Showing posts with label military commissions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military commissions. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Obama’s Record On Guantanamo Just As Shoddy As Bush’s

By GottaLaff

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard

My friend and a true hero, Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, has graciously given me permission to post his latest op-ed in full (cross-posted at The Public Record, courtesy of Jason Leopold):

During his 2008 campaign, President Obama promised the country “change we can believe in.” Yet, more than a year into his administration, he has delivered “more of the same” on issues pertaining to Guantanamo Bay. The island prison is still open, detainees still await trials, and officials have recommended the worst of George W. Bush’s policies — indefinite detention.

The Bush way of thinking seems to be the guiding force behind many of the administration’s decisions on terrorism and Guantanamo. Following the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner, Obama administration officials decided to read the suspect his Miranda rights, claiming former President Bush would have done the same thing. I commend using our federal courts to try suspected terrorists, but I’m alarmed at how U.S. officials arrived at that decision.

If Obama’s invocation of Bush stopped there, I might cut him some slack. Unfortunately, the Bush mindset never left 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue along with its former inhabitant. Not long after taking office, Obama promptly revamped the conviction machine known as the military commissions, an alternative legal system that, as a presidential candidate, he had led us to believe he would abandon altogether in favor of federal trials.

The military commissions system is a second-tier justice system that is tolerant of flimsy evidence and uncorroborated hearsay by unnamed sources. Cases tried under the military commissions allow evidence that is unreliable or tainted by abuse. In fact, an internal Department of Defense review found that the case of my client, Kuwaiti detainee Fayiz Al Kandari, is “made up almost entirely of hearsay evidence recorded by unidentified individuals with no first-hand knowledge of the events they describe.”

This is evidence that would be laughed out of federal court in real criminal proceedings. Such multiple layers of hearsay introduced through highly redacted and secret documents, often from anonymous sources, is little more than rumor in the real world. In the commission system, however, a judge can find such statements based on the “totality of circumstance” not only admissible, but can base an entire case solely on their existence.

But it doesn’t stop there, either. As if kangaroo courts and their rules of evidence weren’t enough, the Obama administration is considering indefinite detention for some Guantanamo detainees, extending one of the Bush administration’s worst policies. In fact, a secret group known as the Guantanamo Detainee Review Task Force recently recommended approximately 50 detainees to be held indefinitely without trial, claiming these detainees are considered too dangerous to be released but too difficult to prosecute – even in the conviction-friendly military commission system.

Congress meanwhile has jumped on the bandwagon with legislation that, if passed, would make the recommendation of indefinite detention a reality. In early March, Senators John McCain (R-Arizona) and Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut) introduced a bill that would allow the U.S. government to arrest so-called “enemy belligerents” and imprison them for years in military custody with no charges. Salon.com’s Glenn Greenwald has called the legislation “probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades.”

Now 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 public trial in a federal court of law and secure a legitimate conviction? And if the evidence is not reviewed by a court of law, who does review the evidence and determine the fates of individual suspects?

In these cases, 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 much like the maligned Soviet system of years past. Remember two additional things: First, no one knows what the newly created laws of material support and conspiracy even mean. Secondly, it should not be unreasonable to believe that other countries will hold Americans under unclear laws, in secret proceedings, or in the alternative, indefinitely under no system at all if a secret group from that country deems it “necessary.”

It pains me to say that nothing has changed since Obama became President. In fact, people are questioning whether we can believe that any change will ever come. On February 5, 2008, Obama said, “change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time.” He is right. We are not waiting for a new administration to bring about a false sense of hope. We are asking this administration to stand strong and bring the change it promised because it is right and not just a little better than before.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard represents Fayiz al-Kandari, a Kuwaiti who has spent seven and a half years in U.S. custody at Guantanamo Bay without trial.

If you follow my posts at all, you already know how many times I've relied on Barry for first hand information about military commissions, and of course, the horrid conditions Gitmo detainees, including Fayiz, have endured.

I continue to support President Obama in many areas, but not this one. After having known Barry-- and through him, Fayiz-- for so long now, and after having received information that the media won't cover (and that Barry can't share publicly), I cannot fathom what Obama is thinking.

While he's an excellent president with a superb intellect and more admirable qualities than I can count, we disagree on this one.

All Barry Wingard can do is continue to speak out for his client, and all I can do is continue to provide one more outlet.

****

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.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Send Them to Gitmo: Double Standard on White Christian Domestic Terrorists is Direct Threat to U.S.

By GottaLaff

Your Daily Dose of BuzzFlash, via my pal Mark Karlin:

It's a relief of sorts that the Michigan militia members, White Christian Domestic Terrorists, were apprehended before they launched a killing spree of police officers and other Americans. But why should they receive a civil trial, according to right wing arguments; why shouldn't they be flown directly down to Guantanamo?

Of course BuzzFlash does support criminal trials for all charged terrorists and those plotting terorrism, but why the double standard on the part of the right wing when it comes to White Christian Domestic Terrorists? [...]

[T]he destructive white male power feeling of "victimization" (which translated means: "why don't we call all the shots anymore, and why don't the undeserving minorities know their place?") virtually disappeared during the Bush administration, when you had a white male with a cauliflower for a brain as titular head of the nation; but that's okay, white males -- even if as dumb as cabbages -- are entitled to rule.

That's what the White Christian Domestic Terrorism of the Michigan militia is all about. [...]

[T]his is just the tip of the iceberg.

Anyone planning domestic terrorism or shooting a few people dead after reading books by FOX news inciters or Rush Limbaugh or the like should be sent directly to Guantanamo.

They are as dangerous in terms of terrorism as Al-Qaeda, so why should they get an exception just because they are white and Christian?


For the whole thing, please go here.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

No Trial For KSM At All?

By GottaLaff

Sharp-eyed Lizz Winstead just alerted me to this piece by Adam Serwer, someone we both follow on Twitter. When she did, I was nearly speechless. For me, that's really something.

I went right over to read it, hoping I'd find something different than what she said to me. I'd hoped she misinterpreted it or read it wrong.

No such luck:

I've said before that if the administration chooses to retreat on trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the other September 11 conspirators in civilian court, he might not be brought to justice at all, given the constitutional vulnerability of the military commissions. Brookings' Ben Wittes and former Bush Office of Legal Counsel head Jack Goldsmith are recommending indefinite detention as a "solution" to the problem:

[...] [T]he politically draining fight about civilian vs. military trials is not worth the costs. It also distracts from more important questions in the legal war against terrorism.

"Not worth the costs"? We've already paid dearly for avoiding/ignoring our own system of justice. What could be more costly than trading our democracy for political expedience?


They write that "the political costs" of a trial "have become exorbitant" even "unaffordably high" and even a military commission "isn't worth the effort, cost and political fight it would take."


And who is driving up those political costs? Cowardly, self-serving fear mongers.


KSM and his cohorts are likely guilty of a terrible crime, and they should be brought to justice for it. Wittes and Goldsmith fail to properly consider the costs of holding KSM forever without trial -- the American people growing further acclimatized to a government whose definition of justice and commitment to the rule of law is increasingly capricious. That kind of long-term damage is immeasurable, and a far greater cost to the country than the short-term false outrage of McCarthyists and hypocrites.


Adam nailed it. This is unacceptable.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Shallow Thoughts: Let's NOT Make a Deal edition

By GottaLaff



Today's Shallow Thought:

Closing Gitmo in exchange for military trials and indefinite detention is, for lack of a better word, redundant. They're nearly synonymous. While closing Gitmo rids us of one House of Horrors and some bad press, indefinite detention is simply another House of Horrors.

As for military commissions, how many ways do I have to say it?

Let's not make a deal.



That was today's Shallow Thought. Thank you for wading in.

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.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

No reason for Obama to backtrack on 9/11 trials

By GottaLaff

http://media.nowpublic.net/images//86/7/8671ab336fb348dbd15035a5d3ee89a9.jpg

I'm not sure how many ways this can be said, but until a few irrationally fearful political game-players come to their senses, I'll post about this topic every which way I can.

Via Tim Rutten of the L.A. Times:

If the president, who campaigned on a promise to restore the rule of law in the treatment of the jihadis, reverses course, it will be not only a lamentable triumph of politics over principle but an affront to common sense and some of our most valuable historical precedents. [...]

Other Al Qaeda-linked terrorists who have passed through the normal criminal justice process [...] were tried and convicted, and all are serving life sentences in federal prison [...]

The notion that Mohammed, his alleged accomplices and the other 35 Guantanamo detainees the administration says it wants to bring to trial pose some particular challenge or threat that these other defendants didn't is simply absurd. The only real difficulties posed by these new cases are the ones created by the extra-legal, extra-judicial handling of their situations up to now, mainly the use of torture to obtain confessions and other evidence. Those problems -- products of the previous administration's panicked overreaching -- are going to be there no matter how or where these trials are conducted. [...]

This is an instance in which the Obama administration must choose between principle and political expediency.


I just gave you the generalities, Rutten gives you the details here. And he does it well. Suffice it to say I strongly agree with him, and am sick and tired of the fear tactics used for no other reason than political gain.

Our legal/security systems are just fine. Better than fine. Too bad they're being exploited. In fact, it's shameful.

All my previous posts, about this, rants and otherwise, can be found here.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

ACLU ad equates/morphs Obama with Bush

By GottaLaff

Ouch. The ACLU took out an ad in the New York Times that morphs President Obama into Bush. I can't think of a bigger insult or a worse juxtaposition:

The military commissions are seriously flawed and unprepared to handle these complex cases. If President Obama reverses his attorney general’s principled decision under political pressure, it will strike a devastating blow to American values and do serious damage to our nation’s credibility. We urge the president to do the right thing and keep these cases in federal court, where they belong.”

Personally, I don't like to equate President Obama with Bush, even in cases like this one. It's too harsh, even if there are similarities. IMHO, Bush is a war criminal, so I reserve comparisons to him for other thugs.

I do, however, agree with the points the ACLU is making.

They also wrote a letter to the president. You can read the whole thing here (click on images to enlarge):


The ad's full text:

What will it be Mr. President?
Change or more of the Same?

Candidate Barack Obama vowed to change the Bush-Cheney policies and restore America’s values of justice and due process. Many of us are shocked and concerned that right now, President Obama is considering reversing his attorney general’s decision to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court. Our criminal justice system has successfully handled over 300 terrorism cases compared to only 3 in the military commissions. Our criminal justice system will resolve these cases more quickly and more credibly than the military commissions.

President Obama can vigorously prosecute terrorists and keep us safe without violating our Constitution.

As president, Barack Obama must decide whether he will keep his solemn promise to restore our Constitution and due process, or ignore his vow and continue the Bush-Cheney policies.

Tell President Obama not to back down on his commitment to our justice system, and to try the 9/11 defendants in criminal court.

Remind the world that America stands for due process, justice, and the rule of law.


I've written extensively about this subject; you can track all my posts here.

The ACLU took a tough, clear stand. Somebody had to.

Saturday, March 6, 2010

AUDIO- A Jewish Soldier Witnesses Nuremberg: "We found it in ourselves to give the worst of men due process"

By GottaLaff

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/POLITICS/03/05/911.trial/story.ksm.fbi.jpg
http://www.hollow-hill.com/sabina/images/auschwitz-corpses.jpg


I have posted and re-posted about the injustice and cruelty at Guantanamo Bay, about Fayiz al-Kandari, and his attorney Lt. Col. Barry Wingard.

I have also posted and re-posted about why today's military commissions are inferior to U.S. civilian courts.

Kids often ask why they need to study history in school. After all, it's ancient stuff, stories that have been told, times past that couldn't possibly affect them now.

Wanna bet?

Via NPR:



Sixty years ago, the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg handed down its first verdict against Nazi war criminals. The Nuremberg trials were structured as a blueprint for something new in international law law... "crimes against humanity" and "crimes against peace". [...]

Commentator Clancy Sigal was a sergeant in the American army of occupation in Germany. [...]

Evidence which included the shrunken heads of tortured prisoners and lampshades made of human skin. [...]

The U.S. War Department was determined that Goering and the other Nazis leaders would receive a fair trial. At Nuremberg, there would be no secret evidence or closed proceedings. The Allies believed that would betray their ideal of restoring democracy in Germany. [...]

Today, in the midst of a national debate on how to treat captured terror suspects, my mind flashes back to Room 600 at Furtherstrasse 22. We gave Goering and the other war criminals a chance not only to defend themselves but in some cases, preach hate and violence.

In a ruined Germany, where so many corpses still lay buried in the rubble, and life seemed so very fragile, we found it in ourselves to give the worst of men due process.


Those unfeeling, brutal Nazi beasts were terrorists... terrorists who killed millions of innocents.

It's time the GOP starts trusting our legal system instead of playing politics, playing with lives. Our democracy is at stake, as well as our international standing.

Why is that so hard to grasp? And why on earth would the Obama administration even consider caving to the GOP... again? Maybe they should all give a listen to this audio.

H/t: Dave_von_Ebers

Friday, March 5, 2010

Russ Feingold tells White House to try KSM in civilian court

By GottaLaff

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8HJ4XuJCMLvv-AOM5ZZ1iL-fJ-P2bXzA7Tqlj92EuZra3dQf8nGurjmP4hS_HqjaoLqXyeCfo3AIbpp_JJoJf5CVVThWF-C-9_3uYHmSwyxDGhM5u1Ms8RGirDUjLlfXLTXPmLZ5deEgB/s320/russ+feingold.jpg

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

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/POLITICS/03/05/911.trial/story.ksm.fbi.jpg

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.

Saturday, February 20, 2010

A Paint Job & New Zip Code, but Same Guantanamo

By GottaLaff

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

This is a must-read:

The Illinois legislature this week advanced a measure that would strip Illinois Governor Pat Quinn of his power to sell the state's Thomson Correctional Center to the federal government. If successful, the measure could prevent the Obama administration from buying the prison to house detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Regardless of how this shakes out, one thing is clear: changing Guantanamo Bay's zip code does not advance President Obama's campaign promise to close the prison and provide due process to the detainees.

I represent Kuwaiti detainee Fayiz Mohammed Ahmed al-Kandari and will defend him if and when he is ever tried before the military commissions. Fayiz has been detained at Guantanamo Bay for over eight years. During this time, he has not stepped foot into a military courtroom nor has he seen the evidence supporting the criminal charges against him. For those who think criminal charges prove a detainee must have done something wrong, it's worth noting that another Kuwaiti citizen, Fouad al-Rabiah, was ordered released by a federal judge in September and finally returned home to Kuwait in October despite also being charged before a military commission.

Fouad's case in particular shows that the United States has made serious mistakes at Guantanamo. Fouad is a completely innocent man who was interrogated in "enhanced" ways resulting of course in false confessions that even his interrogators didn't believe. Yet the U.S. government brought charges against him anyway. Another Kuwaiti, Khalid al-Mutairi, was released after seven years when it was discovered that a clerical error reversed the last two digits of his identity number resulting in a complete case of misidentification.

During my most recent trip to Kuwait, I realized that closing Guantanamo - not relocating it - is paramount to Fayiz's return. In the Middle East, there remains a great sense of distrust of American policy regarding Guantanamo Bay. After nearly eight long years of waiting, the Kuwaiti people are concerned that their remaining citizens could be detained indefinitely if they aren't released soon. This distrust abroad will increase if Guantanamo detainees are sent to the United States rather than transferred to their home countries.

That's because the world perceives Guantanamo as more than cement blocks, steel bars and chain link fence. The Kuwaiti locals and government officials with whom I have spoken view the prison not as a geographical location, but instead as a manifestation of certain misguided principles and policies that the U.S. government should have long ago abandoned. By changing the name from Guantanamo Bay to the Thomson Correctional Center, the government is engaging in a simple rebranding exercise that will in no way fundamentally alter the global perception that U.S. detention policies are unjust. Case in point, some lawmakers and members of the media have already begun to refer to the Thomson Correctional Center as Guantanamo Bay North.

While right now detainees may only be transferred to the United States for trials, reports suggest that President Obama will seek approval to indefinitely hold some detainees at U.S. facilities such as Thomson. This continuation of President Bush's legacy would stand in stark contrast to our country's long-standing principles, the rule of law and Obama's rhetoric on the campaign trail.

The transfer of detainees to U.S. soil might be worthwhile were it truly the beginning of the end of Guantanamo Bay and its unjust detention policies. Unfortunately, if the U.S. government simply detains some prisoners indefinitely on U.S. soil, the nightmare will continue and the act of shuffling detainees will simply mark the end of a beginning.

Guantanamo Bay has proven itself to be a stunning failure. Of the 40 habeas cases reviewed in federal court, judges have ordered the release of 31 detainees. That means our government has wrongfully detained almost 80 percent of the detainees that have been fortunate enough to have a habeas hearing based on low evidentiary standards and no rules of evidence.

Changing the name and location of Guantanamo will not change the perceptions of injustice that prevail in Kuwait and throughout the world. Closing Guantanamo Bay in name and deed represents our best chance to change international opinion about what American justice truly is.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is the military attorney assigned to represent Fayiz al-Kandari. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh.

Thank you, Barry, for opening our eyes. You give us information and insights that we can't get anywhere else.

********

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.

Friday, February 19, 2010

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

By GottaLaff

http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/6/g/1/gitmo_detainee.gif

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.

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Military court to review Abu Ghraib conviction

By GottaLaff

Well now, if BushCo said it was okay, then it was okay:

The U.S. military's highest court says it will review the conviction of an Army reservist [former Cpl. Charles Graner Jr. ] who prosecutors said was the ringleader of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. [...]

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in Washington said Tuesday it will consider whether the trial judge erred by refusing to let jurors see memos approving "enhanced interrogation tactics" for detainees.

I guess it was just too, too harsh, punishing an abuser for stacking naked prisoners in pyramids and photographing them while they were being forced to masturbate in front of others.

Especially with permission.... given by the same group of thugs that ordered and wrote the memos that made torture hunky dory in the first place.

Here's an idea: Convict the group of thugs.

*****

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.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

Today's "What makes me steaming mad" moment

By GottaLaff


Brought to you by Greg Sargent:

Dems are making Cheney relevant by letting him drive the debate.

Here's what he's referencing.

Monday, February 1, 2010

"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

Thursday, December 3, 2009

VIDEO: The Human Cost of Guantanamo

By GottaLaff



Please watch this video. Please. It says so much in 13 minutes.

Andy Worthington has spent the past several years exposing the stories of the hundreds of men who were taken to Guantanamo prison.

The British journalist, who is also a contributing reporter to Truthout, produced a groundbreaking book, "The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison," the only book published that meticulously pieced together the stories of all the men who have been detained in the US prison.

Now Worthington has released a new documentary, "Outside the Law: Stories from Guantanamo," co-directed with filmmaker Polly Nash. The film provides intimate interviews with two former detainees, Omar Deghayes and Moazzam Begg, and their lawyers, Clive Stafford Smith and Tom Wilner. Deghayes and Begg describe how they ended up in US custody, the gruesome conditions they faced while being held by the US and the impact this experience has had on their personal lives.

Now you know why I won't stop posting about this. Somebody has to. Thank you Andy.

******

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.

Sunday, November 29, 2009

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.

Sunday, November 15, 2009

VIDEO: Fox's Chris Wallace catches Rudy Giuliani's blunder, but not his own

By GottaLaff

Of all people, Chris Wallace zaps Mr. Noun-Verb-9/11's flip-flopitude. How bracing!

Sidebar: I caught an interesting slip of the tongue by Wallace at about :39, too. Listen carefully:



Apparently, according to Rudy, "we are exactly who we say we are, a nation of war"... Well, according to Rudy and the Bush crime family.

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.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

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.

Recent Posts