Court Releases Slahi Decision
Last month, we talked about Judge James Robertson’s decision that Mohamedou Slahi should be released. Robertson’s order has now been released. I’ll have comments as I read it. But the short version is that the Government abandoned its attempt to prove (first) that Slahi had knowledge of 9/11 before it happened, and (second) that any material support he had offered al Qaeda had effectively ended by the time they picked him up.
I’ll have more as I read this, but just as a reminder, this is the guy for whom Donald Rumsfeld developed a special interrogation plan including death threats.
(And in related news, Jason Leopold got a hold of the Lawrence Wilkerson declaration regarding innocent people at Gitmo.)
something seems odd about the first paragraph.
I think EW need to remove the “no” in:
Ew. Right you are. Thanks OATL and Mary.
Well- there’s Robertson, giving Obama a bit of a lesson in why you should make criminal charges rather than rely upon “war” tactics. Interesting decision.
Basically he tutors them some as to why the standard of being a “part of or supporting” forces hostile to and engaged in armed conflict with the US – for purposes of a forever detention as a forever pow in the GWOT is basically a higher standard than the conspiracy and act in furtherance etc. standards if someone were being tried under criminal statutes. Also that the criminal law requirements for withdrawal from a conspiracy don’t apply when the gov has the burden of showing active support of hostile forces engaged in armed conflict.
It’s a very interesting way to go and I’m glad he smacked someone with it, even if parts don’t hold up in the D C Political Circu(s)it.
Do not ever try to explain that one.
Hey Marcy, do you see any parallels in this decision on Slahi with some of the statements the govt has made regarding Zubaydah’s habeas case?
Or anyone else who has been following? I see some similarities but would love to see what others think
Oh, absolutely. WHich is the risk for the govt. THey don’t want to have to admit Slahi was a giant mistake. But they definitely don’t want to admit that Zubaydah was a colossal mistake.
But if material support gets challenged, they’re screwed. More importantly, if you can’t hold someone for support not directed at the US, they’re relying on the planned IED attacks against the US attack on Afghanistan as their basis to hold AZ.
Thanks for that insight. I just finished reading the decision and then read the govt’s AZ motion again. So many similarities. In terms of the appeal, do you think the govt will just reiterate the same arguments about why he should continue to be detained?
Heh, well generally consistency is their middle name (not necessarily a good consistency you understand….).
ha! So true. What a crazy day yesterday was on the legal front
One of Hamdan’s attorneys, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, was on Countdown on Friday, and he and Keith were talking about the Salahi (spelled that way on the court papers) ruling:
video link (at around 4:30 of about 6:30 minutes)
This is very interesting and apalling -innocent people taken and tortured in our name-for indefinire periods of time
. What would the wingnuts – much less ordainary US citizens be saying or doing if some other foreign power was doing this to our citizens ?
But we need to look forward not backwards…
Andy Worthington has a related article up:
Guantánamo and Habeas Corpus: The Torture Victim and the Taliban Recruit; 10.4.10
And powwow has one here:
And powwow has one with a different focus, here:
Oy! Well that didn’t work out too well. :-/