Judge Bans the T-Word in 9/11 Hearing

Huffington Post
Daphne Eviatar

It didn't take long for the word "torture" to rear its ugly head in the September 11th terrorism case, as pre-trial hearings began today with a slew of procedural issues. Though the question of whether the five accused men have to actually show up in court every day wouldn't seem all that exciting or controversial, as soon as one of the defense lawyers started to say his client was traumatized by having been tortured at the hands of his U.S. interrogators, the judge shut him up.

"We have to talk about torture," said defense attorney Captain Michael Schwartz, who represents Walid Bin Attash, claiming it's relevant to whether the accused should be "forcibly extracted" from their prison cells.

"No we don't. I'm telling you I don't think it's relevant to this issue," said Judge James L. Pohl, presiding over the military commission case of the five 9/11 co-defendants. "I'm not going to keep revisiting the issue I told you is not relevant."

Schwartz tried to explain. "There is the physical and emotional strain that is relevant to the decision of whether they're going to come to court. Those things are inextricably linked."

Pohl quickly interrupted. "The issue before me is whether or not the accused has a right to voluntarily choose to not come to court for these proceedings. The issue of why is not before me... I don't think that's relevant."

Schwartz looked bewildered, but persisted. "The issue of my client's ability to participate in his defense is relevant," he insisted.

Judge Pohl: "No it's not. When I say it's irrelevant, we're done." Pohl refused to allow Captain Scwhartz to even make his claim for the record, which he presumably wanted to do to preserve a later right to appeal.

Ultimately, Judge Pohl ended the discussion by ruling in the defense lawyers' favor, saying he'd allow the defendants to waive their right to attend their hearings and trial so long as they did it knowingly and following a set of procedures he would set out this afternoon.

That short exchange gives us an interesting clue of how the word "torture" and related claims of detainee mistreatment are likely to be treated as this September 11 terrorism trial finally gets underway.

Secrecy surrounding the detainees' treatment in U.S. custody -- including their having been subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" that amount to torture -- will play a much larger role in motions expected to be argued tomorrow.

NAPOLITANO: Trading fair trial for vengeance

Washington Times
Andrew P. Napolitano

New rules for 9/11 terrorists’ prosecution could crush Constitution

The trial of the alleged masterminds of Sept. 11, which began last week at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will address some of the most profound issues of our era. Are natural rights truly inalienable, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, or can the government take them away from those it hates or fears? Does the Constitution protect the rights of all persons who come in contact with the government, or does it protect only certain Americans, as the government argues? Can the government deny a person due process by changing the rules retroactively, or is the Constitution’s guarantee of due process to all persons truly a guarantee?

These are all questions that the government does not want to answer, but it should know better. By structuring the trial after the crime was committed and establishing retroactive rules - prohibited by the Constitution - that have never before been used in any American civilian or military court, Congress has created and the Obama administration will conduct a trial that will resemble none in our history.

The trial is being held in Cuba because President Obama caved in to political pressure from New York City politicians who did not want the trial at the location where the murders took place. In one of the few rules of criminal procedure laid down in the Constitution, the Framers required all trials to be held in the same judicial district where the alleged crime took place. They were familiar with the British practice of trying colonists in London for crimes alleged to have been committed in New York. But today, New York politicians, their allies in Congress and the president think they can pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to uphold and which parts they can ignore.

The Constitution guarantees the right to confront evidence and witnesses. The colonists were all too familiar with the Star Chamber, a British trial system in which evidence against an accused was summarized by a clerk of the court rather than presented by witnesses with personal knowledge or revealed in documents for all to see. In trials at Gitmo, the government may summarize evidence for the court, and it may keep documents it plans to use away from the defendants.

The rules for this trial also permit hearsay - basically, anonymous accusations that also were the hallmark of the Star Chamber. They permit the secretary of defense, who is the boss of both the prosecutors and the judge, to replace the judge if the secretary is displeased by his rulings. This is a procedure that is taken right out of the Communist Party playbook from the Stalinist Soviet Union.

The Largest Prison Strike In American History Goes Ignored By US Media

Death+Taxes, Dec. 16, 2010

This story was so quiet even we missed it: A seven-day strike in December, 2010, where tens of thousands of Georgia inmates refused to work or leave their cells until their demands were met. -Ed.

Inmates in ten Georgia prisons, Baldwin, Hancock, Hays, Macon, Smith and Telfair State Prisons, to name a few, went on strike last Thursday to protest their treatment and demand their human rights.

According to an article by Facing South, Department of Corrections have been nervous about deteriorating conditions in Georgia’s prisons since early 2010. Wardens started triple bunking prisoners in response to budget cuts—squeezing three prisoners into cells intended for one. Prison officials have kept a watchful eye out for prisoners meaning to riot, for prisoners’ rights lawyers to litigate, or both.

Poor conditions and substandard medical care are also on the inmates’ list of demands. However, the jailed’s main gripe seems to center on landing recognition as workers entitled to fair pay.

As it goes, prisoners in Georgia are forced to work without pay for their labor—seemingly a violation of the 13th Amendment, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude.

For months the prisoners had apparently used cell phones to get in touch with inmates from other prisons, organizing a non-violent strike. The outcome began the morning of Dec. 9—by Dec. 13 the GDC issued a statement that four prisons were completely on strike.

An interview with one of the strike leaders revealed that every group of inmates in the prison had been working together. “They want to break up the unity we have here,” said an anonymous strike leader in an interview with the Black Agenda Report. “We have the Crips and the Bloods, we have the Muslims, we have the head Mexicans, and we have the Aryans all with a peaceful understanding, all on common ground.”

The largest prison strike in American history seems like a topic ripe for the press, however save for the NYT, there was very little mention of it anywhere in mainstream media. Smaller outlets like Black Agenda Report and Facing South (Institute for Southern Studies) have been covering the strike since day one.

Perhaps there was a larger hand at play—one that did not want the deplorable conditions of the Georgia prison system to surface. If Wikileaks has taught us anything, it is that the revolution will be televised.

The prisoners demands:

• A LIVING WAGE FOR WORK: In violation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, the DOC demands prisoners work for free.
• EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES: For the great majority of prisoners, the DOC denies all opportunities for education beyond the GED, despite the benefit to both prisoners and society.
• DECENT HEALTH CARE: In violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, the DOC denies adequate medical care to prisoners, charges excessive fees for the most minimal care and is responsible for extraordinary pain and suffering.
• AN END TO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS: In further violation of the 8th Amendment, the DOC is responsible for cruel prisoner punishments for minor infractions of rules.
• DECENT LIVING CONDITIONS: Georgia prisoners are confined in over-crowded, substandard conditions, with little heat in winter and oppressive heat in summer.
• NUTRITIONAL MEALS: Vegetables and fruit are in short supply in DOC facilities while starches and fatty foods are plentiful.
• VOCATIONAL AND SELF-IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES: The DOC has stripped its facilities of all opportunities for skills training, self-improvement and proper exercise.
• ACCESS TO FAMILIES: The DOC has disconnected thousands of prisoners from their families by imposing excessive telephone charges and innumerable barriers to visitation.
• JUST PAROLE DECISIONS: The Parole Board capriciously and regularly denies parole to the majority of prisoners despite evidence of eligibility.