Posted on 20 April, 2011 by Mathias Vermeulen
After President Obama signed his Executive Order on Periodic Review
, I didn’t find immediately a handy breakdown of the number of detainees which fitted into the new detention schemes introduced by this order. These numbers are derived from a public presentation of the US Department of State I recently attended:
- 59 detainees are currently approved for transfer (including 27 Yemeni’s)
- 30 Yemeni detainees currently fit into the ‘conditional detention’ scheme. These detainees are eligible for transfer if one of the following conditions is satisfied: (1) the security situation improves in Yemen; (2) an appropriate rehabilitation program becomes available; or (3) an appropriate third-country resettlement option becomes available
- 36 detainees will be prosecuted in either article III (civilian) courts or the military commissions. At least 6out of 36 are currently scheduled to be tried at the Military Commissions, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, Mustafa Al-Hawsaw and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.
- 47 detainees currently fit into the ‘continued law of war detention’ scheme. This essentialy is what usually is referred to in the press as the ‘indefinite detention scheme’. According to the executive order these are detentions which are authorized by Congress under the AUMF “as informed by the laws of war”.
Since Obama entered the White House 67 detainees were transferred to 24 different countries.
Filed under: Detention, Guantanamo | Leave a comment »
Posted on 13 April, 2011 by Mathias Vermeulen
Hearing at the House Armed Services Committee
Mr. William K. Lietzau
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Detainee Policy
U.S. Department of Defense
Ambassador Daniel Fried
Special Envoy for the Closure of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility
U.S. Department of State
Mr. Ed Mornston
Director, Joint Intelligence Task Force
Defense Intelligence Agency
Ms. Corin Stone
Deputy Assistant Director of National Intelligence for Policy and Strategy
Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Mr. Brad Wiegmann
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
Filed under: Guantanamo | Leave a comment »
Posted on 10 March, 2011 by Mathias Vermeulen
Georgetown’s Security Law Brief notes that a newly found 2003 memo by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appears to directly contradict claims that Guantanamo held only the “worst of the worst” suspected terrorists. “We need to stop populating Guantanamo Bay with low-level enemy combatants,” Rumsfeld says in the memo, addressed to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Rumsfeld’s memo “explicitly contradicts his continued public statements that Guantanamo Bay was reserved for the ‘worst of the worst,’” Seton Hall Law School’s Center for Policy and Research said in a statement.
Filed under: Guantanamo | Leave a comment »
Posted on 4 March, 2011 by Mathias Vermeulen
NPR has a story
about the “Communications Management Units” in Terre Haute, Ind., and Marion, Ill. The special detention unit in Terre Haute contains 50 cells housing some of the people the U.S. describes as the “country’s biggest security threats”, including John Walker Lindh. The units’ population has included men convicted in well-known post-Sept. 11 cases, as well as defendants from the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1999 “millennium” plot to bomb the Los Angeles airport, and hijacking cases in 1976, 1985 and 1996. The Bureau of Prisons says a total of 71 men now live in the units.
Guards and cameras watch the CMU inmates’ every move. Every word they speak is picked up by a counterterrorism team that eavesdrops from West Virginia. Restrictions on visiting time and phone calls in the special units are tougher than in most maximum security prisons. Prisoners in the CMU, alone out of all general population prisoners within the federal system, are categorically banned from any physical contact with visiting friends and family, including babies, infants, and minor children. To further their social isolation, the BOP has placed severe restrictions on their access to phone calls and work and educational opportunities.
According to CCR:
“Adding to the suspect nature of these units, upwards of two-thirds of the prisoners confined there are Muslim – a figure that over-represents the proportion of Muslim prisoners in BOP facilities by at least 1000 percent. Many of the remaining prisoners have unpopular political views, including environmental activists designated as “ecoterrorists.”
When the Terre Haute unit opened in December 2006, 15 of the first 17 inmates were Muslim. AAlexis Agathocleous, a lawyer at the Center for Constitutional Rights:
“We were concerned about what appears to be racial profiling and also a pattern of designations to the CMUs of people who have spoken out at other prison units and advocated for their rights and have taken leadership positions in religious communities in those other prisons,” he says. They are segregated from other prisoners because officials worry that they could recruit other inmates for terrorism or direct people in the outside world to commit crimes.
Civil rights groups have filed lawsuits however that accuse the two U.S. facilities of some of the same due process complaints raised by people at Gitmo.Prison officials opened the first CMU with no public notice four years ago, something inmates say they had no right to do under the federal law known as the Administrative Procedures Act. Unlike prisoners who are convicted of serious crimes and sent to a federal supermax facility, CMU inmates have no way to review the evidence that sent them there or to challenge that evidence to get out. Also, as word got out that the special units were disproportionately Muslim,
civil rights lawyers say, the Bureau of Prisons started moving in
non-Muslims. According to CCR:
“Five CMU prisoners and two of their spouses (who, along with their children, have been subjected to draconian rules governing visitation and phone calls) have joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs. All five men confined in the CMU have been classified as low or medium security, but were designated to the CMU despite their relatively, and in two cases perfectly, clean disciplinary history. Not a single one has received discipline for any communications-related infraction within the last decade, nor any significant disciplinary offense.
Like all CMU prisoners, the men received no procedural protections related to their designation, and were not allowed to examine or refute the allegations that led to their transfer. They are also being held indefinitely at the CMU without any meaningful review process. They expect to serve their entire sentences in these isolated and punitive units.
Predictably, the lack of procedural protections has allowed for an unchecked pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory designations to the CMU. Rather than being related to a legitimate penological purpose or based on substantiated information, our clients’ designations were instead based on their religious and/or perceived political beliefs, or in retaliation for other protected First Amendment activity.
