Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 32 of 32

Thread: U.S. recommends death penalty in USS Cole attack

  1. #31
    Administrator Helen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    20,875
    Guantánamo Prisoner Said He Was Waterboarded; Agents Omitted It From Memo

    The revelation came in the latest pretrial hearings in the long-running U.S.S. Cole bombing case

    A prisoner accused of plotting Al Qaeda’s bombing of the U.S.S. Cole warship in 2000 told federal interrogators years later that he was waterboarded by the C.I.A., an interpreter testified Thursday. But that detail was omitted from the official account of the interrogations that prosecutors want to use at his death-penalty trial as evidence that he confessed.

    At issue in the hearings is whether the military judge will accept a 34-page memo written by agents who questioned the prisoner, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, at Guantánamo Bay for 3 days in early 2007. The account of the interrogation is considered critical trial evidence. Defense lawyers say it is tainted by torture and want it excluded.

    “He talked about the waterboarding,” said John J. Elkaliouby, who worked for the F.B.I. as an Arabic linguist from 1994 to 2015. “He said, ‘I was waterboarded by the C.I.A.,’ and I reported that to the whole team.”

    Mr. Elkaliouby was called as a prosecution witness to describe the mood and atmosphere during the interrogation, which he said was friendly, calm and “at the pleasure of Mr. Nashiri,” who was shackled at the ankles. The agents served tea and pastry, and the prisoner offered that he had been tortured.

    The linguist cast the revelation as a surprise. “I didn’t expect that, to be honest.”

    Testimony this week expanded on accounts that have emerged in the Sept. 11 case of how military prosecutors built death-penalty cases against men who were tortured during secret detention in overseas prisons run by the C.I.A., and then transferred to Guantánamo Bay in 2006 for trial by order of President George W. Bush.

    The C.I.A. had a secret role at Guantánamo in the detention and interrogations of the men by F.B.I. and Navy law enforcement agents, including collecting the notes from interrogations, Mr. Elkaliouby said. The C.I.A. required that the interrogators write their accounts of what they learned on agency computers, which were classified.

    Before the interrogations started in early 2007, the federal agents were instructed to omit allegations of torture and abuse from what was colloquially called “clean team memos” — and instead write a separate account.

    Defense lawyers have said they received copies of those separate accounts among classified documents prosecutors turned over to them in this pretrial phase. But it is impossible to know how the defendants raised the accusations because there are no recordings or transcripts of those interrogations.

    17 U.S. sailors were killed in the suicide attack on the Cole during a refueling stop in Aden, Yemen, on Oct. 12, 2000. Although Mr. Nashiri was captured 2 years later and turned over to U.S. custody, he was not charged until 2011. The case has been mired in pretrial hearings for more than a decade as defense lawyers have struggled to obtain and use information about his torture to disqualify evidence.

    They also have argued that Mr. Nashiri, who is now 57 and has been diagnosed by U.S. military doctors as suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, emerged from C.I.A. detention in a state of “learned helplessness,” essentially trained to tell his U.S. captors what he believed they wanted to hear.

    He was waterboarded in Thailand in 2002 by psychologists who worked as C.I.A. contractors and was subjected to rectal abuse and threatened with a power drill and a gun during interrogations conducted by C.I.A. agents. For a time in late 2003 and early 2004, he was hidden at Guantánamo Bay in a C.I.A. black site near the prison facilities but out of reach of lawyers and the International Red Cross.

    That site is known as Camp Echo 2, and it was where Mr. Nashiri was held in 2004 and then in 2007 for the interrogations that prosecutors consider central to their case.

    Earlier Thursday, Bernard E. DeLury Jr., a retired Navy Reserve captain who is now a superior court judge in New Jersey, testified for prosecutors that on March 14, 2007, Mr. Nashiri was “alert,” “present” and not under distress during a hearing to review his status as an enemy combatant.

    Judge DeLury presided at the 2-hour Combatant Status Review Tribunal, or C.S.R.T., during which, he said, he had “no doubt in my mind” that the prisoner’s participation was knowing and voluntary.

    The process prohibited prisoners from having a lawyer, but Mr. Nashiri was assigned a Navy officer to act as a “personal representative,” speak on his behalf and help him respond to the allegations that the military said were sufficient to detain him as, essentially, a prisoner of the war against terrorism.

    A defense lawyer, Capt. Brian L. Mizer of the Navy, asked Judge DeLury whether he knew that Mr. Nashiri had told his representative, who was called Lieutenant Commander X in court, that he was “afraid that he would be executed and dismembered at his C.S.R.T.”

    Judge DeLury replied: “If he had told me that, I certainly would have explored that with him.”

    (source: New York Times)
    "I realize this may sound harsh, but as a father and former lawman, I really don't care if it's by lethal injection, by the electric chair, firing squad, hanging, the guillotine or being fed to the lions."
    - Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian

    "There are some people who just do not deserve to live,"
    - Rev. Richard Hawke

    “There are lots of extremely smug and self-satisfied people in what would be deemed lower down in society, who also deserve to be pulled up. In a proper free society, you should be allowed to make jokes about absolutely anything.”
    - Rowan Atkinson

  2. #32
    Moderator Bobsicles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,318
    Guantánamo Judge Weighing Hearsay Statements in U.S.S. Cole Bombing Case

    About 100 Yemeni witnesses are unavailable for the trial for the 2000 terrorist attack. Now, a military judge must decide how much hearsay testimony to allow in the death-penalty case.

    By Carol Rosenberg
    The New York Times

    GUANTÁNAMO BAY, Cuba — At a hearing in the U.S.S. Cole bombing case this week, a retired F.B.I. agent described what three Yemeni eyewitnesses had told investigators 20 years ago after the suicide attack on the Navy warship.

    According to the agent, the Yemenis pointed to a photo of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Guantánamo prisoner now awaiting a death-penalty trial, as the person who had rented a safehouse used by plotters of the attack.

    Confronted with the image on cross-examination, the former agent, Ammar Barghouty, said he was mistaken. The eyewitness had identified one of the suicide bombers, not Mr. Nashiri, as the tenant.

    The rare “Law & Order” moment in the long-running case illustrated the challenge confronting the judge more than two decades after the Qaeda attack killed 17 American sailors and wounded dozens more in the port of Aden, Yemen, on Oct. 12, 2000.

    Prosecutors contend they have no way of finding or bringing to Guantánamo the Yemeni men and boys whom U.S. agents questioned in the days, months and years after the attack. It is the judge’s job to decide in which instances mostly retired former agents can testify as stand-ins for about 100 missing witnesses.

    The judge, Col. Lanny J. Acosta Jr., must determine in hearings now underway which of the hearsay statements, as they are called, are reliable enough to be presented to the military jury that will someday hear the death-penalty case.

    The hearsay hearings began this summer and will continue into next year, with agents searching their memories to recall interviews in Yemen in the early 2000s. Prosecutors often hand the agents the accounts they wrote at the time to refresh their recollections.

    Testimony has shown that U.S. agents operated under such strict restrictions imposed after months of negotiations by the U.S. ambassador that, even if Yemen were not embroiled in civil warfare, many Yemeni witnesses would never be found.

    For starters, Yemeni security forces located and brought the witnesses to the interviews, which were held at intelligence service compounds.

    U.S. agents interviewed most witnesses just once, with Yemeni intelligence representatives always in the room, usually at the witnesses’ side.

    Agents described an at-times hostile atmosphere. They were not allowed to canvass neighborhoods unescorted, nor were they able to photograph witnesses or obtain contact information to confirm their identity or to reach them later.

    Part of the judge’s analysis involves why certain witnesses are unavailable. Two of the witnesses, whom U.S. interrogators questioned in a Yemeni prison, were subsequently killed in U.S. drone strikes.

    Yemen is such a dangerous place that the ambassador works remotely. The U.S. Embassy there suspended operations in 2015. A year ago, Houthi forces broke into the compound and captured Yemeni employees of the United States or United Nations, a dozen of whom are still detained. One died in detention. The Pentagon prohibits war court personnel from traveling there.

    Navy and F.B.I. agents have described arriving at the foundering, still burning wreck of the Cole, speaking to shocked survivors and then being stymied in their efforts to investigate onshore.

    Yemeni security service members brought witnesses to the Americans with prepared statements based on Yemeni interrogations, which were read aloud before U.S. investigators could ask questions.

    Agent Kenneth S. Reuwer of N.C.I.S., who questioned port workers in a room at a prison compound in February 2001, called the investigative conditions “extremely restrictive.”

    Each witness sat five feet from the investigators. Mr. Reuwer said that he or an F.B.I. teammate would ask a question, without making eye contact with the witness, and a U.S. linguist would translate. Then the Yemenis would pose the question to the witness, sometimes after questioning the question. A Yemeni general was always in the room.

    Pushing back against the process seemed unwise. The interviews could be ended “on the snap of a finger by the host country,” said Mr. Reuwer, who retired in 2014.

    In court this week, his role was to describe interviews he conducted about three months after the attack with workers who heard an explosion and then looked into Aden harbor to see thick black smoke over the destroyer.

    Another unavailable witness is Salim Hamdan, a former driver for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan. Mr. Hamdan was convicted of war crimes at Guantánamo in 2008 and sent home, but ultimately acquitted four years later because of flawed charges in the case. Defense lawyers say he is unwilling to testify.

    Prosecutors want a former federal agent to tell the military jury what Mr. Hamdan said during a pretrial interrogation: that before the bombing of the Cole, Mr. Hamdan saw Mr. Nashiri testing explosives in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

    Defense lawyers have argued that Mr. Hamdan’s accounts should be excluded from the trial because federal agents questioned him at Guantánamo, which used sleep deprivation and other abuses to get detainees to talk.

    But the potential testimony of Mr. Hamdan has already been damaging to the defense. Capt. Brian L. Mizer, Mr. Nashiri’s longest-serving lawyer, left the case this month over an ethical conflict. Captain Mizer had defended Mr. Hamdan at trial and knows something about his interrogations, which could be helpful to Mr. Nashiri. But Captain Mizer cannot divulge what he knows because of attorney-client confidentiality.

    In 2011, weeks after Mr. Nashiri’s first appearance in court, Brig. Gen. Mark S. Martins, the chief prosecutor at the time, described the war court’s reliance on hearsay testimony as a necessity for a nation at war.

    Hearsay testimony provides “sufficient flexibility to submit the best available evidence from genuine zones of conflict,” General Martins said in a speech to the American Bar Association.

    Hearsay would be used at military commissions, he said, under “tailored exceptions that make sense given the unique circumstance of military and intelligence operations during hostilities — and the adverse impacts on such operations that would likely result from the production of the witnesses.”

    He made no mention of the prosecution’s intent to use more than 100 hearsay statements that federal agents collected in the previous decade from Yemeni eyewitnesses under the supervision of Yemeni intelligence.

    Jodie Blackstock, a London-based criminal defense lawyer, said hearsay should only be used “in exceptional circumstances.”

    “It appears that in this case a substantial amount of the evidence against the accused is hearsay, and if that is permitted it will cast doubt on whether the trial can be fair,” said Ms. Blackstock, who observed this week’s proceedings on behalf of a British human rights organization.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/29/u...bing-case.html
    Thank you for the adventure - Axol

    Tried so hard and got so far, but in the end it doesn’t even matter - Linkin Park

    Hear me, my chiefs! I am tired. My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever. - Hin-mah-too-yah-lat-kekt

    I’m going to the ghost McDonalds - Garcello

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •