If you’re looking for pieces on Jack Idema and his team, please click on this link.

This is the phone interview that I did with John Tiffany early in the evening on November 3. Several times, he went into an area where his cell phone cut out, but this is what the tape recorder caught, and I was able to transcribe. Eerily, during this entire interview there was a very loud buzzing sound and I couldn’t hear much of what was said. I tried it again the next night on a different phone and the buzzing sound completely drowned out our voices. I tested my recorder on other phones from different geographic locations and it recorded conversations perfectly; clear as a bell.

John, I hope this does what you said about Jack and his situation some real justice.

John Tiffany is a lawyer from Bloomfield, New Jersey. He went to the University of Scranton and has been a lawyer since 1992. As an undergraduate, he was a newspaper reporter before he went to law school, he won reporter of the year in the late 80’s for the North Jersey Herald and News.

I just want to talk a little bit about the character of this man first…clearly, the people who stand with Jack Idema have a higher moral character than those on the other side of the spectrum, and I am proud to know him.

Rita came over and said this about John:

The bright side to this is that the truth really can set him free. I know Jack played an honest hand and got screwed. From Day one I knew his biggest bulletproof vest was John Tiffany. The man has pretty much sacrificed the better part of his life to see justice done in the face of very daunting adversaries. He could be living a very cushy life right now but is not. He is spending thousands of his man-hours (remember that attorneys charge BY the hour) and the financial support of just a handful of friends and family. This man, John Tiffany, is pretty much driven by integrity, loyalty, and persistence at this point. What he has and is sacrificing is also beyond comprehension. Try quitting your job for a year and hoping that you can spend all that time fighting for one thing you’ll probably never ever fight for as hard but you know is right. Then do it and try and keep some of your job too. Oh and don’t forget keeping your family safe and happy all the while having eyes in the back of your head. This is stuff heroes all the way around are made of.

John is a modest man, and although the bio at the Superpatriots site says some very strong things about him, he seems to be embarrassed about it.

John Edwards Tiffany, Esquire, is a powerhouse attorney from Bloomfield, NJ that specializes in federal criminal defense cases. He has represented international criminal and civil clients of notoriety in the US, Haiti, Africa, and other countries. His father is a former US Marine. He is very much involved in cases involving National Security interests. A native New Yorker, he lost friends in on 9/11, and Tiffany’s strength is his tenacity and resilience. More so, his complete lack of fear. The DYNCORP bomb went off a few blocks from his hotel in Kabul blowing out his hotel windows (it was done by the bombers Jack had arrested and some of their associates). Tiffany was not fazed. He did not skip a beat in the defense of Jack and Task Force Saber/7 the next day. Where others might cringe at the thought of taking on a US Ambassador or the FBI, Tiffany relishes the idea. Tiffany has made it clear to just about everyone, that he believes in the complete innocence of Jack and his men. John Tiffany’s most important attribute may be the most dangerous thing opponents have to fear– loyalty.

There are many different kinds of courage, John, just as there are many different kinds of battles. Some people are literally fighting in the battlefield, some are fighting different kinds of battles here at home.This story has many twists and turns and the conclusion hasn’t been written yet. But with tenacity, patience and resolve, on the part of many–both seen and unseen–I have confidence that justice will be served.

Let me set the stage for you in case this is the first post you’ve read over here.

• In July, Idema and Caraballo, an emmy-award winning journalist, and Captain Brent Bennett (an employee of Counterr), were arrested for conducting an alleged Abu-Ghraib style torture chamber in a house that Idema had in Afghanistan.
• There was a kangaroo trial in August, and as it turns out, the presiding Judge was a taliban judge.
• In September, they were sentenced to 10 years, Caraballo (the journalist) to 8.
• There was a second trial -behind closed doors–between December and March. At the end of March, they were declared innocent by 5 judges, and it appeared they would be exonerated and freed.
• But in a surprising turn of events, their release was not approved by the American government, so they are still in prison.
• The first few months they were in a horrible facility– called Saderat. These were mud cells with only a bucket on the floor–and they were beaten and tortured the moment they were taken into custody in July.
• Court proceedings continued in August after their wounds had healed and it didn’t look so suspicious.
• I’m not sure at which point, they were moved to Pulacharke prison. I believe it was around the time of sentencing (September 15th or so).
• In December, there was a “prison riot” where members of Al Qaeda tried to murder the Americans. 4 Afghans were killed, some of whom were friends of Idema and his men.

*Note: The people who are looking out for these men are members of the Northern Alliance, followers of Massoud.

And that pretty much brings us to the present. There have been 7 attempts on their lives up to this point.

****

Forgive the spelling errors; there are probably quite a few I didn’t catch.

I asked him about Counterr’s receiving “donations” as has been alleged by some reporters and pundits.

John: …deals with implementing counter terrorism measures–whether it be in terms of training or actions going out there and implementing counter terrorism activities. It’s not a charitable organization which is registered with a 501(3)(c) status.

Cao: It’s not a humanitarian group.

John: Exactly. (unintelligible)…I told Vicki McKenna, with Jack, you take the good bad and the ugly….(unintelligible)…a long time ago, if a judge really wanted to get someone–I firmly believe–that if the government really wanted to get someone, they can.

Cao: And they will.

John: And all these apologists who say I’m drinking the Idema koolaid, I will tell you this: Since I have been involved with Jack Idema–we’ve had hundreds upon hundreds of hours of conversations–some face to face, a lot over the phone, on the internet, I can tell you this: Never once has Jack Idema ever told me anything, ok? that has ostensibly has turned out to be false.

(cell phone cuts out. He calls me back.)

John: I always tell Jack, that’s why it’s important for the third party people who have known you since you were 18 and younger and going forward, that’s why the Jim Morris interview, other interviews, laid out, letters, and reviews, evaluations, people will start seeing that type of stuff–it’s not Idema–the perceived caricature–it’s Idema being described–

Cao: By the people who know him best.

John That’s right. I haven’t been drinking the Idema koolaid. As I said, I started having contact with Idema in May of 2004, and we started off with an internet dialog, there were times when I was going to court, and I’d get a satellite call from Jack, discussing what they were doing the night before and what they were doing in a general sense…and at the time I got kind of a kick out of it and all of a sudden the world was turned upside down with the arrests on July 6.

Of the hundreds of hours of conversations I’ve had with him, in person, I was over there, vis a vis the telephone, over the internet, I can tell you that, you know, (unintelligible) so…that was it, that’s how I got involved. That’s basically how I started. I never once had him tell me something where later on I could say–there have been incidents where we have tried to determine how things sort of went down, and maybe we’re a little bit off, here and there–both of us–

But that’s different than someone saying listen I was in San Salvador in 1976 and then you’re coming to learn that 1976 in San Salvador the guy was laid up in a hospital in New York City. That’s what I’m talking about. To me, that’s what’s important.

And I’ll tell you what; the guy has a military background. Everything I’ve learned about his background are from people who have been and experienced real life situations.

Going way back to when he was born, all the way up to the time when he went into the military when he was 18…

In fact, I’m going to meet someone within the next week or so that met Jack when he was 18–when Jack was 18. Just think about what that may have entailed. This guy, you know, knows all about him. He’s a very private individual, but this guy is like many others who have reached out to me–I’ve seen people who are committed. And we’re not talking about idiots.

Cao: What is your response to the idea that he’s a “serial litigator”?

John: My response is–yeah, Jack has been in court a lot, (unintelligible) I’d like to think that where Jack has had a legitimate grievance he has sought recourse through the courts. That’s what our system is there for. And-just because he decides to do it–as opposed to let something blowing by–and he happens to be good at it, I don’t think in any way shape or form someone should say hey he’s a serial litigator in a negative tone. A serial litigator in many way connotes that someone brings litigation in a frivolous and specious manner.

