JAG CENTRAL

Thanks to the editors at Blawg Review for the very kind words previewing our Monday edition of Blawg Review #32. We at JAG Central hope to live up to their lofty write-up. Also, the JAGs-Central join the editors in celebrating Veterans Awareness Week.

Hussein Trial's Defense Team, Under Attack Again (NYTimes.com)

From the NY Times, Ambush of Defense Lawyers in Hussein Trial Kills One:

Gunmen ambushed two of the defense lawyers in the Saddam Hussein trial on a Baghdad street on Tuesday, killing one and seriously wounding the other. Coming after another defense lawyer was killed on Oct. 20, the latest attack brought immediate demands from other lawyers in the case for the trial to be halted and moved to a location outside Iraq.

An Interior Ministry official said the drive-by shooting in a western suburb of Baghdad had killed one of two lawyers who represented Taha Yassin Ramadan, a former vice president under Mr. Hussein, and Barzan al-Tikriti, Mr. Hussein's half-brother and former head of the secret police. Both men are defendants with Mr. Hussein in the first trial to be held for the mass killings under his rule.

The trial opened briefly in Baghdad three weeks ago and quickly adjourned. It is set to resume Nov. 28.

Also from the Times, U.N. Extends Mandate in Iraq for U.S. Troops ("The Security Council on Tuesday unanimously adopted a one-year renewal of the United Nations mandate for the United States-led multinational force in Iraq. The resolution, sponsored by Britain, Denmark, Japan, Romania and the United States, extends the mandate until Dec. 31, 2006, but calls for a review of the decision by June 15 and allows for the ending of the mandate at any point if Iraq requests it.").

From the Washington Post, Pair of Attorneys in Hussein Trial Shot in Ambush, and Defense Document Bans Detainee Torture:

Pentagon officials released a new directive yesterday on Defense Department intelligence interrogations, mandating that all questioning of detainees in U.S. military custody include "humane" treatment and banning "acts of physical or mental torture."

The eight-page document for the first time pulls together a number of departmental policies on interrogations and the prevention of detainee mistreatment, exemplified by the Abu Ghraib prison abuse in late 2003. The directive largely sets out how future policies will be developed, emphasizes proper treatment and lays out requirements for reporting violations as they occur.

You can access the new DoD Directive 3115.09 here.

From USA Today, Another Lawyer on Saddam's Defense Team Killed, and Pentagon Interrogation Rules Allow Exceptions:

A new Pentagon policy governing the interrogation of prisoners allows for exceptions if authorized in writing by top Defense Department officials.

The new directive, signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England last week, formalizes many rules created since U.S. troops' abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison outside Baghdad was revealed in April 2004.

Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights First, a group that has lobbied for stricter limits on interrogations after Abu Ghraib, says the exceptions could lead to abuses: “This is what got us into problems in the first place.”

Massimino described the exceptions as similar to one that Vice President Cheney has advocated for CIA personnel interrogating prisoners in the war on terrorism.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has backed legislation to bar torture during interrogations, said there should be no loopholes allowing questionable methods.

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, however, said the provision for exceptions doesn't amount to a loophole in the policy, which “reiterates humane treatment” for all prisoners in military custody.

The overall policy directive establishes new restrictions on U.S. military and civilian personnel who interrogate prisoners:

•All physical and mental torture is prohibited.

•The use of guard dogs — which were used at Abu Ghraib to intimidate prisoners — is banned during interrogations.

•Interrogations will be conducted only by trained and certified interrogators, and all suspected abuses will be reported by medical personnel and others up the chain of command. Prison guards are also barred from participating in interrogations.

•Any other U.S. government agencies or foreign government representatives who ask to interrogate prisoners held by the Defense Department must agree to abide by Pentagon policies before being granted access to them.

C.A.A.F. heard oral arguments today in the U.S. v. Lane case (see my original post). As discussed in Centrist's post yesterday, USA Today ran a story about the case which was picked up by the Army Times. Today, the Congressional newspaper Roll Call got in on the action. And, JUST RELEASED: the Associated Press story about the oral argument.

From what I've heard, the judges didn't ask many questions about whether Lane had standing. Also, though it wasn't mentioned in their briefs, Judge Effron asked counsel about Article 66(g)! I wish this blog could claim some credit for that, but by all reports he is an extremely bright and well-read person. I'm sure he picked it up on his own, without the help of this very fine blog.

Busy day for Guantanamo News.

From the NY Times, Justices to Rule on a Challenge to U.S. Tribunals:

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would decide the validity of the military commissions that President Bush wants to use to bring detainees charged with terrorist offenses to trial.

Pentagon Charges 5 More in Guantánamo Bay Camp (November 8, 2005)
Roberts's Recusal Is One of Several (November 8, 2005) The case, to be argued in March without the participation of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., places the court back at the center of the national debate over the limits of presidential authority in conducting the war on terror. Last year, the Supreme Court rejected the administration's position that the federal courts had no jurisdiction over those held as enemy combatants at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

This time, once again, the justices acted over the vigorous opposition of the administration, which urged the court to stay its hand and defer any review until after a detainee had been tried by a military commission and convicted.

Lawyers representing Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the Yemeni who brought the challenge to the commissions, argued however that the issues of domestic and international law raised by the case were sufficiently important to be heard and resolved without further delay.

Chief Justice Roberts is recusing himself, likely because he wrote opinions similar to this one at the Court of Appeals.

Also from the Times, Pentagon Plans Tighter Control of Interrogation:

The Pentagon has approved a new policy directive governing interrogations as part of an effort to tighten controls over the questioning of terror suspects and other prisoners by American soldiers.

The eight-page directive, which was signed without any public announcement last Thursday by Acting Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, will allow the Army to issue a long-delayed field manual for interrogators that is supposed to incorporate the lessons gleaned from the prisoner-abuse scandals last year.

The Army intends, for example, to ensure that interrogation techniques are approved, up to the highest levels in the Pentagon, that interrogators are properly trained and that personnel in the field are required to report any abuses, Army officials said.

And finally from the Times, Pentagon Charges 5 More in Guantanamo Bay Camp:

Within hours of the Supreme Court decision on Monday to consider the legality of special military commissions to try detainees for war crimes, the Defense Department announced that it had brought charges against an additional five prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The announcement brings to nine the total of detainees at Guantánamo who are facing war crimes charges under the military commission system. The newly charged detainees include Omar Ahmed Khadr, 19, a Canadian accused of throwing a grenade that killed an American medic, Sgt. First Class Christopher Speer, near Khost, Afghanistan.

Mr. Khadr's case is well known because his lawyers have said that he was mistreated at Guantánamo and that his initial capture and detention when he was 15 violated United States obligations under treaties on treating young people in wartime.

The charges against Mr. Khadr say that his father was a close friend of Osama bin Laden and that he, too, was acquainted with Mr. bin Laden, the Qaeda leader.

You can find the charge sheet for Khadr and the other four here on the DoD Military Commissions Website.

From the Washington Post, High Court to Hear Case on War Powers, and 5 Soldiers Charged With Abuse of Detainees:

Five U.S. soldiers with the 75th Ranger Regiment in Iraq have been charged with abusing three detainees as they were preparing to transfer them to a prison in September, according to U.S. military officials in Baghdad.

The incident occurred in an unspecified "battlefield collection point" in the Baghdad area on Sept. 7, when the five soldiers allegedly beat the detainees they were assigned to guard, said Chief Petty Officer Greg Frazho, a spokesman for Multinational Forces in Iraq. "The detainees got bruises and contusions, caused by striking with a closed and open hand, and hitting with an object described as a broomstick," Frazho said yesterday.

It was unclear yesterday how officials learned of the alleged incident, but Army officials said an investigation began as soon as it came to light. Officials did not release the names of those charged.

Each soldier was charged on Saturday with assault and battery, maltreatment and dereliction of duty. Those charges have been sent to higher officers for evaluation. Frazho said all of the soldiers have been assigned to administrative duties while the charges are pending.

Also from the Post, U.N. Approval Sought To Extend Iraq Stay:

The Bush administration pressed the U.N. Security Council on Monday to pass a resolution extending the mandate of the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq, providing a legal basis for U.S. and allied troops to remain for at least a year after Iraqis elect their first government under the new constitution on Dec. 15, according to U.S. and European diplomats.

Administration officials said they are seeking the resolution now to spare a new government the politically challenging burden of explicitly approving the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq. They also hope a U.N. mandate authorizing troops through 2006 would encourage the United States' coalition partners to remain in Iraq, and would avoid a potentially contentious battle within the Security Council next year over whether to renew the authorization even though a new Iraqi government has taken power.

From USA Today, Supreme Court Steps Into Debate Over Detainee Tribunals, 5 Terrorism Suspects at Guantanamo Charged, and Five Soldiers Charged With Abusing Iraqis.

Senator/Colonel Lindsey Graham, USAF, Pictured Before His Promotion (Metrobeat.com)

From USA Today, Senator's Service as Military Judge Scrutinized:

In a case that could help determine whether citizen-soldiers have a place in Congress, a federal court on Tuesday will weigh whether a U.S. senator who helps make Pentagon policy and has spoken out on issues such as Iraqi prisoner abuse can also serve as a military judge.

The case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces here involves Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., an Air Force Reserve colonel appointed two years ago to the lower Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals.

Lawyers for Airman 1st Class Charles Lane are seeking to throw out Lane's cocaine conviction on the grounds that Graham, one of three appellate judges who reviewed his case, is “constitutionally and ethically disqualified” to serve.

In court papers, Lane's lawyers argue that “Senator/Judge Graham cannot be an impartial and disinterested judge” because he is “politically accountable to his constituents for anything he does.” Graham declined to comment on the case's merits. “We'll live with whatever the court says,” he said.

The senator began his Air Force career on active duty in 1982 and served as both a prosecutor and defense lawyer. In 1988, he transferred to the Reserves before serving a five-year stint in the South Carolina Air National Guard. Graham went back to the Reserves in 1995, after he was elected to the House of Representatives.

You can read LawyerDad's earlier post about Senator/Colonel Graham here.