« | »

ACLU Wants Confessed Terrorist Freed

From their allies at the Washington Post:

In this photo taken Sunday, June 14, 2009 Former Guantanamo detainees Khelil Mamut, right, and Salahidin Abdulahat, take a swim on the shore of Bermuda.

ACLU Says Government Used False Confessions

By Del Quentin Wilber
Thursday, July 2, 2009

The American Civil Liberties Union yesterday accused the Obama administration of using statements elicited through torture to justify the confinement of a detainee it represents at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ACLU is asking a federal judge to throw out those statements and others made by Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan who may have been as young as 12 when he was captured. His attorney argued that Jawad was abused in U.S. custody, threatened and subjected to intense sleep deprivation.

"The government’s continued reliance on evidence gained by torture and other abuse violates centuries of U.S. law and suggests the current administration is not really serious about breaking with the past," said ACLU lawyer Jonathan Hafetz, who is representing Jawad in a lawsuit challenging his detention…

In court papers, the Justice Department alleges that Jawad threw a grenade into a vehicle containing two U.S. Special Forces soldiers and their Afghan interpreter on Dec. 17, 2002. Jawad was also associated with a group tied to Osama bin Laden, the government alleges.

After the grenade attack, Jawad was picked up by Afghan police, according to military and federal court records.

During U.S. military commission hearings on his case, a judge found that Afghan interrogators threatened to kill Jawad and his family if he did not confess to playing a role in the attack. Jawad then admitted to participating in the attack, wrote the judge, Army Col. Stephen R. Henley.

Later the same night, he was questioned by U.S. Special Forces and confessed again, Henley wrote.

In November, Henley found that the first set of statements were elicited through "physical intimidation and threats of death" and that Jawad’s fears "had not dissipated by the second confession." He ruled that prosecutors could not use either of the confessions during military commission proceedings.

Despite Henley’s ruling, Hafetz said the Justice Department wants to use those very confessions to justify Jawad’s detention in the detainee’s lawsuit before U.S. District Judge Ellen S. Huvelle.

Hafetz said he is also asking Huvelle to suppress other statements Jawad made to interrogators at the U.S. military prisons at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay. Those statements were tainted, Hafetz said, because Jawad was beaten, forced into painful "stress positions," and chained to a wall and deprived of sleep in Bagram. At Guantanamo, Jawad was interrogated more than 50 times and subjected to sleep deprivation, Hafetz said.

Jawad’s situation received attention last year when a military prosecutor abruptly quit his post, saying that the case was riddled with problems and that the prisoner had suffered physical and psychological mistreatment while in custody.

That former prosecutor, Darrel Vandeveld, later filed a declaration supporting Jawad’s challenge to his confinement in a federal lawsuit.

"It is my opinion, based on my extensive knowledge of the case, that there is no credible evidence or legal basis to justify Mr. Jawad’s detention," Vandeveld wrote.

This is just the next step in the artufly constructed pas de deux between the ACLU and their handmaidens in the Obama Justice Department.

As we noted a couple of days ago, the Obama’s handpicked lawyers at the DOJ are already arguing that all of the testimony from the terrorists held in Guantanamo was only gained through coercion.

And, consequently, practically all of it should be thrown out.

Which mean that the remaining Guantanamo prisoners should be released as free men – and probably eventually paid damages.

The American Civil Liberties Union yesterday accused the Obama administration of using statements elicited through torture to justify the confinement of a detainee it represents at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ACLU is asking a federal judge to throw out those statements and others made by Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan…

Does it ever occur to anyone to ask what the ACLU is doing defending an Afghan citizen against the people of the United States?

Lest we forget, the ACLU is a taxpayer supported 501c3 ‘charity.’

By law they are supposed to be prevented from doing anything that would encourage people to break the laws of the United States.

501c3s are not even supposed to have dealing with anyone who would even encourage lawbreaking in the US.

At the very least cannot it not be admitted that the terrorists currently detainee in Guantanamo were encouraging people to break the laws of the US?

Why does the ACLU still enjoy its tax exempt status?

In a more just world, they would have found themselves behind bars long ago.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, July 2nd, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

11 Responses to “ACLU Wants Confessed Terrorist Freed”

  1. jobeth says:

    “In a more just world, they would have found themselves behind bars long ago.”

    Amen and AMEN!

  2. tranquil.night says:

    Well I suppose it’s one way to get Gitmo closed. If no country will take ’em, just release ’em! You’re right too, Steve, they’ll get money for damages. Hahah.

    When the Bamster first said he was closing Gitmo, we all thought it was a political move.

