August 27, 2009 11:00 AM

Young Afghan Freed from Gitmo to Sue U.S.

(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 , 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.

© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Add a Comment See all 89 Comments
by tincup356 August 28, 2009 12:05 AM EDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 August 27, 2009 8:27 PM EDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by ToolMangler1 August 27, 2009 9:09 PM EDT
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.
by brianbwb-2009 August 27, 2009 10:34 PM EDT
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.
by hungry1968-16 August 27, 2009 7:58 PM EDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 August 27, 2009 10:30 PM EDT
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.
by hungry1968-16 August 27, 2009 7:52 PM EDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by babooph August 27, 2009 6:40 PM EDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 August 27, 2009 5:37 PM EDT
Marc1986

Going for a ride.

I'll be back in a couple of hours to check up on your predictably absurd, and nonsensical response.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 August 27, 2009 11:42 PM EDT
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.
by hungry1968-16 August 27, 2009 5:33 PM EDT
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.
Reply to this comment
by brianbwb-2009 August 27, 2009 10:48 PM EDT
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...
by hungry1968-16 August 27, 2009 4:06 PM EDT
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?
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-16 August 27, 2009 4:03 PM EDT
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"?
Reply to this comment
by displeased August 27, 2009 3:07 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.
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?
Reply to this comment
by displeased August 27, 2009 4:40 PM EDT
That's why we rely on this thing called evidence.
by brianbwb-2009 August 27, 2009 11:07 PM EDT
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.
See all 89 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook