New RNC site: Obama v. Constitution, including ominous music!

By GottaLaff



You simply must link over to this ridiculous site just to hear the oooommminnous music:

If you run your mouse over the amendment in question it indicates an Obama judicial nominee and a decision that allegedly supports the claim [...]

“Please help the Republican Party stop President Obama’s judicial nominees from rewriting the Constitution. Donate today!” the site says, calling for contributions of up to $1,000.

And that's what it's really all about: Donations.

(click on image to enlarge)

Defacing the U.S. Constitution should be a real winner for them. Even better than the fake census forms!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Gravely Old Pathetic party.

VIDEO: The Boehner: I wouldn't vote to close Gitmo 'if you put a gun to my head'

By GottaLaff



If he insists, but only if I were a violent, deranged, gun-toting nutcase:

“(T)hey want $500 million from this Congress to rehabilitate this prison in northwest Illinois. I want to see who the members are who are going to vote for this. I wouldn't vote for this if you put a gun to my head.”

The Boehner called Gitmo “a world class facility". Sure it is, if you're a world class wuss who doesn't trust America's own system of justice, super max prisons, and are unable to admit that it was a euphemism for BushCo's Torture Fun House over the past eight or so years.

And while we're on the subject, here's what the L.A. Times says about military tribunals:

Though a great improvement over the system established by Bush, the commission process provides fewer rights to defendants. For example, it allows hearsay evidence and, in some cases, coerced confessions. Equally important, however, commission trials would be viewed around the world as a continuation of Bush's policy of establishing a "legal black hole" for detainees.

All my other posts on military tribunals can be found here.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Russ Feingold tells White House to try KSM in civilian court

By GottaLaff

Earlier I posted about the change of heart, er, flip flop, by the White House over the venue for the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial. I also expressed my frustration, and explained why military commissions are inferior to civilian courts.

Looks like I'm not alone. Greg Sargent spoke to Russ Feingold's office and got the following statement. Feingold is the first prominent Congressional Democrat to speak out, but hopefully not the last:

“We have a great track record of successfully trying and convicting terrorists in civilian courts. The military commission system is largely untested, and these cases could easily get bogged down in years of legal challenges. The best way to bring these terrorists to justice swiftly is through our civilian courts.”

Bingo.

The bottom line, as Robert Gates has suggested, is that those arguing against civilian trials for terror suspects are, intentionally or not, actually trying to limit the tools at our disposal for fighting terrorism — for ideological reasons. That point can’t be restated enough.

Thank you Russ Feingold, and thank you Greg.

White House considers military trial for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

By GottaLaff

I'm one of the progressives mentioned in this piece that would not be happy if Obama flips on this one:

White House advisers are considering recommending alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed be tried in a military court instead of a civilian one in New York City, a senior administration official told CNN on Friday.

In November, Attorney General Eric Holder announced his intention to try Mohammed in a New York civilian court. [...]

Progressive activists blasted the potential administration switch.

"If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

"If the president flip-flops and retreats to the Bush military commissions, he will betray his campaign promise to restore the rule of law, demonstrate that his principles are up for grabs and lose all credibility with Americans who care about justice and the rule of law."

Romero is right. Military trials, as I've said a million times, allow hearsay evidence and false testimony given after having been tortured into submission.

And why is there so little confidence in our legal system? We've handled terrorists in criminal court before with success. Why is this time difference? The BushCo politics of fear is making a big comeback.

We are a nation of laws, not a nation of tortured laws. President Obama needs to stick to his word and adhere to American principles.

John Edwards to be Indicted?

By GottaLaff

So far, the National Enquirer has been on target with this story:

The ultimate fall from grace, a Federal grand jury is about to indict John Edwards, The ENQUIRER has learned exclusively.

In another shocker, close sources say Edwards' estranged wife Elizabeth could help send the former presidential candidate to jail!

I am so relieved he was not our candidate in 2008. His utter disregard for his family, the voters, his staff ... his country!... is stunning.

H/t: Taegan

VIDEO- Colin Powell: We Are Not Less Safe Under Obama

By GottaLaff


Watch CBS News Videos Online

I'm no fan of Powell, but ...

Claims that the United States is less safe under President Obama are not credible, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

He also challenged criticism by some (including former Vice President Dick Cheney, who say that by not using extreme interrogation techniques such as waterboarding on terror suspects the United States is more vulnerable. [...]

Powell stuck by his conviction that Guantanamo Bay prison facility should be closed. [...]

However, while he favors a federal court trial for Kaleid Sheik Mohammed, he said he would not have picked downtown New York City to try the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, opting rather for a secure military base, "where it would not become a circus."

I'm sorry, I need a minute.

Okay, I'm good.

I'm not accustomed to reasonable, measured conversation any more.

No Justice Forever - America's New Foreign Policy of Indefinite Detention

By GottaLaff

My dear friend and hero Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, who represents Gitmo detainee Fayiz al-Kandari, has written an op-ed that he graciously permitted me to cross post here:

As evidenced by the recent outpouring of generous support for the people of Haiti, America remains a caring and compassionate nation. But when it comes to human rights and the rule of law, the United States falls woefully short, trailing behind the rest of the civilized world. Case in point, the U.S. government is seriously considering indefinite detentions for some Guantanamo detainees.

Senator Lindsey Graham said last weekend that the White House may support a new law that would allow the indefinite detention of some terrorism suspects. Meanwhile, last month the Guantanamo Detainee Review Panel finally recommended which detainees should be released and which ones should face trials. It came as little surprise that more than 100 detainees were cleared for release while about 35 will be tried either by federal court or military commission. Yet surprisingly, approximately 50 detainees have been recommended for indefinite detention without trial. The administration claims they are considered too dangerous to be released but too difficult to prosecute even in the conviction-friendly Commission System.

These 50 detainees present a perplexing situation for the United States. The United States prides itself on being a world leader on human rights and the rule of law, and has been consistently outspoken in its criticism of human rights abuses by other nations. But in its zeal to demonstrate a "tough on terrorism" stance, the United States has failed to live up to these values.

One of the hallmarks of the American judicial system is the presumption of innocence. If arrested for an alleged crime, we have the right to a trial, to confront our accusers, and to present evidence in our defense. Indefinite detention bypasses these rights, short circuits due process, and turns the presumption of innocence on its head. In short, it presumes guilt and offers no remedy to challenge that presumption.

It is tempting to assume the decision to hold detainees indefinitely is based on a review of credible evidence. But if the evidence is so persuasive, why not introduce it in a court of law and secure a legitimate conviction? Time and again, federal courts have proven fully capable of handling terrorism cases. In fact, the Bush administration successfully prosecuted at least 319 terrorism or terrorism-related cases in civilian courts.

If the evidence is not reviewed by a court of law, who does review the evidence and determine the fates of individual suspects? The evidence is classified and the identities of those making the determinations are closely guarded. This process is entirely secret and inherently un-American. A system that authorizes indefinite detention based on secret evidence can only result in distrust and suspicion.

I represent Fayiz al-Kandari, a Kuwaiti citizen who has been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for more than eight years without a trial. In my July 2009 letter to the Washington Post, I explained how every time I visit my client he asks whether I have news of justice for him. Each time, I am forced to answer "I have no justice today." Assuming Fayiz would someday have his "day in court," I prepared him for the probability that "justice" would come in the form of a military commission - a second-rate judicial system largely designed to permit rumor as evidence. Unfortunately, I am now left to wonder whether Fayiz will ever be afforded any semblance of justice.

Admittedly, under the laws and customs of war, a nation may detain "enemy combatants" for the duration of an armed conflict. But in an "armed conflict" as ambiguous as the War on Terrorism, can this same standard possibly apply? If so, when can we expect the armed conflict to end? Terrorism dates back to the 14th century or earlier and has been employed throughout history. If the "War on Terrorism" will not end until terrorism no longer exists on Earth, Fayiz will never breathe free.

We are at a key juncture in our nation's history. We can give in to political expediency and fear, or we can restore the rule of law and uphold our country's founding principles. Let's not go down the slippery slope of indefinite detentions.

********

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Dick Cheney's "fairly large concessions"

By GottaLaff

I found it harder than usual to post a video of Cheney today, so I refrained. I didn't want to subject any of us to his face, his speech patterns, his lies, his offensive digs, or his nasty demeanor.

However, Greg Sargent posted a comprehensive recap of Dickless McHeartStent's appearance on ABC today. Here it is, in part, but please go read the whole thing.

And thank you, Greg, for saving me from the torture (pun intended) of having to sit through another one of his nauseating interviews:

Some real news in the Dick Cheney interview on ABC: First, Cheney basically endorsed repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

And second, he made fairly large concessions when it comes to his criticism of the current administration: He conceded that the shoe bomber could have been placed in military custody under Bush, but wasn’t. And he acknowledged that some in the Bush administration — not himself, obviously — saw trying terror suspects in civilian courts as an effective weapon against terrorism.

No question, Cheney repeated many standard attacks on Obama — he doesn’t view our hunt for terrorists as a war; he’s trapped in a pre-9/11 mentality; etc.

But Cheney struggled to explain why it’s fair game to criticize Obama’s use of Mirandizing and civilian trials when these techniques were used under his administration.

There now. That was relatively painless.

"Me and Yoo don't want to go to jail"

By GottaLaff

Larisa Alexandrovna popped linked me to an article just now that showed up in a tweet from ::shudder:: Karl Rove.

Here's part of what it says:

“We need to develop a greater resiliency in this country on security issues,” Sarah E. Mendelson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies told the New York Times. “The administration needs to remind the American public that we have convicted 195 international terrorists in federal courts since 2001.”

That 195 number is making the rounds. It is both false and an exercise in hypocrisy.

The figure is mined from “In Pursuit of Justice,” a report published by Human Rights First (HRF) in May 2008 and updated last July (available here). But the report does not claim that 195 international terrorists have been convicted. Rather, it says that 195 defendants have been convicted so far in 119 cases that have some connection, however attenuated, to terrorism. [...]

That’s right: When the Bush administration used the immigration laws to boot terror suspects out of the country, the Left and its fellow travelers like CAIR claimed this was racial profiling masquerading as counterterrorism. Now, in the age of Obama, we learn from HRF that “immigration fraud” counts as a “terrorism case” — so the group can boost the numbers and claim that the same Justice Department (under the Bush administration for most of the period covered in the report) has done a great job of combating terrorism in civilian court.

Here's what Larisa says:


What do you say?

Here's what I say: Karl Rove is a

The case against military tribunals

By GottaLaff

After many, many conversations with Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, who represents Gitmo prisoner Fayiz al-Kandari, I have had my eyes opened about military commissions (tribunals) and their system of injustice. Hearsay is allowed. Testimony derived from torture is accepted. Access to evidence is denied to the defense.

Here is an op-ed that explains further:

The casual use of the word "war" has lead to a mentality among the public and even in the government that the rules of war could apply to those held at Guantanamo. But the rules of war apply only to those involved in a lawfully declared war, and not to something that the government merely calls a war. Only Congress can declare war -- and thus trigger the panoply of the government's military powers that come with that declaration. Among those powers is the ability to use military tribunals to try those who have caused us harm by violating the rules of war. [...]

]T]he [Supreme] court declared that a formal declaration of war is the legal prerequisite to the government's use of the tools of war. The federal government adhered to this principle of law from World War II until Bush's understanding of the Constitution animated government policy.

The recent decision to try some of the Guantanamo detainees in federal District Court and some in military courts in Cuba is without a legal or constitutional bright line. All those still detained since 9/11 should be tried in federal courts because without a declaration of war, the Constitution demands no less. [...]

The framers of the Constitution feared letting the president alone decide with whom we are at war, and thus permitting him to trigger for his own purposes the military tools reserved for wartime. They also feared allowing the government to take life, liberty or property from any person without the intercession of a civilian jury to check the government's appetite and to compel transparency and fairness by forcing the government to prove its case to 12 ordinary citizens. Thus, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires due process, includes the essential component of a jury trial. And the 6th Amendment requires that when the government pursues any person in court, it must do so in the venue where the person is alleged to have caused harm. [...]

We have a "war" on drugs; can drug dealers be tried before military tribunals? We have a "war" on the Mafia; can mobsters be sent to Gitmo and tried there? The Obama administration has arguably declared "war" on Fox News. Are Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and I and my other colleagues in danger of losing our constitutional rights to a government hostile to our opinions? [...]

Only unflinching public fidelity to the Constitution will preserve the freedoms of us all.

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at the Fox News Channel. His next book is "Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History."

There is much, much more here.

******

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Detainee policy appointee quits Pentagon post

By GottaLaff

Maybe he was as frustrated as many of us have been, and felt things weren't moving efficiently enough. Just speculating. Then again, he could have just been fed up with working for BushCo holdovers:

The Pentagon's top detainee affairs policy appointee has quit the Defense Department just seven months into the job, a Pentagon spokesman said Tuesday.

Phillip Carter, a former Army captain and Iraq War veteran, had been an outspoken critic of Bush-era war on terror detention policy as an attorney and blogging commentator. [...]

He quit without explanation [...]

The development apparently took the Department of Defense by surprise. [...]

It was not known whether Carter's service in uniform as a civil affairs officer in Iraq helped him fit in to the Defense Department culture where pockets of senior leadership were holdovers from the Bush administration.

******

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

H/t: minterda

Another Gitmo Detainee Wins in Federal Court

By GottaLaff

Good news and hope for those detainees who should not be there in the first place:

Farhi Saeed bin Mohammed, an Algerian national who was captured in Pakistan and turned over to the U.S. military after fleeing from Afghanistan, was ordered released from the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay by a U.S. District Court judge yesterday, according to the human rights group CagePrisoners.

Per Daphne Eviatar: The score is Detainees 31, United States 8.

CagePrisoners is a great site, by the way.

Now about that Fayiz al-Kandari...

******

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

ABC EXCLUSIVE: CIA Secret 'Torture' Prison Found at Fancy Horseback Riding Academy

By GottaLaff

This is disturbing, but sadly, not surprising:

The CIA built one of its secret European prisons inside an exclusive riding academy outside Vilnius, Lithuania, a current Lithuanian government official and a former U.S. intelligence official told ABC News this week.

Where affluent Lithuanians once rode show horses and sipped coffee at a café, the CIA installed a concrete structure where it could use harsh tactics to interrogate up to eight suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at a time. A full report on the can be seen on ABC's World News with Charles Gibson tonight.

That's called torture, not "harsh tactics"... torture. Got it?

Lithuanian officials provided ABC News with the documents of what they called a CIA front company, Elite, LLC, which purchased the property and built the "black site" in 2004.

Lithuania agreed to allow the CIA prison after President George W. Bush visited the country in 2002 and pledged support for Lithuania's efforts to join NATO. [...]

Former CIA officials told ABC News that the prison in Lithuania was one of eight facilities the CIA set-up after 9/11 to detain and interrogate top al-Qaeda operatives captured around the world. Thailand, Romania, Poland, Morocco, and Afghanistan have also been identified as countries that housed secret prisons for the CIA. President Barack Obama ordered all the sites closed shortly after taking office in January. [...]

"It obviously took a lot of effort to keep [the prison] secret," said John Sifton, whose firm One World Research investigates human rights abuses. "There's a reason this stuff gets kept secret."

"It's an embarrassment, and a crime."

Yes, and yes. Emphatically.

******

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Lawyer: 'Shocking' that Khadr will face military commission in U.S.

By GottaLaff

Omar Khadr as a 15 year old, and now after years in Guantanamo. (h/t: Tymlee)

Yesterday I posted my opinion of military tribunals (aka commissions). I hate to repeat myself, so please click on the link to read what I could easily copy and paste here to make the same points about this story.

I've also posted previously about Omar Khadr, the youngest Gitmo prisoner, who was captured in Afghanistan in 2002 when he was 15.

Now the two stories merge in a way that I was hoping they wouldn't:

Omar Khadr's civilian lawyer in the United States said Friday he was disappointed to hear Washington is pressing ahead with military commission proceedings against the Canadian terror suspect.

Barry Coburn said he finds the decision "shocking."

"We thought that the incoming Obama administration signalled a new day with respect to these cases - a new respect for civil liberties, an abhorrence of torture, a respect for the time-honoured legal procedures and protections that are mandated by the constitution and enforced by the federal courts, " Coburn told The Canadian Press in a telephone interview.

So did we.

Ottawa is fighting a Federal Appeal Court decision which upheld a ruling that required the government to try to repatriate the 23-year-old Khadr, who was captured in Afghanistan when he was 15.[...]

In August, the appeal court agreed with a federal court judge's decision that Khadr's rights were breached when Canadian officials interviewed him in Guantanamo in 2003 and shared the resulting information with U.S. authorities.

His youth was taken from him, and apparently, so was justice:

He has spent seven years in the Guantanamo Bay detention camps charged with war crimes and providing support to terrorism after allegedly throwing a grenade that killed a US soldier.^[2]

In February 2008, the Pentagon accidentally released documents that revealed that although Khadr was present in the house, there was no other evidence that he had thrown the grenade.

In fact, military officials had originally reported that another of the surviving militants had thrown the grenade just before being killed, and later rewrote their report to implicate Khadr instead.^[3]

Defence lawyers have also suggested that the soldier may have been killed by friendly fire by his own comrades.^[4] It was later determined that Khadr had been crippled, blinded and trapped beneath rubble at the time, and American soldiers weren't even aware of his presence until one stepped on his prone body.^[5]

"Shocking" indeed.

******

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Inferior justice system- military commissions- for non-citizens only?

By GottaLaff

Military commissions are inferior to our system of criminal justice. Jonathan Turley said as much in this video, and I've said so in numerous posts. They are secretive, and they allow heresay evidence as well as testimony resulting from torture sessions.

I know this to be true from (declassified) details shared with me by Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, who represents Gitmo detainee Fayiz al-Kandari.

Yet some of the 9/11 detainee trials will be held in federal court and others in military commissions.

Daphne Eviatar at the Washington Independent covers the obvious double standard clearly and convincingly below.

Col Morris Davis, the former chief military prosecutor for the commissions:

[H]aving two different justice systems “establish[es] a dangerous legal double standard that gives some detainees superior rights and protections, and relegates others to the inferior rights and protections of military commissions. This will only perpetuate the perception that Guantanamo and justice are mutually exclusive.”

I've also posted many times about Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld. (here, here, here, here, here, and here). Here's what he has to say:

“To say that you’ve achieved the gold standard for certain defendants by holding their trials in federal courts, and the rest can go to Gtmo, doesn’t necessarily resurrect the image of Gtmo or the military commissions as beacons of fairness. And if one of the stated goals in closing Gtmo is to restore America’s moral position in the world, the decision taken today won’t get us closer to accomplishing that.”

Holder's reasoning defies logic:

Holder’s justification for trying the Cole bomber and others by military commission is that in each case, their targets were a U.S. soldier or military installation. But isn’t that what we use our regularly constituted military courts for? Isn’t that why Major Nidal Malik Hassan, who last week apparently shot up 13 soldiers at the Fort Hood military base, is being tried by court martial? The only difference would appear to be that the suspects headed for military commissions are not American citizens. So that’s why they get an inferior justice system?

That decision combined with the implicit acknowledgment in Holder’s announcement yesterday that U.S. federal courts a superior form of justice to the military commissions just highlights a question that’s becoming increasingly difficult to answer: Just what is the purpose of those new military commissions?

I have a feeling we will not be getting a satisfactory answer to that question any time soon.

However, I think I know what it is: To win. The military commission standard is lower, so a successful verdict will be much more likely. Unlike a criminal jury, the decision does not have to be unanimous. Apparently, justice isn't always a priority.

******

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari's story here. Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

First openly gay US attorney begins job in Washington State

When I get grumbly and cranky over Obama not doing some stuff, I have to remember this kind of thing would have never happened under McCain. Sometimes you have to celebrate the little victories as well.

SEATTLE -- The new top federal prosecutor in Seattle knows the significance her role carries for many people: She's apparently the nation's first openly gay U.S. attorney.

But as a daughter of privilege - her dad was a powerful Democratic state senator, and she had all the benefits of a comfortable upbringing and a good education - Jenny Durkan also recalls what someone once told her: "You're the most non-diverse diverse person I know."

"I don't think I can fully appreciate how important it is to many people to have someone in a role like this who is gay," Durkan said this week in an interview with The Associated Press. "The more people are able to see people in situations where pretty soon that's an invisible characteristic, the better it is for the entire community."

Gay rights activists say her appointment reflects a growing acceptance in the U.S. as well as the attitude of President Barack Obama's administration. Earlier this month, Obama nominated an openly gay police sergeant to be the U.S. marshal in Minneaopolis; she would be the first openly gay U.S. marshal.

BREAKING: Judge rules Gitmo detainee must be sent home

By GottaLaff

I've been posting and posting about Jawad. Now, per MSNBC just now, finally, he gets good news. Why? His statements were coerced, he was subject to torture, and his testimony is meaningless.

A judge agreed.

The earliest he can be sent home is August 21, and the Justice Department could still press charges.

A judge ruled today that one of the youngest detainees brought to Guantánamo Bay is being held illegally and must be released.

US district judge Ellen Huvelle's order does not end the case of Mohammed Jawad, however. Deputy assistant attorney general Ian Gershengorn told the judge that as the United States negotiates with the detainee's home country of Afghanistan for his return next month, the US justice department also is pursuing a criminal investigation.

Gershengorn said Eric Holder, the US attorney general, has not yet decided whether to indict Jawad, who allegedly threw a grenade that wounded two US soldiers and their interpreter in December 2002. That means it's possible he could be brought to the United States for a criminal trial.

Huvelle said she had no authority to prevent an indictment, but she encouraged prosecutors to think hard about problems with the case, including Jawad's mental competency to stand trial and the fact that he's already been incarcerated for six and a half years. "After this horrible, long, tortured history, I hope the government will succeed in getting him back home," she said. "Enough has been imposed on this young man to date."

Jawad was 12 when he was arrested.

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

Barry Wingard Wants Better Justice for Those Still at Gitmo, Wins Wings of Justice Award

By GottaLaff

I am so proud to be associated with this man:

For many, Guantanamo Bay is a symbol of the excess in the lack of justice offered up by the Bush Administration. Unfortunately, for people such as Fayiz al-Kandari, Guantanamo Bay isn't a symbol of anything; it's the harsh reality of years of their lives. For Fayiz al-Kandari, that figure is 7½ years, and climbing.

Guantanamo is still in business, and things have become worse under Barack Obama, according to one person who has stood up for those who aren't getting justice -- Lt. Col. Barry Wingard.

Wingard is an attorney at Guantanamo and Fayiz al-Kandari is his client. For those who shouted loudly while George W. Bush was in charge, not as many have shouted in the last six months. Wingard has been the exception.

Wingard noted earlier that as bad as things were under the Bush Administration, it has only been in the last few months that al-Kandari's mail has been open, and the information used against his client. Attorney/client privilege? Gone. [...]

Guantanamo has fallen off the radar of the MSM in the last six months: "What? Guantanamo? Isn't that closed already." Wingard will tell you differently. [...]

The baton of command has changed, but not much else for al-Kandari and Wingard. As Wingard pointed out to us, the story of Fayiz al-Kandari is "7½ years without a court date, doing charity, sold to American forces, beaten/brutalize, interrogated over 400 times, and still the answers have never changed."

For standing up for people such as Fayiz al-Kandari and crying out for a justice system worthy of the United States of America, Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is our Wings of Justice award winner this week.

Please go read the rest here. And congratulations, Barry. I am so honored to know and work with you and Fayiz.

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

"No need to detain without charges": Here's proof

By GottaLaff

Glenn Greenwald Tweeted this. I am so glad he did, because he summed up so many of the posts I've written in one concise message:

Here's what he is referring to:

TERRORISM TAKEDOWN

Seven Charged in North Carolina

See? We are perfectly capable of charging terrorists and imprisoning them right here in the U.S.A. No torture, no indefinite detention of "enemy comabatants", no secrecy, no government crimes committed, no terrorists running loose into our "back yards". Imagine that.

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.

U.S. Will Transfer Gitmo Child Soldier to Civilian Court, Still Won’t Let Him Go

By GottaLaff

My previous posts on this case can be read here and here. The second link takes you to even more links about Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, who was the original military prosecutor in this case, and quit over Jawad's treatment and had asked that his client be released. He wasn't.

It wasn’t until late Friday afternoon that the Obama Justice Department, after years of wrangling over the fate of Mohammed Jawad, the Afghan boy arrested for allegedly lobbing a hand grenade at U.S. soldiers in 2002, admitted that it does not have enough evidence to continue to hold him indefinitely without trial under the laws of war.

The judge said the case had been "gutted" by the government's admission that torture was used to elicit confessions. There were also no reliable eye witnesses, not one.

The Justice Department evidently realized it wasn’t going to get very far in the habeas corpus case.

As you recall from my previous posts, DoJ now wants to take Jawad to criminal court.

A habeas corpus proceeding is a civil case, and the burden of proof is different than in a criminal prosecution. In a civil case, the government has to prove its case only by “a preponderance of the evidence.” A criminal prosecution, however, requires proof “beyond a reasonable doubt.” But that’s actually a higher burden of proof. So how could the government prove a criminal case against Jawad and not be able to prove its right to hold him in his habeas case?

The answer couldn’t rely on the strength of the evidence: eyewitness testimony that Jawad committed a war crime would be strong evidence that would probably support the government’s claim that it could hold him indefinitely under the laws of war. The only way the government’s latest claim makes sense is if it’s now saying that throwing a grenade at U.S. soldiers is not a crime of war, but an ordinary criminal offense. But if that’s the case, then why did the U.S. government hold him for six and a half years at Guantanamo Bay as an enemy combatant? And can it really have “newly discovered” reliable eyewitness testimony almost seven years after the crime occurred? Or is it just that the Department of Justice realized it wasn’t going to be able to string along this particular federal judge who’s clearly become exasperated by the flimsiness of the government’s case?

Here's the "new twist" in a nutshell:

“Until now, the Administration has been talking about detaining people who can’t be prosecuted,” said David Remes, a lawyer who represents more than a dozen detainees at Guantanamo, in an email over the weekend. [...] “Now the Administration is talking about prosecuting people who can’t be detained. This is a new twist.”

Seems the DoJ is all twisted up.

[...] Remes noted, they’re charging the men simply to avoid their release. In the cases of “enemy combatants” Ali al-Marri and Jose Padilla, for example, the government transferred them to the civilian court system to avoid facing a potentially adverse decision from the U.S. Supreme Court about the president’s power to continue holding them.

“As soon as the courts force the government’s hand in a habeas case, it simply lowers the boom on the detainee by prosecuting him,” says Remes. Either way, “they always get their man.”

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you'd like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer's book The Dark Side. You'll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I'm all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz's story here, at Answers.com.