Republicans Are Outraged At Obama - Again

Republicans say they are outraged with President Obama (although it seems like they live in a permanent state of outrage over the president). This time it's because he successfully negotiated the release of an American soldier who had been a prisoner of Afghan militants for the last five years (Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl).

Why are the Republicans so outraged? They claim that the president negotiated with "terrorists" -- and illegally released prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl.

Their outrage is ridiculous. First, because it was no secret to begin with. Congress was notified that the talks were going on before any agreement was released. Why are they just now expressing their outrage. Could it be that they didn't really oppose the negotiations, but just wanted to get some barbs in at the president?

As for prisoners being released from Guantanamo, I would just ask why they weren't all released. Both of the last two administrations have admitted that for most (if not all) of the detainees in Guantanamo, we have no evidence that they have committed any crime or taken action against this country in any way. They are there because someone in their native country made claims (which can't be proven) and turned them in for a cash reward. For all we know, they are there just because of someone's greed or hard feelings that have nothing to do with the war (or terrorism).

In short, we shouldn't even be keeping those detainees in Guantanamo. If there is evidence against them, then they should be charged and tried in a court of law -- and if there isn't, then they should never have been detained (and should be immediately released).

And finally, where was the Republican outrage when their own right-wing icon, Ronald Reagan, not only negotiated with Iranian terrorists but sent them weapons in exchange for the release of Americans. Isn't sending weapons to an enemy a lot more dangerous than the release of five people we have no evidence ever did anything?

But we all know the reason for the GOP outrage -- and it has nothing to do with negotiating with terrorists or releasing prisoners from Guantanamo. It's because they simply can't stand the idea of an African-American being president.

(The image of the GOP elephant above is by DonkeyHotey.)

Suspects Caught & The Road To Justice Begins

The men pictured above are Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. It took the combined police agencies of the federal, state, and local governments less than a week to identify them as the suspects in the Boston marathon bombings. Both have now been apprehended -- with Tamerlan being killed during his stand-off with the police, and Dzhokhar is in the hospital with serious injuries. This is a good thing, and I join the people of Boston and America in applauding the way the various police agencies worked together to catch the suspected culprits.

But I have to disagree with the spokesman for the state police who said that justice has been done. While the suspects are no longer at large, the road to true justice is just getting started. I hope Dzhokhar does survive his wounds, because there needs to be a trial -- so the victims of the disaster can get a bit of closure, and so it can be demonstrated to the world that the right men were apprehended and given a fair trial.

And a fair trial is required. It bothers me some that the president has invoked the "public safety" exemption to the Miranda warning -- giving policing agencies the right to question Dzhokhar without reading him the Miranda warning. There doesn't seem to be any real question of public safety here, since it is pretty obvious the two brothers acted alone -- and without financial or other help from outside sources (since they had to try to rob a convenience store and steal a car to try to escape, and their bombs were not sophisticated).

It seems to me that it is now far more important to rigidly adhere to the rule of law, to show the world that even terrorists are treated fairly in American courts -- by giving the Miranda warning, providing the suspect an attorney, and insuring that he gets a fair trial (with all the rights that anyone else in this country would get). It may feel good for many in this country to deny this suspect his basic constitutional rights, but that's not justice -- it's retribution or revenge.

Don't get me wrong. If Dzhokhar is guilty (and I believe he probably is), then I hope he is convicted and punished as severely as possible. But we must do it the right way. The rule of law is too important to every American to be tossed away because a suspect is hated by nearly everyone. That is just the kind of defendant the constitutional amendments were designed to protect from government malfeasance (the popular people will always get their rights respected and protected). And if any right can be withheld from this defendant, then it can also be withheld from anyone else in this country, anytime the government wants to do it.

The world is watching. Will we uphold the rule of law and give this defendant a fair trial, or will we embarrass ourselves (and jeopardize our own rights) -- the way we have treated the inmates at Guantanamo (who have been denied lawyers, charges, or fair trails)? Labeling someone as a terrorist should not make them any different from any other criminal suspect. The people of this country need to realize that rights are either for everyone or they are not for anyone. Those who wrote the Constitution knew that, and it is up to us to re-affirm it.

An Unnecessary Death

The man pictured above is Adnan Farham Abdul Latif. He is a Yemeni citizen, and had been held in the prison at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. He was being held in isolation because his jailers said he was a "disciplinary problem" -- having been on a hunger strike (that he ended in June) and having thrown a "cocktail" of food and bodily fluids at guards. On Saturday, he was found dead in his cell.

He had threatened to commit suicide, and may have done so -- the results of an autopsy have not been released. And the NCIS is investigating his death. But whatever the actual cause of his death, it was an unnecessary death that should not have happened -- at least not at Gitmo.

Three years ago, an administrative panel had cleared Latif for release -- a decision that could not have been reached without the agreement of all of the intelligence services (who evidently did not consider him to be a danger to this country). He had also been cleared by a United States judge, who said accusations that he was connected to al-Queda were "unconvincing". Latif had also never been charged with any crime.

This all brings up a good question -- Why was he still in custody at Gitmo THREE YEARS LATER? The only excuse the government has come up with is that the Obama administration had appealed his release because they didn't want to send him back to the "unsettled" country of Yemen. That's simply not good enough. We are supposed to be a nation of laws, and we should not be holding people in prison without charges, especially after they are cleared for release, just because of the unsettled political situation in another country.

This was a death that need not have happened. And it is a death that must be laid at the feet of the Obama administration. He should have been released three years ago. But he is not the only one that is still being held without charges or proof that they pose any kind of danger to this country. It is time (actually way past the time) for the United States to finally live up to its reputation as a nation of laws -- and release those prisoners it has no intention of charging or trying in a court of law.

Gitmo Violates Both American And International Law

I have posted several times about the unconstitutional prison the United States has established at Guantanamo Bay. For years the United States has housed prisoners in that facility without charging them with a crime, giving them a trial, or even allowing them access to a court to legally challenge their imprisonment.

The United States has always claimed to be a nation governed by the "rule of law", where even the agencies of government must abide by legal restrictions. But the atrocities of Gitmo makes a laughingstock of the rule of law, since the government can now hold prisoners indefinitely (including American citizens) with out charges by simply labeling them as "terrorists".

It now turns out that the activities of the U.S. government in Gitmo not only violate U.S. laws and constitutional protections, but also violate international law. That is the conclusion of United Nations human rights chief Navi Pillay. He noted that while the U.S. has held hundreds of prisoners at Gitmo, only six have been charged and tried while eight have died in custody. Pillay said:

“While fully recognizing the right and duty of states to protect their people and territory from terrorist acts, I remind all branches of the U.S. government of their obligation under international human rights law to ensure that individuals deprived of their liberty can have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed before a court,” Pillay said. “Where credible evidence exists against Guantanamo detainees, they should be charged and prosecuted. Otherwise, they must be released.”

Isn't it time for the President to keep his campaign promise and close the prison at Guantanamo? The argument that it is necessary to control terrorism is ludicrous. In the past, the government has not had any problem with trying and convicting those guilty of terrorism, while following the rule of law. The only thing that has changed is the election of weak-minded fear-mongering politicians who want to use terrorism as their ticket to stay in office. Frankly, it would be better to get rid of them than to toss out the Constitution.

Iranians Use Gitmo To Justify Mistreatment

As you've probably heard by now, the Iranian government has released a couple of American hikers who wandered into their country -- supposedly by accident. They were accused of being spies and imprisoned for more than two years under less than desirable conditions. The prison conditions were poor and they were forced to spend long periods of time in isolation. And when they complained about their treatment, the guards justified the treatment by because of the way the U.S. treats prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (and other CIA prisons around the world). The hikers said:

In prison, every time we complained about our conditions, the guards would immediately remind us of comparable conditions at Guantanamo Bay. They would remind us of CIA prisons in other parts of the world, and the conditions that Iranians and others experience in prisons in the U.S. We do not believe that such human rights violations on the part of our government justify what has been done to us. Not for a moment. However, we do believe that these actions on the part of the U.S. provide an excuse for other governments, including the government of Iran, to act in kind.

This could have been (and was) predicted many years ago when the Bush/Cheney administration set up Gitmo and authorized the mistreatment (and even torture) of prisoners. And sadly, while the Obama administration says they have stopped the torture, the prison at Guantanamo continues to operate. This is what happens when this country decides it doesn't have to abide by international law -- it frees other countries to do the same to American citizens.

Isn't it time to close Guantanamo? Isn't it time to climb back up to the moral high ground? Torture and mistreatment of prisoners gains us nothing in security, but it has hurt our reputation around the world.

Back To The Kangaroo Courts

When he was on the campaign trail in 2008, Barack Obama promised to close down Guantanamo as a prison camp. When he first became president it looked like he might actually carry through on his promise. He discontinued the military tribunals (kangaroo courts) that considered defendant's rights to be unimportant and admitted "evidence" gotten by torture into court. He said the prisoners were be given fair trials in civilian courts and the "rule of law" would be upheld. This would be the first step in closing Guantanamo.

But he received a lot of opposition from the politicians in Washington (of both parties). These politicians had been playing on the fears of Americans for so long that they were now unwilling to admit that U.S. courts were very capable of dealing with terrorists (as they have demonstrated many times in the past). Instead of fighting for the rule of law and for justice, which this nation claims to believe in, President Obama backed down. There have been no civilian fair trials and Guantanamo is still open.

The president had a golden opportunity to show the rest of the world, both friends and enemies, that the United States was willing to practice what it preaches -- fair trials, the rule of law, and true justice, even for those who may have committed heinous crimes like terrorism. But he blew it. Now he has backed down even further, back into territory once occupied only by the criminal Bush administration. The president has announced that he will be resuming the unfair and secret military tribunals (kangaroo courts) at Guantanamo.

This continues a very bad precedent set by the Bush administration -- that fair trials are only offered if the national government wants them to be offered, and that a fair trial can be denied anytime the national government wants it done. What happened to justice, fair trials, and the rule of law? If these can be denied to anyone, then they can be denied to everyone. President Obama is putting America back on the slippery slope that leads to show trials and guilty before even being tried. Isn't that what fascist governments do?

Justice isn't something we can give only to some people and deny to others. The only way to protect the rights of all Americans is to insure that everyone arrested or held by the government gets those same rights. There is no other way. Justice is either for everyone or it's for no one.

Justice Still Denied At Guantanamo

Back in the Bush administration, a system of military tribunals was created to try muslims taken prisoner outside the United States -- many of whom were turned in to the United States military for money with little or no proof of wrongdoing. Bush and Cheney knew they would not be able to convict any of these prisoners in a United States court of law because if they had any "proof" at all it was usually derived from torture.

They created, with the help of a misguided Congress, a system of military tribunals where the level of proof would not be very strict and where evidence derived from torture could be used. This was done in spite of the fact that it violated the rule of law and all concepts of human decency. It was deemed more important to keep these prisoners locked up to justify two illegal wars and the use of torture than to dispense justice, and the reputation of the United States worldwide suffered because of it.

When the Republicans were booted from power in 2008, many of us had hoped that this country would once again return to the rule of law, even for muslim and political prisoners. The Democrats (and President Obama) talked a good game, but have not delivered on this promise yet. Guantanamo is still open and still is imprisoning people without trial or proof of guilt.

And now we hear the kangaroo courts (military tribunals) are once again moving forward. And the rules for these pseudo-courts have not changed. They are still accepting evidence that could never be entered in a real U.S. court of law.

Take the case of Omar Khadr, who was only 15 years old when captured. He is accused of killing a United States soldier by throwing a grenade. He was captured after a firefight in Afghanistan (after being shot twice in the chest). The problem is that there is no proof that he actually threw any grenade -- no proof that would be accepted in an American court.

The only proof is the boy's confession -- a confession he made after first denying his guilt many times. It was only after an interrogator told him he would be anally-raped and killed unless he confessed, that he finally told the interrogators he threw the grenade. The problem is that like a confession from being tortured, a confession derived by threats cannot be trusted since the person may have just been saying that to prevent more torture or rape or to save his life, and not because he was really guilty.

The tribunal's judge, Army Colonel Patrick Parrish, doesn't concern himself with the rule of law though. He has ruled that evidence obtained by torture and threats can be used against Mr. Khadr in the tribunal proceedings. Obviously the tribunal is all about getting a guilty verdict -- not seeing that justice is done.

I could understand why the Bush administration would countenance this type of injustice -- they were protecting themselves and the torture they had authorized. But I don't understand why the Obama administration is allowing this kind of injustice to continue. In the 2008 campaign, Obama promised to close Guantanamo and punish the guilty in a real court of law (and release those for which no proof of guilt had been found). He also promised to end the torturing of prisoners.

Now I do not believe that real terrorists should be freed. They should be taken to court and convicted on the basis of real evidence -- just like all other criminals. But if there is no evidence, then those accused should be released (and a presidential declaration they are terrorists is not proof -- only an accusation). It is not right that proof is needed to convict home-grown violent criminals (rapists, murderers, etc.), but not needed to convict muslims. Isn't murder still murder, no matter who does it?

Justice and the rule of law is one of the basic foundations of the United States, and denying it to anyone (no matter how scary we think they might be) is an attack on our laws and way of life. It is shameful and must be stopped.

Bush Knowingly Imprisoned Innocents

Many of us on the left have been calling for Bush, Cheney and others in that administration to be held accountable for the crimes they committed. They started and waged an illegal war with a country that posed us no danger, resulting in the deaths of millions of people. They trashed the Constitution by spying on American citizens and others without a search warrant. And they made a mockery of the rule of law by keeping people in prison for years without charges or a trial.

Now we learn of another crime they committed -- putting people in prison and keeping them there for years even though they knew those people were innocent. This is inexcusable behavior for any government, and what makes it worse is that they did it for political reasons. Justifying their own atrocious behavior was more important than the lives of hundreds of innocent people.

This is not just my view. It is the view and sworn testimony of a high-ranking official in the Bush administration -- Lawrence Wilkerson. Colonel Wilkerson, a 31 year U.S. Army veteran, was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell during the Bush presidency. His accusations were made in a signed and sworn declaration in support of an innocent former Guantanamo detainee.

Wilkerson said hundreds of prisoners were turned over to U.S. officials by Afghans and Pakistanis for cash payments of up to $5000, and there was little or no evidence that these men (and children as young as 12) were terrorists or ever had any kind of connection to terrorism. In other words, they were innocent victims. But that did not stop the Bush administration from sending them to Guantanamo, torturing them and using them as public relations pawns to justify the Iraqi invasion and occupation.

Wilkerson said Cheney and Rumsfeld refused to release the detainees known to be innocent because "the detention efforts would be revealed as the incredibly confused operation that they were", and that was "not acceptable to the Administration and would have been severely detrimental to the leadership at DoD."

He went on to say that Cheney "had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantanamo detainees were innocent. . .if hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it."

Wilkerson said that according to Cheney and Rumsfeld "innocent people languishing in Guantanamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks."

But it gets even worse. Wilkerson said, "I discussed the issue of the Guantanamo detainees with Secretary Powell. I learnt that it was his view that it was not just Vice-President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, but also President Bush who was involved in all of the Guantanamo decision making."

This is deplorable behavior for a government official of any rank. There is no justification, and never will be any justification for putting an innocent person in prison, or keeping a person in prison after determining the person's innocence. This goes against not only the rule of law, but the very foundations of a free country.

Isn't it time we gave Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld a fair trial and some prison jumpsuits? Isn't it time for these guilty men to experience what they put hundreds of innocent persons through?

Chavez Would Accept Gitmo Detainees

To his credit, President Obama has declared that he's going to shut down Guantanamo Bay detention facility. But to do that, he needs to do something with the detainees being held there, and there are only two options -- convict them or release them. If we have evidence (that wasn't obtained or tainted by torture), then we should convict them and put them in a federal prison. The others should be released as soon as possible.

It's the ones that need to be released that pose a problem. Many of them cannot be sent back where they came from because they would probably be oppressed (such as the Uighars from China who have been declared not guilty of any crime). The problem is that no one, including our allies, have declared their willingness to accept these detainees. They can't be released until some country is willing to accept them.

Maybe that problem has been partially solved. While visiting Qatar the other day, Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez (pictured above) said he would be willing to accept some Guantanamo detainees. He told Arabic TV, "We wouldn't have any problem in taking in human beings."

When asked about the offer, a U.S. Justice Department spokesman said, "The United States has not received a formal offer through diplomatic channels to resettle detainees to Venezuela, and is not contemplating resettling detainees to Venezuela." All I have to say about that, is maybe they better start considering it and get some talks going through those diplomatic channels. I don't see anyone else making any offers.

Some are saying he's just trying to embarrass the United States, and others are saying he's just trying to get some publicity for himself. WHO CARES? I say take him up on his offer and give him as many as he'll take. If he'll actually take some off our hands, that's great. If he's just bluffing, then call him on it and he's the one who'll look bad.

We really can't afford to ignore any offer received. And so far, this is the only offer we've had. I realize many Americans don't like Chavez, but that's a poor reason to turn down any offer of help. Every day that Guantanamo stays open makes America look worse.

Government Accused Of Hiding Evidence

It looks like the Bush administration is going to continue their illegal and unethical behavior right up to his last minute in office. With only two weeks left in Bush's term, the government is being accused by a federal judge of hiding evidence from the court.

U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan was supposed to rule this week on the release of a 38 year-old Yemeni doctor who has been held at Guantanamo Bay for six years. His attorneys said the doctor, Aymen Saeed Batarfi, was on a humanitarian aid mission in Afghanistan when he was wounded and captured by Northern Alliance forces, who then turned him over to Americans. However, the government says he was aiding al-Queda.

The judge says he can't make a decision yet because the government did not turn over necessary documents until recently, and he hasn't had time to review them. He has put off his decision until after a hearing on March 9th.

During yesterday's hearing Judge Sullivan said, "I think it's unfair, I think it's disingenuous. This government, especially, hides the ball when it suits this government's purpose."

Of course, he is right, but this is nothing new for the Bush administration. For the last eight years, they've turned the concept of a fair trial into little more than a sick joke. It's no wonder the world no longer looks to us as the beacon of justice.

Thank goodness this dark time in American history is nearly over.

Government Wrong About Uighurs

Once again, the Bush administration is flaunting the rule of law and trying to keep a group of innocent men incarcerated. The ethnic muslim Uighurs are from the western part of China. Seventeen of these men left China to avoid Chinese repression. They wound up in Afghanistan, and were there when the United States attacked in 2001.

When the U.S. offered cash rewards for Afghanis to turn in muslim fighters, some Afghanis saw the opportunity to make some money off the "foreigners" and turned them in to United States troops. They were sent to Guantanamo Bay, where they were kept as prisoners for years.

In 2004, the United States military decided the seventeen men were NOT enemy combatants. But they continued to hold them in prison. They claimed they had trained at a camp in Afghanistan, and therefore could not enter the United States. But they also could not find any other country that would take them. So for the last four years, the Bush administration has imprisoned men they know are innocent.

It looked like the problem might finally be solved earlier this week. A District Court Judge had ruled the prisoners were to be brought to his court this Friday, where it would be determined where they would be released. But the Bush administration appealed, and the appeals court has now issued a temporary stay until they can hear the government's argument.

The Bush administration is claiming only the executive branch of the government can admit foreigners into the United States, not a court. They are using this technical argument to keep innocent men in prison. This is just wrong. This is a matter of injustice -- not immigration.

