IMPRISONED WITHOUT DUE PROCESS FOR

Correspondence with the Bush Administration

U.S. transfers 20 more prisoners to Afghan custody
Reuters
February 10, 2008
Confusion Clouds Guantanamo Tribunals
Associated Press
February 6, 2008
France urges US to drop Guantanamo trial of Canadian
AFP
January 23, 2008
More Media...

Supreme Court Decisions
  - RASUL v. Bush & Al-Odah v. United States
  - HAMDI et al. v. RUMSFELD
  - HAMDAN et al. v. RUMSFELD

Amicus Briefs
  - Helen Duffy and William Aceves

 

 

<< Back

His Verdict: U.S. Guilty in Guantanamo

Editorial: Bob Braun
Newark Star Ledger
July 24, 2006

To imprison the wrong person is a violation of that individual's human rights.

To arrest the wrong people for acts of terror, to claim they are the "worst of the worst," is also to endanger the national security. By fostering complacency, perhaps for political reasons -- and by failing to find the right people.

"I believe there are terrorists out there who mean us harm, no question," says Mark Denbeaux of WoodcliffLake, a law professor at Seton Hall and defense attorney for two alleged terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"Our clients could not possibly be worst of the worst. If they were, you could give up all airport security and be perfectly safe."

Denbeaux, 62, a faculty member at Seton Hall since 1972, has been to the detention facility in Cuba three times. His access to his clients is severely restricted; even his access to his own notes and the court papers he files is subject to censorship.

"The conditions are impossible," says Denbeaux, who works with his son, Joshua, also a lawyer.
Denbeaux, with a small group of law students, also has produced two detailed studies of the 517 Gitmo detainees, using the U.S. Defense Department's own statistics.

Some -- a small number, perhaps 10 percent -- face charges that appear to be backed by evidence. The vast majority, however, are there because of pro forma charges they were somehow affiliated with al Qaeda or the Taliban or groups related to both.

An "enemy combatant," according to the government, is an "individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy forces."

The Defense Department divides detainees into those who were "fighters for" or "members of" or "affiliated with" either al Qaeda or the Taliban or other associated groups. Only 8 percent of the detainees were considered to be "fighters for" any of the groups. The majority were considered "affiliated with."

Even to non-lawyers, two immediate problems emerge. One is that there has been virtually no legal process to determine the strength of these charges. What does it mean to be "affiliated with" an organization that is "associated with" another organization?

The second problem is how these detainees got there. Fewer than 10 percent were captured by American forces. More than 90 percent were rounded up, mostly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, after bounties were promised to those who turned them in.

The report from Denbeaux and his students reproduces leaflets dropped in Afghan villages and elsewhere. They bore the message:

"Get wealth and power beyond your dreams. You can receive millions of dollars helping the anti-Taliban forces catch al Qaeda and Taliban murderers. This is enough money to take care of your family, your village, your tribe for the rest of your life."

Suspect, no? Know anybody who would denounce you for a million dollars?

Here's another problem: The Taliban ran the government in Afghanistan. Virtually every government official in the country met the definition of "associated with" the Taliban. A few ended up in Gitmo. One -- a Taliban government spokesman -- was admitted as a student to Yale, but most were simply left behind.

Denbeaux and his students issued a second report that compares the organizations listed by the Defense Department as "associated with" al Qaeda and the Taliban to those listed as terrorist organizations by the State Department or those included in the Patriot Act. There is virtually no relationship.

Some detainees rotting in Gitmo are considered terrorists because they are members of, or are affiliated with, various organizations. Other members of those same organizations, however, can get visas to come to the United States because the State Department doesn't recognize them as terrorist groups.

This creates "two equally disturbing possibilities" -- one is that terrorists so evil that they should be detained indefinitely without trial can easily get into the United States, or the other is that a "significant number of Guantanamo Bay detainees are being held based on their connection to groups that do not participate in terrorist activities."

In the end, of course, most people don't care that men with strange names are held indefinitely in a tropical American gulag. Antipathy and fear caused by 9/11, combined with indifference, has allowed this un-American condition to continue.

Denbeaux, the son of a military chaplain, gets that kind of reaction. He cited one e-mail message from a Christian fundamentalist who wanted to know who cared about the problems of "those people" in Guantanamo. He cited the Beatitudes and responded: "People of faith do."

<< Back