Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied
6.4.09
In 2007, after four rounds of administrative reviews at Guantánamo, Hedi Hammamy, a Tunisian prisoner, born in 1969, was cleared for release, having satisfied the Pentagon that he no longer represented a threat to the United States or its allies, and no longer possessed any ongoing intelligence value. He was not released, however, because, although the US government had secured a “diplomatic assurance” from the government of the Tunisian dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali (photo, left), which purported to guarantee that returned prisoners would be treated humanely, two prisoners returned in June 2007 were apparently mistreated in Tunisian custody, and were then imprisoned after what were regarded by human rights observers as show trials.
This prompted a District Court judge to prevent the return of a third Tunisian in November 2007, with the result that this man, Lotfi bin Ali, and several other cleared Tunisians — including Hedi Hammamy — have languished in Guantánamo ever since, as the State Department has tried in vain to find a third country prepared to accept them.
In the surreal world of Guantánamo, the annual reviews — which rely largely on classified evidence that is not disclosed to the prisoners and cannot, therefore, be challenged by them — were introduced by the Bush administration as a rebuke to the Supreme Court, which granted the prisoners habeas corpus rights (the right to ask a judge why they were being held) in June 2004. It was not until last June (almost exactly four years later) that the Supreme Court once more addressed the prisoners’ habeas rights, ruling as unconstitutional the provisions in two pieces of legislation — the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 — which had purported to strip the prisoners of their habeas rights in the intervening years.
As a result, the first court reviews of the Guantánamo prisoners’ cases only finally took place last November, nearly seven years after the prison opened, when Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of George W. Bush, surprised the administration by granting the habeas appeals of five Bosnian prisoners of Algerian origin, and ordering their release after ruling that the government had failed to justify their detention. Since then, Judge Leon has also ordered the release of Mohammed El-Gharani, a Saudi resident of Chadian origin, who was just 14 years old when he was seized by Pakistani soldiers in a raid on a mosque in Pakistan, and subsequently sold to US forces.
However, Judge Leon also ruled, in four other cases, that the government had established, “by a preponderance of the evidence,” that a sixth Bosnian Algerian, the Yemeni Moaz al-Alawi, Hisham Sliti (a Tunisian), and another Yemeni, Ghaleb al-Bihani, had been correctly designated as “enemy combatants” and could continue to be held. In articles at the time, I took exception to these rulings, for three particular reasons: firstly, because it appeared that none of the men had actually engaged in terrorist activities, and secondly, because the definition of an “enemy combatant” was inappropriately broad, and, instead of focusing on individuals who had contributed directly to the planning and execution of terrorist attacks, persisted in conflating al-Qaeda with the Taliban, even though the first is a terrorist group, and the latter — though widely reviled — was in fact the government of Afghanistan.
The definition of an “enemy combatant’ that was chosen by Judge Leon before the habeas hearings began (and that was plucked from several different versions proposed by the Pentagon over the years) declared that an “enemy combatant” was someone who “was part of or supporting Taliban or al-Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners,” and also included anyone “who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces.”
My third reason for taking exception to Judge Leon’s rulings is based on the release from Guantánamo of another Yemeni prisoner, Salim Hamdan, who was sent home last November to serve out the last month of a short sentence he had been given by a military jury last summer, after a trial at Guantánamo in the Military Commission system invented by Dick Cheney and his close advisers. Hamdan had actually been one of several drivers for Osama bin Laden, but his release, after a trial of the government’s own devising, made a mockery both of the government’s rationale for continuing to hold prisoners who were regarded as less significant (essentially, the majority of the 241 prisoners still held), and, it should be noted, of the rulings by Judge Leon in the cases of prisoners who had no connection with al-Qaeda, and had never even met Osama bin Laden.
Nevertheless, last Thursday, over two months since his last ruling, Judge Leon decided that Hedi Hammamy had been correctly designated as an “enemy combatant,” and could, therefore, continue to be held for an unspecified amount of time. This was in spite of the fact that, just three weeks ago, the new administration of Barack Obama made a decision to stop using the term “enemy combatant,” and, in addition, amended the definition of the prisoners so that only those whose support for the Taliban or al-Qaeda was “substantial” were supposed to be held.
