4/22/2006
Afghan Law
That was a very revealing statement coming from Floyd Abrams’ law office, that Columbia University’s law firm wants Jack and his men to remain in prison and ‘rot’. And what would they be tried for in the US? Fighting terrorists? Arresting the Taliban? Maybe you should put the entire military on trial, then. That has been a pretty popular thing to do when our military guys have killed terrorists, then they go on trial for murder instead of coming home as heroes.
Fort Bragg Soldier pleads “not guilty” in abuse case: Private First Class Damien M. Corsetti, who was with the 519th M-I Battalion at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, is accused of hitting and sitting on and threatening to sexually assault detainees. interestingly, the charges hinge on the word of an accused terrorist who’s held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Corsetti is the fourth soldier from Fort Bragg to face a judge in the prisoner abuse case prompted after two detainees died at the detention center in December 2002…all because of the allegations from lying terrorist scumbags…using the American justice system against the American military, as spelled out in (the al-Qaida’s) training manual.
And that doesn’t include the examples of soldiers who have ‘fragged’ their superior officers, exactly in the manner that Ward Churchill describes. I suppose Abrams’ office would be in support of Ward Churchill’s freedom of speech too, heh?
Or the case of Ilario Pantano.
It just illustrates even further what Rocco DiPippo talked about at Frontpage Magazine when he referred to “The Left’s War Against the Military at Home”.
Ok, back to the subject at hand. Here is some of Afghan law that applied during the Idema case. I don’t know of a single one that’s listed here that was not completely ignored in that first Taliban-led kangaroo trial that ended with a ‘guilty’ verdict brought about by allegations of known terrorists. Yet, the judge who delivered the verdict in Jack’s case got an all expense paid trip to the United States afterwards.
Afghan Laws:
RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT WHEN BEING QUESTIONED.
Att. 38 Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Defence Counsel Presence)
1. The defence counsel has the right to be present at all times during the interrogation of the suspect.
2. The suspect and the defence counsel have the right to be present during searches, confrontations, line-up procedures and expert examinations as well as during the trial.
3. In the investigation phase the Saranwal and the judicial police shall notify the suspect and his defence counsel of searches, confrontations, line-up procedures and expert examinations in order to allow them to be present. This duty can be waived only when there is an urgent need to conduct the said operations, which is defined as when it is a flrgrante delicto crime or there is a fear of the loss of evidential facts.
This most certainly was denied them, because their attorneys didn’t show up until mid-August and they were detained on July 6.
RIGHT TO ABSTAIN FROM MAKING INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS.
Art. 30 Afghan Constitution (Chatper 2, Art. 9) para. 21: Confession to a crime is: a voluntary confession before an authorised court by an accused in a sound state of mind; Art. 5 Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Suspect and Accused):
Art. 30 Afghan Constitution (Chatper 2, Art. 9) para 6. The suspect and the accused have the right to abstain from making any statement even when they are questioned by the relevant police or judicial authorities;
They were tortured in order to extract self-incriminating statements, so this was denied them, also.
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.
7. The police, the Saranwal and the Court are duty bound to clearly inform the suspect and the accused before interrogation and at the time of arrest about his or her right to remain silent, right to representation at all times by defense counsel, and right to be present during searches, line-ups, expert examinations and trial;
Art. 53 Interim Criminal Code for Courts, Item 3g: g. The accused can testify if he does not avail himself of the right to remain silent and the accused or his defense counsel can ask questions to the witnesses and the experts;
This was denied them, ask anyone who listened to Ezmerai’s screams on the streets of Kabul as he was being electrocuted.
RIGHT TO COUNSEL.
Art. 31 Afghan Constitution (Chapter 2, Art. 10) para. 1: Every person upon arrest can seek an advocate to defend his rights or to defend his case for which he is accused under the law. para. 2: the accusation and to be summoned to the court within the limits determined by law. para. 3: In criminal cases, the state shall appoint an advocate for a destitute.
Art. 11 Law on the Structure and Competencies of Courts: Every person upon arrest has the right to appoint a defence counsel to defend himself in regard of the accusation and evidence against him. In criminal cases a defense counsel shall be appoint3ed for destitute persons according to the provision on law;
Bennett’s attorney was threatened to be killed if she went ahead and represented him; etc.
RIGHT TO DEFENDANT/ATTORNEY CONFIDENTIALITY.
Art. 31 Afghan Constitution (Chatper 2, Art. 10) para. 4: The confidentiality of oral, written or telephonic communications between an advocate and his accused client are immune from invasion.
This one is a laugh, since the mail embargo, etc..
RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL APPOINTED IF UNABLE TO PAY.
Art 19 Interim Criminal for Courts (Legal Aid) 1. The suspect or the accused financiallly unable to appoint a defense attorney is entitled to have a free defence attorney appointed for him or her in the following manner: a. The investigatin Saranwal or the Court adjudicating the case, on the petition of the person, appoints a defence attorney for the destitute person from amongst the lawyers officially permitted to wok as defence attorney. b. The person for whom an attorney has been appointed reserves the right not to accept the appointed defence attorney and to defend himself in person. c. The fees of the aforesaid attorney shall be paid from the State budget and its extenet shall be fixed by regulation.
RIGHT TO HAVE IMPROPERLY COLLECTED TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE INVALIDATED.
Article 29 of Afghan Constitution, Para. 1: Any statement, testimony, or confession obtained form an accused or of another person by means of compulsion, is invalid; para 2: Confession to a crime is: a voluntary confession before an authorized court by an accused in a sound state of mind; Interim Criminal Code for Courts, article 5: Their (Suspect and Accused) statements shall be made in condition of absolute moral freedom;
This didn’t happen…
RIGHT TO LAWFUL HANDLING AND COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE.
Art. 7 Interim Criminal Code for Courts; The evidence which has been collected without respect of the legal requirements indicated in the law is considered invalid, and the Court cannot base its judgment on it; Art. 30 Afghan Constitution (Chapter 2, Art. 9) para. 1: Any statement, testimony, or confession obtained from an accused or of another person by means of compulsion, is invalid;
The evidence was stolen from the evidence room and at one point, part of it was returned -destroyed and edited–in front of the MSM and the court, yet nobody reported a word of this.
RIGHT TO TIMELY NOTIFICATION OF CHARGES.
Art 42. Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Preparation of the Trial) 2. The deed concerning the commencement of trial shall fcontain the name of the accused and the indication of the alleged crime with its factual circumstances in reference to the related law provisions and shall be served in the accused and his defence counsel; the victim and the Saranwal at least five days in advance;
Perhaps the charges were told to them when they were playing ‘dance with the scorpion’.
RIGHT TO ACCESS EVIDENCE.
Art 43. Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Access of the Accused to the Findings of the Investigation) 1. The accused and his defence counsel are eneitled to examine the documents contained int he file mentioned in the last paragraph of article 39 (act of indictment, file containing all the deeds formed during the investigations) and the objects under seizure.
Again, this one is a joke considering the house in Kabul was completely cleared out of computers, tapes, and film that could have been used as evidence to support their defense.
RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT ALL CASE HEARINGS.
Art. 53 Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Conduct of the Hearing) Item 2. The accused and his defence counsel have the right to be present.
3. The Court proceedings are conducted according to following order; a. At the opening of the hearing the Court reads out the act of indictment; (…) g. The accused can testify if he does not avail himself to the right to remain silent and the accused or his defence counsel can ask questions to the witnesses and experts; i. The primary Saranwal and the defence lawyer can ask questions of the accused.
Didn’t happen.
RIGHT TO ADEQUATE TIME TO PREPARE DEFENCE.
Art. 56 Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Concurrent Crimes and Circumstances) 1. If from the deeds of the investigations or during the trial it results that there are alleged additional crimes and/or facts contributing as aggravating circumstances which have not been incluced in the act of indictment, the Court, at the request of the Primary Saranwal, makes the related accusation to the accused and/or to his defence counsel, when present, giving them adequate time to prepare the defence.
Didn’t happen…they were scrambling to put their case together when their evidence was stolen, and the lawyers showed up over a month after their arrest.
RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES.
Art 51 Interim Code for Courts (Admission of Witnesses and Experts) 1. The Primary Saranwal submits to the Court the list of the witnesses and experts he wants to be heard together with the act of indictment, indicating the reasons of the relevance of their testimony and exams. 2. The accused and/or his defence counsel have the right to present their own lists of witnesses and experts indicating the reasons of the relevance of their testimony and exams. 3. The Court can exclude those witnesses or experts that in its view do not appear material for the adjudication of the case.
Weren’t allowed to call witnesses.
RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING DEPOSITIONS.
Art. 55 Interim Criminal Coce for Courts (Evidentiary Value of Investigative Activities)
1. The reocrs of the testimonies of the witnesses as well as of the expert exam, collected during the investigative phase, can have the value of evidence as basis for the decision only if it results that the accused and/or his defence counsel were present during the operations and were in a position to raise questions and make objections.
2. Otherwise the related deeds have the sole value of clues.
RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND QUESTION ACCUSORS.
Art 14 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: 3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
Art 31 Afghan Constitution (Chapter 2, Art 10) para. 2: The accused upon arrest has the right to be informed of the attributed accusation and to be summoned to the court within the limits determined by law.
RIGHT TO HAVE ADEQUATE TRANSLATIONS.
Art 135 Afghan Constitution (Chapter 7, Art. 20): If parties involved in a case do not know the language in which the trial is conducted, they have the right to understand the material and documents related to the case through an interpreter and the right to speak in their mother language in the court.
Art 20 Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Interpreter) 1. The suspect or the accused who does not know the language used during the investigations and the trials or who is deaf, dumb or deaf and dumb shall be given an interpreter for, at least, explaining to him the charge and the indictment and for assisting him during the interrogations and confrontations. Art 14 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: a. To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the cahrge against him; f. To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;
And that is AFGHAN LAW. Should I continue with the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual and the Policy Defining FAM as the documentary and evidentiary basis for all State Department operations? Perhaps I will, in another post, for simpletons like Kathryn Cramer, who in my opinion, doesn’t take a ‘deep dive’ on anything and would prefer instead the Dr. Suess version.
Clearly if you have any of this documentation sitting in front of you and have knowledge of what happened in this case (like a lot of the journalists who had front row seats and paid to see the court documents when that privilege was denied the defense), you would know that policy, procedure and law (Afghan and American and International) were completely thrown out the window in the case of Jack Idema and the other two Americans, Brent Bennett and Ed Caraballo. So if that is the case, then under what Afghan law were they declared guilty when the evidence was stolen, they didn’t have representation until mid-August, and were immediately tortured upon their ‘arrest’–and they had a soviet interpreter and didn’t understand what was going on half the time, the interpreter was intentionally mis-interpreting what was being said and interjecting his own bias into the proceedings, and the sitting judges were members of the Taliban–ideological brothers to the terrorists the Americans supposedly tortured– that were set free and who later participated in a bombing at Bagram AFB?
None of the terrorists who claimed they were ‘hung from the ceiling’ in the ‘basement’ - ever swore on the Koran, and any muslim knows that means they were lying.
And here’s more proof of that:
Actually, Cao, you might be the first person to be able to wade through the bullshit and publish the facts. They were terrorists, they got caught, Idema caught them, and then they lied. Like, here’s a good one: the terrorists were supposed to be hanging upside down in a basement. Problem was there was no basement in the house, I know, I sent a team there to photograph it. Nor has ONE piece of evidence ever been shown against them- Just anonymous sources who have all either dissapeared or been identified, and now fired.
Good job, keep it up, and never let them see you sweat.
Comment by Command Sergeant Major Donald
So for the people who are stupid enough to say something like “The Superpatriots were convicted under Afghan law…” Puhleez. Stick a sock in it.
The Irate Nation - linked with Free Jack Idema
April 23rd, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Cao,
Hello there. Good to see you still going strong with your outstanding web site.
I’m sorry I haven’t been a regular visitor lately.
This Idema/Afghanistan business is really burning me up. I’d like to post about it and send people here, but I find it difficult to come up with an “executive summary” that explains what is going on.
Would you happen to have such an ES (500 words or less) and give me permission to republish it on other blogs, or link to it?
April 23rd, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Hi, MH. So glad to see you’re still around! Yes, I have been consumed by the Idema story since I decided to finally pick it up and commit to it.
I think the best summaries that can be had are on the blogburst posts.
Here are the links to a few months’ worth of Wednesday’s “Free Jack Idema” blogbursts. Take a look and feel free to take all the narrative you want–the pictures, however, I have special permission to post here and are copyrighted.
Be aware, though, the leftists have him labelled as a mercenary, a nut, and a conman. He is absolutely none of those.
They rely mainly on Mariah Blake’s piece called “Tin Soldier” and I can’t wait until the rest of the information debunking that is ready to be released because that will blow a hole in their entire propaganda campaign.
Here are the dates of a couple months’ worth of blogbursts. The last one I did involved the timeline of what Jack was doing, and lays it out in pretty simple terms. I have over 175 posts here on Idema’s story in the Task Force Sabre 7 section. It is a very detailed, very involved story, involving many players.
Let me take a crack at an executive summary on the Idema case right here (this is about 354 words):
June/July of 2004
Jack identified Gulumsaki who gave up the rest of the terrorist bomb cell. Within 5 days after getting Gulumsaki, he had about 95% of the cell. He had the explosives, the plans to blow up Bagram AFB–they were going to drive fuel trucks into the barracks at Bagram airforce base and kill a couple thousand American soldiers. He had their bomb plans to kill Qanooni who was the main opponent to Karzai and the leader now since Massoud died to the Northern Alliance. He had the plans to kill Marshal Fahim the minister of defense, and all the other guys that were the top allies with the United States. The problem was, they also detained Judge Sidiq, who was a Taliban Supreme Court Judge.
Sidiq was in possession of:
The State Department and Karzai interim government reacted to this arrest by handing Idema over to the very terrorist elements he’d been hunting. This was done in a desperate, and desperately misguided, bid to smooth ruffled feathers and keep the ‘peace process’ on track. Naturally, the terrorists lied about being ‘tortured’ at the hands of the Americans and were set free, (soon to be involved in a bombing at Bagram AFB). The Taliban judge, declared them ‘guilty’ of the charges. But that was in the first trial. There was a second trial that no one reported about–and in that trial, they were declared ‘innocent’ and the Afghans ordered their release. The American government blocked that release.
Two years later, we can see the results of this strategy as entire sections of Afghanistan fall back under the control of Islamofascists, and foreign-funded jihadists pour across the border from Pakistan. If this proves anything, it’s that Idema and the Northern Alliance’s distrust of ‘former’ terrorists was entirely appropriate.
In the meantime, President Karzai is ‘forgiving’ the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and releasing about 200 prisoners per month from Pulacharke. I wouldn’t be surprised if they get a gift basket at the gate.
April 19
April 12
April 5
March 29
March 22
March 15
March 8
March 1
February 22
February 15
February 8
February 1
January 30
January 25
January 18
January 11
January 8
January 4
December 29
May 4th, 2006 at 2:00 am
[…] And lawyers against Idema in US civil cases are saying they were “convicted by a fair trial”. HA! Anybody read the applicable Afghan law lately? Well here it is! Afghan Laws: RIGHT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT WHEN BEING QUESTIONED. Att. 38 Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Defence Counsel Presence) 1. The defence counsel has the right to be present at all times during the interrogation of the suspect. 2. The suspect and the defence counsel have the right to be present during searches, confrontations, line-up procedures and expert examinations as well as during the trial. 3. In the investigation phase the Saranwal and the judicial police shall notify the suspect and his defence counsel of searches, confrontations, line-up procedures and expert examinations in order to allow them to be present. This duty can be waived only when there is an urgent need to conduct the said operations, which is defined as when it is a flrgrante delicto crime or there is a fear of the loss of evidential facts. This most certainly was denied them, because their attorneys didn’t show up until mid-August and they were detained on July 6. RIGHT TO ABSTAIN FROM MAKING INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS. Art. 30 Afghan Constitution (Chatper 2, Art. 9) para. 21: Confession to a crime is: a voluntary confession before an authorised court by an accused in a sound state of mind; Art. 5 Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Suspect and Accused): Art. 30 Afghan Constitution (Chatper 2, Art. 9) para 6. The suspect and the accused have the right to abstain from making any statement even when they are questioned by the relevant police or judicial authorities; They were tortured in order to extract self-incriminating statements, so this was denied them, also. RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. 7. The police, the Saranwal and the Court are duty bound to clearly inform the suspect and the accused before interrogation and at the time of arrest about his or her right to remain silent, right to representation at all times by defense counsel, and right to be present during searches, line-ups, expert examinations and trial; Art. 53 Interim Criminal Code for Courts, Item 3g: g. The accused can testify if he does not avail himself of the right to remain silent and the accused or his defense counsel can ask questions to the witnesses and the experts; This was denied them, ask anyone who listened to Ezmerai’s screams on the streets of Kabul as he was being electrocuted. RIGHT TO COUNSEL. Art. 31 Afghan Constitution (Chapter 2, Art. 10) para. 1: Every person upon arrest can seek an advocate to defend his rights or to defend his case for which he is accused under the law. para. 2: the accusation and to be summoned to the court within the limits determined by law. para. 3: In criminal cases, the state shall appoint an advocate for a destitute. Art. 11 Law on the Structure and Competencies of Courts: Every person upon arrest has the right to appoint a defence counsel to defend himself in regard of the accusation and evidence against him. In criminal cases a defense counsel shall be appoint3ed for destitute persons according to the provision on law; Bennett’s attorney was threatened to be killed if she went ahead and represented him; etc. RIGHT TO DEFENDANT/ATTORNEY CONFIDENTIALITY. Art. 31 Afghan Constitution (Chatper 2, Art. 10) para. 4: The confidentiality of oral, written or telephonic communications between an advocate and his accused client are immune from invasion. This one is a laugh, since the mail embargo, etc.. RIGHT TO HAVE COUNSEL APPOINTED IF UNABLE TO PAY. Art 19 Interim Criminal for Courts (Legal Aid) 1. The suspect or the accused financiallly unable to appoint a defense attorney is entitled to have a free defence attorney appointed for him or her in the following manner: a. The investigatin Saranwal or the Court adjudicating the case, on the petition of the person, appoints a defence attorney for the destitute person from amongst the lawyers officially permitted to wok as defence attorney. b. The person for whom an attorney has been appointed reserves the right not to accept the appointed defence attorney and to defend himself in person. c. The fees of the aforesaid attorney shall be paid from the State budget and its extenet shall be fixed by regulation. RIGHT TO HAVE IMPROPERLY COLLECTED TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE INVALIDATED. Article 29 of Afghan Constitution, Para. 1: Any statement, testimony, or confession obtained form an accused or of another person by means of compulsion, is invalid; para 2: Confession to a crime is: a voluntary confession before an authorized court by an accused in a sound state of mind; Interim Criminal Code for Courts, article 5: Their (Suspect and Accused) statements shall be made in condition of absolute moral freedom; This didn’t happen… RIGHT TO LAWFUL HANDLING AND COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE. Art. 7 Interim Criminal Code for Courts; The evidence which has been collected without respect of the legal requirements indicated in the law is considered invalid, and the Court cannot base its judgment on it; Art. 30 Afghan Constitution (Chapter 2, Art. 9) para. 1: Any statement, testimony, or confession obtained from an accused or of another person by means of compulsion, is invalid; The evidence was stolen from the evidence room and at one point, part of it was returned -destroyed and edited–in front of the MSM and the court, yet nobody reported a word of this. RIGHT TO TIMELY NOTIFICATION OF CHARGES. Art 42. Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Preparation of the Trial) 2. The deed concerning the commencement of trial shall fcontain the name of the accused and the indication of the alleged crime with its factual circumstances in reference to the related law provisions and shall be served in the accused and his defence counsel; the victim and the Saranwal at least five days in advance; Perhaps the charges were told to them when they were playing ‘dance with the scorpion’. RIGHT TO ACCESS EVIDENCE. Art 43. Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Access of the Accused to the Findings of the Investigation) 1. The accused and his defence counsel are eneitled to examine the documents contained int he file mentioned in the last paragraph of article 39 (act of indictment, file containing all the deeds formed during the investigations) and the objects under seizure. Again, this one is a joke considering the house in Kabul was completely cleared out of computers, tapes, and film that could have been used as evidence to support their defense. RIGHT TO BE PRESENT AT ALL CASE HEARINGS. Art. 53 Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Conduct of the Hearing) Item 2. The accused and his defence counsel have the right to be present. 3. The Court proceedings are conducted according to following order; a. At the opening of the hearing the Court reads out the act of indictment; (…) g. The accused can testify if he does not avail himself to the right to remain silent and the accused or his defence counsel can ask questions to the witnesses and experts; i. The primary Saranwal and the defence lawyer can ask questions of the accused. Didn’t happen. RIGHT TO ADEQUATE TIME TO PREPARE DEFENCE. Art. 56 Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Concurrent Crimes and Circumstances) 1. If from the deeds of the investigations or during the trial it results that there are alleged additional crimes and/or facts contributing as aggravating circumstances which have not been incluced in the act of indictment, the Court, at the request of the Primary Saranwal, makes the related accusation to the accused and/or to his defence counsel, when present, giving them adequate time to prepare the defence. Didn’t happen…they were scrambling to put their case together when their evidence was stolen, and the lawyers showed up over a month after their arrest. RIGHT TO CALL WITNESSES. Art 51 Interim Code for Courts (Admission of Witnesses and Experts) 1. The Primary Saranwal submits to the Court the list of the witnesses and experts he wants to be heard together with the act of indictment, indicating the reasons of the relevance of their testimony and exams. 2. The accused and/or his defence counsel have the right to present their own lists of witnesses and experts indicating the reasons of the relevance of their testimony and exams. 3. The Court can exclude those witnesses or experts that in its view do not appear material for the adjudication of the case. Weren’t allowed to call witnesses. RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING DEPOSITIONS. Art. 55 Interim Criminal Coce for Courts (Evidentiary Value of Investigative Activities) 1. The reocrs of the testimonies of the witnesses as well as of the expert exam, collected during the investigative phase, can have the value of evidence as basis for the decision only if it results that the accused and/or his defence counsel were present during the operations and were in a position to raise questions and make objections. 2. Otherwise the related deeds have the sole value of clues. RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND QUESTION ACCUSORS. Art 14 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: 3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; Art 31 Afghan Constitution (Chapter 2, Art 10) para. 2: The accused upon arrest has the right to be informed of the attributed accusation and to be summoned to the court within the limits determined by law. RIGHT TO HAVE ADEQUATE TRANSLATIONS. Art 135 Afghan Constitution (Chapter 7, Art. 20): If parties involved in a case do not know the language in which the trial is conducted, they have the right to understand the material and documents related to the case through an interpreter and the right to speak in their mother language in the court. Art 20 Interim Criminal Code for Courts (Interpreter) 1. The suspect or the accused who does not know the language used during the investigations and the trials or who is deaf, dumb or deaf and dumb shall be given an interpreter for, at least, explaining to him the charge and the indictment and for assisting him during the interrogations and confrontations. Art 14 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: a. To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the cahrge against him; f. To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court; And that is AFGHAN LAW. Should I continue with the Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual and the Policy Defining FAM as the documentary and evidentiary basis for all State Department operations? Perhaps I will, in another post, for simpletons like Kathryn Cramer, who in my opinion, doesn’t take a ‘deep dive’ on anything and would prefer instead the Dr. Suess version. Clearly if you have any of this documentation sitting in front of you and have knowledge of what happened in this case (like a lot of the journalists who had front row seats and paid to see the court documents when that privilege was denied the defense), you would know that policy, procedure and law (Afghan and American and International) were completely thrown out the window in the case of Jack Idema and the other two Americans, Brent Bennett and Ed Caraballo. So if that is the case, then under what Afghan law were they declared guilty when the evidence was stolen, they didn’t have representation until mid-August, and were immediately tortured upon their ‘arrest’–and they had a soviet interpreter and didn’t understand what was going on half the time, the interpreter was intentionally mis-interpreting what was being said and interjecting his own bias into the proceedings, and the sitting judges were members of the Taliban–ideological brothers to the terrorists the Americans supposedly tortured– that were set free and who later participated in a bombing at Bagram AFB? None of the terrorists who claimed they were ‘hung from the ceiling’ in the ‘basement’ - ever swore on the Koran, and any muslim knows that means they were lying. And here’s more proof of that: Actually, Cao, you might be the first person to be able to wade through the ******** and publish the facts. They were terrorists, they got caught, Idema caught them, and then they lied. Like, here’s a good one: the terrorists were supposed to be hanging upside down in a basement. Problem was there was no basement in the house, I know, I sent a team there to photograph it. Nor has ONE piece of evidence ever been shown against them- Just anonymous sources who have all either dissapeared or been identified, and now fired. Good job, keep it up, and never let them see you sweat. Comment by Command Sergeant Major Donald […]
May 5th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Thank you, Cao, that’s helpful.
The mind still boggles.
And this latest news — the released camera journalist not finding a lawyer to take his case pro bono — unfortunately fits in with the overall picture.
May 5th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Thanks, Movinghand. It’s good to see that some people ‘get it’, I’ve been getting a lot of visitors from Columbia University and Floyd Abrams’ office who are less-than civil; downright vicious, actually.
Thanks for the support, it’s very meaningful.