There is no one out there who can point to a situation where any judge– that I’m aware of– has ever chastised Idema for bringing a civil cause of action that was frivolous. ok? This isn’t the case. There may have been instances that didn’t go his way, but not too many! OK? So yes, if someone that sees that the proper recourse is court -well then God bless him, that’s what our courts are there for! And I believe–that–you’re talking to someone who doesn’t like and isn’t a big fan of that end of the bar that basically tries to go into court at every whim to try to expand theories of liability like the McDonalds suits. It gives us a black eye. It gives our profession a black eye. I’m not going to be one of those people that says “hey that’s great”, but in this instance, I do believe that these are proper avenues of recourse, to prove “he was wrong”! And in many instances Jack came out on the high end of the map.

By the way, he’s very good at litigation, because this guy knows the rules, has been around a lot of attorneys, has a lot of attorney friends…

Cao: I gather he could have gone into law, right?

John: Oh yea, no doubt. He’s got a 162 IQ, the guy’s brilliant. Brilliant.

Cao: So what’s your position on the fake al Qaeda tapes?

John: You know, I laugh. I say to myself, you know what? When Jack sorts everything out, is released from Afghanistan, and is vindicated–which will be hopefully very soon with the parliamentary elections–but we can’t count our chickens before they hatch–(unintelligible), I laugh. When you look at the publications in which there have been aspersions cast upon the Al Qaeda tapes– the sources that they rely upon are disreputable crumbs who are involved in litigation with Idema, or are sick individuals that have a sick obsessive compulsion with my client to the degree that it’s so unhealthy it almost reminds you of the movie Fatal Attraction or Play Misty for me.

So I say, you know what? Let everybody and anybody cast aspersions on the Al Qaeda tapes. All I know is CBS–(unintelligible) I know CBS is the infamous network of Bushgate, and I know we’re suing CBS regarding aspects of use of the Al Qaeda tapes and as well as—or unauthorized use in some instances– as well as defamation regarding very the information repressed regarding their specific knowledge in the opening hours. The reality is that they were vetted. There are several hours of tapes that were never shown to the media, which, when it comes out–are going to present terrorists -known terrorists-who were either killed or arrested…and people are going to have to sit there and say “well gee, how did Idema do that?”

There are other instances where in the tapes there are landscape shots that further support and bolster. Plus you have Peter Bergen–not that Peter Bergen (untintelligible) he went there to prove-he told me–there’s no quibble with those tapes. He actually traveled out to the location or village where those tapes were reportedly shot, and talked to police commander who verified there were Arabs in the area or in that neck of the woods at or about the time that the tapes were said to have been shot. I talked to another reporter who basically was familiar with the General over in the neck of the woods who had vetted the tapes, and said the tapes are 100% legitimate. She laughed and she scoffed. This is a journalist that’s been–who was in Afghanistan during 2001 and forward. There are many different avenues that support the legitimacy of those tapes.

Cao: What about the idea that the CIA did voice analysis and rendered them fake?

No, they didn’t, that’s not true at all. There’s not any evidence out there to support that. In fact, there’s evidence to the contrary–that the CIA did supply the tapes, and they were certainly vetted and corroborated that they were.–I dare anybody to go to the CIA and get the CIA to go on record and say yeah, yeah, we vetted them, we did voice analysis and they’re bullshit. They’re not going to be able to find that. And if anybody said they did, there’s no way. They’re lying. In the Columbia Journalism Review piece, this woman is all of a sudden telling us she spoke to a CIA spokesperson, and quite candidly– I don’t believe that for a second. And yet, who did she rely on? Ed Artis and Tracy Harrington.

Cao: Are those the same people who said the techniques in the videos were not used by Al Qaeda?

John: Absolutely. Absolutely. They were either the people who said that–or they were people that gave information. There is not one credible source that any publication who has quibbled with the authenticity of the Al Qaeda tapes. There is not one credible source that those individuals have ever produced. And you know what I do when I said– when you sue those outlets, you go into court, they know the truth is now true defense for defamation or a libel suit. I (unintelligible) bring forward the people that basically corroborated and establish the Al Qaeda tapes– bring forward people. They can’t. They absolutely can’t. OK? They can’t.

Cao: And the idea that he was billed as a government official? I know that he was driving an SUV with a DOD license plate.

John: In terms of over in Afghanistan? No. The vehicles he was utilizing as a part of this effort were on loan from the Ministry of Defense. From the Afghan government. The two vehicles that were seen–in fact, I had seen them outside of the NDS building–they still had the uh–in fact, one of them had–uh–bullet holes. It was interesting because I had seen the jpeg pictures after the fire fight with terrorists, and I saw them. Those vehicles were on loan to them by the Ministry of Defense! WHAT DOES THAT SAY? And yet they never became an issue. I saw the vehicles outside NDS. Bullet holes, riddled, the whole nine yards. So that’s ridiculous. That gets the point when you really look at it. If you really look at it what was going on here. I’m not going to get into the other issues of the evidence we played in court–clearly the evidence that was played in court if I represented three Americans in an American court they would have been acquitted in a millisecond, given the limited evidence they presented in court.

That’s the fundamental point. And that is– you had involvement of the Afghan government to the highest level of the government. So the point is–is that–you had the Ministry of Defense Marshal Fahim. You had the Ministry of Defense loaning four payroll members to Idema for use, in terms of his activities. You had the Education Minister and the Education Minister’s brother in the Special Security Forces affiliated with the Education Minister in the government, participating in raids and the activities. You had both individuals who’d been briefed on the activities. ok?

You had multiple contingencies of ISAF forces that over repeated dates were being utilized in manners to collect evidence, terrorist materials, testing the bombs, things of that nature.

You had members of the Afghan CIA AMNIAT that were involved. You had local police commanders of different districts that were aware, both male and female, in the event that they had to handle females that were detained briefly. Ok?

Everybody and their brother was involved! And then all of a sudden, when the shit hit the fan, everybody just sort of disappeared into the wind and was running for cover, and with good reason. When you’re going up against the Department of State and the FBI– who have the resources both monetary and manpower way to intimidate the shit out of these afghans who were used as nothing more than proxies–you can begin to understand it.

And then it happens on the heels of an election period where there’s going to be a presidential election, and the following year the parliamentary election. No doubt about it, this instance was utilized to damage and hurt the United Military Front aka the Northern Alliance or more specifically, Qanooni who posed a serious threat to Karzai’s run for president in October of 2004.

Cao: Now tell me the circumstances around the evidence that Idema found that was around the attempted assassination of Qanooni that was similar to Massoud.

John: Oh, what they did is that they–and I may be a little bit mistaken here, so I apologize if I’m a little bit off–is–they had taken a bomb relay device out of a home that was occupied by the Supreme Court Judge Sidiq, Malikyar’s brother and his other brother Al Sahad. It starts with the terrorist literature and photographs, and Hekmatyar Hez-b-Islami party, and other things that terrorist literature, night letters, etc., they had taken out what I think was a bomb relay that I think was going to be part of an intercom or a microphone system -where Qanooni was going give an address where it would be staged where the bomb would go off as he was at the microphone or the podium or whatever delivering his speech– he would be killed in a very similar manner. Remember the Great Massoud–was killed under the guise of a false or a staged interview where a bomb was put into a television camera, it exploded, killing him and critically injuring his brother and others that were present for the interview. So I think the way it was going to go down was very similar.

What’s interesting is Malikyar the brother of the supreme court justice, actually worked in an office that was either adjacent or nearby to where Qanooni’s offices were when he was Minister of Education. The guy had access and was in close proximity to Qanooni. So it’s understandable what they were aiming at.

The seizure of the bomb relay device -the system- -Ed Caraballo is seen asking one of the ISAF members “is that a remote control?” The guy said “no, it’s a bomb relay”, and they actually had the diagram of how this thing was going to be laid out.

This image courtesy of Richard Caraballo and copyrighted
John Tiffany and Younis Qanooni

Cao’s Note: Qanooni succeeded Masoud as the political head of the Jamiat-i-Islami party, the backbone of the Northern Alliance. The Northern Alliance are the men who have been fighting against the Soviets, Al Qaeda and the Taliban for the past 20 something years and who the elitist leftist media portray in a condescending manner as “warlords”.

Cao: So they got the plan, too.

John: Absolutely. The plan, the configuration, how the device was going to be used–

Cao: So you would think this was like a slam dunk.

John: Oh, I will tell you this, Cao. If I was defending these Americans in an American court, the jury wouldn’t even have gotten up out of their seats to retire for deliberations -only if they were hungry and they needed to go to lunch–and they wanted to have lunch before they rendered their verdict–This is the situation if the jury would have gotten this case–They wouldn’t have needed any time to deliberate this case, they would have stood up, and probably told the judge that they were appalled at having to sit through what was nothing but an exercise in a vindictive baseless prosecution.

Cao: What I don’t get is the first time around they were guilty, but then there was a trial de novo,

John: Right.

Cao: …and they were declared innocent.

John: Yeah, well here’s how it works. First of all, the first trial was nothing but a sham, it didn’t even conform to international American standards of due process of justice and fundamental principles of fairness. And then when you take a look at the interim Afghan code, there were multiple violations of that code that were in place–what you have here is nothing but a kangaroo trial–an exercise–a perpetration of fraud upon the world -in the Afghan society that this is what we can do–although we’re relatively new to this game of having a westernized trial go forward–the reality is that on August 11th when the trial Judge Bakhtyari was summoned to the US Embassy accepting charged admission a gentleman by the name of Christian (I don’t have his full name) ostensibly told the judge-

Listen. You’re going to convict the Americans, you’re going to impose the harshest of sentences.

So on September 15 when the verdict was rendered, and the judge after basically giving lip service to what was compelling exculpatory evidence- pulled out of his pocket a decision that basically didn’t make any sense; and it was clear from the stains on the pages that he’d had it in his pocket for several days. So, this is nothing but a show–an exercise in fraud–that basically was there for the world to see-to say “look, we can do this, we can impart principles of fairness and due process”, when in effect what it was doing is a pre-determined result–they were convicted on September 15 and sentenced accordingly.

That was the first stage. And then we filed an appeal. That was filed in October, it was decided that we should wait until the presidential elections over there, and after the elections here. In the first week of December, the appeal process started, it was during that process the initial stages that it was learned that the FBI had gone into the NDS room where some of the evidence which had been returned after the FBI basically seized everything on July 5, when Idema was arrested, and returned SOME items -SOME evidence- or SOME property –several weeks later– that the second go round–right prior to-a week prior to the commencement of the appeal process–the FBI went back and said we can’t take any more chances on Idema–he’ll come up with some jewel some other pearls of wisdom-let’s just clear this out so they have nothing to rely upon.

Thankfully, I had put together with the help of Eddie’s brother, dvds and some evidence to be played in court so they could show it to the appellate court. The appellate hearings went forward, the four ministry– paid Ministry of Defense employees were acquitted, one of them refused to be released. Although everyone had been completely exonerated and freed, he refused to go, and said that Idema would leave no man left behind, and he was not going to leave Idema behind, and he remains there today–as his Tajiman. As the hearings were going forward, and the guys were secretly recording the hearings, we were hearing the judges repeatedly saying how these guys were innocent, they were going to be released, they were instructed to put together, and I helped with Jack put together an order of release a total vindication and exoneration which was written in Dari and in English which the prosecutor agreed to sign as well as the judges. Now, they had basically found these guys innocent.

Then what happened is–the presiding appellate judge went on a 2-week all expenses paid vacation courtesy of the Department of State. He, being one of 5,000 judges and one of 8 of those 5,000 judges who were invited to the United States. The other 8 were (unintelligible) judges including the trial judge Bakhtyari who never made the trip over even though he was the keynote person in the itinerary. He never made it over because of his ties to terrorism; the department of state could not get him a visa. So the presiding appellate judge traveled to the United States, comes back, and on the day this was to be signed, because there had already been a predetermination that they’re completely innocent and that they’ve been exonerated and declared innocent and are going to be released, they’re going to sign this order as a mere formality—the prosecutor signed it, the three judges signed it, it goes to the appellate judge who just returned from this vacation, and he looked at Idema and said “do you know this woman?” and handed him a department of justice business card, of a justice department lawyer. Idema looked at the card and knew that the jig was up. Judge Abed turned to him and said:

“we know you’re innocent, but the best we can do is reduce your sentence.”

And the rest from there is history.

All hell broke loose and erupted–judges were screaming, the religious judges were saying that Abed was to be stricken dead, total (unintelligible) Jack was incensed–was beside himself, fortunately he didn’t do anything irrational– Eddie–that was it for Eddie the journalist. I mean he’d been told they were going to be released, they were vindicated, and here the judge was saying that the best we can do is reduce your sentence. And basically ever since that decision, basically, Eddie hasn’t been proper since.

Cao: When did the torture occur? When were they beat up?

John: Jack and his men were beat up as soon as they were taken into custody.

Cao: So it was July through…

John: July through August. They actually were beaten up pretty good, that’s why appearances were delayed. To give time for their injuries to heal in a way so it didn’t look so suspicious. I observed on August 29 when I first met Jack, that both eyes were filled with blood, indicating that they’d ruptured uh–(cuts out)

Jack was beaten in and out of consciousness and FBI agents were present. They were outside snickering and laughing and were actually present and observing.

Cao: How the hell can that be possible?

John: (Unintelligible) the head of the Afghan Amniat, sat there in his very expensive suit-the guy’s got impeccable English–demanding that Idema tell him, and by through natural progression, the FBI, who is the (unintelligible) were in al Qaeda. They wanted to know his sources. They beat him in and out of consciousness. You know, snickering and laughing, and thinking it was one big Goddam joke.

People say, Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well listen. I saw evidence of them being tortured, I saw the reports…

Cao: You mean the Red Cross Reports?

John: I saw a medical report–saw the watered down version–I could have driven a TRUCK through it–if I was trying to establish that someone had been tortured. Even the watered down version ok was fairly compelling in terms of their claims that they’d been tortured. The acting US Consul ordered the doctors to mute the reports, in order not to draw any attention. The reason the press probably didn’t observe the bloody retinas; on Jack is because of the prescription sunglasses. Those are prescription–he doesn’t wear them to be a cool dude–ok? They’re prescriptive, ok?

So, you know-in court, they didn’t see the bruises on his back because he was handcuffed in court, and he had a shirt on, and he had his jacket on, so the injuries were covered up in court.

And Eddie–I saw his foot–it looked like a football. He was a victim of Fallaqua.

So you know, it’s clear they were tortured. What’s interesting is–I would really like to know–and I believe Jack has the first names of the FBI agents who participated or sanctioned the torture– I’ll tell you what–we’ll get their last names. Once again the old adage of “I was just following orders” or “gee we weren’t doing anything wrong we were just there observing”– the Afghans were nothing but proxies for the FBI agents.

You’re talking about people in Afghan culture–they make next to nothing for months and all of a sudden the FBI walks up to them and hands them $500.00.

(cuts out)

All anybody has to do is read the Habeas petition that we filed in New York, and that one lays everything out pretty clearly. The Habeas petition that was filed in New York, and suddenly has disappeared-nobody knows where it is. It was transferred to Washington, we were told that it physically removed to New York the day after the transfer order was signed by Hellerstein, Washington says they don’t have it, Washington says New York has it, and even here we are a month after appearing in Washington on a related FOIA case which is related to the Habeas, and the reason why the FOIA case is in transit because the Habeas is the first to go –and they STILL don’t have the physical Habeas file.

So, you know-No doubt in my mind these guys were tortured for the purpose of extracting information from them, because people could, it’s a big joke, they think it’s funny, they could do anything they want.

Cao: The Habeas brief is, as I understand it, an unusual use of law. An unusual use of Habeas Corpus.

John: In this particular case we are arguing –we’re seeking relief of various constitutional (inintelligible) including wrongful seizure of American’s property by American authorities for no legitimate lawful purpose or function that was ascertained or ever communicated to us.

In effect, what the FBI has done is basically committed the crime of theft.

What we’re seeking is-among other things- return of the property. The argument that we raised is pretty much the argument that a lot of these leftist organizations argue, and that is the notion of rendition. The notice of rendition by the CIA and FBI is they’ll pick up a terrorist in one particular locale and tranport them to another locale where constitutional safeguards and fundamental principles of due process and fairness are not in play, so that they can do whatever they want.

In this particular case, we’re arguing rendition throughout the course of this trial. If you look at the natural progression of Idema’s contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the notion that the FBI was going to send an imbedded member of the agency with Idema over to Afghanistan –when you consider this, and you see the breakdown that Idema was having with the FBI–he said ’screw it, I’m going over there, come hell or high water’, it’s clear that the FBI was not all that distressed that he was going over by himself, because once he got over into Afghanistan, any mischief that they could go forward with would go unchecked. Basically, they could do whatever they wanted…and no one’s going to–there would be no recriminations. They could break laws, they could commit crimes, they were going unchecked, and besides the fact ‘this is Jack Idema. He’s a convicted felon, a bullshit artist and if he raises claims, nobody’s going to believe him, anyway’.

The fact is, is what occurred here ostensibly is an act of rendition. For an alleged members of the Department of State, Department of Justice, i.e., the Federal Bureau of Investigation were using Afghans as proxies to carry out their bidding and doing business.

You talked about earlier about them being exonerated and orders being issued for their release and how it’s being blocked, it’s being blocked because the Department of State of the United States Government says you will not release them. That’s what the deal is.

Cao: So the Government is standing in the way of their release.

John: Not the military. I don’t want anyone to think that we’re dumping the military. On the contrary–the military is our friend an ally. And the burgeoning support among the active ranks who are fed up with having their hands tied because of the political correctness that has permeated our culture–’oh we don’t want to do this’ ‘oh we don’t want to do that’ …

The reality is that we thank God for the military they are our friends. They deserve better; not the lip service ‘oh we support the troops but we’re against the campaign’. The reality here is people better start waking up. The barbarians are at the gate–they’re inside the gate. One day, when bombs start going off in the streets, God help us, then all these people that are turning around saying ‘we’re better than them’ and we have to act better than them, they’re going to realize–coddling, trying to sit down and negotiate, these things make the terrorists laugh. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. You don’t appease a terrorist. That is a recipe for your ultimate destruction.

Cao: You talked about his torture, you talked about the trial, you talked about his exoneration, and the government blocking it, how are they doing now?

John: Well thank God–for the United Military Front, otherwise known as the Northern Alliance. They’ve taken steps to protect them, there have been times when they’ve been without water, where officials have prevented them from getting water, and delayed in terms of giving water -that it’s not part of their job description– there have been many times when they were without mail, where mail has been opened and returned. How they’re doing? I think their spirits are excellent, I think they’re buoyed by the parliamentary elections which the United Military Front has scored a resounding victory, they control upwards of 223 of the 269 seats of Parliament, a little bit less, but it’s clearly a substantial voting block. And what the elitist mainstream media the people who talk about really being elected, and intellectuals as if they’re the only ones, what they can’t figure out is –’oh my god’ those quote unquote warlords, these generals -they have no business (cut out)

People elect who is going to be their leader or leaders. The people have spoken. The real question has to be asked: Why has Karzai done everything in his power along with the American government, to hold up the swearing in of the parliament? If they’re so concerned about abuses of fraud and allegations, then why wasn’t the concerned voiced back a year ago when the presidential elections were being accused of being rife with fraud? What? Is that because the United States’ horse won, and in this particular case Karzai failed to even muster up a somewhat credible voting block? No. It’s ridiculous. Parliament should be sworn in.

