied
to investigators who questioned him; two that he improperly possessed sensitive
documents; and one that he lied on credit applications.

The charges against Halabi are much more serious than those filed against
another military member at Guantanamo Bay. On Oct. 10, military authorities
charged Army Capt. James Yee, a Muslim chaplain at the prison, with mishandling
classified information after authorities found prison maps and information about
detainees in his possession.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 6, 2003; Page A27

POLITICIZED MEMO INCITES ROW
Intelligence Panel Minority Laid Out Attack on Final Report

By Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer

A barely contained partisan squabble over assessing blame for the apparent
failure to find chemical and biological weapons in Iraq broke into the open
yesterday when Republican senators said they had a memorandum indicating their
Democratic colleagues were preparing a campaign to disparage a Senate committee
report on the quality of prewar intelligence before it is even completed.

A senior Democrat countered that Republicans had probably stolen the memo from a
trash can or a computer file.

The document at issue was written by a Democratic staff member on the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence for the ranking member, Sen. John D.
Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). The memo laid out options for handling a report the
committee is preparing that will largely focus on weaknesses in intelligence
gathering and analysis by the intelligence community.

One option outlined in the memo is to work within the committee, which has a
history of bipartisanship unusual in congressional committees, to "pull the
majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures
regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials."

Another option is to attach a Democratic dissent to any interim or final report
that would also "castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the
inquiry."

A third option is to launch a Democrat-only "independent investigation when it
becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the
majority."

The memo makes clear that the committee staff does not have concrete evidence of
administration misconduct, but is looking hard for it. "Once we identify solid
leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and
have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an
independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the
use of intelligence."

Rockefeller has been pushing the committee to broaden the inquiry to include a
look at how the administration used the intelligence it was provided,
specifically whether the White House exaggerated claims on Iraq or had a
separate, secret intelligence pipeline at an obscure office in the Defense
Department.

The memo's existence was first reported by syndicated radio host Sean Hannity on
Tuesday afternoon. By yesterday morning, Republican senators were lining up to
denounce it and to demand that Democrats publicly repudiate it by this morning
-- never mind that Rockefeller said he had not approved the memo for
distribution. Nor did he share it with any Democrats on the committee or the
Senate Democratic leadership, he said.

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the committee's chairman, was one of the first on the
floor. "We have learned of an effort to develop a plan to discredit the
committee's work and undermine its conclusions, no matter what those conclusions
may be," he said. "I urge the Democratic members of the committee to disavow
this strategy of attack and join with us to work together to complete the
business of the committee."

Rockefeller, in a released statement, said the memo "was likely taken from a
waste basket or through unauthorized computer access."

"Exploring or asserting the rights of the minority under the intelligence
committee rules in no way amounts to politicizing intelligence," he said. "The
American people deserve a full accounting of why we sent our sons and daughters
into war."

The committee has combed through thousands of pages of documents and interviewed
more than one hundred intelligence analysts, operatives and scientists. It is
preparing a report that is said to be harshly critical of the CIA and other
intelligence agencies for their lack of substantive information and analysis on
Iraq.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *

November 6, 2003; Page A31

U.S. AGENCIES SURF FOR TRANSLATORS
A Dearth of Linguists Sends CIA, FBI to Web

By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer

The CIA and the FBI are launching a program to help solve the shortage of
linguists in Arabic and other languages, which officials say has become a crisis
in the fight against terrorism. They're going online and creating a "virtual"
network of bilingual university students, professors and other language experts.

When the National Virtual Translation Center starts operations Dec. 1, it will
initiate an unusual and perhaps risky plan: hiring individual language speakers
around the nation who haven't worked in government to translate documents and
audiotapes sent to their homes or offices by e-mail.

In the past, the CIA, the National Security Agency (NSA) and other agencies had
to obtain security clearances for their translators and then bring them to the
location of the untranslated materials -- to Afghanistan, say, to translate al
Qaeda documents, or to secure vaultlike U.S. government facilities where
classified data could be reviewed.

"Historically we brought linguists to the material, but now we'll get the
material to the linguists," the new center's director, Everette Jordan, said in
a recent interview. "It means we can move a lot faster."

To Kevin Hendzel, a spokesman for the American Translators Association (ATA),
which is working closely with the Pentagon, the CIA and FBI on the linguist
shortage, the new program is "truly revolutionary" and "perhaps the most
important innovation to address this great national security priority."

Government officials say the backlog of untranslated documents -- and of
unexamined tape recordings of conversations surreptitiously recorded by the NSA
-- has become so colossal that they need to try something new.

"We're feeling trapped in the way we've always done things," said Jordan, a 27-
year translator and administrator for the U.S. Army and the NSA. "The situation
is dire."

Officials naturally are moving on other fronts, too -- the FBI and CIA have
hired up to 500 translators since Sept. 11, 2001, and intelligence agencies are
upgrading computers that translate texts automatically or can sort through vast
amounts of data to find the most telling passages.

Jordan is officially announcing the new effort at an ATA conference today in
Arizona.

The FBI will oversee day-to-day operations of the center, which is housed in a
downtown Washington office building near FBI headquarters. But along with
Congress, CIA Director George J. Tenet has been the driving force in creating
it.

At least 300 non-government employees are expected soon to be working as center
contractors, with most coming from universities, companies and private
laboratories. Jordan is scouring the country for experts in fields including
economics, politics, immunology and metallurgy who also know languages such as
Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, Bahasa Indonesian and Korean.

Most of them will get a cursory background check and will not receive full
security clearances. Those working at this level will not be given secret
materials to translate, but they will do more humdrum work, such as translating
transcripts of a Chinese biotechnology conference or texts on Iran's oil
industry.

The translators won't be informed of the context of the government's interest in
the documents.

The idea is to fill in the U.S. government's knowledge of societal trends in
those countries, in the same way that the CIA spent years scrutinizing the
Soviet bloc's politics and economics during the Cold War.

Most of the government's best linguists grew up speaking the languages being
translated and understand the subtle nuances in dialect and culture, officials
said. Jordan added that in Arab culture, people often speak in allegorical or
mystical terms that can flummox even expert outsiders.

Jordan has a reputation as a star at the NSA, say people who know him. He
learned French and Spanish effortlessly in high school. Posted to Germany while
in the Army, he mastered first German and then Russian. He started his work in
the NSA in 1982, and for years he wore headphones listening to Soviet military
officers discussing their work and their lives -- though he refuses to discuss
it.

In 1990, he learned Arabic and shifted to work in that part of the world. But
ever since he appeared at his superiors' instruction in a CNN documentary about
the NSA in March 2001, he has been unable to travel abroad for security reasons.

His center will struggle to overcome many academics' innate unease about working
with the intelligence community, officials said. Since the Vietnam War and
scandals about the CIA in the 1970s, some college professors and administrators
have come to view intelligence professionals as "baby killers," Jordan said.

Likewise, suspicion pervades intelligence circles about working with academics,
said Jordan, who added that it won't be easy persuading intelligence officials
to entrust their untranslated documents to college professors lacking full
security clearances.

"To them, it's having strangers do your work," Jordan said, "a bit like sending
your kid off to kindergarten in another town."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 5, 2003; Page A01

DEPORTED TERROR SUSPECT DETAILS TORTURE IN SYRIA
Canadian's Case Called Typical of CIA

By DeNeen L. Brown and Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writers

TORONTO, Nov. 4 -- A Canadian citizen who was detained last year at John F.
Kennedy International Airport in New York as a suspected terrorist said Tuesday
he was secretly deported to Syria and endured 10 months of torture in a Syrian
prison.

Maher Arar, 33, who was released last month, said at a news conference in Ottawa
that he pleaded with U.S. authorities to let him continue on to Canada, where he
has lived for 15 years and has a family. But instead, he was flown under U.S.
guard to Jordan and handed over to Syria, where he was born. Arar denied any
connection to terrorism and said he would fight to clear his name.

U.S. officials said Tuesday that Arar was deported because he had been put on a
terrorist watch list after information from "multiple international intelligence
agencies" linked him to terrorist groups.

Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that the Arar case fits the
profile of a covert CIA "extraordinary rendition" -- the practice of turning
over low-level, suspected terrorists to foreign intelligence services, some of
which are known to torture prisoners.

Arar's case has brought repeated apologies from the Canadian government, which
says it is investigating what information the Royal Canadian Mounted Police gave
to U.S. authorities. Canada's foreign minister, Bill Graham, also said he would
question the Syrian ambassador about Arar's statements about torture. In an
interview on CBC Radio, Imad Moustafa, the Syrian chargé d'affaires in
Washington, denied that Arar had been tortured.

Arar said U.S. officials apparently based the terrorism accusation on his
connection to Abdullah Almalki, another Syrian-born Canadian. Almalki is being
detained by Syrian authorities, although no charges against him have been
reported. Arar said he knew Almalki only casually before his detention but
encountered him at the Syrian prison where both were tortured.

Arar, whose case has become a cause celebre in Canada, demanded a public
inquiry. "I am not a terrorist," he said. "I am not a member of al Qaeda. I have
never been to Afghanistan."

He said he was flying home to Montreal via New York on Sept. 26, 2002, from a
family visit to Tunisia.

"This is when my nightmare began," he said. "I was pulled aside by immigration
and taken [away]. The police came and searched my bags. I asked to make a phone
call and they would not let me." He said an FBI agent and a New York City police
officer questioned him. "I was so scared," he said. "They told me I had no right
to a lawyer because I was not an American citizen."

Arar said he was shackled, placed on a small jet and flown to Washington, where
"a new team of people got on the plane" and took him to Amman, the capital of
Jordan. Arar said U.S. officials handed him over to Jordanian authorities, who
"blindfolded and chained me and put me in a van. . . . They made me bend my head
down in the back seat. Then these men started beating me. Every time I tried to
talk, they beat me."

Hours later, he said, he was taken to Syria and there he was forced to write
that he had been to a training camp in Afghanistan. "They kept beating me, and I
had to falsely confess," he said. "I was willing to confess to anything to stop
the torture."

Arar said his prison cell "was like a grave, exactly like a grave. It had no
light, it was three feet wide, it was six feet deep, it was seven feet high. . .
. It had a metal door. There was a small opening in the ceiling. There were cats
and rats up there, and from time to time, the cats peed through the opening into
the cell."

Steven Watt, a human rights fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights in
Washington, said Arar's case raised questions about U.S. counterterrorism
measures. "Here we have the United States involved in the removal of somebody to
a country where it knows persons in custody of security agents are tortured,"
Watt said. "The U.S. was possibly benefiting from the fruits of that torture. I
ask the question: Why wasn't he removed to Canada?"

A senior U.S. intelligence official discussed the case in terms of the secret
rendition policy. There have been "a lot of rendition activities" since the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, the official said. "We
are doing a number of them, and they have been very productive."

Renditions are a legitimate option for dealing with suspected terrorists,
intelligence officials argue. The U.S. government officially rejects the
assertion that it knowingly sends suspects abroad to be tortured, but officials
admit they sometimes do that. "The temptation is to have these folks in other
hands because they have different standards," one official said. "Someone might
be able to get information we can't from detainees," said another.

Syria, where use of torture during imprisonment has been documented by the State
Department, maintains a secret but growing intelligence relationship with the
CIA, according to intelligence experts.

"The Syrian government has provided some very useful assistance on al Qaeda in
the past," said Cofer Black, former director of counterterrorism at the CIA who
is now the counterterrorism coordinator at the State Department.

One senior intelligence official said Tuesday that Arar is still believed to
have connections to al Qaeda. The Justice Department did not have enough
evidence to detain him when he landed in the United States, the official said,
and "the CIA doesn't keep people in this country."

With those limitations, and with a secret presidential "finding" authorizing the
CIA to place suspects in foreign hands without due process, Arar may have been
one of the people whisked overseas by the CIA.

In the early 1990s, renditions were exclusively law enforcement operations in
which suspects were snatched by covert CIA or FBI teams and brought to the
United States for trial or questioning. But CIA teams, working with foreign
intelligence services, now capture suspected terrorists in one country and
render them to another, often after U.S. interrogators have tried to gain
information from them.

Renditions are considered a covert action. Congress, which oversees the CIA,
knows of only the broad authority to carry out renditions but is not informed
about individual cases, according to intelligence officials.

[ Priest reported from Washington. Staff writers John Mintz and Glenn Kessler in
Washington contributed to this report. ]

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 3, 2003; Page A18

Editorial

WAITING AT GUANTANAMO

A YEAR AGO, federal officials said the government was nearly ready to go ahead
with military tribunals for detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Last May, a
senior defense official said, "Pretty much, we're ready to go." This week, Army
Col. Frederic L. Borch III -- the chief prosecutor for the planned trials --
declared, yet again, that their start was "imminent." In light of the previous
delays, this promise should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt. The tribunals
were announced with much fanfare and controversy -- and no small sense of
urgency -- barely two months after the 9/11 attacks. Yet the administration's
urgency has waned -- no doubt partly because it has discovered that indefinitely
detaining Taliban and al Qaeda fighters captured abroad is a lot easier than the
messy process of trying them. Nearly two years after President Bush ordered
their preparations, the tribunals are ever impending but never seem to arrive.

In the meantime, however, the need for a viable military tribunal system has
become painfully apparent. The war on terrorism has demonstrated that certain
detainees can neither be responsibly released nor be tried in American federal
courts without doing real damage to the justice system. Without a functioning
tribunal system, Guantanamo Bay has become a kind of human warehouse: About 660
people are imprisoned there, with an untold number of others locked up at other
military facilities abroad. Fewer than 70 of the Guantanamo inmates have been
repatriated, a reflection presumably of the military's judgment that the
overwhelming majority remain dangerous. Yet it does huge damage to the
perception of American justice -- abroad and at home -- for this judgment to go
untested and without any kind of meaningful oversight. The courts, at the
military's urging, have denied that they have jurisdiction to review detentions
of noncitizens held abroad. So to prevent Guantanamo from continuing as a legal
black hole into which people simply disappear, it is essential that charges be
filed against those the military can bring to trial and that some orderly and
transparent process be set up to review the cases of those who, for one reason
or another, cannot stand trial.

Unfortunately, there is little reason for confidence that either of these things
is happening. Only six people have been designated for trial before tribunals,
so tribunals will not initially serve as a means of processing many cases --
even when they do get started. And while officials have spoken of a process of
internal review of the detentions, they have so zealously guarded basic
information about the detainees that it is impossible to assess whether people
are being detained reasonably or not. Who is actually being held? What standards
are being used to assess whether continued detention is required? How many are
still the subjects of active intelligence interrogations? These questions
require answers; somehow, law must prevail, even at Guantanamo Bay and at the
Bagram air base in Afghanistan. Repeatedly declaring that progress is imminent
isn't good enough anymore.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


November 2, 2003; Page A10

MUSLIM TROOPS' LOYALTY A DELICATE QUESTION
Military's Religious Tolerance May Have Aided Infiltrators, Led to Complacency

By John Mintz and Gregory L. Vistica, Washington Post Staff Writers

Just after the 1991 Persian Gulf War against Iraq, huge tents were erected in
Saudi Arabia near the barracks of U.S. military personnel. Inside, day and
night, Saudi imams sent by their government lectured the GIs about Islam and
made aggressive pitches to convert them.

Saudi officials had promised that the discussions would touch only on Arab
culture. But within months, about 1,000 soldiers, and perhaps as many as 3,000,
converted to Islam -- the largest surge of Muslims ever into the U.S. armed
forces.

"It was quite aggressive," said David Peterson, then the military's top chaplain
in the region. In retrospect, he said, there was reason for concern that foreign
clerics had gained influence over the troops, but military officials were slow
to grasp the implications, he said.

Twelve years later, with three Muslim employees at the Guantanamo Bay prison
accused of security breaches, some U.S. military officials are again wondering
whether they have been inattentive to outside influences on the small community
of Muslims in the armed forces. But even asking that question is a delicate
matter for an institution that has long embraced tolerance of all faiths.

Some military officials believe that the al Qaeda terrorist network is trying to
recruit Muslim members of the U.S. armed services and contractors who work with
them. Other officers have expressed fears that some Muslim soldiers, sailors and
airmen might one day decline to take up arms against fellow Muslims.

Air Force Gen. Ralph Eberhart, head of the U.S. Northern Command, the military's
homeland defense unit, said terrorists who try to penetrate the U.S. military by
playing on religious or ethnic identities will fail "99.9 percent of the time,
with as many 9s as you can add."

Even so, Eberhart said, "there's no doubt in my mind there's an effort [by al
Qaeda and other terrorists] to turn our people." Some in the military might be
exploitable by terrorists or demagogues because, like other people, they "have
sympathies for other causes or nations," he said.

"I'm concerned, and I know others [in the military] are concerned" that foreign
extremists might have engineered the security breaches at Guantanamo Bay, the
U.S. Navy detention facility in Cuba where about 660 alleged al Qaeda and
Taliban fighters are held, he said.

Military sociologist Charles Moskos is traveling to Iraq this month to poll
troops about morale issues. He plans to ask whether Muslim soldiers seem to have
their hearts in fighting fellow Muslims, and whether the troops trust Muslims in
their ranks.

"I'll ask, 'How do you feel about having a Muslim in your tent?' " Moskos said.

A black Christian Army chaplain based in this country said some of her fellow
soldiers feel "tension" with Muslims in their units, many of whom are also
black. "They say, . . . 'Can we really trust them?' "

Allegiance Assumed

Despite these concerns, U.S. officials say they have seen almost no evidence of
hesitancy, much less disloyalty, among the 5,000 to 10,000 Muslims in uniform,
and believe only a tiny number would ever be vulnerable to manipulation by
foreign extremists. In the Marines, for example, only three Muslims have
switched military assignments or requested conscientious objector status since
the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, officials said.

Some critics of government terrorism policy say the Pentagon is so devoted to
promoting religious brotherhood in its ranks that it fails to discern traces of
anti-American sentiment among Muslim troops. "The military has a style of
political correctness that says, 'We're not in the business of judging anyone's
religion,' " said Thor Ronay, a terrorism researcher at the conservative Center
for Security Policy.

Questions about Muslim personnel's allegiances have been raised inside the
military by the arrests of the trio at Guantanamo Bay. Each was found with
secret documents that officials said they were not authorized to have.

One, Army Capt. James Yee, a chaplain who ministered to the prisoners there, had
expressed feelings of identification with the captives and may have shifted his
allegiance to them, officials have said. Yee converted to Islam after he came in
contact with Saudi clerics during an Army tour in that country in 1991.

Another of the accused men, Air Force Senior Airman Ahmad I. Halabi, an Arabic
translator, had intense misgivings about the prison and U.S. foreign policy,
according to court documents. The third, civilian translator Ahmed F. Mehalba,
was arrested at Boston's Logan International Airport as he returned from a trip
to Egypt with classified information on at least one computer disc, the
government has contended.

Investigators are seeking to determine whether the three, or any pair of them,
were working together, and whether they were communicating with governments,
terrorist groups or others who might have use for the information they carried.
The probe is one of the first into the activities of Muslim service members
since the mass conversions in 1991.

Despite their initial upset that Saudi officials had misled them about the tent
lectures, U.S. officers did not end the gatherings, in keeping with the
military's bedrock principle of accommodating all faiths, Peterson said.

One of the Saudi-trained imams who organized the effort, Bilal Philips, told
London's al-Majallah magazine in August that the tent meetings were run by "a
special team whose members spoke fluent English," including some experienced in
broadcasting and psychology. The well-financed team paid for the converts'
pilgrimages to Islam's holy cities, and upon their return home, arranged follow-
up visits by Muslim clerics in the United States, said Philips, a Jamaican-born
convert.

U.S. officials never kept records on how many GIs converted, but the rapid rise
in the Muslim population caught senior officers' attention.

"There was a concern about the ability of the Muslim community to take up arms
against fellow Muslims," recalled Herman Keizer, then an Army colonel who headed
the military's chaplains board. "There was also concern about what influence
events in the Middle East could have on Muslims in the military."

It became clear that Philips was not a friend to U.S. policy. "The clash of
civilizations is a reality," he said in the interview. "Western culture led by
the United States is an enemy of Islam." With his encouragement, some of his
U.S. military converts trained Islamic fighters in Bosnia in the 1990s and were
later investigated by the FBI in terrorism probes in this country, he added.

By the early 1990s, the Pentagon was working closely with U.S. Muslim activists
to hire Islamic chaplains to minister to Philips's new converts and their co-
religionists. One architect of this initiative was Abdurahman Alamoudi, who was
indicted Oct. 23 on money-laundering charges for allegedly taking hundreds of
thousands of dollars from Libya, which is designated by U.S. officials as a
state sponsor of terrorism.

Military Admits Lapses

In hindsight, military officials "might have been more suspicious" of the
conversion efforts and the key role in the chaplaincy campaign played by
Alamoudi, given his many public statements of support for foreign groups
designated as terrorist organizations, Keizer said. "I don't think the military
had a sense of some of the global issues," he said.

Officials also have acknowledged inattention to security issues posed by
linguists hired in the war on terrorism. The scarcity of Arabic translators has
led military officials to cut corners in security checks of them, officials
said. Both Halabi and Mehalba had received quick "interim" clearances.

The Mehalba and Halabi cases are "the results of that," Charles Abell, a top
Pentagon personnel official, told a Senate hearing on Oct. 14. "We've found a
couple who were not as trustworthy as we had hoped."

Kevin Hendzel, a spokesman for the American Translators Association who works
closely with the military, said officers often are so desperate for Arabic
linguists they employ them despite fears they are al Qaeda plants. "Al Qaeda
knows we're short of linguists, so it's a natural pipeline for infiltration by
them," he said.

But Marine Sgt. Jamal Baadani said many such security fears are baseless. The
founder of a group called the Association of Patriotic Arab Americans in the
Military, Baadani said many Muslims are performing sensitive jobs in the war on
terrorism. "This is our country," he said during a break from his classified
combat job in the Middle East.

He said he resents implications that Muslim soldiers may be disloyal, an insult
he said is compounded by criticism he receives from other Muslims. "I've been
called a traitor and an Uncle Tom by fellow Muslims" for serving in the
military, he said.

Marine Sgt. Mike Gatto, a practicing Muslim, said he is unaware of any Muslim
personnel opposed to fighting in Iraq. "To the contrary, I knew several who went
willingly," he said. "Saddam needed to go, and many Muslims will say the same
thing when pressed, Marine or not."

But a few cases of disloyalty have emerged in recent years. In 2000 Ali Mohamed
-- a highly placed al Qaeda operative who had infiltrated the U.S. military and
became a sergeant in the Army Special Forces -- pleaded guilty to conspiracy in
connection with the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa.

Last month, Jeffrey Leon Battle, a former Army reservist from Portland, Ore.,
pleaded guilty to conspiracy to levy war against the United States after trying
for months to enter Afghanistan to fight U.S. forces. U.S. prosecutors said he
enlisted in the reserves "to receive military training to use against America."

Last March, as his unit prepared to enter Iraq from Kuwait, Army Sgt. Hasan
Akbar killed two of his commanding officers in a grenade attack as they slept.
Relatives said Akbar, a Muslim convert recently disciplined for insubordination,
had sensed persecution as a Muslim. He had avoided serving in the first Gulf War
because it conflicted with his faith, said relative Quran Bilal.

Radical forces in the Muslim community at times have impinged on Muslims in the
military, which happened when U.S. forces prepared to invade Afghanistan in
2001. A Muslim chaplain in the Army asked a leading Islamic scholar, Taha Jabir
Alwani, president of a Virginia institute that trains Islamic military
chaplains, for a fatwa, or religious decree, on whether Muslims could fight
fellow Muslims. A "no" answer would have created a crisis.

To write his fatwa, Alwani consulted, among others, Yusuf Qaradawi, a popular
cleric in Qatar who has been banned from the United States for his strong
support for suicide bombings against Israeli civilians.

The fatwa ultimately hedged. While saying Muslims could fight for the United
States in Afghanistan, it stressed that Muslim GIs also have the option of
refusing to fight. The military does not allow soldiers to choose wars in which
they will participate.

Mahdi Bray, a Muslim activist in Virginia, said the fatwa was ambiguously worded
to allow Muslims to serve while also granting ground to influential hard-line
Muslims who oppose the U.S. war on terrorism.

Despite its artful wording, "it created an uproar in the Muslim community"
because some hard-liners took it as a pro-U.S.-military stand, Bray said. "It
pleased no one" in the Muslim community.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


October 31, 2003; Page A10

FIRST TRIAL BY TRIBUNAL 'IMMINENT,' OFFICIAL SAYS
6 Al Qaeda Suspects Chosen as Eligible

By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer

The U.S. government is set to begin its first trial of an alleged al Qaeda
operative before a military tribunal sometime soon, the Defense Department's top
prosecutor for the long-planned proceedings said yesterday.

"Our start is imminent, soon," said Army Col. Frederic L. Borch III, chief
prosecutor for the special military court cases, which will be tried at the U.S.
Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where about 660 alleged al Qaeda and Taliban
fighters are detained. Speaking to an American Bar Association gathering,
however, he stressed that he could not predict when the first trial would begin.

The tribunals, or military commissions, as U.S. officials call them, have been
delayed by deliberations on a number of matters, including negotiations with the
British and Australian governments, some of whose citizens may be in the first
group of detainees to be tried, U.S. officials said.

Last week, British Prime Minister Tony Blair told Parliament that negotiations
between London and Washington over the rules governing any trial of two British
citizens designated to come before a tribunal will be completed "soon."

British officials have urged that tribunal procedures be altered to move them
closer to the rules that govern trials in their country. Blair said on Oct. 22
that "it may be that it is not possible to bring rules into conformity with
ours" and therefore the two British detainees may be returned to Britain for
possible trial.

"It certainly has to be resolved soon, but I can't say exactly when," Blair
added.

In July, President Bush designated six alleged al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo
Bay as eligible for trial before a tribunal. Under the rules governing the
special proceedings, the next step is for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D.
Wolfowitz to recommend which of the six should face trial first. Two members of
the group are British citizens, and a third is Australian. The identities and
nationalities of the other three have not been made public.

Earlier this year, many U.S. officials had assumed that the first tribunals
would begin their work by autumn, but the laborious negotiations with
representatives of Britain and Australia, as well as with officials of other
countries, over whether their nationals will be treated in the same manner have
delayed the trials.

"The discussions with the British have led to some . . . modifications to the
commission rules and processes that will be very beneficial to the military
commission process," said Maj. John Smith, spokesman for the Pentagon's office
of military commissions. He declined to elaborate.

Some lawyers and experts in international law have said the Pentagon's tribunal
rules will not allow for fair trials because, for example, appeals of
convictions would go up the military's chain of command rather than through
civilian courts.

