Difference between revisions of "Jamal Abdullah Kiyemba"

Pretrial detention issues[edit]

Kiyemba's lawyer is prominent UK human-rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith. According to Smith, Kiyemba was a participant in a hunger strike which started in July, 2005 in protest at the conditions in the camp and alleged maltreatment, including alleged desecration of the Qur'an by American guards. The hunger strike ended on July 28, 2005 after promises were made to address the detainees concerns. Many detainees resumed the hunger strike on August 8, 2005, believing the camp authorities had not lived up to their promises.

"The administration promised that if we gave them 10 days, they would bring the prison into compliance with the Geneva conventions. They said this had been approved by Donald Rumsfeld himself in Washington DC. As a result of these promises, we agreed to end the strike on July 28.

"It is now August 11. They have betrayed our trust (again). Hisham from Tunisia was savagely beaten in his interrogation and they publicly desecrated the Qur'an (again). Saad from Kuwait was ERF'd [visited by the Extreme Reaction Force] for refusing to go (again) to interrogation because the female interrogator had sexually humiliated him (again) for 5 hours _ Therefore, the strike must begin again."

Sam Kutesa, the Ugandan Minister of Foreign Affairs, was quoted on December 12 2005 about his government's responsibility to intervene on Kiyemba's behalf.^[4] He said: "I understand that Britain gave up on him. I am yet to look at the papers. We have to intervene, but this depends on the documents."

Combatant Status Review Tribunal[edit]

Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held in small trailer, the same width, but shorter, than a mobile home. The Tribunal's President sat in the big chair. The detainee sat with their hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor in the white, plastic garden chair.^[5][6] A one way mirror behind the Tribunal President allowed observers to observe clandestinely. In theory the open sessions of the Tribunals were open to the press; three chairs were reserved for members of the press.^[7] In practice, most Tribunals went unobserved; the Tribunal only intermittently told the press that Tribunals were being held, and when they did they kept the detainee's identities secret. Only 37 of the 574 Tribunals were observed^[7][5][6][7] Navy photo by Photographer’s Mate 1st Class Christopher Mobley

Main article: Combatant Status Review Tribunal

Originally the Bush (WP) Presidency asserted that captives apprehended in the wars for capitalism and oil, known as the "war on terror" were not covered by the Geneva Conventions, and could be held indefinitely, without charge, and without an open and transparent review of the justifications for their detention.^[8] They were not offered the protections afforded by criminal law either, leaving them in a legal limbo through years of detention. Critics argued that the USA could not evade its obligations, and to keep the Geneva Conventions at arms' length, the concept of competent tribunals was invented, tribunals to determine whether captives are, or are not, entitled to the protections of prisoner of war status.

The Department of Defense instituted the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (WP). The Tribunals, however, were not authorized to determine whether the captives were lawful combatants, again to avoid the Geneva Conventions standards -- rather they were merely empowered to make a recommendation as to whether the captive had previously been correctly determined to match the Bush administration's definition of an enemy combatant, further attempting to institutionalize a standard that stood against the consensus of international law.

Critics mounted legal challenges to this policy. Justice James Robertson ruled that the United States was obliged under article 5 of the Wikipedia:third Geneva Conventionthird Geneva Convention to treat all prisoners as lawful combatants, who would be entitled to prisoner of war status, unless a "competent tribunal" had determined that they were not lawful combatants.

The policies of the tribunals themselves were also challenged by the Judicial branch. In 2004 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in Rasul v. Bush, that Guantanamo captives were entitled to being informed of the allegations justifying their detention, and were entitled to try to refute them.

The released prisoners are arrogantly, even absurdly called "No longer enemy combatants" (WP); an attempt to make numerous issues, including illegal arrest and holding without trial, disappear in plain sight.

Kiyemba chose to participate in his Combatant Status Review Tribunal.^[1]

Testimony[edit]

Kiyemba's transcript did not record the allegations against him. And it did not directly quote his testimony. Everything in the transcript was a paraphrase.

• Kiyemba said he believed in a Muslim’s duty to engage in jihad - - but his definition of jihad was very broad - - including any kind of spiritual self-improvement.
• He acknowledged that he was heading to Afghanistan - - to help muslims who were under attack. But he hadn’t arrived. Further, he didn’t think he would know who the innocent parties were, until he arrived. And he wasn’t committed to helping through violence. His help might have taken other forms.
• He acknowledged that someone at the guesthouse he stayed at, in Pakistan, showed him how a Kalashnikov worked. This was his sole weapons training.
• He said he didn’t believe in terrorism, or killing innocents.
• He insisted that anyone who knowingly kill any innocent person, regardless of their religions, is wrong.
• No one in England encouraged him to go to Afghanistan.
• He said he paid for his own travel, from his savings.
• He denied that he had said that the United States Government was an enemy to Islam.

Administrative Review Board hearing[edit]

Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held in a trailer the size of a large RV. The captive sat on a plastic garden chair, with his hands and feet shackled to a bolt in the floor.^[5][6] Three chairs were reserved for members of the press, but only 37 of the 574 Tribunals were observed.^[7]

Detainees who were determined to have been properly classified as "enemy combatants" were scheduled to have their dossier reviewed at annual Administrative Review Board hearings. The Administrative Review Boards weren't authorized to review whether a detainee qualified for POW Xstatus, and they weren't authorized to review whether a detainee should have been classified as an "enemy combatant".

They were authorized to consider whether a detainee should continue to be detained by the United States, because they continued to pose a threat -- or whether they could safely be repatriated to the custody of their home country, or whether they could be set free.

The factors for and against continuing to detain Kiyemba were among the 121 that the Department of Defense released on March 3 2006.^[9]

The following primary factors favor continued detention:[edit]

a. Commitment

1. Detainee stated that any system like a democracy, which tries to end Sharia law, is worthy of a Jihad against it.
2. The detainee knew that Afghanistan (AF) lived under Sharia law before September 11, 2001.
3. After September 11, 2001, the detainee traveled from England to Iran then to Pakistan in an attempt to travel to Afghanistan in order to fight in the Jihad.

b. Training

1. While waiting in Pakistan on his way to AF, the detainee received weapons training on the Ak-48. The detainee learned how to shoot, assemble and disassemble the weapon.

c. Intent

1. Detainee stated that he traveled to Afghanistan to try to stop the aggression against the innocent.
2. While attempting to travel from Pakistan to Afghanistan in order to fight in the Jihad, the detainee was arrested at the border.
3. Detainee stated that if he had a weapon, he might attack Camp Delta guards.
4. Detainee stated that he would go fight Jihad in the future if he found a way.

The following primary factors favor release or transfer:[edit]

• Detainee has stated that he would never be a threat.
• Detainee stated that September 11, 2001 was a terrorist attack against women and children, which is never warranted.
• Detainee stated that he does not support what happened on September 11, 2001.
• Detainee stated that he has never been a part of an organization or laundered any money.

Transcript[edit]

Kiyemba chose to participate in his Administrative Review Board hearing.^[10]

Statement[edit]

Kiyemba, on the advice of his lawyer, had told his Assisting Military Officer that he should decline to answer any questions. But he did agree to give an oral statement.

He told his Board that he hoped to return to England, complete his education, get married and live a normal life. He said he was not a threat to the USA or the UK. While he said he hadn't always been treated well, while in detention, he thought most Americans were kind and decent people. He said he understood how the shock of 9-11 could trigger an over-reaction. He said he bore no ill-will due to his detention. He thought the attacks of 9-11 were terribly wrong and that he believed in settling differences through peaceful means.

Release[edit]

Kiyemba was transferred to the United Kingdom in the winter of 2006, according to Ugandan paper New Visions.^[3] Kiyemba was denied entry to the United Kingdom, and deported to Uganda. He was detained in Ugandan custody for two months, and released on April 18 2006.

References[edit]

1. ↑ ^{1.0 1.1} Sumarrized transcripts (.pdf), from Jamal Abdullah Kiyemba's Combatant Status Review Tribunal - pages 21-23
2. ↑ Five still held without help or hope, The Times, January 12 2005
3. ↑ ^{3.0 3.1} Uganda Frees Ex-Gitmo Detainee Jamal Kiyemba, cageprisoners, April 18 2006, Ugandan paper New Visions
4. ↑ Guantanamo Inmate to Return to Uganda, All Africa, December 12 2005
5. ↑ ^{5.0 5.1 5.2} Guantánamo Prisoners Getting Their Day, but Hardly in Court, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:New York Times, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:November 11 Wikipedia:Wikipedia:2004 - mirror
6. ↑ ^{6.0 6.1 6.2} Inside the Guantánamo Bay hearings: Barbarian "Justice" dispensed by KGB-style "military tribunals", Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Financial Times, Wikipedia:Wikipedia:December 11 Wikipedia:Wikipedia:2004
7. ↑ ^{7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3} Annual Administrative Review Boards for Enemy Combatants Held at Guantanamo Attributable to Senior Defense Officials. Wikipedia:Wikipedia:United States Department of Defense. URL accessed on 2007-09-22.
8. ↑ "U.S. military reviews 'enemy combatant' use". USA Today. 2007-10-11. Archived from the original on 2012-08-11. http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fwashington%2F2007-10-11-guantanamo-combatants_N.htm&date=2012-08-11. "Critics called it an overdue acknowledgment that the so-called Combatant Status Review Tribunals are unfairly geared toward labeling detainees the enemy, even when they pose little danger. Simply redoing the tribunals won't fix the problem, they said, because the system still allows coerced evidence and denies detainees legal representation." </li>
9. ↑ Factors for and against the continued detention (.pdf) of Jamal Abdullah Kiyemba Administrative Review Board - pages 74-75
10. ↑ Summarized transcript (.pdf), from Jamal Abdullah Kiyemba's Administrative Review Board hearing - page 69

</ol>

External links[edit]

• Third British resident held in Guantanamo Bay, The Guardian, August 1, 2003
• UK's 'forgotten' Cuba detainees, BBC, 25 January 2005
• Hunger strikers pledge to die in Guantánamo, The Guardian, September 9, 2005
• Terror camp man’s protest, This is Local London, September 16, 2005