Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
SCENE FROM A HEARING ON MOHAMMED JAWAD.
Earlier this morning I was at the U.S. District Court downtown for a hearing on the Mohammed Jawad case. Jawad is a Guantanamo detainee who is accused of throwing a grenade at an American convoy in Afghanistan. He's been in custody for almost seven years. We know he was a minor when he was apprehended in 2002, but a recent letter sent to the U.S. from the Afghan government suggests he was as young as 11 or 12. But based on the folks I've spoken to who are familiar with the case, that seems unlikely.
In any case, the hearing itself was mostly procedural stuff, focused on scheduling dates for other motions and hearings. But there was an amusing exchange between the judge and a lawyer from the DoJ who tried to explain that she had a scheduling conflict with one of the dates the judge had set. "I'm going on vacation that week," the lawyer explained.
The judge paused and stared at the lawyer. "He's been incarcerated for a very long time," she said.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (3)
This doesn't make sense. If he was apprehended right after carrying out an act of war against a legitimate military target, on what grounds are we trying him? Why isn't he classified as a POW?
The Obama administration needs to sort these guys out. Those who were actually arrested and accused of real crimes need to be tried. Those who were captured on the battlefield need to be classified as POWs and put on ice until the war ends.
Posted by: Adam Herman | June 20, 2009 5:39 AM
The judge paused and stared at the lawyer. "He's been incarcerated for a very long time," she said.
A person with a shred of decency left in the whole sordid mess.
Posted by: SRW1 | June 20, 2009 11:45 AM
Adam Herman asks why Mohammed Jawad wasn't classed as POW. One could ask that question about every other Guantanamo captive. The US military has a 150 page manual describing how to treat captives, and figure out which were innocent civilians, who should be released, and which were suspected war criminals. It is Army Regulation 190-8
The Prosecution of Mohammed Jawad was so corrupted that Prosecutor Darrel Vandeveld resigned. His superiors ordered him to undergo a psychological assessment when he voiced his objections.
If the US version of Jawad's activities were accurate, they could argue that he wasn't a lawful combatant because he was wearing civilian clothes. But their version is based on confessions tainted by torture. The only other account is that offered by Jawad himself, during his CSR Tribunal testimony. IMO, that version wouldn't even make him a "combatant", let alone a war criminal.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 20, 2009 3:57 PM