Freed Gitmo Detainee Tells Of Desecration

Mauritanian Man Confined For 5 Years Describes "Screams Caused By Torture"

(CBS/AP)  "This declaration shows beyond any doubt that the CSRT process is deeply flawed, fundamentally unfair, and ultimately just a sham," said Wells Dixon, an attorney for the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents dozens of Guantanamo detainees and provided a copy of the affidavit to the AP.

A Pentagon spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the affidavit, but military officials have consistently defended the tribunals and said they assured greater protections for people captured in wartime than have ever been provided.

Separately, the Pentagon announced Friday that the chief military prosecutor, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, has asked to be reassigned - a move that comes as the U.S. prepares to file charges and hold tribunals for about 80 men held at Guantanamo.

The military did not disclose a reason for the prosecutor's decision. "We'd like to thank him for his service in the position while he held it," said spokeswoman Cynthia Smith.

The affidavit was filed in Washington by Steven Wax and William Teesdale, attorneys from the Federal Public Defender in Portland, Oregon, on behalf of Adel Hassan Hamad, who was captured in Pakistan in 2002. He was accused in his CSRT of working for a non-governmental organization that provided financial and logistical support to jihadists and of being associated with al Qaeda.

A later panel, an Administrative Review Board, found that Hamad could be released but he remains at Guantanamo, along with about 330 other men.

In previously filed court documents, his attorneys said Hamad, a father of four, worked in a charity hospital and has no involvement with terrorism and was not an enemy combatant.

The lawyers noted in those earlier court filings that military records showed an Army major who sat on the detainee's CSRT panel called Hamad's detention "unconscionable" and not based on sufficient evidence.

The Army major appears to be the same one who provided the new affidavit about the CSRT's though Wax declined to comment on the affidavit or the officer.

The lawyers say in the affidavit they obtained permission from U.S. military authorities to interview an officer who sat on their client's CSRT. They also agreed not to release his name without his permission.

The officer is an Army reservist who has also worked as a criminal prosecutor as a civilian. He said he participated in 49 of the CSRT panels and that "training was minimal" and "the process was not well defined."

In his panels, the only witnesses who testified on behalf of detainees were other prisoners at the camp. There was no exculpatory evidence presented separately, as required by the rules, but sometimes it emerged accidentally because contradictory evidence would be presented.

He said there was "acrimony" at a meeting in which commanders discussed why some panels, considering the same evidence, would come to different findings on the Uighurs, members of a Muslim minority in China who want an independent homeland.

The officer said he suggested that inconsistent results were "good for the system ... and would show that the system was working correctly." The admiral in charge, he said, had no response.

Judge Reverses Ruling Barring Lawyers From Detainees

A judge on Friday reversed his own ruling that created new hurdles for some lawyers seeking to visit clients held prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

District Court Judge Ricardo Urbina in Washington reinstated 16 lawsuits challenging the indefinite confinement of about 40 men held at the military prison on a U.S. base in Cuba.

Last month, Urbina dismissed the petitions of habeas corpus - a ruling that prompted the Department of Justice to warn attorneys for detainees that they would be barred from any contact with their clients unless they filed new challenges and agreed to tighter restrictions on visits and letters.

Attorneys for detainees asked the judge to reconsider the ruling and he did, while noting the Justice Department's move to limit access to the prisoners.

"This court expresses no small concern over the Department of Justice precipitously disrupting petitioners' access to their counsel," Urbina wrote.

In his original decision, the judge cited an appellate court ruling that the government argued required him to dismiss the cases because Congress and President George W. Bush stripped detainees of the right to file habeas corpus petitions.

Now, the 16 petitions are on hold - along with challenges filed on behalf of dozens of other Guantanamo detainees - until the Supreme Court rules on whether it is constitutional to deny someone held by the U.S. to file a habeas challenge.

The Associates Press' Ahmed Mohamed and Ben Fox contributed to this report.

[speakinup]

"I don''t think I went far enough in expressing my disgust for the slime that''''s infecting the White House right now......... Posted by SgtRDS

Another intelligent, thought-provoking liberal shares his intelect with us. No wonder they can''t win an election, they shoot themselves in the foot every time. Good luck with this sort of following - Hillary.

[boatquack]

SgtRDS at 0342 your medication obviously needs to be increased. Get help, sounds like you are confessing your own tortured thoughts.

[speakinup]

So, this person gets out after 5 years. Do you think he''s going to compliment us for the facilities, or spread lies ? DUH!!!!

[speakinup]

"Bush is deservidly being constantly ridiculed.- SgtRDS

Considering it is coming from dip-shists like you, Harry and Nacy Peelousy - who would give a rats azz ?

[speakinup]

j-whitman - buzzz-buzzz-buzzz Land on the dogcrap and eat it up.

[j-whitman]

AJMarine1 -- The President of Iraq wants 100,000 of our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008 ----- Bush has failed our nation

[j-whitman]

AJMarine1,,,, If you aren''t paying attention, Bush is arming Sunni War Lords & making them wealthy beyond thier greatest prayers --- They are the next Suddam Husseins & pledge they will not only attack thie occupiers, they will insure the defeat of a centralized democratic government.

Remember the Gaurd unit that had the Jon Carry banner trying to Swift Boat him for his comments on education ??? --- They are among the longest deployed & retured home to find they fall 1 day short of qualifieng for extended educational benifits ----- Bush screwed them hard.

[sgtrds]

You''''re getting alittle cared away there aren''''t you Sgt.??

Posted by AJMarine1 at 08:19 AM : Oct 07, 2007

I don''t think I went far enough in expressing my disgust for the slime that''s infecting the White House right now.........

[rick_vt]

"Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" - using techniques that we as Americans aren''t privy to know exactly what they are because we''re not classified to know, where-as there are international agreed upon standards of treatment that are accepted by all civilized nations except ours that nobody is critical of.

Why, if we are treating these people so well, aren''t international overseers allowed to inspect? Why aren''t American non-military overseers allowed to inspect either?

If things are so good and fair in prisoner treatment by us, why is so much hidden to all and only discovered when some idiot leaks photos?

[ajmarine1]

I meant "carried."

[ajmarine1]

Posted by SgtRDS at 03:42 AM : Oct 07, 2007,

You''re getting alittle cared away there aren''t you Sgt.??

[sgtrds]

Bush and Cheney support torture so much, in spite of the fact that every reputable study shows it actually does not work, that the only conclusion one can reach is that they both get some sort of sick sexual pleasure out of the idea of naked young Arabic men being strapped to tables while masked evil torturers whip them, burn them and crush their testicles, for nothing more then the ecstasy of the torturers themselves. Bush and Cheney are clearly homosexual S and M freaks, which I''m sure will come as no surprise to Cheney''s lesbian wife, Bush''s robotic stepford wife or his bought and paid for chocolate mistress slave, Condi Rice. The bunch of them are twisted perverts and nothing else, but they''re torturing us in the process as they act out their sick world domination fantasies.

[sgtrds]

sandycat2

Bush is deservidly being constantly ridiculed. It''s no accident. He invites ridicule because when it comes to foreign policy, or indeed just being a functional human being, Bush is a laughingstock on the world stage. People do not call him an as*s out of political anger, but rather because that is what he is. He is not fighting terror. He is being manipulated by evil things, such as the war devil on earth Cheney, into slaughtering 100''s of thousands of human beings because he is mentally ill enough to actually think he is on a mission from god and because they will make money from it. Cheney is a money grubbing piece of shi*t war profiteer, while Bush is a deluded mad man. Both of them, if there is a god (and I don''t believe there is anymore) will die torturous deaths soon.

[ubrew12]

America needs to focus on the REAL terrorists, not on Al-Qaeda wannabee''s and Iraqi''s.

