Afghanistan

Judge on Detention of Jawad: 'This Case Is an Outrage'

|

Last week I noted that the Justice Department had finally agreed to stop using statements obtained through death threats and physical abuse in its case against Guantanamo detainee Mohammed Jawad, who was accused of throwing a grenade that wounded two American soldiers and an Afghan translator in 2002. Yesterday The New York Times reported that U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, who is hearing Jawad's habeas corpus challenge to his detention, had some harsh words for the government's lawyers at a July 16 hearing:

This case is riddled with holes….This case is an outrage to me….I'm not going to sit up here and wait for you to come up with some new evidence at this late hour. There is only one question here: Did the guy throw a grenade or didn't he throw a grenade?…If he didn't do that, you can't win. If you can't prove that, you can't win….It is not fair to keep dragging this out for no good reason.

Jawad, who may have been as young as 12 when he was arrested, has been detained for six and a half years. The Army Reserve officer who was once assigned to prosecute him agrees with Judge Huvelle, telling the Times, "The evidence suggests to me he is not guilty." As ProPublica reporter Chisun Lee notes in a Times op-ed piece published the same day, the government has become accustomed to such rebukes from federal judges reviewing detainees' habeas corpus petitions. The Justice Department has lost 26 of 31 cases decided so far, even though the judges are admitting hearsay evidence and applying a "preponderance of the evidence" standard that is relatively easy to meet. "If more than half the evidence tips in the government's favor," Lee writes, "then the detainee stays put—a far lower bar than 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'"

The transcript of last week's hearing is here.

NEXT: Reason.tv: Matt Welch and Nick Gillespie on Why the Obama Honeymoon is Over

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When to quit: When you lose more than half your cases by failing to meet a preponderance standard.

  2. Let me get this straight. This person is on trial for throwing a grenade in a war zone. This seems rather f’d up to me.

    This whole Guantanamo thing is just a result of nobody taking 10 seconds to think about what would happen in the future. You know, a lot like all our current President’s ideas.

  3. Taking bets on whether they’ll let him go if he’s acquitted.

    I bet not.

  4. As ProPublica reporter Chisun Lee notes in a Times op-ed piece published the same day, the government has become accustomed to such rebukes from federal judges reviewing detainees’ habeas corpus petitions. The Justice Department has lost 26 of 31 cases decided so far, even though the judges are admitting hearsay evidence and applying a “preponderance of the evidence” standard that is relatively easy to meet.

    All that proves is that the judiciary is riddled with liberals who hate America. And if by chance any of the judges issuing these decisions were appointed by Reagan, Bush, or Bush, that just proves that they are RINOs (which is just another word for liberals who hate America).

  5. Given Gatesgate, I had hoped more people would be here, united in our hatred of Obama and the Department of Justice. *sighs wistfully*

  6. The saddest part of this story is the lost life of a teenage boy. What is he going to do when (if?) we finally release him from Gitmo? If he wasn’t in al-Qaeda before, he’s a prime candidate to join now…

  7. Maybe I am missing something, but since when is it criminal to try to kill invading troops? How is that a war crime?

  8. Such Norman Rockwell scenes are rare today.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.