There is no salvaging of Gitmo. Shut it down. Conduct LEGITIMATE legal procedings in US courts under US law.

A former gung-ho military prosecutor at Guantánamo resigned. He speaks with Rachel Maddow about why he felt he could not be part of this fiasco.



h/t Vyan at Daily Kos

--the BB

Day One - updated wtih link

I didn't hear it on the grapevine but I read it at TPM:

GUANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - Hours after taking office on Tuesday, President Barack Obama ordered military prosecutors in the Guantanamo war crimes tribunals to ask for a 120-day halt in all pending cases.

Seal - A change is gonna come 2008



I see in another version of this on YouTube that Seal sang this at an Obama event in Los Angeles on June 24, 2008.

h/t to Josh Marshall at TPM
--the BB

Pray for our courts

They may be our final recourse against tyranny (since Congress is doing such a lousy job of it).

The CD Circuit Court of Appeals smacks down allegations by the Bush machine in a Guantánamo case, reaffirming that courts require evidence, not assertions. You can read about it in Smintheus' post here.
--the BB

Perhaps you were wondering...

... whether I had forgotten about torture, or FISA, or the Constitution, or princes? Not at all, but time and energy are severely limited, especially the latter. [In the category of good news, I have been getting a lot more sleep and am feeling almost human. If I get enough I may feel ursine again - even better! Private joke with my ex-honey.]

You can check out Emptywheel on the charging of Abd al Rahim al Nashiri for conspiring to attack the USS Cole. He is one of the Gitmo detainees who has been waterboarded. There seems to be evidence that he was involved in the suicide attack on the Cole and, if so, I would like to see him tried and convicted for the same. But can we ever pursue honorable legal mechanisms to deal with such a person if all we do is tainted with torture? And can the government afford for details of what has been done to him to come out in the public forum? You can bet they will try to minimize or squelch it.

It was a sad day when torture became an acceptable topic and an acceptable procedure and the Bush administration must be made to own and carry that stigma into history. We, the American People, must work to undo that legacy and fight to ensure that it is never repeated.

I've given up hope of educating Fox viewers about Jack Bauer being a fictional character operating immorally in unrealistic circumstances.
--the BB

Three strikes and you're out!

SCOTUS seems to have prompted this return of Thursday Constitution blogging.

w00t!

Linda Greenhouse at The New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its third consecutive rebuff to the Bush administration’s handling of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, ruling 5 to 4 that the prisoners there have a constitutional right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention.

The court declared unconstitutional a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that, at the administration’s behest, stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from the detainees seeking to challenge their designation as enemy combatants.

I am so flipping stoked by this. What a great thing to come home to after a very long and intense day at work.

Those who have been paying attention, those who care about the rule of law, those who cherish our Constitution have all noted that the Bush administration's behavior has been resolutely lawless. They have no concern for ancient traditions (making them anything but conservative) and no concern for human rights. Even the Supreme Court, hardly a bastion of liberality these days, has now repeatedly slapped them down.

I pray we may yet see the restoration of the rule of the law. In the meantime, stay informed, stay vigilant, stay feisty, and refuse to shut up until law prevails once more.

You may read the whole article here.

I also got an e-mail from Senator Patrick Leahy. He writes, in part:

A majority of the Court has ruled that provisions in the 2006 Military Commissions Act designed to strip away all habeas rights for detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center are unconstitutional. The Court has ruled that the Constitutional right to habeas corpus extends to territories, including Guantanamo Bay, where the United States exercises de facto control. The Court further held that the administration’s detention procedures were constitutionally inadequate, and that those detainees who have been determined to be "unlawful enemy combatants" are entitled to seek habeas relief in Federal court.

The Court’s 5-4 decision sustains the long-held and bipartisan beliefs that I and others have always maintained: Congress made a grave error when, for the first time in its history, it voted to strip habeas corpus rights, instead leaving in place hopelessly flawed procedures to determine whether detainees can be held indefinitely with no meaningful court review merely by the Executive’s decree.

Senator Obama's comments (via SusanG at Daily Kos):

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.

Dday over at Digy's Hullabaloo has this to say (and I say "hear, hear!"):

It's really not enough to mount a campaign to end the practice of torture in a future Administration, although that is of course important. There needs to be continued investigations into how this started and who was responsible, and those responsible absolutely must be brought to justice. John Ashcroft, John Yoo, William Haynes, David Addington and Doug Feith all will be sitting before Congressional committees in the next few weeks. Whether it's through the appointment of a special counsel in an Obama Administration, or tracking down anyone involved with authorizing torture when they go abroad and can be charged under international war crimes statutes, justice must out. A truth and reconciliation commission is the best method, but whatever the case, those who betrayed American values and shamed themselves through their actions cannot be allowed to drift free, only to crop up in some successive Republican White House.

I will let the Bill of Rights have the closing comment tonight:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--the BB

Gitmo ain't going away anytime soon either

David Kurtz reports at TPM:

In the course of his investigation, the IG interviewed 450 FBI agents who were detailed to Gitmo at one time or another. Nearly half reported witnessing or hearing about "rough or aggressive treatment of detainees, primarily by military investigators."

Catalogued behavior (if you have the stomach for it).
--the BB

EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW... pfft!

You do remember all those folks we have been holding without charges, without habeas corpus, with very minimal, if any, access to our alleged system of justice?

And you recall, no doubt, that some have been released. Whoopsy! They weren't the baddest of the bad after all. So sorry. Oh, those years of their lives shot to hell? The possibility that they experienced enhanced interrogation methods? Our bad. Bygones?

Some Americans do remember all this, track this, and some even protest it. Here are protesters at the steps of the Supreme Court (being arrested, of course).

Interested in an update on our prosecution of justice (a delightfully ambiguous term)? Those military tribunals?

Well, you probably read our little bit about kangaroo courts and Pentagon general counsel William Haynes reportedly saying, "Wait a minute, we can't have acquittals."
Guess who's "returning to private life" next month? Not that his alleged words caught up with him or anything.

That's right: none other than William Haynes.

You can read about it here, as mcjoan reports, or check out emptywheel here ("Gitmo Fixer Resigns").

It is all such a sham and such a shame.

As Grace says in comment threads elsewhere: "Lord, have mercy."

George W. Bush has repeatedly disgraced this wonderful nation. I don't believe in waterboarding under any circumstance, but if I did two excellent candidates would be Bush and Cheney. They could be held at Gitmo until we "extraordinarily render" them to the Hague to stand trial for their crimes.
--the BB

Thursday Constitution blogging

Article. I.


Section. 8.


Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power....


Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

As they say here in blogtopia (™ skippy the bush kangaroo), IANAL, which is, being interpreted, I am not a lawyer, however it seems to me that if power to make rules concerning captures on land and water is vested by the Constitution in the Congress--and NOT in the Executive Branch--then we should not tolerate silly ass quibbling over things like rendition and Guantánamo because the President doesn't have a damned thing to say about it.

So, Congress, get your asses in gear and pass a law NOW, unless one or more are already in place, to say that rendition is not allowed and persons held in our custody are entitled to know the charges brought against them. And if such laws are already on the books, then Judiciary, get your asses in gear and nail the bastards. Here's a clue: habeas corpus. End of story.

I might cut Congress some slack and say they have other more pressing work to do but since they have neither (1) ended the illegal and immoral occupation in Iraq--and I won't call it a war because they haven't frigging declared one--nor (2) begun impeachment proceedings against the Dark Lord and the Fratboy, nor (3) overhauled health care in this nation, nor (4) passed legislation to ensure a verifiable vote count across this nation, then they might as well do this because they seem to be doing sod all.

Here endeth the rant.

Have YOU read the United States Constitution lately?
--the BB