UPDATE: Maj. Frakt informs me that he is getting very few letters in support of Jawad. Please, please, please write a letter today. Also sign the petition, but the letters are much more important. Go here for instructions on writing an effective letter.
*************
Mohammad Jawad — arrested when he was 16 or 17 on highly questionable charges of throwing a grenade at US troops — has been imprisoned at Guantanamo for 5 1/2 years. Now he is up on war crimes charges. His defense attorney, Maj. David Frakt, last week asked supporters to write letters to the Military Commission Convening Authority requesting her to drop the charges against Jawad. Now Maj. Frakt is supplementing this letter-writting campaign with a petition. So please write a letter [more information and instructions here] and sign the petition.
Here is the text of the Petition:
Support Defense Request for Guantanamo Detainee Mohammad Jawad
Target: The Honorable Susan J. Crawford, Convening Authority of the Military Commissions
Sponsored by: Major David J. R. Frakt, Detailed Defense Counsel, Guantanamo Commission
WHEREAS,
1. Significant doubt exists about Mohammad Jawad’s culpability for the grenade attack on U.S. forces on December 17, 2002, in Kabul, Afghanistan;
2. Mohammad Jawad was a juvenile, only 16 or 17 years old, at the time he was taken into U.S. military custody on December 17, 2002;
3. Mohammad Jawad was subjected to extreme and illegal physical and psychological abuse at Bagram Air Base prison from December 18, 2002 to February 6, 2003, including, but not limited to, sleep deprivation, prolonged stress positions, threats, beatings, and being chained to the wall;
4. Mohammad Jawad has been subjected to extreme and illegal physical and psychological abuse at Guantanamo Bay from February 6, 2008, including, but not limited to, sleep deprivation, prolonged isolation, threats, beatings, temperature extremes, sensory deprivation and sensory overload;
5. Mohammad Jawad has been consistently denied the rights accorded to him under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict and under the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention and Geneva Convention Common Article 3;
6. Mohammad Jawad’s alleged act of throwing a hand grenade at lawful combatants in an armed conflict does not constitute a violation of the international law of war;
7. Mohammad Jawad has been unlawfully denied any opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration during his nearly 6 years of captivity;
8. Mohammad Jawad is not affiliated in any way with the Taliban or Al Qaida, and is not alleged to have any involvement in any terrorist attacks and is not charged with any crimes of terrorism;
9. The United States has consistently opposed trying child soldiers as war criminals, and there is no mention in the entire legislative history of the Military Commissions Act by a single member of Congress of 2006 of any intent to try juvenile combatants or child soldiers; no juvenile or child soldier has ever been tried in an international war crimes tribunal for war crimes in modern history;
10. It is our view that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was intended to provide a vehicle to bring to justice those persons responsible for major terrorist attacks on the United States and its allies, such as the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the bombing of U.S. Embassies in East Africa;
THEREFORE, we concerned citizens implore you to reconsider your earlier decision to refer charges against Mohammad Jawad to trial by military commission and urge you to withdraw and permanently dismiss those charges.
Now go sign!
[Blogger Valtin at Invictus has also written about this petition.]
August 27th, 2008
The Guardian reports that the US State Department is putting pressure on the UK to block release of documents providing detials on the torture of British resident Binyam Mohamed. Lawyers want documents about his detention and interrogation from his capture in 2002 till his trasfer to Guantanamo in 2004. The case is revealing that a British intelligence official has refused to testify, even in secret, as he is being questioned about “alleged war crimes.” Interesting how protecting the US torturers is considered the same as protecting “national security.”
US warning to court in alleged torture case
By Duncan Campbell
The US state department yesterday warned that disclosure of secret information in the case of a British resident said to have been tortured before he was sent to Guantánamo Bay would cause “serious and lasting damage” to security relations between the countries.
Stephen Mathias, a legal adviser to the department, also claimed that the “national security of the UK” would be affected by disclosure of the details of the detention and interrogation of Binyam Mohamed, 30, who is accused of conspiring with al-Qaida.
Lawyers for the Ethiopian national have been arguing in the high court that they should have access to details of his interrogation from the time he was detained in 2002 until he was taken to Guantánamo Bay - where he is still held - in 2004. Mohamed claims that he was tortured by, among other methods, having his penis cut with a razor blade.
In an email to the Foreign Office, which was read out to the court, Mathias said disclosure would cause “serious and lasting damage to the US-UK intelligence-sharing relationship and thus the national security of the UK”.
Ben Jaffey, for Mohamed, told the court that the US had said 44 documents would be made available to the “convening authority” in the US which will decide on Mohamed’s prosecution but not to his legal representatives, Lieutenant Colonel Yvonne Bradley and Clive Stafford-Smith, of Reprieve, although both had been security-cleared in the US.
Jaffey said there was “no movement on the central question - where was Mr Mohamed between 2002 and 2004?” Tim Eicke, for the government, said the US had made concessions by making documents available to the convening authority.
After hearing from both sides in open court, the judges retired to hear further arguments in private. No decision was made last night but a ruling is expected tomorrow.
Mohamed, a UK resident, was initially held in Pakistan in 2002 and was later secretly rendered to Morocco, where he claimed that he was tortured and had his penis lacerated while further threats were made. He was then flown by the US authorities to Afghanistan, where he claims he was subjected to further ill-treatment and interrogation. In September 2004, he was taken to Guantánamo Bay. He claims that all his confessions were a result of torture. He faces the death penalty.
Last week, in the initial hearing of the case, the high court found that MI5 had participated in the unlawful interrogation of Mohamed. One MI5 officer was so concerned about incriminating himself that he initially declined to answer questions from the judges, even in private.
Although the judges said that “no adverse conclusions” should be drawn by the plea against self-incrimination, it was disclosed that the officer, Witness B, was questioned about alleged war crimes, including torture.
David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has provided the US with documents about the case. He has declined to release further evidence, arguing that disclosure would harm the intelligence relationship with the US.
August 27th, 2008
From Andrew Sullivan:
Quote of the Day
“Look, I owe the American people an apology. If I had beaten the old man you’d’ve never heard of the kid and you wouldn’t be in this mess. So it’s all my fault and I feel that very, very strongly,” - Michael Dukakis.
August 27th, 2008
Steven Reisner, candidate for President of the American Psychological Association, has sent the following statement on the APA referendum to remove psychologists from US detention facilities violating international law unless they work for the detainees. This statement is in response to concerns expressed abut the impact of the referendum by some who claim to support its intent:
Hi all,
I have followed the debate on the referendum language quite carefully and was present at the Council meeting on August 12th, where the issue was discussed. I’ve also reviewed correspondence with Natalie Gilfoyle (APA Legal Council) and Barry Anton (Recording Secretary) and the sponsors of the referendum. It is important to note that this is the first referendum in APA’s history, and so there is currently a good faith effort to fairly oversee and institutionalize a process of both the voting on and, should it pass, the application of the referendum. All parties have been quite clear that their aim, should the referendum pass, would be to have it apply as the sponsors intended and to avoid unintended or mischievous consequences.
The sponsors, in their FAQs and clarification statements, have made it absolutely clear that the intent of the referendum is to prevent psychologists from participating in operations that take place at sites where national security detainees are being held intentionally outside of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, international law, or the US constitution, such as CIA black sites, Guantanamo, Bagram, etc. The sponsors have also made it clear that the referendum does not apply to prisoners in domestic prisons who are not being held as part of national security detentions, nor would it apply to psychologists working in foreign countries on missions of peace or human welfare.
I do not believe that the Council and the sponsors would apply this resolution in a way that would cause trouble for domestic forensic or international peace psychologists, since all parties are determined to avoid such an application.
But I do know that the APA leadership has thus far resisted any attempt at blocking psychologists from participating in our government’s illegal program of national security detention. In this way the APA stands alone among the major health professions. That is why the Department of Defense announced that they would be using only psychologists, and not physicians or psychiatrists, in these roles.
I believe the referendum is important, too, because for the first time, it gives the membership a voice in choosing whether APA members should be associated with these policies and practices. I think it is vitally important that we dissociate ourselves from these operations before the Bush administration passes into history. This is not the time to passively run down the clock and hope that attention focuses elsewhere. This is the time to stand up and speak out. If we miss the opportunity to speak truth to power, I am afraid that our organization will forever be seen as having acquiesced where we should have protested, and of following where we should have led.
For all of these reasons I support the referendum and urge members to vote ‘yes.’
Steven
Steven Reisner, Ph.D.
August 27th, 2008