Afghanistan: Free Aafia Siddiqui’s 11-Year-Old Son

Child Is Too Young to Be Treated as Criminal Suspect

The Afghan government should immediately relinquish 11-year-old Ahmed Siddiqui to the custody of his family, Human Rights Watch said today. Siddiqui, a US citizen, is believed to be the son of Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani woman held on US federal charges in New York.

The two were reportedly arrested together in Afghanistan last month.

According to an Afghan Interior Ministry official quoted in the Washington Post, Ahmed Siddiqui was held briefly by the Interior Ministry after the arrest, and then transferred to the custody of the Afghan National Security Directorate (NDS), the country’s intelligence agency. His current whereabouts are unknown. The NDS is notorious for its brutal treatment of detainees.

“Under Afghan and international law, Ahmed Siddiqui is too young to be treated as a criminal suspect,” said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism program director at Human Rights Watch. “He should never have been transferred to the custody of Afghanistan’s abusive intelligence agency.”

Afghan police reportedly arrested Aafia Siddiqui and her son in Ghazni, Afghanistan, on July 17, 2008. US federal prosecutors allege that the day after her arrest, while in Afghan custody, she grabbed a gun from the floor and fired it at a team of US soldiers and federal intelligence agents. In August, she was charged with assaulting and trying to kill US officials.

In a letter sent recently to Aafia Siddiqui’s family, US prosecutors said photos and DNA tests strongly suggested that the boy arrested with Siddiqui was her son Ahmed.

The federal complaint against Aafia Siddiqui states that the Afghan police officers who arrested her found suspicious items in her handbag, including “documents describing the creation of explosives, chemical weapons, and other weapons involving biological material and radiological agents.” Siddiqui’s lawyers reject the official account, suggesting that the charges against Siddiqui are a sham.

Whether or not his mother is implicated in criminal acts, Ahmed Siddiqui should not be held responsible. Under both Afghan and international law, he is too young to be considered criminally responsible for his mother’s alleged acts.

According to Afghanistan’s Juvenile Code, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 13.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Afghanistan is a party, defines a child as any person under the age of 18. In its General Comment on Children’s Rights in Juvenile Justice of February 9, 2007, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors states’ compliance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, explicitly stated that a minimum age of criminal responsibility below age 12 “is considered by the Committee not to be internationally acceptable.”

Human Rights Watch said that Ahmed Siddiqui should be released to his biological family members, who reside in Pakistan, or to a child welfare organization that can provide proper care until he is reunited with his family.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern not only for Ahmed Siddiqui, but also for two siblings, Mariam, age 10, and Suleman, age 5, who have been missing since March 2003.

Siddiqui, along with her three children (then aged 6 years, 5 years and 6 months), was reportedly apprehended in Karachi, Pakistan on March 28, 2003. Ten days earlier, on March 18, 2003, the FBI had issued an alert requesting information about Siddiqui in an effort to locate and question her.

The US government has alleged that Siddiqui is linked to al Qaeda suspects Majid Khan and Ali ‘Abd al-‘Aziz ‘Ali (also known as Ammar al-Baluchi), who were both arrested in early 2003 and held for years in secret prisons operated by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). A number of reports alleged that Siddiqui had been handed over to US custody after her March 2003 disappearance, raising concerns that she, too, was in secret CIA custody.

Yet on May 26, 2004, then-US Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller III identified Siddiqui as someone who posed a threat to the United States, suggesting that she was not in custody. For more than five years, until Siddiqui suddenly reappeared in Afghanistan, her whereabouts were unknown.

Since Siddiqui’s reappearance this summer, the CIA and the US Department of Justice have denied that the United States had held Siddiqui or her children during the period of her disappearance, calling her a “fugitive from American justice.” Her family claims that Siddiqui and her children were held in secret US detention during at least part of that period.

Source: www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/27/afghan19701.htm

Bring Binyam Home

Bring Binyam Home Last week, judges ruled that foreign secretary David Miliband should reconsider his refusal to hand over secret information that could exonerate Binyam Mohamed, a London resident (and refugee form Ethiopia) who is still being held at Guantánamo Bay. Binyam's legal team belive that the information would show that he was tortured in Morocco. The US now intends to use the fruit of this torture in a Guantánamo kangaroo court.

Binyam could face the death penalty if convicted. The information held by the British government would probably also demonstrate that Britain was complicit in Binyam's torture. It is this, not national security, that explains David Miliband's reluctance to hand the material over.

Please email David Miliband on private.office@fco.gov.uk to tell him he must release this information and safeguard the life of the British resident. Please also tell David Miliband that it's time for the government to insist that the US sends Binyam home to Britain. The London Guantanamo Campaign suggests the wording below - please adapt this with words of your own:

Please make available, to the lawyers of Binyam Mohamed al Habashi, as requested by the High Court, material in possession of the British Government that supports Binyam Mohamed's account that he was rendered from Islamabad to Morocco in July 2002 to be tortured.

Please release any material relating to British involvement in his torture in Morocco for 18 months, in Kandahar, Afghanistan for 5 months, in Bagram, Afghanistan for 3-4 months and finally in his rendition to Guantanamo in 2004 and subsequent imprisonment and cruel and inhumane treatment.

Demand that the US drops all charges against him. Do not allow him to face the injustice of a Military Commission trial based on confessions extracted under torture.

The truth must be made available. It is contained in the information held by the British Government.

Binyam Mohamed has residency in this country.You should demand his immediate return to end his ordeal.

Please pass any response you get from David Miliband to richard@sacc.org.uk
Guardian report on Binyam's case: www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/21/law.guantanamo1 Press release for Reprieve, the legal charity that represents Binyam www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=596&catid=45

Cageprisoners: Protest - Justice for Aafia Siddiqui

Friday 12th September 2008
6-8pm
Outside the US Embassy, Grovesnor Square, London

Speakers include:
Moazzam Begg (Ex-Guantanamo detainee, Cageprisoners)
Lord Nazir Ahmed
Yvonne Ridley (Press TV, Respect)
Andy Worthington (Author, Reprieve)
Asim Qureshi (Cageprisoners)
Imran Khan (invited)

Speeches will commence at 6:30pm. Iftar and Maghrib at 7:30pm.

A petition for Aafia Siddiqui as well as leaflets and postcards will be available. Donations will be collected for Aafia's fund.

Please design and bring your own banners!

WHO IS AAFIA SIDDIQUI?

Detained Incommunicado for five years

Abused physically and psychologically
11 year old son in custody in Afghanistan
Her two youngest children remain missing

Dr Aafia Siddiqui, the American educated Pakistani scientist and mother of three was detained for years by the US in Bagram. She has been the victim of the US programme of secret detention for five years since having been kidnapped in Karachi by Pakistan security services in 2003 along with her three children.

On Monday 4th August 2008, federal prosecutors in the US confirmed that Aafia Siddiqui was extradited to the US from Afghanistan where they allege she had been detained since mid-July 2008. The US administration claims that she was arrested by Afghani forces outside Ghazni governor’s compound with manuals on explosives and ‘dangerous substances in sealed jars’ on her person. They further allege that whilst in custody she shot at US officers and was injured in the process.

According to her lawyer, Elaine Whitfield Sharp, “We do know she was at Bagram for a long time. It was a long time. According to my client she was there for years and she was held in American custody; her treatment was horrendous.”

Aafia’s claim is contrary to the heavily contested position of the US administration that she was detained in July by Afghan forces while attempting to bomb the compound of the governor of Ghazni. The US has previously denied the presence of female detainees in Bagram and that Aafia was ever held there, bar for medical treatment in July 2008.

Aafia Siddiqui now faces trial in the US in circumstances that can only be described as strange at best. Questions remain as to her own whereabouts over the last five years and still that of her children; the US government have recently acknowledged that her eldest son Ahmed, an 11 year old US national, is in Afghan custody. The whereabouts of her youngest two children remain unknown.

Aafia's health has deteriorated since her transfer to the US on August 4th. She suffered multiple bullet wounds whilst in custody, the loss of part of her intestine, and extensive surgical incisions resulting in multiple layers of external and internal stitching prior to her extradition. There are a number of other healths concerns and subsequently her medical condition condition needs to be fully investigated by several different specialists. Physical injuries aside, Aafia’s psychological injuries obviously leave deeper scars. Her ordeal is heightened by the degrading and humilating strip and cavity searches she is forced to endure before every legal visit.

SUPPORTED BY: Islamic Human Rights Commission (www.ihrc.org) / CAMPACC (www.campacc.org.uk/)

For further information: 07973 264197 / contact@cageprisoners.com

www.cageprisoners.com

www.aafiasiddiqui.org

Britain: Security Service “Facilitated” Torture Of Guantánamo Detainee

A London court has ruled that the British government must disclose information that could support the claim that torture was used to extract confessions from Binyam Mohamed, a former British resident who has been held in Guantánamo Bay since September 2004.

The ruling by the Judicial Review—a special court that considers the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body—is a rebuff to Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who had initially argued that he was under no obligation to provide Mohamed’s lawyers with the information.

Binyam Mohamed has now been incarcerated for nearly six and half years. He was first detained in Pakistan, and then subjected to “extraordinary rendition”—Washington’s euphemism for its programme of organised kidnapping and torture—to Morocco. Here he was held for 18 months while his captors used torture—including slicing his genitals with a razor—to wring a “confession” out of him.

He currently faces trial by a US Military Tribunal, charged with conspiring to commit terrorism and providing material support for terrorism in an alleged “dirty-bomb” plot. He could face the death penalty if found guilty. The judges ruled that the information is “not only necessary but essential for his defence”.

Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, Director of Reprieve, who has represented Mohamed since 2005, told the press, “This is a momentous decision. Compelling the British government to release information that can prove Mr. Mohamed’s innocence is one obvious step towards making up for the years of torture that he has suffered. The next step is for the British government to demand an end to the charade against him in Guantánamo Bay, and return him home to Britain.”

In their ruling, the judges state, “It is a long standing principle of the common law that confessions obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be used as evidence in any trial.”

The Judicial Review was held at the end of July over five days in both open and closed sessions, also hearing testimony in camera from British Security Service and Secret Service officers who had been involved in the questioning of Mohamed while he was detained in Pakistan and elsewhere. The court’s 75-page open judgement was finally published last week, while a secret “closed” judgement has also been made.

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones found there were compelling grounds that the “exculpatory” information should be released in confidence to Mohamed’s legal representatives. No order for the provision of such information has been made until a further hearing considers the issues of “national security” raised by the Foreign Secretary as grounds for its non-disclosure.

At the Judicial Review, Dinah Rose QC, representing Mohamed, told the court that by cooperating with the US in its unlawful treatment of her client, the security and intelligence agencies were “mixed up in wrongdoing”. It was also alleged that the US “provided the UK with the fruits of his interrogation”.

Rose said that a British agent—identified only as “Witness B”—had made a “veiled threat” to Mohamed while he was being held in Pakistan, to encourage his “cooperation”, with the implication that “we won’t help you unless you confess”. She also asserted that MI5 had “repeatedly” provided the US authorities with detailed information about Mohamed’s life in the UK, information that was then used by his captors during interrogation.

In his summing up, Ben Jaffey, another of Mohamed’s legal team, highlighted the contradictions in MI5’s accounts; one MI5 officer had said that British security and intelligence agencies “did not know” Binyam Mohamed’s whereabouts after he was flown out of Pakistan in 2002, whereas an MI5 representative had explicitly told the House of Commons Intelligence and Security Committee that it believed he was in US custody.

