August 2004

Rumsfeld's Kangaroo Court

Filed under: Imported

You have to hand it to Bush and company. They don't mind thumbing their collective noses at the U.S. Supreme Court. In order to try and convince a federal judge in the District of Columbia that the Guantanamo prisoners do not need federal courts and habeas corpus petitions (in spite of the Supreme Court's ruling to that effect in June 2004), the Defense Department has begun "reviews" of the status of the "enemy combatants" it has held in cages in Cuba for going on three years.

Not surprisingly, the kangaroo court, consisting of military brass and JAG officers facing off against the prisoners, sans attorneys (they had military "helpers" who supposedly guided them through the sham proceedings), concluded that the men were indeed rightfully held. And there they will remain. The military provided interpreters. Judge, jury, bailiff, attorney, and your own "helper" are picked by your jailer. Some justice.

The Pentagon and the Justice Department have filed briefs with the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, to which the Supreme Court remanded the cases of the winning litigants, arguing that the Supreme Court was dead wrong to declare that the prisoners were to have lawyers and access to the federal courts. Their filings made it clear that they would do everything in their power to see that no prisoner has access to an attorney. They propose Kafka-esqe rules that attorneys would be foolish to agree to--including having all of their communications with the prisoners not only recorded, but sent to the military and DOJ lawyers.

The government's flaunting of the Court's order could lead to a constitutional crisis--if a federal judge would find Rumsfeld and Ashcroft in contempt. That is not likely to happen.

Here is about all you are going to hear about the proceedings--a report from the Associated Press, without a byline. The Pentagon allowed a few "journalists" to sit in on some of the hearings of the nameless and hapless prisoners, on the ground that it review (and presumably "correct") the reports before they were printed. 

Have I been dreaming through the last half of the 20th century? Did I just wake up to read about hearings in the Soviet Union or China? Sure seems like it.

Associated Press
Saturday, August 14, 2004; Page A09

A military review of the cases against four terrorism suspects held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has concluded that they are classified properly as enemy combatants and will not be freed, the official overseeing the process said yesterday.

The four cases were the first of 21 reviewed to be decided. There is no appeal. Four additional cases were being heard yesterday at Guantanamo Bay, raising the total to 25. Their outcomes were not expected to be revealed immediately.

The Pentagon has insisted since it began holding individuals captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on terrorism nearly three years ago that they are enemy combatants, not prisoners of war, and can be held indefinitely without charges or access to lawyers.

Human rights organizations have challenged the Pentagon on this, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld announced this year that the cases of each person held at Guantanamo Bay will be reviewed once a year to determine whether they are security threats to the United States.

When the Supreme Court ruled June 28 that the detainees had the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court, the Pentagon quickly organized the separate review process to determine whether each detainee is an enemy combatant as defined by the Pentagon.

Navy Secretary Gordon R. England, who oversees the reviews but has no say in the outcome of individual cases, said an enemy combatant is "anyone who is part of supporting the Taliban or al Qaeda forces or associated forces engaging in hostilities against the United States or our coalition partners." The detainees are not represented by lawyers.

The reviews began July 30. In a change of policy yesterday, the Pentagon stopped releasing detainees' nationalities when their cases are heard. Nationalities, but not names, of the first 21 were released at their hearings, including five Thursday.

Lt. Cmdr. Beci Brenton, a spokeswoman for the review process, said the decision to stop providing nationalities was made after some countries objected to the release of that information.

Barring an unforeseen delay, all 585 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay will have their cases heard before the end of the year, England said. He said the hearings are taking longer than originally expected, mainly because of language barriers, but additional translators are being hired.

Posted by Elaine Cassel at August 14, 2004 2:33 PM

Rumsfeld's Kangaroo Court

Filed under: Imported

You have to hand it to Bush and company. They don't mind thumbing their collective noses at the U.S. Supreme Court. In order to try and convince a federal judge in the District of Columbia that the Guantanamo prisoners do not need federal courts and habeas corpus petitions (in spite of the Supreme Court's ruling to that effect in June 2004), the Defense Department has begun "reviews" of the status of the "enemy combatants" it has held in cages in Cuba for going on three years.

Not surprisingly, the kangaroo court, consisting of military brass and JAG officers facing off against the prisoners, sans attorneys (they had military "helpers" who supposedly guided them through the sham proceedings), concluded that the men were indeed rightfully held. And there they will remain. The military provided interpreters. Judge, jury, bailiff, attorney, and your own "helper" are picked by your jailer. Some justice.

The Pentagon and the Justice Department have filed briefs with the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, to which the Supreme Court remanded the cases of the winning litigants, arguing that the Supreme Court was dead wrong to declare that the prisoners were to have lawyers and access to the federal courts. Their filings made it clear that they would do everything in their power to see that no prisoner has access to an attorney. They propose Kafka-esqe rules that attorneys would be foolish to agree to--including having all of their communications with the prisoners not only recorded, but sent to the military and DOJ lawyers.

The government's flaunting of the Court's order could lead to a constituitonal crisis--if a federal judge would find Rumsfeld and Ashcroft in contempt. That is not likely to happen.

Here is about all you are going to hear about the proceedings--a report from the Associated Press, without a byline. The Pentagon allowed a few "journalists" to sit in on some of the hearings of the nameless and hapless prisoners, on the ground that it review (and presumably "correct") the reports before they were printed. 

Have I been dreaming through the last half of the 20th century? Did I just wake up to read about hearings in the Soviet Union or China? Sure seems like it.

Associated Press
Saturday, August 14, 2004; Page A09

<NITF>

A military review of the cases against four terrorism suspects held at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has concluded that they are classified properly as enemy combatants and will not be freed, the official overseeing the process said yesterday.

The four cases were the first of 21 reviewed to be decided. There is no appeal. Four additional cases were being heard yesterday at Guantanamo Bay, raising the total to 25. Their outcomes were not expected to be revealed immediately.

The Pentagon has insisted since it began holding individuals captured in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on terrorism nearly three years ago that they are enemy combatants, not prisoners of war, and can be held indefinitely without charges or access to lawyers.

Human rights organizations have challenged the Pentagon on this, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld announced this year that the cases of each person held at Guantanamo Bay will be reviewed once a year to determine whether they are security threats to the United States.

When the Supreme Court ruled June 28 that the detainees had the right to challenge their imprisonment in federal court, the Pentagon quickly organized the separate review process to determine whether each detainee is an enemy combatant as defined by the Pentagon.

Navy Secretary Gordon R. England, who oversees the reviews but has no say in the outcome of individual cases, said an enemy combatant is "anyone who is part of supporting the Taliban or al Qaeda forces or associated forces engaging in hostilities against the United States or our coalition partners." The detainees are not represented by lawyers.

The reviews began July 30. In a change of policy yesterday, the Pentagon stopped releasing detainees' nationalities when their cases are heard. Nationalities, but not names, of the first 21 were released at their hearings, including five Thursday.

Lt. Cmdr. Beci Brenton, a spokeswoman for the review process, said the decision to stop providing nationalities was made after some countries objected to the release of that information.

Barring an unforeseen delay, all 585 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay will have their cases heard before the end of the year, England said. He said the hearings are taking longer than originally expected, mainly because of language barriers, but additional translators are being hired.

Posted by Elaine Cassel at August 14, 2004 2:21 PM

Another "Terrorist" Cell Conviction In Trouble: When Will Ashcroft and His Henchmen Pay?

Filed under: Imported

As I await final word on the possible release of Yaser Hamdi, whom Ashcroft has proclaimed for more than two years as too dangerous to ever see the light of day (never mind that he faced no criminal charges), I learned why a federal judge in Detroit has had a motion to overturn convictions in an alleged terrorist cell under consideration since January 2004.

Seems like key evidence introduced by the government through its witnesses is a fraud, a fake. Or course, the proseuctors knew nothing about it, right? They can't tell tourist home videos from al Qaeda surveillance tapes. Think of this story as you read about the arrest of a man in Charlotte, NC for taking pictures.  While you are at it, you better throw away your camera. The next picture you take could be your last.

I am not sure what Judge Gerald Rosen will do, but he cannot be too happy about this news. Note that once again, a prosecutor violated his gag order to not discuss the case (something prosecutors and Big John Ashcroft himself did during the trial). A defense attorney would be in jail for contempt of court. Prosecutors are not beholden to judges, in case you have not noticed.

Maybe Judge Rosen will give the prosecutors--and the defendants--what they deserve. Dismissal of charges. While he is at it, maybe he will embarass John Ashcroft into explaining the false prosecutions and fraudulent evidence.

Justice Disputes Key Terror Case Evidence

By SARAH KARUSH and JOHN SOLOMON Associated Press Writers

(AP) - The Bush administration's already troubled case against an accused terror cell in Detroit is being dealt another blow with revelations that a witness came forward after the trial to undercut a key piece of video evidence presented to jurors.

Lawyers and Justice Department officials said Wednesday night that a man shown in a videotape of landmarks in New York, Las Vegas and California has told investigators the tape was an amateur film and not surveillance as prosecutors portrayed at the trial of four suspected terrorists.

The witness interview was conducted in January, months after the trial in Detroit ended, and was turned over this summer to defense lawyers. It could deal a significant blow to the Bush administration's first major terror prosecution since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Justice Department is nearing completion of a monthslong review of prosecutors' conduct during the case, and a judge will rule on a defense request to reverse the convictions of three men.

"During the course of this review, information has come to the government's attention that we were obligated to turn over the defense, and we did so," Justice spokesman Mark Corallo said Wednesday night. "The review is ongoing and at the end of the day, the government will do the right thing based on the facts and the evidence."

Though both sides have known about the witness interview for some time, they were precluded from disclosing it because of a judge's gag order. Both sides confirmed it Wednesday after the judge lifted the gag order because one of the original prosecutors in the case, Richard Convertino, granted an interview to The Associated Press this week.

James Thomas, a lawyer for one of the Detroit defendants, said the new witness testimony undercuts one of the key pieces of evidence used against his client. "It was an amateurish video taken by school kids," Thomas said.

Justice officials said their review has turned up several problems with the original prosecution.

"Since the discovery of the tape in Detroit in 2001 and up until recently, the Justice Department's experts believed the footage was terrorist surveillance, but the information that has come to light calls into question those conclusions," a Justice official said, speaking only on condition of anonymity because the internal investigation is still under way.

William Sullivan, a lawyer for Convertino, said his client had shown the tape to numerous Justice experts who told him it was consistent with other terror surveillance. "He was never presented with any evidence that contradicted those experts' assessments," Sullivan said.

Convertino is now under investigation in the case.

In a jury verdict last summer hailed by the Bush administration as the breakup of a terror cell, Karim Koubriti, 25, and Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi, 38, were convicted on terrorism and fraud charges, and Ahmed Hannan, 36, was convicted of fraud. A fourth defendant, Farouk Ali-Haimoud, 24, was acquitted.

The convictions have been in doubt for months after Justice officials divulged some documents that might have been helpful to defense lawyers weren't turned over during the trial, and they removed the original prosecutors and put them under investigation.

An FBI agent and other experts put on by the prosecution at the trial said the tape appeared to be casing footage consistent with the way radical Muslim groups have taught operatives to conduct surveillance.

But the defense has argued the tape belonged to someone else and showed innocent tourism footage.

Justice officials said while the belated witness testimony calls into question the Detroit tape, a second tape found by Spanish authorities in an al-Qaida hideout in Madrid in 2002 that shows many of the same landmarks is still regarded by U.S. officials as terror surveillance.

