You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Saudi Facing US Tribunal, Defense Charges Torture
2006-04-26
A Saudi charged with being part of an al Qaeda bomb-making cell was set to appear on Tuesday before a U.S. military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on evidence that his military defense attorney says was obtained through torture.

Jabran Said bin al Qahtani, an electrical engineer captured at an al Qaeda safe house in Pakistan in March 2002, was trained by the militant network to make small hand-held remote detonators of a kind later used in improvised devices against U.S. forces in Afghanistan, the U.S. military says.
Tech support guy, was he? Let the Pakistanis Taliban do the heavy work.
A military charge sheet says Qahtani wrote two instruction manuals on how to assemble circuit boards that could be used as timing devices for bombs and was preparing to join the fight against U.S. troops when Pakistani forces captured him and two alleged co-conspirators in the Pakistani city of Faisalabad.
Long way from home, wasn't he? Musta been a pilgrim.
The three men -- Qahtani, Algerian Sufyian Barhoumi and Saudi Ghassan Abdullah al Sharbi -- are scheduled to appear separately before the tribunal for pretrial hearings this week.

They are among only 10 out of 490 detainees in the Guantanamo Bay prison camp who have been charged with war crimes before the tribunals, known formally as commissions. All of those charged so far face life in prison if convicted. Air Force Col. Moe Davis, chief prosecutor for the tribunals, said the military was developing charges in two dozen more cases against Guantanamo prisoners, including some that could draw the death penalty.

Qahtani is to make his first appearance before the tribunal on Tuesday for what his military attorney, Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles, said would be an uneventful proceeding. But Broyles is preparing to challenge the case against his client under a Defense Department directive that formally instructs tribunals to prohibit the use of evidence found to result from torture. "I believe there's torture-related evidence in the prosecution's case against my client," he told reporters without elaborating.
"I mean, he said he was tortured."
"It'll be a pretrial motion," Broyles added. "I have to take a specific piece of evidence and say, 'This statement I challenge because I believe it's a result of torture."'
Posted by:Fred

#3  J Said bin Tortured, a common name, eh?
Posted by: Captain America   2006-04-26 10:56  

#2  I wouldn't be too worried about the position Lt. Col. Broyles is in. He's both an officer and a defense attorney. Sounds like he's making his case as best as possible, and letting the tribunal reach whatever conclusions it deems appropriate. Whatever was done, let the tribunal decide - it will be very useful to start building a record of various penal activities, and whether they constitute torture or not.

Given the evidence on the "detainees" so far (weight gain, recidivism, willingness of released prisoners to appear) every little fact contradicts the wild misleading allegations.

Maybe Cuban authorities can share their prison practices and results with the media and EU as well?

Posted by: Omaique Angarong6414   2006-04-26 10:10  

#1  I know Broyles, he's a good dude. What an awful position to be in, defense counsel at Gitmo. Every judgment you have to make involves a conflict between your duty to your client -- duties you have been ordered by the government to carry out -- and duty to your country, knowing that every move you make will be milked for propaganda value in the Arab press. And the MSM, for that matter.

No one likes defense attorneys, but bear in mind that military defense attorneys have nothing in common with civilian defense attorneys, who will say anything for a buck. Military defense attorneys are soldiers doing their assigned duties like everyone else -- not necessarily with any joy -- so resist the urge to blame Broyles. I'm sure his conscience is tormented all on his own.

If I'm pissed at anyone, it's the policymakers who put soldiers in this position, basically ordering officers who took an oath to betray it. The alternative is to refuse, which could mean the end of your career. Which, perhaps, is the right answer, but it's still a shitty position to be in. I hate seeing my colleagues forced to make these choices. We're too freakin' civlized for our own good.
Posted by: Phutle Angamp5322   2006-04-26 03:54  

00:00