Seeking to justify its refusal to hand over information that could uphold Mohamed’s claim that he was tortured, the government told the court that the UK was “hugely dependent in a number of areas on US intelligence”.

Moreover, it was a “fundamental principle” that information passed between the countries not be disclosed to a third party without the consent of the country which had provided it. “Any disclosure, however limited, would seriously undermine this principle to the point that future cooperation between the UK and its most valuable intelligence partner, the US, would be severely jeopardised”, posing a “very serious risk to UK national security”.

Judicial Review Findings

Binyam Mohamed’s case makes a mockery of the Labour government’s pretensions to oppose the use of torture and uphold human rights.

While claiming to uphold the Geneva Conventions and international treaties outlawing the use of torture, British military personnel, as well as officers from the various intelligence agencies have been implicated in the mistreatment of detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the case of Binyam Mohamed, they have been caught red-handed.

The judgement records that “it was accepted on behalf of the Foreign Secretary... that BM [Binyam Mohamed] had established an arguable case (i) that over the period April 2002 to May 2004 he was first held by the United States incommunicado and without access to a lawyer or a court or tribunal in Pakistan, and then detained there or elsewhere by the United States until his arrival in Guantánamo Bay in September 2004 (ii) that he was subject to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by or on behalf of the United States during such detention and (iii) that he was subject to torture during such detention by or on behalf of the United States.”

Moreover, the legal hearing and court ruling establish conclusively that not only did the British government know about the mistreatment of Mohamed, British agents also facilitated this “wrongdoing”. The judges found that “The relationship between the United Kingdom Government and the United States authorities was far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing”.

Even more damning, the court found “that on the basis that what was done was arguably wrongdoing, the SyS [Security Service] facilitated it in the manner and to the extent described.”

The court concluded that the “conduct of the Security Service facilitated interviews by or on behalf of the United States when BM was being detained by the United States incommunicado and without access to a lawyer in Pakistan in the period April 2002 until at least May 2002... The Court also concluded that the Security Service continued to facilitate the interviewing of BM by providing information and questions after 17 May 2002, in the knowledge of what was reported to them as to the circumstances of his detention and treatment in Pakistan.”

The Security Services then continued to provide further information and questions to their American counterparts, even when they knew that Mohamed had been moved from Afghanistan to a third country, where he faced serious mistreatment.

Mohamed’s lawyers have been pressing the government to release information and documents they held that might sustain his claim that the “evidence” against him had been extracted under torture. After an initial request for information was lodged by his legal representatives in April, government lawyers responded by saying the “UK is under no obligation under international law to assist foreign courts and tribunals in assuring that torture evidence is not admitted”.

Binyam Mohamed’s case was finally accepted for Judicial Review at the beginning of June. Recognising the urgency of his plight, Mr Justice Saunders agreed to an “expedited” hearing, saying, “If it is correct that in the course of an interrogation, in which material supplied by the Defendant [the British government] was employed, the Claimant [Binyam Mohamed] was tortured, then it is arguable that there is an obligation to disclose material which may assist Claimant in establishing before the American Military Court that he was tortured. Whether the Court should exercise its discretion not to order disclosure can only be determined at a full hearing.”

It was not until this application for a Judicial Review was accepted that the Foreign Secretary then grudgingly acknowledged government documents “could be considered exculpatory or might otherwise be relevant in the context of proceedings before the Military Commissions”.


Geneva Conventions

In its deliberations, the court considered whether the British government or its agents had contravened the Genva Conventions.

“The United Kingdom Armed Forces are trained in the laws of armed conflict set out in the Geneva Conventions. The Joint Services Intelligence Organisations’ training documentation states that the following techniques are expressly and explicitly forbidden: (a) physical punishment of any sort; (b) the use of stress positions; (c) intentional sleep deprivations; (d) withdrawal of food, water or medical treatment and three other specified techniques.”

Citing a 2007 report by the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), established by the Intelligence Services Act 1994 to examine the policy, administration and expenditure of the Security Service (SyS), Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), and the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the court found that the SyS and SIS “must have appreciated that it [rendition] was contrary to the rule of law.”

The ruling also documents the fact that the government knew of the ongoing and persistent mistreatment of detainees being held by the American authorities, or those acting on their behalf.

From December 2001, British intelligence operatives were able to interview detainees in Afghanistan, if permission was given by the US authorities holding them. The first SyS officers arrived at Bagram airbase on January 9, 2002 to begin this interrogation.

A report from one such officer dated January 10, 2002 contained certain “observations” about the conditions under which the detainees were being held. As a consequence, on January 11, 2002, instructions were sent to all SIS and SyS officers in Afghanistan that all prisoners, “however they are described, are entitled to the same levels of protection.”

Despite claims that this merely represented an “isolated case”, the judgement records that there were reports of a “further isolated case” in March 2002, and in April 2002 an SIS officer was present at an interrogation of a detainee by the US military, who complained of being kept “in isolation”.

In June 2002, according to an ISC report cited by the court, the SyS had discussed with Foreign and Commonwealth officials a US report that referred to the “hooding, withholding of blankets and sleep deprivation of a detainee in Afghanistan”.

Again, in July 2002, a SyS officer reported to his senior management that whilst in Afghanistan, “a United States official had referred to ‘getting a detainee ready’, which appeared to involve sleep deprivation, hooding and the use of stress positions.”

The court ruling cited an official document that was sent to all Security Service and Secret Service officers in Afghanistan in January 2002: “With regard to the status of the prisoners, under the various Geneva Conventions and protocols, all prisoners, however they are described, are entitled to the same levels of protection. You have commented on their treatment. It appears from your description that they may not be being treated in accordance with the appropriate standards. Given that they are not within our custody or control, the law does not require you to intervene to prevent this. That said, HMG’s [Her Majesty’s Government] stated commitment to human rights makes it important that the Americans understand that we cannot be party to such ill treatment nor can we be seen to condone it.”

Such is the Labour government’s venal double-talk: not only has the British government tacitly accepted the use of torture by the US authorities from the beginning of the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and benefited from the “intelligence” it produces), British agents have actively facilitated it. All that counts is that HMG must not be “seen” to condone it!

Source: www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/tort-a27.shtml

Govt Targeting Press With Anti-Terror Propaganda

A government agency is sending anti-Al-Qaeda propaganda to news organisations in a bid to damage the global terror network's "brand", The Guardian reported Tuesday.

Citing a secret Home Office document it had seen, the daily said counter-terrorism experts are also planning to use websites in a bid to "channel messages through volunteers in Internet forums".

According to the paper, the report compiled by the Research, Information and Communication Unit (RICU) and dated July 21, 2008, said: "We are pushing this material to UK media channels, e.g. a BBC radio programme exposing tensions between AQ (Al-Qaeda) leadership and supporters."

"And a restricted working group will communicate niche messages through media and non-media."

It advises officials to "avoid suggesting that AQ is no longer a threat".

"We are not claiming victory over AQ. We are stressing their declining support."

The dossier, which is reportedly being sent to British embassies and consulates around the world, comprises "material" from a variety of news sources -- from Middle Eastern and North African news outlets to the New York Times and Newsweek magazine.

The news reports are included to show condemnation of Al-Qaeda from a range of individuals, from leading Islamic scholars to American counter-terrorism analysts.

Source: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iLUkhQDoWPxDXoufTrS9txGo6KFg

Guard Lapses Cited In Gitmo Suicides

As the lights flickered off above them, more than two dozen detainees began to raise their voices in prayer and other songs, a din the guards dismissed as harmless. Three of the detainees furtively stuffed water bottles and toilet paper under their bedsheets to create the illusion of sleeping bodies, and they each strung up walls of blue blankets in their metal mesh cells, seeking cover from their captors' glances.

Then, with strips of white sheets, T-shirts and towels wound into nooses, the three detainees in Guantanamo Bay's Camp 1, Block Alpha, hid behind the blankets and hanged themselves, their toes dangling inches above the floor while their bodies became blue and rigid. For hours, the guards failed to notice the first deaths to occur at the controversial U.S. military detention facility.

The simultaneous suicides on June 10, 2006, raised claims from top U.S. military commanders that the detainees were engaging in "asymmetric warfare" against the United States. More than two years later, a Naval Criminal Investigative Service probe and other documents reveal that the men took advantage of lapses in guard protocol and of lenient policies toward compliant detainees to commit what suicide notes described as an attack on the United States.

"I am informing you that I gave away the precious thing that I have in which it became very cheap, which is my own self, to lift up the oppression that is upon us through the American Government ..." wrote Ali Abdullah Ahmed Naser al-Sullami, of Yemen, a 26-year-old detainee who had been on one of the longest hunger strikes at Guantanamo, ultimately earning him forced feedings through a tube. In a note neatly folded into his shirt pocket, Sullami wrote: "I did not like the tube in my mouth, now go ahead and accept the rope in my neck."

Sullami also attacked the International Committee of the Red Cross, accusing it of conspiring in the detainees' suffering because it has been "covering the American Government repugnance since the first day." The ICRC has a policy of not publicly discussing its meetings with detainees or its reports to detaining governments.

Contained in more than 3,000 pages of U.S. military investigative documents, medical records, autopsies and statements from guards and detainees is a rare view inside the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and one of the worst episodes of its six-year history. The documents from the NCIS investigation, which will be released under the Freedom of Information Act, were obtained Friday by The Washington Post.

They make clear that Sullami as well as Saudis Yasser Talal al-Zahrani, 22, and Mana Shaman Allabard al-Tabi, 32, carefully planned their suicides so that they would be able to prepare and carry them out without their guards taking notice. Investigators and U.S. military officials believe, according to the documents, that other detainees were aware the suicides were about to happen and at one point chanted a song called "kill them all"—used by Al Qaeda and the Taliban after killing Americans—possibly to mask the sounds of death on the cellblock.

Investigators found that guards had become lax on certain rules because commanders wanted to reward the more compliant detainees, giving them extra T-shirts, blankets and towels. Detainees were allowed to hang such items to dry, or to provide privacy while using the toilet, but were not supposed to be able to obscure their cells while sleeping.

Guards told officials that it was not unusual to see blankets hanging in the cells and that they did not think twice when they passed several cells on the night of June 9, 2006, with blankets strung through the wire mesh. Authorities believe the men probably hanged themselves around 10 p.m., but they were not discovered until shortly after midnight on June 10.

An internal investigation into the guards' actions found six violations of Guantanamo's standard operating procedures, procedures that have since been revamped.

NCIS officials, in a statement released Friday night, said they found other written statements, suggesting more suicides could follow.

Source: www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-guantanamo-suicidesaug24,0,2990985.story

A Detainee Is Back Home, But Still Haunted By Guantanamo

Jumah al Dossari

It has been a little over a year since I left the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but I still have trouble sleeping sometimes. On a recent restless night, I found a DVD entitled "United 93" beside the family television set. I had no idea what it was about, but I started watching. When I realized that it was about the hijacked American plane that had crashed in Pennsylvania on Sept. 11, 2001, I began to cry. It reminded me of a very simple question I had asked myself countless times during my 5 1/2 years in Guantanamo: When will humans start treating each other with respect, whatever our religion or color?

I arrived in Guantanamo in January 2002 after Pakistani forces handed me over to the United States, probably, I suspect, for a bounty. I had been in Afghanistan to assess the progress of a mosque-building project there, funded by people in my native Saudi Arabia. I knew that Afghanistan was a dangerous place, but I was paid for the trip and I needed the money, so I went. It is a decision I will always regret. When the United States began bombing Afghanistan in November 2001, I fled to Pakistan. At a border checkpoint, I asked Pakistani guards for help getting to the Saudi Embassy. Instead, they put me in a prison, where I was kept for days with shackles on my legs.

After several weeks, I was blindfolded and flown with other detainees to a U.S. military base in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Upon our arrival there, we were thrown to the ground. Someone hit my head and forced his boot into my mouth. Despite the freezing Afghan winter, I spent several weeks in an open tent circled with barbed wire. I still have scars from my time in Kandahar. One is from a cigarette that was extinguished on my wrist and the other from the time I was pushed to a floor covered with broken glass.

One night about two weeks after our arrival, some soldiers came and cut off my clothes and put me in an orange suit. They fitted me with very tight goggles so that I could not see and put something over my ears so that I could not hear. I was chained to the floor of a plane for several hours, then again to the floor of another for what seemed like an eternity. When they pulled us off the second plane, we had no idea where we were.

It was Guantanamo.

We were taken to Camp X-Ray, which consists of cages of the sort that would normally hold animals. Imprisoned in these cages, we were forbidden to move and sometimes forbidden to pray. Later, the guards allowed us to pray and even to turn around, but whenever new detainees arrived, we were again prohibited from doing anything but sitting still.

Physical brutality was not uncommon during those first years at Guantanamo. In Camp X-Ray, several soldiers once beat me so badly that I spent three days in intensive care. My face and body were still swollen and covered in bruises when I left the hospital. During one interrogation, my questioner, apparently dissatisfied with my answers, slammed my head against the table. During others, I was shackled to the floor for hours.

In later years, such physical assaults subsided, but they were replaced by something more painful: I was deprived of human contact. For several months, the military held me in solitary confinement after a suicide attempt. I had no clothes other than a pair of shorts and no bed but a dirty plastic mat. The air conditioner was on 24 hours a day; the cell's cold metal walls made it feel as though I was living inside a freezer. There was no faucet, so I had to use the water in the toilet for drinking and washing.

I was transferred to the maximum-security Camp Five in May 2004. There I lived -- if that word can be used -- in a cell with cement walls. I was permitted to exercise once or twice a week; otherwise, I was alone in my cell at all times. I had nothing to occupy my mind except a Quran and some censored letters from my family. Interrogators told me that I would live like that for 50 years.

While I was in Camp Five, the military gave me a piece of paper that laid out the allegations against me. I had been in Guantanamo at that point for 2 1/2 years. My lawyer later told me that I had received this paper as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that detainees were to be allowed to have court hearings. We never got the promised hearings; instead, we went through military hearings at Guantanamo in which we were not shown any evidence or allowed to have lawyers. All we got was the piece of paper.

Some of the allegations were silly. One said that I had gone to Afghanistan for military training in 1989. The truth was that I had told an interrogator about a trip I had made to Afghanistan for a weekend as an overweight 16 year old after the war with the Soviet Union there ended. This trip was sponsored by the Saudi government, which had helped fund the Afghan mujaheddin and was celebrating -- with the United States -- the defeat of the Soviets.

Only one of the allegations seemed to be directly related to what is called the "war on terror." It said that I had been "present at Tora Bora." No other details were provided. I had never heard of Tora Bora (although I later learned that it was Osama bin Laden's suspected hiding place, where U.S. forces battled the Taliban in December 2001). Later, I learned that a Yemeni detainee had told interrogators that I had been there, along with many others, because he hoped to be released if he was seen as cooperating with the U.S. military.

I know that there have been newspaper stories saying that I recruited people to go to al-Qaida training camps. But the sheet of paper the military gave me said nothing about recruiting, which is not something I have ever done.

There were many times in Guantanamo when I felt as though I was falling apart, like a sandcastle being washed out by the tide. I lost all hope and faith. The purpose of Guantanamo is to destroy people, and I was destroyed. I decided that I preferred death to life, and I attempted suicide several times.

Once, during a break in a meeting with my attorney, I cut my arm with a razor and tried to hang myself. I do not remember it, but apparently my attorney returned earlier than I had told him to and found me suspended by my neck from the cell wall, unconscious and covered in blood. I broke a vertebra but survived with surgery.

Between suicide attempts, I tried desperately to hold on to the few fleeting moments of light that presented themselves to me. I met every few months with my attorneys and felt better whenever they were in Guantanamo, but my despair would return within a day of their departure. On occasion, I was helped by compassionate guards. After the beating in Camp X-Ray, a young female guard appeared at my cage, looking to make sure that no other guards were watching. "I'm sorry for what happened to you," she whispered to me. "You're a human being just like us." These words were a temporary balm for my bruises and loneliness. Ultimately, though, I believe it was God who did not allow me to die.

In July 2007, a colonel told me that I was going home. He did not explain why I was suddenly no longer too dangerous to live in freedom. Four days later, I was put on a Saudi government plane. When we landed in Riyadh and I saw my family, I was overwhelmed. We all cried and hugged. I said hello to someone I thought was my sister only to hear her say, "Daddy." I looked at her face again and saw that it was my daughter, who had grown from a 7-year-old child to a 13-year-old young woman while I'd been gone.

In Guantanamo, I was very angry with the people who had decided to hold me thousands of miles from home without charging or trying me. I was very angry with the people who kept me in isolation even when I was at my most desperate. I was very angry about having no rights at all. I was not angry with Americans in general and I even drew comfort from some, such as my lawyers and the kind soldier. But I could scarcely comprehend how U.S. policy had allowed me to be treated as I had been.

On the plane ride home, though, I decided that I would have to forgive to go on with my life. I also know that Sept. 11 was a great tragedy that caused some people to do dark things that they would not otherwise do. This knowledge helped me forget my miserable existence in Guantanamo and open my heart to life again, including to my recent re-marriage.

When I was watching "United 93," I thought of the soldier who had offered me compassion in Guantanamo. Her words reminded me that we all share common values, and only by holding on to them can we ensure that there is mercy and brotherhood in the world. After more than five years in Guantanamo, I can think of nothing more important.

Source: http://blog.cleveland.com/pdopinion/2008/08/a_detainee_is_back_home_but_st.html

British Security Services Colluded In Unlawful Detention Of Terror Suspect, Court Rules

British security services colluded in the unlawful detention and facilitated the interrogation of a UK resident detained in Pakistan six years ago, the high court ruled today.

Two judges found that the foreign secretary had a duty to hand over to Binyam Mohamed's legal team secret information that could support his case that he was tortured in Pakistan and Morocco before being sent to Guantánamo Bay.

Lord Justice Thomas and Mr Justice Lloyd Jones found that the British security service "facilitated interviews by or on behalf of the United States incommunicado and without access to a lawyer in Pakistan" (pdf) in 2002.

The detention was unlawful under Pakistani law, the judges said.

Mohamed, a 30-year-old Ethiopian national who worked as a caretaker in London, was charged by the US with terror offences in May and could face the death penalty if found guilty by a military tribunal.

The judges found the handing over of information held by the British government about the alleged torture Mohamed suffered was "essential for him to have his case fairly considered".

"Without that information, BM [Mohamed] will not be able to put forward a defence to the very serious charges he faces, given the confessions made by him in Bagram and Guantánamo Bay in 2004," the judges ruled."It is a longstanding principle of the common law that confessions obtained under torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment cannot be used in evidence in trial."

However, the judges did not order the immediate handover, saying they wanted the foreign secretary to have the opportunity to consider the national security implications of their finding.

The court will decide on the issue following a further hearing next week.

The judges said the court had established that the British secret service facilitated the questioning of Mohamed. "By seeking to interview BM in the circumstances found [in Pakistan] and supplying information and questions for his interviews, the relationship between the United Kingdom government and the United States authorities was far beyond that of bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing."

During the hearing of the case, Dinah Rose QC, for Mohamed, said he was tortured after his detention in Pakistan.He was rendered to Morocco where he was subjected to more prolonged and brutal torture after being made to "disappear", she said.

The former Kensington caretaker alleges he was repeatedly slashed in the genitals with a razor blade while being held in Morocco. Finally, he was rendered to Guantánamo Bay, where he has spent the past four years.

Rose told the judges the US authorities denied that Mohamed had been subjected to extraordinary rendition or torture. But there were strong grounds for believing that MI6 and MI5 held independent evidence supporting his story of torture.

Lawyers for the Foreign Office argued at the hearing that the government had acted within its powers and was not legally obliged to make the disclosures sought. The foreign secretary was entitled to proceed on the basis that the US legal system would safeguard Mohamed's rights, they said.

To disclose the documents sought would cause serious damage to national security, it was submitted.A significant part of the case took place in closed session due to the sensitivity of much of the material before the court.

Today's judgment said the foreign secretary accepted that Mohamed had established an arguable case that he was "subject to torture during his detention by or on behalf of the United States". It was also accepted that he had an arguable case that he was subject to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.

"The court finds on the basis that what was done was arguably wrongdoing, the [British] security service facilitated it," the judgment said.

Mohamed's solicitor, Richard Stein, of Leigh Day & Co, said: "Today's judgment reflects the abhorrence of decent society at the methods employed by the United States government in the supposed 'war on terror'."It has taken the courts of this country to intervene and reiterate the importance of upholding the rule of law. We can only hope that the foreign secretary will now reflect on this judgment and provide direct assistance to Binyam's defence team."

Clive Stafford Smith, who has represented Mohamed since 2005, described the ruling as a "momentous decision". "Compelling the British government to release information that can prove Mr Mohamed's innocence is one obvious step towards making up for the years of torture that he has suffered."The next step is for the British government to demand an end to the charade against him in Guantánamo Bay, and return him home to Britain," he said.

A spokesman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said the department was considering the implications of the judgment very carefully."For strong reasons of national security, to which the court accepted we were entitled to give the highest weight, we could not agree to disclose this information voluntarily."

The ruling acknowledged that the British government last year requested that Mohamed be returned to the UK and that Britain had gone to "great lengths" to assist him.

Source: www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/21/law.guantanamo1

Frankland Jail: Muslim Inmates Living In Fear For Their Safety At High-Security Prison

Muslim prisoners, including some convicted terrorists, inside one of Britain's biggest high security prisons feel so unsafe that they have sought sanctuary in the jail's segregation unit for their own protection, the chief inspector of prisons discloses today.

Anne Owers says that there have been serious incidents of "prisoner-on-prisoner" violence inside Frankland prison, near Durham, with black and ethnic minority inmates in general the target of attacks and Muslim prisoners in particular.

Owers says in her inspection report on the high security jail published today that some, but not all, of the Muslim inmates who have been attacked had been convicted of terrorism offences.

Fourteen prisoners have been identified by the prison authorities as involved in racist activities, some for racially motivated offences and others with links to racist organisations. Owers also reports there has been a "serious incident" involving groups of black and ethnic minority prisoners and white prisoners.

Two high-profile terrorists, Dhiren Barot and Omar Khyam, were moved out of Frankland prison in March amid claims the jail had become "an extremely dangerous environment for ethnic minority prisoners". Barot's solicitor, Mudassar Arani, told the high court that boiling water and oil had been thrown over Barot last July and he had spent a week in hospital.

The prison inspectors report that when they surveyed inmates about their treatment by staff the responses by black and ethnic minority prisoners were worse than those of white prisoners on a range of issues and they were also over-represented in all disciplinary procedures, including use of force, segregation and adjudications.

Staff understanding and knowledge of Muslim prisoners was particularly weak. Muslim prisoners had been stopped from holding communal prayers in cells, on landings and in exercise yards without the chaplaincy being consulted.

Frankland, with more than 700 inmates convicted of serious offences, is one of the largest high-security jails. Owers says its population has become even more "challenging" for staff recently with an influx of prisoners with gang affiliations and the arrival of a small number of terrorists.

"It is unfortunate that this coincided with the absence of the governor for some months, and the resulting drift that was observable at this inspection needs urgently to be reversed," said Owers.

She says that action is particularly important as Frankland is due to expand to more than 1,000 prisoners - far more than any dispersal prison has so far been required to hold.

The inspection, carried out in February, found no evidence of a robust strategy to reduce violence to deal with bullying and ensure safety, order and control. More than one in four prisoners on the general wings tested positive for drugs - a high ratio for a high-security jail.

Owers does, however, praise the prison's work on the special dangerous and serious personality disorders unit, which holds 80 of the most dangerous prisoners in the prison system. She says that innovative work is being carried out.

Phil Wheatley, the director general of the National Offender Management Service, said he was concerned about the comments about the safety of prisoners within Frankland but added they should be seen within the context of the prison's "extremely challenging" population.

"The issues raised in the report are currently being addressed by the governor and staff at Frankland. A new diversity and safer prisons manager is in post to ensure a focus on matters raised by the inspector in relation to anti-bullying and diversity."

Source: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/aug/20/prisonsandprobation.islam

Cageprisoners: Another Ramadan - Iftar & Fundraising Dinner

Date: Sunday 7th September 2008
Time: 6pm
Venue: Wandsworth Town Hall, Wandsworth, London, SW18 2PU (Nearest station -Wandsworth Town)

Imprisonment without charge or trial is one of the greatest injustices facing Muslims today. Help Cageprisoners, during this blessed month, 'when the doors to Paradise are open' to open the doors of justice for those wrongfully imprisoned.

Speakers:
Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki (via video conference)
Lord Nazir Ahmed of Rotherham
Moazzam Begg
Yvonne Ridley

Prayers (including taraweeh) to be led by:
Qari Hassen Rasool
Moussa Zemmouri (Ex-Guantanamo detainee)

Tickets £50
(VIP Ticket - £100)
Children under 2 free
£50.00 - Another Ramadan 2008: Standard Ticket £100.00 - Another Ramadan 2008: VIP Ticket
Buy Tickets Online Here: https://checkout.google.com/view/buy?o=shoppingcart&shoppingcart=269004120143386&pli=1&gsessionid=A3zhbQXKzxE

Book early to avoid disappointment!

Enquiries: 07973 264 197 / Bookings: 07809 531663 / contact@cageprisoners.com / www.cageprisoners.com

Sponsored by:
SAPNA
MYADHAN
Birnberg Peirce and Partners

The Aafia Siddiqui I Saw - by Abu Sabaya

"I want you to come to know of the concern and dedication that this simple woman had for Islam as described by those who knew her - a dedication that was manifested by way of actions that were very simple and easy, yet seldom carried out by those who are able."

"She is a high security risk."

- Christopher LaVigne, assistant US attorney, on August 11th when trying to convince a judge to prevent Aafia from seeing a doctor for her gunshot wound

During the time of the Prophet (SAW), those who entered Islam were of two types: those who remained in their lands with the general populace practicing the basic tenets of the religion, and those who took it upon themselves to migrate and join the Prophet in his expeditions. There are ahadith that show that the Prophet treated these two groups differently from each other due to their difference in status. For example, Muslim and at-Tirmidhi report that when appointing a leader to a battalion, he would instruct him on how to deal with those of the enemy who became Muslims, saying: "…invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of the Muhajirin, and inform them that if they do so, they will have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirin.

If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of the Bedouins, and will be subjected to the commands of Allah like the rest of the believers…" This distinction was simply of one group deciding to take upon its shoulders certain responsibilities in contrast to the other whose inactivity limited them to a very individualistic, localized, benign practice of Islam. One can in essence say that the Prophet divided the practice of the Muslims at the time into two types: the religion of the Migrants (Din al-Muhajirin, whose adherents took upon their shoulders the responsibilities of aiding and giving victory to Islam), and the religion of the Bedouins (Din al-A'rab, whose adherents did not go beyond the basics).

Although the depiction is of a situation that existed over a thousand years ago, it is an eternal pattern that Muslims will be distributed amongst these levels in every era and in every place. So, one can notice this distinction even amongst the practicing Muslims of the East and West. The Din al-A'rab of the past can be compared to the Islam that is limited to the five pillars, eating zabihah, and keeping the local mosque clean. Considering how difficult it is in the West to come across even these Muslims, imagine what joy comes to the eye and heart to see those who go a step further and reach the level of adhering to Din al-Muhajirin – those whose concern spans the entire Ummah, driving them to get up and become active workers for Islam, to dedicate their every minute to the service of Allah however they can no matter what other responsibilities clutter their busy lives, to have their hearts beat with the rest of the Muslims – all this with their heads raised high and paying no regard to those around them who eat and live like cattle, as it was said:

Such are the free in a world of the enslaved...

Recently, the entire world has been speaking about one such person - a short, thin college student, wife, and mother of three small children. Her name is Aafia Siddiqui.

I want you to be drawn to the story of this woman and also understand why I was drawn to it. I want you to come to know of the concern and dedication that this simple woman had for Islam as described by those who knew her - a dedication that was manifested by way of actions that were very simple and easy, yet seldom carried out by those who are able.

Those who knew Aafia recall that she was a very small, quiet, polite, and shy woman who was barely noticeable in a gathering. However, they add that when necessary, she would say what needed to be said. She was once giving a speech at a fundraiser for Bosnian orphans at a local mosque in which she began lambasting the men in the audience for not stepping up to do what she was doing. She would plead: "Where are the men? Why do I have to be the one standing up here and doing this work?" And she was right, as she was a mother, a wife, and a student in a community full of brothers with nothing to show when it came to Islamic work.

When she was a student at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), she began organizing drives to deliver copies of the Qur'an and other Islamic literature to the Muslims in the local prisons. She would have them delivered in boxes to a local mosque, and she would then show up at the mosque and carry the heavy boxes by herself all the way down the three flights of very steep stairs. Subhan Allah, look at the Qadar of Allah: this woman who would spend so much time and effort to help Muslim prisoners is now herself a prisoner (I ask Allah to free her)!

Her dedication to Islam was also very evident on campus. A 2004 article from Boston Magazine mentions that "...she wrote three guides for members who wanted to teach others about Islam. On the group's website, Siddiqui explained how to run a daw'ah table, an informational booth used at school events to educate people about, and persuade them to convert to, Islam." The article continues to mention that in the guides, she wrote: "Imagine our humble, but sincere daw'ah effort turning into a major daw'ah movement in this country! Just imagine it! And us, reaping the reward of everyone who accepts Islam through this movement, through years to come. Think and plan big. May Allah give this strength and sincerity to us so that our humble effort continue, and expands until America becomes a Muslim land."

Allahu Akbar...look at this himmah (concern)...look at these lofty aspirations and goals! As men, we should be ashamed to have to learn such lessons from a sister.

She would drive out of her way every week to teach the local Muslim children on Sundays. I was told by a sister that she would also drive out of her way every week to visit a small group of reverts to teach them the basics of Islam. One of the sisters who attended her circles described Aafia as "not going out of her way to be noticed by anybody, or to be anyone's friend. She just came out here to teach us about Allah, and English wasn't even her first language!"

Another sister who would attend her circles describes: "She shared with us that we should never make excuses for who we are. She said: 'Americans have no respect for people who are weak. Americans will respect us if we stand up and we are strong.'"

Allahu Akbar...O Allah, free this woman!

But Aafia's biggest passion was helping the oppressed Muslims around the globe. When war in Bosnia broke out, she did not sit back and watch with one knee over the other. Rather, she immediately sought out whatever means were within her grasp to make a difference. She didn't sit in a dreamy bubble thinking all day about how she wished that she could go over to Bosnia and help with relief efforts. She got up and did what she could: she would speak to people to raise awareness, she would ask for donations, she would send e-mails, she would give slideshow presentations - the point I'm trying to make here is that Aafia showed that there is always something we can do to help our brothers and sisters, the least of which is a spoken word to raise awareness to those who are unaware. Sitting back and doing nothing is never an option.

She once gave a speech at a local mosque to raise funds for Bosnian orphans, and when the audience was just sitting there watching her, she asked: "How many people in this room own more than one pair of boots?" When half the room raised their hands, she said: "So, donate them to these Bosnians who are about to face a brutal winter!" She was so effective in her plea that even the imam took off his boots and donated them!

There is much more to say about how passionate this sister was for Islam. However, the above gives you an idea of what she was like, and should hopefully serve as an inspiration for brothers before sisters to become active in serving Islam through whatever means are available. Remember that she was doing all of this while being a mother and a PhD student, and most of us do much less despite having much more free time.

So, having this image of Aafia in my mind, I was taken aback at what I saw when she was brought into court for what should have been her bail hearing. The door on the front left side of the courtroom was slowly opened to reveal a frail, limp, exhausted woman who could barely hold her own head up straight in a pale blue wheelchair. She was dressed in a Guantanamo-style orange prison uniform, and her frail head was wrapped in a white hijab that was pulled down to cover her bone-thin arms (the prison uniform is shortsleeved). Her lawyers quickly sat around her, and the hearing began.

The head prosecutor, assistant US attorney Christopher LaVigne, walked in with a group of three or four FBI agents, one of whom was a female who looked Pakistani. The defense began by announcing that the bail hearing was to be postponed because of Aafia's medical condition. Essentially, Aafia's lawyers reasoned that there was no point of her being out on bail if she was near death. So, they demanded that she be allowed a doctor's visit before anything else. LaVigne got up and objected, saying that Aafia was a risk to the security of the United States. The judge didn't seem to buy that, and the prosecutor continued arguing that "this is a woman who attempted to blast her way out of captivity." As soon as this was said, I looked over and noticed Aafia shaking her head in desperation and sadness, as if she felt that the whole world was against her. By the way, Aafia was so small and weak that I could barely see her from behind the wheelchair. All I could see was her head slumped over to the left and wrapped in the hijab, and her right arm sticking out.

I got a better understanding of why she was so sad and desperate when her lawyer began listing details of her condition:

* She now has brain damage from her time in US custody
* One of her kidneys was removed while in US custody
* She is unable to digest her food since part of her intestines was removed during surgery while in US custody
* She has layers and layers of sewed up skin from the surgery for the gunshot wound
* She has a large surgical scar from her chest area all the way down to her torso

With all of this, she had not been visited by a single doctor the entire time of her incarceration in the US despite being in constant incredible abdominal pain following her sloppy surgery in Afghanistan - pain for which she was being given nothing more than Ibuprofen! Ibuprofen is purchased over the counter to treat headaches!

With all of this, the prosecutor had the audacity and shamelessness to try to prevent her from being seen by a doctor due to her being a "security risk." When he was pressed by the judge as to why Aafia was sitting all this time in a NYC prison without basic medical care, the government attorney stuttered, said that it was "a complicated situation," and capped it with the expected cheap shot that "it was her decision as she refused to by seen by a male doctor." As soon as the prosecutor said that last bit, I saw Aafia's thin arm shoot up and shake back and forth to the judge (as if to say 'No! He’s lying!'). I felt so sorry for her, as she was obviously quite frustrated at the lies being spilled out before her very eyes. Her lawyer then put her hand on her arm and began stroking it to comfort her and calm her down.

