EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
'Indefinite' Defined: Even After Serving Sentence, US May Hold Detainee
Pentagon: Captive Might Not Go Home After Sentence
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- A confessed al Qaeda cook serving a two-year terrorism sentence will not automatically go home to his native Sudan in July 2012 when his punishment ends, a Pentagon spokeswoman said Monday.
In this photo of a sketch by courtroom artist Janet Hamlin and reviewed by a U.S. Department of Defense official, guilty plea convict Detainee Ibrahim al Qosi of Sudan attends the sentencing portion of his war crimes trial Wednesday, Aug. 11, 2010 at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (JANET HAMLIN / POOL SKETCH ARTIST) Ibrahim al Qosi, 50, pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism in July. A military jury sentenced him to 14 more years at Guantánamo, unaware that a senior Pentagon official agreed to cap Qosi’s prison term at two years.
He is now segregated in a cellblock of the prison camps here reserved for war criminals.
“Decisions regarding Mr. al Qosi’s status after he serves his punitive confinement will be made by the detention authorities at that time,” Army Lt. Col. Tanya Bradsher said.
She called the sentence due to expire July 7, 2012 “being punished for past acts.” After that, he could still be subject to “detention under the law of war” as “a belligerent during an armed conflict.”
Qosi’s Pentagon-paid attorney, Navy Cmdr. Suzanne Lachelier, was critical of the Pentagon position. She said it was at odds with President Barack Obama’s goal of emptying the prison camps here, which are in their 10th year.
“As the president said in his order of Jan 22, 2009, ‘prompt and appropriate disposition of individuals detained at Guantánamo . . . would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.’"
“Indefinitely detaining a 53-year-old man who will have served his sentence and been in custody more than 11 years for being a cook serves neither our national security or foreign policy interests,’’ Lachelier said.
“It bludgeons ‘the interests of justice.’"
Bradsher, the Pentagon spokeswoman, was responding to a specific query from The Miami Herald about the endgame in the Qosi case on the eve of the first military commissions hearing here of 2011.
War court sources said another long-held Sudanese captive would plead guilty to war crimes in exchange for a short sentence: Noor Uthman Mohammed, in his 40s, who allegedly was a weapons instructor and some-time manager of the Khaldan terror training camp along the tribal frontier border between Afghan-Pakistan.
The man known as Noor is charged with conspiracy and providing material support for terror, war crimes that could be punished by life in prison. He has been held by the U.S. military for nearly nine years.
Pakistani security forces working with the CIA captured Noor in a March 28, 2002 raid on a safe house that netted the United States its first so-called “high-value detainee” after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks -- Zayn Abdeen al Hussain, better known as Abu Zubaydah.
Little had been known about Noor, whose attorney said he traveled to Afghanistan long before 9/11 for weapons training and to deepen his faith. He is the last captive currently charged under the military commissions system that Obama decried as a senator and reformed as a president.
But there were signs at the war court Monday that the Noor plea could have more wide-ranging consequences. The prosecution team had doubled since Noor’s September hearing, and included two federal prosecutors, one from the Eastern District of Virginia, once considered a future venue for Obama-era Guantánamo prosecutions.
There are only three convicted war criminals among the 172 captives at Guantánamo on Tuesday – Qosi, confessed teen terrorist Omar Khadr, 24, due to go back to his native Canada later this year and Yemeni Ali Hamza al Bahlul, 41, serving life for working as Osama bin Laden’s media secretary and making an al Qaeda recruitment video.
Were Noor to trade a guilty plea for a short prison sentence, like Khadr and Qosi, it was equally unclear whether he would go home once his time in the convicts’ cellblock ended. In the case of Khadr, the Canadian government issued diplomatic assurances that it would take the Canadian back at the end of another year at Guantánamo, a condition of his November guilty plea.
But for Qosi and Noor there’s an added hitch: They hail from Sudan, the northeastern Africa country on the State Sponsors of Terror list. Congressional limits on Guantánamo detainee transfers forbid the Obama administration from sending even cleared captives to states on the list.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

6 Comments so far
Show All"He is currently being punished for past acts. After his sentence expires on July 7, ,2012, he will be punished for future acts he probably would have committed in the future had he been allowed to go back to preparing his terrorist recipes. He specializes in 'hate cuisine', don't you know."
There are not enough cuss words to define what this country calls justice. The word has lost allo meaning. Tony
If people still read history, if they would study Germany in the 30's and 40's, none of this would be strange. We are just repeating Nazi Germany with enhanced technology that the SS and Gestapo could only dream of. If they had what we use daily here in Homeland Security Land, we would all be speaking German and Heiling.
The misnamed, illegal and unconstitutional Patriot Act is just an expanded version of Hitler's "Enabling Acts" which removed the German People's civil and constitutional rights.
Placing a black hakenkreuz in the middle of the American Flag is getting less and less inappropriate. So sad.
Your are maxitrue on that one.
This constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment." It does make sense, however, that the planet's #1 Terrorist/Criminal state would act such.
Carol Rosenberg's story for the Miami Herald certainly does pinpoint the Kafkaesque absurdity of the Guantanamo military commission system definitions of justice and the rule of law. Serve your time and you still don't get out. Why bother to plead? Why bother to go through the Kabuki dance of charging, trying, convicting, and sentencing a prisoner if none of it matters anyway?
Beyond that, there are two things about this article I find irritating.
First, as one who practices criminal defense law daily inside the American civilian system and who had two years of familiarity with the system under the Uniform Code of Military Justice while in the service, what is this about defendant Qosi getting a 14-year sentence from his sentencing jury, unaware that the government prosecutors had promised him a 2-year sentence cap? That's more than a whole decade worth of right-hand-don't-know-what-the-left-hand-is-doing misunderstanding taking place.
Plea/sentence deals under both the UCMJ and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are highly structured, documented in detail, and are made matters of record in open court. Mistakes of ten-year magnitude do not just "happen" under a system as routinized and end result oriented as criminal plea bargaining and sentence bargaining. I find the idea that any sort of a tribunal could sentence somebody to fourteen years "unaware that a senior Pentagon official agreed to cap Qosi's prison term at two years" simply to be unworthy of belief. Did somebody double cross somebody? Didn't the prosecutor, or the defense lawyer, or the judge presiding over the military tribunal think to ask if this guy had a sentence cap agreement? How did this get straightened out? There's a whole news story hinted at here that calls out for some basic journalistic attention.
Second, what the hell is a "war court"?
This term appears twice in this article. The first time I found it jarring, possibly a typo. The second time, I found it mystifying, perhaps insulting.
Has the Miami Herald a style manual? If so, where did the term "war court" come from? How long has it been in editorial use? Are other newspapers in the United States outside Florida writing stories about war courts? Where did this terminology come from?
For most of the rest of the country (including Washington DC, where Congress has sabotaged closing Guantanamo in a shameless fit of rank partisan demagoguery), everybody talking in English talks about regular criminal court trials or military commission trials.
What the hell is a "war court"?
Bill from Saginaw