It’s the fallout of a NATO airstrike on a Pakistani border post near the border with Afghanistan on Saturday which killed at least 24 Pakistani troops. Pakistan says the attacks were unprovoked, while coalition forces say they are investigating the incident.

It has brought the already strained relations between the US and Pakistan to a new low since they became in the war against terror after 9/11.

“Those who are friends of America and NATO are traitors.”

That’s the rally cry here at this protest demonstration in Karachi organized by the officially banned Jamaat ud Dawa Islamist group.

The turnout isn’t huge, just a few hundred people waving black and white Jamaat ud Dawa flag. But it’s just one of several such protests across the country on Monday, and follows a larger rally in front of Karachi’s US consulate on Sunday.

They are seething against Saturday’s NATO airstrike on Pakistani soil. And speakers like Navid Qamar are calling on the Pakistani government to take a stronger response.

“If US or NATO helicopters event enter Pakistan then they should be shot down even if that means following them back into Afghanistan, to take revenge for your martyrs,” Qamar said.

The participants at this demonstration are all associated with Pakistan’s Islamist parties, and do not represent the bulk of society. But this specific issue of cross-border attacks does resonate across much of the political spectrum in the country.

Many Pakistanis have long been uncomfortable with their government’s alliance with the US in its War on Terror.

“Today, NATO forces are spilling the blood of oppressed Muslims in Afghanistan,” demonstration speaker Nasrullah Shaji said. “We shared air bases and our intelligence with them. Today those same NATO forces are attacking the Pakistani military.”

Many of those at this rally, this is the last straw, and are just as angered by the Pakistani government’s weak response as they are by NATO’s attacks on Pakistani soil. Abdul Rehman, a spokesperson for the Jamaat ud Dawa, says the killing of uniformed Pakistani troops makes matters even worse.

“If your borders are being breached, your soldiers are being killed then there is no reason to apologize. You just go scramble your jets and raid their posts. That is the basic thing you have to do. Temporarily settlements like asking them to apologize or closing supply lines is not the solution. So there is no point in saying we have our sovereignty. Either give them everything you have, or defend it,” Rehman said.

Others, like Asadullah Bhutto of the mainstream Islamist Jamaat-e-Islami party, want the government to take this up with the international community.

“I think it is the right of Pakistan to take this matter to the UN security council and other international forums,” Bhutto said. “Because it is a violation of international conventions. They have violated our geographical territory. Govt of Pakistan should take it seriously.”

The immediate popular anger in response to this airstrike is likely to eventually die down, as has been the case with previous incidents like this. But what is unclear is what the incremental impact of all of these incidents will be on Pakistani-US relations in the long term.

Read the Transcript
The text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Hi I am Marco Werman. This is The World. President Obama vowed to shut down the US military prison at Guantanamo. That was almost two years ago. And Mr. Obama has yet to find a way to fulfill that pledge. Today he suffered another setback. The Senate approved a bill that would ban the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the US for trial and incarceration. Now what has officials say they’re preparing an executive order that would formalize the detainees’ indefinite detention without trial while setting up a system for periodic reviews of their cases? Lieutenant Colonel David Frakt is the US air force reserve JAG corps. He’s defending Guantanamo detainee Mohammed Jawad. Frakt says the executive order might bring about an improvement for the detainees.

DAVID FRAKT: What’s important about this new review process is that at least as it has been reported the detainees will be entitled to a council to a system in the process. And that did not exist in the earlier combatant status review tribunal administrative review board process. And I think that’s a major improvement.

WERMAN: Some people have said this draft order is equivalent of a parole board for prisoners. Is that accurate for [xx]?

FRAKT: Well it does have some of those features. What we have focused on before was was this person an unlawful combatant at the time that they were captured? And that may have been in 2001-2002-2003. And it does very little look at is there a continued basis to hold them now. And so this hearing process may say well we were lawfully holding them in our opinion but is there a good reason to hold them? Perhaps they have renounced terrorism, or they have cooperated, or conditions have changed in their home country and we’re comfortable that could release them without concern of them rejoining the fight. So in that sense it does have some parole board like features.

WERMAN: So are we going to hear them what some of those good reasons are for holding these detainees?

FRAKT: I would hope that we would. This is a large question that remains regarding these 48 individuals that allegedly are too dangerous to release but cannot be tried for any crimes. And I have always wondered and asked how can that be? Is it we cannot try them because they never committed any crimes, or we can’t try them because the evidence of their crimes was obtained through torture and coercion. We really don’t know. So this will be an opportunity to put to the test the government’s claim that these people really are too dangerous to release, yet somehow cannot be tried.

WERMAN: I’m just wondering, I mean many civil liberty groups have been vocal in the criticisms of this draft executive order. Do you feel like we are heading to this kind of new space where there are two worlds where people can get charged and some people won’t get charged?

FRAKT: Well, my primary criticism of this is that it may lend of a near of legality and legitimacy to indefinite detentions that may not be well founded under international law. There clearly is a right to detain people and not to charge them that are captured in an armed conflict that are enemy combatants. But what about people who have some affiliation with some terrorist group, that are picked up outside of an active theater of war? For a lot of civil libertarians there’s concern that we’re importing a military detention model into what really should be a criminal justice process.

WERMAN: You know, president Obama pledged to change things at Guantanamo. Do you think what we’re seeing now is just a kind of a fine tuning of the same policy basically as the Bush administration?

FRAKT: Yes. I mean it is an improvement. Conditions at Guantanamo have improved for the detainees and there has been an effort to make Guantanamo comply with domestic and international law rather than simply declaring it to be a law free zone. Yet, the underline policy of holding suspected enemy terrorists forever remains the same.

WERMAN: Lieutenant colonel David Frakt defended Guantanamo detainee Mohammad Jawad. He is a professor at the Barry University School of Law in Orlando. Thanks very much.

FRAKT: You’re welcome.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Profile of Ahmed Ghailani
• Closing Guantanamo

Germany’s interior minister issued a warning today about a threat of an imminent attack by Islamic extremists. He said hundreds of additional police have been stationed at airports, railway stations and other public places as a precaution.

Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière cited a tip from foreign intelligence that came in after two mail bombs addressed to the U-S were sent from Yemen.

“According to information from a foreign partner,” he said in a statement,” there is an attack being planned for the end of November.”

Just last month, de Maiziere played down concerns over security warnings regarding possible attacks in Germany, France and Britain, saying he wasn’t aware of any concrete plans. But today, he said the situation had changed. De Maiziere called for vigilance paired with calm. He said people in Germany will be able to see extra security measures, but there will be others that aren’t apparent.

“Ladies and gentlemen, these are grounds for concern but not hysteria,” he said. “We will not allow international terrorism to constrict our way of life or liberal culture.”

Even when the threats include one of the country’s most defining traditions. German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel reported today that Germany’s popular Christmas Markets were among possible targets. The paper reported that security sources also indicated a specific date — November 22 — the opening day for these holiday markets across the country.

Philip Holtmann, a terrorism expert at the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, said such specific forecasts should be considered with care and skepticism. Still, he added that the government’s warnings are prudent.

“It’s a frightening scenario,” he said, “if people think about a suicide attacker or a big bomb blast in a Christmas market. On the other hand, for me personally, I’ll keep going to Christmas markets, and I won’t suspect a terrorist behind every Christmas tree. ”

But Germany has been on the lookout for potential threats. The country has nearly 5,000 troops in northern Afghanistan, and officials here have expressed concerns that Germany might be targeted at home.
Download MP3

Airports have been beefing up security and not only in Germany. Tell us about your experience with airport security by leaving a comment on this page.

• BBC coverage
• The terrorist threat to Europe

(Photo: Katy Clark)

“The alternative to any payments made would have been protracted and extremely expensive litigation in an uncertain legal environment.” He added that it wasn’t clear that the government would be able to defends its security and intelligence agencies without compromising national security.

British authorities, including the head of the country’s spy agency MI6, have been saying for weeks that Britain doesn’t torture or condone torture or turn a blind eye to it. So why pay the compensation? John Walker, a former head of Defense Intelligence, said the paying the settlement makes it see as if British authorities were, in fact, complicit: “Which is very strange only a month after the head of MI6 stood up in public and assured the nation that we did not partake in torture,” he added. “I think those two things are seemingly incompatible.”

As part of the settlement, the government does not admit guilt, and the former detainees do not have to drop their allegations. Still, Peter Goldsmith, who was attorney general in Tony Blair’s government, said it was the right move to pay.

“I think the most important part of this settlement is that it now clears the way for the public inquiry into these allegations of torture and complicity to torture which has already been announced,” he said. “The Government has made sure that the claims are settled so that they can now get on with the public inquiry and we can get to the bottom of these allegations.”

What remains to be seen is whether the payouts will have any impact on other Guantanamo-related litigation. Former detainee Mamdouh Habib, an Australian, is suing his government for alleged collusion in torture. His lawyer, Clive Evatt, said today’s announcement is a positive sign for his client.
“If the British government is prepared to pay out a certain amount of money to their citizens who have exactly the same identical case as Mr. Habib, then I suppose one could point to that in assessing damages in Mr. Habib’s case.” He added that it’s a psychological boost for his client to know that prisoners in a similar situation have settled for what appears to be a substantial sum of money.

Defense lawyers aren’t the only ones pleased with the British government’s settlement. Analysts say say there has also been much crowing on Jihadi websites. Download MP3

• BBC coverage
• From the archives: Katy Clark’s Guantanamo coverage on The World (2002-2009)
• Katy Clark’s Guantanamo photos (2007)

BBC documentary 'Secret Iraq'

A new BBC documentary tells the story of Iraq after the 2003 invasion. Marco Werman speaks with producer, Sam Collyns, about the part of the program focusing on Iraq’s “Awakening” movement. That’s when Sunni Arabs turned against their former al-Qaeda allies and sided with the US-led Coalition. Download MP3

• Video on the BBC documentary

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Sam Collyns is producer of Secret Iraq, a new BBC documentary on the story of Iraq after the invasion of 2003. In one fascinating section, it tells the story of the Awakening Movement in Iraq, where Sunni Arabs turned against their former al-Qaeda allies and joined forces with the Americans. Sam, first of all, remind us briefly just how important the Awakening Movement was in turning the war around.

SAM COLLYNS:  I think it’s often overlooked. The surge is the thing that people hold on to and know all about and it played an important role. The extra American troops made a big difference. But the really critical factor in my view having been out in Iraq was the fact that some of the people that had been fighting against the Americans decided to team up with them and take on al-Qaeda. And because these people were so well connected, they were able to be extraordinarily effective very quickly.

WERMAN:  And the reason the Sunnis awoke, shall we say, in part was because the US military, as you explain, had a point of not protecting the Iraqi population up until the time of the Awakening. You spoke with General Jack Keane, the vice-chair for the US Army Defense Staff for your documentary. Did he tell you why that was the policy?

COLLYNS: I think they were trying to find an exit strategy so the efforts on the part of the Americans really from the invasion onwards was to try and hand over power to the Iraqi security forces. He Iraqi army had been disbanded after the invasion so you we’re starting from scratch. And it wasn’t until late 2006 that Jack Keane, who was by then a retired general, persuaded the president that really they did need to adopt the new policy which involved not just extra troops, but those troops being deployed to do very different things on the ground, crucially to be protecting the Iraqi population which is certainly not what the Iraqis had felt they were doing up until that point.

WERMAN: And while Keane is urging for a new policy, meanwhile in Iraq the main man in the Awakening was an Iraqi Sunni named Sheikh Jabbar. He has some rather blunt comments for you about what led him to the Awakening.

COLLYNS: Sheikh Abdul-Jabbar and others like him were at the sharp end. They saw first hand what al-Qaeda was doing. I mean initially al-Qaeda, with support from Bin Laden and others overseas, initially they had joined forces with the Sunni nationalists in Iraq and they’d made one cause. But what became clear by 2006 was that when al-Qaeda declared an independent state of [SOUNDS LIKE] Anbar and started introducing their own law, it was a brutal, brutal time and Jabbar and his friends decided they would not put up with this anymore. It’s to the credit of the American soldiers that some on the ground there had the wit about them to respond appropriately. And actually one of the most, I think, intriguing sequences in our series is an exchange between the American colonel on the ground describing meeting this guy Jabbar and clearly suspicion on both sides, but in the end they came together and the two forces working together were very effective.

WERMAN: Yeah, I mean that must have been an incredibly awkward moment, that meeting, because on one hand Jabbar tells you, before we were ready to kill Americans, we were killing Americans, but now suddenly these al-Qaeda in Iraq guys are killing Iraqis.

COLLYNS: And tough on both sides. I mean tough on the American soldiers telling their men on the ground that now they were going to fight alongside people, these insurgents, who until a week or two or month or two earlier were trying to kill them. So it took a great leap of faith I think on both sides, but that was what was so effective. Having said that, it’s not the end of the story. And the people, Jabbar and his like, having given up the fight against the Americans, two or three years on are now looking around them and thinking well, have they really got out of this all that they want and if circumstances don’t improve, might they not actually go back and find where those guns are stored away and get them out again.

WERMAN: Back to when the offensive against al-Qaeda in Iraq began by the Sunnis in the Awakening, I mean the Americans offered them guns, but also hard cash. How important was the money?

COLLYNS: I asked everyone we met how important was the money imagining that it probably played a pretty crucial role, and I think without exception all the Iraqis I spoke to said that it really had not been the prime motivating factor for them. In other words, it really had been the egregious behavior of al-Qaeda and the damage it was wreaking on the local population.

WERMAN:  Now we know what happened to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and basically al-Qaeda left Iraq for all intents and purposes. How initially though did al-Qaeda respond to Sheikh Jabbar’s revolt?

COLLYNS: They saw it as the threat that it was and Jabbar himself, and others like him, paid a high price. I mean Jabbar’s own brother, thought he’d had a brother killed a year or so earlier, but when he started this movement another of his brothers was kidnapped and Jabbar went through this process, this harrowing ordeal, you can’t imagine anything much worse, where he was told that if he released other al-Qaeda prisoners that he was holding and if he desisted from fighting than his brother would be released. And Jabbar stuck to his line and said he would not bargain with al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda killed his brother. So people paid a tough old price. I asked him, I said you must regret the death of a brother. Is that a price worth paying? And he didn’t pause for a moment. He said absolutely and he’d do it again. And he felt that the threat posed by al-Qaeda to society broadly was so great, that he was prepared even to pay that sacrifice.

WERMAN: Sam, it occurs to me that the Awakening is something of an unplanned success story in Iraq and having spent a fair amount of time in Iraq looking into the evolution of the Awakening, post-US invasion, and what it did for the country, you must have some thoughts about how an Awakening might be fostered in Afghanistan right now.

COLLYNS: Well, I’m very conscious coming back from Iraq. If you hear the language people use, American soldiers, British soldiers, use, those that are in Afghanistan now, they clearly have learnt lessons. They talk about protecting the population, they talk about finding allies from within. So there’s no question those same lessons are being learned and the people applying them are people that have gone through that Iraqi experience and clearly been colored by it. So I think there’s no doubt that the influence of Iraq on Afghanistan is direct. Not to say that it’s easy or in any shape or form is improving. I mean it’s a long, long way to go still. But those same political and military battles are being fought now.

WERMAN: Sam Collyns, producer of the new BBC documentary Secret Iraq. Thank you very much.

COLLYNS: You’re welcome.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Closing Guantanamo
• Katy Clark’s Guantanamo stories

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN:  The Obama administration is still reviewing its options as to where to try key terrorism suspects, and that includes alleged 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed.  Plans to try him at a federal court in New York generated a lot of opposition, and that’s kept alive the option of military trials.  Guantanamo could be the venue.  The suspects are already there, and the legal system to try them is ready to go, as The World’s Katy Clark reports.

KATY CLARK: Former President George W. Bush signed orders back in 2006 setting up military tribunals for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo.  In doing so, Mr. Bush was adapting a long established system of military commissions to a modern threat.  Still, critics charged that the commissions were a lesser form of justice than either civilian or other military courts.  President Obama seemed to agree, and shortly after taking office he suspended the military tribunals and launched a review.  Realizing, though, that the commissions might be a necessary option, President Obama signed his own version of the Military Commissions Act last fall.  Navy Captain John Murphy is Chief Prosecutor in the Military Commissions office at the Pentagon.  One of the biggest changes under President Obama, he says, is limits on the type of evidence that can now be admitted.

JOHN MURPHY:  “There can be no torture, obviously.  That was true in the previous statute as well.  But no cruel, inhumane or degrading evidence or evidence obtained in that manner can be introduced.”

CLARK: Also any statements introduced in trial now have to be voluntary, rather than merely reliable.  And when it comes to hearsay evidence, the burden is now on the party who offers it, to prove its reliability.  Captain Murphy says defendants also have greater freedom to select their own military lawyers under the revamped Military Commissions Act or MCA.

MURPHY: “I think that the new MCA that is currently in effect is an improvement over our prior law, and I believe it represents fair justice.  We’re ready to move forward, when we’re directed by our leadership to prosecute cases under that statute.”

CLARK: But not all lawyers are as enthusiastic as Captain Murphy is to see the military commissions resume.  Law Professor Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall University has represented several Guantanamo detainees.  He says it remains unclear to him what the government means when it says no cruel, inhumane or degrading evidence or evidence obtained in that manner will be allowed.  Denbeaux wonders if that includes evidence obtained after a detainee has been deprived of sleep for several days.

MARK DENBEAUX:  “Now, I think you could argue evidence after 48 hours of being kept awake with loud noises and strobe lights isn’t reliable.  But the standard here also is – is it humane?  Are courts gonna say keeping people awake for 24 hours are inhumane?  Fourteen hours?  Eighteen hours?  The questions here can’t be solved by saying we’re not only not allowing in torture.  We’re also not allowing inhumanely obtained evidence.”

CLARK: Captain John Murphy says it’s up to the judge to determine what’s admissible, based on what Murphy describes as ‘the totality of the circumstances’.

MURPHY:  “I would also add, too, that prosecutors make their own decisions before we ever offer evidence.  And within my office, if we make a determination that a statement or other evidence is likely to be excluded under those rules, that is, that it’s cruel, inhumane, degrading or torture or not voluntarily provided, then we’re not gonna offer it.”

CLARK: Still, other legal experts interviewed for this story say that no matter what changes the Obama administration makes, the military commissions at Guantanamo are flawed beyond repair.

JOHN HUTSON:  “For me, there’s absolutely no question that the best place to try terrorists is in federal court.”

CLARK: John Hutson served as Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy from 1997 to 2000.  He’s now Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire.

HUTSON:  “Let’s say that you came here from Mars.  And you were told that we have some really, really bad guys that we want to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.  And we’ve got two judicial systems that we have to choose between.  One of them, it successfully prosecuted 200 cases since September 11^th, ’01, and most of those guys are still in prison.  It has experienced judges and prosecutors and court personnel.  And it clearly complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.  That’s one system.”

CLARK: Hutson describes the other system as having tried just three cases since 9/11.  Two of the defendants pleaded guilty and are now free.  The third didn’t participate and was found guilty in absentia.

HUTSON: “Which one would you select?  To me, that’s just a no brainer.”

CLARK: Captain John Murphy of the Military Commissions Office has heard such arguments before and shrugs them off.  He maintains there’s no better law team than his to handle terrorism cases.  Captain Murphy adds that one of the reasons why the Office of Military Commissions has only held three trials at Guantanamo so far is because proceedings have been on hold there for the past year.  The Office of Military Commissions is now preparing three more cases.  Preliminary hearings at Guantanamo are expected to resume later this month.  The next trial is set to begin in July.  For The World, this is Katy Clark.

MARCO WERMAN:  The Obama administration is still reviewing its options as to where to try key terrorism suspects, and that includes alleged 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheik Mohammed.  Plans to try him at a federal court in New York generated a lot of opposition, and that’s kept alive the option of military trials.  Guantanamo could be the venue.  The suspects are already there, and the legal system to try them is ready to go, as The World’s Katy Clark reports.

KATY CLARK: Former President George W. Bush signed orders back in 2006 setting up military tribunals for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo.  In doing so, Mr. Bush was adapting a long established system of military commissions to a modern threat.  Still, critics charged that the commissions were a lesser form of justice than either civilian or other military courts.  President Obama seemed to agree, and shortly after taking office he suspended the military tribunals and launched a review.  Realizing, though, that the commissions might be a necessary option, President Obama signed his own version of the Military Commissions Act last fall.  Navy Captain John Murphy is Chief Prosecutor in the Military Commissions office at the Pentagon.  One of the biggest changes under President Obama, he says, is limits on the type of evidence that can now be admitted.

JOHN MURPHY:  “There can be no torture, obviously.  That was true in the previous statute as well.  But no cruel, inhumane or degrading evidence or evidence obtained in that manner can be introduced.”

CLARK: Also any statements introduced in trial now have to be voluntary, rather than merely reliable.  And when it comes to hearsay evidence, the burden is now on the party who offers it, to prove its reliability.  Captain Murphy says defendants also have greater freedom to select their own military lawyers under the revamped Military Commissions Act or MCA.

