Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Appeals court rules for Guantanamo detainee

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 10:03 AM
Original message
Appeals court rules for Guantanamo detainee
Edited on Mon Jun-23-08 10:24 AM by maddezmom
Source: AP

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court on Monday overturned the Pentagon's classification of a Guantanamo Bay detainee as an enemy combatant.

In the first case it reviewed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in favor of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Muslim known as a Uighur, undermining the basis for his more than six years in detention.

The court rejected the Bush administration's argument that the president has the power to detain people who never took up arms against the U.S.

In a one-paragraph notice, the appeals court directed the U.S. military to release Parhat, to transfer him or to hold a new proceeding in light of the appeals court's ruling.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_go_su_co/guantanamo_chinese_muslim;_
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mainegreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
1. LOL p3wnd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim__ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
2. Will they appeal this to the Supreme Court?
If they do, hopefully Kennedy will stay with the judges ruling on the law and not the politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marias23 Donating Member (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
3. Guantanamo Terrorist School
If he wasn't a terrorist before...after 6 years in the Guantanamo Terrorist School after six years he sure is one now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. Briefing for House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight
City on the Hill or Prison on the Bay? The Mistakes of Guantanamo and the Decline of America’s Image, Part II
May 20, 2008
Testimony of Sabin Willett

Good Afternoon, Chairman Delahunt, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing.

I am a lawyer from Boston. At Bingham McCutchen LLP, most of our clients are America’s corporate mainstream: banks, bondholders and businesses. But we also represent Uighur prisoners at Guantanamo. I do this work for a simple reason. When I go to see my clients in the Guantanamo prison, I have to walk beneath my flag. I’m not happy about it being there. I want it back.

This subcommittee has already heard about the Uighur dissidents from Communist China who were caught up in the so-called War on Terror. This Spring you read reports from China’s state news agency describing Tibetan monks as “terrorists.” That is the word the Communists have used for the Uighurs too. Ever since 9/11.

One of my clients is Huzaifa Parhat. He’s never been charged with anything. He never will be. In fact, he’s been cleared for release for years. Two weeks ago he began his seventh year at Guantanamo.

He believes in freedom of worship and denounces state-enforced abortion. He doesn’t care for communism. In China, beliefs like Huzaifa’s are called “intellectual terrorism.” Uighurs are regularly tortured for it. Some are put to death. I can remember when we Americans admired people who stood up for such beliefs in the face of tyranny. Now we offer them -- what do they call it? -- a “single occupancy” cell in Camp Six.

Interrogators advised in 2003 that his capture was a mistake. State has been trying to find a country to which to send him. But our allies read the same shrill rhetoric about Guantanamo that you have read. And the shadow of the communists falls over all the capitals of Europe. Nobody else wants Huzaifa. I used to think of us Americans, Mr. Chairman, as broad-shouldered, able to admit mistakes and put them right, but my government thinks we are a small people, so panicked by real enemies that we lock up imaginary ones. Forever.

When did we become such a small people?

Huzaifa lives in a place called Camp Six. My information, which dates from March, is that all the Uighurs but one are kept there. The men call it the dungeon above the ground. Each lives alone in an isolation cell. There is no natural light or air. There is no way to tell whether it is day or night. Outside the cell is a noisy bedlam of banging doors and the indistinct shouts of desperate men crouching at door cracks. A mad-house. Inside the cell, nothing.

Mr. Chairman, can you remember the last time you were alone -- I mean really alone? Nothing to read, no phone, music, computer, television, radio, activity; no companion, no one to talk to. That’s been Huzaifa’s life for most of the time since December, 2006.

For two hours in twenty four, the MPs shackle and lead Huzaifa to the rec area. This is a two-story chimney, about four meters square. It is his only chance to talk to another human being, or see the sun. But his rec time might be night; it might be after midnight. Weeks go by during which he never sees the sun at all. Mr. Chairman, you try talking to a man who only wants to see the sun. You will never forget the experience.

In the cell he can crouch at the door, and yell through the crack at the bottom. The fellow in the next cell may respond, or he might be curled in the fetal position, staring at the wall. Another Uighur told us of the voices in his head. The voices were getting the better of him. His foot was tapping on the floor. I don’t know what’s happened to him: he doesn’t come out of the cell to see us any more.

