A prosecutor in the trial against a prisoner who is on trial for war-crimes, has quit the case because of concern over the defendant's lack of due process, defense attorneys claim.

Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld filed a four page declaration stating that "potentially exculpatory evidence has not been provided" to the defense.

The prisoner, Mohammed Jawad, has been awaiting trial since his arrest in 2002 for attempting to commit murder for allegedly throwing a grenade into a jeep filled with troops. A judge recently set his trial for December.

From the Los Angeles Times:

"He was uncomfortable being a prosecutor under the conditions, and [his superiors] told him to do his job," [Michael] Berrigan [deputy chief defense counsel for the commissions] said, adding that Vandeveld then took his concerns to higher authorities but was rebuffed.

Both defense lawyers said Vandeveld had spelled out his allegations in the sealed affidavit. Vandeveld said in his declaration that prosecutors knew Jawad may have been drugged before the attack and that the Afghan Interior Ministry said two other men had confessed to the same crime.

The lead prosecutor has denied that "ethical qualms" with the trial were behind Vandeveld's motives, describing him as a "disgruntled" prosecutor "who was disappointed that his superiors did not agree with his recommendations in the case."

From the AP:

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - A military jury has sentenced Osama bin Laden's former driver to 5 1/2 years in prison for aiding terrorism, making him eligible for release in just six months. Salim Hamdan was acquitted of conspiracy in the first Guantanamo war crimes trial.

Even after Hamdan's "sentence" is up, the military can continue to hold him as an enemy combatant. He can be freed when one of two things happen: 1) the government decides that he is "no longer an enemy combatant" 2) the war on terror ends.

Reuters and CNN are reporting that Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Hadam, has been convicted. No word yet on whether it's on all 10 counts of conspiracy and abetting terrorism.

Late update: From Reuters:

A jury of U.S. military officers convicted Osama bin Laden's driver on charges of providing material support for terrorism on Wednesday but acquitted him on charges of providing material support for al Qaeda in the first U.S. war crimes trial since World War Two.

The case of Yemeni driver Salim Hamdan, who faces life in prison, is the first full test of the controversial Guantanamo tribunal authorized by the Bush administration to try non-U.S. captives on terrorism charges outside the regular civilian and military courts.

Sentencing is scheduled for this afternoon.

Late late update: We know that the convicted on "providing material support for terrorism" and acquitted on "providing material support for al Qaeda" seems confusing and maybe a bit contradictory. The AP puts it another way that might clear things up:

The Pentagon-selected jury deliberated for about eight hours over three days before convicting Salim Hamdan of supporting terrorism. He was cleared of the conspiracy charge.

We posted on Monday about Attorney General Michael Mukasey's controversial suggestion that Congress pick up the slack for the federal courts on detainee rights.

But one of the other interesting things that came out of Mukasey's speech, was his scare-mongering on what would happen if was up to the courts alone to deal with the detainees . . . they could be released! . . . in the United States! . . . [cue horror music]

In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today, he broached this topic again during questioning by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA):

LUNGREN: . . .It seems to me those are unsettled questions- whether the court would be able to order the government to bring detainees in the United States and release them here. Uh, clearly that has not been decided, yet I believe the court is inviting the Congress to outline the parameters of that and I would suggest- make it impossible for that to happen.

MUKASEY: The Court has left that matter open, and the fact- it has said that at the end of the day it must be open to a decsion maker to direct release. Now, um, the fact is that all of these people, every single one of them are aliens captured abroad, in essentially battle conditions um, who had absolutely no right to be here, and there's no good reason to have a court bring somebody here for purposes of release and release them to our communitities- people who could pose a significant danger. Um, we want that particular possibility cut off. Um, we don't want to face it, we shouldn't have to face it.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey angered Democratic senators when he made an unexpected call for Congress to step in and legislate detainees rights, rather than waiting for federal court proceedings.

Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute this morning, Mukasey spoke to the "unanswered questions" raised by the Supreme Court decision of Boumediene v. Bush, which stated that detainees are protected by the right to habeas corpus. Mukasey called the Court's decision a "disappointment," and said the court stopped "well short of detailing how the habeas corpus proceedings must be conducted." Currently, over 200 cases are waiting to be heard in federal court related to the Supreme Court's ruling, a problem Mukasey thinks could be circumvented by Congressional action:

Congress and the executive branch are affirmatively charged by our Constitution with protecting national security, are expert in such matters, and are in the best position to weigh the difficult policy choices that are posed by these issues.

Judges play an important role in deciding whether a chosen policy is consistent with our laws and the Constitution. But it is our elected leaders who have the responsibility for making policy choices in the first instance.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a statement today, slamming Mukasey for failing to consult or inform the Committee of his thoughts before his speech:

"The Committee has held a wide range of hearings on issues of detainee rights and procedures. Attorney General Mukasey's call today for Congress to create new rules for these habeas proceedings is the first I have heard from the Administration on this issue," Leahy said. "The Administration made this mess by seeking to avoid judicial review at all costs, causing years of delay and profound uncertainty."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) echoed Leahy's comments. "Our federal courts are capable of handling these cases," he said. "By repeatedly mishandling these cases, the administration has delayed justice from being served."

[Late update]: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just chimed in with a statement from the Senate floor.

"As a result of its repeated efforts to circumvent the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution, the Bush administration has yet to bring to justice the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11," he said. "The courts are well equipped to handle this situation, and there is no danger that any detainee will be released in the meantime."

If this doesn't set the tone for former Attorney General John Ashcroft's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on interrogation methods at Guantanamo, I don't know what does.

In his opening statement, Ashcroft admitted that he had "limited recollection" of the events pertinent to the committee's inquiry. Specifically, "it's been difficult . . . to distinguish between what I in fact recall as a matter of my own experience, and what I remember from the accounts of others."

Before these hearings commenced, I had but a limited recollection of many of the events pertinent to your inquiry. In attempting to prepare for this hearing, I have reviewed testimony from prior hearings, I've read portions of publications recounting some of the timely events, and I must admit, it's been difficult for me sometimes to distinguish between what I in fact recall as a matter of my own experience, and what I remember from the accounts of others. As a result, what I hope, what I say will be of value to the committee. Reliance on my statements and observations aught to be tempered by these awarenesses.

For smart guys, there sure seems to be an awful lot of lack of recall in the Bush administration.

Doug Feith was on the Hill today to testify about the interrogation techniques in Guantanamo. Joining him before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties was his nemesis, Philippe Sands, who goes back a ways with Feith.

As Spencer Ackerman blogs at the Washington Independent, Feith started off the hearing denying the statements made in Sand's book, and then got right down to alleging that the Guantanamo interrogators were rogue agents:

After going back and forth with Feith--in which Feith conceded there were indeed abuses in Defense Dept. detention and interrogation operations-- Rep. Bobby Scott (D.-Va) asked why the abusers might think they could torture detainees. "I don't believe they necessarily did think they did" had authority to torture, Feith said. "Some people do bad things."

[Late Update]: According to Ackerman, Feith also spent a fair amount of time, detailing the "great care" given to the interpretation of the 2002 memo written by Jim Haynes:

"I imagine one could apply these things in an inhumane fashion," Feith replied. "'Removal of clothing' is different from 'naked.' ... It could be done in a humane way. . . They could be used in a way that could violate the [Geneva] Convention," he explained, "they could be used in a way consistent with the Convention."

It took a New York Times article; a dozen phone calls and an over-eager intern running to a publishing house in 92 degree heat-- but we got it: Jane Mayer's new book, "The Dark Side," which I've been poring through for the better part of the day.

So why the rush? The book reveals new details on the CIA's torture of high-level Qaeda captives with information from a secret report by the International Committee of the Red Cross. According to Mayer, the 2007 report which was shared with the President and Secretary of State described the CIA's actions, "categorically, as 'torture'" and warned that the abuse placed the "highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted."

But besides that enormous and, (possibly) devastating claim, Mayer's "sources familiar with the ICRC report" also give horrifying details about the CIA's techniques.

One detainee claimed in the report that he was forced to stand on one leg for hours without his prosthesis and his arms chained to the ceiling.

The detainee, Tawfiq Bin Attash, was linked to the attack on the USS Cole but is being charged as part of the Sept. 11 attacks. Attash, also known as Khallad, had lost his leg below the knee following an injury in the Afghan-Soviet War.

Other detainees described similar stress positions to the ICRC, Mayer reports:

They described not just standing, but being kept up on their tiptoes with their arms extended out and up over their heads, attached by shackles on their wrists and ankles, for what they described as eight hours at a stretch. During the entire period, they said they were kept stark naked and often cold.

The International Committee of the Red Cross isn't so happy that news of this report is out. As they told the New York Times, "its work is more effective when confidential."

In a secret report last year, the International Committee of the Red Cross found that the CIA's interrogation techniques were "categorically" torture, a new book reveals.

From the New York Times:

The book, "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals," by Jane Mayer, who writes about counterterrorism for The New Yorker, offers new details of the agency's secret detention program, as well as the bitter debates in the administration over interrogation methods and other tactics in the campaign against Al Qaeda.

. . .Citing unnamed "sources familiar with the report," Ms. Mayer wrote that the Red Cross document "warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted."

Late Update: The book also reveals new specifics on Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding. Contrary to administration reports that the technique was used "on only three occasions," Abu Zubaydah told the Red Cross that he was waterboarded "at least 10 times in a single week and as many as three times a day."

And there's new info on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as well. "KSM" says he was "kept naked for more than a month" and "kept alternately in suffocating heat and in a painfully cold room."

From the Miami Herald:

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- The U.S. government is blocking the American Civil Liberties Union from paying attorneys representing suspected terrorists held here, insisting that the ACLU must first receive a license from the U.S. Treasury Department before making the payments.

ACLU director Anthony Romero on Tuesday accused the Bush administration of "obstruction of justice" by delaying approval of the license, which the government argues is required under U.S. law because the beneficiaries of the lawyers' services are foreign terrorists.

"Now the government is stonewalling again by not allowing Americans' private dollars to be paid to American lawyers to defend civil liberties,'' Romero said.

After grilling John Yoo on the possibility of burying suspects alive, the great, grumpy committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) turned his attention to David Addington to question him on the Unitary Theory of the Executive, something Addington should know something about, oh, considering that was his primary justification for torturing terrorism suspects:

Conyers: Do you feel that the Unitary Theory of the Executive allows the President to do things over and above the stated law of the land?

Addington: The Constitution binds all of us, Congressman, the President, all the U.S. members of Congress, all of the federal judges. We all take an oath to support and defend it. I frankly don't know what you mean by the Unitary Theory of Government. I dont -

Conyers: Have you ever heard of that theory before?

Addington: Oh I have, I've seen it in the newspapers all the time-

Conyers: Do you support it?

Addington: I don't know what it is.

Conyers: You don't know what it is.

Addington: No, and it's always described as something Addington's the great, you know-

Conyers: I see.

We know. It's great, but it's even better in color: