The Blue State

Guilty at Guantanamo

David Hicks of Australia told a judge he aided a terrorist group, reports the Los Angeles Times. 

My curiosity (and main reason for posting this) is to ask the question:  Is this good for the Bush administration (as the article boasts) or will the confession provide more complications to the detainment and coercion processes at Guantanamo?  To their [LAT's] credit, the article touches the surface of both perspectives.

Australian David Hicks pleaded guilty Monday to material support of terrorism, securing a symbolic victory for the Bush administration in the first war-crimes trial since World War II.

So first we're hearing this is a "slam dunk," a symbolic victory.  Depending on their bias, one could ask why this important line comes as the first sentence in the story then trails off with little evidence to support the confession as a clear victory.  Later, after many readers likely stop reading, some details are divulged:

Hicks changed his mind about entering a plea after more than four hours of pre-trial procedures in which his primary defense attorney, Marine Maj. Michael Mori, failed to persuade Kohlmann that he needed more time to prepare.

Mori was left alone at the defense table with the defendant when civilian criminal defense lawyer Joshua Dratel was barred from participating because he refused to promise to adhere to procedural rules that have yet to be defined.

"I can't sign a document that provides a blank check on my ethical obligations," Dratel told Kohlmann, saying his obligation was to his client, not to the military process. "You can't make it an all-or-nothing proposition."

Kohlmann also declined to approve a second civilian lawyer, Rebecca Snyder, on the grounds that commission rules allow civilians only if their representation incurs no expense to the U.S. government. Snyder is a Pentagon employee.

And more about Hicks' distrust of those overseeing the procedures:

Terry Hicks, the defendant's father, said his son told him during an emotional reunion in a court anteroom in the morning that he didn't trust the U.S. military forum to live up to a pledge by the Bush administration to transfer Hicks to Australian custody at the end of the proceedings.

"Will they allow him to go home?" the elder Hicks asked with deep skepticism. "They've held him for five years. Who would you trust who held you for five years?"

Full article is here.

(Video) Chris Dodd's new legislation to restore habeas corpus

Today, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) submitted legislation that if passed would restore habeas corpus and outlaw torture in hope of at least doing something to revitalize American image abroad and live up to our belief in the rule of law.  Dodd, who is also a 2008 Democratic presidential candidate, went on CNN's The Situation Room and promoted his legislation:

Under the Military Commissions Act, passed just last year, the government is allowed to hold any U.S. citizen indefinitely if they are even suspected of being a threat to national security.  Dodd wants to change that, and make sure that anyone being held has a right to a trial.  Most importantly, a vote on this bill will force Republican lawmakers to take a stand: either you support habeas corpus, or you reject it.  Either way, take a stand.

New Senate bill would restore habeas corpus and end torture

In a major press conference that will take place on Tuesday, Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) will unveil legislation that restores habeas corpus and outlaws torture -- an obvious attempt to take the first step in renewing our global credibility in the post-9/11 era:

Tuesday, February 12, 2007, U.S. Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and RobertMenendez (D-NJ) will hold a press conference to discuss the Effective Terrorists Prosecution Actwhich will restore habeus corpus rights, ban torture and uphold theGeneva Conventions. The senators, both members of the Foreign RelationsCommittee, will discuss the need for these protections in the fightagainst terrorism.

Here are the facts:

• As of 2006, only 8% of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay have been labeled "al Qaeda fighters."
• 12 detainee deaths have led to the punishment of US personnel. 
• As of two months ago, there have been 775 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay.  After five years, no detainee has been convicted of a criminal offense.

The bill being unveiled by Dodd and Menendez says that you either charge the terrorists and keep them locked up, or you don't charge them.  You cannot hold them indefinitely without charges.  It is difficult to be a world leader without at least respecting the overwhelming global consensus on a number of issues -- including the consensus that torture is a crime.

US refuses to sign treaty outlawing secret detentions

The Bush Administration claims it helped draft the treaty, but in the end did not like the wording.  Maybe this is their way of building bridges with the international community.  The next president, whoever it is, will have a lot of diplomatic ground to make up -- putting it mildly:

Representatives from 57 countries on Tuesday signed a long-negotiatedtreaty prohibiting governments from holding people in secret detention.The United States declined to endorse the document, saying its text didnot meet U.S. expectations.

Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said thetreaty was "a message to all modern-day authorities committed to thefight against terrorism" that some practices are "not acceptable."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined tocomment, except to say that the United States helped draft the treatybut that the final wording "did not meet our expectations."

Off the top of my head, here are just some of the other international treaties the Bush Administration has backed out of:

• Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
• Kyoto Protocol
• ABM Treaty
• Mine Ban Treaty

Bush asks for cooperation, then stonewalls Leahy

Do not demand something out of Congress, and then not follow through on your end.

President Bush Bush's speech writers wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal for this morning.  Bush warns Democrats that if Congress and the White House do not seek common ground, then all that the new majority can expect to receive in return is political stalemate:

"If the Congress chooses to pass bills that are simply politicalstatements, they will have chosen stalemate," Bush wrote. "If adifferent approach is taken, the next two years can be fruitful onesfor our nation. We can show the American people that Republicans andDemocrats can come together to find ways to help make America a moresecure, prosperous and hopeful society."

Could the President be seeking cooperation with Democrats out of good faith?  If he truly does want to work with them, then why is he refusing to share with Congress the secret memos that specify how the government treats detainees?

"The Justice Department has rebuffed a Senate request for documentsrelated to the Bush administration's policy on the detention andinterrogation of suspected terrorists, particularly those held by theCIA," writes Keith Perine for CQ.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT) "requested the documents from AttorneyGeneral Alberto R. Gonzales on Nov. 16, after the CIA acknowledged theexistence of two of them in the course of a Freedom of Information Actlawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union," Perine reports.

Leahy released a statement on Tuesday expressing his dissatisfaction with the decision by the Justice Department.

This refusal to consult with Congress contradicts what President Bush promised during the signing of the Military Commissions Act:

As we work with Congress to pass a good bill, we will also consult withcongressional leaders on how to ensure that the CIA program goes forward ina way that follows the law..

When you stone-wall Congress, you send the message that your Administration is above the other two branches of government.  Bush has no place asking Congress to cooperate when he refuses to order the Executive Branch to do the same.

FBI reports mistreatment at Guantanamo prison

This is where billions of dollars in annual defense money is going.

A Washington Post column this morning about human rights violations at Guantanamo just about tops everything that happened at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq a few years ago.  Some of this is graphic, and all of it is disturbing.  Here are some excerpts:

• "In October 2002, a Marine captain allegedly squatted over a copy of theKoran during intensive questioning of a Muslim prisoner, who was 'incensed' by the tactic, according to an FBI agent."
• "In another incident that month, interrogators wrapped a beardedprisoner's head in duct tape 'because he would not stop quoting theKoran,' according to an FBI agent, the documents show."
• "They acknowledged that soldiers and interrogators had kicked the Koran,had stood on it and, in one case, had inadvertently sprayed urine on acopy."
• "More than two dozen incidents were reported, including some  that the government had revealed in earlier document releases."
• "..prisoners were shackled to the floor for extended periods of time orsubjected to sexually suggestive tactics by female interrogators.  Ina previously unreported allegation, one interrogator bragged to an FBIagent that he had forced a prisoner to listen to 'Satanic black metalmusic for hours,' then dressed as a Catholic priest before 'baptizing'him."
• "One agent reported being told that while questioning male captives,female interrogators would sometimes wet their hands and touchdetainees' faces in order to interrupt their prayers."

One question: did our tax dollars fund the purchase of the Catholic priest uniform that was used to baptize prisoners, or was the uniform bought by the guard on his own?  I do not know which would be better.  If the latter is true, then it might be the strategy of the Marines to make sure the most mentally disturbed people possible are interrogating detainees (i.e. Murdoch from the "A-Team").  If the former is true, then I would like to see that transaction on paper.  I can just see it now:

- Satanic music CD: $12
- One bible: $10
- One Catholic priest uniform: $200
- Helping promote U.S. system of democracy to the world: priceless

Specter says part of Military Commissions Act unconstitutional

Senator Specter voted for the Military Commissions Act, and then opposes it now that it is cool to do so.

Of the many issues that Democrats say they want to address, the Military Commissions Act is definitely one of them.  Last month, Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), a 2008 presidential candidate, announced his plan to unveil legislation that would repeal the entire Military Commissions Act, which was passed earlier this year.  Senator Leahy has submitted his own bill, which is very similar.  The dispute is over a certain section of the Military Commissions Act that suspends habeas corpus for anyone, including U.S. citizens, that the government declares an enemy combatant.

With the momentum swinging in the favor of the opposition, former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter (R-PA), a Republican, came out and admitted yesterday that the part of the Military Commissions Act that suspends habeas corpus is unconstitutional:

"I think the courts are going to declare that part of the legislationunconstitutional," Specter said in an interview this month.

What makes this quote jaw-dropping was the fact that Specter actually voted for the Military Commissions Act just a few months ago.  With the pressure gone after he lost he chairman position, as a result of the Democrats' victory in November, Specter has the luxury of flip-flopping changing his mind without worrying about being threatened by his own party.

The way I see it, it is convenient for spineless people when situations arise that don't require them to have one.  I can never remember Arlen Specter taking a strong position on anything.  He claims to be pro-choice, pro-environment and pro-minority rights -- yet he prevented the opposition in his committee from critically questioning two right-wing Supreme Court justices.  Sorry, but although he is a proud moderate Republican, that Senator needs to develop his own positions and stop going whichever way the political wind blows.

It's Reno time!: The offensive against the Military Commissions Act begins

Former Attorney General Janet Reno is coming out of political hibernation.  After sitting on the sidelines and watching Executive power increase to the point that the Administration can now hold prisoners for an indefinite amount of time without charging them, Reno has finally seen enough.  The soft-spoken, polite former Clinton official is now voicing her strong opposition to the Military Commissions Act.  She and seven other former Justice Department officials are taking this matter to the 4th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

This is from Wednesday's Washington Post:

Reno, reached at her Florida home yesterday, said she would let thebrief "speak for itself. I've been following this, and it reflects myconcerns about the detention and treatment of people who have beendetermined to be enemy combatants in a manner that is not clear how itis being done."

In their brief, Reno and the other former JusticeDepartment officials said: "The government is essentially asserting theright to hold putative enemy combatants arrested in the United Statesindefinitely whenever it decides not to prosecute those peoplecriminally -- perhaps because it would be too difficult to obtain aconviction, perhaps because a motion to suppress evidence would raiseembarrassing facts about the government's conduct, or perhaps for otherreasons."

This comes on the heels of a pledge by Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) to repeal the Military Commissions Act.  The added scrutiny of the Bush policy by former Justice Department officials, such as Reno, will only help Dodd generate more momentum to get this bill through.

If approached correctly, this is a debate that we can win, even if Bush vetoes the bill.  It would ensure that this bill will be on the desk of the next president in January of 2009 so habeas corpus can finally be restored.

Remember what it says in Article I, Section 9 of our constitution:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety mayrequire it.

Gonzales thinks defenders of habeas corpus are "superficial"

Rumors are flying that the Democrats want to repeal the Bush-McCain Military Commissions Act that suspends habeas corpus for any individual that the Administration considers a threat.  In a speech at the Air Force Academy on Saturday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales attacked those who oppose Bush's prisoner policy that suspends habeas corpus:

Gonzales told about 400 cadets from the Air Force Academy'spolitical science and law classes that some see the program as on theverge of stifling freedom rather that protecting the country.

"But this view is shortsighted," he said. "Its definition of freedom— one utterly divorced from civic responsibility — is superficial andis itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the Americanpeople."

No, Mr. Gonzales, what is superficial is the notion that you can trade freedom for temporary security.  When you suspend habeas corpus, you allow the terrorists to change our system of laws -- therefore they win, not us.

Chris Dodd wants to repeal Military Commissions Act

As progressives like Keith Olbermann and numerous blogs have been pointing out, the Military Commissions Act that was passed this fall suspended habeas corpus for anyone that the government considers to be a threat to national security.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), a possible 2008 presidential candidate, has introduced legislation that would repeal the Military Commissions Act.  Dodd's Senate page, via the Agonist, goes through the bill itself:

• Restores Habeas Corpus protections to detainees
• Narrowsthe definition of unlawful enemy combatant to individuals who directlyparticipate in hostilities against the United States who are not lawfulcombatants
• Bars information gained through coercion from being introduced as evidence in trials
• Empowers military judges to exclude hearsay evidence they deem to be unreliable
• Authorizes the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to review decisions by the Military commissions
• Limitsthe authority of the President to interpret the meaning and applicationof the Geneva Conventions and makes that authority subject tocongressional and judicial oversight
• Provides for expeditedjudicial review of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to determinethe constitutionally of its provisions

“We in Congresshave our own obligation, to work in a bipartisan way to repair thedamage that has been done, to protect our international reputation, topreserve our domestic traditions, and to provide a successful mechanismto improve and enhance the tools required by the global war on terror,”Dodd said.

This is in response to the Military Commissions Act, which Bush and McCain compromised on -- except it was not really a compromise at all.  Hopefully this bill passes, so we can get back into the habit of restoring constitutional law in this country.  In Article I, Section IX of our constitution, it says the following:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended,unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety mayrequire it.

There isn't a rebellion.  We are also not being invaded by terrorists.  Dodd's measure would restore habeas corpus, and also restore some of our standing with the rest of the world.  Then again, in the mind of Dick Cheney, wanting to work with other nations to fight terrorism is second tier compared to invoking a unilateral foreign policy.