So much for the Statue of Liberty; Gitmo now represents the spirit of the nation around the world.

Colbert! Fitz!

A whole lot:::::::

Oh I don’t care what the pundits say…Fitz! FDL! Redd um Christy! Jane! Thanks for all you do!

This item from yesterday’s BBC is quite relevant to this:

“The survey by the Pew Research Group also found support for US President George W Bush and his “war on terror” had dropped dramatically worldwide.
Goodwill created by US aid for nations hit by the 2004 tsunami had also faded since last year, the survey found.
The survey questioned 17,000 people in 15 countries, including the US……
According to the survey:
1)Worldwide support for the “war on terror” has remained the same or declined
2)European confidence in Mr Bush has sunk even lower than it was last year
3)A majority of people in most countries feel the US will not achieve its goals in the “war on terror”

At least the blame is rightfully being placed on those in the administration, not the US citizens.

Lamont, baby. Lamont!

…and let’s not even get into how Guantanamo was acquired in the first place and its curious legal no-mans-land status today…

…the Decider wants to close Gitmo… but it’s hard, hard work. As he said yesterday, they’ve been letting a lot of the detainees go home… more than the public knows about. Here’s a little clip from yesterday’s presser — Chimpy on Gitmo:

I’d like to close Guantanamo, but I also recognize that we’re holding some people that are darn dangerous, and that we better have a plan to deal with them in our courts. And the best way to handle — in my judgment, handle these types of people is through our military courts. And that’s why we’re waiting on the Supreme Court to make a decision.

Part of closing Guantanamo is to send some folks back home, like we’ve been doing. And the State Department is in the process of encouraging countries to take the folks back. Of course, sometimes we get criticized for sending some people out of Guantanamo back to their home country because of the nature of the home country. It’s a little bit of a Catch-22. But we’re working through this.

No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our friends — provides an excuse, for example, to say the United States is not upholding the values that they’re trying to encourage other countries to adhere to. And my answer to them is, is that we are a nation of laws and rule of law. These people have been picked up off the battlefield and they’re very dangerous. And so we have that balance between customary justice, the typical system, and one that will be done in the military courts. And that’s what we’re waiting for.

Eventually, these people will have trials, and they will have counsel and they will be represented in a court of law. I say, “these people,” those who are not sent back to their mother countries. You know, we’ve sent a lot of people home already. I don’t think the American people know that, nor do the citizens of some of the countries that are concerned about Guantanamo.

Gitmo and detentions are at least in violation of the spirit of our laws and our traditions if not the actual laws (ie treaties that become the law of the land). I still think the only way you get rid of a president who systematically breaks the law is Impeach him. The Constitution says it is so. So be it. There have to be some consequences for actions.

Gitmo makes “Catch-22″ seem downright logical.

FYI - here’s the link to yesterday’s presser
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news.....60614.html

You know, I try to keep up on the events at Gitmo when and where I can. It’s becoming more and more difficult because of the press restrictions and the legal representation issues. I have little to no sympathy (emphasis pretty much on the no part) for people who employ terrorist tactics against innocents, but what we are doing in Guantanimo is so antithetical to who we are supposed to be as Americans…and it makes me sick to my stomach to even think about this. We are judged by how we act when we think no one is able to watch — and right now, the Bush Administration is failing that test by trying to set up circumstances where no one can watch so they can act however they please. Wrong does not begin to explain how this feels…

I just got this from ImpeachBush.org

This is a message from Ramsey Clark. I think it is very powerful. Sorry block quotes…but I am qoting the email directly. I tried to just link but this is not on the website. Sorry for length but again, I thought this was very powerful.

A message from Ramsey Clark

The case for impeachment is clear beyond question.

The list of Bush’s crimes is long. The “Shock and Awe” invasion was Bush’s war of aggression — a crime identified as the “the Supreme international crime” by the Nuremberg Tribunal. Remember Falluja, the American Guernica, a virtual destruction of a defenseless city by superior military technology (36,000 homes, 8,400 shops destroyed in the final assault alone); Abu Ghraib, the shameful celebration of sick forms of sexual torture; Haifa Street, Baghdad, where a U.S. helicopter gun ship killed 13 unarmed people and injured 50 dancing around a burned out Bradley Armored Vehicle; Abu Shifa, a small village, where U.S. soldiers were accused of rounding up civilians, forcing them into a room, then opening fire, killing 11 people, including a 75 year-old, a 6 month-old baby, and five children under the age five; Haditha, where Marines murdered 15 defenseless civilians, and injured many more, most women and children; and tiny Guantanamo, where the U.S. has compiled human rights violations in four years that have been denounced by the entire world including the United Nations. Yet President Bush arrogantly refuses to close the Guantanamo prison, or return the land and sovereignty to Cuba while U.S. officials fret over three prisoners who committed suicide in one day to “embarrass the U.S.”

The grand total of civilian deaths in Iraq is probably more than 250,000, and rapidly growing. (The Lancet Medical Journal) U.S. military deaths exceed 2500, the seriously injured number more than 15,000 and the number who will suffer mental and physical impairment from the occupation of Iraq is in the unknown tens of thousands.

What respect for human dignity! What reverence for life! What better way to make enemies?

The necessity for citizen action to secure impeachment is also clear beyond question. The Congress will not act unless We, the People demand it and vote those out of office who fail to respond.

Our government is geared for war as directed by transnational corporations, domestic industries, and the corporate media.

Both branches of our One Party system, Democrat and Republican, favor the use of force to have their way. Consider,

(1) Regime Change in Iran (1953) the Shah replacing democratically elected Mossadegh; Eisenhower (R);
(2) Regime Change in Guatemala (1954) military government for democratically elected Arbenz; Eisenhower (R);
(3) Regime Change in Congo (1961) assassination of Patrice Lumumba, Eisenhower (R)
(4) the Vietnam War (1959-1975), Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R);
(5) Invasion of Dominican Republic (1965), Johnson (D);
(6) Contra Warfare against Nicaragua (1981-1988), resulting in regime change from the Sandinistas to corrupt capitalists; Reagan (R);
(7) Attack and occupation of Grenada (population 110,000)(1983-1987) Reagan (R);
(8) Aerial attack on the sleeping cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, Libya, (1986) Reagan (R);
(9) Invasion of Panama Regime Change (1989-1990), George H. W. Bush (R);
(10) Gulf War (1991), George H. W. Bush (R);
(11) “Humanitarian” occupation of Somalia leading to 10,000 Somali deaths (1992-1993) George H. W. Bush (R) and Bill Clinton (D);
(12) Aerial attacks on Iraq (1993-2001) Bill Clinton (D);
(13) War against Yugoslavia (1999) 23,000 bombs and missiles dropped on Yugoslavia, Bill Clinton (D)
(14) Missile Attack (21 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles) destroying the Al Shifa Pharmaceutical Plant in Khartoum which provided the majority of all medicines for Sudan (1998) Bill Clinton (D);
(15) Invasion and Occupation of Afghanistan, Regime Change (2001-present) George W. Bush (R);
(16) War of Aggression against Iraq and Hostile Occupation (2003)-present) George W. Bush (R);
(17) Regime Change in Haiti (2004) Democratically elected Aristide for three years of chaos and systematic killing, George W. Bush (R).
There have been major aggressions every several years.

Remember that every Congress in the past half century has approved excessive military budgets and the last three have approved increases that have made the U.S. military budget larger than those of all other nations combined.

The U.S. will remain a military threat to the world until it vastly reduces its military expenditures. The single highest priority for peace is cutting the U.S. military budget. The United States government may have been able to outspend the Soviet Union into economic collapse in the Cold War arms race, injuring the entire planet in the process. Now Bush has entered a new arms race and is provoking a Second Cold War with China. Yet what can China do, as the U.S. builds a first-strike oriented missile shield and uses Japan and a huge advanced military base at Pyongtaek on Korea’s west coast, not 500 miles from Beijing?

The U.S. at this time is capable of striking any place on earth with a nuclear armed missile within one hour of the order to fire, launched from a Trident II, or other nuclear weapons system. We are at this time spending billions on a new generation of nuclear weapons that can be used tactically, against four blocks of Falluja, or an alleged Al Queda camp in Pakistan. At the same time, we threaten Iran and others for seeking to develop nuclear energy with the claim that they may build a crude bomb. Yet the only defense a nation today has to U.S. militarism is the threat of nuclear retaliation. The U.S. is seeking total dismantlement and prohibition of all weapons of mass destruction everywhere else, because it possesses the vast majority of all WMD’s and far superior delivery systems.

George Bush loved being a War President while he was winning - winning over the bodies of impoverished and defenseless people, that is. Someone told him only war presidents can be great presidents. He will love war again if his polls go up.

President Bush would rather make enemies by the use of force to have his way, than seek agreement with friends by helping others and recognizing their rights and interests. He prefers to go it alone, and then entice or coerce whatever help he can get from others, whether it is for Iraq, global warming, the prohibition of land mines, or the use of minors in war, addressing hunger, poverty, AIDS, natural disaster relief, or most United Nations activities, and absolutely, the International Criminal Court which might indict him. He is spared defeat at the polls because he cannot seek re-election.

He can be held accountable only by impeachment. The American people must not acquiesce to his crimes.

Consider that all the major candidates, Democrat and Republican — Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, McCain, Frist, — voted for the war and/or favor the Iraq Occupation.

To stop U.S. militarism, the U.S. must vastly reduce its military expenditures, 50% in five years and further down from there on. It must use those savings to combat poverty, hunger, sickness and unemployment at home and abroad.

The U.S. must seek friends by word and deed, rather than make enemies. The harm George Bush has done to the way the rest of the world sees our country will take a generation to overcome, after we change our warlike ways.

But the only way to convince the world that We the People do not approve of the conduct of George W. Bush is to impeach him. Otherwise we can only be seen as approving of his acts, or as powerless to prevent them.

And the only way we can deter the next, and future Presidents, from seeking war rather than peace is to impeach George W. Bush and his key advisors now. Only then will political leadership know the American people will not accept more war.

Last week ImpeachBush.org placed an ad calling for the impeachment of George W. Bush on the second page of the internationally read newspaper, USA Today. The impeachment movement has placed similar ads in the Boston Globe, the New York Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. The time to impeach is now. This movement has grown with your continuing support. Please make a donation to the campaign today so that the movement will grow in the coming months. Click here.

Ramsey Clark
June 15, 2006

Christy, this could be too big a can of worms to open before breakfast, but I’ll ask anyway: Presumably there is a whole country-ful of lawyers (and judges) out there who think as you do - that ours is a nation based on constitutional law and not executive fiat.

And yet month after month, year after year, we learn of new legal (let’s not even talk moral) outrages, and the collective national response is a shrug of the shoulders - “gee, that’s not so good, shouldn’t be like that, but there’s nothing we can do.”

What’s the stumbling block? What’s broken down? Why isn’t the legal profession scaling the walls? Is it SCOTUS? Is it that we’ve become a nation of abused citizens too beaten down to respond? I’m not talking about protest and outrage. Those are important too. I’m talking about what seems to me to be a collapse of the legal system. Laws don’t count anymore, and those inside the legal system whimper or look the other way.

How is it that we’ve outsourced our prisons, our decency, and our observance of the laws and ideals on which our country was founded?

Christy @ 12:

And when you combine *how* a fair number of folks arrived at Gitmo, that feeling in the pit of your stomach just gets worse. GIs in Iraq spreading $$ around for information about al-Qaeda might have been a good idea for gathering information, but the evaluation of it seems to have been spotty at best. How do you sort out the folks turned in as terrorist suspects from the folks who were turned in for a few bucks and a huge dose of revenge (”His family disrepected my family a couple years ago, but now I’ve gotten him back!”)?

percy at 14 — you’re going to have to give me time for another cuppa coffee before I answer that one completely. *g* The legal system operates on a series of precedents…and this is an unprecedent series of actions by the President, let’s just start with that. The ABA looking at the signing statements issue because Congress is not doing so is a very good start. But it’s only a start…

Christy - I agree 100%. It’s the do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do attitude of Chimpco. I would imagine that’s why they didn’t put the prison on U.S. soil — so they could somehow pretend that our laws don’t apply.

My bigger fear is those “black sites”. Maybe I’m paranoid but I always feel that what the public knows is just the tip of the iceberg. For every dirty secret we find out about, there are 10 more that stay hidden under the bed.

Peterr at 15 — I know. (she says with that queasy feeling rising up again…)

Yeah, actually, I was going to suggest the issue require at least one cup of coffee.

Gonna grind some beans myself…

“President Bush would rather make enemies by the use of force to have his way, than seek agreement with friends by helping others and recognizing their rights and interests…”
_____

oderint dum metuant

“Let them hate, so long as they fear”

Well, guess what? It ain’t workin’.

Considering the numerous illegal actions of BushCo, and considering the Red Cross reported that something like 70% of the inmates at Abu Graib were innocent, we can assume a lot of innocents are being persecuted at Gitmo and other places. I don’t know what advantage the military thinks this gives us in the “war on terror,” but I think it undermines everything they claim they are trying to achieve.

OT - US death toll in Iraq is at 2,500 now. Is it still “worth it” Chimpy?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13337155/

Integrity:It’s what you do(or don’t do)when know one’s watching you.When the cameras aren’t rolling.

And that,to me at least,is what lies at the heart of everything going wrong in America now.

Used to be that people kinda understood that,you do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do,whether you get a reward out of it or not.

Or,as I told my first husband,”Dude,if you can’t do it in front of me,then there’s a pretty fucking good chance you shouldn’t be doing it at ALL.”Not that he heeded my wisdom,hence the”first husband”title.(my limit,for the record,on marriages is two,I refer to the current Mr AOB as my last husband,lol.If this one happens to not work,I quit the marriage thingy)

The gateway to hell this treatment of prisoners opens is something that will haunt America for a long time.This doesn’t even take into account what will happen to any of our own if they are captured and imprisoned by other countries.It also kind of ends up limiting places in this world any American will be able to visit,for business or for fun,and feel safe.And those are just little side effects compared to the big picture.

On the topic of coffee — I’ve been using a brand called Raven’s Brew; ordering it off the internets. I have to say, it is way better than Starbuck$ and Dunkin Donuts. They make a few different kinds, this is the one I am drinking now… mmmmmmmm…

Good (but long) read the role of European Union nations in the rendition atrocities from Amnesty International:

http://web.amnesty.org/library.....R010082006

Chrisy,

I went to NPR and listened to the interview on the Diane Rehms show of the attorney for on the the suicide victims from gitmo. Without a whole lot of discussion on the specifics, he questions if these three men actually committed suicide. It was a very interesting interview. Here’s the link in case your interested!

http://www.wamu.org/programs/dr/06/06/12.php#11289

Rant continued…

This goes beyond just gitmo, of course. NSA, FISA, Padilla… The law has become little more than GWB saying, “I’m the decider.”

And everyone goes, “Okay.”

We spend years in school being taught how brilliant our system of government is, owing to checks and balances, constitutional protections etc. Then overnight, it seems, without warning, without even true public support and - here’s the part where I’m having trouble - without apparent signficant opposition from the legal profession, the bill of rights becomes a snotrag.

(head turned to heavens, loud:) HOWWWWWWW?

OT’s: I still trust Fitz.
And I am the only one who is getting sick of seeing Karl Rove’s mug in that Blogad? Blech.

Back on October 28 2005, Fitzgerald’s spokespersn, Randall Samborn stated “the investigation will continue” when asked if Fitz was still looking at other possible indictments besides Libby. Fitz also said the investigation was ongoing in his press conference.

Samborn is notorious for not saying anything but “no comment.” This Ocotber 28 statement by Samborn — “the investigation will continue” — was just about the only time he ever answered a direct question. So it’s very significant Samborn was quoted on June 13, 2006 as having changed the answer to that same question. His Ocotber answer has now been changed from “the invesitgation will continue” to “I’m not commenting on that as well at this time”. This must be important since is signifies a lack of consistency from the usuallly consistent Samborn.
For a detailed analysis of this issue see Citizenspook’s latest, “RANDALL SAMBORN INDICATES FITZGERALD’S PLAME INVESTIGATION MAY HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN “
http://citizenspook.blogspot.com
I know citizenspook can piss people off, but he’s NEVER quoted an anonymous source. He encourages people not to take his word on anything but to use their own bullshit detetector on everyone including him. He was the only blog to provide detailed legalled coverage the Espionage Act while everybody was focussed on the IIPA and his analysis was vindicated by Fitz when Fitz said that statute was in play.
Spook does not believe Joe Wilson is on the up and up, but his critique is far different than those on the right who disparage Wilson and defend the Bush cabal. Citizenspook is a harsh critic of the Bush administration and has repeatedly called them traitors.
Citizenspoook accepts no advertising as well. And his essay about the Grand Jury being a separate Fourth Branch of Government is a must readfor all patriots.

dogeatdogi at 26 — is that the interview you were talking about yesterday? Thanks for the link, I’ll take a listen when I get some time. (Probably at kiddie nap time today…)

How did we get to this place?

Cheney and Rummy.

Using Josef Stalin’s manual.

Redd,
“We are judged by how we act when we think no one is able to watch %u2014 and right now, the Bush Administration is failing that test by trying to set up circumstances where no one can watch so they can act however they please. Wrong does not begin to explain how this feels%u2026″

That’s a front pager.

OT: RE: Schumer refusing to rule out supporting Lieberman as an independent.
What’s the legality of the DSCC taking money from people who donated it thinking that it would support Democratic candidates, then turning around and using it to oppose a legally selected Democratic candidate? Schumer is two steps away from saying primaries aren’t binding. I wonder if State attorney general Blumenthal would have something to say about it? The DSCC will probably back down, but maybe pressure should be brought pre-emptively.

I can’t imagine that anyone born this morning will last long enough to see this country live down what BushCo has made of us in the world in just the last three years.

Never mind the domestic wreckage, the rage of unfriendlies and disappointment of friendlies over what these doofi have wrought is changing the whole global equation.

How are we ever to unring that bell?

Lina at 31

I know I know…

But Stalin didn’t have 200 years of Russian constitutional democracy to dismantle overnight.

anotherpawn at 32 — can you tell I’m a little on the cranky side this morning? *g*

lotus 34 -

Yes, it’s hard to not get depressed. The totality of Bush’s fuckups and machinations are mind-boggling.

From the “No Shit, Sherlock” Dept:

“If Zarqawi’s killing was a new version of Saddam Hussein’s capture (”We got him!”), Bush’s surprise visit to Baghdad on Tuesday was “Mission Accomplished” in a business suit.”

- Sid Blumenthal, Salon.com

For some quick and unpleasant insight as to how the Repugnicans are going to maintain the House and Senate, look no further than today’s Note.

All this “due process” and “checks ‘n balances” stuff is SO pre- 9/11 worldview.

Seriously, if we are unable to reclaim the operational mechanics of due process soon, we will have lost the nation bequeathed us by our Founders, and will simply be the new Soviet State. It makes me ill.

With so much going on these days, I confess to not knowing nearly enough about what is going on in Gitmo, but I don’t understand the process - is there one? - that results in detainees being released, if we are not charging or trying them. We just hold them for years, and one day announce, “Get yer shoes on, we’re sending you home?” And those being released cannot say, “Yes, I was at Gitmo, but I was acquitted of all charges,” but instead have this period of detention they will forever have to justify or defend.

I don’t understand why our long-standing system of justice is not good enough to apply to these people. Is it because there is a fear that we can’t even meet the minimum requirements for having detained someone in the first place?

It seems to me that when existing procedures and laws are cast aside and replaced with procedures that can and will shift depending on who is in charge, we are in dangerous territory.

What is to stop someone in power from deciding that Gitmo-style might have wider application? Saying “if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear” will hold true only as long as those accused of wrongdoing can defend themselves in a timely manner and have recourse against wrongful detention; otherwise, we are all in danger of one day being locked up with no way to get out.

No, I don’t want terrorists running free on the streets, anymore than I want murderers and rapists and sexual predators out there, either. I don’t want them to have more rights than anyone else, but if they don’t have the same rights as everyone else, we are all in danger of facing the subjective assessments and interpretations that take place outside the bounds of law, by people who feel their power is wrongfully constrained by the Constitution.

Think I need a Pepcid.

Christy,

Hoping you’re down to that last swirl of loose grounds, my question shorter:

Why, in your opinion, hasn’t the legal profession been more active and outraged over what has happened to U.S. rule of law?

Christy,

That’s the interview. Good memory!! Thanks for responding.

Great “no shit, Sherlock,” BobbyG!

Did y’all catch (maybe via Glenn) yesterday’s James Norton op-ed in the CSM? Here’s about the middle third of it:

The Founding Fathers didn’t treat prisoners decently solely because they were decent people. Although their writings and ideals reveal a constant and passionate interest in essential human rights, it’s important to remember that they were also pragmatists. They understood that the Revolutionary cause had to take and hold the moral high ground in order to rally popular support and exhaust the British giant. And they knew that their necks were very literally on the line were they to be captured by the British. Mistreatment of British soldiers would come back on their heads a thousandfold.

Times have changed, of course, and now it’s the US that holds the upper hand from a military perspective. There is no longer any fear among US leaders that they personally will suffer the effects of cruel treatment of prisoners, and so they feel far more comfortable ordering the sort of “extraordinary” measures of interrogation and detainment that led to the Gitmo suicides.

What they overlook, of course, is that the moral high ground is still there to be taken - or lost. And as long as “Abu Ghraib” and “Guantánamo Bay” remain in the international lexicon, tyrants around the world can laugh off criticism of their actions coming from American leaders - after all, America understands that desperate times call for inhumane measures, right?

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0614/p09s02-coop.htm

It takes deep obliviousness not to grasp that point right off, doesn’t it? It’s Bush-Cheney-Addison-Rummy-Yoo’s stupidity that keeps amazing me.

Now how did I manage THAT?

Having seen you and Jane on Cspan at YK I feel I should shave, comb my hair and get out of my pajama’s and into some clean clothes before I post. But, I think it is more about content than form.
There were a series of articles about State Legislatures being able to file articles of impeachment that would force their representatives to bring them to the floor of the House. They went away fast and I didn’t get what was finally decided legally. Do you know?

Percy at 41 — I’ve been thinking about the question, while chasing my daughter around the house, and I keep coming up with the same unsatisfactory answer that I’ve been having for Congress as well: that initial shock after 9/11 really scared the bejeezus out of some people, to the point that the laws went out the window in that desire to protect their families. Some political types saw it as an opportunity (read: Rove and Co.) and have used that fear to their advantage ever since.

But I think those of us who weren’t so willing to throw it all away for a false sense of security were separated for the longest time because we were few and far between. It’s one of the reasons that I started blogging, actually, because it gets lonely being that voice in the community wilderness, and this was an opportunity to have a discussion that didn’t devolve into “You are, too, unpatriotic, you terrorist lover.” (Which, frankly, is so incredibly laughable…)

But I think along with the rest of the country, the legal professionals and the lawmakers are waking up to this at the same time. And those of us who have been trying to push action via outside channels are being contacted by those on the inside as to what can be done. And to that I say, it’s about damn time and what can I do to help.

It’s a tough question to answer, really, because you are talking about human beings just like everyone else in this nation of ours who were undergoing the same feeling of shock. And then bewilderment. And then had that used and manipulated and twisted by this Administration to their own ends. Just now, I’m beginning to get the feeling that people are becoming wise to this — not everyone, but a whole helluva lot more than there used to be. Which can only be a good thing.

But the bottom line is that there really is no good answer on that. Lawyers are no more responsible for the state of the country than any other voting citizen, but they are responsible for their upholding of the constitutional principles about which they were taught. And we need to be much, much more vigilent and vocal about that going forward. That’s the big lesson in all of this for me: if you are not constantly working toward the goals and principles you hold dear, someone else will walk in and set them for you. And you most likely will not enjoy where that takes you.

Christy - am stuck in moderation, when you get a chance!

The ABA’s investigation of signing statements seems to me to be a pr stunt. Some high-powered names are on that panel, but this White House has a history of dismissing anything that comes from something they didn’t set up and can’t control. When the House and Senate Judiciary committees investigate them, then I’ll get interested. When SCOTUS takes up the case, then’t we’ll be getting somewhere.

Panel members: http://www.abanet.org/op/signi.....ster.shtml

Someone, somewhere, is really going to make a name for themselves once a flesh-and-blood case gets into the system. Maybe it’s a lawyer in the mold of 1950s Thurgood Marshall. Maybe it’s a judge or justice in the mold of William O Douglas. My fear - deep in my bones fear - is that it will be someone like John Marshall Harlan, most famous for his dissent from Plessy v Ferguson. We don’t need someone to be right in dissent on this.

The Cheney doctrine of government has apparently neutered the legislative branch. Unless and until the dems get (a) a spine and (b) a majority, that’s only going to continue. Cheney & Co. won’t be happy, though, until they’ve overturned Marbury v Madison and neutered the courts as well.

You’ve touched a nerve here Christy, and Mary hasn’t even added her two cents yet (unless she’s come in while I’ve been typing).

Anne — I’ve set you free. *g*

Hey everybody.

Howie Kurtz’s media column was actually very good today. He quoted firedoglake about the Bush trip and also clipped Markos statement on daily kos.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00587.html

I bash the MSM a lot, but in this case I’m gonna drop Kurtz some thanks.

Peterr at 49 — Yeah, this has been a raw nerve of mine for quite some time. And I hope that Mary and Otis and Looseheadprop and EPU and all the other legal beagles can chime in on this one, because it’s really, really troubling in terms of long-term implications.

I think lawyers as well as the rest of us didn’t understand until recently that things could really be this bad.

The boat has capsized. Start swimming.

Christy, daughter-chasing or no, you’re doing an especially fine job for us this morning. Thank you.

OK, rereading myself @ 48:

Maybe pr stunt is too harsh. Could it be that this is the kind of “roots action” from the quietly lurking and apparently listening “Friends of Looseheadprop,” who’ve been dropping phrases like “EPU’d” into office conversations?

I can only imagine the frustration in the legal community, especially the judiciary. “Hmmm . . . Padilla’s an enemy combatant, so we’ll put him in a military brig . . . no, wait a minute . . . he’s not that after all . . . “

No, pr stunt is too harsh - but my point, I guess, was to say that the ABA is outside the structures of government that have any direct ability to change things. Their best efforts can only encourage those WITHIN the structures to take action.

My apologies to the ABA, and especially to the task force.

Yearlykos on cspan 3!!

Christy - if I go too far, just delete away, but this is one subject that sends me around the bend. Percy is right - it is unbelievable that this has happened and it is more unbelievable that it has been so accepted.

One reason is that the reporting on GITMO STILL has throwaway phrases like this one, in a story yesterday about the decision to return Afghanistan “detainees”.

“The U.S. military opened Guantanamo as a prison camp for suspected Islamic militants in 2002, mostly suspected al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200.....fghan_dc_1
Aside and apart from the fact that Afghanistan has said that it thinks over half of the detainees haven’t done anything all that much and they’ll release them immediately — the point is that a very recent Reuters release is still saying that GITMO is “mostly” suspected al-Qaeda member captured in Afghanistan.

Bull. My next post will hit moderation bc it will have several links, but Seton Hall students and others have worked their butts off and fought to get info that shows the military’s own records prove that claim is a lie and it still gets repeated and repeated and repeated.

And our own agencies - the military and the dept of justice are used as enablers, against this country, to discredit it, break its laws, defy its treaties, and drag it into an immoral mess that is the antithesis of the “self evidenct” truths that were the underpinnings of the formation of this country. The press then not only allows, but goes out of its way to incorporated, repeated lies from the adminstraton and military. Over and over. To the point where Federal Judges have to look at DOJ lawyers representing the military in their courts and ask with cynicism, “why should the Court believe you?”

Someone, somewhere, is really going to make a name for themselves once a flesh-and-blood case gets into the system. Maybe it’s a lawyer in the mold of 1950s Thurgood Marshall.

Well, Peterr, we wouldn’t have to look far at all to find such lawyer(s), I’m thinking.

Christy,
Thanks. Good answer.

It leaves me, alas, with the continued sinking feeling that the foundations of our country are far weaker than I ever imagined. The good news is that our democracy is slowly swinging back toward normalcy. The bad is that, to mix metaphors, we can come so close to the tipping point.

And OT - but am I the only one who is thinking that now they have identified the “new” al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, al-Masri, that the “state secret” in the el-Masri case is just that someone *@%#&ed up on names?

Mary at 60 — You know, I was wondering that myself. And how asinine is that if that’s the sum total of state secret in that case?

Just caught part of the Today show news highlights, and they noted that the president of Iran is in Shanghai, looking for support from China and Russia in the standoff over nukes.

The James Norton op-ed that lotus quoted at 43 brings all this together. Gitmo and Abu G have sapped our moral authority abroad, and it’s going to take some big efforts - over many years - to repair that damage (and the damage done in the meantime because we’ve lost that authority).

Our own revolution was fought with one eye on the British and the other on the wider world. Even before the Declaration of Independence spoke about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it talks about “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind” requiring that we tell the world about the abuses we have received at the hands of the British.

If you want to cry this morning, ponder this: someone somewhere is writing that about us.

For example, until recently we thought there were legitimate reasons to declare war on Iraq (leaving out the whole only Congress declares war thingie).

Who could imagine our own government would lie about starting a war?

People want to believe that checks and balances will work this time, as before. What if Cheney and Co. have taken a sledge hammer to the gyroscope?

I think the foundation of our country can withstand many things, but a corrupt government which squanders tomorrow for gains today is like sabotage. And I don’t know how long we can withstand it, or if we’ll know the damage done until it falls.

Seen on a bumper sticker this morning:

Bushes Legacy Leave No Child

A Dime

On lawyers and Gitmo-Part of the problem is simply the lack of lawyers.
NACDL(National Assn. Criminal Defense Lawyers) has been a leader in recruiting pro bono (free)lawyers for Gitmo detainees. Here is a portion of the statement they issued afer the suicides.
(Sorry. Still don’t know block quotes)
_______
“The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) has been actively involved in recruiting pro bono habeas corpus lawyers for the prisoners held at the Guantanamo Naval Base. Several NACDL members have taken on the impossible task of defending people the government has not officially charged. These lawyers represent the prisoners at Guantanamo at their own expense without even travel expenses paid by the government. If the government truly believes that the American justice system is the best in the world, then it must not continue to ignore the responsibilities and rights that system provides. The Military Commissions the government has convened for a few prisoners are not American justice. They are a makeshift, illegal system no American can accept.

To continue to hold over 400 men and boys — some now for over four years — without filing charges makes a mockery of justice. As defense lawyers, we try to give our clients hope, but we cannot even give them a hearing date. For many, hope is running out.

ACDL urges the government to respond to the recent suicides of its prisoners by immediately filing charges if warranted, setting trial dates and providing lawyers, experts and investigators as necessary to assist indigent prisoners to prepare defenses. If the government does not have probable cause to believe these prisoners committed crimes against the United States, it must immediately free them. The world is watching.”

OT-Wingnut revenge on Dan Rather for Nixon, Poppy & Chimp now complete:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....02394.html

Otis:

For blockquotes, put <blockquote> at the beginning of the quote, then put lt;/blockquote> after it to close it off.

Then use “preview” to make sure you’ve done it right.

I just think everything they’ve done has been antithetical to our own democracy, and renders us hypocrites with respect to establishing democracies anywhere else.

Claims of moral authority are empty when it is one’s authority that has allowed immoral action.

The level of the ground we are standing on has sunk such that we are able to see less and less the big picture and more and more nothing but the fruits of the administration’s naked grab for power.

And why did that not show up right for me? I used preview . . .

should be “put </blockquote> after it to close it off.”

Vote Democratic in 06 to End the War On Iraq. Vote Democratic
in 08 for Gore-Clinton to begin to stop Global Warming.

anne 69 -

(paraphrasing Leona Helmsley)

“Due process is for little people.”

One would think that if the people held in detention centers around the world are guilty, the administration and other governments would hold them up high and prosecute them as an example and as a victory in the endless war on terra. Not nearly as dramatic as framing a cleaned up picture of of the slain Zarqawi, I know! I know that some may have information, but just how long do you have to hold them to beat it out of them??? 5 years?? I believe, deep down in my broken heart, that the vast majority of these souls are most likely innocents, but the administration who will admit no wrong, cannot bring themselves to show this sad fact to the world. I know hunger strikes and suicides are a form of resistance and have been successful and wrought change historically; I also know it is a manifestation of deep despair, hopelessness, forced anonymity and fear. Wilner, Fleener and a host of other attorneys have tried to advocate for their clients and have been thwarted repeatedly. No Geneva Conventions, no due process, no rule of law, not one damn thing we used to stand for.

If some of these people are the worst of the worst, let’s deal with it.

GITMO reports done by Seton Hall et al. Those students and their profs should get huge props.

Mark Denbeaux Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees
Joshua Denbeaux, Esq.
Denbeaux & Denbeaux
David Gratz, John Gregorek, Matthew Darby, Shana Edwards, Shane Hartman, Daniel Mann and Helen Skinner Students, Seton Hall University School of Law

http://law.shu.edu/news/guanta....._08_06.pdf

They also have a second study that finds incredible confusion and mismanagement on even the simple determinations of what are included as “terrorist” groups.

http://law.shu.edu/news/second....._final.pdf

There is a “Defense Department List” of about 72 groups (it’s not just when “al-Qaeda calls apparently - then there are those PETA and Quaker terrorist groups too.)

Fifty-two of those groups, 72% of the total, are not on either the Patriot Act Terrorist Exclusion List or on two separate State Department Designated and Other Foreign Terrorist Organizations lists (jointly referred to as the State Department Other Lists).

So, people who belong to a group that the Patriot Act and State Dept. would freely allow to come in and out of the country - “association with” that kind of group, by, say, knowing someone who belongs to that kind of group, is grounds for GITMO detention. Unfreakingbelievable.

You also have a National Journal study done by Corine Hegland on the habeas petitions filed (many of those are being filed by lawyers here, pro bono, who have to fight to even get a name for their client). http://nationaljournal.com/abo.....203nj2.htm

Only about 8 of the GITMO detainees have even been accused of having any kinds of relationships to any plans to engage in terrorist activities outside of Afghanistan and of those, well golly - apparently it increases your chances of LEAVING Gitmo if you were planning to blow up things in other countries.

One of the eight, an Australian fundamentalist Muslim, admitted that he trained several of the 9/11 hijackers and intended to hijack a plane himself; another of the eight, a Briton, is said to have targeted 33 Jewish organizations in New York City. Both men were released to their home governments in January 2005. Neither one is facing charges at home.

Here’s an article that summarizes some of the studies.

http://www.cjrdaily.org/behind.....ence_o.php

Looking at the Department of Defense’s own analysis of the detainees, prepared for the “enemy combatant” tribunals, they discovered that “Eight percent are detained because they are deemed ‘fighters for;’ 30 percent considered ‘members of;’ a large majority — 60 percent — are detained merely because they are ‘associated with’ a group or groups the government asserts are terrorist organizations. For 2 percent of the prisoners their nexus to any terrorist group is unidentified.”
. . .
The Seton Hall report discloses that all the evidence the government has used to claim that a detainee is “associated” with terrorism is the following: “Associations with unnamed and unidentified individuals and/or organizations; associations with organizations, the members of which would not be allowed into the United States by the Department of Homeland Security; possession of rifles; use of a guest house; possession of Casio watches; and wearing of olive drab clothing.”
. . .
This seems a much lower bar than we had imagined for getting yourself declared an “enemy combatant.”

One reason we have all of this mess? Hamdi. In particular, Justice O’Connor’s “let’s try to make it better without actually saying anyone did anything wrong” approach in Hamdi (IMO). Tack on a Congress that has such completely inept, easily led by the nose, tools such as Sen Levine (who I think is probably a nice man and no doubt has good points - but WTFFFFFFFF as he THINKING?) who go along with legislating to make the detentions LEGAL and to insulate them from habeas, ALL WITHOUT REQUIRING ADHERENCE TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS, UCMJ, etc.

So you have things like Pakistan warlord selling guys in “drab clothing” or who “wear a Casio watch” to soldiers who ship them off to GITMO and Congress hitches its baggy overalls and says: “Uh yep, those them there guys are bad guys”; and the Press, glassy eyed, is EVEN TODAY repeating the “worst of the worst, al-Qaeda captured on the battlefield” mantra like short circuited Stepford wives.

John Yoo and Abu Gonzalez and several other attorneys associated with this administration should be disbarred for advocating extra-legal and unconstitutional theories and actions.

Dadhusker 66, those wingnuts may soon have cause to regret their Rather interim revenge.

Watch ol’ Dan’ll teach ‘em that some days you get chicken — some days, feathers.

Sorry. Preview function isn’t working for me. Neither are any of my html tags. I tried to link to NACDL statement (which I actually do know how to do) but it won’t let me. Here is the link to the full NACDL statement.

http://www.nacdl.org/public.ns.....enDocument

Here’s the deal with Gitmo and lawyers– there is no real legal process there in which lawyers can effect anything for their clients, and because there is no criminal due process, the detainees are not even entitled to be supplied defense lawyers, like they would if they were chrged with crimes (Inded, that is one reason Bu$hCo has resisted the requirements of due process at Gitmo so hard. They’d have to give them all lawyers.)The only ones with active military lawyers are the ones designated ready for their Kafka-esque “tribunal.”

They are in legal limbo. The Center for Constitutional Rights and others have been litigating this for years, but the Supremes haven’t ordered the administration to provide the due process that attends to criminal cases or any real equivalent. So lawyers have no real way to get into the limited process which does exist. Without the protections of the genva convention, and without the constitutional due process of U.S.criminal procedure, I frankly don’t see how it is much different from a concentration camp.

When we lost the Supreme Court, we lost a lot . . .

angie 73 -

We can’t, simply because, even in the case of truly “guilty” captives (a relatively small percentage of all of those held, by all crediuble accounts), our unlawful treatment of them would render their cases problematic. That’s whay Bush simply wants to Gulag these people. To let ‘em go is an admission that we fucked up (and probably MADE new enemies for the trouble), to bring them to trial risks shining jurisprudential and public light on the abuses we’ve perpetrated in “taking the gloves off.”

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon confirmed Thursday that 2,500 U.S. troops have died in the Iraq war since it began more than three years ago, marking a grim milestone even as President Bush hopes a recent spate of good news will reverse the war’s widespread unpopularity at home…
____

Were we to still be functioning with Vietnam-era MASH capacity, the death toll would likely be triple the 2,500. And, many of those whose lives we’ve “saved” can look forward to a lifetime of chronic physical and bureaucratic hell. My Dad left a leg behind in Sicily during WWII. The residual after-effects remain with him today, his dementia state notwithstanding.

BobbyG, this column pretty much lays that out:

A tunnel without end

The US version of the Guantanamo suicides is disgraceful. The cause of death was gross injustice

Zachary Katznelson
Monday June 12, 2006
The Guardian

On Friday night, three prisoners in Guantanamo Bay committed suicide. Two Saudis and one Yemeni hanged themselves. In a desperate attempt at spin, the US claims this was an act of war or a public relations exercise. The truth is quite different. Islam says it goes against God to kill yourself. So what would drive a man to take his own life, despite his religious beliefs? The answer shames the US and its allies, Britain prominently included.

The 460-plus men in Guantanamo Bay have been held for longer than four years. Only 10 have been charged with a crime. Not one has had a trial. The men are not allowed to visit or speak with family or friends. Many have suffered serious abuse. Most are held on the basis of triple and quadruple hearsay, evidence so unreliable that a criminal court would throw it out. Yet the US says it can imprison the men for the rest of their lives. Imagine yourself in this environment, told you will never have the chance to stand up in a court and present your side of the argument. What would you do if no one would listen, if you had been asking for justice for four years and had nothing in return? How hopeless would you become?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guan.....09,00.html

When we lost the Supreme Court, we lost a lot . . .

Not to mention all those lower Fed court gooper appointees from the Reagan era forward — and all the blocked Clinton appointees.

WE. MUST. TAKE. BACK. THE. CONGRESS.

A multi-link post in moderation.

Christy 61 - how assinine indeed. It is the whole reason why we need, not for on the ground battles (which should be governed by the Geneva Conventions and handled per POW instructions since we are in other people’s countries, invading those countries, and civilians who take up arms in that scenario are required to be treated as POWs), but for the other aspects of our “war on terror” to be treating the situations as dealing with criminals and taking an approach that involves evidence and due consideration, not a “pack em off to GITMO or rendition or secret detention, torture em a bit, then see what we find out and if we screw up or go to far, just disappear them or what was left of them”

It’s not just immoral it is STUPID. I do disagree about the role lawyers play bc I think that with the kinds of issues the country faces, different groups have more asked of them. In a pandemic, doctors and emergency providers; in a blizzard people with vehicles that can operate effectively; in a flood, people with boats; in a fire, firefighters; with a city in riot, police and national guard, etc.

When the constitution is under outright and direct attack - lawyers absolutely are the front line and we folded. I couldn’t feel worse about how little I have done and couldn’t be more shocked, absolutely one hundred percent shocked, at the arguments that have been made and accepted.

It’s like ER docs in a pandemic saying: “let’s go see who has money and power before we decide who to treat.”

And while we’re on all things legal -

From the AP:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that police can use evidence collected with a warrant even if officers fail to knock before rushing into a home.

Justice Samuel Alito broke a 4-4 tie in siding with Detroit police, who called out their presence at a man’s door then went inside three seconds to five seconds later.

The case had tested previous court rulings that police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or they run afoul of the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said “whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house.”

The court did not say how long police officers must wait after knocking before they enter a home to execute a search warrant.

But suppressing evidence is too high of a penalty, Scalia said, for errors in police searches.

The outcome might have been different if Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was still on the bench. She seemed ready, when the case was first argued in January, to rule in favor Booker Hudson, whose house was searched in 1998.

She retired before the case was decided, and a new argument was held so Alito could participate in deliberations.

Hudson’s lawyers argued that evidence against him was connected to the improper search and could not be used against him.

Scalia said that a victory for Hudson would have given “a get-out-of-jail-free card” to him and others.

Sigh…

Mary 80 — well then, are you seeing any evidence of belated awakening among your colleagues (other than the ABA panel) — any belated gathering of stomach-for-the-fight among them?

lotus @ 34:

‘How are we ever to unring that bell?’

IMO, you have a cabal who intimately knows the system, its blind spots, and how to game it overall. Additionally, they have the will to expand their activities ahead of the anticipated response curve, and the amorality necessary to lie repeatedly when it suits their purposes.

It would be convenient to dismiss this as an example of short-sighted corporate privateer thinking writ large, with all of the weaknesses inherent to such plans, but the tenure of some of these individuals proximity to power and their stubborn adherence to such principles and objectives as they proffer suggests otherwise.
However, there is evidence to portend