Orwellian, Kafka-esque, You Name It

This one is so nuts it jolted my long-numb outrage nerve back to life.

From the New York Times: Guantanamo Detainees' Lawyers Can't Use Wikileaks Files

So here's what the government's been arguing:
-People locked up in Guantanamo, some for almost a decade now, are there because they are "the worst of the worst" Al-Qaeda terrorists.
-We could prove it, but it would risk giving away state secrets that would aid and abet the terrorist cause.
-That's why we can't have such niceties as civil trials and, you know, silly things like evidence and so on.
-But they are really, REALLY bad men. Trust us.

However, the files that have been leaked reveal that the government long ago determined that:
-The majority of detainees were sent to Guantanamo for no reason at all.
-Many were innocents rounded up in Afghanistan because the US offered large rewards.
-Some were mere children, others senile old men.

Now they're saying that the detainees' lawyers can't even look at the leaked documents because they remain classified.
They're public knowledge now, but they're still, you know, top secret. Hush hush. Loose lips and all that.

So even if a document is out there that shows that US military "intelligence" (*snort*) found out 8 years ago that your client is completely innocent of whatever he's been accused of, (if they've even bothered accusing him of anything) you can't use that document to have him released.

If you think this kind of government over-reach will never be applied to you because you're an American citizen or not brown, could I just drop a couple of names? Jose Padilla. Bradley Manning.

I could comment at length on how batshit crazy this really is, and how much of a threat to democracy and human rights, but I think in this case the facts speak for themselves. I will however award this story the coveted Les Enragés Maximum Bullshit Award.

TAGS: The Security State, Batshit Crazy
No seriously, these people are nucking futz
Welcome to Amerika, land of the free

The Shape of Things to Come

"Oh gosh, actually it isn't lawlessness any more, now is it?"

I've been hatching a lament for several days now, on the sorry state of what passes for justice anymore in the nation that used to be America. Naomi Wolf posted recently at Huffington Post on a topic that was pretty much where I was going anyway. Long story short, that handbasket that America's future is riding in is not just nipping down to the store for a quart of milk. The erosion of anything resembling justice is pretty much complete.

As the Australian reported earlier this week, New South Wales Justice of the Peace Mamdouh Habib is suing the Australian federal government -- which under the Howard administration had colluded with the US in committing various abuses against detainees and due process -- for having allowed him to be arrested wrongly in Pakistan in 2001, kidnapped and sent illegally to Egypt. There this Justice of the Peace was illegally imprisoned and tortured for six months. After that the United States held him for FOUR YEARS in Guantanamo.
[...]
Get that? A justice of the peace in a developed-world democracy. Had you heard of that?

Me neither.
[...]
They rendered an Australian justice of the peace -- and that rendition did not even make the US news. So how can we be sure there is something so sacred about an American justice of the peace or even a judge? Say, an American judge who ruled against the Military Commissions?

I could quote much more of this article, but it's better if you just read the whole thing yourself. You might be angry, but you won't be disappointed.

My lament was going to mention things like the well-documented Don Siegelman kangaroo court in Alabama. Ms. Wolf touched on that. I was also going to mention the Supreme Court's recent decision to not even consider the ACLU's petition on illegal warrantless wiretapping. This is a replay of another decision they made last April regarding the odious Military Commissions Act. I blogged about that then, my opinions haven't changed, you can read about it HERE. There are other signs that the entire court system has gone over to the dark side, all the way over. There's THIS STORY about the Supremes' outrageous behavior in an appeal by Exxon over the still unpaid judgement almost twenty years later over the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.

"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.

There's not even any pretense that this case is going to be decided in an unbiased manner on its merits, or with reference to the Constitution and legal precedent. The will of the Corporatist government of Pricktator Extraordinaire George W. Bush is all that matters. The Constitution, after all, is just a Goddamn Piece of Paper. And there are more stories from just this week indicating how far the rule of law has diverged from the idea of 'a nation of laws, not men.'

How about this one?
Mukasey Rebuffs Contempt Referrals, House to Head to Court

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey refused yesterday to refer two new House contempt citations to a federal grand jury, saying the White House aides involved in the case cannot be prosecuted because they were following legal advice from the Justice Department.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Mukasey said the refusal by White House Chief of Staff Joshua B. Bolten and former presidential counsel Harriet E. Miers to comply with congressional subpoenas "did not constitute a crime."

Or how about the sham that has attended the fight over the renewal of the Protect America Act, which is about anything but protecting America? Over 80% of the riders in the aforementioned proverbial handbasket can catch a distinct whiff of sulfur, but you'd never know it from watching FOX "news" or CNN.

Ms. Wolf's post touches on a number of the Ten Points To Close Down an Open Society from her book, The End of America, notably #10; Suspend the Rule of Law. But you can't ignore #2; Create A Gulag, #4; Set Up an Internal Surveillance System, #6 Engage in Arbitrary Detention and Release or #8; Control The Press. The suspension of normal legal procedures is what enables all but #8 anyway. And reflexively, it is #8 that enables all the others. As Ms. Wolf observes, "They rendered an Australian justice of the peace -- and that rendition did not even make the US news."

If you carefully consider Ms. Wolf's analysis of any potential resistance to the worst case scenario of martial law, (and I think you should consider it very carefully indeed) where do you put your hopes when "NO ONE KNOWS WHERE THE RAMPARTS ARE?" After all, "THEY HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT IS ABOUT TO HAPPEN and we have not. They aren't surprised or shocked; we are. They have a plan; we don't."

When it happens, and I increasingly fear that if it can happen it probably will, it won't be a Taxi to the Dark Side, it will be a humongous fleet of windowless prison buses. Speaking of Taxi to the Dark Side,

[It] won't be seen by most Americans. This is because the Discovery Channel bought it hoping to air it -- but then backed out. (Its affiliates have close ties to the military-industrial complex.) Will the Oscar win get it on the airwaves? Doubtful.

Call me paranoid, but I can't help thinking that perhaps the Discovery Channel bought this documentary not hoping to air it, but to ensure that no-one else could air it. At any rate there are numerous signs and portents that bode ill for the near future of America. One is reminded of the ominous opening of Act IV, scene 1 of Hamlet,

By the pricking of my thumbs,
Something wicked this way comes.

TAGS: Police State, Fascism, Underground, RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

Khadr Trial Begins

Defense Claims Exculpatory Evidence Suppressed

From CBC.ca: The trial of Omar Khadr began today with his military defense claiming foul play on the part of the prosecution.

The U.S. government has withheld information about a witness who could help clear Canadian Omar Khadr as an "unlawful enemy combatant," Khadr's military defence lawyer at Guantanamo Bay said Thursday.

"It's an eyewitness the government has always known about," Lt.-Cmdr. Bill Kuebler told reporters. "This is something that was buried because nobody ever looked."
[..]
Khadr — who is the only Canadian held at Guantanamo prison and was 15 at the time of his capture in 2002 — is accused of murder in the death of U.S. medic Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer in Afghanistan. He is also charged with spying, conspiracy and supporting terrorism.

Kuebler said U.S. officials never bothered to speak to the witness and the prosecution didn't find out about him until recently.

"The significant fact is that the government made us aware of this at the last minute and wanted to go forward with this thing today … notwithstanding being told repeatedly by the military judge that it was not proper," Kuebler told reporters at the base.

"It shows how anxious they are to get this validated and get it moving."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the real justice system withholding evidence would land the prosecution in a huge mess of trouble, and the lead attorney would be facing disciplinary measures. But this isn't the real justice system, this is a military tribunal set up under the odious, unconstitutional Military Commissions Act. A previous attempt to bring Khadr to trial was denied by the presiding Judge Col. Peter Brownback. (hmm...hope he isn't related) Where was I? .. oh yeah, denied because the prosecution presented Khadr to the court as 'an enemy combatant.' For the court to have jurisdiction he had to be re-designated 'an unlawful enemy combatant' under the MCA.

Odd that they should be splitting such hairs considering the entire MCA is unconstitutional (though how one would determine that with the Supreme Court refusing to rule on any test case is another question.) In point of plain fact, the rights that Khadr should have had under both US and international law have been denied him. This entire process is to legal what _________is to ___________. I'll let you guys come up with an analogy in comments.

The trial is taking place without one of Khadr's Canadian lawyers present. Dennis Edney told CBC News on Thursday that the U.S. defence lawyer, Kuebler, barred him from the proceedings because of his criticism of the process, as well as Kuebler's own preparedness and qualifications.

The defence has not interviewed a single prosecution witness, Edney said, while the prosecution has been preparing for the trial for the past two years.

"We have said the military defence lawyers are not ready for trial," Edney said from Edmonton. "We put that in writing to them time and time again.

"My guess? They don't like to be criticized."

My guess? They're looking for the same kangaroo court result they got in Australian David Hicks' case. IOW, threaten, bully and terrorize the 'suspect' into a guilty plea so they can say, "see - we're making progress in the war on terrorism." It's all an exercise in finding something they can put on FOX "news", after all.

Khadr is exhibiting signs of the same complacent Stockholm syndrome that Hicks showed, so the strategy is apparently working so far.

Khadr, whose family lives in the Toronto area, entered the court in the morning dressed in white prison garb. The colour is an indication of a detainee's "highly compliant" status, the CBC's Alison Smith reported from Guantanamo.
[..]
During the morning's proceedings, Khadr appeared co-operative with court authorities and told the presiding judge that he accepted Kuebler as his main defence counsel.

But didn't we just hear that Kuebler was totally unprepared? What grieves me the most is that the Bush-licking Canadian government of Stephen Harper is so silent about this. I really wish the international community would do more to hold this administration responsible for at least the crimes that extend beyond US borders. Tell them they won a free vacation in The Hague, Switzerland or something. They're dumb enough, they might just go for it.

TAGS: Omar Khadr, Military Tribunal, Injustice, Military Commissions Act

Who Are The Enemy?

...A Rant in Three Parts

OK, full disclosure. I am still not over the repeated failure of the United States to fully restore the Great Writ of habeas corpus, allegedly suspended with the odious enactment of the Military Commissions Act (aka Torture Bill, I call it the War Criminals' Protection Bill.) I've been Beyond Outrage since long before it was even passed - it represents the greatest threat to freedom America has ever faced, including both World Wars and the USA PATRIOT Act, also an abomination. It just makes me want to hurl, but I can't deal with the mess, so I'll just rant.

Part One:
So, I was over at Matthew's blog (The Pansy Bastard) and he was trying to elicit some thoughts on how to go about the restoration of Constitutional rule of law in America, and something twigged. The larger context was a lament about the lackadaisical pace towards the impeachment proceedings that the majority of Americans long for, but it was this quote that got me thinking,

If I recall, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus,
and the SCOTUS later shot it down.

It's important to remember that SCOTUS did indeed rule against Lincoln's suspension of habeas. In consideration of that, I came up with this (hopefully) interesting (perhaps) legal argument:

• The legislature's attempt to suspend the Great Writ through the Military Commissions Act was unconstitutional on its face - defying Article I, section 9. There is a procedure for amending the constitution, (Article V), and it was never attempted. BTW, are the Senators and Congresspersons sent to Washington content with having NO familiarity with the document defining their responsibilities? (and limiting their authority, BTW) Are their constituents?

• The Supreme Court shirked its duty when they shamefully declined to even hear a case testing the law back in April, simultaneously giving the finger to the Constitution, their oath of office, and the American public.

• Normally when a law is passed, if it hasn't yet been ruled unconstitutional it still has legal weight until it is considered by the Supremes. IOW, it is in the interim period 'the law of the land.' You can't be brought to court later for having followed the law prior to the high court's ruling because you were acting in good faith, and the fact that the law is stricken from the books later shouldn't put you in jeopardy. I think this is as it should be. † - (see footnote)
  

• But what if the Supreme court has already ruled on constitutionality, prior even to the passage of the bill? Shouldn't that change things? In the instance of the suspension of habeas, there is a standing ruling of its unconstitutionality, from Lincoln's time. The alleged suspension is therefore a legal nullity, a bit of shadow-puppet theater, a farce. It is "a tale told by an idiot, all full of wind and fury and signifying NOTHING." I know that quote is well out of its original Shakespearian context, but you get my point.

• It seems to me that in this particular instance there are a number of federal officials, in the military, the Justice Department, and even in the White House who could be facing multiple kidnapping charges. The idea that they were acting in good faith is absurd on its face.

I think a forceful lawyer could make a damn good case of it anyway. (more in comments) But it is not likely to happen.

Part Two:
Even assuming that the Democrats regain control of the government next year - White House, House and Senate - no-one is likely ever to be charged with willfully depriving people of their rights. It will probably take months, maybe years to even begin to restore the functionality of the Department of Justice. The damnably partisan and ideological Department of Just-Us. It will take DECADES, and a number of deaths or resignations to restore the Supreme Court. The damnably partisan and ideological and appointed-for-life Supreme Court. And there would be cries of "Ooooh - Political Witch-hunt!" from the army of flying monkeys in the damnably complicit Corporate Media, which may never be restored.

But that is not the greatest obstacle to the restoration of the Constitution. Ironically, it is the Constitution itself. That's right, in Article III, Section 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

The framers should have done a better job of writing this article so that the Constitution protected itself from the kind of conspiracy that led to the USA PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act. Because the United States isn't just a piece of geography, and it certainly isn't defined by whatever idiots, goons, or thugs happen to be in office at any given time. It is defined by what George the Execrable has called, "that damned piece of paper." Acts against that piece of paper should be construed as acts against the country itself, IMO. That would clearly and unequivocably answer the question, "Who Are The Enemy?" The enemy are George Bush and his hideous minions. Especially his partisan SCOTUS appointees.

In my mind it is treason, but in law not so much. It is a criminal conspiracy, but one that involves the President and his loathsome Vice, the legislature (especially but not exclusively the Republican side of the aisle), and the President's (and his father's) Supreme Court appointees. How are you ever going to justify going after them all? What kind of conniption fits are the flying monkeys of FOX "news" and The Washington Times, etc. going to have over it? *envisions Bill-O's head literally exploding all over Coultergeist's little black cocktail dress* HA!