As I noted at the time, the situation faced by the “Nobodies Formerly Known As Enemy Combatants” — as the Justice Department had not given them a new designation — was little improved, as the government considered “substantial” support to include those who “have not actually committed or attempted to commit any act of depredation or entered the theatre or zone of active military operations,” and others who had not raised arms against anybody but had “stay[ed] at al-Qaeda or Taliban safehouses that are regularly used to house militant recruits.”
However, Judge Leon appears not only to have failed to observe the new government’s semantic shift, but also to have attempted to weave unconnected events into a coherent whole in his appraisal of the government’s evidence. Hammamy, who was seized in Pakistan in April 2002, lived in Italy before traveling to Pakistan, and Judge Leon used an allegation that he was “a member of an Italy-based terrorist cell that provided support to various Islamic terrorist groups” as the basis for presuming that he had therefore arrived in Pakistan in connection with terrorism, even though the charges leveled against him in Italy — of “supporting terrorism, in part, by furnishing false documents and currency” — had not been tested in a court of law.
As Leon himself noted, “a judicial finding from a foreign government of Hammamy’s involvement in that terrorist cell would be clearly preferable to a US government agency’s review and evaluation of that government’s investigative reports.” Nevertheless, he concluded that, “in the absence of any reason to question its accuracy, the report deserves, at a minimum, a rebuttable presumption for these limited purposes,” even though, to my mind, this was a conclusion bedeviled with caveats.
Judge Leon was clearly persuaded to regard the unsubstantiated Italian allegations as trustworthy, because he concluded that they tied in with another claim put forward by the government, regarding Hammamy’s identity papers, which were apparently “found after the Battle of Tora Bora in the al-Qaeda cave complex.” As with the Italian allegation, which he has persistently refuted, Hammamy has always denied being in Tora Bora, and has claimed that his papers were in fact stolen from him, and that the government has evidence that this is the case.
Critically for Hammamy, however, Judge Leon was not persuaded, and dismissively noted that he had failed “to account for how his identity papers somehow mysteriously traveled the hundreds of miles from the point of their theft in Pakistan to the highly secluded mountain hideaway of Tora Bora in Afghanistan,” adding, “While theoretically it is possible that this supposed thief was heading for Tora Bora himself, common sense dictates that such a conclusion is not in the least likely.”
With Judge Leon’s ruling, Hedy Hammamy finds himself in a unique — and uniquely disturbing position — in Guantánamo’s long and ignoble history. As one of his lawyers, Cori Crider of the legal charity Reprieve explained to me, “While this doesn’t change the military’s opinion that Hedi Hammamy is transferable, it certainly isn’t going to help him in the political context. Being found subject to military detention is not remotely the same thing as a criminal conviction, but that won’t stop right-wing elements in potential resettlement states from conflating the two issues.”
There is, moreover, a troubling subtext to Hammamy’s case, as it is worth bearing in mind that it is President Obama’s Justice Department, and not that of George W. Bush, which is now shepherding the Guantánamo case files. It is possible, therefore, that the new administration is playing a game of political football with the prisoners, content to defend a detention that it has already decided to end in order to avoid racking up too many losses in court.
As so often in the last seven years and three months, it appears that Guantánamo has precious little to do with justice, and is, instead, a place where politics holds sway. For Hedi Hammamy, the price is his continued detention, with no end in sight, and the knowledge that the decisions made by the review boards at Guantánamo are — as many of the prisoners have maintained over the years — almost unutterably hollow.
Note: Throughout his detention, Hedi Hammamy has been identified by the Pentagon as Abdulhadi bin Haddidi.
Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK). To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to my RSS feed, and see here for my definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, published in March 2009.
This article was published exclusively on the website of the Future of Freedom Foundation.
For a sequence of articles dealing with the Guantánamo habeas cases, see: Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: the most important habeas corpus case in modern history and Guantánamo and the Supreme Court: What Happened? (both December 2007), The Supreme Court’s Guantánamo ruling: what does it mean? (June 2008), Guantánamo as Alice in Wonderland (Uighurs’ first court victory, June 2008), What’s Happening with the Guantánamo cases? (July 2008), Government Says Six Years Is Not Long Enough To Prepare Evidence (September 2008), From Guantánamo to the United States: The Story of the Wrongly Imprisoned Uighurs (October 2008), Guantánamo Uyghurs’ resettlement prospects skewered by Justice Department lies (October 2008), Guilt By Torture: Binyam Mohamed’s Transatlantic Quest for Justice (November 2008), After 7 Years, Judge Orders Release of Guantánamo Kidnap Victims (November 2008), Is Robert Gates Guilty of Perjury in Guantánamo Torture Case? (December 2008), A New Year Message to Barack Obama: Free the Guantánamo Uighurs (January 2009), The Top Ten Judges of 2008 (January 2009), No End in Sight for the “Enemy Combatants” of Guantánamo (January 2009), Judge Orders Release of Guantánamo’s Forgotten Child (January 2009), How Cooking For The Taliban Gets You Life In Guantánamo (January 2009), Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics (February 2009), Bad News And Good News For The Guantánamo Uighurs (February 2009), The Nobodies Formerly Known As Enemy Combatants (March 2009), Obama’s First 100 Days: A Start On Guantánamo, But Not Enough (May 2009), Judge Condemns “Mosaic” Of Guantánamo Intelligence, And Unreliable Witnesses (May 2009), Pain At Guantánamo And Paralysis In Government (May 2009), Guantánamo: A Prison Built On Lies (May 2009), Free The Guantánamo Uighurs! (May 2009), Guantánamo And The Courts (Part One): Exposing The Bush Administration’s Lies (July 2009), Obama’s Failure To Deliver Justice To The Last Tajik In Guantánamo (July 2009), Obama And The Deadline For Closing Guantánamo: It’s Worse Than You Think (July 2009), How Judge Huvelle Humiliated The Government In Guantánamo Case (Mohamed Jawad, July 2009), As Judge Orders Release Of Tortured Guantánamo Prisoner, Government Refuses To Concede Defeat (Mohamed Jawad, July 2009), Guantánamo As Hotel California: You Can Check Out Any Time You Like, But You Can Never Leave (August 2009), Judge Orders Release From Guantánamo Of Kuwaiti Charity Worker (August 2009). Also see: Justice extends to Bagram, Guantánamo’s Dark Mirror (April 2009), Judge Rules That Afghan “Rendered” To Bagram In 2002 Has No Rights (July 2009).
Who's still at Guantánamo?
13 Responses
Jerry Northington says...
Justice is so very elusive in these days of political power plays. If or not we are to see a return to real justice in our nation is yet to be seen. To date the moves of the Obama Justice Department are not different enough from Bush Justice to make a clear distinction. Obama has good words, but actions speak so much louder than words he becomes a voice in the wind instead of the force we need.
Peace.
...on April 6th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Frances Madeson says...
I had to read this post slowly, and twice. Somebody’s down the rabbit hole. At this point I’m not sure if it’s us or them.
I hope Judge Leon has a meaningful Pesach holiday–charosetz, maror, and all. As he chants the Hagaddah, as I’m sure he will, surrounded by his extended family, everyone leaning on a plump cushion, (because we were slaves in Egypt), I hope he chokes on the Afikomen.
Eliyahu ha-Navi, come and open their eyes before they are all irredeemable shondas.
...on April 6th, 2009 at 10:53 pm
Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] habeas petition is denied by Andy Worthington Posted on April 6, 2009 by dandelionsalad by Andy Worthington Featured Writer Dandelion Salad http://www.andyworthington.co.uk Originally posted at the Future of […]
...on April 7th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Justice Extends to Bagram, Guantánamo’s Dark Mirror « From The Wilderness says...
[…] Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied […]
...on April 7th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Connie L. Nash says...
Absolutely zero change in the stonewall strategy GTMO lawyer says
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
MORE TROUBLING SIGNS
A lawyer representing detainees at Gitmo tells TPMmuckraker that the foot-dragging and stonewalling that marked the Bush Administration’s handling of detainee cases continues unabated under President Obama:
It did not surprise me in the slightest that the Bush administration would do everything in its power to subvert the Supreme Court’s ruling. I expected that. What I did not expect is that there would be absolutely zero change in the stonewall strategy when the [new] administration came in.
Zack Roth has more.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/04/yesterday_we_told_you_about.php
Not Just State Secrets: Obama Continuing Bush’s Stonewalling On Gitmo Cases, Lawyer Claims By Zachary Roth – April 10, 2009, 3:43PM
Yesterday we told you about the Obama Justice Department’s invocation of a sweeping state secrets privilege in a warrantless wiretapping case. But that may not be the only area in which the new administration’s war on terror tactics recall the worst excesses of the Bush years.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo had the right to appeal their detentions in federal courts. But since then, only a few cases have been completed. And in an interview with TPMmuckraker, David Cynamon — a lawyer for four Kuwaiti Gitmo detainees who are bringing habeas corpus claims against the government — said that the Justice Department has been consistently dragging its heels in the case, denying detainees their basic due process rights and furthering what he called the “abandonment of the rule of law.”
“The Department of Justice has been doing everything in its power to delay and obstruct these cases,” said Cynamon, whose clients were picked up in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in the period after the 2001 U.S invasion of Afghanistan. “They’re not doing anything to move the case along, and doing everything to avoid it.”
Asked whether he had observed a shift of any kind in the government’s approach since the Obama administration came into office, Cynamon flatly replied: “None whatsoever.”
He continued: That has been, to me, the biggest disappointment and mystery. It did not surprise me in the slightest that the Bush administration would do everything in its power to subvert the Supreme Court’s ruling. I expected that. What I did not expect is that there would be absolutely zero change in the stonewall strategy when the [new] administration came in.
Cynamon said he didn’t expect to see a change “on January 21st.” But, “there’s been enough time now that you can’t simply say ‘it’s still operating on auto pilot from the previous administration’. So I have been disappointed and frustrated not to see a change.”
And he added that, based on conversations with other lawyers defending Gitmo clients, the government’s stonewalling strategy was being applied not just to his case, but more broadly.
Cynamon detailed three specific areas in which the government is stonewalling. First, he said, it has taken an unduly long time to produce declassified evidence. Indeed, in February, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered one government lawyer removed from the case for failing to comply with repeated orders to make the evidence available. In a court document, the judge wrote that the lawyer’s “compliance was not optional,” and added that the court “has serious concern about counsel’s ability to read and comprehend its orders.”
Second, Cynamon said the government is resisting requests for discovery, slowing things down by forcing defense lawyers to go to court at each stage. “Across the board they basically say no,” he said. “It’s whatever bullshit excuse – ‘it’s too burdensome, its not relevant, its beyond the narrow….”
But the government’s “most egregious” stonewalling tactic, said Cynamon, parallels the misconduct famously displayed by the prosecutors in the Ted Stevens case: It has consistently failed to produce exculpatory evidence in its possession, as it is legally required to do. “They have completely, in my view, ignored that obligation,” said Cynamon. “We have come across a number of items of exculpatory evidence that the government should have given us and didn’t.”
For instance, said Cynamon, one his clients had military commission charges issued against him, and as a result was appointed a military defense counsel, who has access to a secure government database. The defense counsel, Cynamon explained, “fairly quickly and fairly easily found some documents on that secure database that were very helpful and exculpatory and helpful to our clients…that should have been produced to us in our case.”
Cynamon said that Obama should be given credit for his pledge to close Guantanamo within a year. But he said that doesn’t address the core issue.
“The fundamental problem is that there has been a complete abandonment of the rule of law and a denial of the most basic due process, which is: ‘If you get thrown in jail, you ought to have the right to have an independent judge look at the basis on which you’re in jail to decide whether you should be there,'” he said. “And closing Guantanamo doesn’t address that, if they just end up getting transferred to prisons in other places.”
Cynamon continued: “What I have been hoping for, and am getting increasingly frustrated about, is to see that closing Guantanamo be matched with a change in policy at the Justice Department to actually try to get these cases heard to test the evidence and then to determine, if there’s no evidence, to release these people. That part I haven’t seen at all.”
Find many more on this topic at my blogsite: http://www.oneheartforpeace.blogspot.com
...on April 11th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Frances Madeson says...
Judge Leon,
I don’t know if you noticed it but your glasses are smudged in a few places and your vision is clouded as a result. If I may give you some advice, please take the linen napkin in which you hid the Afikomen at your family’s Passover Seder and use it to wipe them clean. Seeing clearly will bring you to the decisions worthy of you and our noble traditions.
...on April 13th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
connie nash says...
What Actions/Petitions may be forming?
Connie
http://www.oneheartforpeace.blogspot.com
Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour have been summoned before a D.C. court on May 11th.
http://www.cageprisoners.com/articles.php?id=28626
Guantanamo Attorneys Face Possible Prison Time for Letter to Obama Detailing Client’s Allegations of Torture
11/04/2009
Clive Stafford Smith, Binyam Mohamed’s attorney. He is the legal director of the UK charity Reprieve and has represented more than fifty Guantanamo Bay prisoners. He is author of Eight O’Clock Ferry to the Windward Side: Seeking Justice in Guantanamo Bay.
AMY GOODMAN: This last story, an unusual development in the case of Binyam Mohamed, the British resident recently released after seven years in US custody, where he claims he was repeatedly tortured, first in a secret CIA prison, later at Guantanamo. Binyam Mohamed’s lawyers, Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour, could face six months in a US prison, The Guardian newspaper revealed last week, because of a letter they sent to President Obama explaining their client’s allegations of torture by US agents.
Officials from the Department of Defense who monitor and censor communication between Guantanamo prisoners and their lawyers filed a complaint against Mohamed’s lawyers for “unprofessional conduct” and for revealing classified evidence to the President. The memo the lawyers sent to Obama was completely redacted except for the title. It had urged the President to release evidence of Mohamed’s alleged torture into the public domain. Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour have been summoned before a D.C. court on May 11th.
I’m joined now in these last few minutes by Clive Stafford Smith, director of the British legal charity Reprieve.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Clive Stafford Smith, you’re afraid of being arrested if you come into this country?
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: No, I’m going to come to the country, because I want to face the charges. I mean, the charges are, to my mind, frivolous, because—it may be confusing to your listeners when you say that we supposedly revealed classified evidence and then say it was all censored—it was all censored. There wasn’t one iota of classified evidence revealed. So the real question, I guess, here is why the government continues to cover up the evidence of Binyam Mohamed’s torture.
AMY GOODMAN: But please explain, because I think this can be very confusing, what it is they said you did in this letter to President Obama. You are Binyam Mohamed’s lawyer.
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Well, I wrote a letter to President Obama and attached to it a memorandum that was going to originally be the evidence that showed that Binyam was tortured. But that evidence we had to submit through the classification review process. So, ultimately, the two-page memo of evidence that Binyam had been tortured was all redacted, as you mentioned, so it was all blacked out. I mean, even to the President it was blacked out. And the only thing left in it was, you know, “In re: torture of Binyam Mohamed.”
What we were trying to do was get President Obama the information he needs to make a judgment as to whether the US should continue to cover up this evidence of torture. And it’s paradoxical that the President of the United States is not being permitted to make that judgment in a meaningful way.
AMY GOODMAN: So you will come to the United States for this May 11th hearing?
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Oh, my goodness, yes. I mean, I am, I will say, offended by this process, but nothing would keep me away. I want to clear both mine and Ahmad’s name. And I want the real issue to be why the government continues to cover up the evidence of Binyam’s torture, because how can it be that we, as Americans, are not allowed to know when our government officials have committed criminal offenses against people like Binyam Mohamed? That just makes no sense at all. And if, indeed, someone should be on trial here, it should be the people who tortured Binyam.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Clive Stafford Smith, thank you very much for this update.
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Thank you.
SOURCE: Democracy Now
========
Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour have been summoned before a D.C. court on May 11th.
Find one reference to this interview here
Guantanamo Attorneys Face Possible Prison Time for Letter to Obama Detailing Client’s Allegations of Torture
11/04/2009
Clive Stafford Smith, Binyam Mohamed’s attorney. He is the legal director of the UK charity Reprieve and has represented more than fifty Guantanamo Bay prisoners. He is author of Eight O’Clock Ferry to the Windward Side: Seeking Justice in Guantanamo Bay.
AMY GOODMAN: This last story, an unusual development in the case of Binyam Mohamed, the British resident recently released after seven years in US custody, where he claims he was repeatedly tortured, first in a secret CIA prison, later at Guantanamo. Binyam Mohamed’s lawyers, Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour, could face six months in a US prison, The Guardian newspaper revealed last week, because of a letter they sent to President Obama explaining their client’s allegations of torture by US agents.
Officials from the Department of Defense who monitor and censor communication between Guantanamo prisoners and their lawyers filed a complaint against Mohamed’s lawyers for “unprofessional conduct” and for revealing classified evidence to the President. The memo the lawyers sent to Obama was completely redacted except for the title. It had urged the President to release evidence of Mohamed’s alleged torture into the public domain. Clive Stafford Smith and Ahmad Ghappour have been summoned before a D.C. court on May 11th.
