Deep tweets

Strange tweet from a few days ago. Never saw another word about it.

Look who visited #Guantanamo today: Obama's closers, shown at GTMO airstrip, in media blackout fact-finding trip. pic.twitter.com/LBkvWqCeyy
— Carol Rosenberg (@carolrosenberg) November 25, 2013

Apparently Ben Smith never heard of them. In response to his query, she tweeted this: Hey, @BuzzFeedBen They're Obama special envoys Cliff Sloan (State) and Paul Lewis (Pentagon).

Don't blame Obama for Gitmo

McClatchy posts an article today, How Congress helped thwart Obama's plan to close Guantanamo. Excuse me, but "helped"? They're totally responsible for Gitmo still being in existence today. Let's review:

...Congress' prohibition on resettling any of the detainees in the United States hamstrung the administration's global search for countries willing to take the captives in. [...]

"Were we willing to take a couple of detainees ourselves, it would've made the job of moving detainees out of Guantanamo significantly easier,'' said the official, who agreed to speak only anonymously because of the delicacy of the diplomacy.

This is one of the lefty criticisms of Obama I've never understood. He tried to close it. Few seem to remember "two days after taking the oath of office, on Jan. 22, 2009, Obama signed an executive order instructing the military to close Guantanamo within a year." Then the GOPers, amplified by the media, started the knee quaking about bring those "dangerous terrorists" onto the sacred soil of the Homeland. Instead of calling them out as big sissies and pointing out their Commander Guy is the one who created this mess, the Democrats joined them in misplaced, pissy-pants paranoia.

There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Obama's handling of military policies bequeathed to him by the neo-cons, but I don't see Gitmo as being one of them.

Major meltdown

Well, Petraeus endorsed closing Gitmo and said we need to stop torturing prisoners in an interview this week. Which of course I was happy to pass along to the crew at Detroit News. There's some serious head exploding going on among the far right regs in the comment section. They're working hard to maintain the cognitive dissonance today. Funny.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Making terrorists

No one could have predicted that incarcerating innocent men for years without charges and torturing them for information they didn't have would turn them into radicals.

One of the detainees whom a newly released Pentagon report says returned to the battlefield after he was released from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp told McClatchy that he was a local security leader in Afghanistan when he was arrested and became a radical Islamist only during his detention.

This in the context of the Pentagon's latest list of Gitmo releasees who "returned to the battlefield." Their criteria is, shall we say, flexible.

The report found that 27 were confirmed terrorism suspects and another 47 were suspected terrorists as of April 7.

The department defines suspected in part as "unverified or single-source but plausible" reported activities. In its 27 confirmed cases, the Pentagon said it has fingerprints, DNA, photos or reliable intelligence tying them to terrorist activity since their release.

Most of the confirmed and suspected terrorists the agency listed have either died in battle or in suicide attacks, or have been arrested by local authorities.

So in other words, it barely matters if they "returned to battle" because most of them aren't a threat any more. Not that anyone but McClatchy seems willing to mention this part. I swear, the vast majority of our media are a greater threat than terrorists.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Obama slaps back Cheney criticism

I wonder how long it will take the usual suspects to start hyperventilating about President Obama's 'disrespect' for the former occupiers of the White House? Pushing back on Cheney's previous bizarre criticisms of his new approach to the fight against terrorism, Obama had this to say among other things.

“How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney?”

Bush administration terrorism policy “hasn’t made us safer,” Mr. Obama said, according to excerpts of the interview released Saturday. “What it has been,” he continued, “is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment.”

I get encouraged when our president talks like this. It's the kind of change I believe in. Unfortunately, I never stop reading so I find myself wondering if he's really going to walk that talk. Embracing the same tactics to cover up the past administration's criminality won't change anything.

[More posts daily at The Detroit News]

Pentagon released number two AQ

By Libby

I've been tied up all day but the Newshoggers have a ton of new content worth reading. If you're not up for the full scroll, at least make sure you read this one on the trial of bin Laden's driver.

This is why the White House doesn't want fair trials with open testimony.

Soon after Osama bin Laden's driver got here in 2002, he told interrogators the identity of the al Qaeda chief's most senior bodyguard — then a fellow prison camp detainee.

This startling information was revealed in the fourth day of the war crimes trial of Salim Hamdan, 37, facing conspiracy and material support for terror charges as an alleged member of bin Laden's inner circle.

Here's the part they don't want us to find out. The bodyguard was released without ever being charged in 2004. Of course, as Cernig notices, by then Bush had us mired in Iraq and bin Laden was so forgotten.

Only one Friedman Unit away from being free of this arrested adolescent.

SCOTUS and other stuff

By Libby

There's a huge wildfire about an hour or so driving time to the east of me and I swear I can smell the smoke. Also the air quality was already poor due to no air currents and high pollen counts so I'm moving a little slow today on account of not being able to breathe. To the extent I've been able to focus, I've been posting at Detroit News on the premise that I'm reaching the most McCain supporters in that venue and that's where we need to bring the battle.

Meanwhile, the big news of the day is that SCOTUS upheld habeas rights for Gitmo prisoners. This is already well covered by better legal minds than mine, so I'll just send you to Cernig and Fester who have already flagged the good links and offered their own fine analysis. Meanwhile, the wingnuts have thrown themselves onto the fainting couch in horror at this 'defeat' in the war on terrur. You'll have to find your own links to them.

All I'll add is that I'm surprised to see this decision come out of this court but I welcome it as a heartening baby step back towards restoring respect for the rule of law at the highest levels of our judicial system.

Our newest ambassador

By Capt. Fogg

One of the weaknesses of our normally peaceful presidential change of watch is that someone like Bush, leaving office peacefully, with ceremony and not in handcuffs, isn't an event that shows the world we have attempted to cleanse ourselves of his administration and its arrogance. Regardless of who his replacement will be, it will be hard to convince the world that our government has any respect for basic human rights, justice or the rule of law.

Newly released Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al Hajj returned to his native Sudan Monday to begin his new mission of United States bad will ambassador to the world. He was held in our Guantanamo prison camp without charge for seven years, apparently because he contributed money to a charity suspected of supporting terrorists, once interviewed Osama bin Laden and worked for a beverage company whose director supported Muslim forces in Bosnia and Chechnya. After seven years, or as he put it in a televised speech, "After 2,340 days spent in the most heinous prison mankind has ever known" he was released. Was this vengeance for his having reported human rights violations in Afghanistan? Maybe, but if this kind of evidence can justify seven years of enhanced interrogation, nobody the US targets for reprisals is safe and of course the world knows it, hates us for it and hates us the more for our not caring, for nattering endlessly about flag pins, what brand of whiskey is preferred and other insanely meaningless crap.

It will take a long time for the image of the US as a dangerous country run by paranoid megalomaniacs and peopled by cowardly, greedy entertainment junkies who have no clue or care, to fade. Who knows if it ever will? Who knows if we ever will be able to get clean of the addiction to diseased patriotism, ignorance and delusions of grandeur, but if we won't Punish, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the entire cabal, perhaps the election of Barak Obama will to some degree signal that a change has occurred in America. Without that perception, ambassadors like Sami al Hajj will unite the world against us and ignite the passions of ten thousand terrorists. We can chose to become an isolated nation dependent upon the fear of our nuclear weapons for protection, or we can begin to reverse course, to live again as free and courageous people who deal with the world honestly.

Our choices are very limited and there is no perfect candidate, but for my part, I think Barak Obama, whatever his faults and weaknesses may be, is the best choice we have.

Cross posted from Human Vocies

Prosecution of Terrorists Dealt Blow

The Bush Administration was dealt a serious blow by a military judge who threw out the terrorism related charges against Omar Khadr. This will set back an attempt by Bush to have the detainees tried in military courts.

The chief of military defense attorneys at Guantanamo Bay, Marine Col. Dwight Sullivan, said the ruling could spell the end of the war-crimes trial system set up last year by Congress and President Bush after the Supreme Court threw out the previous system. The ruling immediately raised questions about whether the U.S. will have to further revise procedures for prosecuting prisoners, leading to major delays.

Khadr is a Canadian who was captured at the age of 15 and charged with killing an American soldier in Afghanistan. He is now 20 and will remain in custody in Guantanamo with 380 other detainees.

The judge, Army Col. Peter Brownback, said he had no choice but to throw out the Khadr case because he had been classified as an "enemy combatant" by a military panel years earlier—and not as an "alien unlawful enemy combatant."

The Military Commissions Act, signed by Bush last year, says only those classified as "unlawful" enemy combatants can face war trials here, Brownback noted during the arraignment in a hilltop courtroom.

The Military Commissions Act signed by Bush said that only detainees classified as "unlawful" enemy combatants can be tried at Guantanamo and all of the detainees are only classified as "enemy" combatants.

"It is not just a technicality; it's the latest demonstration that this newest system just does not work," Sullivan told journalists. "It is a system of justice that does not comport with American values."

This seems to be what happens when bad policy becomes bad law. These people at Guantanamo are not innocent victims and if they are let go they will certainly go back to killing Americans.

This is just continuing evidence of the total incompetence of the Bush Administration.

The Republican Candidates And Torture

There is a very good editorial up at the Washington Post. Yes, it is hard to believe, but nevertheless they got it right when they came down hard on the republican candidates for president and their stance on being for or against torture. Mr. McCain is the only one that got it right. Brit Hume, of course, asked the question framing it as the "1,000,000 to 1 scenario" of how to interrogate captured terrorists planning on attacking the U.S.

Mr. McCain answered that in that extreme and most unlikely situation, "I, as the president of the United States, would take that responsibility" for determining interrogation methods. But, he added, "We could never gain as much from that torture as we lose in world opinion."

Everything-for-everyone-Rudy was all for torturing, including waterboarding.

Nonsensically, he added, "I've seen what can happen when you make a mistake about this," though prisoner interrogations had nothing to do with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Mitt Romney commented that instead of closing Guantanamo we should double it. Is he tough, or what? I think probably the what.

He added that he liked to have suspects in Guantanamo because "they don't get the access to lawyers they get when they're on our soil."

They sum up this great editorial with this:

Does Mr. Romney think the president has gone soft on terrorism? More likely, he and most of the other GOP candidates are calculating that they can curry favor with voters by promising that torture will be a tool of their presidential administrations. Let's hope they are wrong. As Mr. McCain put it, "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are."

No Mr. McCain, it's about the kind of country we used to be. We're not that way now. Out of fear or for political gain or both we have become not so much the home of the brave, but the homeland of the frightened. We have allowed the government to intrude into some of our basic rights. They listen to our phone calls and watch us on the streets, hell, they even want to look at what we're reading at the library.

When civil libertarians warned about what would happen the government assured us that they wouldn't abuse the so-called Patriot Act. "Trust us. We're from the government and we're here to help you."

It seems that with the possible exception of Mr. McCain the rest of the republicans running for president are either frightened or identify with those Americans who are frightened. They are so afraid or afraid of losing votes that they will torture people and spy on American citizens. They are willing to sacrifice liberty for security, a security that cannot be attained in our society.

If terrorists choose to attack us and are willing to sacrifice themselves then there is precious little we can do about it. We are a free society, not as free as before George W. Bush, but free enough for our enemies to use our freedoms against us. Our borders are porous and once in the country you can move around at will. All the terrorist attacks should not change that.

I would hope that when we are attacked again, and we will be, we will continue on with our pride and freedoms intact and fight the bastards wherever they are. I would also hope that we would continue to act like free Americans and not fall into the cowardly trap and start acting like the terrorists. The terrorists will have won when we become like them in thought or deed.

If attacked our leaders will probably promise us more security and justice for the attacks. You'll probably hear that they will bring the terrorists to justice or take justice to them. We've heard those lies before and the very least we should expect from our leaders is that they obey our Constitution and live up to their oaths of office.

There has been precious little of that for the last six plus years.

Jim Martin

(thanks to The Reaction for the link)

Cheney's fingerprints all over Hick's sentencing

Shaun Mullen at TMV points us to the latest intriguing wrinkle in the sentencing of allegedly dangerous terrorist David Hicks. It appears Hicks sweet deal was cut without the knowledge of the prosecutors.

GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba, March 31 -- The plea deal that allows Australian David M. Hicks to leave the detention facility here with a nine-month sentence was negotiated between defense attorneys and the convening authority for military commissions without the knowledge of prosecutors, lawyers from both sides said.

The deal shows that the politically appointed authority has the power to personally decide the fate of America's most notorious terrorism suspects.

The prosecutors were thinking no less than seven years and the idea of a life sentence had been widely floated previous to the backroom manueverings that will set Hicks free shortly after Australian Prime Minister John Howard's reelection campaign is over. It's not that hard to connect the dots here from Cheney to the outcome.

Cheney recently visited Howard in Australia. Howard was under political pressure at home to resolve the case. The US military commision official who signed off the deal, Susan J. Crawford, was the Defense Department's inspector general from 1989 to 1991, when Cheney was defense secretary. Odd coincidences, wouldn't you say?

David Hicks cuts deal for nine month sentence

Well, after being incarcerated at Gitmo for five years as allegedly one the worst terrorists we have in custody, Australian prisoner David Hicks pled guilty to terrorism charges after agreeing that "he faced damning evidence taken from 'notes by interrogators' that he had been shown." Our government had recommended a seven year sentence but under the terms of the plea deal, Hicks will be released within 60 days, or probably sooner, and returned to Australia to serve a nine month sentence. We have teenagers in America who get stiffer sentences than that for possession of a couple of grams of marijuana in a school zone.

And what did Hicks have to give up in order to score this sweet offer?

Under his plea deal, Hicks stipulated that he has "never been illegally treated by a person or persons while in the custody of the U.S. government," Kohlmann said. In the statement read by Mori, Hicks thanked U.S. service members for their professionalism during his imprisonment.

Furthermore, the judge said, the agreement bars Hicks from suing the U.S. government for alleged abuse, forfeits any right to appeal his conviction and imposes a gag order that prevents him speaking with news media for a year from his sentencing date.

He also can't profit from writing a book about his experiences after the gag order expires. Any money he makes on his story must be handed over to the Australian government. And he had to agree to appear as a government witness in future trials for either the US or the Aussies, although what useful testimony he could possibly offer after being held incommunicado for five years is unclear.

So what are we to make of this outcome? Either he was a dangerous terrorist or he wasn't. If he was a real terrorist, it's outrageous that the US let him go with such a light sentence. If he wasn't really a dangerous terrorist, the terms of the plea agreement suggest the Bush administration was more afraid of what he might say about his treatment at Guantanamo than they were about the possibility that he might commit terrorist acts against our country.

It's difficult not to be reminded of Jose Padilla, an American citizen held for three years as a "dangerous terrorist" and then when his illegal detainment was finally challenged by the courts, the Bush administration moved him to civil jurisdiction and charged him with -- well, basically nothing.

And what's up with the signing of a statement saying he wasn't mistreated? Isn't that what the terrorists who have kidnapped westerners in Iraq have repeatedly done? In fact, isn't this exactly the sort of coerced statement that Iran forced the British hostages to sign? As the "good guys" in the war on terror, shouldn't we be conducting ourselves more honorably than the people we're fighting?

Padilla is "lucky" that he's an American citizen or he would still be confined indefinitely and without counsel under Bush's "enemy combatant" rule. Hicks is "lucky" that he's a white guy from an allied nation whose government needed some good PR for their reelection campaign.

I fear for the 80 remaining less well connected prisoners scheduled for trial, the outcomes won't be so lenient. As for the 305 others who aren't even scheduled for trial, it looks like they're going to face at least another two years of forced gag orders from the inside of Gitmo, since it seems unlikely Bush will take his own Secretary of Defense's recommendation to shut that hell hole down.

Four years of torture elicts 9/11 confession

After 4 years in Gitmo, the alleged mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed,has confessed to planning the strike on the WTC and also copped to just about every terror attack in the last 30 years. Forgive me if I don't heave a huge sign of relief that we got the "bad man" though. Knowing what we do about the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and considering what Padilla endured in US prisons, one would think after four years of relentless "alternate interrogation" the man would have copped to starting the Spanish inquistion if it would have stopped the torture.

As my friend Michael van der Galien points out, it's just as difficult, or more so, to believe the confession of guilt from a tortured man as it is to believe the protestations of innocence from an convicted killer.

This confession may well be accepted and glorified as proof of some kind of victory by the remaining White House cheerleaders who support the occupation but for the rest of the world, including myself, these "confessions" will be tainted by the manner in which they were obtained.

Not to mention the convenient timing of the announcement, just as the FBI and Justice department's abuse of NSLs is being scrutinized. Anybody want to bet that the White House will claim the NSLs or some other disputed domestic surveillance program will be credited in having obtained evidence against Khalid?