...please tell me what is OK with this:

Case Study 3:
One September 11 detainee was held at the MDC from October 16, 2001, until June 14, 2002. His wife said she experienced repeated problems while attempting to visit her husband. The woman, who took unpaid leave from work to travel from her home in New Jersey to the MDC, said that between October and December 2001 she was told by staff at the MDC visitors' desk that her husband was not incarcerated at the facility when, in fact, he was. When she eventually learned her husband was at the MDC, she visited him for the first time on December 19, 2001, after being granted a "special visit" by the unit manager at a date and time outside the normal visiting schedule. From January 31 to March 31, 2002, the woman said she was not permitted to visit her husband because he was being disciplined for failing to stand up for a 4:00 p.m. daily count.

The woman subsequently was permitted to visit her husband during the week of April 2, 2002. However, she was not permitted to visit her husband the week of May 1, 2002, because she arrived at the MDC on a day and at a time that MDC reception area staff told her was not the appropriate time to visit detainees held in the ADMAX SHU. The woman told the OIG that she assumed this was an appropriate time because it was the same day of the week and hour of her previous "special visit." When she contacted the ADMAX SHU unit manager about this particular visitation problem, he arranged for another "special visit" which took place on May 4, 2002. On May 9, 2002, the detainee's wife arrived at the MDC to visit her husband but MDC staff told her that all the visitation rooms were full. She was asked to wait until after the 4:00 p.m. inmate count for a possible visit at 4:30 p.m. At 4:30 p.m., the reception staff told her to go home and call the following day. On May 10, 2002, the detainee's wife said she was unsuccessful in contacting anyone at the MDC to arrange a visit with her husband.

As of May 10, 2002, the woman had succeeded in visiting her husband three times during his more than five months of confinement in the ADMAX SHU.

United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. "The Spetember 11 Detainees: A Reveiw of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks." June 2003. Chapt. 7, Sec. V., subsec. D. http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/03-06/chapter7.htm#V

or this:

However, similar to the difficulty experienced by detainees' attorneys and family members seeking to meet with them, the MDC detainees' designation as WITSEC inmates made it difficult for consulates to contact detainees who were citizens of their countries. For example, on October 9, 2001, a consular official met with five September 11 detainees at the MDC. Later that same day, the consular official tried to call the MDC Warden to discuss the detainees' cases, but was informed by an MDC employee that none of the five detainees was held at the MDC. Instead, the MDC employee gave the consular official the telephone number for BOP's National Inmate Locator, which, as discussed previously, did not contain information about the September 11 detainees.

United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. "The Spetember 11 Detainees: A Reveiw of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks." June 2003. Chapt. 7, Sec. V., subsec. E. http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/03-06/chapter7.htm#V

or this:

Four cases alleging physical abuse of September 11 detainees at the MDC were referred to the FBI for investigation. Another two complaints of abuse were referred to the BOP's internal affairs office for review. As we summarize below, the FBI closed three of these cases and one FBI case remains open. The BOP closed one case due to the resignation of an employee and closed the other as unsubstantiated after conducting an investigation.

In each of the four cases assigned to the FBI, the detainee alleged that he was "slammed" against a wall or door by MDC correctional officers and was injured as a result. Two of the detainees also alleged that they were threatened by MDC correctional officers and incurred additional physical abuse, such as being kicked by officers or having the chain on their leg restraints stepped on by officers. The detainees' complaints were forwarded initially to the Department's Civil Rights Division, which after a delay in two of the cases assigned them to the FBI to investigate. In two of the cases sent to the FBI, the detainees already had been removed by the time the FBI received the complaints and were not interviewed. In another case, the detainee was removed six months after the FBI received the case, but was not interviewed. The FBI did not attempt to locate these removed detainees or to interview the correctional officers. The Civil Rights Division declined prosecution of the three cases, and the FBI subsequently closed its investigations.

In the one case that the FBI has not yet closed, the detainee complained in May 2002 that he was slammed into a wall, unnecessarily strip searched, and physically abused by MDC officers. The FBI received the case in July 2002, and opened an investigation in September 2002. As of March 19, 2003, however, the FBI had not interviewed the detainee or any officers.

United States Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. "The Spetember 11 Detainees: A Reveiw of the Treatment of Aliens Held on Immigration Charges in Connection with the Investigation of the September 11 Attacks." June 2003. Chapt. 7, Sec. VI., subsec. C. www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/03-06/chapter7.htm#VI

The cases immediately above are only four of dozens of alleged incidents. Anyone interested can scroll up from this subsection to read other accounts, and can scroll down to view accounts of destruction of video tape records of prisoner/officer interactions by the MDC to free up storage space. Ahem.

The approximate number of detainees has never been known. Speculation is somewhere between 700 and 1200. Some were held for months without outside contact. (Can you spell "Bastille"? How about "lettres de cachet"?) Many have since been released and deported because they were in violation of their visa agreement, yet they never had the opportunity for a hearing in a public court with a proper attorney because of the secrecy in which they were kept.

The assumption of guilt until proven innocent is, to put it mildly, inconsistent with our legal system and our national philosophy.

The refusal of the Administration to release the names of those who were either expelled with no criminal charges or released back to their families (are there any? and if so, why have they not spoken up?) leads me to believe that the Administration is more worried about embarassment than security in those cases. If there is no case against them, or if the charges were mere visa violations, which happen all the time, why not release their names?

Yes, I know: relative morality. But let me repeat something I said over and over some months ago, and stopped saying because I didn't want to be accused of "spam": this isn't about Saddam Hussein's behavior, or about the Taliban's behavior, or about Osama bin Laden's behavior. This is about our behavior. We have our principles, our national philosophy, and our government of laws. It's up to us to live up to those things regardless of what other nations, and other heads of nations, do. To do less is to erode the very thing that makes us a great nation. Without it, we are merely powerful, and possessed of a big head, to boot. Why worry about being done in by terrorists when, in our fearfulness we can pull down our commitment to an open society of laws all by ourselves, and in our hubris we can believe that owning our Constitution is the same as keeping it?

Being better than Saddam Hussein is not difficult. It's also not enough for a nation with the promise of the United States. The standards by which we judge ourselves must be our own.

Regards--
Mary Anne