Young Afghan Freed from Gitmo to Sue U.S.

Mohammed Jawad, Allegedly 12 When He Entered Prison 7 Years Ago, Wants Damages for Lost Youth

(AP)  The family of one of the youngest prisoners ever held at Guantanamo plans to sue the U.S. government to compensate him for mistreatment and an adolescence lost to nearly seven years in a cell, his lawyers said Thursday.

Mohammed Jawad returned to Afghanistan this week after a military judge ruled that he was coerced into confessing that he threw a grenade at an unmarked vehicle in the capital in 2002. The attack wounded two American soldiers and their interpreter.

Afghan police delivered Jawad into U.S. custody and about a month later he was sent to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Jawad and his family say he was 12 when he was arrested, and that he is now 19 years old. The Pentagon has said a bone scan showed he was about 17 when taken into custody. His defense lawyers decline to give an exact age for Jawad, who does not have a birth certificate, but say photos taken in Guantanamo showed that he had not gone through puberty.

"I was an innocent child when they put me in prison," Jawad told The Associated Press in an interview at the offices of an Afghan lawyer association. A round-cheeked man with a scraggly beard, Jawad spoke tentatively, glancing at his lawyer. He wore a white robe and a traditional beaded cap as he sat stiffly on an office couch.

Lawyers and family members say Jawad was submitted to various types of torture while imprisoned, including sleep deprivation and beatings.

The family plans to sue for compensation in U.S. courts, said Maj. Eric Montalvo, one of the military lawyers who was defending Jawad. Montalvo, who finishes his military service this month and has already joined a private firm, said he will aid in the process but will not necessarily file the suit.

"I will not allow him not to be assisted," Montalvo said, explaining that Jawad needs intensive psychological counseling and tutoring to make up for his lack of schooling. Jawad said he wants to become a doctor because he was impressed by the way doctors at Guantanamo helped people.

Justice Department officials have said the criminal investigation of Jawad is still open but his transfer back to Afghanistan makes prosecution unlikely. The judge who ordered him released said the government's case was an "outrage" and "full of holes."

Jawad flew Monday to the main U.S. base outside Kabul and then by helicopter to the Afghan Defense Ministry. President Hamid Karzai welcomed Jawad home in a private meeting at his palace. Jawad said Karzai expressed joy that he had been released, but that the conversation turned more sober as they talked about his mistreatment at Guantanamo.

"After I told him about the conditions, he seemed very sad," Jawad said. He said he didn't want to go into specifics about mistreatment, saying only: "Their behavior was not very good."

In a statement, the Afghan president also said he hoped that improvements to the justice system would soon mean the Afghan government can prosecute its own citizens accused of attacking U.S. forces.

"All cases of accused Afghans should be investigated by Afghans, inside the framework of Afghan rules and laws," he said.

Although the Obama administration says it's closing Guantanamo, hundreds of Afghans are still being held without charge at the U.S. military base at Bagram near the Kabul.

Relatives say they did not learn that Jawad had been arrested until nine months after he disappeared when he was sent by an uncle to fetch tea in 2002. Nine months later, the family received a letter from him through the Red Cross saying he was in Guantanamo.

Last October, a military judge at Guantanamo threw out Jawad's confession. The judge found that Jawad initially denied throwing the grenade but changed his story after Afghan authorities threatened to kill him and his family. U.S. District Judge Ellen Huvelle ordered him released nine months later.

On Monday night, Jawad was greeted by a crowd of family members at a friend's home in Kabul. Turbaned uncles and brothers and cousins hugged him tightly. But Jawad said when he was brought in to his mother, she didn't recognize him.

"She pulled off my cap and looked at the back of my head. There was a mark there that she recognized and then she knew it was me," Jawad said.

[tincup356]

They had NO REASON to imprison a child,,,NONE.,,,,I don't think he is Bin Laden,,,,for that matter,,,if they are looking for Bin Laden, why have they NEVER charged him with ANYTHING connected to 911?,,,Spend how many billion dollars in 8 years and not catch him? Wake up Americans,,,these TWO lies wars our government has gotten into are just to make rich greedy defense contractors ,,,RICHER,,,,,,the people of Afghanistan are victims, just like the citizens of America are victims. We are both victims of the United States government. We are BOTH victims of a vast conspiracy between BOTH parties of congress and corporate America,,,, the Great Lobby Robbery of 2009. We have people running our country who are down right evil,,,,BOTH parties. "We the People" can no longer trust these crooks....Every bit of this TARP mess has been designed for corporate America to clear their books of fraud, refill their accounts with tax payer money at less than 1% interest,,,,,then turn around and rob the people by raising interest rates. Most people don't realize just how much money BOTH parties pocketed last fall from AIG, Citibank , and Bank of America,,,, a total of 1.7 BILLION dollars was split between the two parties,,,,,then a few weeks later,,,,congress paid them back, with almost 200 BILLION.....that is conspiracy to defraud the American people,,,and HIGH TREASON.

[hungry1968-16]

by ToolMangler1 August 27, 2009 8:19 PM EDT

The only way to have kept that from happening was if we had never done business with the Mid East to start with. We should have developed alternate power sources and let the Muslims keep their Oil. Westerners have no business in the Mid East. Islam is bad for our health.







We were attacked by radical islamics because of our support of israel in their genocide campaign against the palestinians, and because we had troops in the "holy land" of Saudi Arabia.

It had NOTHING to do with oil.

[ToolMangler1]

Whether we needed the Oil or not is a 'Moot' point, The statement I made was and is We should have never done business with the Mid East.
I still feel that way.. They are not ready for the 15th century not to mention the 21st century.

[brianbwb-2009]

You are partially correct, but their response provided the lame excuse to go after the oil, and also rip off the US treasury in the bargain. It is a win-win-lose-lose, they become heroes to their people, while certain people in the US get filthy rich, but more innocent people die, and our economy is trashed.

Win-win, lose-lose.

[hungry1968-16]

by brianbwb-2009 August 27, 2009 7:03 PM EDT





Not for nothing Brian, but you're posting the "Geneva Conventions" for a group of people that basically deny it's existence.

[brianbwb-2009]

Yeah, I know, I just like watching them squirm when their points are refuted, and then try to switch topics, and when they run out of any attempted justifications, revert to simple mindless insult.

I have this one guy going all the way back to WW2 to try to justify Afghanistan, once we have disposed of the American Revolution, this one will be ready for the recycle bin...; )

I confess I do enjoy that "another one bites the dust" feeling.

[hungry1968-16]

by Marc1986 August 27, 2009 6:20 PM EDT

Hope you enjoyed your ride.






So there was a "tall man in a flowing robe" at an Al Qaeda training camp, and the video was SO INCONCLUSIVE, that they had to show it to "a former intelligence officer and now military analyst for NBC" for clarification, and he BELIEVES that it was bin Laden, and you somehow - oddly - believe that in REAL TIME that the CIA officers KNEW that it was bin Laden.

Your claim that Clinton "could have taken him, but didn't" is absurd. They didn't even KNOW that it was him in the cross-hairs, nor were they authorized to kill him outright, NOR did they have the weaponry in place to do it. Clinton had ONE opportunity to take him into custody, and that was in February 1996 - BEFORE he was a wanted criminal.




The most bizarre part of your comment though is, "And in regards to my above response, Bush would have blown that SOB out of the water, and liberals like you probably would have torn him apart for doing it."

That is outright LUNACY. He was warned at least 10 times prior to 9/11 about the pending attacks, and he was SPECIFICALLY warned by the FAA on August 6th that bin Laden was going to hijack planes to fly them into buildings in a terrorist attack. But - as usual - he was too busy on vacation.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

He ABANDONED the "war on terror" like a baby in a dumpster, (or should I say "cut and ran"), to instead go to Iraq, which had NO PURPOSE whatsoever. And THEN he had the balls to tell a press conference, "I don't know where bin Laden is, and frankly I'm not that concerned about him".



My ride was awesome. Thanks for asking.

[babooph]

OK if the $$$$ comes out of those VERY fat Bush & Cheney trust funds-bloated up from their massive tax cuts-some have GREED with no bottom.

[hungry1968-16]

Marc1986

Going for a ride.

I'll be back in a couple of hours to check up on your predictably absurd, and nonsensical response.

[brianbwb-2009]

to Marc1986

Would have, except for the fact that he didn't. killing the son of your father's business partner is not good for your father's business.

[hungry1968-16]

by Marc1986 August 27, 2009 4:41 PM EDT
@hungry

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/






Clinton's "missed opportunity" was in 1996.

