Pentagon Told Guantanamo Interrogators To Trash Evidence

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — The Pentagon urged interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to destroy handwritten notes in case they were called to testify about potentially harsh treatment of detainees, a military defense lawyer said Sunday.

The lawyer for Toronto-born Omar Khadr, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, said the instructions were included in an operations manual shown to him by prosecutors and suggest the U.S. deliberately thwarted evidence that could help terror suspects defend themselves at trial.

Kuebler said the apparent destruction of evidence prevents him from challenging the reliability of any alleged confessions. He said he will use the document to seek a dismissal of charges against Khadr.

A Pentagon spokesman, Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, said he was reviewing the matter Sunday evening.

The "standard operating procedures" manual that contained the purported instructions was made available to Kuebler last week as part of a pretrial review of potential evidence, the Navy lawyer said.

"The mission has legal and political issues that may lead to interrogators being called to testify, keeping the number of documents with interrogation information to a minimum can minimize certain legal issues," the document is quoted as saying in an affidavit signed by Kuebler.

The document could support challenges by other detainees to suppress confessions at Guantanamo, where the U.S. military says it plans to prosecute as many as 80 of roughly 270 detainees before the first U.S. war-crimes tribunals since World War II.

The case against Khadr, who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15, is on track to be one of the first to trial. He faces war-crimes charges including murder for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. Special Forces soldier during a 2002 firefight.

Kuebler said the nature of the interrogations is particularly relevant in Khadr's case because prosecutors are relying on evidence "extracted" from him at Bagram air base in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo.

"If handwritten notes were destroyed in accordance with the SOP, the government intentionally deprived Omar's lawyers of key evidence with which to challenge the reliability of his statements," Kuebler said in an e-mail to reporters.

The operations manual, which dates to January 2003, was attached to a 2005 report on an investigation into detainee abuse allegations at Guantanamo, Kuebler said. A summary of the findings was released at the time, but the defense lawyer said the section including the manual has not been made available publicly.

The so-called Schmidt-Furlow report documented degrading treatment, including one instance of a top terror suspect forced to dance with another man and behave like a dog. But investigators stopped short of saying torture occurred.

Comments

[willfarnaby]

Heinrich Himmler is smiling approvingly at the USA from his study in the Necropolis.

[brighterside]

Its been said that there is over 1 million civilians that have died in Iraq. Yet our government states that we are liberating these same people from the injustices of Saddam Hussein, who also killed hundreds and thousands under his rule.

Saddam Hussein lives and his in the White House.

[texastornado]

Isn't tampering or destroying evidence of a crime a felony. I would wager that the orders to destroy all documents originated at the white house. Cheney's office. I don't believe a military officer would jeopardize his/her career by taking it upon oneself to destroy any documents.

[dadw5boys]

Please remind me who are the real terrorist now ??

[Falconjim]

Blaming Democrats for not impeaching?
Many times in these comments, I am reading how the Dems are to be "loathed".
For what?
Not stopping the run amok Bush Administration and their Repub Congressional enablers?
Are you paying attention?
You need a two-thirds majority folks, not a simple majority.
That means the Repubs and Traitor Joe are the ones obstructing justice, not the Dems.

We're doomed unless people start using their brains and stop lapping up spin like it is reality.

[RTIII]

With all due respect, Falconjim; you CAN'T say there wouldn't be the votes.

The tide has obviously already turned. Look at the special elections in Louisiana and Mississippi and elsewhere. The evidence is in. During an impeachment process, there will also be a LOT more that comes to the fore that the MSM won't be able to ignore as they have, "buried to the back pages" all this time. Therefore, any R who wants to keep his or her seat WILL vote for impeachment. And if not, it would STILL be good for the country - not a waste of time - because it would be the FIRST legal marker against this president. It would ALSO, at least during the process, keep him from pardon powers. It ALSO might keep him preoccupied from invading IRAN, not an insignificant detail to consider.

NO, impeachment is NOT a waste of time - votes or not - AND there probably are the votes.

[sparkey]

No evidence, no case at the war crimes trials. As for the prosecutors at the war crimes trials, waterboard the interrogators to find out what they did to the prisoners. Since it wasn't torure, the interrogators shouldn't complain that it's cruel and inhumane treatment.

[RTIII]

Ooooo... I LIKE it!

BRIGHT one, sparkey!

You've got a great point! I agree!

[texastornado]

Many people have thought along that same line of thinking. However the truth seeps through like methane gas.

[helonias]

With liberty and justice for all.

[DMSmith]

It really is a twisted world when our government - with no seeming sense of irony - opens war-crimes trials against others!

[batguano]

Some findings of the Seton Hall Report on prisoners at GITMO http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=885659

"The majority of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay naval base are not accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies, and only a small percentage were captured by U.S. forces

"The large majority of detainees never participated in any combat against the United States on a battlefield,"

The study said 55 percent were not accused in the documents of committing hostile acts against the United States and its coalition allies.

Among those where the location of capture was listed, only 5 percent were captured by U.S. forces. The rest were taken by Pakistani forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, or by the Northern Alliance, an Afghan militia that helped U.S. forces oust the Taliban.

Some were sold to the United States by bounty hunters who then disappeared, making it difficult to verify their claims that the detainee had terrorist connections, the report said.

Only 8 percent were characterized in the government documents as al Qaeda fighters and 16 percent as Taliban fighters, the report said.

Some of the rest were considered al Qaeda or Taliban "members," under a definition so broad it could apply to anyone believed to have ever spoken to an al Qaeda or Taliban member, the report said.

One detainee was considered an enemy combatant because he was conscripted into Taliban forces as a cook's assistant, the report said.

[RJC]

Now we face the problem of what to do with these folks. People denied basic human rights tend to be a bitter lot. I know if I or a family member were in Guantanamo and denied due process, I would spend the rest of my life fighting the US government. Regardless whether I was guilty or/and especially if I had been innocent. What a mess the Bush people have created with their jingoistic, arrogant march to war and war crimes!

[batguano]

One thing is sure; when Bush,Cheney, Rummy, Gonzales, the depraved John Yoo, and the others who have commtted treason against America and trashed our Constitution and Bill of Rights, are brought to account, they will demand all the protections of the law that they have so casually denied to others. The mostly innocent victims....many sold to us for bounty.... of GITMO, "extroardinary rendition", prison ships, torture and murder under interogation of the Bush/Neocon Regime have been used as political window-dressing for 5 years and more now under the most abusive conditions. We all should stand ashamed.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

When we deny the protections of our law to these men....all men........these accused "Illegal Combatents" and "terrorist­s"........­. who stand accused, and deny them a fair trial and representation we walk down a fascist road. The Bush Regime has much to answer for.

[gaebolgaes]

The only way to stop corruption in the military is to ban the rank systen and simply assign job titles.Like high school and college sports, the rank system makes military service an ass kissing jamboree. No general will stand up and say that Iraq is a lost cause whe he knows he will lose his rank and career. Thats why they wait until they resign or retire and are no longer in a chain of command before they stop lying.

[SwingingFromCenter]

Unless you're an NCO. I think you have to be found guilty of at least one crime before they'll let you become one, lol.

My father was the Sgt. Major E-9 at Fort Knox. He never hesitated to speak his mind. He didn't give a damn cause he wasn't commissioned.

[syllepsis]

Bush's kangaroo courts will secure no convictions.
He has seen to that most effectively- unlike every other aspect of his utterly failed policies.

[noozone]

Wouldn't the "good guys" insist on adhering to their moral code? Aren't fair trials part of the United States "moral code?"

Every time that we take the low road, we hand a recruiting victory to al Queda.

[xargaw]

Every new revelation, whether our media makes a story out of it or not, is telegraphed to the rest of the world. We are seen now as having no moral center, no better than the dictatorships we have always condemned. Our reputation around the world will be toast until we hold these criminals accountable. If our Congress and our Justice Department sit by and do nothing, we are no longer a country of laws, ethics or a Constitution.

[Danny]

Perhaps the reason the U.S. spend more on defense than the rest of the world COMBINED is that the U.S. plan to take over the world???

[Spazzers]

A fair trial is the difference between a citizen of the United States and an enemy combatant. The citizen is going to be tried in the United States court system and afforded all the legal rights. The enemy combatant is going to be tried in a military court, which does not adhere to the rights afforded a citizen.

If someone allegedly sets off a car bomb in another country during a "military" action are you going to bring that person to the United States, give then a court appointed attorney, and a trial in the federal court system?

[Durango]

Funny. But I don't seem to see that distinction anywhere in the Constitution.

Could you point it out for me?

P.S. If a bomb goes off during a military action doesn't that mean the Geneva Convention applies. Or do you think that American soldiers should be tried in foreign courts?

[syllepsis]

Destroying evidence invalidates any trial, whether military or otherwise.
The people who destroyed the evidence are themselves criminals- and must be tried in our vaunted "federal court system."
if you knew anything about law, you would know that this is an unmitigated disaster- how much of the Pentagon chain of command will go to jail for this? None, I'll bet.
I wish the Democrats had the courage to impeach. I loathe them for not having done so already. Once you start on lawlessness, you wind up in a Stalinist cul de sac., complete with gulags- Guantanomo and prison ships and God knows what else.
I loathe the Democrats, afraid to pull the plug on this President. Impeachment is necessary, but we will never see it again.

[Lemeritus]

"...are you going to bring that person to the United States, give then a court appointed attorney, and a trial in the federal court system?"

Why not?