Military officials said the proceedings will be just. "The more people see the
commissions in action, with the presumption of innocence [and] the burden of
proof having to be beyond a reasonable doubt . . . the more people will see it's
fair," Smith said.

Another factor in the delay are negotiations over sending detainees to their
home countries for trial, officials said. U.S. officials want to announce the
start of the tribunals' proceedings in tandem with additional releases or
transfers home from Guantanamo Bay. So far, 64 detainees have been returned to
their home countries to be freed, while four Saudi nationals have been returned
home for detention and possible trial.

* * *


October 30, 2003; Page A16

FALSE EVIDENCE CITED IN OVERTURNING ARMS DEALER'S CASE

By Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writer

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist/message/3777

A federal judge in Houston has overturned a former CIA operative's 1983
conviction for selling explosives to Libya, saying the Justice Department
"knowingly used false evidence against him" and suppressed the fact that the CIA
had employed him to trade weapons or explosives with Libya in exchange for
sophisticated Soviet military equipment.

Edwin P. Wilson, a CIA officer-turned-arms dealer, will not be freed because he
is serving lengthy sentences for two other convictions -- selling firearms to
Libya without permission and conspiring from prison to have prosecutors and
witnesses against him killed. But his attorney, David Adler, said yesterday that
the opinion could help persuade courts to reopen those cases, as Wilson has
asked.

In a scathing opinion released Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes
identified "two dozen lawyers who actively participated" in the decision to
withhold information from the court that convicted Wilson on charges of shipping
20 tons of C-4 explosives to Libya -- the largest illegal weapons deal in U.S.
history.

Hughes, a Reagan administration appointee in the Southern District of Texas,
also faulted top CIA and Justice Department officials for allowing a pivotal --
but untrue -- affidavit from the CIA's then-executive director, Charles A.
Briggs, to be used in court. The affidavit denied that Wilson did work for the
agency after he left as a full-time employee in 1971.

In fact, the CIA used Wilson in various ways after 1971 to collect intelligence
on Libya, Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Hughes found after reviewing documents
that Wilson obtained and filed with his motion to overturn the conviction.
Agency employees had more than 80 contacts with him in those years, Hughes
found, and Wilson had a close relationship with two senior CIA officials --
Thomas G. Clines, then the deputy director of operations, and Theodore G.
Shackley, then the associate deputy director of operations.

Wilson, now 75, has never denied that he made the explosives deal; his defense
was that it was part of his cover to gather intelligence.

"In the course of American justice," Hughes wrote , "one would have to work hard
to conceive of a more fundamentally unfair process with a consequentially
unreliable result than the fabrication of false data by the government, under
oath by a government official, presented knowingly by the prosecutor in the
courtroom with the express approval of his superiors in Washington."

By the time the trial started, the judge said, "prosecutors knew that the CIA
had employed Wilson in 1974 and 1975 to trade weapons or explosives with Libya
in exchange for sophisticated Soviet military equipment like MiG-25 fighters."

"Honesty comes hard to the government," Hughes wrote in his 24-page opinion,
which also accused the Justice Department of purposely making his job difficult
by moving "the walnut shells constantly, hoping the pea will not be found."

"It has been found," he declared.

Adler has filed a motion before Hughes's court in Houston asking that 17 current
and former CIA and Justice Department officials be held in contempt.

Justice Department spokesman Bryan Sierra said yesterday that the department "is
reviewing the decision and our options."

The CIA declined to comment on the ruling, but agency spokesman Mark Mansfield
said: "The CIA didn't authorize or play any role whatsoever in [Wilson's]
decision to sell arms to Libya. That decision was his, and that is why he went
to jail."

Wilson worked full time for the CIA from 1955 to early 1971, mostly as an
undercover officer. According to Hughes's opinion, he worked after that in
various capacities for U.S. intelligence agencies and had ties with 12 CIA front
companies. Shackley met Wilson "on a regular basis" and used Wilson's
information about the international arms market and the Libyan government.
Wilson also provided documents about Libya's assassination teams and its nuclear
weapons program.

The Briggs affidavit presented at the trial, however, said Wilson "was not asked
or requested, directly or indirectly, to perform or provide services, directly
or indirectly, for CIA" after his retirement in 1971.

Three days after the trial, but before Wilson was sentenced, Hughes said, a CIA
investigator sent a memorandum to the agency's inspector general highlighting
"the untrue paragraphs from Briggs' affidavit" and listing five CIA projects
Wilson had worked on after 1971, including a planned trip to Iran with the
deputy director of operations to develop an agent there.

Two days later the CIA forwarded the memo to the U.S. attorney's office, and a
lawyer at the Justice Department then sent a memo, titled "Duty to Disclose
Possibly False Testimony," to the deputy assistant attorney general of the
criminal division.

According to a CIA memo declassified in 2000, CIA lawyers repeatedly asked the
lead prosecutor, Theodore Greenberg, not to use the affidavit in court. He used
it anyway, believing it was "essential to win the case," according to the memo.

The Justice Department never turned all its information over to Wilson's
attorney. It was unearthed by Wilson over the years through documents released
to him under the Freedom of Information Act.

"America did not defeat the Axis because it locked up Japanese Americans,"
Hughes wrote. "America did not defeat the Soviet Union because it tried to lock
up its philosophic fellow-travelers here. America will not defeat Libyan
terrorism by double-crossing a part-time, informal government agent."


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *

October 28, 2003; Page A14

DECADES OF GOOD DEEDS PROVIDE NO ARMOR
Red Cross Reassesses Its Presence in Iraq

By Theola Labbe and Keith B. Richburg

BAGHDAD, Oct. 27 -- They used unarmed guards and eschewed elaborate security
because in Iraq, as elsewhere in the world, they felt protected by their
instantly recognizable symbol of benevolent assistance: a red cross.

Then a car bomb exploded near their central Baghdad headquarters on Monday
morning, killing 12 people and injuring at least 10 others.

"So many people are dead, why?" said Moutasser Jalal Taher, 23, a security guard
who spoke angrily, through clenched teeth, about the attack on the offices of
the International Committee of the Red Cross, or ICRC. "They are innocent people
and it's a humanitarian organization."

The question reverberated unanswered throughout the day, beginning when
employees arrived for work and found pandemonium. The building's beige facade
was a chalky, blackened mess of rubble. Water gushed onto the street from a pipe
cracked by the blast. Cars were singed and burned. And a crater six feet deep
remained where a vehicle resembling a Red Cross ambulance and packed with
explosives blew up during rush hour.

For the humanitarian agency, the blast shattered the belief that 23 years of
good deeds in Iraq could be worn like protective armor against violence. "We
were always confident that people knew us and that our work here would protect
us," said Nada Doumani, spokeswoman for the Red Cross in Baghdad. "How do we
understand this?"

Officials at ICRC headquarters in Geneva said they were discussing their
options, including a pullout from Iraq, where the agency has worked through
three wars since 1980. "We don't want to send mixed messages to the Iraqi
people. Once we have made a clear decision, we will announce it," said Antonella
Notari, the organization's chief spokeswoman.

Immediately after the Iraq war, more than 100 foreign Red Cross employees moved
about the country in their recognizable white Toyota Land Cruisers with long
antennas. But the staff was reduced to about 30 after a Red Cross technician
from Sri Lanka was killed south of Baghdad on July 22.

Since the group's inception in 1863, the red cross emblem -- a red crescent in
Muslim countries -- has been a symbol of neutral humanitarian assistance in war-
ravaged countries. The Red Cross has served as a mediator between combatants and
a monitor of the rules of war, the Geneva Conventions. In more peaceful times
and places, it sees to matters of health and welfare, such as clean drinking
water and hospital supplies.

The intimate nature of the work, performed in the dangerous environment of war,
can put Red Cross workers at great risk.

In Somalia, some have been kidnapped or killed. The Red Cross compound in the
Rwandan capital, Kigali, came under bombardment during the 1994 civil war and
genocide. Six Red Cross staff members were killed in 1996 while they slept in a
hospital in Grozny, the Chechen capital. In Afghanistan, an Red Cross worker
member was shot and killed in March on a dirt road.

Red Cross workers outside Iraq said Monday's suicide bombing was unprecedented
even by the worsening standards of recent conflicts -- because a Red Cross
compound was specifically targeted by a bomb and because the attacker used what
looked like a Red Cross/Red Crescent ambulance to deliver the device.

"I can remember thefts and I can remember blockages -- when they didn't let us
out of our compound, like in Somalia," said Nina Winquist, a Finn who worked for
the Red Cross for 15 years in such trouble spots as Somalia, Rwanda and Bosnia.
But "I can't think of any incident where there was a car bomb at a delegation."

"This is very serious, because this is a violation of the Geneva Conventions,
and Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions," said Marc Gentilini, a
physician and president of the French Red Cross.

World leaders expressed outrage at the attack.

U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called it "a crime against humanity,"
according to a spokesman. "The ICRC is a universally respected humanitarian
organization. Its neutrality and impartiality are mainstays of its operations,"
Annan said, according to the spokesman.

Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, said: "Targeting
humanitarian workers in the country, especially an organization such as the
ICRC, is deeply shocking and totally unjustifiable. The civilized world cannot
and will not give up on the safe haven provided by humanitarian law and
organizations to all the victims of all conflicts."

The buildings that make up the organization's Baghdad headquarters cover a full
block. The 40-foot-tall wall near the front entrance, where the bomb exploded,
was reinforced with sandbags -- somewhat rare for a Red Cross office, but light
security compared with that at other buildings around the city.

Doumani, the Baghdad spokeswoman, said the agency did not want to hide behind
tall concrete barriers because its mission was to work with and serve Iraqis.
"We came here to assist the people and not to be separated from them," she said.

After the bombing, Emmanuel Basheer Estephan, 46, was one of several Red Cross
workers helping to clean up as U.S. soldiers controlled the perimeter. Estephan
said he applied for his guard job five months ago as a way to support his wife
and two children, but also because he wanted to work for an agency that was
helping people.

The bombing stunned him. "I don't know what the reason is behind this," he said.
"Is this freedom? I think freedom is the ability to sit and share ideas freely,
and express ideas freely, not use weapons freely."

Richburg reported from Paris.

* * *


October 24, 2003; Page A09

CLASHES LED TO PROBE OF CLERIC
Flare-Ups Over Muslim Prisoners' Treatment in Cuba Are Cited

By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer

Military authorities launched an investigation of Army Capt. James Yee, a Muslim
chaplain at the Guantanamo Bay prison, after a series of confrontations between
him and officials over the treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees there,
according to military officials and other informed sources.

Yee, who ministered to the inmates at the U.S. Navy prison in Cuba, protested
what he believed were lives of unrelieved tension and boredom experienced by his
fellow Muslims in captivity, the officials and other sources said.

Some interrogators at the U.S. Navy prison complex in Cuba objected after
concluding that Yee's private, one-on-one meetings with inmates interfered with
their attempts to fully control the prisoners' environment, numerous sources
said. Some detainees appeared less cooperative in interrogations after visits
from Yee, the sources said.

On Oct. 10 Yee, a West Point graduate who converted to Islam, was charged by
military authorities with mishandling classified information after authorities
found maps of the prison and information about detainees in his possession. But
the FBI and Defense officials continue to investigate whether he committed more
serious offenses. He is in a Navy brig in South Carolina.

Another Guantanamo Bay employee who has been arrested in the investigation of
security breaches, Air Force Senior Airman Ahmad Halabi, came to the attention
of authorities after he also expressed deep misgivings about operations at the
prison camp and like Yee, questioned superiors' decisions, officials said.

Yee's newly retained attorney, Washington lawyer Eugene R. Fidell, declined to
comment on what prompted military officials to investigate Yee, but harshly
criticized them yesterday for their conduct in the case so far.

"The government is engaging in overkill and is creating an atmosphere of
hysteria around this case," said Fidell, an experienced military legal expert.
"They are creating a Richard Jewell problem for themselves," he said, a
reference to the man wrongly linked in news reports to the bombing of the 1996
Olympics in Atlanta.

Fidell said that the offenses with which Yee has been charged, taking home
classified material and carrying classified documents without proper coverings,
are common misdeeds in the military that, when prosecuted, often result in
minimal penalties.

Halabi has been preliminarily charged with 30 counts, including some that he
improperly had secret files on his personal computer, such as files about the
camp's operations and letters home from detainees. In another document
buttressing their case, officials alleged that while at Guantanamo Bay, Halabi
"made statements criticizing U.S. policy with regard to the detainees and...the
Middle East.

"He has also expressed sympathy for and has had unauthorized contact with the
detainees, including providing unauthorized items of comfort to the detainees"
such as baklava pastries, the document added.

A third member of the military who worked at the prison was arrested after
Homeland Security agents in Boston found classified material in his possession
as he returned from a trip to Egypt.

The FBI has launched investigations along two tracks on Yee -- one by
counterterrorism agents, and the other by foreign counterintelligence agents,
officials said. The latter probe seeks to determine whether a foreign government
acquired any sensitive data. Syria is the concern in Yee's case because he
studied there for four years to become a cleric.

Military officials' have attempted to delay proceedings against Yee on the
grounds that they lack prosecutors at the base in Cuba to handle his case. "It's
shocking an officer is in maximum security prison, and his case is delayed for
that," Fidell said.

Military officials and other people familiar with Yee's case said security
investigators at Guantanamo Bay began their investigation of Yee soon after his
November 2002 arrival there as chaplain, when officials sensed he was deeply
conflicted about his dual role of religious adviser and military official.

Officials eventually suspected that Yee's allegiances shifted from the military
to the 660 prisoners there as he complained that they had no release from the
stress in their lives, which was partly created by the uncertainty of whether
they may ever be released, numerous sources said.

"The fear was that he was in a quagmire as to how to handle this, and that he
had started mixing his loyalties, " one military official said. "It apparently
was a challenge to him."

Yee was particularly upset that officials turned down his attempts to help shape
how the interrogations were carried out, informed sources said. Interrogators
jealously guard control over all aspects of the prisoners' lives, including
rewards and punishments, officials said.

Yee also tried to arrange for more recreational activities that broke up the
detainees' long days, the sources said.

"He was disappointed that he wasn't being integrated into the interrogation
process," a military official said. "He wasn't happy with the mission, and
thought the detainees were being mistreated."

A second military official described Yee's belief that detainees were being
treated too harshly as "ludicrous . . . Yee was way out of line."

The officials did not offer any information as to how Yee's skepticism about the
prison's operations might have prompted him to carry away classified
information.

One person informed about the case said Yee, as a Muslim, apparently "felt a
sense of identification with the detainees, a feeling that when they were
victimized, he was victimized."

Raul Duany, a spokesman for U.S. Southern Command, the military unit overseeing
the investigation, said, in response to a description of Yee's misgivings, that
"we're being as humane as possible to the detainees." Replying to Fidell's
complaints about conduct of the case, Duany said, "we're trying to insure a fair
and just process for the detainees."

Yee's concerns about conditions for the 660 inmates at Guantanamo Bay have been
echoed repeatedly by human rights activists. Earlier this month the
International Committee of the Red Cross, which visits the captives regularly,
issued a report saying it has noted "a worrying deterioration in the
psychological health of a large number" of the detainees because of the
uncertainty about their fate. To date, there have been 32 suicide attempts among
Guantanamo inmates.

[ Staff writer Dan Eggen contributed to this report. ]

* * *


October 16, 2003; Page A08

SECRETS FOUND ON COMPUTER, FBI SAYS
U.S. Outlines Case Against Syria Native

By Jonathan Finer, Washington Post Staff Writer

WORCESTER, Mass., Oct. 15 -- Authorities have found classified material on a
personal computer that once belonged to a civilian interpreter at the U.S. Navy
prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, an FBI agent said in federal court Wednesday.

Testifying in a detention and probable cause hearing for Ahmed F. Mehalba,
Special Agent John Van Kleef of Boston's Joint Terrorism Task Force said an
analysis of the computer's hard drive revealed at least five documents labeled
"secret," in a directory of files that included Mehalba's personal resume.

A naturalized U.S. citizen who was working at the detention facility for alleged
al Qaeda and Taliban fighters, Mehalba was charged Sept. 30 with making false
statements to federal officials after he denied during an airport customs check
that he was carrying classified documents.

He was arrested Sept. 29 at Boston's Logan International Airport after he
allegedly told Homeland Security and FBI agents that the more than 130 computer
discs he was carrying contained personal MP3s and photographs, which had been
recorded using a computer he had since sold to a friend. Mehalba had arrived in
Boston after visiting relatives in Egypt.

Documents marked "secret" were subsequently found on at least one of those
discs. The computer containing additional sensitive material was recovered
recently by the FBI, Van Kleef said. He did not describe the contents of any of
the classified files.

Mehalba was in possession of a "huge amount of classified information," said
Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Ricciuti, who is prosecuting the case. "His
statements [to federal agents] were false."

Authorities are investigating three separate security breaches involving
personnel at Guantanamo Bay, where 660 foreign nationals are detained. Army
Capt. James Yee, a Muslim chaplain at the prison, was charged last week with two
counts of mishandling classified material for allegedly trying to take home
documents from the detention facility.

Ahmad I. Halabi, an Air Force senior airman who, like Mehalba, was a translator
at the facility, was arrested July 23 and charged with 30 offenses, including
espionage and aiding the enemy. Authorities said he was carrying classified
documents involving some of the detainees, and may have passed sensitive
information to his native Syria.

Mehalba, who did not testify Wednesday, said at the time of his arrest that he
"had no idea" how the suspect documents ended up in his possession, according to
Van Kleef. Airport agents had singled him out for additional scrutiny because he
was wearing identification tags from Guantanamo Bay, Van Kleef said.

A more thorough check of Mehalba's baggage turned up the computer disc that
contained at least 368 files marked "Secret" or "Secret/Noforn," meaning that
they were not to be disclosed to foreign nationals.

Van Kleef testified that Mehalba, an employee of government contractor Titan
Corp., had been granted "interim secret clearance," a designation that granted
him access to information that could do "serious damage to national security" if
disclosed.

Mehalba, who had served in the U.S. Army, had been briefed extensively on
procedures related to the handling of classified material, according to court
documents. He was aware that he was not authorized to download such information
or take it off the base or outside the country, prosecutors contended.

After the hearing, Mehalba's court-appointed attorney, Michael Andrews, offered
no explanation for how the suspect documents ended up in his client's
possession, saying only that "when he was asked the question, 'Do you have
classified documents on you?' and he said, 'No,' he believed he was answering
truthfully."

Mehalba remains in custody and U.S. Magistrate Judge Charles Swartwood said he
will rule by the end of the week on whether the government has probable cause to
proceed with its case.

* * *

Saturday, October 11, 2003; Page A06

EX-MUSLIM CLERIC AT GUANTANAMO FACES MINOR CHARGES

By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer

A former Muslim chaplain at the military prison for suspected al Qaeda and
Taliban fighters was charged yesterday with two counts of mishandling classified
material for allegedly trying to take documents from the detention facility in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to his home.

Legal experts said the charges against Army Capt. James Yee are relatively minor
in a case that had raised fears that Yee and two other men arrested in recent
months on suspicion of similar offenses might have been working together to
breach security at the offshore prison.

The experts said the charges and the wording of the U.S. military's announcement
indicate investigators have found little that is sinister in the Yee case.

"All this suggests they really don't have much on him," said Kevin Barry, a
retired Coast Guard captain and military judge who now researches military legal
affairs. "It indicates the Army has decided to lowball this."

The investigation of security breaches is continuing, along with a review of
security precautions at the prison. Yee's military attorneys could not be
reached to comment.

Yee could serve a total of four years in prison if convicted of the two charges
and could be dismissed from the military without a pension or benefits.

Yee was carrying classified documents when he was arrested Sept. 10 at the Naval
Air Station in Jacksonville, Fla., on his way back to his home in Washington
state after a 10-month tour as an Islamic cleric at the prison complex on the
U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay.

Military officials said he had sensitive documents concerning interrogators and
prisoners there, as well as maps or sketches of the prison site. He has been
held at a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., and was not officially charged until
yesterday.

Ahmad I. Halabi, an Air Force senior airman who was a translator at the
facility, was arrested on July 23 and charged with 30 offenses, including
espionage and aiding the enemy. He allegedly was found carrying classified
documents involving some of the 660 detainees at the prison, and was suspected
of sending information to his native Syria.

Ahmed F. Mehalba, a civilian linguist at Guantanamo Bay, was arrested at
Boston's Logan International Airport on Sept. 30 as he returned from Egypt when
federal agents inspecting his luggage found a computer disc designated "secret"
that contained information on prison operations. He was charged with lying to
federal officials about the disc's contents.

Yee, a Chinese American who converted to Islam, was charged with two counts of
"failing to obey a lawful general order," specifically taking classified
material to his home and "wrongfully transporting classified material without
the proper security containers or covers."

The next step is for Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, Guantanamo Bay's commander,
to decide whether to dismiss the case, refer it to a special court-martial or
send it to a more serious general court-martial, among other options.

Yesterday's announcement about Yee by the Florida-based U.S. Southern Command,
which oversees operations at Guantanamo Bay, repeatedly said his case is being
treated as a lower-level special court-martial case.

Military law experts said that is a clear sign that high-ranking officials think
the case is relatively insignificant. The worst punishment a special court-
martial can mete out to an officer is a small fine or dismissal from the
military, they said. Stiffer penalties would come only under a general court-
martial.

"This all seems very innocuous," said Gary Solis, a retired Marine prosecutor
who now teaches the law of war at Georgetown University. "It's the pettiest of
stuff."

He added that although it is common in civilian criminal proceedings for
prosecutors to impose light charges before adding weightier ones later, that is
rarely allowed in military courts. "Usually they charge you with everything
they've got," he said.

The Southern Command said the Army "continues to investigate Yee's conduct and,
if warranted, additional charges could be forthcoming."

* * *


October 10, 2003; Page A26

Editorial

THE COURT'S CONSCIENCE

THE NAME Fred Korematsu first appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court during one of
the darker chapters of its history. Mr. Korematsu, then a 22-year-old American
citizen of Japanese descent, refused to be interned as part of the World War II
detention of Japanese Americans living on the West Coast. Prosecuted and
convicted, he challenged the internment order, and the high court -- in the now-
infamous case that bears Mr. Korematsu's name -- upheld it, citing the deference
courts owe to military authorities in a time of war. Decades later, Mr.
Korematsu's conviction was thrown out and he was awarded the Presidential Medal
of Freedom.

Now, reportedly in frail health, Mr. Korematsu has once again filed a brief with
the Supreme Court -- this time in support of military detainees being held
without charge or access to counsel. There is no moral equivalency between the
steps and oversteps taken since Sept. 11 and the wholesale detention of people
based on their ethnicity. But Mr. Korematsu's brief is an important reminder
that "we tend too quickly to sacrifice . . . liberties in the face of overbroad
claims of military necessity" and that courts "have too often deferred to
exaggerated claims of military necessity and failed to insist that measures
curtailing constitutional rights be carefully justified and narrowly tailored."

Mr. Korematsu filed his brief in support of separate petitions for Supreme Court
review in the cases of Yaser Esam Hamdi -- a likely American citizen captured in
Afghanistan and being held in a military brig in Virginia -- and detainees at
the Guantanamo Bay facility in Cuba. The legal merits of these cases differ. Mr.
Hamdi's case raises the crucial question of whether the president can designate
an American citizen as an "enemy combatant" and thereby place him beyond the
protections of the Bill of Rights. A federal appeals court approved not merely
Mr. Hamdi's detention but his detention without any access to a lawyer as well.
The ruling was based on the pretext that his capture in a war zone abroad was
"undisputed" -- though, having not heard from him, the courts have no basis to
know what facts he actually contests. Why did the courts not hear from Mr.
Hamdi? Because of precisely the timidity, in the face of claimed military
necessity, of which Mr. Korematsu warns: Letting Mr. Hamdi talk to a lawyer, the
government argues, would interrupt his isolation and interrogation and thereby
threaten the government's ability to glean intelligence from him. The Supreme
Court ought not let this stand. It is beyond dangerous for the courts to allow
potentially indefinite detentions without even hearing both sides of the story.

The Guantanamo detainees present a less compelling case for Supreme Court
review; they are beyond the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But the
indefinite detention without accountability of prisoners in Guantanamo
nonetheless is legally and ethically objectionable. The apparent absence of
legal standards -- other than the government's convenience -- concerning who
gets held where, under what authority and with what access to legal process
threatens the essence of law as a predictable scheme of ordered liberty. Some
alleged al Qaeda operatives and Taliban captives are charged. Some are not. And
for those unlucky enough to be placed in the legal black hole of detention
abroad, there exists no publicly defined process for handling them. In most
wars, foreign combatants can be held during hostilities and then returned home.
But this is not an ordinary war, with enemy states and the likelihood of a fixed
date when hostilities can be declared over. Somehow, the law needs to adapt to
ensure that people are not being held arbitrarily, that government's power to
deprive people of liberty -- at home and abroad -- is kept in check. Somehow, as
Mr. Korematsu's brief puts it, this country must "respect the principle that
individuals may not be deprived of their liberty except for appropriate
justifications that are demonstrated in fair hearings."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


October 7, 2003; Page A26

RIGHTS GROUPS SEEK INFORMATION ON DETAINEES' TREATMENT

By Dan Eggen, Washington Post Staff Writer

Several civil liberties and veterans groups plan to file a formal request with
the federal government today seeking information on whether prisoners in U.S.
custody in the war on terrorism have been tortured or mistreated during
interrogations.

The request, to be filed under the Freedom of Information Act, follows media
reports that U.S. authorities have used questionable techniques, including sleep
deprivation and the withholding of medications, against prisoners held abroad in
the war on terrorism.

The American Civil Liberties Union and four other groups, including Physicians
for Human Rights and Veterans for Peace, are seeking records pertaining to the
treatment of detainees held in U.S. custody as well as to those who have been
handed over to other countries for interrogation, according to the ACLU. Use of
coercive interrogation techniques would constitute clear violations of both
domestic and international law, the groups say.

"The president and a number of senior officials have assured the public that the
United States is committed to international law," said Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU
attorney. "This provides the government with an opportunity to flesh that out a
little, to explain to us what they're doing and to assure us that detainees are
not being mistreated."

After a series of incidents and reports raised questions about the treatment of
detainees, the Bush administration pledged in June that the United States would
not torture terrorism suspects or treat them cruelly in an attempt to extract
information.

Last December, The Washington Post cited former and current national security
officials in reporting that detainees in Afghanistan and elsewhere were
routinely subjected to "stress and duress" techniques, including being held in
awkward positions or being deprived of sleep with a 24-hour bombardment of
lights. In other cases, The Post reported, captives have been handed over to
foreign intelligence services known for using questionable interrogation tactics
-- including Jordan, Egypt and Morocco.

Prisoners released from the military camps at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Bagram
air base in Afghanistan have said in interviews with Amnesty International that
they were subjected to human rights abuses, including sleep deprivation and
forced injections of drugs. Two deaths at Bagram in December 2002 are also under
investigation after being classified as homicides by military pathologists.

The ACLU and other groups have been largely unsuccessful in attempts to obtain
details from the Bush administration about detainees in the war on terrorism. In
June, for example, a federal appeals court upheld the government's refusal to
release the names of hundreds of people detained domestically after the Sept.
11, 2001, attacks.

Jaffer said the request for information to be filed today has been crafted to
avoid requiring the government to release too much sensitive information.
Instead, Jaffer said, the groups are primarily seeking details of the policies
governing humane treatment of prisoners held abroad and how any cases of abuse
have been handled.

"We're not asking for a list of names of people detained or a list of the types
of interrogation methods used by the U.S.," he said.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


Friday, October 3, 2003; Page A12

TERRORIST SUSPECTS' NAMES REPORTEDLY ON DISC

Reuters

The names of suspected terrorists mentioned during interrogations at the U.S.
military prison in Guantanamo Bay were found on a computer disc belonging to a
civilian interpreter who worked there and was arrested this week, the Boston
Globe reported yesterday.

Citing two unnamed federal law enforcement officials, the newspaper said
investigators were trying to track Ahmed F. Mehalba's movements over the past
two months to determine if he shared the information found in his possession.

Mehalba was arrested at Boston's Logan International Airport on Monday and
charged with lying to federal officials about classified information he
allegedly carried on a disc found in his luggage when he arrived from Egypt.

Mehalba, an Egyptian-born U.S. citizen who once served in the U.S. Army, was the
third person detained after working at the U.S. prison camp in Cuba, where about
660 suspected al Qaeda and Taliban members are held.

One of the officials told the Globe that Mehalba had security clearance and had
been privy to "very sensitive" information that emerged during questioning of
suspects at the prison camp. Investigators want to know whether Mehalba was
using the information found on the disc for his work as an interpreter or
whether he was "smuggling secrets to terrorists overseas," the Globe said.

According to an FBI affidavit filed in federal court Tuesday, Mehalba told
officers the 132 discs in his luggage contained "only music and videos," but
officials say classified information was stored on at least one of them.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *

October 1, 2003; Page A01

MILITARY PRISON WORKER ARRESTED
Guantanamo Data Allegedly Found On Interpreter

By John Mintz and Jonathan Finer, Washington Post Staff Writers

A civilian interpreter for prisoners at the U.S. military jail at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, was charged yesterday with making false statements to federal agents
after he was arrested at Boston's Logan International Airport while carrying
computer discs that allegedly contained classified information about the
detention facility for al Qaeda and Taliban fighters.

The arrest on Monday of Ahmed F. Mehalba, 31, a naturalized U.S. citizen from
Massachusetts who is of Egyptian descent, was the third in recent weeks of
personnel at the U.S. Navy base in Cuba who are accused of transporting
sensitive information about the jail without authorization.

Government officials have no evidence that ties Mehalba's case to the recent
arrests of Air Force translator Ahmed Halabi, who also worked with the detainees
at Guantanamo Bay, and Army Capt. James Yee, a Muslim cleric there. "We don't
have anything hard that links these cases," a government official said.

Yet military officials expressed deep concern about the expanding number of
security problems at Guantanamo Bay. The U.S. Southern Command, the military
unit that oversees the prison complex, said yesterday that it is conducting "an
internal assessment into current operational security procedures and measures"
there.

Mehalba was returning home from a trip to Egypt, where he visited his father,
when he was stopped by officers with the customs and border protection unit of
the Department of Homeland Security. They noted that he carried U.S. military
identification and asked Mehalba what was on the 132 computer discs in his
luggage, according to an affidavit presented yesterday at a hearing in federal
court in Boston.

"Only music and videos," he replied. The inspectors then put one that bore an
official-looking designation into a disc player and found that it contained
documents designated "secret" concerning the base in Cuba, officials said. It
was not clear from the court documents what kind of information was found.

Mehalba repeated several times that none of the CDs contained material about
Guantanamo, according to the affidavit by FBI Special Agent John F. Van Kleeff.
Agents arrested Mehalba on a charge of making false statements to federal
agents.

As FBI agents were arresting him, Mehalba told them the computer disc in
question "had his personal documents on it," according to the FBI affidavit. "On
several occasions, Mehalba denied any knowledge of how that classified
information came to be found on his disc."

Mehalba, a former Army private first class who left the military in 2001, is
employed by a San Diego-based contractor, Titan Corp., which supplies
translators for Army interrogators questioning the 660 prisoners at the
Guantanamo Bay prison, officials said.

U.S. Magistrate Charles B. Swartwood III ordered Mehalba to remain in custody
pending another hearing on Oct. 8. Michael Andrews, a lawyer who represented
Mehalba during the brief federal court hearing yesterday, said his client
"intends to vigorously defend himself against these charges. . . . He is
nervous, scared and a little bewildered."

Mehalba's most recent address is in Salem, a Boston suburb, where people
recalled him as pleasant but not remarkable.

"He was really intelligent, well-spoken and charming," said Peter Kaplan, a
Salem attorney who represented him when he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy
protection in 1997.

Mehalba's arrest comes amid mounting concern in military circles about security
at Guantanamo Bay. After the first two arrests, government sources said the
military was investigating as many as four other people for security breaches.

Air Force Senior Airman Halabi, the translator, was arrested on July 23 at a
Navy base in Florida, as he returned from an eight-month tour in Guantanamo, but
the case was not made public until last week.

At the time of his arrest, Halabi, 24, was allegedly carrying more than 180
letters from prisoners, a map of the installation, information on the movement
of military aircraft to and from the base, and the names and cell block numbers
of captives, court papers show.

Halabi is suspected of espionage involving possible improper contacts with
officials of the Syrian Embassy in Washington, according to court documents. His
lawyers have said that Halabi, who was born in Syria but later became a U.S.
citizen, was contacting the embassy to arrange for his Syrian fiancee to move to
this country after their marriage.

Yee, the chaplain, was arrested on Sept. 10 at the same Navy base in Florida,
while allegedly carrying sketches of the prison and documents about detainees
and interrogators. He left the military in the early 1990s to study Islam in
Syria before becoming an Army chaplain.

On Monday, Abdurahman Alamoudi, a Muslim activist who helped create the
military's Islamic chaplain program, was charged with illegally accepting money
from Libya for his efforts to persuade the U.S. government to lift the sanctions
against that nation. Authorities said, however, that the timing of his arrest
was coincidental to the controversy over the military chaplain program.

Before his arrest on Monday, Mehalba told officers that he had made many of the
CDs in his bag while he was in Egypt. The officers paid special attention to one
that was labeled "Backup #3 for MO's Profile" in his handwriting, according to
the FBI affidavit.

After being told that documents labeled "secret" were found on one disc, he
"denied knowing how the files got on the CD," according to the affidavit.
Mehalba said he bought the CDs as blanks at Guantanamo Bay, along with a
computer, and that "he downloaded information from the computer onto the discs,"
the affidavit says. "He claimed he could have downloaded secret files from the
government computers."

The affidavit says Mehalba acknowledged that an uncle was an official with an
Egyptian army intelligence unit. It also mentions a case from 2001, when Mehalba
was a private first class studying interrogation techniques at the Army
intelligence school at Fort Huachuca in Arizona, and when his then-girlfriend,
Deborah Gephart, who had the same rank, was studying to be a counterintelligence
agent.

Gephart was arrested for allegedly stealing a car, and a search of her home
yielded a stolen laptop and a classified counterintelligence training manual.
She was later discharged under less than honorable conditions, the affidavit
says. Gephart could not be reached yesterday.

Finer reported from Boston. Staff writer Thomas E. Ricks and research editor
Margot Williams contributed to this report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *

October 1, 2003 - 2:00 PM EDT

CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS CLASH OVER PROBE
Republicans Counter Democrats' Calls for Independent Investigation

Washington Post Staff

Congressional Republicans today expressed confidence that the Justice Department
could investigate allegations that White House officials leaked the name of a
covert CIA operative, rejecting calls by Democrats that the Bush administration
name a special counsel to lead the probe.

Republican congressional leaders dismissed Democratic calls for a semi-
independent investigation as political maneuvering. "Surprise, surprise, they
are calling for a special counsel. My goodness," said House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay (R-Texas), according to the Associated Press. "It must be in their
political handbook, their campaign handbook."

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), appearing on NBC's "Today Show" this morning, said
he and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee could ensure that the
Justice Department was handling the investigation properly. "We have quite a
number of people on that committee who are former prosecutors, and we can take a
look at it and see to it that it's being conducted in an appropriate way,"
Specter said.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the most vocal Democrats in Congress
seeking a special counsel in the case, said the Justice Department has moved too
slow on the probe. "Every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a
culprit time to destroy the evidence," Schumer said. "Issues like this one,
which sow seeds of doubt about the fairness and honesty of Justice's
investigation, will come up every day until a special counsel is appointed."

Staff writers Dana Milbank and Susan Schmidt reported in this morning's edition
of The Washington Post:

The Justice Department announced yesterday that it has begun a full criminal
investigation of the disclosure, leaving open the possibility a special counsel
will be appointed when more facts are learned.

The expanding probe, which promptly shifted to a full investigation after an
initial review, set its focus on the White House, which was directed to preserve
all relevant records and files. White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, in a
memo to White House staff yesterday, said the Justice Department informed aides
to President Bush on Monday evening that it is probing "possible unauthorized
disclosures concerning the identity of an undercover CIA employee."

Speaking about the probe for the first time yesterday afternoon in Chicago, Bush
called the investigation "a good thing" and said he has told his administration
"to be fully cooperative." "There's just too many leaks, and if there is a leak
out of my administration, I want to know who it is," the president said. "If the
person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. And so I welcome the
investigation."

Bush asked anybody with information to come forward, and last night the White
House said the Justice Department was looking for records of contacts with three
journalists: syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, and Newsday reporters Knut
Royce and Timothy M. Phelps. But Bush's press secretary, Scott McClellan, said
nobody in the White House is inquiring about the leak. "It's the Department of
Justice that is looking into this matter," he said.

Word that the inquiry had broadened into a full investigation made clear that
the matter of the leaks could become a fixture on the political scene for many
months as it becomes shrouded in the criminal justice system and the possibility
of grand jury secrecy.

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said yesterday that career lawyers in the
Justice Department's counterespionage section opened a criminal investigation
Friday, four days after receiving a memo from the CIA detailing a possible
violation of federal law that prohibits unauthorized disclosures of classified
information.

The decision to open the investigation was made by career counterespionage
section chief John Dion, without the consultation of the attorney general, as is
standard practice, the department said. The Justice Department asked the FBI and
the CIA to preserve relevant records; requests were apparently not made of the
Pentagon or the State Department.

Ashcroft said the Justice Department prosecutors and FBI agents "who are and
will be handling this investigation are career professionals with extensive
experience in handling matters involving sensitive national security
information." He refused to answer questions about the investigation, including
whether there is an inherent conflict in his department's investigating
allegations of wrongdoing by senior Bush administration officials.

A department spokesman said later that Ashcroft could decide to name a special
counsel to take over the probe as facts emerge in the investigation. "No legal
options are closed," the spokesman said. "Part of what is being investigated is
whether there was an actual violation of law. That has not been determined yet."

Democrats in Congress continued their push for Ashcroft to name a special
counsel. In the Senate, Republicans squelched a Democratic move to put Congress
on record in favor of a special counsel; the non-binding proposal, sponsored by
Schumer and backed by the Senate Democratic leadership, was killed on procedural
grounds.

"This is not just a leak; this is a crime, plain and simple" and deserves an
independent inquiry, Schumer said. Democrats say Bush's Justice Department has a
conflict of interest in investigating the White House; they note that top Bush
strategist Karl Rove, who has been accused of having a role in the leak, once
was a consultant to Ashcroft.

A special counsel, if one is named, would be appointed by Ashcroft.

The investigation stems from allegations that Bush administration officials
disclosed that the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a prominent
critic of Bush's use of intelligence related to Iraq, worked for the CIA. A
senior administration official has told The Washington Post that two White House
officials leaked the information to several journalists in an effort to
discredit Wilson.

Wilson, on ABC's "Nightline" last night, said that if investigators ask, "I will
be revealing the names of everybody who called me," before or after the
disclosure of his wife's identity. He said those reporters said White House
sources or specific individuals had knowledge of the leak.

The controversy began when Novak on July 14 named Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame,
as a CIA operative, citing two senior administration officials. In a column
today, Novak said "I did not receive a planned leak" and called the information
"an offhand revelation." He also wrote that an "unofficial source" at the CIA
said Plame "has been an analyst, not in covert operations."

But on July 22, Newsday reported: "Novak, in an interview, said his sources had
come to him with the information. 'I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,' he
said. 'They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.' "

That article was written by Phelps and Royce, the other two journalists named in
the White House order to preserve records. The article was the first to identify
Plame as a clandestine operative, reporting: "Intelligence officials confirmed
to Newsday yesterday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph
Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an
undercover capacity -- at least she was undercover until last week, when she was
named by columnist Robert Novak."

Plame currently is an analyst at the CIA. But, intelligence officials said, she
previously served overseas in a clandestine capacity, which means her name is
kept classified to protect her previous contacts and operations, and her ability
to work again undercover overseas.

There are two federal statutes that could make the disclosure of a covert CIA
employee's identity a crime. One concerns unauthorized disclosure of classified
information, and the other specifically protects the identity of intelligence
officers.

For there to have been a crime, both statutes require there be evidence showing
that the person who made the disclosure did so knowing the information was
classified. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act also defines a "covert
agent" as someone whose identity as an intelligence official is classified
information and "who is serving outside the United States or has within the last
five years outside the United States."

Before opening a criminal investigation into leaks of classified material, the
Justice Department asks the referring agency to answer 11 questions that
department officials have said are akin to filing a police report; the CIA
submitted the questionnaire last Tuesday.

Among the questions are "whether the classified data disclosed is accurate";
"the extent of official dissemination of the data"; "whether the data has been
the subject of prior official releases"; what effect disclosure has on national
security; and "whether the material or portions thereof or enough background
data has been published officially or in the press to make an educated
speculation on the matter possible."

[ Staff writers Helen Dewar in Washington and Mike Allen in Chicago contributed
to this report. ]

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


October 1, 2003 - 11:04 AM EDT

HILL DEMOCRATS DEMAND A SPECIAL PROSECUTOR ON LEAK
Republicans Say White House Is Serious About Investigating

By Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press Writer

Congressional Democrats called anew Wednesday for an independent investigation
of the White House to find out how an undercover CIA officer's identity was
revealed.

Democratic leaders condemned the disclosure of the name of the CIA officer, who
is the wife of former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a prominent critic of
Bush's Iraq policy. They also want the Justice Department to appoint someone
from outside its hierarchy to investigate the leaks.

Letting Attorney General John Ashcroft investigate the White House that
appointed him is like having a fox guard a henhouse, said Rep. James McDermott,
(D-Wash). "How could Congress sit here with a straight face and allow that to be
the way this issue is resolved?" he said.

The White House on Wednesday ordered its staff to preserve any document that
could be relevant, but Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that should have been done
earlier.

"Every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a culprit time to destroy
the evidence," Schumer said. "Issues like this one, which sow seeds of doubt
about the fairness and honesty of Justice's investigation, will come up every
day until a special counsel is appointed."

Ambassador Wilson originally planned to meet with House Democrats Wednesday
morning but the meeting was canceled, officials said. Having Wilson at a
partisan Democratic meeting would have given extra credence to Republican claims
that the controversy is political, Democrats said.

Wilson has blamed the White House political operation and presidential adviser
Karl Rove for his wife's name being made public. While he doesn't think Rove
himself leaked the name, "I thought that it came from the White House, and Karl
Rove was the personification of the White House political operation," Wilson
said Monday.

Some Republicans said the Democrats were just playing politics.

"Surprise, surprise, they are calling for a special counsel. My goodness," said
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). "It must be in their political
handbook, their campaign handbook."

The Justice Department is trying to find out who leaked the name of the CIA
operative, possibly in an attempt to punish Wilson, who had accused the
administration of manipulating intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq.

Democrats want Attorney General John Ashcroft to recuse himself and appoint a
special prosecutor, saying Ashcroft is too close to the White House to be
objective.

Republicans expressed confidence in the Justice Department's investigation.

"The FBI will be doing the legwork and as a result I think we will find out what
happened here and, clearly, if the allegations are correct, the crime has
occurred, then it should be prosecuted," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

Ashcroft has not ruled out appointing a special counsel, a senior law
enforcement official said.

DeLay said a special counsel makes no sense.

"You have special counsels if you think the administration is trying to cover up
or obstruct justice or is not interested in this issue," DeLay said. "It is
quite obvious to me that the White House and the administration are very upset
about this issue."

Democrats said the GOP would be acting differently if there was a Democrat like
former President Clinton in the White House.

"Republicans would asserting that the Clinton administration had no concern for
the security of our nation and the safety of our security personnel," said House
Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Instead, "there are no hearings scheduled, no
subpoenas on the street, no Republicans asserting that this is a serious issue."

© 2003 The Associated Press

* * *


September 30, 2003; Page A01

U.S. CHARGES ACTIVIST OVER LINKS TO LIBYA
Muslim Leader Lobbied on Sanctions

By Douglas Farah and John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writers

One of the country's leading Islamic activists, a chief architect of the
Pentagon's Muslim chaplain program, was charged yesterday with illegally
accepting money from Libya for his efforts to persuade the United States to lift
sanctions against that nation.

Abdurahman Alamoudi, who as leader of the American Muslim Council met frequently
with senior Clinton and Bush administration officials, was arrested Sunday at
Dulles International Airport as he entered the United States from Britain, six
weeks after he allegedly attempted to smuggle hundreds of thousands of dollars
into Syria. U.S. officials said the final destination of the money is under
investigation.

Authorities said the arrest is an important step in the wide-ranging
investigation of funding for terrorism in this country, a probe that centers on
a cluster of foundations and businesses based in Herndon.

Agents for the Department of Homeland Security alleged that Alamoudi received
the $340,000 from Libyan officials as part of a longstanding relationship with
that government. In exchange for financial assistance for Muslim activist groups
he founded in the United States, authorities said, Alamoudi was trying to help
persuade the United States to lift sanctions against that nation.

Doing business with Libya remains illegal under U.S. law because of that
nation's role in the 1988 bombing of an airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland. The
United Nations removed sanctions against Libya earlier this month, although the
State Department still lists it as a sponsor of terrorism.

Alamoudi, 51, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Eritrea, was a senior executive
of several of the Herndon charities. They were raided in March 2002 by law
enforcement agents seeking evidence that the network of interlocking
organizations was funneling money to terrorist groups, according to a search
warrant issued at that time.

Kevin Delli-Colli, director of the Washington field office of the Bureau of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Alamoudi's home and several of those
organizations were searched again by federal agents on Sunday, after his arrest.

"Mr. Alamoudi is a significant figure and has been under investigation for some
time," Delli-Colli said in an interview.

An Alamoudi affiliate is among the few Muslim groups that accredit Islamic
chaplains for the Pentagon, and he is the second person affiliated with the
chaplain's program arrested this month. James Yee, an Army captain and Muslim
chaplain at the U.S. Navy prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was arrested Sept. 10
on suspicion of espionage allegedly carrying sketches of the facility and
documents related to interrogators and detainees.

Officials said yesterday the timing of Alamoudi's arrest was coincidental with
the recent controversy over the Muslim chaplain's program.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan ordered Alamoudi detained after a hearing
in U.S. District Court in Alexandria yesterday. Alamoudi's attorney, May Kheder,
said he "has asked us not to comment."

According to documents unsealed yesterday, Alamoudi was stopped by British
authorities in London on Aug. 16, as he prepared to board a flight to Damascus,
Syria. The officials found "34 bundles of sequentially numbered $100 bills" in
his suitcase.

Alamoudi told British authorities that the money, which was confiscated because
it had not been declared, had been delivered to his hotel room by an
unidentified Libyan, according to the documents. Alamoudi told officials that he
"intended eventually to deposit the money in banks located in Saudi Arabia, from
where he would feed it back in smaller amounts into accounts in the United
States," according to the documents.

Neither the documents nor U.S. authorities made clear why Alamoudi was trying to
take the money into Syria.

U.S. officials said that Alamoudi did not try to recover the money from British
authorities. Instead, he changed his travel plans, flying first to Lebanon, then
to Syria and Yemen, back to Syria, and on to Egypt and Libya before returning to
the United States. He made the trips using a Yemeni passport. He also has two
U.S passports, according to court documents.

It is illegal for U.S. citizens to travel to Libya without authorization from
the State Department.

Special Agent Brett Gentrup contended in the affidavit that Alamoudi first
approached the Libyan ambassador to the United Nations in 1997 to seek financial
backing for his U.S.-based organizations. At subsequent meetings, the Libyan
official, Abuzed O. Dorda, suggested that Alamoudi would receive an unspecified
share of any Libyan assets he succeeded in getting released by the United
States.

"Alamoudi then had a series of meetings with White House officials" about the
sanctions, Gentrup alleged. Dorda was recalled to Libya on Sept. 17.

Libya's acting representative at the United Nations, Ahmed A. Own, said that he
was unaware of any financial arrangement between Libya and the organization, and
that he had never heard of Alamoudi before learning about the case on television
today. "I have never heard of this matter," Own said.

Friends and associates have portrayed Alamoudi as a moderate Muslim activist,
but he has been vocal in his support of both the Islamic Resistance Movement, or
Hamas, and Hezbollah -- Middle Eastern organizations designated as terrorist
groups by the U.S. government. At an Oct. 28, 2000, rally at Lafayette Park,
Alamoudi proclaimed, "We are all followers of Hamas" and praised Hezbollah, also
known as the Party of God.

Yaser Bushnaq, chief coordinator of the Solidarity USA civil rights group, which
Alamoudi helped launch, said yesterday that if Alamoudi was trying to improve
U.S.-Libyan relations, "it would fit with the man I know, who would try to bring
a just solution between the two countries, and for the victims of the Pan Am
incident." He said that "Alamoudi believes in reconciliation, and in America."

In June 2001, Alamoudi and 160 American Muslim Council members met with
President Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, to discuss faith-based initiatives.
White House officials did not respond to inquiries about the meeting yesterday.

Alamoudi used the American Muslim Council, which he founded in 1990, to push for
creation of the program for Muslim chaplains in the U.S. military. He visited
the Pentagon and bases around the country, promoting the plan and recommending
young Muslims to serve as clerics in uniform.

In the mid-1990s, the American Muslim Foundation, a closely related group also
founded by Alamoudi, created a subsidiary organization called the American
Muslim Armed Forces and Veteran Affairs Council to continue this work. That
council recommended Yee for his job of Army chaplain.

Ali Khan, a Chicago investment banker who formerly was AMC's treasurer, said
yesterday Alamoudi controlled all its affairs. Alamoudi brought in large sums of
money from Saudi Arabia but refused to detail their origin, Khan said.

Khan said that for years he sought an accounting of the funds, but Alamoudi
refused. Alamoudi has publicly acknowledged bringing funds from Saudi Arabia for
his organizations.

Staff writer Colum Lynch at the United Nations and research editor Margot
Williams contributed to this report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


September 30, 2003

PHYSICIAN WORKING AS A TRANSLATOR AT GUANTANAMO ARRESTED

By Curt Anderson, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- A physician working as a translator at the U.S. prison camp at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was arrested Tuesday, authorities said, in the latest of a
series of apprehensions that have raised questions about security at the center
for terror suspects.

Dennis Murphy, a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security, said the
arrest came at Boston's Logan International Airport. A senior law enforcement
official, discussing the case on grounds of anonymity, identified the suspect as
Ahmed Mehalba. This source said that Mehalba had stopped in Boston Monday after
arriving on a flight from Cairo.

Agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement noticed documents that appeared
to have come from the prison camp and that they suspected of being classified.
The FBI was called in to interview Mehalba, who denied the documents were his,
the official said.

After the interview, the FBI arrested Mehalba on charges of making false
statements. He was being held in Boston and further charges are possible, said
the official, who declined to describe the nature of the documents in Mehalba's
possession.

Earlier, authorities charged an Air Force enlisted man, Ahmad I. al-Halbi, with
espionage for allegedly sending classified information about the Guantanamo
facility to an unspecified "enemy." He also was accused of planning to give
other secrets about the prison to someone traveling to Syria.

A military investigator said last week that Al-Halabi had been under
investigation before he arrived at the base.

The Air Force Office of Special Investigations began looking into his case in
November 2002 while he was a supply clerk at Travis Air Force Base in
California, the agent wrote in court documents. Al-Halabi was sent to the Cuban
base weeks later as an Arabic language interpreter for the al-Qaida and Taliban
suspects there.

Another suspect is Army Capt. Yousef Yee, a Muslim chaplain who is being
detained without charge at the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. Al-Halabi is behind
bars at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., forbidden to speak Arabic.

Army Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, a spokeswoman for the base, said last Friday that
military authorities strengthened security at Guantanamo Bay in the wake of the
arrests.

She said that officials were making certain that restrictions on handling
documents, making phone calls and sending e-mails are being followed.

Al-Halabi had said that he is innocent. One of his lawyers, Air Force Maj. James
Key III, said al-Halabi is a naturalized U.S. citizen and a patriotic American.

The most serious of the 32 charges against al-Halabi carries a possible death
sentence. The implication is that al-Halabi was helping the prisoners
communicate among themselves and with the outside world.

© 2003 The Associated Press

* * *


September 28, 2003; Page A01

BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS FOCUS OF INQUIRY
CIA Agent's Identity Was Leaked to Media

By Mike Allen and Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writers

At CIA Director George J. Tenet's request, the Justice Department is looking
into an allegation that administration officials leaked the name of an
undercover CIA officer to a journalist, government sources said yesterday.

The operative's identity was published in July after her husband, former U.S.
ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, publicly challenged President Bush's claim that
Iraq had tried to buy "yellowcake" uranium ore from Africa for possible use in
nuclear weapons. Bush later backed away from the claim.

The intentional disclosure of a covert operative's identity is a violation of
federal law.

The officer's name was disclosed on July 14 in a syndicated column by Robert D.
Novak, who said his sources were two senior administration officials.

Yesterday, a senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran,
two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and
disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife. Wilson had just revealed
that the CIA had sent him to Niger last year to look into the uranium claim and
that he had found no evidence to back up the charge. Wilson's account touched
off a political fracas over Bush's use of intelligence as he made the case for
attacking Iraq.

"Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge," the senior official said
of the alleged leak.

Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to
undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA
employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had
recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told
him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."

A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair
game."

The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the
journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the
calls.

It is rare for one Bush administration official to turn on another. Asked about
the motive for describing the leaks, the senior official said the leaks were
"wrong and a huge miscalculation, because they were irrelevant and did nothing
to diminish Wilson's credibility."

Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife's occupation, has suggested publicly
that he believes Bush's senior adviser, Karl C. Rove, broke her cover. Wilson
said Aug. 21 at a public forum in suburban Seattle that it is of keen interest
to him "to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White
House in handcuffs."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said yesterday that he knows of no
leaks about Wilson's wife. "That is not the way this White House operates, and
no one would be authorized to do such a thing," McClellan said. "I don't have
any information beyond an anonymous source in a media report to suggest there is
anything to this. If someone has information of this nature, then he or she
should report it to the Department of Justice."

McClellan, who Rove had speak for him, said of Wilson's comments: "It is a
ridiculous suggestion, and it is simply not true." McClellan was asked about
Wilson's charge at a White House briefing Sept. 16 and said the accusation is
"totally ridiculous."

Administration officials said Tenet sent a memo to the Justice Department
raising a series of questions about whether a leaker had broken federal law by
disclosing the identity of an undercover officer. The CIA request was reported
Friday night by MSNBC.com. Administration sources familiar with the matter said
the Justice Department is determining whether a formal investigation is
warranted.

An intelligence official said Tenet "doesn't like leaks."

The CIA request could reopen the rift between the White House and the
intelligence community that emerged this summer when Bush and his senior aides
blamed Tenet for the inclusion of the now-discredited uranium claim -- the so-
called "16 words" -- in the State of the Union address in January.

Tenet issued a statement taking responsibility for the CIA's approval of the
address before it was delivered, but made clear the CIA had earlier warned the
White House not to use the allegations about uranium ore. After an ensuing rush
of leaks over White House handling of intelligence, Bush's aides said they
believed in retrospect it had been a political mistake to blame Tenet.

The Intelligence Protection Act, passed in 1982, imposes maximum penalties of 10
years in prison and $50,000 in fines for unauthorized disclosure by government
employees with access to classified information.

Members of the administration, especially Vice President Cheney and Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have been harshly critical of unauthorized
leakers, and White House spokesmen are often dismissive of questions about news
reports based on unnamed sources. The FBI is investigating senators for possibly
leaking intercept information about Osama bin Laden.

The only recipient of a leak about the identity of Wilson's wife who went public
with it was Novak, the conservative columnist, who wrote in The Washington Post
and other newspapers that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, "is an agency operative
on weapons of mass destruction." He added, "Two senior administration officials
told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger."

When Novak told a CIA spokesman he was going to write a column about Wilson's
wife, the spokesman urged him not to print her name "for security reasons,"
according to one CIA official. Intelligence officials said they believed Novak
understood there were reasons other than Plame's personal security not to use
her name, even though the CIA has declined to confirm whether she was
undercover.

Novak said in an interview last night that the request came at the end of a
conversation about Wilson's trip to Niger and his wife's role in it. "They said
it's doubtful she'll ever again have a foreign assignment," he said. "They said
if her name was printed, it might be difficult if she was traveling abroad, and
they said they would prefer I didn't use her name. It was a very weak request.
If it was put on a stronger basis, I would have considered it."

After the column ran, the CIA began a damage assessment of whether any foreign
contacts Plame had made over the years could be in danger. The assessment
continues, sources said.

The CIA occasionally asks news organizations to withhold the names of undercover
agents, and news organizations usually comply. An intelligence official told The
Post yesterday that no further harm would come from repeating Plame's name.

Wilson was acting U.S. ambassador to Iraq during the run-up to the Persian Gulf
War of 1991. He was in the diplomatic service from 1976 until 1998, and was the
Clinton administration's senior director of African affairs on the National
Security Council. He is now an international business consultant. Wilson said
the mission to Niger was unpaid except for expenses.

Wilson said he believes an inquiry from Cheney's office launched his eight-day
mission to Niger in February 2002 to check the uranium claim, which turned out
to be based at least partly on forged documents. "The way it was briefed to me
was that the office of the vice president had expressed an interest in a report
covering uranium purchases by Iraq from Niger," Wilson said in a telephone
interview yesterday.

He said that if Novak's account is accurate, the leak was part of "a deliberate
attempt on the part of the White House to intimidate others and make them think
twice about coming forward."

Sources said that some of the other journalists who received the leak did not
use the information because they were uncomfortable with unmasking an undercover
agent or because they did not consider the information relevant to Wilson's
report about Niger.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who has been pushing the FBI to investigate
the disclosure since July, said yesterday that it "not only put an agent's life
in danger, but many of that agent's sources and contacts."

[ Staff writer Richard Leiby contributed to this report. ]

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


September 27, 2003; Page A02

ARABIC TRANSLATOR INVESTIGATED FOR MONTHS
Halabi Was Supply Clerk in California and Kuwait Before Guantanamo Duty

By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer

An Air Force translator at the U.S. government prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
who is facing possible espionage charges, was under investigation for months
before he was assigned to that job, according to documents filed in connection
with the case.

Military officials were unable to explain yesterday why Ahmad I. Halabi, 24, a
Syrian-born senior airman, was allowed to take the job as an Arabic translator
for al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners at the secure U.S. Navy base. Prior to being
transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Halabi served as a supply clerk in California and
in Kuwait, both assignments where he was under investigation.

"I don't have an answer for you on that," said Capt. Tom Crosson, a spokesman
for the U.S. Southern Command, the Florida-based military unit that oversees the
prison camp where 660 men are held.

The document, an affidavit in support of a search warrant filed in a federal
court in Sacramento, does not reveal why Halabi had been monitored before his
eight-month tour at Guantanamo Bay began. But the papers allege that he e-mailed
or posted on an unnamed Internet site four letters that detainees had written to
their families.

Halabi was arrested in Florida on July 23 on the basis of allegations that he
transmitted sensitive documents about detainees and other classified data about
the prison's operations to Syrian officials and other unauthorized people. He is
being held at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base.

His lawyers deny the allegations.

A second armed forces member who served at Guantanamo Bay, Army Capt. James Yee,
has been detained on suspicion of espionage. Yee, a Muslim chaplain who
counseled detainees at the prison, was arrested Sept. 10 in Florida with
documents about prisoners and interrogators. As many as four other military
personnel are being investigated for security breaches, including one person
from the Navy, officials said.

In the Halabi case, the affidavit was filed by Air Force investigators to
support a search of the airman's mailbox near Sacramento. Investigators sought
and received permission from a magistrate to search packages that Halabi had
sent to his California home address just before he permanently left Cuba.

The search in California earlier this month yielded, among other items, 60 pages
of documents, some classified "secret," the court documents said.

The classified documents found in Halabi's mail were in addition to other papers
and computer files found in his possession when he was arrested in Florida on
July 23 after leaving Guantanamo Bay.

Air Force investigators searched Halabi's Guantanamo Bay quarters without his
knowledge on July 19, four days before he left to return home, and found several
originals and copies of letters written by detainees, according to the
affidavit. The items were copied and replaced so he would not know he was being
watched.

Investigators also copied the contents of his laptop computer, and found 186
letters written by detainees to their families.

At Guantanamo Bay, Halabi "made statements criticizing U.S. policy with regard
to the detainees and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East," the court document
said.

An Air Force investigator said in one document that there is "probable cause" to
believe Halabi committed espionage by delivering or transmitting "documents
relating to the national defense, believing that such documents could be used to
the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign power."

Some of the initial charges against Halabi allege that he had unapproved
contacts with the Syrian Embassy and other communications with people from Syria
about events at the prison camp. His lawyers said he was in contact with the
embassy to arrange for his Syrian fiancee to move to the United States after
they married.

Halabi's military attorneys, Majors James Key III and Kim E. London, said in a
statement that he had been "a star performer for the Air Force," and was named
the 60th Supply Squadron's "Outstanding Airman of the Year" in 2001.

He came to this country as a teenager from Syria "in search of a good job and an
education," his lawyers said. "His father had moved to the United States 15
years ago to work as a cook in a restaurant to support his nine children in
Syria. After completing high school, Ahmad al-Halabi joined the Air Force and
became a U.S. citizen."

Halabi "is doing his best to stay positive, despite all the restrictions he has
on him," his attorneys said. "He is under a military order not to communicate in
any way in Arabic, which essentially means he cannot talk or write much directly
to his father, mother, fiancee, or other family members who speak and write
primarily in Arabic."

An Air Force officer is expected soon to report on the findings of a preliminary
examination of his case, and a general will decide whether to charge him in a
court-martial.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


September 25, 2003; Page A03

GUANTANAMO SECURITY PROBE WIDENS
Members of Air Force, Navy Under Suspicion

By Steve Vogel and John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writers

Military authorities are investigating possible security breaches by as many as
four other service members in the wake of arrests of a Muslim chaplain and an
Arabic translator on suspicion of possible espionage at the U.S. military prison
in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, government sources said yesterday.

Members of the Air Force and Navy are the focus of two of the newly disclosed
investigations, according to U.S. officials, who would not say whether any of
the cases involve personnel who have served at the prison on the U.S. naval base
where the government is holding 660 alleged terrorists.

Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, suggested
yesterday that the investigation has expanded beyond the espionage-related
arrests of Army Capt. James "Yousef" Yee, an Islamic cleric at Guantanamo Bay,
and Air Force Special Airman Ahmad Halabi, an Arabic translator at the prison.
Pace told reporters that "we don't presume the two we know about is all there
is, nor do we presume there's more."

Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said
yesterday that security procedures at Guantanamo Bay are being scrutinized in
light of the arrests of Halabi on July 23 and Yee on Sept. 10. Yee is under
suspicion because of sensitive material found in his possession, including
documents concerning Guantanamo detainees and interrogators, as well as maps of
the facilities. Halabi faces 30 charges that include spying for Syria and
attempting to pass on sensitive information about detainees and Guantanamo
operations.

A senior U.S. government official said that despite the suggestion that Halabi
was spying for Syria, his native country, U.S. investigators are also looking
into whether he and Yee were trying to pass information about prison operations
to "radical Islamic groups." As yet, investigators have established no link
between Yee and Halabi, officials said.

The FBI, meanwhile, has begun looking into the two Islamic organizations in this
country that accredit Muslim chaplains for the U.S. military, a senior law
enforcement official said. In addition, he said, the bureau is reviewing the
backgrounds of the military's 11 other Muslim chaplains, as well as the
backgrounds of other military personnel at Guantanamo Bay.

Air Force Maj. James E. Key III, who is defending Halabi, said again yesterday
that his client was not spying, adding that the evidence the government
presented during a preliminary hearing did not support the charges.

Ammar Arsan, spokesman for the Syrian Embassy in Washington, said his government
has not spied on this country and has no interest in activities at Guantanamo
Bay because it is helping the United States in the war on terrorism.

Of particular concern to Pentagon officials is the information that Halabi
allegedly attempted to deliver. It includes a copy of flight information
involving the movement of military personnel to and from Guantanamo Bay, details
about which prisoners are housed in which cells, letters from detainees and
copies of operations orders for the transfer of prisoners, according to court
papers.

"If you put all that stuff together, in the wrong hands, hands that have the
capability to use it, it's very significant," a senior defense official said.
The information could potentially be used to attack U.S. aircraft or to cause a
riot, several officials said.

The allegations that Halabi was carrying messages from prisoners as well as cell
numbers raise the disturbing possibility that the detainees are coordinating
activities and communications among themselves or with outsiders, defense
officials said.

"If these guys know who is where, they can start coordinating what's being said,
and that could have a huge impact on the interrogations," a military
intelligence official said.

In Halabi's case, prosecutors and defense attorneys are awaiting a report from
an investigating officer. After reviewing the report, an Air Force general will
decide whether to hold a court-martial for Halabi, who is being held at
Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.

No charges have been filed against Yee, who is being held in a military brig in
Charleston, S.C.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the U.S. military should conduct a "top-
to-bottom review of security at Guantanamo," and toughen background checks for
military personnel there. He also said it was "shocking" that six months after
the Pentagon assured him it was investigating two Islamic institutes that
approve Muslim clerics for military service, the probes have not begun.

One of the training centers is the Virginia-based American Muslim Armed Forces
and Veteran Affairs Council, which vetted Yee in the late 1990s for service as
an Army chaplain.

The council is closely affiliated with a group based in Alexandria called the
American Muslim Foundation, whose president is Abdurahman Alamoudi. Last year,
federal agents investigating the possible financing of terrorists raided
Alamoudi's offices. He was one of the key figures in the Muslim community who
helped begin the Islamic chaplain program in the military in the 1990s,
government officials and Muslim activists said. He has not been charged, and he
has denied all ties to terrorists. He could not be reached for comment
yesterday.

The other chaplain-training institute is the Leesburg-based Graduate School of
Islamic and Social Sciences, whose offices were raided in the same probe last
year. Lawyer Nancy Luque said yesterday that the group and its officials have no
links to terrorists, calling the allegation "ridiculous."

The founder and head of the graduate school is Taha Jabir Alwani, named as an
unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment in February of former Florida
university professor Sami Arian. Arian was charged with conspiracy to commit
murder via suicide attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories, and
prosecutors say he was for years a top leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad
terrorist organization -- assertions he denies.

Rita Katz, founder of the Search for International Terrorist Entities Institute,
a terrorism research center, said the arrests of Yee and Halabi show that
"American officials can be too trusting, and don't learn from experience."

She cited the case of Ali Mohamed, a member of Osama bin Laden's inner circle,
who became a sergeant in the Army Special Forces in the 1990s despite officers'
suspicions that he was an extremist. He was jailed after pleading guilty to
conspiracy in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

[ Staff writers Gregory L. Vistica and Susan Schmidt and research editor Margot
Williams contributed to this report. ]

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


September 24, 2003; Page A01

TRANSLATOR ACCUSED OF SPYING
Airman Worked With Guantanamo Detainees

By Steve Vogel and John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writers

A U.S. Air Force translator who worked with al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at
the Guantanamo Bay prison has been charged with spying for Syria, the second
member of the U.S. military to fall under suspicion of revealing secrets about
the Navy jail for terrorism suspects, officials said yesterday.

In court papers, military authorities allege that Senior Airman Ahmad I. Halabi,
24, attempted to deliver sensitive information to Syria, including more than 180
notes from prisoners, a map of the installation, the movement of military
aircraft to and from the base, intelligence documents and the names and
cellblock numbers of captives at the prison in Cuba.

The government is investigating whether other service members may be involved in
espionage and whether there is a connection between Halabi and Army Capt. James
Yee, a Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay who was arrested Sept. 10 carrying
sketches of the prison and documents about detainees and interrogators. Yee is
being held in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., on suspicion of espionage, but
no charges have been brought against him.

"There is no information that there is a link," said an Air Force officer. But a
Pentagon official added that, "if you have two [suspects] from the same place,
that is cause for concern. We'll follow every lead to try to root out any others
that might be involved."

The charges filed against Halabi, who was detained July 23 and is being held at
California's Vandenberg Air Force Base, make no mention of Yee. The two men
served at Guantanamo at the same time.

Al Halabi's military attorney, Air Force Maj. James E. Key III, denied the
charges. "Airman al Halabi is not a spy and he is not a terrorist," Key said.

A native of Syria who moved to the United States as a teenager, Halabi has been
charged with 30 offenses, including four counts of violating the Federal
Espionage Act and three counts or aiding the enemy. If convicted, he could be
sentenced to death.

Halabi attempted to pass on information that he "had reason to believe could be
used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of Syria, a foreign
nation," according to the charges, which are outlined in papers filed by his
attorney for a preliminary hearing in a military court. Halabi also failed to
report contact with the Embassy of Syria, the papers state.

Calls to the Syrian Embassy here went unanswered yesterday.

U.S. authorities say they are shaken by the possibility that Guantanamo Bay,
which they established as remote penal colony for alleged terrorists, could have
been compromised by American service personnel with allegiances to U.S.
adversaries.

When he was arrested earlier this month, Yee was carrying a number of sensitive
documents about Guantanamo Bay that military officials said a chaplain had no
reason to obtain. His arrest has sparked criticism from Sen. Charles E. Schumer
(D-N.Y.) and others in Congress that the military is not sufficiently vetting
Muslim chaplains.

Yee also has ties to Syria; he studied Islam and Arabic there for four years in
the mid-1990s.

Members of Halabi's family said investigators are misinterpreting the young
man's innocent contacts with the Syrian Embassy here, which occurred recently as
he arranged visits to his home country in order to bring his Syrian-born fiancee
to the United States. The woman lives in the Persian Gulf region, and Halabi had
planned to arrange for her to move to the United States.

"He loved being in the U.S.," said a family friend who asked not to be
identified. "He said, 'I have a dream life here,' " and told his father, Ibrahim
Halabi, that he had no interest in returning to live in Syria.

Moreover, the Halabi family, like most Syrian Americans, keeps its distance from
the government of Syria's Bashar Assad, the friend said.

"Definitely, Ahmad has no political interest whatsoever," said the family
friend, who added that it is inconceivable he could have chosen to help his
native land out of support for its government.

Halabi has traveled at least once and possibly twice to Syria in the last year
to see his fiancee, and has had many contacts with the Syrian Embassy here to
set up his trips and to seek permission for her to leave, the family friend
said.

A member of an observant Muslim family, Halabi is mostly uninterested in
religion, the family friend said. He moved to the Detroit area in the early
1990s, graduated from Fordson High School in Dearborn, Mich., in 1999 and
volunteered for the Air Force the same year. He has applied for American
citizenship.

Halabi was detained July 23 at Jacksonville Naval Air Station in Florida, which
serves as a hub for military travel to and from Guantanamo Bay. After nine
months in Cuba, Halabi, a member of the 60th Logistical Readiness Squadron, was
en route to his home base, Travis Air Force Base, near Sacramento. He also had a
ticket to fly to Syria several days later, where he was to marry, Key said.

While at Guantanamo Bay, between Nov. 15 and July 23, Halabi was "writing and
transmitting secretly through unsecured e-mail to an unauthorized person or
persons whom he, the accused, knew to be the enemy," the government alleges in
court papers. The documents do not specify who "the enemy" is.

The government alleges that Halabi attempted to deliver two handwritten notes
and a laptop computer with more than 180 electronic versions of letters from
prisoners. Information in the notes "directly concerned intelligence gathering
and planning for the United States' war against terrorists," according to the
charges.

Halabi attempted to download a sketch, photograph, blueprint, and other material
from a classified military computer to his personal laptop computer, according
to the court documents.

The papers do not specify to whom Halabi was allegedly trying to deliver the
information. Defense attorneys unsuccessfully pressed prosecutors to elaborate
during a preliminary hearing this month in California, according to Key. "We
never got a good answer," he said.

The United States has occasionally tense relations with Syria, which has served
as a base for several groups designated as terrorists by the U.S. government.
The court papers say some of the information allegedly carried by Halabi could
be used to aid Qatar, a Persian Gulf state and important U.S. ally.

"We asked who the enemy is, and we haven't been able to get an answer," Key
said.

Military prosecutors fought to keep an Article 32 preliminary hearing closed to
the public. An initial order by Brig. Gen. Bradley S. Baker, a commander at
Travis, to close the entire hearing was overturned within days by the Air Force
Court of Criminal Appeals. Baker will decide whether the evidence warrants a
court-martial. Much of the hearing, which began Sept. 15, was closed after
prosecutors argued that national security would be compromised.

The Air Force initially charged Halabi with espionage on Aug. 27 and filed
additional charges Sept. 12.

On the day he was detained in July, Halabi denied wrongdoing, telling an Air
Force special agent that he did not take any prohibited pictures at Guantanamo,
that he did not take any letters from detainees, and that he had not downloaded
any translated detainee documents to his personal laptop, according to the court
documents.

"I have never made any anti-American or anti-United States statements," Halabi
told Lance Wega, a special agent with the Air Force Office of Special
Investigations.

Halabi is also accused in court papers of conducting unauthorized communications
with prisoners "by furnishing and delivering unauthorized food, to wit: baklava
pastries."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


September 23, 2003

AIRMAN CHARGED WITH SPYING AT GUANTANAMO

By Matt Kelley, The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - An Air Force translator at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for
terror suspects has been charged with espionage and aiding the enemy, officials
said Tuesday, three days after disclosing the arrest of a U.S. Army chaplain
working at the same base.

The two men knew each other, an Air Force spokesman said, but officials said
they didn't know if there had been any conspiracy to breach security at the
prison camp.

The Air Force announced Tuesday that the translator, Senior Airman Ahmad I.
Al-Halabi had been charged with 32 crimes including espionage and aiding the
enemy, crimes that could lead to the death penalty. On Saturday, officials had
disclosed the arrest of Army Capt. Yousef Yee, a Muslim chaplain who ministered
to the inmates.

Al-Halabi was arrested in July, more than six weeks before Yee's arrest.
Authorities took each man into custody as he arrived in Jacksonville, Fla., from
the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Al-Halabi, 24, from Detroit, had worked for about nine months as an Arabic
language translator at Guantanamo Bay, said Air Force Maj. Michael Shavers.

He is charged with eight counts related to espionage, three counts of aiding the
enemy, 11 counts of disobeying a lawful order, nine counts of making a false
official statement and one count of bank fraud.

Pentagon officials said a broader investigation into possible security breaches
at Guantanamo Bay continues.

About 660 suspected al-Qaida or Taliban members are imprisoned at the U.S. Navy
base. American officials are interrogating them for information on the terrorist
network.

The military has classified many details about the prison camp and the detainees
and has not identified any of the men being held there.

Espionage and aiding the enemy are military charges that can carry the death
penalty, said Eugene Fidell, a civilian lawyer in Washington and president of
the National Institute of Military Justice. The commanding general in charge of
al-Halabi's case would have to decide whether military prosecutors could seek
the death penalty in this case, Fidell said.

That decision has not been made, Shavers said. Air Force officials also have not
decided yet whether al-Halabi's case will be handled by a court-martial.

The last military execution was in 1961, Fidell said.

Al-Halabi was based at Travis Air Force Base in California and assigned to a
logistics unit there, Shavers said. An item in that base's newspaper from July
2002 said he was assigned to the 60th Support Squadron and was selected for an
early promotion last year.

Yee was arrested Sept. 10 and is being held at a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. A
senior law enforcement official has said authorities confiscated classified
documents Yee was carrying.

A military magistrate ruled on Sept. 15 there was enough evidence to hold Yee,
35, for up to two months while the military investigates.

Al-Halabi was arrested July 23 at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, also
after getting off a flight from the base in Cuba. The next day, military
authorities flew him to Travis Air Force Base. At some point later, he was
transferred to Vandenberg, Shavers said.

Meanwhile, a senator criticized the Pentagon for not investigating the Muslim
organization that certified Yee as an appropriate military chaplain candidate.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veteran
Affairs Council is a subgroup of the American Muslim Foundation, which has been
investigated by Customs agents for possible financial ties to terrorism.

Officials of the groups have denied any terrorist ties. An e-mail to the council
seeking comment was not immediately returned Tuesday.

Schumer said he requested a Defense Department investigation of the group in
March but the Pentagon had not started one.

"I fully support the teaching and worship of Islam in the military but I think
it's common sense to ensure the groups in charge of vetting people don't have
links to terrorism," Schumer said.

[ AP Military Writer Robert Burns contributed to this report. ]

© 2003 The Associated Press

* * *


September 23, 2003

AIRMAN CHARGED WITH ESPIONAGE AT GUANTANAMO BAY PRISON

The Associated Press

An Air Force translator at the U.S. prison camp for suspected terrorists has
been charged with espionage and aiding the enemy -- counts that could carry the
death penalty, a military spokesman said Tuesday.

Senior Airman Ahmad I. al-Halabi is being held at Vandenberg Air Force Base in
California, facing 32 criminal charges, spokesman Maj. Michael Shavers said.

Al-Halabi worked as an Arabic language translator at the prison camp for al-
Qaida and Taliban suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Shavers said. The Air Force
enlisted man knew the Muslim chaplain at the prison who was arrested earlier
this month, but it is unclear whether the two arrests are linked, Shavers said.

The translator was arrested more than six weeks before the chaplain, he said.

Al-Halabi is charged with eight counts related to espionage, three counts of
aiding the enemy, 11 counts of disobeying a lawful order, nine counts of making
a false official statement and one count of bank fraud.

Espionage and aiding the enemy are military charges that can carry the death
penalty, said Eugene Fidell, a civilian lawyer in Washington and president of
the National Institute of Military Justice. The commanding general in charge of
al-Halabi's case would have to decide whether military prosecutors could seek
the death penalty in his case, Fidell said.

If the death penalty is an option, the 12-member military jury that hears the
case would have to vote unanimously to impose it, Fidell said.

Al-Halabi was based at Travis Air Force Base in California and assigned to a
logistics unit there, Shavers said.

Pentagon officials said an investigation into possible security breaches at
Guantanamo Bay continues.

About 660 suspected al-Qaida or Taliban members are imprisoned at the U.S. Navy
base. American officials are interrogating them for information on the terrorist
network.

The military has classified many details about the prison camp and the detainees
and has not identified any of the men being held there. Military officials have
said the fight against terrorism could be hampered if terrorist groups got such
information.

The Muslim military chaplain who ministered to the inmates at the camp, Army
Capt. Yousef Yee, was arrested Sept. 10 in Jacksonville, Fla., after getting off
a flight from Guantanamo Bay.

A senior law enforcement official said authorities confiscated classified
documents Yee was carrying.

Yee, 35, is being held at a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C. A military magistrate
ruled on Sept. 15 there was enough evidence to hold Yee for up to two months
while the military investigates.

Al-Halabi was arrested July 23 at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, also
after getting off a flight from the base in Cuba. The next day, military
authorities flew al-Halabi to Travis Air Force Base. At some point later, he was
transferred to Vandenberg, Shavers said.

© 2003 The Associated Press

* * *


September 23, 2003; Page A03

PROBE OF 2 GROUPS THAT TRAIN MUSLIM CHAPLAINS SOUGHT

By John Mintz and Susan Schmidt, Washington Post Staff Writers

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) yesterday renewed his request for an
investigation into two institutes that train Islamic chaplains for the military
in light of the Sept. 10 arrest of Army Capt. James "Yousef" Yee, an imam who
ministered to detainees held at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Six months ago, Schumer asked the Pentagon to launch an internal review of the
way the military determines the reliability of Muslim clerics in the armed
services, but so far no such effort has been undertaken, officials said
yesterday.

The FBI and the U.S. military are sorting out which of them will take the lead
in investigating Yee, who was detained in connection with a probe into possible
espionage, officials said.

A Chinese American who converted to Islam before joining the service as a
chaplain, Yee has been held at a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., following his
arrest two weeks ago at a Navy base in Jacksonville, Fla.

When he was arrested, he had documents concerning some of the 660 detainees at
the Guantanamo Bay prison camp and their U.S. government interrogators, as well
as sketches of facilities at the camp, officials said. A chaplain would not
ordinarily have access to such documents, officials said.

A military magistrate who reviewed Yee's case on Sept. 15 found there was
adequate evidence to justify his continued confinement, according to officials
at U.S. Southern Command.

Yee is a 1990 graduate of West Point who commanded a Patriot missile unit before
leaving the military, converting to Islam and studying for four years in Syria.
He rejoined the military in the late 1990s and became a cleric at Fort Lewis in
Washington state. Ten months ago he became the imam at Guantanamo Bay, where he
counseled prisoners and kept prison officials advised of detainees' morale.

Yesterday Schumer said Yee's arrest "only underscores the need for a
comprehensive investigation" into the matter.

Schumer previously raised questions about two institutes that train Islamic
chaplains for the military: the Leesburg-based Graduate School of Islamic and
Social Sciences (GSISS); and the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veteran
Affairs Council, which helped train Yee.

Despite Schumer's request, Pentagon and Army spokesmen said yesterday there is
no review of the chaplain program being conducted.

GSISS was raided by federal agents in 2002 as part of a probe of a cluster of
Northern Virginia companies and institutes that have alleged dealings with
terrorists. The council is an affiliate of the Alexandria-based American Muslim
Foundation, which is being investigated in the same probe.

Officials of both groups have denied any ties to terrorists.

Staff writer Douglas Farah contributed to this report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


September 21, 2003; Page A16

IMAM HAD SECRET DATA ON CUBA DETAINEES

By John Mintz and Susan Schmidt, Washington Post Staff Writers

A Muslim chaplain in the U.S. Army who ministers to alleged al Qaeda fighters
held in the prison complex at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been detained in an
investigation into why he possessed classified documents about the detainees and
their interrogators, government officials said.

Capt. James Yee, 35, a Chinese American who has used the name "Yousef" since his
1991 conversion to Islam, has been held for the past 11 days in a Navy brig in
Charleston, S.C., officials said.

Capt. Thomas Crosson, a spokesman for the U.S. Southern Command, the Florida-
based military unit overseeing the Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, said Yee had
been "detained" but that "no formal charges, either criminal or civil," have
been filed against him.

But other government officials knowledgeable about the case said military
officials at a Navy base in Florida arrested Yee on Sept. 10. One knowledgeable
official said Yee has been charged with a number of crimes under the military's
criminal code relating to espionage.

The officials said FBI and military investigators are trying to determine
whether Yee has revealed to other people any of the sensitive information from
the files he had -- about the detainees in Guantanamo, U.S. interrogators and
other topics. They said Yee should not have had these documents in connection
with his chaplain job.

"I'm going to decline all comment on this," Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita said
yesterday about the case, whose details were first disclosed in yesterday's
Washington Times.

Yee was arrested at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Fla., after several
hours of interrogation on Sept. 10, U.S. sources said. He had just flown to the
base from Guantanamo Bay. His commanding officers at Guantanamo Bay decided to
detain him after being informed of the results of the interrogation, sources
said.

Yee had been assigned to counsel the detainees in Cuba, now numbering 660,
starting 10 months ago. Before that, he was a Muslim chaplain at the Army's Fort
Lewis in Washington state.

Yee, who grew up a Lutheran in a New Jersey suburb, graduated from West Point in
1990 and then commanded a Patriot missile battery.

He converted to Islam about the time he served a stint in Saudi Arabia after the
Persian Gulf War. After quitting the military, he spent four years studying
Islam in Damascus, Syria, and returned to the United States a trained imam.

In the late 1990s, he rejoined the U.S. military as a Muslim cleric, and was
frequently interviewed by U.S. news organizations about Islamic life within the
U.S. military. He continually professed a message of peace.

"An act of terrorism, the taking of innocent civilian lives, is prohibited by
Islam, and whoever has done this needs to be brought to justice, whether he is
Muslim or not," Yee told Scripps Howard several weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks.

Terrorism researcher Steven Emerson, who frequently consults for government
agencies, said yesterday that U.S. officials had been watching Yee for some
time, and had been looking into whether he had counseled any of the prisoners in
ways that discouraged them from assisting interrogators.

Yee's detention is only the latest controversy to hit the chaplain program,
which oversees the approximately 12 Islamic imams in the U.S. military.

In June, The Washington Post disclosed that some chaplains' service Web sites
for the Navy and the Air Force referred sailors and airmen interested in Islam
to a site that provides links to the lectures of fundamentalist clerics, some of
whom advocate jihad against the United States and Israel.

The inspectors general for the Pentagon and the Justice Department have launched
reviews of the Muslim chaplain programs in the U.S. military and in federal
prisons.

[ Staff researcher Margaret Smith contributed to this report. ]

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *

September 11, 2003; Page A07

U.S. REFUSES TO PRODUCE AL QAEDA OFFICIALS AS WITNESSES

By Jerry Markon, Washington Post Staff Writer

The Justice Department yesterday for a second time defied the federal judge
overseeing the case of accused Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui, saying
it would not comply with her order to turn over two top al Qaeda detainees for
interviews by Moussaoui and his legal team.

The refusal to produce the witnesses -- identified by sources as former al Qaeda
operations chief Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Mustafa Ahmed Hawsawi, the alleged
paymaster to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers -- means that the case against
Moussaoui could be dismissed by the judge.

Under federal laws governing disclosure of classified information in criminal
cases, U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema can sanction the government for
refusing her order. Prosecutors acknowledged in court papers yesterday that
Brinkema probably will respond by dismissing the indictment against Moussaoui --
but they also said that they would appeal a dismissal, or other punishments, to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.

Other possible punishments include striking the possibility of the death penalty
for Moussaoui, who is the only person charged in the United States in connection
with the Sept. 11 attacks.

In their filing in federal court in Alexandria, prosecutors said their
obligation to protect national security prevented them from complying with the
judge's order.

"These unprecedented depositions of . . . enemy combatants would needlessly
jeopardize national security at a time of war with an enemy who has already
murdered thousands of our citizens," said the filing, signed by Assistant U.S.
Attorney Robert A. Spencer, the lead prosecutor.

Prosecutors used a similar argument in July when they defied an order from
Brinkema to produce for deposition Ramzi Binalshibh, another top al Qaeda
operative. Brinkema has indicated that she will sanction the government for that
refusal -- and the standoff on all three witnesses probably will have to be
resolved by the Richmond-based 4th Circuit or possibly the Supreme Court.

The government papers filed yesterday asked Brinkema to delay sanctions until
the appeal is heard.

Frank W. Dunham Jr., the chief public defender representing Moussaoui, said:
"These witnesses would exculpate Moussaoui from September 11. I'm disappointed
that the government won't provide them."

The stakes are high for not only the Moussaoui case but also for further
prosecutions of major terrorism cases in civilian courts. If the higher courts
order the government to produce the three al Qaeda operatives, officials have
said that they probably will move the Moussaoui prosecution to a military
tribunal.

Moussaoui, a French citizen, is charged with conspiring with al Qaeda in the
attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the government is
seeking the death penalty. But the case has been snarled by the dispute over
access to witnesses. The issue arose in late January when Brinkema granted the
defense motion to depose Binalshibh, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11
attacks, who was captured last fall.

Moussaoui and his defense team contend that Binalshibh has information vital to
the defense and that preventing Binalshibh's testimony would violate Moussaoui's
constitutional rights. But government attorneys objected to a deposition, saying
it would interrupt a vital interrogation and threaten national security.

The issue has reached the 4th Circuit, which dismissed the government's appeal
of Brinkema's ruling on procedural grounds but said prosecutors could appeal
again if they refused to produce Binalshibh and were sanctioned by the District
Court.

Last week, Brinkema granted another defense motion and ordered depositions of
Mohammed and Hawsawi. She said a witness identified by sources as Mohammed could
provide testimony that would "eliminate the possibility" of a death sentence for
Moussaoui and could clear him of conspiracy charges.

Sources familiar with Mohammed's statements said he has told interrogators that
Moussaoui was sent to the United States for a mission that was to occur after
the Sept. 11 attacks, and not as a participant in the hijackings. But
prosecutors believe that the statements implicate Moussaoui in the conspiracy.

Some government officials have acknowledged that the statements of the al Qaeda
witnesses could make it more difficult to secure a death sentence if Moussaoui
goes to trial. Prosecutors would be required to more directly tie Moussaoui to
the events of Sept. 11 in the trial's death penalty phase than they would in the
guilt phase.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


September 6, 2003; Page A03

SAUDI-U.S. MEETING TOUCHES ON DETAINEES

By Tania Branigan, Washington Post Staff Writer

Hoping to win the release of Saudis detained at the Navy prison in Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, a government delegation from Saudi Arabia met this week with State
Department officials, a spokesman for the kingdom's embassy said yesterday.

Nail Jubeir, spokesman for the Saudi Embassy in Washington, said that the future
of the 124 men held at the U.S. Navy prison was raised in wider talks on U.S.-
Saudi relations. Saudi nationals form one of the largest contingents among the
approximately 660 detainees from 42 nations at the prison, most of whom were
captured in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the war in 2001.

In May, the United States took the unique step of transferring four Saudi
nationals from Guantanamo Bay to Riyadh on the condition that they remain in
detention in Saudi Arabia. Sixty-four men have been released and repatriated,
while the rest continue to be held without charges.

Jubeir declined to comment on the precise content of this week's talks, but
confirmed that the Saudi government is seeking the return of all its nationals
to Riyadh.

"We have made no secret of it: We want them to be handled in the Saudi courts.
That's our position, and we will make our point whenever we have the
opportunity," he said. "We will take them whenever the U.S. government has done
with them."

But a spokeswoman for the State Department said officials had not discussed
specific cases or explored the topic of extradition with the visiting legal
team, which was appointed by the Saudi government to advise the families of
detainees.

Mindy Sofen said there are no current plans for legal proceedings against the
Saudi prisoners. Six detainees have been designated for trial before military
tribunals, but proceedings against three of them have been suspended pending
talks with their governments in Britain and Australia. The United States has
also said the trio will not face execution.

Sean Murphy, a professor of international law at George Washington University
and a former State Department official, and other legal experts suggested that
the future of the Saudi detainees would rest on delicate diplomatic negotiations
as well as on evidence against the individuals.

Murphy said the Bush administration wants to maintain good relations with its
long-term ally, without prompting more criticism at home, where Saudi Arabia has
been the target of repeated charges in recent months that it supports terrorism.
A congressional report issued in July alleged that Saudi officials had helped
finance terrorism, an assertion strongly denied by Riyadh.

Saudi Arabia could probably assure U.S. officials that detainees would not be
freed on their return, and that continued detention would be unlikely to be
successfully challenged in the Saudi courts. "There is probably a level of
comfort that they won't simply release individuals in the way other governments
would," Murphy said.

Harold Hongju Koh, a professor of international law at Yale University and an
assistant secretary of state for human rights under President Bill Clinton,
suggested that the administration is struggling to develop a policy for the
Guantanamo Bay detainees.

"The State Department views this as a major diplomatic problem and would like to
find a solution and seize an exit strategy. The Defense Department is settling
in for quasi-permanent facilities. They have very different approaches to this
problem," he said.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


September 5, 2003; 9:26 PM

FREED BRITONS ACCUSE SAUDIS OF TORTURE

LONDON (Reuters) - Five Britons who spent two and a half years in jail in Saudi
Arabia after being convicted of a series of bomb attacks were systematically
tortured, they told the Daily Mail newspaper on Saturday.

The five Britons, who were granted clemency in August along with a Canadian and
a Belgian, said they were beaten, tortured and deprived of sleep in order to
extract confessions.

One man said he had only confessed to the bombings after his jailers threatened
to arrest his wife and rape her.

The Saudi embassy in London rejected any suggestion that the men were tortured,
telling Reuters recently that they stayed in air conditioned rooms with regular
access to visitors, lawyers, exercise facilities and whatever food they asked
for.

The men were accused of carrying out several bombings in Saudi Arabia, including
a November 17, 2000 attack which killed Briton Christopher Rodway. Several other
Western expatriates working in the oil-rich kingdom were wounded in separate
attacks.

Saudi authorities blamed the bombings on a turf war over illegal but lucrative
alcohol sales. Families of the jailed men insisted local Islamic militants were
responsible.

One of the men, Peter Brandon, told the paper: "I truly thought I was going to
die. I couldn't believe that they would treat another human being like that. It
was barbaric."

Two of the accused had been sentenced to death and, if the sentences had been
ratified by King Fahd, faced public beheading. The others had been given lengthy
prison sentences.

The five Britons also criticized their government's involvement in the affair,
describing its behind-the-scenes diplomacy as "hushed to the point of silence."

"It is now extremely important that the British government reconsiders its timid
'constructive engagement' line with Saudi Arabia and begins to speak out
forcefully about widescale human rights violations in the kingdom," human rights
group Amnesty International's UK director Kate Allen said at the time of the
men's release.

The British Foreign Office told the BBC Newsnight program: "We are relieved that
the men have returned to the UK and are back with their families, it has
obviously been a very difficult time... Minister and officials have worked hard
for this outcome."

Violence in the kingdom continued after the men were arrested, including
suspected al Qaeda bombings in Riyadh in May which killed 35 people.

Saudi Arabia has since launched a crackdown on militants.

* * *

August 23, 2003; Page A18

3 LIKELY TO BE FREED FROM GUANTANAMO
Rights Groups Urge Children's Release Under International Law

By Tania Branigan, Washington Post Staff Writer

Three children whose detention at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison has
outraged international human rights groups are likely to be freed soon, military
officials indicated yesterday.

The boys, who are believed to be Afghan and between the ages of 13 and 15, were
among hundreds of males captured in the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan.
Their presence at the U.S. Navy prison was revealed in April, but they may have
been in military custody for many months before that, according to human rights
activists and military officials.

"We would obviously have preferred that a determination was made earlier, but
I'm pleased by the news that they will finally be released," said Olara Otunnu,
U.N. special representative for children and armed conflict. He had urged the
United States to free the juveniles as soon as possible.

Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, spokeswoman for the joint military task force that runs
the prison, said that officials there will recommend the release of the three
boys, but she could not say when they will be freed. The final decision on
whether to release, charge or continue to hold detainees is made by the
Pentagon.

"The process may take a while, so there's no foretelling when that may happen,"
Hart said.

The task force's commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, has told reporters for
the Baltimore Sun and the British Broadcasting Corp. that the boys were brought
to Guantanamo Bay because they were considered a threat and they had "high
value" intelligence that U.S. authorities wanted.

The boys have been kept separately from about 650 adult detainees in the prison,
in a low-security jail dubbed Camp Iguana. They have been allowed to watch
videos and play games, and receive schooling, counseling and visits from social
workers. But like the adults, they have been denied lawyers and visitors and
have been interrogated.

"They were kidnapped and forced into terrorism," Hart said. "They're young, and
we did a lot of care in ensuring their education continued and that they got
adequate exercise and psychiatric care.

"At the same time, we remembered that they were detainees and had information
they could contribute to help us in the war on terrorism," she said.

Otunnu said that, under international law, children should not be detained as
enemy combatants, even if they were with fighting groups.

"We regard them essentially as victims. They should be held separately [from
adults], put in contact with their families and at the earliest possible
opportunity given the opportunity for rehabilitation instead of punishment," he
said.

Added Jo Becker, children's rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch:
"Detention at Guantanamo is not rehabilitation. It needs to take place in a
community setting, and for most of these kids that means Afghanistan."

Becker said that the United States should now free 16- and 17-year-olds held at
the camp, who are defined as children under international law. They include
Canadian citizen Omar Khadr, who is alleged to have killed a U.S. Special Forces
medic in a house-to-house battle.

The U.S. government has listed six detainees as the first potential defendants
in military trials known as "commissions," but has suspended proceedings against
three of those men pending discussions with their governments in Britain and
Australia.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


August 19, 2003; Page A02

EX-PRISONERS ALLEGE RIGHTS ABUSES BY U.S. MILITARY

By Tania Branigan, Washington Post Staff Writer

Prisoners released from the military camps at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and Bagram
air base in Afghanistan have said in a series of interviews with Amnesty
International that they were subjected to human rights abuses.

The accounts, which provide some of the most detailed information so far on
alleged violations, include claims that people were forcibly injected, denied
sleep and forced to stand or kneel for hours in painful positions. These charges
are included in a new report from the human rights organization, which is
reviewing 23 months of U.S. actions in the war on terror.

Sean McCormack, spokesman for the National Security Council, declined to comment
yesterday, saying he had not seen the report. NSC spokesmen have challenged
previous claims of ill treatment, saying that the United States treats enemy
combatants humanely.

About 700 prisoners have been kept at Guantanamo Bay, most captured in
Afghanistan after the war in 2001. About 60 men have since been released. Many
had been transferred there through the base at Bagram, north of Kabul, which
still holds an unknown number of prisoners. The United States has designated the
prisoners "enemy combatants" and has refused them access to lawyers or
relatives. Earlier this year, it scheduled six detainees to face military
tribunals, but three of those prosecutions have been suspended pending the
completion of negotiations with the defendants' governments in Britain and
Australia.

The report, "Threat of a Bad Example," concludes that conditions at the bases
may be coercive in the context of repeated interrogations and calls for the Bush
administration to treat detainees humanely, provide legal counsel and charge
them promptly with recognizable criminal offenses -- or release them.

In the report, one Afghan detainee, Alif Khan, recalled being given two
injections, producing "a kind of unconsciousness," for his transfer from Bagram.

Another, Sayed Abassin, said that while at Bagram, he was awakened by guards,
denied adequate food and forced to stand or kneel for hours.

A third man, Muhammad Naim Farooq, said fellow detainees at Guantanamo had wept
because of pain from handcuffs. He also said that two men who had attempted
suicide were punished with solitary confinement.

"These interviews with former prisoners are damning and add to the poor record
of the Bush administration with regard to human rights over the past 23 months,"
said Alexandra Arriaga, director of government relations for Amnesty
International USA.

"The record is shameful: hooding, blindfolding and shackling of prisoners,
together with arbitrary arrests, prolonged incommunicado detention, ill
treatment and interrogations without legal counsel," she said.

After several months of controversy over tactics in dealing with prisoners, the
Bush administration pledged two months ago that the United States would not
torture terrorism suspects or subject them to cruel, inhumane or degrading
treatment or punishment to extract information.

Arriaga said it was impossible to independently judge conditions at the camps,
as the organization had been denied entry.

Allegations of serious mistreatment have centered on Bagram. In interviews with
The Washington Post last year, members of the U.S. national security apparatus
said "stress and duress" techniques had been used there.

Concern for detainees mounted earlier this year when pathologists at Bagram
called the deaths of two Afghan prisoners after interrogation homicides and
blamed blunt-force injuries in addition to other causes. The U.S. military is
still investigating the deaths.

Jamie Fellner, U.S. program director for Human Rights Watch, said it has been
"extremely difficult to know" if the United States is treating people humanely
during interrogations. "No one has been allowed to talk to detainees. These
[accounts] are the beginning of the first insight into their experiences," she
said.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


August 10, 2003; Page A01

DEPICTION OF THREAT OUTGREW SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

By Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writers

His name was Joe, from the U.S. government. He carried 40 classified slides and
a message from the Bush administration.

An engineer-turned-CIA analyst, Joe had helped build the U.S. government case
that Iraq posed a nuclear threat. He landed in Vienna on Jan. 22 and drove to
the U.S. diplomatic mission downtown. In a conference room 32 floors above the
Danube River, he told United Nations nuclear inspectors they were making a
serious mistake.

At issue was Iraq's efforts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes. The U.S.
government said those tubes were for centrifuges to enrich uranium for a nuclear
bomb. But the IAEA, the world's nuclear watchdog, had uncovered strong evidence
that Iraq was using them for conventional rockets.

Joe described the rocket story as a transparent Iraqi lie. According to people
familiar with his presentation, which circulated before and afterward among
government and outside specialists, Joe said the specialized aluminum in the
tubes was "overspecified," "inappropriate" and "excessively strong." No one, he
told the inspectors, would waste the costly alloy on a rocket.

In fact, there was just such a rocket. According to knowledgeable U.S. and
overseas sources, experts from U.S. national laboratories reported in December
to the Energy Department and U.S. intelligence analysts that Iraq was
manufacturing copies of the Italian-made Medusa 81. Not only the Medusa's alloy,
but also its dimensions, to the fraction of a millimeter, matched the disputed
aluminum tubes.

A CIA spokesman asked that Joe's last name be withheld for his safety, and said
he would not be made available for an interview. The spokesman said the tubes in
question "are not the same as the Medusa 81" but would not identify what
distinguishes them. In an interview, CIA Director George J. Tenet said several
different U.S. intelligence agencies believed the tubes could be used to build
gas centrifuges for a uranium enrichment program.

The Vienna briefing was one among many private and public forums in which the
Bush administration portrayed a menacing Iraqi nuclear threat, even as important
features of its evidence were being undermined. There were other White House
assertions about forbidden weapons programs, including biological and chemical
arms, for which there was consensus among analysts. But the danger of a nuclear-
armed Saddam Hussein, more potent as an argument for war, began with weaker
evidence and grew weaker still in the three months before war.

This article is based on interviews with analysts and policymakers inside and
outside the U.S. government, and access to internal documents and technical
evidence not previously made public.

The new information indicates a pattern in which President Bush, Vice President
Cheney and their subordinates -- in public and behind the scenes -- made
allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more
certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support. On
occasion administration advocates withheld evidence that did not conform to
their views. The White House seldom corrected misstatements or acknowledged loss
of confidence in information upon which it had previously relied:

* Bush and others often alleged that President Hussein held numerous meetings
with Iraqi nuclear scientists, but did not disclose that the known work of the
scientists was largely benign. Iraq's three top gas centrifuge experts, for
example, ran a copper factory, an operation to extract graphite from oil and a
mechanical engineering design center at Rashidiya.

* The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of October 2002 cited new
construction at facilities once associated with Iraq's nuclear program, but
analysts had no reliable information at the time about what was happening under
the roofs. By February, a month before the war, U.S. government specialists on
the ground in Iraq had seen for themselves that there were no forbidden
activities at the sites.

* Gas centrifuge experts consulted by the U.S. government said repeatedly for
more than a year that the aluminum tubes were not suitable or intended for
uranium enrichment. By December 2002, the experts said new evidence had further
undermined the government's assertion. The Bush administration portrayed the
scientists as a minority and emphasized that the experts did not describe the
centrifuge theory as impossible.

* In the weeks and months following Joe's Vienna briefing, Secretary of State
Colin L. Powell and others continued to describe the use of such tubes for
rockets as an implausible hypothesis, even after U.S. analysts collected and
photographed in Iraq a virtually identical tube marked with the logo of the
Medusa's Italian manufacturer and the words, in English, "81mm rocket."

* The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago, including the introduction of
the term "mushroom cloud" into the debate, coincided with the formation of a
White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, a task force assigned to "educate the public"
about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it.

Two senior policymakers, who supported the war, said in unauthorized interviews
that the administration greatly overstated Iraq's near-term nuclear potential.

"I never cared about the 'imminent threat,' " said one of the policymakers, with
directly relevant responsibilities. "The threat was there in [Hussein's]
presence in office. To me, just knowing what it takes to have a nuclear weapons
program, he needed a lot of equipment. You can stare at the yellowcake [uranium
ore] all you want. You need to convert it to gas and enrich it. That does not
constitute an imminent threat, and the people who were saying that, I think, did
not fully appreciate the difficulties and effort involved in producing the
nuclear material and the physics package."

No White House, Pentagon or State Department policymaker agreed to speak on the
record for this report about the administration's nuclear case. Answering
questions Thursday before the National Association of Black Journalists,
national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said she is "certain to this day that
this regime was a threat, that it was pursuing a nuclear weapon, that it had
biological and chemical weapons, that it had used them." White House officials
referred all questions of detail to Tenet.

In an interview and a four-page written statement, Tenet defended the NIE
prepared under his supervision in October. In that estimate, U.S. intelligence
analysts judged that Hussein was intent on acquiring a nuclear weapon and was
trying to rebuild the capability to make one.

"We stand behind the judgments of the NIE" based on the evidence available at
the time, Tenet said, and "the soundness and integrity of our process." The
estimate was "the product of years of reporting and intelligence collection,
analyzed by numerous experts in several different agencies."

Tenet said the time to "decide who was right and who was wrong" about prewar
intelligence will not come until the Iraqi Survey Group, the CIA-directed, U.S.
military postwar study in Iraq of Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs
is completed. The Bush administration has said this will require months or
years.

Facts and Doubts

The possibility of a nuclear-armed Iraq loomed large in the Bush
administration's efforts to convince the American public of the need for a
preemptive strike. Beginning last August, Cheney portrayed Hussein's nuclear
ambitions as a "mortal threat" to the United States. In the fall and winter,
Rice, then Bush, marshaled the dreaded image of a "mushroom cloud."

By many accounts, including those of career officials who did not support the
war, there were good reasons for concern that the Iraqi president might revive a
program to enrich uranium to weapons grade and fabricate a working bomb. He had
a well-demonstrated aspiration for nuclear weapons, a proficient scientific and
engineering cadre, a history of covert development and a domestic supply of
unrefined uranium ore. Iraq was generally believed to have kept the technical
documentation for two advanced German centrifuge designs and the assembly
diagrams for at least one type of "implosion device," which detonates a nuclear
core.

What Hussein did not have was the principal requirement for a nuclear weapon, a
sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium. And the U.S.
government, authoritative intelligence officials said, had only circumstantial
evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain those materials.

But the Bush administration had reasons to imagine the worst. The CIA had faced
searing criticism for its failures to foresee India's resumption of nuclear
testing in 1998 and to "connect the dots" pointing to al Qaeda's attacks of
Sept. 11, 2001. Cheney, the administration's most influential advocate of a
worst-case analysis, had been powerfully influenced by his experience as defense
secretary just after the Persian Gulf War of 1991.

Former National Security Council official Richard A. Clarke recalled how
information from freshly seized Iraqi documents disclosed the existence of a
"crash program" to build a bomb in 1991. The CIA had known nothing of it.

