Red, white, blue and black

Rendition continues, as Obama flouts the law with impunity.

Much has been written about the denial of due process for the five plaintiffs who claim to have been victims of the extraordinary-rendition program. But equally disturbing is the message that this verdict sends to individual American citizens, like the former Jeppesen employee, who felt a call to conscience that made him speak out, even at the risk to his own future employment, because he believed that secret kidnapping and torture were crimes in a country founded on the idea that all people, not just Americans, have inalienable rights, including protection from cruel and inhumane punishment. That his allegations could receive a public hearing in the press, but not a legitimate hearing in the American system of justice—even under an Administration headed by a former professor of constitutional law—is a daunting reflection of the clout wielded by the national-security bureaucracy in Washington, in the age of the Long War.

This isn't the beginning, but this isn't the end.

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.

Our little Iraq is all grown up and torturing on its own

Freedom is on the march.

LA Times:

Hundreds of Sunni men disappeared for months into a secret Baghdad prison under the jurisdiction of Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's military office, where many were routinely tortured until the country's Human Rights Ministry gained access to the facility, Iraqi officials say.

The men were detained by the Iraqi army in October in sweeps targeting Sunni groups in Nineveh province, a stronghold of the group Al Qaeda in Iraq and other militants in the north. The provincial governor alleged at the time that ordinary citizens had been detained as well, often without a warrant.

[...]

Commanders initially resisted efforts to inspect the prison but relented and allowed visits by two teams of inspectors, including Human Rights Minister Wijdan Salim. Inspectors said they found that the 431 prisoners had been subjected to appalling conditions and quoted prisoners as saying that one of them, a former colonel in President Saddam Hussein's army, had died in January as a result of torture.

"More than 100 were tortured. There were a lot of marks on their bodies," said an Iraqi official familiar with the inspections. "They beat people, they used electricity. They suffocated them with plastic bags, and different methods."

[...]

Maliki vowed to shut down the prison and ordered the arrest of the officers working there after Salim presented him with a report this month. Since then, 75 detainees have been freed and an additional 275 transferred to regular jails, Iraqi officials said. Maliki said in an interview that he had been unaware of the abuses. He said the prisoners had been sent to Baghdad because of concerns about corruption in Mosul.

"The prime minister cannot be responsible for all the behavior of his soldiers and staff," said Salim, praising Maliki's willingness to root out abuses. Salim, a Chaldean Christian, ran for parliament in last month's elections on Maliki's Shiite-dominated list.

Maliki defended his use of special prisons and an elite military force that answers only to him; his supporters say he has had no choice because of Iraq's precarious security situation. Maliki told The Times that he was committed to stamping out torture -- which he blamed on his enemies.

"Our reforms continue, and we have the Human Rights Ministry to monitor this," he said. "We will hold accountable anybody who was proven involved in such acts."

Reading the whole story, I had to laugh at the eerie symmetry in which the torture, denial and cover-up mirror America's own treatment of Iraqis (at Abu Ghraib) and other detainees. Too bad the U.S. has no moral authority to legitimately condemn these actions.

This is your legacy Dick Cheney.

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.

Case of CIA tapes looks to be headed for inconclusive end

The case of destroyed CIA tapes of alleged gross abuse of detainees held by the U.S. is nearing its close, according to The Washington Post.

Assistant U.S. Attorney John H. Durham, who is leading the investigation, recently bestowed immunity from prosecution on a CIA lawyer who reviewed the tapes years before they were destroyed to determine whether they diverged from written records about the interrogations, two sources familiar with the case said. That could signal that the case is reaching its final stages. Durham has been spotted at Justice Department headquarters in Washington over the past few weeks, in another signal that his work is intensifying.

The agency lawyer, John McPherson, could appear before a grand jury later this month or in April, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation continues. CIA lawyers have been essential to understanding the episode because they offered advice to agency personnel about handling the tapes, and whether they should have been included when agency records were turned over in other court cases. McPherson is not thought to be under criminal jeopardy but had previously hesitated to testify, the sources said.

Emptywheel's bmaz doesn't see much coming from this entire exercise:

If the reporting is accurate, there are several things of interest here. First off, there is little, if any, accountability in the offing. False statements against a secondary official giving closed door testimony is not going to take us rule of law adherents where we want to go. And if this official is indeed covert, the odds of charges really being pursued are not very good; not to mention that any prosecution, even if it were pursued, would be fastidiously kept narrow and constrained by CIPA procedures. I find very little hope for anything useful here.

