Gov’t Appeals Stop of Guantanamo Gential Searches

Thursday, in response to the May 22nd emergency motion requesting an end to the newly instituted groin searches, Federal District Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth ordered the government to stop genital searches of Guantanamo Bay detainees prior to meeting with their lawyers. In his strongly-worded 35 page opinion, Judge Lamberth ordered prison commanders to return to an earlier search method described in a 2009 Defense Department task force review, which limited guards to grasping the waistband of a detainee’s trousers and shaking their pants to dislodge any contraband. The current search method at Guantanamo, referred to as an exaggerated response to unpersuasive security concerns, involves the touching and holding of detainees’ genital and anal areas “flagrant[ly] disregard[ing] the need for a light touch on religious and cultural matters” and dissuades detainees from gaining access to their lawyers.  The order stated in part that:

“… the choice between submitting to a search procedure that is religiously and culturally abhorrent or forgoing counsel effectively presents no choice for devout Muslims like petitioners.”

While the government made justifications for the invasive searches at Guantanamo, i.e.the finding of homemade weapons and prohibited electronic devices in April, Judge Lamberth felt that the record failed to indicate “that the detainees have received any contraband from their attorney or that detainees have attempted to pass contraband to each other during phone calls or meetings with attorneys.”

Responding quickly to the order, the Justice Department filed an appeal late last night. The Justice Department has requested a hold to be placed on the stopping of genital searches, stating that Guantanamo detainees are able to gain access to weaponizable items which may result in suicide, harm to other detainees, or the guards becoming seriously injured. In addition to the appeal, the government submitted a sworn declaration from Marine General John Kelly, commander of United States Southern Command, who spoke strongly of the irreparable harm that would result with the discontinuance of genital searches at Guantanamo. The government claims that the newly implemented search methods have not deterred meetings nor have they impacted access to the prisoners. Furthermore, the government states Judge Lamberth’s order is barred by the Military Commissions Act, which “unequivocally bars conditions-of-confinement claims by Guantanamo detainees.”

“Because the full-frisk-search and visit-location policies with which Petitioners take issue both concern their conditions of confinement, the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue an order enjoining them.”

The appeal has resulted in great tension.  Guantanamo leadership is maintaining protocol, requiring their “standard” genital searches before and after visits with attorneys or phone calls, while lawyers have filed a motion asking Judge Lamberth to issue an order requiring the government to follow his ruling, arguing that the government is acting in contempt of court. In the upcoming weeks, it will be interesting to see whether the appeal moves forward, or if for the first time, a federal court can restrict a military commander from implementing certain security procedures at a detention facility.

Alexandra Kutner, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research

 

 

This Message is UNCLASSIFIED: FISA Explained

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was created by Congress in
1978 to review applications for warrants related to national security
investigations.  According to the Federal Judicial Center website, initially the court
was created in part as a response to allegations that the executive
branch was abusing its authority in conducting domestic electronic
surveillance in the interest of national security. (Sounds familiar,
doesn’t it?) Presumably the goals of the court have been to preserve
an air of fairness in relation to what are otherwise sensitive issues of
national security dominated by the executive branch.

But, it’s fairly disconcerting to have a court creating a body of law
that is essentially kept a secret from the public. So in February,
Senator Diane Feinstein sent a letter to presiding judge of FISA,
requesting that “important rulings of law” be declassified by FISA
to inform the public about FISA.

In 2010, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the
Department of Justice established a process to declassify opinions that
are “assessed to contain a significant interpretation of law,” but the
policy never really took hold. The court’s presiding judge Reggie
Walton, wrote in response to Feinstein’s letter that, “While
classification determinations are made by the Executive Branch in the
first instance, the facts presented in applications to [FISA] always
or almost always involve classified intelligence activities, the
disclosure of which could be harmful to the nation’s security.”

So it seems that while FISA was originally formed as a response to
the Executive branch’s abuse of authority, it really just serves as a
mechanism by which that same branch can maintain an authoritative
stranglehold on national security practices through the language of
“classification.” As a result, the power of FISA is as great as the
executive branch’s power to classify, which is always growing.

Perhaps there are highly sensitive issues that FISA is protecting,
but a judicial policy to protect information “classified” by the
government is especially problematic when the government is known to
over-classify. The real question is, are the the “classified intelligence activities” that
Reggie Walton claims FISA’s secrecy protects truly of a sensitive
and detrimental nature to our nation’s security, or just more instances of the
government classifying information to protect itself from public scrutiny?

Alison Frimmel, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research

Judge Claims No Jurisdiction Over Force-Feeding at Guantanamo

Yesterday, multiple news outlets reported that despite efforts by defense attorneys for Guantanamo Bay detainees, federal courts do not have the power to stop Guantanamo personnel from force-feeding the detainees.  U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler handed down a quick decision stating that federal courts simply do not have the jurisdiction or authority to order the military to stop using force-feeding tactics in response to hunger strikes implemented by detainees to protest their detention status at Gitmo.

The decision was handed down quickly in part because the court and attorneys on both sides wanted an answer before the beginning of Ramadan, the traditional Muslim holy month that requires Muslims to fast during daylight hours.  One of the main concerns was that force-feeding detainees during fasting hours would violate this core tenant of the Islamic religion.  As I noted when I first wrote about this lawsuit, in the past the military has agreed not to force-feed detainees during these hours so that detainees could observe their holy month.  In fact, in the response to the suit filed by the pentagon, the government stated that barring any emergency situations, they would agree to only force-feed detainees after sunset.  So even though we’re going to keep shoving tubes into detainees’ (that we have already admitted are not being charged with crimes) orifices while they are strapped down to chairs, we’re at least going to let them maintain the last shred of religious dignity they might have left.  Take from that what you will.

The basis for the lawsuit was not just religious.  Detainees and human rights advocates have long claimed that force-feeding is akin to torture, especially when implemented on detainees who are of sound mind and have made conscious decisions to partake in the hunger strikes.  The legal brief submitted by defense attorneys called the process “dishonorable” and “degrading.”

Although Judge Kessler admitted that the courts could not rule on the issue, she made her personal opinion known in her decision by echoing many of the above concerns, calling the force-feeding process “painful” and “degrading.”  She not-so-subtly called on the Obama administration to take action where the courts could not and shut down force-feeding itself.  Judge Kessler singled out President Obama for a speech given back on May 23rd, which some of you may recall:

“Look at the current situation, where we are force-feeding detainees who are holding a hunger strike.  Is that who we are?  Is that something that our founders foresaw?  Is that the America we want to leave to our children?  Our sense of justice is stronger than that.”

This coming from the same president that promised to close down Guantanamo Bay when he was first elected, and yet here we are.  I understand that it’s not that simple and that there’s a lot of politics behind the decision to keep it open.  There are a lot of politicians (and members of the public) who want to keep Guantanamo open and it’s not exactly President Obama’s unilateral decision to make.  But his administration has a chance to make a statement here and restore some level of civility to a system that’s drawn an awful lot of criticism for alleged human rights violations in recent years.  Shutting down force-feeding isn’t going to erase those incidents, but it could go a long way toward easing the tension surrounding Guantanamo Bay, at least in the short-term.  Most importantly, it would show the world that we DO respect human rights.  And as of late the world has plenty of reasons to question whether we actually do.

Sidenote – My blogging compatriots have gone into detail on what exactly the force-feeding process entails, and you can read about it here.  Seeing it in print is disturbing enough, but if you still want a better picture of the process, you’re in luck.  Over the weekend, Yasiin Bey, better known as hip-hop artist Mos Def, took the plunge and agreed to undergo the force-feeding procedure in London.  I don’t recommend clicking that link if you’re squeamish.  Keep in mind that there are 106 prisoners partaking in the hunger strikes at the moment, and 45 of them undergo this 2-hour process twice a day.

Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research

NSA Received Help from FISA for Surveillance Authorization

Just as many predicted from the beginning, it looks like the NSA surveillance scandal has reached beyond the NSA to other branches of government.  On Saturday the New York Times reported that over the past few years, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, or FISA, has basically created an entire new category of law pertaining to surveillance for the NSA and CIA.  FISA has reportedly handed down over a dozen classified rulings on everything from espionage to nuclear proliferation to cyber attacks.  It appears that FISA has quietly taken over the Supreme Court’s role in all matters pertaining to surveillance.

Most notably, the court used a particular case to expand a little-known doctrine called the “special needs” doctrine that allows authorities to sidestep the Fourth Amendment by performing search and seizure operations without the need for a warrant.  The government claims that this expansion of the special needs doctrine is only applicable in terrorism-related cases.  The exception is typically used only for things like airport screenings and DUI checkpoints.  Professor William C. Banks of Syracuse University stated that the use of this doctrine is just “another way of tipping the scales toward the government in its access to all this data.”

So how can FISA justify the expansion of this doctrine, essentially abandoning the use of the Fourth Amendment’s protection from arbitrary searches and seizures?  It looks like it came down to the interpretation of one word:  Relevant.  Instead of interpreting the word in the narrow sense used in most criminal cases, the court elected to broaden its scope, allowing the NSA to collect any records that could possibly be relevant to national security concerns.  This interpretation has drawn sharp criticism in the past few days.  A senior partner at Perkins Cole LLP, the Justice Department’s go-to firm on federal surveillance law, claims that FISA has destroyed the meaning of “relevant” altogether, essentially changing it to mean “everything.”  He also mentioned that a typical federal or state court would laugh the prosecution out of the courtroom if it tried to argue for this new interpretation.

But what does this mean for the average American?  Probably not much.  As I’ve said before, I don’t think the NSA has the time or resources to rifle though billions of pages of records that they know are not “relevant” to national security.  I have a hard time believing that our government is reading all our “LOL’s” and “IDK’s” when there is so much at stake.  In fact, it’s come out that even though the NSA has the power to collect the records, they still needed a warrant to actually access them.  Sure, the government still has plenty of egg on its face and has sufficiently embarrassed itself on a global scale.  But now, roughly a month after Edward Snowden first released information on this scandal, we still have yet to hear of any connection between the NSA’s programs and any non-terrorism-related arrests.

With that said, it’s hard not to be concerned when courts hand down secret rulings that essentially throw away our Constitutional protections.  At least for now the traditional law requiring warrants for searches and seizures still applies to normal cases, but that won’t make to many people feel better about the fact that we have a highly secretive court handing down classified decisions that have the potential wipe out our most basic freedoms.  I’m usually willing to give the government a pass when it comes to protecting our national security, but this has to stop somewhere.  I think it’s safe to say that the American government has officially pole-vaulted over that fine line between protecting our freedom and trampling on it.

Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research

New Reports: U.S. Spied on Foreign Embassies

And the plot thickens.  It now looks like Edward Snowden’s release of NSA and CIA information will have ramifications outside the borders of the United States.  If you’ll recall, Snowden not only released secrets on the NSA’s PRISM program that involved collecting the phone and Internet records of millions of Americans, but also released information on American and British surveillance programs that targeted foreign diplomats at international summits.  Now members of the European Union, which includes some of America’s strongest allies, are speaking out against the programs.

The scandal seems to go deeper than we originally thought.  The initial accusations included claims that the British government had set up fake Internet cafes during the G20 summit and monitored diplomatic communications among foreign representatives.  We are now learning that this may have also gone on within U.S. borders.  New documents suggest that American intelligence agencies were monitoring up to 38 foreign embassies, including those belonging to Germany, France, Italy, South Korea, Japan, India, and countless others.  The NSA reportedly hacked into encrypted fax machines and was able to read communications that these diplomats were sending back to their home countries.

This new information has caused the European Union to question the integrity of the American government.  EU Commissioner for Justice Viviane Reding voiced her concerns about how trade negotiations could continue with this knowledge.  In addition, Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel said, “this is unacceptable, it can’t be tolerated.  We’re no longer in the Cold War.”

I tend to agree with Commissioner Reding Chancellor Merkel.  I don’t think anyone would be surprised or outraged if we were spying on North Korea or Iran.  After all, both of those countries have made serious threats against the United States and/or its allies.  One could make a strong argument that it would be necessary to spy on those countries to protect our interests.  But the countries we are not accused of spying on do not exactly fit into the same category.  Just look at the list.  Germany, France, Italy, South Korea, Japan, and India are all included in the top 15 trade partners of the United States, and there are surely other important trade partners on the list of 38.  They’re all countries that we more or less have friendly relations with.  And they’re all countries that we have invited onto our own soil, supposedly in an effort to improve those relations.  And now the American government has caused its own citizens and foreign governments to question its motives.

The most important question here is simply, why?  Why jeopardize our relationships with our most important allies?  And what are we even looking for?  Back in 2008 General Keith B. Alexander, head of the NSA, asked during a visit to a British intelligence station why we couldn’t collect all the information we can as often as we can?  That suggests to me that we might not even be looking for anything in particular.  It looks to me like we’re spying just for the sake of spying.  And that’s probably the most troubling part of this whole ordeal.  We’re breaking the trust of countries that we depend on for what amounts to nothing.

If you’ve read any of my other blogs on the NSA scandal, you’ll probably see that I’m a little more willing than some to give the government a pass when it comes to surveillance as long as they aren’t using the information to censor us or hamper our freedoms.  But this is a whole different animal.  We are by no means a self-sufficient country.  We depend on foreign trade and if you look at the largest foreign owners of U.S. debt you’ll see quite a few EU and Asian countries on that list.  We’re playing a dangerous game here.  We’re no longer talking about collecting data to stop terrorism.  That at least has some merit.  Now we’re talking about spying on our allies, allies who have to be able to trust us to conduct business or any other sort of diplomatic relations.  Well, kiss that trust goodbye.  We just keep digging ourselves deeper and deeper into what’s beginning to look like a bottomless pit.

The United States government:  Breaking the trust of American citizens and foreign governments since (CLASSIFIED).

Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research

More Government Secrecy in Detainee Trials at Guantanamo Bay

Later this week, the trial of an alleged al-Qaeda bomber and current Guantanamo Bay detainee suspected of orchestrating the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole will continue, and one of the first items on the docket is a top secret motion from the government.  Classified motions are not exactly rare in military trials against detainees, but this one is particularly interesting.  Those who know the contents of the motion are barred from discussing any of its contents, and even the defendant, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, and his defense team are not allowed to obtain declassified information regarding the motion unless the Army judge presiding over the trial compels it.  In fact, al-Nashiri’s lead attorney told reporters that his defense team had to fly to Washington, D.C. just to read it.

Army Brig. General Mark Martins, the government’s lead prosecutor on war crimes, insisted that his office was not using classification to cover up any embarrassing episodes, stating that there are “important narrow occasions” where the government may classify information “to protect national security interests.”  Still, the motion has already attracted negative attention from critics of the Pentagon court, which uses the motto “Fairness – Transparency – Justice.”  Yale law professor Eugene Fidell likened the motion to playing charades in the dark.  Even before news of the classified motion was released, a defense attorney filed a motion in May opposing any closure of future motions against al-Nashiri.

Military hearings at Guantanamo have been criticized for some time due to concerns over secrecy and the legitimacy of hearings against detainees, and this news will only add fuel to the fire.  The government is seeking the death penalty against al-Nashiri, and anything less than full disclosure of the government’s case against him leads to serious questions regarding the fairness of military trials against detainees.  In fact, Professor Fidell was quoted as saying,

“We’re supposed to be talking about the rule of law. You can have an all-star team of justices – Cardozo, Brandeis, Holmes, John Marshall, Stevens, Brennan, take your pick – and if they’re working in a closet you can forget about it in terms of public confidence in the administration of justice.”

The timing of this news was poor for the government in light of the recent leak of information regarding the NSA’s surveillance scandal.  With public concern regarding government secrecy rapidly growing, we should expect a great deal of criticism regarding the use of classified motions against detainees at Guantanamo.  And when the stakes are so high, we should be calling for more transparency and legitimacy in trials against detainees.

Chris Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy and Research

President Obama to give speech on counterterrorism policy, drones, and GMTO

President Obama is scheduled to deliver a speech on Thursday at the National Defence University on the administration’s counterterrorism policies, and how it intends to bring those policies in line with his long-standing pledge to honor the rule of law.

According to a White House official, speaking anonymously to the Washington Post Saturday, President Obama will “discuss our broad counterterrorism policy, including our military, diplomatic, intelligence and legal efforts.”

“He will review the state of the threats we face, particularly as the al-Qaeda core has weakened but new dangers have emerged,” the official said. “He will discuss the policy and legal framework under which we take action against terrorist threats, including the use of drones. And he will review our detention policy and efforts to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.”

This speech could go some way toward fulfilling the promise that President Obama made in his 2013 State of the Union address, in which he proclaimed that his new administration would “ensure not only that our targeting, detention and prosecution of terrorists remains consistent with our laws and system of checks and balances, but that our efforts are even more transparent to the American people and to the world.” Many, including myself, have been disappointed with the level of transparency the administration has maintained regarding national security efforts over the last 4 years or so. 

The speech comes at a time of increasing unrest in the national security arena. Indeed, it has already been delayed due to the hunger strike at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility and the brouhaha over the Justice Department’s subpoena of the AP’s phone records. While the events at Guantanamo Bay can to some degree be attributed to the policies of the Bush administration (in opening the prison) and to Congress (in refusing to allow it to close), the AP seizure is something that rests firmly in Obama’s lap, and is indicative of his Justice Department’s approach in general. Rather than increasing transparency, Obama’s Justice Department has been ruthless in suppressing leaks and punishing leakers.

While I have no sympathy for the likes of Bradley Manning, the number of prosecutions related to national security leaks has been higher under Obama than his predecessors, with at least some chilling effect on the “unofficial transparency” that leaks tend to serve. And while Obama has recently pushed for a new Federal shield law to protect reporters’ sources, his downright schizophrenic approach to transparency has been a bitter disappointment. Hopefully, Thursday’s speech will help to alleviate that disappointment.

 

 

David Rothkopf on American responses to terrorism: Not All Terror is Created Equal

Shortly after the Boston bombings, Foreign Policy’s David Rothkopf posted a very insightful article on CNN.com, which is very well worth reading. In it he compares recent terror events, such as the Boston bombings and the ricin letters sent to the President and others, with the non-terrorist events like gun violence.

“Terror and terrorists are real and their stories are compelling, but we ought to remember that by far the biggest threats we face come from elsewhere—from what might be corporate negligence or greed; from natural disasters or the heedless abuse of the environment; from people who find it far too easy to get their hands on guns or from leaders who twist their interpretation of the Constitution to overreact to one threat even while ignoring and exacerbating another.”

“In short,” he asks,  “how much damage are we doing to ourselves in our efforts to stay safe or pursue justice?”

Paul W. Taylor, Senior Fellow
Center for Policy & Research

 

Seton Hall’s Jonathan Hafetz Published in “The Guardian”- “Deprived of justice, the Guantanamo detainees’ last resort is to hunger strike”

Seton Hall professor Jonathan Hafetz’s article “Deprived of justice, Guantanamo detainees’ last resort is to hunger strike” was published last week in The Guardian.  

In contrast to the articles focusing on why these hunger strikes won’t work, Hafetz instead focuses on why detainees need to hunger strike. Hafetz, a professor of international law and counsel to Guantanamo detainees, writes that refusing to eat is the only means the detainees have of exerting control over their captors and reminding the public of their humanity.  While legal rulings and policies surrounding GTMO can (and have) been ignored, US officials cannot ignore a dying detainee.  At a minimum, the hunger strikes remind the public that Guantanamo is still open and remains a significant human rights issue.  

Ramifications of Federal Court Trials vs. Military Commission

 

Earlier this month, on March 8, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, Usama Bin Laden’s son-in-law, pleaded not guilty to a charge of conspiracy to kill Americans in a federal courthouse in Manhattan.  Although his connections with the infamous 9/11 attacks are disputed, he is charged with publically praising the attacks and providing support to Al Qaeda for roughly 15 years.  This will undoubtedly be one of the most high-profile terrorist-related trials to take place since the beginning of the War on Terror given the Abu Ghaith’s alleged ties with Bin Laden, but the circumstances surrounding it have already given rise to harsh criticism from politicians and the general public.

In particular, the main cause for concern is the curious decision to try Abu Ghaith in a federal court rather than a military commission trial at Guantanamo Bay, as is normally the course of action in terrorism-related cases.  Lawmakers argue that this decision could have far-reaching implications not only for the Abu Ghaith trial, but for future terrorism-related trials as well.

But what are these implications?  For starters, the Abu Ghaith trial begins a new chapter in a fight between President Obama’s administration and Congress.  In 2009, President Obama announced that he would transfer five Guantanamo detainees to the United States to face criminal charges in federal court.  Opponents of Obama’s plan argued that transferring suspected terrorists to U.S. soil would compromise national security and could lead to wrongful acquittals of guilty parties.  Those in favor of the plan countered by pointing out the efficiency and fairness of the American justice system.

Congress ultimately responded by enacting legislation that froze the funds needed to make those transfers happen.  The Obama administration has seemingly found a loophole in the Congressional act, which only covers Guantanamo detainees, by bringing suspected terrorists to the United States without first holding them at Guantanamo.

Beyond policy considerations, there are legal implications at the heart of the discussion.  In regard to the Abu Ghaith trial, critics argue that Abu Ghaith will be granted rights under the Due Process clause of the Constitution during his trial in federal court that would not exist if he were tried at Guantanamo Bay.  For instance, a military commission does not grant the right to a speedy trial that would be applicable in federal court.  However, the Supreme Court has yet to voice its opinion on whether these rights would also be applicable in a military court, which leaves some uncertainty as to whether these concerns are legitimate.

The type of evidence allowed also differs between military commissions and federal courts.  While both would allow coerced testimony obtained at the point of capture, military commissions typically allow hearsay evidence, which will be barred in federal court.  This will be a significant difference, especially because the federal prosecutor will have a higher burden of proof than a military commission would require.  However, this burden may not pose problem that critics cite, as federal courts have had a 91% conviction rate in terrorism-related cases since the 9/11 attacks.

Along those same lines, defendants in the federal court system may have greater access to witnesses than in military commissions.  In military commissions, the defendant would have no right to subpoena witnesses.  Also, although the judge in a military commission has the power to compel witnesses to appear, he does not have to do so depending on the circumstances.  During the course of his trial, Abu Ghaith will have a better opportunity to call witnesses in support of his defense.  Critics argue that these differences may lead to a wrongful acquittal of a suspected terrorist.  However, the extra burden may not pose the problem that critics cite, as federal courts have had a 91% conviction rate in terrorism-related cases since the 9/11 attacks.

The human rights group Human Rights First points out that a trial at federal court will protect defendants from being convicted ex-post facto.  In other words, defendants will not be convicted of crimes that were not articulated by the legislature at the time they were allegedly committed.  Military commissions allow such convictions, meaning that a defendant may have no prior notice that he is committing a criminal act at the time of his actions.

Finally, the process of selecting the judge and jury are much different in federal court than in a military commission.  In a military commission, the U.S. military handpicks the judge and selects the panel (the equivalent of a jury) from the enlisted military.  In federal court, judges are appointed for life before hearing any cases and the jury is picked from the general public.  Those in favor of federal court trials argue that these procedural steps will lead to a fairer trial for defendants.

 

As the son-in-law of Usama Bin Laden, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith’s trial will naturally catch the public’s eye.  The publicity will only be heightened by the controversy surrounding the Obama administration’s decision to try Abu Ghaith in federal court rather than in a military commission, the type of trial Guantanamo Bay was created specifically for.  With so many differences in procedural, evidential, and political matters, it will be interesting to see how the Abu Ghaith trial plays out.

Christopher Whitten, Research Fellow
Center for Policy & Research