When the hearing was over, one scholarly statement stuck in my mind, and it is where Ibn al-Qayyim said that a person rises in his closeness to Allah until: "...there remains only one obstacle from which the enemy calls him from, and this is an obstacle that he must face. If anyone were to be saved from this obstacle, it would have been the Messengers and Prophets of Allah, and the noblest of His Creation. This is the obstacle of Satan unleashing his troops upon the believer with various types of harm: by way of the hand, the tongue, and the heart. This occurs in accordance with the degree of goodness that exists within the believer. So, the higher he is in degree, the more the enemy unleashes his troops and helps them against him, and overwhelms him with his followers and allies in various ways. There is no way around this obstacle, because the firmer he is in calling to Allah and fulfilling His commands, the more the enemy becomes intent upon deceiving him with foolish people. So, he has essentially put on his body armor in this obstacle, and has taken it upon himself to confront the enemy for Allah's Sake and in His Name, and his worship in doing so is the worship of the best of worshippers."

And this was absolutely clear that day when looking at the scene in the court. Despite Aafia's apparent physical weakness and frailty, there was a certain 'izzah (honor) and strength that I felt emanating from her the entire time. Everything from the way she forcefully shook her hand at the judge when the prosecutor would lie, to how she was keen to wear her hijab on top of her prison garments despite horrible circumstances that would make hijab the last thing on most people's minds, to the number of FBI agents, US Marshals, reporters, officials, etc. who were all stuffed in this small room to observe this frail, weak, short, quiet, female "security risk" - everything pointed to the conclusion that the only thing all of these people were afraid of was the strength of this sister's iman.

This is the situation of our dear sister, a Muslim woman in captivity…

What can I say...?

I will not close by mentioning the obligation of helping to free Muslim prisoners. I will not mention how al-Mu'tasim razed an entire city to the ground to rescue a single Muslim woman. I will not go back to the days of Salah ad-Din or 'Umar bin 'Abd al-'Aziz, who rescued Muslim prisoners in the tens of thousands. I cannot be greedy enough to mention these things at this point because what is even sadder than what is happening to Aafia Siddiqui is how few the Muslims were who even bothered to show up to her hearing in a city of around half a million Muslims (not counting the surrounding areas), and that not a single Muslim organization in the United States has taken up the sister's cause or even spoken a word in her defense, and as Ibn al-Qayyim said: "If ghayrah (protective jealousy) leaves a person’s heart, his faith will follow it."

Unfortunately, in a time where most of us are following Din al-A'rab, it seems that the best person to teach us a lesson in how to help Aafia Siddiqui would have been Aafia herself.

Source: www.al-istiqamah.com

Guantanamo General Slams Bullying, ‘Spray & Pray’ Approach

A US general on Wednesday accused another general of bullying and having a “spray and pray” approach to detainees at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a US daily reported. “Spray and pray. Charge everybody. Let’s go. Speed, speed, speed,” was the method of Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann, deputy prison camp commander Brigadier General Gregory Zanetti told the hearing, the Miami Herald said.

In a rare criticism of a fellow officer, Zanetti said Hartmann’s demeanor “as an attorney from a thousand miles away,” was “abusive, bullying and unprofessional ... pretty much across the board”.

Zanetti was appearing as a defence witness at a pretrial hearing for Afghan national Mohammed Jawad, who was 16 or 17 at the time of his arrest, and is accused of wounding two US soldiers in a grenade attack in Kabul. The defence is calling for the case to be dropped, arguing that Hartmann, who is the Pentagon-based legal advisor to the military official overseeing the tribunals, exerted “unlawful influence” on the Guantanamo hearings. The Miami Herald said it was the first time that a high-ranking officer has denounced Hartmann’s methods.

But chief prosecutor Colonel Lawrence Morris dismissed criticism of Hartmann’s leadership style, saying it came from a “superficial personality conflict. General Hartmann came in, kicked over some furniture, wasn’t so gentle as some subordinates wish.” Hartmann was banned however from having any role in last week’s trial of Osama Bin Laden’s driver, Salim Hamdan, who was convicted and sentenced to 66 months for providing material support for terror. Colonel Morris Davis, who resigned last year as the Pentagon’s chief prosecutor for terrorism cases, in April accused Hartmann of tolerating evidence obtained from waterboarding, an interrogation method that simulates drowning and is widely condemned as a form of torture. “To allow or direct a prosecutor to come into the courtroom and offer evidence they felt was torture, it puts a prosecutor in an ethical bind,” Davis told the court in April. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday’s proceedings.

Jawad, who has spent six years in the remote military base, appeared at his hearing in a clean suit, with his hands and feet free, Amnesty International observer Michael Bochenek told AFP.

Source: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C08%5C15%5Cstory_15-8-2008_pg4_2

US Jail Guards In Iraq Abuse Case

Six US sailors working as prison camp guards in Iraq face courts martial for abusing detainees, the US Navy said.

Eight detainees were allegedly sealed in a pepper spray-filled cell at Camp Bucca in southern Iraq.

And it is claimed that two detainees were beaten, although suffered no broken bones, the US Navy said.

The assaults occurred on 14 May after some guards had been spat at and had human waste thrown at them by detainees, a naval spokeswoman said.

"Two detainees suffered minor abrasions as a result of the alleged assaults, eight others were confined overnight in a detainee housing unit which was sprayed with riot control agent and then the ventilation secured," the US Navy said in a statement.

The six sailors are charged with assault and will face courts martial at Camp Bucca within the next 30 days, Navy 5th Fleet spokeswoman Cmdr Jane Campbell said.

Seven other sailors received non-judicial punishments for failing to report the abuse at the sprawling desert camp, she said.

Two had their charges dismissed and others were given reductions in rank, with some also docked pay or confined to base for 45 days.

The latest abuse claims come after the US military said it had carried out reforms to its prison system.

In 2004 there was an international outcry after the release of pictures showing US soldiers humiliating detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison, west of Baghdad.

Abu Ghraib jail has since been closed and 11 US soldiers were convicted of breaking military laws.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7561952.stm

Prisoners of Faith Annual Event

Br. Moazzam Begg, Ex-Detainee of Guantanamo Bay, CagePrisoners
Imam Shakeel Begg, Lewisham & Kent Islamic Centre

Date: Saturday 30th August 2008
Time: 3pm-6pm
Venue: Phoenix Hall, Walpole Road (Off Woolwich New Road), Woolwich, London SE18 6TP

All Welcome

In conjunction with the Muslim Prisoner Support Group (MPSG) and Woolwich Dawah Forum

For further information contact: 07949 178942 or 07901 958604

Prisoner No. 650

Just when you think Uncle Sam's war has no more surprises to spring on an unsuspecting world, he comes up with yet another gem. Take the case of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist who grew up in the U.S. and went to top universities including the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The woman who had been a star student and a topper throughout a remarkable career had to leave the United States when the authorities began harassing her and her husband for their charity activities in the wake of Sept. 11, 2001 upheavals.

The family settled down in Karachi and was never involved in any illegal activities. One day in March 2003, this talented young woman went missing with her three children when she was on her way to Karachi airport.

Dr. Siddiqui resurfaced this week after five years in a New York court as a "top al-Qaida terrorist." She was barely able to walk and speak, which was not surprising given the fact she had been recently involved in a "gun fight with FBI agents" in Afghanistan. The U.S. authorities claim Dr. Siddiqui was captured near the governor's offices in Ghazni, Afghanistan last month with a bag full of "suspicious liquids in tubes."

If you think this is an incredible yarn, here's some more food for thought. We are told Siddiqui assaulted a team of U.S. troops and FBI officials with a highly sophisticated weapon when they went to quiz her in Afghanistan. And where did she get the weapon? Somebody had of course placed it near her rather conveniently. She is said to have fired several rounds with the hi-tech weapon.

Interestingly, while all those alleged rounds of firing with the alleged weapon failed to wound or injure America's brave soldiers, Siddiqui herself has ended up with a bullet wound in her chest.

Even though one has never been enamored of the Bushies' extraordinary intellectual powers, this cock-and-bull tale is an insult to the intelligence of American people as well as the rest of the world.

I mean they could have at least employed more ingenuity of thought and imagination in cooking up this incredibly bizarre case against a lone, defenseless, half-dead woman who seems to have no clue where she is or what she is accused of.

There are some basic questions that an ordinary mind like mine just can't seem to figure out.

First, where was Aafia Siddiqui hiding or hidden all these years – since she went missing in Karachi in March 2003? How did she turn up in the remote Ghazni province in Afghanistan, of all the God-forsaken places? And what happened to her three children?

Second, if the MIT-educated neuroscientist was indeed an al-Qaida mastermind, why wasn't she presented in a court of law all this while?

Even today when she is facing the U.S. law, she is not being tried on terrorism charges but for allegedly assaulting the U.S. officials. So what's her original crime, if she has indeed committed a crime?

Third, why wasn't the Pakistani government informed about her detention in Afghanistan and her subsequent deportation to the United States? Or are Pakistan's Enlightened and Moderate leaders also involved in this international enterprise against a 31-year-old mom of three?

There are so many gaping holes in this "case" that the U.S. constitution, Magna Carta and the U.N. human rights charter can all go through them at the same time.

You abduct a completely innocent, married woman with a family and put her away for five years to conveniently discover her now as a terrorist in lawless Afghanistan.

Elaine Whitfield Sharp, Siddiqui's lawyer, believes she has been put on trial now because she has "become a terrible embarrassment" to the U.S. and Afghan authorities.

The question is why has she been reinvented now? It is quite possible that Siddiqui has been FOUND now because of a relentless campaign by British journalist Yvonne Ridley.

Ridley herself had been a prisoner of the Taliban regime for 11 days just before the U.S. invasion in 2001 and converted to Islam after her strange experience in Afghanistan.

Ridley has been running a campaign called Cage Prisoner for the release of a mysterious female prisoner who has been held at the Bagram airbase in Afghanistan in total isolation and regularly tortured for five years.

The unknown female prisoner, known as the Prisoner No. 650 or the Grey Lady of Bagram, was brought to the world attention after Ridley read about the woman in a book by fellow Briton Moazzam Begg, a former Gitmo and Bagram prisoner.

In his book, "Enemy Combatant," Beg talks of a woman's endless screams for help as she was tortured. Beg first thought he was imagining his wife's screams.

"We now know the screams came from a woman who has been held in Bagram for some years. And she is Prisoner No. 650," Ridley disclosed at a recent press conference in Pakistan.

And I strongly suspect that Prisoner No. 650 is none other than Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. It is quite possible that her captors decided to end her isolation after the Pakistani press and activists like Yvonne Ridley began increasingly talking about the Prisoner No. 650 and how she was tortured and abused physically, mentally and sexually for the past four years.

I find it hard to believe all this can happen in this age and time.

When one read Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the Nobel laureate who died last week, years ago and his first person account of the Soviet gulag and how they turned living human beings into humanity's refuse, one thought it could never happen in our age and time. But one is not so sure now.

If they could do this to a gifted, U.S.-educated and trained scientist, I shudder to think of the fate of illiterate and impoverished men and women summarily picked up in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

The Aafia Siddiqui case may have come to the world's attention because of some conscientious activists. But what about all those innocent individuals, who have just vanished down the black hole called the Guantanamo Bay, without a trial and without anyone looking for them? And who knows how many such gulags are out there and how many innocents they have sucked into their belly?

This war has turned the whole world into a big gulag where there are no borders, no rule of law, no courts, no justice and no rights whatsoever. But, the neocons reassure us, all this is necessary to promote Democracy and Human Freedom of course.

Whatever happened to the America of Jefferson and Lincoln, the country that we all loved once and turned to for inspiration?

Aijaz Zaka Syed is Opinion Editor of Khaleej Times. Write to him at aijazsyed@khaleejtimes.com

Source: www.metimes.com/International/2008/08/13/view_from_dubai_prisoner_no_650/3496/

The Future Of 'The Long War'

A course about al-Qaida and the rise of international terrorism was one of the most popular last term at Harvard's elite Kennedy School of Government. The international students crowding into the school's largest auditorium for the twice-weekly classes were a cross-section of Americans, Europeans and Middle Easterners, including current members of the US army and intelligence community on sabbatical leave. Simply attending it gave me a sense of where tomorrow's western and westernised elites stand vis-a-vis "the long war".

The instructor for the course was Peter Bergen, the journalist who bagged Osama bin Laden's first face-to-face interview on CNN. In the 1990s, long before Islamist activism dominated the thinking of western intelligence organisations, Peter Bergen interviewed several jihadist in the Middle East and Europe about their views. His book, The Osama Bin Laden I Know, made him sought-after in the aftermath of September 11, as his international relations colleagues scrambled to shed backgrounds in Soviet studies and switch to the geopolitics of the Middle East. Bergen became a transnational terrorism analyst who challenged the tendency to lump all terrorists into one group. Instead, he classified them by generation, regional provenance and the conflict that shaped their intellectual outlook.

Bergen does not speak Arabic, Kurdish, Persian, Pashtu, Urdu or any of central Asia's Turkic dialects – all crucial languages in the war on terror. He compensates by relying on English-language translations of jihadist material and his contacts in the Pentagon and western intelligence. One such specialist was forensic psychiatrist and former CIA agent Marc Sageman, who ran operations in Pakistan. Standing in front of the class as a guest lecturer, he expounded the theory from his book, Leaderless Jihad, that al-Qaida is in decline and the next generation of threats comes from "self-created wannabes". Isolated and disillusioned, these radical youths live in the Middle East and the west alike and are equally dangerous in both contexts.

The last class of the course was the most instructive in how elite Americans' perspectives of the "war on terror" have matured. From horror, incomprehension and the rush to conclude that "they hate us for our freedoms" – typical of the post-9/11 response – there is now a shift towards viewing al-Qaida as a fractious group that can be subverted and defeated by manipulating its internal divisions.

Bergen paced the auditorium, asking his students for their recommendations on defeating al-Qaida. Intelligence reform and the restructuring of the bureaucracy topped the agenda. Some suggested that the shortage of analysts in intelligence agencies could be overcome by scrubbing top secret intelligence of any clues that might suggest what its source was (thus not jeopardising field agents) and then inviting non-security-cleared analysts in the commercial intelligence arena to mull it over.

Others thought America's Arab immigrants should be seen as a strength rather than the liability that the security clearance programme currently tends to classify them as. Kareem, a student of Lebanese origin, suggested that the department of homeland security deploy a network of informants drawn from immigrant communities because "these guys have come over here and benefited from the bounty, so they should put something back". A diplomat wearing a "US-Kuwait Friendship" T-shirt suggested (apparently seriously) that Pentagon employees with 20-plus years of service should be recycled into the state department and the CIA to rejuvenate these institutions.

Generally, the American students leaned towards superficial solutions for winning hearts and minds in the Muslim world. A deft repackaging of the "war on terror" or the realigning of bureaucratic entities in the department of defence and state would do it, they seemed to think. One American student proposed that the US government should confront al-Qaida with "brand denial" by banning US spokesmen and officials from referring to the organisation by its name. Deprived of the oxygen of publicity, he reasoned, the terrorists would shrivel up and die. Bergen asked the student whether the Bush administration should also ban the domestic press from referring to al-Qaida. The student spluttered and the auditorium exploded in laughter.

Many Americans are still reluctant to acknowledge that slicker packaging will not make US policies more palatable to Middle Eastern audiences or improve Washington's image in the region. The debacle of al-Hurra, the Arabic-language TV network funded by the state department is one example. But such shallow reasoning echoes at the very highest levels of the administration. In a speech last November, secretary of defence Robert Gates expressed surprise at how "al-Qaida is better at communicating its message on the internet than America".

Al-Qaida's anti-western, anti-interventionist message resonates with Arab and Muslim audiences sick of what they view as neocolonial meddling in their region. These views are fed by daily television coverage of US-led occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, American support for unpopular governing elites and the stymying of popular political movements such as Hizbullah and Hamas when they win at the ballot box.

Back in Bergen's auditorium, a lone European student ventured that only a substantive shift in Washington's policy towards the region could bear true fruit and boost the US quest to succeed in the struggle against terrorism. Ceasing uncritical support for Israel, the student proposed, might overcome the impression in the Arab world that the US is not an "honest broker". Silence greeted his comments.

Will a new generation of Kennedy School graduates become effective bureaucratic and military footsoldiers in the long war? Can they provide America with the cultural awareness it needs if it is to vanquish its foes in the Middle East's battlegrounds? Terrorism experts such as Marc Sageman believe that al-Qaida is already on the ropes. Others, like former CIA agent Michael Scheuer, have more cynical explanations for what is described as a "stunning turnaround". Premature declarations of al-Qaida's demise, Scheuer thinks, "may be intended to assure Americans that al-Qaida is beaten if in the next few months it becomes necessary for US forces to attack Iran". Wherever the truth may lie, the Kennedy School graduates of 2008 will be remembered as the generation shaped by the long war.

Source: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/12/terrorism.terrorism

Musharraf Denies Misuse Of US Anti-Terror Aid

A spokesman for President Pervez Musharraf has denied that the embattled leader had "misappropriated" millions of dollars of military aid provided to Pakistan by the United States since the September 11, 2001 al-Qaida terrorist attacks.

"The allegations are absurd and baseless. Every penny that we got in aid since 2001 has been accounted for," presidential spokesman Rashid Qureshi Sunday said.

Asif Ali Zardari, co-chairman of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) which leads the country's ruling coalition, alleged in an interview with Britain's Sunday Times magazine that Musharraf had "not been passing on all the $1 billion a year that the Americans have been giving for the armed forces."

"The army has been getting between $250 and $300 million reimbursement for what they do, but where's the rest?," he asked.

Zardari, who succeeded slain former prime minister Benazir Bhutto as PPP leader after her assassination on December 27 last, along with junior coalition partner ex-premier and Nawaz Sharif Thursday announced the plan to impeach Musharraf.

His party, in consultation with coalition partners, is currently preparing a charge sheet against Musharraf to be tabled in parliament next week.

"They claim it's been going in budget support but that's not the answer. We're talking about 700 million dollars a year missing. The rest has been taken by 'Mush' for some scheme or other and we've got to find it."

"We're looking for the money," he said. "I think he has a slush fund being used for this and for some activity for the future."

Pakistan, a former backer of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, in a U-turn joined the international war on terror in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Source: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Mush_denies_misuse_of_US_aid/articleshow/3351158.cms

Plea For 'Secret Detention' Probe

Human rights group Liberty joined forces with its American counterpart to demand a public inquiry into allegations that a terror suspect has been secretly detained in a British territory.

The activists wrote to Foreign Secretary David Miliband urging him to launch a formal investigation into claims about US activities on Diego Garcia, the UK territory in the Indian Ocean.

Last month the news magazine Time published allegations by a former senior US official that at least one terror suspect was imprisoned on the island in a secret jail, known as a "black site".

The island had already been implicated as a "staging post" in secret flights transporting suspects from one country to another, as part of so-called extraordinary rendition measures.

The letter to Mr Miliband marked the first such collaboration between Liberty and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Liberty's director Shami Chakrabarti said: "We will not rest without real answers to the scandal of torture flights and inhuman interrogation in freedom's name."

ACLU executive director Anthony Romero added: "The ACLU is proud to join Liberty in the effort to uncover the truth about what happened at Diego Garcia.

"We are convinced that an official inquiry with sufficient investigatory authority is the only way to restore confidence in our commitment to human rights and repair the damage done to the reputations of our nations as a result of unlawful detention policies.

"Rendition flights and brutal interrogation practices have no place in a functioning democracy."

The letter to the Foreign Secretary said the use of UK territory in secret, illegal operations would "bring our international reputations into disrepute".

Source: http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hVWs4ZrrDqOu2Ids9J1e4j8W6l8w

Russia: Torture Victim Abducted in Chechnya

A man who made public his secret detention and torture by Chechen security agents was abducted and “disappeared” in Chechnya on August 3, 2008, Human Rights Watch said today. Human Rights Watch called on the Chechen authorities to immediately launch a thorough investigation to find the man, 42-year-old Mokhmadsalakh Masaev, and ensure that he is protected from torture and ill-treatment.

According to Masaev’s relatives and the Russian NGO Memorial Human Rights Center, he was abducted by unknown individuals in camouflaged uniforms in the center of Grozny on August 3 at about 4 p.m. The kidnappers forced Masaev into their vehicles and drove off. The incident was witnessed by passers-by and street vendors. Masaev’s family has no information as to his fate or whereabouts. A local police station refused to register a report on the abduction filed by Masaev’s brother Oleg. Moreover, Oleg Masaev’s conversation with the policemen led him to the conclusion that Mokhmadsalakh had been abducted by Chechen law-enforcement agencies acting on informal instructions of the republic’s leadership.

“We are deeply alarmed about Masaev’s abduction and fear his life is in danger,” said Tanya Lokshina, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Russia office. “Masaev is one of the few people who dared to speak publicly about how he was tortured in illegal detention by Chechen officials, and we are afraid he’s paying a very high price for his courage.”

Earlier this year, Masaev told Human Rights Watch that in September 2006 he was abducted from a mosque in Gudermes, Chechnya’s second-largest city, and held in an illegal detention facility until January 21, 2007. He reported being beaten on several occasions, accused of being a Wahhabi and a collaborator with insurgents, held in inhumane conditions, and subjected to death threats. Two of his acquaintances were abducted and held with him but freed earlier through the intervention of their well-connected relatives. Masaev said that no charges were filed against him and that in the end he was released by his captors.

Following Masaev’s persistent demands that the authorities investigate his incarceration and ill-treatment, in early 2008 the prosecutor’s office launched a criminal investigation into the kidnapping of Masaev and his two friends (the investigation is now ongoing). On July 10, one of Russia’s key independent print media outlets, Novaya Gazeta, published an interview with Masaev, in which Masaev stated that he “had been held hostage for four months by [Chechen President] Ramzan Kadyrov” in a secret detention facility located in Kadyrov’s native village, Tsenteroi.

“Given that Masaev’s accusation was directed at Chechnya’s leadership, there are grounds to believe that his subsequent “disappearance” is in punishment for his persistence in seeking justice,” said Lokshina.

Masaev’s lawyer, Stanislav Markelov, told Human Rights Watch that the August 3 abduction is “an attempt to thwart this unprecedented criminal case about a secret prison run by the leadership of Chechnya.” He said he feared that they are trying to make Masaev retract his testimony.

Vyacheslav Izmailov, the Novaya Gazeta correspondent who interviewed Masaev in July, told Human Rights Watch: “From the very day Mokhmadsalakh came to our office, I was afraid this would happen. I warned him that he could face grave consequences for being so outspoken and suggested not to run the interview under his real name. He was adamant, however. He wanted his story and his identity known to the world. He hoped that it would save other people in Chechnya from being held and tortured in illegal prisons. He was ready to pay with his very life for telling the truth. Now he’s abducted because the perpetrators want to silence him.”

Human Rights Watch has contacted the Chechen and Russian authorities about Masaev’s disappearance and expects them to take prompt and effective steps to protect Masaev and hold accountable the perpetrators in the crime.

“If President Dimitry Medvedev is truly committed to entrenching the rule of law across Russia, he needs to foster an environment in which victims of human rights abuses can speak up without fear, including in Chechnya,” said Lokshina.

