Thursday, March 11, 2010

Families of 9/11 Victims Support Federal Courts

As the debate continues around federal courts or military commissions for 9/11 terrorist suspects, it’s worth listening to those who lost family members in the attack. Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband on 9/11, writes about talking to her fourth grade daughter about the news that President Obama may soon reverse the decision to try KSM in federal courts. Talat Hamdani lost her son, a NYPD cadet who died trying to evacuate the World Trade Center, writes that such a reversal “would send the message that our principled decisions become expendable when the going gets tough. That is not the legacy I wish for my son.

Trying 9/11 suspects in federal courts is the surest way to serve justice for Kristen and Talat. They have waited long enough.

Our federal courts are best equipped to handle the case against KSM and the other 9/11 defendants for a multitude of reasons: they have a successful track record, especially compared to the flawed military commission system, they have the necessary tools to protect sensitive information, they would signal to the country and the world American faith in the rule of law and our institutions upholding it. The facts and the experts are behind federal courts.

Labels: , , ,

Share This Post

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Prosecutors Call Military Commissions a Bad Idea

Two experienced Guantanamo prosecutors, Darrel Vandeveld and Joshua Dratel, explain why military commissions are a bad idea and how using federal courts is being tough on terror, in Salon today.

The authors raise a simple question:
There are times in life when you don't want to hear, "Well, this will be a
learning experience for us all." Open-heart surgery. In-flight emergencies.
Repairing your Toyota. So what about the most important terrorism trial in
United States history?
Read the argument they mount - it's compelling, as are the facts. Why the debate?

Labels: , , , ,

Share This Post

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Bush Administration National Security Officials Don't Want to Rule out Federal Courts for Terrorism Trials

A New York Times article today cites many national security officials from the Bush Administration who want to keep the option of using federal courts for terrorism trials.

Juan C. Zarate, deputy national security adviser for combating terrorism to Mr. Bush from 2005 to 2009 was quoted in the article:
We shouldn’t inadvertently handcuff ourselves by taking this tool completely out
of our tool kit.

Indeed, federal courts have a better track record than military commissions. Read the facts.

Labels: , , ,

Share This Post

Monday, March 8, 2010

Round-Up: Retired Military Leaders for federal court trials of KSM

On Friday March 5, 2010, after reports that President Obama might change course and use military commissions, rather than federal courts, to prosecute the 9/11 defendants - a big mistake - HRF quickly mobilized some voices of reason for a press call.

The call featured HRF CEO & President Elisa Massimino and three members of a distinguished group of retired military leaders, with whom we have been working for years to end torture and close Guantanamo.

Listen to the call / read the transcript.


The press call received a flurry of press – see the major articles below:


Call the White House today to urge the President to not make this wrong decision. And spread the word!

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share This Post

Cheney's Fearmongering Spurs Conservative Backlash

The tide is turning on Liz Cheney and her fearmongering. This weekend there was a flood of criticism, from Republicans and Democrats alike, about her ad calling Department of Justice lawyers the "Al Qaeda 7" and the DoJ the "Department of Jihad."

Politico reported on a letter signed by a number of conservative policy experts and lawyers calling the attacks made by Keep America Safe and conservative media as "shameful" and against the U.S. legal tradition going back to John Adams and carrying through today.

Daphne Eviatar, a senior associate at Human Rights First, also questioned the timing of this attack - following the recent release of the Justice Department ethics report calling into doubt Bush Administration lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee.

Finally, Human Rights First also responded to this latest video with some humor - another in our "Keep America Afraid" series:

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Share This Post

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Liz Cheney's Impeccable Timing

By Daphne Eviatar, Senior Associate, Law and Security

Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

It’s nice to see that even conservatives are disgusted with Liz Cheney’s latest attack on Eric Holder. As you've no doubt heard, Cheney is miffed that there are attorneys in the Department of Justice who, in the past, have defended people accused of nasty crimes. Of course, that’s what defense lawyers are supposed to do, but that doesn’t stop Liz Cheney from creating scary videos insinuating that defending someone swept up by US forces and accused of terrorism is somehow fundamentally worse than defending an ordinary serial murderer, rapist or corporate swindler.

Cheney and her small but highly vocal group Keep America Safe know how to prey on people’s worst fears and prejudices. So I’m not all that surprised by their attack on lawyers like Neal Katyal, a Georgetown law professor and now Principal Deputy Solicitor General, who previously argued that the Bush administration's military commissions were unconstitutional – and convinced a conservative U.S. Supreme Court that he was right.

But there’s another reason Cheney’s latest attack should not have come as a surprise. Consider the timing: late on Friday, February 18, the Department of Justice released a long-delayed report that set out the details of how two Justice Department lawyers, in close contact with the Vice President’s office, wrote a series of legal memos that grossly perverted existing law and longstanding legal precedent to justify some of the most heinous acts of torture and institutionalized abuse of U.S. prisoners in American history. Although a career official at the Justice Department ultimately decided that the department’s internal ethics rules were too unclear to recommend sanctions, the facts of the underlying report remain a damning indictment of attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee, among others, who gave the legal green light to criminal and immoral conduct.

What better time for Liz Cheney to change the subject?

Sure enough, a little more than a week later, and just days after the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Justice Department’s ethics report, Keep America Safe on March 2 released its video on “The Al Qaeda 7” – seven unnamed lawyers in the Justice Department with some connection at some point in their careers to the defense of a Guantanamo detainee.

Immediately, the media shifted gears: it was no longer John Yoo we cared about, now it was the “Al Qaeda 7” – mysterious Justice Department lawyers who pal around with terrorists. Republican lawmakers such as Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa quickly jumped on the bandwagon.

Sure, the argument came to look kind of silly after The Huffington Post unearthed a 2007 article by Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson in which he specifically stood up for those detainees’ defense lawyers, saying they represented the best of American values and were the real patriots. And then several prominent conservative lawyers, such as former DOJ officials John Bellinger and Peter Kiesler, publicly criticized the Cheney attack ad as “unfortunate” and “wrong.”

But maybe none of that really matters. After all, it wasn’t like the Al Qaeda 7 had actually done anything wrong or were at risk of any criminal or professional censure. On the contrary, they’d done exactly what the legal profession requires them to do: zealously defend their clients. But Cheney’s attack conveniently shifted the spotlight away from other former Justice Department officials who actually are at risk of professional and criminal sanction.

The Office of Professional Responsibility’s final report provides ample evidence former Justice Department attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee intentionally wrote legal memos that were blatantly wrong. It also suggests that White House officials were intimately involved in that process. The fact that John Yoo’s e-mails were “deleted” and unavailable to the ethics investigators is no small matter either, both for what additional evidence those e-mails might have contained and because destroying federal records is a crime -- as is obstruction of justice.

Liz Cheney may have managed to temporarily distract the news media from the subject of her father’s role in developing illegal policies that authorized torture. But let’s hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee continues to press its probe, for there are many observers out there, both at home and abroad, who have not so easily forgotten.

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Share This Post

Daphne Eviatar Q&A on Facebook

Last week, Daphne Eviatar took time to answer user questions via the Human Rights First Facebook Page.  She recently attended the Senate Judiciary committee hearing on the investigation into memos the Justice Department sent authorizing the torture of detainees during the Bush administration.


Here is the conversation as it happened on Facebook:


Q: In your blog you wrote "Under strong questioning from Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Grindler did promise to look into the mysterious disappearance of John Yoo's and Patrick Philbin's e-mails, which Office of Professional Responsibility investigators noted "hampered" their investigation. After all, government ... See Moreofficials are legally required by law to maintain their official e-mails, as Leahy reminded Grindler, picking up a copy of the U.S. Code."

For those unfamiliar with the issue - can you elaborate a bit on the missing emails?





A: Yes, well that was the highlight of the hearing! In the OPR report, the investigators mention that one small problem with their investigation was that ALL of John Yoo's e-mails had been deleted. Whoops!

So Leahy's now insisting that DOJ try to find out what happened to them, and if Yoo broke a law (another one, I mean).




Q: Sarah Phillips wrote: What can we do to ensure that someone is actually held accountable and prevent something like this from happening in the future?




A: I think it's important to keep the heat on the judiciary committee and the DOJ to insist that the disappearance of these e-mails be investigated. It may be the only way to keep even some small part of this investigation alive.


Another way to force an investigation is to pressure President Obama and Congress to appoint an independent, nonpartisan commission -- kind of like the 9/11 commission -- to investigate the full story of what really happened. There's strong precedent in the US for doing that, and it takes it away from the politicians, so the outcome isn't politicized.




Q: Celia Morgan wrote: They are the bottom of Bush's National Ocean Preserve with the rest of the missing GOP e mails.  How do we go The Hague and beg for assistance?




A: Celia, I wish there was a way to go to the Hague, but the US has not signed on to the International Criminal Court, so there's no way any case would be brought there. However, some other countries, such as Spain, do have prosecutors who are looking into whether US officials during the Bush administration broke laws, like the anti-torture laws. That's a start.




Q: Cody Merritt wrote: Hi Daphne. Do you think that there is hope the "Commission of Inquiry" will gain some momentum?




A: I think Cody and I were writing at the same time -- and thinking along the same lines. Yes, it's a possibility, but it needs political momentum... some real public pressure.




Q: Scott Nicolson wrote: ^This is an excellent question. This isn't just a matter of U.S law - these are violations of international law we're talking about. As I understand it, we are legally obligated to investigate and prosecute torture by virtue of the treaties to which we are a part. Does this not mean that, if the DoJ and/or Senate refuse to do so, that means that ... See Morethey are all in violation of international law? Are they not *concerned* about this?

And last I heard, Spanish courts are pressing on with investigations into allegations of torture. The UK's ongoing investigations into the Iraq debacle are interesting too. How embarrassing would it be if other nations or bodies had to investigate and prosecute because we don't have the "political will" to do so - or whatever excuse the Powers That Be would like to make this time....





A: Scott, you're absolutely right. It's very embarrassing. At least to us. But what's amazing is that the Justice Department, the president, and most members of Congress don't seem concerned enough about it to insist on an investigation. But yes, it's a violation of the Convention Against Torture and domestic laws implementing it. And if you read the ... See Morefinal OPR report that was issued, you realize just how flimsy and preposterous were the legal justifications that John Yoo and Jay Bybee made up to say it was all legal.


It's funny, when I read the OPR report, I was both incredibly proud that the Justice Dept put together this exhaustive investigation, analyzing the completely twisted legal reasoning of their own lawyers, AND thoroughly disappointed that the lawyers' conduct was still not considered "professional misconduct" let alone criminal conduct. But then, the DOJ report wasn't addressing the criminal conduct piece. 




Q: Alysha Havey wrote: Is there anything that I (and everyone reading this) can do to see some justice here?




A: Alysha, I know it doesn't sound like much, but you and everyone else can contact your representatives, and contact the Obama administration -- they say they love to hear from people -- and tell them what you think. Honestly, that does make a difference. Politicians do pay attention to constituent calls more than you think. Hey, look at the Tea Partyers--why let them get all the attention?


Just send them an e-mail! and I'll see if Human Rights First can put together a petition that we can send around.


The other thing people can do is just use these sorts of online forums, blogs, etc. to get your voices heard -- comment on stories you see on this issue and say what you think, because you'd be surprised at how much lawmakers pay attention to blogs and other online postings these days. They're huge -- modern politics has its problems (lots of them), but the internet is a hugely empowering tool for people.




Q: Scott Nicolson wrote: I'm not sure I understand the issue of ICC jurisdiction. According to Wikipedia, the ICC has jurisdiction in Afghanistan. It may also have jurisdiction in other nations where torture was committed on behalf of the United States, though I'm not sure.




A: Scott, that's a great question. The ICC is very confusing. Generally, the ICC only has jurisdiction over countries that are members of the court, and the US is not a member. But you're right that there are exceptions. For example, if the crime took place in a country that is a member, then the ICC can exercise jurisdiction over it if the country ... See Morerefuses to prosecute the case itself. Or, the country is not a member, then the UN Security Council can still refer a case to the ICC. The problem is, the US has so much control over the Security Council that no case against the US would ever get referred to the ICC without the US's consent. So as you can see, there are serious limitations to the ICC's jurisdiction.




Q: Allyson Gavaletz wrote: Daphne - this is the first I am hearing about all this. Why isn't this a big news story?




A: Allyson, thank you for that question! You're absolutely right, it's been basically buried. I think the reason is that most mainstream press just assume that the Justice Department won't criminally investigate this case for obvious political reasons, and as a result has adopted the view that an investigation isn't realistic, so it doesn't matter, so... See More it's not newsworthy... even though, as several people have pointed out here, a criminal investigation is legally required by our international obligations. So it's basically a failure of the mainstream press.




Q: Haley Nicholson wrote: Are there any members of either the House or Senate who has strongly pursued this issue? So when we contact our members we can say whose efforts they should join?




Q: Cody Merritt wrote: Is there a strong group of Congressman that are behind some kind of inquiry? Or are people more hands off?




A: Wait, one last response to Haley and Cody: yes and no. A few key people have been strong supporters of further investigation: in the Senate, that would be Leahy, Whitehouse, Feingold and Durbin. (sorry if I'm forgetting someone else, but that's who comes to mind.) In the House, Nadler and Conyers have been very strong on this too. Conyers introduced legislation for a commission that seemed very strong. Do push them to take this further, they definitely need to hear from supporters that people care!

We have a petition running for a commission to get the truth about past abuses. Sign that here: http://bit.ly/cFw0rM and we'll soon be in touch with further actions you can take!

Thanks for participating in our chat!

Labels: , , ,

Share This Post

signup for Human Rights First News