FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Gains and Losses at Guantánamo

by ANDY WORTHINGTON

Last Friday, the day after a craven/comatose Senate rejected even the merest mention of plans to transfer Guantánamo detainees to prisons on the US mainland, judges in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit advanced the detainees’ faltering legal status by ordering the government to hand over classified information relating to them, frustrating attempts by the Department of Justice to insist that the court should only be given the information included in their hearings at Guantánamo, and not, as the New York Times described it, the “more expansive” information the government might have collected on a detainee.

The court’s decision relates to the first cases filed under a provision in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 for “limited appeals court review” of the tribunals at Guantánamo (the Combatant Status Review Tribunals), which were convened to assess whether or not the detainees had been correctly designated as “enemy combatants,” and which have been widely condemned as kangaroo courts, because the detainees were not allowed legal representation, and were not allowed to either see or hear the “classified evidence” against them.

Noting, as the Times put it, that “Congress said the appeals court’s review of the combatant status hearings was limited to determining whether the Pentagon followed its own procedures, and whether an enemy combatant finding was supported by a preponderance of the evidence,” the appeal court judges said that a meaningful review of the tribunals would not be possible “without seeing all the evidence, any more than one can tell whether a fraction is more or less than half by looking only at the numerator and not the denominator.” Writing rather less obliquely, the judges explained, “Counsel [the government] simply cannot argue, nor can the court determine, whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the Tribunal’s status determination without seeing all the evidence. Therefore, we must presume counsel for a detainee has a ‘need to know’ all Government Information concerning his client, not just the portions of the Government Information presented to the Tribunal.”

Sabin Willett, a lawyer who represents six Chinese Muslim detainees in Guantánamo (and whose case was one of those considered by the Court of Appeals), called the ruling “a resounding rejection of the government’s effort to hide the truth,” but what’s perhaps more interesting, in the long run, is whether the “more expansive” evidence concealed by the government will be anything more than a mirage. It has long been known that the unclassified “evidence” against the majority of the detainees consists of almost every shred of hearsay and of false allegations obtained through bribery, coercion and torture that the government could muster, and in the murmurs that have occasionally seeped out after lawyers have reviewed the “classified evidence,” the most shocking revelation about the Pandora’s Box of “classified evidence” is that it contains nothing of substance whatsoever.

Readers should also note, however, that the appeal court’s decision includes what the Times referred to as “significant victories for the government”; in particular, a decision “allowing the Pentagon to limit the subjects that the lawyers can discuss with detainees and authorizing special Pentagon teams to read the lawyers’ mail and remove unauthorized comments.” This is disturbing news. Ever since lawyers were first allowed access to the detainees in the wake of the Supreme Court’s verdict in Rasul v. Bush in June 2004, the administration has done everything in its power to disrupt the process, from intimidating prisoners to obstructing the lawyers themselves.

One lawyer noted that several prisoners told him “they had been interrogated by people who claimed to be their lawyers but who turned out not to be,” the recently released detainee Juma al-Dossari reported that several interrogators told him that his lawyers were liars, and Fouad al-Rabia, a Kuwaiti who is still held in Guantánamo, was told that “if he complained to his lawyers about conditions at Guantánamo Bay he would be kept there for life.” As long ago as October 2004, US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, responding to lawyers’ complaints, ordered the Pentagon to stop eavesdropping on lawyer-client conversations, which she described as a “bedrock” American principle, and in the last year the pressure on lawyers has increased markedly.

In the wake of the suicides of three men in Guantánamo in June 2006, the authorities illegally confiscated large amounts of lawyer-client correspondence, and, outrageously, accused Clive Stafford Smith (whose legal charity, Reprieve, represents several dozen detainees at Guantánamo) of inciting the suicides. Then, in April this year, the administration floated proposals that have resurfaced in amended form in the appeal court’s decision on Friday: to restrict lawyers to only three meetings with their clients, and to be allowed to read their correspondence. In a court filing, the Department of Justice alleged that attorney access via the mail system had “enabled detainees’ counsel to cause unrest on the base” by informing detainees about “military operations in Iraq, activities of terrorist leaders, efforts in the War on Terror, the Hezbollah attack on Israel and abuse at Abu Ghraib prison,” a claim which led Barry M. Kamins, the President of the New York City Bar association, to write to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, declaring, “This is an astonishing and disingenuous assertion,” and to point out that “many detainees have been held in solitary confinement for prolonged periods and have lost hope of a fair hearing to demonstrate their innocence.”

Although the plans appeared to have been dropped, after an outcry by legal groups and complaints in Congress, when Rear Admiral Harry H. Harris, the commander of Guantánamo, conceded that they were measures drawn up in the wake of the suicides that were “no longer warranted,” and the Department of Justice admitted that it was “no longer seeking to incorporate a three-visit threshold for the number of counsel visits,” the cases on Friday brought them lumbering back to malignant life. Here, once more, were the allegations of lawyers fomenting unrest by writing about current affairs, and the government’s assertions that “such information can ‘incite detainees to violence’ or cause ‘unrest’ such as a riot, hunger strike, or suicide ­ as, indeed, it has done in the past.”

While the lawyers insisted that, as established by a legal precedent, the attorney-client privilege was intended to “encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients and therefore promote broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice,” their assertions were, rather disturbingly, overruled by the judges, who, “[w]ithout expressing any view as to whether the attorney-client privilege applies in this context,” agreed with the government that “past breaches” by “some counsel for detainees” justified the government’s proposal to “narrow the topics about which all counsel may correspond with a detainee and to hold all counsel accountable by screening the legal mail they send to their detainee clients.”

The Court of Appeals is to be applauded for its demands that the government release all information relating to the detainees, but its evidence-free backing of the government’s claims that lawyers have stirred up trouble in Guantánamo in the past, and its approval of plans to limit the subjects available for discussion between lawyers and their clients, and to employ human snooper dogs to monitor their mail, should be resisted as yet another shabby attempt by a paranoid administration to undermine the “bedrock” American principle of lawyer-client confidentiality, and to prevent detainees from exercising what, in some cases, is their only lifeline to sanity: a meeting with a human being who is not a part of the military machine that has kept them imprisoned without charge or trial for five and a half years.

Note: For a startling insight into the emptiness of the “classified” evidence against detainees, read this article by Candace Gorman, lawyer for Libyan detainee Abdel Hamid al-Ghizzawi.

ANDY WORTHINGTON (www.andyworthington.co.uk) is a British historian, and the author of ‘The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison’ (to be published by Pluto Press in October 2007).
He can be reached at: andy@andyworthington.co.uk

 

ANDY WORTHINGTON is a British journalist, the author of ‘The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison’ (published by Pluto Press), and the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the new Guantánamo documentary, ‘Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo.’ Visit his website at: www.andyworthington.co.uk He can be reached at: andy@andyworthington.co.uk        WORDS THAT STICK ?  

More articles by:
June 27, 2016
Robin Hahnel
Brexit: Establishment Freak Out
James Bradley
Omar’s Motive
Gregory Wilpert – Michael Hudson
How Western Military Interventions Shaped the Brexit Vote
Leonard Peltier
41 Years Since Jumping Bull (But 500 Years of Trauma)
Rev. William Alberts
Orlando: the Latest Victim of Radicalizing American Imperialism
Patrick Cockburn
Brexiteers Have Much in Common With Arab Spring Protesters
Franklin Lamb
How 100 Syrians, 200 Russians and 11 Dogs Out-Witted ISIS and Saved Palmyra
John Grant
Omar Mateen: The Answers are All Around Us
Dean Baker
In the Wake of Brexit Will the EU Finally Turn Away From Austerity?
Ralph Nader
The IRS and the Self-Minimization of Congressman Jason Chaffetz
Johan Galtung
Goodbye UK, Goodbye Great Britain: What Next?
Martha Pskowski
Detained in Dilley: Deportation and Asylum in Texas
Binoy Kampmark
Headaches of Empire: Brexit’s Effect on the United States
Dave Lindorff
Honest Election System Needed to Defeat Ruling Elite
Louisa Willcox
Delisting Grizzly Bears to Save the Endangered Species Act?
Jason Holland
The Tragedy of Nothing
Jeffrey St. Clair
Revolution Reconsidered: a Fragment (Guest Starring Bernard Sanders in the Role of Robespierre)
Weekend Edition
June 24, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
A Blow for Peace and Democracy: Why the British Said No to Europe
Pepe Escobar
Goodbye to All That: Why the UK Left the EU
Michael Hudson
Revolts of the Debtors: From Socrates to Ibn Khaldun
Andrew Levine
Summer Spectaculars: Prelude to a Tea Party?
Kshama Sawant
Beyond Bernie: Still Not With Her
Mike Whitney
¡Basta Ya, Brussels! British Voters Reject EU Corporate Slavestate
Tariq Ali
Panic in the House: Brexit as Revolt Against the Political Establishment
Paul Street
Miranda, Obama, and Hamilton: an Orwellian Ménage à Trois for the Neoliberal Age
Ellen Brown
The War on Weed is Winding Down, But Will Monsanto Emerge the Winner?
Gary Leupp
Why God Created the Two-Party System
Conn Hallinan
Brexit Vote: a Very British Affair (But Spain May Rock the Continent)
Ruth Fowler
England, My England
Jeffrey St. Clair
Lines Written on the Occasion of Bernie Sanders’ Announcement of His Intention to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Norman Pollack
Fissures in World Capitalism: the British Vote
Paul Bentley
Mercenary Logic: 12 Dead in Kabul
Binoy Kampmark
Parting Is Such Sweet Joy: Brexit Prevails!
Elliot Sperber
Show Me Your Papers: Supreme Court Legalizes Arbitrary Searches
Jan Oberg
The Brexit Shock: Now It’s All Up in the Air
Nauman Sadiq
Brexit: a Victory for Britain’s Working Class
Brian Cloughley
Murder by Drone: Killing Taxi Drivers in the Name of Freedom
Ramzy Baroud
How Israel Uses Water as a Weapon of War
Brad Evans – Henry Giroux
The Violence of Forgetting
Ben Debney
Homophobia and the Conservative Victim Complex
Margaret Kimberley
The Orlando Massacre and US Foreign Policy
David Rosen
Americans Work Too Long for Too Little
Murray Dobbin
Do We Really Want a War With Russia?
Kathy Kelly
What’s at Stake
Louis Yako
I Have Nothing “Newsworthy” to Report this Week
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail