"As you deliberate, deliberate as an American. Deliberate as an individual who is against terrorism and who supports the military and the president in this difficult War on Terror. And, remember, we did not attack. We were the ones who were attacked. Thank you."

CHAPTER FIFTY-EIGHT.

Brent carefully and methodically refuted every argument that Timothy Nagel had made, taking care not to repeat anything the jury had already heard. He closed the rebuttal with an emotional appeal.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, one of the founding fathers of our country, James Madison, said, "The means of defense against foreign danger have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

"When Madison said this, he knew that he, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and all the other statesmen who formed this country formed the Government to answer to the people, not the other way around. When they set up three branches of government with checks and balances, they did this so that no one branch would get any more powerful than the other.

"What we see in this case is an abuse of power by an over-zealous president, and that abuse of power must be stopped. It is making the United States of America, once a beacon for liberty and freedom and an example for every other democracy to follow, into an aggressive country that does not respect its own laws and does not play by its own principles. When the failure to follow its own rules results in the Government's destruction of lives of its own citizens, as in this case, it is unacceptable, and you need to send a clear message to your Government with this verdict that the United States is a good and humane nation, which does not torture prisoners of war. We are a nation of laws, a nation which respects our fellow humans and the rights of our own citizens, as well as the rights of citizens of other countries.

"When you deliberate, remember that Ahmed Khury could have been one of your neighbors, taken without charge and held indefinitely without due process of law, and tortured until it led logically to his death. That death was the proximate result of the negligence of his captors, by treatment that was fully sanctioned by the Department of Defense and the President of the United States himself.

"Remember that the FBI broke into Catherine's home, without a search warrant, because they suspected criminal activity was afoot. This would not have been evidence enough for any judge to grant them a warrant. Ladies and Gentlemen, the evidence is clear. Catherine Khury has met her burden of proof. You must award damages in the amount of a minimum of $9 million to Catherine Khury for the loss of her husband as a provider, tripled to $27 million on account of the loss of his love, affection, and attention, and his pain and suffering. You must declare that Catherine Khury's constitutionally guaranteed right to be secure in her person, papers and place of abode was violated by the implementation of the USA Patriot Act. It is the only right thing to do."

Judge Henley read the jury a set of written instructions on the law they were to apply to the evidence they heard. They would take the written instructions into the jury room to begin their deliberations. The lawyers would be contacted if the jury had reached a verdict, was unable to make a decision, or had a question. Until then, the only thing that could be done was to wait for them.

CHAPTER FIFTY-NINE.

The only thing worse than waiting for a jury, sometimes, is hearing their verdict. During the trial, it is prohibited for the lawyers to talk to the jurors, but afterwards, it is fair game. Brent opted out, more often than not however, because sometimes it was too scary to hear how they came to their verdict. They are supposed to apply the law to the facts, but with a jury that process is filtered through an emotional quagmire of biases and prejudices.

Brent sent Catherine home, and he and Rick hung around the courthouse just in case. They would have to remain close to L.A. for the next few days, as their time to report to court once a verdict or question has been announced was limited.

Three days later, the court called Brent about 11:30 and indicated that the jury had reached a verdict. They were to report to court for the announcement after the lunch break at 1:30 p.m. Brent called Catherine, who got in her car right away to try to make it to court on time. Now the waiting was even more stressful than before because Brent knew that there was a verdict, but he did not know what it was.

As the doors to the courtroom opened at 1:30, Brent, Rick, Nagel and Cicatto, and members of the press filed in, as did Balls Anderson, who took his usual seat in the back corner of the gallery. He hadn't been present during final arguments, and Brent could not say that he had missed him at all. That guy gave him the creeps, and the far enough away he was, the better.

At 1:45, Catherine came in, and nervously took a seat at the counsel table with Rick. Shortly thereafter, Judge Henley took the bench, and called the jury in. They filed in and took their seats.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I understand that you have elected a foreperson?"

"Yes, Your Honor," said juror number 3, Thaddeus Arcaro, an automobile worker, as he stood to address the judge.

"Mr. Foreman, have you reached a verdict?" asked the judge.

"Yes, Your Honor."

"Please hand the verdict to the clerk." Arcaro handed over the verdict and sat down. The clerk handed the verdict to the judge, who read it and gave it back to the clerk.

"The clerk will read the verdict."

"Question one: Do you find that defendants were negligent in the administration of the medical procedure known as enteral feeding to the decedent, Ahmed Khury? Answer: No.'"

Brent instantly felt deflated and discouraged. Catherine started to sob. Since question one was answered in the negative, the clerk read question three.

"Question three: Do you find that the defendants were negligent in the detention of the decedent, Ahmed Khury? Answer: Yes."

Nagel frowned, and Brent raised his eyebrows. There was still hope. Tears streamed down Catherine's face.

"Question four: Do you find that the negligence of the defendants was the proximate cause of the death of Ahmed Khury?' Answer: Yes."

From the gallery, Balls Anderson stood up and shouted, "It's not right! It's not right! He ran through the gallery and jumped over the wooden barrier separating it from the court. Rick bounded over the wooden barrier after him, but it was too late. Before Rick or the Bailiff could catch Anderson, he had thrown himself up onto the counsel table and had Brent in a chokehold.

"Stand back! Or I'll break his goddamn neck," he yelled, dragging Brent in front of him as he stepped backward. The Bailiff stood back. A bevvy of bailiffs appeared in the doorway to the gallery, but dared not approach.

"It's not right! It's un-American! You have to change the verdict!" Balls screamed to the jury.

"Sir, let Mr. Marks go and we will talk about the verdict," said Judge Henley. It was a smart thing to say, as it distracted Balls.

"No, no I won't! He has to pay!" Balls tightened his chokehold on Brent, who was gasping for air and turning blue. Catherine recoiled in horror, and sat motionless in fear.

The Bailiff, taking advantage of the judge's distraction, lunged at Balls with his stun gun drawn and shocked him. Balls instantly released Brent and was tackled by Rick and the Bailiff. The other bailiffs ran and joined the fray.

"Court will recess until order is restored," said the judge. "The jury is excused. The gallery shall be vacated. The parties and counsel will return in fifteen minutes, please."

The members of the press scrambled for the door to report the drama. When Brent and Catherine exited, they were swamped with questions.

When court recommenced, Catherine had already cried herself out. It was if a tremendous weight had been suddenly lifted from her shoulders. Maybe now she would be able to grieve. The jury was called back in and took their seats, and Judge Henley spoke to them.

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I am very saddened by what happened here today. A courtroom is a place where a civilized society settles its disputes without resorting to violence. If this had happened at any time before you had reached a verdict, I would have to declare a mistrial. Thankfully that did not happen and we can continue with the process. I thank each and every one of you for being a part of it."

The court went through the motions of obtaining the verdict again and the clerk continued to read it.

"Question five: What is the amount of damages sustained for loss of financial support from the decedent, Ahmed Khury to the plaintiff, Catherine Khury? Answer: $6,000,000.

"Question six: What is the amount of damages for the loss of benefits that plaintiff, Catherine Khury would have expected to receive from the decedent, Ahmed Khury? Answer: $500,000.

"Question seven: What is the amount of damages for the loss of the decedent, Ahmed Khury's love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, sexual relations and moral support to the plaintiff, Catherine Khury? Answer: $6,000,000.

"Question eight: What is the amount of damages for plaintiff Catherine Khury's grief, sorrow, or mental anguish? Answer: $6,000,000.

"Question nine: What is the amount of damages for the decedent Ahmed Khury's pain and suffering?' Answer: $1,000,000.

"Question ten: Do you find that the electronic surveillance of the plaintiff, Catherine Khury, under section 1804 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the USA Patriot Act, violated plaintiff Catherine Khury's Fourth Amendment guarantee to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? Answer: Yes.

"Question eleven: Do you find that the physical search of Catherine Khury's home pursuant to section 1823 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the USA Patriot Act, violated Catherine Khury's Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures? Answer: Yes."

The jury had spoken. It was a $19,500,000 verdict and the jury had thrown out a chunk of the Patriot Act. After polling the jury, they were excused and the admonition of speaking to them was lifted. Nagel and Cicatto shook Brent's hand. Catherine hugged Brent. In the corridor, she hugged every member of the jury who had stayed behind.

EPILOGUE.

The County of Santa Barbara passed a resolution for a monument in honor of Ahmed to be placed in the courtyard of the Santa Barbara courthouse. Catherine paid for the construction of the monument, which was a classic fountain called, "The Ahmed Khury Freedom Fountain." Members of the mosques and Islamic schools in the area were invited to the dedication of the memorial, which was intended to be a symbol of tolerance.

At the dedication, Catherine called upon the new president, Barack Obama, to implement the presidential order he had signed on January 23, 2009, to close Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp within one year. The camp remains open to this day, with many detainees having no hope of ever regaining their freedom.

AFTERWORD.

Of course, the story of Ahmed Khury is fictional, but it is based on solid historical research. If you care to read on, I have summarized some of the research. If not, I would like to ask you now to please leave a review. If you scroll to the last page, you will be prompted to do so. Also, there are excerpts of Predatory Kill, the first novel in the Brent Marks series and my first novel, An Involuntary Spy. Finally, I love to get email from my readers. Please feel free to send me one at info@timessquarepublishing.net. I would also like you to join my mailing list, for advance notice of new books, free excerpts, free books and updates. I will never spam you. Please subscribe here: http://bit.do/mailing-list.

Amnesty International has called the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp the "gulag of our time." Since President Obama's order to close the camp within one year on January 23, 2009, it has remained open because the president decided to amass political capital to use for his domestic agenda, which included "Obamacare."

On January 7, 2011, President Obama signed the 2011 Defense Authorization Bill, which placed restrictions on transferring prisoners to the United States. As of June 2015, there were 115 detainees being held, at a cost to the Government of roughly $3 million per detainee. 46 of them have been declared by the Government to be too dangerous to release, but they cannot be tried for any crime because there is insufficient evidence to try them.

Approximately half of the detainees held today have been cleared for release, but may never regain their freedom. Many of their native countries have refused to repatriate them, and, because of the new legislation, they cannot be transferred to prisons in the United States.

After September 11, 2001, torture was official U.S. policy under George Bush, authorized at the highest levels of government. Evidence of its continued and systematic practice continues to surface to this day.

On September 17, 2001, George Bush signed a secret finding empowering the CIA to capture, kill, or interrogate al-Qaeda Leaders." It also authorized establishing a secret global network of facilities to detain and interrogate them without guidelines on proper treatment. Around the same time, Bush approved a secret "high-value target list" of about two dozen names. He also gave CIA free reign to capture, kill and interrogate terrorists not on the list.

On November 13, 2001, the White House issued a Military Order regarding the "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War on Terror." It determined that "an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling Government interest and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency." It defined targeted individuals as al Qaeda and others for aiding or abetting acts of international terrorism or harboring them. These individuals were to be denied access to U.S. or other courts and instead tried by military commission with the power to convict by the concurrence of two-thirds of its members.

On December 28, 2001, Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals Patrick Philbin and John Yoo, sent a Memorandum to General Counsel, Department of Defense, and William Haynes II entitled: "Possible Habeas Jurisdiction over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." It said that federal courts have no jurisdiction over and cannot review Guantanamo detainee mistreatment or mistaken arrest cases. It further stated that international laws don't apply in the "War on Terror." This laid the groundwork for abuses in all U.S. military prisons.

On January 18, 2002, Bush issued a "finding" stating that prisoners suspected of being al Qaeda or Taliban members are "enemy combatants" and unprotected by the Third Geneva Convention. They were to be denied all rights and treated "to the extent...consistent with military necessity." Torture was thus authorized. The 2006 Military Commissions Act also known as the "torture authorization act" later created the Geneva-superseded category of "unlawful enemy combatant" to deny them any chance for judicial fairness.

On January 19, 2002 Donald Rumsfeld sent a memo to the Joint Chiefs of Staff entitled: "Status of Taliban and al Qaeda." It stated that these detainees "are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949." It gave commanders enormous latitude to treat prisoners "to the extent appropriate with military necessity" as they saw fit.

On January 25, 2002, Alberto Gonzales issued a memo to George W. Bush, which called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete" and said the administration could ignore them in interrogating prisoners. He also outlined plans to try prisoners in military commissions and to deny them all protections under international law, including due process, habeas corpus rights, and the right to appeal. In December 2002, Donald Rumsfeld concurred by approving a menu of interrogation practices allowing anything short of what would cause organ failure.

On February 7, 2002, the White House issued an Order "outlining treatment of al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees." It stated that, "none of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions apply to our conflict with al-Qaida or the Taliban in Afghanistan "or elsewhere throughout the world."

A multitude of similar memos followed, allowing all measures that had been banned under international and U.S. law, including the 1994 Torture Statute and the Torture Act of 2000, and the 1996 War Crimes Act, which imposes a penalty of up to life in prison or death for persons convicted of committing war crimes within or outside the US. Torture is a high war crime, the highest after genocide.

Two other memos were written by John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee (now a federal court of appeals justice in the Ninth Circuit) and David Addington, Dick Cheney's former legal counsel. One was for the CIA on August 2, 2002. It argued that interrogators should be free to use harsh measures amounting to torture. It said federal laws prohibiting these practices don't apply when dealing with al-Qaeda because of the presidential authorization to use force during wartime. It also denied that U.S. or international law applies in overseas interrogations. It essentially "legalized" anything in the "War on Terror" and authorized lawlessness and supreme presidential power.

On March 14, 2003, the group issued another memo entitled, "Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States." This became known as "the Torture Memo" because it swept away all legal restraints and authorized military interrogators to use extreme measures amounting to torture. It also gave the president as Commander-in-Chief "the fullest range of power...to protect the nation." It stated he "enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his authority in conducting operations against hostile forces."

In 2004, the head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, rescinded the Memorandum, saying it showed an "unusual lack of care and sobriety in legal analysis and seemed more an exercise of sheer power than reasoned analysis."

The administration continued to rely on the Yoo and Bybee memos, which authorized the infliction of "intense pain or suffering" short of what would cause "serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, (loss of significant body functions), or permanent damage" may result.

A July 20, 2006 Executive Order, was entitled "Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency." It pertained to "a member or part of or supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated organizations who may have information that could assist in detecting, mitigating, or preventing terrorist attacks...within the United States or against its Armed Forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities, or against allies or other countries cooperating in the war on terror..."

It authorized the Director of CIA to determine appropriate interrogation practices. Based on what is now known, they included sleep deprivation, waterboarding or simulated drowning, stress positions (including painfully extreme ones), prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation and/or overload, beatings, electric shocks, induced hypothermia, and other measures that can cause irreversible physical and psychological harm, including psychoses.

In a 2007 report, the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded that CIA interrogators had tortured high-level al Qaeda prisoners. Abu Zubaydah was one, a reputed close associate of Osama bin Laden and a Guantanamo detainee. He was confined in a box "so small (that) he had to double up his limbs in the fetal position" and stay that way. He and others were also "slammed against the walls," waterboarded to simulate drowning, and given other harsh and abusive treatment.

The report also said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged chief 9/11 planner, was kept naked for over a month, "...alternately in suffocating heat and in a painfully cold room." Most excruciating was a practice of shackling prisoners to the ceiling and forcing them to stand for as long as eight hours. Other techniques included prolonged sleep deprivation, "bright lights and eardrum-shattering sounds 24 hours a day."

A July 20, 2007 Executive Order 13440 interpreted the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. The Executive Order prohibits specifically the following acts: Violence to life and person, including murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture Taking of hostages Humiliating and degrading treatment Sentencing or executing detainees "without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees...recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples"

and Assuring wounded and sick are cared for.

In 2004, the United States Supreme Court held, in Rasul v. Bush, that the habeas corpus jurisdiction of United States federal courts extended to Guantanamo Bay.

In 2004, the Court also held, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, that due process mandated that an alleged enemy combatant held on U.S. soil be entitled to a due process challenge of his enemy combatant status.

In June 2006 the Supreme Court, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld threw out section 1005a of the Detainee Treatment Act denying the right of an alien detainee to habeas corpus, and ruled that the structure and procedures of the military commissions established to try detainees violated both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions had been violated. Congress passed and Bush signed into law the Military Commissions Act in October 2006, overriding the Supreme Court's decision.

In 2008, the Supreme Court threw out the Act's prohibition of the federal courts' jurisdiction to hear detainees' habeas corpus petitions as an unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus in Boumedine v. Bush.

District Court Judge Aiken threw out two sections of the Patriot Act that modified the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in Mayfield v. United States, but her decision was rendered moot on appeal when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal decided that Mayfield could not pursue his declaratory relief claim after he had settled with the Government.

The "War on Terror" is still on, and is still being used as an excuse to extend the broad brush of governmental power. The USA Patriot Act was designed to be temporary, but has been reauthorized in 2005 and 2006. On February 27, 2010, President Obama signed into law legislation reauthorizing three controversial sections of the Act relating to roving wiretaps, lone wolf surveillance and seizure of property and records. On May 26, 2011, he signed into law the Patriot Sunsets Extension Act to extend key provisions of the Act.

One more thing...

I hope you have enjoyed this compilation and I am thankful that you have spent the time to get to this point, which means that you must have received something from reading it. If you turn to the last page, Kindle will give you the opportunity to rate the book and share your thoughts through an automatic feed to your Facebook and Twitter accounts. If you believe your friends would enjoy this book, I would be honored if you would post your thoughts, and also leave a review on Amazon.

Please just click here to leave your review.

Best Regards, Kenneth Eade.

HOA WIRE.