Both tapes, obtained by AP and aired nationally this week, show footage of casino hotels in Las Vegas, Disneyland in California and several landmarks in New York City, including the World Trade Center before it was attacked.

AP reported earlier this week that Justice Department documents from the time of the Detroit trial show that repeated friction between Washington and Detroit kept the government from showing the Spanish videotape and other evidence to the jury.

In an interview with AP, Convertino alleged that "narrow-shouldered bureaucrats" in Washington kept him from putting on a stronger case. Convertino also claimed that Las Vegas authorities decided for economic reasons not to warn the public in 2002 that Detroit and Spanish terror cells had footage of the casinos that experts regarded as surveillance.

Las Vegas authorities acknowledged they were shown both tapes back in 2002, but said their decision not to warn the public had nothing to do with economics. "There are many factors that impact upon decisions pertaining to the type and quality of information that should be disseminated ... but the monetary impact of the information upon the local economy is not one of them," the U.S. Attorney's Office in Las Vegas said Wednesday.

While Las Vegas authorities didn't issue a warning, California officials who were told about the same Spanish video footage, which included the Golden Gate Bridge, decided back in 2002 to go public with an alert.

Posted by Elaine Cassel at August 12, 2004 5:04 PM

Those Were The Days: When Jefferson and Madison Said No To Congress

Filed under: Imported

While pondering the fate of Washington, D.C. where I frequently work and play, as the government reacts to three-year old intelligence by closing streets, putting cops in riot gear on subways, and preparing to close down most federal buildings, I ran across a riveting piece of history:  Virginia (my home state's) response to the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, which provides for deportation of alients with unpopular beliefs and punishment of speech and press comments antithetical to the government. The essence of some of the Acts' provisions are echoed in today's Patriot and Homeland Security Acts.

Penned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Virginia residents, the Virginia resolution rejects federal policies that threatened the Bill of Rights. Madison and Jefferson must have been horrified at what had happened to the Bill of Rights in the seven years since their ratification as amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The threat to our way of life, to our Constitution, by our laws and terror alerts are totally real and potentially devastating today. As I look at the pictures in today's Washington Post and gasp in horror, I wonder what four more years of George Bush will bring. While I wonder, I remember fondly the good old days, two hundred plus years ago, when patriotism meant protecting a way of life.

Here is the text of the Resolution:

RESOLVED, That the General Assembly of Virginia, doth unequivocably express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression either foreign or domestic, and that they will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

That this assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union of the States, to maintain which it pledges all its powers; and that for this end, it is their duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles which constitute the only basis of that Union, because a faithful observance of them, can alone secure it's existence and the public happiness.

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret, that a spirit has in sundry instances, been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which having been copied from the very limited grant of power, in the former articles of confederation were the less liable to be misconstrued) so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at best a mixed monarchy.

That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government; as well as the particular organization, and positive provisions of the federal constitution; and the other of which acts, exercises in like manner, a power not delegated by the constitution, but on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power, which more than any other, ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been justly deemed, the only effectual guardian of every other right.

That this state having by its Convention, which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among other essential rights, "the Liberty of Conscience and of the Press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States," and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other states, recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution; it would mark a reproachable inconsistency, and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shewn, to the most palpable violation of one of the Rights, thus declared and secured; and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

That the good people of this commonwealth, having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most sincere affection for their brethren of the other states; the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all; and the most scrupulous fidelity to that constitution, which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people.

That the Governor be desired, to transmit a copy of the foregoing Resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other states, with a request that the same may be communicated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be furnished to each of the Senators and Representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

Agreed to by the Senate, December 24, 1798.

Also see the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, authored by Thomas Jefferson, for the same purpose, and a follow-up Kentucky Resolution of 1799 adopted by the Kentucky Legislature a year later in 1799.

