Judge tosses out most evidence on Gitmo detainee

[hist2004]

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Pete Yost, Associated Press WriterFri Jan 8, 3:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A federal judge has tossed out most of the government's evidence against a tarrorism detainee on grounds his confessions were coerced, allegedly by U.S. forces, before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

In a ruling this week, U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan also said the government failed to establish that 23 statements the detainee made to interrogators at Guantanamo Bay were untainted by the earlier coerced statements made while he was held under harsh conditions in Afghanistan.

However, the judge said statements he made during two military administrative hearings at the U.S. detention center in Cuba, where he was assisted by a personal representative, were reliable and sufficient to justify holding the detainee.

Musa'ab Omar Al Madhwani allegedly engaged in a 2 1/2-hour firefight with Pakistani authorities before his capture in a Karachi apartment in 2002.

The detainee says that after five days in a Pakistani prison, he was handed over to U.S. forces and flown to a pitch-black prison he believes was in Afghanistan. He says he was suspended in his cell by his left hand and that guards blasted his cell with music 24 hours a day.

He said that he confessed to whatever allegations his interrogators made and that harassment and threats continued after he was moved to a different prison in Afghanistan.
Al Madhwani said that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay on multiple occasions threatened him when he tried to retract what he now claims was a false confession.

The judge said he was particularly concerned that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay relied on or had access to the coerced confessions from Afghanistan made by Al Madhwani.

The logical inference from the record, said the judge, is that interrogators at Guantanamo Bay reviewed Al Madhwani's coerced confessions with him and asked him to make identical confessions.

"Far from being insulated from his coerced confessions, his Guantanamo confessions were thus derived from them," Hogan wrote.

The judge said the government presented medical records about the detainee's debilitating physical and mental condition that confirm his claims of harsh treatment during the 40 days he spent in Pakistann and Afghanistan.

Despite Hogan's concerns about the 23 statements, the judge relied on other evidence and three statements Al Madhwani made to a military tribunal and a review board to conclude that he trained, traveled and associated with members of al-Qaida, including high-level operatives. On those grounds, the judge ruled he is legally detained.

Source - (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_go_ot/us_guantanamo_detainee)

[skyeye]

J-esus H. Christ. This all depends on a captured Islamic terrorists unsubstantiated claim that he was tortured. In other words, a judge has taken the word of a terrorist over the sworn testimony of the American military.

Lying about being tortured is right out of the al Qaeda play book.

President Zero strikes again.

[budgie]

Who's President Zero and was he present at the proceeedings?

In this case the judge has not let the guy go because he has ruled that on other evidence the guy is legally detained. Only the confessions are inadmissable. As for whose testimony is worth more, do we really want to go down that angle? In Some versions of Islamic law a Muslim's statement is worth the same as four non-muslims. A man's worh more than a woman's and so on. Is that the kind of law you want?

Besides where is this 'sworn testimony of US service members'? The guy claims he was tortured in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not at Gitmo.

And where can I get a copy of the al-Qaeda playbook?

This case illustrates what will become a typical dilemma in trying Gitmo detainees.

Let's say for the sake of argument, the guy is telling the truth: rendition, mistreatment, coercion and he ends up at Gitmo. Now do you turn him loose and risk him coming back to bite you in the ass? Or do you hold him because he might come back to bite you in the ass? Survival wise, the answer is obvious but we're already so deep into moral greay areas, there may be no 'right' answer. In this case the guy was with AQ before the arrest so the Judge can at least answer the question of whether to hold onto him. But what of those that weren't?

[Ought Six]

President Zero is the Big 'O'; The Anointed One; the one who decided that military detainees should be tried in civilian court rooms.

Of course most or all of the evidence will be tossed. There is no chain of custody for physical evidence on the battlefield, or with terrs taken by specops teams from a safehouse in Pakistan. There are no CSIs running around the battlefield taking pictures of the crime scene and gathering fiber evidence. Marines taking al Qaeda fighters prisoner did not read them their Miranda rights.

This is just the beginning. These Gitmo detainees are going to be released wholesale through our federal court system. Their countries of origin do not want them back. They will either be released onto American streets, or languish in federal detention centers because of their immigration status. The ones in federal holdingt will get a chance to spread their message of Jihadism to other detainees and do some recruiting on our dime, while getting three squares, a warm bed and cable TV. Brilliant!

This was the most idiotic policy imaginable, and the debacle it is creating is going to come back and bite the Dems *hard* in the 2010 elections. It is not going to help Obama in 2012, either, especially if there is another massive terrorist attack on American soil before then.

[budgie]

Well again I refer to my earlier post. You can't hold them foreever, something has to be done with them. If they walk because due process wasn't followed or if they turn out to be embittered and strike back, don't blame it all on the current administration. This is an eight-year-old problem already. I agree it will be easy to pin this all on Obama's shoulders if any of these guys attacks America again, and it'll hurth in the elections. But in reality, there are far more people to blame, including the f*cktards in the last administration who created this dilemma in the first place. Poll results are not the only litmus test of reality.

Now I'm not astute enough to propose exaclty what should be done with the detainees, but there must be some kind of due process. And please let's not have anyone come in here and propose a 'final solution'.

[ronnieraygun]

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Pete Yost, Associated Press WriterFri Jan 8, 3:00 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A federal judge has tossed out most of the government's evidence against a tarrorism detainee
Source - (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_go_ot/us_guantanamo_detainee)

Well, no small wonder we can't do **** as a society anymore when we hire illiterates to churn out copy.

[skyeye]

Who's President Zero and was he present at the proceeedings?
Obama's determination to give terrorist detainees civil trials rather than tribunals lead to this situation.


Besides where is this 'sworn testimony of US service members'? The guy claims he was tortured in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not at Gitmo.
So? Thats his CLAIM, let him prove it.


And where can I get a copy of the al-Qaeda playbook?
Virtually all detainees claim torture.


This case illustrates what will become a typical dilemma in trying Gitmo detainees.
Exactly.

I think we basically agree. This type of situation is a first for dealing with enemy combatants. But my druthers is NO trials until the cessation of hostilities, al a the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg trials. Just what says we need to hold trials now? Did we try Japanese soldiers during WW II in civilian courts?

[HellToupee]

Japanese soldiers were PoWs and treated as such, issue with gitmo is you have created a grey area to hold prisoners thats not even legal in your own countries laws.

[pobeda]

You can't hold them foreever.

Yes you can

[budgie]

Don't play dumb. What I mean is it is neither sensible, practical nor legal. There has to be a resolution.

[pobeda]

How is it not sensible, they are threats leave them in jail and they are not threats anymore. By terms of legality, these men are mostly war criminals or enemy combatants, refering to the constitution on this matter is ridiculous as it does not directly address war criminals or religiously motivated terrorism. They are a new phenoimenon for America and we need to honestly set up a new article in the constitution to handle these types of individuals. Yet, until than in my opinion the men are to dangerous to be let out of custody and the best thing to do for the forseable future is to let them rot in cells, none of them are nice guys and most have already professed their guilt such as Khalid Sheik Mohammad. Furthermore even if by some miraculous twist of fate one of these men was innocent do you think after eight years in prison he wouldn't now be a threat? I think if any of them were released thyey would be going to their nearest Al Qaeda recruiter.

[Special-K]

President Zero is the Big 'O'; The Anointed One; the one who decided that military detainees should be tried in civilian court rooms.

Of course most or all of the evidence will be tossed. There is no chain of custody for physical evidence on the battlefield, or with terrs taken by specops teams from a safehouse in Pakistan. There are no CSIs running around the battlefield taking pictures of the crime scene and gathering fiber evidence. Marines taking al Qaeda fighters prisoner did not read them their Miranda rights.

This is just the beginning. These Gitmo detainees are going to be released wholesale through our federal court system. Their countries of origin do not want them back. They will either be released onto American streets, or languish in federal detention centers because of their immigration status. The ones in federal holdingt will get a chance to spread their message of Jihadism to other detainees and do some recruiting on our dime, while getting three squares, a warm bed and cable TV. Brilliant!

This was the most idiotic policy imaginable, and the debacle it is creating is going to come back and bite the Dems *hard* in the 2010 elections. It is not going to help Obama in 2012, either, especially if there is another massive terrorist attack on American soil before then.




Well said. I can't wait for all of the above you mentioned to show just how incredibly, idiotically inept our current administration is.




-K

[Ought Six]

B:
"You can't hold them foreever, something has to be done with them."So you are unaware that Gitmo detainees were being tried in the past by military commission, which is the world standard method for dealing with war criminals? The courts did not think the first commissions were fair, so the Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006. That defined proper due process and legal procedure for the military commission, and it has been further modified by caselaw from subsequent federal court decisions.

So the bottom liine is that we had a system in place; it was working; and Obama changed everything and fvcked everything up completely.

[skyeye]

Yes the West needs to get together (fat chance) and come up with a system to deal with international terrorists, no matter what flavor. Trouble is that takes balls. So, back to holding them until cessation of hostilities. If the "other side" wants to wage war for decades, so be it.

[cascade]

Just imagine for a moment we applied the same tactics used to defeat our Nazi adversaries during WWII to Al Qeada. Is facsism somehow less of a threat when it's islamist? I doubt any of the 911 victims or their families would think so.

