Page Date: 1/7/05
Updated: 10/10/05
Case Related Links:

Hot Links:

 
Photo of the Front pages of the Codes Journalists don't think exist.

This is the Afghan Criminal Code, and this is what the defendants'  based their defense on, but, at one point, Judge Bakhtyari said, "it is more of a guideline than actual rules"- as if he had recently seen Pirates of the Caribbean, but still allowed no parlay.  We don't have a copy on-line here, but it can be obtained from the Italian Embassy in Afghanistan, which translated the entire document.  The US Department of State also has copies, although they will not acknowledge that publicly because then it would contradict their press conferences in which a US State Department "Spokesperson" claimed Bakhtyari conducted a "fair trial."  A Taliban Judge, a Taliban Prosecutor, a former Soviet Union Interpreter, all enemies of the United States, conducting and orchestrating a trial against a Green Beret who helped bring down the Taliban, fought the Soviets, and arrested another Taliban Judge-  none of which followed a single Rule of Law as officially adopted by the Islamic State of Afghanistan- sounds fair to us.

The Code was first entered into law in 1976 and was the first of its type in Central West Asia, bringing significant human rights protections to the people of Afghanistan.  However, in December 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and took control of the country.  The Soviets relegated the code to history and imposed Supreme Soviet Law, administered by the KGB which promptly organized, formed, trained, and led the new Soviet NDS, which even adopted the KGB logo, manifesto, organization, and methods.  The Afghan KGB is alive and well today under the guidance and control of Amrullah Saleh, put into power by the American FBI.  Although the Afghan KGB has since changed its name and adopted the name it functioned under after Massoud defeated the Soviets, the new NDS still proudly displays their KGB logo— one of only four remaining type symbols in the world (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, North Korea, and Afghanistan).

The AFGHAN CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CODE, or, the "Rule of Law" as the Afghans call it, came back briefly during Commander Massoud's stewardship, and was revived under the Northern Alliance which forced the Soviets to withdraw after that an a decade of guerilla war.  Then wanted terrorist Gulbideen Hekmatyar killed more than twenty thousand civilians in Kabul and Massoud reluctantly withdrew to stop the slaughter of women and children by Hekmatyar's Hezb-i-Islami party.

As part of the BONN Agreement, Karzai was forced to bring back the 1976 laws which provided significant civil rights protections, especially to foreigners.  The Penal Code enacted on 7 October 1976 was also brought back, specifically delineating what was, and what was not, illegal, rules that did not exist when Bakhtyari was a Taliban Judge.

Photo of the actual Motion.

Virtually every defendant filed a motion for a court appointed attorney in the Primary Court trial.  While journalists and bloggers reported THEIR interpretation of the law, stating that the Afghan Court had no obligation under the law to provide attorneys, the fact was that this was a complete mis-statement of the law, and in certain cases, such as the case of Associated Press, a complete lie-- they had been shown the actual law, and had a copy of it.  The Afghan Criminal Code is very clear on this point.  Article 19 specifically states that a defendant WILL have a free defense attorney appointed to him or her.  Interestingly enough, there are not many attorneys in Kabul, or anywhere in Afghanistan, so no one gets an attorney, because no one else is watching.  But this case was such high visibility that you would think Karzai would have ensured that the defendants had lawyers.  Finally, after threats of suits by family members in America (Caraballo's brother), the US Embassy implored Judge Bakhtyari to appoint lawyers.  By then, there had already been five days of trial spread out over 45 days, and no attorney had done anything, objected to anything, or asked anyone to stop torturing the defendants, because Bakhtyari refused to give anyone an attorney.   He told the defendants that they were Americans, and all Americans could afford lawyers. Really.  No joke.

The four Afghans were eventually appointed an attorney, who barely had a high school education, and met them once for about 15 minutes, then showed up in court and said they were all sorry and pleaded for Bakhtyari to have mercy on them in the name of Allah.  The lawyer NEVER asked a single question, never called a single witness, never presented a piece of evidence, and never even asked any defendant if they were guilty or not. 