One curious passage in the story relates to the defense agency officials are claiming for scrubbing the evidence: security (of course....).

Durham and a special team have gathered and pored over sensitive documents to determine whether destruction of the tapes constituted a crime. Agency officials say the motive was innocent: After the emergence of widely reviled images of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, CIA veterans feared that the disclosure could compromise their security. Investigators, however, have been probing whether the tapes were destroyed in anticipation of a congressional or federal investigation, which could violate obstruction of justice laws.

So if (or when) nothing is done to hold those accountable for these tapes' disappearance, is security going to be the reason? And what can't be done in the name of security now? For instance, this is the age of a litany of Bush/Obama state secrets claims, the effort to conceal detainee photos (now a Democratic team effort led by Joe Lieberman, wiretapping, torture, the list goes on. What's the line here?

The U.S. may not have a threshold for responsibility, but President Obama believes Indonesia does. Obama's accountability-free mantra is "look forward, not backward" when confronted by America's post-9/11 detainee/war policies, but not when it comes to Indonesia's human rights abuses. Per Glenn Greenwald:

In 2008, Indonesia empowered a national commission to investigate human rights abuses committed by its own government under the U.S.-backed Suharto regime "in an attempt to finally bring the perpetrators to justice," and Obama was asked in this interview: "Is your administration satisfied with the resolution of the past human rights abuses in Indonesia?" He replied:

We have to acknowledge that those past human rights abuses existed. We can't go forward without looking backwards . . . .

(Emphasis mine)

That's convenient. What is good for me is not for thee.

Space monkey torture rack

365: Stress positions at Reagan National Airport - What do you know about the moon?!

Yoo and Bybee: Innocent until proven sane

Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis concludes that torture memo conspirators John Yoo and Jay Bybee may have been grossly incompetent and viciously off base, but what they authorized was not *technically* illegal.

Jack Balkin (read the whole spot-on indictment of this decision):

Margolis concludes that Yoo and Bybee exercised poor judgment and made bad legal arguments. But lawyers often make arguments that are bad or even laughably bad, and this by itself does not violate the very low standard set by rules of professional responsibility. These rules are set up by jurisdictions to weed out the worst offenders, leaving the rest of the legal profession to make entirely stupid, disingenuous and asinine arguments that normal people with functioning moral consciences would not make. That is to say, rules of professional misconduct are aimed at weeding out sociopaths and people driven to theft and egregious incompetence by serious drug and alcohol abuse problems; they do not guarantee that lawyers will do right by their clients, or, in this case, by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America. In effect, by setting the standard of conduct so low, rules of professional conduct effectively work to protect all those lawyers out there whose moral standing is just a hair's breadth above your average mass murderer. This is how the American legal profession simultaneously polices and takes care of its own.

Scathing.

And Dick Cheney will go on bragging about being a war criminal.

Obama administration still insists they care about civil liberties

Stay with me.

The Washington Times' Eli Lake today:

President Obama is coming under pressure from Democrats and civil liberties groups for failing to fill positions on an oversight panel formed in 2004 to make sure the government does not spy improperly on U.S. citizens.

The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, or PCLOB, was recommended initially by the bipartisan September 11 commission as an institutional voice for privacy inside the intelligence community. Its charter was to recommend ways to mitigate the effects of far-reaching surveillance technology that the federal government uses to track terrorists.

The panel was established in 2004 under President Bush as part of the executive office of the president. Its independence was unclear for several years. Congress responded by increasing the board's budget, expanding its powers and moving it outside the presidential executive office in 2007.

Since taking office, Mr. Obama has allowed the board to languish. He has not even spent the panel's allocation from the fiscal 2010 budget.

SOME lawmakers are pushing the administration to act. Then Lake gets a comment from the Obama team.

Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, defended the administration's record in general but acknowledged the Democrats' criticisms and said the White House would soon act on them.

This president has made clear his commitment to civil liberties through the actions of his administration, and appreciates the congressional interest in this important issue. The White House has allocated funding for the PCLOB, and looks forward to appointing its leadership soon, he said.

(Emphasis mine)

That's beyond rich. Obama tried to peddle that line of thought in his State of the Union too.

Lake begins to chronicle proof that Rhodes is brimming with deception:

For example, the Obama administration pressed a British court last year to keep secret details of how terrorism suspect Binyam Mohammed was treated while in U.S. and Pakistani custody. The administration has also embraced in some cases the concept of indefinite detention for some terrorism suspects apprehended during the Bush presidency, and it has increased the practice of targeted killings in Pakistan and Yemen through unmanned aerial vehicles.

On the issue of surveillance, Mr. Obama during the presidential campaign voted for reauthorization of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, a bill criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union for providing only minimal court oversight to expansive electronic intelligence-collection programs.

It goes on.

Outside of authorizing torture (and we have no proof torture isn't still going on since no one's allowed to observe overseas prisons), Obama is a direct heir of the Bush/Cheney legacy. The constitutional law professor and his own attorney general, in refusing to hold those guilty of what we'd call war crimes if another country did it, are beyond being accessories to the ugliness and are now the prime drivers of this illegal, shameful and immoral activity.

The torture Right's tunnel vision on interrogation tactics

In light of word that Riduan Isamuddin aka Hambali -- the man accused of plotting the 2002 bombing in Bali that killed 200+ -- will be tried in Washington, D.C., former Bush speechwriter and torture enthusiast Marc Thiessen spews some predictable bile.

Thiessen's post from National Review's The Corner:

Hambali is being called the mastermind of the Bali bombings. That may be an accurate description, but it understates his importance. He was in fact the leader of a Southeast Asian terrorist network that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed turned to after 9/11 to carry out the “Second Wave” — a plot to hijack a plane and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles. (KSM knew we would be on the lookout for Arab men, so he asked Hambali to recruit a cell of Southeast Asian operatives to infiltrate the United States. I tell the full story of the takedown of the Hambali network in Courting Disaster.)

Hambali and the key members of his terror network were captured only because of information gained from KSM after he underwent enhanced interrogation techniques. (Indeed, it seems that virtually everyone the Obama administration wants to put on trial in civilian court was captured as a result of the CIA interrogation program that Obama shut down.) After 9/11, we were unaware of the Hambali network or its plans — until CIA detainees were captured and questioned. Those detainees told us what we needed to know to take the network down.

The torture Right refuses to acknowledge the actual chronology of KSM's capture and the disintegration of the Library Tower plot. Adam Serwer at TAPPED again explains:

... the most prominent example in the supposed "wave of suicide hijackings" supposedly disrupted by waterboarding KSM, the attack on the Library Tower in L.A., had been canceled before KSM was captured. Bush had bragged about disrupting the L.A. Towers plot in 2002, but KSM hadn't been captured in 2003.

Under interrogation by the CIA at a black site, Hambali revealed plans for a "wave" of attacks on U.S. subways and businesses and a planned attack using anthrax -- except as Jane Mayer reported in The Dark Side, those plots had already been disrupted by December 2001, and the scientist developing the anthrax was already in U.S. custody.

As for whether the information KSM gave led to Hambali's capture, some of it may have. It's politically convenient for the the GOP to draw a direct line between KSM being waterboarded and Hambali being captured, but that presupposes that the U.S. had no assistance from overseas partners. In the imaginary world of 24, all you have to do is torture a suspect to get information. But in reality, piecing together intelligence information is a complicated process, and it's highly unlikely that KSM provided the only information that led to Hambali's capture. The Bush administration's prior misleading characterizations of how useful information gleaned through torture was don't exactly inspire confidence.

In a separate post, Serwer documents the only part of America that's losing its head over the attempted attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is the GOP, while Obama's response seems to have helped his approval ratings, according to a Pew poll.

Torture has become a crucial plank to one political party's platform, as U.S. Senate candidate (and the current darling of the Right) Scott Brown underscored with his own endorsement of "enhanced interrogation techniques." This is the legacy of the Bush-Cheney years.

Hubris ... overweening pride

Torture-memo author John Yoo will never go away. He'll continue to pop up to defend torture, a de facto defense of his own egregious behavior as a stooge Office of Legal Counsel lawyer for the Justice Department who was more than giddy to rubber stamp whatever his dear leader Bush wanted: the torture of other human beings in the name of "national security."

Yet it's still a little disorienting to read quips like the ones he offered The New York Times Magazine.

Do you regret writing the so-called torture memos, which claimed that President Bush was legally entitled to ignore laws prohibiting torture?
No, I had to write them. It was my job. As a lawyer, I had a client. The client needed a legal question answered.

When you say you had “a client,” do you mean President Bush?
Yes, I mean the president, but also the U.S. government as a whole.

But isn’t a lawyer in the Department of Justice there to serve the people of this country?
Yes, I think you are quite right, when the government is executing the laws, but if there’s a conflict between the president and the Congress, then you have to pick one or the other.

Were you close to George Bush?
No, I’ve never met him. I don’t know Cheney either. I have not gone hunting with him, which is probably a good thing for me.

"It was my job. As a lawyer, I had a client. The client needed a legal question answered." Unbelievable. Does he hear what's coming out of mouth? I get it, defend yourself at all costs John. But understand that you'll have keep up this pathetic, soul-sucking charade the rest of your miserable life. Maybe it's not a charade, maybe he's convinced himself through extreme delusion that what he did was just. But then why does he continue to pop up in such inane "interviews" like this that only make him look more like the tool he is? Why does he keep writing op-eds?

He knows what he's validated. And he'll have to keep it up, at least for the next 20 years or so.

Are we forever desensitized by torture in America?

I like to highlight the Post's consistent online successes when I can. Sometimes it seems there aren't a lot, but that's another topic. One of the lasting gems of the site is online discussions. They get some great guests, politics and otherwise. Today, they invited (a real) conservative writer Reihan Salam and Slate senior editor and legal blogger Dahlia Lithwick to talk about some of the "worst ideas" of the 2000s, an Sunday Outlook feature where Salam wrote about compassionate conservatism and Lithwick about the torture memos. They answered questions about those topics and suggestions from readers.

I was lucky enough to get a response on my torture memo question from the always insightful Lithwick. (I'm Des Moines. Sometimes I'm Baltimore. And I figured out why those two: one, I'm keeping touch with an outsider, Midwestern "perspective" with Des Moines and with Baltimore, I'm a east coaster, yet somewhat local to DC. Weird.)

Des Moines, Iowa: Thank you both for being with us and writing excellent, concise takes on these two "worst ideas" of the decade.

Re: torture memos, the tragic legacy of the memos has now become the apparent refusal of the Obama adm. to thoroughly investigate and prosecute those responsible. It's possibly the prime example of modern Washington's corroded morals. In refusing to rise above the "political ramifications" of taking such action, it seems Obama has simply left the door wide open for more abuses, as you alluded to Ms. Lithwick. Is it almost inevitable that we'll walk down this road again, but with even less resistance due to the institutionalization of torture?

washingtonpost.com: The torture memos (Post, Dec. 20)

Dahlia Lithwick: Hi there and thanks to all of you who read the feature and to those of you who are writing in. Des Moines, this is the question that worries me more than almost any other. Without accountability for the acts of torture and without a probing investigation into how this could have happened, it does seem almost inevitable that we will, sometime down the road, feel justified in doing it again. Certainly the Obama Administration has renounced torture and the memos I referenced were withdrawn. But the issue isn't just these memos but a legal process that was warped. My other nagging fear is that American public opinion has really shifted on torture. Remember how horrified we were by the images from Abu Ghraib? I am not sure we would be as horrified next time. Polling suggests we have come to think of abuse as justified in some instances, despite the fact that the legal prohibition is absolute.

Your Bush-Obama America, December 21, 2009.

The indistinguishables

I'm obviously six days late, but I've finally taken in what happened with Obama's speech six days ago. Who did he sound like last week? 9/11 this, 9/11 that. Fear, paranoia, 9/11. 18-year-old kids going to war next year were 10 years old on 9/11; this thing is fueled by legends and folklore to them at this point. I guess we knew he would do this, from day one. But that doesn't make it any less disheartening. A candidate Obama doesn't have near the responsibility and access to hard truths like a President Obama. It was another one of "those" dark days.

Holding it at West Point? Mistake. It was not a rousing speech. It was the most somber war escalation speech in history, I'd boldly presume. Like any other president that has sent troops to war -- much less a botched, near-impossible war started by someone else -- the soldiers that die are his kids now. Haunting stuff. But they're so paralyzed by the powerlust and sheer death hold the system has on them.

What, is he giving the generals "one last try" to get it right? How war-tested and noble of our commander-in-chief. What about all the death, of us and Afghanis? You can't stop fucking terrorism (in this case al-Qaeda), and you definitely will only help coalesce al-Qaeda and the Taliban. You think escalating is a deterrent for them? This is what they want: To contribute to America's self-inflicted bleeding of lives, resources, principles. And Washington, like most everyone else in the U.S. it seems, fiddles while Rome burns. That's what I thought of our president. It reminds me a little of the last scene in Orwell's "Animal Farm" sometimes.

Update: This post by Glenn Greenwald exemplifies the "Animal Farm" comparison:

As (Harper's Scott) Horton writes, the claim that government officials enjoy a virtually impenetrable shield of immunity even in the commission of war crimes "has emerged as a sort of ignoble mantra for the Justice Department, uniting both the Bush and Obama administrations." Indeed, that is the common strain of virtually every act undertaken by the Obama DOJ with regard to our government's war crimes and other felonies, from torture to renditions to illegal eavesdropping.

With revelations of serious, recent abuse at an ongoing "black site" prison in Afghanistan, serious questions have been raised about the extent to which detainee abuse has actually been curbed under Obama. But there's no question that the single greatest impediment to disclosure and accountability for past abuses is the Obama Justice Department, which has repeatedly gone far beyond the call of duty in its attempt to protect Bush war crimes and other illegal acts. This new Seton Hall Report regarding these three detainees deaths illustrates not only how perverse and unjust, but also how futile, such efforts are. War crimes never stay hidden, and the only question from the start was whether the Obama DOJ would be complicit in the attempt to shield them from disclosure. That question has now been answered rather decisively.

What did Osama bin Laden envision for America?

I've often wondered just what Osama bin Laden envisioned as he was planning 9/11. What did he think was probably going to happen in America if the attacks were anything like what they turned out to be: 3,000 dead and destruction that lingers today. Did he envision a war in Afghanistan, a holy war at that? In his wildest dreams, did he ever think we would turn out the way we did? And then, should we escalate when no one is sure what will happen, or, really, or whether we can ever claim this entire war was worth it?

Radley Balko gives his answer:

Here’s a question for the politicians who support Obama’s plan, as well as those to the right of him who think it isn’t warmongery enough: What exactly does “victory” in Afghanistan look like? Certainly no one in his right mind thinks the country is going to look like, say, Iowa in 20 years. Same for Iraq. Are we expending what in the end will be a few trillion dollars and likely the lives of 6,ooo-7,000 troops to create another . . . Saudi Arabia? Another Egypt?

We do have a pretty good idea how bin Laden pictured victory. It looks a lot like what we’re seeing now. He wanted a holy war. We gave him two. We’ve compromised our values, rolled back civil liberties, and let our politicians generally scare the crap out of us whenever they want new powers. Oh, and we’ve let the bastard live to gloat about it all.

This war should have been over the moment we disposed of the Taliban. The military doesn’t build liberal societies. They destroy illiberal ones (and they do it very well). I’ll wager we have at least 50,000 troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of Obama’s first term. In fact, I’ll bet it’s closer to 75,000. Lovely that this was the anti-war candidate.

I'm not convinced bin Laden had thought America would go quite as far as it did. Actually, I think going to Iraq was the unexpected, bombshell cherry-on-top for him, if he's still alive. At the very best, I think bin Laden expected America would come to Afghanistan and blitz the Taliban, have general "success" and leave after a few years. I'm sure the religious aspect was prominent in his mind. If he was anywhere near all of this, he's a genius. (I'm certainly not condoning mass murder, I'm just saying he would have had incredible foresight.)

But the economic costs? Humanitarian tragedies? Gitmo? Wiretapping? No way. And definitely not Iraq. Has this ever occurred to any of these neo-cons and hawk "tough guy" torture-enthusiast warmongers in our government and political establishment? That we gave him what he wanted and so much more? Doubtful.

We're desperate, get used to it

While the world chippers about a couple of starfucking attention whores getting into the White House, our president is about to add 30,000 troops into a sinkhole of a war. But that's tomorrow, when the Salahi's will probably get a TV show on Bravo. What about today? Today's ignored national affront goes to the noble Supreme Court further -- and maybe permanently -- suppressing torture photos.

NYT:

The justices sent the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, which ruled in 2008 that the pictures should be released to the public. But at the request of the Obama administration, the Second Circuit later postponed its own order, setting the stage for the administration to take the case to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, the justices told the Second Circuit to give “further consideration” to the issue in light of a Congressional action authorizing the Defense Department to keep the pictures from the public. With the issue on its way back to the Second Circuit, a final decision will probably not be made for months.

In light of tomorrow, that is downright a tragedy masterpiece. This is the week to remember Obama's first year by.

I hope Black Francis gives the White House the finger tomorrow night.

Letting the trolls out

Andrew Sullivan on the Gitmo-cheering Cheney family M.O. at this point, as exemplified by Liz's demagoguery of the prisoner transfer "debate":

It's so bizarre that transferring prisoners to mainland jails in order to shut down the objective black eye of Gitmo is receiving so much resistance from the pro-torture right. We can argue about how to try these suspects, but their location should surely be a non-issue.

What Cheney fears, I suspect, is that Gitmo will be shut down, that history will record it as the lowest point in US human rights ever, that the Cheney family will be tarred as the brand that destroyed America's moral standing, and that Dick Cheney will become one of the darkest figures in modern American history.

But if you can keep Gitmo open, if you prevent detainee transfer, if you can spin the next terror attack as caused by the refusal to torture ... you have a chance to rescue the narrative again. And so America's cold civil war continues ...

To rescue the narrative, they would need the media. And surely the media has no qualms about letting these trolls out of the cellar to spew pro-torture bile all over airwaves.

Nail in the coffin

Catching up on some news from last week, remember those torture photos that Joe Lieberman (and the Obama administration) successfully suppressed through an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill that gave the power to shield them to Defense Sec. Gates?

Well, Gates has used his new jurisdiction in Congress's business to withhold the damning photos, thwarting a court order in the process.

Mother Jones:

Gates' new authority comes from a law, signed by President Barack Obama last month, that gives the Secretary of Defense the power to rule that photos of detainees are exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act. Gates' action on Friday was the first use of the new FOIA exemption since it passed Congress last month. The photos in question are the subject of a years-long legal fight by the American Civil Liberties Union, which first filed a FOIA request for records pertaining to detainee treatment, rendition, and death in May of 2005. The case is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court.

A court filing [pdf] Friday revealed Gates' action.

Let's remember things like this when we're telling the history of the post-9/11 era of America.

Those torture photos ... a final edition?

Signed, sealed, delivered by President Obama.

President Obama signed legislation Thursday that blocks the release of photos that depict the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody. The new law is expected to thwart any chance the Supreme Court will hear the case over whether the photos should be disclosed to the public.

The Homeland Security Appropriations bill Obama signed grants the Department of Defense authority to withhold the photos.

Now that the bill is signed into law, it likely makes the long-fought battle over the torture photos moot. The Supreme Court twice this month postponed whether it would hear the government's appeal to the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act suit that sought access to the photos, pending the enactment of the law. Solicitor General Elena Kagan sent a letter today apprising the Supreme Court of the legislation and stating the government would file a supplemental brief regarding its effect likely before the Court's conference Nov. 6.

We may never see this evidence of torture and some of the most egregious human rights abuses in modern American history.

One step closer to the disappearance of those detainee photos

The Senate passed the Homeland Security appropriations bill (with the Lieberman amendment that will usurp Congress's power to hold prerogative over detainee abuse photos, giving it to the Defense secretary.) by a margin of 79 to 19 yesterday.

And of course, I have to read about this on the Web site of The Reporters Committee of Freedom of the Press. No disrespect for them, but when RCFP and the ACLU are the only voices pushing against this, it's a sad state of affairs in the press. RCFP:

In a letter to Department of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, the ACLU urged him to "not invoke your new and discretionary authority to suppress images of abuse."

[...]

"We are deeply disappointed that Congress has voted to give the Defense Department the authority to hide evidence of its own misconduct,” said the ACLU's Jameel Jaffer in a release. “Secretary Gates should be guided by the importance of transparency to the democratic process, the extraordinary importance of these photos to the ongoing debate about the treatment of prisoners and the likelihood that the suppression of these photos would ultimately be far more damaging to national security than their disclosure.”

