From Chief Prosecutor To Critic at Guantanamo

By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 29, 2008; A01

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba, April 28 -- The Defense Department's former chief prosecutor for terrorism cases appeared Monday at the controversial U.S. detention facility here to argue on behalf of a terrorism suspect that the military justice system has been corrupted by politics and inappropriate influence from senior Pentagon officials.

Sitting just feet from the courtroom table where he had once planned to make cases against military detainees, Air Force Col. Morris Davis instead took the witness stand to declare under oath that he felt undue pressure to hurry cases along so that the Bush administration could claim before political elections that the system was working.

His testimony in a small, windowless room -- as a witness for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, an alleged driver for Osama bin Laden -- offered a harsh insider's critique of how senior political officials have allegedly influenced the system created to try suspected terrorists outside existing military and civilian courts.

Davis's claims, which the Pentagon has previously denied, were aired here as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that laid the legal foundation for these hearings violates the Constitution by barring any of the approximately 275 remaining Guantanamo Bay prisoners from forcing a civilian judicial review of their detention.

Davis told Navy Capt. Keith J. Allred, who presided over the hearing, that top Pentagon officials, including Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, made it clear to him that charging some of the highest-profile detainees before elections this year could have "strategic political value."

Davis said he wants to wait until the cases -- and the military commissions system -- have a more solid legal footing. He also said that Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II, who announced his retirement in February, once bristled at the suggestion that some defendants could be acquitted, an outcome that Davis said would give the process added legitimacy.

"He said, 'We can't have acquittals,' " Davis said under questioning from Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, the military counsel who represents Hamdan. " 'We've been holding these guys for years. How can we explain acquittals? We have to have convictions.' "

Rest of article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/28/AR2008042802982_pf.html).

and is ANYONE surprised?

I think this part of the article is worth pointing out too.

Davis also decried as unethical a decision by top military officials to allow the use of evidence obtained by coercive interrogation techniques. He said Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, the legal adviser to the top military official overseeing the commissions process, was improperly willing to use evidence derived from waterboarding, a form of simulated drowning. "To allow or direct a prosecutor to come into the courtroom and offer evidence they felt was torture, it puts a prosecutor in an ethical bind," Davis testified. But he said Hartmann replied that "everything was fair game -- let the judge sort it out."

...



Hamdan, a Yemeni detainee who next month could be the subject of the first full military commissions case at Guantanamo Bay, listened intently to Davis's translated words through headphones, watching his former adversary make a case that the commissions are tainted.


But Hamdan, during the morning session, also appeared to show some evidence of mental deterioration, which his attorneys have ascribed to mistreatment and lengthy solitary confinement. He seemed in a daze as he was led into court in his khaki detention uniform.


He then engaged in a short, subdued rant to Allred about how he believes he is not being afforded human rights and would like to use the bathroom without soldiers watching him. He also tried at one point to get up from the defense table to leave the room. "I refuse participating in this, and I refuse all the lawyers operating on my behalf," Hamdan said. He returned for the afternoon session in traditional Yemeni garb and a sport coat and agreed to continue.


Independent legal experts have criticized the commissions process because its rules allow hearsay or coerced evidence with the approval of a military judge; defendants are barred from using habeas corpus petitions to force a review of their detention; and convictions can be decided by panels of serving military officers without a unanimous verdict, except in capital cases.

is anyone surprised? america covers up terorrism with democracy. a suit of many colors. look at its history.

When these men were originally detained they were flown half way around the world, which breaks International Law.

Interned without being charged, and without access to legal consul, breaks International Law.

Guilty until proven innocent breaks International Law.

From what has just been said, these men will never receive a fair trial or habeas corpus.

The whole situation down there reflects badly on America and makes the rest of the world wary of its legal standards.

When these men were originally detained they were flown half way around the world, which breaks International Law.

Interned without being charged, and without access to legal consul, breaks International Law.

Guilty until proven innocent breaks International Law.

From what has just been said, these men will never receive a fair trial or habeas corpus.

The whole situation down there reflects badly on America and makes the rest of the world wary of its legal standards.
would you rather they all be treated as POWs, and just be interred for the duration of the war?

would you rather they all be treated as POWs, and just be interred for the duration of the war?

Nice try, however there are a number of points as to why that scenario wouldnt suit the White House or the Pentagon.

POWs get the protection of The Geneva Convention.
POWs have access to the outside world.
Very few,if any of these people were captured in a 'war' situation.
Torture is illegal under US and International Law.
Internment without trial is illegal under US and International Law.
Transporting Interness accross International Borders is illegal, and as far as Im aware none of these people are either Cuban or American.

All in all, its much better to keep them in a legal limbo, were you can do what ya want with them, nomatter what the world thinks.

Nice try, however there are a number of points as to why that scenario wouldnt suit the White House or the Pentagon.

POWs get the protection of The Geneva Convention.
POWs have access to the outside world.
Very few,if any of these people were captured in a 'war' situation.
Torture is illegal under US and International Law.
Internment without trial is illegal under US and International Law.
Transporting Interness accross International Borders is illegal, and as far as Im aware none of these people are either Cuban or American.

All in all, its much better to keep them in a legal limbo, were you can do what ya want with them, nomatter what the world thinks.
it's not the world getting shot at (yet), and very few of these prisoners are from where they got captured, and quite a few are asking not to be sent home.

all they have to do is push the fact that america is not even legal in itself.

Yes, ivan, that's all they have to do...

it's not the world getting shot at (yet), and very few of these prisoners are from where they got captured, and quite a few are asking not to be sent home.

I have no doubt that a lot of the internees were up to anti American activity, as you say, a lot of people in areas of conflict, who shouldnt really be there.

Tho if Washington is so sure of what they were doing, why dont they put them in court, once you drop your standards to combat AQ, they are already winning.

or they can get baptised in the blood of baby jaysus and extound the glorious american dream.
rape, steal, and rip off your neighbor. they way god intended it to be.

would you rather they all be treated as POWs, and just be interred for the duration of the war?I'd rather they be treated as criminals, if that is what they are.

Treating them like this isn't accomplishing anything other than making us look awful in the eyes of the world:

US releases al-Jazeera cameraman

* Martin Hodgson
* The Guardian,
* Friday May 2 2008

An al-Jazeera cameraman detained by American forces in Afghanistan was last night released after spending nearly six years imprisoned without charge at Guantánamo Bay.

Sami al-Haj, 39, was arrested on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan on December 15 2001, while on assignment to cover the war against the Taliban. Although he had a valid visa to work in Afghanistan, US intelligence alleged that he was an al-Qaida operative, and he was transferred to Guantánamo in June 2002.

Last night, his lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, said Haj was en route to his home in Sudan to be reunited with his wife and son. He said: "I'm very glad Sami has finally been released, but the question is why he wasn't freed many years ago."

The US military alleged that Haj had secretly interviewed Osama bin Laden, smuggled guns for al-Qaida and worked as a financial courier for Chechen rebels. But the evidence against him was never revealed, and he was never charged.

Prior to his release, Haj had been on hunger strike since January 2007, and was forced to undergo "assisted feeding" via a tube through his nose. According to Stafford Smith, he was suicidal and had throat cancer, but camp authorities withheld medical treatment. "We are very concerned about him, because he has been under a tremendous amount of stress and has been on hunger strike for 480 days. He has asked to be taken straight to a hospital in Khartoum," Stafford Smith said.

In exchange for Haj's release, the Sudanese government has agreed to ban him from working as a journalist or leaving Sudan, according to Reporters Without Borders.

Robert Ménard, secretary general of Reporters Without Borders, said: "Sami al-Haj should never have been held so long. US authorities never proved that he had been involved in any criminal activity."

Haj's case was one of number involving journalists captured by US forces while reporting from war zones. Two weeks ago US forces in Iraq released Bilal Hussein, a photographer from the Associated Press news agency, who was detained in Ramadi in April 2006.

Commentators in the Middle East viewed Haj's imprisonment as a proxy punishment for al-Jazeera, whose broadcasts have angered US officials.

When the BBC reporter Alan Johnston was kidnapped in Gaza, Haj appealed for his release. Johnston in turn, called on the US authorities to free Haj. But Stafford Smith said much of the western media had been slow to take up Haj's case.

A spokesman for the Pentagon refused to comment on the case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/02/guantanamo.humanrights?gusrc=rss&feed=media

would you rather they all be treated as POWs, and just be interred for the duration of the war?

What "war"? You mean the Iraq War that we WON years ago?

Where have you been?

What "war"? You mean the Iraq War that we WON years ago?

Where have you been?
Afghanistan:slap:

Afghanistan

We won that one years ago too. :slap:

BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
americas gotten itself into a tar pit. the more they try to scrape it off, the more it spreads. it's just a big waste of time, money, and resources, and lives.
if the middle east wants to blow itself up and be run by little dictators, go ahead.
some say, they come over here and try to take over. yeah right, i'd like to see some little muslim nazi in appalachia telling a bunch of hillbillies how to do things. too many hills, too many hidey holes to snipe mother fuckers off the planet.
if the people of afghanistan really didn't want the taliban around, they would have never gotten into power in the first place.

I have a theory:

After the end of the cold war the US military machine had no adversary.
There was a real danger that all the cushy jobs, all the cushy contracts
would be lost, as there was no excuse or justification for the amount of
spending, as lets be honest, the US military is in a class of its own, as seen
during Iraq 1 and Iraq 2.

The attacks of 9/11 tho terrible, were used to re-invent a fierce competitor,
al Qaeda.
Tho an extremely dangerous and ruthless organisation, not really the type of enemy to occupy two nations over, as they are a fluid group, spread around the world.
The war on terror is a myth made up i Washington, AQ leadership could have been erased in Tora Bora, but somehow slipped away.

The war on terror is a myth made up i Washington, AQ leadership could have been erased in Tora Bora, but somehow slipped away.Osama bin Goldstein!!

i have my theories, you are pretty much correct paulc. personally i don't think "bin laden" is an actual person. just someone the cia directed and helped to put into power during the soviet occupation of afghanistan. then it just snowballed.
i think the whole damn thing is a construct of the C.I.A. and the british secret service and among others. it all happened too easily, too fast, and rolled in the right direction.
but what a few of us discussed back in '99 on the net in a yahoogroups, just brainstorming or wishing, happened. someone was listening. and it told me, this is a lot easier than i thought it would be.

civilisation is bludgeoning itself into reality. you only have 2 choices. you can continue beating yourself into submission to reality, or you can just stop.
i say, STOP everything, sit back, take it easy, do nothing but basic home stuff, don't use electric, gasoline, etc. for just 4 days. do nothing. relate, talk to yourneighbor, garden, go for walks, BE, relax. call it a sit down strike against civilisations madness.and it is done peacefully. those who think you still play the civilisation GAME peacefully are fooling themselves. that just fuels the madness in just a different way. all it would take is 4 days.
4 days X 51 % of population will do a lot.
start on july 4th. worldwide.