Habashi v. Gates: Doc. 103-2

Case 1:05-cv-00765-EGS Document 103-2 Filed 10/28/2008 Page 1 of 43
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
BENJAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, )

(Binyam Mohamed) )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 05-00765
) Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan
ROBERT GATES, )
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DISCOVERY
Petitioner Binyam Mohamed, through his undersigned attorneys, respectfully notifies the
Court that he has served the attached discovery requests today on Respondent’s counsel:
1) Amended Requests for Admissions, per FRCP 36;1
2) Interrogatories, per FRCP 32;
3) Requests for Production of Documents and Tangible Things, per FRCP 34;
4) Deposition by Written Questions, per FRCP 31, of
a) Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld, prosecutor in the Military Commissions case against Mr.
Mohamed until his resignation on or around September 24, 2008;2
1
Mr. Mohamed is willing to toll the response deadline on the updated Requests for Admissions to today’s service
date, provided Respondent represents that, at long last, he will make a good faith response.
2
Lt. Col. Vandeveld resigned over the same issue now confronting this Court: Respondent Secretary Gates’ efforts
to obstruct the disclosure of exculpatory evidence, and particularly evidence that points to the serious abuse of a
prisoner. “[N]ow testifying, remarkably, for the defense counsel in one of his own cases…Vandeveld said that he
went from being a “true believer” in the military commissions to feeling “truly deceived” about them. His deep
ethical qualms hinged foremost on the fact that potentially critical evidence had been withheld from the defense by
the government.”) Stacy Sullivan, “Confessions of a Former Guantánamo Prosecutor,” October 23, 2008, salon.com,
available at http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/23/vandeveld/index.html (last accessed October 27, 2008).
While many of his public statements have concerned the case against Mohammed Jawad, over the past several
months Vandeveld has had various conversations with counsel for Petitioner, as well as other counsel, where he has
revealed – always strictly respecting the obligations of secrecy imposed upon him – some of the species of favorable
evidence available in Petitioner’s case. His statements have made it very clear that the disclosures made to date in
Petitioner’s case fall woefully short of compliance with the Court’s order. The questions in the proposed deposition
are carefully tailored to prove the existence of additional evidence that remains undisclosed.
1
b) “Jane Payne,”3 one of two female members of Mr. Mohamed’s rendition crew from
Morocco to Kabul, who apparently photographed some of the injuries inflicted on Mr.
Mohamed during his abuse in Morocco.
Petitioner’s carefully targeted disclosure requests
Petitioner is at pains to make matters as easy as possible on Respondent. Petitioner notes
that Respondent’s counsel with the Office of Military Commissions – Prosecution (OMCP) have
spent months and months poring over the documents in his case. If this Court doubts that for one
second, then allow the deposition of Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld to proceed immediately, and
Petitioner can assure the Court that the former military prosecutor will confirm the truth of the
matter.
Thus, Respondent cannot take the position that the materials are somehow difficult to
obtain, or the answers difficult to figure out. Neither can Respondent complain of a lack of time
– Petitioner has repeatedly asked Respondent to agree to a timetable, and Respondent has flatly
refused. Thus, as the clock ticks down to disclosure, Respondent is the one who has run the
time.
Petitioner begins with some very simple Requests for Admission. These took counsel for
Petitioner only a short time to write, and should take any prepared counsel for Respondent less
than a day to reply. These admissions, if honestly made, should settle most of the case in
Petitioner’s favor.
3
This is a pseudonym. If Respondent suggests for one moment that he does not know who Jane Payne is, we are
happy to furnish her US passport number and her home address (which out of respect for her privacy we have
omitted from this pleading) – notwithstanding the fact that “Payne” was working for the government at all times
relevant to this case. As Respondent surely knows, “Payne” was one of the people on the plane that rendered Mr.
Mohamed from Morocco to Kabul on or about January 21, 2004. If she is honest, she will be able to answer most of
the questions necessary to prove Mr. Mohamed’s case. If she is not honest, then Petitioner also knows the names
used by the other US personnel on the flight.
2
Petitioner then submits a limited number of interrogatories, which again should take little
time for a response.
Petitioner has requested specific documents and tangible things. To date, Respondent has
only provided documents specifically identified by the British authorities, after an exhaustive
search of the files by the British.4 Surely, Respondent cannot claim to have a lesser duty than
our allies across the ocean. If the British are willing to live up to their legal obligations, then the
US must surely do the same.
Finally, Petitioner suggests two preliminary depositions on written questions. He is
making the task easy on Respondent by providing the questions in writing, and not insisting on
an oral deposition. The deposition of Lt. Col. Darrell Vandeveld will prove to this Court just
how obstructionist Respondent is being now – to be sure, Respondent will not like the honest
answers that come from his former military prosecutor. Petitioner is confident what the answers
will be to many of the questions, and confident that this testimony will identify just how
contemptuous Respondent’s “compliance” with this Court’s order has been to date.
With respect to “Jane Payne”, if she testifies honestly then that should resolve many of
the questions in the case. Certainly she – as well or better than the other fifteen US personnel on
the plane – can testify to evidence of Mr. Mohamed’s abuse in Morocco.
Neither can Respondent pretend that this is some fishing expedition on Mr. Mohamed’s
part. Mr. Mohamed knows what happened to him; he simply needs to find either an honest
prosecutor who will admit it, or he needs to prove it.
4
The British have conducted this review only this year, since being sued. Respondent had supposedly already
conducted a full review of the files for discovery in the Commissions process as long ago as June 2006. To pretend
that this process has not been done to date, and cannot be completed in the time proposed, would verge on contempt.
3
Furthermore, this is not a one-way street. Within the bounds of what is ethically
permissible,5 Petitioner is perfectly willing to provide subsequent disclosures to Respondent to
show how he was tortured, and to provide documentary proof of such matters as the torture that
was going on in Morocco, and what he knows about the US personnel who took part in his
rendition to torture.
All Petitioner wants is a fair and open evaluation of all the evidence. Once that is in, he
can return to his home in the UK, and everyone can get on with the business of prosecuting the
real culprits in this case – those who ordered and carried out his rendition to torture.
Respondent’s obstinate refusal

to comply with this Court’s disclosure order
Today, Mr. Mohamed simply re-requests the evidence that would help him prove his
innocence that, by order of this Court, he should have received three weeks ago. Five weeks
have passed since the Court held that he was entitled to evidence favorable to his case. In that
time he has received just seven documents, not one of which even mentions where he was held
for two years.6 It is now plain that, despite that unambiguous order, the government will balk at
5
There are, obviously, issues surrounding the ongoing efforts to charge Petitioner with some kind of criminal
offense.
6
As Petitioner has previously shown, this kind of statement may be made without relying on classified evidence –
since all the documents come from the British list, and the British have repeatedly stated that, despite repeated
requests, they were never informed by Respondent where the British resident Mr. Mohamed had been taken for
those two years.
4
handing over “all exculpatory information”7 until specifically directed to comply with specific
and targeted discovery requests by this Court.8
Mr. Mohamed has already sent the government some of these requests by letter. In his
motion to compel compliance, he set out further requests and outlined the principles that should
guide Respondent’s, and this Court’s, approach to discovery. To date, the government has
shrugged off Petitioner’s requests as “excessively broad and otherwise objectionable.”
Respondent’s Letter of Oct. 17, 2008. Under Mr. Mohamed’s theory of the case and the law of
habeas corpus, this cannot be so.
The discovery Mr. Mohamed seeks here is exculpatory,

is in the possession of Respondent, and goes to the heart of his case
Where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that
the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate
that he is . . . entitled to relief, it is the duty of the courts to provide the
necessary facilities and procedures for an adequate inquiry.
Bracy v. Gramley, 117 S.Ct. 1793 at 1799. “Denial of an opportunity for discovery is an abuse
of discretion when the discovery is necessary to fully develop the facts of a claim.” Teague v.
7
As Mr. Mohamed has previously noted in passing, while he is far more concerned with proving his innocence than
with seeking punishment of any description on anyone, the government’s flagrant violation of this Court’s order is
fair grounds for sanctions to be imposed on Respondent. The government’s gamesmanship would be improper in a
run-of-the-mill case. It is vastly more offensive here, where the foot-dragging aims to conceal evidence of Mr.
Mohamed’s brutal torture, authorized at the highest levels of the US government.
8
Petitioner fully expects that Respondent’s next halfhearted attempt to avoid full compliance with this Court’s
disclosure order will involve handing over the remainder of the 42 exculpatory documents identified in The Queen
on the Application of Binyam Mohamed, Claimant v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs,
Defendant, No. CO/4241/2008. That Court’s judgment of Oct. 22, 2008 has made clear that in the unlikely event
that this Court does not order the disclosure of the remainder of those documents, the British Courts will. Disclosure
having thus been made inevitable at the UK end, the government can readily be anticipated to use that “revelation”
before this Court as a fig leaf for its ongoing refusal to comply. But with each passing day, surely, it grows more
difficult for Respondent to state with a straight face that he has not withheld, and is not continuing to withhold,
masses of exculpatory evidence in this case. Indeed, it is plain silly for Respondent to pretend that all exculpatory
evidence has been revealed when Respondent will not even admit which continent Mr. Mohamed was on for two
years of his detention.
5
Scott, 60 F.3d 1167, 1172 (5th Cir. 1995). 9 At the risk of repeating his terrible ordeal in US
custody ad nauseam, Mr. Mohamed will remind Respondent once again of a few basic facts.
These should make it obvious, even to Respondent, why Mr. Mohamed needs what he has
requested in order to prove his innocence.
Pakistan
After he was arrested for passport violations in Karachi in April 2001, Binyam Mohamed
was taken into Pakistani custody and seriously abused there. These abuses included, inter alia,
his being hung in the strappado position and having a gun pointed at him, execution style, by
one Pakistani agent. These are, of course, forms of torture. Petitioner was threatened repeatedly
by US agents – for instance, he was told he would be rendered (a threat which was later carried
out). Statements exacted by coercion are inadmissible in US law, see Brown v. Mississippi, 297
U.S. 278 (1936), as is evidence derived from its bitter fruit, see Wong Sun v. United States, 371
U.S. 471 (1963).
Materials from Pakistan will also help Petitioner prove why the US went to such illegal
extremes to force him to talk. CIA agents questioned Mr. Mohamed in Pakistan and found him
“uncooperative” or “combative”. UK agents questioned him as well and found that he was “a
nobody”. Mr. Mohamed’s “failure to cooperate,” combined with faulty intelligence from the
waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah and a spoof website—“How to Build an H-Bomb”—gave
Respondent the notion Mr. Mohamed had something to do with, or knew something about, a plan
9
Respondent may object that Teague, like the vast majority of case law addressing factual development in habeas,
concerns a post-conviction case under 28 U.S.C. §2254. If anything, however, this militates in favor of more
generous discovery here, as the post-conviction petitioner has already had one opportunity to develop the facts
before a real court. Mr. Mohamed has had none. The Bracy court also noted that pre-hearing discovery is
particularly appropriate in a capital case, as this case may well become if Mr. Mohamed is charged a third time
before the Military Commissions. See Bracy v. Gramley , 520 U.S. 899, 117 S.Ct. 1793 (1997). Military
prosecutors have represented to the defense that he would, indeed, be re-re-charged within thirty days.
6
to attack the United States with a so-called “dirty bomb.” The fear engendered by this mythical
plot was the provocation for everything that later happened.
Mr. Mohamed was first threatened with rendition; discussions as to whether actually to
render him then proceeded, and went all the way up to the White House. Ultimately, the
decision was made, and he was rendered to Morocco on or about July 21, 2002.
Once this had happened, Respondent had a whole new problem: How to cover up the
evidence of his own criminality, and that of his colleagues in government. Hence the
increasingly desperate efforts to prevent Petitioner and this Court from obtaining evidence of the
truth.
Mr. Mohamed therefore seeks discovery that will prove his allegations of mistreatment in
Pakistan; of the questioning agents’ bias; of the involvement of the United Kingdom in his
interrogations; of the mistreatment of others that led to the decision to render him; of the
decisionmaking process itself; and of the fact and conduct of the flight to Morocco.
Morocco
To date, nothing provided to Mr. Mohamed by the government of the United States
concedes the core fact of his case: he was rendered to Morocco and savagely tortured there. Mr.
Mohamed’s Moroccan torturers specifically told him that the purpose of this abuse was to
condition him to say “whatever the Americans wanted him to”, much as a most cruel canine
handler might condition Pavlov’s dog. Mr. Mohamed alleges that he was being “prepared” as a
witness against “high-level” al Qaida suspects, such as Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed (KSM). And Mr. Mohamed, of course, said whatever his Moroccan torturers told
him to say.
7
Mr. Mohamed therefore seeks discovery that will prove his allegations of torture in
Morocco; of the purpose of the questioning; of UK involvement, witting or unwitting, in that
questioning; of the abuse of others in Morocco (demonstrating the fact that CIA-sponsored
torture there was then part of a US pattern or practice); of the transmission of reports from his
abuse up the US chain of command; of documentation taken of his injuries (such as
photographs); of the subsequent decision to take him to the CIA’s Dark Prison in Kabul; and of
the fact and conduct of the flight to Kabul.
It is important to note, once again, that evidence identifying those responsible for this
horror is relevant for several reasons, not least of which is to demonstrate the motive behind the
government’s on-going efforts to dissemble.
Dark Prison
In the Dark Prison, Mr. Mohamed was for five months subjected to the full panoply of
“enhanced interrogation techniques”: sleep deprivation; temperature extremes; hours of ear-
splitting noise; starvation; and so on. He was repeatedly interrogated by the CIA during this
period. Mr. Mohamed similarly made the statements to his CIA interrogators that he had been
conditioned to make in Morocco.
Mr. Mohamed therefore seeks discovery that will prove his allegations of torture in the
Dark Prison; of the purpose of the questioning; of the abuse of others in the Dark Prison
(demonstrating the fact that CIA-sponsored torture there was then part of a US pattern or
practice); of the transmission of reports from his abuse up the US chain of command; of the
subsequent decision to take him to Bagram; and of the fact and conduct of the transit to Bagram.
Bagram
8
This is where the public documentation supporting Respondent’s case begins, with the
long “confession” that Mr. Mohamed wrote out under US instruction in Bagram. Obviously,
Respondent would have his Court blithely accept these documents as being voluntary, ignoring
the months and years of abuse that led up to these examples of Petitioner-as-lap-dog. Equally
obviously, Petitioner has the right to explore not only the previous coercion, but also the highly
dubious contention that a few weeks of incommunicado detention in Afghanistan somehow
serves to dissolve the taint of the many months of torture.
Mr. Mohamed maintains that the agents questioning him were briefed on his prior
coerced statements and used them against him. He states that he was subjected to mistreatment
in Bagram, though it did not match the torture of the prior two years. The events of those two
years, and the conditions in Bagram, are self-evidently relevant to the admissibility of any
inculpatory statement Mr. Mohamed made in Bagram.
Bagram; of the use by his interrogators in Bagram of the faulty “intelligence” from the prior
torture sessions; of the purpose of the questioning; of the subsequent decision to take him to
Guantánamo; and of the fact and conduct of the flight to Guantánamo on or about September 19,
2004.
Guantánamo Bay
Again, Respondent seeks to rely on various inculpatory statements made by Mr.
Mohamed in Guantánamo Bay. These, too, stemmed directly from his prior abuse. Moreover,
Respondents cannot claim in open Court that Mr. Mohamed was “doing well” in Guantánamo
(cf. the repeated invocation of these words in the JTF-GTMO interrogation reports), as various of
Mr. Mohamed’s counsel have seen photographic evidence of his abuse in Guantánamo. If
9
Respondent cares to deny that photographic evidence exists of Petitioner’s abuse in Guantánamo,
then Petitioner will gladly call his counsel as witnesses to prove, emphatically, that this is false.
Guantánamo; of the use of his interrogators in Guantánamo of faulty “intelligence” from prior
torture sessions; of the efforts to discourage his cooperation with counsel; of the efforts to
withhold exculpatory evidence from his counsel in the military commissions process; and of the
resulting dissent within the ranks of the US military regarding the mistreatment of Mr. Mohamed
and the subsequent cover-up.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Mohamed feels that, in light of the extravagant abuse he has suffered, the discovery
requests he submits today are well within reason. Developing a full picture of his abuse, and of
the mistaken reasons for it, before this Court will be essential to proving to this Court that he is
not, and never was, an “enemy combatant.”
Respectfully submitted,
Cori Crider
Ahmed Ghappour
Zachary P. Katznelson
Clive A. Stafford Smith
Reprieve
PO Box 52742
London EC4P 4WS
United Kingdom
011 44 207 353 4640
Counsel for Petitioner Mohamed
October 27, 2008
10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 27, 2008, I electronically filed and served the foregoing
document: Notice of Service of Discovery.
Cori Crider
1
EXHIBIT A


(Binyam Mohamed) )
)
Petitioner, )
)
GEORGE WALKER BUSH, et al. )
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36
Definition of terms:
The term “agent” of the US is intended in its broadest sense possible, to include any
person who purports in any way to act under color of the government, from law
enforcement personnel taking part in foreign operations to members of the Bush
Administration in the White House. When used in connection with other governments,
the term has a similarly broad sense.
The term “rendition,” or any variant on the word “render,” describes the process of
transferring a prisoner from one country to another without a judicial order.
The terms “torture” and “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” should be
understood as they are applied in the Convention Against Torture.
Petitioner asks Respondents to respond within 14 days to these requests by admitting, for
purposes of this action only and subject to objections to admissibility at any hearing the
truth of each of the following statements:
1. Binyam Mohamed is not, and never has been, a member of al Qaida.
2. Binyam Mohamed is not, and never has been, a member of the Taliban.
3. Binyam Mohamed is not, and never has been, a member of any extremist group.
4. Binyam Mohamed was detained by the Pakistani authorities for an alleged
2
passport violation on or about April 10, 2002, in Karachi.
5. Binyam Mohamed had a passport in the name of Fouad Zouaoui.
6. Mr. Zouaoui had voluntarily given this passport to Binyam Mohamed to facilitate
his travel.
7. Binyam Mohamed was not provided with a false passport by Khalid Sheikh
Mohamed.
8. Binyam Mohamed, when detained, was attempting to board an aircraft for Zurich,
and had an on-connection to London.
9. There is no physical evidence whatsoever that Binyam Mohamed planned to

travel beyond the UK.
10. On or about April 13, 2001, Binyam Mohamed was taken by the Pakistani
authorities to the Landi Prison.
11. On or about April 22, 2002, Pakistani authorities moved Binyam Mohamed at an
ISI detention center in Karachi.
12. Sometime in mid-April 2002, Abu Zubaydah was being held in Thailand.
13. Sometime in mid-April 2002, Abu Zubaydah was being interrogated by US

agents.
14. Sometime in mid-April 2002, Abu Zubaydah told his interrogators about Jose
Padilla, a US citizen.
15. Sometime in mid-April 2002, Abu Zubaydah told his interrogators about a
possible plot to build a radioactive bomb for use against the U.S.
16. Pakistani officials abused Binyam Mohamed while he was in their custody.
17. At least one Pakistani official held a gun to Binyam Mohamed.
18. Binyam Mohamed was held in Pakistan until mid-July 2002, during which time
he was denied access to counsel, and was never charged with any criminal
offense.
19. Binyam Mohamed’s detention in Pakistan violated Pakistani law.
20. US agents paid a “bounty” for Binyam Mohamed to a person or persons in

Pakistan.
3
21. Binyam Mohamed was repeatedly interrogated by US agents while in Pakistan.
22. Binyam Mohamed was reported to be “combative” with US agents in Pakistan.
23. Binyam Mohamed asked the US agents for a lawyer.
24. US agents told Binyam Mohamed words to the effect that the “rules had changed”
and that he had no right to a lawyer.
25. US agents threatened Binyam Mohamed while he was in Pakistan with rendition
to another country.
26. A British Intelligence officer was permitted to interview Binyam Mohamed for
roughly three hours at 10 a.m. on May 17, 2002.
27. This interview was recorded by US agents.
28. Two US agents entered the room at various times during the interview.
29. The British agent told Binyam Mohamed that “he would get more lenient
treatment if he cooperated” with US agents.
30. The British agent told Binyam Mohamed that the agent would “explore what
could be done for him with my US colleagues” if Binyam Mohamed convinced
the agent that he was cooperating fully.
31. One of the US agents indicated to Binyam Mohamed that he would be rendered to
an Arab country if he did not cooperate.
32. Binyam Mohamed informed his interrogators that he never attended the “Algerian
training camp” in Afghanistan.
33. The “Algerian training camp” had been closed prior to Binyam Mohamed’s
arrival in Afghanistan.
34. The following description by the British Intelligence agent of Binyam Mohamed’s
May 17, 2002, statement about a radiological bomb is accurate: “Mohammed said
the idea of a radiological or dirty bomb was ‘the FBI’s perception – I didn’t tell
them that.’ The real story was about the construction of a hydrogen bomb.
Mohammed said he had seen a file on a computer in the house in Labore called
something like ‘How to Build an H-Bomb.’ He read it and decided it was clearly
a joke – part of the instructions included adding bleach to Uranium-238 in a
bucket and rotating it around one’s head for 45 minutes. Mohammed said that
anyone who took this seriously knew nothing about the most elementary physics –
and that clearly included Abu Zubaida (who was very ‘excited’ about the H-Bomb
idea) and other residents in the Lahore safe house.”
4
35. In 2002, US agents checked out Binyam Mohamed’s story about the website
described in the paragraph above, and found it to be accurate.
36. Binyam Mohamed stated that he thought another attack would take place after
September 11, 2001.
37. The following description by the British Intelligence officer of Binyam

Mohamed’s May 17, 2002, statement is accurate: “I asked Mohammed to clarify
his remarks about an impending attack. Mohammed downplayed this as his
assessment. He said ‘this won’t go away’ and said it was clear from his
statements that UBL and his group were determined to continue their campaign.
Mohammed said the ‘FBI’ appeared to think he had information about dates,
times, locations, etc. He didn’t. But it remained his opinion that another attack or
attacks would follow.”
38. US agents agreed with the assessment that “another attack or attacks would
follow.”
39. US agents in Pakistan were very concerned about the possibility of a radiological
attack on the US.
40. Senior US officials in Washington were very concerned about the possibility of a
radiological attack on the US.
41. Binyam Mohamed periodically attended the Regents Park Mosque in London.
42. Prince Charles has attended the Regents Park Mosque in London.
43. Respondent has no evidence that the Regents Park Mosque is associated with
Islamic extremism.
44. Respondent has no evidence that Binyam Mohamed ever talked in person to Abu
Hamza.
45. Respondent has no evidence that Binyam Mohamed ever talked in person to Abu
Qatada.
46. The British reported to the US that Binyam Mohamed was a “nobody”.
47. The British confirmed to the US that Binyam Mohamed had a drug problem when
he lived in London.
48. Binyam Mohamed explained to US agents that he left Britain in part because he
wanted to kick his drug habit.
5
49. The British reported to the US that they could find no evidence that Binyam
Mohamed had planned or committed any act of terrorism while he lived in the
UK.
50. The British reported to the US that in 2001, Binyam Mohamed worked as a
janitor at the Muslim Heritage Centre in London.
51. The British reported to the US that Binyam Mohamed had only the most
superficial education in engineering.
52. Binyam Mohamed insisted that discussions concerning a supposed radiological

bomb centered on a website that he considered a joke.
53. Abu Zubaydah reportedly believed that the website description of how to build a
radiological bomb was serious.
54. That US and British intelligence agreed that there were “glaring inconsistencies in
the stories provided by Abu Zubaydah and Binyam Mohamed” about the
supposed ‘Dirty Bomb’.
55. British intelligence passed information to the US intelligence to facilitate the

interrogation of Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan.
56. British intelligence provided questions to US intelligence to ask of Binyam

Mohamed in Pakistan.
57. British intelligence provided photographs to US intelligence to show to Binyam

Mohamed in Pakistan in an effort to secure information about various Muslim
people.
58. Some of the photographs were readily identifiable as coming from Britain (by the
inclusion of recognizable landmarks or shops, etc.).
59. That when FBI Agent Joe Ennis’ affidavit of May 8, 2002, refers to Subject-1, he
means Binyam Mohamed.
60. That Agent Ennis accurately quotes Abu Zubaydah as stating that Binyam
Mohamed is not, nor has he ever been, a member of al Qaida.
61. That Binyam Mohamed is not, nor has he ever been, married.
62. That Agent Ennis falsely attributes a statement to Binyam Mohamed’s wife.
63. The following description in a British Intelligence report that “[d]uring the [July
15] briefing [of UK intelligence by US intelligence, a US agent] indicated that
Binyam Ahmed Mohammed was due to be moved from Pakistan to Afghanistan,
6
upon which a second debrief by our service could be facilitated,” is accurate.
64. Respond to the following as appropriate:
a. The decision to render Binyam Mohamed was not finally taken until after
July 15, 2002.
b. US agent misled the UK as to whether Binyam Mohamed was to be

moved to Afghanistan.
65. US authorities rendered Binyam Mohamed from Pakistan to Morocco on or about

July 21, 2002.
66. The rendition was conducted without any application to a court.
67. The rendition was conducted without any judicial sanction.
68. There is no legal distinction between this act of “rendering” by the US and the
common law crime of kidnapping, defined as that “taking and carrying a person
away by force, without the consent of the person taken, and without lawful right.”
69. At or around twenty-five minutes to six in the evening of 21 July 2002,

Gulfstream V N379P left Islamabad carrying Binyam Mohamed.
70. Two other prisoners were also on the same plane.
71. These two prisoners (herein designated John Doe 1 and John Doe 2) were also
rendered to Morocco.
72. John Doe 1 was not a Moroccan citizen.
73. John Doe 2 was not a Moroccan citizen.
74. John Doe 1 was rendered to Morocco for interrogation by the Moroccans.
75. John Doe 2 was rendered to Morocco for interrogation by the Moroccans.
76. The aircraft landed in Rabat at or around eighteen minutes to four in the morning
on 22 July 2002.
77. The Gulfstream V N379P is a plane that was then owned by a company called
Premier Executive Transport.
78. Premier Executive Transport was a CIA front company.
79. The Gulfstream V N379P has frequently been associated with several other cases
7
of rendition.
80. Some time around the beginning of 2004, the plane was re-registered as N8068V.
81. Sometime around December 2004 the plane was re-registered again as N44982.
82. This re-registration was done by Bayard Foreign Marketing, a CIA front company
“registered in Oregon … since August 2003.”
83. On or about 22 July 2002, Binyam Mohamed was turned over to Moroccan
intelligence for interrogation.
84. The US authorities were aware of the US State Department reports on Human
Rights abuses by the Moroccan authorities.
85. The US authorities took Binyam Mohamed to Morocco so that harsh techniques
could be used against him that US personnel would not perform themselves.
86. During the time that Binyam Mohamed was held in Morocco, US agents
periodically visited the country to meet with Moroccan agents who were involved
in Mr. Mohamed’s interrogation.
87. Binyam Mohamed was held in Morocco for approximately 18 months.
88. Binyam Mohamed was held in the Temara prison.
89. Binyam Mohamed was regularly beaten by the Moroccans.
90. Binyam Mohamed was regularly cut with razor blades by the Moroccans.
91. Binyam Mohamed was involuntarily given drugs by the Moroccans.
92. Binyam Mohamed was regularly denied food by the Moroccans.
93. Binyam Mohamed was subjected to sleep deprivation by the Moroccans.
94. Binyam Mohamed was subjected to loud music and other noise abuse by the
Moroccans.
95. Binyam Mohamed was held in isolation for the entire time he was held in
Morocco.
96. Binyam Mohamed was not permitted outside for the entire time he was held in
prison Morocco.
97. The conditions under which Binyam Mohamed was held in Morocco were
8
“harsh”.
98. The conditions under which Binyam Mohamed was held in Morocco were
significantly worse than any conditions permitted in a US jail or prison.
99. Binyam Mohamed was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
during the time he was held in Morocco.
100. Binyam Mohamed was subjected to torture during the time he was held in
Morocco.
101. Since October 2001, the US has rendered other prisoners to Morocco for
interrogation.
102. The US rendered Khalid Sheikh Mohamed to Morocco for interrogation.
103. US authorities are aware of reports of such people being tortured.
104. One such victim described the same perpetrator of his torture as
“Marwan” – the same person described by Binyam Mohamed.10
105. That the US authorities had specifically requested that the Moroccans
interrogate Binyam Mohamed to obtain statements from him.
106. That the US provided questions to be used in the questioning of Mr.

Mohamed while he was being tortured by the Moroccans.
107. That the US provided photographs to be used in the questioning of Mr.

Mohamed while he was being tortured by the Moroccans.
108. That the US provided questions and photographs from British Intelligence
to the Moroccans to be used in his interrogation.
109. On September 30, 2002, US agents met with UK agents at Thames House
in London.
110. On September 30, 2002, US agents met with UK agents, and:
10
See Taieb Chadi, « Qui est le tortionnaire Marouani ? » Le Journal (May 2003)
describing Marwan [‘Marouani’] as being “in his thirties, overweight, tall and smoked a
lot”; claiming that “Marouani was in charge of the interrogations and told me that he was
part of the DST. He tortured me by slapping, insulting and hitting me. *** He tried to
convince me to go back to live in Italy so that I could work as an informer and infiltrate
the networks of Islamists; he often came to where I lived … He drove an olive green Fiat
Uno.”).
9
a. Failed to inform them that Binyam Mohamed had already been rendered
to Morocco.
b. Informed them that Binyam Mohamed would not be taken to Afghanistan.
c. Informed them that Binyam Mohamed had been rendered to an Arab

country.
d. Informed them that Binyam Mohamed had been rendered to Morocco.
111. On September 30, 2002, US agents met with UK agents and promised to
submit additional questions to Binyam Mohamed on behalf of the UK agents.
112. US intelligence reported to UK intelligence on September 30, 2002, that

Binyam Mohamed had “recent[ly]” begun to “cooperate” with questioning.11
113. On or about October 25, 2002, US intelligence received correspondence

from UK intelligence with questions to be submitted to Binyam Mohamed.12
114. This included questions about Fouad Zouaoui.
115. This also included the following specific questions:13
“General questions:
Who did Mohammed train with in Afghanistan?

Were these individuals also of West Indian extraction?
Does Mohammed know Martin Mubanga? (show photo)
When and where did Mohammed associate with Mubanga?
Did Mohammed associate with Mubanga in the UK?

When did Mohammed begin attending a Mosque in the UK?
Which Mosque and why did he choose that specific one?
Who radicalised Mohammed?
Does Mohammed know [REDACT].
Who facilitated Mohammed’s travel?
11
From the UK materials referencing the September 30, 2002 meeting: “We feel in light
of Mohammed’s recent co-operation further debriefs by these same officers [REDACT
one line] may have a positive effect on our intelligence gathering into this subject area.
However we are grateful for the opportunity to provide material to be used in the current
debriefing at this stage.” (0040Ex) (emphasis supplied)
12
We know that this happened from UK materials (UK telegram). These questions are
important as they corroborate Petitioner’s pre-existing statements concerning what
happened to him in Morocco.
13
See UK materials, 0046Ex – 0047Ex (Sept. 30, 2002, telegram).
10
Who altered the passport in the name of Fouad Zouaoui?

Who is involved in recruitment at the mosque?”
116. On or around November 5, 2002, the UK submitted additional questions to

the US concerning possible plans for an attack on the UK, to be put to Binyam
Mohamed.14
117. On or about November 8, 2002, the UK sent the US another telegram

about Binyam Mohamed.15
118. The US did not, at the time (between July and December 2002) disclose to
the UK authorities that Binyam Mohamed was then in Morocco.
119. The US has:
a. Never admitted to the UK authorities that Binyam Mohamed was taken to

Morocco.
b. Admitted to the UK authorities that Binyam Mohamed was taken to

Morocco.
120. At some time around February 2003, the US provided the UK with a
report on the questioning of Binyam Mohamed in Morocco.16
121. The US obtained a number of other reports from the Moroccans regarding
the statements made by Binyam Mohamed while in the Moroccan prison.
122. The Moroccans who were interrogating Binyam Mohamed told him that
their aim was to ensure that he always did or said what the Americans demanded
of him.
123. As of August 2002, US intelligence had already determined that Jose

Padilla was a “small fish”.17
124. By mid-August 2002, a significant focus of US intelligence with respect to
14
See UK Materials, Statement of Witness A (“Additional questions resulting from a
separate strand of reporting suggesting current plans for an attack in the UK, about which
it was thought Mr Mohamed might have relevant information, were forwarded to the US
authorities on 5th November 2002.” (005-006 para. 13) (Sec.Wit.A)).
15
See UK Materials, Statement of Witness A (“a response was chased by a telegram
dated 8th November 2002.” (005-006 para. 13) (Sec.Wit.A)).
16
See UK Materials: “In February 2003 the Service received from the US authorities
reports of an interview with Mr Mohamed…” (006 para. 13) (Sec.Wit.A)
17
See CBS Evening News, August 13, 2002 (Headline: “FBI official calls Jose Padilla a
small fish among the al-Qaida” (0319)).
11
Binyam Mohamed was to try to make him into a witness against members of al
Qaida.
125. A US agent told the Moroccans to try to prepare Binyam Mohamed as a

witness against Abu Zubaydah.

witness against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

witness against Jose Padilla.
128. US authorities rendered Binyam Mohamed from Morocco to Afghanistan

on or about January 21, 2004.
129. The US aircraft N313P left Larnaca at around twenty-one minutes to

seven on the evening of 21 January 2004.
130. N313P arrived in Rabat, Morocco, at or about twelve minutes to midnight

that night.18
131. Binyam Mohamed was turned over to US agents by Moroccan agents.
132. No judge or other legal process was involved in the transfer of Binyam
Mohamed from the Moroccan prison to the US aircraft.
133. There were two other prisoners who were turned over at the same time,
John Doe 3 and John Doe 4.
134. The US agents were dressed in black and grey, with face masks, and with
Timberland-type boots.
135. The US agents cut off Binyam Mohamed’s clothes.
136. The US agents on this rendition flight gave their names (falsely) on the
documents filed regarding the flight as follows:
a. James O’Hale, pilot

b. Eric Fain, pilot
c. Kirk James Bird, pilot
d. James Fairing, pilot
18
See “Flight Logs related to the Successive Rendition Operations of Binyam Mohamed
and Khaled El-Masri in January 2004,” Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, “Alleged Secret Detentions and Unlawful Interstate Transfers Involving Council
of Europe Member States”, AS/Jur (2006) 16 Part II, at appendix 1.
12
e. Lyle Edward Lumsden, III, medic special forces

f. Jane Payne
g. Patricia O’Riley
h. Michael Grady
i. Jason Franklin
j. Walter Richard Greensbroe
k. John Richard Decker
l. Hector Lorenzo
m. Bryam Charles/Charles Goldman Bryson
137. One of the US agents involved in this rendition was a white female who
used the false name Jane Payne.19
138. ‘Jane Payne’ took pictures of Binyam Mohamed.
139. ‘Jane Payne’ took photographs that identified some aspects of Binyam
Mohamed’s abuse at the hands of the Moroccans.
140. When she saw the injuries Binyam Mohamed had suffered, she made a
statement to the effect of: ‘Oh, my God, look at that!’
141. N313P left Rabat at or around five minutes past two in the morning of 22
January 2004.
142. N313P arrived in Kabul at or around two minutes to ten the same morning.
143. N313P stayed in Kabul for a little over two hours.
144. N313P then took three Algerian detainees who were to be transferred to
Algiers.
145. N313P left for Algiers at around nine minutes past midday on 22 January
2004.
146. N313P arrived in Algeria at around six minutes to eight on 22 January

2004.20
147. N313P left Algiers at about thirty-six minutes past nine in the evening of
19
While presumably the US knows the names of its own agents, if it will facilitate
Respondent’s expeditious reply to his discovery request, Petitioner knows her real name.
He does not include it in this document, which he intends to be filed publicly.
20
See “Flight Logs related to the Successive Rendition Operations of Binyam Mohamed
and Khaled El-Masri in January 2004,” Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe, “Alleged Secret Detentions and Unlawful Interstate Transfers Involving Council
of Europe Member States”, AS/Jur (2006) 16 Part II, at appendix 1.
13
22 January 2004 and arrived in Palma de Mallorca at about eight minutes past ten.
148. N313P left Palma de Mallorca for Skopje, Macedonia at about twenty
minutes to six in the evening of 23 January 2004, arriving seventy-six minutes
later, at four minutes to eight in the evening.
149. N313P then rendered German citizen Khaled El-Masri to Afghanistan.21
150. Binyam Mohamed was held in the so-called “Dark Prison” in the environs
of Kabul, from January to May 2004.
151. The “Dark Prison” was technically run by Afghan guards.
152. The “Dark Prison” was funded by the US.
153. US agents had ultimate control over who was held at the “Dark Prison”.
154. Binyam Mohamed was subjected to abuse in the “Dark Prison”.
155. Binyam Mohamed was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading

treatment in the “Dark Prison”.
156. Binyam Mohamed was subjected to torture in the “Dark Prison”.
157. Binyam Mohamed was not permitted access to the International

Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in the “Dark Prison”.
158. Binyam Mohamed was not permitted access to his family in the “Dark
Prison”.
159. Binyam Mohamed was not permitted access to a lawyer in the “Dark
Prison”.
160. At no time was Binyam Mohamed charged with any offense while he was
in the “Dark Prison”.
161. Binyam Mohamed was detained in the “Dark Prison” in violation of

Afghan law.
162. There was no pretense of legal justification for Binyam Mohamed’s

detention in the “Dark Prison”.
21
See declaration of Khaled El-Masri in support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to the United
States’ Motion to Dismiss, in El-Masri v. Tenet et al, Eastern District Court of Virginia in
Alexandria, 6 April 2006, at p8
14
163. Binyam Mohamed was held in a very cold, dark cell for days on end in the
“Dark Prison”.
164. Binyam Mohamed was not allowed to see daylight for weeks on end in the
“Dark Prison”.
165. US agents interrogated Binyam Mohamed several times while he was at

the “Dark Prison”.
166. US agents were aware of the abuse that was being inflicted on Binyam
Mohamed in the Dark Prison.
167. US agents threatened Binyam Mohamed in the Dark Prison.
168. US agents wrote reports of their interactions with Binyam Mohamed in the
Dark Prison.
169. At no time did the US inform the UK that Binyam Mohamed was being
held in the ‘Dark Prison’.
170. Binyam Mohamed was taken to Bagram Air Force Base in May 2004.
171. Binyam Mohamed was held in a cage in Bagram Air Force Base.
172. Binyam Mohamed was subjected to additional mistreatment in Bagram

Air Force Base.
173. Binyam Mohamed was not permitted access to a lawyer in Bagram Air
Force Base.
174. Binyam Mohamed was not provided with the right to contact his family
while he was in Bagram Air Force Base.
175. Binyam Mohamed was not permitted access to the International

Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) until late May 2004.
176. The ICRC told Binyam Mohamed that they were barred from reporting
anything about him or his case under the rules governing their access, and that
they could do nothing to help him get legal assistance.
177. Binyam Mohamed was rendered to Guantánamo Bay on or about

September 19, 2004.
178. When he arrived in Guantánamo Bay, he was classified as level four.
179. Most of the time he has been in Guantánamo Bay, he has been held in
15
Camp V or VI.
180. Most of the time he has been in Guantánamo Bay he has been in a tan or
orange uniform.
181. Binyam Mohamed was not permitted access to a lawyer until April 2005.
182. While he has been in Guantánamo Bay, US personnel have attempted to

convince Binyam Mohamed that having habeas counsel was not in his best
interests.
183. While in Guantánamo Bay, Binyam Mohamed has never been permitted
access to any member of his family.
184. While in Guantánamo Bay, Binyam Mohamed has never been permitted a
telephone call to any member of his family.
185. While in Guantánamo Bay, Binyam Mohamed did not have a visit from
any country purporting to represent his interests until a British embassy officer
came in 2008.
186. Binyam Mohamed has been further abused in Guantánamo Bay.
187. The authorities in Guantánamo Bay have photographs of Binyam

Mohamed after he has been beaten by JTF personnel on or about May 22, 2006.
188. The authorities in Guantánamo Bay have a video of Binyam Mohamed as

he is being beaten by JTF personnel on or about May 22, 2006.
189. The authorities in Guantánamo Bay have a video of Binyam Mohamed

after he is being beaten by JTF personnel on or about May 22, 2006.
190. As of February 2008, the US government had made no effort to

investigate the allegations made by Binyam Mohamed that he had been tortured.
191. “The US informed [the UK government] in Washington in February that

they were not looking into the allegations of mistreatment [of Binyam
Mohamed].”22
192. All the statements made by Binyam Mohamed that are submitted in
support of his factual return were taken from him between July 21, 2004, and
October 29, 2004.
22
See Extract of submission – Foreign & Commonwealth Office Officials to Foreign
Secretary David Miliband (20 March 2008) (underlining in original).
16
193. The statements made by Binyam Mohamed between July 21 and July 27,
2004, were made at Bagram Air Force Base.
194. The statements made by Binyam Mohamed between September 24 and

October 29, 2004, were made in Guantánamo Bay.
195. In Bagram Air Force Base, Binyam Mohamed was informed that he could
not have access to a lawyer.
196. In Guantánamo Bay, between his arrival in September and the end of
October, Binyam Mohamed was informed that he could not have access to a
lawyer.
197. All the statements made by Binyam Mohamed that are relied upon by
Respondent in the Amended Factual Return were made prior to his having access
to anyone who was not either a government agent or a member of the ICRC.
198. No statement made by Binyam Mohamed that is relied on in his factual

return could reasonably be considered to be voluntary under US domestic law.
199. There is no evidence in the Amended Factual Return linking Binyam

Mohamed to any activity as an “enemy combatant” that could reasonably be
considered to be voluntary under US domestic law.
/s/ Clive A. Stafford Smith

Cori Crider
Ahmed Ghappour
Reprieve
PO Box 52742
London EC4P 4WS
United Kingdom
011 44 207 353 4640
October 27, 2008
17
EXHIBIT B


(Binyam Mohamed) )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
INTERROGATORIES UNDER RULE 32
The term “agent” or “personnel” of the US is intended in its broadest sense possible, to
include any person who purports in any way to act under color of the government, from
law enforcement personnel taking part in foreign operations to members of the Bush
The term “rendition” or and variant on the word “render” describes the process of
The terms “document”, “report”, or “statement” should be understood to include any

documentation or recording of any kind, whether a hard copy or an electronic copy.
Requested responses:
1. Please provide the real names for all of the US personnel who interviewed, or
were present for an interview of, Binyam Mohamed while he was in Pakistan; in
the alternative, provide a pseudonym and details of the method by which
Petitioner may take the deposition of each one.
18
2. Please provide all dates on which any US personnel were involved in any way in
questioning Binyam Mohamed while he was in Pakistan, from April 10 to July
21, 2002.
3. Please provide the real names for each of the US personnel on the flight that
carried Binyam Mohamed from Pakistan to Morocco in July 2004; in the
alternative, provide a pseudonym and details of the method by which Petitioner
may take the deposition of each one.
4. Please describe US government policy with respect to rendering prisoners.
5. Please describe US government policy with respect to transferring prisoners from

one country to another for the purpose of coercive interrogation.
6. Please describe in detail how the decision was made to transfer Binyam Mohamed
to Morocco.
7. What was the legal basis for transferring Binyam Mohamed to Morocco?
8. When was the British government first informed that British resident, Binyam
Mohamed, had been transferred to Morocco?
9. Which US official was ultimately responsible for the decision to transfer him to
Morocco?
10. When was the decision made to transfer him?
11. What were the factors that led to the decision to transfer him?
12. Which US personnel, if any, questioned the appropriateness of transferring him?
13. Please describe any agreements between the US and Morocco regarding the
treatment of Binyam Mohamed while he was being held in Morocco.
14. Please describe any payments made by the US to any source in Morocco
regarding the detention and/or interrogation of Binyam Mohamed.
15. Please provide the real names for each of the following personnel on the flight
that carried Binyam Mohamed from Morocco to Afghanistan in January 2004; in
the alternative, provide a pseudonym and details of the method by which
Petitioner may take the deposition of each one.
a. James O’Hale, pilot

b. Eric Fain, pilot
c. Kirk James Bird, pilot
19
d. James Fairing, pilot

e. Lyle Edward Lumsden, III, medic special forces
f. Jane Payne
g. Patricia O’Riley
h. Michael Grady
i. Jason Franklin
j. Walter Richard Greensbroe
k. John Richard Decker
l. Hector Lorenzo
m. Bryam Charles/Charles Goldman Bryson
16. Please describe the purpose of each of the following US flights to Morocco by
aircraft used in the “rendition” program during the time Binyam Mohamed was
held there; identify whether there were any other prisoners being brought to
Morocco and who they were; identify whether any other prisoners were taken
away from Morocco, and who they were; and identify any link whatsoever
between the flight or the goals of the personnel on board and Binyam Mohamed’s
presence in Morocco:
a. Sept. 13-14, 2002. This flight came indirectly from Diego Garcia to
Rabat. It was used to render another prisoner via Diego Garcia, and is one
of two flights implicated in recent revelations by British Foreign Secretary
David Miliband. It went on to Porto, in Portugal.
b. Sept. 17-18, 2002. This flight came to Rabat from Amman, Jordan. It was
probably implicated in the rendition of two other prisoners to Jordan,
Hassan bin Attash and Abdul al Sharqawi, both of whom later appeared on
Mr. Mohamed’s “Torture Flight” to Guantánamo Bay on September 19-
20, 2004. Both are now in Guantánamo Bay – Hassan bin Attash being
the younger brother of Tawfiq Walid bin Attash, who is currently facing
capital charges in the military commissions. (Hassan was only a minor at
the time he was rendered by the US for torture.) The flight went on from
Rabat to Porto, Portugal.
c. Dec. 11-12, 2002. This flight originated in Germany, came to Rabat, and
then went on to Kabul.
d. Feb. 7, 2003. This flight originated in Washington, went to Morocco, and

then went on to Poland at the time of the establishment of the secret prison
in Poland.
e. May 9-11, 2003. This flight came from Larnaca, to Rabat. It went on to
Marrakech and then on to Washington.
f. June 4-5, 2003. This flight came to Rabat from Tashkent, another site
where there have apparently been renditions. It went on to Porto.
20
g. June 6, 2003. This flight came from Poland at the time of the secret
prison there. It went on to Porto.
h. Sept. 22-23, 2003. This flight went from Rabat to Guantánamo, and was
likely either carrying prisoners there, or US intelligence personnel.
i. Nov. 19, 2003. This flight came to Rabat from Baghdad.
j. Nov. 21, 2003. This flight came from Kabul to Rabat, and went on to
Guantánamo.
k. Dec. 2-3, 2003. This flight came from Washington to Porto and then to
Rabat and went on to Guantánamo.
l. Dec. 28, 2003. This flight came from Guantánamo to Rabat, and then
went on to Jordan at the time of the abuse of rendered prisoners there (see
above).
17. Please identify the dates of any other flights by aircraft carrying personnel to or
from Morocco who were related in any way with the Binyam Mohamed case.
With respect to each such flight, please describe the purpose of each of the flights;
identify whether there were any other prisoners being brought to Morocco and
who they were; identify whether any other prisoners were taken away from
Morocco, and who they were; and identify any link whatsoever between the
flight or the goals of the personnel on board and Binyam Mohamed’s presence in
Morocco.
18. Please provide the names of all other prisoners who were not of Moroccan
nationality who have been transferred without a judicial order in an American
aircraft to Morocco since September 2001, along with the date of the transfer of
each, and a brief description of the purpose of the transfer.
19. Please provide the names of all other prisoners who were of Moroccan nationality
who have been transferred without a judicial order in an American aircraft to
Morocco since September 2001, from a country other than the United States,
along with the date of the transfer of each, and a brief description of the purpose
of the transfer.
20. Please describe any agreements between the US and Morocco regarding the
treatment of prisoners who have been transferred in the manner described in the
two paragraphs above.
21. Please provide a description of all the photographs that were provided by the US
to the Moroccans to be shown to Binyam Mohamed.
21
22. Please provide a description of all photographs that were provided by the UK to
the US and were subsequently given to the Moroccans to be shown to Binyam
Mohamed.
were present for an interview of, Binyam Mohamed while he was held in the
‘Dark Prison’; in the alternative, provide a pseudonym and details of the method
by which Petitioner may take the deposition of each one.
were present for an interview of, Binyam Mohamed while he was in Bagram Air
Force Base; in the alternative, provide a pseudonym and details of the method by
which Petitioner may take the deposition of each one.
were present for an interview of, Binyam Mohamed while he was in Guantánamo
Bay; in the alternative, provide a pseudonym and details of the method by which
Petitioner may take the deposition of each one
26. Please provide the real names for all of the US personnel who were present during
the assault committed on Binyam Mohamed in Guantánamo Bay on or around
May 22, 2006; in the alternative, provide a pseudonym and details of the method
by which Petitioner may take the deposition of each one.
27. Please provide the real names for all of the US personnel who have expressed
concerns about the legality or appropriateness of what has been done to Binyam
Mohamed, or who has made an oral or written complaint about it, at any time
from April 10, 2002 to present; in the alternative, provide a pseudonym and
details of the method by which Petitioner may take the deposition of each person.

Cori Crider
Ahmed Ghappour
Reprieve
PO Box 52742
London EC4P 4WS
United Kingdom
011 44 207 353 4640
22
October 27, 2008
23
EXHIBIT C


(Binyam Mohamed) )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

AND TANGIBLE THINGS UNDER RULE 34
The term “agent” or “personnel” of the US is intended in its broadest sense possible, to
include any person who purports in any way to act under color of the government, from
law enforcement personnel taking part in foreign operations to members of the Bush
The term “rendition” or and variant on the word “render” describes the process of
The terms “document”, “report”, or “statement” should be understood to include any

documentation or recording of any kind, whether a hard copy or an electronic copy.
Requested responses:
1. Please provide all documents relating to any consideration given to anyone in

Pakistan in exchange for Binyam Mohamed bring made available to, or turned
over to, the US.
24
2. Please provide all documents relating to any agreement between the US and
Pakistan that allowed for US interrogation of Binyam Mohamed while he was
held in Pakistan between April 10 and July 21, 2002.
3. Please provide copies of all statements made by or attributed to Binyam

Mohamed to any government agent (from any government) while he was in
Pakistan, from April 10 to July 21, 2002.
4. Please provide copies of all reports or recordings of any kind made by any US
agency concerning the case of Binyam Mohamed at any time during his detention
in Pakistan, from April 10 to July 21, 2002.
5. Please provide all photographs taken of Binyam Mohamed during his detention in
Pakistan, from April 10 to July 21, 2002.23
6. Please provide copies of any documentation of any and all complaints made by
Binyam Mohamed during his detention in Pakistan.
7. Please provide copies of any documentation of any actions taken in response to

any complaints made by Binyam Mohamed during his detention in Pakistan.
8. Please provide copies of documentation of any inconsistencies between the

versions of similar events being given by Abu Zubaydah in April through July
2002 compared to those being given by Binyam Mohamed.
9. Please provide all documentation of discussions of any kind between any US

personnel concerning the consideration of whether to recommend or authorize
Binyam Mohamed’s transfer from Pakistan to Morocco.
10. Please provide copies of all statements made by or attributed to Binyam

Mohamed to any government agent (from any government) while he was in
Morocco, from July 20, 2002, to January 21, 2004.
11. Please provide all photographs taken of Binyam Mohamed during the time he was
in Morocco, including the time he spent arriving at and leaving the airport.
Binyam Mohamed during his detention in Morocco.
any complaints made by Binyam Mohamed during his detention in Morocco.
23
The British intelligence officer who interviewed Mr. Mohamed in May 2002 reported
that he seemed abnormally thin.
25
14. Please provide copies of all US reports concerning Binyam Mohamed in any way
that relate his time in Morocco, from July 20, 2002, to January 21, 2004.
15. Please provide copies of all photographs that were provided by the US to the
Moroccans to be shown to Binyam Mohamed.
16. Please provide copies of all photographs that were provided by the UK to the US
and were subsequently given to the Moroccans to be shown to Binyam Mohamed.
17. Please provide copies of all questions that were submitted by the US to the
Moroccans to be asked of Binyam Mohamed.
18. Please provide copies of all questions that were submitted by the UK to the US to
be asked of Binyam Mohamed, either when he was being held in Pakistan or
when he was being held in Morocco.
19. Please provide copies of all US reports concerning Binyam Mohamed in any way
that relate his time in Afghanistan, from January 20, 2004, to September 21, 2004.
Afghanistan.
Binyam Mohamed during his detention in Afghanistan.
any complaints made by Binyam Mohamed during his detention in Afghanistan.
Guantánamo Bay.
24. Please provide all documentation of any kind from Guantánamo Bay of
disciplinary actions taken against Binyam Mohamed.
25. Please provide all documentation of any kind from Guantánamo Bay of the
classification level applied to Binyam Mohamed at any time during his detention
there.
26. Please provide documentation of any provision or recision of “comfort items”

permitted to Binyam Mohamed at any time during his detention in Guantanamo
Bay.
Binyam Mohamed or his representative during his detention in Guantánamo Bay.
26
any complaints made by Binyam Mohamed or his representative during his

detention in Guantánamo Bay.
29. Please provide a complete copy of all available medical records of Binyam
Mohamed during his detention since April 10, 2002.
30. Please provide a complete copy of all available mental health records of Binyam
Mohamed during his detention since April 10, 2002.

versions of similar events being given by Jose Padilla at any time from May 2002
to the present compared to those being given by Binyam Mohamed.

versions of similar events being given by Abu Zubaydah at any time from his
arrest to the present compared to those being given by Binyam Mohamed.

versions of similar events being given by Khalid Sheikh Mohamed at any time
from his arrest to the present compared to those being given by Binyam
Mohamed.
34. Please provide copies of documentation of any statement by any witness to events
described by Binyam Mohamed that is inconsistent with any version that he has
given.
35. Please provide copies of all 42 documents identified to the US as potentially

exculpatory by the British authorities, with only the redactions agreed by the
British and the US.
36. Please provide copies of any other exculpatory evidence in the possession of the
US government as it relates to Binyam Mohamed.

Cori Crider
Reprieve
PO Box 52742
London EC4P 4WS
United Kingdom
011 44 207 353 4640
27
October 27, 2008
28
EXHIBIT D-1


(Binyam Mohamed) )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS UNDER RULE 31

OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL DARREL VANDEVELD
1. Please confirm the dates you were assigned, as a military prosecutor in the Office
of Military Commissions Prosecution (OMCP), to the case of Binyam Mohamed.
2. Please describe in detail problems you identified with respect to the suppression
of potentially exculpatory evidence by the Pentagon or other US agencies, with
respect to prisoners held in Guantánamo Bay.
3. Please describe in general terms how the Department of Justice lawyers for
Respondent (Defense Secretary Gates) work with the Department of Defense
lawyers for Respondent on the cases of Guantánamo Bay prisoners.
4. Please describe in particular detail any experiences you have had of the DOJ
lawyers overruling, or attempting to overrule, your intention to provide material
that you considered exculpatory to the lawyers for any Guantánamo Bay prisoner.
Your answer should include the example you have given from the Jawad case, but
also include any other examples.
5. Please describe in detail the reasons that have been given by the other lawyers for
Respondent when they have refused to turn over materials that you consider
exculpatory – such, for example, as statements from other individuals who
confess to the crime that the Mohammed Jawad is alleged to have committed.
6. Please identify very approximately how many “thousands of documents” you
1
have analyzed in Binyam Mohamed's case.
7. Please confirm whether you have reviewed the 42 documents identified by the
British authorities as potentially exculpatory in Mr. Mohamed’s case (hereinafter
“the 42 British documents”).
8. Please confirm that the 42 British documents do not even identify the country
(hereinafter “third country”) in which Binyam Mohamed was held between July
2002 and January 2004.
9. Please identify that third country.
10. Please identify the prison or prisons in which Mr. Mohamed was held in that third
country.
11. Please identify who made the ultimate decision to transfer Mr. Mohamed to that
third country.
12. Please describe the reasons given for his transfer to that third country.
13. Please confirm your prior statement made to counsel for Mr. Mohamed during
discussions on the case that he was held in the third country in conditions that
were far worse than any conditions in a prison in the United States.
14. Please describe in detail any mistreatment that he suffered during his time in that
third country.
15. Please confirm that the 42 British documents do not even identify the location
where Binyam Mohamed was held in Afghanistan from January to May 2004.
16. Please describe in detail your assessment of the claim currently being made by the
Department of Justice that the only potentially favorable documents among the
thousands of documents related to Binyam Mohamed’s case are the 42 British
documents.
17. Please describe what is meant by a “prudential search request.”
18. Please identify roughly how many documents were turned up relative to Binyam
Mohamed’s case in such a “prudential search request” from the FBI?
19. Please identify roughly how many documents were turned up relative to Binyam
Mohamed’s case in such a “prudential search request” from other agencies?
20. Please identify in terms as specific as you can what other exculpatory material –
material that could be helpful to Mr. Mohamed’s lawyers – you have seen in the
case.
2
21. Please identify any witnesses who could provide favorable evidence to Mr.
Mohamed.
22. Please identify any photographs that you have seen that would tend to support Mr.
Mohamed’s claim that he has been mistreated in any way between April 10, 2002,
and the current date.
23. Please identify the existence and location of any file in the hands of Respondent’s
lawyers (either at the DOJ, the DOD or elsewhere) that would assist the court in
identifying all the material in government hands that might be considered
exculpatory or favorable to Mr. Mohamed.

Cori Crider
Reprieve
PO Box 52742
London EC4P 4WS
United Kingdom
011 44 207 353 4640
October 27, 2008
3
EXHIBIT D-2


(Binyam Mohamed) )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
Respondent. )
__________________________________________)
DEPOSITION BY WRITTEN QUESTIONS UNDER RULE 31

OF JANE PAYNE
1. Please state your real name.
2. Please describe your qualifications.
3. Please describe how you were employed in January 2004.
4. Please describe what the purpose was of your flight to Morocco in January 2004.
5. Please identify all the other personnel on the aircraft to Morocco, and describe
their role in the operation.
6. Please describe the prisoner or prisoners who you picked up on or about January
21, 2004, in Morocco.
7. At any time did you take photographs of any such prisoner?
8. Please describe in detail how you took the photographs, what you took
photographs of, and what happened to the photographs.
9. Did you see anyone else take photographs of any of the prisoners?
10. Do you have reason to believe from any other source that anyone else took
1
pictures of any of the prisoners? Please describe this in detail.
11. Have you learned from any source that one prisoner on the flight was Binyam
Mohamed?
12. How did you learn this?
13. When did you learn this?
14. Has anyone discussed his case with you?
15. When?
16. What did they say?
17. Have you heard anything that suggests that any prisoner on the flight may have
been abused while in Morocco?
18. Please describe anything you have heard in detail.

Cori Crider
Ahmed Ghappour
Reprieve
PO Box 52742
London EC4P 4WS
United Kingdom
011 44 207 353 4640
October 27, 2008

Habashi v. Gates: Doc. 103-2

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Habashi v. Gates: Doc. 103-2

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 1:05-cv-00765-EGS Document 103-2 Filed 10/28/2008 Page 1 of 43

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BENJAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, )

NOTICE OF SERVICE OF DISCOVERY

1) Amended Requests for Admissions, per FRCP 36;1

2) Interrogatories, per FRCP 32;

4) Deposition by Written Questions, per FRCP 31, of

Mohamed until his resignation on or around September 24, 2008;2

Mohamed during his abuse in Morocco.

Petitioner’s carefully targeted disclosure requests

Petitioner is at pains to make matters as easy as possible on Respondent. Petitioner notes

time for a response.

US must surely do the same.

Finally, Petitioner suggests two preliminary depositions on written questions. He is

the plane – can testify to evidence of Mr. Mohamed’s abuse in Morocco.

prosecutor who will admit it, or he needs to prove it.

permissible,5 Petitioner is perfectly willing to provide subsequent disclosures to Respondent to

Respondent’s obstinate refusal

and targeted discovery requests by this Court.8

shrugged off Petitioner’s requests as “excessively broad and otherwise objectionable.”

habeas corpus, this cannot be so.

The discovery Mr. Mohamed seeks here is exculpatory,

requested in order to prove his innocence.

U.S. 471 (1963).

waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah and a spoof website—“How to Build an H-Bomb”—gave

plot was the provocation for everything that later happened.

Morocco; of the purpose of the questioning; of UK involvement, witting or unwitting, in that

abuse up the US chain of command; of documentation taken of his injuries (such as

the fact and conduct of the flight to Kabul.

government’s on-going efforts to dissemble.

“enhanced interrogation techniques”: sleep deprivation; temperature extremes; hours of ear-

conditioned to make in Morocco.

dubious contention that a few weeks of incommunicado detention in Afghanistan somehow

serves to dissolve the taint of the many months of torture.

inculpatory statement Mr. Mohamed made in Bagram.

Again, Respondent seeks to rely on various inculpatory statements made by Mr.

and the subsequent cover-up.

not, and never was, an “enemy combatant.”

Counsel for Petitioner Mohamed

October 27, 2008

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

BENJAMIN MOHAMMED AL HABASHI, )

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS UNDER RULE 36

1. Binyam Mohamed is not, and never has been, a member of al Qaida.

4. Binyam Mohamed was detained by the Pakistani authorities for an alleged

passport violation on or about April 10, 2002, in Karachi.

5. Binyam Mohamed had a passport in the name of Fouad Zouaoui.

9. There is no physical evidence whatsoever that Binyam Mohamed planned to

13. Sometime in mid-April 2002, Abu Zubaydah was being interrogated by US

17. At least one Pakistani official held a gun to Binyam Mohamed.

19. Binyam Mohamed’s detention in Pakistan violated Pakistani law.

20. US agents paid a “bounty” for Binyam Mohamed to a person or persons in

21. Binyam Mohamed was repeatedly interrogated by US agents while in Pakistan.

22. Binyam Mohamed was reported to be “combative” with US agents in Pakistan.

23. Binyam Mohamed asked the US agents for a lawyer.

27. This interview was recorded by US agents.

37. The following description by the British Intelligence officer of Binyam

52. Binyam Mohamed insisted that discussions concerning a supposed radiological

55. British intelligence passed information to the US intelligence to facilitate the

56. British intelligence provided questions to US intelligence to ask of Binyam

57. British intelligence provided photographs to US intelligence to show to Binyam

upon which a second debrief by our service could be facilitated,” is accurate.

64. Respond to the following as appropriate:

b. US agent misled the UK as to whether Binyam Mohamed was to be