Up to that point, Bin Laden hadn't done ANYTHING to the United States to warrant us taking him into custody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Sudan



The FIRST criminal charges EVER placed against him, were in 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Criminal_charges






Let me ask it a different way: "Other than 20/20 foresight, and the ability to predict that Al Qaeda would fly four planes as weapons 5 years later, or to predict that he would be indicted two years later, WHY should Clinton have taken Bin Laden into US custody in 1996?"

You're welcome for this free education.

[brianbwb-2009]

To Marc1986

This small fact continually eludes your comprehension, the African countries do not belong to us, and we are obviously not welcome there.

It also eludes your capacity to understand that if Bin Laden had not been trained for nefarious purposes by the CIA, you wouldn't now have your current boogieman to be so afraid of.

You quote Clinton, but ignore Bush's Dead or alive BS, which has worked just as well as Clinton's.

You are also apparently unaware, or at least don't find it ironic that we have the ability to find Saddam hiding in a hole in the ground, under a house in a village in the middle of the desert, but cannot "find" Bin Laden, who is the Larry King of Al Jazeera.

Hello, testing one, two, testing...

[hungry1968-16]

by Marc1986 August 27, 2009 2:06 PM EDT

Maybe if Clinton had done his job and gotten Osama when he could, and not gutted our defense budget so much it would have never happened. But you're right, both sides deserve some blame for this.






When did Clinton have the opportunity to take bin Laden?

[hungry1968-16]

by Marc1986 August 27, 2009 2:03 PM EDT

And whoever said this innocent 12 year old boy (bone scans beg to differ and he has no birth certificate) may have 'lived' there, get a grip. He was obviously involved in some shape or fashion.






So if someone lives in LA, and there's a drive by shooting, EVERYONE is implicated because they "live there"?

[displeased]

And whoever said this innocent 12 year old boy (bone scans beg to differ and he has no birth certificate) may have 'lived' there, get a grip. He was obviously involved in some shape or fashion.
by Marc1986 August 27, 2009 2:03 PM EDT

What evidence makes this obvious? His teenage confession as officials threatened to kill him and his family?

[displeased]

That's why we rely on this thing called evidence.

[brianbwb-2009]

Marc1986

"What evidence do you expect to get?"

If you have none, then you have no case, this is the law. You do know what the wor means, and why the phrase "burden of proof" is applied to the task of the accusers, do you not?

You have no proof, then you have no case. this is the law, end of story.

[endurorob]

dwilson59 August 27, 2009 2:29 PM EDT
can someone help me out I do not know.

Geneva convention

I thought that only applies to uniformed military personal. Can some one let me know?


It applies to enemy combatants. And if it is uniform personnel then anyone fighting or working for the enemy not wearing a uniform is a spy and is eligible for the death penalty.

[brianbwb-2009]

Blatantly incorrect, see my post above, the exact wording is quite clear.

""Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

Notice it says "persons" and makes no distinction as to whether or not in uniform.

[endurorob]

Maybe the relatives of the 9/11 victims should sue the Saudi government for promoting the type of religious fanatacism thta leadss to terrorism.

[brianbwb-2009]

Good idea, and the Iraqis and Afghanis should do the same to the US, for exactly the same reason.

[Questionews]

He's lucky to be alive. Life is NOT fair - deal with it.

by speakinup23 August 27, 2009 11:53 AM EDT


Personally I am very grateful that life is not fair. Imagine for a moment that life was fair. Contemplate the idea that all the mean, nasty things that happen to you in your life happen because you deserve them.

[dwilson59]

can someone help me out I do not know.

Geneva convention

I thought that only applies to uniformed military personal. Can some one let me know?

[brianbwb-2009]

No, it applies to all people who, during a conflict, find themselves in the custody of forces representing a country not their own, as also does the UN convention against torture, signed by Reagan.

Geneva,

"The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for..."

And,

"Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals."

UN convention,

"Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.

Article 3

1. No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
2. For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights..."

That takes care of all of the false arguments put up so far by the neo war mongers.

[brianbwb-2009]

To Marc1986

I thought you would post such, this is why I also included the UN convention against torture, which Reagan did sign, and which we are thus constitutionally obligated to observe, which covers the same ground.

[TheMasses2002]

Another story on here today (World section) talks about a little boy this little terrorists' age (when captured) blowing up a Pakistan border camp. Little Mohammed should have been maimed or killed. Instead, he lives to attack the USA another day.

[brianbwb-2009]

If he wasn't motivated before, he should be now, and it is your fault for supporting the events that made him so.

[endurorob]

He is lying about his age so what else is he lying about. The lawsuit will likely go nowhere if requires the discussion of classified info.

[brianbwb-2009]

You support Bush lying about why we should even be there harming those people, but you choose to suck that warm from the tap, so what's the difference?

[GuyfromUSA]

There you go.. You must be leading the liberal parade. You moron. Yoy really think this kid was innocent? We should have been even tougher on these low life scum. All they want is to KILL you. Don;t you undertsnad that? Apprently you're too stupid. You have a short memory. go back and watch American jumping to their deaths just to keep from burning alive or watch the hundreds of firefighters go in an never make it back out .. You need a little reminding.

[brianbwb-2009]

Regardless of what anyone thinks, can you prove him guilty? Obviously the US military could not, even with lies, otherwise they would not have let him go free.

Now you want to say you know more about the case than the US military, right? What a maroon.

[mav547166]

Yet another reason why we only do predator strikes. Obama has it figured out, no more pesky due process for terrorist. I like the Liberal way of war kill em, but dont take them prisoner.

[hockeymom441]

I'm confused... I thought he confessed to tossing grenades. I missed the part where the US government was supposed to use their crystal ball and realize his CONFESSION was not real... and then release him.

Maybe when the US gov't is on the receiving end of some frivious lawsuits, they'll realize that we need tort reform now.

[bobbyduck1]

So, hockeymom441, if you were between 12 and 17 years old, and you were told to say you threw a grenade or your whole family would be murdered, what is it that you think you would do differently than what this boy did?

Then if your government handed you over to the Afghan government, who tortured you for years and also made the same threats, what is it that you would do differently?

As to the "crystal ball", the staff at Guantanamo are SUPPOSED to be good at their job. Don't you realize that they knew the truth of this child's innocence long ago? Some that are directly involved at Guantanamo maintain that at least 80% of the inmates are innocents, swept up by fuedal tribe leaders to either get rid of their personal enemies, or simply to collect the bounty that we paid them for anyone they said confessed.

This is the darkest stain on America's reputation ever, and still so many GOP types defend it. Unbelievable!

[brianbwb-2009]

To, hockeymom441

I would thing that if you were hooded, slapped, punched (check the picture, clearly a broken nose), and thrown down a flight of stairs, you would confess to eating your children, even though they are still alive.

[AlomaGirl]

Liberals are not destroying the country. Bush and his croonies did. As far as I can see, the afghani should sue, everyone that was held ilegally for so many years should sue, but not the US... they should sue G.W. Bush, Cheney and everyone involved in that administration of terror.

[slownewsday_5]

So you advocate sinking to their level, Marc? Sad.

[brianbwb-2009]

To Marc1986

"At least we leave 'their' people alive to sue...."

Now you know without doubt that your statement is a blatant lie.

And you want to cite Geneva? you are really a joke, we are the ones illegally occupying their country son, we are the ones on the wrong side of Geneva.

[brianbwb-2009]

To Marc1986

"And if your logic is we're illegally occupying Afghanistan, then we also illegally occupied Italy in World War 1, Germany in World War 2, Iraq in Operation Desert Storm, and any other nation that we have sent troops to in order to stop genocide and human rights violations."

You got it.

What was happening in those countries was none of our business, and we did not enter any the conflicts to stop human rights violations. I refer you to this,

"...Even with the purchases of oil from non-German sources, the major supplier of oil was still the cartel. The I.G. Farben-Standard Oil cooperation for production of synthetic oil from coal gave the I.G. Farben cartel a monopoly of German gasoline production during World War II. Just under one half of German high octane gasoline in 1945 was produced directly by I.G. Farben, and most of the balance by its affiliated companies.

Roosevelt, the presidential candidate, was promising the American people that the Roosevelt administration would remain neutral should he be re-elected."

The release of previously classified documents in 1994 clearly show that it was the US who goaded Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, thus providing the excuse to enter the war, as predicted by General Hugh Johnson.

Ironic and funny that you would posit that the US, born in genocide, nursed on slavery, and to this day intolerant of "other" human life, would be a humanitarian broker.