Abdul Razzak,a 68 year old Afghan detainee at Guantanamo, has died of colorectal cancer. He was undergoing chemotherapy.

Razzak is the only detainee to die of natural causes -- the other four deaths were suicides.

Razzak was diagnosed in September, and began receiving chemo in October. The Pentagon insists he's a jihadist. From AFP News:

U.S. authorities alleged that Razzak conducted an escort mission for Osama bin Laden and was involved in attempts to assassinate Afghan officials. He denied the accusations.

Here's the summary of evidence against him from his Classified Review Hearing (pdf.) He said he worked with American intelligence, safeguarded the officers, stood guard over them and escorted them "all over the mountains." He wanted to help them with security.

He also said he was a nurse and worked at a hospital for two years, getting the assignment from the Red Cross. He also worked in security for the Afghan government. He told the hearing officers the Taliban had been brutal to him. They jailed him three times. He said he opposes the Taliban and those responsible for September 11. The hearing officers said he was cooperative and educated.

Razzak insisted he was framed by a man named Pasha Khan, and that Khan's nephew, Jan Baz turned him in for a reward.

The hearing officers thought he was being repetitive in his comments. That's what people do when they think they're innocent and no one's listening, they repeat themselves. A quick review of the transcript shows him to be very intent on clearing himself. Now, he'll never get the chance.

With the return of ten Saudi detainees this week, the population of Guantanamo Bay now stands at 275.

Those repatriated to Saudi Arabia have received financial help from the government to rebuild their lives, and many have been allowed to go free.

...The United States agreed to return the men with the understanding that Saudi Arabia will mitigate that risk, partly through a state program to reintegrate former detainees into civilian life, said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Defense Department spokesman.

Hopefully the rest will go home soon and Gitmo will be closed. May it always be remembered as an internment camp. As Christopher Brauchli wrote in 2003:

More...

Australian David Hicks, imprisoned since 2001 when he was captured in Afghanistan and sent to Guantanamo, has been released from an Australian jail. He's free.

One catch: His transfer agreement with the Government says he cannot speak to the media for one year.

Hicks refused to speak to the media directly for fear of being sent back to Guantanamo Bay. Under his plea deal, Hicks agreed to remain silent about his time in custody and treatment and also forfeited any right to appeal his conviction. He agreed not to speak with the news media for a year from his sentencing date.

"It is my intention to honor this agreement as I don't want to do anything that might result in my return there," Hicks said in the statement.

While Hicks is now free, he's still got strict conditions attached to his liberty:

The magistrate ordered Hicks to report to police three times a week and obey a curfew by staying indoors at premises to be agreed on by police. Other restrictions include that he not leave Australia or contact a list of terror suspects. The restrictions will last for one year.

The House of Representatives today passed a bill outlawing harsh interrogation methods.

The measure, approved by a largely party-line vote of 222 to 199, would require U.S. intelligence agencies to follow Army rules adopted last year that explicitly forbid waterboarding and require interrogators to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. The rules, required by Congress for all Defense Department personnel, also ban sexual humiliation, "mock" executions and the use of attack dogs, and prohibit the withholding of food and medical care.

President Bush said he'd veto the bill, which now goes to the Senate. In related news, the ACLU wrote the Senate today (letter here, pdf)listing ten reasons why a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the CIA's destruction of interrogation tapes.

Meet former CIA Agent John Kiriakou. He's come out to ABC News, admitting he's the one who waterboarded Abu Zubaydah (background here.) He tells ABC that Zubaydah "broke in less than 35 seconds," and that yes, water-boarding is torture.

"We're Americans, and we're better than this. And we shouldn't be doing this kinda thing," he said.

The Washington Post has a disturbing revelation:

In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

Who were they? [More...]

The CIA's destruction of hundreds of hours of videotapes of detainee interrogations could put several prosecutions at risk.

Officials acknowledged on Friday that the destruction of evidence like videotaped interrogations could raise questions about whether the Central Intelligence Agency was seeking to hide evidence of coercion. A review of records in military tribunals indicates that five lower-level detainees at Guantánamo were initially charged with offenses based on information that was provided by or related to Mr. [Abu]Zubaydah. Lawyers for these detainees could argue that they needed the tapes to determine what, if anything, Mr. Zubaydah had said about them.

Think: Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh. I'm wondering whether it could also result in reversals of the convictions of Zacarias Moussaoui and Jose Padilla.

The known detainees whose interrogation videos were destroyed are Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Undoubtedly, more will come to light as the investigation proceeds. I won't be surprised if interrogation tapes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh were also destroyed. In that case, they might be deprived not only of potentially exculapatory information by Zubayah but of their own statements for use at their upcoming military commission trials.

More...

Meet Majid Khan.

The first of the so-called high value Guantánamo detainees to have seen a lawyer claims he was subjected to “state-sanctioned torture” while in secret C.I.A. prisons, and he has asked for a court order barring the government from destroying evidence of his treatment.

The request, in a filing by his lawyers, was made on Nov. 29, before officials from the Central Intelligence Agency acknowledged that the agency had destroyed videotapes of interrogations of two Qaeda operatives that current and former officials said included the use of harsh techniques.

An intelligence official denies that Khan was videotaped.

Mr. Dixon, one of Mr. Khan’s lawyers, said Saturday that the admission that officials had destroyed videotapes of interrogations showed why such an order was needed.

“They are no longer entitled to a presumption that the government has acted lawfully or in good faith,” Mr. Dixon said.

Background on Majid Khan is here and here.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) has called for an investigation into the destruction of the CIA interrogation tapes (background here):

Today U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) sent the attached letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking him to open an official investigation to determine whether the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes violates the law.

He wrote: "I urge you to investigate whether CIA officials who destroyed these videotapes and withheld information about their existence fiom official proceedings violated the law. . . CIA Director Hayden asserts that the videotapes were destroyed 'in line with the law.' However, it is the Justice Department's role to determine whether the law was violated."

You can read his letter here (pdf). Also check out Marcy (Empty Wheel) and Marty Lederman at Balkanization on Michael Hayden's letter

The New York Times has learned the CIA destroyed interrogation tapes of two al-Qaeda detainees.

The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terror suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.

Both the Judge in the Moussaoui case and the 9/11 Commission had requested the tapes:

The recordings were not provided to a federal court hearing the case of the terror suspect Zacarias Moussaoui or to the Sept. 11 commission, which had made formal requests to the C.I.A. for transcripts and any other documentary evidence taken from interrogations of agency prisoners.

The C.I.A. confirmed the destruction today when the Times informed the agency it would be publishing an article about the tapes tomorrow.

The CIA defends its actions but destruction of evidence and withholding information about the existence of evidence is a serious no-no. This could be a significant story. [More...]

Update: C-Span 3 is stream and playing the audio of the hearing now (11:44 am ET). The AP now has a report, Justices Grill Detainees' Lawyer, on how the arguments went.

The Supreme Court today is hearing oral arguments in the consolidated cases of Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. U.S., 06-1196 regarding the rights of Guantanamo detainees to challenge the legality of their confinement in federal courts.

Lawyers for the foreign detainees contend the courts must step in to rein in the White House and Congress, which changed the law to keep the detainee cases out of U.S. courts after earlier Supreme Court rulings. The most recent legislation, last year's Military Commissions Act, strips federal courts of their ability to hear detainee cases.

Solicitor General Paul Clement, representing the administration, said foreigners captured and held outside the United States "have no constitutional rights to petition our courts for a writ of habeas corpus," a judicial determination of the legality of detention.

The Court may have to determine whether Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is really on U.S. soil. [More...]

Via Wired Magazine, a second sensitive Guantanamo document has been leaked and published by Wikileaks. It contains details about transporting detainees in secret renditions.

You can read it here (pdf).