Unbelievable Evidence, but Good Enough for Seven Years in Prison
On Friday the government declassified an opinion in which U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered the release of a Kuwaiti held at Guantanamo since 2002, saying he was imprisoned based on coerced confessions that even his interrogators did not believe. Fouad Al Rabiah, a 50-year-old aviation engineer and father of four, was captured as he tried to leave Afghanistan in December 2001. He said he came to Afghanistan that October to help refugees, an explanation the judge found credible:
The evidence in the record strongly supports Al Rabiah's explanation….There is no evidence in the record that anyone directed any allegations toward Al Rabiah nor any indication that interrogators believed Al Rabiah had engaged in any conduct that made him lawfully detainable. To the contrary, the evidence in the record during this period consists mainly of an assessment made by an intelligence analyst that Al Rabiah should not have been detained.
Later four Guantanamo inmates made several implausible accusations against Al Rabiah—claiming, among other things, that the engineer, who had worked at Kuwait Airlines for 20 years, suddenly became a leader of the fight against U.S. forces in Tora Bora. Kollar-Kotelly noted that the charges were either inconsistent or demonstrably false. The Pentagon eventually stopped relying on these wild claims to justify Al Rabiah's detention, but by then interrogators had used the charges, along with sleep deprivation and threats of rendition to countries where he would be tortured or killed, to extract confessions from him. In the end, the interrogators concluded that Al Rabiah was making up a story to please them. "Incredibly," Kollar-Kotelly wrote, "these are the confessions that the government has asked the Court to accept as truthful in this case."
Al Rabiah's treatment is reminiscent of what happened to Mohammed Jawad, the Afghan who was captured as a young teenager and held for almost seven years before he was released last month. Both detainees were locked up based mainly on coerced confessions that appear to have been false, and it looks like both might have remained imprisoned but for the intervention of the federal courts. The track record of habeas corpus petitions by Guantanamo detainees poses a challenge to those who think that (contrary to what the Supreme Court has said) federal judges have no business reviewing these cases, which can be handled fairly and expeditiously by the Pentagon itself. In 30 of the 37 habeas corpus cases from Guantanamo that have been heard so far, the judges, even while applying a government-friendly standard of proof, have found the evidence for holding the detainees inadequate and ordered their release.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ordered the release of a Kuwaiti
Nice alliteration.
OK, seriously, one more deomstration of why torture doesn't work. In fact the exact same thing was featured in Robot Chicken last night, where the nerd gets waterboarded into confessing that Mordor is actually in Pakistan.
But we're the USA, and we would never engage in such immoral behavior...
where the nerd gets waterboarded into confessing that Mordor is actually in Pakistan.
Ok that's just frickin' funny.
Why doe G-d Hate Arabs?
How much do you as a juror award Fouad Al Rabiah when he sues?
'sleep deprivation and threats of rendition to countries where he would be tortured or killed'
Add a few more items to the list of things that Aren't Really Torture(TM).
We know that American government agents don't commit torture because only what foreign governments do is Real Torture(TM). This leads to some highly interesting rhetorical convolutions.
For instance, One of H&R's resident torture apologists gave a list of examples of Real Torture, from a report about the Chinese government, and one of the items on the list was 'sleep deprivation.' Oops.
How much do you as a juror award Fouad Al Rabiah when he sues?
Nothing...Sovereign Immunity FTW!!
And why does Jacob Sullum hate America?
I mean yeah it's not great that this allegedly innocent guy was subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (America doesn't torture, remember) but what if he did know about a bomb or a plot that was going to possibly kill Americans or our allies or hurt our interests abroad.
I'm sure this guys was guilty of something. I mean you don't pal around with terrorists in Afghanistan if you aren't somehow connected to the terrorism yourself. That's just common sense. Sure he claims he was just helping "refugees" -- "refugees" that would probably have no objection to taking up arms against America.
How would you appeasers feel then, when your unwillingness to do what needs to be done to protect America from her enemies leads to American deaths or damage to our interest?!?!
You have to break a few eggs to make a safe and secure omelette, right?
You have to break a few eggs to make a safe and secure omelette, right?
True, that is why we should kill them all, and in the future kill anyone we suspect of the terorisms.
Does anybody think that there would be such a thing as sovereign immunity where the state did not have a monopoly on the administration of justice?
Hey, art-P.O.G.-how do like the centralization of the administration of justice? Great results! Incredibly, art believes that we need to have centralization of the administration of justice. Like such a belief is compatible with hard core libertarianism.
Yes, libertymike, if the state didn't have a monopoly on law enforcement, there wouldn't be any torture in our society. Because we know people are naturally perfect little non-coercers until they pin a badge on their shirts.
In short, shut the fuck up, Libertymike, you racist cuntsludge.
Tulpa makes another fine point.
Tulpa knows he cannot hang with me in argumentation, hence the constant resort to name calling and childish posts.
Note how Tulpa fails to acknowledge that libertarian philosophy does not require its adherents to subscribe to the notion that the state must have a monopoly on the administration of justice.
Note how Tulpa fails to acknowledge that Rothbard hisself was an ardent proponent of not permitting the state to have such a monopoly.
Note how Tulpa fails to acknowledge that Lysander Spooner asserted that the state should not have a monopoly on the administration of justice.
Note how Tulpa fails to acknowledge that Jay Albert Nock argued that the state should not have a monopoly on the administration of justice.
Note how Tulpa fails to acknowledge that sovereign immunity was not one of the principles of 1776.
Note how Tulpa fails to acknowledge that there is no grant of authority given to any branch of the government in the constitution authorizing the state to immunize itself from liabilty.
It occurs to me that holding these people that "everyone knew" weren't terrorists is just another example of the bureaucratic risk-averse mentality.
Just like the FDA only gets beat up for approving drugs that turn out to have problems, the people running the detention program figured they would only get beat up if they released someone who caused trouble.
This from the guy who defends the Inquisition.
"the state should not have a monopoly on the administration of justice."
It doesn't.
Please stop posting pointless drivel. A grateful nation thanks you.
'This from the guy who defends the Inquisition.'
I suppose you mean the guy who *didn't* defend the Spanish Inquisition, but *did* point out that certain modern regimes put those folks to shame as far as atrocities are concerned.
BP,
Regardless of what Dan Brown may have told you, the Catholic Church did not introduce torture into a previously-Edenic world whose judicial procedures were run by the ACLU. What the Church *did* do, with her medieval canon law, was introduce limitations on the practice of torture - limitations which protected the defendant more than had been the case previously. Part of the problem with the Spanish Inquisition's use of torture was it sometimes disregarded these safeguards.
The safeguards included insisting on strong evidence ('indicia') against the accused before torture could be authorized, and the right of the accused to examine the evidence against him and to argue that it did not suffice to justify torture. The final decision was made by a judge. Today, of course, the Church is working to eliminate torture altogher, just as it previously worked to get rid the slave trade and slavery itself (first in Europe, then in the Americas).
American-style torture, of course, lacked the safeguards of medieval canon law. The torture was not authorized by a judge, but by the executive-branch torturers themselves. So much for separation of powers. And of course the torturee didn't get to see the evidence against him which allegedly justified the torture. In fact, the torturee didn't even have to be a criminal defendant, because these proceedings were extra-judicial.
If only we could get back to the civilized standards of the Middle Ages!
Gitmo was just practice. We Americans will get the real deal, soon enough.
Max, nice insult, but try William Manchester in lieu of Dan Brown.
BTW, I wasn't judging the church by its prior competitors (although I do believe despite those formal proceedings you mentioned, the conviction rate was what... one hundred percent?) I was judging it by the values allegedly imparted by its messiah. Mercy and forgiveness ostensibly being the central ones. I thought I remembered hearing a lot of noise about those virtues when I was made to go to church as a child. Of course, it's been a long time since I've been to a church or read the New Testament, and memory is an unreliable witness.
If only we could get back to the civilized standards of the Middle Ages!
Oh, and good thing you didn't defend the Inquisition. I was way off on that.
BP,
I certainly should not have insulted Dan Brown by implying that he was responsible for your historical ignorance.
Yes, you could take your historical truth from a relentless popularizer like William Manchester, or you could look at the social scientist Rodney Stark, who gives you a more accurate account of the Middle Ages.
And to repeat my point about the Middle Ages for your benefit - or the benefit of anyone else so blinded by prejudice that he missed my actual words - American torturers did, indeed, ignore the civilized medieval limitations on torture - judicial supervision and the right of the putative torturee to confront the evidence against him.