    Now I just think he’s a sympathizer with these terrorists freedom fighters.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      Yup, t.n

      And nowhere did it become more obvious than when he’s “dealing with” middle eastern nations.

      Freeedom crisis in Iran? “I won’t meddle”
      Freedom Crisis in Honduras —meddling
      Now….as of today…with regard to sending more troops to Afghanistan…well…The One says he won’t make a decision until AFTER the Afghan elections.

      The thing about a megalomaniac is that they ALWAYS give away their mind through their actions. Always.

      Eventually, The Rookie will provide incentive that will bother, not just the conservatives, but EVERYONE. In other words, at some point, he will do something that will deeply antagonize each and every group or faction in this country.

      There are rumblings in some groups already. Time is important here. As The Rookie continues to dismantle long-established norms, more and more people will see how his idiocy affects them in their day-to-day business.

      Eventually, only the stickiest of drones will defend him. The rest of us will call for blood. When the reality of the deficit filters out to the general public and is explained in terms that will show how everybody loses then people will wake up some more. I hope.

      All this, of course, no thanks to the local rag newspapers, news media of the mainstream nature, etc. Rush’s listenership has jumped into the stratosphere in the past few months. PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH. And, it would appear that they are realizing that nightly news is just more chewing gum for the mind.

  3. proreason says:

    “Does it ever occur to anyone to ask what the ACLU is doing defending an Afghan citizen against the people of the United States?”

    No. It’s easy to predict the ACLU side in any argument.

    Just imagine the side you would pick if you were an American-hating athiest Communist.

    That’s the side they will be on.

    Every time.

    The “CL” actually stands for Communist Lovers.

  4. Right of the People says:

    All Criminals Love Us – ACLU. You don’t need to know anything else.

  5. canary says:

    What right to have to sue that everyone is allowed to have visa’s and come into America. I’m surprised their not suing for bin-Laden to pay us a visit. I’ll bet most of them that work for ACLU are muslems.

    National Security Ideological Exclusion

    The United States government is denying visas to foreign nationals whose political views the government disfavors. Once used to bar suspected Communists from entering the country, the practice of “ideological exclusion” was resurrected by the USA Patriot Act. Ideological exclusion violates Americans’ First Amendment right to hear constitutionally protected speech by denying foreign scholars, artists, politicians and others entry to the U.S.

    • beautyofreason says:

      ‘”the practice of “ideological exclusion” was resurrected by the USA Patriot Act. Ideological exclusion violates Americans’ First Amendment right to hear constitutionally protected speech by denying foreign scholars, artists, politicians and others entry to the U.S.”‘

      Ugh ACLU…so if they are all for the separation of church and state, why didn’t they utter a peep when Hawaii voted in “Islam day” on September 11? I wish “ideological exclusion” was used a little more often to stop people who want Shariah law from settling in our country and refusing to assimilate. I’ve seen women wearing the burqa and niqab in downtown Philadelphia, rare but still quite shocking when it occurs. I think, why are you in my country if you believe in Islamic law and refuse to show your face to anyone?

      Free speech is free, but giving a free card to every American-hating yuppe or is just asking for trouble. We’re a land of free ideas, not a free pass to any third world butcher or terrorist sympathizer who hates what we stand for. It makes sense for any country to regulate who can enter. Britain is experiencing a problem of home grown terrorism because of some Islamic nuts they allowed to immigrate, who then raised children who did not consider themselves British. We don’t need that kind of ideological baggage here.

  6. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    The ACLU is at odds with the Obama administration? I thought they were both buddy buddy in lock step with each other. Could it be possible that there’s trouble in paradise?

  7. Petronius says:

    SG: “This is just the next step in the artfully constructed pas de deux between the ACLU and their handmaidens in the Obama Justice Department.”

    I concur. This is a setup to release the GITMO terrorists and to place the blame on the Bush Administration.

    Attorney General Tigellinus-Holder has already decreed that newly-captured foreign terrorists must be accorded Miranda rights under the US Constitution. But of course constitutional rights cannot be applied prospectively only; what is constitutional now for new terrorists must also be considered constitutional for old terrorists. Hence Miranda rights must be the same for all foreign terrorists, including those previously captured and held at GITMO.

    Since the GITMO detainees were not Mirandized, the Federal courts will deem their confessions to have been “coerced” and, under the exclusionary rule, not admissible as evidence.

    Once the confessions are ruled inadmissible, the charges against the GITMO detainees will be dismissed by the court for lack of other evidence. Under those conditions, Nerobama will have a green light to close GITMO. The court’s decision will leave him no choice. “Not my fault––if only the Bush Administration had followed the law . . . .”

    How convenient.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »