Court Releases Slahi Decision

/17 Comments/in , /by

Last month, we talked about Judge James Robertson’s decision that Mohamedou Slahi should be released. Robertson’s order has now been released. I’ll have comments as I read it. But the short version is that the Government abandoned its attempt to prove (first) that Slahi had knowledge of 9/11 before it happened, and (second) that any material support he had offered al Qaeda had effectively ended by the time they picked him up.

I’ll have more as I read this, but just as a reminder, this is the guy for whom Donald Rumsfeld developed a special interrogation plan including death threats.

(And in related news, Jason Leopold got a hold of the Lawrence Wilkerson declaration regarding innocent people at Gitmo.)

image_print
17 replies
    • MadDog says:

      I think EW need to remove the “no” in:

      …But the short version is that the Government abandoned its attempt to prove (first) that Slahi had no knowledge of 9/11 before it happened…

  2. Mary says:

    Well- there’s Robertson, giving Obama a bit of a lesson in why you should make criminal charges rather than rely upon “war” tactics. Interesting decision.

  3. Mary says:

    and (second) that any material support he had offered al Qaeda had effectively ended by the time they picked him up

    Basically he tutors them some as to why the standard of being a “part of or supporting” forces hostile to and engaged in armed conflict with the US – for purposes of a forever detention as a forever pow in the GWOT is basically a higher standard than the conspiracy and act in furtherance etc. standards if someone were being tried under criminal statutes. Also that the criminal law requirements for withdrawal from a conspiracy don’t apply when the gov has the burden of showing active support of hostile forces engaged in armed conflict.

    It’s a very interesting way to go and I’m glad he smacked someone with it, even if parts don’t hold up in the D C Political Circu(s)it.

  4. prostratedragon says:

    [original] But the short version is that the Government abandoned its attempt to prove (first) that Slahi had no knowledge of 9/11 before it happened

    Do not ever try to explain that one.

    • emptywheel says:

      Oh, absolutely. WHich is the risk for the govt. THey don’t want to have to admit Slahi was a giant mistake. But they definitely don’t want to admit that Zubaydah was a colossal mistake.

      But if material support gets challenged, they’re screwed. More importantly, if you can’t hold someone for support not directed at the US, they’re relying on the planned IED attacks against the US attack on Afghanistan as their basis to hold AZ.

      • JasonLeopold says:

        Thanks for that insight. I just finished reading the decision and then read the govt’s AZ motion again. So many similarities. In terms of the appeal, do you think the govt will just reiterate the same arguments about why he should continue to be detained?

  6. thatvisionthing says:

    One of Hamdan’s attorneys, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift, was on Countdown on Friday, and he and Keith were talking about the Salahi (spelled that way on the court papers) ruling:

    CHARLES SWIFT: I think (Salahi) is one of the most intelligent rulings written so far, coincidentally by the judge who ruled initially in Hamdan, Judge Robertson, who if we’re nominating people for the Supreme Court, I’d love to nominate — he’s a logical successor to Justice Stevens…

    video link (at around 4:30 of about 6:30 minutes)

  7. alinaustex says:

    alinaustex
    This is very interesting and apalling -innocent people taken and tortured in our name-for indefinire periods of time
    . What would the wingnuts – much less ordainary US citizens be saying or doing if some other foreign power was doing this to our citizens ?
    But we need to look forward not backwards…

Comments are closed.