Obama's Right: A Preventive Detainee is simply a P.O.W.

Quite a bit of negative commentary, particular from attorney's such as Jesselyn Raddack and Glenn Greenwald has come down in stomp-footed opposition to Obama's plan to implement "Preventative Detention", meanwhile those on the Right continue to pull their hair out over the idea of "Terrorists released on American streets".

Both positions may in fact be an extreme over-reaction, while Obama's own Solomon-like path of splitting the difference may actually be our nation's only real choice under Geneva, the Constitution and the Law.

First we have to recall where have previously been to better understand where Obama is going. Under President Bush, the protections of Geneva were blatantly rejected by executive fiat. This meant that the tenets of the Army Field Manual, which were based on Geneva were undermined and our troops left without a coherent detention strategy leading to widespread abuses at Bagram A.F.B. and throughout Iraq. Eventually The U.S. established a set of secret detention centers specifically intended to avoid the Geneva mandate of oversight by the International Red Cross, where a program of coercion and torture was implemented to get the answers the Administration wanted, particularly concerning links between Saddam Hussein and 9-11.

In 2006 the Supreme Court overruled Bush's claim that Geneva did not apply with the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision which meant that all of the previous actions of the Administration at the CIA Black Sites and elsewhere could now fall under 18 USC 2441 for War Crimes prosecution. Bush responded by closing the illegal Black Sites and moving their detainees to GITMO, then quickly pushing through the Military Commissions Act which revoked the protections of habeas corpus for "Alien Enemy Combatants", allowed the use of coerced and self-incriminating testimony (gained via torture), and via "hearsay" in a new Military Commission Trial System.

In 2008 the Supreme Court just as they has previously restored Geneva protections, restored Habeas Corpus to detainees and invalidated Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act with the Boumedian v Bush decision. It held in restoring habeas that...

“to hold that the political branches may switch the constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, 'say what the law is'.

So unlike what was claimed by Bush, Obama finds himself in a landscape that must abide not only by the Constitution and Geneva but also Habeas for all detainees.
least of all indefinitely without the option of Habeas Review by a court.

In light of these realities Obama outlined five possible options for the disposition of current GITMO detainees.

1. Transfer to U.S. Civilian Courts for Trial.

This option in the past has led to the successful prosecution and incarceration of Ramzi Yusef (The Original WTC Bomber), the "Blink Sheik", Zacarias Moussaoui (The "20th" Hijaker"), Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph (The Olympic Park Bomber), and Ted Kasczinki (the Unibomber) all of whom are being currently held at the Florence Supermax Correctional Facility in Colorado.

No One Has Ever Escaped from a Supermax.

On April 30, 2009 Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who had been held for the previous six years at the Naval Brig in Charleston without charge, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and terrorism after being transferred by the Obama Administration into the civilian courts and is now being held at the Federal Facility at Pekin, Illinois awaiting sentencing.

The Obama administration plans to follow this trend by bringing charges against another al Qaeda suspect for the 1998 East Africa bombings which killer over 200 Americans.

Despite all the frenzied chest beating, this option has worked fine. America has the best prison system in the world, and is already holding al Qeada inmates - adding another hundred or so is not going to end civilization as we know it.

2. Try Suspects as War Criminals in Military Court

Unlike those who may have committed crimes against Civilians and Non-Combatants, it seems perfectly appropriate to try those who have perpetrated crimes against our troops on the battle field, or civilians in a war zone. Some may say that "there are no Rules in War" however the fact is there have been very clear and definite rules since the Ratification of Geneva in 1949. Under Geneva these would include...

"violations of the laws or customs of war"; including but not limited to "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".

A Courts Martial of Military Criminals is entirely appropriate if the circumstances warrant, and as Obama has noted the previous flaws from the Bush Military Commission System will not - and frankly CAN NOT vis SCOTUS - be included.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They should look at the record. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal.

I said at that time, however, that I supported the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms, and in fact there were some bipartisan efforts to achieve those reforms. Those are the reforms that we are now making. Instead of using the flawed commissions of the last seven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in line with the rule of law. We will no longer permit the use of evidence -- as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify.

3. Detainees who have been ordered to be released by the Courts

Amazingly some on the right would argue that the Adminstration ignore a Court Order to release a detainee against whom the evidence is insufficient. Obama has rejected that view.

Now, let me repeat what I said earlier: This has nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have spoken. They have found that there's no legitimate reason to hold 21 of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Nineteen of these findings took place before I was sworn into office. I cannot ignore these rulings because as President, I too am bound by the law. The United States is a nation of laws and so we must abide by these rulings.

Whether GITMO stays open or not, these 21 people must legally be released - the problem for some of them however is "to where"? A problem which still plagues the Uighurs, Chinese Muslims who would most likely face persecution if released to that nation but like Boumedienne - a Serbian who was ultimately released to France - an alternative arrangement may eventually be made available. Which leads to the next category.

4. Transferral of Detainees to other Jursidictions.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved 50 detainees for transfer. And my administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

This isn't setting them free, Bush did this with numerous detainees such as Ibn Shayhk al-Libi who was transferred to Egypt and eventually to Libya. He also rendered innocent persons such as Abu Omar and Maher Arar who was transferred to Syria. The difficulty here is that both Omar and Arar were completely innocent and actually apprehended by mistake - and all three individuals were tortured in those countries. Like the case of the Uighurs simply shipping people off to other countries without careful thought or planning could prove disastrous, but extradition is an option that should clearly be pursued and could be successful with careful planning.

And then there is the most controversial category.

5. Detainees who can not be prosecuted, but remain AT WAR with the United States

Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.

In the most simple terms, these people are Prisoners of War and can potentially be held "until hostilities cease". The controversy here is that this is war the in some ways can not be either one or lost, ever. As Glenn Greenwald argues...

When Bush supporters used to justify Bush/Cheney detention policies by arguing that it's normal for "Prisoners of War" to be held without trials, that argument was deeply misleading. And it's no less misleading when made now by Obama supporters. That comparison is patently inappropriate for two reasons: (a) the circumstances of the apprehension, and (b) the fact that, by all accounts, this "war" will not be over for decades, if ever, which means -- unlike for traditional POWs, who are released once the war is over -- these prisoners are going to be in a cage not for a few years, but for decades, if not life.

Traditional "POWs" are ones picked up during an actual military battle, on a real battlefield, wearing a uniform, while engaged in fighting. The potential for error and abuse in deciding who was a "combatant" was thus minimal. By contrast, many of the people we accuse in the "war on terror" of being "combatants" aren't anywhere near a "battlefield," aren't part of any army, aren't wearing any uniforms, etc. Instead, many of them are picked up from their homes, at work, off the streets.

I think that Greenwald, and I am frankly loathe to disagree with Glenn as I respect him greatly and consider his work an inspiration for my own, is just simply wrong here. At the beginning of any armed conflict, it is never really known exactly when hostilities will end. Israel has essentially remained in a constant state of war for decades. The "Troubles" in Northern Ireland were of a similar extended nature.

It should also noted that nearly two years ago in 2007 the newly minted commander in Afghanistan, Gen McChrystal officially announced that al Qaeda in Iraq has been Defeated. Iraq still has lots of problems but that conflict has ended. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of AQI, is dead.

There may indeed be a point in time where this may also be true of Senior Leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they are either captured or killed and their ability to function as an effective international terrorist enterprise is diminished to point of irrelevance. In fact - This Should be Our Goal. The difficulty in attaining that goal should be lost on no-one, but neither should it lead us to making choices that defy common sense and allowing enemy assets to return to the battlefield during an active conflict.

The second part of his assumption I think ignores both Obama's specific comments and the reality of the situation is that these would not be people "picked up from their homes, at work, or off the streets" since these locations can not honestly be called the "battlefield." Those people would be, and should be handled as criminal suspects and processed through the civilian courts as Obama describes under option 1.

What we're really talking in this scenario would be Taliban, Al Qeada and Insurgent fighters who have been caught on the battlefield, planting IEDs or otherwise in the act of attacking our troops. Again the case of Insurgents is also instructive here. as at one point we would have never considered the idea of a cease fire let alone open cooperation with those who had previously been fighting with in the Sunni Triangle. Today things are different, and consequently the Military need to hold these prisoners would similarly change over time.

Also the greatest protection against possible abuse of this policy, would be to ensure that the decision does not rest in just one set of hands just as Obama has described.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category.

President Bush reserved the sole right to pluck someone off the street, even an American Citizen such as Jose Padilla, and hold them without charge or without judicial review.

Those days are over.

Any potential Prisoner of War or detainee under Boumedienne must now be afforded Habeas review, even if the Administration thinks they may remain an "ongoing threat" they're going to have to provide some evidence of this assertion before a court although evidence of a specific civilian or war crime on their part may be either lacking or tainted.

Further as a result of the precedent set by Hamdan (although the SCOTUS offered no opinion on this point), it could be argued that Geneva protections should also apply and before the administration could even relegate someone to P.O.W. status they would need to have this confirmed by a Competent Tribunal under Article 5.

Under U.S. military regulations, a Tribunal would be composed of:

Three commissioned officers; a written record of proceedings; proceedings shall be open with certain exceptions; persons whose status is to be determined shall be advised of their rights at the beginning of their hearings, allowed to attend all open sessions, allowed to call witnesses if reasonably available, and to question those witnesses called by the Tribunal, and to have a right to testify; and a tribunal shall determine status by a preponderance of evidence.[2]

Possible determinations are:

1. Enemy Prisoner of War.
2. Recommended Retained Personnel (RP), entitled to EPW protections, who should be considered for certification as a medical, religious, or volunteer aid society RP.
3. Innocent civilian who should be immediately returned to his home or released.
4. Civilian Internee who for reasons of operational security, or probable cause incident to criminal investigation, should be detained

Bush had previously established "Combat Status Review Tribunals" to fill this requirement, but studies by the Seton Hall found the 92% of GITMO detainees were not in fact "Enemy Combatants" and that the Bush CSRT were essentially Kangaroo Courts biased to find guilt in nearly all cases. Ultimately Boumedienne invalidated the Bush CSRT process, so a new, and fair process in line with Geneva and the Code of Military Justice needs to be constituted. One which mandates periodic status review updates for all persons ultimately declared as having P.O.W. status for the ongoing War as circumstances within that conflict continue to shift and change overtime. Think of it as a "parole hearing" to determine if the person remains a threat and either repatriate or retain them as appropriate. This would not be the Obama Administration's decision, but one based on the available facts and circumstances at the time by an independent judge or judicial panel on a case by case basis.

In short "Preventative Detention" of a P.O.W. might not ultimately be Permanent Detention nor should be it something that any President or Administration should be able to legally implement without oversight from the courts or Congress. Doing this may require a new POW or Military Tribunal Act, but it can be done. Russ Feingold is already demanding hearings and testimony based on Obama's Speech.

While I recognize that your administration inherited detainees who, because of torture, other forms of coercive interrogations, or other problems related to their detention or the evidence against them, pose considerable challenges to prosecution, holding them indefinitely without trial is inconsistent with the respect for the rule of law that the rest of your speech so eloquently invoked. Indeed, such detention is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world. It is hard to imagine that our country would regard as acceptable a system in another country where an individual other than a prisoner of war is held indefinitely without charge or trial.

Once a system of indefinite detention without trial is established, the temptation to use it in the future would be powerful. And, while your administration may resist such a temptation, future administrations may not. There is a real risk, then, of establishing policies and legal precedents that rather than ridding our country of the burden of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, merely set the stage for future Guantanamos, whether on our shores or elsewhere, with disastrous consequences for our national security.

Feingold's concerns aer well founded considering the history of Bush Administrations handling of detainees, but the U.S. has held prisoners of war without charge and without trial in every war that we've engaged in since the formation of the Union. It doesn't mean they'll be held forever, it does not violate the law, the constitution or Geneva, but it will need to be done with the consultation and understanding of Congress.

With rational and legal protections in place, we can ensure a framework which both protects the rights of the accused from unwarranted and unreasonable detention and protects the American people from those who would continue to wage violence and war against them through the weapons of terror.

It's not a Hobson's Choice of protecting Americans vs protecting Terrorist Suspects, we have to do both - protect the innocent (all of them) as well as punish the guilty using the best legally obtained evidence and facts.

Vyan

DC Court of Appeals to Bush: No More "Enemy Combatants"?

The DC Court of Appeals just handed Bush a major smackdown on his terrorism policy - they (may have laid the groundwork for) establishing that there's no such thing as an "Enemy Combatant"

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court, in the first case it reviewed, has overturned the Pentagon's classification of a Guantanamo detainee as an enemy combatant.

...

The court rejected the Bush administration's argument that the president has the power to detain people who never took up arms against the U.S.

This decision probably won't affect insurgent fighters captured on the field of battle, but it could affect non-combatants those captured via informants or surveillance, and following the Supreme Court's recent restoration of Habaeus Corpus, it seems unlikely that they would overturn and reverse this decision - and if taken to it's ultimate conclusion, the implications to the Bush Administration could be devastating.

Ever since 2002 the Bush Administration has used the classification "Enemy Combatant" to deny Geneva Conventions to detainees captured in the War on Terror. They used it to justify "Extraordinary Rendition", secret "Black Site" prisons and to practice Torture in direct violation of War Crimes Provision of U.S. Law. Some of these detainees have been children, while others were literally sold to us by informants - like slaves bought on the auction block. More raw materials for CIA Contractors to "process".

A McClatchy investigation has revealed that an amazing number of these detainees - contrary to claims made by the President, and basically every other Republican including John McCain - are just plain innocent.

The McClatchy investigation found that top Bush administration officials knew within months of opening the Guantanamo detention center that many of the prisoners there weren't "the worst of the worst." From the moment that Guantanamo opened in early 2002, former Secretary of the Army Thomas White said, it was obvious that at least a third of the population didn't belong there.

Of the 66 detainees whom McClatchy interviewed, the evidence indicates that 34 of them, about 52 percent, had connections with militant groups or activities. At least 23 of those 34, however, were Taliban foot soldiers, conscripts, low-level volunteers or adventure-seekers who knew nothing about global terrorism.

Only seven of the 66 were in positions to have had any ties to al Qaida's leadership, and it isn't clear that any of them knew any terrorists of consequence.

When members of the FBI nearly arrested CIA Interrogators for their treatment of prisoners, the excuse used to keep the FBI at bay was - these are "Enemy Combatants", normal rules of justice and law need not apply.

If this decision is upheld, the Bush Administration will have essentially run out of wiggle room. The entire Military Commissions Process, which was established after the Supreme Court decided in Hamdan v Rumsfeld that the Geneva Conventions essentially apply to everyone involved in a war, will now be in shambles. The hundreds of detainees held at Gitmo and tens of thousands of others being held around the world at placed like Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB will now either have to be declared Prisoners of War and tried via a Court Martial or charged in Criminal Cases and tried as Civilians.

It's either option A (Military), option B (Civilian) or option C - let those people go. There will soon be no more other options left.

The problem with this is naturally, that coerced confessions are not allowed in Criminal or Military Cases. Confessions obtained under duress are not admissable. The claims that former Gitmo prisoners have come back to fight us again the battle field, is Largely a Myth! In a real court - not this made-up Kangaroo Fiasco we currently have at Gitmo - defendants must be arraigned in a timely manner, you can not hold them indefinitely without charges, the innocent are proctected from the overreach of the state. Oh and Deliberate Abuse - as the President has admitted to authorizing under his "Enhanced Interrogation" Program - is Punishable as a War Crime, particularly when the subject doesn't just feel like their dying in a "simulated" way - at least two dozen of them have actually died (PDF) as a result of these horrifically flawed U.S. policies.

Someone tell McCain that this isn't about making money for Trial Lawyers, all the attorney's at Gitmo - like Former Lt. Cmd Swift who was Sacked for Winning in before the Supreme Court on Hamdan - are in the Military, and most Civilian Attorneys are willing to work on cases like these Pro Bono.

It's called following the Constitution, maybe we should try it again. We just might finally turn back from being a ruthless rogue state to a nation of laws yet.

Read much much more on this ongoing tragedy from the ACLU's Freedom of Information Files.

Vyan

Update: As Some have noted in the comments this decision may only apply to this particular detainee, or "non-violent" combatants, but since some of the decision remains currently classified exactly what it's full ramifications will be are currently unclear, however what matters is ultimate what the SCOTUS decides and that isn't strictly limited by the DC Appeals ruling. Hamdan only applied to Hamdan (pre SCOTUS), until it didn't (After SCOTUS).

P.S. Bush can't Pardon Himself.

The Nexus of Failure Bewteen Gen Sanchez, Gitmo and Abu Ghraib

Many people have reported the news that yesterday Retired Lt. Gen Ricardo Sanchez joined the chorus of other former generals including Gen Wesley Clark, Gen Batiste, Gen Odom and Gen Eaton as well as a host of others like Sen Harry Reid who've stated that the Iraq War Is Lost (Militarily).

On the same day it was announced that the Military Tribunals which were intended to prosecuted "Alien Unlawful Enemy Combatants" had been evicerated by not one - but TWO seperate judges independant of each other.

Gen Sanchez knows where more than a few bodies are buried for the Bush Administration.

He was not only overall commander for the Iraq Theater when it began, and the insurgency exploded, he was also the commander who implemented Donald Rumsfeld's 29 expanded interrogation techniques in order to "Gitmo-ize" Iraq and Abu Ghraib as documented in HBO's Ghosts of Abu Ghraib.

From the ACLU FOIA Files.

September 2003
[Sanchez] authorizes the use of 29 interrogation techniques for use in Iraq, including the use of dogs, stress positions, sensory deprivation, loud music and light control, based on Rumsfeld’s April 16 techniques and suggestions from captain of military unit formerly in Afghanistan.

Sanchez also, as commanding officer for the theater is the one who shifted jurisdiction over Tier 1a/1b at Abu Ghraib from it's overall commander Gen. Karpinski (who was essentially head MP) to Gen Geoffrey Miller who worked with Military Intelligence and had just been transfered in - from Gitmo.

As a result of his involvement Sanchez was been included on a list of U.S. War Criminals by Amnesty International over two years ago.

I bring all this up because Sanchez has a bit more to lose in coming out so strongly against the Bush Administration than Gen Batiste did in losing his gig with CBS.

Gen Karpinski, who was demoted to Colonel even though she had absolutely nothing to do with the events on Tier 1a/1b had to go to Spanish Television to make the point that she had obtained signed documents by Rumsfeld authorizing civilian contractors to do the same types of things that happenedd on Tier 1a.

Former U.S. Army Brigadier General Janis Karpinski told Spain's El Pais newspaper she had seen a letter apparently signed by Rumsfeld which allowed civilian contractors to use techniques such as sleep deprivation during interrogation.

Karpinski, who ran the prison until early 2004, said she saw a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld detailing the use of harsh interrogation methods.

Can you imagine what Sanchez might have copies of?

And conversely can you image what the Pentagon might have tucked away which could potentially hang Sanchez for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justices prohibition against the Maltreatment of Prisoners?

Not to mention the Geneva Conventions, and the U.S. prohibition against torture.

This bring us to the Military Commission Act which was nothing more than an attempt to cover-up the numerous War Crimes commited at Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB in Afghanistan.

It allowed for the use of coerced evidence.

It allowed for various forms of torture by changing the War Crimes Act to comport with the Bybee Memo allowing for any type of treatment short of death or organ failure to be excluded as "torture".

It suspended habeas corpus for "unlawful alien enemy combatants".

It established a "Combat Status Review Tribunal" system to evaluate whether someone should be or should be considered and "alien unlawful enemy combatant" that simply doesn't work.

But the fatal flaw in the MCA as it was exposed this week is something I pointed out last year when it was passed.

Clearly if one is found by the CSRT to not be an Unlawful Combatant, one would not automatically go free. What should occur - in a far more prefect world than this one - is that they would then be relegated to the regular Civilian or Courts Martial as a "Lawful Enemy Combatant". The CSRT itself is far from a "Get out of GITMO Free" Card. If the CSRT finding is "Unlawful", the detainee then skips "Go" and heads forward to his Military Tribunal Only if the President subsequently seeks to press charges -- if he does not, that person disappears into a [legal] black hole. Forever.

This is the legal blackhole that Omar Khadr and get this - Salim Hamdan - yes, that Salim Hamdan - have now fallen into.

In separate decisions, Army Col. Peter Brownback and Navy Capt. Keith Allred said that designation was insufficient under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Brownback said the act specifically limited trials to detainees tagged as "unlawful enemy combatants" and barred trials of "lawful enemy combatants." Without a more specific designation, a military commission has no authority to act, he found.

"A person has a right to be tried only by a court that has jurisdiction over him," said Brownback, who ruled in the Khadr case.

Allred used slightly different logic to reach the same conclusion. He said Hamdan "is either entitled to the designation as a prisoner-of-war or he is an alien unlawful enemy combatant. Or he is entitled to another status."

In trying so hard to cover their tracks for thier War Crimes, Bush and Co have created a system that is completely unworkable.

The chief Guantanamo defense counsel, Marine Corps Col. Dwight Sullivan, noted that each captive now held there was classified as an "enemy combatant," not an "unlawful enemy combatant."

Sullivan, who oversees the defense of all military commission cases, declared the war court "a complete failure." He urged the Pentagon to end its efforts to prosecute Guantanamo detainees under the Military Commissions Act.

"The system right now should just stop," Sullivan said. "The commission is an experiment that failed, and we don't need any more evidence that it is a failure."

Of course rather than shift all of the Gitmo detainees into a normal POW situation or try them under standard Courts Martial the government instead intends to appeal - except the appeals court for the Military Commissions doesn't exist yet.

Isn't that just dandy?

I don't know, maybe it's guilt, maybe it's the fact that the firewall that the MCA establish around his War Crimes is begining to crack and crumble like a wet cookie that Ricardo Sanchez is finally now telling the truth. Maybe it's something else - like honor.

If indeed the Iraq War is lost - it's because Sanchez Lost It for us by refusing chosing to implement a Clearly Illegal Order when there really might have been an chance of affecting "Hearts and Minds" before Abu Ghraib turned those hearts against us permanently.

Whatever it is, I think things are going to be very, very intesresting between now and September.

In fact, it might just get very intesting later today during the Republican Debate if they get asked about Sanchez' statement, the Judges decision in these Gitmo cases (Damn those Activist Military Judges), or better yet - the Libby Verdict.

Yes, indeed - we live in interesting times.

Vyan

Lynn Cheney does the Torture Tango

In the wake of this weeks inadvertant admissions by Dick Cheney that the U.S. has engaged in Water-boarding of terrorist detainees, his wife Lynn Cheney went on CNN to dance around the corpse of Democracy in our front yard defend her husband and the administration. In the process she yet again broke the emergency glass on that old Conservative Canard - Liberal Media Bias...

CHENEY: Well, you know, right there, Wolf, "BROKEN GOVERNMENT." Now, what kind of stance is that? Here we are. We're a country where we have been mightily challenged over the past six years. We've been through 9/11. We've been through Katrina. The president and the vice president inherited a recession. We're a country where the economy is healthy. That's not broken. This government has acted very well.

The ridiculousness of Cheney's performance can not be understated. She proclaimed, in response to the recent Jimm Webb Novel controversy that her novel "Sisters" did not contain lesbian love scenes.

BLITZER: Here's what the Democratic Party put out today, the Democratic Congressional -- Senatorial Campaign Committee: "Lynne Cheney's book featured brothels and attempted rape. In 1981, Vice

President Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, wrote a book called "Sisters", which featured a lesbian love affair, brothels and attempted rapes."

CHENEY: No.

BLITZER: "In 1988, Lynn Cheney wrote about a Republican vice president who dies of a heart attack while having sex with his mistress." Is that true?

CHENEY: Nothing explicit. And actually, that was full of lies. It's not -- it's just -- it's absolutely not a...

BLITZER: Did you write a book entitled "Sisters"?

CHENEY: I did write a book entitled "Sisters."

BLITZER: It did have lesbian characters.

CHENEY: This -- no, not necessarily. This description is a lie. I'll stand on that.

See, there you go - it's all a pack of lies from the Liberal Left. Nothing to see here - move along.

Except maybe this from the New York Daily News:

Choice scenes adapted from "Sisters" included one in which two female characters write to each other: "Let us go away together, away from the anger and the imperatives of men. We shall find ourselves a secluded bower where they dare not venture. There will be only the two of us, and we shall linger through long afternoons of sweet retirement."

One of Cheney's characters swoons to a Sapphic love letter: "How well her words describe our love - or the way it would be if we could remove all impediments, leave this place, and join together ... Then our union would be complete. Our lives would flow together, twin streams merging into a single river."

Now, let me be clear - I don't have any issue with Lesbian Love Scenes - I have a problem with people, like Cheney, who think everyone else is so dumb that they'll let them get away with such a blatant lie.

But then again, the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy must be to blame for it. Yeah, it's all the fault of those crazed liberals and their media front men like Blitzer.

Cheney, in response to CNN daring to tell the story of a former detainee who had been apprehended in England, rended to Pakistan, Afghanistan, then Gitmo and finally - stated:

CHENEY: You know, I think that you might be a little careful before you declare this as a person with clean hands.

BLITZER: You're referring to the CNN "BROKEN GOVERNMENT" special.

CHENEY: I certainly am.

BLITZER: This was the one that John King reported on last night.

Here's the detainees story from "Broken Government":

Meet Moazzam Begg from Birmingham, England. He vividly remembers when he was taken into custody: A midnight knock at the door soon after he had relocated from Afghanistan to Islamabad, Pakistan.

"I opened the door to be faced with people, several of them, pointing guns and electric stun guns. None of them said anything," Begg said. "They didn't ask me any questions, they didn't identify themselves. ... I was made to kneel, my hands were shackled behind my back. My legs were shackled. And the last thing I saw -- they put a hood over my head -- was them walking towards the room where my children were."

During a tense van ride, he would come face to face with his captors -- and the reach of Bush's executive powers in the post-9/11 world.

"Somebody lifted the hood off my head," Begg told CNN. "And I heard an American voice speak to me. And I saw him, and he produced a pair of handcuffs. And he said, 'These handcuffs were from a widow of a September 11 victim' -- given to him in order for him to capture the perpetrators."

Begg spent nearly three years in U.S. custody -- in Pakistan, Afghanistan and then the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. To this day, the CIA and FBI consider him a threat to the United States, but he was released from custody after appeals from British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He now lives back in his hometown.

Three Years. Held that entire time without charges, without explaination, without access to counsel.

Under the just signed Military Commissions Act alien detainees such as Begg no longer have any access to Habeas Corpus. Yes, this means British Citizens too - although they have a perfectly working police force of their own and extradition treaty with the US - we apparently didn't have time for such niceties - we geez only had three years or so to figure out if this guy was really dangerous or not, where you expecting swift justice or something? That's Pre-9/11 Thinking there pal, so you can just stop that right now.

For years the Administration has been running an international kidnapping ring through the CIA, secretly rounding up terrorist suspects - not Actual Terrorists, just Suspects - and shipping them off to Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to be held in hidden prisons outside the view of the international red cross where they have been torture - the kind of facilities that were highlighted in the first season of Keiefer Sutherland's "24". (Remember when they found Dennis Hopper's character in the underground bunker somewhere in LA Country?)

And just for the record, more then a few times - they've gotten the wrong target.

But to Lynn Cheney and her ilk, the concept of Habeas Corpus and the presumption of innocence is something we should be "careful" of? Yeah, something is serously "Broken" in that thinking all right.

The truly frightening part is how desperately the Cheney's of the world will cling to the information forcibly coereced from these "suspects". Particularly Ibn al Shakh al-Libi.

LONDON (AFP) - An Al-Qaeda terror suspect captured by the United States, who gave evidence of links between Iraq and the terror network, confessed after being tortured, a journalist told the BBC.

Ibn al Shakh al Libby told intelligence agents that he was close to Al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri and "understood an awful lot about the inner workings of Al-Qaeda," former FBI agent Jack Clonan told the broadcaster.

Libby was tortured in an Egyptian prison, according to Stephen Grey, the author of the newly-released book "Ghost Plane" who investigated the secret US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) prisons that housed terror suspects around the world.

US President George W. Bush confirmed the existence of the network of CIA holding facilities overseas during a September 6 speech defending controversial US interrogation practices.

Libby was apparently taken to Cairo, Clonan told the broadcaster, after being captured in Afghanistan in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States.

"He (Libby) claims he was tortured in jail and that would be routine in Egyptian prisons," Grey said.

"What he claimed most significantly was a connection between ... Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. This intelligence report made it all the way to the top, and was used by (former US secretary of state) Colin Powell as a key piece of justification ... for invading Iraq," he told the broadcaster.

Powell watched a video tape of al-Libbi confession prior to his inclusion of allegations that Saddam Hussein had been working with Al-Qaeda and might pass on chemical/biological weapons technology and training to them. He was key linchpin in the "Don't wait for the mushroom could" strategy.

Unfortunately, al-Libby was a liar.

And his lies, prompted on by his treatment, have led us into an irresponsible War and devastating occupation of an Unarmed Nation.

Yet to this very day, the Adminstration refuses to admit they were wrong about Saddam and Al Qeada.

They refuse to even admit that we employ torture.

Vice President Cheney said yesterday that he was not referring to an interrogation technique known as "waterboarding" when he told an interviewer this week that dunking terrorism suspects in water was a "no-brainer."

Cheney told reporters aboard Air Force Two last night that he did not talk about any specific interrogation technique during his interview Tuesday with a conservative radio host.

"I didn't say anything about waterboarding. . . . He didn't even use that phrase," Cheney said on a flight to Washington from South Carolina.

Earlier in the day, White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters that the vice president was talking literally about "a dunk in the water," though neither Snow nor Cheney explained what that meant or whether such a tactic had been used against U.S. detainees.

"A dunk in the water is a dunk in the water," Snow said.

Why exactly would you "dunk someone in water" during an interrogation - if not to make them think they're about to drown?

What else could it be? The guy was really thirsty - so we gave him the entire bucket all at once? Is this supposed to be like a carnival ride or something? Is anyone on earth buying this bullshit anymore?

The United States Tried and Convicted Japanese Soldiers for the War Crime of WaterBoarding in 1947.

Now our Government employs those - and likely even worse - techniques. Even if they're guilty we can't legally even TRY THESE PEOPLE, because if they've been tortured any guilty statements are inadmissable (except the that MCA also created some loopholes around that little snag). But to people like Lynn Cheney, it's all just 'lies and distortions".

Keep thinking that Mrs. Cheney - right until Election Day and you get a serious wake up call because you know what?

"Reality has a Liberal Bias" - Steven Colbert.

Amen.

Update Wolf Blitzer has further responded to Lynn Cheney's >attack on his patriotism - when she asked Blitzer "Don't you want us to win?"

Today on CNN’s Late Edition, Blitzer said he was “surprised” at Cheney’s “sniping at my patriotism,” and pointed out that CNN had specifically labeled the tape of a U.S. soldier under fire as terrorist “propaganda.” He also said that CNN had made clear to Cheney’s staff “only hours before the interview” that she would be asked questions about politics during her appearance, not just about her children’s book.

It's the kind of attack that is now common place among Conservatives who think only they have the correct answers to terrorism and al-Qaeda. To them it's inapproprate for CNN to broadcast terrorist propaganda (with caveats) - but the RNC can use it to attack Democrats and stir up fear all they like.

Vyan

By Every Means Unneccesary - Why Habeas is Gone Forever

This week President Bush in his head-long rush for Jack Bauer Justice signed the "Military Commissions Act of 2006 (pdf)", and act which essentially ends the great Writ of Habeas Corpus, allows for coerced and hearsay evidence and codifies various forms of torture as authorized under the law.

But the most shocking element of all of this is the very strong likelyhood that we just might not see the return of Habeas in our lifetimes.

Why not?

Because under the Consitution the Congress actually does have the authority to do what they did - Suspend Habeas.

In Hamdi V Rumsfeld the SCOTUS stated:

Likewise,we have made clear that,unless Congress acts to suspend it,the Great Writ of habeas corpus allows the Judicial Branch to play a necessary role in maintaining this delicate balance of governance,serving as an important judicial check on the Executive 's discretion in the realm of detentions.

Habeas Defined:

The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ or habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Constitution.

Military Commission Act:

No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.

U.S. Constitution Under Article I (Limits and Powers of the Congress) states:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

In this case the "Invasion" is the ongoing infiltration of the United States by the agents of al Qeada - an endless condition of War where the public safety is always in jeopardy. So when exactly will the "public safety" no longer require it?

Never.

Historically speaking, George Bush isn't the first President to attempt to suspend Habeas. In 1861 President Lincoln Suspended Habeas during the Civil War, and had his decision overtuned by Justice Taney in Ex Parte Merryman.

Ex parte Merryman (literally "from one side," and therefore meaning "on behalf of Merryman") is the case of Lt. John Merryman, of the Baltimore County Horse Guards, who was imprisoned on May 25, 1861, in, of all places, Baltimore's Fort McHenry, on order of Union General Winfield Scott. Union troops had just occupied the city and began arresting suspected secessionists.

In Taney's response he stated:

As the case comes before me, therefore, I understand that the president not only claims the right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus himself, at his discretion, but to delegate that discretionary power to a military officer, and to leave it to him to determine whether he will or will not obey judicial process that may be served upon him. No official notice has been given to the courts of justice, or to the public, by proclamation or otherwise, that the president claimed this power, and had exercised it in the manner stated in the return. And I certainly listened to it with some surprise, for I had supposed it to be one of those points of constitutional law upon which there was no difference of opinion, and that it was admitted on all hands, that the privilege of the writ could not be suspended, except by act of congress.

The clause of the constitution, which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, is in the 9th section of the first article. This article is devoted to the legislative department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the executive department. It begins by providing "that all legislative powers therein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives."

In 1864 Congress passed a law which fit Haney's requirements and Suspended Habeas for the duration of the War and Reconstruction - this eventually lead to Ex Parte Milligan.

Lambdin P. Milligan and four others were accused of planning to steal Union weapons and invade Union prisoner-of-war camps and were sentenced to hang by a military court in 1864. However, their execution was not set until May 1865, so they were able to argue the case after the Civil War ended.

The Supreme Court decided that the suspension of habeas corpus was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating, and the Constitution of the United States only provided for suspension of habeas corpus if these courts are actually forced closed. In essence, the court ruled that military tribunals could not try civilians in areas where civil courts were open, even during times of war.

In short, the Congressional Suspension of Habeas in response to a Rebellion (or Invasion) was upheld, and most likely would be upheld again even by the current Supreme Court since Congressional Authorization is exactly what they requested under Hamdi, which leaves all of us pretty much screwed for the foreseable future.

Even a New Congress is unlikely to overturn this law since 34 Democrats in the House and 12 in the Senate supported it - with only a slim margin projected for the Demcratic Majority in November - such a reversal would be far from Veto proof.

There are however some potential bright spots among the darkness.

in response to Hamdan V Rumsfeld John Dean argued against the MCA as it was being drafted.

Since the inception of the Bush Administration's war against terror, the President has claimed - unreasonably and without justification - that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to this war with stateless forces such as al Qaeda (or similar organizations) for they are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions. But Bush is wrong.

The Hamdan Court explained that "Article 3, often referred to as Common Article 3 because ... it appears in all four Geneva Conventions" applies here. Moreover, the Court noted, Common Article 3 prohibits "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

So the question is no longer purely a Constitutional one, but one which begs whether the Military Tribunals which have now been authorized actually satisfy Geneva as "regularly constituted courts". But clearly they do not include "all the judicial guarantees" - since Habeas is regards to "Enemy Combatants" is now non-functional.

Under Article VI it states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

By Ratifying Geneva in 1948, we have made it a part and equal to our own law and Constitution. This is further reiterated by Justice Stevens in Hamdan.

Article 3 of the Geneva Convention (III)Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War,Aug. 12,1949, [1955 ] 6 U..S.T.3316,3318,T.I.A.S.No.3364. The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law.See id.,at 3316. By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered "war crimes," punishable as federal offenses,when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U.S.C.§2441. There should be no doubt,then,that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.

Even though Bush has attempted to Redefine both Geneva, Torture and War Crimes with this Act - rewriting 18 U.S.C.18 U.S.C.§2441 into a laundry list what allegedly is and isn't covered - the core issue here is still whether these new tribunals are "regularly constituted" and whether this breach of Geneva would actually overide Congresses own legitimate authority to suspend Habeas?

On that point I am far from certain of the outcome.

There is another argument to made however - the Suspension of Habeas under the MCA (quoted above) clearly applies to "Alien Enemy Combatants" not neccesarily U.S. citizens, although U.S. Citizens can clearly be considered Enemy Combatants under this law - Hamdi (who is a U.S. Citizen) supports this view - the disparate treatment here between U.S. Citizens (who still retain some form of Habeas relief) and Non-Citizens who do not may present a 14th Amendment Equal Protection Challenge.

Hamdi was the first case to extend the 14th to cover areas outside the U.S. (such as those being held in Gitmo), this just might be the first case that I know of - if such a challenge is brought - to extend the 14th to Non-citizens under U.S. Jurisdiction and control. There are two suits against the MCA already, time will tell...

Although Habeas is now gone for aliens, the ability to challenge ones status as an Unlawful Enemy Combatant itself has been upheld and is retained in the current law (as part of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal).

``(c) DETERMINATION OF UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT STATUS DISPOSITIVE.--A finding, whether before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense that a person is an unlawful enemy combatant is dispositive for purposes of jurisdiction for trial by military commission under this chapter.

Basically there are two Tribunals, the first of which is established by the President or SecDef for establish the status of a detainee. (Ironically, this is in according with Geneva, which requires that all persons of unknown status be given a hearing to determine their status). Under both the MCA and the Detainee Treament Act of 2005, the findings of the CSRT can be appealed to the DC Circuit Court.

This Judicial Obsticle Course is at least a maginal improvement over the current sitaution where we already know most of the combatants held at Gitmo are innocent and we've refused to release them.

[A deposition by Brig. Gen. Karpinski's (former Abu Ghraib CO)] cited the comments of another official, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, who told her, "I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians! We're winning the war!" A former commander of the 320th Military Police Battalion notes in a sworn statement, "It became obvious to me that the majority of our detainees were detained as the result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were swept up by Coalition Forces as peripheral bystanders during raids. I think perhaps only one in ten security detainees were of any particular intelligence value."

Clearly if one is found by the CSRT to not be an Unlawful Combatant, one would not automatically go free. What should occur - in a far more prefect world than this one - is that they would then be relegated to the regular Civilian or Courts Marshal as a "Lawful Enemy Combatant". The CSRT itself is far from a "Get out of GITMO Free" Card. If the CSRT finding is "Unlawful", the detainee then skips "Go" and heads forward to his Military Tribunal Only if the President subsequently seeks to press charges -- if he does not, that person disappears into a black hole. Forever.

The very existence of this law is extremely onerous - particular the section which reduces the Geneva-based prohibitions against "Offenses to Personal Dignity" and instead prohibits torture - sort of.

TORTURE: Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control for the purpose of obtaining information or a confession, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or any reason based on discrimination of any kind, shall be punished, if death results to one or more of the victims, by death or such other punishment as a military commission under this chapter may direct, and, if death does not result to any of the victims, by such punishment, other than death, as a military commis-sion under this chapter may direct.

...

The term `serious physical pain or suffering'
means bodily injury that involves--
``(I) a substantial risk of death;
``(II) extreme physical pain;
``(III) a burn or physical disfigurement of a
serious nature (other than cuts, abrasions, or
bruises); or
``(IV) significant loss or impairment of the
function of a bodily member, organ, or mental
faculty.

Guess what folks, the Bybee memo is now the law. A simple reading makes it plainly obvious that non-lethal methods of humiliation, and "non-severe" pain, which leave no visible marks, burns, cuts or abrasion and do not risk "organ failure" -- are absolutely permissable. This act is like a "How To" manual on how to became a Totalitarian Dictatorship, which is further underscored by the fact that coerced testimony is now allowed

STATEMENTS OBTAINED BEFORE ENACTMENT OF DETAINEE
TREATMENT ACT OF 2005.--A statement obtained before December
30, 2005 (the date of the enactment of the Defense Treatment
Act of 2005) in which the degree of coercion is disputed may be admitted only if the military judge finds that--
``(1) the totality of the circumstances renders the statement reliable and possessing sufficient probative value; and
``(2) the interests of justice would best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

And for coercion which occured after the DTA this is added:

``(3) the interrogation methods used to obtain the statement do not amount to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment prohibited by section 1003 of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.

What is most tragic here, is the well known fact that Coercive Interrogation Techniques Simply don't Work. The subject is more likely to lie and fabricate than actually provide valid information. These heavy-handed uber-macho measures by the Administration are completely unneccesary. Ibn al-Libi was tortured and lied to us. Abu Zubaydah actually gave us some good information before he was tortured, then started lying after he was. If we want good and accurate information to protect Americans, coercian and pseudo torture is not the way - and it completely destroys the moral justification for our War against terror when we behave like terrorists.

Innocent muslims such as Abu Omar and Maher Arar have already been unlawfully detained (kidnapped actually in Omar's case) rendered to Egypt and Syria where they were tortured.

In Iraq AP Reporter Bilal Hussein has been held by U.S. Forces for the past five months - without a hearing.

These are not isolated cases - to date the U.S. nearly 50,000 people under detention worldwide. We're talking about a major humanitary crises here.

But if you listen to the Wingnut Brigade, the Human Rights and Dignity of these individuals of no concern to them what so ever - the goal of this law is FEAR - especially the fear into the New York Times and WaPo Editorial Board.

From RedState.com

One sees immediately why the definition of treason makes the Washington Post editorial board queasy. If they vacation in the Caribbean (how déclassé) they would prefer it not be at Club Gitmo and definitely not preceded by Donald Rumsfeld's bully boys kicking in their door, being flexi-cuffed, tossed in a blacked out LearJet with bogus registration numbers, dressed in an orange jumpsuit and then allotted a no-amenities guest room with Abdul.

Let's get serious - this isn't about stopping the next major bombing attack on U.S. Soil - it's about shutting up James Risen and all the reporters who've released classified material (like Bob Woodward) which happen to be a) True and b) Display a propensity for the Bush Administration to violate the law (such as FISA).

Now they've managed to use the law itself to justify their lawbreaking. Undoing this law completely will be difficult if not impossible until the Presidency changes hands, and even if it is corrected the damage to our international prestige may in fact be permenent. Meanwhile Al Qaeda is laughing at us as we gradually destroy ourselves and our own values.

Heckuvajob Bushie.

Vyan

Our Deep National Shame

This week Senate Republicans have reached a compromise on Torture with the Bush Administration that effectively guts the Geneva Conventions and our nations Moral Authority.

If this legislation is signed into law - the United States will officially become a Rogue Nation. A Terrorist State that sanctions the commission of War Crimes, by simply redefining them out of existence.

The President will be allowed to become the sole Deciderer of what is legal and constitutes a "grave breach" of human dignity and what doesn't. Establishing law and fact via Executive Fiat, like the decrees of an Emperor - not a President.

Someone needs to tell Senators Graham, Warner and McCain that what they've just done by handing this authority over to Bush, is the equivelent of letting the head of the Gambino Crime Family define what is and isn't Racketeering and Murder.

From Federalist 47:

The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.

Make no mistake - this is indeed Tyranny - and will be a stain on our national character that will last with us for generations, just as we continue to live with the shame of the Tuskegee Experiment and Interment of Japanese Americans during WWII.

But this... this is worse. We didn't torture the internees.

I'm almost at a loss for words.

The idea that the technique used by Jack Bauer on 24 are soon to become part of our official anti-terrorism policy is shocking. And mindnumbingly stupid as well.

U.S. officials do not use the word torture to describe their own methods. Instead, American intelligence officials speak of "aggressive interrogation measures," sometimes euphemistically known as "torture lite." According to human-rights activists who have consulted with Senate staffers involved in the negotiations, Bush administration officials are trying to redefine the Geneva Conventions, which bans "cruel practices," to allow seven different procedures: 1) induced hypothermia, 2) long periods of forced standing, 3) sleep deprivation, 4) the "attention grab" (forcefully seizing the suspect's shirt), 5) the "attention slap," 6) the "belly slap" and 7) sound and light manipulation. As NEWSWEEK reported this week in its story The Politics of Terror, a harsh technique called "waterboarding," which induces the sensation of drowning, would be specifically banned.

Thank God for small favors - no "Waterboarding". Yippee.

There is a one single good reason why U.S. courts do not allow for coerced testimony -- IT. CANT. BE. TRUSTED.

The TV Show that Bush and his Cronies should be watching isn't 24 - it's CSI.

According to data obtained by the Innocence Project, which has used DNA evidence to exonerate 180 persons who had been condemned to death row, 35 times (out of the first 130 cases - or 27%) there was a False Confession and another 21 times (16%) the wrongful conviction was the result of bad information provided by informants and snitches.

All indications are that part of the bad intelligence information indicating links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, which led us wrongly into a War with Iraq, were the result of the torture of Ibn Sheik al-Libi at Gitmo - who was a "known fabricator" according to the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Yet Administration Officials such as Cheney continue to believe al-Libi's lies, and our President, the so-called "Leader of the Free World" claims with a straight face that...

this agreement preserves the most single -- most potent tool we have in protecting America and foiling terrorist attacks, and that is the CIA program to question the world's most dangerous terrorists and to get their secrets.

More potent than actually protecting the ports, instead of handing them over to the United Arab Emerites? Um,... not so much.

Both the New York Times and Washington Post seem less than enthused.

In editorials entitled "A Bad Bargain" (NYT) and "The Abuse Can Continue" (WaPo), the two papers minced no words declaring not only their opposition to the bill but its effect on the war on terror, global opinion, and history's judgement of the president.

Washington Post: "In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent. If they do, America's standing in the world will continue to suffer, as will the fight against terrorism. . . .

"Mr. Bush will go down in history for his embrace of tortue and bear responsibility for the enormous damage he has caused."

New York Times: "[The bill] allows the president to declare any foreigner, anywhere, an 'illegal enemy combatant' using a dangerously broad definition, and detain him without any trial. .

"The Democrats have largely stood silent and allowed the trio of Republicans to do the lifting. It's time for them to either try to fix this bill or delay it until after the election. The American people expect their leaders to clean up this mess without endangering U.S. troops, eviscerating American standards of justice, or further harming the nation's severely damaged reputation."

In response to this issue when speaking with Keith Olbermann on last nights episode of Countdown, former President Bill Clinton had this to say.

Clinton: Like you take this interrogation dealing. We might all say the same thing if, let's say Osama bin Laden's number three guy were captured and we knew a big bomb was going off in America in three days.

It turns out right now there's an exception for those kind of circumstance in an immediate emergency that's proven in the military regs. But that's not the same thing as saying we want to abolish the Geneva Convention and practice torture as a matter of course. All it does is make our soldiers vulnerable to torture. It makes us more likely to get bad, not good information.

OLBERMANN: Right.

CLINTON: And every time we get some minor victory out of it, we'll make a hundred more enemies, so I think these things, I really think we need to think through all of this and debate more.

The point that has to be repeatedly made here - is that these men have not been proven guilty of anything. They haven't been tried, in fact they are being denied access to the courts -- habeas corpus, one of the founding principles of our nation, is being scraped.

Even when the Military knows that some of these people, particular the "Ghost Detainees" who have been kept hidden from the Red Cross, are innocent of any connection to terrorism, al-Qaeda or the Taliban - they have refused to released them.

Majority of Detainees "Of No Intelligence Value" or Innocent. One statement refers to "a lot of pressure to produce reports regardless of intelligence value." Brig. Gen. Karpinski's deposition also cited the comments of another official, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, who told her, "I don't care if we're holding 15,000 innocent civilians! We're winning the war!" A former commander of the 320th Military Police Battalion notes in a sworn statement, "It became obvious to me that the majority of our detainees were detained as the result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were swept up by Coalition Forces as peripheral bystanders during raids. I think perhaps only one in ten security detainees were of any particular intelligence value."

"Releasaphobia" Keep Innocent Detainees Jailed. One member of the Detainee Assessment Board said people were afraid to recommend release of detainees, "even when obviously innocent." Similarly, Brig. Gen. Karpinski spoke of "releaseaphobia" on the part of a review board. According to another report, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez allegedly said of the detainees, "Why are we detaining these people, we should be killing them." The unidentified solider who reported the comment added that it "contributed to a command climate" where "deeds not consistent with military standards would be tolerated if not condoned."

Former detainees, who were "rendered" to their native countries (Syria and Egypt), where they were tortured and then released such as Abu Omar and Maher Arar were apparently the lucky ones.

Tens of thousands of others, haven't been so lucky.

Hundreds of detainees have died in custody - including 26 which died directly as a result of abuse - and have been considered homocide. Under the War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 USC § 2441) these crimes are punishable by the Death Penalty.

From the ACLU's FOIA Documents:

Several statements refer to "ghost detainees" who died in custody, including one who died after being chained up in a shower area. Interrogators packed the body in ice and "paid a local taxi driver to take him away." (Note: this report may refer to Manadel a-Jamadi, whose death in Abu Ghraib has been widely reported in the news media.)

Is this how a nation that calls itself "civilized" behaves?

I didn't used to think so... but now I have little choice, don't I?

Instead of leading by example and giving the people of the world a strong and compelling reason to hope and struggle to create the kind of freedom, prosperity and democracy that exemplify the best of our ideals - we are now on the verge of departing from the ranks of lawful nations, and becoming exactly what bin Laden and his ilk has long claimed we were. We have become the "Great Satan".

Yeah, this will really change all those "hearts and minds' to our way of thinking any day now. "Just Wait" is not a viable foreign policy.

Unfortunately I think time is running out, and if the Democrats in Congress don't find a way to block the passage of this bill before the end of this Congress -- Game Over.

Congressional Switchboard Toll Free: 866-808-0065

Vyan