In fact, if you have the evidence to convict in ANY jurisdiction, why not? Even in a military court, if you've got the goods, why make a mockery of the process? We may someday manage to make a martyr of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- but what should be a victory of law against terrorism will be forever sullied by what we've done in Guantanamo.

[cardtosser]

US military courts are fair. They require evidence that is not tainted by torture. The courts in Gitmo are not court martials, as they do not allow for all of the rights enumerated by the US Constitution. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is easy to research. You would find that military courts are in some ways more considerate of the rights of the accused than civilian courts.

[ReElectNoOne]

I would like answers to a few questions. Pentagon are you listening.
You invaded someone else's country then you want to charge someone for fighting back. Are you also prepared to charge US Soldiers who killed Afgananistan citizens in the process?

War is about people killing people. You try to kill your enemy but you have to accept that you are their enemy and there is no reason to think they don't have the same right to defend themselves as you would if your country was invaded. Reasons for the invasion aside, you know soldiers on both sides will die. It is what it is, war.

If you want to start to prosecute people for defending them selves then you have to look at the invaders who would not have been a target if they were not there in the first place.

As far as evidence goes, if there is reasonable doubt that evidence that could defend someone at trial was destroyed by the defendant, you have to throw the case out and release them. Either that or admit to the world that America's decline is well underway. That is not the way justice works in America...or not the way it is supposed to work.

Why would you destroy evidence in the first place unless you KNOW you are wrong? That very destruction admits wrong doing that needs investigation and perhaps prosecution of those who (a) destroyed the evidence and (b) anyone "protected" by that destruction.

[awcbuddy8]

If that's your argument then American soldiers should be entirely justified for killing all people they come in contact with. None of the combatants are uniformed so the soldiers can't tell who they are fighting. So to be safe, I guess everyone needs to die.

[RTIII]

While morally wrong, yes, that would be a way to go - if your only concern was ensuring everyone you want dead dies, without regard to the innocent, and you insist that you must protect your own guilty people.

Your reply is troubling. It presumes that the prosecution couldn't have done its job properly. And THAT presumes that there really wasn't any point to all this in the first place. Death is death. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time and innocent or not, they should die. That does seem to be your point. If not, please explain your point a little better.

[RTIII]

You are SO correct.

I'm glad you posted this. Please write this up as an article and submit it wherever you can. It's on point, concise, and makes an important point that EVERY American should hear about. PLEASE take the time and write this up, etc..... We need to hear this view - ALL OF US need to hear this!

Of course, HufPo is very unlikely to pick this comment, but they SHOULD. THIS IS A HUFPO PICK COMMENT!

[JeanPaulSatire]

A dog believed to be vicious and therefore subject to being destroyed gets more due process than the Gitmo detainees. Further, those responsible for prosecution of those cases don't lie, fabricate or hide evidence in such proceedings.

My father used to say that a person's character is determined by what s/he does when no one's looking; the same principle applies to nations. I shudder at what it says about our national character when we, KNOWING THAT THE WORLD IS WATCHING, choose to do the things we are doing.

Actions always trump rhetoric.

[RTIII]

Just remember, it was less than half of us who "elected" this dictator who is the evil one doing all this.

[JeanPaulSatire]

As much as I want to lay this ALL at the feet of Chimpy and Shooter [and their (mal)admin­istration]­, honesty prevents me from doing so. The truth is the military commissions and their shocking lack of due process could not have gone forward without a compliant and complicit Congress.

[realpolitic]

I have never seen a supposedly democratic government work as lawlessly as this one. I mean, they to anything they want with impunity. They tell interrogators to destroy notes as a standard operating procedure. They destroy video tapes of detainees being waterboared. The scandals come so quickly none in the Congress or media can possibly keep track. The strategy of the White House is to have so many scandals that not one can be properly investigated.

[syllepsis]

Spoilation of evidence is a major crime that would normally set alarm bells ringing to bring down the whole Pentagon chain of command- and beyond.
It cries out for an investigation that trumps executive privelige- it cries out for impeachment.

Damn the Democrats. In truth i despise them. But more relevantly, the Democrats are going to pay a huge political price for this- because the lawless agents of these schemes will not hesitate to destroy them, as well.

The Democrats will find out what it is like to let Richard Nixon finish out his term. It will not be pretty.

[RTIII]

Well, it aint all Dems.

It's primarily the DLC and Nancy P / Harry R.

I tried to unseat Nancy in the primary last week. We got 11% of the vote - for a candidate who was absolutely an unknown. Now it'll be up to Cindy Sheehan in November, running as an independent... There's only one other chance - the speaker can be replaced in the blink of an eye if there's political will to do so. Notice that TODAY Nancy tried to get her larges potential rival, the House Majority Caucus Chair, sidelined as the "next senator from IL." He said he doesn't want the job and has no idea where this was coming from. CHECK IT OUT!

My guess is that she did this to try and get rid of a rival for Speaker! Perhaps she knows just how riled up we are!