I wonder what Republicans think of such executive power, something they suddenly rail about after supporting unprecedented presidential power for George W. Bush? I wonder how Democrats feel, being the majority and all, exposing themselves once again as frauds and hypocrites after railing against Bush's similar excesses while they were a minority? I can't imagine Gates doing what Obama doesn't want. And Obama seems to want to suppress this proof of American war crimes. Torture and murder of detainees is not America. But Dick Cheney made it the centerpiece of our global policy. Or at least that's how our "friends and enemies" see it. Now Barack Obama covers it up. I don't know how the Cheneyites could have it any better than complicity, cover up and a blind eye.

Those pesky detainee photos....

Elmer Fudd Lieberman's horrendous bow-to-executive-power amendment passed the House last Thursday. The Senate will take it up soon, almost definitely this week (and almost definitely pass it). The amendment, tacked onto a Homeland Security appropriations bill (Joe Lieberman is the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee) would give the Defense secretary (Robert Gates presently) final authority to classify or conceal photos or other kind of media that proved America tortured and killed men held for dubious reasons in jails all over the world. It takes away oversight power of the Congress and basically hands it to the president. I mean, the secretary of Defense is a Cabinet member of the president. Of course what his commander-in-chief wants is a concealment of "further embarrassments to the tune of Abu Ghraib. These presidents, these parties are complicit in it now. Just maintain the status quo.

Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU on a large collection of detainee abuse photos, some additional Abu Ghraib images and the rest from Bagram in Afghanistan, being shut from public eye, in the Los Angeles Times today:

Their release would allow the public to understand better what took place in the military's detention centers, and why. They might show patterns that have until now gone unnoticed, and they would surely convey, better than mere text ever could, the cruelty of such practices as stress positions, hooding and mock executions. And disclosure of the photos might also spur calls for a more thorough investigation into prisoner abuse than has been conducted thus far.

The fear that the country's enemies will use the photos as propaganda is not baseless, but it is a mistake to give violent extremists a veto over the FOIA. The argument that the government has made in court -- and that animates the proposed legislation -- would give the greatest protection from disclosure to records that relate to the worst governmental misconduct, because it is those records that are most likely to be inflammatory. Suppressing such records might deprive the country's enemies of propaganda, but it would also deprive the American public of information that is crucial to the democratic process.

I think our credibility hangs in the balance here. But it's not a hot topic....

Why is no one in the Washington media picking up on this? It's too 'been there, done that' for them? "Oh, those messy detainee photos ... ah, gee, I don't know if I wanna cover that one boss," say those celebri-anchors and lazy correspondents that litter our nation's press. Not sexy enough. And they're tired of dragging the Cheneys on their air to defend torture. Maybe.

And no offense to the LA Times, but why were they the ones to run this? Why wouldn't the NY Times snatch this one (assuming the ACLU offered)? And why wouldn't the Washington Post hop at the chance to stack Jaffer's common sense alongside the likes of one of their Opinion pieces today by AHIP execu-lobbyist Karen Ignagni to plead for the sparing of the poor insurance companies?

Oh yeah, with them it's NO soft-on-terror drivel about detainee photos and shielding the poor little public from our wise executive and commander in chief. Bush or Obama.

Our mainstream media is failing us. Stuff like the refusal to cover this monumental issue -- the proof of sheer depravity and sinister behavior sanctioned by our leaders -- is shameful. It won't "put enough eyes on the tube" for them.

So then the ACLU is left alone to challenge these detentions and work their butt off to uphold the rule of law in this country. That shouldn't be on the ACLU to do. That's the press corps's job. When was the last time Chip Reid or Chuck Todd told you anything you needed to know?

Uighur Brothers the Latest Greatest Story in Gitmo Shame

Absolutely heartbreaking.

Bahtiyar Mahnut, a detainee at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, learned a few weeks ago that the Pacific island nation of Palau had invited him to settle there.

It should have been cause for celebration, especially for a man who desperately wants to be free. But, to the surprise of his attorneys, Bahtiyar has turned down the offer. He wishes to remain a prisoner, they say, so he can look after his older brother, a fellow detainee.

[...]

