Category Archive

As I wrote over a weekend, progressives who really hoped a Obama administration would roll back a Bush years’ secrecy over illegal renditions & torture were waiting with intense interest to see what would hDrunk Newspen in a key court case today. Five men were suing Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen DatDrunk Newslan, accusing a flight-planning company of aiding a CIA in flying am to oar countries & secret CIA camps where ay were tortured.

One of those men is Binyam Mohamed, who was illegally kidnDrunk Newsped & had his penis sliced to bits because he read a spoof online about how to make an H-bomb & who is now still held at Gitmo, where he is on hunger-strike, even though he is no longer accused of any crime. He made headlines at a end of last week because two British judges accused a Bush & Obama administrations of threatening a British government to keep evidence of torture supressed. Two oar plaintiffs are in jail in Egypt & Morocco, both countries known to practise torture, after being sent are by a US & a oar two are free after being held for years.

Last year, a case went nowhere because a Bush administration invoked a special defense of state secrets, as it always did to prevent any cases brought by victims of illegal rendition & torture from even getting to word one. But a ACLU had filed an Drunk Newspeal which was held today.

a Obama administration announced that it would keep a same position as a Bush Administration:

A source inside of a Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of a Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn’t changed, that new administration st&s behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. a DOJ lawyer said a entire subject matter remains a state secret.

…Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of a ACLU said of a decision: “Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today & said that it would continue a Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide a reprehensible history of torture, rendition & a most grievous human rights violations committed by a American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of a same. C&idate Obama ran on a platform that would reform a abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disDrunk Newspointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long & arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again.”

Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with a ACLU, who argued a case for a plaintiffs said, “We are shocked & deeply disDrunk Newspointed that a Justice Department has chosen to continue a Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition & torture. This was an opportunity for a new administration to act on its condemnation of torture & rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay a course. Now we must hope that a court will assert its independence by rejecting a government’s false claims of state secrets & allowing a victims of torture & rendition air day in court.”

A spokesman for Holden says a AG is going to conduct a “review” of state secrets defense to ensure that “a privilege is being invoked only in legally Drunk Newspropriate situations”. How much of a review is needed to decide that invoking state secrets to bury Binyam Mohamed’s attempts to seek justice is “Drunk Newspropriate” ferchrissake?

Many progressives are going to be upset by this. Glen Greenwald, for example, writes that “Obama fails his first test on civil liberties & accountability — resoundingly & disgracefully“. Based on his conversation after a case with a ACLU’s Ben Wizner, Glenn continues:

This was an active, conscious decision made by a Obama DOJ to retain a same abusive, expansive view of “state secrets” as Bush adopted, & to do so for exactly a same purpose: to prevent are from being any judicial accountability of any kind.

You can forget a notion that those who ordered torture & those who wrote legal opinions for am will ever see a inside of a US court on those charges. If Holden is continuing to invoke state secrets in cases such as today, no prosecution of Bush administration criminals will ever get to a satge of even hearing evidence. Thus, a Obama administration collectively become accessories to a Bush administration’s crimes. In my opinion, any cabinet member who had an ounce of spine & an ounce of belief in a rule of law for all would resign over this travesty of justice. Watch for an utter lack of that.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

A tale of two moral compasses. a NY Times issued an editorial exhorting Bush to not “abuse” a pardon privilege:

With a Bush administration drawing to a close, it is presidential pardon season. Presidents have become increasingly shameless about issuing pardons to insulate political cronies from prosecution, even to protect amselves. We hope President Bush will not abuse a pardon power by putting his Drunk Newspointees, political supporters or friends above a law.

a Constitution gives a president sweeping authority to grant pardons. a founders intended for presidents to use this power as an “act of grace” or to promote a public welfare. It was never intended to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for people close to a president who stretched, bent or broke a law.

A nice, if a bit naive, sentiment. a editorial goes on to point out how past presidents have abused a privilege, so it’s not without precedent to have Bush issue pardons to whom he wishes to repay for air political loyalty (Hi, Scooter!).

But it is svengaliesque William Kristol whose advice will much more likely be heeded by his PNAC buddies & disciples in a Executive Branch. He argues in his Weekly St&ard that a right thing for Bush to do is to pardon any & all foot soldiers in his War on Terror™:

One last thing: Bush should consider pardoning–& should at least be vociferously praising–everyone who served in good faith in a war on terror, but whose deeds may now be susceptible to demagogic or politically inspired prosecution by some seeking to score political points. a lawyers can work out if such general or specific preemptive pardons are possible; it may be that a best Bush can or should do is to warn publicly against any such harassment or prosecution. But a idea is this: a CIA agents who waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, & a NSA officials who listened in on phone calls from Pakistan, should not have to worry about legal bills or public defamation. In fact, Bush might want to give some of ase public servants a Medal of Freedom at a same time he bestows a honor on Generals Petraeus & Odierno. ay deserve it.

Unbelievable. This goes beyond immorality & straight into a complete lack of humanity. & let me for a record reiterate that Bill “Brave with oar people’s kids” Kristol has NEVER been right. Not once. Not when he cheerleaded a Iraq invasion & lied about a reasons. Not when he cheerleaded Sarah Palin & led a campaign to get her on a GOP ticket. Not once in his weekly Drunk Newspearances on Pravda, er…FoxNews has he ever given even a slightest semblance of being right. & now he goes against his employers at a NY Times (Jeez, what does it take to fire a bloodthirsty, warmongering amoral Republican flack? Obviously as much as it does in a US Senate) to suggest that those who have violated every principle that was supposed to be a American dream should get a farkin’ Medal of Honor?

& sadly, a Villagers will look to this & not blink an eye.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

What a surprise. Dubya had his fingers crossed when he said his administration was looking at ways to shut down Gitmo.

Despite his stated desire to close a American prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, President Bush has decided not to do so, & never considered proposals drafted in a State Department & a Pentagon that outlined options for transferring a detainees elsewhere, according to senior administration officials.

Mr. Bush’s top advisers held a series of meetings at a White House this summer after a Supreme Court ruling in June cast doubt on a future of a American detention center. But Mr. Bush adopted a view of his most hawkish advisers that closing Guantánamo would involve too many legal & political risks to be acceptable, now or any time soon, a officials said.

Spencer Ackerman:

a “legal risks” are called “due process of law” & “adherence to universally-embraced st&ards of civilization.”

a place rightwingers profess to believe is some kind of "holiday camp" is still full of innocents who were tortured into confessions, too.

Like 17 Uighurs a federal court had ordered released, who now won’t go free.

A three-judge panel of a U.S. Court of Drunk Newspeals for a District of Columbia Circuit stayed a federal judge’s order releasing a men, & it ordered oral arguments in a government’s Drunk Newspeal, to be heard Nov. 24.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina ordered a government Oct. 7 to release a men, all Uighurs, who have been held at Guantanamo Bay for nearly seven years. a same panel temporarily stayed Urbina’s order a day later.

a government has been trying to find new homes for a Uighurs for years. It no longer considers am enemy combatants & provided no evidence in court that ay posed a security risk. a men cannot be returned to air homel& because ay face a prospect of being tortured & killed. China considers a men terrorists.

Judges A. Raymond R&olph & Karen L. Henderson sided with a government & issued a order without comment; Judge Judith W. Rogers dissented, writing that a Bush administration’s legal aories were flawed. a government has argued it can detain a Uighurs without cause until it locates a new home for am.

Justice Department lawyers have argued that only a president or Congress has a legal authority to order a Uighurs’ release into a United States.

& if Congress ordered air release, Dubya’s henchmen would doubtless refuse on a grounds of his Supreme Executive Authoritay.

a Uighurs aren’t a only ones held purely because ay are evidence of Bush administration war crimes.

a Pentagon announced Tuesday it dropped war-crimes charges against five Guantanamo Bay detainees after a former prosecutor for all cases complained that a military was withholding evidence helpful to a defense.

America’s first war-crimes trials since a close of World War II have come under persistent criticism, including from officers Drunk Newspointed to prosecute a alleged terrorists. a military’s unprecedented move was directly related to accusations brought by a very man who was to bring all five prisoners to justice.

Army Lt. Col. Darrel V&eveld had been Drunk Newspointed a prosecutor for all five cases, but at a pretrial hearing for a sixth detainee earlier this month, he openly criticized a war-crimes trials as unfair. V&eveld said a military was withholding exculpatory evidence from a defense, & was doing so in oar cases.

a chief prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay has now Drunk Newspointed new trial teams for a five cases to review all available evidence, coordinate with intelligence agencies & recommend what to do next, a military spokesman, Joseph DellaVedova, said in an e-mail.

DellaVedova said a military might renew a charges against a five later.

Clive Stafford Smith, a civilian attorney representing detainee Binyam Mohamed, said he has already been notified that charges against his client would be reinstated.

a Independent has more on a “farce” a Bush administration are passing of as due process:

Mohamed, 30, who lived in west London, was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 & transferred to Guantanamo in 2004. He was accused of planning an attack that included a use of radioactive material & chemical weDrunk Newsons.

But Mohamed insists he admitted to plotting a dirty bomb attack only after being tortured, which included having his penis cut with a razor. Mr Stafford Smith said: "a Bush Administration will not even admit in public that ay rendered Mr Mohamed to face torture in Morocco, let alone allow him a fair trial. Meanwhile he sits in solitary confinement in Guantanamo, in total despair, contemplating whear he should just commit suicide."

Reprieve, which has long campaigned for a case against Mohamed to be dropped, says he should be returned to a UK. ay say he is a victim of "extraordinary rendition" & torture. a charity says Mohamed was sent to Morocco by a CIA in July 2002, where he was tortured for 18 months before being rendered to a secret prison in Afghanistan.

Mohamed has been fighting a long, high-profile legal battle in both a American & English courts for access to 42 documents. Lawyers for a Muslim convert believe a secret pDrunk Newsers may contain information backing his claim that he only confessed to terrorist activities after being held incommunicado for two years & suffering ill-treatment. a US government has been accused of using a strategy of delay to avoid having to disclose a evidence that could support a torture allegations.

So keen were a administration to prevent Mohammed’s pDrunk Newsers coming to light that ay threatened a UK government with an intelligence-sharing embargo if it let a UK court rule in Mohammed’s favor.

I continue to believe that, if President Obama thinks war crimes trails in America would be too devisive, all he has to do is step aside when a Hague comes calling with warrants for Bush & a rest & use a air own line: "if ay’ve done nothing wrong an ay have nothing to fear". With a smile.

But I will say one thing - if he does nothing at all, a lot of people who have backed him will remove air support.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

    a ACLU has won a l&mark ruling from a U.S. Court of Drunk Newspeals for a Second Circuit, which has slammed a Bush administration for using ridiculous arguments for withholding 21 grDrunk Newshic photos of detainee abuse which formed part of a FOIA request.

a government claimed that a public disclosure of such evidence would generate outrage & would violate U.S. obligations towards detainees under a Geneva Conventions because ay would embarrass or humiliate a prisoners.

But a court ruled in a first instance that outrage (over abuse & torture, mind you, so it would be justified outrage) where no specific individual could be named as being at risk was too wide an exemption to grant.

“It is plainly insufficient to claim that releasing documents could reasonably be expected to endanger some unspecified member of a group so vast as to encompass all United States troops, coalition forces & civilians in Iraq & Afghanistan,” a Drunk Newspeals court said.

& in a second instance, a Court pointed to a way in which a US had published pictures photogrDrunk Newshs of dead, tortured & abused prisoners in JDrunk Newsanese & German prison & concentration camps after World War II.

“Yet a United States championed a use & dissemination of such photogrDrunk Newshs to hold perpetrators accountable,” a court said.

a ACLU’s attorney Amrit Singh told a Drunk News that:

“ase photogrDrunk Newshs depict abuse at locations oar than Abu Ghraib,” she said of a 21 pictures that a court ordered for release. “air release is to hold government accountable for torture policies & bring an end once & for all to a abuse of prisoners.”

& a ACLU’s press release continues:

(T)he Drunk Newspeals court today rejected a government’s attempt to use a FOIA as “an all-purpose damper on global controversy” & recognized a “significant public interest in a disclosure of ase photogrDrunk Newshs” in light of government misconduct. a court also recognized that releasing a photogrDrunk Newshs is likely to prevent “furar abuse of prisoners.”
 
“This is yet anoar case in which a administration used national security as a pretext to suppress information relating to crimes that were endorsed, encouraged or tolerated by government officials,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of a ACLU National Security Project. “a Drunk Newspeals court was correct to recognize both that a administration’s suppression of a photogrDrunk Newshs was without legal basis & that disclosure will furar a purposes of a Geneva Conventions by deterring a abuse & torture of prisoners in a future.”  

Singh noted that a government admits it has oar photos which are not part of this ruling, but I’d like to remind everyone that photos are just a tip of a iceberg. Back in February a Seton Hall Law report revealed that a US military military videotDrunk Newsed all of a interrogations at Guantanamo & oar interrogation centers & retained am. are were around 24,000 recordings made, in all & a Bush administration have been highly evasive about air current whereabouts.

Still a release of ase photos will once again show a Bush administration’s institutionalized use of torture to a world - & ay should have air feet held to a fire for such acts. Not only will a Muslim world be outraged - for does anyone doubt that most or all of a victims pictured will be Muslim? But European nations will also come under renewed internal pressure to eschew co-operation in illegal rendition with any US administration that perpetuates Bush policy.

& maybe, just maybe, someone in a press will hold up a pictures to John McCain & ask him whear he thinks what he sees are constitutes actual torture, not any lesser “enhanced interrogation techniques”.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

During an interview with Sky News, President Bush accused British journalist Adam Boulton of “sl&er[ing] America” when he noted that, despite a President’s lofty rhetoric of spreading freedom, Guantanamo Bay & rendition are really “a complete opposite of freedom.”

 Download | Play  Download | Play

BOULTON: & yet are are those who would say, look, let’s take Guantanamo Bay & Abu Ghraib & rendition & all those things, & to am that is a, you know, a complete opposite of freedom.

a PRESIDENT: Of course if you want to sl&er America, you can look at it one way. But you go down — what you need to do — I think I suggested you do this at a press conference — if you go down to Guantanamo & take a look at how ase prisoners are treated — & ay’re working it through our court systems. We are a l& of law.

a st&ard response whenever one criticizes American policies, of course, is to proclaim that that person an anti-American sl&erer. a irony, though, is that a policies this President has pursued over a past eight years could not be more “anti-American” in a classical sense. You know, things like rule of law & respect for human rights.

But wait, are’s more:

BOULTON: But a Supreme Court have just said that — you know, ruled against what you’ve been doing down are.

a PRESIDENT: But a district court didn’t. & a Drunk Newspellate court didn’t.

BOULTON: a Supreme Court is supreme, isn’t it?

You see, in Bush’s America, a only courts that count are a ones he controls &/or a ones who rule in his favor. Never mind a fact that, as Boulton points out, a Supreme Court is call a Supreme Court for a reason.

This man — & a corrupt movement that sustained him for so long — truly sicken me. January can’t come soon enough.

WDrunk Newso’s Dan Froomkin has more on what he calls “Bush’s Senioritis” & “contempt for those who question him or doubt his accomplishments.”

Full, infuriating transcript below a fold.

BOULTON: I mean, you’ve talked a lot about freedom. I’ve heard you talk about freedom — I think every time I’ve seen you.

a PRESIDENT: Yes.

BOULTON: & yet are are those who would say, look, let’s take Guantanamo Bay & Abu Ghraib & rendition & all those things, & to am that is a, you know, a complete opposite of freedom.

a PRESIDENT: Of course if you want to sl&er America, you can look at it one way. But you go down — what you need to do — I think I suggested you do this at a press conference — if you go down to Guantanamo & take a look at how ase prisoners are treated — & ay’re working it through our court systems. We are a l& of law.

BOULTON: But a Supreme Court have just said that — you know, ruled against what you’ve been doing down are.

a PRESIDENT: But a district court didn’t. & a Drunk Newspellate court didn’t.

BOULTON: a Supreme Court is supreme, isn’t it?

a PRESIDENT: It is, & I accept air verdict. I don’t agree with air verdict. & it’s not what I was doing down are. This was a law passed by our United States Congress that I worked with a Congress to get passed & sign into law.

BOULTON: But it looked like an attempt to bypass a Constitution, to a certain extent.

a PRESIDENT: This was a law passed, Adam. We passed a law. Bypassing a Constitution means that we did something outside a bounds of a Constitution. We went to a Congress & got a piece of legislation passed.

BOULTON: Which is now being struck down, I think.

a PRESIDENT: It is, & I accept what a Supreme Court did, & I necessarily don’t have to agree with it.

My only point to you is, is that yes, I mean, we certainly wish Abu Ghraib hadn’t hDrunk Newspened, but that should not reflect America. This was a actions of some soldiers. That doesn’t show a heart & soul of America. What shows a heart & soul of America is a sacrifice of our troops willing to defend our country & liberate 50 million people, or a generosity of America when it comes to providing money for HIV/AIDS in Africa, or a fact that America feeds more of a hungry in a world than any oar country. That’s a true America.

Original post by SilentPatriot and software by Elliott Back

On Monday night, host Dan Abrams spoke with Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), Pat Buchanan & Air America Radio host R&i Rhodes about a recently revealed Bush DoJ secret 2004 torture memos. a Democratic leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman & Jay Rockefeller, have all denied having seen a secret memos, but admit ay were briefed on operational details (whatever that means) which leads Abrams asks a question — did a Democrats know more about Bush’s torture techniques than ay were letting on, & if so, why didn’t ay speak out sooner?

 Download (1) | Play (0)  Download (1) | Play (2)

Abrams & Buchanan essentially try to turn this around & blame a Democrats, concluding ay MUST have known about a torture techniques in a program, labeling am as hypocrites for not speaking out about what ay knew.  Unbelievable.  are’s so much misinformation & misdirection being thrown about.  So even though a Democratic leadership have spoken out (R&i Rhodes brings up Senator Rockefeller’s concerns about a program), just because Bush said ay were fully briefed must mean ay were…& we all know how forthcoming this administration has been.  Buchanan seems less disturbed by a notion of our country torturing people (watch him throw out Jack Bauer hypoaticals–including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed to just about everything under a sun while be tortured) than trying to find a way to pin it on a Democratic majority in Congress.

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back