[martinexsquaddie]

er al quite****a are not in the same league as the Nazi's or even the ira 3 major attacks in the west 9/11 7/7 and the spainish bombs big but not a sustained campaign.
the UK is not under daily air raid suffering rationing europe is not under islamist occupation (regardless of what mp posters may say)
There a problem and a murderous problem but there not the nazi's or the cold war ffs

[chauncy republicans]

Who's President Zero and was he present at the proceeedings?

In this case the judge has not let the guy go because he has ruled that on other evidence the guy is legally detained. Only the confessions are inadmissable. As for whose testimony is worth more, do we really want to go down that angle? In Some versions of Islamic law a Muslim's statement is worth the same as four non-muslims. A man's worh more than a woman's and so on. Is that the kind of law you want?

Besides where is this 'sworn testimony of US service members'? The guy claims he was tortured in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not at Gitmo.

And where can I get a copy of the al-Qaeda playbook?

This case illustrates what will become a typical dilemma in trying Gitmo detainees.

Let's say for the sake of argument, the guy is telling the truth: rendition, mistreatment, coercion and he ends up at Gitmo. Now do you turn him loose and risk him coming back to bite you in the ass? Or do you hold him because he might come back to bite you in the ass? Survival wise, the answer is obvious but we're already so deep into moral greay areas, there may be no 'right' answer. In this case the guy was with AQ before the arrest so the Judge can at least answer the question of whether to hold onto him. But what of those that weren't?

I would even question if it's a measure of survival, how do we even know what these men are guilty of? Budgie you know I don't agree with you often, but I believe your absolutely right. Since our heroic cowboy of an illegitimate dictator (Bush), decided to piss on the transparency of due process, nobody can make a reasonably educated guess as to how to prosecute these men, unless we continue set a precedent of removing all Constitutional limitations. Which in the end does more harm than good to ourselves, and changes nothing in the middle east.
Government poses a much greater danger to civilized society than does the exaggerated threat of Islamic extremism .

[skyeye]

If anyone can point to a Constitutional clause, item in the Bill of Rights or federal law which addresses the handling of stateless terrorists I'd like to see it. Fact is, the Bush administration had to come up with some sort of method to deal with a new phenomenon on the fly. I don't agree with what was devised, but in the absence of any controlling authority it is better than nothing. It still needs to be refined and adapted to the current situation.

I'll point out again that as far as I know, during WW II few if any Japanese or German POW's were tried under tribunals, they were interred until the end of the war. Only then certain of the enemy were tried by military tribunals.

Granting full American legal rights to foreign terrorists who have never even set foot on American soil is preposterous, and as we shall soon see, opens up a legal Pandora's box that we won't like in the long run.

BTW, the Cole bombers are still going to be tried by a military tribunal. so why the difference?

[eskachig]

So? Thats his CLAIM, let him prove it.
Virtually all detainees claim torture.


The judge said the government presented medical records about the detainee's debilitating physical and mental condition that confirm his claims of harsh treatment during the 40 days he spent in Pakistann and Afghanistan.
The guy's lawyer apparently did prove it, or at least created enough doubt for the judge to throw out some evidence.

But not all, which is why he is still on trial. Hell, to me it just looks like the system works.

And no we can't hold them until "the war" is over. This isn't even a real war - with no state actors this is in the realm of international law enforcement. If this guy committed crimes against Americans then American courts will be enough. If he committed crimes against citizens of Afghanistan then let their legal system handle them. If there is no way to prove in the court of law that he committed any crimes at all then just let him go, and let the intelligence agencies keep an eye on him.

[eskachig]

Granting full American legal rights to foreign terrorists who have never even set foot on American soil is preposterousWhy is it preposterous? If I am a foreigner and commit, let's say, internet fraud, then if I am extradited I'd expect the same protections of the legal system as everyone else. I don't see what's so preposterous. Those protections lend the US justice system legitimacy, they are simply part of a process that is supposed to result in less innocent people being punished.

Preposterous is holding someone for a decade for no stated reason or charge.

And people need to stop bringing up POWs. These folks aren't POWs, the GWOT is not an actual war, and holding someone "until there are no terrorists anymore" is ridiculous.

[budgie]

If anyone can point to a Constitutional clause, item in the Bill of Rights or federal law which addresses the handling of stateless terrorists I'd like to see it. Fact is, the Bush administration had to come up with some sort of method to deal with a new phenomenon on the fly. I don't agree with what was devised, but in the absence of any controlling authority it is better than nothing. It still needs to be refined and adapted to the current situation.

I'll point out again that as far as I know, during WW II few if any Japanese or German POW's were tried under tribunals, they were interred until the end of the war. Only then certain of the enemy were tried by military tribunals.

Granting full American legal rights to foreign terrorists who have never even set foot on American soil is preposterous, and as we shall soon see, opens up a legal Pandora's box that we won't like in the long run.

BTW, the Cole bombers are still going to be tried by a military tribunal. so why the difference?

