Andy Worthington's Blog, page 114

Saudi Prisoner Muhammad Al-Zahrani Seeks Release from Guantánamo via Periodic Review Board

I wrote the following article for the “Close Guantánamo” website, which I established in January 2012 with US attorney Tom Wilner. Please join us – just an email address is required to be counted amongst those opposed to the ongoing existence of Guantánamo, and to receive updates of our activities by email.

Last week, largely unnoticed in the mainstream media, a Periodic Review Board (PRB) took place — at a military location in Virginia — for Muhammad Murdi lssa al-Zahrani, one of the last Saudi nationals held in the prison, who joined the board — and was visible to the handful of media representatives in attendance — via video link from Guantánamo. 44 or 45 years old, he was seized in a house raid in Lahore, Pakistan, at the end of March 2002.

The PRBs — which involve representatives of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice and Homeland Security, as well as the office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — were established last year to review the cases of 71 prisoners designated for ongoing imprisonment without charge or trial — or for trials that were later dropped — in January 2010 by the high-level, inter-agency Guantánamo Review Task Force that President Obama appointed shortly after taking office in 2009.

Those prisoners who were designated for ongoing imprisonment without charge or trial had those designations made on the basis that they were “too dangerous to release,” even though insufficient evidence existed to put them on trial — highlighting, to acute observers, that there are fundamental problems with the so-called evidence.

Al-Zahrani’s was the ninth review to take place, and of the eight previous hearings (held between November 20 last year and June 12 this year), five decisions have been reached by the board. Three prisoners have been recommended for release (see here, here and here), while two others have had their ongoing imprisonment approved by the board members (see here and here).

These latter two decisions have not been reassuring for US justice, as the supposed evidence is, at best, thin — and I find it unconvincing that either man constitutes a threat to the US. In addition, although it is, in theory, reassuring that three insignificant prisoners have been recommended for release, in practice none of these men have been freed, because they are Yemenis, and the entire US establishment is unwilling to release Yemenis because of the perceived security problems in their home country. As a result, they join 55 other Yemenis who were cleared for release by the task force in January 2010, but are still held.

Three other decisions have not yet been made — for another Saudi, and for the last two Kuwaitis in the prison.

Last Thursday (June 19), as Reuters reported, Muhammad al-Zahrani, who allegedly fought in Afghanistan prior to his capture, where he lost a leg, “appeared at the hearing dressed in a white shirt with a long beard and glasses, which he took on and off throughout the proceedings open to public viewing.”

Two military representatives, appointed to represent al-Zahrani, spoke for him. As Reuters explained, they stated that he had “declined to be represented by a lawyer and until this week had refused to participate in the hearing process,” although they did point out — which Reuters omitted to mention — that he had been cooperative all along, meeting with them and providing them with information.

In detailed testimony that I’m posting below, the representatives made a case for why he should no longer be detained, stating that he did not meet the criteria to be regarded as a significant threat to the United States, and making a powerful topical reference to the recent prisoner exchange — of five Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the sole US prisoner of war in Afghanistan — which led to a sustained outburst of manufactured hysteria from Republicans and much of the mainstream media.

This failure to “meet the criteria to be regarded as a significant threat,” the representatives stated, “is especially true in light of mitigating factors put in places to enable the recent release of five Taliban detainees, who were all classified as higher threats than Mr al-Zahrani.” Reuters’ title for the article about the hearing spelled this out clearly. “Guantánamo inmate up for transfer lesser threat than swapped Taliban,” it read.

However, Reuters failed to include what the representatives went on to say, which was very important, as it ought to provide the Obama administration with clear and defensible reasons for releasing other prisoners. “These same mitigators provided sufficient assurance that those five detainees no longer pose a continuing significant threat to United States’ national security,” the representatives wrote, “which implies a lower level threat such as Mr. Al-Zahrani, if afforded similar mitigators like those available in Saudi Arabia, would no longer pose a continuing significant threat.”

In their presentation, the representatives also pointed out that al-Zahrani has indicated that “he has a home, a job to return to, back-pay for his time during detention, and associates within the Saudi Ministry of the Interior to help him as he starts his new life,” and that he wishes to be with his family, in particular to support his mother, as he feels acutely the loss of his father, who died three years ago. His file indicates that. from 1992 to 1999, he “worked in Jeddah as an assistant in the legal department of the Safoula Oil Production Company.”

The representatives also drew extensively on descriptions of what the stress of a regime like Guantánamo does to prisoners, via a psychiatrist’s report that was submitted on behalf of Ghaleb Al-Bihani (ISN 128), who was cleared for release on May 28. They note that the claims he made to interrogators were “purposely exaggerated and conflicting as is typical of many detainees.”

They added, “We do not know why Mr. AI-Zahrani provided false or overstated accounts, nor the circumstances under which he provided them, but the previously cited psychiatrist’s report provides some insight as to why previous detainees have given conflicting statements”; namely, “attempting to ‘improve their situation,’ meaning reducing interrogator use of enhanced interrogation techniques, to regain comfort items removed prior to interrogation, and to have access to medical attention and treatment.”

In addition, as the representatives noted, “some detainees reported that prolonged sleep deprivation led to their reporting conflicting stories as a result of endorsing information they thought the interrogators were seeking, because of confusion or in hope that they would be allowed to sleep.”

They also added that, significantly, “all negative accounts in Mr. Al-Zahrani’s classified dossier that make him out to be other than a low-level fighter have been refuted by either Mr. Al-Zahrani, other detainees, or his interrogators.”

In contrast, the military’s claims about al-Zahrani — including an allegation that he “almost certainly joined al-Qa’ ida” — fail to reflect these important points. “Information about [his] activities before detention is derived almost entirely from his own statements, which largely are uncorroborated but are consistent with al-Qa’ida’s operational practices,” the summary claims, adding that, although al-Zahrani “possibly at times has exaggerated his role in and significance to al-Qa’ida,” he “remains devoted” to the organization — a claim for which there is, simply, no evidence.

Significantly, although the authorities suggest that, in Afghanistan, al-Zahrani “almost certainly cultivated direct and indirect relationships with numerous terrorist leaders who could provide him avenues to reengage” if released, this is actually nothing more than shrill speculation, More realistic is the conclusion that, if al-Zahrani was repatriated to Saudi Arabia, he would be in a position to “return to his family after completing the Kingdom’s rehabilitation program,” because he “has no known associations with at-large extremists, based on his lack of interaction with anyone outside of Guantánamo except for family members who have no identified extremist affiliations.”

The first part of the personal representatives’ statements is followed by a second part, specifically involving a threat assessment that demonstrates “why Mr. Al-Zahrani does not rise to the standard of ‘continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.’” This second part of the presentation involves references to documents that were not made publicly available, but the most important aspect of the presentation does not require any additional information — it is an even more detailed explanation than in Part 1 of why the mitigating factors accompanying the release of the five Taliban prisoners can only support the release of al-Zahrani as well, because he poses a lower threat. It is an argument that I hope to see used again in other review boards to come, as I believe it is an important point.

Periodic Review Board, Muhammad Murdi Issa Al-Zahrani, ISN 713

June 19, 2014

Opening Statement of Personal Representative Part 1

Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the board. We are the Personal Representatives for Muhammad Murdi Issa Al-Zahrani. We will be presenting Mr. Al-Zahrani’s case to you today without the aid of private counsel. Additionally, until recently Mr. Al-Zahrani had elected not to participate during this process, but we want you to know that although he had made the personal decision not to participate, he has been cooperative. He met with us in person and provided information to us via a letter that includes some information about what he would like to do in the future.

We will present a two part statement to you today. I will briefly discuss information about Mr. AI- Zahrani’s detention that will shed light on his current circumstances and frame of mind, and will then project forward to Mr. Al-Zahrani’s life post detention. Then, as this Board’s recommendation is made on the basis of whether a detainee presents a “continuing significant threat to the security of the United States,” my colleague will compare Mr. Al-Zahrani’s threat potential to the standard established for a “continuing significant threat.” On our PRS [Periodic Review Secretariat] website, a “continuing significant threat” is defined as “a threat to the national security of the United States that cannot be mitigated through feasible and appropriate security measures implemented by another country, organization, or entity.” What you will come to see is that Mr. Al-Zahrani’s threat potential is largely overstated, due to conflicting information he provided, and that even if his self-described worst case propensities were true, he does not rise to the standard of a continuing significant threat to national security. Why? Because he lacks the capability and his opportunities to impose harm can be sufficiently mitigated.

Mr. Al-Zahrani has spent 12 years at Guantánamo Bay and “presented few significant force protection problems relative to other detainees.” His limited negative conduct while detained is that of an inmate, rather than that of a terrorist. Such resistance and non-compliance with correctional staff is commonplace in penal systems, including in the US, and reflects that of a typical inmate who has been influenced by 12 years of detention, frustration, separation from family, and boredom with no possible end in sight. His limited efforts toward non-compliance while detained have no bearing on any risk he might pose toward the United States. Accordingly, we recommend that the Board discount this information in your assessment of Mr. AI-Zahrani’s future risk potential.

As mentioned, Mr. Al-Zahrani declined to participate in this process until recently, but this should not be seen as a harboring of ill intent toward the United States, nor should it be detrimental to the Board’s recommendation. From the psychiatrist’s report submitted previously on behalf of ISN-128 [Ghaleb Al-Bihani, cleared for release on May 28], episodic refusal to meet and participate in various activities is common among the detainees, and is “often rooted in a detainee’s sense that their indefinite confinement constitutes cruel, degrading, and inhumane treatment.” Further, this psychiatrist states, “deprived of the ability to make basic decisions … they may seek to be able to influence decisions in the small arena left to them.” Hence, while it may seem counterintuitive to decline participation in the PRB process, non-participatory tendencies among the detainees can be viewed as “exerting their humanity and autonomy by engaging in what they refer to as ‘peaceful protest’ of their detention.”

In the specific case of Mr. Al-Zahrani, his unclassified dossier also indicates a diagnosis of what the Mayo Clinic classifies as a treatable, stress-related mental illness brought on by any number of significant life changes. Mr. Al-Zahrani’s condition may precipitate from the injuries, as he alludes to in his letter, or his indefinite captivity. In either case, the typical symptoms of this condition may shed some light on why Mr. Al-Zahrani made the choice of not participating until this week.

During Mr. Al-Zahrani’s detention, he has missed significant changes in the lives of many family members. Now, as per his unclassified dossier, his letter to us, and consistent indicators in camp records, Mr. Al-Zahrani desires to be reunited with his family and make up for lost time. Indeed, Mr. Al-Zahrani states his only wish is to see his ailing mother before she passes away; an opportunity he missed when his father died three years ago.

Mr. Al-Zahrani benefits from being a Saudi citizen and according to the unclassified dossier, “the Saudi government has provided the appropriate security and humane treatment assurances to facilitate the transfer of detainees.” Resultantly, “the United States has transferred over 100 detainees, including two in 2013, to Saudi Arabia.” Saudi Arabia has established a robust rehabilitation and aftercare program “focused on changing the attitudes of Saudis who have been involved in terrorism and include detainees transferred from the Guantánamo Bay detention facility. These components [of the program] include counseling, religious instruction, sports, and social and therapeutic activities.” Additionally, family members are able to visit the detainees going through the program. Mr. AI-Zahrani told us he is willing to go through the government program, agree to any terms leading to his release, and will fully cooperate with any stipulations his country places on him. We believe this shows his desire to capitalize on a second chance at life and return home to be with his family.

As we share Mr. Al-Zahrani’s own words with you, we believe you will see that his actions do not imply an unwillingness to cooperate. Rather, you will see a middle-aged, ailing man who desperately wants to return to Saudi Arabia so he can receive the healthcare provided by his country’s nationalized healthcare system, go through the country’s extensive detainee rehabilitation program, reintegrate as a productive member of society, and shoulder the responsibility of taking care of his family.

Per Mr. Al-Zahrani’s letter, which you will hear shortly, his entire family has voiced their commitment to assisting and supporting him during his transition home. This includes financial support, assistance with gaining employment, and embracing him into an extended family support network. We believe his close family structure will be a significant benefit in transitioning Mr. Al-Zahrani to a normal life, but their assistance may not even be necessary. Mr. Al-Zahrani indicates he has a home, a job to return to, back-pay for his time during detention, and associates within the Saudi Ministry of the Interior to help him as he starts his new life.

Mr. Al-Zahrani’s dossier shows the historical information that led to his detention. As you review the additional documentation we have provided, and have the opportunity to ask questions, we urge you to consider the whole picture when making your recommendation. Evaluating Mr. Al-Zahrani’s dossier requires recognition of the fact that any negative information found therein is derived from his own admission; purposely exaggerated and conflicting as is typical of many detainees. This exaggerated information serves to cloud the matter at hand and artificially inflate the “perceived risk” presented by Mr. Al-Zahrani. We do not know why Mr. Al-Zahrani provided false or overstated accounts, nor the circumstances under which he provided them, but the previously cited psychiatrist’s report provides some insight as to why previous detainees have given conflicting statements. It indicates detainees often provide discrepant information, “attempting to ‘improve their situation,’ meaning reducing interrogator use of enhanced interrogation techniques, to regain comfort items removed prior to interrogation, and to have access to medical attention and treatment.” Further, “some detainees reported that prolonged sleep deprivation led to their reporting conflicting stories as a result of endorsing information they thought the interrogators were seeking, because of confusion or in hope that they would be allowed to sleep.” Moreover, all negative accounts in Mr. Al-Zahrani’s classified dossier that make him out to be other than a low-level fighter have been refuted by either Mr. Al-Zahrani, other detainees, or his interrogators.

The fact is, Mr. Al-Zahrani is a man who has stated that he wants to start over. He should be given a second chance because he does not meet the defined threshold of presenting a continuing significant threat to the United States. This is especially true in light of mitigating factors put in place to enable the recent release of five Taliban detainees, who were all classified as higher threats than Mr. Al-Zahrani. These same mitigators provided sufficient assurance that those five detainees no longer pose a continuing significant threat to United States’ national security, which implies a lower level threat such as Mr. Al-Zahrani, if afforded similar mitigators like those available in Saudi Arabia, would no longer pose a continuing significant threat. Thank you for your time and consideration. We are happy to answer any questions you may have throughout this proceeding. With that, I will turn it over to my colleague to discuss our threat analysis methodology.

Periodic Review Board, Muhammad Murdi Issa Al-Zahrani, ISN 713

June 19, 2014

Opening Statement of Personal Representative Part 2

Bottom Line Up Front: Detainee does not rise to the standard of “continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.”

Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, good morning. During a previous board hearing, I characterized “threat” in terms of motive, capability, and opportunity and discussed the fact that the detainee in that case had demonstrated a lack of motive, that his dossier did not demonstrate sufficient capability, and that in your recommendation, you could ensure a lack of opportunity. As you know, every case is different, and this one will be as well.

Until the very end, Mr. Al-Zahrani explained to us that he did not wish to participate in the PRB process, and my colleague has addressed why that decision may have resulted from his captivity rather than from nefarious intent towards the US. Nonetheless, as a result, we have had to use a different methodology to demonstrate why Mr. Al-Zahrani does not rise to the standard of “continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.”

Without active participation from Mr. Al-Zahrani, it would be presumptive of us to attempt to refute either his motive or the capability as laid out in his dossier. Instead, in our submission we used a risk/threat methodology, to show that even assuming the worst intent, and the full scope of capabilities as shown in the dossier, Mr. Al-Zahrani still does not meet the standard. In other words, any threat that he might represent can be “sufficiently mitigated through feasible and appropriate security measures implemented by another country, organization, or entity.”

For the methodology used in our submission for Mr. Al-Zahrani’s case, we laid out several representative scenarios which might demonstrate a threat to the US or its interests if Mr. Al-Zahrani is released. I invite your attention to the matrix in Exhibit 3.5.1: Risk Scenarios. For each scenario, we defined the threat that could exist, worst case consequences for that scenario, and existing mitigating factors. All existing mitigating factors were drawn from the dossier. We assigned a severity to the consequences based on the worst case, and assigned a likelihood value to the scenario based on the stated events occurring in spite of the listed safeguards. Based on those values, we have assigned a risk to each threat scenario according to the matrix. Please see Exhibit 3.4.1 Risk Matrix for definitions of Severity, Likelihood, and Risk values, and for the Risk Matrix itself. The matrix used is common to risk assessments, although the severity and likelihood values had to be developed specifically for this application. If any risk met a certain threshold, then we would offer recommendations to the Board to attempt to mitigate the higher risks to a lower risk.

Out of all of the scenarios, the highest existing risk did not meet that threshold. Note that this value takes into account only existing mitigating factors — it requires no special mitigations or security precautions above those currently undergone by all transferees.

In conclusion, the standard for “continuing significant threat to the security of the United States” is higher than the standard for a simple threat. On May 31st, both President Obama and Defense Secretary Hagel stated that the government of Qatar put into place measures that would ensure that the “national security of the United States would not be compromised” by the recent release of five Guantánamo detainees. In so doing, we suggest that the released detainees represent a possible upper bound to a continuing significant threat because the threat that the released detainees represent could be mitigated “through feasible and appropriate security measures implemented by another country, organization, or entity.” We have demonstrated that Mr. Al-Zahrani represents a lower threat than the detainees that have been released and therefore does not rise to the standard for “continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.”

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer and film-maker. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here – or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

“I Had Trouble Sleeping,” Lawyer Says After Viewing Guantánamo Force-Feeding Videos

[image error]On the weekend of June 14/15, as I explained in an article last week, lawyers for Abu Wa’el Dhiab, a Syrian prisoner at Guantánamo who is on a hunger strike and being force-fed, began watching videos of their client’s force-feeding and “forcible cell extractions” — when prisoners are violently removed from their cells by a riot squad — which a US judge, District Judge Gladys Kessler, had ordered to be released to the lawyers a month ago. It is important to note that, previously, no lawyer for the prisoners has ever been allowed to view videotapes of force-feeding or violent cell extractions.

Prior to viewing the videos — at a “secure facility” run by the Pentagon in Virginia, where lawyers have to go to view any classified documentation related to their clients — Cori Crider of Reprieve,the legal action charity whose lawyers represent Dhiab, along with Jon B. Eisenberg in the US, described how she expected the content of the tapes “to be upsetting.”

After viewing them, Crider delivered a powerful statement about how disturbing the tapes are. “While I’m not allowed to discuss the contents of these videos, I can say that I had trouble sleeping after viewing them,” she said, adding, “I have no doubt that if President Obama forced himself to watch them, he would release my client tomorrow.”

Alka Pradhan, an attorney with the newly-established Reprieve US, added, “These first-ever glimpses into Guantánamo Bay are extraordinarily disturbing. I challenge the President to look at the mounting evidence and take ownership of the abuse my client is enduring.”

Sadly, there is no evidence that President Obama has any interest in watching the videos, even though Abu Wa’el Dhiab is a prime candidate for release from Guantánamo. The father of four, who is confined to a wheelchair as a result of his deteriorating health after 12 years in US custody, is one of 75 men (out of the remaining 149 prisoners still held) who were cleared for release from the prison in January 2010 by President Obama’s high-level, inter-agency Guantánamo Review Task Force but who, unacceptably, are still held. (Three others were cleared for release in recent months by Periodic Review Boards).

Dhiab, who, like a handful of other cleared prisoners, cannot be safely repatriated, could nevertheless be released tomorrow, if President Obama wanted to free him, as President Mujica of Uruguay has offered him a new home, along with five other prisoners who cannot be safely repatriated — three more Syrians, the last Palestinian in the prison, and a Tunisian.

A new twist in the abuse of Abu Wa’el Dhiab

However, instead of releasing Dhiab, President Obama appears content to leave him at Guantánamo, where, as Reprieve noted last Monday (June 16), he is now being prohibited from attending the force-feeding sessions by wheelchair, and is being told that he must walk (which he cannot) or he will be violently extracted from his cell and taken there by the riot squad.

In an affidavit dated June 10, Mohammad Ahmad Ghulam Rabbani, a Pakistani prisoner who is also seeking the release of videotapes recording his force-feeding and “forcible cell extractions,” and whose cell is opposite Dhiab’s, stated that, on June 9:

[T]he Gitmo staff came to Abu Wa’el and asked him if he was going to drink his Ensure [the nutritional drink used in force-feeding]. He pointed out that he had accepted his normal food. The staff said that was not enough so he would have to take his Ensure. Abu Wa’el was offended by this and said he was not going to agree to this. So the staff said he would be force fed by FCE ["forcible cell extraction"]. The staff person said he could agree to “walk.” Abu Wa’el pointed out that he needed a wheelchair. The staff said to him no, it was “walk or FCE,” so he was FCE’d.

Rabbani also explained that the authorities have ceased videotaping “forcible cell extractions” since Judge Kessler’s ruling. “As of last Wednesday, June 4th, 2014, the JTF-GTMO authorities have changed their rules and they no longer videotape FCE activities,” he stated, adding, “This is [a] direct response to the judge’s order in Abu Wa’el’s case. It is a great shame as I would always describe loudly for the camera what was being done to me.”

Rabbani also stated:

Yesterday evening, Abu Wa’el was FCE’d in a particularly harsh manner. The FCE team beat him so badly he had blood in his faeces. I heard him vomiting for much of the night.

Abu Wa’el tries to drink water, but it is hard for him. It was made easier by the herbal remedy his family sent him. However that had been confiscated from him for a time, until Sunday. He had it one day but when he was FCE’d last night it was taken from him again.

In response to this disturbing news, Reprieve filed an emergency application for a temporary restraining order.

Judge Kessler orders the release of more videotapes

In the meantime, Dhiab’s lawyers had another court appointment, on June 18, where Judge Kessler “ordered the Obama Administration to pass attorneys four more videotapes depicting the Forced Cell Extraction (FCE) of a disabled hunger-striker at Guantánamo Bay,” as Reprieve described it, adding, “The latest tapes, recorded on May 29-30 this year, are thought to depict a new FCE team handling Syrian prisoner Abu Wa-el Dhiab especially roughly following a court order which temporarily halted his force-feeding. They are in addition to the 28 tapes viewed over the weekend by lawyers from legal non-profit Reprieve, which is representing Mr Dhiab. Of these, 18 have been filed to the court in support of Mr Dhiab’s case.”

Cori Crider responded to Judge Kessler’s ruling by stating, “Bit by bit, tape by tape, this case is starting to reveal the ugly reality of Guantánamo. The only question is how long the President, who has the power to release this cleared man, will continue to look away and leave him to endure this pointless torment.”

The media gets involved

On June 20, 16 media organizations got involved in the case. In a motion submitted to the court, they sought to unseal video evidence of the force-feeding and “forcible cell extractions,” which, as Reprieve noted, “remain classified and have only been seen by Reprieve lawyers.”

The 16 organizations are: The Hearst Corporation, ABC, Inc., The Associated Press, Bloomberg L.P., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., The Contently Foundation, Dow Jones & Company, Inc., First Look Media, Inc., Guardian US, The McClatchy Company, National Public Radio, Inc., The New York Times Company, Reuters, Tribune Publishing Company, LLC, USA TODAY, and The Washington Post.

Cori Crider responded to the media’s motion by stating, “It’s very welcome that the US media is defending Americans’ right to know what is being done in their name at Guantánamo, and a scandal that the Obama administration apparently wants to keep the truth from them. Mr. Dhiab and the rest of my clients have never received a trial — most have been cleared for release for years — yet their peaceful protest is being brutally repressed. The government keeps implying that the force-feeding tapes contain only uncontroversial material — so they ought to put up, and produce a public version of this footage, or shut up.”

Lawyers seek to interview Col. Bogdan, Guantánamo’s contentious warden, plus medical personnel

On the evening of June 20, Reprieve and Jon Eisenberg, plus Eric Lewis of Lewis Baach PLLC, filed a motion asking Judge Kessler to allow them to question under oath Col. John Bogdan, the warden of Guantánamo, who is believed to be responsible for the decision to prevent Abu Wa’el Dhiab from attending force-feeding in his wheelchair. They also “request the sworn testimony of Guantánamo’s current and former head doctors about Mr. Dhiab’s need for a wheelchair, as well as current abusive and medically unsound force-feeding practices at the prison,” as Reprieve explained in a press release.

Reprieve also noted, correctly, that “Col. Bogdan is responsible for a particularly brutal regime over the past two years at Guantánamo,” pointing out that, “In response to the mass hunger strike of 2013, he rolled out a series of harsh punishments designed to ‘break’ the peaceful protest of scores of cleared men who despair of ever being released.” Bogdan also features prominently in a CBS news report from Guantánamo last fall, in which Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in the prison, shouted out from his cell, and directly exposed the prisoners’ plight to US audiences.

Reprieve also noted that medical records for Dhiab, which were made public last Wednesday, suggested that the decision to deprive Dhiab of his wheelchair “was entirely punitive.” They cited a note from a nurse, dated April 25, 2014, which warned him that his “dis[ciplinary] status with guard force is affecting his ability to have a wheelchair.”

As the motion was submitted, Cori Crider explained, “If you take a disabled man’s wheelchair away, you ought to have to answer for it under oath. Col. Bogdan’s new ‘no wheelchairs’ policy reveals at best a callous indifference to suffering, and at worst an abuse of the total power he exercises over prisoners in his care. This is the ugly reality of Guantánamo, and it is just the tip of the iceberg.”

Reprieve also noted that a “full hearing on the merits of [Abu Wa'el Dhiab's] force-feeding challenge is expected to be scheduled by Labor Day,” which falls on the first Monday in September. However, it is clear that there will be other legal challenges before then, as Dhiab’s lawyers, with the invaluable support of Judge Kessler, have succeeded in shining a light on the darkness that still prevails at the heart of Guantánamo, whose exposure will, I hope, spur the Obama administration to renewed action in releasing prisoners, despite the manufactured hysteria from Republicans regarding the recent Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban prisoner release.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer and film-maker. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here – or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

Photos: Vigil for Julian Assange outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, on the 2nd Anniversary of his Asylum Request, June 19, 2014

Please click here to see my photos of the vigil on Flickr.

On Thursday June 19, 2014, supporters of Julian Assange held a vigil outside the Ecuadorian Embassy in Knightsbridge in London (just behind Harrods), which I attended and photographed.

Supporters of the WikiLeaks founder and editor-in-chief have been holding vigils almost every day since he walked into the embassy seeking political asylum on June 19, 2012. He feared that he would end up being extradited to the US from Sweden, where he is accused of sexual offences (claims which he denies), and his asylum claim was accepted by the government of Ecuador on August 16, 2012.

WikiLeaks’ work, exposing US crimes through documents released by Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning — including the “Collateral Murder” video, featuring US personnel indiscriminately killing civilians and two Reuters reporters in Iraq, 500,000 army reports (the Afghan War logs and the Iraq War logs), 250,000 US diplomatic cables, and the Guantánamo files — has, of course, been enormously influential, and I am pleased to have worked with WikiLeaks as a media partner on the release of the classified military files from Guantánamo in April 2011. For further information, see my ongoing project to analyze all the files.

To mark the anniversary, Julian Assange released the following statement (I have added the links at the end):

It is great to see people out to mark the 2nd year of all this.

The last 730 days have been intense, and the knowledge of your support — the daily vigils and the big rallies — have been really heartening to me. Thank you!

Truth has a habit of reasserting itself. It asserts itself in our resolve and our commitment. It may have been possible at one time to ignore the truth about why I am unable to leave this embassy.

We will see an end to this siege. But we will only see it when the US government, the UK government and the Swedish government, and other governments around the world follow Ecuador’s brave lead and commit to protecting WikiLeaks, its staff, and its sources, from unacceptable transgressions against freedom of expression.

I want to express my warm thanks to the government of Ecuador.

And now let’s take a moment to remember absent friends, and allies who are suffering for their beliefs and actions.

Remember:

Chelsea Manning

Jeremy Hammond

Godfried ‘Anakata’ Swartholm

Barrett Brown

The PayPal 14

Rudolf Elmer

Edward Snowden

Remember their courage and conviction — not just this day, but every day.

Two years since Assange’s arrival at the embassy, there may finally be progress on his case. As the Guardian reported the day before the anniversary, Jen Robinson, his lawyer in the UK, “told reporters that the legal challenge, which is due to be lodged with Swedish courts next Tuesday, was based on ‘new information gathered in Sweden.’” However, she “declined to give any further details until the filing had been made.”

The WISE Up Action website explained that “UK law regarding extradition has changed since UK courts ruled that Julian must be extradited,” adding that “if Sweden’s extradition request was before a UK court now, he could only be extradited if charged” — which he has not been.

As the Guardian also noted, “Assange and his legal advisers have always protested that were he to cooperate with the British and Swedish authorities, he would expose himself to an ongoing criminal investigation by the US Department of Justice. The DoJ is known to have opened a grand jury investigation” into WikiLeaks’ release of the documents.

The day before the anniversary, Assange called on Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, to drop the investigation. “It is against the stated principles of the US, and, I believe, the values supported by its people to have a four-year criminal investigation against a publisher,” he said, adding, “The on-going existence of that investigation produces a chilling effect not just to internet-based publishers but to all publishers.”

See below for Jen Robinson talking about Assange’s case on Australia’s ABC News:

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer and film-maker. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here – or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

30 Years On from the Last Stonehenge Free Festival, Where is the Spirit of Dissent?

[image error]As tens of thousands of people gathered at Stonehenge last night and this morning for the summer solstice — and, presumably, more photos were taken than ever before, including, of course, the ubiquitous “selfie,” an example of which can be seen in the photo to the left — I recall that, 30 years ago, in June 1984, the last Stonehenge Free Festival took place in the fields opposite Stonehenge, and I was one of the tens of thousands of people who took part in it.

I had first visited with friends the year before, and had been astonished to discover that, while Margaret Thatcher was embarking on her malevolent plan to create a taxpayer-funded privatised Britain of selfishness, consumerism and unfettered greed, tens of thousands of people were on Salisbury Plain — partying, yes, or just getting wasted, but also sidelining consumerism and embracing communalism and alternative ways of living and looking at the world.

My experiences were central to my book Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion, a social history of Stonehenge, which I wrote over an 18-month period from 2002 to 2004, and which was published ten years ago. It’s still in print, and you can buy it from me here, or from the publisher, Heart of Albion Press, or, if you must, from Amazon. After ten years, it is also — finally — being stocked at Stonehenge itself, in the new visitors’ centre that opened last December.

From humble beginnings ten years before, the Stonehenge Free Festival had grown to become the definitive counter-cultural expression of hedonism and dissent, a month-long manifestation of an alternative society, which so alarmed the authorities that the following year an advance convoy, travelling to Stonehenge to secure the festival site on June 1, was set upon by 1,400 police from six counties and the MoD, and decommissioned with shocking violence at an event that will forever be known as “The Battle of the Beanfield.” My book, The Battle of the Beanfield, about the terrible events of that day is also still available. For bulk orders, please contact Enabler Publications.

[image error]For 13 years after the Beanfield, a military-style exclusion zone was raised around Stonehenge every solstice, until, eventually, the Law Lords ruled that it was illegal. After a failed attempt to introduce managed access in 1999, through a ticketed event, a “Managed Open Access” policy was introduced in 2000, which has continued ever since, with free access allowed for a period of around 12 hours, from the evening on June 20 to the morning of June 21.

I visited Stonehenge, via “Managed Open Access,” every year from 2001 to 2005, and it was wonderful to finally be allowed back into the stones, although the irony was not lost on me, or on others familiar with the free festival, that while the festival occupied the fields opposite Stonehenge, only a few hundred people cared enough about the stones to make their way across the road for events on and around the solstice, whereas now up to 30,000 people gather in the stones, many of whom are drawn more by the promise of a free party than by any particular interest in the stones.

Mostly, though, while I have always appreciated the fact that “Managed Open Access” at least allows people to step outside of consumer society for 12 hours, with no entrance fee, and nothing to buy for the duration of the event, I lament how mainstream society has so thoroughly sidelined the counter-culture that dissent has  largely been done away with. We have our alternative points of view online, and there are a handful of vibrant political protests — against fracking, for example — but the main impulse of society is to ensure that people spend as much and as often as possible during their every waking hour, and, if they don’t have any money, that they don’t cause any problems.

35 years ago, the travellers’ movement arose in response to the mass unemployment of the time, which only got worse under Margaret Thatcher, and in the years that followed, despite the Tory government’s best efforts to suppress dissent, new forms of protest kept emerging, hybrid mutant variations of what had come before — the rave scene of the late 80s and early 90s, for example, and the road protest movement, which in turn led to the Reclaim the Streets movement, which fed into the anti-globalisation movement of the late 90s and the early 21st century.

In the meantime, however, darker forces were at work — a thoroughly unregulated financial sector was taking uncontrolled greed to a new level, while politicians presided over a monstrous housing bubble that perfectly matched a growing selfishness and self-obsession in society as a whole. In terms of stifling dissent, the “war on terror” provided a perfect opportunity to further strip civil liberties and assault basic human rights, and this, along with the development of “kettling,” and the increase in surveillance — via CCTV or online — plus the increasing privatisation of what was once public land provides a stark intimation of a growing dystopian police state, in which our sense of privacy — and our ability to be unseen — has been thoroughly eroded.

And running though all of this — still — is Stonehenge, the focal point of dissent in the late 70s and early 80s not only for the land reformers of the convoy, and the self-sufficient economy of the free festival circuit, but also for the green activists who particularly brought the weight of the state down on them at the Beanfield, because they had also been involved in protesting against Britain’s military subjugation by the US — establishing a peace camp at Molesworth in Cambridgeshire, the planned second site for cruise missiles after Greenham Common, where, of course, a famous women’s peace camp existed, whose occupants couldn’t be coralled into a field and truncheoned into submission like the Stonehenge convoy.

Tens of thousands of people had gathered at Stonehenge for the last few free festivals, and after the festival’s suppression legislation was passed — the Public Order Act of 1986 — that began the process of criminalising unauthorised gatherings. The numbers attending the Stonehenge festivals were matched only, in later years, by the Castlemorton Free Festival in Gloucestershire in May 1992, which I also attended, and which, in turn, was followed by further legislation — the Criminal Justice Act of 1994 — that finally made unauthorised gatherings illegal. Whereas previously 30,000 people had gathered with impunity, now just two people — yes, just two people — in a field, or involved for what the police might consider to be preparations for a rave (involving amplified music “wholly or predominantly characterised by the emission of a succession of repetitive beats”) can be arrested.

Under Tony Blair and now David Cameron, the rhetoric has now been ramped up even more. Under Blair, protestors became “domestic terrorists,” and Cameron, of course, criminalised squatting, which previously had been a purely civil offence. In London, there is now an epidemic of empty buildings occupied by “guardians” — young people, often artists, who are obliged to pay dodgy security companies to live in empty properties and protect them from squatters.

With youth unemployment at record levels, rents in the south east at an all-time high, tenant protections against unscrupulous landlords at an all-time low, and no politicians prepared to put the needs of the people — for work, for genuinely affordable housing and for an end to individual lives increasingly locked into credit and debt — before the greed of banks and corporations, it is surely time that new forms of dissent are devised.

What is needed are new movements to challenge what, over the last 30 years — but particular since the global financial crash of 2008, for which bankers, economists and politicians were entirely responsible — has become an ever more unequal society, enriching the already rich, and, on a daily basis, driving more and more ordinary people — working, or unfortunate enough to be unemployed or disabled — into ever more precarious situations, up to and including outright poverty.

As the solstice sun shines, it’s time for dissent to make a comeback, 30 years after the last Stonehenge Free Festival, which, lest we forget, took place during the Miners’ Strike, the defining act of state violence against workers’ dissent in the whole of Margaret Thatcher’s wretched 11-year premiership.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer and film-maker. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here – or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

Kuwaiti Prisoners Fawzi Al-Odah and Fayiz Al-Kandari Ask Periodic Review Board to Free Them from Guantánamo

Over the last few weeks, Periodic Review Boards have been held at Guantánamo for the last two Kuwaiti prisoners, Fawzi al-Odah and Fayiz al-Kandari, who have been held for the last 12 years.

The PRBs, consisting of representatives of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice and Homeland Security, as well as the office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been taking place since last November, and were established to decide whether 71 of the remaining prisoners should still be regarded as a threat, or whether they should be recommended for release.

As opposed to the 75 men still held who were cleared for release by the Guantánamo Review Task Force that President Obama established shortly after taking office in 2009, these 71 men were either recommended for ongoing imprisonment without charge or trial (on the dubious basis that they were too dangerous to release, even though insufficient evidence existed to put them on trial) or for prosecution (until most of the charges in the military commission trial system collapsed following legal challenges). Both Fawzi and Fayiz were recommended for ongoing imprisonment by the task force.

Prior to the Kuwaitis’ PRBs, six reviews had taken place for other prisoners, and decisions had been reached in five — with three men recommended for release and two recommended for ongoing imprisonment. Those recommended for release are still held because they are Yemenis, and the US government refuses to release any Yemenis, because of fears about the security situation in Yemen. As a result, the three men have merely joined the list of 55 other Yemenis, cleared for release by Obama’s task force, who are still held. For the two men recommended for ongoing imprisonment, the PRBs are also problematic, because they suggest that there is a real legitimacy to the process, when, as I explained here and here, there appears to be no sound reason for concluding that the two men in question should continue to be held.

I have been covering the Kuwaitis’ story for many years, first in my book The Guantánamo Files, and, since 2007, in my many articles, and, throughout all this time, I have found no credible reasons for believing that either man poses — or has ever posed — a threat to the US. I wrote about Fawzi for the BBC in December 2007, and wrote with dismay about his failed habeas corpus petition in August 2009. Similarly, I wrote a major profile of Fayiz in October 2009, and wrote with dismay about his failed habeas petition in September 2010. In February 2012, I traveled to Kuwait, where I met both men’s fathers, and also met many of Fayiz’s relatives, and where my belief that neither man constitutes a threat to the US was only reinforced.

Fawzi’s PRB took place on June 4, and I’m posting it below, as I find the comments made by the representatives assigned to him by the military to be useful. The representatives, not identified in the released document, describe Fawzi as “intelligent, genuinely polite and professional,” and not how he wishes only to work, get married and have children. They also note that, although he “had disciplinary incidents in the past,” these have come to an end, because, as they explain, “he finally realized that he could not continue to perpetually remain frustrated and angered by his long and indefinite detention. He needed to let that mindset go, so that he could rediscover himself again.” As they add, “He continues to work on improving his perspective and has shown extraordinary improvement and maturation in his approach to his detention.”

In its unclassified summary, the government also acknowledges that Fawzi’s “infractions” have “declined in recent years,” as well as noting profound problems with some of the more outrageous claims against him. As the summary states, “We lack confidence in statements from other detainees that KU-232 [Fawzi] was closely associated with Usama Bin Ladin [sic] or belonged to an ai-Qa’ida cell in London,” both implausible claims that should never have been believed.

Periodic Review Board, June 4, 2014

Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Al-Odah, ISN 232

Opening statement of Personal Representative

Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the board. We are the Personal Representatives for Mr. Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Al-Odah, and will be happy to answer any questions that you may have throughout this proceeding.

As the representatives for Mr. Al-Odah we, in collaboration with Mr. Eric Lewis and Ms. Katherine Toomey, the Private Counsel for this case, have strived to provide you the information that will demonstrate that Fawzi poses no continuing significant threat to the security of the United States. We have had the honor of meeting with Fawzi over the past five months, learning much about him. He is a man who has endured twelve years of detention here at Guantánamo Bay. His family’s unwavering support for him and his own father’s tireless endeavors to bring his son home has helped sustain Fawzi through his long detention. But it has also made him regret that his circumstances have caused such pain and struggle for his parents. We are also aware that Fawzi has had disciplinary incidents in the past.

We have discussed this with him — particularly the apparent change that he underwent a few years ago. He explained to us that he finally realized that he could not continue to perpetually remain frustrated and angered by his long and indefinite detention. He needed to let that mindset go, so that he could rediscover himself again. He continues to work on improving his perspective and has shown extraordinary improvement and maturation in his approach to his detention.

During our meetings we have learned that Fawzi is intelligent, genuinely polite and professional, and has been willing to participate throughout. Fawzi has stated repeatedly, and we believe credibly, that he envisions a future for himself as a private citizen who works, is married and has children. Those are his most immediate aspirations. We believe that you too will today see his sincerity in wanting to achieve those simple goals.

As we’ve prepared for this board, Mr. Lewis and Ms. Toomey have worked hand-in-hand with us throughout this process, attending every meeting with Fawzi. In addition, they have traveled to Kuwait to secure witness testimonies and exhibits for the board’s consideration, which you have in front of you today, and on which they will soon comment. Fawzi’s country, including the highest officials in its government, supports him and has an established rehabilitation program for returning detainees. We believe that the Kuwaiti rehabilitation program, coupled with his family’s steadfast support and Fawzi’s own peaceful goals — of getting married, starting a family, and working with his father in his plumbing supply business — reveal that Fawzi is indeed a man worthy of selection for transfer. At this time, we would like to introduce Mr. Eric Lewis for his opening statement. Thank you for your time and consideration.

*****

Eric Lewis’s statement has not been made available, but the Associated Press reported that he told the review board that “his client will be closely monitored if returned to his homeland,” because the Kuwaiti authorities “have agreed to keep [him] in a government rehabilitation center for at least a year upon his release” from Guantánamo. Even after leaving the rehabilitation center, he “would surrender his passport, check in weekly with police [and] would be monitored by security authorities,” Lewis added in a statement to the board.

Lewis added that Fawzi “poses no threat to the US and would seek to start a family and work in his father’s plumbing supply business if allowed to return to his homeland.”

For Al-Jazeera America, Jenifer Fenton, who I met in Kuwait three years ago, wrote a powerful article about Fawzi’s father, Khalid al-Odah, who said he was “feeling very good” about his son’s hearing.

Khalid al-Odah described his son as “a lovable person,” adding, “It is very easy for him to make friends. He always smiles.” He also explained how Fawzi “excelled in school and graduated from Kuwait University with a degree in Islamic studies and became a teacher,” adding that Fawzi “had spent his summer vacation in 2000 with other religious Kuwaitis in Pakistan, teaching and distributing money to people in villages near the Afghan border.” On his return, “he told his father he was very interested in relief work and he wanted to do charity work every year.” For 2001, Khalid al-Odah said, “he planned to help Afghan refugees.”

However, as Fawzi himself explained at a hearing at Guantánamo a decade ago, it was his “bad luck and bad timing” that the 9/11 attacks happened while he was in Afghanistan. Like many other Arabs, he fled the country, as news spread that foreigners were being sold for bounty payments, but as he crossed into Pakistan, despite asking to be taken to the Kuwaiti Embassy, he was sent to Guantánamo via the US prisons in Afghanistan.

As Jenifer Fenton notes, exposing serious shortcomings in the US evidence against Fawzi, “Three US reports give different accounts of the circumstances of his capture. One US tribunal report said he was captured with five other men; an administrative review board hearing said he had been part of a group of 12 men; a report by the US Joint Task Force Guantánamo said he had been with more than 100 Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters.”

She added:

A close analysis of the most recent classified Joint Task Force Guantánamo report on al-Odah released via WikiLeaks shows, among other things, that a number of the allegations against him are based on testimony from witnesses whose reliability even the US has questioned, or who have denied testifying against him, or even who claim to have been coerced into giving false evidence. Family members and experts say some of the claims against him are unsubstantiated or simply false.

Jenifer Fenton also noted how Khalid al-Odah “had been a strong supporter of the US,” as “a pilot in the Kuwaiti Air Force who trained in America.” During Saddam Hussein’s brutal occupation of Kuwait in 1990, he “joined the local armed resistance movement and provided intelligence to the US military.”

As he wrote in 2005, “I always remember our reception of the American troops following the liberation of Kuwait. At that time I was accompanied by my 13-year-old son, Fawzi. I cannot describe to you the extent of our happiness and gratitude, particularly my son Fawzi who started to shake hands and hug the American soldiers … These historic moments are deeply engraved in the memory of this young guy.”

Khalid al-Odah also said — as many Kuwaitis said to me in 2011 — that “he was sympathetic to the US and the challenges it faced after the 9/11 attacks,” but that “he saw his son’s experience as a sign that America had deviated from its founding principles.” As he put it, “The United States is the beacon of the world always … for honesty, for rule of law, for liberty.” However, his son’s experience in Guantánamo was a sign that “the United States was not keeping with [its] principles.”

On June 12, the review board met to consider the case of Fayiz al-Kandari, with statements made by both his military-appointed representatives, and Barry Wingard, who is now a civilian attorney, but was formerly the military defense attorney appointed to defend Fayiz after he was ludicrously put forward for a trial by military commission in the dying days of the Bush administration, charges which were later dropped.

Throughout Fayiz’s detention, the charges against him have been ludicrous, and elements of those remain in the unclassified summary — in particular, that Fayiz, who arrived in Afghanistan in August 2001, “probably served as Usama bin Ladin’s spiritual advisor and confidant.” In addition, although it is assessed that he “mostly has been compliant with guard staff and has committed no significant disciplinary infractions apart from participating in hunger strikes,” the authorities also maintain that “he has expressed anti-American sentiments,” apparently “indicating he almost certainly retains an extremist mindset.”

Below are the statements by Fayiz’s representatives and Barry Wingard, and it is, I believe, noteworthy that his representatives describe him as “compliant,” and also note that “his behavior during our meetings reflects a well-spoken, thoughtful young man who is ready to quickly move on to adulthood and make up for lost time.” As Wingard adds, “his goal in life is to get married, start a family, and conduct business in Kuwait.”

I can only hope that, when the review boards’ decisions are announced, probably next month, both me will be recommended for release, and will be repatriated shortly after, to resume their long-disrupted lives.

Periodic Review Board, June 12, 2014

Fayiz Mohamed Ahmed Al-Kandari, ISN 552

Opening Statement of Personal Representative

Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the board, the Colonel and I are the Personal Representatives for Fayiz. Mr. Barry Wingard, on my right/left, is Fayiz’s Private Counsel. To my right/left is our translator (translator’s call sign). I first met Fayiz on 11 February 2014 and corresponded regularly with both him and Mr. Wingard since. In the four months we worked with Fayiz, it is apparent that he cares deeply about returning to his family in Kuwait. Additionally, he is compliant and his behavior during our meetings reflects a well-spoken, thoughtful young man who is ready to quickly move on to adulthood and make up for lost time.

Fayiz is a religious man. He is a principled man. He is an intelligent man. His family is ready to receive him in Kuwait. The Kuwaiti Government built Alsalam Rehabilitation Center proving they eagerly await his return and want to assist him to acclimate and move on with his life. The Kuwait Ministry of lnterior, Kuwait Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Emir, himself, have given their assurances that they want Fayiz back in Kuwait and they will support his rehabilitation. Fayiz is not a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States. He is a man with a caring family, supportive government and deep desire to resume his life. His family and the Kuwaiti Government have created an ideal scenario for him to safely return to Kuwait. And he is ready.

Thank you for your time and consideration. The Colonel and I are happy to answer any questions you may have throughout this proceeding. We will now defer to Mr. Wingard for his opening statement.

Opening statement of private counsel Barry D. Wingard

I am Barry D. Wingard. private counsel for Fayiz ai-Kandari (Fayiz). I have served in the United States military for thirty years. I have been involved in representing Fayiz in October 2000 in my capacity as a military officer in the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps, first as a major and later as a lieutenant colonel and now as a civilian attorney. I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to represent Fayiz in his twelve and a half years in Guantanamo Bay and my six years as his attorney.

During my time as attorney for Fayiz, I have travelled to GTMO more than fifty times and travelled to Kuwait fifteen times.

Based on my relationship with Fayiz, I unequivocally declare that he is not a threat to the national security of the United States for the following reasons:

Kuwait

Since 1991, the relationship between the United States and Kuwait is the strongest in the Middle East. The US and Kuwait have a robust bilateral defense agreement. Kuwait provided the main platform for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn. Currently the US houses several thousand troops in Kuwait, and Kuwait regularly purchases billions of dollars in military hardware from the US.

I have conducted endless meetings with Government of Kuwait officials and visited Alsalam Rehabilitation Center more than a half dozen times. From the Emir of Kuwait himself to the Ministries of Interior and Foreign Affairs, Kuwait has done everything within its power to facilitate the return of Fayiz back to Kuwait. Below are but a few examples of Kuwait’s efforts:

On numerous occasions, the Emir of Kuwait has given his personal assurance and declared in 2011 that the return of his sons from Guantánamo Bay is his number one priority.

In 2014 Fayiz has agreed to attending Alsalam Rehabilitation Center for a minimum of six months and being subject to professional assessment.

In 2014 assurances from both the Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Foreign Affairs have been given (see attachments). [not included]

In 2013 the Kuwaiti Pariament passed the Terrorism Funding Act.

Parliament of Kuwait’s unanimous condemnation of GTMO in 2011.

In 2009, Kuwait spent more than 40 million dollars to build and staff Alsalam Rehabilitation Center.

Family

During my representation of Fayiz, I have had the honor of meeting Fayiz’s family in Kuwait on many occasions. I must admit that spending time with Fayiz’s family is one of the things I look forward to when visiting Kuwait. I recently met with Fayiz’s family the Iast week of April and mid-May 2014 and can report to the Board that they are ready, willing, and able to welcome him home.

Fayiz’s family consists of doctors, lawyers, politicians, and even ministers within the Government of Kuwait, as seen in the video that we submitted. Since the beginning, Fayiz’s family has stood by him during his regular calls home.

An example of the family success is that of Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari, Fayiz’s cousin and former prisoner in Guantánamo Bay (ISN 228). Abdullah was kept in Guantánamo Bay for six years before being returned to Kuwait. Once in Kuwait, Abdullah returned to the al-Kandari family, resumed his career as a professional athlete, started a family, and has posed no danger to anyone.

Fayiz

I have conducted more than one hundred meetings with Fayiz over our six-year relationship. Below is a brief list of reasons why I believe Fayiz should be released:

From the onset Fayiz has maintained his innocence and continues to assert his purpose in traveling to Afghanistan in the middle of 2001 was to perform charity in the form of paying others to repair a mosque and digging two wells.

Fayiz has a long history of charitable works consistent with the teaching of Islam.

By all accounts Fayiz has been a cooperative and compliant detainee, and he has never been a physical threat in Guantánamo Bay.

Fayiz has spent his twelve and a half years reading writing, teaching and becoming fluent in the English language. Fayiz has several business ideas that we frequently discuss. Fayiz has stated on numerous occasions that his goal in life is to get married, start a family, and conduct business in Kuwait.

Conclusion

After hundreds of hours, within a period of six years, I share emphatically that Fayiz is no risk to the national security of the United States.

Fayiz has done everything he has been asked to do. The Government of Kuwait and his family have given every assurance that they can possibly give. Alsalam Rehabilitation Center sits ready and able to treat Fayiz when he returns to Kuwait.

Thank you very much.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer and film-maker. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here – or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

Please Read Tom Wilner’s Op-Ed About the Bowe Bergdahl/Taliban Prisoner Swap

I wrote the following article for the “Close Guantánamo” website, which I established in January 2012 with US attorney Tom Wilner. Please join us – just an email address is required to be counted amongst those opposed to the ongoing existence of Guantánamo, and to receive updates of our activities by email.

It has been almost three weeks now since President Obama announced that five Taliban prisoners had been released from Guantánamo in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the sole US prisoner of war in Afghanistan, but the fallout from that prisoner exchange continues to cast a shadow over grown-up discussions about why the prison must be closed, and why every day that it remains open is a profound shame.

Below is an op-ed by Tom Wilner, the co-founder of the  “Close Guantánamo” campaign, which was recently published on the Warscapes website, following up on articles by Andy Worthington, the other co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, on PolicyMic, here and for Al-Jazeera.

The response to the prisoner exchange — which has been cynical, opportunistic and disgraceful — is well exposed by Tom in his article, in which he reminds readers of the limits of the detention powers used at Guantánamo (the Authorization for Use of Military Force), with particular reference to the Supreme Court’s ruling about detention powers, back in June 2004, when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ruled that the US “may detain, for the duration of these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban combatants who ‘engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.’”

Drawing on statements by Jack Goldsmith, formerly a legal adviser to the Bush administration, and Ben Wittes of Lawfare, Tom also points out that the legal justification for holding Taliban prisoners will evaporate by the end of the year, as the US begins drawing down its troop presence in Afghanistan.

Tom also takes issue with those who have suggested that Bowe Bergdahl should have been abandoned in Afghanistan, because of claims that he was a deserter — claims that, it should noted, have not been tested through a proper investigation. According to Tom’s interpretation of US values, because Bergdahl is an American citizen, “no one seriously suggests that we should have left him behind with the Taliban” — even though that is not what some people have been saying.

Most importantly, as we look to the future, and try to see beyond the posturing and threats by a small minority of lawmakers, who are trying to make it impossible for President Obama to release any more prisoners from Guantánamo, Tom reminds us of the 78 men still held — of the 149 men in total — who have been cleared for release, mostly since January 2010, but have not been released, and also points out how most of the 71 others “were also associated with the Taliban, although at much lower and less significant levels than the men just released.”

As Tom also explains, the cleared prisoners continue to be held because they cannot be used as bargaining chips, and “because of demagoguery on one side of the political aisle and a lack of courage on the other.” As he also points out, the president “has the authority under existing law” to transfer other prisoners, and he should do so without further delay.

A Prisoner Swap and the Law

By Thomas Wilner, Warscapes, June 14, 2014

Every day brings new criticism of the Obama Administration for the deal it struck to bring Bowe Bergdahl home. How could the president trade with the Taliban? How could he possibly give up five hardened Taliban fighters for one suspected deserter? A pretty “lopsided trade,” as Michael Gerson called it in The Washington Post.

But under the laws of war, we would have had to release those Taliban fighters soon anyway, and without getting anyone back in return.

There is little doubt now that Sergeant Bergdahl is not the unadulterated hero that the Rose Garden press conference implied or that Susan Rice stated in her TV interviews. He appears to be a confused young man who has some serious explaining to do. But he is also an American citizen, and no one seriously suggests that we should have left him behind with the Taliban. We should all be glad that he [is] back in the United States where he can explain.

What did we give up to get him back? Well, actually, not too much. The prisoners we exchanged were members of the Taliban. At least two of them were Taliban military commanders — as one of my friends described them, “bad-ass Taliban guys.” But that does not mean they are international terrorists, like members of al-Qaeda. Rather, they were members of a political, religious party fighting for control of Afghanistan. There is a big difference between international terrorists, who are bent on killing innocent civilians, and the Taliban, who are fighting for control of a country. The Taliban fighters were, and for the moment still are, our enemies in combat. Under the laws of war, while we are engaged in hostilities against them, we are entitled to detain them so that they don’t return to the conflict. When we exit that conflict, however, the law says that we must release them.

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor laid out the standards for detaining these men ten years ago in her opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld:

[The] detention of individuals [who fight against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban], for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is [a] fundamental and accepted incident to war … It is [also] a clearly established principle of the law of war that detention may last no longer than active hostilities …The United States may detain, for the duration of these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban combatants who “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.” If … United States troops are still involved in active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of [the law of war].

Based on these principles, as John Bellinger, President George W. Bush’s Legal Advisor at the State Department, pointed out, “it is likely that the US would be required, as a matter of international law, to release [these Taliban detainees] shortly after the end of 2014, when US combat operations cease in Afghanistan.”

The Brookings Institute’s Ben Wittes, a commentator not inclined to liberal views, agreed: “We are, after all, winding down this conflict, and the authority to detain Taliban forces — as opposed to Al Qaeda forces — won’t last that much longer than the end of combat. So what we may have traded here is one POW deserter (assuming that’s what Bergdahl was, for a moment) in exchange for hastening the release of five Taliban by an indeterminate number of months.”

Not a bad deal after all.

That doesn’t mean, of course, that these Taliban men are not dangerous. In fact, they may be a heck of lot more dangerous than most of the others at Guantánamo. That is one of the sad ironies. Indeed, there has always been a strange paradox about Guantánamo — those charged and convicted of war crimes (e.g., David Hicks and Salim Hamdan) are sent home for time served, whereas the others, who are far less significant — and are not, and can never be, charged with any crime — are left rotting at the prison year after year without hope.

More than half of them — 78 of the 149 men detained at Guantánamo today — have been cleared for transfer for almost five years, but they remain stuck at Guantánamo. Many of the other 71 not cleared are there because they were also associated with the Taliban, although at much lower and less significant levels than the men just released. After twelve long years, they see no way out and go on hunger strikes out of desperation. But no one cares. They are too insignificant to be the subject of a prisoner exchange, or of a trial, or of anyone’s attention. This is the real shame of Guantánamo, the real injustice.

These men remain at Guantánamo not because they pose a security risk to the United States — as mentioned, most were cleared for release long ago — but because of demagoguery on one side of the political aisle and a lack of courage on the other.

President Obama acted practically and with courage in transferring five Taliban men out of Guantánamo to get Sergeant Bergdahl home. The sky didn’t fall. He has the authority under existing law to transfer the others. He should use that authority — beginning with the many who have been cleared — and close this prison once and for all. Our country will not fall; indeed, it will be much safer because we will be shutting down a place that continuously undermines our credibility around the world and remains a chief recruiting tool for terrorists. Guantánamo hurts our nation every day it remains open.

Thomas B. Wilner is head of the International Trade & Investment Practice at Shearman & Sterling LLP in Washington, DC. He is counsel of record to Guantánamo detainees in Rasul v. Bush, decided in June 2004, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the detainees have the right to habeas corpus, and counsel of record in Boumediene v. Bush, decided in June, 2008, in which the Supreme Court held that the Guantánamo detainees’ right to habeas corpus is protected by the US Constitution.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer and film-maker. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here – or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

“It Is All Theater, It Is All A Game,” Yemeni “Forever Prisoner” Says from Guantánamo

It is, I believe, impossible to argues with the logic of Muaz al-Alawi, a Yemeni prisoner in Guantánamo, who recently told his lawyer, Ramzi Kassem, that, when attempting to make sense of Guantánamo, only one analysis is necessary: “It is all political,” al-Alawi told him. “It is all theater, it is all a game.”

The US has such disdain for the prisoners at Guantánamo that, 12 and a half years on from the prison’s opening, they are still identified by the names given to them at the time of their capture, by personnel unfamiliar with the languages of their home countries — Arabic, for example. As a result, al-Alawi is identified as Moath al-Alwi.

His comments, made to Kassem, an associate professor of law at the City University of New York who directs the Immigrant and Non-Citizen Rights Clinic, which represents prisoners at Guantánamo and elsewhere, were in the context of the manufactured hysteria regarding the release of five Taliban prisoners in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the sole US prisoner of war in Afghanistan, which I have written about here, here and here (and also see my Democracy Now! appearance).

As Kassem wrote, in an opinion piece for the New York Times that I’m cross-posting below, the release of the five Taliban members — some of whom held leadership positions — “fits a larger pattern in which the many dozens of inmates not accused of any crime and, in fact, cleared for release by successive American administrations languish for years on end.”

This is not meant as a criticism of the recent prisoner swap, but as a criticism of the indifference with which the rest of the men held at Guantánamo are regarded. Held mostly without charge or trial for 12 and a half years, they have discovered that being cleared for release means nothing, as 78 of the 149 men still held have been cleared for release — all but three since January 2010, when a high-level task force appointed by President Obama issued its recommendations regarding the disposition of the remaining prisoners.

Al-Alawi, on the other hand, is one of 61 other prisoners recommended for ongoing imprisonment without charge or trial by the task force, or for prosecutions that are no longer going ahead, who are slowly having their cases reviewed by Periodic Review Boards. These review boards have so far recommended three men for release, but they have not been freed. All three are Yemenis, and because the US establishment will not move on from its refusal to release Yemenis cleared for release because of fears about the security situation in Yemen, all the PRB decisions have meant is that the three men have been added to the 55 other Yemenis cleared for release in January 2010.

Al-Alawi has also been failed by the courts, having had his habeas corpus petition turned down in January 2009, even though, as Kassem explains, the government’s case consisted “largely of uncorroborated and self-incriminating statements that we argued were extracted under coercive circumstances.”

In February 2013, al-Alawi responded to this seemingly endless injustice by embarking on a hunger strike, as part of the prison-wide hunger strike that took place last year, and was force-fed every day. Moreover, he has continued on a hunger strike, and is still force-fed, and, although reliable figures for the current number of hunger strikers are hard to come by, because the authorities stopped reporting them at the end of last year, the legal team for another force-fed prisoner, Abu Wa’el Dhiab, recently stated that they believe there are currently 34 hunger strikers, and that 18 are being force-fed.

Ramzi Kassem’s article is below, and it is my pleasure to make it available to those of you who may have missed it in the New York Times. Please do share it if you find it useful.

A View From Gitmo

By Ramzi Kassem, New York Times, June 8, 2014

The week’s national debate around the exchange of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Afghans imprisoned at Guantánamo Bay found me at the American base in Cuba for meetings with my clients. Here, too, the swap is the talk of the town — among prisoners, among guards and between the two groups.

Some Guantánamo prison guards voiced anger at the news of how their fellow soldier, Sergeant Bergdahl, had been liberated. In their view, he was a deserter, unworthy of the sustained media interest his release had garnered, especially compared to the dearth of attention paid to the sacrifice of those killed and wounded in the Afghan conflict.

But to the emaciated man sitting across a rickety table from me in an orange jumpsuit, chained to the floor inside a dilapidated shack, that furious reaction was baffling. My client, Moath al-Alwi, wondered aloud “why those people are not simply happy that this American soldier will soon be reunited with his family.” He reflected that the critics have probably “never tasted this sort of ordeal themselves.”

In contrast to the guards, Mr. Alwi and many of his fellow prisoners empathized with Sergeant Bergdahl and his family. After all, they only wanted the same for themselves: to see their loved ones after long years in captivity.

My students and I have been representing Guantánamo inmates for most of the last decade. Mr. Alwi was on one of the first planes to shuttle so-called enemy combatants to the prison in early 2002.

A Yemeni citizen raised in Saudi Arabia, Mr. Alwi traveled to Afghanistan in early 2001 to teach the Quran and live in a society that appeared from afar to honor Islamic ideals. He was 24 when he fled the conflict there, was seized by the authorities in Pakistan and likely sold into American captivity for a bounty.

At a 2008 hearing, having given Mr. Alwi only three weeks to review a lengthy dossier compiled by the United States government over seven years and consisting largely of uncorroborated and self-incriminating statements that we argued were extracted under coercive circumstances, a federal judge ruled his detention justified. A court of appeals found that the judge’s “haste” was “hard to understand,” but upheld the decision.

To protest the injustice of his open-ended imprisonment without fair process, Mr. Alwi has been on hunger strike since February 2013. Every day, Guantánamo personnel strap him in a chair with restraints and force-feed him, in an effort to break his will.

Mr. Alwi never fought against the United States and has not been found guilty of any crime.

The political controversy over whether the prisoner exchange was conducted legally is even less comprehensible to the inmates at Guantánamo than the guards’ anger. To their mind, before debating the finer point of whether the transfer of the five Afghans adhered to the law, the American public should ask if the detention and abuse at Guantánamo Bay of hundreds — without charge, fair process or the protections of the Geneva Conventions — were lawful in the first place.

From where Mr. Alwi sits, the talking point of legality is almost amusingly quaint. Guantánamo remains at its core a lawless place, and this release in seeming contravention of a solitary statute appears par for the course. In the absurd history of the detention camp, it is not uncommon for inmates among the handful who have been convicted by the military commissions to be the ones who are released. Questionable though their legitimacy and fairness may be, the military commissions can at least determine a finite term for internment at Guantánamo, one that the American government has chosen to honor so far.

So the release of the five Afghans, including, by some accounts, known figures in the Taliban, fits a larger pattern in which the many dozens of inmates not accused of any crime and, in fact, cleared for release by successive American administrations languish for years on end. For many, the difference between liberation and limbo has nothing to do with justice or legality, but just the luck of what nationality a prisoner happens to hold. Because no Guantánamo inmate has been repatriated to Yemen in years, Mr. Alwi said that some inmates are considering relinquishing their Yemeni citizenship in the hope that it might facilitate their resettlement elsewhere.

The furor over the Sergeant Bergdahl affair has simply reinforced a commonly held view among the inmates that the prospects for release from Guantánamo are tied far less to court decisions, threat assessments and the determinations of the military review board, and far more to the politics of the moment. “It is all political,” Mr. Alwi said. “It is all theater, it is all a game.”

Guantánamo has indeed become a sideshow of the American political spectacle, a drama in which the vast majority of the camp’s inmates are held hostage to our partisan politics. If the current upheaval around Sergeant Bergdahl’s release proves anything, it is that President Obama is capable of pushing past the congressional histrionics that, until recently, he has pointed to as cover for his failure to shutter the infamous prison.

Ending indefinite detention at Guantánamo Bay, in the face of opposition from his political adversaries and reluctance from some officials within his administration, requires fortitude of Mr. Obama. What is needed now is decisive action to resettle and repatriate as many inmates as possible and give fair trials to any that remain. Only by doing so can America end this grim farce.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer and film-maker. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here – or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

Please Read My Latest Article About Guantánamo for Al-Jazeera, “Is Bowe Bergdahl Worth Five Taliban Prisoners?”

Dear friends and supporters,

I hope you have time to read my latest article for Al-Jazeera, “Is Bowe Bergdahl Worth Five Taliban Prisoners?” in which I provide an overview of the manufactured outrage over the last two weeks regarding the Obama administration’s release, in Qatar, of five Taliban prisoners in Guantánamo for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the sole US prisoner of war in Afghanistan, with particular reference to defense secretary Chuck Hagel’s appearance at a whistle Congressional hearing last week, in which he nevertheless defended the administration’s position.

Please like the article, share it, and tweet it if you find it useful.

As I explain, “lawmakers, with support from large parts of the media, have been waging a sustained attack on the Obama administration … accusing both the president and defence secretary Chuck Hagel of recklessness, incompetence and breaking the law in relation to the exchange.”

These are all claims that I thoroughly address and rebuke — from the disgraceful smearing of Bowe Bergdahl as a deserter, before any official investigation has taken place (which ironically, involves due process being bypassed in Bergdahl’s case as it is for the majority of men at Guantánamo, who have also been judged as guilty without ever being charged or tried), to the lies and distortions about the five released Taliban prisoners.

What I hope will particularly be picked up on is the stance taken not only by myself but also by Jack Goldsmith, former legal adviser to the Bush administration, regarding the end of the US government’s justification for holding prisoners at Guantánamo who were involved with the Taliban as the war in Afghanistan winds down.

In contrast, an argument will, I think, be made for the ongoing imprisonment of those prisoners who can genuinely be regarded as having been involved with Al-Qaeda — and what especially interests me is how few of the men still held at Guantánamo will fit this description.

Of the 149 men still held, 78 have been cleared for release but, shamefully, are still held. Discounting these men, there are 71 others, ten of whom have faced or are facing trials, so the key question concerns the other 61, who, for the most, as I explain in the article, appear to fit the profile of having been affiliated with the Taliban far more than with Al-Qaeda — unless the US seriously wants to argue that, after 12 and a half years of imprisonment without charge or trial, it is still worth making an argument for holding these men because, although they supported the Taliban, they allegedly attended a training camp where, occasionally, Osama bin Laden would come and make a speech.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer and film-maker. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here – or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

The Latest News on the Guantánamo Force-Feeding Videotapes, and the Prisoners’ Ongoing Legal Challenges

A month ago, a federal court judge, Gladys Kessler, delivered a historic ruling on Guantánamo, ordering the government to stop force-feeding a hunger striking prisoner, Abu Wa’el Dhiab, and to release to his lawyers videos of his force-feeding and “forcible cell extractions,” whose existence had only recently been discovered by one of his lawyers. She also ordered the government to release his medical records, and to “file a list of all current Standard Operating Procedures/Protocols directly addressing enteral feeding and/or the use of a restraint chair at Guantánamo Bay.”

Judge Kessler lifted her stay on Dhiab’s force-feeding just a few days later, fearing that otherwise he would die, but, with a precedent established regarding the release of videos, another prisoner, Mohammad Ahmad Ghulam Rabbani, a Pakistani father of three, who was held in CIA “black sites” before his transfer to Guantánamo in 2004, asked Judge Kessler’s court, the District Court for the District of Columbia, in Washington D.C., for a second ruling ordering the government to release videotapes of his force-feeding and “forcible cell extractions.”

As his lawyers at the legal action charity Reprieve described it, “The requested tapes are thought to document a period of particularly ‘gratuitous brutality,’ in which Mr. Rabbani contracted a chest infection as a result of botched force-feeding procedures, leading him to repeatedly vomit blood and lose consciousness.”

Elaborating, Reprieve noted that, in a declaration submitted to the court, Mr. Rabbani “described how an improperly-inserted feeding tube caused him to develop chest pain, as a result of which he asked for a day’s rest from force-feeding.” However, his request was ignored, and the next day “he ‘vomited blood on himself three or four times’ before losing consciousness — yet was still taken to the feeding chair by the FCE team.”

He also “described how an improperly-inserted feeding tube led to his airways being blocked with liquid, and considerable pain from the repeated insertion and withdrawal of the tube, often multiple times in each feeding session.”

Cori Crider, Rabbani’s lawyer at Reprieve, said, “Mr. Rabbani has repeatedly reported disturbing abuse at the hands of the Guantánamo authorities, as have so many of his fellow hunger-strikers. Yet the prison denies it, and has flatly refused even the smallest requests to make the force-feeding process more humane. These videos can only help us get to the truth. The court must be allowed to see exactly what is going on daily at Guantánamo Bay.”

Abu Wa’el Dhiab’s renewed complaints

The day after, Abu Wa’el Dhiab complained that he was “once again being subjected to harsh treatment amounting to torture,” as the Guardian described it.

In a supplemental declaration, another of his lawyers, Jon B. Eisenberg, explained what his client had told him in a phone call on June 1:

“After the court ruling they are using a new method on me.” This new method is that some of his FCEs appear to be done by a team that is brought from another camp. He says “this is the rough team,” which he describes as “really evil.” This team “takes you very roughly, with torture.” This team did his FCEs on the evening of May 29, the morning of May 30, and the evening of May 30, and each time he was harshly choked. He says: “I thought they would choke me to death because they were handling me so roughly.” He asked the members of the new team for their numbers so that he could complain, but they refused to give them to him.

Eisenberg also wrote:

Petitioner reiterates that he does not object to being force-fed in order to keep him alive, as long as the force-feeding is “civilized.” He states: “I am willing to be force-fed in a humane manner.” His recent force-feedings, however, have not been humane. He asks: “Is it necessary for them to torture me? Is it necessary for them to choke me every day with the tube? Is it necessary for them to make my throat so swollen every day? Do I have to suffer every day? Is it necessary for them to put me on the torture chair in order to feed me?”

As the Guardian noted, although the Defense Department “insists that it only force feeds Guantánamo prisoners to keep them alive when they are at risk of death,” Judge Kessler was not convinced, and reminded the government that, “according to the Pentagon’s own standard operating protocols, enteral feeding should only be practiced on Dhiab when he is facing an ‘imminent risk of death or great bodily injury.’”

Abu Wa’el Dhiab’s lawyers begin to review the videotapes

When Mohammad Ahmad Ghulam Rabbani sought an order requiring the government to release videotapes of his force-feeding and “forcible cell extractions,” his lawyers had hoped that an order would oblige the government to hand over the tapes at the same time as the Abu Wa’el Dhiab’s 34 tapes, for which the handover date set by Judge Kessler was June 13.

As the Associated Press reported yesterday, Dhiab’s lawyers have begun to examine the videotapes, at the secure facility in Washington D.C., where lawyers for the prisoners must travel to view all classified material relating to their clients.

Dhiab’s lawyers, who, as the AP explained, “have never been allowed to witness the procedure in person,” were expecting to view around ten hours of videotapes over the weekend, as the first batch of released tapes, and are seeking evidence of brutality and abuse in their client’s force-feeding, and in his “forcible cell extractions.” Jon Eisenberg explained, “It’s really kind of a modest thing to ask a court to order our military not to torture these men.”

The AP also explained that, as well as seeking the release of videos on Mohammad Ahmad Ghulam Rabbani’s behalf, the lawyers also plan to ask for the release of videos in some other cases.

Asked what she expected to see, Cori Crider said, “Of course, I expect it to be upsetting.” She added that the DoD “say it’s humane, but that’s totally not the way Dhiab and dozens of other people have reported it to me.”

Unfeasibly, the prison’s commander, Marine Gen. John F. Kelly, told the AP, “We don’t force feed anyone.”

The prisoners and their lawyers disagree. Crider told the AP, that, of the 149 men still held, Dhiab’s legal team “believes about 34 are still on hunger strike and about 18 meet the guidelines for the feedings.”

On Monday morning, there will be a status conference in Dhiab’s case, set by Judge Kessler three weeks ago,“to address any outstanding discovery issues and set a date for a Motion Hearing,” as Reprieve explained in a press release, adding that the Motion Hearing will determine “[t]he wider issue of whether force-feeding at Guantánamo is illegal … once the tapes and other key evidence have been reviewed.”

I look forward to more news that keeps this important story in the public eye — and that keeps pressure on the government to release prisoners. Abu Wa’el Dhiab, lest we forget, is only on a hunger strike because he despairs of ever being released, despite being one of 75 men still held who had their release approved by President Obama’s high-level, inter-agency Guantánamo Review Task Force over four years ago, in January 2010. Last month President Mujica of Uruguay offered a new home to him, and to five other men long cleared for release but who cannot be safely repatriated, and what would make sense now — both in terms of justice, and, more cynically, in terms of digging the Obama administration out of the hole dug by Judge Kessler — would be for Dhiab and these five other men to be sent to Montevideo as soon as is possible.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer and film-maker. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here – or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.

Andy Worthington Speaks at a Parliamentary Meeting for Shaker Aamer, with John McDonnell, Bruce Kent and Others, June 17, 2014

Please sign the international petition calling for the release of Shaker Aamer.

On Tuesday June 17, I’m delighted to be speaking at a Parliamentary meeting for Shaker Aamer, the last British resident in Guantánamo, organised by the Save Shaker Aamer Campaign and John McDonnell MP. I’ll be joining John, one of a handful of tireless activists in the House of Commons, and other speakers, including Bruce Kent, the journalists Victoria Brittain and Yvonne Ridley, Lindsey German, the chair of the Stop the War Campaign, and US activist Diana Coleman. Jane Ellison, the MP for Shaker’s home constituency of Battersea, where his British wife and four British children live, will provide an update regarding the government’s position, and Joy Hurcombe, the chair of the Save Shaker Aamer Campaign, will chair the meeting.

The meeting, which runs from 7pm to 9pm, has been given the title, “When will they stop Shaker Aamer’s horrific Guantánamo ordeal?” and it is taking place in Room 12 in the House of Commons. This is a public meeting, and everyone is welcome, although anyone who wishes to attend is advised to arrive by 6.30pm to leave enough time to pass through the security process at St. Stephen’s Gate. For further information, please email the Save Shaker Aamer Campaign or call Ray Silk on 07756 493877.

As the Save Shaker Aamer Campaign explains:

It is over a year since 117,400+ people signed a Government e-petition calling for the release and return of Shaker Aamer from Guantánamo to the UK. It also demanded a full debate in Parliament to support new Government initiatives to bring Shaker home.

Last September, the Prime Minister wrote to President Obama re-affirming the commitment of the Government to the urgent release of Shaker Aamer to the UK — this as a priority concern.

It is over a year since President Obama renewed his pledge to close Guantánamo. Yet Shaker remains in chains, locked in a steel cell suffering daily abuse and torture. He has been cleared to leave this illegal prison for over seven years, yet he is still there. Shaker Aamer has suffered horrific mental and physical abuse for over twelve years. He is now very ill.

To save his life, we call on the US and UK Government to release him NOW. Not another day in Guantánamo. No more delays and broken promises. Act now before it is too late to save Shaker Aamer.

I’d like to say that there has been progress on securing Shaker Aamer’s return to his adopted homeland and his family, but that would be to raise false hopes. It is incomprehensible to me that he is still held when the UK has said it wants him back, and the US government has repeatedly cleared him for release, but that is the sad and persistent reality, day after day, week after week, and month after month.

Most recently, on June 3, Shaker’s case was raised in the Guardian by Cori Crider, the strategic director of Reprieve, the legal action charity whose lawyers represent Shaker and other prisoners still held.

Crider was responding to the recent prisoner exchange that has been cynically seized upon by opponents of President Obama and used to raise a storm of artificial hysteria — the release of five Taliban prisoners in Guantánamo for the sole US prisoner of war, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

She wrote:

Lost in the kerfuffle over the Bergdahl-Taliban swap is one simple and very positive development: we now know that, when push comes to shove, the Defense Department and the White House can work together to close Guantánamo Bay.

She added:

Never mind the so-called “Taliban Five” – Obama’s real chance on Gitmo today is for the Cleared 78. With another stroke of Obama’s pen, many of those prisoners could be on a plane back to their families tomorrow.

She also stated:

Take the cleared Briton, Shaker Aamer. He’s been told he would go home since 2007, and has a wife and four kids waiting for him in London. Prime Minister David Cameron has said getting him home is a top priority and has raised his case directly with Obama, because his ongoing detention is an embarrassment for Her Majesty’s Government.

So what, precisely, is the holdup? If Qatar can be trusted to look after five senior Taliban, it’s plain that America’s closest counter-terror ally, Britain, is competent to receive a man nobody suggests is dangerous.

What else can be added? The UK is indeed “competent to receive a man nobody suggests is dangerous,” and Shaker should be put on a plane home tomorrow.

Andy Worthington is a freelance investigative journalist, activist, author, photographer and film-maker. He is the co-founder of the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press, distributed by Macmillan in the US, and available from Amazon — click on the following for the US and the UK) and of two other books: Stonehenge: Celebration and Subversion and The Battle of the Beanfield. He is also the co-director (with Polly Nash) of the documentary film, “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” (available on DVD here – or here for the US).

To receive new articles in your inbox, please subscribe to Andy’s RSS feed — and he can also be found on Facebook (and here), Twitter, Flickr and YouTube. Also see the six-part definitive Guantánamo prisoner list, and “The Complete Guantánamo Files,” an ongoing, 70-part, million-word series drawing on files released by WikiLeaks in April 2011. Also see the definitive Guantánamo habeas list, the full military commissions list, and the chronological list of all Andy’s articles.

Please also consider joining the “Close Guantánamo” campaign, and, if you appreciate Andy’s work, feel free to make a donation.