"I can understand why that was a seminal experience for Cheney," Clarke said.
"And when the CIA says [in 2002], 'We don't have any evidence,' his reaction is
. . . 'We didn't have any evidence in 1991, either. Why should I believe you
now?' "

Some strategists, in and out of government, argued that the uncertainty itself
-- in the face of circumstantial evidence -- was sufficient to justify "regime
change." But that was not what the Bush administration usually said to the
American people.

To gird a nation for the extraordinary step of preemptive war -- and to obtain
the minimum necessary support from allies, Congress and the U.N. Security
Council -- the administration described a growing, even imminent, nuclear threat
from Iraq.

'Nuclear Blackmail'

The unveiling of that message began a year ago this week.

Cheney raised the alarm about Iraq's nuclear menace three times in August. He
was far ahead of the president's public line. Only Bush and Cheney know, one
senior policy official said, "whether Cheney was trying to push the president or
they had decided to play good cop, bad cop."

On Aug. 7, Cheney volunteered in a question-and-answer session at the
Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, speaking of Hussein, that "left to his own
devices, it's the judgment of many of us that in the not-too-distant future, he
will acquire nuclear weapons." On Aug. 26, he described Hussein as a "sworn
enemy of our country" who constituted a "mortal threat" to the United States. He
foresaw a time in which Hussein could "subject the United States or any other
nation to nuclear blackmail."

"We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he
said. "Among other sources, we've gotten this from firsthand testimony from
defectors, including Saddam's own son-in-law."

That was a reference to Hussein Kamel, who had managed Iraq's special weapons
programs before defecting in 1995 to Jordan. But Saddam Hussein lured Kamel back
to Iraq, and he was killed in February 1996, so Kamel could not have sourced
what U.S. officials "now know."

And Kamel's testimony, after defecting, was the reverse of Cheney's description.
In one of many debriefings by U.S., Jordanian and U.N. officials, Kamel said on
Aug. 22, 1995, that Iraq's uranium enrichment programs had not resumed after
halting at the start of the Gulf War in 1991. According to notes typed for the
record by U.N. arms inspector Nikita Smidovich, Kamel acknowledged efforts to
design three different warheads, "but not now, before the Gulf War."

'Educating the Public'

Systematic coordination began in August, when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.
formed the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each stage of
the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who participated in its work
called it "an internal working group, like many formed for priority issues, to
make sure each part of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities."

In an interview with the New York Times published Sept. 6, Card did not mention
the WHIG but hinted at its mission. "From a marketing point of view, you don't
introduce new products in August," he said.

The group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular participants were
Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists
Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas
E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley,
along with I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff.

The first days of September would bring some of the most important decisions of
the prewar period: what to demand of the United Nations in the president's Sept.
12 address to the General Assembly, when to take the issue to Congress, and how
to frame the conflict with Iraq in the midterm election campaign that began in
earnest after Labor Day.

A "strategic communications" task force under the WHIG began to plan speeches
and white papers. There were many themes in the coming weeks, but Iraq's nuclear
menace was among the most prominent.

'A Mushroom Cloud'

The day after publication of Card's marketing remark, Bush and nearly all his
top advisers began to talk about the dangers of an Iraqi nuclear bomb.

Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair conferred at Camp David that Saturday, Sept.
7, and they each described alarming new evidence. Blair said proof that the
threat is real came in "the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency
this morning, showing what has been going on at the former nuclear weapon
sites." Bush said "a report came out of the . . . IAEA, that they [Iraqis] were
six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we
need."

There was no new IAEA report. Blair appeared to be referring to news reports
describing curiosity at the nuclear agency about repairs at sites of Iraq's
former nuclear program. Bush cast as present evidence the contents of a report
from 1996, updated in 1998 and 1999. In those accounts, the IAEA described the
history of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program that arms inspectors had
systematically destroyed.

A White House spokesman later acknowledged that Bush "was imprecise" on his
source but stood by the crux of his charge. The spokesman said U.S.
intelligence, not the IAEA, had given Bush his information.

That, too, was garbled at best. U.S. intelligence reports had only one scenario
for an Iraqi bomb in six months to a year, premised on Iraq's immediate
acquisition of enough plutonium or enriched uranium from a foreign source.

"That is just about the same thing as saying that if Iraq gets a bomb, it will
have a bomb," said a U.S. intelligence analyst who covers the subject. "We had
no evidence for it."

Two debuts took place on Sept. 8: the aluminum tubes and the image of "a
mushroom cloud." A Sunday New York Times story quoted anonymous officials as
saying the "diameter, thickness and other technical specifications" of the tubes
-- precisely the grounds for skepticism among nuclear enrichment experts --
showed that they were "intended as components of centrifuges."

No one knows when Iraq will have its weapon, the story said, but "the first sign
of a 'smoking gun,' they argue, may be a mushroom cloud."

Top officials made the rounds of Sunday talk shows that morning. Rice's remarks
echoed the newspaper story. She said on CNN's "Late Edition" that Hussein was
"actively pursuing a nuclear weapon" and that the tubes -- described repeatedly
in U.S. intelligence reports as "dual-use" items -- were "only really suited for
nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs."

"There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear
weapons," Rice added, "but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom
cloud."

Anna Perez, a communications adviser to Rice, said Rice did not come looking for
an opportunity to say that. "There was nothing in her mind that said, 'I have to
push the nuclear issue,' " Perez said, "but Wolf [Blitzer] asked the question."

Powell, a confidant said, found it "disquieting when people say things like
mushroom clouds." But he contributed in other ways to the message. When asked
about biological and chemical arms on Fox News, he brought up nuclear weapons
and cited the "specialized aluminum tubing" that "we saw in reporting just this
morning."

Cheney, on NBC's "Meet the Press," also mentioned the tubes and said
"increasingly, we believe the United States will become the target" of an Iraqi
nuclear weapon. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, on CBS's "Face the
Nation," asked listeners to "imagine a September 11th with weapons of mass
destruction," which would kill "tens of thousands of innocent men, women and
children."

Bush evoked the mushroom cloud on Oct. 7, and on Nov. 12 Gen. Tommy R. Franks,
chief of U.S. Central Command, said inaction might bring "the sight of the first
mushroom cloud on one of the major population centers on this planet."

'Literary License'

In its initial meetings, Card's Iraq task force ordered a series of white
papers. After a general survey of Iraqi arms violations, the first of the
single-subject papers -- never published -- was "A Grave and Gathering Danger:
Saddam Hussein's Quest for Nuclear Weapons."

Wilkinson, at the time White House deputy director of communications for
planning, gathered a yard-high stack of intelligence reports and press
clippings.

Wilkinson said he conferred with experts from the National Security Council and
Cheney's office. Other officials said Will Tobey and Susan Cook, working under
senior director for counterproliferation Robert Joseph, made revisions and
circulated some of the drafts. Under the standard NSC review process, they
checked the facts.

In its later stages, the draft white paper coincided with production of a
National Intelligence Estimate and its unclassified summary. But the WHIG,
according to three officials who followed the white paper's progress, wanted
gripping images and stories not available in the hedged and austere language of
intelligence.

The fifth draft of the paper was obtained by The Washington Post. White House
spokesmen dismissed the draft as irrelevant because Rice decided not to publish
it. Wilkinson said Rice and Joseph felt the paper "was not strong enough."

The document offers insight into the Bush administration's priorities and
methods in shaping a nuclear message. The white paper was assembled by some of
the same team, and at the same time, as the speeches and talking points prepared
for the president and top officials. A senior intelligence official said last
October that the president's speechwriters took "literary license" with
intelligence, a phrase applicable to language used by administration officials
in some of the white paper's most emotive and misleading assertions elsewhere.

The draft white paper precedes other known instances in which the Bush
administration considered the now-discredited claim that Iraq "sought uranium
oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa." For a
speechwriter, uranium was valuable as an image because anyone could see its
connection to an atomic bomb. Despite warnings from intelligence analysts, the
uranium would return again and again, including the Jan. 28 State of the Union
address and three other Bush administration statements that month.

Other errors and exaggerations in public White House claims were repeated, or
had their first mention, in the white paper.

Much as Blair did at Camp David, the paper attributed to U.N. arms inspectors a
statement that satellite photographs show "many signs of the reconstruction and
acceleration of the Iraqi nuclear program." Inspectors did not say that. The
paper also quoted the first half of a sentence from a Time magazine interview
with U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix: "You can see hundreds of new roofs
in these photos." The second half of the sentence, not quoted, was: "but you
don't know what's under them."

As Bush did, the white paper cited the IAEA's description of Iraq's defunct
nuclear program in language that appeared to be current. The draft said, for
example, that "since the beginning of the nineties, Saddam has launched a crash
program to divert nuclear reactor fuel for . . . nuclear weapons." The crash
program began in late 1990 and ended with the war in January 1991. The reactor
fuel, save for waste products, is gone.

'Footnotes and Disclaimers'

A senior intelligence official said the White House preferred to avoid a
National Intelligence Estimate, a formal review of competing evidence and
judgments, because it knew "there were disagreements over details in almost
every aspect of the administration's case against Iraq." The president's
advisers, the official said, did not want "a lot of footnotes and disclaimers."

But Bush needed bipartisan support for war-making authority in Congress. In
early September, members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence began
asking why there had been no authoritative estimate of the danger posed by Iraq.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) wrote Sept. 9 of his "concern that the views of
the U.S. intelligence community are not receiving adequate attention by
policymakers in both Congress and the executive branch." When Sen. Bob Graham
(D-Fla.), then committee chairman, insisted on an NIE in a classified letter two
days later, Tenet agreed.

Explicitly intended to assist Congress in deciding whether to authorize war, the
estimate was produced in two weeks, an extraordinary deadline for a document
that usually takes months. Tenet said in an interview that "we had covered parts
of all those programs over 10 years through NIEs and other reports, and we had a
ton of community product on all these issues."

Even so, the intelligence community was now in a position of giving its first
coordinated answer to a question that every top national security official had
already answered. "No one outside the intelligence community told us what to say
or not to say," Tenet wrote in reply to questions for this article.

The U.S. government possessed no specific information on Iraqi efforts to
acquire enriched uranium, according to six people who participated in preparing
for the estimate. It knew only that Iraq sought to buy equipment of the sort
that years of intelligence reports had said "may be" intended for or "could be"
used in uranium enrichment.

Richard J. Kerr, a former CIA deputy director now leading a review of the
agency's intelligence analysis about Iraq, said in an interview that the CIA
collected almost no hard information about Iraq's weapons programs after the
departure of IAEA and U.N. Special Commission, or UNSCOM, arms inspectors during
the Clinton administration. He said that was because of a lack of spies inside
Iraq.

Tenet took issue with that view, saying in an interview, "When inspectors were
pushed out in 1998, we did not sit back. . . . The fact is we made significant
professional progress." In his written statement, he cited new evidence on
biological and missile programs, but did not mention Hussein's nuclear pursuits.

The estimate's "Key Judgment" said: "Although we assess that Saddam does not yet
have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on
acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its
nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed -- December
1998."

According to Kerr, the analysts had good reasons to say that, but the reasons
were largely "inferential."

Hussein was known to have met with some weapons physicists, and praised them as
"nuclear mujaheddin." But the CIA had "reasonably good intelligence in terms of
the general activities and whereabouts" of those scientists, said another
analyst with the relevant clearances, and knew they had generally not
reassembled into working groups. In a report to Congress in 2001, the agency
could conclude only that some of the scientists "probably" had "continued at
least low-level theoretical R&D [research and development] associated with its
nuclear program."

Analysts knew Iraq had tried recently to buy magnets, high-speed balancing
machines, machine tools and other equipment that had some potential for use in
uranium enrichment, though no less for conventional industry. Even assuming the
intention, the parts could not all be made to fit a coherent centrifuge model.
The estimate acknowledged that "we lack specific information on many key
aspects" of the program, and analysts presumed they were seeing only the tip of
the iceberg.

'He Made a Name'

According to outside scientists and intelligence officials, the most important
factor in the CIA's nuclear judgment was Iraq's attempt to buy high-strength
aluminum tubes. The tubes were the core evidence for a centrifuge program tied
to building a nuclear bomb. Even circumstantially, the CIA reported no
indication of uranium enrichment using anything but centrifuges.

That interpretation of the tubes was a victory for the man named Joe, who made
the issue his personal crusade. He worked in the gas centrifuge program at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory in the early 1980s. He is not, associates said, a
nuclear physicist, but an engineer whose work involved the platform upon which
centrifuges were mounted.

At some point he joined the CIA. By the end of the 1990s, according to people
who know him casually, he worked in export controls.

Joe played an important role in discovering Iraq's plans to buy aluminum tubes
from China in 2000, with an Australian intermediary. U.N. sanctions forbade Iraq
to buy anything with potential military applications, and members of the Nuclear
Suppliers Group, a voluntary alliance, include some forms of aluminum tubing on
their list of equipment that could be used for uranium enrichment.

Joe saw the tubes as centrifuge rotors that could be used to process uranium
into weapons-grade material. In a gas centrifuge, the rotor is a thin-walled
cylinder, open at both ends, that spins at high speed under a magnet. The device
extracts the material used in a weapon from a gaseous form of uranium.

In July 2001, about 3,000 tubes were intercepted in Jordan on their way to Iraq,
a big step forward in the agency's efforts to understand what Iraq was trying to
do. The CIA gave Joe an award for exceptional performance, throwing its early
support to an analysis that helped change the agency's mind about Iraq's pursuit
of nuclear ambitions.

"He grabbed that information early on, and he made a name for himself," a career
U.S. government nuclear expert said.

'Stretches the Imagination'

Doubts about Joe's theory emerged quickly among the government's centrifuge
physicists. The intercepted tubes were too narrow, long and thick-walled to fit
a known centrifuge design. Aluminum had not been used for rotors since the
1950s. Iraq had two centrifuge blueprints, stolen in Europe, that were far more
efficient and already known to work. One used maraging steel, a hard steel
alloy, for the rotors, the other carbon fiber.

Joe and his supporters said the apparent drawbacks were part of Iraq's
concealment plan. Hussein's history of covert weapons development, Tenet said in
his written statement, included "built-in cover stories."

"This is a case where different people had honorable and different
interpretations of intentions," said an Energy Department analyst who has
reviewed the raw data. "If you go to a nuclear [counterproliferation official]
and say I've got these aluminum tubes, and it's about Iraq, his first
inclination is to say it's for nuclear use."

But the government's centrifuge scientists -- at the Energy Department's Oak
Ridge National Laboratory and its sister institutions -- unanimously regarded
this possibility as implausible.

In late 2001, experts at Oak Ridge asked an alumnus, Houston G. Wood III, to
review the controversy. Wood, founder of the Oak Ridge centrifuge physics
department, is widely acknowledged to be among the most eminent living experts.

Speaking publicly for the first time, Wood said in an interview that "it would
have been extremely difficult to make these tubes into centrifuges. It stretches
the imagination to come up with a way. I do not know any real centrifuge experts
that feel differently."

As an academic, Wood said, he would not describe "anything that you absolutely
could not do." But he said he would "like to see, if they're going to make that
claim, that they have some explanation of how you do that. Because I don't see
how you do it."

A CIA spokesman said the agency does have support for its view from centrifuge
experts. He declined to elaborate.

In the last week of September, the development of the NIE required a resolution
of the running disagreement over the significance of the tubes. The Energy
Department had one vote. Four agencies -- with specialties including
eavesdropping, maps and foreign military forces -- judged that the tubes were
part of a centrifuge program that could be used for nuclear weapons. Only the
State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research joined the judgment of
the Energy Department. The estimate, as published, said that "most analysts"
believed the tubes were suitable and intended for a centrifuge cascade.

Majority votes make poor science, said Peter D. Zimmerman, a former chief
scientist at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.

"In this case, the experts were at Z Division at Livermore [Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory] and in DOE intelligence here in town, and they were
convinced that no way in hell were these likely to be centrifuge tubes," he
said.

Tenet said the Department of Energy was not the only agency with experts on the
issue; the CIA consulted military battlefield rocket experts, as well as its own
centrifuge experts.

Unravelings

On Feb. 5, two weeks after Joe's Vienna briefing, Powell gave what remains the
government's most extensive account of the aluminum tubes, in an address to the
U.N. Security Council. He did not mention the existence of the Medusa rocket or
its Iraqi equivalent, though he acknowledged disagreement among U.S.
intelligence analysts about the use of the tubes.

Powell's CIA briefers, using data originating with Joe, told him that Iraq had
"overspecified" requirements for the tubes, increasing expense without making
them more useful to rockets. That helped persuade Powell, a confidant said, that
Iraq had some other purpose for the tubes.

"Maybe Iraqis just manufacture their conventional weapons to a higher standard
than we do, but I don't think so," Powell said in his speech. He said different
batches "seized clandestinely before they reached Iraq" showed a "progression to
higher and higher levels of specification, including in the latest batch an
anodized coating on extremely smooth inner and outer surfaces. . . . Why would
they continue refining the specification, go to all that trouble for something
that, if it was a rocket, would soon be blown into shrapnel when it went off?"

An anodized coating is actually a strong argument for use in rockets, according
to several scientists in and out of government. It resists corrosion of the sort
that ruined Iraq's previous rocket supply. To use the tubes in a centrifuge,
experts told the government, Iraq would have to remove the anodized coating.

Iraq did change some specifications from order to order, the procurement records
show, but there is not a clear progression to higher precision. One tube sample
was rejected because its interior was unfinished, too uneven to be used in a
rocket body. After one of Iraq's old tubes got stuck in a launcher and exploded,
Baghdad's subsequent orders asked for more precision in roundness.

U.S. and European analysts said they had obtained records showing that Italy's
Medusa rocket has had its specifications improved 10 times since 1978.
Centrifuge experts said in interviews that the variations had little or no
significance for uranium enrichment, especially because the CIA's theory
supposes Iraq would do extensive machining to adapt the tubes as rotors.

For rockets, however, the tubes fit perfectly. Experts from U.S. national labs,
working temporarily with U.N. inspectors in Iraq, observed production lines for
the rockets at the Nasser factory north of Baghdad. Iraq had run out of body
casings at about the time it ordered the aluminum tubes, according to officials
familiar with the experts' reports. Thousands of warheads, motors and fins were
crated at the assembly lines, awaiting the arrival of tubes.

"Most U.S. experts," Powell asserted, "think they are intended to serve as
rotors in centrifuges used to enrich uranium." He said "other experts, and the
Iraqis themselves," said the tubes were really for rockets.

Wood, the centrifuge physicist, said "that was a personal slam at everybody in
DOE," the Energy Department. "I've been grouped with the Iraqis, is what it
amounts to. I just felt that the wording of that was probably intentional, but
it was also not very kind. It did not recognize that dissent can exist."

Staff writers Glenn Kessler, Dana Priest and Richard Morin and staff researchers
Lucy Shackelford, Madonna Lebling and Robert Thomason contributed to this
report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


August 3, 2003; Page A21

PURPORTED ZAWAHIRI TAPE WARNS U.S. ON DETAINEES

LONDON -- A new audiotape purportedly from Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman
Zawahiri, warns the United States that it will pay dearly if it harms detainees
at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and urges Muslims everywhere to avenge the prisoners
from their "infidel" captors.

"America has announced it will start putting on trial in front of military
tribunals the Muslim detainees at Guantanamo and might sentence them to
death.... I swear in the name of God that the crusader America will pay a dear
price for any harm it inflicts on any of the Muslim detainees," said the voice
on the tape.

"We tell America only one thing: what you have suffered until now is only the
initial skirmishes. The real battle has not started yet."

The tape was broadcast Sunday by the Dubai-based Arabic satellite channel
Al-Arabiya.

* * *


July 30, 2003; Page A01

ENEMY COMBATANT VANISHES INTO A 'LEGAL BLACK HOLE'

By Paula Span, Washington Post Staff Writer

Second of two articles

NEW YORK -- It was the luck of the draw.

Some other spring morning, Donna Newman would have encountered a different
client in a prison jumpsuit, someone accused of fraud or drug trafficking.
Instead, arriving at the federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan in May 2002,
she met Jose Padilla.

Newman serves on a panel of private practice attorneys who occasionally take on
indigent clients facing federal charges. She accepts new cases two days a year.
"I believe in defending indigents," she said. "You gotta give back." At the
time, though, she had no inkling how much she was about to give.

Padilla, arrested by the FBI at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport on May 8,
had been flown east to appear before a grand jury as a material witness. The
subject he supposedly had knowledge of -- an al Qaeda plan to detonate a "dirty
bomb" in the United States -- sounded scarier than most. Another alarming sign
was that every time Newman set her pen down on the courtroom table during that
first appearance, federal marshals handed it back to her, evidently so that
Padilla couldn't seize it as a weapon.

Still, for Newman, the procedures seemed largely routine -- until June 9, when
President Bush declared her client an enemy combatant and Padilla was hauled off
to a brig in South Carolina. At that point, the Padilla case detonated, largely
consuming Newman's practice, her leisure, her life for the coming year and
plunging her into an extraordinary constitutional debate.

The pivotal question: Can an American citizen, arrested on U.S. soil, be held
incommunicado in a military prison indefinitely -- without being charged with a
crime, without access to a lawyer?

The issue has ignited a fierce debate over civil liberties. It has been argued
on the Senate floor and on op-ed pages, and Amnesty International has condemned
Padilla's treatment as "an unprecedented suspension of fundamental rights of
U.S. citizens in U.S. custody."

Newman and her co-counsel, however, are grappling with a more pragmatic
question: How do you represent a client you can't talk to?

THE CLIENT

The man was on the short side, clean-shaven; he looked younger than his 31
years, Newman recalled. And he was wearing what is known around the courthouse
as "a three-piece suit" -- wrist irons, leg irons and a connecting metal belt.

Newman, like many defense attorneys, had represented clients in other terrorism
witness cases since Sept. 11, 2001. "There were a whole slew of them," she said.
"Initially, you don't recognize that this one is huge."

Without much trepidation, therefore, she went about meeting with her client for
more than 20 hours, she estimates. At the Metropolitan Correctional Center, she
had to speak to him through a screen, another signal that the government
considered him particularly dangerous. But otherwise, "he didn't impress me as
any different from my other clients in personality or demeanor."

Padilla, who, like Newman, was born in Brooklyn, was "quiet, concerned about his
predicament." Newman struggled to explain that he had been arrested but, as a
potential witness, not charged with anything -- "a difficult concept to swallow"
even for a man with considerable experience in the criminal justice system.

He was "very concerned" about his family -- his mother and other relatives in
Florida, a son in the Chicago area -- with whom he was not permitted to
communicate. "He'd ask questions about them constantly," Newman said.

The last time she saw him was on June 7, 2002. The court was scheduled to hear
her motions on June 11. "If we succeeded, he would have been released."

Instead, she got a call on her cell phone June 10 from Assistant U.S. Attorney
Eric Bruce. "The military is taking your client," she remembered him saying. "I
thought he was kidding. I could not comprehend what he was talking about."

It became clearer that evening when Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, in Moscow
for meetings, held a news conference announcing the capture of "a known
terrorist." Bush had determined that Padilla was "an enemy combatant who poses a
serious and continuing threat to the American people," Ashcroft said. Padilla
had therefore been transferred to Defense Department custody and sent to a
Charleston, S.C., naval brig, where he has been unable to communicate with
anyone except his guards and interrogators ever since.

At the time, Newman cracked a weak joke on the phone. "My motions weren't that
good," she told the prosecutor.

'GRAVE DANGER'

Even among the three men known to be designated enemy combatants and being held
incommunicado in military brigs in the United States, Padilla's case stands out.

Unlike the Qatari graduate student added to the list last month, Ali Saleh
Kahlah al-Marri, Jose Padilla is an American citizen. Unlike Yaser Esam Hamdi,
who is also a citizen and has been held in a Norfolk brig even longer, he was
not apprehended on a battlefield. Hamdi was fighting with the Taliban in
Afghanistan, the government said, and was carrying an AK-47 when his unit
surrendered. Padilla was arrested at O'Hare, unarmed.

So Padilla's case has drawn particular attention. "People have trouble with
people being taken off the streets and thrown into a legal black hole," Newman
said.

The basis for Padilla's detention was a six-page statement by Michael Mobbs, a
Pentagon official. It laid out the government's contention, based on "multiple
intelligence sources," that Padilla -- whose criminal record includes prison
terms in Illinois and Florida -- had close associations with al Qaeda leaders as
he traveled in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan over several years.

Although Padilla had trained in wiring explosives, Mobbs stated, his plan to
detonate a dirty bomb had not progressed far; it was "still in the initial
planning stages." Nevertheless, Bush had determined that "Padilla posed a
continuing, present and grave danger" and that his detention was necessary to
prevent attacks.

Court battles in these cases have centered on two primary questions. First, does
the president have the constitutional authority to designate citizens suspected
of terrorism as enemy combatants and hold them incommunicado, without charging
them with crimes? So far, courts hearing the Hamdi and Padilla cases have ruled
that he does, though the challenges continue.

But since both are U.S. citizens, Hamdi and Padilla are entitled to file
petitions for a writ of habeas corpus -- the time-enshrined means by which
prisoners can contest their confinement. Which leads to the second major
question: If they have the right to file for writs, and the courts have decided
they do, do they also have the right to consult with attorneys?

Here the cases have diverged. In Richmond, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th
Circuit, usually considered the nation's most conservative, effectively ruled
this month that Hamdi does not. "What you do not owe him," said Washington
attorney David B. Rivkin Jr., who filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the
government's position, "is access to Johnnie Cochran."

But in New York, U.S. District Judge Michael B. Mukasey, presiding over the case
now known as Padilla v. Rumsfeld, handed down a split decision. Bush acted
lawfully in detaining Padilla, the judge ruled, but Padilla "must have the
opportunity to present evidence that undermines the reliability of the Mobbs
Declaration." And "the only practicable way" to do that, he continued, was for
Padilla to have access to his attorneys.

They now number two because Newman, in court the day after Ashcroft's news
conference, "finally figured out that this was major," she recalled. She also
noticed that "the government table was filled, all these attorneys, a lot of
bodies. My table, there's only me. I don't even have a client."

So Mukasey agreed to appoint Andrew Patel, a veteran criminal defense attorney
who also practices in federal court, as co-counsel.

They have spent hundreds of hours on the case and filed hundreds of pages of
legal papers. The government has appealed the judge's decision to the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, and the attorneys filed their first appellate
briefs last week. Both in their fifties and graduates of the New York Law
School, they are outwardly the odd couple. Patel is bearish and rumpled; Newman,
petite and fashion-conscious. He is calm, deliberate, happy to discourse on
constitutional issues; she is in constant motion and unable to stay off a phone.
What they shared, aside from a lot of takeout food, was a sense of outrage about
what was happening to their client.

It is incorrect to say they were "defending" him, because he hadn't been charged
with a crime. "What we aspire to, our hope, is to be able to defend Jose
Padilla," Patel said. He scoffed at the Mobbs Declaration, the sole piece of
public evidence that supports the detention. Mobbs's own footnotes conceded that
the government's "confidential sources" probably were not "completely candid,"
that one source subsequently recanted and another was being treated with drugs,
and that their information may have been an attempt to mislead interrogators.

"Someone who's a confirmed liar and someone else who's on drugs and one of the
two has recanted," Patel snorted. "You really think someone should be locked up
for a year in solitary confinement based on that?"

"What we're asking for Mr. Padilla," he said, "is something I consider a very
core American value: A guy's entitled to his day in court. That's how we do
things here. We don't just throw people in jail because we think or believe
they're bad."

THE NAZI PRECEDENT

Except during wartime, the argument on the other side goes. "We're talking about
a fundamentally different legal proceeding," said Rivkin, who served in the
Reagan Justice Department. "Liberty and order are balanced differently in
wartime and in peacetime, and the courts recognize that."

During war, captured enemies are either lawful combatants, soldiers who adhere
to such rules of war as wearing identifiable uniforms -- in which case they
become prisoners of war -- or unlawful combatants. Al Qaeda and Taliban
operatives fall into the latter category, the United States has decided, and
thus have fewer legal rights than POWs and far fewer than criminal defendants.

In arguing that Padilla and Hamdi were being treated appropriately, government
lawyers relied on a World War II precedent called Ex Parte Quirin. The case
involved German saboteurs who landed in New York and Florida and buried their
uniforms but were captured before they could act. At least one was an American
citizen. The Supreme Court upheld their designation as unlawful combatants,
claims to citizenship or arrest on U.S. soil notwithstanding. All were
convicted; six were executed.

But the American Bar Association, which established a Task Force on Treatment of
Enemy Combatants, pointed out key differences between the Quirin saboteurs and
Padilla: The Nazis did have their day in court, albeit a military court, and
they had access to their lawyers.

So did young John Walker Lindh, like Hamdi a citizen captured in a combat zone
in Afghanistan, and shoe bomber Richard Reid; both pleaded guilty. Zacarias
Moussaoui, on trial in Virginia, is representing himself but has access to
attorneys to advise him.

In wartime, government supporters say, all suspected terrorists need not be
treated the same way. The ABA task force, however, found it "both paradoxical
and unsatisfactory" that Hamdi and Padilla, charged with nothing, had fewer
rights than those charged with such serious crimes.

The Bush administration said that its primary reason for holding Padilla
incommunicado was his value as an intelligence source. In a declaration arguing
that Padilla should not be allowed to consult with lawyers, Vice Adm. Lowell
Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said that successful
interrogation required a continuing "atmosphere of dependency and trust between
the subject and interrogator." Even brief interruptions might jeopardize it.

"It appears that they're using some form of mental coercion," was Newman's
interpretation.

Prolonged isolation can in itself violate a prisoner's rights under the U.N.
Convention Against Torture, said a spokesman for Amnesty International. The
organization condemned Padilla's treatment on the one-year anniversary of his
solitary confinement, and Amnesty International groups in 49 countries have
launched letter-writing campaigns to the U.S. government in his behalf.

Lawyers and legislators have also called on the government to change its
tactics. At its annual meeting, the ABA by an 83 percent majority adopted its
task force's recommendations that citizens and residents detained as enemy
combatants be given "meaningful judicial review of their status," including
access to counsel. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) incorporated similar provisions
into a bill he introduced. None of these initiatives seems to have had much
effect.

"It's important to acknowledge that there are competing interests here," said
Ruth Wedgewood, a Johns Hopkins University international law professor whose
amicus brief in the Hamdi case supported the government. "There really is
violence out there. I can imagine a case in which the government would be so
cowed by the [civil liberties] critique that it wouldn't do what it had to do."

She and other legal observers expect the enemy combatant question to reach the
Supreme Court. Padilla's attorneys are both members of that bar and could argue
before the high court. But Newman did not want to speculate about it.

"I didn't buy my suit yet," she said with a shrug. "My personality is, deal with
the issue at hand."

A FULL-TIME CASE

The issue at hand is complex enough.

Padilla can't have visitors or use a phone. When Newman asked the Pentagon if
she could write to him, she was assured that she could. But would he get the
mail? That, she was told, could not be guaranteed. So while she and Patel send
copies of all their legal motions to Padilla in South Carolina, they assume that
he has never seen them.

As solo practitioners up against a bevy of government attorneys, they sometimes
have felt outgunned. Newman has stopped taking new cases to concentrate on
Padilla's. She and Patel work at his office in Manhattan, at her office in
Jersey City, at her exurban home office; they work evenings and weekends and
pull the occasional all-nighter. She stays in phone contact with Padilla's
"distraught" mother.

Early on, Newman put the word out through legal channels that she needed to
consult experts on human rights law and military law, "things that certainly
didn't come up in my law school classes -- I'd heard of the Geneva Conventions,
but I hadn't read them."

In response, a cadre of volunteers -- including Eugene Fidell of the National
Institute of Military Justice, Donald Rehkopf Jr. of the National Association of
Criminal Defense Lawyers and law professors around the country -- has been
"remarkably helpful," Newman said. "It gives you faith. People always damn
attorneys, but they are willing to work awfully hard for free."

But "in the end, our names are on the brief," Newman added. "We write it. It's
our ideas."

She had the option, when Padilla was transferred from civilian to military
custody, of trying to unload this case. She could have asked the judge to
release her and, if he had agreed, moved on to other clients who could pay
several times the $90 an hour that she and Patel receive in this role as federal
public defenders.

But she was too angry. "If I had let it go," she said, "it wasn't like he was
going to find another lawyer. He would have just dropped out of sight. What
voice would he have to say, 'What's happening here is wrong'?"

She had scant time to debate. The next round in the appeal is response briefs,
due next month, with reply briefs due on Labor Day and oral arguments to be
heard in the fall.

[ Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. ]

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


July 29, 2003

NO CHOICE BUT GUILTY

Lackawanna Case Highlights Legal Tilt

By Michael Powell, Washington Post Staff Writer

First of two articles

LACKAWANNA, N.Y. -- Even now, after the arrests and the anger and the world
media spotlight, the mystery for neighbors in this old steel town remains this:
Why would six of their young men so readily agree to plead guilty to terror
charges, accepting long prison terms far from home?

"These knuckleheads betrayed our trust, and we're disgusted with their
attendance at the camps in Afghanistan," Mohammed Albanna, 52, a leader in the
Yemeni community here, said of the six men who have admitted to attending an al
Qaeda training camp two years ago. "But the punishment doesn't fit the crime, or
the government's rhetoric. It's ridiculous."

But defense attorneys say the answer is straightforward: The federal government
implicitly threatened to toss the defendants into a secret military prison
without trial, where they could languish indefinitely without access to courts
or lawyers.

That prospect terrified the men. They accepted prison terms of 6 1/2 to 9 years.

"We had to worry about the defendants being whisked out of the courtroom and
declared enemy combatants if the case started going well for us," said attorney
Patrick J. Brown, who defended one of the accused. "So we just ran up the white
flag and folded. Most of us wish we'd never been associated with this case."

The Lackawanna case illustrates how the post-Sept. 11, 2001, legal landscape
tilts heavily toward the prosecution, government critics contend. Future
defendants in terror cases could face the same choice: Plead guilty or face the
possibility of indefinite imprisonment or even the death penalty. That troubles
defense attorneys and some legal scholars, not least because prosecutors never
offered evidence that the Lackawanna defendants intended to commit an act of
terrorism.

"The defendants believed that if they didn't plead guilty, they'd end up in a
black hole forever," said Neal R. Sonnett, chairman of the American Bar
Association's Task Force on Treatment of Enemy Combatants. "There's little
difference between beating someone over the head and making a threat like that."

FOR GOVERNMENT, WIDE LATITUDE

Federal prosecutors acknowledge they wield a formidable legal armament. Because
of the USA Patriot Act and the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act, and as a result of court decisions and presidential orders, federal agents
have wider latitude to conduct searches, tap phones, read e-mails and examine
finances. The government has reactivated the military tribunals for the first
time since World War II.

No previous president has asserted the right to designate American-born
defendants as enemy combatants, Sonnett said. President Bush has named two, Jose
Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi, both of whom are being held in a military brig in
South Carolina.

U.S. Attorney Michael Battle, whose region encompasses Lackawanna, said his
office never explicitly threatened to invoke enemy combatant status but that all
sides knew the government held that hammer. "I don't mean to sound cavalier, but
the war on terror has tilted the whole [legal] landscape," he said. "We are
trying to use the full arsenal of our powers.

"I'm not saying the ends justify the means," he continued, "but you have to
remember that we're protecting the rights of those who are being targeted by
terror as well as the rights of the accused."

The "Lackawanna Six" case embodied the nation's worst fears about the reach of
Islamic terror networks. Last Sept. 13, FBI agents descended on this decaying
steel town by the shore of Lake Erie and arrested six men. It was the third time
U.S. citizens had been charged with aiding -- in the form of "material support"
-- the al Qaeda terrorist network. The scant information revealed by prosecutors
put some flesh on accusations that the defendants belonged to a terrorist
"sleeper cell." The young men traveled to Afghanistan in the spring of 2001.
They watched radical propaganda tapes, learned to fire automatic rifles and set
off explosions at a military camp run by al Qaeda. Several sipped tea and spoke
of jihad with Osama bin Laden.

Five of the six men were born and raised in Lackawanna. They attended public
schools, captained soccer teams and had wives and children.

The FBI agents drove their cars to the Yemen Soccer Field bordering the
Lackawanna rail tracks. Guns drawn, they arrested the six men -- Sahim Alwan,
30; Yahya Goba, 26; Yasein Taher, 25; Faysal Galab, 27; Shafal Mosed, 25; and
Mukhtar al-Bakri, 23 -- and carted boxes of tapes, computers and books out of
their homes.

"One by one," Bush said after the arrests, "we're hunting the killers down."

Such statements resonated deeply, coming a year and two days after the attacks
on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. "Terrorism and support of terrorists
is not confined to large cities," Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson
said. "It lurks in small towns and rural areas."

Many assumed the government had revealed but slivers of its evidence. The
Justice Department later disclosed that the men had spent large sums of money at
a casino, possessed tapes on suicide attacks and had sent coded e-mails that
sounded ominous.

The arrests came as a body blow to those in Lackawanna's First Ward, across the
railroad tracks and within sight of the vast steel mills. Once, Bethlehem Steel
built rows of wood houses with identical porches along Steelawanna Street for
its workers. Its mills employed 24,000, and thousands of Yemenis journeyed here
in search of work. But the mills closed in the 1980s.

Most residents piece together a living from two or three jobs. Many young men
pass time playing soccer, drinking beer and pulling slots at the Niagara Falls
casinos, and cruising the streets in cars with the hip-hop thumping loud.

"We heard about the arrests, and we were like, 'No, impossible,' " said Mosed
Alajji, 29, who works at a local grocery store. "They were hang-out guys,
wondering what movie to watch on weekends. To be true, man, they couldn't even
speak Arabic."

A REALITY IN BETWEEN

The reality appears to fall between such disbelief and talk of sleeper cells.
Two men who were veterans of the war in Bosnia and alleged recruiters for al
Qaeda had passed through Lackawanna: Juma al-Dosari and Kamal Derwish. In early
2001, al-Dosari, a charismatic preacher based in Indiana, spoke at the
Lackawanna mosque, housed in an abandoned Ukrainian Orthodox church. His
militant tone troubled leaders enough that they did not invite him back.
Derwish, husky, bearded and austere, invited kids to his apartment for pizza.
But he annoyed adults with his rigid insistence on separating the sexes.

The six young men found themselves drawn to al-Dosari and Derwish.

"Derwish would tell them: 'You don't even know the prophets, you won't make it
past Judgment Day,' " said Rodney O. Personius, a former federal prosecutor who
represented one of the six defendants. "Juma said that Mecca wouldn't do, that
they needed jihad training if they wanted to save their souls."

In April and May 2001, the six men journeyed to Pakistan, ostensibly to train in
the religious schools known as madrassas. Their trip was no secret -- their
families wished them well with their pilgrimage. But the men instead journeyed
to a fundamentalist guest house in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and then to al Farooq,
a training camp for beginning jihadists. That was before the Sept. 11 attacks,
but after the attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and on the USS
Cole in Yemen.

The men were not very fierce jihadists. Alwan cried over a sprained ankle and
hopped a pickup truck out of camp after a week. Others complained of terrible
food. But several completed training, and one carried home a tape on suicide
attacks. When the men arrived in the United States in June 2001, an FBI agent
interviewed Alwan. He insisted he had received no terror training and privately
advised his friends to remain quiet.

"These six guys wouldn't hurt a flea, but they were fools to go and fools not to
be honest. After the September 11th attacks, it became a disaster," said
Abdulsalam Noman, who coached five of the six men in soccer, including his
nephew, Taher. "I told my nephew, 'Take a plea because no jury is going to
sympathize with you now.' "

Several of Buffalo's better-known defense attorneys signed on to represent the
Lackawanna Six. The lawyers didn't view their clients as innocent but planned to
poke enough holes in the prosecution case to draw a better deal. They found that
allegations that their clients spent large sums of money arose from a casino
credit card jointly held by an extended family. And there was no evidence that
the men had spoken of or planned an attack.

"We'd been able to convince the press and the public that there wasn't all that
much evidence," said John J. Molloy, who represented al-Bakri. "We had enough to
make the government work for its pound of flesh."

But they did not reckon on the new legal world. The defense lawyers asked to
question Derwish and al-Dosari, in hopes of proving their clients had been duped
into traveling to Afghanistan. But in November 2002, a U.S. Predator drone fired
a missile at a car in Yemen, killing four men, including Derwish.

"He's the alleged recruiter, but now he's been incinerated by the government,"
said defense attorney Brown.

Al-Dosari is widely reported to be held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba. But the Justice Department does not acknowledge that. "Juma?" U.S.
Attorney Battle asked last week. "I don't know anyone named Juma."

Battle said defense lawyers came to realize two facts of life. Attorney General
John D. Ashcroft would not hesitate to veto any deals. And the Defense
Department stood ready to ask Bush to designate the defendants as enemy
combatants.

"You had a new player on the block [the Defense Department], and they had a
hammer and an interest," Battle said. "These are learned defense counsels, and
they looked at that landscape and realized that, you know, they could have a
problem."

THE PUSH FROM WASHINGTON

Government officials acknowledge that if the Justice Department loses its bid to
prevent Zacarias Moussaoui from questioning an al Qaeda leader as part of his
defense, they are likely to turn him over to a military tribunal. Moussaoui is
the only person charged in the United States with conspiracy in the Sept. 11
attacks. Iyman Faris, an Ohio truck driver who pleaded guilty May 1 to plotting
with al Qaeda to bring down the Brooklyn Bridge and launch a simultaneous attack
on Washington, cooperated with the FBI because he sought to avoid being declared
an enemy combatant, officials have said.

Defense attorneys describe working blind, never knowing how far Washington would
push. "They're bandying about the death penalty for these bozos?" Molloy said.
"That's ridiculous; these kids were idiots, but not traitors."

In the end, the government took the enemy combatant designation off the table,
and the defendants pleaded guilty. "Alwan was quite firm that he screwed up and
he needs to make atonement," said James Harrington, Alwan's attorney.

Other defendants, such as Taher, took longer to plead. His family insisted the
government had intimidated him. "He's got a 3-year-old child and a wife,"
Personius said. "I told him to pray to Allah for a sign."

All this has complicated the battle for the hearts and minds of the Yemeni
community. Many in Lackawanna's First Ward speak with anger about what they call
government bullying. They see young men who face long jail terms. They see
Albanna, an outspoken leader and owner of a cigarette and candy distributorship,
arrested and charged with operating an illegal business for helping immigrants
wire large amounts of money back to relatives in Yemen. Prosecutors no longer
suggest he has any connection to terrorism.

Albanna, who is awaiting trial, stood at the Yemen Soccer Field on a balmy
evening recently and watched the young men hurtle back and forth. He came here
as a youngster to work in the steel mills, studied and built a business.

"Listen, I chose to come here," he said. "The U.S.A. stands for a Constitution
and rights. It's the best country in the world. But people here are intimidated
and quiet. This is beginning to feel for us like a bad dream."

Tomorrow: Jose Padilla, enemy combatant and U.S. citizen.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


July 23, 2003; Page A18

TWO BRITONS AT GUANTANAMO WILL NOT FACE THE DEATH PENALTY
Official Denies U.S. Is Dealing Out Separate Justice to Favorites

By Bradley Graham and Tania Branigan, Washington Post Staff Writers

The United States assured Britain yesterday that U.S. prosecutors will not seek
the death penalty against two British citizens facing possible trial on
terrorism charges before military tribunals.

Lord Goldsmith, Britain's attorney general, reported the agreement following a
meeting with Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes II.

The United States has nine Britons in custody among the 680 prisoners from 42
countries being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in connection with the war in
Afghanistan and the campaign against terrorism. Their detention has been a
controversial issue in Britain and a source of political difficulty for British
Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Blair's government has sought the repatriation of the Britons and, failing that,
assurances of fair trials free of the prospect of the death sentence, which is
outlawed in Britain. Expressions of concern in Britain rose to new levels this
month after President Bush listed Britons Feroz Abbasi, 23, and Moazzam Begg,
35, among the first six prisoners eligible for military trial as early as this
summer.

Pressed personally by Blair, who was in Washington last week, Bush announced
that his administration would reconsider whether and under what circumstances to
bring before American military tribunals Britons and at least one Australian
captured in the Afghanistan war. But the move opens the president to criticism
that he is showing favoritism to his allies and not dispensing justice equally
in the war on terrorism.

A senior defense official confirmed the decision not to pursue the death penalty
for the two Britons but said it reflected a review of the evidence, not a
special favor for the British. "In this particular case, the evidence doesn't
warrant the death penalty," said the official, who requested anonymity.

Goldsmith also reported "significant progress" in other areas, saying in a
statement that U.S. officials had agreed to allow the British defendants to
choose their own U.S. civilian lawyers, use British lawyers as consultants and
speak confidentially with their attorneys. More contact with families and
immediate visits by British officials were also promised, as were public trials,
he said.

"These talks were constructive," Goldsmith said. "We are continuing to discuss
the possible repatriation of British detainees to the U.K."

But lawyers acting on behalf of the families of Abbasi and Begg said that the
talks had achieved little and that most of the points cited by Goldsmith simply
restated the rules of the military tribunals.

"It says nothing at all," said Clive Stafford Smith, a British-born lawyer
practicing in the United States who has been campaigning for the rights of the
Britons at the request of their relatives.

Louise Christian, a British lawyer representing Abbasi's mother, said: "It's no
good. It's still a military commission. It's still a trial in front of people
who are not independent of the U.S. government."

She pointed out that British lawyers acting as "consultants" would not
necessarily be able to see their clients or even the evidence firsthand.

Said Begg's father, Azmat, from his home in Birmingham, England: "This has
improved things a little, but not much." He added that he had not expected his
son to face the death penalty.

Separate talks underway over the future of a third man assigned for military
trial -- Australian citizen David Hicks, 27 -- are due to continue today between
administration officials and Australia's minister for justice, Senator Chris
Ellison.

The talks have raised concern among some legal experts and representatives of
other countries that the treatment of the detainees may rest as much on the
relationships of their governments with the United States as on the evidence
against them.

"This is going to get incredibly untidy if separate deals are cut," said Eugene
Fidell, president of the private National Institute of Military Justice.

"We believe that whatever is being done has to be done on a non-discriminatory
basis. That's the rule of law," said Asad Hayauddin, press attache at the
Pakistani Embassy in Washington. "There should be a uniform set of procedures
followed."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


July 19, 2003; Page A15

Bush Halts Military Proceedings Against 3

By Mike Allen and Glenn Frankel, Washington Post Staff Writers

DALLAS, July 18 -- President Bush announced today that he had halted military
legal proceedings against two Britons and an Australian being held as suspected
terrorists, allowing time to negotiate additional legal protections with their
governments.

Bush reached the agreement with British Prime Minister Tony Blair during a brief
meeting at the White House Thursday night. Administration officials described
the decision as a political favor aimed at shoring up Blair's plummeting support
back home, where the military tribunals have been widely criticized as shadowy
and legally dubious.

Lawyers for the three governments will meet in Washington next week to negotiate
safeguards for the three, who have been held incommunicado for more than a year
at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, along with more than 650 other
detainees captured in the U.S. war on terrorism. Nine detainees are British, and
at least two are Australian.

The decision marked a rare concession by the White House to the international
furor over its aggressive approach to fighting terrorism. Human rights groups
and some European governments have complained bitterly about the tribunals and
the indefinite captivity of their citizens in Guantanamo Bay, where they have no
access to the U.S. federal court system.

But the deal also opened Bush to criticism that he is showing favoritism to his
allies in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than applying consistent
justice. The deal is likely to add to pressure from other friendly nations for
additional protections for their detainees.

"There needs to be justice for all the hundreds of detainees held in legal limbo
at Guantanamo Bay, and not selective justice for favored groups," Amnesty
International UK Director Kate Allen said in a statement.

The United States has turned to military tribunals, which date to the
Revolutionary War, in part because the proceedings can be held under
extraordinary security, sometimes even with the names of judges withheld. The
rules generally favor the prosecution and, in contrast to the federal courts,
the normal rules of evidence are relaxed. The trials can be closed to the public
when classified information is discussed.

The tribunals, or "commissions" as the Pentagon calls them, apply only to
foreign nationals. Penalties can include life imprisonment or execution.

The two British detainees, Feroz Abbasi, 23, and Moazzam Begg, 35, and
Australian David Hicks, 27, were among the first six foreign nationals
designated for trial by military tribunals by Bush on July 3. Abbasi and Hicks
were arrested in Afghanistan. Begg also had moved to Afghanistan, but his family
believes intelligence agents picked him up in Pakistan. Government officials
have not divulged the names and nations of origin of the other three.

It is not yet certain whether any of the six will face trial. The next major
step is for Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz to determine whether any
should be brought before the special courts.

Begg's father, Azmat, told the BBC he would feel justice was done only when his
son is repatriated to Britain, and he repeated his insistence that his son was
innocent of any involvement in terrorism.

U.S. sources said the possibilities under consideration by the White House for
next week's negotiations include allowing British or Australian lawyers to
represent the men, or perhaps putting a British or Australian officer on the
military panel that would serve as a jury.

British officials said Blair's lawyers can be expected to push for broader
changes that would bring the trials into conformance with international norms.
"We want to see the United States protect our legal freedoms," a British
official said. One possibility, according to British sources, would be for the
United States to change the commissions' rules to include more protections for
the accused.

Separately, the Pentagon announced today that it had transferred 27 detainees
from Guantanamo Bay for release in their home countries because the U.S.
government had determined they were no longer a threat. The announcement also
said approximately 10 new enemy combatants had arrived at the naval base,
bringing the total number of detainees to approximately 660.

The White House allowed Blair's office to reveal the suspension of legal
proceedings as he flew from Washington to Tokyo today. The concession from Bush
helped bolster Blair's argument to his critics that he had gained leverage on
issues important to Europe -- including aggressive pursuit of the Middle East
peace process -- through his partnership with Bush.

"This illustrates the influence Tony Blair has over the president," said Geraint
Davies, a Labor Party member of Parliament from the south London district where
Feroz Abbasi's family lives.

Davies has gathered 260 signatures from the 659-member House of Commons
protesting the military tribunals. "The world expects Americans to stand up for
human rights and the rule of law," he said.

Bush showed little sympathy for the captives when asked about them during his
news conference with Blair on Thursday. "The only thing I know for certain is
that these are bad people, and we look forward to working closely with the Blair
government to deal with the issue," Bush said. "These were illegal combatants.
They were picked up off the battlefield aiding and abetting the Taliban."

Stephen Jakobi, director of Fair Trials Abroad, said he was dismayed by that
remark. "There's no way, after the boss has pronounced they're guilty, that you
can give even the semblance of a fair trial to these people," Jakobi said.

A British delegation led by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith is to arrive in
Washington early next week. White House press secretary Scott McClellan,
traveling with Bush in Texas, said Bush and Blair "are confident that their
experts will be able to agree on a solution that satisfied the mutual interests"
of the two countries.

Matt Francis, an Australian Embassy spokesman in Washington, said senior
officials in the Australian attorney general's office will travel to Washington
next week for discussions about the Hicks case.

Bush revived military tribunals with an executive order signed two months after
the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. His order said the military tribunal
system would apply to non-U.S. citizens who aid or engage in international
terrorism or who harbor those who do. It specifies that those subject to the
system have no recourse to state, federal, foreign or international courts.

British critics have lobbied for the detainees to be returned to London for
trial. But government officials have conceded that because of the circumstances
of the prisoners' internment and interrogation, British courts would likely
dismiss all charges. Because of that, Blair has not pushed Bush for the
suspects' return, officials said.

Douglass Cassel, an administration critic at Northwestern University School of
Law, said it was clearly "very difficult to find a resolution satisfying both
Bush's and Blair's needs, and today's announcement is really a decision to punt
it down the road."

[ Frankel reported from London. Staff writer John Mintz contributed to this
report from Washington. ]

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


July 18, 2003; Page A01

BUSH, BLAIR DEFEND MOTIVES BEHIND WAR
Leaders Insist Evidence Justified March Invasion

By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen, Washington Post Staff Writers

President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who jointly defied
international opposition to oust Saddam Hussein, yesterday stood side by side
and vigorously defended their military campaign in Iraq and the intelligence
they presented to justify it.

With both leaders facing sharp criticism for mounting casualties in Iraq, the
failure to find weapons of mass destruction and their reliance on disputed
intelligence, Bush and Blair said history will show they were right in deposing
Hussein and confronting global terrorism.

"As long as I hold this office I will never risk the lives of American citizens
by assuming the goodwill of dangerous enemies," Bush said at a 26-minute White
House news conference with Blair.

"Our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this
intelligence was good intelligence," Bush said. "There's no doubt in my mind."

Bush said he and Blair based their decision on "good, sound intelligence."

Asked about the possibility that he would be proved wrong about the threat of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Bush said defiantly, "We won't be proven
wrong."

In a speech to Congress an hour earlier, however, Blair said, "history will
forgive" the two leaders if links between terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction never materialize. "If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat
that, at its least, is responsible for inhumane carnage and suffering," he said.

The comment echoed Bush's recent claims that evidence of Hussein's cruelty
justifies the war, even if his administration had pressed a different
justification -- Hussein's alleged imminent threat of using biological or
chemical weapons -- before the allied invasion in March. But while Blair
expressed a hint of skepticism about those weapons yesterday, Bush did not.

"We will bring the information forward on the weapons when they find them," the
president said. Bush said that will "end all this speculation."

With their joint appearance, the two leaders sought to prop each other up
politically. U.S. and British polls show support for Blair and Bush slipping at
home amid growing concerns about the war's aftermath and the veracity of
intelligence claims that preceded it.

Blair's visit allowed the two men to portray unity on a world stage at a time
they face a cacophony of criticism in their own countries and elsewhere.
Pressure is mounting on them to prove that Hussein had the dangerous weapons --
chemical, biological and perhaps nuclear -- they described during the buildup to
the war, and to verify that the intelligence they relied on was accurate.

Most countries are refusing overtures to help relieve U.S. and British soldiers
in Iraq, as calls for greater United Nations involvement intensify.

In particular, Bush and Blair are struggling to explain whether a key allegation
-- that Iraq tried to buy uranium ore in Africa to build nuclear weapons -- is
reliable and verifiable. The Bush administration has offered different and
sometimes contradictory explanations for why the president repeated the charge
in his Jan. 28 State of the Union speech, even after some CIA officials made
clear they thought it was unverifiable and perhaps untrue.

Bush sidestepped a question yesterday on whether he would take responsibility
for making the allegation, which the White House recently has said should have
been deleted from the speech.

"I take responsibility for making the decision, the tough decision, to put
together a coalition to remove Saddam Hussein," Bush said sternly. "He possessed
chemical weapons and biological weapons. I strongly believe he was trying to
reconstruct his nuclear weapons program. . . . He was a threat. I take
responsibility for dealing with that threat."

Blair continued to stand by the weapons charge, which originated with British
intelligence. "I really don't believe that any responsible leader could ignore
the evidence that we see and the threat that we face," he said at the news
conference. "The British intelligence that we have we believe is genuine. We
stand by that intelligence."

The comments failed to satisfy some Democratic lawmakers.

"Right now, with American and British soldiers in the line of fire, families in
Idaho, Nevada or Massachusetts find very unsatisfying a call for unquestioned
faith in a vision of world leaders who apparently rely on shoddy intelligence,"
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said after Blair's speech. "So far, both sides
of our transatlantic alliance appear unwilling to tell the whole truth about how
little we really knew when the order for war was given."

Bush and Blair looked beyond the flap over intelligence to other hurdles ahead:
bringing stability to Iraq, seeking peace in the Middle East and confronting
terrorists in other regions of the world.

The rising number of deadly attacks on U.S. and British troops in Iraq has
fueled questions on both sides of the Atlantic about the war's success and
duration. As many U.S. troops have died since Bush declared the end of major
combat on May 1 as died beforehand. "Our enemies are looking for signs of
hesitation," Bush said. "They're looking for signs of weakness. They will find
none."

Before the news conference, Blair, mixing self-effacing humor with broad
oratory, won a warm, bipartisan reception from a Congress that otherwise is
deeply divided over the situation in Iraq. The first British prime minister
since Margaret Thatcher to address the House and Senate, he implored lawmakers
to stand strong, warning of dangerous times ahead.

"I feel a most urgent sense of mission about today's world," Blair said.
"September 11 [2001] was not an isolated event, but a tragic prologue. Many
further struggles will be set upon this stage before it's over." He accused
North Korea of "letting its people starve while spending billions of dollars on
developing nuclear weapons."

It was unclear how Bush and Blair will resolve a dispute over whether the United
States will use military tribunals to try two British nationals who are being
detained at the U.S. naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as suspected
terrorists. Some British leaders are calling for them to face justice back home.

Bush called them illegal combatants, "picked up off the battlefield aiding and
abetting the Taliban," and made no commitment about how they would be tried.
"The only thing I know for certain is that these are bad people and we look
forward to working closely with the Blair government to deal with the issue,"
the president said.

Similarly, Blair said, "The context was a situation in which the al Qaeda and
the Taliban were operating together in Afghanistan against American and British
forces."

Bush and Blair said they would discuss the case in private talks later, and
Blair promised a public statement today.

Bush did, however, provide Blair political cover on another important foreign
policy matter: Middle East peace. With Blair needing to show progress because of
domestic political pressures, Bush praised "movement toward reform and freedom"
in the Middle East. "A Palestinian state will be built upon hope and reform, not
built upon violence," Bush said.

Blair, whose stance on the Iraq war is much more unpopular with the British
public than Bush's is here, seemed to relish the positive reception he received
from Bush and Congress. He thanked lawmakers for their "warm and generous
welcome that's more than I deserve, and more than I'm used to, quite frankly."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


July 15, 2003; Page A01

MOUSSAOUI PROSECUTORS DEFY JUDGE

Refusal to Produce Key Witness May Lead to Indictment's Dismissal

By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer

The Justice Department yesterday refused to produce a key witness in the case
against Zacarias Moussaoui, defying a federal court order and acknowledging that
the judge will likely dismiss the indictment against the only person charged in
the United States in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The government's action raises the possibility that the case against Moussaoui
could move to a military tribunal, but Justice Department officials indicated
last night that they were determined to keep it in the civilian courts and that
they intend to appeal any dismissal of the charges to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 4th Circuit.

But first, prosecutors must go before the federal judge who ordered that they
produce the witness, Ramzi Binalshibh, the self-described planner of the Sept.
11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. U.S. District Judge Leonie M.
Brinkema likely will impose sanctions for the government's failure to allow
Moussaoui and his attorneys to question Binalshibh. The expected punishment is
the dismissal of the charges, but Brinkema could choose lesser consequences,
such as removing the death penalty as an option, reducing the charges or
striking all mentions of Binalshibh from the indictment.

The government's refusal to produce Binalshibh underscores the delicate
balancing act among lawyers and judges in the Moussaoui case. In a brief filed
in Alexandria last night, U.S. Attorney Paul J. McNulty told Brinkema that her
order "is unacceptable to the Government, which not only carries the
responsibility of prosecuting the defendant, but also of protecting this
nation's security at a time of war with an enemy who has already murdered
thousands of our citizens."

Prosecutors had already appealed Brinkema's ruling to the 4th Circuit. A three-
judge panel earlier rejected the appeal on procedural grounds but said the
government could appeal again if Brinkema imposed sanctions for defying her
order. Those sanctions could come as early as today, but Brinkema also could set
a hearing date on the issue.

Yesterday, the slate of active 4th Circuit judges upheld the panel's earlier
ruling. But the court split 7 to 5 and issued a series of heated opinions that
highlighted how the case has raised new legal issues between a defendant's
constitutional rights and the government's national security responsibilities.
The judges also strongly hinted as to how they might rule if the case comes
before them again.

In a blistering dissent, Judge J. Michael Luttig accused Brinkema, the three-
judge panel and the rest of his colleagues of failing "to appreciate the
fragility of the intelligence-gathering process." Prosecutors have called
Binalshibh a key intelligence source, and they said that disrupting his
interrogation would irreparably harm national security.

"Because of this failure," Luttig wrote, "I believe my colleagues have gravely
underestimated the effect that their respective orders and decisions have
already had, and now will continue to have, on the Nation's intelligence
gathering during this critical period of our history, as we wage war against
terrorism."

Dissents were also authored by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III and Judge H. Emory
Widener Jr.

But William W. Wilkins Jr., the court's chief judge and a member of the panel
that issued the earlier ruling, asserted that he believed that "my colleagues
have allowed the importance of the issues involved in the underlying merits of
this appeal to cloud their judgment on the purely legal question of
jurisdiction."

"Siding with the Government in all cases where national security concerns are
asserted," Wilkins added, "would entail surrender of the independence of the
judicial branch and abandonment of our sworn commitment to uphold the rule of
law."

Less than 30 minutes after yesterday's 4th Circuit decision, prosecutors made
official what sources close to the case have been saying for months: that they
would refuse to produce Binalshibh for the deposition ordered by Brinkema. They
said the deposition "would involve an admitted and unrepentant terrorist (the
defendant) questioning one of his al Qaeda confederates" and would result in the
unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

The filing, written and signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert A. Spencer,
said Attorney General John D. Ashcroft had signed a classified affidavit
objecting to the disclosure. "The government recognizes that the Attorney
General's objection means that the deposition cannot go forward and obligates
the court to now dismiss the indictment unless the Court finds that the
interests of justice can be served by another action," Spencer wrote.

But Spencer also asked Brinkema to delay any action pending the government's
likely appeal to the 4th Circuit. Prosecutors also asked that they be allowed to
file legal arguments if Brinkema considers lesser sanctions than dismissal.

Moussaoui, who is representing himself, and his legal team, which Brinkema
appointed as standby attorneys, contend that Binalshibh has information vital to
the defense. They also asked for access to other al Qaeda witnesses, but
Brinkema sided with the government in ruling that they were not crucial to
Moussaoui's defense. The indictment says Binalshibh wired money to both
Moussaoui and one of the Sept. 11 hijackers -- potentially key evidence tying
Moussaoui to the conspiracy. Moussaoui, a French citizen, was indicted in
December 2001 on charges of conspiring with al Qaeda in the Sept. 11 attacks. He
faces the death penalty if convicted.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *

July 10, 2003; Page A10

JAILING OF HAMDI UPHELD AS REHEARING IS DENIED

By Jerry Markon, Washington Post Staff Writer

A federal appeals court yesterday denied a rehearing for a U.S. citizen captured
with Taliban soldiers in Afghanistan, letting stand a ruling that the man can be
jailed indefinitely without an attorney.

The decision by the Richmond-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
came in the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana-born man designated an "enemy
combatant" by the military. In January, a three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit
gave the government an important victory in the war on terrorism by ruling that
the Constitution gives the executive branch the responsibility to wage war and
the courts must yield to the military in making such determinations.

Hamdi's attorney and a coalition of more than 100 law professors and legal
organizations asked for a rehearing. By an 8 to 4 vote, the full slate of active
judges let the decision stand. Two judges on each side of the rehearing issue
wrote strong opinions evoking centuries-old constitutional issues.

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who co-wrote the original Hamdi decision, was
even more forceful yesterday. "The ingredients essential to military success --
its planning, tactics, and intelligence -- are beyond our ken, and the courtroom
is a poor vantage point for the breadth of comprehension that is required to
conduct a military campaign on foreign soil," he wrote in arguing that the
separation of powers in the Constitution keeps the judiciary out of warmaking.

Judge Diana Gribbon Motz was just as forceful in writing a dissent: "The panel's
decision marks the first time in our history that a federal court has approved
the elimination of protections afforded a citizen by the Constitution solely on
the basis of the Executive's designation of that citizen as an enemy combatant."

Frank W. Dunham Jr., the federal public defender who represented Hamdi, said
last night he intends to ask the Supreme Court to review the decision. "Because
I cannot talk to my client and because of the extreme importance of the issue, I
have no choice but to pursue the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court," he said.

While fighting with Taliban troops in Afghanistan, Hamdi was captured by
Northern Alliance forces in November 2001. He was placed in the Navy brig in
Norfolk when it was learned that he was born in Baton Rouge. His case entered
the legal system after Dunham saw media reports of Hamdi's arrival in Virginia
and tried to see him.

The government objected and justified Hamdi's detention with a declaration that
Hamdi had joined a Taliban military unit, received training and acknowledged
loyalty to the Taliban when captured.

The 4th Circuit's decision in January was not a total victory for the government
because it covered only Americans captured on a battlefield overseas and not
citizens arrested in the United States. As such, the decision would not apply to
Jose Padilla, an American declared an enemy combatant for allegedly plotting to
detonate a dirty bomb, or Bradley University graduate Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri,
who was placed under military control June 23 after President Bush said he was
an al-Qaeda sleeper agent. In federal court in Illinois, Al-Marri's attorneys
this week challenged his designation as an enemy combatant.

Douglas Kmiec, dean of Catholic University Law School in Washington, said the
Hamdi decision is justified because the nation is at war against terrorism. "I
think the government received a necessary affirmation of its position," said
Kmiec, one of seven people who filed pro-government briefs in the case.

But Rosa Ehrenreich Brooks, an associate professor of law at the University of
Virginia, blasted the decision as "chilling" and called Wilkinson's concerns
"wildly overblown."

"What is at issue is not whether the military has the authority on the
battlefield to temporarily detain someone they believe to be a combatant. Nobody
is questioning that," said Ehrenreich Brooks, one of the professors who
supported Hamdi. "The question is, Can you then detain a U.S. citizen
indefinitely without charge and without access to counsel once you have gotten
him off the field of combat."

Judge William B. Traxler Jr. also filed an opinion yesterday concurring with the
court's decision, and Judge J. Michael Luttig dissented. Luttig called the
original panel decision "unpersuasive" and called for the entire court to review
it because of "the significance of the issue."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


Sunday, July 6, 2003; Page B06

Editorial--

STANDARDS FOR DETAINEES

FIGHTING THE WAR on terrorism has forced the government to confront profoundly
vexing questions concerning the people it captures. Are al Qaeda members
criminals who should be prosecuted, members of a strange species of foreign
army, or somehow both? And if, as U.S. authorities quickly concluded, they are
both, when should they be treated as criminals in civilian courts, when should
they go before military tribunals and when should they be held with no trial at
all and under what circumstances? We would have hoped that nearly two years
after the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration would have made a stab at
addressing these questions. And in a sense, it has: It is claiming the authority
to unilaterally decide how any captive is legally designated and held -- and to
unilaterally change that designation at any time. This system is convenient for
the government, offering all of the legitimacy the criminal justice system can
confer without any of its discipline. As a legal regime, however, it is
unacceptable.

Consider, for example, the disparity between the way the government handled its
two big recent terrorism arrests. The Justice Department reached a plea deal
with a man named Iyman Faris, a naturalized American truck driver living in Ohio
who looked into destroying the Brooklyn Bridge and conducting an attack in
Washington on behalf of al Qaeda. Mr. Faris was prosecuted in federal court in
Virginia. Federal court, however, was too good for a Qatari student named Ali S.
Marri. Like Mr. Faris, Mr. Marri is a suspected al Qaeda operative; he arrived
in this country the day before the 9/11 attacks. And like Mr. Faris, he was
initially prosecuted using the normal criminal system for lying to the FBI and
for credit card fraud. But last week, less than a month before his trial was to
start, the Justice Department dropped charges against him, and President Bush
redesignated him as an "enemy combatant." His new status allowed the government
to whisk him off to a military brig, where he can now be held indefinitely and
interrogated. The government can charge him at its leisure in a military
tribunal -- if it chooses to. Why the difference? The answer has nothing to do
with any recognizable legal principle. The government's position, after all, is
that either man could be dumped into either system. The real distinction seems
to be that Mr. Faris agreed to cooperate, while Mr. Marri was going to trial and
so could not be interrogated for intelligence.

We are not opposed to treating certain al Qaeda prisoners as enemy combatants.
The laws of war recognize that governments capture enemy fighters during wartime
and keep them locked up -- though the Geneva Conventions mandate procedures that
the administration has unwisely failed to follow strictly. The dangers -- both
to national security and to civil liberties -- of trying some al Qaeda suspects
in federal court are sufficient that some may have to be removed to military
custody, as we have urged in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui. But there has to be
some principle that guides these decisions -- other than what move best serves
the government's interests at any given moment. Otherwise the law becomes a mere
instrument of arbitrary state power, not a predictable system of ordered
liberty. Among other dangers, the threat of designation as an "enemy combatant"
-- and the consequent indefinite detention -- can too easily become a club to
threaten defendants who will not plead guilty or cooperate.

More broadly, there has to be some publicly defined process for handling enemy
combatants, so that the status is not simply a legal black hole. In a
conventional war, enemy fighters are held until the combatant states negotiate a
peace, at which point they are repatriated. But this war may never end, and if
it does, it will not be with a peace treaty between the United States and al
Qaeda. The laws of war provide an incomplete framework for handling the
detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the administration is going to have to
fill in the gaps. Yet even after being spurred on by complaints from allied
governments, it has sent home only about 40 detainees, it has charged none
before tribunals and it has not begun to specify what it will do in the long run
with those it does not charge but deems too dangerous to repatriate. President
Bush last week designated six unnamed detainees as eligible for trial before
tribunals, and this is a positive sign. But the administration needs to develop
clear standards governing both the legal designation of detainees and what
happens to those placed beyond the reach of conventional American law.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *


Saturday, July 5, 2003; Page A13

2 BRITONS, AUSTRALIAN AMONG SIX FACING TRIAL

U.S. Tribunal Process Questioned

By Glenn Frankel and John Mintz, Washington Post Foreign Service

LONDON, July 4 -- British officials said today that two Britons were among the
six al Qaeda suspects who face possible trial on terrorism charges before U.S.
military tribunals and that there were "serious concerns" in the government
about the judicial process.

While U.S. officials have not publicly named the six detainees, a spokesman for
the Foreign Office said Washington had informed British diplomats of the names
of the two Britons -- Moazzam Begg, 35, from Birmingham, and Feroz Abbasi, 23,
from south London. Their parents were notified by British officials Thursday
evening.

Separately, the Australian government announced that one of its nationals, David
Hicks, was among the six.

A Foreign Office spokesman, speaking not for attribution, said British officials
had "serious concerns about the military commission process. We have made clear
and will continue to make clear that we want the detainees to have a fair trial.
There are internationally accepted rules -- such as the presumption of
innocence, access to evidence and access to lawyers and an appeals process --
and we'll be looking to discuss these aspects with the United States."

Elizabeth Symons, the junior foreign minister, said on the BBC that the British
government would "vigorously pursue the issues about access to lawyers, about
standards of evidence and about any appeals procedure" with the United States.

Human rights activists and attorneys for the parents of the British detainees
objected to the prospect of secret trials, with military lawyers appointed to
defend the suspects and the possibility of the death penalty.

"At the end of the day, what we've got, to put it bluntly, is a kangaroo court
with the rules of the game rigged so nothing like a fair trial can take place --
right down to American Army defense lawyers," said Stephen Jakobi, director of
the British human rights group Fair Trials Abroad, which is representing Begg's
father.

Louise Christian, an attorney for Abbasi's mother, said the Pentagon had
thwarted Britain's diplomatic efforts. "We had hoped the British government
could prevent them being put on trial in this way, but it appears [that
Britain's] involvement with the United States amounts to absolutely nothing,"
Christian said. She added that Britain should vigorously protest the U.S.
decision and be prepared to appeal to the International Court of Justice in The
Hague.

The Australian government, meanwhile, expressed hope that any proceedings
involving Hicks would be just.

"The government welcomes this development as hopefully leading to a resolution
of Mr. Hicks' case," said a joint statement today by Australian Attorney General
Daryl Williams and Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer. "The government
has held detailed discussions with the U.S. concerning any possible trials and
is confident that any military commission trials will be fair and transparent.
We have made every effort to ensure procedures for any possible trial will
provide the fundamental guarantees of normal criminal processes."

The Australian government statement said the U.S. rulebook for conducting the
special trials upholds legal principles such as the presumption of innocence, a
standard for guilty findings of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and defendants'
right to confront witnesses against them.

Hicks, 27, of Adelaide, a former rodeo rider and kangaroo skinner who converted
to Islam, has become a figure of controversy in Australia because of his
colorful past and radical associations, and because of questions raised about
the fairness of his detention in Cuba.

He spent much of the 1990s traveling the world to join Muslim guerrilla
movements in Kosovo and in Kashmir, a disputed border region claimed by both
Pakistan and India. In 2000, Hicks, who is known in his home country as "the
Aussie Taliban," received extensive training at al Qaeda terrorist camps in
Afghanistan, Australian officials have said. In December 2001, he was captured
fighting with the Taliban in the city of Kandahar.

Pentagon officials said Thursday that all six designated for the trials had
either joined al Qaeda or trained in its camps in Afghanistan.

About 680 foreign detainees are being held at a U.S. military facility at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including nine British citizens, most of them captured in
2001 in Afghanistan during the U.S.-led campaign. The United States has
designated them as enemy combatants rather than prisoners of war, and denied
them access to legal counsel, although it has allowed visits from diplomats and
the International Committee of the Red Cross.

In designating the six as eligible for trial, President Bush determined that
they might be members of al Qaeda or otherwise involved in terrorism, including
financing and recruitment of terrorists and providing protection for al Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden, according to a Pentagon statement.

The detentions have caused major controversy in Britain and elsewhere abroad,
with critics contending that the United States is abusing foreign nationals by
confining them to small cells for an indefinite period without charge or trial
or access to lawyers. While Prime Minister Tony Blair has publicly endorsed the
detentions, saying some of the detainees could provide important information
about ongoing terrorist activities, British diplomats privately have lobbied
extensively for the detainees to be charged or released.

Specialists in international law said that U.S. officials undoubtedly chose the
six designees with care, not only based on the specifics of the evidence against
them, but also with an eye toward the diplomatic and public relations impact of
their trials.

It could be significant, the legal specialists said, that of the 42 countries
whose nationals are held at Guantanamo, the two known to have citizens
designated for possible tribunals are Britain and Australia, which are among
America's closest allies in the war on terrorism.

Begg's father insisted that his son had gone to Afghanistan to help build
schools. "My son was never involved in al Qaeda," he told the BBC. "He is a
proper family man."

In an interview last November, Abbasi's mother said her son had become an
adherent of a militant brand of Islam under the influence of radical clerics at
a north London mosque. He disappeared in December 2000, she said, and she heard
nothing further for more than a year, until a newspaper reporter told her he had
been captured.

[ Mintz reported from Washington. ]

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

* * *

June 30, 2003

U.S. RETURNS SYRIAN BORDER GUARDS

By Zeina Karam, Associated Press Writer

DAMASCUS, Syria -- The United States has returned five Syrian border guards who
were taken by American forces after being wounded during a battle on the Syrian-
Iraqi border, a Syrian government spokesman said Monday.

With the handover, Damascus and Washington sought to quietly contain the fallout
from an attack that could have further hurt relations already strained over the
U.S.-led war and occupation in Iraq.

The battle took place June 18 when U.S. warplanes and ground troops attacked a
convoy thought to include fugitive Iraqi leaders fleeing into Syria. The
fighting spilled over into Syrian territory, wounding the five, though the
circumstances remain unclear.

The five guards were handed over to the Syrian side of the Syrian-Iraqi border
and taken to a hospital for further treatment, the government spokesman said
Monday, quoted by the official news agency SANA. The report had no further
details.

For days, Syrian and U.S. officials had been working out details for handing
over the border guards, three of whom were seriously injured in the fighting and
were taken to a military hospital in Baghdad. The other two were treated in
western Iraq.

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa said Sunday that Damascus wanted to
avoid escalating tensions with Washington. "This subject has had media attention
more than it deserved," he told a press conference.

U.S. officials have been unable to explain the full circumstances of the clash
near the desert border post of Abu Kamal, including why houses in a nearby
village and the vehicles were struck and who was being targeted.

The U.S. military suspected at the time that officials of Saddam Hussein's
deposed regime were trying to escape into Syria. One Iraqi was killed in the
attack, U.S. officials said.

The violence threatened to further damage U.S.-Syrian relations.

Syria was a loud opponent of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, while U.S. officials
at one stage accused Damascus of harboring fleeing former Iraqi officials and
sending weapons to Saddam's forces -- claims Syria rejected.

© 2003 The Associated Press

* * *

June 27, 2003; Page A11

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37460-2003Jun26.html

U.S. PLEDGES TO AVOID TORTURE
Pledge on Terror Suspects Comes Amid Probes of Two Deaths

By Peter Slevin, Washington Post Staff Writer

The Bush administration pledged yesterday for the first time that the United
States will not torture terrorism suspects or treat them cruelly in an attempt
to extract information, a move that comes as the deaths of two Afghan prisoners
in U.S. custody are being investigated as homicides.

"All interrogations, wherever they may occur," must be conducted without the use
of cruel and inhuman tactics, the Pentagon's senior lawyer wrote after members
of Congress and human rights groups pressed the White House to renounce abusive
tactics reported by U.S. government officials.

On a day when President Bush asserted that his administration intends to lead by
example in a global fight against torture, Defense Department general counsel
William J. Haynes II said that anyone found to have broken the law in the
Afghanistan deaths will be prosecuted.

Human rights organizations welcomed the announcement, which went further than
the Bush administration had gone before. An earlier letter from Haynes, for
example, had mentioned the prohibition against torture without citing the
broader category of mistreatment that is against the law in the United States.

While neither Bush nor Haynes cited specific tactics, human rights activists
said the administration appeared to bar such techniques as depriving prisoners
of sleep, withholding medicine and forcing them to stand at length in painful
positions. U.S. authorities have used each technique against captives held
abroad in the war on terrorism, according to current and former national
security officials interviewed last year by The Washington Post.

"The president and Defense Department have today unequivocally rejected the use
of any techniques to interrogate suspects that would constitute 'cruel'
treatment prohibited by the U.S. Constitution," a group of human rights
organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Freedom
House and the Center of Victims of Torture, said in a joint statement. They
called on the administration to allow independent monitors to "assure the world
that this pledge is being fully redeemed in practice."

U.S. treatment of terror suspects and potential witnesses has been particularly
obscure. The Bush administration typically prevents prisoners from contacting
attorneys or asserting rights to fair treatment. Indeed, U.S. authorities have
refused to identify the large majority of detainees or release any information
about them, arguing that such data could help terrorists.

In the first 15 months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, nearly 3,000 suspected
al Qaeda members and supporters were detained worldwide, according to U.S.
officials.

National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday that prisoners
abroad are being treated humanely, but reports have surfaced in the news media
about cruel treatment of detainees in American-run detention centers, where the
rules of due process are not always applied. In interviews with The Post last
year, members of the U.S. government's national security apparatus defended the
use of violence as just and necessary.

"If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably
aren't doing your job. I don't think we want to be promoting a view of zero
tolerance on this," said an official who supervised the capture of accused
terrorists. Officials said painkillers were used selectively to win cooperation
of Abu Zubaida, a high-ranking al Qaeda member shot in the groin during his
arrest.

U.S. officials said they sometimes transfer uncooperative suspects to foreign
countries where security services are known for brutality. In some of countries
where "extraordinary renditions" take place, security services use mind-altering
drugs such as sodium pentathol to get detainees to answer questions relayed by
U.S. government personnel.

The secret CIA interrogation center at Bagram air base north of Kabul, the
Afghan capital,