Judges Reject Interrogation Evidence in Gitmo Cases

[kpete]

Source: ProPublica

by Chisun Lee
ProPublica



This story was co-published with The National Law Journal <1>.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202466489442&Judges_reject_evidence_in_Gitmo_cases&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

The government's case for keeping the Guantánamo Bay prisoner locked away seemed airtight. He had confessed to overseeing the distribution of supplies to al-Qaida fighters battling U.S. forces in Afghanistan, even describing the routes where pack mules hauled the packages.

But a federal judge rejected Fouad Mahmoud Al Rabiah's confessions <2>, concluding that he had concocted them under intense coercion. Even statements that the government insisted Al Rabiah had made under noncoercive, or "clean," questioning were tainted, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled, and she ordered that Al Rabiah be released.

The government has lost eight of 15 cases <3> in which Guantánamo inmates have said they or witnesses against them were forcibly interrogated, according to ProPublica's review of 31 published decisions that resolve lawsuits filed by 52 captives who said they've been wrongfully detained <4>. Because some of the judges' opinions are heavily redacted, it's impossible to be sure there aren't more cases in which the government offered interrogation evidence collected under questionable circumstances. More than 50 such lawsuits are still pending, two years after the U.S. Supreme Court gave Guantánamo inmates the green light to challenge their detention in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Judges rejected government evidence because of interrogation tactics ranging from verbal threats to physical abuse they called torture. Even in the seven cases the government won, the judges didn't endorse aggressive methods. In six, they decided the detainees' stories of abuse simply weren't credible or were irrelevant to the outcome. In one, the prisoner had repeated self-incriminating statements in military hearings, which the judge viewed as less intimidating than the interrogations he found unacceptable.

Read more: http://www.propublica.org/article/judges-reject-interrogation-evidence-in-gitmo-cases

[PDJane]

1. But the military court

has accepted a forced confession from a minor; they're bound and determined to hang Omar Khadr.

[RC]

4. Like Saddam, Omar Khadr knows too much.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. a minor they threatened with death by gang rape

The trial of Omar Khadr is a total farce on many levels. Even the "crime" he is charged with is bogus. Essentially he is charged with the crime of fighting back against an invading army. The arrogance of invading a country and declaring everyone captured in battle illegal combatants and then trying them for the crime of fighting the invaders is almost beyond comprehension.

Nobody held at gitmo should be tried in any court for any crime. It is a torture center and everyone there has been tortured. We fucked up and they all have to be let go.

[14thColony]

13. The act of national defense against an invader is specifically legal under GCIII

The Third Geneva Convention's Article 4 defines who must be treated as a POW. Beyond the obvious ones (member of the armed forces, merchant mariners, etc.), Section 6 is most interesting with respect to Omar Khadr:

"Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

In this case there is no requirement for a uniform or distinctive mark/insignia to be worn, and I've heard no allegation that Omar Khadr was not carrying arms openly (which in any event was modified under Protocol I to be much more lenient), nor that he failed to follow the laws of war.

I can't see how on earth, even taking the US charges as word-for-word fact, he is NOT considered a POW. Note that Art 4 Sec 6 does not require the person to be a citizen of the invaded country, but merely an inhabitant.

It is so typically hypocritical of us to follow the law when it suits our purposes but to ignore it when it doesn't.

See text of GCIII at http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6fef854a3517b75ac125641e004a9e68

[24601]

19. Didn't have time? By what logic was there insufficient time? And

POW status also wouldn't apply to other criminal or illegal combatant conduct.

[14thColony]

20. "who, on approach of the enemy"

In other words ONCE WE HAD LAUNCHED THE INVASION. The operations happened at such speed that it would have been unrealistic for the inhabitants of Afghanistan (who weren't already in Afghanistan's 'army') to organize themselves, fit themselves in uniforms, appoint officers, etc. and go marching off to battle.

I've had some experience in training armies. You don't do it in days, and GCIII recognizes this. So it allows for the inhabitants of the country to rise up in national self defence and be lawful combatants in doing so.

That POW status "wouldn't apply to other criminal or illegal combatant conduct" is utterly irrelevant, since GCIII explicitly says that they are NOT criminals or illegal combatants.

We can like the Geneva Conventions or not like the Geneva Conventionss all we want, but until such time as the US withdraws from them, they are US federal law.

[OnyxCollie]

2. K&R. nt

[Drops_not_Dope]

3. verbal threats to physical abuse they called torture.

verbal threats they called torture.


:kick: and recommended.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Who could possibly have seen this coming?

[Solly Mack]

6. k/r

[Soylent Brice]

7. K&R

[Diane R]

8. And, for those still wondering...this is why we elected Obama. Sanity restored.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. This is the work of the judicial branch, not the administration.

Obama actually gets no credit here, other than it happened while he was president. Gitmo remains open and prisoners remained held there and are facing charges for crimes for which the evidence is generally confessions obtained under torture. Obama promised to close the facility and transfer the prisoners into the federal system and has not done that.

[JonLP24]

16. Don't forget Bagram

The detainees don't have Habeas corpus there because this Administration appealed a court ruling that said they could have those rights. They "won" their appeal.

[Synicus Maximus]

14. the Administration is who the judge found against.

[JonLP24]

15. Look up-thread

A minor was threatened with gang rape and the confession obtained from that was allowed to stand. He needs to get rid of these tribunals.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[azul]

12. Would that bringing to justice the torturers

lessen the shame and dishonor that they have heaped upon this country. Well worth the try.

[Land Shark]

17. This is WHY torture policies are COMMITMENT to EXTRA-judicial action utterly violating Rule of Law

The "confessions" and information obtained are simply not admissible under the rule of law in any legitimate court. In a sense, it's the privatization of "justice" -- and there's nothing left of justice in a secret "interrogation" cell.

This is WHY torture policies are a COMMITMENT to EXTRA-judicial and total violations of the Rule of Law.

[Stuart G]

18. They should interogate the persons, at the top, who ordered this..

with waterboarding..................................you know, it isn't torture............