We endeavor to zealously represent Mr. Al Baluchi in the furtherance of justice and mercy.

Transcription

1 Ammar al-baluchi is a prisoner being held on the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo, Cuba. The United States seeks to execute him in a case before the military commission; charged under U.S. v. KSM, et al. with conspiring in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The capture, detention, interrogation, and trial of Mr. Al Baluchi and his co-defendants is an alarming misinterpretation of fundamental moral and ethical principles of human rights, due process, and governmental transparency and accountability. The United States began its systemic torture of Mr. Al Baluchi in 2003 when he was held in C.I.A. secret detention site(s). In 2006 he was transferred to Guantanamo, where he currently remains labeled as a high value detainee. The United States depends on this arbitrary label to severely limit Mr. Al Baluchi s rights under international and domestic law. Mr. Al Baluchi is in grave need of and has a strong desire for rehabilitation to counteract the physical and psychological scars of the torture he experienced at the hands of the United States. The Unites States prohibits Mr. Al Baluchi from exercising his right to request assistance from any third party or representatives of his government. The United States has classified virtually all information regarding Mr. Al Baluchi s detention and treatment prior to 2006, with its transmission being punishable by imprisonment. They have, however, declassified the fact that information regarding the torture of Mr. Al Baluchi was provided to the filmmakers of the film Zero Dark Thirty and that this forms the basis for a pivotal character, Ammar. The legal framework under which Mr. Al Baluchi is being prosecuted is fragile, at best, and cannot be qualified as due process. In spite of a second Supreme Court intervention and an Executive Order directing the closure of the prisons in Guantanamo, the military commission painfully plods along in a second attempt at executing Mr. Al Baluchi and he remains a prisoner there. Mr. Al Baluchi continues to suffer human rights violations as the United States deadens efforts to address violations in the current condition of his confinement. We endeavor to zealously represent Mr. Al Baluchi in the furtherance of justice and mercy.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ADVOCACY STATEMENT ABOUT US BIO of AMMAR AL BALUCHI 3 BIO of JAMES G. CONNELL III 4 BIO of Lt. Col. STERLING R. THOMAS, USAF 9 RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TEAM BALUCHI DEFENSE ALTERNATIVE REPORT 10 TEAM BALUCHI DEFENSE ALTERNATIVE REPORT ARABIC 16 MILITARY COMMISSION DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE PROTECTIVE ORDER #1 VIOLATES THE C.A.T. 22 MILITARY COMMISSION ORDER RESPONDING TO DEFENSE MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE PROTECTIVE ORDER #1 VIOLATES THE C.A.T. 50 MILITARY COMMISSION SECOND AMENDED PROTECTIVE ORDER #1 TO PROTECT AGAINST DISCLOSURE OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION 59 MILITARY COMMISSION DEFENSE MOTION TO PERMIT TELEPHONIC ACCESS TO FAMILY 79 MILITARY COMMISSION DEFENSE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND FILMAKERS OF ZERO DARK THIRTY 97 ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS GITMO WATCH RECOMMENDED READING LIST 107 GITMO WATCH BOOK & DVD DRIVE 108 2

3 Born 1977 in Kuwait Fled from Kuwait to Iran 1991 Moved to Pakistan 1996 for political reasons Moved to UAE 1998 for work Abducted 2003 Black site(s) Guantanamo supermaximum prison present 3

4 James G. Connell, III Connell Law, P.C., P.O. Box 141 Cabin John, MD (703) Office of the Chief Defense Counsel 1620 Defense Pentagon Washington, DC (703) Office of the Chief Defense Counsel Building AV-34 Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba 011 (5399) 5326 Experience Office of the Chief Defense Counsel, Arlington, Virginia/Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (Department of Defense employee) Connell Law, P.C., Bethesda, Maryland/Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 2013-present (Department of Defense contractor) Learned Counsel. Represent Ammar al Baluchi in the United States Military Commissions, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, regarding allegations of his involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks. The United States is seeking the death penalty. Lead joint military-civilian multidisciplinary team in defending the largest criminal case in military history, following the largest government investigation in U.S. history. Forced the government to end presumptive classification, in which all client statements on any topic were considered classified. Sued Joint Task Force-Guantanamo Bay commander in Connell v. Woods, 12-cv-176 (D.D.C.), a declaratory judgment action alleging interference with attorney-client communications. Represented Mr. al Baluchi as intervenor in Miami Herald v. United States and ACLU v. United States in the United States Court of Military Commissions Review, petitions for mandamus seeking public access to military commission proceedings. Part a social media campaign Amnesty International called a crucial voice for human rights and civil liberties. Submitted alternative report to Committee Against Torture, United States Government Review Under the Convention Against Torture. Connell, Sheldon & Flood, P.L.C., Fairfax, Virginia Partner. Defended clients accused in state and federal courts. Litigated post-conviction remedies in state and federal courts. Most cases involved the potential application of the death penalty. First in the country to have Amended Death Notice struck under good cause provision of the Federal Death Penalty Act, United States v. Le, 316 F. Supp. 2d 343, aff d on reconsideration, 326 F. Supp. 2d 739 (E.D. Va. 2004). Plaintiff in Connell v. Kersey, 262 Va. 154, 547 S.E.2d 228 (2001), a Freedom of Information Act action attempting to obtain a police report of a client s alleged crime. Briefed and/or argued Muhammad v. Kelly, 130 S. Ct. 541 (2009) (Stevens, J., respecting denial of certiorari); Bell v. Kelly, cert. granted, 128 S. Ct. 2108, cert. dismissed after argument, 129 S. 4

5 Ct. 393 (2008); Muhammad v. Kelly, 575 F.3d 359 (4 th Cir. 2009); Bell v. Kelly, 260 Fed. Appx. 599 (4 th Cir. 2008); United States v. Woods, 271 Fed. Appx. 338 (4 th Cir. 2008); United States v. Jacobs, 215 Fed. Appx. 239 (4 th Cir. 2007); United States v. Pray, 734 F. Supp. 2d 158 (D.D.C. 2010); Muhammad v. Kelly, 2008 WL (E.D. Va. 2008); Bell v. True, 413 F. Supp. 2d 657 (W.D. Va. 2006), 373 F. Supp. 2d 617, 366 F. Supp. 2d 403, 356 F. Supp. 2d 613 (W.D. Va. 2005); United States v. Le, 327 F. Supp. 2d 601, 316 F. Supp. 2d 355, 316 F. Supp. 2d 330, 314 F. Supp. 2d 612, 313 F. Supp. 2d 579, 311 F. Supp. 2d 527, 310 F. Supp. 2d 763, 306 F. Supp. 2d 589 (E.D. Va. 2004); Burns v. Commonwealth, 279 Va. 243, 688 S.E.2d 263 (2010); Parker v. Commonwealth, 275 Va. 150, 654 S.E.2d 580 (2008); Powell v. Warden, 272 Va. 217, 634 S.E.2d 289 (2006); Velazquez v. Commonwealth, 263 Va. 95, 557 S.E.2d 213 (2002); Blue v. Commonwealth, 49 Va. App. 704, 644 S.E.2d 385 (2007); In re Dicks, 46 Va. App. 44, 614 S.E.2d 677 (2005); Schwartz v. Commonwealth, 45 Va. App. 407, 611 S.E.2d 631 (2005); Walshaw v. Commonwealth, 44 Va. App. 103, 607 S.E.2d 633 (2004); Leonard v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 134, 571 S.E.2d 306 (2002); Donati v. Commonwealth, 37 Va. App. 575, 571 S.E.2d 306 (2002). Public Defender for the City and County of Fairfax, Fairfax, Virginia Assistant Public Defender. Defended indigent clients accused of misdemeanors and felonies in the General District Court and Circuit Court. Conducted motions, trials, and sentencing hearings for clients accused of serious felonies, including murder, robbery, and rape. Briefed and/or argued Duong v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. App. 424, 542 S.E.2d 47 (2001); Waiters v. Commonwealth, 33 Va. App. 739, 536 S.E.2d 923 (2000); Morales v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 541, 525 S.E.2d 9 (2000); Copeland v. Commonwealth, 31 Va. App. 512, 525 S.E.2d 23 (2000); Commonwealth v. Dickson, 56 Va. Cir. 563 (2000); Commonwealth v. Davis, 53 Va. Cir. 140 (2000); Commonwealth v. Kenny, 47 Va. Cir. 324 (1998). The Hon. Rosemarie Annunziata, Court of Appeals of Virginia, Fairfax, Virginia Law Clerk. Researched and wrote bench briefs and draft opinions for Virginia appellate court judge on criminal, domestic relations, and workers compensation issues. Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada Research and Writing Attorney. Represented indigent federal criminal clients in second-chair capacity. Wrote motions and briefs filed in federal magistrate judge, district, and circuit courts on constitutional, statutory, Sentencing Guidelines, and habeas corpus issues. Briefed and argued United States v. Collins, 109 F.3d 1413 (9th Cir. 1997) and United States v. Everett, 972 F. Supp (D. Nev. 1997). Education College of William & Mary School of Law, Williamsburg, Virginia J.D Honors: Editor-in-Chief, William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law Order of the Barrister Litigation Honors Society ABA National Appellate Advocacy Competition Moot Court Team First Place Individual, ABA Moot Court Southeast Regional Tournament First Place Team, ABA Moot Court Southeast Regional Tournament Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida B.S. 1993, Communication Major, Criminology Minor Honors: First Place Individual Speaker at 1993 Cross-Examination Debate Association (CEDA) National Tournament 5

6 Publications James G. Connell, III, Using Cultural Experts, in CULTURAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE (3 rd ed., Linda Friedman-Ramirez ed. 2010). James G. Connell, III, Cultural Factors in Jury Selection, in CULTURAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE (3 rd ed., Linda Friedman-Ramirez ed. 2010). James G. Connell, III, Cultural Factors in Pre-Trial Motions and Sentencing, JUDICATURE, March-April 2009, at 212. James G. Connell, III, Using Cultural Experts, in CULTURAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE (2 nd ed., Linda Friedman-Ramirez ed. 2007). James G. Connell, III, Cultural Factors in Jury Selection, in CULTURAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE (2 nd ed., Linda Friedman-Ramirez ed. 2007). Meghan S. Skelton & James G. Connell, III, The Routine Booking Question Exception to Miranda, 34 U. BALTIMORE L. REV. 55 (2004). James G. Connell, III & René Valladares, Cultural Issues in Motions to Suppress, THE CHAMPION, Mar. 2001, at 18. James G. Connell, III, Using Cultural Experts, in CULTURAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE (René Valladares & James Connell, eds., 2000). Oscar Goodman, René Valladares, & James Connell, Cultural Factors in Jury Selection, in CULTURAL ISSUES IN CRIMINAL DEFENSE (René Valladares & James Connell, eds., 2000). James G. Connell, III, & René L. Valladares, Fourth Amendment Protections for Undocumented Aliens Within the United States, SEARCH & SEIZURE L. REP., Apr James G. Connell, III, & René L. Valladares, Search and Seizure Protections for Undocumented Aliens: The Territoriality and Voluntary Presence Principles of the Fourth Amendment, 34 AM. CRIM. L. REV (1997). James G. Connell, III, Challenging Scientific Evidence Under Daubert: Scope, Procedure, and Discovery, CJA DEF. J., Winter 1996, at 1. James G. Connell, III, Note, Norplant and the New Paradigm of International Population Policy, 2 WM. & MARY J. WOMEN & L. 73 (1995). Admitted Virginia State Bar Maryland State Bar District of D.C. Eastern District of Virginia Western District of Virginia Southern District of Texas District of Maryland United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Supreme Court of the United States Virginia Capital Trial Lead Counsel Virginia Capital Co-Counsel Virginia Capital Appellate Counsel Virginia Capital Habeas Counsel Qualified 6

