We’re still talking about Mohammed Jawad, because a critical question has yet to be resolved. The question is best articulated by Jawad’s military lawyer, Major David J.R. Frakt, quoted in today’s New York Times. He asks, “Is the administration going to accept the rulings of the judiciary or not?”
Both the federal courts and the Obama administration are
posturing towards asserting preeminent
authority over each other for control over the fate of Guantanamo detainees,
preparing for what NYU Law Professor Richard Tildes calls, “the ultimate
confrontation”
Jonathon Hafetz, a lawyer for Jawad and staff attorney for
the ACLU National Security Project, says, “Every time he is on the verge of
winning and proving his innocence, the government seeks to change the rules of
the game”
U.S. District Court Judge Ellen S. Judge Havelle, who is hearing Jawad’s case, expressed her own concern over the potential of the Obama administration to “pull this rug from under the court at the last minute”. The transcript of the hearing from earlier in July can be found here.
Also at stake in Jawad’s case is the constitutional principle of habeas corpus, which, Hafetz reminds us, was guaranteed to Guantanamo detainees by the Supreme Court last term, and "if the government can ignore a federal court's findings that it has no case against Mr. Jawad or reason to continue to lawlessly detain him, it will render habeas corpus a dead-letter and our courts powerless to remedy injustice."
This is why we are still talking about Jawad. The ACLU is asking for the Obama administration to honor the federal court’s upcoming ruling for Jawad.
To take more action, click here to send evidence of torture to the Department of Justice:
