[Author note: Written for a Daily Kos audience, I'm reposting here the better to call attention to the issue, and to update those in the Firedoglake/Seminal community on some of the latest developments in this scandal.]
In an editorial posted by the New York Times on Saturday afternoon, the editorial board condemned the Obama administration’s involuntary deportation of a Guantanamo prisoner to Algeria. The prisoner, 35-year-old Abdul Aziz Naji, was cleared of any charges in a wide-ranging review of Guantanamo prisoner status last year. Naji begged not to be sent back to Algeria, a country he fled after being attacked himself at age 17 or 18 by extremists. Naji feared the Algerian government could not protect him against the Islamic fundamentalist rebels that have been fighting the somewhat more moderate Islamic government for some twenty years now.
The Times editorial continues the story:
Though he offered to remain at the prison, the administration shipped him home last weekend and washed its hands of the man. Almost immediately upon arrival, he disappeared, and his family fears the worst.
It is an act of cruelty that seems to defy explanation.
The response of the Obama administration has been terse and self-serving. They say they have gotten assurances from the Algerian government that Mr. Naji, who was never charged with any crime, would not be mistreated or tortured when sent back. The Times notes that a 2008 Supreme Court decision gives "broad discretion to decide when to accept such promises from a foreign government." But human rights groups have long derided such assurances.
According to a diary at Daily Kos by geomoo, Doris Tennant, one of Mr. Naji’s attorneys, states she and Naji’s other attorney, Ellen Lubell, were informed by the Algerian ambassador "that his government cannot protect him from extremists, who he very much fears will attempt to recruit him because of his association with Guantanamo."
The Times editorial picks up on information about country conditions in Algeria that I had noted in an article at Firedoglake last Tuesday. According to the Times:
The State Department’s human rights report on the country, issued in March, said that reports of torture in Algeria have been reduced but are still prevalent. It quotes human rights lawyers there as saying the practice still takes place to extract confessions in security cases. People disappear in the country, the report said, and armed groups — which obviously made no promises to the administration — continue to act with impunity.
Even more outrageous is the fact that the Obama administration ignored the fact that Mr. Naji had applied for political asylum in Switzerland, denying a request for a stay of deportation from his attorneys. No one knows why the Obama administration has drawn a line in the sand over Naji and another Algerian prisoner, Farhi Saeed Bin Mohammed, who won his "freedom" via habeas appeal last year. Judge Gladys Kessler has been fighting the D.C. Circuit Court to keep the men from being transferred to Algeria, but a 5-3 decision by the Supreme Court late last week paved the way for the administration’s criminal action.
"Criminal" or Stupid, Either Way It’s Outrageous
"Criminal" will no doubt be too strong a word for many of you. But the forcible deportation of a person back to a country where he fears persecution, torture, execution, etc. is known in the law as refoulement, and the international legal principle of not returning such an individual as the principle of non-refoulement. This recognized basic human right was written into international protocols beginning with the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and later into the Convention Against Torture treaty, of which the U.S. is a signatory. Not even the Bush administration, in the hundreds of "detainees" it released from Guantanamo, violated this principle.
In a comprehensive analysis, journalist Andy Worthington has described the unbelievable context of the Obama administration’s cruel behavior:
This was a bleak day for US justice, not only because it involved the Supreme Court blithely disregarding the UN Convention Against Torture’s “non-refoulement” obligation, joining in an unholy trinity with the D.C. Circuit Court and the Obama administration, but also because it brings to an abrupt, cruel, and — I believe — illegal conclusion a struggle to release prisoners without violating the UN Convention Against Torture, which, for the most part, was actually respected by the Bush administration….
With the Uighurs, the Bush administration recognized its “non-refoulement” obligation, refusing to return them to China, and finding new homes for five of the men in Albania in 2006. When the Obama administration inherited the problem of the remaining 17 men, who had, in the meantime, won their habeas corpus petitions, it found new homes for 12 of them in Bermuda, Palau and Switzerland, although five still remain at Guantánamo, and, last spring, the administration turned down a plan by White House Counsel Greg Craig to bring some of the men to live in the US, which would have done more in the long run to defuse scaremongering about Guantánamo than any other gesture.
The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) decried the Obama administration’s forcible removal of Mr. Naji. Mr. Bin Mohammed could also be deported at any time.
CCR supports the ongoing efforts of the U.S. State Department to close Guantánamo Bay, particularly in the face of unyielding resistance from Congress and the seemingly detached indifference of the White House to the continuing plight of the men held in our notorious prison. However, the solution to Guantánamo Bay does not rest on forcing detainees to return to countries where they fear torture and persecution. It is not only illegal, but also bad policy…. Forced repatriations make the United States appear complicit with repressive regimes and are certain to outrage Arabs and Muslims around the world at a time when our government needs their support.
Is There Anything to Be Done?
In a letter the other day to supporters, CCR wrote:
The Obama Administration violated both U.S. and international law by forcibly repatriating Mr. Naji, and Center for Constitutional Rights is now deeply concerned as neither his wellbeing nor whereabouts are known….
Please write the Algerian Embassy in Washington, DC (at mail@algeria-us.org) and the Permanent Mission of Algeria to the United Nations at mission@algeria-un.org and demand that the Algerian government immediately account for Mr. Naji’s whereabouts and well-being. They must tell us where he is and provide assurances that he is well. The Algerian government should also comply with international law prohibiting the use of secret detention and torture. Moreover, the Algerian government must protect Mr. Naji from extremist forces in Algeria who may try to recruit him and harm him when he resists joining them. Finally, the Algerian government should in the future not accept forced repatriations of its citizens who fear they will be harmed in the country.
The court’s decision and the actions of the Obama administration are an outrage and another blow against the international position of non-refoulement, or non-return of refugees and the persecuted, as described in the UN Convention Against Torture and other international treaties and protocols. This action marks the U.S. as an uncivilized nation, a nation busily disassembling the rule of law in the name of empire building.
It’s possible that Aziz is a test case, as they will want to release others to countries where they fear persecution. They can let “friendly” governments “dispose” of their prisoners. I also believe it’s possible they intend to seed some small number through as possible double agents among the Islamic “extremist” groups, and this is one way to manufacture bona fides after being held so long. A very dangerous game for everyone involved.
It’s noted above that Switzerland has taken up an application for asylum from Mr. Naji (it is, I believe, on appeal there). The simplest solution would be to offer Mr. Naji, who never harmed any U.S. person, asylum in this country, but as FDL/Seminal diarist powwow notes in a comment at Emptywheel yesterday:
For other Bill-of-Attainder-esque reasons, the following Congressional restrictions also deserve highlighting:
The Homeland Security Appropriations Act includes two additional provisions affecting the treatment of Guantanamo detainees. Section 553, which appears to apply beyond the end of the 2010 fiscal year…. prohibits the use of funds appropriated under that act to “provide any immigration benefit” to any former Guantanamo detainee, including a visa, admission into the United States, parole into the United States, or classification as a refugee or applicant for asylum.51 The prohibition is similar to proposals introduced earlier during the 111th Congress; however, the other proposals would apply permanently, whereas the prohibition in the Homeland Security Appropriations Act appears to apply only to funds appropriated by that act.52
In any case, if they can get away with the criminal return of Aziz Naji without popular furor, then they can proceed with more of the same. This was all prefigured when al-Libi — the man who told the U.S. about Saddam and WMD (under torture — he later recanted the “confession”) — was mysteriously found dead in his Libyan cell and there was no call for investigation.
Don’t Ignore This Issue
Thus far the Daily Kos community has essentially ignored the outrageous Naji deportation (the diary by geomoo was a notable, but mostly ignored exception). I hope this diary begins the rectification of that. The New York Times editorial reminds us there is "no reason to deliver prisoners to governments that the United States considers hostile and that have a record of torture and lawlessness."
Call the White House: 202-456-1111, or write them if you wish. Let them know there is line beyond which support for this administration ends, and the forceable return of an innocent prisoner, tortured and imprisoned for eight years by the United States, to a country he fled over 15 years ago, in fear for his life, is exactly such a line.



19 Comments

If any distaff readers of Daily Kos happen to drift on by, who still have accounts over there, I’d sure appreciate a recommendation of that diary. I only ask this when the cause is important. Thanks.
The treatment of this wronged prisoner looks for all the world like arbitrary payback. The Obama administration players responsible for Gitmo and its processes were caught out by the federal courts for ignoring the most basic precepts of the law; so they toss an innocent guy to the wolves back home, rather than offer him a home here or allow him to seek asylum elsewhere.
That acting out seems odd, since most of that mistreatment was meted out by the Bush administration. It’s not so odd, in that this administration is trying its damndest to find ways to make many of the legal and moral excesses of the Bush administration “good law”.
This administration seems to be acting out because it and its predecessor got it wrong and the federal courts did their duty by telling it so. By no means does this treatment comport with minimum standards we should expect and demand from our government – and ourselves. Have you no shame, Mr. President, have you no shame?
If George Bush had done this, the Dems would be in the streets, on the Sunday morning shout shows, on the news wires to condemn it. Is there any reaction at all to this miscarriage of justice?
There are over a hundred other innocent prisoners still held at Guantanamo, several that ought to be adjudged as innocent who await some sort of trial, and still others at secret prisons we claim are beyond the law. What will we do to them?
Thank you for posting this here, Jeff. I’ll call the White House Monday morning. I don’t think they give a damn about our calls, though.
“What will we do to them?’. Whatever it is, it won’t be good and it won’t get national attention. Maybe we would have been better off without a Constitutional Scholar as president.
An extra piece of egregious matter: that the federal courts — or at least SCOTUS and the D.C. Circuit — were compliant in this (though note the heroic attempts of Federal Judge Gladys Kessler in all this, as powwow has pointed out), and also Congress.
I hear openhope @3 feeling they won’t give a damn about our calls. I don’t know what the volume has to be, but if it gets loud enough, they will have to give a damn. Maybe they won’t be morally touched, but the Obama administration certainly understands political calculus, and I hope the Democratic Party in general hears that message, too.
What did Nadler have to say about this at Marcy’s panel at NN today? I know Vince Warren talked about it. Anyone know?
The NY Times, properly, calls what was done to Abdul Aziz Naji, “an act of cruelty that seems to defy explanation.”
Let us consider;
Was this the first or only such “cruel” action taken against Mr. Naji?
Is there a larger, overarching pattern of such behaviors toward others, in the same “position” as Mr. Naji?
Are there policies in place that allow these “cruelties”, that in fact condone and “legitimize” these “cruelties”?
Are there, or have there been, men and women, American citizens, who actively engaged in “documented” acts of cruelty and or setting up the policies which allow such behavior?
Has it been “only a few bad apples” who have engaged in this “activity”, or has it been many, on many different levels from “grunts” to “scientists”, “lawyers” and “members” of the Federal government, at the very highest (and most secret levels) who have engaged in facilitating, directing, and destroying evidence regarding these “acts” of “cruelty”?
In other words, are there patterns, numerous and recorded of the widespread “use” of such cruel behaviors and are they or are they not “official policy”?
Perhaps the Times might wish to pursue the answers to these questions?
Perhaps not.
EOH mentions “shame”.
How much more needs be said?
Except that there will be “consequence”?
Who does not understand this?
And why are they in positions of power?
Another question for the Times.
What comes after … “shame”?
DW
I’m starting to suspect that the US’s lousy rep in the Muslim world is for some other reason than “hating us for our freedom”/s.
Yes an act of vengeance by the Justice Dept, and possibly also to send a message to the others at Gitmo (and elsewhere)
Don’t fight us, because if you win you will loose, and we’ll make you wish you had lost.
Officially, Obama held the title of “senior lecturer.” When this was made public, Harvard tried to gloss it over by saying he was regarded as a professor or treated like a professor.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
Highly Recc’d, Jeff … and at the other place too.
I ask all of you with DKos accounts to go over there and Recommend this piece, so that it gets maximum exposure – Linky to Jeff’s post at DKos, where he writes under the name, Valtin.
I believe Obama taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago School of Law sometime after he graduated from the Harvard Law School. I also believe he was not an Assistant or Associate Professor at the U. of C., and he didn’t have tenure. I don’t believe he was employed as full-time faculty and he likely worked on a contract basis.
Regardless of his official title and the terms of his employment, I don’t believe any serious legal scholar would call him a constitutional law scholar. I know what I’m talking about because I am a legal scholar and former law professor. He certainly has no respect for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law, ethics, and the oath he took when he was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States.
Returning an innocent man to be tortured and probably murdered in his homeland, a man who was kidnapped, tortured, and locked up for years by the former criminal administration, is a monstrous and despicable act. With each passing day Obama sinks ever lower into the human pit toilet. He deserves to be forever condemned and reviled for his aggressive and mean-spirited evil conduct.
Puhleeeze! don’t use constitutional scholarship & Obama in the same sentence.
He clearly is not…the moniker was used as a way to give him heft so he could be elected Prez…..we have seen the damage his predecessor ,GWBush did.Well this so called constitutional scholar in the WH has no qualms with the continuance of GWBush policies.Well…I will end it there cuz the Prez now believes he has a right to assassinate any American….so even mild criticisms of his Presidency could put you on the list.
We are screwed!
Whoosh. Am resurfacing after many hours of responding to apologists for Obama, some sophisticated, some mostly silly or offensive, and man it’s good to come over here for some clean air.
Yes, for vengeance, and to project themselves as powerful tyrants (while maintaining all along they are the most humble servants of democracy), this is what it’s all about.
Thanks, Petrocelli, for the asking for recommendations for “Valtin’s” diary at Daily Kos. The diary did do well there, as part of the community over there (a consistent 1/3 is my estimate) hasn’t lost their moral bearings in the name of party politics. It’s also worth shaking up the other 2/3, as they must be told, and I feel it’s our duty to tell them (is this not what Jane does?) that the logic of their policies can only land them in a bad place.
In the struggle for power, we’ll need every convert we can get. Because behind Obama stands the real power, and I don’t mean the Masons, or a secret cult, or conspiracy, but a bona fide social elite, a strata of the society, not monolithic, but generally sharing a consciousness and an attitude that the U.S. should be number one no matter what. These are the people that send nations into wars, who spy upon their own population, who torture or countenance torture. They will not go quietly into that good night, but will use every political tool at their disposal (and sometimes violence) to maintain their supremacy. What we have on our side, at least in theory, are the people, numbers. As long as many are sleepwalking with belief that everything is okay under one party or one politician, then we are in trouble. Only reality can wake them up. But if you force them too hard, their defenses get riled up.
A genuine problem. I think we’re working on it.
Thank you, gigi3, Mason, BMcGarth, I was under the impression Prof. Obama taught Constitutional Law. I thought it was a case of familiarity breeding contempt. Guess I fell for the propaganda. Hate when that happens!!!!!
Jeff,
Didn’t 60 Minutes do an interview with his mother and family once they found out he was at Guantanamo?
Had a talk with a friend about two subjects:
Torture and our country’s dependency on oil and the need for change on both concerns.
When I gave her facts, her response was (on each subject), “How were “we” to know? There is no information out there. There are no options to show solutions. How did you know any of this? How did you find time to find this information? I am heart broken and ashamed that I did not know, and I watch the news.”
She cried.
Jeff, like you write, only reality can wake them up.
It’s about establishing the Emperor’s word as law. Our rulers think that if we fear them we will not resist. They are cowards, judging others by themselves. It’s a common mistake.
This is speculation, but to put a sharper point on it, the Algerians made the US look bad on their habeas petitions…really bad. The US doesn’t like people who do that to it. So maybe they got assurances from Algeria (like they got assurances from Syria on Arar), and some of the detainees will think twice about pressing their habeas claims…and their lawyers, about what really serves their clients’ interests.
I mean, at least you’d like to think it wasn’t just pure base viciousness.
That it was that, yeah…but that they at least had a vicious practical motive too.
I’ve read that GWB used to enjoy waiting to the last minute to turn down death-row appeals. I wonder of BHO gets off on this sort of stuff too.
I think he is still trying to convince republicans that he’s one of the guys.
He’s kind of like the geeky kid that wants the cool kids to like him and so he pulls the wings off flies and shoplifts packs of smokes from the corner store and meanwhile they’re laughing at him.
He sure did give some good speeches though, didn’t he?