Representing Detainees at Guantanamo Bay (Part 1 of 2)

Jeff Colman represented four men at Guantanamo Bay.  In this, the first part of a two part interview, Jeff details his experience at Guantanamo and shares his perspective on the situation.

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

This is my second interview with a lawyer working at Guantanamo, the first was with Candace Gorman, and you will hear Jeff reference that conversation here.

Because of the seriousness of the subject matter covered here this interview is only lightly edited and the conversation is presented almost in its entirety.  The second part of this interview will be available October 27th, one day after the release of the first part.

About Casey


2 Responses to “Representing Detainees at Guantanamo Bay (Part 1 of 2)”
  1. CharlesHo says:

    I don’t really understand why Mr. Colman has to start off with fanciful conjecture such as “and we don’t even know how many other prisoners they have there that aren’t recorded” when he has no actual data to support anything like this. If what’s going on there is truly so bad, why leap, at the very beginning, to make-believe? Also, he goes on to display his contempt for folks like the military commanders at Guantanamo, folks who later even conclude his clients should not be there and should be released. So, the Bush administration has released 3/4 of the people that were there after concluding that they weren’t, in fact, a danger. Military commanders on a case-by-case basis seem to be acknowledging correctly when innocent folks have been found to be innocent. How exactly is it that there’s no due process for these folks? It doesn’t make sense to me. There seem to be plenty of room for refining the process, but what’s Mr. Colman’s alternative? Do we treat terrorist the same way we do serial killers in the U.S.? Make a system so unbalanced in the favor of criminals that it becomes impossible to get those that are terrorists and let them continue killing scores of people? How exactly are U.S. troops supposed to gather “evidence” in a battlefield setting for suspected terrorists? Pakistan and Afghanistan were battlefields, not playgrounds.

    • Casey says:

      Charles, as always, thank you for your considered and thorough response. Though I think we are destined to see this different ways, I value your opinion. I think the closest we come to a place of overlap would be Jeff’s statement that the war on Terror is a very difficult one to fight and your concession that the process of identifying terrorist must be “refined.” Thanks for having being open minded enough to listen to someone you know you will disagree with.

      Till next time – Casey

Speak Your Mind

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!