Posts

We Convicted a Guy the Bush Administration Tortured

More like this please:

“So, we tried a guy (who the Bush Admin tortured and then held at GTMO for 4-plus years with no end game whatsoever) in a federal court before a NY jury with full transparency and international legitimacy and — despite all of the legacy problems of the case (i.e., evidence getting thrown out because of Bush-Admin torture, etc,) we were STILL able to convict him and INCAPACITATE him for essentially the rest of his natural life, AND there was not one — not one — security problem associated with the trial.”

“Would it have been better optically if he had been convicted of more counts? Sure. Would it have made any practical difference? No.”

If every time the fearmongers rolled out their dog and pony show, the Obama Administration would go on the attack and focus on how stupid and inhumane Bush Administration policy was, then maybe it would open up enough space to actually move beyond those stupid policies.

Of course, the whole thing would be a lot more effective if this anonymous Senior Administration Official had the courage to say all this on the record, under his own name. But–assuming this is one of the people close to DOJ who, if they acknowledged that Ghailani was tortured, would be obliged to prosecute the torturers–that would also mean the Obama Admin would start prosecuting the Bushies for their inhumane treatment. I’m all in favor of that, but that would entail looking backward, and we know that’s not going to happen.

Which is probably why this is will be the last powerful response we hear like this.

Ahmed Ghailani Guilty of Conspiracy, But Not Murder

The jury in Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani’s trial for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings has found him guilty of conspiracy, but not the charges of terrorism he was accused of. With the one count, however, he may still face a life sentence.

It appears likely that just one juror voted against the other charges against Ghailani. Earlier in the week, a juror wrote the judge that she was being attacked by other jurors, asking to be dismissed because her views on the charges would not change. Then, earlier today, the jurors asked the judge to explain the conspiracy charge that Ghailani was ultimately convicted of. So it appears that juror did ultimately vote for the conspiracy charge.

There will be a lot of incredulity about the fact that Ghailani was not found guilty of the other charges. In particular, people will suggest that had Hussein Abebe been permitted to testify that he had sold the explosive to Ghailani used in the attack, then he would have been found guilty on all charges.

But aside from second-guessing the trial result, there’s a problem with that: Judge Lewis Kaplan strongly suggested that he refused to let Abebe testify not just because prosecutors wouldn’t have found him if it weren’t for the torture-induced confession of Ghailani, but also because Abebe himself was coerced to give the testimony he did. Which means we couldn’t know whether his testimony had been shaded to reflect what those coercing him to testify wanted him to say.

All of which debate of course distracts from the larger point: yet another terrorist–a big one, if you believe the government–has been convicted in a civilian trial.

Who Arrested and Interrogated Hussein Abebe?

Mary and I both noted the suggestion in Judge Lewis Kaplan’s summary opinion refusing to let Hussein Abebe testify against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani that Abebe himself was coerced to testify.

Kaplan’s complete ruling provides more details. At the very least, Kaplan’s opinion points to an entire day of Abebe’s  interrogation–the day on which he first confessed to having provided Ghailani the explosives for the embassy bombing–about which the government is withholding evidence. The unredacted portions of the ruling note that this means the people interrogating Abebe may well have used details from Ghailani’s own interrogation to convince Abebe to confess, which would exacerbate the poisoned fruit aspect of Abebe’s confession. And while Kaplan doesn’t say it in any of the unredacted portions, there is also the possibility that Abebe himself was abused on that day of his interrogation.

But just as interesting is the question of who conducted that interrogation. While the government and the Tanzanian national police claim members of the TNP were present, Kaplan found the TNP weren’t in charge the interrogation. So what entity was conducting this potentially coercive interrogation?

Abebe confessed to selling Ghailani explosives in a vaguely-described August 2006 interrogation

Let’s start with the chronology.

Late July or early August 2006: Abebe receives call from “Mr. Mazoa” instructing him to meet with some unnamed people in Dar es Salaam on the 13th.

August 12: Valentine Mlowola, then Senior Superintendent of the TNP, first briefed about impending Abebe arrest.

August 13: Two men (whose names and affiliations are redacted) get into Abebe’s taxi in Arusha and direct him to the police station. They meet Mlowola there, and apparently all four take a cab to Kilamanjaro Airport and then fly to Zanzibar and from there drive to a location which Abebe described as looking like a hotel.

August 14: Abebe meets a Sadek Majid, whom Abebe knows from Arusha. Tanzanians interrogate him with no Americans present; he does not confess to having sold Ghailani the explosives on that first day.

August 15: Tanzanians interrogate him, again with no Americans present. He confesses to selling Ghailani the explosives.

August 16: Four FBI agents arrive. They Mirandize Abebe, then conduct three interrogation sessions, during which he presumably repeats his description of selling Ghailani the explosives.

August 17: The FBI agents conduct one more interrogation session, then leave.

August 19: Tanzanians fly Abebe to Dar es Salaam and hold him in jail for four additional days.

