The Article by Aran Roston HERE
“The Man Who Conned the Pentagon”
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1e4ff/1e4ff3f1e748748b1d02aba4f540de1b2f868547" alt="Securityweb"
Topics related to: Torture, CSIS, RCMP, NSA, CIA, Guantanamo, Secret Trials, State Terrorism, FBI, Iacobucci , NAZI Doctors
The six [doctors] are Michael Powers, a QC and former coroner; trauma surgeon David Halpin; Andrew Rouse, an epidemiologist who established that deaths from cutting the ulnar artery – as claimed in Dr Kelly's case – are extremely rare; Martin Birnstingl, another surgeon; plus Stephen Frost and Chris Burns-Cox.H/T to The Anomaly at Daily Kos, whose diary on the UK proposed investigation is worth reading in full.
Lord Hutton concluded that Dr Kelly killed himself by severing an ulnar artery in his left wrist after taking an overdose of prescription painkillers but he skated over the controversies about the causes of death....
Dr Kelly's death certificate states that he died of a haemorrhage, but the results of a post mortem examination have never been made public....
We have concentrated on the finding on the death certificate that the primary cause of death was a haemorrage. We are spelling out why he could not have died from a cut to the small ulnar artery.'
One of the doctors, who preferred not to be named, added: 'When the Romans committed suicide they would slit all four arteries in a warm bath, which keeps the blood flowing. The arteries would close up in the open air and you would not lose that much blood.'
A book on the unanswered questions surrounding the case by Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker concluded that Dr Kelly may have been murdered by Iraqi exiles – but the finger has also been pointed at MI5 and the CIA.
An Evening with Andy Worthington - "Outside the Law: Stories from Guantanamo" from The Future of Freedom Foundation on Vimeo.
Her description of "theater scenes " by contractors to silently intimidate her is presented in the Senate Hearing of April 9, 2008.
Intimidation scenes were aired on CBC News, April 2008. KBR contracts threaten her just with "visual advises"
Dawn Leamon, who has two sons on active duty in Iraq.
Leamon told the Committee that she was raped in early 2008 by a U.S. soldier and a KBR(U.S. contractor Kellogg Brown Root) colleague while she was working in Iraq.
Leamon says KBR then assigned full-time security guards to her which gave her no privacy to talk about the incident, and her movements around camp were restricted, yet her attackers' movements were unrestricted. She also talked about the harassment she was subjected to and the photo of one of the "scenarios" of the "harassment language" was presnted at the hearing. The video can be seen at ABC NEWS HERE:
In Her Own Words: Raped in Iraq
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/another-iraq-contractor-worker-claims-rape/
The film is based around interviews with former prisoners (Moazzam Begg and, in his first major interview, Omar Deghayes, who was released in December 2007), lawyers for the prisoners (Clive Stafford Smith in the UK and Tom Wilner in the US), and journalist and author Andy Worthington, and also includes appearances from Guantánamo’s former Muslim chaplain James Yee, Shakeel Begg, a London-based Imam, and the British human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce.
Focusing on the stories of three particular prisoners — Shaker Aamer (who is still held), Binyam Mohamed (who was released in February 2009) and Omar Deghayes — “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” provides a powerful rebuke to those who believe that Guantánamo holds “the worst of the worst” and that the Bush administration was justified in responding to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 by holding men neither as prisoners of war, protected by the Geneva Conventions, nor as criminal suspects with habeas corpus rights, but as “illegal enemy combatants” with no rights whatsoever.
For further information, interviews, or to inquire about broadcasting, distributing or showing “Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo,” please contact Andy Worthington(andy@andyworthington.co.uk) or Polly Nash(p.nash@lcc.arts.ac.uk).
“Outside the Law: Stories from Guantánamo” is a Spectacle Production (74 minutes, 2009).Andy Worthington is a journalist, and the author of three books, including The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (Pluto Press). Visit his website here.
Polly Nash is a lecturer at the London College Of Communication (LCC), part of the University of the Arts, London, and has worked in film and TV for 20 years. Core funding for the film was provided by LCC.
Review at The Osterley Times :
Comments:"The film was intense and powerful, mostly because it did not attempt in any way to emotionalise the story it was laying out before us. [Andy] Worthington, Clive Stafford Smith and others simply told the story of how the US abandoned habeas corpus and found itself in a kind of war with its own legal system, whilst [Moazzam] Begg and [Omar] Deghayes told the tale of what it was like to be on the receiving end of this historic aberration of justice."
Part I THE FIRST WAR ON TERROR " : OPERATION CONDOR Operation Condor was a covert Latin American military network created during the Cold War to facilitate the seizure and murder of political opponents across state borders in Central and South America. It involved kidnappings, torture, murder. As the revelations emerge that the United States of America is engaged in torture , murders, kidnappings and suspected terrorists captured by CIA and U.S. special forces in Afghanistan and Iraq have been deliberately hidden from the Red Cross, severely tortured and abused to death, the History of the United States involvement in the "dirty wars" in Central and South America is a call to consider the consequences of clandestine operations in the name of democracy. The complicity of the American government with drug traffickers to protect American interests of national security or covert operations is also connected to Operation Condor and the "War on Drugs" . Some references: Cocaine Politics:Drugs, Armies and the CIA in Central America by Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall Guns, Drugs, and the CIA by Leslie Cockburn (full transcript HERE) Condor: The First War on Terror
As the Obama administration and Congress try to forge a legal framework for detaining suspected terrorists, they might want to take a close look at what's happening at the federal district courthouse just a short walk down Pennsylvania Avenue from both the White House and the Capitol.
Trial judges there have quietly decided 31 of some 200 cases brought by Guantánamo inmates seeking freedom. Dossier by dossier, the jurists have answered the core questions that policy experts have been addressing in theory: When can the president place someone in preventive detention, and how solid does the evidence need to be?
President Obama, like George W. Bush before him, has claimed the power to detain not only Qaeda and Taliban members, but also those who "support" them. Last year the Supreme Court ruled (PDF) that the courts can scrutinize these detention decisions and overturn them if they are invalid. But the court didn't say exactly what a valid detention looks like, and Congress hasn't stepped in to make it clear.
Thus the federal judges in Washington have had to develop their own guidelines — functioning, in essence, as the country’s national security court.
A close examination of the decisions shows that some of the fears about sending terrorism cases to civilian courts have not been realized. The judges haven't been particularly hard on the government, holding it to a low standard of proof: If more than half the evidence tips in the government's favor, then the detainee stays put — a far lower bar than "beyond a reasonable doubt." The judges have also admitted hearsay evidence, and they've sealed courtrooms to protect government secrecy.
Yet despite these allowances, the government has not fared well. Twenty-six detainees have won their lawsuits, known as habeas petitions, while five have lost. So far, the Obama administration has filed just one appeal.
These initial judgments may not be typical, because they involved relatively low-level suspects. But they offer the first tangible indication of what members of the third branch of government believe it takes to make preventive detention legal.
While the federal trial judges are working largely without guidance, the Supreme Court did offer some clues in its decision on a 2004 challenge by Yaser Hamdi, an American accused by the Bush administration of fighting the United States in Afghanistan. The justices said the situation in which he was captured was enough like a classic battlefield that detention without charge was justified until the end of hostilities, as is typical in wartime.
But the fight against terrorism won't have a "clear terminal point," as President Obama said recently, and many of the detainees weren't captured on an obvious battlefield. The president says he can detain not only anyone who contributed to the 9/11 attacks, but also people "who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or Al Qaeda forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States." The habeas suits have opened this claim to dispute. Some judges have pushed back at President Obama's assertion of power, particularly when assessing the concept of "supporting" the enemy.
In the case of Ghaleb Nassar Al Bihani, a Yemeni being held at Guantánamo Bay, Judge Richard Leon agreed with the government that simply cooking meals for the Taliban was "more than sufficient 'support'" of the enemy to justify his detention. Yet Judge Gladys Kessler ordered another Yemeni, Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed , freed despite the government's claim that he'd stayed at a suspect guesthouse and "traveled ... in the company of terrorist fighters fleeing the battlefield."
Another judge, Reggie Walton, who is handling the challenges of more than a dozen men, defined "substantial support" as membership in "the 'armed forces' of an enemy organization." Judge John Bates scrapped the "substantial support" concept altogether, which he said comes from the world of criminal law.The judges have been more accommodating of the government on technical matters, including the protection of national security secrets. All have routinely concealed important facts — sometimes even the very basis for deciding to keep someone locked up — despite the principle that American courts should be open.
That's what happened in the case of Moath Hamza Ahmed Al Alwi, a Yemeni whose lawyer insisted he had traveled to Afghanistan to fight in its civil war, not against the United States, and was "easy prey for locals who were eager to hand over anyone they could find in return for American rewards." Judge Leon rejected the argument, saying there was "more than ample evidence" of Mr. Alwi's affiliation with America's enemies, but that evidence isn't revealed in the unclassified version of the judge's decision released to the public.
In the case of six Algerian men arrested in Bosnia, Judge Leon ruled in favor of five because the evidence that they had planned to travel to Afghanistan to take up arms against the United States was unreliable. But the judge decided against the sixth man because of other "credible and reliable" evidence that he kept secret.
The judges have also overlooked technical imperfections in the government's evidence, admitting anonymous and other unverifiable information. One government lawyer explained that military and intelligence officers aren't accustomed to following the "finer points" of evidence rules, and the court doesn't appear to expect them to be: in no case has a judge decided against the government merely because its evidence lacked proper form, as far as the publicly available records show.
The judges were more demanding when it came to interpreting the substance of the government's evidence. In the case of Mr. Ahmed, Judge Kessler agreed to consider hearsay "because of the exigencies of the circumstances." But she eventually ruled that he should be released because the accuracy of the evidence was "hotly contested for a host of different reasons ranging from the fact that it contains second- and third-hand hearsay to allegations that it was obtained by torture to the fact that no statement purports to be a verbatim account of what was said."
The trial judges have also rejected much of the intelligence community's "mosaic theory," which calls for interpreting minor facts to suggest a greater threat. Judge Kessler, for example, refused to infer that Mr. Ahmed was an enemy fighter simply based on a "web of statements" that he had associated with enemy fighters.
She acknowledged that the mosaic approach "is a common and well-established mode of analysis in the intelligence community," but that the legal system required more specific evidence. Likewise, in January Judge Leon ordered the release of Mohammed El Gharani, a citizen of Chad, after dismissing the main evidence against him: contradictory statements from two detainees whose credibility the government itself had "directly called into question."
In the absence of guidelines from Congress and the president for evaluating preventive detention cases, these judges have succeeded in coming up with their own, individual approaches. Yet whenever ground rules seem ad hoc, people worry about fairness — is the man in the next courtroom getting a better shake? One step toward assuring the public that justice will be uniform is to establish clear standards.
At the top of the list, the government could clearly state what makes a person subject to indefinite detention by the president. Is "supporting" the enemy enough? If so, what exactly is "support?" And, once a judge has concluded that someone has been unjustifiably detained, what is the president required to do?
Seventeen of the 26 detainees who've been cleared for release by judges remain in custody. President Obama has given mixed signals on how he views the issue. He has resisted a judge's order to release immediately 13 Chinese Uighurs, saying that the courts can't override the president's discretion to decide when detainees will be freed. Yet that position contrasts sharply with his message in a recent televised speech , when he said he accepted judges' rulings that certain prisoners should be released. "The courts have spoken," Mr. Obama said. "We must abide by these rulings."
But as these cases show, neither the guidelines for deciding the cases nor the consequences of the decisions are quite so clear.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE
Full article and documents HERE
"A Truly Shocking Guantánamo Story: Judge Confirms That An Innocent Man Was Tortured To Make False Confessions"
The author of the article, "Terrorism - The Underlying Causes," in the Winter/Spring 2004 issue of the Intelligencer, Journal of U.S. Intelligence Studies (PDF), house organ for the American Federation of Intelligence Officers (AFIO), was William Henry Anderson, M.D. Anderson's piece received a stinging protest letter to the editor from psychologist and military ethics expert, Jean Maria Arrigo, but I'm not aware of any other complaint regarding this racist, fascistic article in the pages of a major intelligence services journal."
From January 2007 to 2009 as the senior detainee movement flight surgeon, he provided 106 combat hours of support to the 14 Joint Task Force Detainee Movement Operations missions in the C-17A. His service included travel into 15 different countries, some of them in an active enemy fire zone."
Air Force Doctor Gets Medal for Serving on Rendition Torture Flights
By Jeff Kaye
Maxwell-Gunther Dispatch.com, the web news site for personnel and interested partisans of Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama, reported on September 17 that Col. (Dr.) James W. Walter has been awarded the Air Medal “for his meritorious service on delicate assignments providing medical care to enemy detainees.”
The article goes into great detail about “self-professed military brat” Walter’s career as a NASA space shuttle launch and recovery physician, and says nothing more about the service for which he was awarded a medal. That’s because the military’s rendition program is highly secret. Stephen Grey in his 2006 book, Ghost Plane, noted the existence of the military’s rendition program, and proclaimed it was larger than the CIA’s. But Grey’s research concentrated on the CIA’s program. The Pentagon’s rendition program received its first major outing in the pages of the New York Times only in August 2008:From January 2007 to 2009 as the senior detainee movement flight surgeon, he provided 106 combat hours of support to the 14 Joint Task Force Detainee Movement Operations missions in the C-17A. His service included travel into 15 different countries, some of them in an active enemy fire zone.
And tortured? The United States supposedly seeks “assurances” that the prisoners will not be tortured when sent back to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. An article by Eric Umansky at Pro Publica, published just after the Times expose, noted that though American officials insist they obtain guarantees that “detainees” will be treated “humanely,” rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch, aren’t so sure:WASHINGTON – The United States military has secretly handed over more than 200 militants to the intelligence services of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other countries, nearly all in the past two years, as part of an effort to reduce the burden of detaining and interrogating foreign fighters captured in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to American military officials.
The system is similar in some ways to the rendition program used by the Central Intelligence Agency since the Sept. 11 attacks to secretly transfer people suspected of being militants back to their home countries to be jailed and questioned.
While Col. (Dr.) Walter is said to have orthopedic experience, it’s most likely he was there to monitor and/or administer sedating drugs which numerous reports have indicated were administered to rendition victims. I suppose if a “detainee” needed some stitches after a beating, or even a bone set after an “incident,” the good doctor would be there to make sure the prisoner arrived in good shape for his Saudi or Egyptian torturer. Of course, Saudi Arabia and Egypt were surely not the only destinations for rendition flights, as the Maxwell-Gunther article notes Walter’s planes traveled to at least 15 different countries. It is worth noting here, by the way, that the Obama administration has refused to end the rendition program, though its officials offer the same bland assurances about prisoner safety as those of their GOP predecessors.The growing weight of evidence and international expert opinion indicates that diplomatic assurances cannot protect people at risk of torture from such treatment on return. Sending countries that rely on such assurances are either engaging in wishful thinking or using the assurances as a fig leaf to cover their own complicity in torture. In either case, governments seeking diplomatic assurances against torture are in effect trying to circumvent their own obligations not to return people to face such treatment.
All the governments offering diplomatic assurances have long histories and continuing records of employing torture, a fact that most sending governments acknowledge….
In October 2002, the U.S. government transferred Maher Arar, a dual Canadian-Syrian citizen, from New York via Jordan to Syria based on diplomatic assurances of humane treatment. Arar was released in October 2003. An independent fact-finder appointed by an official Canadian Commission of Inquiry into Arar’s treatment concluded in October 2005 that Arar had been tortured in Syrian custody, despite Syrian assurances to the contrary and several visits from Canadian consular officials.
According to the New York Times article, once captured, the prisoners are first held in one of two Special Operations prisons, “in Balad, Iraq, and Bagram, Afghanistan, for up to two weeks,” more if Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gives the high sign. They are imprisoned without notice to the International Red Cross, until they’re ready for transfer. According to Steven Grey, no hearing takes place prior to their rendition back to a country that might torture them, as is required by international law. Perhaps that’s because the prisoners supposedly “can block their transfers to home countries.” As Pro Publica’s Umansky laconically noted, “No word on what happens to the prisoners if they choose to exercise their apparent right to veto.” Apparently, as of August 2008 over 200 prisoners had already been transferred to their home countries under the military’s rendition program. (In 2006, Grey thought the number as high as 1,000.) But with all the attention on the CIA’s rendition program, the Pentagon’s version appears to have flown under the radar, news-wise.
Until Col. (Dr.) Walter got his medal. How ironic it comes only days after Physicians for Human Rights released a “white paper” on doctors aiding torture. Steven Miles, author of Oath Betrayed: Torture, Medical Complicity and America’s War on Terror, has written: “The medical system collaborated with designing and implementing psychologically and physically coercive interrogations” in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places. The participation of doctors in the rendition program, which has sent an untold number of prisoners back to the torture dungeons of some of the most brutal regimes on this planet, is both a crime and a violation of medical ethics of the highest sort.
It is a painful truth that actions that should be condemned and punished are instead, in 2009 America, awarded medals. And how did Col. (Dr.) Walter respond to his high honor?
“It’s kind of neat to get a medal on the flying side rather than the medical side,” said Colonel Walter. “My father would be proud.”