Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The Obama-Gitmo myth [View all]Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)39. I am familiar with the MOU. What you are ignoring is that this is a new MOU which the
lawyers refuse to sign. Greenwald links to the pdf. From lawyer David Remes:
We went to court Monday night to try to beat back DOJs latest attempt to turn GTMO back into a legal black hole, as described below. In 2008, Obama the candidate deplored Guantanamo as a legal black hole. Does he know what his Justice Department is doing now? Id be shocked if Eric Holder knew either. The issue is joined because what happens in court can affect a visit I plan to make to GTMO in August. When I go, DOJ may try to prevent me from seeing one of our Yemeni clients, Yasein Ismael. A copy of our motion is attached.
The government has begun asserting that the current GTMO protective order, which has governed GTMO attorney-client contacts since 2004, does not apply after a detainees case has terminated, by which the government seems to mean that judicial proceedings in the clients habeas case have come to an end (and the client did not ultimately prevail). The government is asserting that counsel may no longer have contact with the client unless counsel signs a purported post habeas Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). . . . The MOU gives the Commander, Joint Task Force-Guantanamo (JTF) absolute, unreviewable control over attorney-client contacts, including whether to allow contacts at all. (I suspect DoD pushed the new policy on DOJ, but thats another story.)
Beyond giving JTF total [control over] attorney contacts with their detainee clients, the MOU appears calculated to prevent counsel from using information gleaned from the client to (1) continue to advocate the clients release through the media, collaboration with human rights groups, or proceedings in other forums, (2) share such information with counsel for other detainees, or even use such information in the case of another client, (3) discuss the clients possible transfer with potential receiving countries, or, (4) apparently, even prepare for Privilege Review Board (PRB) and military commission proceedings. The MOU will also apparently prevent us from preparing adequately for new habeas petitions if circumstances change. Further, the MOU expands the power of the Privilege Team (which decides what information we may and may not make public), opens the door to involvement in Privilege Team decisions by originating classifying agencies, and threatens the attorney-client privilege. The MOU also specifies that yet other, separate procedures will apply in PRB and military commission proceedings.
Other habeas counsel are facing the same problem.
As for deploring the legal black hole during the 2008 campaign: Mr. Obama issued a statement calling the [Boumediene] decision a rejection of the Bush administrations attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo that he said was yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. Kate Zernike, McCain and Obama Split on Justices Guantánamo Ruling, N.Y. Times, June 13, 2008. President Obamas full (I think) statement can be found here.
Were asking the court to make clear that the current access procedures in the long-standing protective order remain in force for these clients, and that the government is violating the protective order by requiring us to sign the new MOU as a condition of contact with Yasein, whose case the government asserts is terminated. The government denied our request to meet with Yasein on our last visit, in May, unless we signed the MOU. We refused and so were kept from meeting with him. Were putting in a request to meet with Yasein when we visit GTMO in August.
The government has begun asserting that the current GTMO protective order, which has governed GTMO attorney-client contacts since 2004, does not apply after a detainees case has terminated, by which the government seems to mean that judicial proceedings in the clients habeas case have come to an end (and the client did not ultimately prevail). The government is asserting that counsel may no longer have contact with the client unless counsel signs a purported post habeas Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). . . . The MOU gives the Commander, Joint Task Force-Guantanamo (JTF) absolute, unreviewable control over attorney-client contacts, including whether to allow contacts at all. (I suspect DoD pushed the new policy on DOJ, but thats another story.)
Beyond giving JTF total [control over] attorney contacts with their detainee clients, the MOU appears calculated to prevent counsel from using information gleaned from the client to (1) continue to advocate the clients release through the media, collaboration with human rights groups, or proceedings in other forums, (2) share such information with counsel for other detainees, or even use such information in the case of another client, (3) discuss the clients possible transfer with potential receiving countries, or, (4) apparently, even prepare for Privilege Review Board (PRB) and military commission proceedings. The MOU will also apparently prevent us from preparing adequately for new habeas petitions if circumstances change. Further, the MOU expands the power of the Privilege Team (which decides what information we may and may not make public), opens the door to involvement in Privilege Team decisions by originating classifying agencies, and threatens the attorney-client privilege. The MOU also specifies that yet other, separate procedures will apply in PRB and military commission proceedings.
Other habeas counsel are facing the same problem.
As for deploring the legal black hole during the 2008 campaign: Mr. Obama issued a statement calling the [Boumediene] decision a rejection of the Bush administrations attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo that he said was yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. Kate Zernike, McCain and Obama Split on Justices Guantánamo Ruling, N.Y. Times, June 13, 2008. President Obamas full (I think) statement can be found here.
Were asking the court to make clear that the current access procedures in the long-standing protective order remain in force for these clients, and that the government is violating the protective order by requiring us to sign the new MOU as a condition of contact with Yasein, whose case the government asserts is terminated. The government denied our request to meet with Yasein on our last visit, in May, unless we signed the MOU. We refused and so were kept from meeting with him. Were putting in a request to meet with Yasein when we visit GTMO in August.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/07/7995/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
49 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Well, no Greenwald thread would be complete without your vigorous defense of him...nt
SidDithers
Jul 2012
#7
Why waste ones grey matter on discussion when propagenda is so much easier.
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#12
No Bain, no Citizen's United....last week poor Glenn was reduced to a tantrum about Harold Ford.
msanthrope
Jul 2012
#20
Have you ever read anything written by this right wing Canadian that consists of
Egalitarian Thug
Jul 2012
#15
Um--according to the documents provided, these are rules stemming from a 2008 Bush-era protective
msanthrope
Jul 2012
#22
No...they aren't new rules. They are the rules for a post-habeas detainee, issued in 2008,
msanthrope
Jul 2012
#33
I am familiar with the MOU. What you are ignoring is that this is a new MOU which the
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#39
Your source talks about the 2004 protective order--then the 2008 one. And your legal cites are
msanthrope
Jul 2012
#40
These are new rules implemented under the Obama admin Why can't you admit that
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#42
Thank you for finally agreeing with me! This is about the 9/08 order then? nt
msanthrope
Jul 2012
#43
No it is not. And I am not agreeing with you. Did you even read the petition?
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#44
"Judge Hogan's Protective Order"--direct quote from YOU, is the 2008 protective order
msanthrope
Jul 2012
#46
"The MOU would replace the system of access to counsel provided by Judge Hogan’s
Luminous Animal
Jul 2012
#47
In the face of political expediency, common decency and justice are left behind.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Jul 2012
#17
Where does Greenwald mention the 90-6 vote??? As for inmates getting a 'fair trial,' kindly be
msanthrope
Jul 2012
#24
Would you kindly cite your legal assertion as to the authority of the President?
msanthrope
Jul 2012
#25