Obama Administration Refers Sixth Gitmo Detainee to Military Commission
EmailThe same day that a grand jury in Detroit handed down an criminal indictment of Umar Farouq Abdulmuttalab — kicking off a controversy about whether the accused terrorist should be tried in criminal court or in a military commission — the Justice Department quietly referred a detainee at Guantánamo for trial in a military commission.
The detainee, called Obaydullah, has been at Guantánamo since 2002, and is the sixth prisoner the Obama administration has referred for a military commission trial.
The Pentagon charge sheet against him accuses him of, on July 22, 2002, at or near Khowst, Afghanistan, storing and concealing anti-tank mines, other explosive devices and related equipment and concealing on himself a notebook describing how to wire and detonate explosive devices in preparation for an act of terrorism. A source claimed Obaydullah was a coordinator for al Qaeda. Another source claimed he'd placed mines on a road, but didn't know how to set them up.
Obaydullah said the information in the notebook was from his time at a mechanical school the Taliban forced him to attend. He denied the charges and that he knew anything about mines. He denied that anyone found mines at his home.
"It's disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute another Guantánamo detainee in a discredited system that is designed to ensure convictions rather than fair trials," said Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project. "While Congress recently improved the military commissions system in certain respects, the system still fails to provide the procedural rights that are guaranteed by U.S. and international law. The military commissions system is also unnecessary, because the federal courts are well-equipped to handle complicated terrorism cases and protect classified information without compromising the rights of the accused."
The Justice Department legal brief — which you can read HERE — mainly deals with Obaydullah's habeas corpus case that, the government argues, he no longer has a basis for because the case has now been referred to a military commission.
- jpt
Santorum: Money Will Not Defeat Obama, Ideas Will 
Rick Santorum's Full Speech at CPAC 2012
He is being tried in Military Tribunal because he is NOT a Slam Dunk case! Some of these men at Gitmo are Terrorist, and some are NOT. The result of Bush offering rewards to poor citizens of Afganistan, Yemen in return for reward money. They in turn seized ordinary citizens of those countries that didn’t have anything to do with terrorist solely for reward monies. Wrong policies, that has forced America’s hand.
Posted by: sara | January 7, 2010, 10:40 pm 10:40 pm
Are they using a Ouija board to decide where to try these guys?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | January 7, 2010, 10:40 pm 10:40 pm
“It’s disappointing that the administration has chosen to prosecute another Guantánamo detainee”
If there is reasonable basis for that disappointment, I hope the ACLU brings an appropriate suit in court (and have no problem if they did and applied my small annual donation to that pursuit at their discretion). I certainly support Obama, but I support our Constitution first and would be happy to see the Judicial branch (or Congress) exercise their Constitutional power. And I also am pretty confident that the changes made to the tribunals at Obama’s direction are likely to hold up (the guy’s day job was teaching constitutional law and by all reports he did it well).
Posted by: jhw539 | January 7, 2010, 11:07 pm 11:07 pm
So, Sara, you seem to be saying that Obama is purposely condemning an innocent man by giving him a military trial (but of course it is the previous president’s fault). You must think even less of our president than I do.
Posted by: Carol | January 8, 2010, 1:02 am 1:02 am
So, Sara, you seem to be saying that Obama is purposely condemning an innocent man by giving him a military trial (but of course it is the previous president’s fault).
Carol | Jan 8, 2010 1:02:24 AM
That’s a pretty odd reading of her post. And the problems with trying Guantanamo detainees in the courts after the prior administrations amateurish and haphazard handling of them are well known.
Posted by: jhw539 | January 8, 2010, 1:09 am 1:09 am
“He is being tried in Military Tribunal because he is NOT a Slam Dunk case! Some of these men at Gitmo are Terrorist, and some are NOT”
Granted, you might be right but as we sit in our chairs armchairing moves by the teams we like and bashing the ones we don’t consider that somewhere a drone is flying in countries all over the place, there are no judges, juries or smarmey lawyers. Instead ,somewhere someone with high authority gives the order to take someone out, they do it and women and children undoubtedly get caught in the middle in addition to the scum they were targeting.
The previous President did it, this President is doing it so whenever you consider the plight of “some innocent” man being tried in a US court versus the military version ask yourself is this really the way I feel or am I pulling for one political team against the other because it is the politically correct thing to do.
Posted by: david | January 8, 2010, 1:45 am 1:45 am
This is a great piece. Very thought provoking. I like the sort of ending that leaves it opn to personal input. Makes it work for just about everyone I think. Nicely done! I’ll subscribe.
Posted by: True Religion jeans | January 8, 2010, 2:52 am 2:52 am
Someone please tell me how this makes sense:
Obama wants to try KSM in New York City in civilian court to prove to the terrorists that our justice system works.
But, he hastens to add when asked what we would do if by some chance KSM is acquitted that KSM would not be freed if that should happen.
Why is nobody making Obama look at the idiocy of this position?
Why is nobody saying to him that such a position makes no sense at all?
Posted by: tanarg | January 8, 2010, 7:13 am 7:13 am
I would think by now the following has been added to the “Al-Qaeda Leadership Handbook:
- Do not exert resources planning attacks beyond U.S. soil as resources (if caught) will be treated as a military combantant; better to attempt attacks directly on U.S. soil where foiled attacks will be treated as “criminal actions” with all rights accorded U.S. citizens.
============
BTW, how is it that KSM and the Undie-Bomber receive the rights and due process of U.S. citizens for actual or attempted attacks on Americans while an innocent child in Pakistan or Yemen who is on the receiving end of a Predator drone attack does not receive same?
