{"id":15875,"date":"2012-07-23T07:48:53","date_gmt":"2012-07-23T15:48:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=15875"},"modified":"2012-07-23T07:48:53","modified_gmt":"2012-07-23T15:48:53","slug":"obama-cramping-habeass-style-at-gitmo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2012\/07\/23\/obama-cramping-habeass-style-at-gitmo\/","title":{"rendered":"Obama Cramping Habeas’s Style at Gitmo"},"content":{"rendered":"

This New York Times\u00a0<\/em>editorial<\/a> laments the Obama administration’s decision to prohibit lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees from visiting their clients, in a policy that “is imperiously punishing detainees for their temerity in bringing legal challenges to their detention and losing.”<\/p>\n

In one case, the administration is saying that the Yemeni national Yasin Qasem Muhammad Ismail no longer has the right to meet with his counsel, David Remes, because his plea to be released was \u201cterminated.\u201d The Justice Department will only let them meet, it said in an e-mail to Mr. Remes, if he signs\u00a0a new memorandum<\/a>\u00a0giving the government what Mr. Remes calls \u201cabsolute authority over access to counsel.\u201d<\/p>\n

A military officer would decide each time whether lawyer and client could meet. Mr. Remes could not use classified information he developed for the client without permission. He could not share what he learned from his client with other lawyers of detainees, as he could previously. He could not use it to help defend his client against criminal charges if the government brings them. He could not advocate for him with human rights groups.<\/p>\n

Mr. Remes refused to sign. He and colleagues filed\u00a0a motion<\/a>\u00a0this month with the federal magistrate handling disputes about lawyer-client visits at Guant\u00e1namo Bay. They argue that while their client is detained, \u201che retains the right to pursue any available legal avenues to obtain his release\u201d and without \u201ca full and fair opportunity to meet with counsel in a confidential privileged setting,\u201d his \u201cright to challenge his detention\u201d means nothing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Unmentioned in the Times piece is that the Obama administration has adopted the policy of holding detainees indefinitely even if they have been found not guilty or cleared for release by a judge.<\/p>\n

Shaker Aamer<\/a>, for example, has been held without charge at for over 10 years, and despite being cleared for release in 2007 he is still locked up. Aamer’s lawyers have claimed<\/a> that he was “held in solitary confinement for 360 days at the time of filing, and was\u00a0tortured<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0by beatings, exposure to temperature extremes, and sleep deprivation, which together caused him to suffer to the point of becoming mentally unbalanced.”<\/p>\n

Mohammed Ahmed al-Kandari<\/a>, a Kuwaiti national, has been in Guantanamo for a decade\u00a0without charge or trial. He is suspected of having been a member of al-Qaeda. But a\u00a0legal study of his proceedings<\/a>\u00a0quoted the Tribunal\u2019s legal advisor as saying, \u201cIndeed, the evidence considered persuasive by the Tribunal is made up almost entirely of hearsay evidence recorded by unidentified individuals with no first hand knowledge of the events they describe.\u201d He\u00a0was tortured by US guards<\/a>, including being kicked, beaten with a metal chain, put in stress positions for up to 36 hours, he \u201cwas drugged, his ears were plugged, he was diapered and a sandbag was shoved over his head.\u201d His lawyer predicted a year ago that he may be indefinitely detained, even eventually cleared for release.<\/p>\n

Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri<\/a>, charged with plotting the attack on the USS Cole in 2000 and just now going through legal proceedings, was told by the US that even if he is found not guilty and acquitted of all charges, they don\u2019t have to release him.\u00a0His defense attorneys asked the government clarify whether it intends to continue holding him in military detention if he is found not guilty.\u00a0Because al-Nashiri is being held in military detention, the government claims, he can be held for “the duration of hostilities,\u201d regardless of his verdict.<\/p>\n

Adam Serwer at Mother Jones wrote<\/a> recently that even the partial system of habeas corpus granted to detainees,”essentially leaves detainees at Gitmo\u00a0with habeas rights in name only<\/a>, since the rules make it\u00a0virtually impossible for detainees to win in court<\/a>.”\u00a0Given the fact that the Republican Party doesn\u2019t object to the Obama administration’s policies in this regard, this issue is decidedly irrelevant. We will not hear about it in the upcoming Obama-Romney debates.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This New York Times\u00a0editorial laments the Obama administration’s decision to prohibit lawyers representing Guantanamo detainees from visiting their clients, in a policy that “is imperiously punishing detainees for their temerity in bringing legal challenges to their detention and losing.” In one case, the administration is saying that the Yemeni national Yasin Qasem Muhammad Ismail no […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":86,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-15875","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15875","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/86"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15875"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15875\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15876,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15875\/revisions\/15876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15875"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15875"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15875"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=15875"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}