American University law professor Stephen Vladeck reviewed NPR’s findings. He says he has some questions about the secrecy surrounding the units and whether the prison is sending the right people there.
“I think the real question is, what are the constraints and how are we sure that the right people are being placed in these units and not the wrong ones?” Vladeck says.
“Mixing prisoners from different backgrounds who actually don’t necessarily live up to those criteria I think is troubling,” Vladeck adds, because it means some inmates might not belong there, and others who do belong may not be getting the attention they deserve.
Filed under: Detention, Fair Trial, Guantanamo, Profiling, Secrecy, Threat | Leave a comment »
Posted on 7 February, 2011 by Mathias Vermeulen
The Guardian reports
that George W Bush has had to call off a trip to Switzerland next weekend amid planned protests by human rights groups over the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay and the threat of a warrant for his arrest. The visit would have been Bush’s first to Europe since he admitted in his autobiography, Decision Points, in November that he had authorised the use of waterboarding on detainees at Guantánamo accused of links with al-Qaida.
“Whether out of concern over the protests or the arrest warrant, it is an extraordinary development for a former US president to have his travel plans curtailed in this way, and amounts to a victory for human rights campaigners.”
Amnesty International has published its memorandum to the Swiss authorities here.
1. Acts of torture (and, it may be noted, other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and enforced disappearance) were committed against detainees held in a secret detention and interrogation program operated by the USA’s Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) between 2002 and 2009.
2. The CIA established this secret program under the authorization of then-President George W. Bush.
3. Since leaving office, former President George W. Bush has said that he authorized the use of a number of “enhanced interrogation techniques” against detainees held in the secret CIA program. The former President specifically admitted to authorizing the “water-boarding” of identified individuals, whose subjection to this torture technique has been confirmed.
4. Additionally, torture and other ill-treatment, and secret detention, by US forces occurred outside the confines of the CIA-run secret detention program, including against detainees held in military custody at the US Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, and in the context of armed conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
5. George W. Bush was Commander in Chief of all US armed forces at the relevant times.
6. The Administration of George W. Bush acted on the basis that he was essentially unrestrained by international or US law in determining the USA’s response to the attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001. Among other things, President Bush decided that the protections of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, including their common article 3, would not be applied to Taleban or al-Qa’ida detainees.
7. George W. Bush, as Commander in Chief at the relevant times, if he did not directly order or authorize such crimes, at least knew, or had reason to know, that US forces were about to commit or were committing such crimes and did not take all necessary and reasonable measures in his power as Commander in Chief and President to prevent their commission or, if the crimes had already been committed, ensure that all those who were alleged to be responsible for these crimes were brought to justice.
8. The USA has failed to conduct investigations capable of reaching former President George W. Bush, and all indications are that it will not do so, at least in the near future.
9. The facts summarized above, matters of public record, are sufficient to give rise to mandatory obligations on Switzerland under international law (including but not limited to the UN Convention against Torture), should former US President George W. Bush enter Swiss territory to:
· launch a criminal investigation;
· arrest former President Bush or otherwise secure his presence during that investigation; and
· submit the case to competent authorities in Switzerland for the purposes of prosecution if it does not extradite him to another state able and willing to do so.
EJIL Talk analyzes whether Bush is entitled to the immunity which, under international law, attaches to official acts of those who act on behalf of a State and prevents foreign prosecutions for those acts.
Filed under: Accountability, Detention, Guantanamo, Immunity, Rendition, Torture | 1 Comment »
Posted on 21 January, 2011 by Mathias Vermeulen
(ASIL) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has upheld
a lower court ruling in favor of the U.S. government regarding the release of documents related to fourteen “high value” detainees held at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay. The request for the release of the documents was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The U.S. government had released redacted versions of the documents requested by the ACLU; however, information regarding the capture, detention, and interrogation of the detainees was not released. The government defended its actions on the basis that the information in question was properly withheld under FOIA exemptions, which allow the withholding of government information related to “intelligence sources and methods.” The district court granted the government’s motion for summary judgment, finding the government in compliance with FOIA. The ACLU appealed.
During the appeal, President Obama issued three Executive Orders on detention and interrogation and declassified and released four Department of Justice memoranda on the legality of enhanced interrogation techniques. In addition, information regarding treatment of “high value” detainees was leaked, and a CIA report on the CIA’s interrogation techniques was released. These changes prompted the Court of Appeals to remand the case back to district court to “provide the CIA with the opportunity to ‘reprocess’ the requested documents.” The result was the release of a complete combatant status review tribunal transcript and revision of redactions of five other transcripts. The government again filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted, and again, the ACLU appealed.
In a detailed discussion of FOIA and the relevant exemptions, the Court of Appeals rejected all of the ACLU’s claims, including that the information requested has already been declassified and is publically available; that the interrogation techniques and confinement methods were “prohibited” by the President; that the government could not classify information “derived from the detainee’s personal observations and experiences;” and that the release would not endanger national security.
Comment on Lawfare blog here.
Filed under: Guantanamo, Rendition, Secrecy | Leave a comment »
Posted on 7 January, 2011 by Mathias Vermeulen
Today, the U.S.-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) asked a Spanish Judge to subpoena
the former commanding officer at Guantánamo Bay to explain his role in the torture of four former detainees. CCR and ECCHR filed a 12-page dossier detailing the key role of Major General Geoffrey Miller, who ran the island prison camp from November 2002 until April 2004, in the torture and other serious abuse of detainees held there. In the dossier, the rights groups detail acts of torture and other war crimes committed against detainees, including the torture of CCR client Mohammed al Qahtani.
Filed under: Accountability, Guantanamo | Leave a comment »