Bennett finally got a female Afghan lawyer in September 2004, ten days before the final verdict.  She met Bennett ONE TIME for 20 MINUTES.  She promptly informed Bennett that if she represented him Bakhtyari would not allow her to speak because she was a woman, and he did not normally allow women to appear in his court without a Burka.  Then she dropped the real bomb-- if she appeared in court for Bennett, she would be murdered.  In fact, she freely admitted being threatened with death, so she would just write a letter for Brent Bennett, telling Judge Bakhtyari that his parents missed him and he would convert to the Muslim religion if Bakhtyari gave him only five years.  "You have got to be kidding," Bennett told the translator from the US Embassy.

Idema was also finally offered an attorney by the Embassy.  The Attorney had previously been a Taliban official.  When Jack found that out he basically went ballistic and threatened to kill the guy if he showed up in court and attempted to represent him.

Caraballo's family arranged to have a New Hampshire public defender who was in Afghanistan training lawyers to represent him.  Michael Skibbie was a decent guy, but he was outgunned and threatened from day one.  NDS was constantly harassing him, and also threatening his two Afghan Afghan assistants.  The Afghan lawyer helping Skibbie, a woman named Najeeba, with an Afghan High School education, met with Bakhtyari, then gave a newspaper interview without ever talking to Caraballo, promptly announced that she doubted Caraballo's motives and that Caraballo was guilty before the trial ever began.  Najeeba Rahmanzada stated that the Americans had entered the country illegally using false Indian Passports (see: Washington Post, August 16, 2004).  Her statements were directly contradicted when Caraballo showed video in court of all three men legally entering the country with US passports.

Skibbie did manage one major coup during the trial-- he embarrassed the Embassy into helping him get the FBI to return the evidence they had stolen from NDS headquarters.  Although the FBI only returned a small portion of the evidence, it showed  their complicity in the orchestration of false criminal charges and a guilty verdict before the trial ever began.

Photo of the actual Motion and Jack Showing a top National Security Advisor giving mission approval on video.  The tape disappeared from evidence the very next day- imagine that.

At every hearing and every court session, the American defendants demanded a translator.  They never got one.  Finally, they filed a motion for a court appointed translator in writing.  Once again, the Primary Court stated they had no right to a "private translator."  Bakhtyari said he would provide a translator during the trial for the press.  Once again, while journalists and bloggers reported THEIR interpretation of the law, stating that the Afghan Court had no obligation under the law to provide private translators, and stating that their were simply "problems with translations, the fact was that this was a complete mis-statement of the law.  The Afghan Criminal Code is very specific on this point.  Article 20 clearly  states that a defendant WILL have a free interpreter  appointed to him for assisting a defendant during HIS interrogations of witnesses, and for "confrontations."  By confrontations, the Afghans are referring to the cross-examination of witnesses, and arguing with the prosecutor. However, Bakhtyari claimed he didn't need to give the defendants a translator for this because he wasn't going to allow the defense to confront any witness, or ask a single question of any witness.

Instead of a trial, the Court basically held a press conference, because the three witnesses that did "testify" were not sworn in, and according Bakhtyari, were "for public informational purposes only."  If you get right down to it, the entire trial was a press conference, not a trial. 

The Embassy  finally provided an interpreter for one half day.  Things went great, this interpreter was the man the Italian Embassy hired to translate the Criminal Code, so Bakhtyari had a hard time arguing with him over what the law actually said, because the Court was using the translation that THIS translator did.  Bakhtyari fired him and threatened to have the translator arrested if he returned after lunch.   Apparently Bakhtyari was outraged that the interpreter, an employee of the Italian Embassy, would translate not only correctly, but with the passion and inflection of Jack as he spoke.  The defendants never saw the translator again.  They did later learn he had gone into hiding, afraid of NDS reprisals.

Finally, the court provided a former Soviet Official as a translator, who wasted no time interjecting his own thoughts on the defendants' guilt and talking about what horrible people they were.  Of course he wasn't actually translating anything during this time, just offering his opinion to the court.  This was common at every hearing, three difference translators were used by Bakhtyari, and all three acted as prosecutors, often refusing to translate Jack's words, or the videos the defense showed. 

At one point, early on, either the third or fourth court appearance, Zorro leaned over to Jack and told him that the translator was changing all of his words and speaking as though Jack was confessing.  Zorro was afraid to completely say what the translator was mis-interpreting because NDS had threatened to kill Zorro and arrest his family.  Jack pointed out that the translator was making things up.  The result?  Upon return to NDS Zorro was placed in full body chains, where he remained for thirty days for telling Jack about the incorrect translations.

One of the main points here is that the law required the Court to give Jack and his men their own interpreter, instead, Jack was forced to constantly request something by the Court's  translator, who often refused.  Additionally, none of the motions filed by the defendants could be read or considered by the court because the defendants had no way to have them translated and given to the judges in a language they could read, not that it would have mattered anyway.

Just as we pointed out in the court's refusal to give attorneys to the defendants, this case was such high visibility that you would think Karzai himnself would have ensured that the defendants had translators.  Would Karzai expect translation and a lawyer if he was being tried in the U.S.?  Darn right he would.

The most egregious act of Bakhtyari and his Court occurred when Lt. Wahid Rasuli Banderas leaned over during a trial and told Jack that the translator had just said Jack apologized for torturing the terrorists, and what Jack had really said was that the terrorists were lying and he wanted them sworn in under oath.  Lt. Banderas was beaten unconscious after the hearing for whispering that to Jack during the trial.

Photo of the actual Motion.

The defendants have repeatedly asked for the right to view the evidence against them.  They have never been allowed to do so.  No one in the defense has ever seen any witness statement, or ever seen a single shred of evidence against them.  All of the defense evidence, such as the tapes Caraballo made, the emails on Jack's computers, the film, photos, and documents signed by government officials and everything else that could help the defense, was all either destroyed or confiscated by the FBI and most of it was never allowed to be used at trial, except for a few videotapes the defendants were able to assemble.

 
To Read More about the Geneva Convention and the POW Status Legal Brief Jack and his men filed with the Central information Bureaux in Geneva Switzerland, click on the button above.

Photo of John Tiffany & Bob Fogelnest, et al.

John Tiffany is an attorney from Bloomfield, NJ that specializes in federal criminal defense cases.  The defendants' family and friends called dozens of attorneys looking for help, only two would go to Afghanistan.  And only two had the guts to jump on a plane, Bob Fogelnest and John Tiffany; both lawyers from New York, both who had lost friends at the World Trade Center. 

Actually, Jack isn't asking anyone for a dime.  He never has.  Warren Zevon sang about lawyers, guns, and money.  But they do need a lot more lawyers, because it looks like they are trying to take on the world. To find out more about that, just visit Jack's Docket.

What Went Really Went Down in the Summer of 2004 "Taliban Trial"

The Original Motion In Limine:

An original handwritten Motion to exclude evidence, see evidence, and request the viewing of the evidence against us was filed in July and again in August 2004.  Judge Bakhtyari, a former Taliban Judge, refused to even read it. 

In fact, after the defendants filed it, Bakhtyari had their cells searched and Jack was beaten again, as was Zorro.  Apparently Bakhtyari was upset that they could file such a motion because at the NDS Torture facility you are not allowed to possess paper or pens.  When the Embassy would bring the men pads of yellow paper, they would promptly be confiscated by NDS.  The Defendants started hiding them under their shirts to get them into the cells.  "We would then hide the pads under al-Qaida cellmate blankets or mattresses.  We were not allowed to have mattresses.  If we could steal a pen from the Embassy we would smuggle that in too and hide the pen either in the ceilings or hang it out the window on a piece of nylon thread," Jack told their lawyers.

The Defense really "pissed off" the Taliban Judge (something the press ignored) when Jack brought the motion to court and started reading it, then handed up a second copy to the bench which Brent spent all night writing.  The press said the Defense argued the case based on "Jack's interpretation of the law" and that there was no law in Afghanistan.  On both accounts they were lying.  It was not Jack's interpretation, it was the actual rules.  Furthermore, there is law in Afghanistan, it's just that nobody follows it.  Especially the Taliban Judges and Taliban Prosecutors that Karzai re-appointed to their positions in a secret deal with Mullah Omar.

The original motion, like all motions filed, was ignored by Bakhtyari, who claimed the Interim Criminal Code, was merely a guideline, not really law, and that the laws of his former Taliban government would be applicable. 

By Mid-August 2004, Attorney John Edwards Tiffany had arrived from NY with the legal team he assembled.  It would not do much good.  The Taliban Judge (are you ever "ex-Taliban"?) would ignore the Rule of Law completely.  In January 2005, the Defense filed an updated motion of the original, which is similar but updated with new evidence and facts, and typed instead of written in secret in the dark on a contraband pen and pad.

Photo of the actual Motion requesting the Taliban Judge stop receiving secret notes from the Taliban terrorist "victim" the prosecutor, and the FBI.

During the trials the defendants filed numerous Motions To Suspend and Cease All ex parte Communications Of The Court.

It was really quite a spectacle from a legal standpoint.  In the middle of the trial, Jack would come up with some argument, or bit of evidence, that would completely contradict the prosecutor's statements or theory, or stump Judge Bakhtyari.  The judge would  would then sit there silently for a moment, while Chief Prosecutor Fatah, a tall thin man sitting in the front row, would write feverishly on a pad.

Then Fatah would pass the note up to prosecutor Dawari, who would then walk right up to the Judge's bench and hand it to him while Jack, or later, one of the attorneys, would be talking.  Bakhtyari would then read the note, and make some wild ruling.  Regardless of how many times the defense objected or yelled about the secret communications, Bakhtyari would just ignore the complaint.  These types of communications are called "ex parte" meaning secret, and in the Latin translation it literally means "one party" or "without the other party" depending upon the context.  One party communications with a judge or the court are strictly prohibited by law in the United States, in most of the world, and most importantly, by law, in Afghanistan.  Ex parte communications during a trial are completely unheard of because it subjects a judge not only to reversal on appeal, but in some instances, such as below, to criminal liability.  It was found out AFTER the trial that Fatah was a former high-ranking Communist official, who lived in the Soviet Union assigned to the KGB and has a long-standing hatred for Americans, even though he has frequently been the guest of the FBI in GITMO Cuba.

Two occurrences of particular note deserve some ink.  On one occasion, the defense had Bakhtyari boxed in on a subject he previously ruled on, and demanded he do what he said in the previous hearing.  Fatah handed him a note.  Bakhtyari read it, then called a recess.  The court came back in twenty minutes later and when Jack brought up the subject Bakhtyari said, in front of the press, "we already discussed that, now lets move on or the trial is over."  The press never reported the exchange. 

Another time, Malawi Sidiq, the Taliban Judge that was arrested with two known terrorists, detonators, bomb plans, and pictures of terrorist training camps and meetings with top level terrorists, walked right up the bench in the middle of the trial and spoke to Bakhtyari privately as the trial was going on.  Two minutes later Bakhtyari announced that if Jack called any Muslim a terrorist again, the trial would be over and everyone would get twenty years.  Again, the press never reported a single word of it.

Another time, Jack read the law about being able to call a witness and Bakhtyari said, "ok, call your witness."  Fatah handed a secret note up once again.  This time to Prosecutor Dawari, who read it, smiled, then handed it to Bakhtyari.  The Taliban Judge read the note, chuckled, then said, "We will save calling witnesses until the next hearing and you can do it then, this hearing is finished."  After four more hearings, and a verdict of guilty, the defense had still not been allowed to call a single witness or ask a single question of any of the terrorists who said the were hung upside down at the first "press conference" which Bakhtyari later called a hearing.

On 18 August 2004 the defendants brought another written motion to court hidden under Jack's shirt.  They filed  the motion in open court, along with other motions.  The Press completely ignored it, so did the Court.  The text and arguments are printed in full below.  The words in brackets are information we added to clarify who and what they were talking about;

FULL TEXT OF THE MOTION TO
SUSPEND ALL EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS: 

The accused, move this Court for an Order Suspending all Ex Parte [one party- "secret" in this instance] communications between the Court, the Saranwal [the prosecutor] and the Court and any other persons, including Malawi Sidiq [the Taliban Judge they arrested]; as illegal and outside the law. 

1.   The Saranwal, Sidiq, and other persons unknown are believed to have communicated to the Court without the accused present.

2.   The Saranwal and the higher Saranwal [Chief Prosecutor Fatah] have, and in full view of the accused, the press, and the public, passed notes to the Court without allowing the accused, or any defense counsel to read the notes or be privy to their contents.

3.   These secret communications violate the Interim Criminal Code, the Rules of Court, and the principals of justice and a fair trial.  This conduct violates Chapter 6, Article 38 of the Code, which states the accused has the right to be present during the trial, as does defense counsel.  These secret communications, once written, become part of the Saranwal’s file (See: Article 39), and the accused therefore have a right to view them in accordance with Article 43.

4.   These secret communications have undermined the fairness of the trial and warrant an immediate dismissal of all charges and sanctions against the Saranwal. 

Signed,  Jack, et al.

In spite of complaints by the defendants to the court and to the US Embassy, Judge Bakhtyari continued to eat lunch and dinner with the terrorists, and have secret and private meetings with everyone except the defense. 

On August 12, 2004 the US Consul met secretly with Bakhtyari and requested they find Jack and his men guilty explaining that it would help Muslim perception of the United States by proving that Americans would be punished even before terrorists if they abused the Muslim religion. 

This wasn't the only meeting of the kind.  FBI agents, and US State Department officers continually supported a guilty verdict as a quick way of showing the Muslim world that Abu Ghraib type events would be fully prosecuted based on any allegation by a Muslim.  Furthermore, that all allegations would be accepted on their face, without evidence and without substantiation regardless of the evidence. 

The FBI was hot to turn the DOD, the CIA, and US Special Forces into the bad guys with the FBI taking the high ground and hoping to force the President and Congress to turn more control over to Federal Law Enforcement agents and take more power from the military and Special Operations units.  For the FBI the stakes were high, and still are.  They need the budget that the War on Terror brings.  The FBI was using Abu Ghraib the same way the terrorists were, to recruit backers and supporters and to persecute, not prosecute, anyone that they felt was a threat.  The men of TASK FORCE SABER 7 and the Northern Alliance were clearly a threat, they were catching terrorists that the FBI had been hunting without success for months.

So, you had known terrorists, caught with explosives, detonators, bomb plans to kill diplomats and American soldiers, weapons, ammunition, and all sorts of terrorist related items, including a letter from an al-Qaida relative in GITMO Cuba, and a letter from Mullah Omar, claiming that they were "abused" and "tortured" by Americans (oh, and that they didn't get to go to the bathroom for twelve hours) and the press actually believed them, although they were ALL in perfect health and could not show a single mark or injury.  The Red Cross later confirmed that not one single terrorist had any injury or showed any evidence of torture.

The Americans were also accused of  "violating the Muslim religion" in all sorts of ways, including calling them "terrorists" instead of "Mr.'s).  Of course, there was never any evidence that any American or member of TASK FORCE SABER 7 ever abused, or even insulted, the Muslim religion.

This Motion requested dismissal of the case based on the Motion in Limine above and printed full text on the current legal news page.

Motions To Dismiss in criminal cases are rarely ever granted.  they are usually just a formality and to put some defense position on the record for appeal processes.  However, in this case, there was a good reason why the various motions to dismiss should have all been granted.  First, there was no crime-- the evidence showed, on video, that the Americans entered the country legally.  The evidence showed, on video, a top Minister on the National Security Council telling them to do their operation, giving them permission to arrest one of his employees, sending his security officers with the Americans to make the arrest, and even congratulating the Americans on saving his life and the Minister of Defence's life.  The Americans also had the full cooperation, assistance, and approval of their activities by the Afghan Secretary of Defense (Marshal Mohammed Fahim, Minister of Defence).  And, if that wasn't enough, all of the American's activities were conducted with senior Afghan CIA, MOD/DOD, and National Police officials present and assisting them.  There was also NO evidence of torture, and no forced confessions, as the press keeps talking about.  As to the legal side of it, Bakhtyari and his court, broke more than 26 Rules under the Criminal Code, including virtually every single evidence and trial rule in the book.  The Motion in Limine posted on the Current Legal News area pretty much lays it all out for you.

To Read the New Motion in Limine Filed in Jan 2005 - go to the Second Trial.

Overview of the New Trial Status:

According to Court documents, the Defendants were illegally convicted of all charges in the Primary Court on September 16, 2004 and sentenced to lengthy terms of imprisonment.  Thereafter, defendants appeared in the Second Court (the Afghan Court of Appeals of the Supreme Court of Afghanistan), and engaged in several closed door hearings.  In November 2004, defendants were granted a Trial de novo (a completely new trial) and the convictions were declared null and void.

Over the next 45 days, several additional evidentiary hearings were held.  In the course of those closed door hearings, the Court of Appeals heard sworn testimony for the first time in the process (other than the sworn testimony of Mr. Jack which was ignored by the Primary Court Chief Judge).  As a result of that sworn testimony, from government officials, Ministry of Justice Police Officers, and Ministry of Defense officers, the Court of Appeals found all four Afghan defendants innocent and ordered the release of Major Ezmerai, Lt. Rasuli Banderas, Syhail, and Sherzai.  Although the Afghan defendants requested the Court delay their release until all seven were freed, a colloquy followed between Mr. Jack and the Court during which it was decided that all would be released with the agreement of Mr. Jack.  However, voicing strong objections, Lt. Banderas, a Ministry of Defense employee, still refused to be released and opted to stay with the American defendants until such time as the release of all defendants.  Mr. Jack, with the unanimous approval of the Court, agreed that Lt. Rasuli Banderas would not be released and would remain with the group.  Hearings were subsequently suspended between December 7 and December 14, 2004 at the request of Mr. Jack and due to other Court business related to the case.

To read the full text of the motion upon which the defense relied for a new trial (which they won the right to have) and to see the evidence and legal arguments, follow this graphic link to the left. 
 

Over the next 30 days defendants were prepared to proceed, but the American FBI successfully delayed this case for another 30 days and still refused to return the evidence.  The US government continues to withhold evidence

This case was ready to continue with the trial de novo based on the merits and new evidence, but there still remains the issue of multiple violations of the Afghan Interim Criminal Code by the Primary Court, the NDS, and specifically, Judge Abdul Baset Bakhtyari.  As stated in the defense's brief to the Court of Appeals; "The Afghan Interim Criminal Code, hereafter referred to as the Interim Criminal Code or Criminal Code is unbending, inflexible, and specific in its’ design and details of how a criminal investigation and trial must be conducted.  However, in spite of the clear text of the Criminal Code in both English, Dari, and Pashtu, Judge Bakhtyari constantly ignored the Code, and stated on the record that the Criminal Code is just a guideline, and holds no valid force.  This is a complete misstatement of the law and facts.  The Rule of Law, a phrase so often yelled out in court by the Primary Court Saranwal (prosecutor) Nahim Dawari, is not a guideline subject to a Judge’s whims.  It cannot be superseded.  It cannot be altered or modified.  It cannot be ignored, and it cannot be violated. 

To violate the rules of the Criminal Code is in itself a violation of law subject to punishment enforced against the government officials propagating the violation or violations.  The government is neither at liberty to violate it or ignore it.  To do so results in only one possible end.  The dismissal of the case in the interest of justice." [Note to Reader: Contrary to third string freelance reporters and basement weblogs, Afghanistan does have a formal written law, and this is it....

Based on the evidence and the extensive, almost incomprehensible, violations of law by the Primary Court, by the prosecution, and by the FBI, the Appeals Court has little choice under the law other than to dismiss the case.  The only other alternative is to order the the FBI to return the evidence and then the Court must hold a full and fair public trial.

When you look at the facts presented in the defense motions, and the evidence they have, it is a compelling case for absolute innocence.   This is especially true, and should be a serous wake up call to Americans because the trial was run by judges and prosecutors who were former employees and followers of the Taliban terrorist regime.

As the defense repeatedly points out in their Appeals Court motions, "This was a clear case of injustice and earmarked by egregious prejudice by Judge Bakhtyari against American and Northern Alliance defendants.  It was punctuated and made clear by Bakhtyari’s statements to the international press, before he EVER heard one shred of evidence, that all of the defendants were guilty.  In fact, Judge Bakhtyari stated on the record with the press, long before the trial ever began, that all defendants were guilty, and announced the defendants’ sentences 60 days before the verdict was rendered in Court and before the formal trial ever began."

It is impossible to overlook that Judge Abdul Basset Bakhtyari, a former Taliban Judge, was allowed by both the Afghan and U.S. governments to hear a case against Americans, one of which had been fighting the Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists since the first day of the war in 2001, and all of which were operating with Massoud's Northern Alliance, the sworn enemies of the Taliban.

All of this is disturbing to say the least, but it becomes  flagitious when you learn that the Taliban led court used a former Taliban Prosecutor as the Saranwal, and a former Soviet regime official as the interpreter, without disclosing this to the defense.  The defense has pointed out that, "this violated the presumption of innocence and the fair trial doctrines under the Criminal Code.  These were egregious violations; these officials announced to the international press their guilty decision one month before the verdict.  In fact, Judge Bakhtyari stated in open court that the defendants were part of the “resistance forces,” (maybe he considers Anti-Taliban Forces the “resistance”) yet he failed to allow any discussion of defendants’ Geneva Convention Status."

Even the United Nations High Commission on Human Rights has acknowledged that there is no doubt that the Criminal Code was violated in every way possible.  The entire trial violated the Criminal Code, the rules of International Law, and the Geneva Convention, which takes precedent over all else in the case as an international treaty. 

In the words of Attorney John Tiffany, "The thought that a Taliban Judge, a Taliban Prosecutor, and a former Soviet “Interpreter,” could arrest, try, and convict American counter-terrorist operators without a piece of evidence, with a single witness under the law, and without a shred of due process, is not unfathomable, but criminal and contrary to every assertion of freedom the Afghan government has given the American public to obtain international assistance and support."

Click on the Banner Above to Return Home

Disclaimers, Notices, and Legal Threats
With the exception of Magazine covers or News Logos or headline photos, or graphics depicting news
and blogging sites being sued by the SuperPatriots, ALL information on this site is
copyrighted by the authors, The SuperPatriots, and/or Caraballo Video/Ed Caraballo.
It may not be used without permission, nor reprinted in any way. News agencies and licensed educational institutions and/or universities may link to this site without permission.  No Blog or Blogger may link to this site in anyway without written permission, specifically, but not limited to Flogging The Simian.  No news organization involved in litigation with any one of the SuperPatriots may link to or quote from this site, specifically including; Columbia Journalism Review, New York Magazine, The Dallas Morning News, or the Associated Press.
Any violation, regardless of how small, will be met with litigation under the
United States Federal Copyright Acts of 1909 and 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.

EVERYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS COPYRIGHT PROTECTED
UNDER US COPYRIGHT LAW AND THE BERNE CONVENTION

All sections about the past and ongoing criminal case in Afghanistan were built with the assistance
of the American & Afghan Prisoners of War in Pulacharke Prison.
It was assembled and created as a public service by citizens concerned with truth and accuracy in the media.
 The world's press have already told the other side more than a thousand times, and rarely truthfully. 
This site is differs from all other reports because it is based on fact, not fiction.

© 2005 The SuperPatriots - Copyright Acts of 1909 and 1976, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq.

SuperPatriots is the Service Mark of American and Afghan Patriots in the War on Terror

Site Designed and Donated By RDX Graphics Corporation Ω The Last Line of Defense