The REAL terrorists are those capable of creating WMD and with some reason to sell or give them to non-state terrorist actors, and the non-state terrorist actors themselves.

Al-Qaeda is a non-state terrorist actor and frankly, given 9-11, should be obliterated (ie, GO into the area between Pakistan and Afghanistan and despite local protest, weed out these people and kill them).

State actors that can provide WMD to terrorist organizations are Iran, N Korea, and, possibly, Russia. Pressure must be kept on these countries to ensure they don''t give in to the $$$ possibility of selling WMD to non-state actors for revenge purposes.

Frankly, I understand why a country like Iran would want Nuclear power for electricity, and Nukes for military, but I would want a clear understanding from the Iranians that selling these to non-state actors like Al-Qaeda would never even be considered.

The difference between state actors and non-state actors is that state-actors actually own land and people that could be conquered (like Iran), which makes them MUCH more vulnerable to international pressure. Non-state actors, like Al-Qaeda, own only an idea, and are free to act out whatever gruesome fantasy meets their ''vision''.

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by sandycat2,

Your posts are based on the mistaken presumption that Bush is "fighting terrorists", when in reality nothing could be farther from the truth. 9/11 was committed, if you believe the Government''s own statements, almost completely by Saudis, not Iraqis, or Afghanis, but the house of Saud, and the Bin Laden family are friends of Bush''s family.

Bush is trying to illegally take control of middle eastern oil resources, period. anyone resisting the occupation of their land by Bush is called a terrorist, just like the terrorists Reagan funded in Nicaragua were called "freedom fighters".

The KKK, Aryan Nations, Michigan Militia, and other American ultra right wing groups, also fit the technical definition of terrorist organizations, their actions in the past, present, and the positions taken in their literature are all exactly like the terrorist groups Bush claims to be fighting, in fact there has been contact, cooperation, and financial exchanges between the neo Nazis and the anti Israeli middle eastern groups.

Where is Bush on this? Deafeningly silent...

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by SgtRDS,

I confess my weakness by stating that your idea is sorely tempting.

But if we do that, then we are no better than they are, So I suggest we settle for Impeachment, trial, and when found guilty, the sanction prescribed by law for each of their crimes.

In the cases where guilt is determined for capital crimes, the punishment should be broadcast, so that future "despot wannabes" will think carefully before acting out their agendas, and so the world can see that we actually do respect the rule of law.

[sandycat2]

You are free to say the current administration is inept if you want to. Many have said worse. However, no matter what Bush does about fighting terrorists, he is constantly being ridiculed and reviled for those very things he does to try to keep the US from being hit with another 9/11. It will be interesting to see how well the new president handles all this stuff when he or she takes office. Very interesting indeed.

[sgtrds]

The chimp in charge says we don''t torture. So he gets the legal definition of torture changed to make things that every civilized nation in the world considers to be torture re-defined as "enhanced interrogation techniques", instead of the torture that it is. Torture should be defined as anything more then what Bush and Cheney would be able to tolerate. I say lets slap the hell out of them and water board them for awhile and then ask them if it''s torture or not. It would only be fair since they''re the most dangerous terrorists in the world today already.

[incog-nito]

sandycat2: Then the current U.S. administration must be incredibly inept to release known Al Qaeda operatives so that they come back to fight us another day, instead of bringing them to justice for the victims of 9/11.

Thanks for your very helpful answer.

[sandycat2]

Most of these Gitmo inmates are Al Qaeda in varying degrees, but had nothing directly to do with 9/11 attack itself except for Khalid Sheik Muhammod. The reason the rest of them are in Gitmo are because they were caught on a battlefield fighting our soldiers without uniforms. We can''t put them in a POW camp cause they aren''t POWs. They don''t wear a uniform or fight for a country. We have to put these people someplace while we are fighting a war against them. We can''t release people like Sheik Muhammed cause they would be back creating another 9/11. We have seen that some have returned to fighting us once they were released. They want to kill us. We shouldn''t release them at all.