torture is wrongYesterday’s announcement by Judge Crawford is not the first time US military officials have called out the Bush Administration over torture of detainees. The prosecutor of Mohamed Jawad resigned over it, saying that Jawad was innocent. Yep innocent.

The prosecutor who stepped down in protest, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, had complained [4] that the government hadn’t given the defense all "potentially exculpatory evidence."

-snip-

But little-noted in the news of the dismissals was the fact that the Pentagon did not dismiss charges against the one detainee who Vandeveld had suggested was essentially innocent [4].

Before his resignation, Vandeveld had been scheduled to prosecute the case of Mohamed Jawad [7], who was captured as a teenager in Afghanistan after allegedly throwing a grenade at U.S. soldiers in late 2002. In an affidavit explaining why he was leaving the prosecutor’s office, Vandeveld stated that he had seen evidence supporting the defense’s assertions that Jawad was a child soldier and had been "duped" by an Afghan guerrilla group who forced him to fight against U.S. troops [4] and potentially drugged him. From Vandeveld’s affidavit [4]:

My view of the case has evolved over time. I now accept that Jawad was under the age of eighteen when apprehended, I suspect that he was duped by Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin into joining the organization, and it seems plausible to me that Jawad may have been drugged before the alleged attack on 17 December 2002. I base these judgments on the evidence collected at the time, and not because of any sympathy for Mr. Jawad himself, whom I do not know and have only seen during Commission proceedings.

A military judge in the case also concluded [8] (PDF) last month that Jawad had been abused at Gitmo. Among other interrogation techniques, Jawad had been subjected to what was known as the "frequent flyer" program. In one two-week period, Jawad was moved from cell to cell 112 times [9].

Last night on Countdown, Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift asked why the US was still appealing this decision and whether the new administration was going to repudiate torture with more than mere words.

Just something for the Senate Judiciary to think about while questioning Mr. Holder today. While they’re at it, they may also want to ponder the excellent questions Professor Turley raised last night about coming out clearly to say that DOJ will investigate and prosecute torture and war crimes.

I know, I know, Holder will say that he cannot comment on a specific pending case. I did not just fall off the turnip truck. However, he can issue a broad and binding statement of general policy, such as the incoming administration has recently done with regard to "don’t ask, don’t tell" and closing Gitmo.

Twenty-sixth in a series on torture and the law.

[Editor's note: The photo by takomabibelot features a banner created and designed by Firedoglake reader BonnieT of Austin, Texas, where she operates OpposeTorture.org.]


Related posts:

  1. Isikoff Pops the Question: Newsweek Reporter asks Holder About Torture
  2. Jawad, Ghailani Cases Challenge US Torture Under Rule of Law
  3. Holder Names Durham Special Prosecutor for Torture
  4. Rendition, Coffins, Torture, Guantanamo – The Too Familiar Case of Mohammed Madni
  5. Holder v. Rahm: The Torture Fight