Posted by Elaine Cassel at August 3, 2004 7:08 AM

When Searches and Seizures Become Commonplace

Filed under: Imported

Since September 11, 2001, the federal government has led the way in searching citizens in many public venues--all in the name of preventing acts of "terror."  First airports, then Fourth of July celebrations, then subways, then shopping malls, then political conventions--where will it end?  Never, as long as citizens keep putting up with it. I have more than once walked away from a public event because I was ordered to pass through "security."

A former police officer turned professor penned this thoughtful op-ed on how the government has all but blotted out the Fourth Amendment from the Bill of Rights. What are you doing to resist the thugs who have taken over your everyday life in the hopes not of finding an instrumentality of terror, but a marijuana joint, a pirated CD, a book (like mine?) that raises suspicion and may lead to your imprisonment (skipping the niceties like probable cause to search, arrest, counsel, due process, etc.)?

In the words of the inimitable Nancy Reagan, "Just say no."

Balancing Security and Liberty

By Peter Moskos

Monday, August 2, 2004; Page A17

When you board a plane, both you and your carry-on bags are searched. A civilian employee of the Transportation Security Administration may open and search your checked luggage as well. Although primarily looking for security threats, workers report any illegal or suspicious objects to a supervisor or law enforcement agent, even if the object represents no danger to the flight.

Two legal concepts allow both you and your bags to be searched despite the Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. By being in an airport and trying to board a plane, the Supreme Court says, you have given "implied consent" to being searched. The "plain view" principle, according to the court, states that whatever law enforcement legally finds, feels or sees -- even if unrelated to the original investigation or search -- is fair game for arrest and prosecution.

Using security and terrorism as justification, the government is beginning to extend airport-like implied consent zones to more and more of the public sphere, including the entire Boston subway system. Before the Democratic convention, daily commuters, anybody approaching a national political convention, and drivers on vital bridges and tunnels were told to expect random searches without a warrant. Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not apply.

When police are granted greater rights to search without probable cause, they will use these rights. Therefore it's essential to consider the implications of implied consent and plain view searches in the public sphere. Fear of increased government repression is shared by both ends of the political spectrum. But many others understand that a necessary element of freedom is security. Airline passengers should be screened. The Democratic and Republic national conventions need to be bomb-free.

Few people object to bomb searches on airplanes. And many would be willing to waive their constitutional rights (if such rights were negotiable) to guarantee their security. But what starts as a necessary security measure will quickly become standard law enforcement procedure even for crimes that are nonviolent and not related to terror. These expanding implied consent zones have staggering implications for American life and freedom far beyond al Qaeda.

Police officers are experts at bending rules, particularly in the "war on drugs." As a police officer, I was taught to push the rules of the "Terry search," which meant that if I articulated fear that a suspect might harm me, I could legally frisk suspects for weapons without probable cause. I know officers who towed cars, again legally, simply so they could "inventory" the contents (technically for safekeeping). In both cases, the real goal was to find illegal drugs and make an arrest.

One must expect law enforcement to use all its available tools. As a law enforcement officer, why deal with the tedious process of probable cause, judicial approval and paperwork?

In order to stop and search any suspect, not just a terrorism suspect, law enforcement need only wait for a person to enter an implied consent area such as a subway or a shopping mall. Their action justified by the "war on terror," police may then conduct a full search. The true object of the search -- most likely drug possession, but any contraband will do -- is unrelated to terrorism.

Of course people shouldn't break the law or carry illegal objects. But the difference between civilian employees searching for bombs in airports and government agents conducting random searches for suspicious objects is the difference between preserving a free society and creating a police state.

In airport security today, items deemed suspicious are not necessarily dangerous: Large amounts of cash, pirated CDs, pornography and, of course, drugs -- not just illegal drugs but even prescription drugs in certain circumstances. In fact, controversial books can be grounds for further investigation and arrest. Such a standard, even if established in airports, is unacceptable and must not be allowed to spread to our streets and subways.

The solution -- the balancing of public safety with constitutional liberties -- is surprisingly simple. The only way to prevent creeping use of implied consent is to limit the doctrine of plain view. Before searching a person, the government must choose either plain view or implied consent. If the government must search without probable cause, let it search, but only for illegal weapons or bombs. If security outweighs the Fourth Amendment, the scope of such searches must be limited to objects representing a clear and present danger to public safety. Any unrelated suspicious or illegal objects found must be ignored.

It is the job of our courts and legislature to strike the balance between security and liberty. By limiting the plain view doctrine, lawmakers or Supreme Court justices have the rare opportunity to be tough on terrorism while guaranteeing the rights and freedom of citizens.

The writer, a former Baltimore police officer, is professor of law and police science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

Posted by Elaine Cassel at August 2, 2004 6:12 PM

Why I Am Scared to Death of George Bush--And Why You Should Be, Too

Filed under: Imported

In the past almost four years, I have come to fear almost everything the Bush administration does. In one way or the other, it has harmed, perhaps irreparably, virtually every aspect of American life. From raising the acceptable arsenic levels in water (a little arsenic is good for us all) to logging and snowmobiling in America's formerly treasured parks, to ripping apart the bill of rights and trampling it underfoot, to using the threat of "terrorist" attacks for political gain, to going to war on a lie and not just spending our money outrageously but being responsible for—and proud of—the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers, the maiming of thousands more (a deep and dirty secret) and the slaying of thousands (but who's counting?) Iraqi civilians. All of this and much, much more literally keeps me awake at night, sick with fear and worry.

But nothing disturbs me more than the case of Ahmed Abu Ali.

Abu Ali is an American citizen, born in Texas in 1981. He is a resident of Falls Church, Virginia, where he lives with his parents. He was valedictorian of his 1999 graduating class in a northern Virginia high school. He attends a Saudi university where he is studying for a degree.

Last June, Ahmed was taking an exam at the International University of Medina.  In stormed Saudi police who took him away to a Saudi prison where he has been since that day. It has taken a year for the story to make any sense, and during this time his family and lawyer have kept me informed about the case. However, they asked me not to write about it, for fear that it may jeopardize his potential for release.

Now that it appears their son may never come home, at least not if the Bush administration can help it, they have filed a law suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asking that their son be given the same rights as the Supreme Court recently gave Guantanamo prisoners and American citizen Yaser Hamdi—the right to, at a minimum, challenge his detention.  They have also given me permission, through their attorney, to write about their son's case.

Here is the abbreviated version of the undisputed facts, according to court records and discussions with the family and attorney:  Ahmed was acquainted with some of the men charged in the notorious case of the Alexandria 11, men who pled guilty or were convicted (all but one of them, and that is important, as you will see) of conspiring to fight for the Muslim cause in the constant battle between India and Pakistan over the territory of Kashmir. The interest in fighting for Kashmir is one that is promoted by many Muslims. The men were friends, and in the course of their friendship play paintball and shoot at targets with guns, all perfectly legal in Northern Virginia. In fact, gun use is so legal in Virginia that the legislature recently passed a law affirmatively making it acceptable (indeed promoting) the carrying of weapons into bars and restaurants.

Initially charged under the seldom-used Neutrality Act, which forbids an American from taking sides with an "enemy" of the United States, those who pled to conspiring to aid Muslims were given sentences of four to ten years in exchange for testifying against the others; the men who did not pled guilty were indicted with aiding and abetting terrorism, upping the ante to life prison terms. Of the four men who did not plead guilty to the new charges, three were convicted by Judge Leonie Brinkema and sentenced to 85 to 115 years in prison. These were men who were not a threat to the U.S., who were not anti-American, who never took up arms against any one, but who, it is true, were sympathetic to the Muslim cause. They would have fought for the Muslim cause in Kashmir, if the occasion presented itself (India and Pakistan declared a cease fire early in 2004).

One of the men who pled not guilty had been in Saudi Arabia at the same time that Abu Ali was "detained." He was extradited to the United States, and Judge Brinkema found him not guilty. Though he is free at the moment, he expects to be harassed by prosecutors. Surely, he will be arrested and charged with something—anything to avenge his acquittal by Judge Brinkema.

Abu Ali has been visited in Saudi Arabia by the FBI and perhaps by Alexandria prosecutors. From what little we know (he has been denied an attorney, and the State Department and the Saudi government have conspired to insure that he receives no mail or visits), he was urged to confess to being part of the Alexandria 11, he refused, likely being tortured and mentally and physically abused. He was urged to renounce his U.S. citizenship, in exchange for the promise of being taken to Sweden. (He was smart not to do that; last week it was reported in the Washington Post that the U.S. government aided Swedish officials in "rendering" Saudi citizens back to Saudi Arabia where they were "tried" for "terrorism" crimes and are serving lengthy prison terms. Both maintain their innocence. )

If prosecutors had any case at all against Abu Ali, they would surely have had him extradited at the same time as Sabri Benkhala, who was acquitted by Judge Brinkema. Abu Ali has been threatened with being named an enemy combatant, but that would also mean that he would be brought to the U.S., held like Americans Padilla and Hamdi and, now, entitled to an attorney and the right to file a habeas corpus petition challenging his relief.

But that is not going to happen. The day Abu Ali's parents filed a petition for habeas corpus and other relief, the U.S. State Department informed them that the Saudis were going to charge Abu Ali with unspecified crimes of "terror." Days before the case was filed, the Saudis told the family that they were ready to release Abu Ali, but had to have approval from the U.S. to do so. The Saudis said they had no interest in him. The State Department, at that time, it was up to the Saudis. Clearly, no one is telling the truth. The State Department now says it cannot comment on anything, because Abu Ali never signed "privacy" forms, forms that the Saudis refused to give him (no doubt told to refuse to deliver them by the same State Department that claims they can't obtain them from their detainee).

Here is why I am scared to death of this administration: Abu Ali will surely never come home. There is no way the U.S. government is going to let a man live to tell the tale of his capture by Saudis at the request of the U.S., his incarceration without a charge, without a lawyer, without access to his family, and, no doubt, his being subject to torture during long periods of interrogation. Maybe Kromberg wanted him at some time, found there was nothing to get him on, then told the Saudis to torture him into confession of anything that would make him extraditable. For the present time, it still takes an actual criminal charge to indict someone.

But it takes nothing but the whims of the government, to "render" an American citizen to another country and demand that that country imprison the American until it says to release him or her.  But then the U.S. cannot tolerate the word getting out about the whole story, so it will have to silence Abu Ali by keeping him locked up forever (or worse) in a Saudi jail.

Let's be clear about this—the Saudis insist that they are holding him only because the U.S. demands it.

Remember Nicholas Berg, who was beheaded shortly after his release by the U.S. government in Iraq? Remember how the U.S. insisted that it never had him in custody but that that "Iraqi police" held him? Forget for a time that the Iraqi police did nothing without the permission of and payment by the U.S. government—the police said that they had seized Berg at the demand of the U.S. and they released Berg to its custody. Finally, after Berg died, the State Department admitted the U.S. had detained him.  When Berg refused the request of the U.S. government that it take him out of Iraq, when Berg insisted that he was going to leave Iraq on his own, he was murdered.

You connect the dots. Or not. But don't turn away from the frightening truth of what your government is up to—successfully, without accountability, violating every right and privilege Americans have under U.S. and international law.

Even if the federal court orders that Abu Ali be brought to the U.S. to have a hearing, don't expect it to happen. Accidents happen in prison, don't they? Especially in foreign prisons. The Pentagon is even now making it near impossible for attorneys for the Guantanamo prisoners to meet their clients and file the petitions the Supreme Court gave them the right to file.

Face it. Our government is imprisoning its citizens without cause and without process. Welcome to George Bush's America.

Posted by Elaine Cassel at August 1, 2004 1:10 PM

« July 2004 | Main | September 2004 »