Part Three:
I really love the US Constitution, but it has its flaws. Beyond the specific lacuna mentioned above, there is a general flaw that permeates the whole document as I see it. Its great strength is that, unlike most legal systems that concentrate on limiting what the people can do, it limits what the government can do. As an advocate of unruliness I like that - the more limits there are on government, the fewer rules there need be on the people. But here's the thing - while laws written to limit ordinary citizens' actions invariably contain pre-defined penalties, laws limiting government seldom if ever do. Take a quick look at the Bill of Rights. Where does it ever mention any penalties?

Let's illustrate with an example, beefing up the first amendment just a tad. My additions in red (as if you needed to have them pointed out.)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." And if you even try, you're clearly not fit for any public office in this country. You got your position through fraud and swore an oath under false pretenses. Give back every cent you ever received in government service, forfeit any pension you were promised and begone. BEGONE, I say! And don't you DARE try to slink back. And while you're at it, wipe that silly smirk off your face. SHAME ON YOU!

It might just smarten them up a bit. I doubt it, but it's at least worth a try.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---

† - footnote: Further research reveals my assumption about US law to be incorrect. The presumption of constitutionality is not nearly so strong as I thought. Here's the scoop from Wikipedia:

The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence says the following in regard to constitutionality:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178 )

This only makes my argument stronger, however. Further, it puts officials in the Bush administration in jeopardy of serious capital charges should the Supreme Court ever deign to rule on this blatantly unconstitutional provision of the Military Commissions Act.

TAGS:
Constitution, Bill of Rights, Justice
Military Commissions Act, And Other Things That Make Me Want To Hurl

That Goddamn Piece of Paper

...Some More Historical Perspective

Maybe as the only Canadian member of the unruly mob, I shouldn't be the one writing this essay - but maybe my outsider's perspective will bring something new to the table.

You be the judge.

At some early time in my life, probably in public school, I became aware that Canada did not have anything equivalent to your Declaration of Independence, Constitution, or Bill of Rights. Canada as a nation was defined by an act of BRITISH Parliament called the BNA (British North America) Act of 1867. Frankly, I have always found that to be outrageous, and somewhat shameful. Some of these concerns were addressed with the Canada Act of 1982, with its attendant Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While this 'repatriated' the Constitution in Canada, I still feel your documents are better than ours.

And I'll tell you why.

Prior to the founding of the United States, legal systems were based on the theory of Divine Right. The law was all about the government telling the people what they could and couldn't do. The U.S. Constitution set that premise on its ear, declaring that the will of the people should limit what government could and couldn't do. That is a radical and some may say sublime departure from what went before. OK, some would argue that the Magna Carta did that, but the premise of the Great Charter was still that power flowed from above, so it's not the same thing at all. Most importantly, in my view at least, the U.S. Constitution denied the leader the ability to claim authority based on a special connection to God. And hey, ya gotta love that strong opening, "We The People."

So what the heck went wrong? The government is now regularly doing exactly those things that the constitution supposedly prevents them from doing. President Bush loudly and proudly claims that his decisions ARE based on some special communication with God, and therefore beyond questioning. Shouldn't this trigger some corrective mechanism? Shouldn't something be happening to reverse this? Why isn't SOMEbody doing someTHING?

The situation brings to mind a quote from one of the most cynical men of the twentieth century, Joseph Stalin. "The Pope? How many divisions has he got?" One might well ask how many divisions the Constitution brings to the fight. And the answer, in theory, would be all the divisions in the country. The President, Congressmen, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, and every commissioned officer in the United States Armed Services must take an oath to 'uphold and defend' the Constitution against 'all enemies foreign and domestic.' That, one would imagine, should be more than enough, in theory. Sadly, as some sage said, "In theory, theory and practice are the same thing. In practice they are very different."

In practice, the honorable men that the Founders assumed would be taking all these oaths are not as abundant anymore as one would wish. I feel certain that George W. Bush, who is know to have referred to the Constitution as 'That Goddamn piece of paper', cannot be believed to have given serious consideration to his oath to defend and uphold same. Other oath-takers who have drop-kicked their Constitutional obligations into the nearest drainage ditch sit on the Supreme Court, fill seats in both houses of the legislature (and on both sides of the aisle in those houses), and fill key positions like, say, the Attorney General for example. I would say the majority of posts on this blog contain concrete demonstrations of how these men have dishonored themselves and their positions in all three branches of government.

Checks and balances my ass!

To their credit, the framers of The Constitution of The United States of America created a layered defense for liberty and the rights of man. One can readily see though how the assumptions that they made are no longer pertinent. The first assumption Is that the Chief Executive would recognize his position as a sworn servant of the people. Puh-leeese!! The Chimpster has shown no respect for any one of the 300,000,000 citizens of the country he is destroying.

The one thing the framers never considered when writing the Constitution was the idea that all three branches of government could ever become complicit in the same highjacking of democratic values. It rather erodes the layered defense that they provided with the model of checks and balances.

American fascism really became a fait accompli with the appointment of John Roberts as Chief Justice. The two then Republican-controlled branches of the government had effectively conspired to subvert the third. Worse, they did so in a manner that could not be corrected even when the Democrats regained the majority in the legislature. Worst, John Roberts being a young man this could have an impact extending into the next thirty or forty years. Any hope that democracy can be restored through the ballot box during the next election, even with an overwhelming Democratic majority ignores this depressing fact.

And oh, what abundant rewards the fascist bastards have already reaped from their subversion of the Justice System.

As I pointed out earlier, the administration, when they had Republican control of both houses, pushed legislation that is overtly unconstitutional (For example: the USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, etc, or any of the dozens of signing statements through which pResident Bush intrudes on legislative authority.) - secure in the knowledge that the US Supreme Court could simply do what they did in the case of the MCA 'torture bill.' They didn't stick their necks out and rule to let the offending law stand. That would be a patent and obvious abuse of authority, and quite likely impeachable. Any law student, or for that matter any high school civics student could see through such an act. This would leave FIVE conservative justices vulnerable.

No, what they did was in its own way even more odious. They simply refused to even consider any test case. In such an instance, where the Supreme Court has not declared a law to be unconstitutional, said law remains in full force. Not a bad play, really - treason by sin of ommission.

Similarly, much Republican wrongdoing has been overlooked by the Gonzales Department of Justice. There are quite likely a number of Republican Congressmen, and at least a couple of Senators who would be in jail today if not for the inaction and outright OBSTRUCTION of justice represented most prominently by the Prosecutors' Purge affair. Again, treason by sin of ommission.

Anyone who doesn't see malice aforethought in this is simply not paying attention. Or more likely, they have been grotesquely misinformed by the mainstream media - which by the way was considered to be the last layer in the layered defense of democracy envisioned by Jefferson, Madison, et. al. Or more precisely, they saw a general population ("We The People") properly informed by a free press to be that last layer. And they most certainly saw the final remedy for the subversion of the Constitution and Justice System to be the same remedy they had taken against the intolerable actions of King George, and beautifully expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

If the people of the United States of America don't rise up against their oppressors, and soon, very soon, it may be too late - not only for your country, but for the rest of the world as well. It's time to ask yourself the question, "how many defenders does the Constitution have?"

TAGS: Constitution, Declaration of Independence, American Revolution, V 2.0

Charges Against Khadr Dropped

...But He Will Still Remain in Guantanamo

Well, this is one for the books. According to this report from CBC News,

An American military judge abruptly dropped all charges on Monday against Omar Khadr, although it's unlikely to mean freedom for the only Canadian at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba.

A bit of background is in order. Khadr is the only Canadian citizen in Guantanamo. He was arrested FIVE YEARS AGO in Afghanistan, and accused of throwing a hand grenade that killed Sgt. First Class Christopher J. Speer, described by the CBC as a Marine medic. Sounds fishy to me. The Marines don't have their own medics, and rely on Navy Corpsmen for that function. But I won't distract you further with what is probably just an honest mistake by the CBC.

Khadr was wounded in the firefight that led to his, mmm, what do you call it exactly? Arrest? Capture? Detention? Anyway, it looks like the judge couldn't find a way to shoehorn a claim of jurisdiction over the prisoner.

When Khadr arrived at Guantanamo five years ago, he was classified by a military panel as an "enemy combatant."

But under the new Military Commission Act, revised and passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2006, the military commissions only have jurisdiction to try "unlawful enemy combatants."

CBC News's Bill Gillespie, reporting from Guantanamo, said Khadr's classification as an enemy combatant means he was a fighting on the battlefield, but not necessarily acting unlawfully.

Gillespie said it is unclear what will happen to Khadr now, although it is unlikely he will be released.

"A greater possibility is that he will be sent back to another panel who will again review his status and perhaps then come up with a definition that gives the court jurisdiction," Gillespie said.

Khadr's sister said she is still holding out hope Khadr will be able to return to Canada.

What is one to make of this? On one hand, it's almost as if the rule of law has emerged to exert its authority over the proceedings of the military commissions created to deal with these 380 'prisoners' (only a handful of whom have ever been charged with anything.) There seems to be some repudiation of Bu$hCo™'s unconstitutional and vile creation of new law to deal with these people somewhere in this.

On the other hand, this dropping of the charges seems to be yet another instance of the government avoiding any possibility of this being tested in a Supreme Court showdown, because they KNOW they would lose. The treatment of these prisoners has been unlawful and unconstitutional since day one on a number of counts. The Bush solution to this hinges on their designation being as ill-defined as possible. They are not acknowledged as enemy soldiers, because that would bring in the authority of the Geneva Conventions. Nor are they criminal defendants, because they would then clearly enjoy habeas corpus rights. And of course, whatever rights they might have are nullified by the fact that Guantanamo is not on US soil, but in Cuba. It's the most elaborate legal shell game to come along since the Soviet gulags.

One thing is certain - no ruling, even total exoneration for these Guantanamo kidnap victims (cause that's what they are if you think about it) ever results in any of them actually being released. That just stinks.

Did you ever think that they are just practicing techniques on these people that they fully intend to apply to everybody?

UPDATE: By now you probably know that a very similar ruling has been made in the case of Salim Hamdan, another Guantanamo detainee. It was the Supreme Court's ruling against the government in the case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that led to the infamous and unconstitutional Military Commissions Act. Among the odious provisions of the MCA was the effective suspension of habeas corpus in US law. The US Supreme Court's refusal to consider the constitutionality of the MCA was a clear breach of their duty under the law, IMO. Holding people prisoners without legal justification is a practice that was repudiated by the Constitution, and moreover by English Common Law going back centuries.

Hamdan and Khadr are the only two inmates charged with any offense since the passing of the MCA. Reactions to the decision - from Patrick Leahy, via Think Progress; from the White House via MSNBC.

TAGS: Omar Khadr, Guantanamo Bay, American Gulag, Jackboot Foreign Policy

"So Long As I'm the Dictator"

Bush is Getting All His Ducks in a Row

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier,

just so long as I'm the dictator."

— George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000

The state of affairs that then President-elect Bush desired even before taking office has come one step closer with the new National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. To provide the White House with your IP address click here to read the official May 9th press release. No? That's smart of you. OK then, click here for the story from Roguegovernment.com.

The directive released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and alternative media.. ..In this directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency..

..The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say that the President will work with the other branches of government equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the cooperative effort.

Yeah, right. In Bushspeak, as we all know, 'cooperation' means you submit to Bush's will, without the slightest compromise from him. A situation only likely to get worse after the disastrous 'compromise' the legislative branch just made over funding Bush's continuing war crimes in Iraq.

What is he afraid of anyway, that his lapdog Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will suddenly learn to stand up on his hind legs? That the very Supreme Court that sElected him as pResident in Dec. 2000 (made even more subservient by two more Bush appointees) will suddenly apply the rule of law over their Republican blood oath of loyalty? Or that the spineless Democratic Congress and Senate will suddenly evolve from their current status as free floating jellyfish?

Truth be told, even without this directive Bush is a de facto dictator already. With the power to arbitrarily name anyone, citizen of the US or not, as an 'enemy combatant' and have that person or persons incarcerated indefinitely without charges, habeas corpus rights, or access to an attorney, what more power does he need? Never mind that this power is entirely unconstitutional, as long as the Supreme Court refuses to hear a defining case on the matter, and as long as the police and military continue to accept Bush's chain of command as valid, it doesn't matter, does it?

It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the President.

I agree, there should definitely be angry protests over this. But there weren't angry protests over the Military Commissions Act, there weren't angry protests over Guantanamo, nor Abu Ghraib, nor the rendition program. Not only are legislators silent over these matters, but so are the execrable Corporate Owned Media bobbleheads, and most lamentably the American public themselves. Personally, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing or reading the phrase, "clear violation of constitutional separation of powers" practically every day with no-one voicing anything like an effective expression of disapproval. I know, there's been some clamoring, but I said effective.

Perhaps some new tactics have to be contemplated. Maybe if voters in some strong progressive states agitated for secession it might have some effect. The fact is, the compact promised in the Constitution of the United States of America has been broken. All it would take is a declaration of that fact from a few state legislatures, and at the very least some of Bu$hCo™'s most egregious malfeasance could be, I don't know, at least mentioned by CNN reporters or something.

In related news that I find nearly as lamentable is this analysis of a Scotusblog report on the prospect of one branch of government that has already fallen into Republican hands in a way that the 2008 elections cannot reverse. The next President will choose two or three Supreme Court Justices. Yeah, that's right. So as useless as the Democrats are showing themselves to be, the American electorate has no choice but to put them into power in '08, the consequences of not doing so being too grave to contemplate.

For those of you not inclined to plumb the depths of Supreme Court analysis, a brief summary:

1-The next President will select two or three new Supreme Court justices in his or her first term.

2-All three will come from the Court’s liberal wing.

This is disturbing in the extreme. I always knew this election would be important to the makeup of the court because, to a certain extent, every election is, and also because Justice Stevens is 87. What I did not know is that Justice Souter, at 67 a relatively young Justice, is itching to retire.

