Gitmo task force review: What we can learn (or what we already know)

The Obama administration has finally graced us with the Guantanamo Review Task Force report, a comprehensive review of all detainees held at the facility. Those reviews examined detainees' "capture information, interview reports, record searches by the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency, and Guantanamo Bay files on behavior, disciplinary infractions and mental health."

So what can be gleaned from this review? Most of this stuff isn't a surprise, but let's go over it for fun. Yes, sick, sick fun. I'll use Peter Finn's article in Saturday's Washington Post.

1. The basics: A lot of these prisoners are low-level foot soldiers and/or were captured under dubious circumstances, most likely to fill a quota or settle a score. Plus, the Obama administration didn't release this report four months ago when it was ready because it was the ethical thing to do ... er, because of politics.

The final report by the Guantanamo Review Task Force recommends that 126 of the detainees be transferred either to their homes or to a third country; that 36 be prosecuted in either federal court or a military commission; and that 48 be held indefinitely under the laws of war. A group of 30 Yemenis was approved for release if security conditions in their home country improve.

The report was completed in January but sent to select committees on Capitol Hill just this week. The administration sat on the report in the wake of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day because there was little public or congressional appetite for further discussion of its plan to close the military detention center.

2. Congress is full cowards playing politics with Gitmo as well.

It remains unclear whether the administration can gain enough support on Capitol Hill to move forward with its plan to buy a state prison in Illinois to replace Guantanamo, where 181 detainees remain. Key House and Senate committees introduced language this month into defense bills that would bar funding for any such facility in the United States.

3. We still don't know what the hell is going on. In fact, we're making all this up as we go.

Before the review, there was no single repository of information for each detainee. The task force determined that there "were more than a thousand pieces of potentially relevant physical evidence (including electronic media) seized during raids in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks that had not yet been systematically catalogued."

4. Peter Finn, like most mainstream media journalists, continues to frame objections to indefinite detention without trial as something disconcerting for only "human rights activists." Those kooky kids. "Key parts of Obama's constituency"? I think it should be a concern for all of us, but I guess that isn't Finn's fault. He only copies what the review says, gets some anonymous officials to quip and adds in these lazy constructs of what Gitmo means to this country and the rest of the world.

The decision to hold 48 detainees without trial remains the most controversial part of the review process for key parts of Obama's constituency, including human rights activists. The task force said prosecution was not feasible for some detainees because the focus at the time of their capture was the "gathering of intelligence," not evidence. But these detainees still posed "a high level of threat."

5. This one goes in the "No kidding?" file. You've mean we've radicalized these scores of low-level or completely innocent Muslims we've kept imprisoned for years?

The report says those recommended for indefinite detention had significant roles in al-Qaeda or the Taliban and advanced training or expertise. It notes that "some detainees designated for detention have, while at Guantanamo, expressly stated or otherwise exhibited an intent to reengage in extremist activity upon release."

6. And, predictably, the administration postures on Gitmo and transparency and the rule of law ad nauseam. "Hey, as long as we stand up to House Republicans, we look pretty good." That's a low bar.

In a letter this month, seven Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee asked James L. Jones, the president's national security adviser, to recommend to Obama "an immediate prohibition on the transfer of any detainee out of Guantanamo Bay, and a halt to any action related to the closure of the facility."

Jones replied to the letter this week, saying that "Guantanamo has compromised our standing in the world, undermined our core values, and diminished our moral authority." He said that the Pentagon spends $150 million a year for detention operations at Guantanamo and that costs at a possible facility in Thomson, Ill., would be $70 million to $80 million.

I'm sure there's more to dissect, but it's not worth it to go on.

Big week at Gitmo

The first military commissions trial under Barack Obama is set to begin tomorrow at Guantanamo Bay. The case of Canadian Omar Khadr, the alleged murderer of an American solider by grenade in Afghanistan eight years ago, will showcase how truly different Obama's changes to these tribunals are compared to those during George W. Bush's presidency.

Spencer Ackerman with what's at issue:

Khadr, a teenager when initially detained, has been held for nearly half his life at a facility that the Obama administration has pledged to close. He will be tried in a legal venue that Obama rejected as a Senator and embraced, in reformed fashion, as president. What happens this week at Guantanamo will determine whether Obama’s pledge that the new, revised military commissions can deliver internationally-recognized justice is meaningful: the pre-trial hearing in Khadr’s case will provide the first in-depth examination of whether Khadr’s treatment in U.S. custody amounts to torture; will determine whether prosecutors can use evidence against him acquired under abusive, coercive circumstances that civilian courts would never allow; and whether additional statements made by Khadr in subsequent and less-coercive circumstances are fair game or inextricable from his overall abuse.

The 15-year-old was in Afghanistan with his father, a supposed al Qaeda financier, when he we detained for allegedly throwing a grenade that killed an American. In the process, Khadr was shot twice. Evidence suggests that he was buried under rubble at the time of the American soldier's death.

Many have questioned why the Obama administration would pick this case, one of a child soldier who has been tortured, to be the first commissions exercise under Obama.

Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald (a Gitmo reporter extraordinaire) quotes former war court defense lawyer David Frakt today:

"They're starting off their very first prosecution of the Obama administration with a child soldier, a Westerner no less, and going into excruciating detail for two weeks of torture and mistreatment that he suffered,'' Frakt said. ``It's kind of the dream scenario for opponents of military commissions.''

Khadr claims he was at times beaten, left shackled so long in interrogation he urinated on himself and was subjected to solitary confinement and sleep deprivation -- claims that other detainees have also made through the years.

For a legal rundown of what's wrong in this case, read Daphne Eviatar of Human Rights First:

Equally fundamental is that the military commissions were created to try war crimes. But even if Khadr were guilty of the acts charged - murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, and aiding the enemy - those aren't really war crimes. At least, they weren't war crimes until Congress declared them to be in the Military Commissions Act of 2006 -- four years after Khadr allegedly committed them. So to try Khadr for war crimes now is a violation of the Ex Post Facto clause of the U.S. Constitution, Khadr's lawyers point out. (Khadr could, of course, be tried in a civilian court for the crimes of murder and conspiracy.)

Khadr's case, then, underscores many of the fundamental problems with the military commission system - that it has no rules, little experience, almost no precedent and barely any law to guide it.

So why did the Obama administration decide to make the case of Omar Khadr its first trial in a military commission?

If the administration is hoping to showcase the strength of its military and the president's tough stance on terrorism, this probably wasn't the best way to do it.

How this case is handled will have deep ramifications going forward with the many detainee trials in queue now. And it will interesting to see how America and the media react to another remembrance of the scores of evidence of torture inflicted upon this teenager, guilty or not, and other detainees.

Military commissions: Making it up as we go

Daphne Eviatar delves into the charade and sham that is the military commissions system at Gitmo as the tribunals begin again with Noor Muhammed, a detainee that has wallowed in legal limbo at Guantanamo since 2002.

The military bureaucratic conundrum seemed to leave everyone in the courtroom – and in the observers’ gallery, which was walled off by bullet-and-sound-proof glass -- scratching their heads. (Observers at this courtroom, which was built specially to try the 9/11 suspects, only get to hear the proceedings via an audio feed that transmits the sound after a several-minute time-delay.) Like many questions that arise in these military commission hearings, the answer to this one could not be found anywhere in the rules or the military commission precedent.

That’s partly because the current military commissions, created by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 – have no rules. The military hasn’t issued them yet. The now-outdated rules that governed the previous commission, created by a 2006 law, don’t address this situation either. And there is almost no military commission precedent to speak of. After all, in the eight years since they were created, the military commissions have tried only three cases. Of those, only two detainees even put up a defense. Both have since been released from prison.

Throughout yesterday’s hearing, if there was one thing that the prosecution, defense and judge could agree on, it was that there simply is no law to guide many of the situations that come up in the military commission cases of the Guantánamo detainees.

That there is any possibility that these commissions will continue, much less whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be tried in one of these awful excuses for American justice, is a sad commentary on our post-9/11 climate of fear, paranoia and lack of confidence in our own justice system.

Military commissions are back by unpopular demand

You wanted indecision, you got it! The Obama administration is going forward with military commissions (and its stellar record of convictions ... that was sarcasm) today, reports the Miami Herald.

Still operating under Bush-era policies that President Barack Obama last year called "a mess," the Pentagon will resume military commission hearings for accused terrorists Wednesday in a top-secret compound originally designed for the trial of alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

War court critics denounced the decision to go ahead with hearings this week, saying that without new rules the Obama administration has yet to complete the commissions are operating with uncertain procedures.

"It's really like a lame-duck commission," bristled Mike Berrigan, deputy chief defense counsel.

First up on the war court's agenda is a pretrial hearing in the case of Noor Uthman Mohammed, a Sudanese man who was captured in Pakistan in 2002 and brought here soon after for interrogation as a suspected al-Qaida operative.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder approved Noor's military trial in November on charges of conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism for allegedly helping to run the Khalden terror training camp in Afghanistan.

At that same time, Holder approved civilian trials for the alleged plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks - and this week's hearings also are a reminder that the Justice Department remains undecided on how to proceed with the case of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his four accused co-conspirators.

After New York officials objected to holding the 9/11 trial in lower Manhattan, the White House announced that it would reconsider the decision. It remains unclear where and in what forum Mohammed and the other alleged plotters will face charges.

That indecision will be on display as the court convenes Noor's case in the maximum security, $12 million Expeditionary Legal Compound that the Bush administration built for the accused 9/11 conspirators.

USA! USA! USA!

Update: Though the defendant has spent 8 years in U.S. custody, the judge said today it will take up to another YEAR to sift through his evidence. Sorry kid.

Update II: Daphne Eviatar highlights the case of the detainee (Noor Muhammad) as a prime example of a colossal government fuckup.

The King has decreed: Assassinate the "guilty" peasant

And it is written: The king, our wise and fearless leader, has decreed ye a terrorist upon secret evidence only the king and his cohorts may view. The king, he of compassion and the Nobel Peace Prize, orders the extra-judicial execution of ye, an insubordinate subject, the mongrel the state knows as Anwar al-Awlaki.

NYT:

The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Now read the brazen comments in the Washington Post made by an (anonymous) official on the assurance that assassinating an American under the guise of his alleged involvement in "terrorism" is justifiable and legal.

"He's recently become an operational figure for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said a second U.S. official. "He's working actively to kill Americans, so it's both lawful and sensible to try to stop him." The official stressed that there are "careful procedures our government follows in these kinds of cases, but U.S. citizenship hardly gives you blanket protection overseas to plot the murder of your fellow citizens."

So how about the two incidents the U.S. points to as proof of Awlaki's involvement in attempting to kill his fellow Americans? They would be the Fort Hood shooting (Nidal Hasan) and the underwear bomber (Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab). WaPo:

Aulaqi corresponded by e-mail with Maj. Nidal M. Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 12 soldiers and one civilian at Fort Hood, Tex., last year. Aulaqi is not believed to have helped plan the attack, although he praised Hasan in an online posting for carrying it out.

Concern grew about the cleric's role after he was linked to the Nigerian accused of attempting to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day by detonating an explosive device he had smuggled in his underwear. Aulaqi acknowledged teaching and corresponding with the Nigerian but denied ordering the attack.

That doesn't sound like solid proof of anything beyond incitement. But apparently our constitutional law professor-in-chief knows what we shouldn't mess our pretty little heads with.

Even the Bush administration's torture troll John Yoo didn't agree with these executive powers.

Spencer Ackerman contends:

There’s no doubt al-Awlaki is exploiting his citizenship, but there’s also a reason why the guarantees of citizenship can even be exploited, and to take those away in this case, based on secret evidence and asserted claims leads us down a very dark path.

Dark path indeed. Obama has continually emphasized a break from Bush-era excessive executive wartime powers. He promised to close Gitmo, he ended torture techniques and ordered closing of black site prisons. Admittedly, it was a low bar. But those differences the Obama administration claim to embrace are much less substantial when a record of Obama and Bush policy is examined.

Eli Lake:

But these differences in style mask a sameness in substance that should worry civil libertarians. When it comes to the legal framework for confronting terrorism, President Obama is acting in no meaningful sense any different than President Bush after 2006, when the Supreme Court overturned the view that the president’s war time powers were effectively unlimited. As the Obama administration itself is quick to point out, the Bush administration also tried terrorists apprehended on U.S. soil in criminal courts, most notably “20th hijacker” Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe bomber Richard Reid. More important, President Obama has embraced and at times defended the same expansive view of a global war against Al Qaeda as President Bush.

The U.S. still reserves the right to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely without charge, try them via military tribunal, keep them imprisoned even if they are acquitted, and kill them in foreign countries with which America is not formally at war (including Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan). When Obama closed the secret CIA prisons known as “black sites,” he specifically allowed for temporary detention facilities where a suspect could be taken before being sent to a foreign or domestic prison, a practice known as “rendition.” And even where the Obama White House has made a show of how it has broken with the Bush administration, such as outlawing enhanced interrogation techniques, it has done so through executive order, which can be reversed at any time by the sitting president.

Our unending war on terror continues, and our reckless leaders have the power to do whatever they want, including the order to kill an American without explaining or proving why. That's our America in 2010.

How treating Bagram as the new Gitmo could backfire

Dawinder Sidhu on the prospects for habeas rights at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan:

Reports are now emerging that the White House is considering making Bagram Air Base, the main U.S. detention facility in Afghanistan, the functional replacement for Guantánamo.

Understandably, this has provoked significant outcry from civil liberties advocates, who charge that any such move would be a conscious effort to evade the rule of law. But it might actually be a blessing in disguise, because if the administration does pursue this course it would set the stage for a long-overdue court ruling that could very well vest Bagram’s prisoners with the right to challenge their detention.

At issue is the precarious reach of the writ of habeas corpus -- the time-honored legal right to petition a court to ensure that the executive has sufficient cause to detain an individual. In 2008, the Supreme Court held in Boumediene v. Bush that Guantánamo detainees are entitled to habeas. As the Boumediene case resolved only whether habeas applies to detainees at Guantánamo -- and not other international post-9/11 American facilities -- it remains unclear whether foreign detainees at Bagram can invoke the habeas writ.

Indeed, this very question is at the heart of al Maqaleh v. Obama -- an ongoing legal battle between several current Bagram detainees and the Obama administration. Because these Bagram detainees have not yet been accorded the habeas right, there is concern that the administration’s proposal would place all prospective foreign terrorism suspects beyond the rule of law, without fundamental habeas protections.

In reality, though, this could actually open the door to the al Maqaleh court ultimately holding -- against the government -- that habeas does extend to foreign detainees in Bagram. In other words, in resolving an important policy question, the administration could seriously weaken its legal case.

Sidhu goes on to explain how the U.S. couldn't just pass off "official" oversight of Bagram to the Afghan government, all the while ultimately controlling operations there.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that the government may not "game" the system -- that the habeas writ "cannot be contracted away" and that the administration can’t decide for itself "when and where [the Constitution’s] terms apply." For this reason, when the government posited that habeas proceedings cannot take place in Bagram because it is an "active theater of war," the district court responded by pointing out that it is the government that was responsible for bringing the detainees, captured outside of Afghanistan, to Bagram.

From nearly the beginning of Obama's term, the administration has argued against affording detainees in legal black holes like Bagram any rights to trials. Indefinite detention has been the priority from the start in a continuation of one of the most egregious Bush-era disparagements of basic human rights. To think that this scenario would be a surprise to them would be pretty naive. I'm sure they have a plan to combat habeas corpus rights at Bagram no matter what.

The Orwellian logic of our government pertaining to U.S. detainee and foreign policy in the midst of "democracy promoting" ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan consistently amazes. Indefinite detention = justice, brute force = democracy, reckless Predator drone strikes = a kinder, safer insurgent eradication, war = peace, the examples are endless.

But Sidhu's explanation gives some hope. Unfortunately, when your only speck of hope is the government (maybe) losing the right to imprison suspects indefinitely without a trial, the climb back to respectability and the rule of law is long and steep.

Military officials defend trials while Dems still MIA

In the absence of any kind of spine or will to defend criminal trials for detainees at Gitmo and elsewhere from the Democratic Party, military officials, among others -- not including the similarly lame, "objective" mainstream media -- have spoken up against the growing call for military commissions.

From the Post's story today on "advisers" (Rahm?) to the president saying commissions are the likely result for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others:

Marine Col. Jeffrey Colwell, acting chief defense counsel at the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions, said it would be a "sad day for the rule of law" if Obama decides not to proceed with a federal trial. "I thought the decision where to put people on trial -- whether federal court or military commissions -- was based on what was right, not what is politically advantageous," Colwell said.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. Harry Soyster, a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency:

“My concern is what it looks like to our enemy. And they certainly should be delighted in what appears to be great confusion, great ambiguity and inability to address the issue, so they should feel they are making progress if in fact our initial stand is reversed. from my perspective, the president [initially] chose chose the harder right over the easier wrong when he made the stand, supported his attorney general…and he should hold firm to that.”

Time and time again, we ask: Where are the Democrats? Who is speaking up against Lindsey Graham (apparently Rahm Emanuel's puppet master, and the new authority in regard to trying suspects), McCain, Lieberman and the rest of the advocates for denying due process? Just like health care, just like Umar Farouk Abdulmatallab, just like the Patriot Act, congressional Democrats lack either the will or the basic desire to do anything about deliberate misinformation and disregard for the Constitution from the Right (and many other Democrats). I don't doubt that there are many Democrats that support civilian trials over tribunals, but I don't see anyone rushing to push against the administration.

This ultimately comes down to Barack Obama, though. And if Obama changes his mind on a criminal trial for KSM and others, it would be a monumental blow for the rule of law in America. I don't think that's hyperbole. Glenn Greenwald sums up the ramifications for Obama if he flips:

If, in the face of "GOP demands" that Mohamed be denied a civilian trial, he again reverses himself -- this time on the highest-profile civil liberties decision of his administration -- he will unmistakably reveal himself, even to his most enamored admirers, as someone so utterly devoid not only of principle but also of resolve: you just blow on him a little and he falls down and shatters into little pieces.

Even just as a political matter, is there any better way to ensure that Americans will view him as weak than by abandoning one key decision after the next as a result of the slightest pressure? What kind of person could possibly admire a "leader" who does this?

Update, 4:30: Via Greg Sargent, looks like Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) has come out in support of criminal trials.

“We have a great track record of successfully trying and convicting terrorists in civilian courts. The military commission system is largely untested, and these cases could easily get bogged down in years of legal challenges. The best way to bring these terrorists to justice swiftly is through our civilian courts.”

So, there's one Democrat -- and the most likely to do so at that since Feingold is probably the most committed civil libertarian in the Senate.

Lamberth to Congress: Do something on indefinite detentions

Unfortunately, this interview with Chief U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth by Washington Post criminal justice reporter Del Wilber didn't get much attention (Well, it was buried in Metro section crime blog, so...). But it's remarkable in the sense that a judge in the center of Guantanamo detainee cases seems highly frustrated about the definitive parameters of these detainees' situations, indefinite detentions in particular.

I understand Lamberth is of the outspoken sort, for judiciary official. But this interview is fascinating in that he seems to be almost pleading with the legislative and executive branches to act, and do it immediately.

Some highlights:

Q: Why are judges calling on Congress to take action?

Lamberth: Congress should have enacted some statutory guidance that would have been useful to us. For example -- what is the definition of enemy combatant, which we have had some difficulty with? And what types of evidence does Congress think would be appropriate for us to consider? Those are among the things that would be helpful.

But unless Congress were to enact something this spring, I think it’s too late anyway. We are on track to complete these cases and are moving ahead. ... The longer we have gone through this, we have seen how difficult the questions are that are being presented and how reasonable people can differ in response to the questions. I still would welcome action from Congress, but I don’t anticipate that.

This is not an ideal world, but to have so little guidance. … As a district judge, we are used to applying settled law. Congress enacts a statute, the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court issues an opinion. But here, nothing is settled. We are creating law as we go. It’s not something district judges are accustomed to doing.

A much better way to create law is for Congress to pass something and for the executive to participate in that legislation. That is what I’ve been trying to say.

At this stage, Congress hasn't seen fit to do that. I understand that in the prior administration, it did not want congressional action -- it wanted to do it all by executive power. I do not know why this administration has not been able to create a legislative proposal.

[...]

Q: The other day, you mentioned that you struggled with ordering a detainee held, potentially for life, under the “preponderance of evidence” standard. The judges established that standard, which means the government wins if the evidence tips just slightly in its favor, for the habeas cases. What did you mean by that?

Lamberth: When you know the petitioner is going to be held for the duration of hostilities and hostilities are not likely to end in my lifetime, if not in his own lifetime, we know there is a consequence of our decision that is quite dramatic in terms of an individual’s life.

In criminal trials, we have a standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which means proof to a moral certainty. I have no difficulty, where I have a jury to find a person found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to a moral certainty, with sentencing that person to life in prison without parole, if that is what statutes and guidelines call for.

When you’re doing this on a preponderance of evidence, that is a different decision for me to decide if a person should be held, perhaps for life.

He also goes into coerced confessions and a severe lack of communication from the Justice Department to judges. Read the entire interview.

The suspect case against Omar Khadr

WaPo's Peter Finn sketches out the case of Omar Khadr, the Canadian Gitmo detainee picked up in Afghanistan when he was 12 for allegedly throwing a grenade at American soldiers. His military tribunal is set to begin soon. It will likely be the first such military commission trial under the Obama administration. His age at the time of the incident has been the focus of controversy, as well as the sketchy evidence behind the case, and whether he could've even been capable of throwing the grenade at the time.

The final portion of the piece focuses on that suspect evidence, as well as the unlawful legal system set in place by the Obama administration:

Defense lawyers said Holder's assignment of the Khadr case to the military illustrates the Obama administration's acceptance of a two-tier system of justice in which flawed evidence that would be disallowed in federal court can be admitted in a tribunal.

The government defends its decision.

"The forum decision in the Khadr case was made after a careful assessment of all the factors identified" in a protocol developed by the Justice and Defense departments, said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman. "Although we cannot discuss how all the protocol factors were applied to the Khadr case or other specific cases, we note that this case involves a grenade attack on U.S. soldiers in a war zone, that the defendant was apprehended in a war zone in the context of active hostilities, and that the case was initially investigated and evidence gathered by military personnel."

Flowers, Khadr's attorney, said government lawyers indicated at a meeting in early November that they would introduce statements in a military commission that they would not use if the case went to federal court. A Pentagon spokeswoman declined to discuss any meeting with the defense.

Khadr's attorneys said the government's case is riddled with problems.

They said that their client was tortured in military custody and that all statements, even if given later and seemingly voluntarily to FBI agents, are contaminated by the alleged earlier abuse, which, they said, included threats of rape, stress positions and the use of snarling dogs.

Flowers also challenged the government's contention that Khadr threw the grenade that killed Speer. "The evidence," he said, "is extremely problematic."

But soldiers involved in the firefight that led to Speer's death and Khadr's capture have no such doubts. Morris, the blinded Special Forces soldier, who lives in Utah, said Khadr should remain in U.S. custody.

"Mr. Khadr is where he needs to be, and he needs to stay there for a long time," Morris said.

As far as Holder's concerned, this New Yorker piece masterfully outlines the KSM controversy and the political point-scoring done by Republicans on the issue of terrorism in the Obama era. But with the Khadr case in mind, the administration's two-tiered legal system is especially a tough pill to swallow when Holder says stuff like this:

“The quest for justice, despite what your contemporaries might think, that’s toughness. The ability to subject yourself to the kind of criticism I’m getting now, for something I think is right? That’s tough.” He paused, and added, “This is something that can get a rise out of me, the notion that somehow Eric Holder and Barack Obama, this Administration, is not tough. We have the welfare of the American people in our minds all the time. We’ll fight our enemies, and we’ll do that which is necessary, and we won’t turn our backs on the values and traditions that have made this country great. That is what is tough.”

Obama's version of 'upholding values'

Last night, in his State of the Union address, President Obama did not mention Guantanamo Bay, nor indefinite detentions of detainees at Gitmo and other prisons despite a lack of evidence of any wrongdoing. You know, the basis for incarcerating a human being.

The closest he came was this passage:

Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in relitigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and for the world.

"Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values."

The gall it takes to utter this breathless phrase is pretty appalling when considering his government's policies.

Via Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald, one of the most dogged reporters on the issue of Guantanamo Bay:

A yearlong review of evidence against men who are being held as terrorism suspects at Guantanamo has concluded that most of them should be released or transferred to third countries.

The review has angered human rights advocates, however, by concluding that "roughly" 50 of the detainees should be held indefinitely, even though there isn't enough valid evidence to prosecute them.

Only 35 of the men should face trial, either in civilian or military courts, the review concluded. That's far fewer than the 60 or 70 cases that the Pentagon's chief prosecutor has said his unit is preparing to try before military commissions.

The review, whose results have been divulged to a handful of reporters but not publicly announced, provides the first specific numbers for what the Obama administration thinks should be done with the detainees who are still at Guantanamo.

To posture as if he is attempting to uphold American values while endorsing indefinite detention, not to mention advocating the assassination of American citizens overseas, completely void of a trial or verifiable evidence, is insulting, dishonest, shameful and morally bankrupt.

Of course, this is the tip of the iceberg. Obama, quite predictably, refused to mention the legally-dubious program of unleashing Predator and Reaper drones throughout the world.

All this on the day after the death of the great freedom fighter Howard Zinn.

Zinn's last essay in The Nation touched on Obama:

I thought that in the area of constitutional rights he would be better than he has been. That's the greatest disappointment, because Obama went to Harvard Law School and is presumably dedicated to constitutional rights. But he becomes president, and he's not making any significant step away from Bush policies. Sure, he keeps talking about closing Guantánamo, but he still treats the prisoners there as "suspected terrorists." They have not been tried and have not been found guilty. So when Obama proposes taking people out of Guantánamo and putting them into other prisons, he's not advancing the cause of constitutional rights very far. And then he's gone into court arguing for preventive detention, and he's continued the policy of sending suspects to countries where they very well may be tortured.

I think people are dazzled by Obama's rhetoric, and that people ought to begin to understand that Obama is going to be a mediocre president--which means, in our time, a dangerous president--unless there is some national movement to push him in a better direction.

Mr. President, the world is not your battlefield.

8 years of Gitmo

365: Demonstrator marches from the White House through downtown DC.

Nothing seems to kill me, no matter how hard I try

Spencer Ackerman chronicles the follies of the current climate around releasing Yemeni detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Congress and, more importantly, the administration seems content on keeping them locked up no matter what their status of guilt.

Critics of President Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are saying that the Yemen connections of would-be plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab ought to prevent the administration from repatriating dozens of Yemeni detainees currently held at Guantanamo. “It would be irresponsible to take any of the Yemeni detainees in Guantanamo and send them back to Yemen,” Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) said on ABC News’ “ThisWeek” on Sunday.

[...]

The Yemeni official declined to comment on the impact a lack of repatriation would have on the two nations’ relations. Nor would the official comment on the congressional calls to keep the Yemeni citizens at Guantanamo. But the official said, “The detainees that have been sent to Yemen were detainees that have been cleared by U.S. courts, and therefore are presumed innocent, or at least nothing stands against them.” (Few, if any, Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo have received a hearing before a civilian U.S. court.)

You know what you create when you keep a newly freed (and ultimately cleared and innocent) man incarcerated for "security concerns" of America? A man that screams BLOW UP THE OUTSIDE WORLD!!!!!!!

How much longer can we make the decisions we seem to be making with Yemen here? What is the end of this constantly moving focus on al-Qaeda throughout the world? How much longer can we chase these nihilists throughout the world while simultaneously serving as the prime recruiter of angered Muslim young men full of hatred for America? We are maiming their innocent citizens through inexact drone strikes. It's increasingly difficult -- as if it was ever easy -- to verify who exactly was hit in these strikes. It seems the U.S. will characterize anyone near affiliation with anyone in al-Qaeda as associated with the group, in a malicious, indoctrinated way. Tribal leaders claim a multitude of citizenry, especially children, as the victims of these strikes. Reality is blurry. But the plain truth is that innocents are being murdered by these strikes, and the effect on those with and without ties to al-Qaeda is immeasurable.