-
Posted by: tjp612 | January 8, 2010, 8:43 am 8:43 am
Not a Ouija board, but a mirror is being used. If the Narcissist-in-Chief, in his twisted mind, thinks a course of action will make him look “good” (as if any but the feeble-minded will ever think highly of him), he will pursue that course of action.
His goal is making Obama look good. Period. How long is it going to take his victims to realize their pockets have been picked and their integrity has been raped?
Posted by: tanarg | January 8, 2010, 9:36 am 9:36 am
“How long is it going to take his victims to realize their pockets have been picked and their integrity has been raped?”
-Victimization being used creatively to express the persistent mantra of the right-wing: Fear and Greed–though it’s obvious when it comes to standing by the principles our great nation was founded on [actual justice] they’re the ones with no courage or integrity.
Posted by: Skip | January 8, 2010, 10:00 am 10:00 am
“while an innocent child in Pakistan or Yemen who is on the receiving end of a Predator drone attack does not receive same?”
This new-found right-wing concern for innocent victims is amusing after completely condoning a botched war which killed untold thousands of Iraqi civilians.
Posted by: Skip | January 8, 2010, 10:04 am 10:04 am
Well Skip, you may have forgotten that it was this President who berated the military for drone attacks…when he was running for office. So while it is apparently now ok to kill without a trial it seems odd that those guys at Gitmo rate circus show trials in our court system, at a unheard of cost to the taxpayers.
The feigned compasion for men admittedly intent to kill whenever and wherever they can is sickening at best yet if you do your homework you’ll find that in their attemps to kill us, they seem to kill far more of their own than they do us and then blame the deaths, as you seem to do, on us.
Posted by: david | January 8, 2010, 11:17 am 11:17 am
“Victimization being used creatively to express the persistent mantra of the right-wing: Fear and Greed–though it’s obvious when it comes to standing by the principles our great nation was founded on [actual justice] they’re the ones with no courage or integrity.”
Hmm…care to explain Obama’s and Geithner’s cozy relationship with Goldman Sachs? With George Soros?
While it is very convenient to portray Republicans as the “party of big business” it can be argued without much effort the Dems (with Obama as leader) are party of corporate cronyism (see GE, Golman Sachs, etc.)
Posted by: tjp612 | January 8, 2010, 11:20 am 11:20 am
“This new-found right-wing concern for innocent victims is amusing after completely condoning a botched war which killed untold thousands of Iraqi civilians.”
1. You conveniently omit that this war was also supported by Democrats in their authorization to invade Iraq
2. The vast majority of these “untold thousands” were not killed by U.S./Allied forces. Saddam killed many, many more during his reign of terror. You are probably one of those who think Iraq was a better country under the boot of Saddam.
Posted by: tjp612 | January 8, 2010, 11:23 am 11:23 am
“Well Skip, you may have forgotten that it was this President who berated the military for drone attacks…when he was running for office”
———————
“We’ve got to get the job done there (Afghanistan) and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”
Presidential Candidate Barack Obama
August, 2007
Posted by: tjp612 | January 8, 2010, 11:33 am 11:33 am
1. You conveniently omit that this war was also supported by Democrats in their authorization to invade Iraq
2. The vast majority of these “untold thousands” were not killed by U.S./Allied forces. Saddam killed many, many more during his reign of terror. You are probably one of those who think Iraq was a better country under the boot of Saddam.
___________
1 The Democrats reluctantly went along on the condition the Bush administrations justifications for invasion were true. They were not. But I’m referring to HOW the war was waged. Colin Powell warned Rumsfeld that if he didn’t take enough troops in there they wouldn’t be able to control the situation. Rumsfeld went in on the cheap anyway. -Trading Iraqi lives to save money? Where was your concern for the civilians then?
2 To paraphrase Powell again [one of the last remaining real Republicans]: “if we break it we own it”. Are you going to deny it’s Obama’s responsibility for the undie-bomber? We invaded; the civilian deaths are our responsibility. The decision as to whether Iraq is a better place now is up to the Iraqis, don’t you think?
Posted by: Skip | January 8, 2010, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
“So while it is apparently now ok to kill without a trial”
Where is there an example anywhere in history of giving somebody a trial before bombing them? It will prove difficult take out these enemy leaders in a covert strikes if you have to show up with a mobile courtroom beforehand. And again: if an opportunity is missed to get one of these guys in a strike like this you same vociferous critics will be the first to hypocritically complain about it.
Posted by: Skip | January 8, 2010, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
“We’ve got to get the job done there (Afghanistan) and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there.”
Presidential Candidate Barack Obama
August, 2007
__________________________________
That is exactly what he’s done – approximately 50,000 more troops.
Posted by: tierra | January 8, 2010, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
How can we show how our justice system works fairly if Obama decides ahead of time not to release KSM if he’s found not guilty by some chance?
Posted by: tanarg | January 8, 2010, 3:53 pm 3:53 pm
“While it is very convenient to portray Republicans as the “party of big business” it can be argued without much effort the Dems (with Obama as leader) are party of corporate cronyism (see GE, Golman Sachs, etc.)”
ROFLMAO!
GE?
What the vast conpsiracy to get us to switch to CFL bulbs which GE is the largest manufacturer of at the expense of the largest maker of incandescent bulbs …which is GE?
You want corporate cronyism?
See Blackwater.
See Enron.
See Haliburton.
Posted by: Ryan C | January 8, 2010, 6:44 pm 6:44 pm