Keeping him safe by keeping him in solitary

[joshwriting]

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/06/25/parhat-combatant-solitary/

So, the SCOTUS ruled. Now, these folks get to contest the decision to keep them locked up in Guantanamo, right?

Well...

Gitmo Detainee’s Lawyer ‘Not Allowed To Tell Him’ He’s No Longer An ‘Enemy Combatant’»

Nearly two weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that detainees held at Guantánamo Bay have the right to habeas corpus and can thus challenge their detention in civilian courts, a U.S. Court of Appeals dealt another blow to the Bush administration’s detention policy.

The appeals court ruled that the Pentagon improperly designated Huzaifa Parhat, an ethnic Uighur Chinese national, an “enemy combatant” after being swept up by the U.S. military in Afghanistan in 2001 and then sent to Guantánamo Bay, where he has been held since.

Despite the ruling, Parhat has yet to see any of its benefits. In fact, he doesn’t even know about it. Parhat’s lawyer told CBC radio’s As It Happens last night that Parhat is currently being held in solitary confinement and “has no idea” the appeals court ruled in his favor because, he added, “I’m not allowed to tell him”:

DEREK STOFFEL, CBC HOST: Mr. Willett, what’s your client’s reaction to this ruling?

SABIN WILLETT (PARHAT’S LAWYER): Boy what a great question that is because my client doesn’t know about this ruling because I’m not allowed to tell him. […] He’s sitting in solitary confinement today. He has no idea what’s happened as far as I know.

There is more to the story, and both the video and a transcript of the interview.

I am not surprised. I am, however, appalled.

Comments

Re: Last Chance

[camlina.livejournal.com]

A) The case is still ongoing. If, at the end of the appeals process, there is a verdict of complete innocence and the military *still* keeps him locked up, THEN I will get upset. But I have absolutely no desire to release this guy before every court has determined his full innocence.

B) You did not present the DoJ's full conclusion earlier.

"Lawyers for the US Department of Justice defended the six-year detention of Huzaifa Parhat, a Chinese Uighur Muslim, at Guantanamo Bay in oral arguments before the US Court of Appeals. The US claims Parhat is an “enemy combatant” due to his ties with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), a group that calls for independence from China and was designated a terrorist organisation by the US State Department in 2002. The DoJ acknowledged that Parhat did not fight against the US and that there is no evidence that he intended to do so, but said he can still be held under the 2001 Authorisation for Use of Military Force Act because ETIM is affiliated with al-Qaeda."

http://www.radianceweekly.com/muslim_world.php?content_id=1995&issue_id=105&issue_date_from=2008-04-25&title=US-DEFENDS-DETENTION-OF-HUZAIFA-PARHAT

Re: Last Chance

[joshwriting.livejournal.com]

You keep coming back to "release," and I have not argued that they should release him yet.

I have argued that his lawyers should have been allowed to talk to him.

I have argued that presuming his solitary confinement is for good reason is baseless.

Here is the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Act:

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

The claim that he is an enemy combatant based on that is a stretch, at best. ETIM is affliliated with al-Qaeda. The U.S. trained Osama bin Laden; clearly we, too, are enemy combatants.

"...in order to prevent international terrorism against the United States."

He did not "harbor" al-Qaeda." He did not pose a threat of international terrorism against the United States.

Re: Last Chance

[joshwriting.livejournal.com]

And my argument on releasing him was in direct response to your presentation on the issue of "what to do with him even if they do want to let him go."

It was not predicated on immediate release, but rather what would happen at the conclusion of this appeal process. There was an implication in the NY Times article on the subject that he might not be released even if he is concluded to not be an enemy combatant - as is intimated in your paragraph on the topic.