Comments on: Hassan Ghul and Goldsmith’s Exception to the Geneva Convention’s Protected Person Rule http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/ Fri, 15 Jul 2011 20:48:32 -0500 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Jkat http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-166047 Jkat Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:12:47 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-166047 <p>this old warhorse would like to join the others here in expressing heartfelt appreciation for the hard work marcy puts into tracking all this crap .. and kudos to mad dog ..and bmaz ..and drational as well and to william ockman ..and ..a very special thanks also to mz. mary of KY .. for her continued illumination of some very arcane points and a fine parsing of “the law” ..</p> this old warhorse would like to join the others here in expressing heartfelt appreciation for the hard work marcy puts into tracking all this crap .. and kudos to mad dog ..and bmaz ..and drational as well and to william ockman ..and ..a very special thanks also to mz. mary of KY .. for her continued illumination of some very arcane points and a fine parsing of “the law” ..

]]> By: acquarius74 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165951 acquarius74 Mon, 15 Jun 2009 21:23:31 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165951 <p>Thanks, Marcy. I’ve been searching most of the links in refs in wiki on Hassan Ghul. Lots of conflicting allegations in news releases at that time (late Jan, 2004-Feb 2004). Then, <a href="http://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2004/dci_speech_02142004.html" rel="nofollow">here is George Tenet’s testimony before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee on Feb 24, 2004.</a>. In that testimony he gives a list of detainees who would “<strong>never again</strong> threaten the American people”. His list: (1) KSM (2) Nashiri (3) AZ<br /><strong>(4) Hassan Ghul, a senior facilitator who was sent to case Iraq for an expanded al-QA’ida presence there.</strong> (5) Harithi and al-Makki [2 people?], the most senior plotters in Yemen, who were involved in the bombing of the USS Cole. (6) Hambali, the senior operational planner in Southeast Asia.</p> <p>[yet CIA denies ever having H. Ghul in their custody??].<br /> Could one of these on this list be Detainee 2?</p> Thanks, Marcy. I’ve been searching most of the links in refs in wiki on Hassan Ghul. Lots of conflicting allegations in news releases at that time (late Jan, 2004-Feb 2004). Then, here is George Tenet’s testimony before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee on Feb 24, 2004.. In that testimony he gives a list of detainees who would “never again threaten the American people”. His list: (1) KSM (2) Nashiri (3) AZ
(4) Hassan Ghul, a senior facilitator who was sent to case Iraq for an expanded al-QA’ida presence there. (5) Harithi and al-Makki [2 people?], the most senior plotters in Yemen, who were involved in the bombing of the USS Cole. (6) Hambali, the senior operational planner in Southeast Asia.

[yet CIA denies ever having H. Ghul in their custody??].
Could one of these on this list be Detainee 2?

]]> By: emptywheel http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165924 emptywheel Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:40:56 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165924 <p>No. It doesn’t conflict at all. That was the first one, but there’s a second one he mentions in the book as well (my copy seems to be AWOL right now, but when I find it, I’ll find where he refers to it). </p> <p>He was quite clear, IIRC, that there were two rounds on this subject.</p> No. It doesn’t conflict at all. That was the first one, but there’s a second one he mentions in the book as well (my copy seems to be AWOL right now, but when I find it, I’ll find where he refers to it).

He was quite clear, IIRC, that there were two rounds on this subject.

]]> By: seesdifferent http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165917 seesdifferent Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:07:54 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165917 <p>These dates seem to conflict with Goldsmith’s accounts. In his book, The Terror Presidency, p. 156, he writes<br /></p><blockquote>“my October 2003 decision, that all Iraqis, including Iraqi citizens who were members of al Qaeda, were “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention included an exception for members of al Qaeda in Iraq who were not Iraqi citizens. </blockquote> <p>I suspect Goldsmith’s book is very self serving, as he paints himself as the great force for good in the DOJ.</p> These dates seem to conflict with Goldsmith’s accounts. In his book, The Terror Presidency, p. 156, he writes

“my October 2003 decision, that all Iraqis, including Iraqi citizens who were members of al Qaeda, were “protected persons” under the Fourth Geneva Convention included an exception for members of al Qaeda in Iraq who were not Iraqi citizens.

I suspect Goldsmith’s book is very self serving, as he paints himself as the great force for good in the DOJ.

]]> By: emptywheel http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165909 emptywheel Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:43:31 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165909 <p>It looks like those are the files from the 9/11 Commission pertaining to Ghul–I’ll have to look, but I’m betting these are files either from one of the teams or from the Chief Counsel for the Commission. </p> <p>The Withdrawal notice is just the way the NARA signals that, for classification reasons, the information has been withdrawn. The withdrawal notice itself will have some indication of contents–just like a Vaughn Index. </p> <p>It’s not surprising there are 94 pages there–there are probably 3000 for KSM. And the ”302” may refer to FBI interview files, suggesting both the FBI and the CIA talked to him.</p> <p>In any case, one interesting thing is that BushCo was trying to limit the number of detainees the 9/11 Commission coudl refer to by name. Ghul was one of those originally excluded but then added in. The only reference to him, though, ties him to Abu ZUbaydah, which doesn’t say much about his ties to al Qaeda.</p> It looks like those are the files from the 9/11 Commission pertaining to Ghul–I’ll have to look, but I’m betting these are files either from one of the teams or from the Chief Counsel for the Commission.

The Withdrawal notice is just the way the NARA signals that, for classification reasons, the information has been withdrawn. The withdrawal notice itself will have some indication of contents–just like a Vaughn Index.

It’s not surprising there are 94 pages there–there are probably 3000 for KSM. And the ”302” may refer to FBI interview files, suggesting both the FBI and the CIA talked to him.

In any case, one interesting thing is that BushCo was trying to limit the number of detainees the 9/11 Commission coudl refer to by name. Ghul was one of those originally excluded but then added in. The only reference to him, though, ties him to Abu ZUbaydah, which doesn’t say much about his ties to al Qaeda.

]]> By: acquarius74 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165905 acquarius74 Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:28:48 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165905 <p>I need help to decipher <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/14612954/T4-B17-Hassan-Ghul-Fdr-Entire-Contents-Withdrawal-Notice-94-Pgs-Intel-Cables-302" rel="nofollow">this item re Hassan Ghul</a> which I found here at scribd.com. It appears to have originated at History Commons and found in the National Archives, but now withdrawn. </p> <p>[title] T4 B17 Hassan Ghul Fdr [folder] - Entire Contents - Withdrawal Notice - 94 Pgs - Intel Cables 302</p> <p>[body] WITHDRAWAL NOTICE</p> <p>RG: 148 ………………………………………….<br /> Box 00007 Folder: 0017 Document: 11 …………………<br /> Series: Team 4 files …………………………….<br /> Copies: 1 Pages: 94 ………………………………….<br /> ……….ACCESS RESTRICTED …………………………….<br /> The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: ………<br /> Folder Title: [redacted] Gul ………………………….<br /> Document Date: [blank] ……………………………………..<br /> Document Type: Intelligence Telegram ……………………………<br /> Special Media: [blank] ………………………………….<br /> From: [blank] ……………………………………………<br /> To: [blank] ……………………………………………….<br /> Subject: Intelligence re: [redacted] Gul</p> <p>In the review of this file this item was removed because access t it is restricted. Restrictions on records in the National Archives are staated in general and specific group restriction statements which are available.</p> <p>[end] 302 cables? this “Intelligence Telegram” was 94 pages ???</p> <p>The Tags on this article under the History Commons site are 9/11 and 9/11 Commission.</p> <p>I hope someone here can make some sense of this.</p> I need help to decipher this item re Hassan Ghul which I found here at scribd.com. It appears to have originated at History Commons and found in the National Archives, but now withdrawn.

[title] T4 B17 Hassan Ghul Fdr [folder] – Entire Contents – Withdrawal Notice – 94 Pgs – Intel Cables 302

[body] WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

RG: 148 ………………………………………….
Box 00007 Folder: 0017 Document: 11 …………………
Series: Team 4 files …………………………….
Copies: 1 Pages: 94 ………………………………….
……….ACCESS RESTRICTED …………………………….
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: ………
Folder Title: [redacted] Gul ………………………….
Document Date: [blank] ……………………………………..
Document Type: Intelligence Telegram ……………………………
Special Media: [blank] ………………………………….
From: [blank] ……………………………………………
To: [blank] ……………………………………………….
Subject: Intelligence re: [redacted] Gul

In the review of this file this item was removed because access t it is restricted. Restrictions on records in the National Archives are staated in general and specific group restriction statements which are available.

[end] 302 cables? this “Intelligence Telegram” was 94 pages ???

The Tags on this article under the History Commons site are 9/11 and 9/11 Commission.

I hope someone here can make some sense of this.

]]> By: fatster http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165904 fatster Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:21:46 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165904 <p>What skdadl said @ 30. Coming here is like taking top-notch seminars. Thnx ever so much.</p> What skdadl said @ 30. Coming here is like taking top-notch seminars. Thnx ever so much.

]]> By: Mary http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165903 Mary Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:21:34 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165903 <p>Surely you’re not saying that the Coalition Provisional Authority was like, you know, a legally unstable institution? </p> <p>*wishingIcouldworkupawink*</p> Surely you’re not saying that the Coalition Provisional Authority was like, you know, a legally unstable institution?

*wishingIcouldworkupawink*

]]> By: fatster http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165902 fatster Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:19:20 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165902 <p>Isn’t that the truth? ‘Bout time.</p> Isn’t that the truth? ‘Bout time.

]]> By: skdadl http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165890 skdadl Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:27:27 +0000 http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/06/15/hassan-ghul-and-goldsmiths-exception-to-the-geneva-conventions-protected-person-rule/#comment-165890 <p>Thank you for writing all that out, Mary. It’s a legal education for me.</p> <p>I would note only that a lot of us consider the invasion and occupation of Iraq to have been illegal in the first place, so a prior answer to Box Turtle would be a further question: Why are Americans making any decisions about anything in Iraq?</p> <p>Aggressive war (and that’s what “pre-emptive” war is to most of the world) is the first of the war crimes because it entails all the others. Very difficult for Obama to look seriously at that problem, since he is now running the occupation.</p> Thank you for writing all that out, Mary. It’s a legal education for me.

I would note only that a lot of us consider the invasion and occupation of Iraq to have been illegal in the first place, so a prior answer to Box Turtle would be a further question: Why are Americans making any decisions about anything in Iraq?

Aggressive war (and that’s what “pre-emptive” war is to most of the world) is the first of the war crimes because it entails all the others. Very difficult for Obama to look seriously at that problem, since he is now running the occupation.

]]>