If you're arguing for military tribunals that is reasonably fair, but since terrorists are criminals, criminal laws already exist to deal with them. I see no real problem with choosing the one over the other. Terror didn't start on 9/11 and prior to the invasion of Afghanistan countries tried and convicted terro suspects in courts. No big deal.

The problem seems to be one of definition: the Bush admin made up this term 'enemy combatants' or whatever and then said - "But the Geneva Conventions, Military Law and Civil Law have no provision for this new category: we'll just hold them indefinitely." Problem is the 'new category' existed only in **** Cheney's imagination. Okay I'm being flippant but that's basically the attitude they took. They were captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan and snatched off the street in a dozen other countries. they should have been handled there under existing laws. Now here we are years later debating what to do with them and blaming the new administration for any redicivism. Let's not pretend the problem was being adequately handled in the first place.

[skyeye]

@ budgie & eskachig


Preposterous is holding someone for a decade for no stated reason or charge.But charges are brought through military reviews on a periodic basis at Gitmo. That's the basis for those released so far, and the basis for determing that some can never be released.


but since terrorists are criminals, criminal laws already exist to deal with them.Herein lies the crux of our difference. Terrorists are not common criminals, they are stateless religious fanatics out to kill infidels and spread their brand of radical Islam. These particular stateless fighters were captured in combat, not robbing the local drug store.


They were captured in Afghanistan, Pakistan and snatched off the street in a dozen other countries.I'll concede that extraordinary renditions are extreme, but then, the enemy we are facing is extreme. We're in a new environment and need to developed new methods and laws to deal with it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I just don't see any presedent for bring enemy combatants here. IMHO, we're in what will prove to be a decades long war against radical Islam. We're facing religious fanatics whose first desire is to kill infidels and are happy to die in the attempt, and they have no time limit. Even Obama has realized some in Gitmo can never be released. The high recidivism rate for those who have been released is illustrative.

There is some merit to turning over captured fighters to the local authority; Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq etc. if they will be dealt with and not just turn them loose. BTW we're not bringing anymore to Gitmo, so they must be held somewhere, or they are already being turned over the tender mercies of the local authorities.

The debate, and war go on.

[Jobu]

Looks like were back to the "Lawsuit on Terror!"

The war is over, clearly we lost.

[SoftLion]

Why is it preposterous? If I am a foreigner and commit, let's say, internet fraud, then if I am extradited I'd expect the same protections of the legal system as everyone else. I don't see what's so preposterous. Those protections lend the US justice system legitimacy, they are simply part of a process that is supposed to result in less innocent people being punished.


What is preposterous is your failure at appreciable analogy.

[eskachig]

But charges are brought through military reviews on a periodic basis at Gitmo. That's the basis for those released so far, and the basis for determing that some can never be released.
Honestly, if these military trials happened on a timely and transparent basis I don't think people would complain too much. These people are more than a little ambiguous in the legal sense. But it's just been too long, and it's starting to look like arbitrary imprisonment.



Herein lies the crux of our difference. Terrorists are not common criminals, they are stateless religious fanatics out to kill infidels and spread their brand of radical Islam. These particular stateless fighters were captured in combat, not robbing the local drug store.
The term stateless is meaningless. They are all citizens of some state. They broke the law in another state. In theory they should be persecuted there. I can also see how this would be a nebulous situation and why they would have be detained and interrogated by the military. But for 10 years? It makes us look ridiculous.



There is some merit to turning over captured fighters to the local authority; Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq etc. if they will be dealt with and not just turn them loose. BTW we're not bringing anymore to Gitmo, so they must be held somewhere, or they are already being turned over the tender mercies of the local authorities.
I fully agree with you actually - they broke the laws of those states, they should face their local justice system.

[eskachig]

What is preposterous is your failure at appreciable analogy.I merely wanted to highlight that stepping on American soil is irrelevant to one's protection under its laws. These people either committed crimes against our nation or they did not, and it's time they faced justice.

[eskachig]

er al quite****a are not in the same league as the Nazi's or even the ira 3 major attacks in the west 9/11 7/7 and the spainish bombs big but not a sustained campaign.
the UK is not under daily air raid suffering rationing europe is not under islamist occupation (regardless of what mp posters may say)
There a problem and a murderous problem but there not the nazi's or the cold war ffsIt's not just a question of body counts - military tribunals sometimes make sense for trying war criminals (at least before the hague), because legal framework for operating as part of a nation's armed forces changes things. Actions have state mandate, so legal/illegal become a little blurred, and it may be difficult to convict them in a civilian court. But terrorists have no state mandate, they simply break laws without a pretense of justification, and there are no barriers to convicting them as common murderers and criminals. Their motivations don't concern me.

For the record, I don't like hate crime laws for similar reasons. A crime is a crime.