A letter from a third was released last December. He wondered, did someone need to commit suicide before anyone notices? A friend has a client who used to be thought of by the command as a model prisoner, well grounded, level headed. Now he has lost hope; he has lost control; he seethes with anger. His mind is wrecked by isolation.

Huzaifa believes he will die in Guantanamo. Last year he asked us to pass a message to his wife that she should remarry.

The Uighurs are not the enemy. Under Article I of our Constitution, Mr. Chairman, you in Congress, and you in Congress alone, have the power to name the enemy. The President is the chief general and admiral, but you are the “deciders.” It is your job to say who the enemy is; his to snap a salute. And you never declared war on the Uighurs. Nor on “terror,” for that matter.

But suppose, for a moment, that the Uighurs were the enemy. Would you leave them in Camp Six? In a prison? In isolation? Not if you’ve read the service Field Manuals. Not if you were Generals Ridgway, Westmoreland, Schwartzkopf or Powell, you wouldn’t. Yet this afternoon in Camp Six, we Americans are applying the same isolation techniques that North Korea used on our own airmen in 1952. The cells are shinier, and the paint fresher, but the cruel destruction of the human soul is the same. In 1952, our ambassador went to the General Assembly of the United Nations to denounce this kind of thing as barbaric. How quaint of him.

The worst prison in America, holding the absolute worst, convicted, violent criminals, does not treat them this way. Even the Unabomber has more human contact.

Perhaps the camp commandant would say Huzaifa has misbehaved in some way. The command hasn’t told me. In the grinding, endless heat of Guantanamo, tensions simmer. MPs wanting any post but GTMO -- guards who were twelve years old when Huzaifa was brought there -- handle, or mishandle a Koran, or gawk at a prisoner on the toilet, who, caged like an animal, behaves like one. Or someone thinks so. After six years, it hardly matters. The tensions boil over.

Have the Uighurs boiled over, in their seventh year? Five years after being told they were innocent and would be released? Would I boil over? Would you? In the service Field Manuals you will find provisions for disciplining those who disobey camp rules. The maximum period for solitary is two weeks.

I’d like to tell you about another detainee during wartime. In 1944, he was held at Fort Mackay, near where I go to work in Boston. He had served a Fascist tyrant in league with the most dangerous madman in this history of Europe; he had shot to kill Americans during a desperate world war we feared might change our civilization forever.

Still, the commandant did not throw the Italian prisoner away in a camp six. He lived communally. When hostilities with Italy ended in 1944, he couldn’t be repatriated -- Italy was still in flames -- so we Americans did the next best thing. Leave was given to visit the North End. He went to Mass. He played bocci along the Esplanade. He was given a job, and earned pay. At Carson’s beach, girls passed him notes through the fence. There were no proposals of torture, and not a few of marriage.

Do Uighurs in 2008 frighten us more than the Axis forces frightened Navy Captain Errol Willett in 1944, or are we just a smaller people than our grandparents were?

When Congress stripped the Uighurs’ habeas rights in 2005, my clients filed under the new Detainee Treatment Act. I know something about that Act, having litigated one of the lead cases. It is a train wreck. It took us a year and three rounds of briefing just to establish what the record is, and the government has filed another appeal. So we are nowhere. Another DTA case, Paracha, is two and a half years old. The courts haven’t done a thing with it. One court waits for a second to decide the habeas appeal; the government runs to the second to say, let’s wait and see how the first court plays out the DTA.

The Uighurs -- those who will still see me -- nod politely when I tell them about the courts. But they long ago concluded that American courts are merely a debating society. Nothing ever comes of them. A sign at Guantanamo says, “Honor Bound to Defend Freedom.” It would take a better advocate than me to persuade the Uighurs we Americans are serious about that.

Mr. Chairman, what will you do about Guantanamo? You have fifty or sixty stateless people there cleared for release. That is, for freedom. Are we Americans honor bound to defend that value, or are we just talking? The rest of the world won’t take them unless we take some too. Will you make that happen? Even Mr. Casey has acknowledged that after six years, some should be paroled to the United States. The Uighurs are one place to start.

That will take some gumption. The administration’s propaganda is effective, and most of your constituents think that anyone at Guantanamo must be a terrorist. But our flag asks a little gumption of us sometimes. Generally where the Congress shows the courage of leadership, the people come around. This seems like the right time for it.

Because outside, the world is turning. My client’s wife has remarried. Inside the wire, nothing every changes. Huzaifa Parhat has been a prisoner at Guantanamo from the attack on the Arizona at Pearl Harbor, straight through to the signing of the surrender aboard the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay, and almost back again. He’s in his cell in Camp Six this afternoon.

Thank you.

<google cache:> http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:nzAxMGbyRncJ:foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/wil052008.htm+Huzaifa+Parhat&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REACTIVATED IN CT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Another witness before the subcommittee
From a lawyer I am proud to know...


Good afternoon, Chairman Delahunt, Ranking Member Rohrabacher, and all members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me here. I am grateful for your leadership in examining the mistakes made at Guantánamo and the effects of those mistakes on America’s image. This is one of the most important issues of our time – one that implicates America’s basic values and its commitment to the rule of law.

My name is Elizabeth Gilson. I am a lawyer practicing in New Haven, Connecticut. I represent two men imprisoned by the U.S. Government at Guantánamo Bay since 2002, without any charges or a hearing. My clients are brothers, Uighur refugees from China. They are among 17 Uighurs held at Guantánamo. The Uighurs are a Turkic Muslim minority group in far-west China. Their homeland, East Turkistan, was annexed by the Chinese Communist Government in 1949 and re-named the Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region.

The Uighur people have been, and continue to be, brutally oppressed by the Chinese Government. The oppression of the Uighur people, and the state-sponsored mass-migration of millions of ethnic Han Chinese into the Uighur homeland, has led to ethnic tensions and to a Uighur nationalist movement, much to the displeasure of the Chinese Government. Chinese officials allege that Uighurs carried out “terrorist operations” by using “literary means” and “arts and literature” to “distort historical facts.” Uighurs were accused of “taking advantage of art and literature to tout the products of opposition to the people and to the masses and of advocating ethnic splittist thinking.”

<snip>
Originally, the United States did not consider that ETIM was a terrorist group. On December 6, 2001 (about the time Bahtiyar and the other Uighurs came into U.S. custody), U.S. State Department Coordinator for Counter-terrorism Francis X. Taylor said, following talks in Beijing, that “the U.S. has not designated or considers the East Turkistan organization as a terrorist organization.” ETIM was not on the State Department list of terrorist organizations. However, in the period after 9/11, State Department officials were negotiating with China concerning legitimate U.S. needs for international cooperation in connection with terrorism.

In the run-up to the war in Iraq, it was a U.S. priority to develop consensus among major world powers, and China was crucial. The Uighurs—and specifically the Uighurs in Guantanamo—became a diplomatic chip in this high-stakes game, a quid pro quo for Chinese acquiescence in the Administration’s Iraq policy. Speaking to the press in Beijing immediately after a meeting on August 26, Undersecretary of State Richard Armitage advised that the groundwork had been laid for an October 2002 summit between President Bush and President Jiang Zemin. He acknowledged that talks had focused on Iraq.

Several weeks later, the ETIM was added to the official State Department list of “terrorist organizations.” This designation was purely a political accommodation to the Chinese, granted solely to secure Chinese acquiescence in the U.S.’s Iraq war plans. Moreover, not only did the U.S. agree to reverse itself and declare ETIM a “terrorist organization,” it granted the Chinese permission to interrogate the Uighurs at Guantánamo Bay. Only weeks later, in September 2002, Chinese agents interrogated the Uighur prisoners at Guantánamo.
One month later, President Bush welcomed Chinese President Jiang in Crawford, Texas, for talks that focused on China’s position on a potential invasion of Iraq. This astonishing episode in U.S. diplomatic history—the United States welcoming agents of a Communist government to its secure military facility at Guantánamo, granting them access to prisoners that it has strenuously denied to U.S. courts, members of Congress, the United Nations, and the Press, and branding as “terrorist” an “organization” it had previously determined not to be a terrorist organization—points up the urgency, at the time, of the Iraq issue. This was a naked political deal to help secure China’s tacit acquiescence in the Iraq invasion being planned in 2002.
Agents of the Chinese government visited Bahtiyar and the other Uighur men in Guantánamo on several occasions. Based on unclassified information gained from interviews with these men, they were interrogated, abused, and threatened by Chinese representatives. More than once these agents threatened the Uighurs with imprisonment and possible torture upon their return from Guantánamo to China. The agents also ominously warned them that they knew who their families were and where they could be found.
Several Uighurs later described these incidents to the CSRT tribunals. For example, one Uighur named Abdusemet described how he was forcibly interrogated, threatened, and deprived of sleep and food by the Chinese delegation in Guantánamo. He stated that an American who identified himself as a “White House representative” specifically threatened to send Abdusemet to China if he did not cooperate with interrogators. A Chinese interrogator told Adel Abdul Hakim (who was later determined to be a noncombatant) that he was “lucky” to be in Guantanamo; if they took him back to a Chinese jail, he would be “finished.” Several Uighurs were told that they would be killed in China.
<snip>

http://ccrjustice.org/files/Beth%20Gilson%20Delahunt%20Subcommittee%20Testimony%20for%20May%206%2008%20final%20(6).doc
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Thanx!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. Guantánamo's Uighur pawns (Boston Globe 3/2/07)
... The 17 are Uighurs (pronounced wee-gurs) — members of a Muslim minority that feels oppressed by Beijing. They had been living in Afghanistan when the United States began its war there in 2001. They have said they fled U.S. bombing for shelter in Pakistan, where they were taken into custody by Pakistanis who were getting bounties of as much as $5,000 a head for captives. In 2006, after five were declared not to be enemy combatants, Albania accepted them as refugees. The U.S. military acknowledges that none of the 17 remaining is considered enough of a threat to be scheduled for one of the 80 trials planned for this year.

In fact, all but one would have left by now if the United States could find a place that would take them. But because of an unwillingness to incur China's disfavor, no country, including Albania, has stepped forward to accept any more.

The United States will not release them to China, for fear of the treatment they would receive there. Since there are about 2,000 Uighurs living in the United States, this would be a logical home for them, but the Department of Homeland Security says no. Gates should solve this problem, even if it means they become sought after for television broadcasts about their treatment in U.S. custody.

They would have much to tell. If it were not for the China connection, the Uighurs would likely have been released. In 2002 the United States was seeking China's support in the United Nations for the war against Iraq. Washington agreed to put a Uighur resistance movement on a list of terrorist organizations. It also allowed Chinese intelligence agents to interrogate the Uighur detainees, an experience that made them fearful for the safety of their families back in China's Xinjiang region ...

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/12/opinion/edgitmo.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Stranger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. "Hold a new proceeding"? Holy fuck -- is this ever going to end?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-23-08 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
7. "linked" to a Chinese separatist group
What is this guy's crime? He is "linked" to a group that has "some" ties to al-Quaida. So that gives Bush the right to hold him for six years without trial?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080623/ap_on_go_su_co/guantanamo_chinese_muslim

"Parhat never fought against the U.S. and the government concedes there's no evidence he ever intended to. He has been held for six years because he is linked to a Chinese separatist group that the military says has some ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-24-08 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
10. In a first, court says military erred in a Guantanamo case
<snip>

This is the first time that a circuit court has overruled a finding by a so-called status review tribunal, the Pentagon panel of military officers that determines whether a captive at Guantanamo meets the definition of "enemy combatant."

The ruling could force the government to release Parhat and reassess enemy-combatant designations in other cases. Administration officials have vowed to close Guantanamo someday, but they say they're "stuck" with the 65 or so detainees who've been identified for release but can't be let go because their countries refuse to take them back.

Some 270 people remain prisoner at Guantanamo.

<snip>

"This is a case of someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time," said Jason Pinney, one of Parhat's attorneys. "We hope this ruling increases the pressure on the government to do the right thing and resettle people to third countries when they need to. It bodes very well for other detainees." The Pentagon declined to comment on the ruling, referring questions to the Justice Department, where spokesman Erik Ablin said he couldn't answer questions about the decision because the department was still reviewing it.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/41907.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 04:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC