Witness to Abuse - Human Rights Watch

In more than a dozen cases, the government also barred witnesses’ lawyers from viewing
the affidavit supporting the arrest, or when access was allowed, it secured orders barring
the lawyers from disclosing the material to their clients.
Tajammul Bhatti
When FBI agents arrested Tajammul Bhatti, in Abingdon, Virginia in June 2002, they
informed him only that he was a suspect (even though he was arrested as a material
witness), but they initially did not disclose what he was suspected of doing. After his
arrest, federal agents interrogated him without counsel about his religion and beliefs,
barred public access to his court proceedings, and kept him in the dark about the basis
of his detention. Bhatti became deeply concerned:
At first I felt initial shock and fear. I knew [several hundred] people had
been in Guantánamo for almost two years and their families had no idea
how they are. I didn’t do anything but I knew neither did many of those
guys. I got a bit panicked. They didn’t tell me how long I’d be detained
and no one could know what was going on. 157
“Evansvillle Eight”
When the Department of Justice arrested eight material witnesses from Evansville,
Indiana in October 2001, 158 none were informed of the evidentiary basis for their arrest.
The men—all of whom were Muslim and of Middle Eastern descent—were also not
informed of their right to an attorney nor permitted to contact an attorney. The day after
the arrests, the federal court in Indiana appointed an attorney for each witness. The
court then conducted an all-day session with the witnesses’ court-appointed counsel, the
prosecutors, and FBI agents. The witnesses were not permitted to attend and had to wait
in holding cells in the court jail. At first, the government attorneys persuaded the court
to prohibit the witnesses and their court-appointed lawyers from seeing the warrants and
supporting affidavits because of national security concerns. By the end of a full-day
session, the witnesses’ lawyers, who had still not met their clients, succeeded in receiving
permission to review the documents. But upon the strong urging of the Justice
Department, the court ordered the attorneys not to disclose the contents of the warrant
or affidavits to anyone, including their clients. The attorneys were, however, permitted to
give their clients advice in response to their clients’ inquiries. 159
157
Interview with Tajammul Bhatti.
158
See the “Excessive Force in Arresting Witnesses” Section of Chapter IV for further details.
159
HRW/ACLU telephone interview with Mark Foster, Evansville, Indiana, November 2004.
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH VOL. 17, NO. 2(G) 50