Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Famed Gitmo Lawyer Facing Time in Prison For Writing Letter to Obama Detailing Torture of Client

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 12:39 PM
Original message
Famed Gitmo Lawyer Facing Time in Prison For Writing Letter to Obama Detailing Torture of Client
Edited on Sun Apr-05-09 01:27 PM by FourScore
Famed Gitmo Lawyer Facing Six Months in Prison For Writing Letter to Obama Detailing Torture of Client
Posted April 2, 2009.

Clive Stafford Smith is accused of 'unprofessional conduct' by Pentagon officials who monitor communication between Gitmo prisoners and their lawyers.

Lawyers for Binyam Mohamed face the incredible prospect of a six-month jail sentence in America after writing a letter to President Obama detailing their client's allegations of torture by U.S. agents.

The privilege review team -- officials from the U.S. Department of Defense who monitor and censor communication between Guantánamo prisoners and their lawyers -- have previously been accused of using their powers to suppress evidence of the abuse and mistreatment of detainees.

Clive Stafford Smith, director of legal charity Reprieve, and his colleague Ahmed Ghappour have been summoned to appear before a Washington court on May 11 after a complaint was made by the privilege review team.

Stafford Smith had written to the president after judges in the UK ruled against the release of U.S. evidence detailing Mohamed's alleged torture at Guantánamo. The letter asked the president to reconsider the U.S. position and urged him to release the evidence into the public domain. He attached a memo summarizing the case because his US security clearance gives him access to the classified material. In order to comply with classification guidelines, the memo did not identify individual officers by name or specify locations of the abuse.

He and Gappour submitted the memo to the privilege team for clearance but the memo was redacted to just the title, leaving the president unable to read it. Stafford Smith included the redacted copy of the memo in his letter to illustrate the extent to which it had been censored. He described it as a "bizarre reality." "You, as commander in chief, are being denied access to material that would help prove that crimes have been committed by U.S. personnel. This decision is being made by the very people who you command."

The privilege team argue that by releasing the redacted memo Reprieve has breached the rules that govern Guantánamo lawyers and have made a complaint to the court of "unprofessional conduct".

Stafford Smith described their actions as intimidation, saying the complaint "doesn't even specify the rule supposedly breached."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/134847/famed_gitmo_lawyer_facing_six_months_in_prison_for_writing_letter_to_obama_detailing_torture_of_client/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dixiegrrrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Guess this shows who the Pentagon really works for, doesn't it?
I hope Pres. Obama understands this as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Ain't that the truth. And Obama needs to not put up with it. ASAP, for his own safety as well as
for Stafford Smith and Gappour. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tomm2thumbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 05:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. Oh, I don't know - I think the letter speaks for itself...
No doubt all those 'and' & 'the' references were giving away the secrets of America

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #1
26. What? If anything it seems to me to show just the opposite. If they don't work for the President .
Then you have to ask just who it is they do work for. Maybe you can shed some light on the question. Who is it that you suppose is driving that bus? Who is it and what is their goal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
2. This shit needs to stop, right now. Since when does the government
get to breach attorney-client privilege??

I thought this was the United States of America...not some banana republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConcernedCanuk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
16. Since when does the government get to breach attorney-client privilege??
.
.
.

OH

just about forever it seems . . .

(sigh)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ezdidit Donating Member (55 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #16
23. there are no "rules"
Edited on Mon Apr-06-09 09:35 AM by ezdidit
There are only policies - secret, repressive, anti-Democratic policies - and Mr. Stafford-Smith knows that lawyers don't make policy.

Imagine the chaos if military lawyers were compelled to do their jobs out of conscience instead of deceit...or out of adherence to the UCMJ?

Bush intentionally screwed the pooch on detainee prosecutions, and it will remain for foreign national courts to sort out the conundra - or Congress could repeal the Military Commissions Act and amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice like they were supposed to do.

Oh, but that UCMJ debate opens up a can of 'don't ask, don't tell' amendments, so we can't have that in polite society or on CSPAN. The Amurrican people aren't ready for that yet.

(psssst, Senator Reid: yes we are, even if the whole damn state of Nevada isn't. Maybe it's just time for YOU to go....)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. So that's the action taken for the letter that was heavily censored
They're going after Stafford Smith

Fuckers

K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
14. This is intimidation, pure and simple. And bet me whoever is pushing this
is Cheney's mole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. It will be telling to see how this plays out
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
4. Hopefully Obama will become involved in this and correct this travesty
If not, then he has become part of the problem. A leader needs to lead, not hide behind protocol and chain of command.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TroglodyteScholar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
17. How can Obama hide behind chain of command?
He is the TOP of the chain, and he needs to behave that way in this matter....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
imdjh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #17
22. Controlling access to the President is part of what the President does
It doesn't matter which party it is. It isn't what he knows or doesn't know, it's what others can prove he has seen or been told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R
There are going to be so many laws and Executive Orders that have led to this mess that we are in now that it is unlikely that any President will be able (or in some circumstances willing) to overturn them.

I remain convinced that there needs to be a full Bush Blair War crimes tribunal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressIn2008 Donating Member (848 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
6. I don't know how many more excuses can be made, at this point. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBigotBasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. There is 8 years worth of
authoritarian legislation and practice to overturn. As well as orders given much lower down the food chain than the President and VP but done in their name.

This is a mighty big ship to turn around and doing so will not be easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
7. Some DU backthreads...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
9. It's not exactly like Obama doesn't have security clearance! This is bullshit and must stop. rec'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
williesgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
10. deleted dup message
Edited on Sun Apr-05-09 01:31 PM by williesgirl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
11. and when the ABA is put on the spot, who do you think they will support??
My guess....Bybee, Yoo, Gonzalez et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jim Lane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. The ABA has frequently opposed Bush administration depredations
Edited on Sun Apr-05-09 10:44 PM by Jim Lane
The American Bar Association represents the legal establishment, but has often been on the side of the lawyers who were fighting to uphold Constitutional rights against Bybee, Yoo, Gonzales, etc.

Here's just one example I happened to find in a quick Google search (there are others). The ABA filed in opposition to one of the Bush administration's attempts to defy the habeas corpus rule in a case related to the Iraq War. The ABA wrote:

The government argues that its actions are immune
from judicial review because it is operating as part of a
“multinational force.” The ABA respectfully asserts that
this argument is inconsistent with this Court’s ruling in
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that United States citizens have habeas
rights even when they are captured abroad and designated
“enemy combatants.” See 542 U.S. 507, 533 (2004)
(plurality opinion). Operation as part of a multinational
force should not be permitted to defeat the United States
government’s responsibilities to its citizens. Unreviewable
military action is not consistent with American legal principles.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
12. he deserves a medal
instead he's looking at jail? very fucked up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
19. Good man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-05-09 10:51 PM
Response to Original message
20. Wait, the privilege team redacted the memo . . .
I thought the purpose of redacting was so that nothing "classified" got out. If the title of the memo made it past the privilege team, then it can become a matter of public record, no? This just boggles the mind. I have just frickin' had it with this Pentagon bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hubert Flottz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
24. As long as Gates and other members of the Rummy/Bush
team are in a position to commit crimes the shit will never stop.

The Obama team is in denial. They still don't understand that we were a dictatorship in everything but name, for the past eight years. If they do get it then they are part of it too.

Obama thinks he still needs to spy on us, so until that changes, there is no real "CHANGE"

The only changes I'm seeing is that team Obama is calling the same shit Bush was doing by new names to try and fool people.

Clive Stafford Smith is just another victim of the stupid idea that you can trust republicans not to act like republicans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. And doesn't Clive still have other active cases at Gitmo? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
25. Holy shit, this is a terrible indicator of what is ahead, they must be sweating
profusely to have attempted this, unbelievable. Somebody pinch me, are we still living in the USA?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Apr-06-09 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
27. Thanks for posting - nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 04:11 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC