Friday, August 13, 2010

10-08-10 Torture Confessions by Guantanamo Child Detainee Allowed as Evidence... // Confesiones Tortura por el detenido de Guantánamo Niño permitidas como evidencia ...

Omar Khadr

Omar Khadr, a Canadian, was 15 when he was accused in 2002 of killing a United States soldier in Afghanistan during a battle. He was subsequently imprisoned and interrogated in Afghanistan and at the Guantánamo Bay detention center in Cuba, where he is still held.
Video footage of his interrogation from February 2003 was released by his lawyers on July 14, 2008. It shows Mr. Khadr pleading with a Canadian intelligence agent for help and, at one point, shows him displaying chest and back wounds that had still not healed months after his capture in Afghanistan.

Omar Khadr Navigator

A list of resources from around the Web about Omar Khadr as selected by researchers and editors of The New York Times.




  • Guantanamo’s Child
  • By Michelle Shephard (2008)

The commission has already ruled that confessions made by Khadr which were clearly... statements Khadr made to interrogators because of torture and other abuse. .....Ross Douthat uses his New York Times column today to put what he ... 

'Torture' Confessions Allowed
By Al Jazeera
The confessions of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen charged with terrorism, can be used as evidence in his trial, even though they may have been obtained through torture, a US military judge has ruled.

Gitmo Trial Puts White House In Tight Spot
By Michael Isikoff National investigative correspondent
Top U.N. official calls defendant a 'child soldier,' says proceedings violate international legal norms.

Khadr's torture confessions admissible, military judge rules:
Decision to admit statements despite threats of torture dramatically strengthens prosecution's case against Canadian held at Guantanamo Bay
Video: 'Child soldier' Gitmo trial draws criticism

10-08-10 ACLU Scorecard: Obama Is Embracing Abusive Bush Policies // Scorecard ACLU: Obama está adoptando políticas abusivas de Bush

ACLU Scorecard: Obama Is Embracing Abusive Bush Policies

Tuesday 10 August 2010
by: Deb Weinstein, t r u t h o u t | Report

For disillusioned Obama supporters, the ACLU's July report
"Establishing the New Normal" is not a heartening read.

After being voted into office on promises that included undoing abuses
carried out under the Bush administration - promises to protect
privacy, to end government-sanctioned torture and rendition programs
and to end the use of military commissions for non-enemy combatants -
President Obama's administration is proving it is far easier to tow
the line than buck a trend.

According to a report by the ACLU, the current White House has not
just failed to meaningfully follow through on its promises, but has
also taken abusive policies, and, as shown in the case of targeted and
interminable detentions, eroded civil rights to unprecedented levels.

Although the ACLU applauds the administration's condemnation of the
torture and rendition programs instituted under Bush, it says these
positive steps are overwhelmed by what remains uncorrected and
unaddressed. Using the CIA's destruction of 92 interrogation tapes as
an example, the ACLU says that an investigation into the incident -
which was approved by a CIA official and is purported to have erased
torturous interrogations carried about by Americans - has dragged on
for three years with no resolution in sight The length of time is a
minor issue compared with what the ACLU says such foot dragging
signifies: "Sanctioning impunity for government officials who
authorized torture."

Fear of an unchecked, unaccountable government permeates the ACLU's
report, particularly in the section about targeted killings. In this
instance, it is not just that the Obama administration has continued a
policy of targeting alleged terrorists, but that it has a new wrinkle:
American citizens, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, are also being rounded up
in the "O.K.-to-kill" list. The shortfalls of this approach are many,
and the ACLU says that the inaccuracy of less life-and-death
approaches should make such an approach intolerable. "Over the last
eight years, we have seen the government over and over again detain
men as 'terrorists,' only to discover later that the evidence was
weak, wrong, or non-existent," the report says.

When the accused do have legal recourse, the ACLU says the
administration is also failing, and the two-tier court system
available to detainees - federal courts and military commissions -
does little to showcase the United States' legal system as fair and
just. Instead, the ACLU says the biased military commission system,
which has a lower evidence standard and allows anonymous, third-party
testimony, is also inhumane because abuse during detention or abuse
during interrogations do not disqualify testimony. The ACLU says even
the federal court system is tainted because it is used at the
government's discretion, and even then, only when the defense thinks
losing its case is impossible.

The report also takes aim at detention itself. According to both the
ACLU and the Department of Justice's January 2010 Guantanamo Review
Task Force report, there are Yemenis, who in the parlance of the
Department of Justice, are eligible for "conditional detainment," and
in the language of the ACLU, "have been cleared for release after
years of harsh detention." These Yemenis can only be released under
the following conditions: if there is an appropriate rehabilitation
program for the detainees when and if they return home; if they cannot
be repatriated to Yemen, that the third-party country has sufficient
security. But first, the US has to revoke the moratorium on their
release. The ACLU says, however, that this problem is not confined to
Yemenis at Guantanamo, nor does blame rest solely with the president.
The ACLU says Congress has also helped keep individuals, specifically
Chinese Uighers, from being released.

The ACLU also asserts that the current administration has allowed the
rules of detention to morph beyond reasonable limits such as geography
to the point that individuals can be picked up in areas that are not
war zones, transported to detention centers that are in war zones, and
then, based on the location of their detention, treated as though they
were captured in battle areas. Such power, the ACLU says, makes
everyone a combatant. The ACLU indicates the domestic impact of this
logic could erase civil rights, particularly if a Thompson, Illinois,
prison becomes a holding place for Guantanamo detainees. "We fear that
if precedent is established that terrorism suspects can be held
without trial in the United States, this administration and future
administrations will be tempted to bypass routinely the constitutional
restraints of the criminal justice system," the report says.

10-08-13 RE: BD 518 503 - Complaint against Attorney David Pasternak and the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for public corruption and racketeering in pretense receiverships at the Court. // BD 518 503 - Queja contra abogado David Pasternak y el Tribunal Superior de California, Condado de Los Angeles, por la corrupción pública y el crimen organizado en la pretensión de pagos en la Corte.

Attorney David Pasternak
Alleged Key Figure in Racketeering at the Los Angeles Superior Court
Los Angles, August 13 – complaint was filed with US Attorney Office, Central District of California, by Human Rights Alert (NGO) and Joseph Zernik, PhD, against Attorney David Pasternak, the Superior Court of California, and others for public corruption and deprivation of rights and racketeering in receiverships operations at the Court in general, and in re case BD 518 503 in particular.  The complaint alleged that Attorney David Pasternak appeared in the case as receiver with no authority at all, as part of a pattern of operating receiverships at the court with no legal foundation, and thereby looting persons coming to the Court, where they expect honest court services.
The complaint provided evidence of void, false on their faces, and deliberately misleading court orders appointing Mr Pasternak “Receiver” in the case:
a)       An order appointing Attorney Pasternak was produced from the case, which failed to cite any section of the California code as the legal foundation for his authority;
b)       The order came with a false and deliberately misleading authentication record, and
c)       There was no evidence that the order was entered in the manner in which such orders are required to be entered pursuant to the California code to make them valid and “effectual for any purpose”.
Others named in the complaint were Commissioner James D Endman, Presiding Judge Charles McCoy, Clerk of the Court John A Clarke, Court Counsel Frederick Bennett, Attorney Elyse P Margolin (Levin Margolin), Attorney Burton M Senkfor (Law Office of Burton Mark Senkfor), Attorney John Ellis (Trope & Trope), and Attorney Edward Friedman (Turner Aubert Friedman, LLP).
The complaint further claimed that conduct of receiverships of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, were a well-established racket.  Previous complaints against Mr Pasternak and others noted similar conduct by Attorney David Pasternak inGaldjie v Darwish (SC052737) and Samaan v Zernik (SC087400), both alleged as real estate fraud by the Court through conduct of Attorney David Pasternak. In the latter case, James Wedick, a highly decorated FBI veteran, and a renowned fraud expert, also issued an opinion stating conduct of David Pasternak “fraud being committed”.
Fraud in operations of receiverships at the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles was claimed as part of a larger fraud scheme, where the Court published for several decades false and deliberately misleading Local Rules claiming that Judgment Books of the Court were maintained by the Clerk at the various Districts of the Court, while in fact no such Books were maintained by the Court for several decades.  Presiding Judge Charles McCoy and Clerk of the Court John A Clarke also refused to correct such false Local Rules, or disclose to true Local Rules of the Court regarding Judgment Books.  Court Counsel Frederick Bennett, alleged as a central figure in the racket, claimed with no authority at all that the Judgment Book of the Court today was the Microfilm Judgment Archive of the Court.  Review of a large volume of records in the Microfilm Archive indeed revealed routine entry of divorce decrees.  However, hardly any judgments of the civil courts were found entered in the Archive, and not a single order appointing receiver was ever found in the Archive.
David Pasternak is former President of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, former Member of the California Judicial Council, and former President of Bet Tzedek (“The House of Justice”) – a prominent Los Angeles Jewish charity.  Therefore, the complaint alleged that his conduct reflected widespread corruption of the California courts and the legal profession.
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Special emphasis is given to the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of integrity of the justice system in the United States.

[1] 10-08-13-RE-RE-BD-518-503-Complaint-against-Attorney-David-Pasternak-and-the-Superior-Court-of-California-County-of-Los-Angeles-for-public-corruption and racketeering in re: Pretense receiverships at the Court.