This statement was sent to the National Lawyers Guild by Prof. Christopher
Edley, Dean of the UC Berkeley Law School (Boalt Hall):
THE TORTURE MEMOS AND ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Christopher Edley, Jr.
The Honorable William H. Orrick, Jr. Distinguished Chair and Dean
UC Berkeley Law School
While serving in the Department of Justice, Professor John Yoo wrote memoranda that officials used as the legal basis for policies concerning detention and interrogation techniques in our efforts to combat terrorism. Both the subject and his reasoning are controversial, leading the New York Times (editorial, April 4), the National Lawyers' Guild, and hundreds of individuals from around the world to criticize or at least question Professor Yoo's continuing employment at U.C. Berkeley Law School. As dean, but speaking only for myself, I offer the following explanation, although with no expectation that it will be completely satisfying to anyone.
Professor Yoo began teaching at Berkeley Law in 1993, received tenure in 1999, and then took a leave of absence to work in the Bush Administration. He returned in 2004, and remains a very successful teacher and prolific (though often controversial) scholar. Because this is a public university, he enjoys not only security of employment and academic freedom, but also First Amendment and Due Process rights.
It seems we do need regular reminders: These protections, while not absolute, are nearly so because they are essential to the excellence of American universities and the progress of ideas. Indeed, in Berkeley's classrooms and courtyards our community argues about the legal and moral issues with the intensity and discipline these crucial issues deserve. Those who prefer to avoid these arguments -- be they left or right or lazy -- will not find Berkeley or any other truly great law school a wholly congenial place to study. For that we make no apology.
Did what Professor Yoo wrote while not at the University somehow place him beyond the pale of academic freedom today? Had this been merely some professor vigorously expounding controversial and even extreme views, we would be in a familiar drama with the usual stakes. Had that professor been on leave marching with Nazis in Skokie or advising communists during the McCarthy era, reasonable people would probably find that an easier case still. Here, additional things are obviously in play. Gravely so.
My sense is that the vast majority of legal academics with a view of the matter disagree with substantial portions of Professor Yoo's analyses, including a great many of his colleagues at Berkeley. If, however, this strong consensus were enough to fire or sanction someone, then academic freedom would be meaningless.
There are important questions about the content of the Yoo memoranda, about tortured definitions of "torture", about how he and his colleagues conceived their role as lawyers, and about whether and when the Commander in Chief is subject to domestic statutes and international law. We press our students to grapple with these matters, and in the legal literature Professor Yoo and his critics do battle. One can oppose and even condemn an idea, but I don't believe that in a university we can fearfully refuse to look at it. That would not be the best way to educate, nor a promising way to seek deeper understanding in a world of continual, strange revolutions.
There is more, however. Having worked in the White House under two presidents, I am exceptionally sensitive to the complex, ineffable boundary between policymaking and law-declaring. I know that Professor Yoo continues to believe his legal reasoning was sound, but I do not know whether he believes that the Department of Defense and CIA made political or moral mistakes in the way they exercised the discretion his memoranda purported to find available to them within the law. As critical as I am of his analyses, no argument about what he did or didn't facilitate, or about his special obligations as an attorney, makes his conduct morally equivalent to that of his nominal clients, Secretary Rumsfeld, et al., or comparable to the conduct of interrogators distant in time, rank and place. Yes, it does matter that Yoo was an adviser, but President Bush and his national security appointees were the deciders.
What troubles me substantively with the analyses in the memoranda is that they reduce the Rule of Law to the Reign of Politics. I believe there is much more to the separation of powers than the promise of ultimate remedies like the ballot box and impeachment, even in the case of a Commander in Chief during war. And I believe that the revolution in sensibilities after 9/11 demands greater, not reduced, vigilance for constitutional rights and safeguards. What of the argument made by so many critics that Professor Yoo was so wrong on these sensitive issues that it amounted to an ethical breach. It is true, I believe, that government lawyers have a larger, higher client than their political supervisors; there are circumstances when a fair reading of the law must -- perhaps as an ethical matter? -- provide a bulwark to political and bureaucratic discretion. And it shouldn't require a private plaintiff and a Supreme Court ruling to make it so. Few professions require an oath at entry, but law does. Oaths must mean something.
Assuming one believes as I do that Professor Yoo offered bad ideas and even worse advice during his government service, that judgment alone would not warrant dismissal or even a potentially chilling inquiry. As a legal matter, the test here is the relevant excerpt from the "General University Policy Regarding Academic Appointees", adopted for the 10-campus University of California by both the system-wide Academic Senate and the Board of Regents:
Types of unacceptable conduct: ... Commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law and which clearly demonstrates unfitness to continue as a member of the faculty. [Academic Personnel Manual sec. 015]
This very restrictive standard is binding on me as dean, but I will put aside that shield and state my independent and personal view of the matter. I believe the crucial questions in view of our university mission are these: Was there clear professional misconduct -- that is, some breach of the professional ethics applicable to a government attorney -- material to Professor Yoo's academic position? Did the writing of the memoranda, and his related conduct, violate a criminal or comparable statute?
Absent very substantial evidence on these questions, no university worthy of distinction should even contemplate dismissing a faculty member. That standard has not been met.
April 10, 2008
2) University of California Personnel Manual
UC Office of the President --
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
ACADEMIC PERSONNEL MANUAL
http://www.ucop.edu/acadadv/acadpers/apm/
Relevant sections...
* APM-015-II(E):
E. The Community
Ethical Principles. "Faculty members have the same rights and obligations as all citizens. They are as free as other citizens to express their views and to participate in the political processes of the community. When they act or speak in their personal and private capacities, they should avoid deliberately creating the impression that they represent the University." (U.C. Academic Council Statement, 1971) Types of unacceptable conduct:
1. Intentional misrepresentation of personal views as a statement of position of the University or any of its agencies. (An institutional affiliation appended to a faculty member's name in a public statement or appearance is permissible, if used solely for purposes of identification.)
2. Commission of a criminal act which has led to conviction in a court of law and which clearly demonstrates unfitness to continue as a member of the faculty.
* APM-075-II-C(3):
University Service, Public Service, and Professional Service Teaching and research are the main responsibilities of members of the professorial series, but reviewers shall also examine the quality and quantity of the individual's contributions in the areas of University service, public service, and professional service as part of the assessment of an individual's overall performance. As a guide in evaluation, reviewers shall use APM-210-1-d(3) and (4).
* APM-210-I-d(3):
Professional Competence and Activity -- In certain positions in the professional schools and colleges, such as architecture, business administration, dentistry, engineering, law, medicine, etc., a demonstrated distinction in the special competencies appropriate to the field and its characteristic activities should be recognized as a criterion for appointment or promotion. The candidate's professional activities should be scrutinized for evidence of achievement and leadership in the field and of demonstrated progressiveness in the development or utilization of new approaches and techniques for the solution of professional problems, including those that specifically address the professional advancement of individuals in underrepresented groups in the candidate's field. It is responsibility of the department chair to provide evidence that the position in question is of the type described above and that the candidate is qualified to fill it.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
His own fault....
....
Judge Bates used a footnote to express irritation that a fair number of people concerned about Al-Ghizzawi's plight wrote to him… funny thing that, as a letter writing campaign by Scooter Libby fans and political allies to another federal judge on the very same court to try to keep old Scooter out of jail didn't seem to be a problem there. Judge Bates did say that he read all of the letters but was nonetheless resolving the matter “based on the law and the medical declarations that detail the care available to Al-Ghizzawi,” and that does represent, in form at least, what the Judge did. He reviewed the affidavits from the government and its doctors that detailed the care that the government said was available to Al-Ghizzawi if only Al-Ghizzawi would avail himself of it. Judge Bates conveniently ignored the affidavits from Al-Ghizzawi’s side of the case, notwithstanding that Al-Ghizzawi's affidavits absolutely disputed everything the government said and that the government could not be bothered to provide the actual medical charts to demonstrate that anything it said was true. So Judge Bates simply based his decision on the medical declarations from the military that detailed its version of the care available to Al-Ghizzawi, and called it a day.…
Counsel for Al-Ghizzawi respectfully suggests that it is not clear exactly what “law” the good judge was following: the law of war (in which case, heaven help us, the Geneva Conventions might just have to apply) or the laws of the United States regarding detention and custody of prisoners? Since Judge Bates seemingly elected not to follow either, I can only conclude that there must be some new brand of law that this particular counsel didn’t learn in either law school or come across in 25 years of practice.
The good judge made no comment about the fact that the government refused to confirm or deny the diagnosis of AIDS (apparently acquired while in American custody) that was casually dropped on Al-Ghizzawi by base personnel that led to the current round of motions until the government was ordered to come clean. So once again without looking at the medical records, Judge Bates decided that those records (that he did not see or ask to be shown) must conclusively demonstrate that Al-Ghizzawi conjured up the AIDS claim in his head and under no circumstances might it either be valid… or perhaps that a facility notorious around the world for the abuse and torture of its prisoners might chose to play some sadistic game on one of its guests. Oh yes, and further proof of the appropriate and fully adequate care that Al-Ghizzawi is receiving is shown in the fact that when counsel pointed out in court papers that Al-Ghizzawi had no use for the eyeglasses for distance that he was provided for use in his 4 x8 foot cell, but would have liked reading glasses. The government then claimed that it tried to haul Al-Ghizzawi back in and test his eyes again (for reading glasses…) this of course was after Al-Ghizzawi has not been able to read for want of glasses for almost one year.
The good news is that at least we all know that if Mr. Al-Ghizzawi dies, it is his own fault, because Judge Bates so held. Similarly, it is Al-Ghizzawi’s fault that he can’t swallow cold water and therefore can’t take the pills given to him for diarrhea. It is also Al-Ghizzawi’s own fault that he believed the lies that the medical staff told him when they told him he had AIDS and when they told him that a biopsy could cause permanent damage to his other vital organs… of course now the military says that these things are not true, so we must conclude that Mr. Al-Ghizzawi must have been lying about everything, including presumably the fact that the military itself has found that there is no reason whatsoever for Al-Ghizzawi to even be held at Guantanamo as a prisoner (oh wait, I have that report in writing)…..coincidently, this fact led the United States Supreme Court to reconsider hearing an appeal brought by Guantanamo detainees, but that of course, is yet another story.
So, as the good judge said “the record is clear that adequate medical care is available and has either been provided or offered”. And it is clear, of course, if one only reads the unverified, uncorroborated record as provided by the government without even bothering to see if the medical charts were consistent with that account, and if you conveniently don’t give any credibility to Al-Ghizzawi’s side because doing so might be inconvenient (and worse, perhaps justify a different outcome). Under such circumstances, the record certainly is clear.
Judge Bates used a footnote to express irritation that a fair number of people concerned about Al-Ghizzawi's plight wrote to him… funny thing that, as a letter writing campaign by Scooter Libby fans and political allies to another federal judge on the very same court to try to keep old Scooter out of jail didn't seem to be a problem there. Judge Bates did say that he read all of the letters but was nonetheless resolving the matter “based on the law and the medical declarations that detail the care available to Al-Ghizzawi,” and that does represent, in form at least, what the Judge did. He reviewed the affidavits from the government and its doctors that detailed the care that the government said was available to Al-Ghizzawi if only Al-Ghizzawi would avail himself of it. Judge Bates conveniently ignored the affidavits from Al-Ghizzawi’s side of the case, notwithstanding that Al-Ghizzawi's affidavits absolutely disputed everything the government said and that the government could not be bothered to provide the actual medical charts to demonstrate that anything it said was true. So Judge Bates simply based his decision on the medical declarations from the military that detailed its version of the care available to Al-Ghizzawi, and called it a day.…
Counsel for Al-Ghizzawi respectfully suggests that it is not clear exactly what “law” the good judge was following: the law of war (in which case, heaven help us, the Geneva Conventions might just have to apply) or the laws of the United States regarding detention and custody of prisoners? Since Judge Bates seemingly elected not to follow either, I can only conclude that there must be some new brand of law that this particular counsel didn’t learn in either law school or come across in 25 years of practice.
The good judge made no comment about the fact that the government refused to confirm or deny the diagnosis of AIDS (apparently acquired while in American custody) that was casually dropped on Al-Ghizzawi by base personnel that led to the current round of motions until the government was ordered to come clean. So once again without looking at the medical records, Judge Bates decided that those records (that he did not see or ask to be shown) must conclusively demonstrate that Al-Ghizzawi conjured up the AIDS claim in his head and under no circumstances might it either be valid… or perhaps that a facility notorious around the world for the abuse and torture of its prisoners might chose to play some sadistic game on one of its guests. Oh yes, and further proof of the appropriate and fully adequate care that Al-Ghizzawi is receiving is shown in the fact that when counsel pointed out in court papers that Al-Ghizzawi had no use for the eyeglasses for distance that he was provided for use in his 4 x8 foot cell, but would have liked reading glasses. The government then claimed that it tried to haul Al-Ghizzawi back in and test his eyes again (for reading glasses…) this of course was after Al-Ghizzawi has not been able to read for want of glasses for almost one year.
The good news is that at least we all know that if Mr. Al-Ghizzawi dies, it is his own fault, because Judge Bates so held. Similarly, it is Al-Ghizzawi’s fault that he can’t swallow cold water and therefore can’t take the pills given to him for diarrhea. It is also Al-Ghizzawi’s own fault that he believed the lies that the medical staff told him when they told him he had AIDS and when they told him that a biopsy could cause permanent damage to his other vital organs… of course now the military says that these things are not true, so we must conclude that Mr. Al-Ghizzawi must have been lying about everything, including presumably the fact that the military itself has found that there is no reason whatsoever for Al-Ghizzawi to even be held at Guantanamo as a prisoner (oh wait, I have that report in writing)…..coincidently, this fact led the United States Supreme Court to reconsider hearing an appeal brought by Guantanamo detainees, but that of course, is yet another story.
So, as the good judge said “the record is clear that adequate medical care is available and has either been provided or offered”. And it is clear, of course, if one only reads the unverified, uncorroborated record as provided by the government without even bothering to see if the medical charts were consistent with that account, and if you conveniently don’t give any credibility to Al-Ghizzawi’s side because doing so might be inconvenient (and worse, perhaps justify a different outcome). Under such circumstances, the record certainly is clear.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Amnesty report on military commission hearing for Mohammed Jawad
Disturbing appearance of Mohammed Jawad, child ‘enemy combatant’, at Guantánamo military commission hearing
13 March 2008
On 12 March 2008, Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan national who was 16 or 17 years old at the time of his detention in Kabul in December 2002, appeared before a military judge in pre-trial military commission proceedings in the US Naval Base at Guantánamo in Cuba. Mohammed Jawad is charged with attempted murder and intent to cause serious bodily injury in relation to a grenade incident in which two US soldiers and an Afghan interpreter were injured in Kabul on 17 December 2002.
The proceedings on 12 March 2008 were delayed for almost three hours. This was apparently because Mohammed Jawad did not want to leave his cell or participate in the proceedings. His lawyer later reported that the detainee had been carried out of his cell, but had entered the commission room of his own accord, although he was handcuffed and shackled at the ankles. When observers, including Amnesty International’s observer, entered the commission room, Mohammed Jawad, dressed in orange prison clothing, was already seated with three guards behind him.
The military defence lawyer asked the military judge if Mohammed Jawad could have water, but this request was denied. The judge said he would address this issue during a recess, but no recess occurred. According to Amnesty International’s observer, Mohammed Jawad was visibly agitated and uncomfortable throughout the proceedings. He would often rub his forehead and put his head in his hands. At times he rocked forward and exhaled audibly. When he put his hands to his head, the guards behind him would remove them and place them back on the table. Eventually they gave up on this.
The military judge attempted to advise Mohammed Jawad of his rights to legal counsel. The defendant kept asking to be heard rather than responding to the judge’s questions about representation. The judge repeatedly said that he would let him talk, but that he needed Mohammed Jawad’s cooperation to get through to the next part. It was not clear to what extent Mohammed Jawad understood the proceedings.
At one point the military judge allowed the defendant to speak for an extended period. Mohammed Jawad said that he was innocent. He said he was taken into custody when he was 16, interrogated and tortured. He said that he had been arrested a long time ago and was only now being given a trial, but that this trial was illegal. He asked if it was in the US Constitution to treat 16-year-olds this way, and said that all he wanted was fairness and justice. He had already rejected his military lawyer, and any lawyer because he did not think the process was fair.
Mohammed Jawad subsequently removed his headphones (for interpretation) and put his head on the desk. The judge asked him to put them back on, but he said he could not – that he was suffering from a severe headache and that years of being under bright florescent lights had made him permanently ill. He replaced the headphones but eventually took them off again and asked the judge not to bother him anymore. At one point he had his fingers in his ears, but eventually just put his head down on the table and did not raise it again for the rest of the proceedings.
The military judge ruled that Mohammed Jawad understood his right to counsel and had rejected his military lawyers. The judge said that he would not rule on the issue of self- representation at this time.
The military lawyer assigned to represent Mohammed Jawad is leaving military service shortly. The chief defence counsel for the commissions informed the judge that no new lawyer can be assigned to the case due to current workload on the limited number of lawyers assigned to his office.
At previous military commission proceedings, observers have remained seated while the defendant was escorted out of the room. At yesterday’s proceeding, Mohammed Jawad refused to raise his head off the table. As the observers left, he was surrounded by at least six guards preparing to take him back to his cell.
Mohammed Jawad’s military lawyer said: “What we had very clearly today I believe is a direct result of taking a 16- or 17-year-old boy and putting him in confinement for five years without contact with the outside world”.
Amnesty International considers that no one under 18 years old should ever have been transferred to Guantánamo, and that no one who was a child at the time of their alleged crime should be subject to a military commission trial. Moreover, these military commissions have no juvenile justice provisions whatsoever, as required under international law.
The Pentagon has said that it expects as many as 80 detainees to face trial by military commission. Yesterday, charges were sworn against another Guantánamo detainee, Mohammed Kamin, an Afghan national. This means that to date 14 Guantánamo detainees have had charges sworn against them or referred on for trial under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). These include David Hicks, the only person convicted by military commission to date. This Australian national pleaded guilty in March 2007 to providing material support for terrorism and was sentenced to seven years in prison. Six years and three months of this sentence was suspended under a pre-trial agreement which also saw him transferred to Australia to serve the remainder of the nine months there. He was released from prison in Adelaide in December 2007.
The USA’s military commission proceedings cannot be divorced from the backdrop against which they are being conducted. This backdrop is one of practices pursued in the absence of independent judicial oversight that have systematically violated international law. At any such trials, the defendants will be individuals who have been subjected to years of indefinite detention, whose right to the presumption of innocence has been systematically undermined by a pattern of official commentary on their presumed guilt. Among the defendants will be victims of enforced disappearance, secret detention, secret transfer, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Their treatment has not only been arbitrary and unlawful, it has been highly and deliberately coercive in terms of the interrogation methods and detention conditions employed against them. This heightens the need for any trials to take place before courts independent of the executive and legislative branches which have authorized or condoned human rights violations. Instead, trials are looming before military commissions lacking such independence and specifically tailored to be able to turn a blind eye to government abuses.
INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, 1 EASTON STREET, LONDON WC1X 0DW, UNITED KINGDOM
13 March 2008
On 12 March 2008, Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan national who was 16 or 17 years old at the time of his detention in Kabul in December 2002, appeared before a military judge in pre-trial military commission proceedings in the US Naval Base at Guantánamo in Cuba. Mohammed Jawad is charged with attempted murder and intent to cause serious bodily injury in relation to a grenade incident in which two US soldiers and an Afghan interpreter were injured in Kabul on 17 December 2002.
The proceedings on 12 March 2008 were delayed for almost three hours. This was apparently because Mohammed Jawad did not want to leave his cell or participate in the proceedings. His lawyer later reported that the detainee had been carried out of his cell, but had entered the commission room of his own accord, although he was handcuffed and shackled at the ankles. When observers, including Amnesty International’s observer, entered the commission room, Mohammed Jawad, dressed in orange prison clothing, was already seated with three guards behind him.
The military defence lawyer asked the military judge if Mohammed Jawad could have water, but this request was denied. The judge said he would address this issue during a recess, but no recess occurred. According to Amnesty International’s observer, Mohammed Jawad was visibly agitated and uncomfortable throughout the proceedings. He would often rub his forehead and put his head in his hands. At times he rocked forward and exhaled audibly. When he put his hands to his head, the guards behind him would remove them and place them back on the table. Eventually they gave up on this.
The military judge attempted to advise Mohammed Jawad of his rights to legal counsel. The defendant kept asking to be heard rather than responding to the judge’s questions about representation. The judge repeatedly said that he would let him talk, but that he needed Mohammed Jawad’s cooperation to get through to the next part. It was not clear to what extent Mohammed Jawad understood the proceedings.
At one point the military judge allowed the defendant to speak for an extended period. Mohammed Jawad said that he was innocent. He said he was taken into custody when he was 16, interrogated and tortured. He said that he had been arrested a long time ago and was only now being given a trial, but that this trial was illegal. He asked if it was in the US Constitution to treat 16-year-olds this way, and said that all he wanted was fairness and justice. He had already rejected his military lawyer, and any lawyer because he did not think the process was fair.
Mohammed Jawad subsequently removed his headphones (for interpretation) and put his head on the desk. The judge asked him to put them back on, but he said he could not – that he was suffering from a severe headache and that years of being under bright florescent lights had made him permanently ill. He replaced the headphones but eventually took them off again and asked the judge not to bother him anymore. At one point he had his fingers in his ears, but eventually just put his head down on the table and did not raise it again for the rest of the proceedings.
The military judge ruled that Mohammed Jawad understood his right to counsel and had rejected his military lawyers. The judge said that he would not rule on the issue of self- representation at this time.
The military lawyer assigned to represent Mohammed Jawad is leaving military service shortly. The chief defence counsel for the commissions informed the judge that no new lawyer can be assigned to the case due to current workload on the limited number of lawyers assigned to his office.
At previous military commission proceedings, observers have remained seated while the defendant was escorted out of the room. At yesterday’s proceeding, Mohammed Jawad refused to raise his head off the table. As the observers left, he was surrounded by at least six guards preparing to take him back to his cell.
Mohammed Jawad’s military lawyer said: “What we had very clearly today I believe is a direct result of taking a 16- or 17-year-old boy and putting him in confinement for five years without contact with the outside world”.
Amnesty International considers that no one under 18 years old should ever have been transferred to Guantánamo, and that no one who was a child at the time of their alleged crime should be subject to a military commission trial. Moreover, these military commissions have no juvenile justice provisions whatsoever, as required under international law.
The Pentagon has said that it expects as many as 80 detainees to face trial by military commission. Yesterday, charges were sworn against another Guantánamo detainee, Mohammed Kamin, an Afghan national. This means that to date 14 Guantánamo detainees have had charges sworn against them or referred on for trial under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). These include David Hicks, the only person convicted by military commission to date. This Australian national pleaded guilty in March 2007 to providing material support for terrorism and was sentenced to seven years in prison. Six years and three months of this sentence was suspended under a pre-trial agreement which also saw him transferred to Australia to serve the remainder of the nine months there. He was released from prison in Adelaide in December 2007.
The USA’s military commission proceedings cannot be divorced from the backdrop against which they are being conducted. This backdrop is one of practices pursued in the absence of independent judicial oversight that have systematically violated international law. At any such trials, the defendants will be individuals who have been subjected to years of indefinite detention, whose right to the presumption of innocence has been systematically undermined by a pattern of official commentary on their presumed guilt. Among the defendants will be victims of enforced disappearance, secret detention, secret transfer, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Their treatment has not only been arbitrary and unlawful, it has been highly and deliberately coercive in terms of the interrogation methods and detention conditions employed against them. This heightens the need for any trials to take place before courts independent of the executive and legislative branches which have authorized or condoned human rights violations. Instead, trials are looming before military commissions lacking such independence and specifically tailored to be able to turn a blind eye to government abuses.
INTERNATIONAL SECRETARIAT, 1 EASTON STREET, LONDON WC1X 0DW, UNITED KINGDOM
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
SUPPLMENTAL MEMORANDUM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ABDUL HAMID AL-GHIZZAWI )
Prisoner, )
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station )
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; )
)
)
Petitioner, )
) Supplemental Memorandum
v. ) (Expedited consideration
) requested )
) No. 05 cv 2378 (JDB)
)
GEORGE W. BUSH, et. al. )
Respondents.
supplemental memorandum
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi filed a “new” Emergency Motion for Medical care and Records on February 5, 2008 after Al-Ghizzawi reported in two letters to counsel that he was informed by doctors at the United States military’s Guantanamo Bay detention facility that he had AIDS and after an earlier letter where Al-Ghizzawi reported that a doctor at Guantanamo told him he has a serious liver infection. The affidavit filed by the Government in Opposition admitted that Al-Ghizzawi does not, in fact, suffer from AIDS (leaving counsel to strongly suspect that this was all a cruel hoax consistent with the history of abuse that has been inflicted on other Guantanamo prisoners.) However, that affidavit also admitted that Al-Ghizzawi’s liver problems have worsened in the intervening 18 months (and in fact started to noticeably worsen by the time Al-Ghizzawi filed his original motion.) The government also admits that it is still not treating Al-Ghizzawi’s serious health problems because its medical personnel (including its affiant dermatologist) are under the mistaken belief they cannot treat him without first performing an invasive and potentially dangerous biopsy.
Following the government’s troubling admissions and demonstration of the medical incompetence of Guantanamo medical staff in the affidavits of the medical providers, Al-Ghizzawi beseeches this Court to send him to a competent medical facility for treatment and further requests access to his medical records, as argued in his motion, including the relief mandated by the applicable Geneva Conventions, Conventions found applicable to Guantanamo prisoners by the United States Supreme Court. As Ordered by this Court on February 25, 2008 Al-Ghizzawi, through his attorney, hereby supplements his Emergency Motion. Given the page limitations imposed by this Court and in lieu of filing an additional affidavit from counsel this memorandum is filed under oath by his attorney.
II. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS (ICRC)
Although in theory the ICRC has a presence at the Guantanamo prison, the outcome of that presence has, until now, been negligible for Al-Ghizzawi.[1] Al-Ghizzawi raises the issue of the ICRC in furtherance of his argument that the Geneva Conventions apply to this motion and to address any potential argument by the Government that the presence of the ICRC might in some way be relevant to the issues raised in Al-Ghizzawi’s Motion. Al-Ghizzawi does in fact have periodic visits from representatives of the ICRC who, on occasion, bring him mail. He has not had a visit from the medical doctors of the ICRC for almost one year. Both Al-Ghizzawi and his Counsel have made repeated requests for such a visit…. however the ICRC has told counsel and Al-Ghizzawi that it is very busy and therefore medical visits have not taken place.
Further evidence of the lack of any kind of influence at securing the Guantanamo prisoners’ rights to adequate medical care by the ICRC at Guantanamo is that Counsel for Al-Ghizzawi has met with ICRC representatives on two occasions, once in April 2006 and a second time in November 2006, to express her concern over Al-Ghizzawi’s health and to ask the ICRC to put pressure on the medical team at Guantanamo to treat Al-Ghizzawi. Counsel has also exchanged emails with the Guantanamo representatives for the ICRC. The April 2006 meeting took place just before the then current Guantanamo representative was leaving his Guantanamo Post. That representative told Counsel that Guantanamo was the most difficult placement in his many years at the ICRC and that working at Guantanamo was worse than working in Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war (where he was previously placed) because of the constant meddling and obstruction by the United States military to the ICRC mission, in clear derogation of this nation’s treaty obligations and customary international law.
In the November 2006 meeting counsel met with the ICRC medical doctor who was assigned to Guantanamo at that time. Prior to the meeting counsel sent court documents to the doctor outlining her attempts to obtain Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records and a copy of the release for the medical records signed by Al-Ghizzawi. At the beginning of the meeting the medical doctor mistakenly thought that counsel had obtained Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records and started the conversation by expressing his disgust with the United States military for the lack of medical care being provided for Al-Ghizzawi (whom he had recently seen) and the steady decline of Al-Ghizzawi’s health as shown by the then recent test results in his medical file (unlike counsel, the ICRC had access to al-Ghizzawi’s file and maintains detailed notes regarding his failing health). The ICRC doctor specifically described certain tests that showed the deterioration of Al-Ghizzawi’s health and expressed his frustration and anger at the position taken by the military in refusing to treat Al-Ghizzawi despite the ICRC doctor’s own stated concern and specific request.
Counsel then explained to the medical doctor that she had not, in fact, actually obtained copies of Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records, nor had she even been permitted to see those records at all. The ICRC doctor was quite concerned about this and told counsel that he would not have discussed the tests had he realized she had not seen the records. The doctor asked counsel to keep what he said confidential. The tests that the doctor was referring to related to Al-Ghizzawi’s hepatitis and liver condition. The ICRC doctor candidly stated that the affidavits of Dr. Sollock appeared to be drafted to conceal or downplay the test results, rather than explain them. When the meeting concluded the ICRC doctor said that he would try to check in on Al-Ghizzawi periodically but he admitted that his hands were tied because he simply could not force the military to provide the necessary medical care. The ICRC doctor also admitted that it was difficult to see everyone who was ill at Guantanamo because of the medical deterioration of so many of the prisoners, in addition to those prisoners involved in the hunger strike who were being cruelly forcibly fed.
Until later in 2007 counsel kept the ICRC information confidential hoping that the ICRC medical doctors would succeed in pressuring the military at Guantanamo to treat her client. Eventually, counsel went public in both the United States and Europe with the truth and to illustrate that which the ICRC cannot reveal… that the ICRC can only watch the medical deterioration and gross and outrageous malpractice at the base but can do absolutely nothing to stop it ….and even more disturbingly, that the United States is taking advantage of the confidentiality of the ICRC in the same way that the most abhorrent governments have similarly abused that humanitarian organization, by hiding its malfeasance behind the cloak of ICRC visits.
III. COUNSEL VISIT OF FEBRUARY 26-27 2008
As this Court has been advised, Counsel for Al-Ghizzawi visited with him all day on February 26th and for a half day on February 27th, 2008. Al-Ghizzawi’s health continues to worsen. The symptoms that Al-Ghizzawi either complained of during this latest visit, or which were observed by counsel for Al-Ghizzawi, include, but are not limited to the following (Counsel’s notes have not yet cleared and it is quite possible that she is forgetting symptoms):
1. Al-Ghizzawi continues to be very distraught over being told that he has AIDS. Although counsel showed him the affidavit of Dr. Meneley in which the government claims that Al-Ghizzawi is not HIV positive, Al-Ghizzawi has no particular reason to believe officials of the government that has held him prisoner without charge for more than six years, that has repeatedly lied to him, keeps him in cruel and inhuman isolation and still refuses to treat his known and now admitted medical problems.
2. Al-Ghizzawi was extremely weak, found it difficult to talk and spoke very slowly most of the time. During the meetings Al-Ghizzawi had trouble at times remembering conversations that were ongoing and had difficulty completing sentences. This is a symptom that has worsened over the last few meetings.
3. Al-Ghizzawi continues to be very jaundiced and now has very dark circles under his eyes. He looked extremely fatigued.
4. Further, Al-Ghizzawi’s diarrhea has worsened. He now complains of diarrhea 4-6 times per day and complains of having several accidents where the diarrhea comes on so quickly he cannot get to the toilet in time. Most of the time he washes his soiled underwear and clothes in his cell. He complained that the area around his anus is extremely soar and uncomfortable from the constant diarrhea.
5. Al-Ghizzawi stated that the doctor wanted to give him amoxicillin for five days and another medicine (counsel does not recall the name but it is in her notes) to see if that will help with the diarrhea. Al-Ghizzawi explained to the doctor that when the guards bring him the pills they bring very cold water for him to swallow the medicine and he cannot drink the cold water. According to Al-Ghizzawi he asked the doctor if he would please put a note in with the medicine instructing the guards to give him warm water, but the doctor refused this simple request, and Al-Ghizzawi is therefore not even able to take the medicine.
6. Al-Ghizzawi tried not to drink very much water during the meeting with counsel because drinking water sometimes triggers the diarrhea. As usual, he politely and graciously refused the various items counsel brought for him to eat. Just before the meeting ended on Wednesday Al-Ghizzawi took a drink of water and immediately had an intense pain on his right side causing him to bend over in pain for several minutes.
7. Al-Ghizzawi stated that he is also having difficulty urinating because it is very painful for him to urinate and his urine is now dark in color.
8. Al-Ghizzawi’s eyes are extremely weak, itchy and watery. He no longer reads. Counsel read to him several of her letters that he never received and one unopened letter that he had with him but which he did not open because he knew he could not read it. He stated that if he tries to read he becomes nauseous and the diarrhea starts again. He also stated he can no longer look at pictures for the same reason.
9. In the fall the base clinic prescribed eyeglasses for Al-Ghizzawi but they are for distance and not for reading… Al-Ghizzawi has no use for distance glasses as there is no where far away that he can look at in his tiny cell. The reason for reading glasses may be age related as Dr. Meneley suggested in his affidavit at ¶9 “There is no evidence of deterioration of the detainee’s eyesight other than that associated with the changes of age and genetic predisposition.” (emphasis added) The fact that Al-Ghizzawi has reached the ripe old age of 45 and that the need for reading glasses can arguably be explained by the aging process or by a “genetic predisposition” does not lead to the absurd conclusion that reading glasses should not be provided. In fact, many of us, counsel included, would not be able to read because of the effects of aging eyes and genetic predispositions if eyeglasses were not available.
10. Al-Ghizzawi complains that he is still cold all of the time and complains of both chills and fever, especially when having his many bouts of diarrhea.
11. Al-Ghizzawi complained that his whole body is in constant pain. The areas that he complained of as being the worst are: around his kidney and liver areas; his lower back (shooting paralyzing pain); his thighs are swollen and stiff; his arm pits are very painful; his ears hurt and his throat constantly tightens up making it hard to swallow. His legs are weak and painful making it very difficult to walk and he has twisted his knee on several occasions because his legs are too weak to hold his frail body up.
12. His skin and scalp remain extremely itchy.
13. Al-Ghizzawi showed counsel his arms that were very red and with a deep scratch in one arm. He stated it was from the restraints that the guards put on him a few days earlier when they were moving him from place to place.
14. When counsel spoke with Al-Ghizzawi about the military claim that he has gained weight he stated they often take his weight with the heavy hand and foot shackles on to boost the numbers.
15. At the meeting between Al-Ghizzawi and Counsel on Wednesday February 27, 2008 Al-Ghizzawi brought in a piece of paper with some notes. He stated that the clinic wanted to run some blood tests on him. Al-Ghizzawi does not trust or respect the medical clinic and he told them he would give an answer after meeting with his lawyer. Two of the tests were tests that Dr. Jürg Reichen suggested and counsel asked Al-Ghizzawi to allow the tests. He said he would let the doctors know immediately that he will allow those tests but he still adamantly refuses to allow the military to do the unnecessary and potentially dangerous biopsy.
16. During the Wednesday meeting Al-Ghizzawi was very depressed. He learned that during the Tuesday meeting with counsel an ICRC representative came to see him (not a medical representative). Since he was not in his cell the representative gave a report to one of the prisoners in the same block to tell Al-Ghizzawi. When Al-Ghizzawi returned from the attorney meeting the other prisoner shouted the information to Al-Ghizzawi through the small hole in the floor of his cell door where the food is pushed in. The prisoner yelled to Al-Ghizzawi, (who stretched out on the floor of his cell with his ear to the hole in his cell door so he could hear the report) that the ICRC visited with Al-Ghizzawi’s wife and daughter in Afghanistan for the first time and that their situation is very bad. He told Al-Ghizzawi that his wife is caring for her father who is now blind and unable to walk (her mother died while Al-Ghizzawi has been held at Guantanamo). That in addition to caring for their own six year old daughter she also cares for her sister’s young child (her sister and her husband are also recently deceased but Al-Ghizzawi does not know how they died) and she cares for several of her nine siblings, (the youngest of whom is seven years old). The ICRC reported to the other prisoner that Al-Ghizzawi’s family is in extreme poverty and destitution.
17. Al-Ghizzawi stated that he spends his days sleeping … it is all he can do.
IV. CONCLUSION
In this Court’s Order of February 25, 2008 this Court noted that the Opposition filed by the government provided “useful information.” The filing by the government was useful in the sense that it provided uncontroverted evidence that the government is clearly more interested in hiding and otherwise obfuscating its own mistakes than in treating its prisoners, despite its moral, legal and treaty obligations to do so. What the government has failed to provide is “helpful information.” Fortunately for Al-Ghizzawi the U.S. Constitution imposes a system of checks and balances. This Court is in a position to come to Al-Ghizzawi’s assistance and grant the relief sought in his New Emergency Petition, not as a humanitarian gesture, but as a matter of justice under the rule of law. Given the compelling circumstances of this case, Al-Ghizzawi respectfully requests an expedited hearing on his Petition and an Order by this Court to grant the relief sought in this Motion and to move Al-Ghizzawi to a competent civilian medical facility, as required by this nation’s treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law post haste and for whatever and further relief this Court deems just.
Submitted under oath by,
/s/H. Candace Gorman
Counsel for Petitioner
[1] Counsel says “until now” because she recently learned that the ICRC has apparently finally convinced the authorities at Guantanamo, after more than six years of imprisonment, to allow phone calls twice a year between the prisoners and their families… a practice that is suppose to start sometime in the next few months and also that the authorities are going to try “on a trial basis” to allow communal meals at two blocks in Camp 6. Only time will tell if these small steps will actually occur.
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ABDUL HAMID AL-GHIZZAWI )
Prisoner, )
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station )
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; )
)
)
Petitioner, )
) Supplemental Memorandum
v. ) (Expedited consideration
) requested )
) No. 05 cv 2378 (JDB)
)
GEORGE W. BUSH, et. al. )
Respondents.
supplemental memorandum
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi filed a “new” Emergency Motion for Medical care and Records on February 5, 2008 after Al-Ghizzawi reported in two letters to counsel that he was informed by doctors at the United States military’s Guantanamo Bay detention facility that he had AIDS and after an earlier letter where Al-Ghizzawi reported that a doctor at Guantanamo told him he has a serious liver infection. The affidavit filed by the Government in Opposition admitted that Al-Ghizzawi does not, in fact, suffer from AIDS (leaving counsel to strongly suspect that this was all a cruel hoax consistent with the history of abuse that has been inflicted on other Guantanamo prisoners.) However, that affidavit also admitted that Al-Ghizzawi’s liver problems have worsened in the intervening 18 months (and in fact started to noticeably worsen by the time Al-Ghizzawi filed his original motion.) The government also admits that it is still not treating Al-Ghizzawi’s serious health problems because its medical personnel (including its affiant dermatologist) are under the mistaken belief they cannot treat him without first performing an invasive and potentially dangerous biopsy.
Following the government’s troubling admissions and demonstration of the medical incompetence of Guantanamo medical staff in the affidavits of the medical providers, Al-Ghizzawi beseeches this Court to send him to a competent medical facility for treatment and further requests access to his medical records, as argued in his motion, including the relief mandated by the applicable Geneva Conventions, Conventions found applicable to Guantanamo prisoners by the United States Supreme Court. As Ordered by this Court on February 25, 2008 Al-Ghizzawi, through his attorney, hereby supplements his Emergency Motion. Given the page limitations imposed by this Court and in lieu of filing an additional affidavit from counsel this memorandum is filed under oath by his attorney.
II. THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS (ICRC)
Although in theory the ICRC has a presence at the Guantanamo prison, the outcome of that presence has, until now, been negligible for Al-Ghizzawi.[1] Al-Ghizzawi raises the issue of the ICRC in furtherance of his argument that the Geneva Conventions apply to this motion and to address any potential argument by the Government that the presence of the ICRC might in some way be relevant to the issues raised in Al-Ghizzawi’s Motion. Al-Ghizzawi does in fact have periodic visits from representatives of the ICRC who, on occasion, bring him mail. He has not had a visit from the medical doctors of the ICRC for almost one year. Both Al-Ghizzawi and his Counsel have made repeated requests for such a visit…. however the ICRC has told counsel and Al-Ghizzawi that it is very busy and therefore medical visits have not taken place.
Further evidence of the lack of any kind of influence at securing the Guantanamo prisoners’ rights to adequate medical care by the ICRC at Guantanamo is that Counsel for Al-Ghizzawi has met with ICRC representatives on two occasions, once in April 2006 and a second time in November 2006, to express her concern over Al-Ghizzawi’s health and to ask the ICRC to put pressure on the medical team at Guantanamo to treat Al-Ghizzawi. Counsel has also exchanged emails with the Guantanamo representatives for the ICRC. The April 2006 meeting took place just before the then current Guantanamo representative was leaving his Guantanamo Post. That representative told Counsel that Guantanamo was the most difficult placement in his many years at the ICRC and that working at Guantanamo was worse than working in Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war (where he was previously placed) because of the constant meddling and obstruction by the United States military to the ICRC mission, in clear derogation of this nation’s treaty obligations and customary international law.
In the November 2006 meeting counsel met with the ICRC medical doctor who was assigned to Guantanamo at that time. Prior to the meeting counsel sent court documents to the doctor outlining her attempts to obtain Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records and a copy of the release for the medical records signed by Al-Ghizzawi. At the beginning of the meeting the medical doctor mistakenly thought that counsel had obtained Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records and started the conversation by expressing his disgust with the United States military for the lack of medical care being provided for Al-Ghizzawi (whom he had recently seen) and the steady decline of Al-Ghizzawi’s health as shown by the then recent test results in his medical file (unlike counsel, the ICRC had access to al-Ghizzawi’s file and maintains detailed notes regarding his failing health). The ICRC doctor specifically described certain tests that showed the deterioration of Al-Ghizzawi’s health and expressed his frustration and anger at the position taken by the military in refusing to treat Al-Ghizzawi despite the ICRC doctor’s own stated concern and specific request.
Counsel then explained to the medical doctor that she had not, in fact, actually obtained copies of Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records, nor had she even been permitted to see those records at all. The ICRC doctor was quite concerned about this and told counsel that he would not have discussed the tests had he realized she had not seen the records. The doctor asked counsel to keep what he said confidential. The tests that the doctor was referring to related to Al-Ghizzawi’s hepatitis and liver condition. The ICRC doctor candidly stated that the affidavits of Dr. Sollock appeared to be drafted to conceal or downplay the test results, rather than explain them. When the meeting concluded the ICRC doctor said that he would try to check in on Al-Ghizzawi periodically but he admitted that his hands were tied because he simply could not force the military to provide the necessary medical care. The ICRC doctor also admitted that it was difficult to see everyone who was ill at Guantanamo because of the medical deterioration of so many of the prisoners, in addition to those prisoners involved in the hunger strike who were being cruelly forcibly fed.
Until later in 2007 counsel kept the ICRC information confidential hoping that the ICRC medical doctors would succeed in pressuring the military at Guantanamo to treat her client. Eventually, counsel went public in both the United States and Europe with the truth and to illustrate that which the ICRC cannot reveal… that the ICRC can only watch the medical deterioration and gross and outrageous malpractice at the base but can do absolutely nothing to stop it ….and even more disturbingly, that the United States is taking advantage of the confidentiality of the ICRC in the same way that the most abhorrent governments have similarly abused that humanitarian organization, by hiding its malfeasance behind the cloak of ICRC visits.
III. COUNSEL VISIT OF FEBRUARY 26-27 2008
As this Court has been advised, Counsel for Al-Ghizzawi visited with him all day on February 26th and for a half day on February 27th, 2008. Al-Ghizzawi’s health continues to worsen. The symptoms that Al-Ghizzawi either complained of during this latest visit, or which were observed by counsel for Al-Ghizzawi, include, but are not limited to the following (Counsel’s notes have not yet cleared and it is quite possible that she is forgetting symptoms):
1. Al-Ghizzawi continues to be very distraught over being told that he has AIDS. Although counsel showed him the affidavit of Dr. Meneley in which the government claims that Al-Ghizzawi is not HIV positive, Al-Ghizzawi has no particular reason to believe officials of the government that has held him prisoner without charge for more than six years, that has repeatedly lied to him, keeps him in cruel and inhuman isolation and still refuses to treat his known and now admitted medical problems.
2. Al-Ghizzawi was extremely weak, found it difficult to talk and spoke very slowly most of the time. During the meetings Al-Ghizzawi had trouble at times remembering conversations that were ongoing and had difficulty completing sentences. This is a symptom that has worsened over the last few meetings.
3. Al-Ghizzawi continues to be very jaundiced and now has very dark circles under his eyes. He looked extremely fatigued.
4. Further, Al-Ghizzawi’s diarrhea has worsened. He now complains of diarrhea 4-6 times per day and complains of having several accidents where the diarrhea comes on so quickly he cannot get to the toilet in time. Most of the time he washes his soiled underwear and clothes in his cell. He complained that the area around his anus is extremely soar and uncomfortable from the constant diarrhea.
5. Al-Ghizzawi stated that the doctor wanted to give him amoxicillin for five days and another medicine (counsel does not recall the name but it is in her notes) to see if that will help with the diarrhea. Al-Ghizzawi explained to the doctor that when the guards bring him the pills they bring very cold water for him to swallow the medicine and he cannot drink the cold water. According to Al-Ghizzawi he asked the doctor if he would please put a note in with the medicine instructing the guards to give him warm water, but the doctor refused this simple request, and Al-Ghizzawi is therefore not even able to take the medicine.
6. Al-Ghizzawi tried not to drink very much water during the meeting with counsel because drinking water sometimes triggers the diarrhea. As usual, he politely and graciously refused the various items counsel brought for him to eat. Just before the meeting ended on Wednesday Al-Ghizzawi took a drink of water and immediately had an intense pain on his right side causing him to bend over in pain for several minutes.
7. Al-Ghizzawi stated that he is also having difficulty urinating because it is very painful for him to urinate and his urine is now dark in color.
8. Al-Ghizzawi’s eyes are extremely weak, itchy and watery. He no longer reads. Counsel read to him several of her letters that he never received and one unopened letter that he had with him but which he did not open because he knew he could not read it. He stated that if he tries to read he becomes nauseous and the diarrhea starts again. He also stated he can no longer look at pictures for the same reason.
9. In the fall the base clinic prescribed eyeglasses for Al-Ghizzawi but they are for distance and not for reading… Al-Ghizzawi has no use for distance glasses as there is no where far away that he can look at in his tiny cell. The reason for reading glasses may be age related as Dr. Meneley suggested in his affidavit at ¶9 “There is no evidence of deterioration of the detainee’s eyesight other than that associated with the changes of age and genetic predisposition.” (emphasis added) The fact that Al-Ghizzawi has reached the ripe old age of 45 and that the need for reading glasses can arguably be explained by the aging process or by a “genetic predisposition” does not lead to the absurd conclusion that reading glasses should not be provided. In fact, many of us, counsel included, would not be able to read because of the effects of aging eyes and genetic predispositions if eyeglasses were not available.
10. Al-Ghizzawi complains that he is still cold all of the time and complains of both chills and fever, especially when having his many bouts of diarrhea.
11. Al-Ghizzawi complained that his whole body is in constant pain. The areas that he complained of as being the worst are: around his kidney and liver areas; his lower back (shooting paralyzing pain); his thighs are swollen and stiff; his arm pits are very painful; his ears hurt and his throat constantly tightens up making it hard to swallow. His legs are weak and painful making it very difficult to walk and he has twisted his knee on several occasions because his legs are too weak to hold his frail body up.
12. His skin and scalp remain extremely itchy.
13. Al-Ghizzawi showed counsel his arms that were very red and with a deep scratch in one arm. He stated it was from the restraints that the guards put on him a few days earlier when they were moving him from place to place.
14. When counsel spoke with Al-Ghizzawi about the military claim that he has gained weight he stated they often take his weight with the heavy hand and foot shackles on to boost the numbers.
15. At the meeting between Al-Ghizzawi and Counsel on Wednesday February 27, 2008 Al-Ghizzawi brought in a piece of paper with some notes. He stated that the clinic wanted to run some blood tests on him. Al-Ghizzawi does not trust or respect the medical clinic and he told them he would give an answer after meeting with his lawyer. Two of the tests were tests that Dr. Jürg Reichen suggested and counsel asked Al-Ghizzawi to allow the tests. He said he would let the doctors know immediately that he will allow those tests but he still adamantly refuses to allow the military to do the unnecessary and potentially dangerous biopsy.
16. During the Wednesday meeting Al-Ghizzawi was very depressed. He learned that during the Tuesday meeting with counsel an ICRC representative came to see him (not a medical representative). Since he was not in his cell the representative gave a report to one of the prisoners in the same block to tell Al-Ghizzawi. When Al-Ghizzawi returned from the attorney meeting the other prisoner shouted the information to Al-Ghizzawi through the small hole in the floor of his cell door where the food is pushed in. The prisoner yelled to Al-Ghizzawi, (who stretched out on the floor of his cell with his ear to the hole in his cell door so he could hear the report) that the ICRC visited with Al-Ghizzawi’s wife and daughter in Afghanistan for the first time and that their situation is very bad. He told Al-Ghizzawi that his wife is caring for her father who is now blind and unable to walk (her mother died while Al-Ghizzawi has been held at Guantanamo). That in addition to caring for their own six year old daughter she also cares for her sister’s young child (her sister and her husband are also recently deceased but Al-Ghizzawi does not know how they died) and she cares for several of her nine siblings, (the youngest of whom is seven years old). The ICRC reported to the other prisoner that Al-Ghizzawi’s family is in extreme poverty and destitution.
17. Al-Ghizzawi stated that he spends his days sleeping … it is all he can do.
IV. CONCLUSION
In this Court’s Order of February 25, 2008 this Court noted that the Opposition filed by the government provided “useful information.” The filing by the government was useful in the sense that it provided uncontroverted evidence that the government is clearly more interested in hiding and otherwise obfuscating its own mistakes than in treating its prisoners, despite its moral, legal and treaty obligations to do so. What the government has failed to provide is “helpful information.” Fortunately for Al-Ghizzawi the U.S. Constitution imposes a system of checks and balances. This Court is in a position to come to Al-Ghizzawi’s assistance and grant the relief sought in his New Emergency Petition, not as a humanitarian gesture, but as a matter of justice under the rule of law. Given the compelling circumstances of this case, Al-Ghizzawi respectfully requests an expedited hearing on his Petition and an Order by this Court to grant the relief sought in this Motion and to move Al-Ghizzawi to a competent civilian medical facility, as required by this nation’s treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions and customary international law post haste and for whatever and further relief this Court deems just.
Submitted under oath by,
/s/H. Candace Gorman
Counsel for Petitioner
[1] Counsel says “until now” because she recently learned that the ICRC has apparently finally convinced the authorities at Guantanamo, after more than six years of imprisonment, to allow phone calls twice a year between the prisoners and their families… a practice that is suppose to start sometime in the next few months and also that the authorities are going to try “on a trial basis” to allow communal meals at two blocks in Camp 6. Only time will tell if these small steps will actually occur.
Monday, March 10, 2008
on death and dying....
COUNSEL VISIT OF FEBRUARY 26-27 2008
Counsel for Al-Ghizzawi visited with Al-Ghizzawi all day on February 26th and for a half day on February 27th, 2008. Al-Ghizzawi’s health continues to worsen. The symptoms that Al-Ghizzawi either complained of during this latest visit, or which were observed by counsel for Al-Ghizzawi, include, but are not limited to the following:
Al-Al-Ghizzawi continues to be very distraught over being told that he has AIDS. Although counsel showed him the affidavit of Dr. Meneley in which the government claims that Al-Ghizzawi is not HIV positive, Al-Ghizzawi has no particular reason to believe officials of the government that has held him prisoner without charge for more than six years, that has repeatedly lied to him, keeps him in cruel and inhuman isolation and still refuses to treat his known and now admitted medical problems.
Al-Al-Ghizzawi was extremely weak, found it difficult to talk and spoke very slowly most of the time. During the meetings Al-Ghizzawi had trouble at times remembering conversations that were ongoing and had difficulty completing sentences. This is a symptom that has worsened over the last few meetings.
Al-Al-Ghizzawi continues to be very jaundiced and now has very dark circles under his eyes. He looked extremely fatigued.
--> Further, Al-Ghizzawi’s diarrhea has worsened. He now complains of diarrhea 4-6 times per day and complains of having several accidents where the diarrhea comes on so quickly he cannot get to the toilet in time. Most of the time he washes his soiled underwear and clothes in his cell. He complained that the area around his anus is extremely soar and uncomfortable from the constant diarrhea.
-> Al-Ghizzawi stated that the doctor wanted to give him amoxicillin for five days and another medicine (counsel does not recall the name but it is in her notes) to see if that will help with the diarrhea. Al-Ghizzawi explained to the doctor that when the guards bring him the pills they bring very cold water for him to swallow the medicine and he cannot drink the cold water. According to Al-Ghizzawi he asked the doctor if he would please put a note in with the medicine instructing the guards to give him warm water, but the doctor refused this simple request, and Al-Ghizzawi is therefore not even able to take the medicine.
--> Al-Ghizzawi tried not to drink very much water during the meeting with counsel because drinking water sometimes triggers the diarrhea. As usual, he politely and graciously refused the various items counsel brought for him to eat. Just before the meeting ended on Wednesday Al-Ghizzawi took a drink of water and immediately had an intense pain on his right side causing him to bend over in pain for several minutes.
--> Al-Ghizzawi stated that he is also having difficulty urinating because it is very painful for him to urinate and his urine is now dark in color.
]--> Al-Ghizzawi’s eyes are extremely weak, itchy and watery. He no longer reads. Counsel read to him several of her letters that he never received and one unopened letter that he had with him but which he did not open because he knew he could not read it. He stated that if he tries to read he becomes nauseous and the diarrhea starts again. He also stated he can no longer look at pictures for the same reason.
]-->In the fall the base clinic prescribed eyeglasses for Al-Ghizzawi but they are for distance and not for reading… Al-Ghizzawi has no use for distance glasses as there is no where far away that he can look at in his tiny cell. The reason for reading glasses may be age related as Dr. Meneley suggested in his affidavit at ¶9 “There is no evidence of deterioration of the detainee’s eyesight other than that associated with the changes of age and genetic predisposition.” (emphasis added) The fact that Al-Ghizzawi has reached the ripe old age of 45 and that the need for reading glasses can arguably be explained by the aging process or by a “genetic predisposition” does not lead to the absurd conclusion that reading glasses should not be provided. In fact, many of us, counsel included, would not be able to read because of the effects of aging eyes and genetic predispositions if eyeglasses were not available.
->Al-Ghizzawi complains that he is still cold all of the time and complains of both chills and fever, especially when having his many bouts of diarrhea.
-->Al-Ghizzawi complained that his whole body is in constant pain. The areas that he complained of as being the worst are: around his kidney and liver areas; his lower back (shooting paralyzing pain); his thighs are swollen and stiff; his arm pits are very painful; his ears hurt and his throat constantly tightens up making it hard to swallow. His legs are weak and painful making it very difficult to walk and he has twisted his knee on several occasions because his legs are too weak to hold his frail body up.
]-->His skin and scalp remain extremely itchy.
]-->Al-Ghizzawi showed counsel his arms that were very red and with a deep scratch in one arm. He stated it was from the restraints that the guards put on him a few days earlier when they were moving him from place to place.
]-->When counsel spoke with Al-Ghizzawi about the military claim that he has gained weight he stated they often take his weight with the heavy hand and foot shackles on to boost the numbers.
-->At the meeting between Al-Ghizzawi and Counsel on Wednesday February 27, 2008 Al-Ghizzawi brought in a piece of paper with some notes. He stated that the clinic wanted to run some blood tests on him. Al-Ghizzawi does not trust or respect the medical clinic and he told them he would give an answer after meeting with his lawyer. Two of the tests were tests that Dr. Jürg Reichen suggested and counsel asked Al-Ghizzawi to allow the tests. He said he would let the doctors know immediately that he will allow those tests but he still adamantly refuses to allow the military to do the unnecessary and potentially dangerous biopsy.
]-->During the Wednesday meeting Al-Ghizzawi was very depressed. He learned that during the Tuesday meeting with counsel an ICRC representative came to see him (not a medical representative). Since he was not in his cell the representative gave a report to one of the prisoners in the same block to tell Al-Ghizzawi. When Al-Ghizzawi returned from the attorney meeting the other prisoner shouted the information to Al-Ghizzawi through the small hole in the floor of his cell door where the food is pushed in. The prisoner yelled to Al-Ghizzawi, (who stretched out on the floor of his cell with his ear to the hole in his cell door so he could hear the report) that the ICRC visited with Al-Ghizzawi’s wife and daughter in Afghanistan for the first time and that their situation is very bad. He told Al-Ghizzawi that his wife is caring for her father who is now blind and unable to walk (her mother died while Al-Ghizzawi has been held at Guantanamo). That in addition to caring for their own six year old daughter she also cares for her sister’s young child (her sister and her husband are also recently deceased but Al-Ghizzawi does not know how they died) and she cares for several of her nine siblings, (the youngest of whom is seven years old). The ICRC reported to the other prisoner that Al-Ghizzawi’s family is in extreme poverty and destitution.
]-->Al-Ghizzawi stated that he spends his days sleeping … it is all he can do.
Sunday, March 9, 2008
U.S. Hiding its Malfeasance behind the Cloak of ICRC Visits
The ICRC has had an instrumental role in monitoring the health of prisoners of war for more than 75 years. Until recently the United States respected that role and criticized countries who failed to allow the ICRC the access to prisoners and civilians that the Geneva Conventions require…. But that was then and this is now.
As stated on the ICRC’s website (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/usa-detention-update-121205?opendocument) :
The ICRC has been visiting people detained in connection with armed conflicts since 1915 when its delegates first negotiated access to tens of thousands of prisoners of war held during World War One. The ICRC's practice of visiting prisoners of war – combatants captured during an international armed conflict – was codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which all states are party. Common Article Three of the Four Geneva Conventions also gives the ICRC the right to request access to persons detained in non-international armed conflicts such as civil wars. Under the statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the ICRC can moreover request access to persons detained in connection with situations of violence that fall below the threshold of armed conflict. These statutes were approved in 1986 by the International Conference of the Red Cross in which States party to the Geneva Conventions including the United States, participated.
The purpose and procedures of the ICRC visits is also explained on that same page of the website:
ICRC detention visits are usually carried out by a team of specialized delegates as well as interpreters and medical personnel when appropriate. The organisation follows the same standard working procedures wherever it visits detainees. These include:
ICRC delegates must be able to speak in total privacy with each and every detainee held; delegates inspect all cells and other facilities.
Visits are carried out at a frequency of the ICRC's choice and for as long as people are held in detention.
All detainees have the opportunity to write to their families using the Red Cross message system and to receive Red Cross messages from their next of kin.
Delegates conduct confidential discussions with the camp authorities before and after each visit to raise concerns and make recommendations where appropriate.
The ICRC individually registers the identities of detainees falling within its area of concern. This makes it possible to monitor the situation of each detainee throughout his or her period in detention.
Al-Ghizzawi does in fact have periodic visits from representatives of the ICRC who, on occasion, bring him mail. Unfortunately he has not had a visit from the medical doctors of the ICRC for almost one year. Both Al-Ghizzawi and his Counsel have made repeated requests for such a visit…. however the ICRC has told counsel and Al-Ghizzawi that Guantanamo keeps it very busy and therefore medical visits have not taken place.
However, one of the unfortunate aspects of the ICRC presence at Guantanamo is that the ICRC has no power to even control the five point plan listed above for its visits … They cannot make any of the demands in procedures as outlined above…nevertheless demand a prisoners’ rights to adequate medical care … well let me rephrase that, they can make any demand that they want… but when the US says “no” they have to make a choice… keep their foot in the door or take their staff (and letters to prisoners from their families) and go home… or grit their collective teeth and stay with it. I have met with ICRC representatives on two occasions, once in April 2006 and a second time in November 2006, to express my concern over Al-Ghizzawi’s health and to ask the ICRC to put pressure on the medical team at Guantanamo to treat Al-Ghizzawi. I have also exchanged emails with the Guantanamo representatives for the ICRC. The ICRC personnel that I have met are all hard working individuals who believe in the humanitarian mission of the ICRC and truly want to provide the services mandated by the Geneva Conventions, but the ICRC mission has been hopelessly obstructed by the US government.
My April 2006 meeting took place just before the then current Guantanamo representative was leaving his Guantanamo Post. It was extremely difficult setting up that meeting… he was clearly a man that just wanted to get the hell out of the US and did not want to spend any time talking with a Guantanamo prisoner’s attorney, nevertheless an attorney for a very ill Guantanamo prisoner. The representative was a long time ICRC employee and when we finally met he admitted to me that Guantanamo was the most difficult placement in his many years at the ICRC. In fact, he stated that working at Guantanamo was worse than working in Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war (where he was previously placed) because of the constant meddling and obstruction by the United States military to the ICRC mission, in clear derogation of this nation’s treaty obligations and customary international law. (In other words... Bush was worse than Saddam)
Some of that meddling and interference became public late last year when the Guantanamo “handbook” was made public on the whistleblower site Wikileaks (http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Guantanamo_manual_shows_continued_abuses) …… The handbook described the military’s “procedures” when it came to the ICRC visits and proved that the United States was systematically deceiving the ICRC and hiding prisoners or refusing the complete access to prisoners that the Geneva Conventions requires, specifically the manual states:
“ICRC visit lists should be scrubbed to insure there are no discrepancies such as disciplinary actions or restricted ICRC access.”
“ICRC personnel are allowed to talk to detainees on all blocks at the detainee’s cell as long as there is no interference with the safeguard of US Forces or detainees, except for detainees placed at the Maximum Security Units (MSU).
ICRC personnel are allowed to talk to detainees who are placed in MSU for disciplinary reasons only with the exception of the following:
(1) Detainees placed in MSU by the JIG will be listed on the MSU log. Their level of allowable contact with ICRC will be listed on the MSU log…”
“All detainees will have a level of ICRC contact designated for them. . .
a) No Access: No contact of any kind with the ICRC. This includes the delivery of ICRC mail.
b) Restricted: ICRC is allowed to ask the detainee about health and welfare only. No prolonged questions.
c) Unrestricted: ICRC is allowed full access to talk to the detainee.
d) Visual: Access is restricted to visual inspection of the detainee’s physical condition. No form of communication is permitted. No delivery of ICRC mail.”
(Isn't it convenient that we put into writing our war crimes?? It will make prosecution that much easier....)
My second meeting with the ICRC was in November 2006. This time I met with one of the ICRC medical doctors who was assigned to Guantanamo at that time. Prior to the meeting I sent court documents to the doctor outlining my attempts to obtain Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records and a copy of the release for the medical records signed by Al-Ghizzawi. At the beginning of the meeting the medical doctor mistakenly thought that I had obtained Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records and started the conversation by expressing his disgust with the United States military for the lack of medical care being provided for Al-Ghizzawi (whom he had recently seen) and the steady decline of Al-Ghizzawi’s health as shown by the then recent test results in his medical file (unlike me, the ICRC has access to al-Ghizzawi’s medical file and maintains detailed notes regarding his failing health). The ICRC doctor specifically described certain tests that showed the deterioration of Al-Ghizzawi’s health and expressed his frustration and anger at the position taken by the military in refusing to treat Al-Ghizzawi despite the ICRC doctor’s own stated concern and specific request.
I explained to the medical doctor that I had not, in fact, actually obtained copies of Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records, nor had I even been permitted to see those records at all. The ICRC doctor was quite concerned about this and told me that he would not have discussed the tests had he realized I had not seen the records. The doctor asked me to keep what he said confidential,( something I did for a short time). The tests that the doctor was referring to related to Al-Ghizzawi’s hepatitis and liver condition. The ICRC doctor candidly stated that the affidavits of Guantanamo’s medical doctor that were filed in Al-Ghizzawi’s case appeared to be drafted to conceal or downplay the test results, rather than explain them. When the meeting concluded the ICRC doctor said that he would try to check in on Al-Ghizzawi periodically but he admitted that his hands were tied because he simply could not force the military to provide the necessary medical care. The ICRC doctor also admitted that it was difficult to see everyone who was ill at Guantanamo because of the medical deterioration of so many of the prisoners, in addition to those prisoners involved in the hunger strike who were being cruelly forcibly fed.
Until later in 2007 I kept the ICRC information confidential hoping that the ICRC medical doctors would succeed in pressuring the military at Guantanamo to treat Al-Ghizzawi. Eventually, I went public with the truth and to illustrate that which the ICRC cannot reveal… that the ICRC can only watch the medical deterioration and gross and outrageous malpractice at the base but can do absolutely nothing to stop it ….and even more disturbingly, that the United States is taking advantage of the confidentiality of the ICRC in the same way that the most abhorrent governments have similarly abused that humanitarian organization... by hiding its malfeasance behind the cloak of ICRC visits.
As stated on the ICRC’s website (http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/usa-detention-update-121205?opendocument) :
The ICRC has been visiting people detained in connection with armed conflicts since 1915 when its delegates first negotiated access to tens of thousands of prisoners of war held during World War One. The ICRC's practice of visiting prisoners of war – combatants captured during an international armed conflict – was codified in the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which all states are party. Common Article Three of the Four Geneva Conventions also gives the ICRC the right to request access to persons detained in non-international armed conflicts such as civil wars. Under the statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the ICRC can moreover request access to persons detained in connection with situations of violence that fall below the threshold of armed conflict. These statutes were approved in 1986 by the International Conference of the Red Cross in which States party to the Geneva Conventions including the United States, participated.
The purpose and procedures of the ICRC visits is also explained on that same page of the website:
ICRC detention visits are usually carried out by a team of specialized delegates as well as interpreters and medical personnel when appropriate. The organisation follows the same standard working procedures wherever it visits detainees. These include:
ICRC delegates must be able to speak in total privacy with each and every detainee held; delegates inspect all cells and other facilities.
Visits are carried out at a frequency of the ICRC's choice and for as long as people are held in detention.
All detainees have the opportunity to write to their families using the Red Cross message system and to receive Red Cross messages from their next of kin.
Delegates conduct confidential discussions with the camp authorities before and after each visit to raise concerns and make recommendations where appropriate.
The ICRC individually registers the identities of detainees falling within its area of concern. This makes it possible to monitor the situation of each detainee throughout his or her period in detention.
Al-Ghizzawi does in fact have periodic visits from representatives of the ICRC who, on occasion, bring him mail. Unfortunately he has not had a visit from the medical doctors of the ICRC for almost one year. Both Al-Ghizzawi and his Counsel have made repeated requests for such a visit…. however the ICRC has told counsel and Al-Ghizzawi that Guantanamo keeps it very busy and therefore medical visits have not taken place.
However, one of the unfortunate aspects of the ICRC presence at Guantanamo is that the ICRC has no power to even control the five point plan listed above for its visits … They cannot make any of the demands in procedures as outlined above…nevertheless demand a prisoners’ rights to adequate medical care … well let me rephrase that, they can make any demand that they want… but when the US says “no” they have to make a choice… keep their foot in the door or take their staff (and letters to prisoners from their families) and go home… or grit their collective teeth and stay with it. I have met with ICRC representatives on two occasions, once in April 2006 and a second time in November 2006, to express my concern over Al-Ghizzawi’s health and to ask the ICRC to put pressure on the medical team at Guantanamo to treat Al-Ghizzawi. I have also exchanged emails with the Guantanamo representatives for the ICRC. The ICRC personnel that I have met are all hard working individuals who believe in the humanitarian mission of the ICRC and truly want to provide the services mandated by the Geneva Conventions, but the ICRC mission has been hopelessly obstructed by the US government.
My April 2006 meeting took place just before the then current Guantanamo representative was leaving his Guantanamo Post. It was extremely difficult setting up that meeting… he was clearly a man that just wanted to get the hell out of the US and did not want to spend any time talking with a Guantanamo prisoner’s attorney, nevertheless an attorney for a very ill Guantanamo prisoner. The representative was a long time ICRC employee and when we finally met he admitted to me that Guantanamo was the most difficult placement in his many years at the ICRC. In fact, he stated that working at Guantanamo was worse than working in Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war (where he was previously placed) because of the constant meddling and obstruction by the United States military to the ICRC mission, in clear derogation of this nation’s treaty obligations and customary international law. (In other words... Bush was worse than Saddam)
Some of that meddling and interference became public late last year when the Guantanamo “handbook” was made public on the whistleblower site Wikileaks (http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Guantanamo_manual_shows_continued_abuses) …… The handbook described the military’s “procedures” when it came to the ICRC visits and proved that the United States was systematically deceiving the ICRC and hiding prisoners or refusing the complete access to prisoners that the Geneva Conventions requires, specifically the manual states:
“ICRC visit lists should be scrubbed to insure there are no discrepancies such as disciplinary actions or restricted ICRC access.”
“ICRC personnel are allowed to talk to detainees on all blocks at the detainee’s cell as long as there is no interference with the safeguard of US Forces or detainees, except for detainees placed at the Maximum Security Units (MSU).
ICRC personnel are allowed to talk to detainees who are placed in MSU for disciplinary reasons only with the exception of the following:
(1) Detainees placed in MSU by the JIG will be listed on the MSU log. Their level of allowable contact with ICRC will be listed on the MSU log…”
“All detainees will have a level of ICRC contact designated for them. . .
a) No Access: No contact of any kind with the ICRC. This includes the delivery of ICRC mail.
b) Restricted: ICRC is allowed to ask the detainee about health and welfare only. No prolonged questions.
c) Unrestricted: ICRC is allowed full access to talk to the detainee.
d) Visual: Access is restricted to visual inspection of the detainee’s physical condition. No form of communication is permitted. No delivery of ICRC mail.”
(Isn't it convenient that we put into writing our war crimes?? It will make prosecution that much easier....)
My second meeting with the ICRC was in November 2006. This time I met with one of the ICRC medical doctors who was assigned to Guantanamo at that time. Prior to the meeting I sent court documents to the doctor outlining my attempts to obtain Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records and a copy of the release for the medical records signed by Al-Ghizzawi. At the beginning of the meeting the medical doctor mistakenly thought that I had obtained Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records and started the conversation by expressing his disgust with the United States military for the lack of medical care being provided for Al-Ghizzawi (whom he had recently seen) and the steady decline of Al-Ghizzawi’s health as shown by the then recent test results in his medical file (unlike me, the ICRC has access to al-Ghizzawi’s medical file and maintains detailed notes regarding his failing health). The ICRC doctor specifically described certain tests that showed the deterioration of Al-Ghizzawi’s health and expressed his frustration and anger at the position taken by the military in refusing to treat Al-Ghizzawi despite the ICRC doctor’s own stated concern and specific request.
I explained to the medical doctor that I had not, in fact, actually obtained copies of Al-Ghizzawi’s medical records, nor had I even been permitted to see those records at all. The ICRC doctor was quite concerned about this and told me that he would not have discussed the tests had he realized I had not seen the records. The doctor asked me to keep what he said confidential,( something I did for a short time). The tests that the doctor was referring to related to Al-Ghizzawi’s hepatitis and liver condition. The ICRC doctor candidly stated that the affidavits of Guantanamo’s medical doctor that were filed in Al-Ghizzawi’s case appeared to be drafted to conceal or downplay the test results, rather than explain them. When the meeting concluded the ICRC doctor said that he would try to check in on Al-Ghizzawi periodically but he admitted that his hands were tied because he simply could not force the military to provide the necessary medical care. The ICRC doctor also admitted that it was difficult to see everyone who was ill at Guantanamo because of the medical deterioration of so many of the prisoners, in addition to those prisoners involved in the hunger strike who were being cruelly forcibly fed.
Until later in 2007 I kept the ICRC information confidential hoping that the ICRC medical doctors would succeed in pressuring the military at Guantanamo to treat Al-Ghizzawi. Eventually, I went public with the truth and to illustrate that which the ICRC cannot reveal… that the ICRC can only watch the medical deterioration and gross and outrageous malpractice at the base but can do absolutely nothing to stop it ….and even more disturbingly, that the United States is taking advantage of the confidentiality of the ICRC in the same way that the most abhorrent governments have similarly abused that humanitarian organization... by hiding its malfeasance behind the cloak of ICRC visits.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
The Hippocratic Oath Dies in Gitmo
The Hippocratic Oath Dies in Gitmo
By H. Candace Gorman
I have been representing Abdul Al-Ghizzawi, one of my Guantánamo clients, for two and a half years. The day I took on his case, I knew little about him other than he was seriously ill. My goal from that day forward has been to ascertain what is wrong with Al-Ghizzawi and get him the medical care he needs.
In the fall of 2006, Dr. Jürg Reichen, a respected liver specialist at the University of Bern in Switzerland, filed an affidavit in which he testified that, based on the symptoms described by Al-Ghizzawi and based on my own observations of Al-Ghizzawi, it seemed likely that he was suffering from hepatitis B and perhaps liver cancer. Reichen would have been able to make a more conclusive diagnosis with my client’s medical records, but the government has refused to turn them over.
In response to Reichen’s affidavit, the government provided an affidavit from its medical director at the base, one Dr. Ronald Sollock. Sollock signed a sworn statement claiming that Al-Ghizzawi received a full medical screening upon his arrival in 2002 and had indeed tested positive for hepatitis. Moreover, he appeared to have contracted tuberculosis at some point in 2004. Despite these alarming diagnoses, Sollock insisted that my client was “just fine” (as if TB and hepatitis indicated good health).
Although Al-Ghizzawi signed a release allowing me to receive his medical records, Judge John D. Bates, a George W. Bush appointee in the U.S. District Court for D.C., refused to order the government to provide Al-Ghizzawi medical treatment, or me his medical records.
Bates found that I had not demonstrated that “irreparable harm” would befall Al-Ghizzawi if the government did not provide the medical care or records. How Bates could expect me to demonstrate that my client would suffer irreparable harm without my first having access to those very records is beyond me. I queried whether I would have to wait for my client to die before the necessary “irreparable harm” could be shown, but Bates refused to reconsider his Kafkaesque decision and I filed an appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court. Unfortunately for my client, that court has been too busy unraveling our Constitution and the appeal has sat untouched since late 2006.
At about the same time I filed the appeal, the dungeon masters at Guantánamo moved Al-Ghizzawi to the notorious Camp 6, a supermax facility where all of the prisoners are kept in severe isolation. The authorities had never considered my client to be a “problem prisoner” so I could not understand this punitive move. When I questioned military officials, they told me they had placed him in Camp 6 because that was the facility now being used for the general population. The cruelty of putting this seriously ill man in solitary confinement seemed beyond the pale, even for this bunch.
But now I wonder. I wonder about those tests that supposedly weren’t ready when Sollock signed his affidavit. Did those tests show something that the military did not want to acknowledge? And is that the real reason Al-Ghizzawi was moved to Camp 6?
On Jan. 14, 2008, I received a letter Al-Ghizzawi wrote on Dec. 25, 2007 (a week after my last visit). In his letter, Al-Ghizzawi stated:
One American doctor in the same Camp where I am detained has confirmed that I have AIDS, and that’s after my last visit to him during this current month (December) and has promised me he will do the necessary regarding these facts. Therefore, this will be my last witness on my infection with the sickness. Based on this, I would like you to ask the American government to provide some information on this case, and the reason they hid this truth all the time I am detained, and to also provide the necessary treatment.
So there you have it. We know from Sollock’s affidavit that Al-Ghizzawi arrived at Guantánamo HIV-free in June 2002 and we know from Al-Ghizzawi that his health started to deteriorate in 2004. Upon learning of this AIDS diagnosis, I sent an e-mail to the government attorney asking if he would confirm or deny that Al-Ghizzawi has AIDS. Instead of answering my simple question, the attorney sent this unresponsive statement:
We are not privy to the particulars of what your client may have been told by his doctor, if anything, but Guantánamo provides high-quality medical care to all detainees.
I have a long list of individuals that should be tried as war criminals. Sollock has now leapfrogged to the top of that list, followed closely by certain attorneys.
By H. Candace Gorman
I have been representing Abdul Al-Ghizzawi, one of my Guantánamo clients, for two and a half years. The day I took on his case, I knew little about him other than he was seriously ill. My goal from that day forward has been to ascertain what is wrong with Al-Ghizzawi and get him the medical care he needs.
In the fall of 2006, Dr. Jürg Reichen, a respected liver specialist at the University of Bern in Switzerland, filed an affidavit in which he testified that, based on the symptoms described by Al-Ghizzawi and based on my own observations of Al-Ghizzawi, it seemed likely that he was suffering from hepatitis B and perhaps liver cancer. Reichen would have been able to make a more conclusive diagnosis with my client’s medical records, but the government has refused to turn them over.
In response to Reichen’s affidavit, the government provided an affidavit from its medical director at the base, one Dr. Ronald Sollock. Sollock signed a sworn statement claiming that Al-Ghizzawi received a full medical screening upon his arrival in 2002 and had indeed tested positive for hepatitis. Moreover, he appeared to have contracted tuberculosis at some point in 2004. Despite these alarming diagnoses, Sollock insisted that my client was “just fine” (as if TB and hepatitis indicated good health).
Although Al-Ghizzawi signed a release allowing me to receive his medical records, Judge John D. Bates, a George W. Bush appointee in the U.S. District Court for D.C., refused to order the government to provide Al-Ghizzawi medical treatment, or me his medical records.
Bates found that I had not demonstrated that “irreparable harm” would befall Al-Ghizzawi if the government did not provide the medical care or records. How Bates could expect me to demonstrate that my client would suffer irreparable harm without my first having access to those very records is beyond me. I queried whether I would have to wait for my client to die before the necessary “irreparable harm” could be shown, but Bates refused to reconsider his Kafkaesque decision and I filed an appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court. Unfortunately for my client, that court has been too busy unraveling our Constitution and the appeal has sat untouched since late 2006.
At about the same time I filed the appeal, the dungeon masters at Guantánamo moved Al-Ghizzawi to the notorious Camp 6, a supermax facility where all of the prisoners are kept in severe isolation. The authorities had never considered my client to be a “problem prisoner” so I could not understand this punitive move. When I questioned military officials, they told me they had placed him in Camp 6 because that was the facility now being used for the general population. The cruelty of putting this seriously ill man in solitary confinement seemed beyond the pale, even for this bunch.
But now I wonder. I wonder about those tests that supposedly weren’t ready when Sollock signed his affidavit. Did those tests show something that the military did not want to acknowledge? And is that the real reason Al-Ghizzawi was moved to Camp 6?
On Jan. 14, 2008, I received a letter Al-Ghizzawi wrote on Dec. 25, 2007 (a week after my last visit). In his letter, Al-Ghizzawi stated:
One American doctor in the same Camp where I am detained has confirmed that I have AIDS, and that’s after my last visit to him during this current month (December) and has promised me he will do the necessary regarding these facts. Therefore, this will be my last witness on my infection with the sickness. Based on this, I would like you to ask the American government to provide some information on this case, and the reason they hid this truth all the time I am detained, and to also provide the necessary treatment.
So there you have it. We know from Sollock’s affidavit that Al-Ghizzawi arrived at Guantánamo HIV-free in June 2002 and we know from Al-Ghizzawi that his health started to deteriorate in 2004. Upon learning of this AIDS diagnosis, I sent an e-mail to the government attorney asking if he would confirm or deny that Al-Ghizzawi has AIDS. Instead of answering my simple question, the attorney sent this unresponsive statement:
We are not privy to the particulars of what your client may have been told by his doctor, if anything, but Guantánamo provides high-quality medical care to all detainees.
I have a long list of individuals that should be tried as war criminals. Sollock has now leapfrogged to the top of that list, followed closely by certain attorneys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)