Dr. Aafia Siddiqui Case: Concern for Qazi Anwar's Safety

Pak Supreme Court Lawyer supporting Dr. Aafia receives threats
Sunday, 18 July 2010 10:18

July 16, 2010

SAMAA TV

ISLAMABAD: President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), Qazi Anwar, has said that he is receiving threats from the government.

“A message has been delivered to my nephew in the United States that I am on the hit list of the government,” he told newsmen at a press conference along with Dr. Fauzia Siddiqi Friday. He said he would definitely attend the lawyer’s convention in Gujrat on Saturday if he survived.

The SCBA President said the he would announce a schedule to hold protests against Dr Aafia’s detention in US. The lawyers, he said, would start a nation-wide protest movement if the government did not take concrete measures to secure Aafia’s release.

UPDATED: Darkness in America: Lynne Stewart's Resentencing

Photo from Justice for Lynne Stewart

Just added July 18-19 2010: Info for Media and Address for those wishing to send cards/letters to Lynne or to call her husband/lawyer:

here

Another Eye Witness here

Read earlier article by Dr. Marjorie Cohn of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law here

Watch for more items to be added...

NEOCON JUSTICE:
Gets 10 years imprisonment for doing her job honorably, ethically.
by Stephen Lendman
Friday, 16 July 2010

Forgotten were Judge Koeltl's October 2006 comments, calling Lynne's character "extraordinary," saying she was "a credit to her profession," and that a long imprisonment would be "an unreasonable result."

Describing Lynne Stewart, one of this writer's previous articles said the following:

"She worked selfishly, tirelessly, and heroically for 30 years as a human rights champion, defending America's poor, underprivileged, and unwanted - people never afforded due process and judicial fairness without an advocate like her. She knew the risks, yet took them courageously until bogusly indicted on April 9, 2002 for:

* "conspiring to defraud the United States;
* conspiring to provide and conceal material support to terrorist activity;
* providing and concealing material support to terrorist activity; and
* two counts of making false statements."

Detailed information can be gotten from this writer's previous articles:

* Lynne Stewart's Crime of Courage, Honor and Resisting Tyranny
* Lynne Stewart's Long Struggle for Justice
* Lynne Stewart: Heroic Human Rights Lawyer Jailed
* Updating Lynne Stewart's "Love Struggle"
* Updating Lynne Stewart's "Love Struggle:" Part II

A brief timeline was as follows:

* indicted on April 9, 2002;
* on February 10, 2005, convicted on all counts;
* on October, 17, 2006, sentenced to 28 months;
* on November 17, 2009, a US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit three-judge panel upheld the conviction, shamelessly accusing Lynne of "knowingly and willfully making false statements," redirecting her case to District Court Judge John Koeltl for resentencing, instructing him to consider enhancements for terrorism, perjury, and abuse of her position as a lawyer - an outrageous mandate intimidating Koeltl to comply;

* on November 19, 2009, Stewart jailed was at MCC-NY, 150 Park Row, New York, NY; and
* on July 15, 2010, Stewart resentenced to 10 years imprisonment for doing her job honorably, ethically, and admirably with distinction for 30 years.

New York Times writer John Eligon headlined, "Sentence Is Sharply Increased for Lawyer Convicted of Aiding Terror," saying:

After her sentence, a "collective gasp went up from (her) supporters, who packed the broad, high-ceilinged courtroom....followed by a few shrieks and sobs; some held their hands over their mouths."

Allowed to speak, Lynne said:

"I'm somewhat stunned, Judge, by the swift change in my outlook. We will continue to struggle on to take all available options to do what we need to do to change this. I feel like I let a lot of my good people down," after which supporters shouted, "We love you!"

Stewart added:

"Over the last eight months, prison has diminished me. Daily, I confront the prospect of death."

So does her husband, Ralph Poynter, calling it "a death sentence," - a shocking miscarriage of justice, symbolizing America's descent to hell, its moral remnants lost, its democracy a convenient illusion, its despotic reality ruthless, corrupted, brutish and merciless, favoring power over populism under a Constitution political philosopher Sheldon Wolin describes as "conscripted to serve as (its) apprentice rather than its conscience."

On July 16, New York Law Journal's Mark Hamblett headlined, "Lynne Stewart Gets a New 10-Year Prison Sentence," saying:

Koeltl imposed a longer sentence, saying "comments by Stewart in 2006, including a statement in a television interview that she would do 'it' again and would not 'do anything differently' influenced his decision....indicat(ing) the original sentence 'was not sufficient' to reflect the goals of sentencing guidelines."

Forgotten were Koeltl's October 2006 comments, calling Lynne's character "extraordinary," saying she was "a credit to her profession," and that a long imprisonment would be "an unreasonable result," citing "the somewhat atypical nature of her case (and) lack of evidence that any victim was harmed...."

Calling terrorism enhancement "dramatically unreasonable (because it grossly) overstate(d) the seriousness of (her) conduct (and would equate her with) repeat felony offenders for the most serious offenses including murder and drug trafficking."

He did consider Stewart's age (70), her health (poor), her distinguished career representing society's disadvantaged and unwanted, and the unlikelihood she'd commit another "crime."

"But (he) clearly got the message from the 2nd Circuit," and complied, his own career perhaps on the line otherwise.
The American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct

Updated in February 2007, its preamble calls for:

* "An independent, fair and impartial judiciary," calling it "indispensable to our system of justice, (composed of) men and women of integrity;
* Judges should....at all times (ensure) the greatest possible public confidence in their independence, impartiality, integrity, and competence;
* The Model Code....establishes standards (of) ethical conduct, (including) overarching principles of judicial ethics (and fairness), consistent with constitutional requirements, statutes, other court rules, and decisional law, and with due regard for all relevant circumstances;" above all, the truth, not a corrupted prosecutorial version of it, the kind sending innocent people to prison, including society's best, none better than Lynne.

Mark the date - July 15, 2010, a day of infamy, activist/writer Elaine Brower saying "The Veil is Lifted, The Gloves Are off," Stewart's lynching showing America's true face - cruel, unfair, lawless and debauched, a nation no longer fit to live in.
A Final Note

Jeff Mackler, West Coast Director of the Lynne Stewart Defense Committee, reports she'll "serve her sentence in Danbury, Connecticut's minimum security prison....a brilliant and dedicated fighter sacrificed on the altar of an intolerant class-biased system of repression and war."

A giant among us, she won't be forgotten, a Supreme Court appeal expected, despite little chance for compassion or judicial fairness, qualities absent in the Roberts court.


Stephen Lendman credit to his site

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com - GO here and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM to 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national topics. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Mr. Lendman's stories are republished in the Baltimore Chronicle with permission of the author.

A charter for Christian, Muslim harmony

The library of St. Catherine’s Monastery which houses 3500 old Christian manuscripts is the second largest collection after the Vatican

By Dr Arif Alvi

IN a recent lecture in Germany, Pope Benedict angered the already seething Muslim population of the world by his remarks when he quoted a Byzantine emperor in a 1391 dialogue who said that “show me just what Mohammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Pope Benedict insists that it is necessary to open a discussion on what Christianity interprets as forceful conversion and a tendency towards violence in Islam.

The Australian prime minister, John Howard, supporting the pope reinforced the same stating that he did not “note terrorist groups killing people and invoking the authority of the Church”. True, but he ignores an increasing cascade of revelations and evidence highlighting the neo-con religious movement whose radical ideas seem to be the hidden reason behind many orchestrated wars in the Middle East including the most brutal one in Iraq. Hundreds of thousands have died in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan to ensure among other things, the safety of Israel, a scenario which fits in well with the apocalyptical belief of the neo-conservatives of a “Greater Israel as a necessary precursor to the arrival of the Great Messiah”.

Historically the reaction of people under suppression is universal whatever their faith or colour. To demand “servility” and “renunciation of armed resistance” to brutal state suppression will never allow a constructive resolution of the conflict. No number of killings or ghettoisation over the centuries was able to exterminate the Jewish people or their faith. Neither would the wanton brutality and destruction in the Muslim world result in acceptance of the unfair, or a rewriting of Islamic religious doctrine.

Christians and Muslims are drifting apart but I believe a very important historical document exists today which can provide the foundation for an understanding between the two. This treasure has been preserved in the obscure reaches of the Sinai peninsula in the Monastery of St Catherine, located in a triangular area between the Desert of El-Tih, the Gulf of Suez and the Gulf of Aqaba.

The history of this place goes as far back as Moses. The Book of Exodus describes that one day, Moses, while tending sheep, saw a burning bush and as he came closer he discovered that the bush was on fire, but the flames did not consume it. God then spoke from the bush and said that “I am your father’s God, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”, and ordered Moses to speak to the pharaoh, because God had “heard the people’s cries”. Helena, the mother of Constantine I, in 330AD built a chapel on the site and later Emperor Justinian around 540AD constructed a monastery which came to be known as the Monastery of St Catherine.

The fathers of the monastery visited Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) in Medina in 625AD and requested protection. Apparently, the request was favourably granted and the so-called Ahitname (which is a Latinised version of the noun “Ahed-nama”), or “immunity covenant” was sent to them by Prophet Mohammed himself in 628AD. The historic document states as under:

“This is a message from Mohammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.

“No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

“No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

“No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

“Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (of Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world).”

The English translation has been taken from the book Muslim History: 570 - 1950CE written by Akram Zahoor.

The “phobia” of Islam in the West unfortunately helps to mask the crimes perpetrated by a so-called “civilisation under threat”. The semantics of this struggle and the terminology used to describe these fears serve to raise the level of reaction to that of a “brutal war against terror” where the foe is debased to the sub-human level, not to be covered even by the Geneva Convention.

Writers like the late Oriana Fallaci became fierce, even apocalyptic, critics of Islam. Ms Fallaci feared that the unassimilated and inassimilable Muslim immigrants in the West whom she called “invaders” were turning Europe into “a colony of Islam” or “Eurabia”. In her book The Force of Reason published in 2004 she elaborated in great detail and attempted to cloak all such prejudices with a now familiar pseudo-rationality. For a people or a religion to be banished or ostracised, vilification is necessary. Sections of the media and writers throughout the Christian world are doing so with dangerous abandon, almost oblivious to the damage they are doing to the ideals of the very civilisation they themselves have nurtured over the past centuries. It now seems that the Church too is not impervious to these prejudices.

Interestingly, when Ms Fallaci was asked by Tunku Varadarajan, the editor of The Wall Street Journal, whether there was any contemporary leader she admired, she replied there were two. She said that Pope Benedict XVI was a man in whom she reposed some trust. “I am an atheist, and if an atheist and a pope think the same things (in her assessment of a Muslim invasion which needed to be resisted) there must be something true”.

This was long before the pope made his speech on “Faith and Reason” (a title similar to Ms Fallaci’s book). The other person she said she admired was George Bush who had the “vigour” to do something. After her death Bush introduced the term “Islamofascism” which Ms Fallaci uses frequently in her own book. But it was “Ratzinger”, as she insisted on calling the pope, who she said was her “ultimate soulmate”.

Strange indeed. Too many coincidences in this nexus to call the pope’s speech purely an innocent attempt for dialogue and as Tariq Ali very aptly says in Counterpunch “the Bavarian is a razor-sharp reactionary cleric. I think he knew what he was saying and why. In a neo-liberal world suffering from environmental degradation, poverty, hunger, repression, and in a planet of slums, the pope chooses to insult the founder of a rival faith”. By disparaging Islam as evil and inhuman before 250,000 onlookers and the world press, and then talk about a genuine dialogue between cultures is naive indeed.

The Monastery of St Catherine in Sinai, which also contains a mosque within its walls, seems to have the key to bringing Islam and Christianity together. The Covenant of Mohammad for followers of the Christian faith could be the healer so desperately needed. I wish Pope Benedict XVI had looked at history, particularly that recorded by the Church itself, through a fair light before he made his speech casting aspersions on the rationality and the spread of Islam. The revolutionary aspect of this document is that it is 1,500 years old, when there were no laws, no democracy, and no human rights. It is an excellent charter for the protection of Christians and minorities living under Islamic rule and would help the world understand this religion of peace.

The original article was published in Dawn on October 24, 2006

Also find this article with more illustrations titled as "Muhammad's Christian Covenant and Benedict’s Indictment" | at Answerbag here

This article is also published on the popular award-winning Pakistani blog - Teeth Maestro "Muhammad's Christian Covenant and Benedicts Indictment" here

We Who Advocate Peace By Camillo Mac Bica TruthOut

Camillo Mac Bica Vietnam War Veteran; leader of Vets for Peace on Long Island New York; Teaches Philosophy at an Art School See longer Bio Below

Find MANY more articles by Dr. Camillo Mac Bica here Contact him at VFP Speakers Bureau here

NOTE from OneHeart blogger: How can we help but appreciate the clarity and hard-hitting truth here by Dr. Camillo Mac Bica -- one who knows from up-close about war? At the same time, the best of literature universal is full of stories and teachings which shows that in some ways We and They are the same. Thus, what can we each do about the 'us' as well as the 'they' in the US and elsewhere?

July 11, 2010 -- They wage preemptive war, occupy and bomb sovereign nations, utilize video-game technology and robotics to murder and then dehumanize hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children as collateral damage. We who advocate peace and justice say that such acts of war and occupation are illegal, immoral and a barbaric and paranoid response to contrived evil . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They chose to avoid military service themselves or had “other priorities” when their Country called, but yet cavalierly send our children, not theirs, to kill and to die in their war for oil and empire. We who advocate peace and justice say that if the threat is real and the peril immanent and grave, then our chickenhawk leaders and their privileged children should be the first to go. Only then will we follow . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They continue to use the fear of terrorism, prey upon the anxiety and distress of the American people post 9/11to “justify” continuing, even escalating, their wars and occupations, and to deny fundamental human liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. We who advocate peace and justice say that the exploitation of a vulnerable citizenry, and the disregard and abuse of basic human rights is Un-American, uncivilized, and a clear violation of the very values they allege to be championing and defending . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They send our military into harm’s way to kill and be killed in pursuit of goals that are ambiguous and ill-defined in an endless war and occupation they sell to the American people and to the world as a response to terrorism. We who advocate peace and justice say that our troops are not cannon fodder; that terrorism is a tactic not an enemy or an ideology; that war, occupation, and the indiscriminate use of violence by the military promotes rather than abrogates the terrorist threat . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They fail to honor their commitment to our Servicemen and Women, “stop loss” deployment after deployment with insufficient dwell time, and provide inadequate resources to meet the medical and readjustment needs of our returning wounded and veterans. We who advocate peace and justice say that providing effective care and treatment for those physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually wounded by war is a moral and legal obligation and should be our first priority. . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They torture prisoners at Abu Graib, Guantanamo Bay and “black site” secret prisons around the world, denying “detainees” even the most basic right of Habeas Corpus. We who advocate peace and justice say that such heinous practices as water boarding and unlawful restraint are immoral, violates the U.S. Constitution and International Law, increases the risk that our troops will be ill-treated and tortured should they be captured, and that those who ordered, endorsed, sanctioned, or supported such methods of torture are hypocrites, deviants, and war criminals . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They refused to meet with and comfort the families of our soldiers wounded or killed in battle, denigrate their memory, sacrifice, and dignity by fabricating heroic fantasies of their death and suffering to increase recruitment and bolster support for their senseless war. We who advocate peace and justice say that exploiting the deaths of our soldiers and the grief and suffering of their families in order to mythologize war and lure other young men and women to slaughter is unconscionable and depraved . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They have and continue to award no-bid contracts to favored corporations for personal and political benefit. Contractors who kill without mercy or accountability, whose greed for profit influences decisions of foreign policy, promotes war, and prolongs quagmire. We who advocate peace and justice say that we must heed President Eisenhower’s warning to beware of the military industrial complex, that such corporate cronyism, war profiteering, and political corruption, is criminal, fiscally unsound, and not in our national interest . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They sell America to foreign investors, waste billions of taxpayer dollars on an ever increasing military budget to wage illegal war and occupation and to furnish the weapons of genocide and oppression to dictators and rogue nations around the world. We who advocate peace and justice say that America must end its preoccupation with militarism and war, use its wealth and influence to protect life and property rather than to kill and to destroy, and become a sane and compassionate voice for peaceful coexistence in the world . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They continue to give tax breaks to the wealthy and tax incentives to the oil industry despite record profits. They bail out corrupt Wall Street bankers but remain apathetic to Main Street workers who lose their jobs and their homes. They “compromised” away meaningful healthcare reform and see fiscal responsibility as cutting social programs such as aid to education, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We who advocate peace and justice say that benefiting the affluent at the expense of the poor and the middle class is inhumane, short sighted, a violation of trust, and of basic human decency. . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

On “National Holidays” such as Memorial Day and the Fourth of July, they parade, stage air shows, weapons displays, and celebrate the technology of death and destruction to commercialize patriotism and to glorify war and the military experience. We who advocate peace and justice say that these national holidays are not for celebration, commercial marketing, or deceptive recruitment practices. Rather they are for remembering and for grieving the loss of ALL who were sacrificed to the tragedy and insanity of war . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They refuse to “look back” and to investigate the crimes of those who violated the law and the trust of the American people by choosing war unnecessarily; crimes against humanity that cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of human lives. We who advocate peace and justice say that we are a nation of laws to which all are subject equally, that such crimes must be investigated and the guilty held accountable for their transgressions. Prosecute the war criminals! . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They sat idly by as the city of New Orleans and thousands of its inhabitants died; ignore global warming, choosing rhetoric rather than effective action while the gas and petroleum industry continues to profit from polluting the planet and destroying its fragile ecosystem. We who advocate peace and justice say that this indifference to human pain and suffering and failure to defend the planet and its diverse species against ecoterrorism is unconscionable, inexcusable, and ultimately suicidal . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.

They spout the meaningless rhetoric of shallow patriotism, arrogantly waving the flag of “freedom” or pasting it to the bumper of their gas guzzling humvees, and think it belongs solely to those who unquestioningly beat the drums of war, from a safe distance of course, while their leaders sacrifice lives and treasure and violate the laws of god and of humankind in mistaken wars of choice and greed. We who advocate peace say that all war is anathema and unnecessary war sacrilege and those leaders who dare unleash its horror upon humankind are criminals and those who blindly follow are sheep who fail to understand the moral and legal obligations of their religion, of humanism, and of citizenship in a democracy . . . and they say we are unpatriotic, treasonous, and unsupportive of the troops.
END

Longer BIO: Camillo “Mac” Bica, Ph.D
Mac is the Chapter Coordinator and a professor of philosophy at the School of Visual Arts in New York City. His primary area of specialization is in social and political philosophy and ethics, specifically in the relation of war and morality. While recovering from his experiences as a United States Marine Corps Officer during the Vietnam War, he founded, and for five years coordinated, the Veteran Self Help Initiative, AKA the HOOTCH Program (a therapeutic community of war veterans suffering withPost Traumatic Stress Disorder), at the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Brooklyn. Dr. Bica has presented numerous papers dealing with such topics as Just War Theory, the effects of war on the participants, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, ethics and war, and political and social responsibility..Dr. Bica’s forthcoming book "There are No Flowers in a War Zone" is scheduled for release in the Fall of 2010.

Contact Camillo and see his VFP fellows and gals' good work/VeteransForPeace site:
Veterans for Peace Long Island New York VFPLI Speaker's Bureau for 'Mac' and others in the VFP Speakers Bureau site based in LI NY here

Articles by Camillo "Mac" Bica, Ph.D. VFPLI Poets & Writers. **NEW BRINSON POEM. here

find original source for the above litany:
t r u t h o u t | Camillo Mac Bica | We Who Advocate Peace
Jul 11, 2010 ... Camillo “Mac” Bica, Ph.D., is a professor of philosophy at the School of Visual Arts in New York City. He is a former Marine Corps Officer, ...
here

Also connected or by the author:

here Note here the interesting list of links on the Right Column

ZCommunications | Collateral Damage: A Military Euphemism for ...
here

FIRST US Town Council Resolution to end War Funding

See WarIsACrime dot org or search afterdowningstreet dot org or David Swanson

Here is the model used by Deer Maine (You can use it too and remember that public education is more important even than passing the resolution because otherwise, who really changes because of a piece of paper? Connie)

Please use the draft Town Meeting warrant (or resolution) to take to your local community so this discussion about war spending can spread deeply throughout the state. You will need to check with your town clerk as soon as possible to find out the process by which a warrant or resolution can be considered at your Town Meeting or Town Council. Please be sure to let us know what you plan to do. Good luck.

Town of (or City) _____________, Maine

Town Council Resolution

A Resolution of the Town of _____________, Maine to end the expenditure of our citizens' tax dollars for excessive and unaffordable warfare funding by the U.S. Congress.

Whereas,

1. the financial resources available for use by governments at the local, county, state and federal levels in the United States are and must be limited, and
2. an inordinate level of military expenditure is being made by the U.S. federal government for warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and
3. the people of _____________, Maine are collectively paying or becoming indebted for approximately X million dollars per year of their limited financial resources for such warfare which supplies no identified public benefits, and
4. this warfare creates great and unnecessary harm to the people of the nations of Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and to U.S. military personnel and their families, and
5. education services, infrastructure repairs, other essential public services, and family and private-sector financing in _____________ and throughout the State of Maine have been substantially reduced in order for an excessive portion of available financial resources to be diverted from the constructive economy to unnecessary warfare,

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Town (or City) of _____________, Maine commands Maine's member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the (first or second) Maine Congressional District to oppose all legislation brought before the U.S. House of Representatives that provides further funding of the U.S. warfare and U.S. military occupation in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the Town (or City) of _____________, Maine also demands that this member of Congress take strong and forceful action to influence the full U.S. House of Representatives to terminate funding of these military operations.

Federal judge orders Guantánamo detainee freed

A detainee walks past a row of drying laundry at Camp Delta in the Guantanamo Bay detention center on March 29, 2010 in this image approved for release by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
JOHN MOORE / GETTY

The Miami Herald
Posted originally on Thu, Jul. 08, 2010

BY CAROL ROSENBERG
crosenberg@MiamiHerald.com

A federal judge has ordered the release of another Yemeni captive at Guantánamo, the 37th time a war on terror captive in southeast Cuba has won his unlawful detention suit against the U.S. government.

Judge Paul Friedman's order in the case of Hussein Almerfedi at the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., instructs the Obama administration to ``take all necessary and appropriate steps to facilitate the release of petitioner forthwith.''

His reasoning on why the U.S. had unlawfully detained Almerfedi, 33, held at Guantánamo since May 2003, was still under seal.

But as far back as 2005, Almerfedi had argued before a military panel at the Navy base in southeast Cuba that he fled his native Aden, Yemen, with plans to settle in Europe, not to join a jihad. Instead, he said, his journey took him to Pakistan and then Tehran where Iranian forces turned him over to Afghan forces, who in turn handed over to the United States.

Justice Department attorneys argued that Almerfedi was a former Aden-based salesman of the narcotics plant called Qat who came to support al Qaeda ``and is thus an enemy of the United States.''

A chunk of the case file is censored in federal court but government lawyers also argued that, while in Afghanistan, he stayed at al Qaeda safehouses.

The U.S. also said that Almerfedi was subjected to a lie detector test and was found to be deceptive. Almerfedi told a military panel at Guantánamo in 2005 that he was polygraphed in Bagram, Afghanistan, on the eve of his transfer to Cuba.

The U.S. government has so far successfully defended 14 detentions among the 181 people now held at Guantánamo, although an appeals court has found a flaw in one of the 14 rulings and ordered a new review in the case of Algerian captive Belkacem Bensayah.

In contrast, civilian judges have so far ruled for the release of 37 so-called ``enemy combatants'' -- ordering them repatriated or resettled safely elsewhere if the stigma of Guantánamo detention would endanger them in their homelands.

About half of the 181 detainees at Guantánamo today are citizens of Yemen, Osama bin Laden's ancestral homeland. A total of 15 Yemenis so far have had their habeas corpus petitions heard. Eight detentions have been upheld and seven have been ruled unlawful.

Attorneys at the firm that handled Almerfedi's case, Covington and Burling in Washington D.C., declined comment on Thursday. Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said attorneys would review the decision to decide whether to appeal.

Thursday's ruling was the first by Friedman in a courthouse where more than 100 Guantánamo habeas corpus petitions have been divided up among the judges.

© 2010 Miami Herald Media Company. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.miamiherald.com

Read more here

Friends Committee on National Legislation - A Quaker Lobby in the Public Interest

WELCOME TO FCNL'S GREATER MIDDLE EAST DIPLOMACY UPDATE FOR JULY 9, 2010

"To put it simply, all key issues in the Middle East… are inextricably linked." Iraq Study Group, December 2006

Afghanistan: House Vote Shows Growing Support for Responsible Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Just before adjourning for the Fourth of July recess, 162 members of the House of Representatives took a step toward ending the war in Afghanistan by voting to require the administration to prepare an exit strategy, including a timetable to bring U.S. troops home. here

Although the amendment to the $33 billion war supplemental funding bill failed by a vote of 162 to 260, the vote was a clear signal of increasing opposition to the war. A year ago, 138 members of the House voted for a less stringent measure. Last week's vote represented an 18% increase in those calling for a responsible withdrawal from Afghanistan. Those voting in favor included 60% of House Democrats and, for the first time, key Democratic leaders including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Appropriations Committee Chair David Obey. The exit strategy also drew support from 9 Republicans, 2 more than voted for the similar measure a year ago. (Read FCNL program assistant Kim MacVaugh's analysis of the House vote.) here

See how your representative voted and either thank them for taking a stand against the war or express your disappointment. here

Iran: Obama Signs Iran Sanctions Bill; FCNL Urges End to Covert Ops against Iran to Revive Diplomacy

President Obama signed H.R. 2194, the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, into law on July 1, adding to the UN sanctions against Iran passed in June and to unilateral measures taken under executive authority by the U.S. and some European countries in recent weeks.

Although the president said when signing H.R. 2194 that "The door to diplomacy remains open," we at FCNL believe that the multiple new sanctions will rule out any chance of successful diplomatic engagement unless the United States sends a strong signal that it is serious about negotiations.

FCNL wrote to the president this week urging him to send such a signal by suspending continuing U.S. covert operations against Iran. here
A September 2009 order by then CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus leaked to the New York Times in May makes clear that the Obama administration is continuing at least some of the covert operations intended to undermine the Iranian regime authorized by the Bush administration. here Suspending these operations in a way that Iran cannot fail to notice is, in FCNL's view, essential to reviving diplomatic efforts, which are far more likely to win Iranian concessions on its nuclear program and to help the Iranian reform movement than more sanctions.

FCNL's letter also urged the president to publicly invite Brazil and Turkey to resume the mediation that earlier won Iranian agreement to a nuclear fuel swap deal..

Friends Committee on National Legislation | 245 2nd Street NE Washington, DC 20002 | www.fcnl.org | 800-630-1330