And thank God for the Northern Alliance, looking out for these guys and making sure that their life which could have been a hell–and I submit: If the Northern alliance hadn’t have been there to do what they’ve done over the past several months, these three would have been dead. They would have been killed.

Cao: Is there anything we can do to help them?

John: Yes. I think that what people should start doing is contacting their elected officials. I want a congressional investigation. What I’ve said from day one–is I want a congressional investigation, and this is the promise that I will make anybody out there who is a doubting Thomas. I will take these three Americans, bring them before congress, have them swear under oath, have them go on a polygraph–live on TV …have the congressional committee that conducted the hearings ask them any questions that they want– no holds barred–even the ones that may be looking to derail them–or debunk, or whatever it is. Then what I ask for is for equal treatment. That the officials that were involved in the criminality the breaking of laws, in the prison that they’re in today. That they themselves go before congress and under oath that they swear to tell the truth, and they go in the same box. I promise the American people out there–we get done with that exercise-(unintelligible) there would be no doubt about their telling the truth. And then maybe we can get to the bottom of whether or not this is a reasonable and justifiable expenditure of American tax dollars to carry out action to engage in conduct which has broken multiple criminal laws all in name of keeping these three in prison- locked away in Afghanistan at Pulacharke prison. THAT’S what I want–I wanted a Congressional hearing…first and foremost what I want them vindicated. I want the Afghan government to say “we made a terrible mistake– there were people that were influenced–coopted by certain American officials into perpetrating one of the greatest injustices in the history of the world, of mankind”.

And then what I want to do is–I’m not trying to make a comparison with atrocities–when I talk about atrocities I’m talking about legal injustices. I’m not comparing to atrocities that have occurred, I’m talking about legal injustice. I’m talking about–I’m talking about three Americans. (unintelligible) One, a journalist who has never received one iota of support from his own community–you know, brethren.

I want them released, vindicated, I want a congressional hearing when they’re back in the states, open to the public On tv. Swear under oath to tell the truth, on the box, polygraphed, the American people can ascertain who’s telling the truth. There’s no way they would do it, because they would be exposed to be the frauds and the liars that they have been accusing Idema of being.

Everyone should pick up a pen and go down to their representatives bringing the evidence and basically telling them this should be addressed. We’re serious about fighting terrorism. We will not let these three Americans continue to be oppressed for lies– it’s totally antithetical to the actionable steps that need to be taken in order to win this war against terrorism.

Cao: I can’t imagine how it’s affecting the guys who are fighting.

John: They’re starting to wake up and realize–all the rumor, all the doubletalk, and the bullshit that’s been propagated against these three-they’re starting to see for themselves. I’ve told people–yes we have pictures, pictures can speak a thousand words. Forget about still pictures. We’ve got talking pictures.

The dynamic is clear here. Something is amiss here. And something isn’t right. And you know what, they’ve got that right. You’ve got to trust your instincts. You might not like my client, you might think he’s a brash, arrogant, psychotic lunatic. With Idema you’ve got to take the good, bad and the ugly.

Just look at what has gone on in this particular case. Not allowing your judgment to be clouded by the constructs of he’s a convicted felon or this or that. Put that aside. As someone said; All you’ve got to do is turn down the volume and just pay attention to what’s on the screen. What’s gone on here and what continues to go on here.

American people should demand parliament should be sworn in, these people should be released, they should be vindicated, apologies should be issued, and then Congressional investigation should commence immediately. That prosecutor that prosecuted Scooter Libby–I would love for that prosecutor to handle a grand jury to investigate the American officials that have clearly broken the law.

You want to talk about Ashcroft last year about the power that the patriot act expanding jurisdictions to go after US nationals to commit crimes on foreign soil–you know what? Let’s have that discussion. Let’s have the Patriot Act applied in this situation and let’s have those American officials investigated and prosecuted. You know what? What’s right is right. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Give these people a taste of their own medicine.

Cao: Thanks, for spending the time today, John.

jack idema
afghanistan
Technorati Search for Jack Idema

More blogs about task force sabre 7.