1 November 2000
Source: Public records hardcopy,
Southern District of New York
Documents from USA v. Usama Bin Laden, et al, in US embassies bombings case.
See related court docket: http://cryptome.sabotage.org/qaeda102000.htm
[17 pages.]
DOC #232
MEMO ENDORSED
FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
JUL 7 4 53pm '00
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK |
||
| ------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. USAMA BIN LADEN, et. al, MOHAMED SADEEK ODEH, Defendant ------------------------------------------------------ |
x
: : : : : x |
NOTICE OF MOTION |
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Affirmation of Sandra L.
Babcock, Esq., and all prior papers and proceedings herein, the defendant,
Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, will move before the Honorable Leonard B. Sand, United
States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, at the United
States Courthouse located at 500 Pearl Street, New York on June 15, 2000,
for the following relief:
(a) an order suppressing all statements made by Mr. Odeh to the Pakistani authorities;(b) an order suppressing all statements made by Mr. Odeh to the Kenyan authorities;
(c) an order suppressing all evidence seized during a search of Mr. Odeh's residence in Witu, Kenya, and
(d) for any other relief that seems just and proper.
Dated: New York, New York
June 20, 2000
Respectfully submitted,
[Signature]
SANDRA L. BABCOCK, ESQ.
20 South Sixth Street
Suite 215
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
tel. (612) 721-9414CARL J. HERMAN, ESQ.
570 West Mt. Pleasant Avenue
Suite 101
Livingston, New Jersey 07039
tel. (973) 740-8944ANTHONY L. RICCO, ESQ.
EDWARD D. WILFORD, ESQ.
20 Vesey Street
Suite 400
New York, New York 10007
tel. (212) 791-3919Attorneys for Mohamed Sadeek Odeh
To: CLERK OF COURT
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ALL DEFENSE COUNSEL
__________________________________
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK |
||
| ------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -against- USAMA BIN LADEN, et. al, MOHAMED SADEEK ODEH, Defendants ------------------------------------------------------ |
X
: : : : : X |
AFFIRMATION |
Pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 1746, Sandra L. Babcock, Esq. hereby affirms under the penalty of perjury:
1. I am counsel of record for Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, a defendant in the above-captioned case. The following affirmation is based upon my review of the discovery disclosed as of June 7, 2000; research, investigation and interviews conducted in Pakistan and Kenya; and interviews with Mr. Odeh.1 This affirmation provides facts relevant to Mr. Odeh's motion to suppress statements made in Pakistan and Kenya, as well as his motion to suppress evidence seized during a search of his home in Witu, Kenya. For the reasons stated herein, and in the accompanying memorandum of law, Mr. Odeh requests that his statements be suppressed. In addition, he requests that all evidence seized during the search of his home be suppressed.
____________________
1 Mr. Odeh's declaration is appended as Exhibit A.
Facts Relevant to Suppression of Statements
2. On August 7, 1998, Mohamed Sadeek Odeh arrived in Karachi, Pakistan, where he was arrested by immigration authorities. For the next several days they interrogated Mr. Odeh, using a panoply of coercive techniques.
3. For the entire time Mr. Odeh was in Pakistani custody, his interrogators questioned him in English -- even though his native language is Arabic and he spoke only broken English.
4. Pakistani authorities subjected Mr. Odeh to constant abuse, including threats of torture, physical assaults, steep deprivation, and other inhumane treatment. For example, the Pakistani interrogators threatened to sodomize Mr. Odeh unless he said what they wanted to hear. On another occasion, one of his interrogators threatened to subject him to such abuse that he would lose his penis and testicles. The Pakistani law enforcement agents also threatened to harm Mr. Odeh's wife and parents if he did not give them the information they wanted. Mr. Odeh was not permitted to sleep for long periods during his interrogation, and was at times deprived of food and water. These are just a few examples of the coercive techniques employed by the Pakistani agents.
5. Mr. Odeh fully believed the Pakistani interrogators would carry out their threats. During his interrogation, he heard sounds of another person being tortured. Before his arrest, Mr. Odeh had heard many stories about torture and killings at the hands of the Pakistani police.
6. Mr. Odeh's statements to the Pakistani authorities were the product of physical and psychological coercion, and were in no way voluntary.
7. Mr. Odeh told his interrogators that he was a Jordanian citizen. Despite this admission, he was never told that he could talk to someone from the Jordanian consulate, contrary to Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, April 24, 1963, TIAS 6820, 21 U.S.T. 77 (Exhibit U). At no time did the Pakistani investigators advise him that he could have a lawyer, nor was he given any other advice as to his rights. His interrogators never told him that he had a right to remain silent, nor did they inform him that anything he said could be used against him in a court of law. Although Pakistani law requires that a detainee be brought before a magistrate within twenty-four hours of his arrest,2 the Pakistani authorities failed to bring Mr. Odeh before a magistrate during his week-long incarceration in Pakistan.
____________________
2 CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN art. 10(2); Pakistan Code of Crim. P. arts. 60-61 (Exhibit I).
8. On approximately August 14, the Pakistani authorities took Mr. Odeh to Kenya on a plane, blindfolded.
9. After Mr. Odeh arrived in Kenya, he was taken to the Criminal Investigation Division, a Kenyan law enforcement agency. Shortly thereafter, [he] was brought into an investigation room and confronted by both Kenyan and American law enforcement agents. From the time Mr. Odeh was first brought to Kenya by the Pakistanis, to the time he arrived in the United States, no one informed him that he had a right to speak to a representative firom the Jordanian consulate. Kenyan law, however, requires that a foreign national be permitted to communicate with the Consular representative of his home country. Force'Standing Orders, CAP 49, Part 1, § 17 (Exhibit P).
10. An American agent read Mr. Odeh his Miranda fights, in English. The agent then showed Mr. Odeh a document -- also in English -- setting forth his Miranda rights in writing. With regard to Mr. Odeh's fight to counsel, the document stated:
In the United States, you would have the right to talk to a lawyer to get advice before we ask you any questions and you could have a lawyer with you during questioning. In the United States, if you could not afford a lawyer, one would be appointed for you, if you wish, before any questioning. Because we are not in the United States, we cannot ensure that you will have a lawyer appointed for you before any questioning.
Exhibit C. Neither the American nor the Kenyan agents provided an Arabic interpreter, nor were his Miranda warnings translated into written Arabic for his review. Nevertheless, Mr. Odeh's understanding was that he was entitled to a lawyer. Accordingly, he requested that he be provided a lawyer.
11. The American agents informed Mr. Odeh that they could not provide a lawyer. He then asked the Kenyan agents if they could provide him a lawyer, but they replied they had no money to provide him with one. The American agents informed Mr. Odeh that if he insisted on having a lawyer, then they were going to leave and the Kenyans alone would question him.
12. Mr. Odeh had lived in Kenya for some time, and was well aware of the propensity of Kenyan law enforcement officials, and particularly the CID, to beat, torture and kill suspects in their custody. Mr. Odeh was also aware of occasions where the Kenyan police had harmed or imprisoned suspects' wives and families. Mr. Odeh was afraid that the Kenyans might torture or kill him. He was also afraid that they would incarcerate or harm his wife.
13. In Mr. Odeh's view, the "rights" explained by the American agents were meaningless. While the American agents informed him that he had a fight to a lawyer, they said they couldn't provide him one. His choice was therefore either to (1) insist on a lawyer, and be left with the Kenyans alone -- who could have tortured and/or killed him, or (2) waive his fight to counsel. Mr. Odeh eventually signed his waiver of rights form, so that he would not be left alone with the Kenyans.
14. At one point early in the interrogation, the Americans left the room and Mr. Odeh was left alone with the Kenyans. At this time, the Kenyans told him that if he didn't talk they would take him to a forest and hang him upside down until he told them what they wanted to hear.
15. Mr. Odeh was afraid the Kenyan police would harm his wife. When he expressed his concerns about his wife's safety to the American agents, they told him that they would protect her. One of the American agents then asked for his wife's address. Mr. Odeh drew a map showing where she lived and gave it to him.
16. Some time thereafter, Mr. Odeh's wife was arrested and placed in a cell near where he was being interrogated. She was several months pregnant and sick. Although he could not see her, he could hear the guards saying insulting things about her. The Kenyans also threatened to send her to prison. This was extremely upsetting to him.
17. Outside the presence of the Americans, the Kenyans threatened repeatedly that they would torture and kill Mr. Odeh. For example, they told Mr. Odeh that they would take him to a Garden in the city, tell the people that he was responsible for the bombing, and allow them to cut him to pieces. Mr. Odeh knew that mob killings were commonplace in Kenya, and believed that the Kenyan police were capable of carrying out this threat. His fear was certainly justified: the Kenyan Human Rights Commission documented 139 deaths from mob violence in 1998. KENYA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, QUARTERLY REPRESSION REPORT ii (October - December 1998)(Exhibit O). This is just one example of the repeated threats made by the Kenyan authorities.
18. Mr. Odeh spoke to the American agents because of what the Kenyans threatened and what he feared they would do, not because he wanted to give up his rights. It was clear to him that the Kenyans would use force or other coercive techniques to make him talk. He cooperated so as not to be tortured and/or killed. Also, he would have said or done anything to secure the release of his wife -- and he believed the American authorities had authorized her arrest. This belief is corroborated by notes of one of the American FBI agents who participated in Mr. Odeh's interview, dated August 20, 1998. Those notes state: "Was upset re. wife/tell him that we have wife in custody." Exhibit D. (emphasis added). Mr. Odeh also learned that his wife's brother, Omar, had been taken into custody. Mr. Odeh feared that this would destroy Omar's reputation.
19. American law enforcement agents at all times controlled the formal interrogation of Mr. Odeh. American agents, as well as Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, questioned Mr. Odeh. Although investigators from the Kenyan Criminal Investigation Division were present, they rarely spoke during the interrogation sessions. The Government has conceded that American and Kenyan officials conducted a joint investigation of the embassy bombings. Gov't Mem. in Response to Defendants' Discovery Motions at 27.
20. One American agent told Mr. Odeh that he should cooperate so his family wouldn't be put in jeopardy.
21. Mr. Odeh was held and interrogated in Kenya for approximately twelve days. While in Kenya, he was never brought before a magistrate, nor was he permitted to speak by telephone to his family or legal counsel. He was provided no extradition hearing of any kind.
22. On or about August 27, 2000, Mr. Odeh was put on the plane to the United States. He was first taken to another country where he was transferred to a smaller plane. There, an individual came on board the plane and for the first time showed Mr. Odeh the advice of fights form in Arabic. He was told to sign the form.
23. In April and May 2000, I traveled to Kenya and Pakistan in an attempt to corroborate Mr. Odeh's account of physical and psychological coercion. In Pakistan, I met with numerous attorneys and human fights advocates, as well as an editor for one of the largest daily newspapers. All of these individuals emphasized that torture of suspects by the Pakistani police was routine. See also HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN, STATE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN 1998 at 101 (1999) (excerpt of report appended as Exhibit D). In 1998 -- the year Mr. Odeh was detained -- eighty people died in police custody in Pakistan, and thirty-six of those died in Karachi. Id. at 82, 95. During that year, the Karachi police routinely used torture to secure confessions and to extort money. Id. at 101.
24. The United States State Department has likewise documented serious abuses by the Pakistani police. In 1998, "police committed numerous extrajudicial killings and tortured, abused, and raped citizens." U.S. Dep't of State, PAKISTAN COUNTRY REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 1998 (1999)(Exhibit E). The State Department reported in 1999 that the Pakistani police throughout the country "routinely" use force or other inhumane treatment to elicit confessions. Id. at 6. Denial of food or sleep, as well as sexual assault, are common torture methods. Id. See also U.N. Commission on Human Rights, REPORT OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHNENT, VISIT BY THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR TO PAKISTAN, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1997/7/Add.2 at para. 14 (1996)(sleep deprivation, prolonged blindfolding, and rape were reported methods of torture)(Exhibit F). Journalists have also documented reports of sexual assaults by police. Exhibit G (newpaper account of boy with rectal bleeding after being held in police custody).
25. Exposing such abuses, however, is nearly impossible since "[i]nvestigating officers generally shield their colleagues." Exhibit E at 7. Often, the police hold suspects incommunicado in "undeclared places of detention," where they can "commit human rights violations with impunity since legal safeguards against ill-treatment cannot be enforced and detection is unlikely." Exhibit F at 6.
26. Extrajudicial killings by the police are also commonplace. Pakistani newpapers publish accounts of extrajudicial killings -- described as "encounters" -- nearly every day. See, e.g., Exhibit H (examples of newspaper articles). Police accounts of those killings are treated with great distrust by journalists and human rights advocates. Id. As the Pakistani Human Rights Commission explained in its 1998 annual report:
Except for the police... most people believed that these 'encounters' were staged by the police to liquidate people they wished to punish for a variety of reasons, outside the law...The reasons that made it difficult to believe the police stories were many. In a large number of cases the victims were reported to have been in police custody prior to an 'encounter' for periods ranging from a few hours to four months.
Exhibit D at 96. In describing the staged encounters, the State Department observed that police "continued to commit such killings with impunity." Exhibit E. One recent news account revealed that thirteen police officers were promoted after participating in an extrajudicial killing. Encounter: 13 Policemen Get Promotion, DAWN, August 20, 1999 (Exhibit H).
27. In Karachi, Pakistan, I met with a former judge and special prosecutor to discuss police practices, as well as Pakistani law regarding the treatment of pretrial detainees. He informed me that under Article 162 of the Pakistani Code of Criminal Procedure, no custodial statement by a pretrial detainee may be admitted as evidence at trial. Pakistan Code of Crim. P. art. 162; see also Law of Evidence3 art. 38 ("no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence").4 Only statements made in the presence of a magistrate carry evidentiary weight. Law of Evidence art. 39 ("no confession made by any person whilst he is in custody of a police officer unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate shall be proved as against such person"). Moreover, under article 164 of the Pakistani Code of Criminal Procedure, the magistrate must warn the defendant that he "is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him." Exhibit I.
____________________
3 The Pakistani Rules of Evidence are enumerated in the "Qanun-E-Shadat Order, 1984." The pertinent rules are appended in Exhibit I.4 Excerpts of Pakistani Rules of Criminal Procedure and Rules of Evidence are contained in Exhibit I.
28. The former judge, who is currently a special prosecutor for narcotics offenses, explained that these rules have developed because of the prevalence of torture in Pakistan. Since torture by the police is so rampant, custodial statements are simply unreliable. See also Exhibit E at 6.
29. While in Lahore, Pakistan, I reviewed newspaper clippings compiled by the largest Pakistani human rights organization, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. The Human Rights Commission maintains files of clippings regarding police torture, killings, and other abuses. There were hundreds and hundreds of articles dating back several years. Examples of such reports are contained in Exhibit H.5
____________________
5 There are literally hundreds of articles available. Counsel has not attached all of these articles, for two reasons. First, many are in Urdu, and counsel has been unable in the time allowed to obtain translations of the articles. Second, the stack of articles documenting police torture in Pakistan would amount to several hundred pages of exhibits.
30. While the Government in the above-captioned case has provided copies of one audiotape and one videotape of Mr. Odeh's statements to Pakistani law enforcement officers, [ Redacted ] the tape recordings are incomplete, and [Redacted] they were edited by the Pakistani authorities. Exhibit J. [ Redacted Redacted ] See, id. After reviewing the videotape, however, counsel believes the Pakistanis attempted to remove evidence of their improper interrogation techniques. They were not entirely successful, however. For example, at the beginning of the videotape (which was apparently recorded toward the end of Mr. Odeh's week-long interrogation), the Pakistani interrogator exhorts Mr. Odeh to speak, stating, "You must tell me something ... You must tell the truth, because if you tell me like that, brother, I will promise you, I will [have/help] you [unintelligible]." Moments later, the interrogator states: "I'm the seniormost person. . . tell me, otherwise this will go on, on and on [sic] your ordeal, and they will start pulling something different. They might even get your wife on, understand?"
31. The interrogator promises Mr. Odeh that if he makes certain statements, the interrogator will send Mr. Odeh "safely" to a location that has apparently been edited from the tape. Moreover, the interrogator promises the statement will not be revealed to anyone, and that if Mr. Odeh satisfies him, the interrogation will be "finished." Finally, the official promises that if Mr. Odeh gives him a statement, the official will "certify" that he is not an enemy of Pakistan, and will "one way or another arrange your passage."
32. The Government is either unaware, or has failed to reveal, the method by which the tapes were redacted. The Government has also failed to reveal which portions of the tapes were edited. While a transcript of the Pakistani statements has been provided, the transcript is inaccurate.
33. In Nairobi, Kenya, I met with several human rights advocates, criminal lawyers, a former assistant attorney general, and a current member of parliament. Without exception, these individuals stated that the Kenyan police routinely mistreat, torture, and kill detainees. Several attorneys had themselves been victims of horrific police torture. Moreover, they informed me that it is increasingly common in Kenya for the police to arrest the relative of a criminal suspect, in order to induce him to turn himself in or confess guilt. This practice was also documented by Amnesty International in its 1997 report on human fights in Kenya. See Amnesty International, KENYA - VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS: COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL AND THE GOVERNMENT OF KENYA (1997) (Excerpt, "Torture and Deaths in Custody," attached as Exhibit K). On some occasions, relatives of suspects have been killed. These incidents have also been reported in major Kenyan newspapers.6
____________________
6 Counsel has viewed these articles, but has not yet been able to obtain copies. The Kenya Human Rights Conunission maintains archives of newspaper articles documenting police torture and killings. Counsel requested copies of articles during a May trip to Kenya; however, the copies have not yet been delivered.
34. For the last several years, Kenyan newspapers have widely published reports of police torture and extrajudicial killings. See, e.g., Vile Torture Has No Place in Society, DAILY NATION, February 8, 2000, Mr. Sang, Cases of Torture Continue to Torment Kenyans, EAST AFRICAN STANDARD, July 28, 1999. (Exhibit L). The U.S. State Department reported that in 1998, Kenyan police "committed an increased number of extrajudicial killings and continued to torture and beat detainees, use excessive force, rape, and otherwise abuse persons." U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, KENYA COUNTRY REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES FOR 1998 AT 1 (1999) (Exhibit M); see also COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING QUESTIONS OF TORTURE AND DETENTION paras. 11-14, 86 (March 9, 2000) (the practice of beating suspects to obtain confessions is "widespread and systematic") (Exhibit N). The Kenyan Human Rights Commission reported that police killed 222 people in 1998. Exhibit O at v.
35. Kenyan law requires that a detainee be permitted to contact legal counsel, his family, or a friend. Force Standing Orders, CAP 49, Part 1, § 15 (Exhibit P). Mr. Odeh, however, was deprived of all access to legal counsel, his family, and friends. Kenyan lawyers have informed me that there is a legal aid organization in Nairobi to assist prisoners who cannot afford legal representation. It is possible that this organization could have provided Mr. Odeh with legal counsel.
36. At the end of April, 2000, the Kenyan Attorney General Wako announced his support for legislative reforms that would preclude the admission in evidence of all custodial statements by detainees, unless they are given in the presence of a magistrate. Exhibit Q, Catherine Gicheru, Changes to Ban Forced Confessions, THE DAILY NATION, April 28, 2000. Attorney General Wako stated that the proposed amendments were designed to remove "a major motivation for torture." Exhibit Q, Eniman Omari, New Bill To End Police Torture, THE DAILY NATION, April 28, 2000. This legislation is currently pending in Kenya. Id.
37. The Government of Jordan has advised me that upon notification that a
Jordanian citizen had been detained in a foreign country, the appropriate
Jordanian consulate would contact the detainee and provide him with consular
assistance. For example, the consulate would attempt to ensure that the detainee
is treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with international law.
Consular officers would also assist the detainee in contacting legal counsel,
and would communicate with his family.
Facts Relevant to Suppression of Fruits of Search
38. The U.S. Government has advised defense counsel that Mr. Odeh's home in Witu, Kenya, was searched and evidence was seized. Exhibit R. While the Government has refused to specify who carried out the search, Gov't Mem. in Response to Defendants Discovery Motions at 31, the, Goverment has conceded that American and Kenyan law enforcement agents were jointly responsible for the investigation in Kenya. Id. at 27.
39. On information and belief, authorities conducted the search of Mr. Odeh's home without obtaining a warrant, and without obtaining consent from any person authorized to give such consent.7 Kenyan law, however, requires that police obtain a search warrant prior to searching a residence. Kenya Criminal Procedure Code §§ 118 - 120 (Exhibit S). Before a warrant may be issued, a police officer must swear under oath, in the presence of a magistrate, that he has a reasonable suspicion items related to a criminal offense are in the residence. Id.
____________________
7 Since the Government has failed to provide the defense with any documents relating to the search, Mr. Odeh assumes that no search warrant exists.
40. As noted above, Mr. Odeh's pregnant wife was arrested and incarcerated during the course of his interrogation. It is noteworthy that she was arrested after Mr. Odeh gave her address to the American agents conducting his interrogation. Given this fact, as well as the Government's admission that the investigation was a joint venture, one can reasonably assume that the U.S. Government was jointly responsible for her arrest. The arrest of a suspect's innocent, pregnant wife is unconscionable.
41. A Kenyan court has concluded that the FBI "had no legal basis for operating" in Kenya. Ex parte Salim, Misc. Crim. App. No. 6 of 1999 (Mombasa High Court June 14, 1999) (Exhibit T at 20). The same court found that the FBI had violated the human rights of the applicant in that case. Id. The applicant alleged that the FBI told him to cooperate if he did not want his family to suffer. Id. at 7. Moreover, the applicant stated that the FBI threatened to turn him over to the Kenyan CID, where he would be tortured unless he gave them the information they wanted. Id. at 9.
42. The shocking behavior of American and Kenyan law enforcement officials, the unreasonableness of the search, and the authorities' violation of both U.S. and Kenyan law, distinguishes this case from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).
Dated: New York, New York
June 19, 2000
[Signature]SANDRA L. BABCOCK
[Exhibit A; 4 pages, page 2 missing.]
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK |
||
| ------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -against- USAMA BIN LADEN, et. al, MOHAMED SADEEK ODEH, Defendants ------------------------------------------------------ |
X
: : : : : X |
AFFIRMATION |
Mohamed Sadeek Odeh hereby swears in the name of God:
1. Iam a defendant in the above-captioned case, and am currently housed at the Metropolitan Correction Center at 150 Park Row, New York, New York.
2. My religion does not permit me to complain or to speak about what happened during my interrogation in August 1998, unless it is in front of an Islamic Court. But since the harm that will take place will affect many more people than myself, and because the methods that werc used to obtain the information from me were improper, I must make this declaration.
3. I have read the declaration and reviewed the memorandum of law of my assigned attorney, Sandra L. Babcock, Esq., and adopt as truthful those statements of fact contained in paragraphs 1-22 of her declaration.
4. I was arrested on August 7, 1998 at the immigration counter in the Karachi, Pakistan airport. I was interrogated in Pakistan for several days. During this tJrne, I made several statements
[Page 2 missing.]
8. The American agents told me that I had a right to a lawyer, but when I asked for one, they said they could not provide me with one. The Americans said that if I insisted on having a lawyer, they would leave me alone with the Kenyans. I knew the Kenyan police tortured and killed detainees. I felt I had no choice but to sign the piece of paper giving up my rights. This was not a voluntary choice.
9. The interrogations in Kenya were all in English. There was no Arabic interpreter, and no one translated my legal rights into Arabic so that I could review them.
10. The Kenyan and American agents arrested my wife and jailed her. She was several months pregnant and sick, and I was afraid they would hurt her. They also arrested my brother-in-law. I made numerous statements to the American agents, but these were not voluntary. I made these statements because I did not want to be left alone with the Kenyans, because I feared the Kenyans would carry out their threats against me if I failed to cooperate, and because I feared my wife would be harmed unless I gave them information. The fact that the authorities incarcerated my wife was a matter that affected me greatly. Her incarceration offended traditional Islamic religious beliefs, and the authorities knew that. Nevertheless, they subjected her to questioning by men, and made her remove her veil. They used her to get to me in a way that was very dirty.
11. I was never brought before a magistrate in Kenya, and I was never informed that I had the right to speak to someone from the Jordanian consulate. I was also never given any kind of hearing where I could challenge my extradition to the United States. I did not even know that I was going to be prosecuted in the United States.
12. I understand that the American and/or Kenyan agents searched my home in Witu, where I lived with my wife, child, and mother-in-law. To my knowledge, no person gave the police consent to search my home.
Dated: New York, New York
June 19, 2000
[Signature]MOHAMED SADEEK ODEH
[Exhibit B; 1 page. [-----] indicates redactions.]
We are representatives of the United States Government.
Under our laws, you have certain rights [-------------------------
-----------------------------------] Before we ask you any
questions, we want to be sure that you understand those rights.
You do not have to speak to us or answer any questions.
Even if you have already spoken to the Pakistani authorities,
you do not have to speak to us now.
If you do speak to us, anything that you say may be used
against you in a court in the United States or elsewhere.
In the United States, you would have the right to talk to a
lawyer to get advice before we ask you any questions and you
could have a lawyer with you during questioning. In the United
States, if you could not afford a lawyer, one would be appointed
for you, if you iwsh, before any questioning.
Because we are not in the United States, we cannot ensure
that you will have a lawyer appointed for you before any
questioning.
If you decide to speak with us now, without a lawyer
present, you will still have the right to stop answering
questions at any time.
You should also understand that you decide to not to speak
with us, that fact cannot be used as evidence against you in a
court in the United States.
I have read this statement of my rights and I understand
what my rights are. I am willing to make a statement and answer
questions. I do not want a lawyer at this time. I understand
and know what I am doing. No promises or threats have been made
to me and no pressure or coercion of any kind has been used
against me.
Signed [Signature]
Witness: SA [--------------------]
Witness: SA [--------------------]
Time: 11:25 AM August 15, 1998
[Exhibit C; 1 page; xerox of handwriting on spiral-bound, lined
notepad.]
[Tab]
PARTICULARLY
SENSITIVE
Thursday August 20, 1998 - Cont with
Mohamed Sedik Odeh.
Was supset re. wife / tell him that we have
wife in custody
Abdell Rasheed - work man for Wadi El HAGE.
Stayed is the same area as WADI
TAWLI [?] brought a Abdel Rashid
ABU MARWAN or MERWAN [sidenote] for Mohammed
NOORELDIN see AKA's
HAYDAR
TAWFIQ AKA - Mohamed Karame - was in
Wadi's house when it was searched.
AHMED MADUBI - Somalia - used to come
to Kenya. Hasn't seen him in 10 months
Abu Ibrahe Al Sudan - makes business
with UBL in sudan. Is a manager
AL UTAYBI for Al Qaeda - used
to call him Yeh Yeh from Cutfg [?]
[Tab]
ODHRPT-64
[Exhibits D-Q omitted here.]
[Exhibit R; 4 pages.]
| U.S. Department of Justice
United States Attorney |
|
| ______________________________________________________________ | |
| One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 |
|
[Handwritten]
Searches in Africa
December 10, 1998
THIS DOCUMENT IS DISCOVERY MATERIAL
TO BE COVERED BY THE COURT'S PROTECTIVE ORDER
AS GENERAL DISCOVERY MATERIAL
TO: ALL DEFENSE COUNSEL
Re: United States v. Usama Bin Laden, et al.,
(S2) 98 Cr. 1023 (LBS)
Dear Sirs:
Please be advised that the following locations in Kenya,
Tanzania and the Comoros Islands have been subject to search and
the materials from these searches are available for your review and
inspection:
Pertinent Locations:
Kenya:
Nairobi:
-- Residence of Wadih el Hage (1997 search)
-- #43 New Rhundu Estates (villa rented by Fazul Abdullah
Mohamed, a/k/a "Harun")
-- Hilltop Lodge hotel
-- 100 Mufelo Avenue (Mercy International Relief Agency)
-- Residence of Salim Karama Salim
-- #14 Samura Road
-- Senate Travel
-- Ganijee Glass Mart
-- Gadinos Pizza
-- Kenol Petrol Station
-- Mbono Crescente
-- Flat B, Musajjalamba
-- HM Nsamba Sons
Malindi:
-- Residence of Omar Salim Nassor (Odeh's brother-in-law)
-- Residence of Hassan Omar Hassan
Mombasa:
-- Fort Jesus Museum (office of Omar Salim)
-- Mwandoni/Kisauni (residence of Ali Binmohidin
Mohamed)
-- Residence of Ahmed Hamad
-- Residence of Fahad Mohamed Ally Msalam
-- Residence of Sheik Ahmed Salim Swedan
-- Residence of Abdusheikh Said Musa Baharesh
(Spaki Estates, Block number X1/743)
-- Residence of Nassor Suleiman Mbarak
-- Jai Kali Cement Products
-- Azzan store
-- Wanachi Sports Shop (owned by Msalam's uncle)
Witu:
-- Residence of defendant Odeh
Likoni:
-- Mahad Girl's Institute
Tanzania:
-- Kisarawe Hardware Supplies
Dar es Salaam
-- Tommy Spades Manufacturing
Morogoro Road
Kimera
-- Residence of Marcus Gaspar Shirima
Kinondoni Shamba
Kwa Mzee Kutema
-- Residence of Rashid Saleh Hamed
15 Amani Street
Dar es Salaam
-- Adil Auto Parts Store
59 Uhurn Street
Dar es Salaam
-- Sera Auto Parts Store
14 Narungombe Street
Dar es Salaam
-- Kariakoo Bazaar
Dar es Salaam
-- 22 Kidugalo Street
Dar es Salaam
-- Residence of Mustafa Mahmoud
901 Magomeni
Kisiwani
-- Al-Uruba Hotel, Rooms 105 and 106
Dar es Salaam
-- Residence of Zamzam Mohamed and Aida Mohamed
Dar es Salaam
-- Residence of Zuhura Said Abdalla.
20/162 Gongoni Street
Zanzibar, Tanzania
-- Residence of Omar Faruk
-- Residence of Maazen M. Mohamoud
190 Block V
Mikumi, Kisiwani
-- Continental Hotel, Rm. 302
Dar es Salaam
-- 47 Morogoro Street
Dar es Salaam
-- Plot # 205, Kimwari Avenue
Misasani Village
Dar es Salaam
-- 48 Ubungo Kisiwani Area
Kinondoni District
Dar es Salaam
-- House #213
Ilala District
Dar es Salaam
(most items currently at the lab)
-- 1989 Suzuki Samurai, License TZG-7575
The Comoros Islands:
-- residence of Fazul Abdullah Mohamed a/k/a "Harun"
-- House of "BeeBeell in Moroni, Comoros
The Government is in the process of producing one set of
copies of all the materials recovered that are capable of being
xeroxed for each defense team. You should receive a sizeable
amount of material next week, the vast majority of which will be
designated as "general discovery" material. Further installments
will follow as quickly as they can be marked and reproduced. After
your receipt and review of the materials, we would suggest that
counsel meet and discuss the extent to which counsel wish to review
the original items from some of those searches as well as the
timing and the order of priority of such review.
As further search materials come to our attention and are
available for review, you will be so advised.
Very truly yours,
MARY JO WHITE
United States Attorney
By: [Signature]
PATRICK J. FITZGERALD
KENNETH M. KARAS
MICHAEL J. GARCIA
Assistant United States Attorneys
(212) 637-1045/1034/1037
cc: Hon. Leonard B. Sand
[Balance of exhibits omitted here.]
[Attached to back of motion; 1 page.]
MEMO ENDORSED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
FILED
AUG - 1 2000
S.D. OF N.Y.
USA
v. USAMA BIN LADEN, et al. S(7) 98 Cr. 1023(LBS) The motion for suppression is deemed withdrawn. This action is taken without prejudice to the right of counsel for Mr. Odeh to file a renewed Motion to Suppress consistent with Mr. Odeh's statements in open court today. The Court notes in this regard Mr. Ricco's statement that assurances have been given to Mr. Odeh that with respect to this subject matter nothing will be submitted to the Court that does not have his express approval. SO ORDERED. Dated: New York, New York August 1, 2000 [Signature] U.S.D.J. COPIES MAILED TO COUNSEL OF RECORD JV 8/1/00
[5 pages.]
DOC #255
Ex A
9/28/00
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
FILED
SEP 28 2000
S.D. OF N.Y.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------x
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : SM 98 Cr. 1023 (LBS)
-against- : (Excerpt from proceeding
held September 28, 2000
ex parte on application
USAMA BIN LADEN, etc., et al., : of Sandra A. Babcock, Esq.
to withdraw as counsel.)
Defendants. :
----------------------------------x
Sandra A. Babcock, Esq., one of four appointed counsel for
the defendant, Mohamed Sadeek Odeh, has moved for leave to withdraw as
counsel on the grounds that this Court has determined "that counsel may
not file any motions in Mr. Odeh's case, without Mr. Odeh's expressed
agreement." The motion to which Ms. Babcock has referred was a motion
to suppress statements made to the Pakistani authorities, Kenya
authorities and all evidence seized during a search of Mr. Odeh's
residence in Kenya. By letter dated September 18, 2000, the Government
has stated, for the record, "that it does not intend to offer for its
case in chief at trial any statements made by Odeh to Pakistani
officials" and that the motion is moot insofar as such statements are
concerned.
The question of the extent to which a defendant may direct
counsel with respect to trial conduct is a complex and sensitive
question. See ABA Standards on Defense Function. The general rule is
that the accused has the right to decide: (1) what pleas to enter; (2)
whether to accept a plea agreement; (3) whether to waive a jury trial;
(4) whether to testify; and (5) whether to appeal. Standard 4-5.2. See
also Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751 (1983) (holding that defense
lawyers are not required to raise every colorable or non frivolous
issue that a defendant suggests). Generally speaking, strategic and
tactical decisions including what trial motions should be made are the
exclusive province of defense counsel after discussion with the client.
Standard 4-5.2. See also Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. at 753 n.6. The
commentary also advises that the lawyer "should seek to maintain a
professional relationship at all stages while maintaining the ultimate
choice and responsibility for the strategic and tactical decisions in
the case." Standard 4-5.2 Commentary.
There have been two previous occasions in this litigation
in which the Court has been advised of circumstances in which
clients have sought to control counsel's action. Prior counsel for
defendant Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-Owhali advised the Court that
their client had directed them not to appear before the Attorney
General's Committee on the Death Penalty although al-Owhali raised
no objection to counsel having made a written submission to the
Committee on his behalf. Counsel did not assert a right to appear
contrary to their client's wishes and the Court was not called upon
to rule on the matter. With respect to the right of a capital
defendants to instruct counsel with respect to opposition to the
death penalty, See U.S. v. Hammer, 2000 WL 1234611 (3d Cir.)
(holding that Federal Death Penalty Act did not deprive defendant
of right to waive the appeal of his death sentence).
In the course of proceedings before the Court with
respect to Mr. Odeh's application to have Michael Young removed as
counsel, Mr. Odeh asserted as one of his grounds for loss of
confidence in Mr. Young, the claim that he had instructed Mr. Young
not to interview certain family members because he believed that
they were under surveillance and that such actions might jeopardize
their safety. Mr. Young denied that he interviewed anyone without
Mr. Odeh's prior agreement and, again, the Court was not called
upon to rule on the matter.
When Mr. Odeh advised the Government that he wished to
withdraw the affidavit in support of the motion to suppress on the
grounds that Islamic law prevented him from making accusations
against the Pakistani, Kenyan or American governments before any
tribunal other than the Islamic court. The Court held a hearing
(See Transcript of Proceedings dated August 1, 2000) . At that
hearing, Mr. Odeh was represented by four counsel: Ms. Babcock,
Anthony Ricco, Esq., Edward D. Wilford, Esq. and Carl Herman, Esq.
As the transcript of that proceeding reflects, during the course of
that proceeding counsel took different positions at different times
on different issues. As the Court analyzed the problem, the first
issue was whether or not Mr. Odeh had the right to withdraw his
prior affidavit. If he did so, there was the further question
whether the motion to suppress could go forward without an
affidavit from the defendant recognizing the fact that the usual
practice of this Court is to require an affidavit in support of a
suppression motion. See Affirmation of Sandra A. Babcock, p. 2,
n. 1. Counsel advised the Court that they believed that the motion
to suppress could be sustained based on matters independent of Mr.
Odeh's affidavit. The Court stated, over the objection of Ms.
Babcock, that it would treat the previously filed motion to
suppress as withdrawn without prejudice to the filing of a new
motion without an affidavit from the defendant and would defer
decision on the adequacy of such a motion until after the
Government had an opportunity to respond.
During the course of this hearing, Mr. Ricco stated that
he had advised Mr. Odeh that no papers would be filed on Mr. Odeh's
behalf without his prior approval. This was a position taken by
Mr. Ricco as counsel for Mr. Odeh and was not imposed by the Court.
In the Court's opinion, in the context of this case, the
allocation of decision-making as between the defendant and counsel
is an extremely sensitive one which cannot be resolved by a
simplistic reference to the ABA Standards which, for example, make
no reference to a defendant's religious belief. Defendants, ardent
adherence to Islamic law, as they understand it, permeates their
actions and thinking. The issues raised by Ms. Babcock's motion
are quite different from those present when there is disagreement
between client and counsel as to matters of tactics, strategy or
trial judgment. One does not lightly disregard the firmly held
religious beliefs of a defendant. Moreover, these questions cannot
be considered without recognizing that this Circuit has held that
under most circumstances a defendant has a constitutional right to
appear pro se. Torres v. U.S., 140 F. 3d 392 (2d Cir. 1998) . It is
the Court's understanding that Mr. Odeh, having once advised the
Court that he wishes to exercise that right, is reconsidering the
matter.
Because of the sensitivity of the issue and its critical
impact on future proceedings in this litigation, the Court has not
issued a broad pronouncement that a client's wishes as to all
matters must prevail. If any prior Order of this Court has led to
any misunderstanding of the Court's views on the matter, I take
this occasion to clarify the Court's ruling and intend to
distribute this statement to all counsel. Where a conflict exists
between the client and counsel and they are unable to reach an
agreement without Court intervention, the matter is to be brought
to the attention of the Court which will, on an issue by issue
basis, resolve the matter. (If need be the matter can be referred
to a Magistrate Judge to avoid, if necessary, disclosures to the
trial judge.)
In sum, this Court has not ruled that no motion to
suppress may be made absent Mr. Odeh's approval or affidavit but
rather has explicitly deferred resolution of that matter, awaiting
a further submission which Ms. Babcock's motion advises the Court
apparently will not be forthcoming. In light of this clarification
(if clarification were needed) the Court invites further advice
from the parties including: (1) whether Ms. Babcock wishes to
pursue her motion to withdraw; and (2) whether there is any
opposition to that motion.
Transcription and HTML by Cryptome.