Source: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/06/russia19552.htm

Cageprisoners Press Release:
Aafia Siddiqui Claims She Was Held By The US In Bagram For Years

Cageprisoners has received new information that Aafia Siddiqui was held for years in Bagram Airbase. According to her lawyer, Elaine Whitfield Sharp,

“We do know she was at Bagram for a long time. It was a long time. According to my client she was there for years and she was held in American custody; her treatment was horrendous.”

Siddiqui’s claim is contrary to the heavily contested position of the US administration that she was detained in July by Afghan forces while attempting to bomb the compound of the governor of Ghazni. The US has previously denied the presence of female detainees in Bagram and that Aafia was ever held there, bar for medical treatment in July 2008.

Sharp also commented about Siddiqui’s current condition and in particular the gunshot wound she has received. Not having been given proper medical treatment for the wound, there is a real concern that it will become infected as it is believed to be septic. She is extremely weak and had to be wheeled into her legal visit.

Legal visits have also become a problem for Sharp and her client. They were only allowed to meet with Siddiqui in a cell behind glass with bars and their only method of communication was through the slot in the door used for food. Sharp was forced to bend over for the several hours of their meeting in order to listen and speak through the food slot. This resulted in extreme difficult for lawyer and client as they attempted to speak to one another. Sharp further commented,

“In that open situation, we were forced to keep our voices low as we were aware that we were video and tape recorded. The whole situation made it impossible for me to meet properly with my client.”

Of great concern to Cageprisoners is the detention of Ahmed, the twelve-year-old son of Siddiqui who is still being detained in Afghanistan , alone and away from his mother, despite his status as a US citizen. It is imperative that the US place him in the custody of his relatives.

__________

Media

Cageprisoners is a human rights organisation that exists to raise awareness of the plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detainee s h eld as part of the War on Terror. We aim to give a voice to the voiceless.

Contact: Elaine Whitfield Sharp
Email: elainesharp@sharplaw.biz
Number: 0017816391862
Please contact by phone Eastern Standard Time (six hours behind GMT) only.

Contact: Asim Qureshi
Email: asim.q@cageprisoners.com
Number: 0044 (0) 7973264197

US: Hamdan Trial Exposes Flaws in Military Commissions

Tribunal Handicaps the Defense

The trial of Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni charged with conspiracy and material support for terrorism, exposed fundamental flaws of the US military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Human Rights Watch said today. The six-member panel of military officers began to deliberate a verdict on August 4, 2008, following a two-week trial, which Human Rights Watch attended as an observer.

“A trial that depends on handicapping the defense can’t possibly be fair,” said Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. “The military judge tried at times to mitigate the commission’s most unjust rules, but the flaws in the system won out.”

Hamdan’s case was the first military commission at Guantanamo to proceed to a full trial. From day one, it was marred by irregularities that prevented Hamdan from receiving a fair trial and underscored the problems inherent to the military commissions system.

Human Rights Watch said it was deeply troubling that Hamdan’s defense team only received hundreds of pages of relevant documents – including information about reportedly abusive interrogations – just days before the trial began. Other documents trickled in after the trial was under way, making it near impossible for the defense to conduct follow-up investigations.

The military commission’s lax hearsay rules permitted government prosecutors to introduce inflammatory and prejudicial material into evidence that had little or no connection to Hamdan. Near the beginning of the trial and over defense objections, the prosecution introduced a graphic video of the death and destruction wrought by al-Qaeda, starting with the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa through the September 11 attacks. Prosecution witnesses later conceded that Hamdan, who has admitted to being Osama bin Laden’s driver and mechanic, was never involved in planning or executing these or any other attacks.

Although the military commissions judge excluded certain statements of Hamdan’s obtained through abusive interrogations prior to his arrival at Guantanamo, statements made at Guantanamo were allowed into evidence, despite reports that Hamdan had been subject to extensive sleep deprivation, sexual harassment, and other abuse. These statements – in which Hamdan reportedly admitted to pledging allegiance to bin Laden – became a central part of the government’s case.

Throughout the trial, the military commission relied on classification powers in ways that belied the government’s claims of openness and transparency. The judicial order allowing Hamdan’s Guantanamo statements was almost completely redacted, making it impossible to assess the judicial reasoning. Defense attorneys were prohibited from even mentioning the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or its treatment of Hamdan in late 2001 when he disappeared into a CIA-run prison in Afghanistan. None of the CIA agents or the reports from CIA interrogations of Hamdan was made available to the defense, even though the defense attorneys had top-secret security clearances.

Human Rights Watch also expressed concern that evidence was admitted in closed session not to protect confidential sources but to keep information on government mistreatment of detainees from the public. Documents and witnesses that reportedly detail abuse of Hamdan were kept secret from the media and other independent trial observers – including papers that reportedly document a program of sleep deprivation, harassment, and inappropriate touching by a female interrogator. Two defense witnesses – a major part of the defense’s case – were also required to testify in a session closed to the media and observers, including a psychologist who reportedly had first-hand information about interrogation methods used on detainees at Guantanamo.

“A trial of this magnitude should have a meaningful public record,” Daskal said. “It’s much harder to trust the verdict of the military jury when evidence and witness testimony is unnecessarily kept secret.”

Human Rights Watch repeated its call for Guantanamo detainees charged with criminal offenses to be tried before US federal courts. Human Rights Watch expressed concern that the Bush administration asserts the authority to continue to detain Hamdan even if he is acquitted, on the basis that he is an enemy combatant who can be detained indefinitely until the end of the “global war on terror.”

“The fact that Hamdan could be acquitted and still not released makes arguments over the trial rules more than a little absurd,” said Daskal. “But convicting someone with unfair rules can’t ever be just.”

More than 260 detainees remain in Guantanamo, most of whom have been held for over six years. A dozen of these detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, have been formally charged by military commissions, but no other trial dates have yet been set.

Human Rights Watch observers were in Guantanamo during the entire Hamdan trial.

Cageprisoners Press Release:
‘Sham’ Story By US Attempts To Cover-Up Aafia Siddiqui’s Unlawful Detention

Cageprisoners rejects the ‘sham’ story that is being fed by the US administration regarding the circumstances and details of Aafia Siddiqui’s detention.

On Monday 4th August 2008, federal prosecutors in the US confirmed that Aafia Siddiqui was extradited to the US from Afghanistan where they allege she had been detained since mid-July 2008. The US administration claims that she was arrested by Afghani forces outside Ghazni governor’s compound with manuals on explosives and ‘dangerous substances in sealed jars’ on her person. They further allege that whilst in custody she shot at US officers and was injured in the process.

Aafia Siddiqui was disappeared in Karachi along with her three children in March 2003. For five years the mother and her children were believed to be in secret US or Pakistani custody until 3rd August 2008 when US officials admitted she was detained in Afghanistan .

A press conference led by Cageprisoners Patron, Yvonne Ridley, and Director, Saghir Hussain, on 7th July 2008 in Pakistan resulted in mass international coverage of Aafia’s case as her disappearance was questioned by the media and political figures in Pakistan. Ten days after the storm created over her detention, the US claimed she was detained by Afghan forces as recently as July 17th.

Asim Qureshi, Senior Researcher for Cageprisoners said,

The treatment of Aafia in Afghanistan at the hands of the US and Afghanis is something that must be disputed, especially in relation to the ludicrous and conflicting reports regarding her shooting. There are disturbing parallels between Aafia’s extradition and the case of Ahmad Abu Ali, a US citizen who was tortured in a Saudi prison; when a US judge ruled in favour of Abu Ali’s family he was suddenly extradited and produced before the courts, on a sensational charge of plotting to assassinate President Bush.

There are too many holes in the incongruous US version of events to ignore in relation to Aafia’s detention and supposed arrest. Her family have been subjected to threats and intimidation by the Intelligence agencies for the past five years for raising the profile of the case. More importantly, where are her two younger children and why has not her teenage son who was arrested with her in Ghazni been extradited to the US along with her?

Cageprisoners calls for Aafia Siddiqui to be given immediate and full legal access now that she has returned to the US and for her children to be immediately returned to Aafia’s family in Pakistan . Further the administration must cease to feed false reports and sensational stories to the media which may be prejudicial to any trial she may face.

__________

Cageprisoners is a human rights organisation that exists to raise awareness of the plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detainee s h eld as part of the War on Terror. We aim to give a voice to the voiceless.

Media

Contact: Asim Qureshi
Email: asim.q@cageprisoners.com
Number: 0044 (0) 7973264197

PCHR Concerned Over Preventing Its Lawyers From Visiting Clients In Gaza Prisons

PCHR is extremely concerned over preventing the Center’s lawyers from visiting their clients detained by security forces of the Government in Gaza . The Centre views this prevention as a violation of the rule of law and relevant international standards, including the right of a client to meet an attorney. The Centre is concerned that this prevention might be motivated by illegal actions perpetrated against prisoners, including the use of torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment.

Dozens of Fatah members and supports have been detained during the recent crackdown by security services of the Government in Gaza . The detainees included Fatah leaders Dr. Zakaria El-Agha (member of Fatah Central Committee), Ibrahim Abu El-Naja (President of the Higher Coordination Committee of Palestinian Factions), as well as Governors and Fatah Secretary-Generals in different parts of the Gaza Strip. All these detentions lacked due legal process. Some were detained by the Police and others by the Internal Security Service without an arrest warrant; and others were detained by Izzedeen El-Qassam Battalions (armed wing of Hamas).

Since the start of the crackdown on 26 July 2008, security services have prevented PCHR lawyers from visiting their clients in prisons to evaluate their legal status and their health conditions. Over the past week, PCHR conducted continuous contacts with visitation coordination officials to allow visits; but to no avail. During these contacts, lawyers received several promises to be allowed to visit at the first possible opportunity. Also, they were informed that the prevention of visits was due to the huge pressure on prison authorities; or due to lack of time to organize visits; or that officials were in constant meetings; or other excuses. Contacts with these officials were cut on Sunday, 3 July; and the Center’s lawyers have not been able to access them through their known contact numbers.

A number of released detainees stated that they were subjected to beating and humiliation. They gave the Centre sworn affidavits that other detainees were subjected to beating, torture, and humiliating treatment.

It is noted that this is not the first time the PCHR’s lawyers have been prevented from visiting their clients in prisons in Gaza . Security services denied the Center’s lawyers visits for approximately 3 months from 20 February till 12 May 2008. Since then he Center had been conducting visits till 21 July 2008.

In light of this situation, PCHR calls upon the Government in Gaza to:

Allow PCHR’s lawyers to visit their clients in prisons and detention centers in accordance with the law.

Reminds of the Palestinian High Court decision of 20 February 1999 stating that political arrests are illegal; and calls upon all executive parties to respect the
High Court decision and refrain from conducting illegal political arrests.

Ensure that judges and prosecutors fulfill their responsibility over prisons to ensure that all detainees were detained according to due process in accordance with Article 126 of the Penal Code No. 3 for the Year 2001. The Centre also calls for the implementation of Articles 105, 123, and 128 of the afore-mentioned law.

Release all prisoners who were illegally detained; and to take all necessary steps to ensure their enjoyment of their legal rights.

www.pchrgaza.org

"No Torture. No Exceptions."

Urge the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates to lead their political parties to include Reject Torture planks in their party platforms.

Contact the presidential candidates NOW—time is of the essence. INSIST: "No Torture. No Exceptions."

Call

Senator John McCain
Phone: (202) 224-2235 • Fax: (202) 228-2862

Senator Barack Obama
Phone: (202) 224-2854 • Fax: (202) 228-4260

Write

Senator John McCain
241 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: (202) 228-2862

Senator Barack Obama
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Fax: (202) 228-4260

Tips

Be bipartisan in spirit. AIUSA does not favor or oppose any candidate for public office.

Limit yourself to the issue of torture and its rejection

Keep in mind it is your own concern you are voicing, rejecting torture matters to you

For Calls

Expect a staffer to answer your call. (You are calling the candidate's Senatorial office, which is better equipped than campaign headquarters to receive comment on public issues.)

Be respectful, courteous, and to the point. Ask: “Are you the person I should speak to in order to convey a message to Senator [Name]?”

-If “Yes” (or you are connected you to another person): introduce yourself and say where you are from.

-If asked 'is it a campaign or legislative issue?' say 'legislative' (your concern about torture is more than a campaign matter): introduce yourself and say where you are from.

Say you are calling:

-to tell him that halting the U.S. government’s use of torture is a priority concern for you

-to urge Senator [Name] to lead his party at the [name Party] Convention to adopt a party platform plank that rejects torture absolutely. "No Torture. No Exceptions."
[Prior to the general election each political party at its convention adopts a program/platform with policies/planks it pledges to uphold.]

If you can, add why this is important. Here are good points to choose from: -torture is immoral -torture is illegal under U.S. and international law -torture is contrary to the best of American values -military and intelligence experts have said torture is ineffective

For Letters

Address your letter or fax: Dear Senator McCain, Dear Senator Obama
Be respectful and polite in what you write.

Let Senator [Name] know why you are writing him: to urge a Reject Torture plank in the [name] Party platform

Why torture is an important issue to you:

-torture is immoral
-torture is illegal under U.S. and international law
-torture is contrary to the best of American values
-military and intelligence experts have said torture is ineffective

Conclude by urging Senator [Name] to lead the [name] Party to adopt a platform plank that says “No Torture. No Exceptions.”

Under your signature, print your name and home address

Source: www.amnestyusa.org/get-election-info/contact-the-presidential-candidates-now/page.do?id=1551041&n1=4&n2=1586&tr=y&auid=3879892

As New Evidence Emerges that 'War on Terror' Prisoners were Held on Diego Garcia

Reprieve Demands Immediate Action from the British Government

Reprieve, the British legal action charity that represents 32 prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, today demands that the British government hold an open and transparent public inquiry into the use of the British Overseas Territory of Diego Garcia to house a secret prison.

Reprieve's demand is based on two recent and shocking revelations: as reported yesterday evening on BBC Newsnight, a newly-published article in TIME, in which a senior American official (now retired), who was "a frequent participant in White House Situation Room meetings" after the 9/11 attacks, has explained that "a CIA counter-terrorism official twice said that a high-value prisoner or prisoners were being interrogated on the island" in 2002 and possibly 2003[1]; and recent reports by BBC Newsnight and the leading Spanish newspaper El Pais, in which it was revealed that Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, a "ghost prisoner" whose current whereabouts are unknown, was held on the island on 2005 and possibly 2006.[2]

Clive Stafford Smith, Reprieve's Director, said:

"Today's TIME story further demonstrates that the British government has allowed itself to be duped by the US on a colossal scale. While Ministers have spent years looking the other way, British territory has been used for kidnapping, 'extraordinary rendition', illegal imprisonment and possibly torture. However, ignorance is no excuse when it comes to crimes of this magnitude."

Clive Stafford Smith continued: "The United States must come clean about the existence of its secret prison on Diego Garcia – and the British government must ensure the US does so. In February 2008, Gen. Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, stated categorically that Diego Garcia had never housed a secret prison.[3] It now seems that simply isn't true. It is time for these evasions to come to an end, and for the full details of the CIA's secret prison system to be revealed."

The UK government – relying on assurances from its US counterparts – has consistently denied that prisoners have been held on Diego Garcia. These denials are clearly no longer tenable, and Reprieve is therefore obliged to remind the British government that holding prisoners in secret imprisonment is illegal under domestic UK and international law.

Reprieve is also obliged to remind the British government that it has a duty to make representations for the fair treatment for any individuals rendered through or held on its territory by the United States. Reprieve notes that the torture of "high-value" prisoners like those reported held on Diego Garcia is well-documented, and, while we are unable to ascertain at present if prisoners were tortured on Diego Garcia, this remains a distinct possibility. By allowing such acts to happen on British territory, the British government may have breached its obligations under the UN Convention Against Torture.

The background to the story

Between October 2003 and January 2008, the US government provided numerous assurances that no detentions or renditions had occurred within the jurisdiction of Diego Garcia. For almost five years the British government blindly accepted these assurances, and to Reprieve's knowledge did nothing to further inquire into these serious and persistent allegations.

These denials finally came to an end this February, when Foreign Secretary David Miliband announced that his US counterparts had checked their records and had discovered that two flights, each carrying one prisoner, had passed through Diego Garcia in 2002. Mr. Miliband maintained, however, that he had been assured that the planes had only landed for refuelling, and that no prisoner had ever set foot on Diego Garcia. Mr. Miliband repeated these claims just four weeks ago, after apparently receiving further confirmation from his US counterparts that no other rendition flights had passed through British territory, claims that now appear false.

Seven prisoners possibly held on Diego Garcia

Abu Zubaydah. A Saudi citizen born in March 1971, Abu Zubaydah (Zayn al-Abidin Muhammad Husayn) was seized in Faisalabad, Pakistan in a joint operation by Pakistani forces and the FBI on 28 March 2002. Held initially in Thailand, and later in Poland, TIME suggested in July 2002 that he was being held on Diego Garcia.[4]

Abu Zubaydah's torture in secret prisons run by the CIA is well-documented. In February 2008, Gen. Michael Hayden, the Director of the CIA, admitted that Abu Zubaydah was one of three prisoners who had been subjected to waterboarding (an ancient torture technique that involves controlled drowning) in CIA custody. He was reportedly also subjected to 'Long Time Standing', when a prisoner is forced to stand, handcuffed and with his feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours, and 'The Cold Cell', in which a prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees" and is repeatedly doused with cold water.[5]

One of 14 "high-value detainees" transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006, Abu Zubaydah has not yet been put forward for trial by military commission at Guantánamo, but it remains possible that he will be charged and will face the death penalty if convicted.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. A Kuwaiti, born in 1964 or 1965, Mohammed (commonly known as KSM) was seized in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003. Like Abu Zubaydah, he was subjected to waterboarding and an array of other torture techniques. He is presumed to have been held initially in Thailand, and later in Poland. Transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006, he was put forward for trial by Military Commission in February, and will face the death penalty if convicted.

Rumours that KSM was held on Diego Garcia have surfaced sporadically over the years, one example being an article in the Toronto Star in 2005, in which John Pike, a US defence analyst, said that he believed that KSM had been held on Diego Garcia, and explained, "Diego Garcia is an obvious place for a secret facility. They want somewhere that's difficult to escape from, difficult to attack, not visible to prying eyes and where a lot of other activity is going on. Diego Garcia is ideal."[6]

Ramzi bin al-Shibh. A Yemeni, born in 1972, bin al-Shibh was seized in a raid in Karachi, Pakistan on September 11, 2002. His imprisonment on Diego Garcia has been suspected since flight logs revealed that a plane flew to the island from Pakistan immediately after his capture. Transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006, he was put forward for trial by Military Commission in February, and will face the death penalty if convicted.

Hambali. An Indonesian born in April 1966, Hambali (Riduan Isamuddin) was seized in Ayutthaya, Thailand in a joint operation by Thai forces and the CIA on 11 August 2003. In 2003, TIME reported that he was being held on Diego Garcia[7], but the British government, citing US assurances, said that this was not the case.

Hambali is one of 14 "high-value detainees" transferred to Guantánamo in September 2006. No details of his treatment in US custody have emerged, although it is likely that he too was subjected to torture. Like Abu Zubaydah, he has not yet been put forward for trial by military commission at Guantánamo, but it remains possible that he will be charged and will face the death penalty if convicted.

Lillie (Mohammed Nazir bin Lep) and Zubair (Mohd Farik bin Amin). Malaysians, seized with Hambali, little is known of these two men, beyond claims by the US administration that they worked closely with Hambali. They were transferred from CIA custody to Guantánamo in September 2006, and although no details of their treatment in US custody have emerged, it is likely that they too were subjected to torture. They have not yet been put forward for trial by military commission at Guantánamo, but it remains possible that they will be charged and will face the death penalty if convicted.

Mustafa Setmariam Nasar. A dual Spanish and Syrian national, born in 1958, Mustafa Setmariam Nasar was seized in Quetta, Pakistan in October 2005 and handed over to US forces approximately a month later. Since then he has completely disappeared. It is not known whether he is being held in a secret CIA prison or if he has been rendered to a third country.

It is clear, however, that the US authorities know of his whereabouts. In March 2006, the United States removed him from a list of terrorism suspects, and in July 2006 his name was included in the US government's list of "Terrorists No Longer a Threat."

For further information, please contact Andy Worthington or Clara Gutteridge on 020 7353 4640 or 07973 687950 or email Clara@reprieve.org.uk or Andy@reprieve.org.uk

_____

Note for editors

Reprieve, a legal action charity, uses the law to enforce the human rights of prisoners, from death row to Guantánamo Bay. Reprieve investigates, litigates and educates, working on the frontline, to provide legal support to prisoners unable to pay for it themselves. Reprieve promotes the rule of law around the world, securing each person's right to a fair trial and saving lives.

Clive Stafford Smith is the founder of Reprieve and has spent 25 years working on behalf of people facing the death penalty in the USA. Reprieve lawyers currently represent 30 prisoners held in Guantánamo Bay.

For more details about Reprieve, visit: www.reprieve.org.uk

Abuse In HMP Frankland



Since 2001, the British Government has been abusing Ethnic Minority inmates in an isolated prison. This is the prisoners story.

The Free Gaza Movement UK For Immediate Release:
Setting Sail on August 5th 2008 to Break the Siege of Gaza

Around 60 Palestinians, Israelis and Internationals from 15 countries will sail to the Gaza Strip to deliver medical equipment on August 5th 2008. The delivery to Gaza Port of desperately needed medical supplies will be the first international cargo to reach Gaza directly since the crushing embargo on its civilians began.

Holocaust survivor Hedy Epstein is one of those who has courageously agreed to go aboard, seizing what she describes as “an opportunity to make a change for good, both for Palestinians and Israelis. We intend to open the port, fish with the fishermen, help in the clinics, and work in the schools. But we also intend to remind the world that we will not stand by and watch 1.5 million people suffer death by starvation and disease”.

Naim Franjieh, survivor of the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe), will join Hedy on the boat : “My parents fled Palestine in 1948 when I was three years old,” he says “I want to be there, on the boat, to tell the people of Gaza they are not forgotten by those of us who have left.” The boat’s cargo includes hearing aids for the children of Gaza. These desperately needed items have been blocked by the Israeli authorities, causing serious damage to all aspects of the livelihood, education and well-being of children with hearing difficulties.

In his letter of support for the voyage, Archbishop Desmond Tutu stated “Peace and security, we discovered in South Africa, do not come through the barrel of a gun...I support the boat convoy in its attempt to bring on-going humanitarian relief to the people of Gaza”. The Carter Center is also backing the voyage.

Ten of the 60 Campaigners are from the UK and Ireland.

A Press Conference will be held at 11am on the 4th August 2008 at the Arab British Chamber of Commerce (43 Upper Grosvenor Street, London. W1K 2NJ.)

www.freegaza.org