August 24: Tanzanians release Abebe on a bond accusing him of conspiring to murder and terrorist acts.

Now, much of the narrative describing this chronology–including all but a few sentences describing Abebe’s interrogation by Tanzanians–is redacted. But several things are clear.

The Tanzanian Police did not have the lead on Abebe’s interrogation

First, while the TNP were involved in Abebe’s arrest, they were really only brought in as an afterthought. Kaplan writes:

Mlowola was drawn in only on August 12, primarily because it was thought helpful to have the TNP involved in making the arrest.

Since the TNP were only brought in on August 12, we can be sure that the man who called Abebe two weeks earlier and introduced himself as “Mr. Mazoa” was honest when he indicated that he no longer worked with the TNP.

In late July or early August, roughly two weeks before his arrest, Abebe received a phone call from a man who identified himself as Mr. Mazoa. Mazoa told him that Abebe did no know him, but that he was a well-known person who used to work at the police station in Arusha.

He then instructed Abebe to travel to Dar es Salaam because “there are some people who would like to talk to you [there] on the 13th.” When Abebe asked who wanted to speak with him in Dar es Salaam, Mazoa said, “you’ll know them when you come.” Abebe responded taht he could not afford to travel to Arusha, at which point Mazoa suggested that he take out a loan to pay the travel costs and that Abebe later would be reimbursed.

So someone, no longer employed by the TNP, calls Abebe and tells him to take a loan out to travel to Dar es Salaam. When he doesn’t do that, on the 13th two guys get in his cab, take him to the police station (which appears to be the first time when the TNP get involved) and from there fly him to an interrogation location.

TNP officers were present at the interrogation

Though at least one TNP officer was present for at least part of the interrogation: Mlowola. Kaplan notes that Abebe and Mlowola’s testimony conflicts on this point.

According to Mlowola, he was the lead questioner and there was only one interrogation session involving Tanzanians alone. Abebe, on the other hand, said he was questioned by the Tanzanians alone for two full days and that Mlowola was not present during either of those sessions.

Kaplan resolves this conflict this way:

Having considered all the evidence, the Court finds that Abebe was interrogated by the Tanzanians alone through August 14 and 15, [redacted] that Mlowola was present for at least part of it, and that the testimony of both Mlowola and Abebe as to Mlowola’s role and presence was inaccurate in material respects. Abebe was wrong in saying that Mlowola was not there at all and falsely described Abebe’s own state of mind and motives. Mlowola was mistaken concerning his role in the questioning and the number of sessions.

Kaplan also repeatedly refers to notes taken by a TNP officer (as I’ll discuss further below). That would imply that at least one more member of the TNP, in addition to Mlowola, was present. Yet since the government did not submit those notes as evidence (or have that officer testify), that may not be reliable.

No Americans were “present” at the key interrogation

As I said above, Kaplan’s unredacted narrative states that no Americans were present for the first two days of Abebe’s interrogation, though he footnotes that statement and the footnote (which appears to be two lines long) is entirely redacted. Later, Kaplan notes,

Whether by design or otherwise, there were no Americans whose presence could be compelled by an American court in the room.

I find that entire construction fascinating. Is Kaplan qualifying “Americans” with “whose presence could be compelled” to suggest there were Americans there whose presence couldn’t be compelled (such as CIA officers)? Or is he distinguishing between Americans “in the room” and Americans who might be observing but not present? If so, all of that is left unsaid. This sentence is followed by a redacted sentence, so Kaplan may have said more about this that got redacted.

In any case, the FBI remarkably swoops in on the day after Abebe confesses, and proceeds to get a Mirandized version of Abebe’s earlier confession. As if they had been waiting just outside the door for the moment when he confessed so as to get a version that would be admissible in a US court.

Read more

Judge Kaplan: Government Couldn’t Use Abebe as Witness in Military Commission, Either

I’m going to have a longer post about some curious details revealed in Judge Lewis Kaplan’s order refusing the government request to have Hussein Abebe testify against Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani. But I wanted to point to a footnote in which Kaplan anticipated the critics now claiming that if Ghailani had been tried in a military commission, the government could have called Abebe as a witness (thanks to twolf for help with this file).

It is very far from clear that Abebe’s testimony would be admissible if Ghailani were being tried by military commission, even without regard to the question whether the Fifth Amendment would invalidate any more forgiving provisions of the rules of evidence otherwise applicable in such a proceeding.

Military commissions are governed by the Military Commissions Act, 10 USC 948a et seq. (the “MCA”). Evidence in such proceedings is governed by the Military Commission Rules of Evidence (“MCRE”). U.S. DEP’T OF DEFENSE, MANUAL FOR MILITARY COMMISSIONS (2010 ed.).

MCA 948r(a) and MCRE 304 preclude or restrict the use of “statements obtained by torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment,” and evidence derived threrefrom, and could require exclusion of Abebe’s testimony. Even if they did not, the Constitution might do so, even in a military commission proceeding.

Those crazy Article III judges pointing to inconveniences like the Constitution again!