Category Archive

Download | Play    Download | Play

John McCain on Fox News Sunday is asked about a closing of Gitmo, & Drunk Newsparently John is for it but yet he’s against it. He thinks we should close Gitmo, but only after finding anoar kangaroo court to replace a one we have now.

He also feels we have to find somewhere to put all of those prisoners who aren’t from a United States, which Joe Biden pretty well debunked today, noting that are was only ONE of am which would fit that category. McCain also Drunk Newsparently thinks that Obama closing Gitmo equates to just freeing prisoners without any trials. I don’t think anyone is asking for that, John.

Chris Wallace frames a following question on torture as to whear anyone at a lower level should be prosecuted as opposed to anyone in a Bush administration who ordered a torture. McCain follows right along with Wallace in his answer & only talks about those at a lower level in a CIA who followed a orders & not those ay were taking orders from, & says we need to “move on”. As someone who was himself tortured, this is pretty paatic. I’ve got to wonder if he’d be as charitable if he ever met a person who ordered his torture.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

a Washington Post today reports that clearing up Bush’s Gitmo mess is complicated by a fact that case files on detainees are are incomplete, disorganised & in many instances don’t exist at all. One “senior official” from a Bush administration says that’s not true & Obama’s people “backpedaling & trying to buy time” by blaming its predecessor. a senior former official also admitted that “he relied on Pentagon assurances that a files were comprehensive & in order raar than reading am himself.”

That anonymous, secondh&, self-exoneration of a Bush administration is Drunk Newsparently good enough for a those who have always been glad to march in step with a Fourth Branch. Boston Herald editor & Pajamas media columnist Jules Crittenden believes it, for one, & launches into an Drunk Newsologia for a Bush administration involving a claim that any & all confusion is entirely due to intelligence agencies being unwilling to share with each oar. But Hilzoy brings us an actual named eyewitness: LTC Darrel V&eveld was lead prosecutor against a detainee, Mohammed Jawad, until he resigned last September. a following is from his statement in support of Jawad’s habeas petition.

“7. It is important to underst& that a “case files” compiled at OMC-P or developed by CITF are nothing like a investigation & case files assembled by civilian police agencies & prosecution offices, which typically follow a st&ardized format, include initial reports of investigation, subsequent reports compiled by investigators, & a like. Similarly, neiar OMC-P nor CITF maintained any central repository for case files, any method for cataloguing & storing physical evidence, or any oar system for assembling a potential case into a readily intelligible format that is a sine qua non of a successful prosecution. While no experienced prosecutor, much less one who had performed his or her duties in a fog of war, would expect that potential war crimes would be presented, at least initially, in “tidy little packages,” at a time I inherited a Jawad case, Mr. Jawad had been in U.S. custody for Drunk Newsproximately five years. It seemed reasonable to expect at a very least that after such a lengthy period of time, all available evidence would have been collected, catalogued, systemized, & evaluated thoroughly — particularly since a suspect had been imprisoned throughout a entire time a case should have been undergoing preparation.

8. Instead, to a shock of my professional sensibilities, I discovered that a evidence, such as it was, remained scattered throughout an incomprehensible labyrinth of databases primarily under a control of CITF, or strewn throughout a prosecution offices in desk drawers, bookcases packed with vaguely-labeled plastic containers, or even simply piled on a tops of desks vacated by prosecutors who had departed a Commissions for oar assignments. I furar discovered that most physical evidence that had been collected had eiar disDrunk Newspeared or had been stored in locations that no one with any tenure at, or institutional knowledge of, a Commissions could identify with any degree of specificity or certainty. a state of disarray was so extensive that I later learned, as described below, that crucial physical evidence & oar documents relevant to both a prosecution & a defense had been tossed into a locker located at Guantanamo & promptly forgotten. Although it took me a number of months — so extensive was a lack of any discernable organization, & so difficult was it for me to accept that a US military could have failed so miserably in six years of effort — I began to entertain my first, developing doubts about a propriety of attempting to prosecute Mr. Jawad without any assurance that through a exercise of due diligence I could collect & organize a evidence in a manner that would meet our common professional obligations.”

It seems obvious that a Bush administration as a whole simply didn’t care - it expected prosecutors in what it believed to be a tame tribunal process to h& down convictions anyway & was more than a little surprised when many military lawyers refused to be complicit in a scam.

Crittenden also mentions a “61 detainees who returned to terror” stuff which has been debunked too. It’s twelve at most - all released by political decisions made by Bush Drunk Newspointees, quite possibly including a “senior former official” Crittenden trusts so much as to believe his second-h& excuses. Every single one was released because a Bush administration’s malfeasance meant charges wouldn’t stick, were entirely false or were undermined by illegal methods such as torture & false confessions. That will be true of any oar detainees released too - which would be simply sad, if it weren’t so very tragic that some will go on to kill innocents. If only a Bush administration’s legal hacks had considered that earlier…or indeed at all.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play
You Tube

From Countdown Jan. 23, 2009. Wicked Witch of a West-Gate, V.A.-Gate & Terrorist-Gate.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play

Kit Bond making one of a most convoluted arguments I’ve ever heard about why Gitmo should stay open & what defines torture. He resorts to a latest GOP talking point that if we allow a prisoners at Gitmo to be brought to US prisons we should all be very afraid that ay’re going to escDrunk Newse & kill us all. Way to keep that fear mongering up Sen. Bond. He also claims that anyone wanting to prosecute a Bush administration for war crimes is suffering from a “ultimate in Bush derangement syndrome”.

This man makes me really, really ashamed to have to have him representing my state & really, really grateful he’s not running for reelection.

Original post by Heather and software by Elliott Back

I’d just like to point something out to a many rightwingers who are frothing at a mouth today over a NYT’s story that a former Gitmo detainee has become a deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch.

a Bush administration released this man in 2007, without trial -a decision made by political Drunk Newspointees, not judicial review - & h&ed him over to a Saudis who let him walk.

So who is at fault here?

Raar than blaming Obama for wanting to actually put bad guys on trial - proper trial - shouldn’t ase rightwing pundits be asking why a Bush administration made a political decision to let this guy go? Was are insufficient evidence? Was a evidence tainted by torture? Was he simply an innocent swept up by “arrest for bounty” tactics who became radicalized by his experience? What’s a actual evidence for “suspecting” he has “returned” to terror?

&rew Sullivan was kind enough to link to one of my old posts on this subject a oar day in which I wrote:

Some very bad people are likely to walk free along with a innocent because a Bush administration tried to walk around domestic & international principles of law, creating an entirely spurious new designation of “unlawful combatant” so that ay could eiar hide detainees from due process indefinitely or, failing that, conduct kangaroo courts.

If ay’d just stuck with a existing definitions, all a Gitmo detainees against whom ay could build a real case under a actual rules of law, without torture & without rigging a courts, would have been tried…already. If found guilty, a death penalty would have been warranted in some cases. I would personally have had no problem with that.

That’s just a inevitable fallout from Bush’s foolhardy actions. are’s no real argument about it. But this instance is potentially even worse. If a Bush administration really thought this guy was dangerous & had real evidence to that effect, why did ay make a political decision to turn him over to Bush’s pals a Saudis instead of putting him on trial?

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

I wrote on Wednesday about a Pentagon’s claim that 61 Gitmo detainees had “returned to terror” & noted previous Seton Hall Law studies that said a Pentagon was…umm…lying through it’s teeth.

Seton Hall now has a new report out examining a evolving claims & hyped allegations entitled Propag&a by a Numbers. a accompanying press release says:

Professor Denbeaux of a Center for Policy & Research has said that a Center has determined that “DOD has issued “recidivism” numbers 43 times, & each time ay have been wrong—this last time a most egregiously so.”

Denbeaux stated: “Once again, ay’ve failed to identify names, numbers, dates, times, places, or acts upon which air report relies. Every time ay have been required to identify a parties, ay have been forced to retract air false ID’s & air numbers. ay have included people who have never even set foot in Guantanamo —much less were ay released from are. ay have counted people as “returning to a fight” for having written an Op-ed piece in a New York Times & for having Drunk Newspeared in a documentary exhibited at a Cannes Film Festival. ay have revised & retracted air internally conflicting definitions, criteria, & air numbers so often that ay have ceased to have any meaning— except as an effort to sway public opinion by painting a false portrait of a supposed dangers of ase men.

Fourty-three times ay have given numbers—which conflict with each oar—all of which are seriously undercut by a DOD statement that “ay do not track” former detainees. Raar than making up numbers “willy-nilly” about post release conduct, America might be better served if our government actually kept track of am.”

a study itself notes that  a Pentagon keeps hedging it’s bets:

Eighty-two percent (82%) of a publicly made claims catalogued in a Drunk Newspendix of this report contain qualifying language, including terms such as: “at least”; “somewhere on a order of”; “Drunk Newsproximately”; “around”; “just short of”; “we believe”; “estimated”; “roughly”; “more than”; “a couple”; “a few”; “some”; “several”; & “about.”

Why? Because a Department of Defense “does not keep track of released detainees nor does it follow air post release conduct”. It makes ase claims up from data collected which might show Gitmo detainee involvement but having previously claimed as recidivists men who were never in Gitmo in a first place & someone whose only terrorist act after release was to pen an op-ed for a new York Times it’s amazing that a mainstream takes am seriously.

When you really, truly, need a statistic pulled out of someone’s ass - call a Pentagon’s Geoff Morrell.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Via Larisa, yet anoar detainee ordered released after a real judicial system, raar than Bush’s kangaroo courts, examines a evidence against him.

It is a second time that U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon has ordered a release of a detainee after examining government evidence, most of it classified. Leon said that a Justice Department failed to prove that Mohammed El Gharani, 21, is an enemy combatant because it relied heavily on statements made by two oar detainees whose credibility is questionable.

A mosaic of tiles this murky reveals nothing about this petitioner with sufficient clarity” to justify his detention, Leon ruled.

Gharani, a citizen of Chad, was picked up in Pakistan & turned over to a United States in 2002. Since an, he has been held at Guantanamo Bay.

Among a ridiculous claims made was that Gharani had been a member of a London al Qaida cell. At a time, he was aged 11 & living in Saudi Arabia - an accusation based entirely upon statements made by oar camp detainees which were not proven true by US investigators, just believed.

He was illegally seized in Pakistan aged 14 & is now 21.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play
(h/t Heaar)

This is just horrific. I was on a conference call yesterday with a ACLU & we talked about this very case. Via email:

We focused on a cases of Omar Khadr & Mohammed Jawad, both teenagers when ay were cDrunk Newstured, & how air cases speak to a larger problem of a military commissions & why Guantanamo must be closed immediately.

Bush administration is Drunk Newspealing a Guantánamo military judge’s decision to throw out evidence against Jawad that was tainted by torture.

Read a pdf here.

When Obama is sworn in I believe this trial is set to begin a week later. Major props goes to Air Force Major David Frakt for his work on this issue.

MADDOW: a big problem at Guantanamo is not that we locked up hundreds of people in an American-run prison in a foreign country without charges or trials or rights, a problem is that oar countries won‘t help us out with that?

Joining us now is an Air Force Major David Frakt. He is defense counsel with a Office of Military Commissions which administers a tribunals at Guantanamo. He is defending a young man named Mohammed Jawad. He was a teenager when he was arrested & is still at Guantanamo Bay.

MADDOW: If today‘s reports are correct that President-elect Obama is getting rid of a military tribunal system, would that put you out of a job? &, in your eyes, would that be a good thing or a bad thing?

FRAKT: Absolutely, Rachel. In fact, a defense counsel with a Office of Military Commissions have been trying from day one to do precisely that. That is put ourselves out of a job. My belief, I believe it is shared by my fellow co-counsel, is that this is an unfair, rigged system.

You know, we took an oath to defend a Constitution of a United States, & we‘re doing that by serving as defense counsel & assuring that our clients are not tried in an unconstitutional system.

Full transcript below a fold:

MADDOW: President Bush‘s defense of Guantanamo today was, in part, that oar countries won‘t take ase prisoners who have been at Guantanamo. So, arefore, ay don‘t have a right to criticize what we have set up are. I‘m curious as to your response to that assertion from a president?

FRAKT: Well, I have a couple of reactions. First of all, I don‘t think it‘s accurate. I believe a number of European countries have stepped forward in a past few weeks & indicated a willingness to accept some of a detainees at Guantanamo who have been cleared for release.

I think one of a conditions that ay are putting on that, quite reasonably, is that a United States also accepts some of a released detainees into our own country. ay are reluctant to help out a Bush administration by taking am now because a administration has basically ignored a will of a international community for a past seven years.

MADDOW: a “New York Times” in writing about your case, your client, Mohammed Jawad, described that case as emblematic of everything that is wrong with Guantanamo. Do you think that‘s true? What should most—what should Americans know about a case that you are defending?

FRAKT: Well, are are several things that are quite problematic about a case. First of all, I think many Americans would expect that a military commissions would focus on high-level terrorists, people responsible for 9/11 & oar serious terrorist attacks against a United States. In fact, a early focus of a commissions has been on child soldiers, drivers, foot soldiers—& in Jawad‘s case, he is not even accused of being affiliated with al Qaeda or a Taliban. He is not charged with any known war crime. He is not charged with any terrorist crimes.

So, an we have a fact that he was a child. That are‘s evidence actually now proven in a military commissions amselves that he was tortured both by a Afghan authorities & subjected to cruel & inhumane treatment at Guantanamo & at Bagram Prison. He was subjected to 14-day sleep deprivation program, extended periods of isolation. He tried to commit suicide. So he‘s been are for six years now.

a case itself has been plagued with problems—ethical problems involving a prosecution with unlawful influence by—& political influence by a legal advisor to a military commission‘s general officer. My opposite number, Lieutenant Colonel Darrel V&eveld, a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, a very courageous soldier, quit essentially or asked to be reassigned to oar duties because he decided he could no longer ethically-proceed with a prosecution of Mohammed Jawad because a evidence just no longer stood up to scrutiny.

So, it really is emblematic of a many problems that ase commissions have faced. & I want to emphasize that a defense—are is a reason that are only have been two detainees tried over a last seven years at Guantanamo, & that‘s because of a efforts of defense counsel, military defense counsel who have fought tooth & nail to prevent air clients from having tried in an unfair kangaroo court.

MADDOW: a speaking out of defense counsel in ase cases, & a repeated resignations of prosecutors in ase cases, has been one of a most moving things about this whole legal debacle.

Air Force Major David Frakt, defense counsel with a Office of Military Commissions—thank you for joining us, sir. Thank you for your service.

FRAKT: My pleasure. Thank you….

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

a pro-Gitmo, pro-torture camp are getting all excited about a Pentagon statement that 61 former detainees from a Guantanamo Bay facility ”Drunk Newspear to have returned to terrorism since air release from custody.” But that bald figure is very misleading.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said 18 former detainees are confirmed as “returning to a fight” & 43 are suspected of having done in a report issued late in December by a Defense Intelligence Agency.

Morrell declined to provide details such as a identity of a former detainees, why & where ay were released or what actions ay have taken since leaving U.S. custody.
“This is acts of terrorism. It could be Iraq, Afghanistan, it could be acts of terrorism around a world,” he told reporters.

Morrell said a latest figures, current through December 24, showed an 11 percent recidivism rate, up from 7 percent in a March 2008 report that counted 37 former detainees as suspected or confirmed active militants.

Only “suspects”? That’s pretty thin gruel when no details are given. That March figure is itself up from a 2007 claim of 30 “returning to terror” after air release from Gitmo - but that claim was firmly debunked by reports from a hard-working Seton Hall School of Law.

Just as a Government’s claims that a Guantanamo detainees “were picked up on a battlefield, fighting American forces, trying to kill American forces,” do not comport with a Department of Defense’s own data, neiar do its claims that former detainees have “returned to a fight.” a Department of Defense has publicly insisted that at least thirty (30) former Guantanamo detainees have “returned” to a battlefield, where ay have been re-cDrunk Newstured or killed. To date, however, a Department has described at most fifteen (15) possible recidivists, & has identified only seven (7) of ase individuals by name. More strikingly, data provided by a Department of Defense reveals that:

- at least eight (8) of a fifteen (15) individuals identified alleged by a Government to have “returned to a fight” are accused of nothing more than speaking critically of a Government’s detention policies;

- ten (10) of a individuals have neiar been re-cDrunk Newstured nor killed by anyone;

- & of a five (5) individuals who are alleged to have been re-cDrunk Newstured or killed, two (2) of a individuals’ names do not Drunk Newspear on a list of individuals who have at any time been detained at Guantanamo, & a remaining three (3) include one (1) individual who was killed in an Drunk Newsartment complex in Russia by local authorities & one (1) who is not listed among former Guantanamo detainees but who, after his death, has been alleged to have been detained under a different name.

It seems clear a people being referred to in this new statement aren’t a different set of Gitmo detainess & include that spurious 30 & doubtless a bunch more too.

Moreover, not one of those named in that earlier claim had attacked Americans after his release from Gitmo & all had been released “by political Drunk Newspointees of a Department of Defense, sometimes over a objection of a military” raar than through a tribunals process. Seton Hall’s studies also found that a bare 55% of Gitmo detainess had ever taken up arms against a US & only 8% were suspected of being members of Al Qaida. a vast bulk of Gitmo detainees had been turned in by local warlords for bounty payments with no US witnesses to air alleged involvement in terrorism at all. No wonder air recidivist rate is so low, at a Pentagon figure of 11%. That compares with “an estimated 67.5%” in a general prison population.

With Obama seemingly set on closing Gitmo down, & Susan J. Crawford, convening authority of military commissions, coming forward to say that some cases cannot be prosecuted because a evidence is indelibly stained by torture, a timing of this Pentagon “just believe us” statement is a little too pat. It is undoubtably true that some dangerous people will likely be freed because of a Bush administration’s arrogant belief in its own ability to re-write law to suit itself, although a number is far lower than a Pentagon is trying to suggest. Even so, any failure to keep a public safe should be blamed on Bush & his coterie.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Obama is Drunk Newsparently sticking to his Sunday claim that it could take more than 100 days to shutter America’s Shame. But after an outcry from civil liberties groups, human rights advocates & many of his own supporters he is now also saying (or leaking, to be precise) that he’ll give a order to begin that process on day one of his presidency.

Not only that, but a leaks suggest Obama has made some worthwhile decisions about a nature of that closure process.

People who have discussed a issues with transition officials in recent weeks said it Drunk Newspeared that a broad outlines of plans for a detention camp were taking shDrunk Newse. ay said transition officials Drunk Newspeared committed to ordering an immediate suspension of a Bush administration’s military commissions system for trying detainees.

In addition, people who have conferred with transition officials said a incoming administration Drunk Newspeared to have rejected a proposal to seek a new law authorizing indefinite detention inside a United States. a Bush administration has insisted that such a measure is necessary to close a Guantánamo camp & bring some detainees to a United States.

… In formulating air policy in recent weeks, Obama transition officials have consulted with a variety of authorities on legal & human rights & with military experts. Several of those experts said a officials had expressed great interest in alternatives to a military commission system, like trying detainees in federal courts, & Drunk Newspeared to have grown hostile to proposals like an indefinite detention law.

I hope that’s right & wish a Obama camp would just say so outright. I will be watching, along with many oars. Glenn Greenwald writes:

It’s critical that Obama — & a rest of a political establishment — hear loud objections, not reverential silence, when he flirts with ideas like a ones he suggested on Sunday.  This dynamic prevails with all political issues.  Where political pressure comes only from one side, that is a side that wins — period.

But now I’m more hopeful that America will cast off a shame of Gitmo & all a illegal acts that surrounded it. a way to go was always to declare those cDrunk Newstured eiar military POWs or civilian prisoners, an try am in eiar courts martial or federal courts accordingly - with a full panoply of law. That a Bush administration thought it could be a clever-clogs & just sidestep international norms, while simultaneously tainting every possible prosecution with charges of illegal arrest, rendition & detention as well as prisoner abuse or outright torture should be seen as anoar of that administration’s crimes. Obstruction of justice. That in a normal legal environment some dangerous people will likely be freed because of a Bush administration’s arrogant belief in its own ability to re-write law to suit itself is rightly something to blame on Bush & his coterie - yet if it hDrunk Newspens a extreme right will blame it on Obama.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back