7 Fourth Circuit Capital Appellate Panel TS/SCI security clearance Bar Activities Virginia Criminal Justice Conference Virginia Three-Discipline Capital Training Faculty Virginia State Bar Professionalism Faculty Teaching and Speaking Is Guantanamo a War Crime?, American University Beirut Center for American Studies and Research, October 28, 2014 (Beirut, Lebanon) Obstacles to Torture Rehabilitation at Guantanamo, International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, September 30, 2014 (Copenhagen, Denmark) International Law in the Military Commissions, icourts: Centre of Excellence for International Courts, September 30, 2014 (Copenhagen, Denmark) A Conversation with Defense Attorneys in the 9/11 Military Commission Proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, New York City Bar, November 14, 2013 (New York City, New York) Torture as Mitigation in the Military Commissions, NACDL LDEF Airlie Conference, July 13, 2013 (Airlie, Virginia) POW-MIA Managing Complex Criminal Litigation With CaseMap, DCACDL Rights of Spring, March 23, 2013 (Washington, DC) Classified Information in Capital Cases, NLADA Life in the Balance, November 2, 2012 (St. Louis, Missouri) Ethical Issues in Government Monitoring of Legal Communications, NLADA Life in the Balance, November 1, 2012 (St. Louis, Missouri) Big Brother Is Watching: GPS and Cell Tower Technology and Tracking, Virginia State Bar Annual Meeting, June 15, 2012 (Virginia Beach, Virginia) Ten Years of Military Commissions, Defense POW-MIA Office, April 5, 2012 (Crystal City, Virginia) DNA Mixtures: A Play in Three Acts, 19 th Annual Capital Defense Workshop, November 18, 2011 (Richmond, Virginia) DIY Digital Forensics: A Picture is Worth Words, Maryland Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, November 8, 2011 (Baltimore, Maryland) Forensic DNA Analysis, Fairfax Bar Association Forensic Evidence in Sexual Assault and Other Criminal Cases, October 20, 2011 (Fairfax, Virginia) The Law of Stored Communications, Alexandria Public Defender's Office, August 12, 2011 (Alexandria, Virginia) Geocaching Evidence: Cell Towers & Beyond, Maryland CJA Panel Training, May 20, 2011 (Baltimore, Maryland) Using CaseMap, Indigent Defense Commission Capital Investigator Training, May 19, 2011 (Richmond, Virginia) Cell Phone and Cell Tower Forensic Technology, VTLA Criminal Defense Experts in Action, April 23, 2011 (Charlottesville, Virginia) Electronic Evidence for the Criminal Defense Lawyer, VTLA Criminal Defense Experts in Action, April 22, 2011 (Charlottesville, Virginia) Protecting Your Investigation, NLADA Life in the Balance, March 6, 2011 (Orlando, Florida) Cross-Examining Snitches and Informants, NLADA Life in the Balance, March 5, 2011 (Orlando, Florida) 7

8 Brady-Kyles Issues and Discovery, NLADA Life in the Balance, March 5, 2011 (Orlando, Florida) Litigating Future Dangerousness Post-Morva, 18 th Annual Capital Defense Workshop, November 18, 2010 (Richmond, Virginia) The Humanity of Evil, Marymount University Forensic Psychology Awards Banquet, March 25, 2010 (Arlington, Virginia) Criminal Motions Practice, Alexandria-Arlington-Fairfax-Prince William Bar Associations, Motions Practice in the Local Circuit Courts: A Comparative Analysis, May 8, 2009 (Fairfax, Virginia) Keynote Address, University of the West of England Law Ball, April 3, 2009 (Bristol, England) Constitutional Discovery in Capital Cases, National Judicial College, Best Practices in Death Penalty Cases: A Workshop for Judges and Attorneys, February 2, 2009 (Richmond, Virginia) Cutting Edge Issues in Aggravation and Mitigation, National Judicial College, Best Practices in Death Penalty Cases: A Workshop for Judges and Attorneys, February 3, 2009 (Richmond, Virginia) Presentation of Evidence, Virginia Trial Lawyers Association, Fundamentals: You Can t Get Enough, September 4, 2008 (Richmond, Virginia), September 11, 2008 (Norfolk, Virginia), September 30, 2008 (Fairfax, Virginia) Criminal Law Workshop, Virginia State Bar, Mandatory Course on Professionalism, multiple presentations and locations Technology in the Courtroom, Virginia Bar Association, 15 th Annual Capital Defense Workshop, November 16, 2007 (Richmond, Virginia) Attacking Confessions and the Reid Method, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Death Penalty Seminar, November 10, 2007 (Cincinnati, Ohio) Mock trial defense counsel, The Felony Trial: A Juror s Perspective, October 20, 2007 (Williamsburg, Virginia) Deconstructing the Reid Interrogation Method, Federal Public Defender for the District of Nevada, September 21, 2007 (Las Vegas, Nevada) Cross-Examination of Gang Experts, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, Multi-Track Federal Criminal Defense Seminar: Strategies for Defending Complex Cases, September 6-7, 2007 (Baltimore, Maryland) Deconstructing the Reid Interrogation Method, Maryland Public Defender Spring Conference, May 19, 2006 (Ocean City, Maryland) Deconstructing the Reid Interrogation Method, Third National Forensics Seminar, January 27, 2006 (San Antonio, Texas) The Ordeal of Darrell Rice, 13 th Annual Capital Defense Workshop, November 17, 2005 (Richmond, Virginia) Deconstructing Police Interrogation, Virginia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Advanced Criminal Practice Seminar, October 21, 2005 (Roanoke, Virginia) 8

9 BIOGRAPHY UNITED STATES AIR FORCE LIEUTENANT COLONEL STERLING R. THOMAS Lieutenant Colonel Sterling R. Thomas is assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Chief Defense Counsel. The Office of the Chief Defense Counsel defends detainees prosecuted under the Military Commissions Act and the Manual for Military Commissions. Lieutenant Colonel Thomas serves as the Deputy Chief Defense Counsel, Air Force, part of the Senior Leadership of a 134-member joint command. Lieutenant Colonel Thomas is lead military defense counsel for Mr. Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, who is currently being tried before the 9/11 Guantanamo military commissions. Additionally, Lieutenant Colonel Thomas represents Mr. Abdulzahir, an Afghan citizen detained without trial by the United States since October Lieutenant Colonel Thomas received a direct commission as an Air Force judge advocate and entered active duty in June He has served as an Assistant Staff Judge Advocate, Circuit Trial Counsel, Environmental Litigation Attorney, Special Assistant to the United States Attorney General detailed to the Department of Justice, and Chief of the Air Force Environmental Litigation, Affirmative Cost Recovery Branch. Prior to entering the Air Force he practiced law in the District and Superior courts of North Carolina. Lieutenant Colonel Thomas is married with two children. EDUCATION 1992 Bachelor of Arts, English; Bachelor of Arts, African-American Studies; University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, NC 1997 Juris Doctor, North Carolina Central University School of Law, NC 2002 Squadron Officer s School, in residence 2008 Air Command and Staff College, by correspondence 2009 Master of Laws, Environmental Law, The George Washington University School of Law, DC MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS Meritorious Service Medal with one device Air Force Commendation Medal with one device Air Force Outstanding Unit Award Air Force Organizational Excellence Award National Defense Service Medal Humanitarian Service Medal (Current as of September 2014) 9

10 The United States Compliance with the Convention Against Torture with Respect to the Classification of Information Regarding the Ill-Treatment of Detainees in Secret Detention (Article 12: Investigation; Article 13: Right to complain; and Article 14: Right to redress) The author of this alternative report is James G. Connell, III, representative of Ammar al Baluchi, a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay. 1 I. Issue Summary The State Party seeks to execute six men imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay before they can reveal the truth of their torture. Furthermore, State Party policy threatens criminal liability for any doctor, attorney, or other professional who reveals information regarding ill-treatment to anyone outside the Executive Branch. The State Party s absolute prohibition on revealing torture implemented by classification of information about ill-treatment strikes at the heart of the international norm against torture. In 2006, after subjecting a number of men to torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in secret detention, the State Party transferred them to Guantanamo Bay. The State Party now seeks to execute six of these men in a military commission, outside the ordinary judicial process. The State Party considers the observations and experiences of its victims of ill-treatment to be owned and controlled by the State. Specifically, the State Party has classified almost all information regarding ill-treatment, preventing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay or their attorneys from presenting information about ill-treatment to relevant authorities. These classification restrictions block virtually all attempts to obtain the truth about the State Party s ill-treatment, to seek treatment for the effects of the abuse, or to use ill-treatment to mitigate the State Party s attempt to execute the six men. When men charged in the military commissions sought relief from this oppressive classification scheme, the United States Military Commission at Guantanamo Bay formally ruled 1 The State Party referenced attorneys fulfilling this role in Periodic Report of the United States of America, United Nations Committee Against Torture 51, 53, 145 (5 August 2013) [hereinafter Periodic Report], available at This alternative report does not state the position of the United States Government, the Department of Defense, the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, or any person or organization other than Mr. al Baluchi s attorneys. This alternative report does not rely upon, confirm, or deny information classified by the United States Government. 10

11 that the Convention Against Torture does not govern the State Party s activities at Guantanamo Bay. II. Use of classification to block investigation, complaint, and rehabilitation At the time the Committee issued its conclusions and recommendations in 2006, 2 the State Party was ill-treating at least fourteen men in a secret detention facility or facilities whose location(s) the State Party considers classified. The Committee recommended that the State Party close any secret detention facilities, investigate the ill-treatment of those arbitrarily detained, and prosecute those responsible. 3 The State Party considers almost all information regarding its secret detention to be classified information whose transmission is a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. 4 The State Party has, however, declassified redacted documents acknowledging the existence of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation Program. 5 In 2006, the Commission expressed its concern about the limitations on detainees effective right to complain, and recommended the following: The State party should ensure that its obligations under articles 13 and 15 are fulfilled in all circumstances, including in the context of military commissions and should consider establishing an independent mechanism to guarantee the rights of all detainees in its custody. 6 Rather than close Guantanamo Bay as the Committee recommended, 7 the State Party in September 2006 transferred men from CIA custody to super-maximum incarceration conditions 2 Committee Against Torture, Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture: United States of America, CAT/C/USA/CO/2 (25 July 2006) [hereinafter Concluding Observations]. 3 Id. at 17, 18, 19, 25, See 18 U.S.C. 798, 1924; 50 U.S.C. 421, 783. For example, one of only two declassified items of information regarding Mr. al Baluchi is that the film Zero Dark Thirty includes several interrogation scenes the first of which is an interrogation of a character who is modeled after Ammar al-baluchi. Adrian Chen, Newly Declassified Memo Shows CIA Shaped Zero Dark Thirty s Narrative (6 May 2013), available at (publishing redacted memorandum obtained through the U.S. Freedom of Information Act). 5 See, e.g., Office of Inspector General, Central Intelligence Agency, [Redacted] Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001-October 2003) (7 May 2004), available at 6 Concluding Observations at 30; see also id. at 14, 15 (recommending that the State party recognize the applicability of the CAT to all persons under its effective control). 7 Id. at

12 there as so-called high-value detainees. 8 In the State Party civilian courts, all statements by Guantanamo Bay prisoners, including information about their ill-treatment, are considered classified until the State Party determines otherwise. 9 Following years of detention without charge, the State Party has convened military commissions against a small number of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. 10 In each case, the military commissions have entered Orders which describe the following information as classified: (a) Details of capture other than location and date; (b) Countries involved in secret detention; (c) Persons involved in capture, rendition, detention, or interrogation; (d) Descriptions, duration, frequency, and sequencing of enhanced interrogation techniques; and (e) Conditions of confinement in secret detention. 11 The military commissions have also required the undersigned attorneys to sign a Memorandum of Understanding acknowledging that the State Party may prosecute them criminally for violation of the Order. 12 In response to the Committee s questions regarding the rights to investigation, complaint, and redress, 13 the State Party pointed to a number of mechanisms to seek redress under its civil 8 Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Patrick M. Walsh described Camp 7 as effectively a super-maximum confinement facility. DoD News Briefing with ADM Walsh from the Pentagon (23 Feb. 2009), available at see also Tara McKelvey, A visit to Guantanamo s secretive Camp 7, BBC News (20 Aug. 2013), available at The Committee has recommended the State Party review its use of supermax prisons, particularly the practice of prolonged isolation. Concluding Observations at See In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, 577 F. Supp. 2d 143, 147 (D.D.C. 2008); Al Odah v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1, 13 (D.D.C. 2004); In re Guantanamo Bay Cases, 344 F.2d 174, (D.D.C. 2004); see also Mr. al Baluchi s Motion to End Presumptive Classification, AE009 (17 April 2009), available at 10 Periodic Report at See, e.g., Second Amended Protective Order #1 to Protect Against Disclosure of National Security Information 2(g)(4)(a)-(e), AE013DDD, United States v. Mohammad (16 December 2013) [hereinafter Mohammad Order], available at Amended Protective Order #1 Protection of Classified Information Throughout All Stages of Proceedings 10(d), AE013M, United States v. al Nashiri (27 March 2014) [hereinafter al Nashiri Order], available at 12 Id. at 5(a)(2). 12

13 and criminal law. 14 The State party fails to acknowledge, however, that its policy of classifying all information regarding ill-treatment blocks Guantanamo Bay prisoners from pursuing any remedy for ill-treatment other than suppression of their coerced statements. Examples follow: The State Party has prohibited high-value Guantanamo Bay prisoners from communicating with the governments of their States of origin regarding the State Party s past and current treatment of them. The State Party has denied both these governments and the prisoners their treaty right to consular visits on the basis that the prisoners might reveal information regarding ill-treatment the State Party considers classified. An international non-governmental organization has forwarded counsel for some prisoners questions regarding the conditions of confinement and methods of interrogation during secret detention. The State party considers the answers to these questions classified, and will not permit counsel to provide information on these topics to international organizations. The State party prohibits the former CIA prisoners themselves from providing information to international bodies through the simple expedient of denying them access to the telephone, internet, and (non-icrc) postal system. Some detainees have sought and obtained relief from States through international tribunals. The State Party s prohibition on transmission of information regarding illtreatment makes it extremely difficult to seek redress in an international forum because prisoners cannot allege the facts needed to state a claim unless those facts appear in declassified documents. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) of the United States Congress has conducted an investigation of the CIA secret detention program. Some prisoners have sought permission to provide information to the SSCI regarding the State Party s treatment and condition, 15 but no such permission has been forthcoming. The rules prohibiting transmission of classified information prohibit even prisoners own attorneys from collaborating to gather and present information about ill-treatment. State 13 Committee Against Torture, List of issues prior to the submission of the fifth periodic report of United States of America 23, 26, 27, CAT/C/USA/Q/5 (20 Jan. 2010). 14 Periodic Report at 127, 130, 147; see also Common Core Document of the United States of America: Submitted with the Fourth Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (30 Dec. 2011), available at 15 See Mr. al Baluchi s Motion to Authorize Counsel to Provide Classified Information to Appropriately Cleared Members of the Legislative Branch, AE232(AAA), United States v. Mohammad (4 October 2013), available at 13

14 party policies prohibit military commission attorneys from providing information about ill-treatment to attorneys in civilian courts, as well as the reverse. 16 CAT obviously prohibits the State Party from denying the rights to complain, to investigation, and to rehabilitation simply by declaring the State Party s action to be classified. The State Party has overcome the protections of CAT by simply declaring that CAT is not enforceable at Guantanamo Bay. The State Party s claim to the Human Rights Council that military commissions provide all applicable protections under domestic and international law 17 does not reflect its actual policy at Guantanamo Bay. In 2013, faced with the obstacles the State Party has created, military commission defendants challenged the classification policy as a violation of CAT. 18 The State Party responded that it could classify the observations and experiences of victims of ill-treatment because they have been exposed to highly classified sources and methods, i.e., the interrogation techniques and conditions of confinement. 19 The military commission, which is a component of the U.S. Department of Defense rather than an independent judicial body, accepted the State Party position and ruled that Mr. al Baluchi and his co-defendants have no rights under the Convention against Torture. 20 The exclusion of Guantanamo Bay prisoners from the protections of CAT continues to this day: the State Party continues to use its classification power to deny the Article 12, 13, and 14 rights of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The Committee should inquire into this practice, which is not addressed by the State Party s submissions. 16 Mohammad Order at 5(f); Al Nashiri Order at U.S. Department of State, UPR Recommendations Supported by the U.S. Government 218 (June 2014) ( Persons who are charged with terrorist-related crimes are tried under legally established processes in either civilian courts or military commissions, depending on the nature of the crime and the individual. They are afforded all applicable protections under domestic and international law. ), available at 18 Mr. al Baluchi s Notice of Joinder, Factual Supplement & Argument to Defense Motion to Dismiss Because Amended Protective Order #1 Violates the Convention Against Torture, AE200(AAA) (17 Sept. 2013), available at 19 Government Response to Defense Motion to Dismiss Because the Amended Protective Order #1 Violates the Convention Against Torture, AE200F (3 Oct. 2013), available at 20 Order to Defense Motion to Dismiss Because Amended Protective Order #1 Violates the Convention Against Torture, AE200II (16 December 2013), available at 14

15 III. Suggested Question & Recommendation Suggested question: How, if at all, may prisoners at Guantanamo Bay complain of, demand an investigation of, and seek rehabilitation for ill-treatment outside the State Party s Executive Branch, given the State Party s classification of information regarding the treatment of prisoners in secret detention? Suggested recommendation: The State Party should remove all obstacles to the exercise of the rights to complain, to seek an investigation, and to seek rehabilitation for alleged torture victims at Guantanamo Bay, including declassifying all information regarding their treatment in secret detention. 15

16 ا متثال الوالياتالمتحدة إل تفاقيةمناهضاةلت ذعيب با لنسبة لتصنيفسرية المعلومات بخصوص سوء معاملة المتعقيلن في االحتجزا السري )المادة 21: التحقيق والمادة 21: الحق في تقديم الشكوى والمادة 21: الحق في التصحيح( مؤلف هذا التقرير البديل هو جيمس جي. كونيل الثالث ممثل لعمار البلوشي 1 والذي هو, عمار البلوشي, سجين في معتقل غوانتانامو. 1. ملخ اصلقضية تسعى مؤسسة الدولة إلعدام ستة رجال مسجونين في خليج جوانتانامو قبل أن يتمكنوا من كشف حقيقة تعذيبهم. وعالوة على ذلك سياسة مؤسسة الدولة تهدد بالمسؤولية الجنائية ألي ببي محام أو أي مهني اخر يكشف عن معلومات بشأن سوء المعاملة ألي شخص خارج نباق السلبة التنفيذية. إن الحظر المبلق لمؤسسة الدولة للكشف عن التعذي -بواسبة تصنيف المعلومات حول سوء المعاملة-هو في مثابة البعن في قل المعايير الدولية لمناهضة التعذي. وفي عام 1002 وبعد إخضاع عدد من الرجال للتعذي وغيره من أشكال المعاملة القاسية والالإنسانية والمهينة في مراكز اعتقال سرية قامت مؤسسة الدولة بنقلهم إلى خليج غوانتانامو. وتسعى مؤسسة الدولة اآلن بإعدام ستة من هؤالء الرجال في لجنة عسكرية خارج العملية القضائية العادية. وتعتبر مؤسسة الدولة ان مالحظات وتجار ضحاياها من سوء المعاملة هو ملكها وتحت رقابة الدولة. وعلى وجه التحديد صنفت مؤسسة الدولة, تقريبا, جميع المعلومات بشأن سوء المعاملة حيث منعت السجناء في خليج غوانتانامو أو محاميهم من تقديم المعلومات حول سوء المعاملة إلى السلبات المختصة. إن القيود لهذا التصنيف تمنع, عمليا, كل محاوالت الحصول على الحقيقة حول سوء المعاملة من ق بل مؤسسة الدولة أو من أجل السعي لعالج اآلثار المترتبة عن اإليذاء أو إلستخدام سوء المعاملة كمحاولة للتخفيف ضد عقوبة اإلعدام من ق بل مؤسسة الدولة بحق الستة رجال. 1 The State Party referenced attorneys fulfilling this role in Periodic Report of the United States of America, United Nations Committee Against Torture 51, 53, 145 (5 August 2013) [hereinafter Periodic Report], available at This alternative report does not state the position of the United States Government, the Department of Defense, the Office of Chief Defense Counsel, or any person or organization other than Mr. al Baluchi s attorneys. This alternative report does not rely upon, confirm, or deny information classified by the United States Government. 16

17 .2 وعندما تم توجيه االتهامات للرجال في اللجان العسكرية س عي بأإلغاثة من هذا المخبب القمعي للتصنيف حيث ان لجنة الواليات المتحدة العسكرية في خليج غوانتانامو حكمت رسميا أن اتفاقية مناهضة التعذي ال تحكم أنشبة مؤسسة الدولة في خليج غوانتانامو. ت استخدامال نصيف لمنع التقحيق لاوشكوى وا عاداةلتا هيل 2 في الوقت الذي أصدرت اللجنة استنتاجاتها وتوصياتها في عام 1002 كانت مؤسسة الدولة تقوم بإساءة معاملة أربعة عشر رجل على األقل في معتقل سري أو في مرافق بحيث انه تعتبر مؤسسة الدولة أن موقعها\مواقعها )للمعتقل السري أو للمرافق( سرية. وأوصت اللجنة بأن تقوم مؤسسة الدولة بإغالق أي 3 مراكز اعتقال سرية والتحقيق في إساءة المعاملة التعسفيه للمعتقلين ومحاكمة المسؤولين عنها. وتعتبر مؤسسة الدولة ان معظم المعلومات المتعلقة باالعتقال السري هي معلومات مصنفة وانه من 4 يقوم بإفشائها فقد ارتك جريمة جنائية يعاق عليها بالسجن. ومع ذلك فإن مؤسسة الدولة لديها وثائق منقحة قد رفعت عنها السرية حيث تعترف بوجود برنامج الترحيل السري واالحتجاز واالستجوا لوكالة 5 االستخبارات المركزية.)CIA( وفي عام 1002 أعربت اللجنة عن قلقها إزاء "القيود المفروضة على حق المعتقلين للشكوى الفعاله" حيث أوصت بما يلي: ينبغي لمؤسسة الدولة ضمان التزاماتها بموج المادتين 21 و 21 والوفاء في جميع الظروف بما في ذلك في إبار لجان عسكرية وينبغي النظر في إنشاء آلية مستقلة لضمان حقوق جميع 6 المحتجزين لديها. 7 وبدالا من إغالق معتقل غوانتانامو كما أوصت اللجنة قامت مؤسسة الدولة في سبتمبر 1002 بنقل الرجال من قبضة السي آي إيه (CIA) ا ىل سجن فائق-القصوى في ظروفه, 2 Committee Against Torture, Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture: United States of America, CAT/C/USA/CO/2 (25 July 2006) [hereinafter Concluding Observations]. 3 Id. at 17, 18, 19, 25, See 18 U.S.C. 798, 1924; 50 U.S.C. 421, 783. For example, one of only two declassified items of information regarding Mr. al Baluchi is that the film Zero Dark Thirty includes several interrogation scenes the first of which is an interrogation of a character who is modeled after Ammar al-baluchi. Adrian Chen, Newly Declassified Memo Shows CIA Shaped Zero Dark Thirty s Narrative (6 May 2013), available at (publishing redacted memorandum obtained through the U.S. Freedom of Information Act). 5 See, e.g., Office of Inspector General, Central Intelligence Agency, [Redacted] Counterterrorism Detention and Interrogation Activities (September 2001-October 2003) (7 May 2004), available at 6 Concluding Observations at 30; see also id. at 14, 15 (recommending that the State party recognize the applicability of the CAT to all persons under its effective control). 7 Id. at

18 ت) ث) ج) )أ( ) ( ) ) ) 8 حيث نس اليهم هناك بما يعرف بإسم "المعتقلين ذوي القيمة العالية". وفي المحاكم المدنية لمؤسسة الدولة, فإن جميع تصريحات سجناء معتقل غوانتانامو بما في ذلك معلومات عن تعرضهم لسوء المعاملة تعتبر 9 مصنفة حتى تحدد مؤسسة الدولة لخالف ذلك. وبعد سنوات من االعتقال من دون تهم عقدت مؤسسة الدولة اللجان العسكرية ضد عدد صغير من 10 السجناء في معتقل غوانتانامو. وفي كل حالة ادخلت اللجان العسكرية األوامر التي تصف المعلومات التالية مصنفة: التفاصيل عن األسر, غير المكان والتاريخ الدول المشاركة في االعتقال السري األشخاص المشاركين في األسر والترحيل واالعتقال أو االستجوا األوصاف والمدة والتردد والتسلسل في أسالي االستجوا "المعززة" و 11 أوضاع الحبس رهن االعتقال السري. ولقد إشتربت اللجان العسكرية أيضا على المحامين الموقعين على توقيع مذكرة تفاهم يقرون بأن 12 مؤسسة الدولة قد تقايضهم جنائيا النتهاك النظام. 13 ورداا على أسئلة اللجنة بشأن الحق في التحقيق والشكوى والتصحيح أشارت مؤسسة الدولة إلى عدد من اآلليات لبل التصحيح بموج القانون المدني والجنائي Vice Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Patrick M. Walsh described Camp 7 as effectively a super-maximum confinement facility. DoD News Briefing with ADM Walsh from the Pentagon (23 Feb. 2009), available at see also Tara McKelvey, A visit to Guantanamo s secretive Camp 7, BBC News (20 Aug. 2013), available at The Committee has recommended the State Party review its use of supermax prisons, particularly the practice of prolonged isolation. Concluding Observations at See In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, 577 F. Supp. 2d 143, 147 (D.D.C. 2008); Al Odah v. United States, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1, 13 (D.D.C. 2004); In re Guantanamo Bay Cases, 344 F.2d 174, (D.D.C. 2004); see also Mr. al Baluchi s Motion to End Presumptive Classification, AE009 (17 April 2009), available at 10 Periodic Report at See, e.g., Second Amended Protective Order #1 to Protect Against Disclosure of National Security Information 2(g)(4)(a)-(e), AE013DDD, United States v. Mohammad (16 December 2013) [hereinafter Mohammad Order], available at Amended Protective Order #1 Protection of Classified Information Throughout All Stages of Proceedings 10(d), AE013M, United States v. al Nashiri (27 March 2014) [hereinafter al Nashiri Order], available at 12 Id. at 5(a)(2). 18

19 ومع ذلك فشلت مؤسسة الدولة بأن تعترف أن سياستها لتصنيف جميع المعلومات المتعلقة بسوء المعاملة تمنع سجناء خليج غوانتانامو من متابعة أي عالج من سوء المعاملة ماعدا القمع من بياناتهم باإلكراه. أمثلة على ذلك: حظرت مؤسسة الدولة على السجناء في معتقل غوانتانامو "ذو القيمة العالية " من التواصل مع حكومات دول منشأهم فيما يتعلق بمعاملة مؤسسة الدولة لهم من الماضي والحاضر. ومنعت مؤسسة الدولة, على حد سواء لهذه الحكومات والسجناء بموج المعاهدة, بالحق في الزيارات القنصلية على أساس أن السجناء قد يكشفوا عن معلومات بشأن سوء معاملة مؤسسة الدولة والتي تعتبرها أنها سرية. منظمة دولية غير حكومية أحالت بمحامي ببعض األسئلة للسجناء فيما يتعلق بظروف الحبس وأسالي االستجوا أثناء االحتجاز السري. وبالتالي فإن مؤسسة الدولة تعتبران اإلجابات لهذه األسئلة سرية ولن تسمح للمحامي بتوفير المعلومات حول هذه الموضوعات إلى المنظمات الدولية. وتحظر مؤسسة الدولة على سجناء وكالة المخابرات المركزية السابقين من تقديم المعلومات للهيئات الدولية من خالل وسيلة بسيبة, وذلك عبر حرمانهم من الوصول إلى الهاتف واإلنترنت والنظام البريدي )لغير لجنة الصلي األحمر الدولية(. أجرت لجنة مجلس الشيوخ المعنية لإلسخبارات )SSCI( بكونغرس الواليات المتحدة تحقيقا في برنامج االعتقال السري لوكالة المخابرات المركزية. وقد سعى بعض السجناء 15 بتصريح لتوفير المعلومات للSSCI بشأن معاملة مؤسسة الدولة لهم وظروفهم ولكن ال يوجد إذن لهذا التصريح المرتق. إن هذه القوانين التي تحظر إحالة المعلومات السرية, ايضاا تمنع محامين السجناء انفسهم من التعاون لجمع المعلومات وعرضها حول إساءة المعاملة. إن سياسات مؤسسة الدولة تحظر على المحامين من اللجان العسكرية من تقديم المعلومات حول المعاملة السيئة 16 للمحامين في محاكم مدنية وكذلك العكس. من الواضح أن اتفاقية مناهضة التعذي تحظرعلى مؤسسة الدولة من حرمان الحق في الشكوى إلى الحق بالتحقيق والحق بإعادة التأهيل, وذلك ببسابة عن بريق إعالن إجراءات مؤسسة الدولة بأنها مصنفة. وباتالي فقد تغلبت مؤسسة الدولة, ببسابة,على الحماية المتاحة 13 Committee Against Torture, List of issues prior to the submission of the fifth periodic report of United States of America 23, 26, 27, CAT/C/USA/Q/5 (20 Jan. 2010). 14 Periodic Report at 127, 130, 147; see also Common Core Document of the United States of America: Submitted with the Fourth Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (30 Dec. 2011), available at 15 See Mr. al Baluchi s Motion to Authorize Counsel to Provide Classified Information to Appropriately Cleared Members of the Legislative Branch, AE232(AAA), United States v. Mohammad (4 October 2013), available at 16 Mohammad Order at 5(f); Al Nashiri Order at

20 باتفاقية مناهضة التعذي عن بريق إعالن أن إتفاقية مناهضة التعذي غير قابلة للتنفيذ في خليج غوانتانامو. ادعاء مؤسسة الدولة, لمجلس حقوق اإلنسان, أن اللجان العسكرية توفر "جميع أشكال 17 الحماية القابلة للتببيق بموج القانون المحلي والدولي" ال يعكس السياسة الفعلية لها في خليج غوانتانامو. وفي عام 1021 وفي مواجهة العقبات التي أنشأتها مؤسسة الدولة بعن المتهمون 18 بسياسة التصنيف للجان العسكرية باعتبارها انتهاكا التفاقية مناهضة التعذي. بحيث ر تد مؤسسة الدولة بأنه يمكن تصنيف المالحظات والتجار من ضحايا سوء المعاملة النهم "تعرضوا 19 لمصادر وبرق سرية للغاية" بمعنى, اسالي االستجوا وظروف احتجازهم. اللجنة العسكرية والتي هي مكون من مكونات وزارة الدفاع األمريكية, وبدال من هيئة قضائية مستقلة قبلت بموقف مؤسسة الدولة وقضت بأن السيد البلوشي, والمتهمين معه, ليس لهم حقوق بموج اتفاقية مناهضة التعذي. 20 إقصاء السجناء في معتقل غوانتانامو من الحماية المتاحة من اتفاقية مناهضة التعذي ال تزال حتى يومنا هذا: فمؤسسة الدولة تواصل استخدام السلبة للتصنيف لحرمان السجناء في معتقل غوانتانامو من حقوق المادة 21 و 21 و 21. ينبغي من اللجنة التحقيق في هذه الممارسة والتي لم تتناولها التقارير التي تقدمها مؤسسة الدولة. 17 U.S. Department of State, UPR Recommendations Supported by the U.S. Government 218 (June 2014) ( Persons who are charged with terrorist-related crimes are tried under legally established processes in either civilian courts or military commissions, depending on the nature of the crime and the individual. They are afforded all applicable protections under domestic and international law. ), available at 18 Mr. al Baluchi s Notice of Joinder, Factual Supplement & Argument to Defense Motion to Dismiss Because Amended Protective Order #1 Violates the Convention Against Torture, AE200(AAA) (17 Sept. 2013), available at 19 Government Response to Defense Motion to Dismiss Because the Amended Protective Order #1 Violates the Convention Against Torture, AE200F (3 Oct. 2013), available at 20 Order to Defense Motion to Dismiss Because Amended Protective Order #1 Violates the Convention Against Torture, AE200II (16 December 2013), available at 20