MURPHY: “I think that the new MCA that is currently in effect is an improvement over our prior law, and I believe it represents fair justice.  We’re ready to move forward, when we’re directed by our leadership to prosecute cases under that statute.”

CLARK: But not all lawyers are as enthusiastic as Captain Murphy is to see the military commissions resume.  Law Professor Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall University has represented several Guantanamo detainees.  He says it remains unclear to him what the government means when it says no cruel, inhumane or degrading evidence or evidence obtained in that manner will be allowed.  Denbeaux wonders if that includes evidence obtained after a detainee has been deprived of sleep for several days.

MARK DENBEAUX:  “Now, I think you could argue evidence after 48 hours of being kept awake with loud noises and strobe lights isn’t reliable.  But the standard here also is – is it humane?  Are courts gonna say keeping people awake for 24 hours are inhumane?  Fourteen hours?  Eighteen hours?  The questions here can’t be solved by saying we’re not only not allowing in torture.  We’re also not allowing inhumanely obtained evidence.”

CLARK: Captain John Murphy says it’s up to the judge to determine what’s admissible, based on what Murphy describes as ‘the totality of the circumstances’.

MURPHY:  “I would also add, too, that prosecutors make their own decisions before we ever offer evidence.  And within my office, if we make a determination that a statement or other evidence is likely to be excluded under those rules, that is, that it’s cruel, inhumane, degrading or torture or not voluntarily provided, then we’re not gonna offer it.”

CLARK: Still, other legal experts interviewed for this story say that no matter what changes the Obama administration makes, the military commissions at Guantanamo are flawed beyond repair.

JOHN HUTSON:  “For me, there’s absolutely no question that the best place to try terrorists is in federal court.”

CLARK: John Hutson served as Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy from 1997 to 2000.  He’s now Dean of Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, New Hampshire.

HUTSON:  “Let’s say that you came here from Mars.  And you were told that we have some really, really bad guys that we want to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law.  And we’ve got two judicial systems that we have to choose between.  One of them, it successfully prosecuted 200 cases since September 11^th, ’01, and most of those guys are still in prison.  It has experienced judges and prosecutors and court personnel.  And it clearly complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.  That’s one system.”

CLARK: Hutson describes the other system as having tried just three cases since 9/11.  Two of the defendants pleaded guilty and are now free.  The third didn’t participate and was found guilty in absentia.

HUTSON: “Which one would you select?  To me, that’s just a no brainer.”

CLARK: Captain John Murphy of the Military Commissions Office has heard such arguments before and shrugs them off.  He maintains there’s no better law team than his to handle terrorism cases.  Captain Murphy adds that one of the reasons why the Office of Military Commissions has only held three trials at Guantanamo so far is because proceedings have been on hold there for the past year.  The Office of Military Commissions is now preparing three more cases.  Preliminary hearings at Guantanamo are expected to resume later this month.  The next trial is set to begin in July.  For The World, this is Katy Clark.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Katy’s update from Guantanamo (Jan 6)
• Katy’s previous Guantanamo coverage on The World
• FAQ on closing Guantanamo

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

JEB SHARP: I’m Jeb Sharp and this is The World. When Barack Obama became president he promised to shut down the US prison at Guantanamo Bay within one year. He’s going to miss the deadline. In fact the closure of Guantanamo has become even more difficult since Christmas day. That’s when a man who studied in Yemen allegedly attempted to blow up a US airliner. The White House then suspended the repatriation of Yemeni prisoners from Guantanamo. Those Yemenis account for about half the prison’s population. In a moment we’ll speak with a top Yemeni diplomat about the terror threat from his country. But first we turn to the world’s Katy Clark for an update on Guantanamo. She’s just returned from her third trip to the facility since August 2002. So Katy I guess the question is what’s new there?

KATY CLARK: Well you get the sense that it’s no longer this high risk interrogation operation but more of a babysitting operation right now.

SHARP: How so?

CLARK: Well I mean maybe that’s exaggerating things a little bit but one of the starkest examples of that was in our tour of Camp 5 which is one of the maximum security prisons that have been built there over time. One of the cell blocks that they walk us down on our tour used to have an interrogation room in the first room of that cell block and now it’s a TV lounge with a refrigerator and detainees goes in there one at a time. And although they still have a shackle around one of their legs they can watch movies and get drinks out of the fridge and sit on this cushy couch. I mean it was weird to see that.

SHARP: Any other sort of really striking changes or developments?

CLARK: Well they take art classes now. They take language classes now. And that sort of underscores the sense that it’s not such a dangerous place anymore. The people being held there maybe are not so dangerous as they used to be. And one of the things that does seem to be different down there as well as the effort that is being made to have the guards and the detainees get along a little better than they have in the past. One of the individuals that I met down there is a fellow, a US military contractor, who was introduced simply as Zack – we didn’t get his real name or his full name.

SHARP: You mean it was withheld.

CLARK: Yeah the name was withheld for security reasons. And he is a Muslim-American who is employed as a cultural advisor at Guantanamo. He’s been there since September 2006. He’s only recently started talking to reporters. And his job he says is to work to teach and educate everybody who interacts with detainees about the detainees’ culture and religion. And it was really interesting the way he described his job. I want to play a bit of an interview that I did with him there. And it starts with how he says he helps newly arrived guards.

ZACK: I show them you know. They pray five times a day. This is how it’s performed you know so if you’re knocking on the cell door and you see the person doing all the movements you know that’s done do not knock the door. Wait until that one person is done praying because you know he’s not going to answer you. All these little things you know I was able to teach you know and you know we have new people all the time here you know so I’m always continuing to teach everyone who works on the blocks about all these things.

CLARK: How do they detainees here view what you do? It seems as if they might look at you as the enemy.

ZACK: It’s not an easy job. It’s a difficult job because some they call me you know traitor, some they call me enemy of guard you know. Some you know because I was able to learn you know which group of detainees want to talk to me. Which one want to sit down man to man and do business you know.

CLARK: You talk about some of the games that were played early on. For instance … .

ZACK: Some of the games that were played you know it’s happened to me you know when I first came here you know. One detainee says a guard stepped on the Koran and urinated on it. I said okay.

CLARK: A story that was reported.

ZACK: A story that was reported. And he said come on down and see it with your own eyes. So I go down there you know. And I say to the detainee where is it? And my eye contact with the detainee says where is the footprint? The boot prints? You know boot prints are not easy to remove you know because once they go it’s not the [INDISCERNIBLE]. I dusted it off. I said okay then where is the urine. Smell it. I’m smelling you know. I’m not smelling it. But I’m not arguing also because my job is to listen and take in whatever I’m hearing and not argue. And I was saying where is the urine. He said look at it. So here is the book. Here’s the edge of the book. And it was exactly half a circle. You give me one human being that can urinate that uniformly. See you’re laughing. I did not laugh for the detainee or nothing. I said here is another copy but I went to another detainee who was more religious leader you know and I said guys this is what this person did so quit it.

CLARK: What kind of response did you get? I mean where they like kids who were caught in a lie?

ZACK: Yes, yes, yes. You know it’s something you know nobody’s going to admit you know. I mean another … . I mean just their ideology and their thinking you know just makes them believe you know. Like another example they’ll say as well it says in the Koran kill Americans. I looked at the kid – not kid you know just a guy – anybody younger than me is kid you know. You know and I said you know, okay no problem and just [INDISCERNIBLE] to somebody else, I said, can you show me where it says that? Maybe you know all these years I have not been able to find it you know. No he means this and he means that. So there’s always that game and manipulation and using religion as a weapon.

CLARK: That’s Zack, the US Defense Department’s cultural advisor down at Guantanamo Bay.

SHARP: He sounds like an interesting character. What was his background before he went to Guantanamo?

CLARK: He is Muslim-American. He said he’s of Jordanian descent and he had worked for the US military in Iraq back in 2003 as an interpreter and he sees this as just a continuation of this work. And it was interesting because I asked him if he had any concerns at some point in the job that he has had interacting very closely with the detainees, if he fears for his safety at some point when these men are released from Guantanamo if they might seek him out, which has been a common fear of the guards there. Some would describe it as a paranoia even. And he said if it happens it happens. I can’t really do anything about it. But I’m not going to let them kill me easily.

SHARP: Katy thank you.

CLARK: You’re welcome.

SHARP: The World’s Katy Clark just back from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Katy’s previous Guantanamo coverage on The World
• FAQ on closing Guantanamo

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: The would-be bomber on the Christmas Day flight from Amsterdam to Detroit reportedly got his explosives and training in Yemen. That’s focused a lot of attention on the country. Yesterday the Obama Administration announced it’s suspending the repatriation of several detainees from Yemen currently held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. The reason given is the deteriorating security situation in their home country.  The World’s Katy Clark is in Guantanamo.  Katy, just how many detainees will be affected by this decision?

KATY CLARK: Well, it’s tough to say. I mean, they won’t go into details about specifics. I was under the impression that fewer than 200 detainees are being held here. A good half of those were to be released to Yemen. Now, I’ve heard various numbers that maybe it was 75, maybe it was as many of 91, but they are in a holding pattern right now. So that’s a good size of the population still being held here.

WERMAN: Have you had a chance to speak with any of the detainees?

CLARK: No, that’s never an option here. They are kept very much for their own privacy reasons away from reporters whenever reporters come here.  So basically what I know about what’s going on with them is what I am told from the guards, from the people in charge of the mission here. And we’ve asked whether or not the current situation has people frustrated. People were getting ready to get on an airplane to go home or to go to Yemen anyway, or to go to somewhere else, and that that’s all been put on hold. But the guards say right now that they haven’t seen any overt frustration on the part of the detainees. Maybe it’s just, you know, that they’ve been waiting and waiting and waiting and this is just waiting some more.

WERMAN: How do the detainees know what’s going on? Do they have access to newspapers or radio?

CLARK: They do and that’s actually one of the changes that I’ve been seeing since my previous trips here. They have access to three newspapers in different languages. They have access to satellite television. Some of the detainees could watch television 20 hours a day if they wanted to so they could be following the news. They also get news bulletins posted in their recreation areas, but it seems to be that the newspapers and the satellite TVs, they’re really keeping them plugged in.

WERMAN: If they are in this limbo state for right now, is there any sense of what will happen to these detainees instead of repatriation to Yemen?

CLARK: No, nobody seems to know and every time you ask that question here, people say, “Our job is just to make sure things run smoothly here. Any of those types of decisions are happening in Washington and we’re just waiting word on that.”

WERMAN: The World’s Katy Clark speaking with us from the U.S. Detention Facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Thank you very much, Katy.

CLARK: My pleasure, Marco.

WERMAN: By the way, when Katy Clark says prisoners are not allowed to give interviews for privacy reasons, this is in fact in accordance with the policies of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Geneva Conventions prohibit prisoners of war being paraded or subject to public humiliation. There’s no outright ban on media interviews, but according to the ICRC, it’s better to discourage interviews since it’s impossible to tell if a prisoner is being forced to say things.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Sudarsan Raghavan’s article in the Washington Post

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: I’m Marco Werman and this is The World, a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI, and WGBH/Boston. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was indicted today on six counts for trying to blow up an American airliner.  Abdulmutallab failed in his attempt as the plane was about to land in Detroit on Christmas Day. The incident has focused new U.S. attention on Yemen.  That’s where the would-be bomber says he got his explosives and training.  But Yemen was already in the sights of American counter-terrorism officials. The country to the south of Saudi Arabia is considered a hotbed of radical Islamic militant activity.  And a number of former associates of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden currently live in Yemen.  Washington Post correspondent Sudarsan Raghavan is in the capital Sanaa.  He recently met a man in Yemen who used to be Bin Laden’s personal bodyguard.  Raghavan explains how that man entered Al-Qaeda’s inner circle.

SUDARSAN RAGHAVAN: He was born in Saudi Arabia to Yemeni parents and he essentially got radicalized in Saudi Arabia, and he was also very much influenced by the Palestinian struggles against Israel in the 1980s and early ’90s. And that convinced him that he should go to Bosnia first to fight Jihad there. And then he went to Somalia, then Tajikistan, and he finally went and lived in Afghanistan where in ’96 he met Osama Bin Laden.

WERMAN: What exactly was his role in Al-Qaeda?  I mean, aside from being Osama Bin Laden’s personal bodyguard for some time, what else was he doing?

RAGHAVAN: Well, he did fight a bit. You know, he was fighting with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance.  The Afghan rebels who were trying to overthrow the Taliban. He also ran sort of a public relations thing for Al-Qaeda. He ran this kind of guest house where new recruits would come and he would get the recruits. He had a bit larger role than just being a bodyguard, and what people told me his main role was to basically protect Bin Laden. Bin Laden really trusted him.

WERMAN: And what is Al-Bahri [PH] doing now?

RAGHAVAN: He’s sort of a business consultant. He works, you know, for small businesses. That’s basically it, and he does do a little bit of this sort of trying to influence the young Yeminese into perhaps not entering Jihad. But his main focus, you know, he’s like every other Yemeni. He’s basically, you know, from what I understand he just finally, he got a living.

WERMAN: You describe a situation where Al-Bahri was shot in the leg and then nursed back to health by Osama Bin Laden himself. Does he still have any current connection with Al-Qaeda or Bin Laden?

RAGHAVAN: Well, he says he doesn’t and I do believe him. He was in Yemen when the U.S.S. Cole was attacked killing 17 American sailors back in 2000. And he said he was just there on a visit, but he ended up being picked up by the Yemeni Intelligence and put in jail because of his connections. And there, FBI agents actually interrogated him after the September 11th attacks. And according to the FBI agents, he divulged a great amount of information about Osama Bin Laden, about Al-Qaeda’s leadership and structure. So now he sees himself basically as possibly his own life might be at risk from Al-Qaeda. So he does say that he has no contacts with Osama Bin Laden or with Al-Qaeda, and from people I’ve spoken to who know him it seems pretty true.

WERMAN: It’s interesting that post-9/11 FBI interrogation because you met with Al-Bahri just a day or two before the Christmas Day attempted bombing of that airliner going from Amsterdam to Detroit. I’m just wondering what you think Nasser Al-Bahri’s story can tell us about the Nigerian man who allegedly tried to pull off that bombing?

RAGHAVAN: Well, I think what it does show is why Yemen is an attractive place for the young impressionable would-be Jihadists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. There are thousands of men like Al-Bahri, who fought in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and they returned to Yemen. They’re not fighting any more, but they have sympathies to Al-Qaeda still.  In such a climate it’s very easy for someone like Abdulmutallab to meet the right people, to meet the right contacts who can then put in with Al-Qaeda militants who are planning an operation against the United States.

WERMAN: And Sudarsan, I mean you’re there in the capital Sanaa. I’d just be curious to know what your impressions are of this place that’s under such a klieg light at the moment.

RAGHAVAN: Right. Sanaa is actually, you know, I found it quite safe. I’ve been able to move around quite a bit. The Yemenis have been very friendly here. It is a place that is under heavy security, but it was like that even before the Christmas Day attempted bombing.  There’s been, you know, just last year the U.S. Embassy here was attacked with a car bomb and the armed gunmen. So it’s a very deceptive city. From first glance it looks very normal. It’s a bustling Arab city and lots of taxis, honking horns, but when you step back a bit, you realize how dangerous the city could be. How if you happen to be somewhere at the wrong place at the wrong time, something can blow up, somebody can get kidnapped. I mean, there’s been plenty of examples of such incidences in the past few years.

WERMAN:  Sudarsan Raghavan is Middle East correspondent for the Washington Post. He spoke with us from Sanaa, Yemen. Thank you very much for your time, Sudarsan.

RAGHAVAN: My pleasure.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• On The World: Renditions to continue under Obama (Aug 25)

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Hi, I’m Marco Werman, this is the World. During the Bush Administration, the CIA operated secret prisons to hold suspected terrorists. Today, Lithuania said its intelligence service helped the CIA operate at least two of those prisons.  These so called black sites in Lithuania might have been used to hold Al Qaeda suspects, but a Lithuanian investigation found no evidence the country’s leaders knew what was going on there. Still, the controversy is making big waves in Lithuania, and as the world’s Matthew Bell reports, those waves could eventually be felt in Washington.

MATTHEW BELL: The investigation carried out by a parliamentary commission in Lithuania might have been sparked by ABC News. Back in August, it ran a story that said one of the secret sites used by the CIA for holding high value Al Qaeda suspects was outside the capital, Vilnius. Today, the head of the Lithuanian investigation said there were two sites used by the CIA between 2002 and 2005, and that Lithuanian intelligence knew about them and helped the CIA operate them.

MAN: LITHUANIAN]

BELL: Arvydas Anusauskas said that the facilities were there. The chance to avoid immigration checks for prisoners, they were there. And flights connected to the CIA, they were there, too. But he went on to say that political leaders were not briefed about this in any meaningful way. That’s important, because the big question in Lithuania is whether officials there broke the law by complying with practices associated with CIA black sites such as water boarding. Lithuanian investigators today said they found no evidence of human rights violations at these sites, and they went even further. They said they found no evidence that the facilities were ever used to hold any CIA detainees. But if Lithuanian officials were in the dark about what went on at those black sites, international law expert Scott Horton says it’s because they wanted to be.

SCOTT HORTON: That’s called deniability in a case like this. Certainly the report itself says that this is coordinated with the Lithuanian intelligence services, and certainly they would have briefed up the chain. But did the Lithuanian authorities know exactly who was being held there and what was being done to them? I think we could probably assume they didn’t want to know those things. But they could easily have found them out if they wanted to.

BELL: This controversy might have claimed one high level political casualty already. The head of Lithuanian’s intelligence agency resigned last week. Horton says there could be more to come.

HORTON: The fact that the CIA used torture is presenting a real complication for especially intelligence services in Europe and their collaboration. And we’ve already seen a number of senior Italian intelligence officers indicted and put on trial because of their collaboration with the CIA. We may see this in a number of other countries. Major criminal investigation going on right now in Spain; another in Germany; another one in the UK. And it shows really how dangerous this technique is from the perspective of our allies.

BELL: For the most part, Horton says CIA officials back in Langley, Virginia, are safe from any criminal charges that might be brought in Europe. Their European counterparts are not. And that’s a potential headache for the Obama administration as it seeks to increase cooperation on counterterrorism. For The World, I’m Matthew Bell.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• BBC coverage
• Central Intelligence Agency

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Twenty-three Americans were sentenced to prison today in Italy. All but one of them work for the CIA and all were convicted of kidnapping. The case involves the abduction of an Egyptian-born Muslim cleric who was snatched off a street in Milan in 2003 and flown to Egypt for interrogation. The cleric says he was tortured there. Though the Americans received prison terms they’re not likely to do any time. John Radsan served as a CIA’s assistant general counsel from 2002 to 2004. He now teaches at the William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul. Now the case relates to the seizure and then extraordinary rendition of a Muslim cleric. Tell us who this man was – this cleric – and where is he now?

JOHN RADSAN: Based on the public record we believe that he was recruiting people to go and fight in Iraq against American forces. That he was a radical preacher in Milan. He’s of Egyptian origin. And he was stirring up people to fight against Americans and against western interests around the world. He’s not in prison right now. At the end of his rendition he was released and as I understand he’s in Egypt at this time.

WERMAN: And when he was extraordinarily rendered how actively do you think the US government actually participated in that?

RADSAN: From the public record it seems clear that the US was involved in his snatch in Italy. I don’t think there’s much doubt about that. And that he was transferred. One of the questions was whether the Italian government knew about this. Was this a unilateral operation or was it a bilateral operation in Italy. I think it stands to reason that the CIA would not do something that is completely unilateral in Italy. That would make it very dangerous for the CIA officers. It would complicate the intelligence relationship between the CIA and the various Italian services. It would be bad at a political level. Of course if the CIA notifies its counterparts in Italy, they’re taking it on some sort of faith that the Italian authorities will in turn notify the political leaders in Italy. And it’s one of the questions we had in the trial and we still don’t know the level of Italian involvement and we don’t know the level of American involvement. But I don’t think any of these defendants has said that this did not take place – that the abduction did not take place. The defendants say that this was an authorized operation by the United States government.

WERMAN: And at the time what was the legal opinion relating to these kinds of operations in 2003? You were assistant general counsel for the CIA at the time.

RADSAN: I was assistant general counsel. I didn’t advice on this program. But I can speculate what the advice was. We comply with American law. We have to make sure that we comply with the American constitution, with the various statutes that apply to the CIA. When we do espionage in covert action we accept, as an unfortunate consequence, that in many situations we’re going to be violating international law and we may in many situations be violating the laws of other countries.

WERMAN: And for these 23 individual Americans who were sentenced today, are they going to have to be careful where they travel now? I mean would they want to avoid going on vacation in Italy for example?

RADSAN: That’s for sure. They’re not going to be going to Italy. They’ll also have to be careful about other countries that they go to. They’ll probably get legal advice. If they don’t they should to figure out what sort of extradition arrangements may exist between France and Italy, Singapore and Italy. I suspect that most of these people will be limiting their travel to within the United States. They’re not going to take the risk. We have examples of other people that have fallen in the international target. Henry Kissinger was careful about his travel because of various allegations. So these defendants will be in a similar category.

WERMAN: So what next? Will the US try to appeal this in any way?

RADSAN: I think the lawyers that are representing these people, they will appeal. At the end even if these convictions stand I don’t think we’re going to have American officers serving sentences there. In that sense the sentences are symbolic. I think it’s possible the Italians will ask for the extradition but I think it’s next to impossible that the Americans will extradite CIA officers – these are people that were serving their country – back to Italy to serve prison sentences. There’s an irony in this case. And that is that the prosecutor, Armando Spataro, was one of our important colleagues in counterterrorism and continues to be. He might have been coordinating with other parts of the American government beyond the CIA but he is the one that has been leading the charge and getting over these hurdles to bring this case. So in that sense it’s one part of the counterterrorism community indicting and convicting another part of the international counterterrorism community.

WERMAN: That’s interesting. I mean briefly, if these sentences are symbolic as you say, what do you think is the one-line message from them?

RADSAN: The CIA got in trouble for arguably violating Italian law and the CIA lives in a murky world of having to violate the laws of other countries to do espionage and conduct covert action.

WERMAN: Well John Radsan, former assistant general counsel for the CIA. Thanks very much.

RADSAN: Thank you.

WERMAN: And the State Department said today it’s disappointed by the Italian court’s decision.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Download MP3
The former president of Pakistan was America’s ally in fighting Muslim extremism. Many in Washington said he did too little. Many Pakistanis said he bowed to western pressure. Now, as Pakistani troops battle militants along the Afghan border, he talks with Marco Werman about the delicate balance of leading Pakistan. (Photo: Catherine Murphy)

Web extra: Marco asked Musharraf about his stay in the US:
Download MP3

• Musharraf profile
• Musharraf’s facebook page

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Afghanistan’s neighbor, Pakistan, is in the middle of a major military offensive against the Taliban. The Pakistani army is trying to take control of the militant stronghold of South Waziristan along the Afghan border. Army officials say 16 soldiers have died so far while more than 100 militants have been killed. Pakistan’s former president, General Pervez Musharraf is visiting the US right now and came to our studio. I asked him if the offensive in South Waziristan is the solution to Pakistan’s problems with the Taliban.

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF: It’s not the solution but it’s one part of the solution. I’ve always said that solution lies in a triple directional strategy – military, political, and socio-economic. So the military part is being executed well after having dealt with Swat and [INDISCERNIBLE] they’ve now gone to South Waziristan. So I think it’s good – the using of concentrated force in a peace [INDISCERNIBLE] objective.

WERMAN: And do you think the operation Swat was effective?

MUSHARRAF: Yes I think it was successful.

WERMAN: But recently there were 40 killed in a suicide attack and so it raises the issue, it’s one thing to take a region; it’s another thing to hold it.

MUSHARRAF: Well even if you hold it that doesn’t mean that you can guarantee that no suicide attack will take place. I know that the law enforcement agency, the army’s opening a [INDISCERNIBLE] there. It will be there. So it will be held. But that doesn’t mean that no bullet will be fired by any terrorist. Because if a person is there to carry out a suicide attack it’s really very difficult to avoid it.

WERMAN: There’s been a slow steady drumbeat of Afghan officials along with NATO accusing Pakistan of not doing enough to stem the movement of militants sympathetic to al-Qaeda and the Taliban across the border into Afghanistan. Why has this offensive in South Waziristan taken so long and why didn’t you engage in an equally forceful offensive in the same area?

MUSHARRAF: It was I who moved the two divisions in North and South Waziristan back and I think immediately up to [INDISCERNIBLE]. Who has been catching all these al-Qaeda people? Who did that? It was in my time. Hundreds of them have been caught. So how do you say that we hadn’t operated? They are there since long and they have been operating there.

WERMAN: So why, again, why the need for another offensive? Why this upsurge in violence?

MUSHARRAF: Yeah it’s because all these eight years there has been an upsurge of Taliban activity. A Taliban who were finished after 9/11. They had an upsurge in Afghanistan. [PH] Mula Omar and all his [INDISCERNIBLE] are reestablished in Afghanistan in the same region from where they dominated or they controlled 90 percent of Afghanistan. So after 2004 – 05 there was an upsurge. We saw the downward trend in al-Qaeda because of Pakistan’s actions and an upward trend, swing, in the Taliban support. And therefore now the situation is al-Qaeda is down. Who did this? Obviously Pakistan forces operating in Pakistan, in [INDISCERNIBLE] and mountains. But the Taliban upsurge has come about in Afghanistan and that has a great impact in Pakistan because there are now Pakistani Taliban in South and North Waziristan much stronger links with across the border and they are acting. So this is now a different ballgame all together.

WERMAN: Now as a former military leader – I mean you were a military leader who came to power in a coup. You stepped down as head of the army in 2007. You recognized at the time the merit of a civilian government in Pakistan. Now in Afghanistan yesterday a runoff election was announced to take place on November 7^th. What is at stake for Pakistan with this vote in Afghanistan?

MUSHARRAF: Well I don’t think it directly affects Pakistan.

WERMAN: You don’t?

MUSHARRAF: It does affect Afghanistan.

WERMAN: But what affects Afghanistan, affects Pakistan ultimately.

MUSHARRAF: Well yes indirectly, indirectly. I think one would require if we are to win in Afghanistan we have to have a credible, legitimate government in Afghanistan. And that is not the case. But Pakistan’s interest is in a legitimate, acceptable government to all the ethnic minorities of Afghanistan for the sake of Afghanistan because if we can have better peace in Afghanistan it will be of advantage to Pakistan certainly.

WERMAN: You’ve been quite critical of President Hamid Karzai. What happens, in your opinion, to the region if he is president again? If he wins this runoff election.

MUSHARRAF: Well I think I’ve been critical, yes, because of certain observations that I had in his criticizing Pakistan, in his supporting elements who are instrumental in carrying out terrorism in Baltistan. So there are certain things that I disagree with him. These were my observations and my accusations against him. So I used to criticize him on that. The other thing is that he used to throw the entire blame on Pakistan – that whatever is happening in Afghanistan is because of Pakistan. And I think the world must understand that this is absolutely the opposite. Whatever is happening in Pakistan is because of Afghanistan. The same [INDISCERNIBLE], the same Taliban, resurgence of that force in Afghanistan.

WERMAN: But in fact it’s very hard to say where these militants are coming from. They could be coming form Pakistan as well as Afghansitan. So both countries are in fact … .

MUSHARRAF: No they are coming … . No actually there’s no doubt at all. Absolutely. I have no doubt at all. Taliban under [INDISCERNIBLE] control 90% of Afghanistan. There is support to them in Pakistan. There are safe havens in Pakistan. And there are Taliban elements of Pakistan also. But if anyone thinks that they are all coming from Pakistan this is what the misperception that exists in Untied States and this misperception is fanned by people like President Karzai unfortunately. And this is misleading the world.

WERMAN: Pervez Musharraf, former president of Pakistan. Thank you very much for your time.

MUSHARRAF: Thank you.

WERMAN: Hear more about Pervez Musharraf’s current US visit and about his plans for a return to Pakistan at our website. You’ll also find a link to the former Pakistani leader’s newly launched Facebook page. It’s all at The World dot org.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

• Law professor Mark Denbeaux on archiving Guantanamo cases
• Katy Clark’s Guantanamo coverage (2002-2009)

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

MARCO WERMAN: Guantanamo’s detainee population is now down to 223. In the past few years, several hundred men have already been released.  A few more have been cleared for release, and are expected to be sent overseas soon for resettlement.  For some former detainees, life after Guantanamo is a huge challenge.  The World’s Katy Clark reports.

KATY CLARK: It was quite a sight.  Four former detainees frolicking in the Atlantic Ocean off the Coast of Bermuda this past summer.  It gave the impression that life post-detention might be pretty sweet, but that’s not necessarily the norm.  Take the case of Sami Al-Haj, who was on assignment as a cameraman with Al-Jazeera when he was captured in Pakistan in late 2001.  He was held for more than six years as an enemy combatant at Guantanamo.  During his detention he says he was beaten and sexually assaulted.  Then May 2008, Al-Haj was released and returned to his native Sudan.  He was never charged with a crime.  Yet Al-Haj told Iranian-based Press T.V. that more than a year after his release he remains “A misfit” at home.

AL-HAJ: Still, my son doesn’t deal with me as a normal father, and even my wife and our close family like sister, brother, and even our friend is keeping away from me because they doesn’t want to want to put themselves in trouble and I lost many friends.

CLARK: What Al-Haj is experiencing is part of what Eric Stover calls the Guantanamo Stigma, something that haunts some of the more than 500 freed detainees.   Stover is a Professor at the University of California at Berkeley.  He spent last year interviewing 62 men once held at Guantanamo.  He says many of them said they were ostracized by their own families and communities after their release.

ERIC STOVER: We heard of cases in many countries where former detainees were trying to find work but unable to do so.  You know, they were away, and a three or four years hole in resume, and if they said they were in US custody, they often didn’t get the jobs they were seeking.  We found that in fact six of the 62 former detainees only six had actually found meaningful employment.

CLARK: Without jobs and the proper support networks, Stover says there’s little to stop these men from turning or in some cases returning to Jihad against the United States.  Joshua Colangelo-Bryan is a New York based attorney who represented six detainees.   All of them are now free.  He would like to see the United States and other governments do more to keep these guys on track.

JOSHUA COLANGELO-BRYAN: It certainly is in the interest of all reasonable people to have the Guantanamo detainees who were released integrate themselves back into their societies.  Where home countries have the capacity to provide support, be it psychological or material, they certainly should.

CLARK: The State Department has the job of facilitating transfers of released detainees to their home countries or to third countries, but it won’t say whether it does any more than that to help these men readjust.  Often the mental wounds former Guantanamo detainees carry with them re-open after their release.  Berkeley’s Eric Stover says one man now living in the Middle East whom he tried to interview, went into hiding during the week they were scheduled to talk.  Stover describes him as “the worst case scenario” of any of the former detainees he met.

STOVER: The family said that he had left the house without shoes and that this was happening quite often.  He just was completely disoriented and was in clear need of psychiatric care.

MOAZZEM BEGG:  Where is the welfare for the people who have been tortured? Where is the support system for people who have endured cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment?

CLARK: This is Moazzem Begg speaking at the launch of the Guantanamo Justice Center in London.  Begg and other former detainees created the center to help men like themselves who’ve been left traumatized by their experiences at Guantanamo. It’s not the kind of organization that will win plaudits in Washington, but its goals may just coincide with Washington’s so long as those goals focus on former detainees moving past their time in captivity and living peaceful lives.   For The World this is Katy Clark.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.

Human rights advocates in EUROPE are calling for countries there to look into their own role in CIA prisoner abuse. Several countries are accused of abetting CIA prisoner programs during the Bush administration. The World’s Gerry Hadden has the story.

Read the Transcript
This text below is a phonetic transcript of a radio story broadcast by PRI’s THE WORLD. It has been created on deadline by a contractor for PRI. The transcript is included here to facilitate internet searches for audio content. Please report any transcribing errors to theworld@pri.org. This transcript may not be in its final form, and it may be updated. Please be aware that the authoritative record of material distributed by PRI’s THE WORLD is the program audio.

JEB SHARP: Human rights advocates in Europe are pressing for some action. They’re hoping the Obama Administration’s investigations into alleged CIA prisoner abuses will move Europe to do some self-examination of its own. Several countries are accused of abetting CIA prisoner programs during the Bush Administration. But so far no one’s been held accountable. The World’s Gerry Hadden reports.

GERRY HADDEN: Europe has been through all of this before. In 2007 Dick Marty, a Swiss member of the Council of Europe, led an investigation into Europe’s role in America’s fight against terrorism. His findings? Several EU states let the US use their airports to move terrorism suspects around the globe. Some helped the CIA abduct targets. And some countries likely hosted secret CIA prisons. But most European governments simply ignored Marty’s report. The question is whether that will change now that the Obama Administration has released an internal CIA report on the agency’s interrogations and with the Justice Department investigating. There’s been some movement in Europe this week. Lithuania says it will investigate reports that it, like Poland and Romania, may have hosted a secret prison during the Bush era. Guilietto Chiesa is a member of the European Parliament from Italy. He says Europe can no longer remain quiet.

GUILIETTO CHIESA: The question now is to have the list of the people who have been detained in Lithuania. And probably there there have been torture, illegal interrogation, and very serious violation of human rights there. That means there are political and penal responsibilities.

HADDEN: Lithuanian denies it hosted a CIA prison and says it’s only investigating to clear its name. Gabriele Betchkaypeeteh is an editor at the Lithuanian daily paper Lietuvos Rytas. She says there’s no way her country could have hosted such a prison without word getting out.

GABRIELE BETCHKAYPEETEH: Technically it’s very difficult to have that prison in a country which has 3.5 million people and the place mentioned of the possible prison is quite small and we believe that local residents probably would have noticed any secret activities.

HADDEN: Romania also denies it hosted a prison. Same with Poland. Although that country says it’s investigating. Reed Brody, with Human Rights Watch in Brussels, says he was hoping that the CIA’s internal report on prisoner abuse would shed some light on this but he says it hasn’t.

REED BRODY: There were 23 pages of information in the CIA report on detention sites that were completely redacted. And obviously the CIA or whoever was involved here was afraid that if information about those sites were disclosed it could lead to further criminal investigations and prosecutions.

HADDEN: There’s also new pressure this week on some European governments to come clean on secret rendition flights. Amnesty International in Ireland says Shannon International Airport was used to move suspects. It’s calling for the Irish government to look into it. Reed Brody says if Europe doesn’t own up to its own role in the US-led war on terrorism it will lose credibility. And worse, quipped someone at the council of Europe today, Europe this person said has been criticizing the States for years on this but not only did Europe aid the effort it may now fall behind the US in investigating it. For The World I’m Gerry Hadden.

Copyright ©2009 PRI’s THE WORLD. All rights reserved. No quotes from the materials contained herein may be used in any media without attribution to PRI’s THE WORLD. This transcript may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission. For further information, please email The World’s Permissions Coordinator at theworld@pri.org.