Blog Flux Directory Subscribe in NewsGator Online Subscribe with Bloglines http://www.wikio.com Blog directory
And, yes, I DO take it personally
Mandy: Great blog!
Mark: Thanks to all the contributors on this blog. When I want to get information on the events that really matter, I come here.
Penny: I'm glad I found your blog (from a comment on Think Progress), it's comprehensive and very insightful.
Eric: Nice site....I enjoyed it and will be back.
nora kelly: I enjoy your site. Keep it up! I particularly like your insights on Latin America.
Alison: Loquacious as ever with a touch of elegance -- & right on target as usual!
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
- Noam Chomsky
Send tips and other comments to: profmarcus2010@yahoo.com

And, yes, I DO take it personally

Sunday, June 05, 2011

Has the government engaging in torture become as accepted as government official lying when the truth is inconvenient?

an articulate voice of reason, all too rare in today's public discourse...

morris davis...

In the fall of 2005, when I was chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, I sat down for a lengthy discussion with a veteran member of the prosecution team, a Marine Corps officer with an extensive background in criminal prosecution. We discussed a case that caused him concern, one he said he was not comfortable prosecuting. After describing some of the specifics of the detainee’s treatment at Guantanamo, which was documented in official records, the prosecutor said: “Sir, they fucked with him and they fucked with him until now he’s as crazy as a shit-house rat.” In an interview with Bob Woodward published in the Washington Post in January 2009, Susan Crawford, the Bush administration official who supervised the military commissions, explained why she refused to send the same case to trial when it reached her desk in the spring of 2008. “We tortured Qahtani,” she said, “His treatment met the legal definition of torture.”

The alleged torture of Hamza Ali al-Khateeb, Syed Saleem Shahzad, and Mohammed al Qahtani by government agents that signed the Convention Against Torture begs the question, is a law that is ignored worth the paper it is written on?

Some people dismiss the Geneva Conventions as “quaint,” and some believe “law” and “war” have no place in the same sentence; but few who make the military a profession hold such mistaken beliefs. Service members understand that war is hell and the law of war constrains the hellishness. It is a code of conduct developed by warriors over centuries on battlefields around the world.

The law of war is drilled into every U.S. service member from the start of basic training. It is reinforced regularly and tested during combat exercises in the belief that engrained values survive the fog and friction of war. Honor matters to service members. The failure to abide by the law of war dishonors the military profession and discredits military professionals. Army Specialist Jeremy Morlock pled guilty in March and accepted responsibility for his role in murdering innocent Afghan civilians, telling the court, “I’ve spent a lot of time reflecting on how I lost my moral compass.”

Nothing is further from the profession of arms than the cowardice of terrorism. The mass murder of innocent civilians, sending children into crowded markets on suicide missions, and hiding explosives in the trunks of cars to kill and maim indiscriminately—calling those who use such tactics “combatants” gives them more status than they deserve.

[...]

Those who bias the torture debate by pandering to fear and casting it as “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” are as disingenuous as those who try to justify terrorism by perverting Islam. It is not a choice of one or the other. There is nothing inconsistent in holding torturers and terrorists accountable for acts that break the law.

[...]

Who decides which obligations are truly obligatory and which means go too far to ever justify the ends? Chemical weapons may have been a fast and convenient way to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda in the rugged Tora Bora region in late 2001 and may have killed Bin Laden a decade earlier, but is effectiveness, or that it might work, or that others do it justification to violate the Chemical Weapons Convention prohibitions and commit a war crime? If the standard is the United States decides ad hoc which commitments it will honor and which it will not then it should be honest and repudiate those it considers non-binding and the sense to stop the hypocritical criticism of others that fail to live up to its “do as we say, not as we do” example. On the other hand, if the United States means what it says about the rule of law, it has to demonstrate that it practices what it purports to preach.

[...]

Do decent human beings have the temerity to stand up and insist the law be enforced? Does the United States have the integrity to lead by example, or has the government engaging in torture become as accepted as government official lying when the truth is inconvenient? We need to find our moral compass.

finding something that you've consciously thrown away is a bigger challenge than finding something you've unintentionally lost...

thanks to marcy...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, November 19, 2010

Terrorism and torture: a presumption of innocence for the powerful but not for anybody else

tom engelhardt...
The presumption of innocence may be slowly dying in the courtrooms where our terror trials are being held, as Karen Greenberg, executive director of the Center on Law and Security at NYU Law School and author of The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo's First 100 Days, points out in today’s post. Here’s the curious thing, though: that presumption is stronger than ever when it comes to those who once ran or carried out the Global War on Terror. Afghanistan to Washington, Abu Ghraib to Guantanamo, they all continue to live within a bubble of official innocence.

karen greenberg...
Guilty Until Proven Guilty
Threatening the Presumption of Innocence

[...]

Since September 12, 2001, Americans have been systematically cowed to a degree that is hard to grasp, and the justice system in this country has in no way been inoculated from this virus. If you need a measure of which way the currents of politics are running today, start with the political calculation that the Obama administration has had to make when it comes to the trial of KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed], which has only grown that much more difficult in the wake of the Ghailani verdict.

So, too, for those of us who favor civilian trials. How do we really feel about having been put in a position where, to defend the merits of the system of justice, we feel compelled to equate certain conviction with the notion of success?

The deepest principle of American justice is being tested, right now in Washington, in lower Manhattan in the wake of the Ghailani verdict, and elsewhere. With terrorism trials, the more serious they get, the more the presumption of innocence seems to lie at the mercy of politics.

it's really a very vicious circle... when you capture, detain, torture and hold presumed terrorists for years without charges or trial, you are going to look even worse than you already do when they finally do come to trial and are subsequently acquitted so you better make damn sure the verdict is guilty, whether it's a civilian or a military trial... the implications of that for a fair, jury of your peers-based justice system underpinned by the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is frightening to contemplate... the sad reality is that "contemplation" at this stage of reality is just wishful thinking...

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Monday, November 15, 2010

We have to have a war to hold Khalid Sheikh Mohammed without a trial and have to hold KSM to continue to have a war

oh, ow... ouch, ow, ow... my head hurts...

marcy...

[T]he AUMF [Authorization for the Use of Military Force] just became a forever war–at least one lasting the next twenty to forty years of KSM’s life. Because the government has apparently decided to hold KSM with no more solid legal justification than the war, which judges have interpreted to be the AUMF. Which means the government is going to have to sustain some claim that that AUMF remains in effect, even if we go broke and withdraw from Afghanistan as a result (that seems to be the only thing that will make us withdraw, in spite of the fact that we’re not going to do any good there).

[...]

The decision to hold KSM indefinitely has now flipped that equation: so long as the only justification for holding KSM is the claim we’re at war, we’ll have to remain at war.

And all those bonus powers a President gets with the claim that we’re at war? They’re all wrapped up now, in the necessity to hold KSM forever.

oh, ouch... make the bad man stop...

Labels: , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Saturday, October 09, 2010

If my passport didn't say I was a U.S. citizen, I'm not sure I'd know otherwise

cuz the country i thought was my own would never have supposedly intelligent, former senior government officials spewing this kind of bullshit...

former bush administration attorney general jack goldsmith in today's nyt...

THE Obama administration wants to show that federal courts can handle trials of Guantánamo Bay detainees, and had therefore placed high hopes in the prosecution of Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, accused in the 1998 bombings of American embassies in East Africa. On Wednesday a federal judge, Lewis Kaplan of the United States District Court in Manhattan, made the government’s case much harder when he excluded the testimony of the government’s central witness because the government learned about the witness through interrogating Mr. Ghailani at a secret overseas prison run by the C.I.A.

Some, mostly liberals and civil libertarians, applauded the ruling, saying it showed that the rule of law is being restored. But many conservatives denounced it as proof that high-level terrorists cannot reliably be prosecuted in civilian courts and should instead be tried by military commissions.

The real lesson of the ruling, however, is that prosecution in either criminal court or a tribunal is the wrong approach. The administration should instead embrace what has been the main mechanism for terrorist incapacitation since 9/11: military detention without charge or trial.

[...]

[W]hile it is more difficult than ever to keep someone like Mr. Ghailani in military detention, it is far easier to detain him than to convict him in a civilian trial or a military commission. Military detention proceedings have relatively forgiving evidence rules and aren’t constrained by constitutional trial rules like the right to a jury and to confront witnesses. There is little doubt that Mr. Ghailani could be held in military detention until the conflict with Al Qaeda ends.

gosh, it all sounds so REASONABLE doesn't it...? until, of course, you read that last sentence and it suddenly dawns on you that plans don't call for the conflict with terrorism to EVER END... everything we read, everything we're told, says that we're in a forever war*, a war that cannot be won and will not end...

oh, yeah... don't forget that other little niggling bit goldsmith didn't bother to address... is mr. ghailani actually a terrorist...? after all, if the aumf put us at "war" with terrorism and if mr. ghailani is - presumably - a terrorist, how was that determined...?

if we're in an endless war and terrorism is the declared "enemy," then pow's have nothing to look forward to except a lifetime of detention... their lives are essentially over...

is the u.s. a great country or what...?

* [I]n November 2002, retired U.S. Army Gen. William Odom appeared on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal" program and told viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It's a tactic. It's about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we're going to win that war. We're not going to win the war on terrorism."

Labels: , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Saturday, May 29, 2010

It's a beautiful Saturday morning here in the high desert

i got back from scotland and the outer hebrides one week ago today, welcomed by cold, snow flurries and a full week of cloudy, chilly, damp and generally miserable weather... today, finally, the sky is clear, the sun is shining brightly and the temp has jumped from the upper 30s to the mid-50s and it's only 10:30... i'm listening to glorious celtic music with a melancholy tinge, perhaps befitting how i'm feeling about being back in the u.s. and continuing to witness the pathos of the erosion of everything we stand for...

glenn greenwald...

The first paragraph of today's New York Times article by Charlie Savage:

The 48 Guantánamo Bay detainees whom the Obama administration has decided to keep holding without trial include several for whom there is no evidence of involvement in any specific terrorist plot, according to a report disclosed Friday.

The Report itself, in a matter-of-fact-tone, describes the individuals to be kept in a cage indefinitely without charges this way:

They can't even be prosecuted in the due-process-abridging military commissions we invented out of whole cloth for those who can't be convicted in a real court. In other words: of course we'll provide a fair tribunal for proving your guilt -- as long as we're certain we can convict you -- otherwise, we'll just imprison you indefinitely without charges. All this even though 72% of Guantanamo detainees have been found to be wrongfully held since the Supreme Court compelled habeas hearings in 2008. And then there are the numerous Yemeni prisoners who have been cleared for release but who will be kept in a cage anyway because we arbitrarily decreed that we're not going to release even innocent prisoners back to Yemen.

[...]

Yes -- being as sentimental as I am -- I, too, harbor nostalgia for that "older principle of accountability under the law": you know, that idealized time when everyone was entitled to be charged with crimes before being imprisoned forever (rather than only those for whom prosecution was "feasible") and when Presidents weren't actually allowed to target American citizens for murder without at least some due process being granted. Anyway, did Sarah Palin post something to her Facebook page today? And isn't that Glenn Beck crazy?


i never thought i'd come to the day when i'd be embarrassed and ashamed to identify myself as a liberal, democrat and progressive...

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Let's all join hands and say a silent prayer lamenting the demise of the 4th amendment [UPDATE]

we're so screwed...

rachel maddow and jonathan turley on countdown...




[UPDATE]

yeah... kiss the 4th amendment and any semblance of government accountability goodbye...
Senate Approves Immunity for Telecom Companies in Wiretapping

By a vote of 69-28, the Senate approved a bill overhauling
the rules covering secret government eavesdropping and
granting immunity to telecommunications companies that aided
in the wiretapping of Americans without warrants.

i thought it was a dark day when the military commissions act passed, but this is just as dark or darker... i never thought i would come to a point where i am so profoundly ashamed of my country and its government...

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, July 04, 2008

"The End of America" - 4th of July food for thought from Scott Ritter

points to ponder as you watch and listen to scott ritter...

  • Iraq
  • Afghanistan
  • War on terror
  • U.S. Constitution
  • Bill of Rights
  • 4th Amendment
  • Geneva Convention
  • U.N. Convention against Torture
  • Guantánamo
  • Abu Ghraib
  • Bagram
  • Extraordinary rendition
  • Warrantless domestic wiretapping
  • Patriot Act
  • Military Commissions Act
  • CIA black sites
  • Presidential signing statements
  • Executive privilege
  • Unitary executive
  • Telecom immunity
from brasscheck tv...

Spoken before the US invaded Iraq

"We can call ouselves Americans. We can fly the American flag, but unless we stand up and defend the values that define us as Americans, we will cease being Americans."

Scott Ritter gave this talk before the US invaded Iraq. As a former US Marine Corps officer, UN weapons inspector and expert on the armaments of Iraq, he very publicly disputed the Bush adminstration's claim that Iraq was a threat to the US.

Now the US is on the same path with regards to war against Iran.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Politics continues to pollute military "justice" at Guantánamo

there is absolutely NOTHING in the bush administration that is not tainted by politics and neo-con, fascist ideology...
The chief judge at Guantánamo replaced the military judge in one of the most closely watched war crimes cases on Thursday, creating a new controversy in the military commission system and the potential for new delays.

The decision to replace the judge, Col. Peter E. Brownback III, came without explanation from the chief military judge, Col. Ralph H. Kohlmann. Judge Brownback has been presiding over pretrial proceedings in the prosecution of Omar Ahmed Khadr, a 21-year-old Canadian charged with the killing of an American serviceman in Afghanistan.

Pentagon spokesmen said Judge Brownback, a retired Army judge who was recalled to hear Guantánamo cases in 2004, would return to retirement as a result of “a mutual decision” between the judge and the Army.

But defense lawyers and critics of Guantánamo said there had been no warning of the change and suggested that he had been removed because of a recent ruling that was a rebuke to prosecutors.

During a proceeding on May 8, Judge Brownback expressed irritation that military prosecutors had failed to turn over records of Mr. Khadr’s incarceration to defense lawyers. He threatened to stop pretrial proceedings if the records were not supplied by May 22. They met that deadline.

At the time, Judge Brownback said he had been “badgered and beaten and bruised” by the chief military prosecutor in the case, Maj. Jeffrey D. Groharing, to move the case toward a trial quickly.

Mr. Khadr’s military defense lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler, on Friday called the replacement of the judge “very odd.”

"very odd" indeed...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

A headline of unvarnished shame

no comment necessary...
Justice System For Detainees Is Moving At a Crawl

No Sept. 11 Trials Likely Before Bush Leaves Office, Officials Say

patético...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

A confession about my current state of mind

if i've learned one thing over my many years, it's that states of mind are fluid, so pardon me while i unload about my current one...

it's early morning here in kabul... i woke up about 2:30 and tossed and turned until nearly 5 at which point i grabbed a bit more fitful sleep and got up a little after 6, a bit later than usual... after a little breakfast and coffee, i settled down here at the computer to do my regular morning catch-up on the news... one of the first things that caught my eye was this...

Hayden: Syrian site could have produced fuel for 2 weapons

CIA Director Michael Hayden said Monday that the alleged Syrian nuclear reactor destroyed by an Israeli airstrike in September would have produced enough plutonium for one or two bombs within a year of becoming operational.

U.S. intelligence and administration officials publicly disclosed last week their assessment that Syria was building a covert nuclear reactor with North Korean assistance. They said it was modeled on the shuttered North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, which produced a small amount of plutonium. The Syrian site, they said, was within weeks or months of being operational.

and this...
Farrakhan's Pennsylvania Admirer

Recall last week's ABC debate in Philadelphia and the way Clinton managed to link Nation of Islam minister Louis Farrakhan and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to Obama.

No Clinton mistake there. Wright and Farrakhan are toxic to many voters. Suggesting that Obama and the two men are as close as pages in a book virtually seals the Illinois senator's fate with large voting blocs.

and this...
Former Guantanamo prosecutor says trials tainted

The former chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals testified on Monday that the tribunals were tainted by political influence and evidence obtained through prisoner abuse.

Air Force Col. Moe Davis, who quit the war court last year, said political appointees and higher-ranking officers pushed prosecutors to file charges before trial rules were even written.

A supposedly impartial legal adviser demanded they pursue cases where the defendant "had blood on his hands" because those would excite the public more than mundane cases against document forgers and al Qaeda facilitators, Davis said.

He said the pressure ramped up after "high-value" prisoners with alleged ties to the September 11 plot were moved to Guantanamo from secret CIA custody shortly before the 2006 U.S. congressional elections and amid the ongoing U.S. presidential campaigns.

and those are just random samples... i haven't even started digging yet...

i'm totally sick of this shit, folks... i'm sitting less than two blocks from where two members of the afghan parliament and a ten year-old boy were shot to death two days ago at the beginning of an event to celebrate a country's independence, and what is the news i'm reading from my own country...?

- more accusations and deliberate, belligerent incitement toward YET ANOTHER country that chooses not to toe the u.s. line

- a continuing, coordinated effort to smear a presidential candidate via guilt by association and innuendo, in a presidential campaign increasingly divorced from any sense of reality, reinforced by a news media totally devoid of any journalistic ethics

- a reminder that my country has thrown away all pretense of holding on to its prized tradition of human rights and due process under law...

i'm not only sick of this shit, i'm deathly tired of posting about it... while ignoring it certainly won't make it go away, my temptation at the moment is to take a comfortable plunge into denial...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Monday, April 28, 2008

IHT headline: "Guantánamo drives prisoners insane"

ya know, sitting here in afghanistan offers a remarkable perspective on what's happening back home... things are bad here, no doubt about it, but when i catch myself thinking about how fortunate we are in the u.s. and then read something like this, it makes me physically ill...
Guantánamo drives prisoners insane, lawyers say

Next month, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was once a driver for Osama bin Laden, could become the first detainee to be tried for war crimes in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. By now, he should be busily working on his defense.

But his lawyers say he cannot. They say Hamdan, already the subject of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, has essentially been driven insane by solitary confinement in a tiny cell where he spends at least 22 hours a day, goes to the bathroom and eats all his meals. His defense team says he is suicidal, hears voices, has flashbacks, talks to himself and says the restrictions of Guantánamo "boil his mind."

"He will shout at us," said his military defense lawyer, Lieutenant Commander Brian Mizer. "He will bang his fists on the table."

His lawyers have asked a military judge to stop his case until Hamdan is placed in less restrictive conditions at Guantánamo, saying he cannot get a fair trial if he cannot focus on defending himself. The judge is to hear arguments as soon as Monday on whether he has the power to consider the claim.

Critics have long asserted that Guantánamo's climate-controlled isolation is a breeding ground for insanity. But turning that into a legal claim marks a new stage for the military commissions at Guantánamo. As military prosecutors push to get trials under way, they are being met with challenges not just to the charges, but to Guantánamo itself.

Conditions are more isolating than many death rows and maximum-security prisons in the United States, said Jules Lobel, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who is an expert on U.S. prison conditions.

Pentagon officials say that Guantánamo holds dangerous men humanely and that there is no unusual quantity of mental illness there. Guantánamo, a military spokeswoman said, does not have solitary confinement, only "single-occupancy cells."

that last line is jaw-droppingly unbelievable for its arrogance if not its outright prevarication...

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, April 10, 2008

WOO-HOO...! Dump Yoo...!

this is absolutely the right thing to do... perpetrators of crimes should not be tolerated...
Congress should repeal the provision of the Military Commissions Act that would give Yoo immunity from prosecution for torture committed from September 11, 2001 to December 30, 2005. John Yoo should be disbarred and he should not be retained as a professor of law at one of the country’s premier law schools. John Yoo should be dismissed from Boalt Hall [University of California, Berkeley, Law School] and tried as a war criminal.

now, let's apply the same standard to bush, cheney, rumsfeld, condi, colin, ashcroft, alberto, addington, and the rest of the war criminals...

(thanks to think progress...)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Monday, February 18, 2008

"Fear the loss, perceive the danger, and do something about it!"

a reasonably comprehensive run-down in the current state of affairs...

The Defense Department has developed a "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support" against terrorism that pledges to "transform US military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the...US homeland." The Pentagon is presently collecting files on antiwar protesters and is prepared to maximize "threat awareness" and to seize "the initiative from those who would harm us." The Pentagon's National Counterterrorism Center's central repository now includes the names of 325,000 "terrorist" suspects.

In October 2003, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld approved a secret "Information Operations Roadmap" calling for "full spectrum" information operations, including a strategy for seizing the Internet and controlling the flow of information. It views the world wide web as a potential military adversary and speaks of "fighting the net."

The U.S. Army Internet website displays information about the Pentagon's "Civilian Inmate Labor Program," including "policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations." The program underwent a "rapid action revision" on January 14, 2005 to provide a "template for developing agreements" between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.

In yet another exercise in September 2005, the Pentagon's U.S. Northern Command conducted a top secret operation known as Granite Shadow that involved emergency military operations within the continental United States without civilian supervision or control. Under the plan, military special forces units operating under unique rules of engagement involving deadly force were deployed to enforce "unity of command."

The original mission of FEMA was to assure the survival of the United States government in the case of nuclear attack, with a secondary responsibility to coordinate the federal response to natural disasters. However, FEMA has come to operate as a secret government in waiting, with powers far beyond that of any other federal agency.

Specific and detailed executive orders now empower FEMA to: take over all transportation, highways and seaports; seize and operate all communications media; take over all electric, gas and petroleum power, fuels and minerals; take over all airports and aircraft; take over all railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities; take over all farms and food resources; register all persons and force civilians into work brigades; take over all health, education and welfare functions; and establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution of energy sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in all U.S. financial institutions.

Executive Order 11921 provides that, once a state of emergency has been declared by the president, the action cannot be reviewed by Congress for six months.

The John W. Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 contains a provision entitled "Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies." One effect of the provision is to expand the president's limited power to deploy the military within the United States only "to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy" to include "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident."

The Act authorized the president to assume local authority "if domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order." The president now has the power, without any advance notice to Congress, to declare marital law in any city experiencing a civil disturbance or riot similar to any of those experienced in the past 40 years and to deploy the military, irrespective of the wishes or consent of local and state authorities.

On May 9, 2007, President Bush signed a "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" defining the "Catastrophic Emergency" leading to "Continuity of Government coordinated efforts by the Executive Branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed." Such emergencies include "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions." Continuity of Operations includes the continuation of mission-essential functions "during a wide range of emergencies, including localized acts of nature, accidents, and technological or attack-related emergencies."

In its definition of "Enduring Constitutional Government," the Presidential Directive envisions a "cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government;" however, it (the effort) is to be "coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches..." Comity is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as, "Courtesy; complaisance; respect; a willingness to grant a privilege, not as a matter of right, but out of deference and good will." In other words, the "Enduring Constitutional Government" will be run by the president and any "cooperative" role played by Congress and the judiciary will be at his pleasure.

Even though Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution provides that, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States..., " President Bush has, pursuant to his own directives, given himself the unrestrained power to declare whatever he imagines to be an emergency. Once he does so, he alone controls the entire apparatus of government. He will become responsible for arranging for the "orderly succession" and the "appropriate transition of leadership" of the other two branches of government, and he will do all of this with the able assistance of his Vice President, who has the primary job of coordinating things.

Conceivably, at his or her sole discretion, existing and future presidents have the power to use any provocation, including the election of a successor president hostile to his or her existing policies, to declare a state of emergency and to seize and operate the government as a dictatorship for an indefinite period of time.

More realistically, an increase in street and campus protests against the Iraq War, similar to those of the Sixties, could easily lead to the imposition of martial law in the Unites States as an extension of the War on Terrorism. Or, as the current recession deepens into a depression with wide-spread unemployment, hunger and civil unrest, martial law could be imposed and military work camps established. Irrespective of how it plays out, every scenario involves mass preventative detentions, without trial, by the military and requires federal confinement facilities.

Accepting the fact that the president has the power to detain as many American citizens as he chooses, is the government actually building facilities to concentrate them?

In January 2006, the Department of Homeland Security awarded a $385 million contract to former Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), to provide detention centers in the United States to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the US, or to support the rapid deployment of new programs." Unexplained were these "new programs" and why they require a major expansion of detention centers.

A clue to the definition of "new programs" can be found in President Bush's claim that "the territory of the United States is part of the battlefield" against terrorism and that he has the power as Commander-in-chief to detain indefinitely any American citizen he designates as an enemy combatant. He signed the Military Commissions Act in October 2006 that suspends habeas corpus rights for everyone he deems to be an enemy combatant and allows him to confine them indefinitely without trial or access to counsel. Once detained under the Act, "no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever...."

The KBR contract is open-ended and authorizes a payment of up to $385 million per deployment. It is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which envisions the development of at least four detention centers, each detaining up to 5,000 single males and females, families with children, and the sick and criminal. Established at "unused military sites or [leased] temporary structures," each facility will be able to accommodate the sick and criminals for extended detentions and to arrange for the "rendition" of potential terrorists to sites outside the continental United States.

Cops have an old saying that you're not paranoid if someone really is following you. We cannot forget that our president has already seized extraordinary dictatorial powers and that he really is spending millions of dollars for the construction of detention facilities to support the "rapid development" of his "new programs." Nor, can we ignore that, contrary to international law, the United States government is in fact detaining hundreds of "unlawful combatants" in prison facilities in Guantanamo Bay and at other secret locations around the world. Finally, we have to accept: that our government is abusing and torturing these detainees to obtain information that will be used against them should they ever come to trial; that they have no access to the federal courts to appeal their detentions; that they cannot consult with counsel without the presence of military monitors, who also read their legal mail; that they cannot review or challenge the "classified" evidence against them; and that they cannot confront or cross examine the witnesses against them.

There's another old saying, "If you snooze, you lose." We have a very narrow window of opportunity between the time we recognize a deadly threat and when we do something about it. Given the highly-advanced technological age we live in and the ready availability of overwhelming military force, once our freedoms are lost, they will be gone forever, whether or not every single one of us is "bearing arms."

Two weeks ago, Congress took an important first step in restricting the president's power by repealing a largely unrecognized section of the 2007 Defense Appropriations Act that, last year, effectively transferred command of the National Guards from state governors to the president. With the unanimous support of the National Governors Association, the National Sheriffs' Association and other law enforcement agencies, Congress restricted the power of the president to order the National Guard of any state to be used within that state or in any other state without the consent of the appropriate state governors.

We must immediately stop the deployment of National Guard troops to fight the illegal war in Iraq and bring them all home where they belong. Remaining under the control of state governors and given time to rest and the resources to re-equip, a well-trained and properly deployed National Guard, acting in support of local law enforcement, will be able to maintain order in most, if not all, domestic disturbances, natural disasters and terrorists attacks. If we survived the assassinations and riots of the Sixties, and 9-11, without martial law, we should be able to get by today without military intervention or the president's help.

There is no time to lose! Congress must immediately hold hearings on the power of the president to declare martial law, to deploy the military within the United States, and to detain American citizens, without trial or benefit of habeas corpus. Congress must establish the constitutional limits of presidential power by statute, rather than to allow the president to do so by his own executive orders.

The incursions on civil liberties in the United States in the past 25 years, and particularly since 9-11, are mind boggling. It matters not whether you are a Democrat or Republican, rich or poor, conservative or liberal, you have been deprived of substantial freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, unnecessarily, in the War on Terrorism. Fear the loss, perceive the danger, and do something about it!


once again, repeating myself ad nauseam, none of the above should remain in place when the new president takes the oath of office on 20 january 2009...

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Friday, February 15, 2008

Guantánamo detainees: supportive evidence...? Tish-tosh... That's so constitutional... So YESTERDAY...!

justice...? detainee rights...? rules of evidence...? constitutional guarantees...? how quaint...!
The Bush administration asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to review an appeals court decision that it said had created a “serious threat to national security” by requiring the government to supply extensive evidence supporting the classification of more than 180 Guantánamo detainees as enemy combatants.

The administration asked the court to choose one of two options: either accept its appeal for expedited review, with arguments taking place in May and a decision to come in the current term, or defer action until the justices decide the case on the rights of the Guantánamo prisoners that is currently before them.

Under either option, the administration is seeking a stay of the lower court’s ruling, which it characterized as “serious legal error.”

The ruling, issued last July by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, became final on Feb. 1 when the full appeals court rejected the administration’s request for reconsideration by a vote of 5 to 5.

On Wednesday, the appeals court granted a stay until Feb. 21 to permit the administration to seek relief in the Supreme Court.

note the deliberately chosen adjective, "extensive," a word that somehow manages to suggest "excessive" without actually saying so... after five goddam years, the very likely odds of lost sanity, and now the threat of capital punishment, don't you think those detainees DESERVE "extensive", even "excessive," evidence...? shouldn't our criminal government be REQUIRED to present very nearly INCONTROVERTIBLE EVIDENCE to support its case...?

Labels: , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, February 14, 2008

What does it tell you that the 9/11 FAMILIES are concerned about Gitmo detainees getting a fair trial?

great god in heaven... you'd think that if ANYBODY would be out there demanding justice at the end of a rope, niceties be damned, it would be the 9/11 families...
The families of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks want justice for the killers of their loved ones. But according to a report broadcast Tuesday on CNN, they want that justice to come at the end of a fair trial, and they worry the detainees in Guantanamo Bay will not get one.

"The evidence so far against these people will be tainted," said widow Lori Van Auken. "You put people to death based on tainted evidence...because of the torture."

The father-in-law of another victim, Bruce Decell, was less concerned with the prospect of the death penalty being requested by military prosecutors. But he also wants the trials of the detainees to be fair.

when these folks speak, i tend to listen...

Labels: , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Thursday, December 06, 2007

In custody six years, first charged three years ago, and only NOW will the "unlawful enemy combatant" question be addressed

this is shameful...

read the first sentence of this article and note your own gut response...

Witnesses are expected to take the stand Thursday for the first time since the U.S. government began trying to prosecute terrorism suspects at Guantánamo.

Prosecutors are expected to present about five witnesses to back their case that Salim Ahmed Hamdan — a former driver for Osama bin Laden — should be charged as an unlawful enemy combatant...

i don't know about you, but i immediately keyed in on the words "first time" and "trying..."
"This will be the first time you will hear about some of the evidence that the government has had and wanted to present," said Army Maj. Bobby Don Gifford, a spokesman for the military commissions.

On Wednesday, a military judge rejected a defense request to talk to the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and two other so-called "high value" detainees to bolster their case that Hamdan was at best a minor al-Qaida figure.

again, "first time..." also illuminating are these choice of words - "has had" and "wanted to..."
so, let's put a bit of context around those words, shall we...?
Hamdan has been in custody nearly six years and was first charged more than three years ago.

puts a little bit different spin on those words, doesn't it...?

Labels: , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, December 05, 2007

International law applies to ALL the nations of the world, including the U.S. and George Bush

in a lengthy, well-researched, and well-written post in democratic underground, that co-blogger mettle was kind enough to point me to, poster time for change offers a comprehensive view of the prospects for holding george bush accountable for his crimes, despite the almost certain fact that it will not happen as a result of action taken in the united states...

here's his conclusion...

U.S. law is irrelevant to the charge of war crimes or crimes against humanity

No doubt one major reason for George Bush’s vehemence in pushing through the Military Commissions Act (MCA) was to immunize himself against punishment for the many crimes he has committed. By legalizing Bush’s abuse of his prisoners, that MCA violates our Fifth and Sixth Amendment guarantees to due process and a fair trial, as well as the Geneva Convention requirements for the treatment of prisoners of war. Bush’s attempt to nullify the Congressional “torture ban” attached to the MCA by issuing a signing statement to the effect that he is not obligated to be restricted by it, signaled his intention to violate our Eighth Amendment protection against “cruel and unusual punishment”, as well as the Geneva Conventions and The international Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 1984.

Of course, neither the MCA nor any other law that Bush might demand or Congress might pass in the future either nullifies our Constitution or makes it legal to violate international law, as far as the international community of nations is concerned. As was made quite clear at the time the Nuremberg Tribunal was created, international law applies to ALL the nations of the world. As much as George Bush, Dick Cheney, or certain members of Congress or the U.S. public may not like it, those laws apply to our country now just as much as they applied to the Nazis for whom the Nuremberg Tribunal was created in 1945. Robert Jackson, the Chief U.S. prosecutor for the Nuremberg Tribunal, made that quite clear. He said:
To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole … If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.

can't happen soon enough for me...

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Saturday, December 01, 2007

"Instead of a presumption of innocence and of a public trial, we start with a presumption of guilt and of a secret trial”

from the nyt via raw story...
Defense lawyers preparing for the war crimes trial of a 21-year-old Guantánamo detainee have been ordered by a military judge not to tell their client — or anyone else — the identity of witnesses against him, newly released documents show.

[...]

Defense lawyers say the order would hamper their ability to build an adequate defense because they cannot ask their client or anyone else about prosecution witnesses, making it difficult to test the veracity of testimony.

The order, the documents show, followed a request by military prosecutors who said they feared terrorist retaliation against witnesses who appeared at Guantánamo proceedings.

[...]

Mr. Khadr’s military defense lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler of the Navy, said that while he has been given a list of prosecution witnesses, the judge’s decision requires him to keep secrets from his client and that he would ask Colonel Brownback to revoke the order. He said it treated Mr. Khadr as if he had already been convicted and deprived him of a trial at which the public could assess the evidence against him.

“Instead of a presumption of innocence and of a public trial,” Commander Kuebler said, “we start with a presumption of guilt and of a secret trial.”

[...]

In an interview, Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann, a senior official in the Pentagon’s Office of Military Commissions, said that the commission system was open to scrutiny from news organizations and human rights groups and that the order was necessary to protect the lives of witnesses.

“The system is designed to be open,” General Hartmann said. “But there are certain things that simply must be protected.”

i beg to differ... the system is NOT "designed to be open..." it may be easy to say those words, but the facts don't support them...
Joshua L. Dratel, a lawyer in New York who represented another detainee prosecuted for war crimes, described such orders as an Orwellian effort to hamstring defense lawyers while making it appear that detainees are rigorously represented.

“It is ‘1984,’” Mr. Dratel said. “No system in the United States would operate this way.”

Some legal experts said while the identities of witnesses were shielded on rare occasions in American courts, an order applying to all witnesses in a case would be exceptional.

Such an order “would be very, very unusual” in a civilian court, said James A. Cohen, a Fordham University law professor, adding that he knew of no blanket order protecting the identities of all witnesses in a case.

mr. khadr's defense attorney sums it up...
In an e-mail message on Oct. 11 to the judge and the prosecutors, Commander Kuebler argued that it was notable that the entire discussion of whether witnesses would be permitted to shield their identities was being conducted without anyone in the public or the press able to observe the arguments.

“The manner in which this is being dealt with (i.e., off the record, via e-mail),” he wrote, “creates an added level of difficulty by making it appear that the government is trying to keep the secrecy of the proceedings a secret itself.”

the "justice" system of the united states of america, circa late 2007...

Labels: , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

The Military Commissions Act: "not designed to be fair; it's designed to produce convictions"

i took myself to a movie yesterday afternoon, lions for lambs, starring tom cruise, robert redford, and meryl streep... its tagline is, "what do you stand for?" a totally relevant question as we watch our country and our precious constitution being systematically lobotomized... following events as closely as i do is not a recipe for lightheartedness anyway, but i felt unusually glum after seeing this film... now, the morning after, i see nothing to mitigate the gloom...
Unique to the tribunal system that is governed by neither U.S. criminal law nor the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the commissions allow liberal use of classified evidence that a defendant doesn't get to see and protective orders that shield the identity of witnesses, interrogators and informants.

Defense lawyers for the terrorism suspects contend that the deck is stacked against them in preparing their cases. They say the administration officials running the tribunals can hide critical information and helpful testimony from the defense.

The extent to which the government can thwart defense preparation became apparent last week just 36 hours before the Thursday arraignment of Canadian war-crimes suspect Omar Khadr. His Navy lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler, learned then that the commissions' hierarchy had known for five years of a U.S. government employee who was an eyewitness to the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan in which Khadr is accused of having thrown the grenade that killed a U.S. Special Forces medic.

The eyewitness' account contradicts the government version of events and could exonerate Khadr of the war crimes with which he is charged: murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, spying and material support for terrorism.

"They weren't going to tell us who he was or how to get in touch with him or where he was," said Kuebler, who has been lobbying the Canadian government to demand repatriation of his client so he can be tried "in a legitimate system."

"This is a process that's not designed to be fair; it's designed to produce convictions," Kuebler added.

my every waking moment is a prayer for restoring our constitution and the rule of law, and virtually every waking moment i see no real movement toward that end...

Labels: , , , , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

On October 17, 2006, the United States Constitution was bound , gagged, and detained indefinitely

amnesty international is looking for support to run this ad once again... it ran originally on october 17 in usa today, and now they're looking to re-run it in the nyt...

Labels: , , , ,

Submit To Propeller



[Permalink] 0 comments