In Debate Over Permanent Bases In Iraq, U.S. Seeks Authorization For War In Iran»

The ongoing negotiations between Iraqi leaders and the Bush administration over the future role of the military occupation “have turned into an increasingly acrimonious public debate.”

The Bush administration’s demand for 58 permanent bases in Iraq — a near doubling of the current 30 bases — are causing Iraqis to warn that the status of forces agreement would be “more abominable than the occupation.” The administration is reportedly holding hostage “some $50bn of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement.”

The reason the White House is so hell-bent on signing a long-term agreement may have less to do with Iraq and more to do with Iran. According to press reports of the ongoing negotiations, the Bush administration is seeking the “power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq.” Ali al Adeeb, a leading member of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa party, confirmed:

The Americans insist so far that is they who define what is an aggression on Iraq and what is democracy inside Iraq…if we come under aggression we should define it and ask for help.

The administration’s request would seemingly allow the U.S. to brand Iran as an enemy of Iraq and attack Iran in the name of defending Iraq pursuant a legal obligation under the status of forces agreement.

Other details from press accounts confirm that the Bush administration has one eye on Iran in the course of its negotiations with Iraqis. The Washington Post explains that the administration is seeking “the prerogative for U.S. forces to conduct operations without approval from the Iraqi government.” Moreover, the U.S. wants control over Iraq’s airpsace:

The American negotiators also called for continued control over Iraqi airspace and the right to refuel planes in the air, according to [Sami al-Askari, a leading Shiite politician], positions he said added to concerns that the United States was preparing to use Iraq as a base to attack Iran.

Since the administration is unlikely to get an Iran war authorized through Congress, it’s instead trying to sneak it through the Iraqi parliament.

Terror suspect phones Sudan to hire own lawyer

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba — Within hours of a judge’s order, an accused al Qaeda conspirator from Sudan got a call from home Thursday to consult with his family on how they might hire him a lawyer, at their own expense.

Ibrahim al Qosi, 47, had earlier fired his U.S. military lawyer and threatened to boycott his war crimes trial. He said he wanted to talk by telephone with his brother, presumably in Khartoum, to get the Sudanese Bar Association to line him up a defense lawyer instead.

In response, Air Force Lt. Col. Nancy Paul, a military judge, ordered lawyers to arrange the call through the International Committee of the Red Cross. She gave them until July 1.

But commanders at the prison camp, ringed by barbed wire and overlooking the Caribbean, accomplished the assignment soon after the judge gaveled the court to a closure.

”It’s done,” said Navy Cmdr. Pauline Storum, spokeswoman for the detention center.

The call lasted about one hour, Storum said, unaware of what was discussed or who was on the other end.

Just hours earlier, Qosi had sat placidly at the war court, miles from the prison camp, wearing the crisp white tunic and trousers of a cooperative captive — and politely insisted that he would not accept the services of his Pentagon-appointed defense attorney.

”I would like you to allow me to contact my family in Sudan so I can get a legal advisor through the bar in my country,” Qosi told the judge.

It was a stark contrast to a tense hearing a day earlier for an alleged al Qaeda foot soldier from Afghanistan, who bit and spat on guards ordered by another judge to force him into his arraignment.

Qosi is accused of conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism for allegedly working as Osama bin Laden’s bodyguard and driver and as a member of an al Qaeda mortar crew. Conviction carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Earlier allegations that he worked as an al Qaeda payroll clerk in Khartoum, Sudan, and ran bin Laden’s kitchen in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, are omitted from his current charge sheet.

At his arraignment in April, Qosi threatened to boycott his trial. He said he would not accept any U.S.-appointed lawyer, military or civilian, and called the war crimes court illegitimate.

Thursday, his Air Force judge spent a chunk of the morning session trying to get Qosi to let Navy Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier help him hire his own lawyer. He refused.

”I’ve been imprisoned here for 6 ½ years. I have no contact with the outside world,” he said. “If you allow me to call my family, I will ask them to do that.”

The prison camps launched the Red Cross telephone call program two months ago. It lets cooperative captives get a once-a-year hour-long phone call from home.

So far, approximately 35 of the 270 detainees have received calls, Storum said.

Next will come the more delicate issue of what role a lawyer lined up by Sudan’s Bar Association might play at Qosi’s trial.

War court rules largely require that U.S military attorneys act as defense counsel, in part because of national security concerns at Guantánamo itself and involving evidence at trial.

A clause in the war court manual lets a detainee defend himself or hire his own attorney, so long as there is no U.S. government expense. But the lawyer must be a U.S. citizen and get a Defense Department security clearance that lets the lawyer travel to this remote base.

The war court rules also permit an alleged terrorist to have a foreign attorney consultant on his defense team. But they say the detainee’s U.S. military-appointed defense counsel — whom Qosi rejects — must apply to have the foreign lawyer join the team.

After that, it is up to a Bush administration political appointee, or the trial judge, to approve that foreigner’s role.

Embassy bombings widow calls for civilian trial for detainee

An American college professor whose Kenyan husband was killed in the 1998 al Qaida suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania said Tuesday that a Guantanamo detainee accused in the attack should be tried in a civilian federal court, not by a military commission.

“These commissions have been fraught with challenges … from coerced evidence to secret evidence,” said Susan Hirsch, a professor at George Mason University outside Washington D.C.

She called the Guantanamo war court, established after the 9/11 attacks, “an unprecedented newly created procedure” that has been “roundly condemned worldwide.”

Hirsch, 48, spoke a day after the Pentagon prosecutor filed proposed charges against Ahmad Ghailani in the embassy bombing that killed her husband. Ghailani was accused of helping gather up the parts for truck bomb that blew through the embassy in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Aug. 7, 1998.

Ghailani already was indicted in New York 10 years ago for his involvement in the attack, an indictment that possibly could have seen him already tried and sentenced, had he been turned over to civilian prosecutors for trial when he was arrested in Pakistan in July 2004.

Instead, he was held secretly by the CIA until September 2006, then turned over to military authorities, who transferred him to Guantanamo.

Four other men were tried in New York for the East Africa bombings, which struck in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi, Kenya, killing more than 220 people, including 12 Americans, and injuring more than 4,000.

Each of the men, who were captured in East Africa and brought to the United States for trial, was convicted and is serving a sentence of life in prison.

Hirsch, whose husband, Abdurahman Abdalla, was waiting outside the embassy while she was inside, cashing a check, both attended and testified as a victim at the trial, which was held in New York City.

“In my view, when Ghailani was picked up in Pakistan in 2004, he could’ve been brought to federal court. That’s the kind of justice I would support,” said Hirsch, a cultural anthropology professor who was teaching at Dar es Salaam University as a Fulbright lecturer in 1998.

What faces Ghailani now is uncertain. The Bush administration established military commissions following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks to prosecute al Qaida and other war-on-terror captives scooped up abroad.

But the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the first format unconstitutional. The current formula, authorized by the 2006 Military Commissions Act, has been attacked by legal advocates and others for allowing evidence obtained through coercion, holding closed sessions and being overseen by White House appointees subject to political pressure.

Hirsch, who wrote a book, “In The Moment of Greatest Calamity: Terrorism, Grief and a Victim’s Quest for Justice,” about her loss and the subsequent trial, said she’d been notified in advance that the Pentagon was preparing charges against Ghailani.

But she said that she had not been invited to observe proceedings at Guantanamo, as she had been for the New York trials.

If invited, she said, she would consider attending.

A professor of cultural anthropology at George Mason, Hirsch runs the suburban Washington D.C.’s Undergraduate Program Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.

Hirsch testified in the sentencing phase of the 2001 trial of the four men charged in the bombings — a Lebanese-born naturalized American, a Saudi, a Tanzanian and a Jordanian.

All four got life sentences without possibility of parole.

Monday, the New York U.S. Attorneys office as well as the Department of Justice declined to comment on whether they would seek to prosecute Ghailani in civilian court. The Pentagon’s military commissions legal advisor said Monday there is nothing to prevent both a civilian and a military commission trial.

Omar Khadr: A most peculiar young offender

 He should be dealt with here in Canada, as a juvenile who was involved in terrorism

The civilized world condemns the recruitment of child soldiers. Yet Canada sits quietly by as one of its citizens, Omar Khadr, is prosecuted by the United States for war crimes he allegedly committed at age 15 as a member of al-Qaeda.

It is impossible to square. Al-Qaeda’s recruitment of child soldiers is immoral and abusive; consequently, it is immoral and abusive to prosecute as a war criminal a child recruited by al-Qaeda, and punish him accordingly. We can’t have it both ways.

Lately, it has dawned on Canadians that the United States may well have lied about its evidence against Mr. Khadr. Far from having proof that only he could have thrown the grenade that killed their soldier, the U.S. appears to have hidden the truth: that the teenage Canadian was in the company of an adult al-Qaeda fighter and was himself unarmed, on his knees and facing away from battle when a U.S. soldier shot him twice — in the back.

But the falsehoods are only part of the reasons why Canadians let the 15-year-old disappear six years ago into the legal black hole of Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in which he had no access to a lawyer for the first 27 months and no way to contest his detention. Canadians accepted that Mr. Khadr be held fully responsible for his actions. As if he were an adult.

The irony has never really penetrated Canadians’ consciousness. Canada, the country of the liberal Youth Criminal Justice Act, is the only Western nation to give the United States carte blanche with one of its nationals at Guantanamo. Britain, Australia, Sweden and Germany fought to repatriate their nationals — adults, all of them. And Canada let a juvenile languish.

The reply from our government is but a single, vapid refrain: “Let the process work.” But this is a process that, even apart from its other flaws, aims at punishing Omar Khadr for the accident of his birth in an al-Qaeda family.

A VICTIM OF HIS OWN HOME

When a young person raised in a terrorist family becomes a terrorist at 15, does he join voluntarily? Can he give free and informed consent? To say yes is to let al-Qaeda and Toronto’s Khadr family off the hook for grooming children for terrorism. It puts the onus on the children to resist.

Most Canadian children grow up in circles within circles of benign, positive influences — family, school, neighbourhood, the larger culture. Omar’s circles of influence were pro-terror. His late father, Ahmed Said Khadr, was a senior financier with al-Qaeda who prodded Abdurahman, Omar’s elder brother, to become a suicide bomber. Even his mother and sister boasted on national television of the glories of terrorism.

From age 11, Omar was inculcated in terror, according to the U.S. charge sheets. “From 1996 to 2001, the Khadr family travelled throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan, including yearly trips to Usama bin Laden’s compound in Jalalabad for the Eid celebration at the end of Ramadan. While travelling with his father, Omar Khadr saw or personally met senior al-Qaeda leaders, including Usama bin Laden, Doctor Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Muhammad Atef (aka Abu Hafs al Masri), and Saif al Adel. Khadr also visited various al Qaeda training camps and guest houses.”

Only an extraordinary 15-year-old could have withstood that grooming process. The Khadr son who did resist, Abdurahman, did not do so until he was in his 20s. A younger brother, Abdul Karim, was paralyzed in battle in Pakistan in 2004 at 14. (His father was killed in the same battle.) The oldest brother, Abdullah, faces extradition from Toronto to the United States on terrorism charges from Afghanistan.

Yet many Canadians insist he acted of his free will. “Real child soldiers are forcibly taken from their parents (who are often killed),” one Globe reader wrote in an unpublished letter to the editor. “These children are drugged, brainwashed, and abused so they become killers. Khadr became a soldier/terrorist because his family encouraged it. He was a willing participant. Where was the coercion?”

This is a narrow view of coercion. Could there be a worse form of coercion than that in a father’s wish that his son become a suicide bomber? “Blow yourself up or lose your father’s esteem.” Omar’s family culture promoted dying for the cause. That was what it meant to be a good boy in that family.

CHILD SOLDIERS ELSEWHERE

The world is rife with child soldiers. Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., estimates that as many as 300,000 child soldiers are in combat around the world. Yet none of today’s international war-crimes tribunals prosecute child soldiers or terrorists.

No one under 18 has been charged before the tribunals for Rwanda or the former Yugoslavia. No one has been charged in East Timor, in Cambodia, in Bosnia and Herzegovina. “To date, there is no precedent in history for the prosecution of a child soldier before an international criminal tribunal, and similarly there is no precedent in the Western world for prosecution of a child soldier before any state tribunal,” says Sarah Paoletti, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, in a friend-of-the-court brief to the military commission that is to try Mr. Khadr. (Among those whose names are on that brief are former Canadian justice ministers Irwin Cotler and Allan Rock.) The U.S. says there are in fact precedents, but its examples predate the Nuremberg Tribunals. For instance, a British Military Court in northwestern Germany convicted and jailed a 15-year-old Hitler Youth member for his role in killing a British serviceman.

More recently, at the Special Court for Sierra Leone in 2004, the U.S. prosecutor, David Crane, was given the option of putting on trial, in a court without punishment, those age 15 to 17 who committed war crimes. Memorably, Mr. Crane rejected that idea. “The children of Sierra Leone have suffered enough both as victims and perpetrators. I want to prosecute the people who forced thousands of children to commit unspeakable crimes.”

If international practice is clear, the law as written is less so.

The relevant text is the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict. Both Canada and the U.S. are among the 150 signatories. “The Protocol prohibits the United States from using child soldiers, not from prosecuting them,” says the U.S. brief to the military commission.

It’s right. The protocol is silent on its face. Emboldened by that silence, the U.S. stretches the point: “If anything, the Protocol obligates the United States to prosecute Khadr” because not punishing Mr. Khadr would “further incentivize” al-Qaeda in recruiting young people.

If the U.S. is right, where is the outcry that all the world’s child soldiers are going unpunished at all the world’s tribunals except this one?

Omar Khadr was a war crime waiting to happen. Anyone in al-Qaeda or the Taliban is an unlawful enemy combatant under U.S. law. Anything such a combatant does to fight, even in battle, is a war crime.

“In a normal war,” explained John Bellinger, a legal adviser to the U.S. state department, “where both sides have a right to engage in combat with one another, if a soldier kills a soldier on the other side, it’s not murder unless it is done somehow contrary to the laws of war perfidiously, or killing someone when they have already surrendered.

“In this case, though, the members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, while they may have thought they were defending themselves, they had no legal right under the laws of war to be engaging in combat.” There’s a legitimate expectation that young people know and abide by the criminal law of their countries; the minimum age of criminal responsibility is usually 12 (as it is in Canada). But how could a 15-year-old of Mr. Khadr’s experience and background have been aware of the laws of war, especially laws that hadn’t been invented yet?

And speaking of inventions: “According to the reports of the action we have available, the last surviving enemy in that compound … as his last act at the firefight rose up with a pistol and hand grenade, and engaged the coalition forces, threw the grenade,” Col. Roger King, a U.S. spokesman based in Afghanistan, told the Associated Press in September, 2002. We now know that the U.S. had an eyewitness report that painted a very different picture.

A CASE FOR CANADIAN PROCESSES

And what has Canada done to help Mr. Khadr? It sent intelligence officers to interrogate him without counsel, and passed summaries of the interrogations to the Americans. Some help. (The Supreme Court of Canada is hearing Mr. Khadr’s request next week for access to Canada’s files from those visits.)

“The recruitment and use of child soldiers is one of the most flagrant violations of international norms,” says Mr. Singer. Why? Because children are not to be made a mere instrument of the state or terror group. Because children are manipulable. Because children cannot assess risk as adults can. To prosecute children as if they were fully responsible for war crimes is to legitimize their recruitment.

As other Western countries have repatriated adult suspected terrorists — several, in Britain’s case — it seems strange that Canada would not bring a lone 21-year-old home to face fair processes that would take into account his age and background, and his long incarceration at Guantanamo. Omar Khadr, child soldier, has been dehumanized enough. Bring him home.

Spy chiefs warn of al-Qaeda ‘bombs and computers’ plot

Counter-terrorism experts call it a ‘force multiplier’: an attack combining slaughter and electronic chaos. Now Britain’s security services want total access to commuters’ travel records to help them meet the threat

Millions of commuters could have their private movements around cities secretly monitored under new counter-terrorism powers being sought by the security services.

Records of journeys made by people using smart cards that allow 17 million Britons to travel by underground, bus and train with a single swipe at the ticket barrier are among a welter of private information held by the state to which MI5 and police counter-terrorism officers want access in order to help identify patterns of suspicious behaviour.

The request by the security services, described by shadow Home Secretary David Davis last night as ‘extraordinary’, forms part of a fierce Whitehall debate over how much access the state should have to people’s private lives in its efforts to combat terrorism.

It comes as the Cabinet Office finalises Gordon Brown’s new national security strategy, expected to identify a string of new threats to Britain – ranging from future ‘water wars’ between countries left drought-ridden by climate change to cyber-attacks using computer hacking technology to disrupt vital elements of national infrastructure.

The fear of cyber-warfare has climbed Whitehall’s agenda since last year’s attack on the Baltic nation of Estonia, in which Russian hackers swamped state servers with millions of electronic messages until they collapsed. The Estonian defence and foreign ministries and major banks were paralysed, while even its emergency services call system was temporarily knocked out: the attack was seen as a warning that battles once fought by invading armies or aerial bombardment could soon be replaced by virtual, but equally deadly, wars in cyberspace.

While such new threats may grab headlines, the critical question for the new security agenda is how far Britain is prepared to go in tackling them. What are the limits of what we want our security services to know? And could they do more to identify suspects before they strike?

One solution being debated in Whitehall is an unprecedented unlocking of data held by public bodies, such as the Oyster card records maintained by Transport for London and smart cards soon to be introduced in other cities in the UK, for use in the war against terror. The Office of the Information Commissioner, the watchdog governing data privacy, confirmed last night that it had discussed the issue with government but declined to give details, citing issues of national security.

Currently the security services can demand the Oyster records of specific individuals under investigation to establish where they have been, but cannot trawl the whole database. But supporters of calls for more sharing of data argue that apparently trivial snippets – like the journeys an individual makes around the capital – could become important pieces of the jigsaw when fitted into a pattern of other publicly held information on an individual’s movements, habits, education and other personal details. That could lead, they argue, to the unmasking of otherwise undetected suspects.

Critics, however, fear a shift towards US-style ‘data mining’, a controversial technique using powerful computers to sift and scan millions of pieces of data, seeking patterns of behaviour which match the known profiles of terrorist suspects. They argue that it is unfair for millions of innocent people to have their privacy invaded on the off-chance of finding a handful of bad apples.

‘It’s looking for a needle in a haystack, and we all make up the haystack,’ said former Labour minister Michael Meacher, who has a close interest in data sharing. ‘Whether all our details have to be reviewed because there is one needle among us – I don’t think the case is made.’

Jago Russell, policy officer at the campaign group Liberty, said technological advances had made ‘mass computerised fishing expeditions’ easier to undertake, but they offered no easy answers. ‘The problem is what do you do once you identify somebody who has a profile that suggests suspicions,’ he said. ‘Once the security services have identified somebody who fits a pattern, it creates an inevitable pressure to impose restrictions.’

Individuals wrongly identified as suspicious might lose high-security jobs, or have their immigration status brought into doubt, he said. Ministers are also understood to share concerns over civil liberties, following public opposition to ID cards, and the debate is so sensitive that it may not even form part of Brown’s published strategy.

But if there is no consensus yet on the defence, there is an emerging agreement on the mode of attack. The security strategy will argue that in the coming decades Britain faces threats of a new and different order. And its critics argue the government is far from ready.

The cyber-assault on Estonia confirmed that the West now faces a relatively cheap, low-risk means of warfare that can be conducted from anywhere in the world, with the power to plunge developed nations temporarily into the stone age, disabling everything from payroll systems that ensure millions of employees get paid to the sewage treatment processes that make our water safe to drink or the air traffic control systems keeping planes stacked safely above Heathrow.

And it is one of the few weapons which is most effective against more sophisticated western societies, precisely because of their reliance on computers. ‘As we become more advanced, we become more vulnerable,’ says Alex Neill, head of the Asia Security programme at the defence think-tank RUSI, who is an expert on cyber-attack.

The nightmare scenario now emerging is its use by terrorists as a so-called ‘force multiplier’ – combining a cyber-attack to paralyse the emergency services with a simultaneous atrocity such as the London Tube bombings.

Victims would literally have nowhere to turn for help, raising the death toll and sowing immeasurable panic. ‘Instead of using three or four aircraft as in 9/11, you could do one major event and then screw up the communications network behind the emergency services, or attack the Underground control network so you have one bomb but you lock up the whole network,’ says Davis. ‘You take the ramifications of the attack further. The other thing to bear in mind is that we are ultimately vulnerable because London is a financial centre.’

In other words, cyber-warfare does not have to kill to bring a state to its knees: hackers could, for example, wipe electronic records detailing our bank accounts, turning millionaires into apparent paupers overnight.

So how easy would it be? Estonia suffered a relatively crude form of attack known as ‘denial of service’, while paralysing a secure British server would be likely to require more sophisticated ’spy’ software which embeds itself quietly in a computer network and scans for secret passwords or useful information – activating itself later to wreak havoc.

Neill said that would require specialist knowledge to target the weakest link in any system: its human user. ‘You will get an email, say, that looks like it’s from a trusted colleague, but in fact that email has been cloned. There will be an attachment that looks relevant to your work: it’s an interesting document, but embedded in it invisibly is “malware” rogue software which implants itself in the operating systems. From that point, the computer is compromised and can be used as a platform to exploit other networks.’

Only governments and highly sophisticated criminal organisations have such a capability now, he argues, but there are strong signs that al-Qaeda is acquiring it: ‘It is a hallmark of al-Qaeda anyway that they do simultaneous bombings to try to herd victims into another area of attack.’

The West, of course, may not simply be the victim of cyber-wars: the United States is widely believed to be developing an attack capability, with suspicions that Baghdad’s infrastructure was electronically disrupted during the 2003 invasion.

So given its ability to cause as much damage as a traditional bomb, should cyber-attack be treated as an act of war? And what rights under international law does a country have to respond, with military force if necessary? Next month Nato will tackle such questions in a strategy detailing how it would handle a cyber-attack on an alliance member. Suleyman Anil, Nato’s leading expert on cyber-attack, hinted at its contents when he told an e-security conference in London last week that cyber-attacks should be taken as seriously as a missile strike – and warned that a determined attack on western infrastructure would be ‘practically impossible to stop’.

Tensions are likely to increase in a globalised economy, where no country can afford to shut its borders to foreign labour – an issue graphically highlighted for Gordon Brown weeks into his premiership by the alleged terrorist attack on Glasgow airport, when it emerged that the suspects included overseas doctors who entered Britain to work in the NHS.

A review led by Homeland Security Minister Admiral Sir Alan West into issues raised by the Glasgow attack has been grappling with one key question: could more be done to identify rogue elements who are apparently well integrated with their local communities?

Which is where, some within the intelligence community insist, access to personal data already held by public bodies – from the Oyster register to public sector employment records – could come in. The debate is not over yet.

Former chief prosecutor at Guantánamo Bay becomes a chief critic

Until four months ago, Colonel Morris Davis was the chief prosecutor at Guantánamo Bay and the most colorful champion of the Bush administration’s military commission system. He once said sympathy for detainees was nauseating and compared putting them on trial to dragging “Dracula out into the sunlight.”

Then in October he had a dispute with his boss, a general. Ever since, he has been one of those critics who will not go away: a former top insider, with broad shoulders and a well-pressed uniform, willing to turn on the system he helped run.

Still in the military, he has irritated the administration, asserting in articles and interviews that Pentagon officials interfered with prosecutors, exerted political pressure and approved the use of evidence obtained by torture.

Now, Davis has taken his most provocative step, completing his transformation from Guantánamo’s chief prosecutor to its new chief critic. He has agreed to testify at Guantánamo on behalf of one of the detainees, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden.

Davis, a career military lawyer nearing retirement at 49, said that he would never argue that Hamdan was innocent but that he was ready to try to put the commission system itself on trial by questioning its fairness.

 He said that there was “a potential for rigged outcomes” and that he had “significant doubts about whether it will deliver full, fair and open hearings.”

“I’m in a unique position where I can raise the flag and aggravate the Pentagon and try to get this fixed,” he said, acknowledging that he was enjoying some aspects of his new role.

He was replaced as chief Guantánamo prosecutor after he stepped down but is still a senior legal official for the air force.

Among detainees’ advocates, there has been something of a gasp since it was announced last week that Davis would be taking the witness stand in April.

Hamdan’s chief military lawyer, Lieutenant Commander Brian Mizer, said he would offer Davis to argue that charges against Hamdan should be dismissed because of improper influence by Pentagon officials over the commission process. Prosecutors may object, and it is unclear how military judges may rule.

But whatever happens, some detainee advocates say, officials are likely to have difficulty erasing the image of a uniformed former Guantánamo champion challenging them so directly – particularly, some of them said, one who was known for scorched-earth attacks on adversaries, be they terror suspects or lawyers.

“He was the attack dog for the military commission system,” said Zachary Katznelson, a lawyer for Guantánamo detainees.

Last year as chief prosecutor, Davis publicly suggested that a Marine defense lawyer for a detainee might be guilty of a crime for using “contemptuous words” about the president when the marine questioned the fairness of the Guantánamo system.

At the time, critics ridiculed “Moe” as an administration apologist. But in recent weeks, some of them have described him in nearly heroic terms.

Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch called him the most significant insider to tell what he knows about Guantánamo.

“He has put his career on the line,” she said.

Pentagon officials have steamed about the extraordinary role Davis has staked out. Some people with Pentagon ties say the unusual story started as a power struggle between Davis and a Pentagon official who has broad powers over the Guantánamo legal system, Brigadier General Thomas Hartmann, who has declined to comment.

Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway, a retired military official who once supervised Davis at the Office of Military Commissions, said this week that he was surprised Davis was attacking the system he once championed.

“That’s not whistle-blowing you hear,” Hemingway said. “It’s a whine.”

In his contentious days at Guantánamo, lawyers who battled him said, Davis was known for a you’re-with-us-or-you’re-against-us style of news-conference warfare, delivered in an amiable North Carolina twang.

He is an experienced military lawyer, with years of work both in the prosecution and the defense. He is the son of a disabled veteran of World War II, and he is married with one daughter.

In interviews this week he was in his combative mode, challenging Pentagon officials to take lie-detector tests and asserting that commanders had praised him in the past.

He portrayed himself as battling political appointees. But he said he still believed that a military commission system could work.

“It’s gotten so tarnished that if we’re going to convince the world that this isn’t some rigged process we have to bend over backward,” he said.

He said the solutions were simple – giving control to military officials. But he suggested darkly that there were “people at key points in the process, that I just don’t know what their allegiance is.”

‘High-value detainee’ gets lawyer

Alleged arch-terrorist Abu Zubaydah, whom the CIA waterboarded in secret overseas interrogations, has agreed to let a civilian American attorney handle his case, the lawyer said Tuesday.

”I represent him,” Chicago law professor Joseph Margulies said on his arrival in Fort Lauderdale from a weekend visit with the captive at the U.S. Navy base at Guantánamo.

A second U.S. attorney, Brent Mickum, also took part in the session.

The session is the first known meeting between a defense attorney and the captive — who once ran a paramilitary training camp in Afghanistan — since his March 28, 2002, capture in a firefight at an alleged al Qaeda safe house in Faisalabad, Pakistan.

From there, he disappeared into years of secret detention, out of reach of the International Committee of the Red Cross, until President Bush announced his transfer to the U.S. Navy base in September 2006.

Since then, CIA director Michael V. Hayden, an Air Force general, has confirmed that agents used the simulated form of drowning that human rights advocates call ”water torture” to force him to spill secrets to his captors.

Interrogations were videotaped but the tapes have since been destroyed by orders of a senior CIA official to a station chief in Bangkok, Thailand — now the subject of a Justice Department investigation.

Abu Zubaydah is the second ”high-value detainee” to meet with defense lawyers.

Extraordinarily circumspect, Margulies said that ground rules for the meeting permitted him to disclose only that ”a meeting took place,” the captive is held ”in a place called Camp 7” and he had ”no objections” to the Pentagon’s access provided during the Thursday to Monday visit to the base.

Margulies said the client-lawyer meetings covered two days and about 12 hours.

Margulies and Mickum are seeking to challenge Abu Zubaydah’s designation as ”enemy combatant” through a federal appeals court panel under a limited appeals system set up by Congress in 2005 and 2006.

A key stepping stone was securing authority to represent him, which Margulies indicated in his remarks that he got in the weekend trip.

Margulies flatly refused to elaborate any further — to described under what conditions they met and whether he would be able to disclose more after military censors clear notes of the meeting.

He did confirm he would seek to meet with his client in the future but would not directly answer a question on whether he found the circumstances of access “intimidating.”

”I would say that I am keenly aware of the limits placed on me by the protective order,” he replied.

His client’s full name is Zayn Abidin Abu Zubaydah and, according to a White House fact sheet disclosed at the time of his transfer to Guantánamo, he was recruited to terrorism by Osama bin Laden — and had ties to Abu Musab al Zarqawi, the al Qaeda of Iraq founder since killed by U.S. forces.

It said he was “not believed to be directly linked to the attacks on 11 September 2001.”

In transcripts of a March 2007 hearing before a military panel at Guantánamo, Abu Zubaydah described himself as not an acolyte of bin Laden but a rival — whose ideological version of Islamic holy war forbade 9/11-style attacks on civilians.

Margulies, who is a professor at Northwestern Law School, is a seasoned Guantánamo defense attorney both in the civilian and military arenas. In January 2005, he helped secure the repatriation to Australia of then Pentagon detainee Mamduh Habib — and accompanied Habib on his flight home.

He also served as an attorney at an earlier Pentagon effort to hold trials by military commissions that were upset by a Supreme Court ruling that the format was unconstitutional.

In 2006 he published a book called Guantánamo and the Abuse of Presidential Power.

Mickum, who works for a Washington, D.C., law firm, has likewise represented detainees since freed from Guantánamo, including former British resident Bishar Rawi, who was taken captive in the West African country of Gambia, sent to the remote base in Cuba and ultimately released a year ago after disclosure that he had worked as an informant for the British intelligence agency MI5.

Abu Zubaydah is the second former CIA held ”high-value detainee” among 15 at Camp 7 in Guantánamo to see a defense lawyer.

Earlier, two attorneys from the Center for Constitutional Rights met with Baltimore area educated captive Majid Khan, and have disclosed through public court filings cleared by intelligence censors that Khan and Abu Zubaydah share a recreation period together in their detention.

Pentagon to challenge interview of 9/11 suspect

Pentagon prosecutors are challenging a military court’s decision to let Osama bin Laden’s driver send written questions to alleged senior al Qaeda members held incommunicado at Guantánamo.

Defense lawyers for Salim Hamdan, 36, want to ask reputed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, known in CIA circles as ”KSM,” and six other ”high-value detainees” what they know about Hamdan’s role in al Qaeda’s organization.

Based on their answers, they will decide whether to call as defense witnesses any of the seven men, who are fellow detainees now but were held and interrogated for years by the CIA.

Last week, Navy Capt. Keith Allred, Hamdan’s military commission judge, ruled that defense lawyers could submit questions to an independent security officer to give to Mohammed and the others held in a restricted prison camp on the base called Camp 7.

The judge ordered that the questions and answers be strictly limited to the time before Hamdan’s capture in November 2001 in Afghanistan. Censors will black out any responses that don’t cover that time period.

Navy Lt. Catheryne Pully, a military commissions spokeswoman, said on Monday that the prosecution would seek ”reconsideration” of the judge’s decision, which the prosecutors believed raised “a lot of complicated issues.”

Intelligence officials have described as national security secrets the CIA sites where Mohammed and 14 other detainees were held before their September 2006 transfer to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Now they are held in Camp 7, segregated from other detainees at an undisclosed site on the remote U.S. Navy base. The prison camps’ spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Rick Haupt, has not been able to say whether the location of the camp itself is a national security secret.

Allred gave the prosecution until Tuesday to find an independent security officer — who does not work for the prosecution — to handle the defense lawyers’ questions and detainees’ answers, if they choose to reply.

Hamdan attorney Andrea Prasow, a civilian on the Defense Department team, said the Pentagon prosecutors agreed to identify the security officer but notified the team on Saturday that they would ask for reconsideration of the question.

Hamdan’s lawyers wanted to meet the men in person to assess their credibility as potential witnesses at Hamdan’s summertime trial.

The lead defense lawyer, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brad Mizer, said the attorneys also sought face-to-face meetings with the detainees because, after years in CIA custody, the captives might suspect written questions as an interrogation trick.

Allred’s remedy to the defense lawyers mirrors a 2003 formula proposed by a federal judge at the civilian trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, who eventually pleaded guilty to providing material support for al Qaeda and is now serving a life sentence.

In that case, the Justice Department refused to let the defense send questions to Mohammed, the reputed 9/11 mastermind. At the time, he was under CIA interrogation, and the government argued his testimony would harm the war effort.

In this instance, the men Hamdan’s lawyers seek to question are now among 15 former CIA detainees in military custody at Guantánamo.

• Mohammed, who according to Pentagon transcripts confessed to plotting the 9/11 attacks along with a long string of other al Qaeda suicide bombings, as well as beheading Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl in Pakistan.

• Ramzi bin al Shib, a Yemeni and Mohammed’s alleged go-between with some of the 9/11 attackers.

• Walid bin Attash, another Yemeni who supposedly trained some of the hijackers.

• Mustafa al Hawsawi, who supposedly helped get funds to the Sept. 11 suicide squads.

Those four men were identified as candidates for execution at Guantánamo as part of a complex, six-detainee prosecution the Pentagon unveiled last week. Their charge sheets await approval from a Bush administration appointee. None of them yet have lawyers.

In addition, Hamdan’s lawyers asked to interview Abu Faraj al Libi, Abdul Rahim al Nashiri and Abdul Hadi al Iraqi because of their knowledge of other al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan not tied to the Sept. 11 strikes.

My life was ruined after 9/11

Algerian suspect vows to continue his legal fight

An Algerian living in Britain who was wrongly accused of being involved in the 9/11 terror attacks tells for the first time today of how his life has been ‘ruined’ by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Lotfi Raissi, 33, a pilot who had trained in the United States before moving to England, was the first person in the world to be arrested in connection with the atrocities. He was suspected of teaching several of the 9/11 terrorists to fly planes.

Raissi was arrested by British police at his home in west London 10 days after the attacks on the World Trade Centre, following intelligence passed on by the US authorities. He was held for almost five months in Belmarsh high-security prison before being released without charge and subsequently exonerated.

Last week the Court of Appeal ruled that the High Court had been wrong to block him from suing the government for compensation, paving the way for a ground-breaking claim for damages.

‘I feared for my life in court and inside prison,’ Raissi said. ‘They moved me from the high-security unit after three or four days and sent me to the normal wing, where I wasn’t safe. I suffered racism and discrimination. I got stabbed twice by other prisoners and no one investigated.’

Raissi says he has had two nervous breakdowns as a result of his incarceration and still suffers from high blood pressure and post-traumatic stress disorder. Despite having been completely exonerated, he is still banned from flying anywhere but Algeria because his US extradition warrant is still outstanding. ‘I’m not working, I’m blacklisted from all airline jobs,’ he said. ‘I’m framed as a terrorist.’

His wife and his brother’s sister – who both worked in the airline industry – also lost their jobs, he says, as a result of his arrest. His arrest and subsequent attempts to clear his name have also damaged his relationship with his wife, Raissi said. ‘Even with my marriage I struggle very much,’ Raissi said. ‘Every part of my life I struggled with. It is an agony.’

Raissi was forced to drop a $10m claim against the FBI and the US Department of Justice, but he has pledged to continue with his legal action against the British government. ‘It’s a matter of principle,’ Raissi said. ‘I want my life back; I want to clear my name and that of my family and to have a normal life.’

The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has 14 days to decide whether she will fight Raissi’s compensation case.

While Raissi said he ‘cherished’ living in Britain, the strain of the last six years to clear his name have left their mark. ‘I learned to forgive, I learned patience,’ he said. ‘But it has been damaging to my life and my dignity – that is something I will never forgive.’

Lindsey Graham Says He Would Have Voted Against Waterboarding Ban…Yeah Right!

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), a member of the Air Force JAG Corp., has repeatedly broken with his party’s ranks in the past, condemning waterboarding as “clearly illegal under domestic and international law.”When the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill — which contained a provision banning waterboarding — to the floor this week, Graham was absent from the vote because he was in Iraq. When contacted by ThinkProgress this week, Graham’s office said the senator would have voted against the anti-waterboarding bill.

Asked to explain Graham’s change of heart, the spokesman said, “He disagrees with applying the Army Field Manual to the CIA. The CIA is a completely different operation.”

In the Congressional Record on Feb. 13, Graham explained his opposition to the bill, claiming the Army Field Manual would limit the CIA’s operations:

I believe in flexibility for the CIA program within the boundaries of current law. The CIA must have the ability to gather intelligence for the war on terror. In this new war, knowledge of the enemy and its plan is vitally important and the Army Field Manual provision will weaken our intelligence gathering operations.

In Oct. 2005, however, Graham was singing the Army Field Manual’s praises when he said it is sufficiently flexible for intelligence gathering:

You can change the Army Field Manual to adapt techniques to the war on terror. There is a classified section of the Army Field Manual. There is nothing about its adoption that limits the ability to aggressively interrogate people to get good intelligence.

It appears that the Graham, as well as Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) are willing to ditch their consciences in favor of backing President Bush’s misguided national security priorities.