{"id":5469,"date":"2007-12-21T18:49:52","date_gmt":"2007-12-22T02:49:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.bradblog.com\/?p=5469"},"modified":"2007-12-22T09:29:00","modified_gmt":"2007-12-22T17:29:00","slug":"attorneys-representing-gitmo-detainees-request-full-inquiry-into-preservation-of-evidence","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/bbnewdb.webbyspice.com\/?p=5469","title":{"rendered":"Attorneys Representing Gitmo Detainees Request Full Inquiry into Preservation of Evidence"},"content":{"rendered":"

*** Special to The BRAD BLOG’s<\/a> D.C. Correspondent, Margie Burns<\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

<\/span>Washington, D.C. —<\/strong> U.S. District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy held a hearing this morning on a motion filed by attorneys representing detainees being held in Guantanamo. Following reports in the New York Times<\/em> and the Washington Post<\/em> that CIA videotapes of \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcharsh interrogations\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 of detainees had been destroyed, apparently by the CIA, possibly under administration approval, attorneys David Remes and Marc Falkoff filed an Emergency Motion [PDF]<\/a> for inquiry into the preservation of documents relating to prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay.<\/p>\n

Before Judge Kennedy and a courtroom packed with journalists,<\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tLawyers for the detainees are asking the court to schedule a hearing for inquiry into whether the government is preserving evidence relating to detainees. Attorney David Remes expressed concern that the destruction of the two videotapes, as reported, may not be the full extent of the evidence destroyed… <\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

Remes also argued that any litigant, including the government, has an obligation to preserve evidence, and that Judge Kennedy issued an order on June 10, 2005, requiring respondents to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153preserve and maintain all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at … Guantanamo.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d <\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u00a2\tLawyers for the government argued that the destroyed videotapes were not covered by the court\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s order, because the order pertained only to Guantanamo, and petitioners have not proved that the detainees depicted in the videotapes were in Gitmo at the time of the court order.<\/p>\n

The government also asked the court to stay its hand because of an ongoing DoJ investigation of the destruction of the videotapes. Also, DoJ attorneys contend that Judge Kennedy\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s court does not have jurisdiction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Following testimony before Congress by CIA Director Hayden, both WaPo<\/em> and NYTimes<\/em> reported on December 7 that two CIA videotapes depicting the torture of two detainees had been destroyed. Attorney John Dean of Watergate fame, now a regular columnist for Findlaw, estimates in a lucid article<\/a> that at least 10 separate investigations are underway in this matter, among all three branches of our government.<\/p>\n

The judge had strict questions for both sides:<\/p>\n

Kennedy reminded government respondents that they hold that his court does not have jurisdiction over the underlying matter, a position upheld by the D.C. appeals court, though the Supreme Court has accepted cert., meaning that the high court will rule on the question. \u00e2\u20ac\u201c Does your position mean, Kennedy asked government attorneys, that this court does not have jurisdiction to enforce or to inquire about destruction of evidence? <\/p>\n

Also, the judge asked, you have requested that this court stay inquiry because of the DoJ investigation conducted by Kenneth Wainstein<\/a>. But if Wainstein concurs that this court lacks jurisdiction, will there be a report from the DoJ investigation that will be shared with this court? The judge also asked, since the government is holding that there has been no violation of the prior order about preserving records, is the government willing to assure this court that it will pursue the matter, if it finds otherwise?<\/p>\n

N.b.<\/em>: In light of the administration track record on investigating its own, David Remes for the petitioners, a few minutes later, called the DoJ inquiry \u00e2\u20ac\u0153leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The judge asked the petitioners, specifically, what form of inquiry do you seek? What does this inquiry hope to accomplish?<\/p>\n

Remes answered, in response to questions, that petitioner is not assuming the destruction of evidence, but he said, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153we assume that the government\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s destruction [of the videotapes] raises a concern\u00e2\u20ac\u009d about other evidence, giving the example of another client, a detainee named Hassen, said to be pointed out to CIA by \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a senior al-Qaeda individual.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Who is this \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcsenior al-Qaeda individual,\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 Remes asked, and how was this information obtained? Could it too have been a product of torture? The destruction of the videotapes might mean further spoliation of evidence.<\/p>\n

Putting today\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s argument in the simplest terms: The government presentation consistently attempted to put Gitmo into one picture and the destroyed CIA videotapes into a totally different picture. Totally, emphatically separate pictures.<\/p>\n

DoJ attorney Jody (Joseph) Hunt, speaking for the five attorneys seated at the Defense table, called it \u00e2\u20ac\u0153inconceivable,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d a word he repeated, that the destroyed videotapes could relate to detainees at Guantanamo. <\/p>\n

Hunt stated that:<\/p>\n