Jack Idema Gets US Judicial Support
Just when it seemed as though things couldn't get any worse for illegally-imprisoned US Special Forces soldier Jack Idema, they suddenly -- Got a Whole lot better:
The following transaction was entered on 3/21/2007 at 11:59 AM and filed on 3/21/2007Or, to translate this from legalise into plain English:
Case Name: IDEMA et al v. RICE et al
Case Number: 1:05-cv-2064
Document Number: 43
Docket Text: ORDER dismissing as moot habeas claims of petitioners Bennett, Caraballo, and Banderas, denying as moot  petitioners’ Life & Death Emergency Motion; denying  petitioners’ Motion for TRO and Other Relief and Rule 60 Motion; denying as moot  petitioners’ Motion to Compel; denying as moot  respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration; directing respondents to respond to factual allegations and show cause as to petitioner Idema by April 10, 2007. Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on March 21, 2007.
My name is Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, and I couldn't give a don't frankly care what either President Karzai or the US State Department think. What I want to know, and all I want to know, is why a certain US citizen by the name of Jack Idema seems to have been tortured and falsely-imprisoned with the apparent complicity of the United States Government.Here's the court's statement in full:
"Idema is the only individual who still remains incarcerated at Pulacharke Prison in Afghanistan. The Court is deeply troubled by the allegations raised in the habeas petition and various subsequent filings regarding the level of U.S. control over petitioners’ arrest, conviction, appeal, and confinement.All good stuff but for those of us who feel the Truth ought to be sum-uppable in a single line, here's what Jack's second-in-command, Captain Brent Bennett had to say about this judgement:
"While this Court is keenly aware of case law suggesting that it does not have jurisdiction over a habeas petition stemming from a foreign conviction and sentence, petitioners’ claim does more than simply challenge a foreign conviction. Petitioners allege that United States officials ordered their arrest, ordered their torture, stole exculpatory evidence during their trial and appeal, exerted undue influence over Afghan judges, and either directly or indirectly ordered judges who found petitioners innocent not to release petitioners from prison."
"These facts are alleged in a habeas petition and later statements of fact and affidavits that have all been verified as true and correct by petitioners under penalty of perjury."
"The Court cannot simply ignore petitioners’ alleged facts and find that it lacks jurisdiction without any response to these troubling facts by respondents. Indeed, the respondents have invited the Court to seek further information from respondents regarding the facts in this case. Accordingly, the respondents shall respond to petitioners’ factual allegations and show cause why this Court should not grant a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner Idema by April 10, 2007."
Reap the whirlwind.Well. Yes. After four long, agonizing years, maybe the storm-clouds are finally building.