It is the fault of the United States government that these men are now on U.S. soil (and Guantanamo is currently U.S. soil as long as the U.S. government is the sole authority there). We cannot use an immigration technicality to keep men in prison after they have been declared to be innocent -- especially when they are on U.S. soil solely because of U.S. policy and not through their own actions.

It is time to release these men. If no other country will take them, then they must be allowed to stay in the United States. Anything short of giving them their freedom is both immoral and illegal. The Bush administration must be forced to respect and follow the rule of law.

Guantanamo: A Legacy Of Shame

It will take the United States many years to live down the atrocity known as Gitmo - Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility. It was bad enough that the Bush administration was lying to everyone about the torture going on there. Torture was commonplace. The Bush administration says what they did at Guantanamo garnered them valuable information about terrorism. However, CIA analysts who had to evaluate the information said it was worthless.

Of course, most information gathered by torture is worthless. A man being tortured is far more interested in telling you what you want to hear than in telling the truth. That's because when you hear what you want to hear the torture will stop, whereas the truth might only invite further torture.

But now we learn via an investigation by McClatchy News that there is another reason the information was worthless. Hundreds of the detainees were either very low-level Taliban foot-soldiers, or they were not connected to terrorism at all. In other words, they had no information to give.

They were reported to police or American soldiers as terrorists, because of old fueds and disputes or simply to get some reward money. Very soon after the U.S. entered Afghanistan, it was learned that the U.S. would pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for anyone with terrorist ties, and did little or no checking to verify the truth of accusations. If you didn't like someone, just tell the authorities he was a terrorist. They would arrest him and pay you a big bounty -- whether it was true or not.

The sad thing is that the Bush administration knew this was happening. But they were so paranoid about letting a real terrorist slip through their hands, that they imprisoned over 770 at Guantanamo anyway. Of that 770, only six have ever been charged with a crime. Hundreds of others have been finally released after years of incarceration and torture.

There are still nearly 300 detainees at Gitmo. One is left to wonder, why have only six been charged if all of them pose a danger to the United States. Obviously, no evidence exists of this "danger", except in the depraved minds of members of the Bush administration. If any evidence existed, charges would have been filed.

Now it becomes clear why the Bush administration wanted to deny even the most basic legal rights to the detainees. They had absolutely no evidence on which to hold them, but were afraid if they released them that one or two might actually turn out later to have been a terrorist. It simply did not matter to them that hundreds of innocents were being imprisoned and tortured.

Bush seems to think that history will vindicate him in the long-run. I think just the opposite will happen. I think as more and more of the truth comes out, future generations will revile him and wonder how our generation could have allowed him to do such terrible things. In fact, I wonder that myself.

This generation tried to impeach one president for getting a "blow-job" in the White House, but let another get away with starting an unnecessary war that killed thousand of innocents and tortured and imprisoned many others.

I was going to ask where are our values, but I think a better question may be -- do we have any values other than fear and greed?

Supreme Court Slaps Bush Down Again

Since Bush became president, he has tried to assume the powers of a king. He wants to be able to put people in prison and hold them there for years with charges or a fair trial. He was even able to talk a Republican-controlled Congress into passing a law that gave him that ability -- as long as the arrestee was a foriegner and Bush labeled him a terrorist.

But I think he always knew he was violating the Constitution. That's why he kept the prisoners in our military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Bush thought if he kept foriegners that he called terrorists in a facility outside of the United States, then he wouldn't have to abide by the Constitution or the rule of law.

He was wrong. A couple of months ago, the Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo was considered U.S. property as far as the law was concerned since the only authority there was the United States military and government. Yesterday, the Supreme Court restored the right of habeas corpus.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court said the detainees in Guantanamo do have the right to appeal their detention to a United States civilian court. They cannot be held for years without charge or trial and denied the ability to appeal their unlawful detention. The majority decision was written by Justice Kennedy (pictured above). He was joined in the majority by Ginsberg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer.

I applaud these justices. It sets a dangerous precedent when anyone is denied access to the court system, and can be held indefinitely without charges or trial. We are supposed to be a nation that relies on the rule of law. But if that rule of law can be denied to one person, who is to say that can't be extended to others?

I am no lover of terrorists. If the United States government has evidence that any of the detainees engaged in acts of terrorism, they should bring them to a duly authorized court and give them a fair trial. If they are then found guilty, they should be punished severely.

A perfect example of how to treat terrorists is how the U.S. government acted against Timothy McVeigh. He was given a fair trial, convicted and punished according to law. All legal and constitutional guarantees were respected.

But if there is not enough evidence to bring a criminal to trial, then they should be released. A nation based on the rule of law does not keep a person incarcerated for years without charges. The United States government needs to charge the detainees and give them a fair trial, or release them.

Bush still doesn't want to do that. He said he is thinking of asking Congress for another law to allow him to keep these dictatorial powers. But the Republicans no longer control Congress. Congressional Democrats must show they have a backbone. They must deny him any such unconstitutional law.

Democrats must not give in this time. It's too important.

Candidate Differences On Gitmo Inmates

President Bush has kept prisoners in Guantanamo for years now. He has held them without charges and even tortured them. But the one thing he has not done, is convict any of them on serious charges. An Australian was convicted by the military tribunal (read kangaroo court), but was sentenced to only a few months jail time.

Now it's obvious that we cannot go on holding hundreds of prisoners without charges. The only thing that is being accomplished is the destruction of our reputation for fairness and justice in the eyes of the rest of the civilized world. It is long past time to either convict these prisoners in a fair trial or release them.

That is just what the Democratic candidates want to do. Clinton advisor Lee Feinstein says, "While the policies at Guantanamo have hurt America's image, this is more than just an image problem. Senator Clinton believes those who have committed crimes against the United States should be brought to justice. And that justice is long overdue. Proper military commissions are established to expedite battlefield justice, but the deeply flawed military commissions set up by the Bush administration and blessed by the Republican Congress in 2006 have only delayed the administration of justice in these cases."

Senator Clinton believes the prisoners should be brought to trial in either our civilian courts or regular military courts, with all the rights that are guaranteed by those courts. Senator Obama agrees.

Obama says the "trials are too important to be held in a flawed military commission system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9/11 attacks and that has been embroiled in legal challenges. As I have said in the past, I believe that our civilian courts or our traditional system of military courts martial are best able to meet this challenge and demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law."

In other words, both Clinton and Obama would reestablish the rule of law and rehabilitate our reputation among civilized nations. They understand that you cannot have one set of laws for the people you like and another set for the people you don't like. The rule of law must apply to everyone equally, or it is worthless.

But the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, does not believe that. He wants to continue the ridiculous and unfair policies of the Bush administration. We already knew that he wouldn't mind keeping our troops in Iraq "for a hundred years", and has changed his mind about torture -- he now thinks it is OK.

But he also wants to continue Bush's military commissions. The commissions that deny the right to a lawyer, allow for secret information to be used, deny the right to cross-examine witnesses, and allow the use of info gathered by torture.

McCain's aide Randy Scheunemann says, "The last thing Senator McCain wants to see is Khalid Sheik Mohammed getting all the legal protections of someone who is arrested for a traffic violation or a criminal violation in the United States."

McCain believes that those people who he doesn't like should have less rights than his friends. Quite simply, he doesn't believe in the rule of law being equally applied to everyone. This should scare the hell out of all Americans. How do you know you won't be the next person he thinks doesn't deserve equal protection under the law?

Obama and Clinton believe in equal protection under the law. McCain doesn't. Could the choice be any clearer?

Chair Of Joint Chiefs Wants To Close Gitmo

The Bush administration thought they were going to do an end run around U.S. and international law, by using the Guantanamo Bay Naval base as a place to stash prisoners from the Afghani and Iraqi wars. Located on the tip of Cuba, it is accessible only with permission of the U.S. military.

Bush and Cheney figured that the prisoners there would be hidden from the world. That way they could deny these prisoners any legal rights, and even cut them off from defense lawyers. They could torture and humiliate the prisoners and no one would know.

But it hasn't worked out that way. The torture and humiliation being used was public knowledge from the start. Further, the denial of basic human and legal rights has made the Bush administration a pariah among civilized nations. Every day that the illegal Guantanamo prisons remain open makes them look worse.

None of this is secret, even though the Bush administration has tried to "spin" it to make themselves not look so bad. But the fact is that they know what a blunder it has been. Sec. Gates has already said Guantanamo needs to be closed. Now he has company.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States military, Admiral Mike Mullen, has made it known that he would also like to see Guantanamo closed. He made this known to reporters on Sunday. Mullen said, "I'd like to see it shut down. I believe that from the standpoint of how it reflects on us that it's been pretty damaging."

The problem now is they don't know what to do with the prisoners. If they move them to the mainland United States, they're going to have to give them access to the courts here. That would be a disaster since they don't really have any evidence against them. If they did, they would have convicted them of something years ago.

That's one reason for the torture. They were hoping to be able to use torture confessions in the military tribunals. There's no way torture confessions can be used in a U.S. court.

If they just release them, that would be an admission that they shouldn't have imprisoned and tortured them in the first place. So by trying to avoid the law by using Guantanamo, the Bush administration has just created a mess for themselves -- one that they don't know how to get out of.

And each day it makes the United States look worse.

Court Says Torture Was To Be Expected

Four British Muslims were held by the U.S.at Guantanamo for over two years before being repatriated back to Britain. When they got back, the British immediately released them without charges.

Three of the men had gone to help with humanitarian relief. They were taken prisoner by a warlord who sold them to U.S. troops. The fourth was trying to leave Pakistan to return to Britain, when he was captured by the Taliban and jailed as a spy. He was taken captive by Americans when they drove out the Taliban.

None of these men were ever armed and none of them fought in the Afghanistan war for any side. But that didn't matter to U.S. troops, who sent them to Guantanamo where they were held for two years being tortured and humiliated.

Understandably, these Britons were upset with the United States after being released, and they filed suit in federal court. They said their detention and torture violated the Alien Tort statutes, the Geneva Conventions, the religious freedom law and the U.S. Constitution.

A lower court kicked out their case, and they appealed. Last friday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia also denied their right to sue. But I have to wonder about the reasons the judges gave for dismissing the suit. It is seriously flawed, if not just downright wrong.

First, the court said the men couldn't be recognized as "persons" under the law, because they were aliens who were held outside the United States. This makes no sense because other appeals courts have ruled that Guantanamo is U.S. territory because it is subject only to U.S. authority. Anything that happened at Guantanamo, happened on United States territory.

But as wrong as that was, their other justification was even more ridiculous, and will be an embarrassment for all U.S. citizens before the court of world opinion. They said the torture the men experienced was not a violation, because under the circumstances it was to be expected. What?!! EXPECTED?!!

Why should it matter whether it was expected or not? It was against U.S. and international law. Do the Geneva Conventions say torture is OK if it is to be expected? No! Does the Constitution say it is OK to deny basic rights if it is to be expected under the circumstances? No!

Wrong is wrong, whether it is expected or not. It is very disappointing to see that an appeals court is willing to ignore the rules because they expect those rules to not be followed. Why can't we expect everyone, including ourselves, to follow the rules regardless of the circumstances?

This ruling will only further convince the world that we are a lawless nation, who is unwilling to follow the rule of law. How embarrassing for the nation once glorified as the shining example of following the rule of law.

Supreme Court Hears Plea From Guantanamo

After six years of imprisonment with no rights, no charges and no access to a court, the prisoners at Guantanamo finally get to plead for justice before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Yesterday, the Court heard arguments from attorneys for two of the Guantanamo detainees and representatives of the United States government. The Bush administration had placed the prisoners in Guantanamo believing they would have no rights since they thought the location was not United States territory.

But that argument has already been shot down and the Justices weren't interested in reviving it. A previous court has said as long as Guantanamo is subject only to American rule and authority, it is American territory -- much like an American embassy in a foreign country is considered to be American soil.

The Court now must decide whether the detainees have a right to habeas corpus (the right to demand a court give them the legal and factual basis for their imprisonment). If it is held they do have this right, then the Court must decide if the military tribunal is a reasonable alternative to civilian courts.

The government says they should not have this right, and uses the example of German prisoners in World War II who had no rights. That may sound reasonable to some, but there are some major differences between the German prisoners and the Guantanamo detainees.

The German prisoners were POWs from a specific country we were at war with, and were repatriated when that war was over. The Guantanamo detainees are from multiple countries and are victims of a nebulous war against terrorism rather than a specific country -- a war that even Bush says may never be over.

They are accused of being terrorists rather than enemy soldiers, and as such, should be charged with a crime or released. Since they are believed to be criminals rather than enemy soldiers, they should have the right of habeas corpus. Denying them this right would mean the Bush administration could hold them forever without charges.

As for the military tribunal, it is nothing more than a kangaroo court without even the illusion of fairness. Those appearing before it are not entitled to an attorney and are not entitled to know all the evidence being used against them. Even worse, the tribunal is required to assume that whatever the government says is true and accurate whether they have evidence to prove it or not.

Since none of that would be considered fair in a court of law, why would we think it was fair in a military tribunal? That is not justice -- it is a military lynching.

If we can judge by the questions they were asking, it looks like the conservatives on the Court (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) will side with the Bush administration, while the Court's liberals (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer) will come down on the side of justice. That leaves Justice Kennedy as the swing vote, and he asked few questions and gave no indication which way he was leaning.

It looks like America's reputation for fairness, justice and abiding by the rule of law rests on the shoulders of one man -- Justice Kennedy. I hope he is up to the task.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Human Rights

In a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court has said it will not rule on the constitutionality of the anti-terrorism law that allows Bush to incarcerate prisoners indefinitely and without a trial at Guantanamo.

The court says these 385 prisoners, most of whom have been imprisoned and tortured for over five years, do NOT have the right to appeal their imprisonment in the U.S. court system. What was the legal reasoning behind this denial of basic human rights? It was pretty flimsy in my opinion.

The Court said they did not have juristiction because Guantanamo was not U.S. soil. That's an odd statement, because all other embassy and military bases everywhere in the world are considered U.S. soil as long as they are occupied and controlled by the United States. What makes Guantanamo so different?

There is only one thing that makes Guantanamo different. It's because Bush and Cheney have decided they don't want these 385 human beings to have any rights. In the over 5 years of illegal imprisonment and torture, there has been only one trial. Last week, Australian David Hicks pled guilty after realizing that was the only way he would ever get to leave. He received a 9 month sentence to be served in Australia.

This is the very definition of denial of human rights. If we have evidence of the guilt of these 385, we should give them a fair trial. If we don't, we should release them.

As for Guantanamo not being U.S. soil - whose soil is it? Is it Cuba's? If so, that would make the 385 prisoners subject to the court system of Cuba (and the U.S. military should evacuate Cuba's soil. I can assure you that would make Cuba very happy.) But it is not Cuban soil, and Bush will not allow Cuban courts to intervene.

That is because as long as we have a base there, it is really considered U.S. soil. Bush knows it, and so does the Supreme Court. They just needed some excuse, however flimsy, to deny basic human rights to the 385.

The rest of the world is watching, and it is becoming obvious to them that the United States has turned its back on the Constitution and basic human rights. Why should anyone trust us after this?

I'm not trying to defend the actions of the prisoners. Some of them are pretty bad people. But EVERYONE deserves a fair trial! That is a basic tenet of a free country. If your government can deny a fair trial to ANYONE, then you don't live in a free country.

Our forefathers knew this - that's why they gave us a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. But Bush doesn't care as long as he gets his own way. However, the Supreme Court should know better.

This is a shameful day for America - the day the Supreme Court stopped believing in basic human rights.

The picture above is courtesy of Mask of Anarchy.

Gates Says Guantanamo Should Be Closed

It looks like some in the Bush administration may finally be figuring out what a public relations disaster the torture facility and illegal prison at Guantanamo Bay really is. Defense Secretary Robert Gates is now calling for Guantanamo to be closed.

But don't confuse his call for "Gitmo" to be closed with any desire for justice or fair play. He just realizes that the facility's existence is stark proof to the rest of the world that the United States does not believe in justice for anyone who is not an American.

Gates thinks that if the facility was closed down, we could go on mistreating people and no one would be the wiser. He obviously thinks the leaders of other nations are as stupid as he and his boss. He wants to destroy the symbol and continue the injustice. He says at least 100 of the prisoners would need to be incarcerated "forever".

He's even gone so far as to say Congress needs to pass a new law to "address the concerns about some of these people who really need to be incarcerated forever, but that doesn't get them involved in a judicial system where there is the potential of them being released."

How much clearer could he be? He wants Congress to pass a law that would deny any kind of fair trial to these people. Evidently, he thinks that even the rigged military tribunals are not unfair enough.

Didn't we stage a revolution in the late 1700's because we were not being treated fairly by the British government? What would Jefferson, Washington and the other founding fathers think of passing a law specifically to deny a fair trial to anyone? I think they would be shocked at the unfairness of the Bush administration! I think they would use words like "scandalous", "traitorous" and "unconstitutional".

Our forefathers understood that if you can deny a fair trial to anyone, then you can do it to everyone. They established our system of justice because they believed that even the most villainous among us deserved a fair trial. Now Bush and his henchmen are doing their best to destroy that system of justice.

Closing Guantanamo will not make the world think we are wonderful (even though it does need to be closed). They will still judge us by how we treat our enemies. The rest of the world is well aware that if we mistreat these prisoners now, we could do it to them tomorrow.

By the way, Guantanamo now holds about 385 prisoners. If only about 100 are truly dangerous to us, why are we still holding the other 285?

Task Force Tried To Stop The Torture

There is an excellent article posted now on the MSNBC website about the torture at Guantanamo. It seems that this torture has been going on longer than most people realize.

Members of the Defense Department Criminal Investigation Task Force are now speaking out. They say the torture started as early as the first part of 2002, and had the blessing of the Defense Department.

The experienced investigators of the Criminal Investigation Task Force tried to convince officials as high as those in Rumsfeld's office that torture was not the way to go. The only response they got were accusations of not being patriotic enough.

Many of the Task Force's officers were experienced, and had gotten confessions from terrorists in the past by establishing rapport with the suspects. Colonel Brittain P. Mallow, commander of the task force from 2002 to 2005, said, "We had agents who knew how to do adversarial interviews, had sat across from bad guys. Interviews and interrogations are not about making someone talk. They are about making them want to."

But administration officials were not interested in what works to get reliable information. They turned inexperienced intelligence officers loose with virtually no restrictions on what they were allowed to do. It's like administration officials were more interested in revenge than information or justice.

Col. Mallow tried to explain there were five good reasons not to allow the torture of suspects:

1. It does not work.

2. It produces unreliable information, if any at all.

3. It is not legal, ethical or moral.

4. It can hurt you when it comes time to prosecute.

5. Sooner or later it will be discovered and embarrass the U.S.

He was right on all counts. You simply cannot believe the confession of someone who was tortured. They will tell you anything you want to hear, but it may not even be remotely connected to the truth.

Administration officials recently bragged about the confessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after months of torture. It seems he confessed to being responsible to every act of terrorism for the last 14 years. It's obvious to any thinking person that he told them what they wanted to hear so the torture would stop. I'll bet he would have confessed to planning the Boston Tea Party if they wanted to hear that.

Ask yourself, could you convict someone on evidence of a confession extracted under torture? I know I couldn't. That kind of thing may have passed for justice in the middle ages, but we are supposed to be more enlightened.

I think our forefathers would be spinning in their graves over this kind of illegal, immoral and unethical behavior. They tried to prevent this kind of governmental behavior by giving us a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, Bush and his cronies have no interest in either of these documents.

With their approval of torture, the Bush administration has truly been an embarrassment to all decent Americans.