Yet another compelling reason for progressives to look to any and all means to find a way to block Bu$hCo™ from their nefarious aims. It's like Dr. Evil was President Dr. Evil or something.

I don't know. I'm grasping at straws here. I'm that desperate to find some way out of this mess. One thing I fear to be a sad and frightening truth, if progressives in America don't find a way to get their ducks in a row, and soon, it may very well be too late.

TAGS: Bush Dictatorship, Police State, Politics of Fear
Lowlife Republican Scumbags

Impeach Now

MSNBC Poll Shows Overwhelming Support

Come on Congressional Democrats, get the lead out. Listen up. Get off the stump, and go to work, fercryinoutloud!! We are tired of lame excuses. Sure, you say that the narrow majority in the Senate would preclude a conviction, but at least consider the political upside.

• You'd be wildly popular for showing some guts for a change.
• The Senate trial would bring the issues of malfeasance before the American public in a way the media could not ignore.
• Senators up for re-election in 2008 would be put on the spot. Could they vote to support an unpopular President after overwhelming evidence of criminal behavior had been presented in the news? I think not.

Those last two points are key to bringing normalcy back to politics in the United States. Without a healthy news media, you can forget about true democracy. As Abraham Lincoln pointed out, it is ESSENTIAL that the voter be given the true facts upon which to base his electoral decision. That hasn't been happening since Reagan gutted the Fairness Doctrine. A public trial of a sitting President and Vice President would be so important to the American public that even FOX "news" and ABC/Disney might consider reporting the facts for a change. If they don't, they can face the consequences of losing their broadcast licenses after the Democratic landslide in '08. And if you DO impeach, you can count on that landslide. Should they elect to lie or spin the news in Bu$hCo™'s favor, they could even face charges of involvement in a criminal conspiracy to subvert the process of democracy. And that's TREASON. (cue image of a blindfolded Rupert Murdoch being offered a cigarette)

Finally, there are many more GOP senators than Democrats in the 2008 cohort up for re-election. I think it's 21 and 12 respectively. (Update: It is. Click for a list.)That is a major opportunity to put a lock on the upper house that will last until 2014. To ignore such a golden opportunity hardly sends a signal to the public that you're in it to win it, now does it? Just the opposite in fact, it at least hints that you are complacent in;

• the erosion of democracy
• the rigging of elections
• the subversion of Justice
• the selling out of the middle class to corporate interests
• being led lied into an unjustified, wasteful war of aggression
• the WAR CRIMES this administration is guilty of
• the suspension of habeas corpus
• illegal wiretapping of citizens
• torture and murder of uncharged 'suspects'
• a wholesale culture of corruption that is basically 'government for sale'

There comes a point where complacency becomes complicity, and you are very near to that point, beyond it in the opinions of some. When Russ Feingold called for a motion of censure over the NSA wiretapping where were you? Most of you sat on your hands, and the issue died, along with the fourth amendment. A LOT of you supported the odious Military Commissions Act, the most blatant outrage against Constitutional principles since the Constitution was drawn up in 1787. And some of you supported the traitor Joe LIEberman against Ned Lamont, not only in the primary, but in the election itself, after the Republicans had endorsed him for Gawd's sake! I could go on. I could go on and on.

If you want to earn back our trust, you must impeach Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales.

YOU MUST IMPEACH!! Can't hear me?

YOU MUST IMPEACH!! Dammit,

YOU MUST IMPEACH!!

Update: You simply must visit the comments thread on this post, where I have taken this argument considerably further on second thought. You really should visit comments on this site anyway, sometimes that's where the best stuff is happening.

Cross-posted to Ice Station Tango.
TAGS: Impeach Bush, Impeach Cheney, Impeach Gonzales, Investigations

Supreme Court Jesters

...And Obscene Court Gestures

Perhaps one should be a little pleased with the Supreme Court's recent decision to allow the Environmental Protection Agency to actually, ahem, protect the freakin' environment. On balance I would give that up to have them rule on the constitutionality of the odious Military Commissions Act. As the BBC reports, they have recently decided not to decide this vital issue.

The US Supreme Court has said it will not decide whether detainees held at Guantanamo have the right to challenge their detention in US federal courts.

The decision means the court will not rule on the constitutionality of an anti-terror law pushed through Congress by President George W Bush last year.

The provision in question states that Guantanamo Bay inmates cannot challenge their detention in US civil courts.

Many of the 385 detainees at the camp have been held for five years or more.

None has yet been able to challenge their detention in a US civil court.

The provision stripping detainees of their right to mount a legal challenge to their confinement was upheld by a federal appeals court in Washington in February.

The court's majority opinion was that "the will of Congress" should prevail and that habeas corpus did not apply to foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay because it is not US soil.

Now, I don't have a law degree or anything, but it seems a simple enough task to interpret the clear language of Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution with regard to the Military Commissions Act passed on Sept. 28, 2006. (NYT news story), (Amnesty International response)

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

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

Since what we're dealing with here is in fact a suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and an ex post facto law (one that purports to take effect before it was passed), the matter seems to have been settled back in 1787. So that only leaves one issue as far as I can see, "that habeas corpus did not apply to foreign nationals being held at Guantanamo Bay because it is not US soil." And once again, I'm not at all impressed with the validity of this argument. What they're saying in effect is that US jurisdiction does not apply in this case - but wait, what they're REALLY saying is that jurisdiction applies so far as the government is concerned, but not so far as the detainees' rights are concerned.

This is a continuation of a trend in BushAmerika towards an institutionally asymmetrical application of legal principle, just as in the comparison I recently made between Monica Goodling's rights and those of detainee David Hicks. This abomination of a government continues to rely on the most tissue-thin of specious arguments, proffered by a gaggle of cronies similar to Alberto Gonzales - who recently testified in the Senate that the Constitutional guarantee not to suspend habeas corpus does not indicate that habeas corpus is a guaranteed right. This kind of reasoning should be met with an instant response of, "whoo boy, what the heck are YOU on?"

As far as the court's unusual respect for "the will of Congress" is concerned, I'm quite certain that Congress does NOT have the authority to amend the Constitution. So who are these clowns that Bushie and his father have appointed to the US Supreme Court? Bozos in expensive Italian suits, they should all be sent to a circus stuffed into the same Austin Mini. At least that would yield a laugh for the kiddies. They sure aren't looking anything like qualified lawyers from where I'm standing.

One other thing I think is really important and likely to be skipped over. The court is claiming that they are not making a decision here, but from a practical standpoint I can hardly imagine anything more deceptive. The detainees are not being released, nor are they being afforded an appearance before the court, so a de facto decision has been reached - from the point of view of the detainees, very emphatically so.

Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were joined by George H. W. Bush pick David Souter in dissenting this decision, Breyer writing, "I believe these questions deserve this court's immediate attention." The rest of the court, ALL REPUBLICAN APPOINTEES (Roberts and Alito by Junior, Kennedy by Reagan, Stevens by Ford and Clarence Thomas by Poppy) join with Reagan appointee Antonin Scalia in collectively making an obscene gesture towards the rule of law that can be interpreted to mean, "Go F#@k Yourself!"

One other thing. The court could have accepted this case and then ruled in the government's favor. There are two reasons this did not happen, both of them as sinister as they are cynical. The first is obvious. They are reluctant for political reasons to signal to the public that a police state has fully entrenched itself on American soil. The second is even more disturbing. By withholding final judgement on this issue the court gives a level of authority to President Bush that it can later deny to any Democratic successor.

I can hardly imagine anything more partisan than that, nor any more grievous example of the asymmetrical application of the law that I lamented above. The really sad thing is, recent history has shown that the administration is probably even now hatching something even worse. When someone respects the law as a concept, they see it as the glue that holds civilized society together. When someone like Bush, Gonzales, Scalia, or these other Republican-appointed toadies thinks of the law, they only see an armed thug in a uniform, willing to do their bidding.

Update: you may also want to read this excellent post from Marjorie Cohn at Counterpunch: Coming up Short on Habeas Corpus for Gitmo Detainees

TAGS: Supreme Court, Detainees, Constitution, Police State

The Fifth Amendment

Exclusive Property of the Bush Administration?

Nothing brings the Bush administration's naked partisanship and arrogant contempt for the law into focus so much as do two of today's top news items. Both have strong connections to the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. The first, the case of Monica Goodling, pictured to the right.

Goodling, 33, is a 1995 graduate Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., an institution that describes itself as "committed to embracing an evangelical spirit."

She received her law degree at Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Regent, founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson, says its mission is "to produce Christian leaders who will make a difference, who will change the world."

E-mails show that Goodling was involved in planning the dismissals and in later efforts to limit the negative reaction. As the Justice Department's liaison to the White House, she could shed light on the extent of White House involvement in the dismissals.

Goodling took a leading role in making sure that Tim Griffin, a protege of presidential adviser Karl Rove, replaced H.E. "Bud" Cummins as the U.S. attorney in Arkansas. Documents released to Congress include communications between Goodling and Scott Jennings, Rove's deputy.

Ms. Goodling would be a key witness in the Congressional investigation into the dismissal of federal prosectutors if not for her invocation of her fifth amendment rights not to incriminate herself. This has already made a difference, and changed the world in a number of ways. First, it has pundits on the right actually defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, something they haven't been doing much since their beloved Führer President Bush infamously referred to the Constitution as 'that Goddamn piece of paper.' Second, it sends a clear signal to Congress that at least in Ms. Goodling's opinion laws were indeed broken in this case. Did I mention she has a law degree?

One other way she has changed the world is that now Monica Lewinski can breathe more easily - Monica Goodling seems well on her way to replacing Lewinski as the Monica whose name is most firmly associated with White House scandal in future history books.

---

---

Let us now shift our focus to the second case, that of Australian David Hicks (pictured to the left.) Hicks just plead guilty to terrorism charges after over 5 years detention at the infamous Guantanamo Bay - part of America's own Gulag Archipelago. Some great links courtesy of TomPaine.com help one appreciate just what 'enemy combatants' have to endure. BringHicksHome.com actually built a replica of his cell in Australia that people could visit, and took it on tour. The fact that it could be transported on the back of a truck should tell you something. Peter Murphy created a virtual reality model of the cell for those unable to make it to any of the Australian locations. Amnesty International has also taken up his case, and the World Socialist Web Site has details of his brutal treatment.

He explained that he was “beaten before, after, and during interrogations... [and] threatened, directly and indirectly, with firearms and other weapons before and during interrogations” during his three-year detention.

He also heard the bashing of other detainees during interrogations and saw their injuries. He states that he has been hit in the face, head, feet, and torso with hands, fists and other objects, including rifle butts.

“At one point, a group of detainees, including myself, was subjected to being randomly hit over a eight-hour session while handcuffed and blindfolded,” he said. His head was rammed into the ground several times.

Other elements of prisoner abuse exposed show that Gitmo was a testing ground for the regime of physical and psychological abuses that later would be associated with Abu Ghraib - sleep deprivation, threats with attack dogs, forced injections with unknown drugs, humiliation and intimidation of naked prisoners, and more.

Why was David Hicks treated this way?

“I was told there was an ‘easy way’ and a ‘hard way’ to respond to interrogation,” he said. ... “Cooperation with interrogators,” Hicks stated, “offered the only means of relief from the miserable treatment and abuse the detainees suffered. Those who failed to comply suffered abuse until they gave in.”

David Hicks has plead guilty to aiding the cause of terrorism, under a system of military tribunals that didn't even exist when he was incarcerated. He was previously charged with attempted murder, which charge has since evaporated. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that Hicks' plea came about because, “Cooperation with interrogators offered the only means of relief from the miserable treatment and abuse the detainees suffered." Prior to today Hicks' lawyers have consistently stated that he did not expect a fair trial. Let me make that point a little clearer.

- From Canada.com:

Marine Lt.-Col. Colby Vokey, [Canadian Gitmo detainee Omar] Khadr’s lead defence attorney, said he believes Hicks pleaded guilty simply to "escape the hell" of Guantanamo, because a deal with the Australian government will allow him to return home to serve his sentence... The guilty plea gives a boost to President George W. Bush, who was forced last year to abandon an earlier system of military tribunals after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled they violated international law... Hicks’ guilty plea sets a dangerous precedent because it came after a stormy, one-day tribunal hearing in which a U.S. military judge dismissed two of the Australian’s defence lawyers.

- From ABC News online (Australia), Aug., '05:

Two emails, which have been obtained by the ABC, were sent to supervisors in the Office of Military Commissions in March of last year - three months before Australian detainee David Hicks was charged and five months before his trial began.

The first email is from prosecutor Major Robert Preston to his supervisor.

Maj Preston writes that the process is perpetrating a fraud on the American people, and that the cases being pursued are marginal.

"I consider the insistence on pressing ahead with cases that would be marginal even if properly prepared to be a severe threat to the reputation of the military justice system and even a fraud on the American people," Maj Preston wrote.

"Surely they don't expect that this fairly half-arsed effort is all that we have been able to put together after all this time."

Maj Preston says he cannot continue to work on a process he considers morally, ethically and professionally intolerable.

The second email is written by another prosecutor, Captain John Carr, who also ended up leaving the department.

Capt Carr says the commissions appear to be rigged.

"When I volunteered to assist with this process and was assigned to this office, I expected there would at least be a minimal effort to establish a fair process and diligently prepare cases against significant accused," he wrote.

"Instead, I find a half-hearted and disorganised effort by a skeleton group of relatively inexperienced attorneys to prosecute fairly low-level accused in a process that appears to be rigged."

Capt Carr says that the prosecutors have been told by the chief prosecutor that the panel sitting in judgment on the cases would be handpicked to ensure convictions.

"You have repeatedly said to the office that the military panel will be handpicked and will not acquit these detainees and that we only needed to worry about building a record for the review panel," he said.

- From Leftwrites, just a few weeks ago:

So the US military has charged David Hicks—but not with attempted murder. What a slap in the face for all those who loyally mouthed the American talking points on Hicks!

The evidence against Hicks was so strong, they assured us, and the things he’d done were so heinous, that the man deserved nothing less than Guantanamo Bay. Rumsfeld (remember him?) told us that Gitmo contained only the "most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth," and all the right-wing ditto-heads nodded their slack-jawed assent. Yet now, with the US under pressure to provide some proof, the attempted murder charge miraculously evaporates.

That, boys and girls, is the reason we have a legal process, since (gasp!) not everything that the authorities say turns out to be true.

In any case, now that the Americans no longer claim that Hicks actually tried to kill anyone, it will be interesting to see the basis on which the Right tries to defend the continuing violation of the rules of law in his case.

- And again from ABC News online Feb. 3, '07:

The US military has revealed details of the drafted charges that include attempted murder and providing material support for terrorism... Mr Hicks's US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, has questioned the charge of attempted murder, pointing out that the US military prosecutor has acknowledged that Mr Hicks never fired a shot in anger.

To sum up, the so-called 'due process' of this case is a sham, fitting well with my earlier description of the Bush 'Potemkin Village' of justice. But to get back to my original point - let's act like good high school students, and compare and contrast the functional impact of the fifth amendment in the case of Monica Goodling compared to the case of David Hicks.

I believe it will eventually be revealed that Monica Goodling's hiding behind the fifth amendment is frivolous. If she did so to hide someone else's wrongdoing rather than her own, say Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove, or someone even higher in the White House food chain, that would not be her right, that would be obstruction of justice. As a lawyer she should know that. But her frivolous and obstructionist misuse of the Bill of Rights is OK, because she is connected to this administration. And this administration is acting like the Constitution is their property.

There could be no more egregious breach of the principal that one cannot be made to bear witness against oneself than a coerced guilty plea, as that of Hicks appears to be. But he isn't in the White House 'in crowd', so he doesn't get to make use of 'their' Bill of Rights.

And sadly, neither do you or I.

---

---

UPDATE: If this article doesn't already have you seething at the inequity and iniquity of Bu$hCo™ justice, read this HuffPo piece.

U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan threw out a lawsuit brought on behalf of nine former prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said Rumsfeld cannot be held personally responsible for actions taken in connection with his government job... "This is a lamentable case," Hogan began his 58-page opinion Tuesday.

No matter how appealing it might seem to use the courts to correct allegations of severe abuses of power, Hogan wrote, government officials are immune from such lawsuits. Additionally, foreigners held overseas are not normally afforded U.S. constitutional rights.

Cross-posted at The Existentialist Corral

TAGS: Monica Goodling, David Hicks, The Fifth Amendment, War Crimes

A Ray of Light

News From the Front in the Real War of Terror

On the thread about Chris Dodd's efforts to restore habeas corpus to the American judicial system, GL responded with, "A ray of light breaking through the clouds?" Perhaps, but it may have been little more than the bright line that one detects along the edge of a closed door in a very dark room. A decision rendered by a federal judge in the Jose Padilla case may signal the opening of that door, if only by the slightest crack. With the light may come some much needed air into the room.

As reported by BBC News,

"A US citizen suspected of being an al-Qaeda conspirator is mentally unfit to stand trial, a psychiatrist for his defence has said.

Speaking at a hearing to determine Jose Padilla's competence, Angela Hegarty said he lacked the capacity to assist his counsel in the case."

Padilla was most recently in the news when he was photographed blindfolded and wearing sound-blocking earmuffs on a trip to the dentist. The inhuman sensory deprivation that he has been subjected to for 3½ years is the direct cause of his current mental incompetence. Naomi Klein of Alternet has more details. This is a link I put up in the hope you will actually click on it and read Naomi's entire shocking post.

"Arrested in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare airport, Padilla, a Brooklyn-born former gang member, was classified as an 'enemy combatant' and taken to a navy prison in Charleston, South Carolina. He was kept in a cell 9ft by 7ft, with no natural light, no clock and no calendar. Whenever Padilla left the cell, he was shackled and suited in heavy goggles and headphones. Padilla was kept under these conditions for 1,307 days. He was forbidden contact with anyone but his interrogators, who punctured the extreme sensory deprivation with sensory overload, blasting him with harsh lights and pounding sounds. Padilla also says he was injected with a 'truth serum,' a substance his lawyers believe was LSD or PCP.. ..These same practices have been documented in dozens of cases of 'extraordinary rendition' carried out by the CIA, as well as in prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan"

She observes, "America has deliberately driven hundreds, perhaps thousands, of prisoners insane. Now it is being held to account in a Miami court." Let's hope so. The Bush administration has made a habit of ignoring court decisions, including Supreme Court decisions, that didn't go their way. Bu$hCo™ ARE the terrorists, as this case clearly shows, and they are waging a war against the American people and the rule of law. Did I mention, Padilla is an American citizen, arrested on American soil, who has never been anywhere near any armed conflict? His arrest was way before the MCA was passed, and has been a textbook case of abuse of power. For a point of comparison, read Maher Arar's personal account of the way he was treated, in CounterPunch. Clearly this is all part of a wide-ranging program approved at the highest levels of government - they can't blame everything on Lynndie England.

In other related news, the Toronto Star reported Friday on a UNANIMOUS Canadian Supreme Court decision striking down the government's use of so-called 'security certificates' to detain and deport non-citizens suspected of terrorism ties. Turns out the certificate system is in conflict with Canada' Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Kudos to the Supreme Court of Canada - must be all that clean air up here.

In other other news, Les Enragés.org drew the attention of, and a link from Chris Dodd's blog for a piece we ran about Senator Dodd sponsoring the Effective Terrorist Prosecution Act, which aims to reverse the worst aspects of the Military Commissions Act (aka The War Criminals' Protection Act.) Kudos again, senator.

Scroll down the sidebar for a link to RestoreHabeas.org - it's our biggest graphic link, the Statue of Liberty in chains courtesy of Project for the OLD American Century. And it should be our biggest graphic, because it's our biggest concern. If further erosion of the Bill of Rights is allowed, the United States of America will exist in name only - a large expanse of North American real estate keeping Canada and Mexico from bumping into one another.

To reiterate: Restore Habeas, Repeal the MCA, and defend the Constitution. Dammit!

TAGS: Jose Padilla, Torture, Human Rights, Abuse of Power

Kudos Chris Dodd

Fighting to Restore Habeas Corpus Rights

Chris Dodd (D - no really, a Democrat, honest) is the senior senator from Connecticut. In that capacity he has the unenviable task of trying to provide some balance to the other senator from Connecticut, Joe LIEberman (I - diot.) LIEberman, as you all know, took over the post of senior DINO in Washington with the retirement of Zell Millar (D - ecrepit.) Balancing LIEberman's reprehensible career of deception is a task in itself, but Senator Dodd earns his kudos for sponsoring the Effective Terrorist Prosecution Act, which aims to reverse the worst abuses of the Military Commissions Act (Which we deplore here at Les Enragés as the War Criminals' Protection Act.) Here's Dodd's video to explain.

Restoring the Constitution

Note in particular that Dodd urges everyone to 'become in effect a citizen co-sponsor' of the bill. You can do that by visiting Restore-Habeas.org and signing on.

"The bill will restore Habeas Corpus protections to detainees, bar information acquired through torture from being introduced as evidence in trials, and limit presidential authority to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions."

I think this is really important. If the thugs currently in control of the country are allowed to have their way, you are under the thumb of one of the most brutal gang of criminals since Al Capone Atilla the Hun. Do you really think it's safe to let them make up whatever rules they like, then to interpret those rules however they see fit?

BTW, Chris is a 'dark horse' candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination. From what I've seen he is showing more substance and integrity than the front runners. It's typical of the MSM to virtually ignore anyone who could actually bring real change to the political morass.

TAGS: Chris Dodd, Habeas Corpus, Geneva Conventions, Rule of Law

Why Do Federal Judges Hate the Law?

Jane Smiley did an interesting editorial at HuffPo yesterday entitled, 'What Would You Do If Bush Declared Martial Law?' To tell the truth, she was a lot more optimistic about the outcome than I would have been. I've always had a talent for painting worst-case scenarios, and I have no problem seeing BushCo™ using the most brutal possible methods of repression. I won't go into the depressing details.

"An editorial in the New York Times yesterday pointed out, for those of us who didn't realize it, that the Bush administration had inserted two provisions into last October's defense budget bill that would make it easier to declare martial law in the US. Senators Leahy and Bond have introduced a bill to repeal these changes, and it is important that voters keep track of this bill and hold their Congresspeople to account on it. Along with several other measures the Bush adminstration has proposed, the introduction of these changes amounts, not to an attack on the Congress and the balance of power, but to a particular and concerted attack on the citizens of the nation. Bush is laying the legal groundwork to repeal even the appearance of democracy. Any senator who does not vote in favor of the Leahy/Bond repeal of these provisions should promptly be recalled by his or her constituents."

(I gotta say here, I really love Senator Leahy. He's doing a great job of defending the constitution and making the fascistic bastards like Alberto 'Abu' Gonzales squirm. We need more like him.)

While Jane Smiley's editorial and the underlying New York Times editorial are disturbing and alarming, they don't come close to this piece in yesterday's NYTimes, that has got me tearing the hems of my garments and reaching for the ashes. Because quite frankly, it's stories like this that make Jane Smiley's hypothetical look much more like a real possibility.

"A divided federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a new law stripping federal judges of authority to review foreign prisoners’ challenges to their detention at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The decision set the stage for a third trip to the Supreme Court for the detainees, who will once again ask the justices to consider a complex issue that tests the balance of power among the White House, Congress and the courts in the murky context of the fight against international terrorism.

The Supreme Court previously ruled twice that federal statutes empowered the courts to consider Guantánamo prisoners’ habeas corpus petitions challenging the grounds for their detention. In response to those rulings, Congress twice rewrote law to limit the detainees’ avenues of appeal. The most recent rewriting was at issue in Tuesday’s 2-to-1 decision.. ..That law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, was signed by President Bush last October. Its enactment followed the Supreme Court’s rejection of his administration’s earlier arguments that the right of habeas corpus — the fundamental right, centuries old, to ask a judge for release from unjust imprisonment — did not apply to foreigners being held outside the United States as enemy combatants."

Article II, section 9 of the Constitution clearly states, "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." So how did these bozos get to be judges without even a rudimentary understanding of the relationship between the legislature and the U.S. Constitution? Yeah, yeah, I know - the simple answer is that they are Republican-appointed partisan political hacks, just like their boss, Alberto 'Abu' Gonzales. They treat Lady Justice like she was just another whore hired to entertain the likes of Dusty Foggo, Brent Wilkes and Randy 'Duke' Cunningham. Pull up her skirt, strip off her panties, and wipe her ass with the constitution, she's bought and paid for. I swear, they're running the government like it was some Skull and Bones kegger.

It makes me want to weep.

TAGS: Military Commissions Act, U.S. Constitution, Police State, Martial Law

Gonzales Caves In

Democratic Majority Begins to Bear Fruit

The first of what we hope to be many Senate hearings into administration malfeasance has had new Justice committee chairman Patrick Leahy questioning Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the matter of the NSA wiretapping program. The program was declared to be unconstitutional and even criminal by Federal Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor way back in August. There are a couple of articles at Glenn Greenwald's site here and here for those who wish to be brought up to date on the issue.

In a letter to Leahy and ranking minority [insert taunt here] committee member Arlen "The Enabler" Specter, Gonzales claims that the program will now operate under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC.) This of course was always legally required, both constitutionally in accordance with the fourth amendment and statutorily to comply with the FISA law set up after the wiretapping abuses of the Nixon administration. Greenwald, who is the acknowledged expert on this matter, was not impressed by Gonzales' reluctant and belated performance of his clear duty as Attorney General.

"[U]ltimately, there are only two options -- (1) the administration is now complying fully and exclusively with FISA when eavesdropping, in which case all of its prior claims that it could not do so and still fight against The Terrorists are false, or (2) the administration has changed its eavesdropping program some, but it is still not fully complying with FISA, in which case nothing of significance has changed (at least on the lawbreaking issues) because the administration is still violating the law."

Let me rephrase that. The administration is pretending that it will now comply with FISA and the constitution because something has changed. Which frankly is a load of crap. The only thing that has changed is the political landscape, where the word oversight now actually means oversight, not overlook. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a legal ruling that allows wiretapping without a warrant being issued.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-- Amendment IV, The Constitution of The United States of America

I can hardly wait until Leahy questions Gonzales on what I think are much more pressing issues in Justice's bailiwick: Suspension of habeas corpus under the Military Commissions Act; Incarceration and imprisonment without charges at Guantanamo Bay; Torture; Signing Statements; The theory of unitary executive presidential powers, to name a few. Gonzales needs to be reminded that he swore an oath to uphold the law, not to support his long-time friend George Bush in his newly carved-out dictatorship.

There are few people in the Bush administration who are worse than the Chimperor himself. For his complicity in the kidnapping, torture and deaths of innocent detainees, Gonzales makes it onto that short list.

---

UPDATE (3 pm., 01/18): Here's a snippet from the New York Times article on this.

"Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is expected to face hostile questioning on Thursday from the Senate Judiciary Committee on the program. And an appellate court in Cincinnati is scheduled to hear arguments in two weeks on the government’s appeal of an earlier ruling declaring the program illegal and unconstitutional.

Some legal analysts said the administration’s pre-emptive move could effectively make the court review moot, but Democrats and civil rights advocates said they would press for the courts and Congress to continue their scrutiny of the program of wiretapping without warrants, which began shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001."

How could this make the standing decision moot? The judge in this case had already determined that there was a prima facie case to pursue CRIMINAL charges against the administration, whatever NSA and CIA operatives that were involved, and even non-governmental agencies like AT&T that may have co-operated. This is like a thief who was already facing charges of holding up several liquor stores being let go because he has promised not to do it anymore. Every criminal in America should be asking their lawyer to pursue that option now that the precedent has been set.

TAGS: Justice Committee, Patrick Leahy
Abu Gonzales, War Criminal