The brothers are Uighurs, residents of China who are considered separatists by Beijing but are not enemies of the United States. The brothers were picked up separately in Afghanistan and Pakistan soon after the United States launched attacks against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in retaliation for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Since at least 2003, the U.S. government has tried to find homes for the brothers and 20 other captured Uighurs. Five went to Albania in 2006; four were sent to Bermuda in June. At one point, U.S. officials were considering the possibility of resettling Uighurs in the D.C. region, but that plan was scuttled under political pressure. Most countries have been reluctant to accept Uighurs and risk angering China.

In recent weeks, however, Palau has agreed to accept 12 of the 13 remaining Uighurs, according to the Justice Department.

The only detainee not invited by Palau was Bahtiyar's older brother, Arkin Mahmud, 45, who has developed mental health problems that are apparently too serious to be treated in the sparsely populated country, said his attorney, Elizabeth Gilson.
ad_icon

To make matters worse, according to Gilson and military records, Arkin is a prisoner only because he went searching for Bahtiyar after the younger brother left their homeland eight years ago.

"This is just very difficult and sad," said Abubakkir Qasim, 40, a Uighur freed from Guantanamo Bay in 2006 who considers himself a friend of both brothers.

Look at what we have put this family through. Lives have been ruined and futures have been irrevocably damaged. The Bush administration post-9/11 foreign policy, in this case the unlawful extradition, imprisonment without trial, torture of other human beings, much less the same to innocent men. Many American-held detainees have died while in Guantanamo, or Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, or Iraqi prisons, or the many CIA "black sites" all over the world. Others have been shamed and embarrassed for all the world to see, such as from Abu Ghraib. How are we supposed to lecture anyone on human rights abuses? How do we constantly claim the moral high ground with any conflict, perceived or real, throughout the world? We've left nothing for our close allies to do but begrudgingly grin and take it, because we seem to rarely care what they really think.

Anyway, it's actually a little shocking, even for a cynic like me, to see that the torture advocates are still treated as reasonable and sufficiently credible in the national security debate. I mean, read that story at the brothers at Gitmo ... have you so soul? What would like to say about this ... oh, I don't, how about you Liz Cheney? Ye of a New York Times write-up that could be called Liz Cheney: Rising Star of Republican Torture Squad (from today). If you're so sure torture works -- and the overwhelming evidence that it does not is all over the place -- how would you explain to these brothers' families why they were taken under custody, held for 8 years even after being found innocent and now getting shopped around to the rest of the world since we won't let them come here.

The Times on Cheney:

Ms. Cheney’s resolute national security positions seem to differ not at all from those of her favorite vice president. “I think you’d be hard-pressed to find any daylight at all between Liz’s and my father’s views,” said her younger sister, Mary Cheney. “It’s not because she’s been indoctrinated. It’s because he’s right.” Mary Cheney was prominent in her father’s vice-presidential campaigns but has drawn fire from some conservatives for having a child as part of a same-sex couple.

[...]

She argues her father’s positions with a cable-ready ferocity reminiscent of her mother, Lynne (a former regular on CNN’s “Crossfire”).

Mr. Obama is “an American president who seems to be afraid to defend America,” she told Larry King on his CNN program in an appearance that drew notice when Ms. Cheney appeared not to contest a suggestion that the president had not been born in the United States.

Clips of Ms. Cheney’s on-air smack-downs with liberal adversaries have become viral sensations among conservative bloggers — most recently, an interruption-fest with Sam Donaldson over the C.I.A.’s interrogation methods on ABC’s “This Week.”

When Mr. Donaldson said that everyone he knows thinks torture and waterboarding are wrong, Ms. Cheney shot back: “Waterboarding isn’t torture, and we can go down that path. The lack of seriousness here is important.”

What a crazy family. They're all on the same page, the page of grizzled, fearful, animalistic militarism. And that Mary Cheney mention, wow, there's another layer of self-loathing going on in that family.

Here's Adam Serwer of TAPPED on the Cheney family values:

Reality, it seems, is a nemesis not only for the former vice president but for the entire Cheney family. But because torture is now a "values" issue for the right, it is, like abstinence-only sex education, unmoored from the necessities of proving its usefulness in the real world, which is why someone like Liz Cheney is finding herself where she is. Unfortunately, the consequences of one of the two major parties in America embracing torture will affect us all in the long run.

How sad. Like a family of ruthless, nationalistic Attila the Huns.