I’m joined now in these last few minutes by Clive Stafford Smith, director of the British legal charity Reprieve.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Clive Stafford Smith, you’re afraid of being arrested if you come into this country?
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: No, I’m going to come to the country, because I want to face the charges. I mean, the charges are, to my mind, frivolous, because—it may be confusing to your listeners when you say that we supposedly revealed classified evidence and then say it was all censored—it was all censored. There wasn’t one iota of classified evidence revealed. So the real question, I guess, here is why the government continues to cover up the evidence of Binyam Mohamed’s torture.
AMY GOODMAN: But please explain, because I think this can be very confusing, what it is they said you did in this letter to President Obama. You are Binyam Mohamed’s lawyer.
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Well, I wrote a letter to President Obama and attached to it a memorandum that was going to originally be the evidence that showed that Binyam was tortured. But that evidence we had to submit through the classification review process. So, ultimately, the two-page memo of evidence that Binyam had been tortured was all redacted, as you mentioned, so it was all blacked out. I mean, even to the President it was blacked out. And the only thing left in it was, you know, “In re: torture of Binyam Mohamed.”
What we were trying to do was get President Obama the information he needs to make a judgment as to whether the US should continue to cover up this evidence of torture. And it’s paradoxical that the President of the United States is not being permitted to make that judgment in a meaningful way.
AMY GOODMAN: So you will come to the United States for this May 11th hearing?
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Oh, my goodness, yes. I mean, I am, I will say, offended by this process, but nothing would keep me away. I want to clear both mine and Ahmad’s name. And I want the real issue to be why the government continues to cover up the evidence of Binyam’s torture, because how can it be that we, as Americans, are not allowed to know when our government officials have committed criminal offenses against people like Binyam Mohamed? That just makes no sense at all. And if, indeed, someone should be on trial here, it should be the people who tortured Binyam.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Clive Stafford Smith, thank you very much for this update.
CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH: Thank you.
Also see Democracy Now dot org
=========
Other Related Items/Sources:
Center for Constitutinal Rights/ Special Prosecutor:
http://ccrjustice.org/prosecutebushofficials
Human Rights & GTMO Prisoners: Call for Advance Notice of Venue Changes
http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/d.c.-circuit-court-decision-refuses-allow-advance-notice-guantanamo-detainee
http://www.bordc.org/news
...on April 13th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Andy Worthington says...
Jerry and Frances,
Thanks for the comments. Much appreciated, as ever. Frances, I think you have such a talent for pointing out relevant symbolism to the good judge that you should send him a letter!
...on April 20th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Guantánamo And The Courts (Part Two): Obama’s Shame by Andy Worthington « Dandelion Salad says...
[…] his transfer from Guantánamo approved by a military review board under the Bush administration. As I explained at the time, Judge Leon’s ruling did not exactly inspire confidence, as he relied on an untested allegation […]
...on August 12th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Bagram Isn’t The New Guantánamo, It’s The Old Guantánamo « freedetainees.org says...
[…] Guantánamo Uighurs (February 2009), The Nobodies Formerly Known As Enemy Combatants (March 2009), Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied (April 2009), Obama’s First 100 Days: A Start On Guantánamo, But Not Enough (May 2009), Judge […]
...on August 16th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Innocent Guantánamo Torture Victim Fouad al-Rabiah Is Released In Kuwait « freedetainees.org says...
[…] Guantánamo Uighurs (February 2009), The Nobodies Formerly Known As Enemy Combatants (March 2009), Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied (April 2009), Obama’s First 100 Days: A Start On Guantánamo, But Not Enough (May 2009), Judge […]
...on December 12th, 2009 at 6:39 am
AWorthington: Guantanamo Habeas Results, Prisoners 34 – Government 13 « On Now says...
[…] (aka Abdulhadi bin Haddidi) (Tunisia, ISN 717) Still held. For my analysis of the ruling, see: Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied. For Judge Richard Leon’s unclassified opinion, see […]
...on April 20th, 2010 at 2:53 pm
Guantanamo and Habeas Corpus : STATESMAN SENTINEL says...
[…] Guantánamo Uighurs (February 2009), The Nobodies Formerly Known As Enemy Combatants (March 2009), Farce at Guantánamo, as cleared prisoner’s habeas petition is denied (April 2009), Obama’s First 100 Days: A Start On Guantánamo, But Not Enough (May 2009), […]
...on April 22nd, 2010 at 9:05 pm