So, why did the “we don’t torture” line in Obama’s State of the Union address get so much GOP applause?
Given his administration’s ambiguous-at-best, temporizing-at-worse stance on Guantanamo- and rendition-related issues, I don’t believe his “We don’t torture” claim.
Given the injuries of former Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, beaten up to the day of his release to Britain – the day AFTER the What-a-gon’s claims – empiricial evidence also says otherwise.
Why did that get so much GOP applause, anyway? Does the Congressional GOP have a sense Obama will strongly oppose the Leahy-Conyers “truth and reconciliation” drive? Will he try to eviscerate such a bill in Congress? Will he have AG Holder ignore it if passed? Would he even dare veto such a bill?
Showing posts with label Guantanamo Bay detainees. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Guantanamo Bay detainees. Show all posts
February 25, 2009
January 13, 2009
Needed – a justice recovery package
Color ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero very skeptical of what President-elect Barack Obama intends to do with Guantanamo detainees if/when he closes the facility itself.
And, Romero should indeed be skeptical.
As Glenn Greenwald notes, Obama needs pressure, and still has a tendency to be vague about specifics on issues unless and until pushed.
“Just like we need specifics on an economic recovery package,” Mr. Romero said, “we need specifics on a ‘justice recovery package.’ ”
And, Romero should indeed be skeptical.
As Glenn Greenwald notes, Obama needs pressure, and still has a tendency to be vague about specifics on issues unless and until pushed.
June 21, 2008
Gitmo habeas calls BushCo cases bluff
So, the Bush Administration wants to rewrite the cases against Guantanamo Bay detainees:
Sounds like “factual returns” is the government oxymoron of the week, if not decade.
At a closed-door meeting with judges and defense attorneys this week, government lawyers said they needed time to add new evidence and make other changes to evidentiary documents known as “factual returns.”
Sounds like “factual returns” is the government oxymoron of the week, if not decade.
June 20, 2008
Ginco first Gitmo detainee to file habeas
McClatchy has the story of Abdul Rahim Abdul Razak al Ginco, who has had the misfortune of having been tortured by the Taliban before being arrested by the U.S. — after first being freed from the Taliban.
Ginco, who was a university student at one time, seems innocent of everything except being the wrong man in the wrong place. That wrong place?
The middle of Afghanistan, with Americans throwing out monopoly money for people to bring in Taliban members. Ginco was surely someone who made somebody else a fast $50 or whatever.
It seems his is about the best case, from a human rights and expose-Bush perspective, that could be the leadoff hitter in the post-Boumediene climate.
Ginco, who was a university student at one time, seems innocent of everything except being the wrong man in the wrong place. That wrong place?
The middle of Afghanistan, with Americans throwing out monopoly money for people to bring in Taliban members. Ginco was surely someone who made somebody else a fast $50 or whatever.
It seems his is about the best case, from a human rights and expose-Bush perspective, that could be the leadoff hitter in the post-Boumediene climate.
June 18, 2008
Rall – Gitmo torture NOT an ‘aberration’
In talking about “oops nation,” Rall takes us on a quick tour of U.S. history. Our “oopses” go back to Salem’s witch trials, through the Alien and Sedition Acts, to Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus (overall, a halfway justified real war measure), and beyond.
If Hannah Arendt could talk about “the banality of evil,” perhaps Rall is right about “the laziness of good.”
Some Americans are good. Other Americans are bad. And the good ones are often lazy, willing to let the bad ones get their way.
If Hannah Arendt could talk about “the banality of evil,” perhaps Rall is right about “the laziness of good.”
But ‘Impeachment is off the table!’
I don’t like linking to Kos, but Meteor Blades’ review of these two books reinforces my disgust with Nancy Pelosi.
My disgust for George W. Bush needs no reinforcement.
My disgust for George W. Bush needs no reinforcement.
June 12, 2008
Yes, Virginia, there is a Supreme Court
And, a Supreme Court that still believes in civil liberties, including habeas corpus.
By a 5-4 majority, written by Justice Kennedy, the court not only reaffirmed the privilege of habeas, but David Souter, in a concurrence, went further:
The overall opinion went further, too. SCOTUS also told the Bush Administration to cut the legal hairsplitting on the status of Guantanamo.
The ruling said, in essence, that even though Guantanamo is technically on land rented from Cuba, it walks, talks and quacks like a United States piece of real estate.
Now, what effects will this have beyond the detainees? Well, with Democrats in the majority in Congress, there’s no way a new Military Commissions Act will be passed. (I think.) But, it appears not affect the status of current military commissions, beyond giving the habeas protections to defendants inside those courts. Second, the ruling was only specific to Guantanamo Bay detainees. But, it seems logical that SCOTUS, if another appeal reaches it, would extend those protections.
Beyond that, this obviously removed “terrorism trials” from the2008 election landscape. (And this ruling comes early enough that Schmuck Talk Express™ can’t exploit it this fall.)
And, any ruling that makes Scalia this spluttering mad HAS to be good.
Kevin Drum well asks what the end game is for Gitmo detainees, since, in many cases, their countries of origin don’t want them back. One waggish poster there suggests either Crawford, Texas, or Jackson Hole, Wyo., for Dick Cheney.
Drum is probably right that Afghanistan is the end of the line for most the detainees, the ones where we know they’re small fry, and now, the pressure to open the gates is going to mount.
By a 5-4 majority, written by Justice Kennedy, the court not only reaffirmed the privilege of habeas, but David Souter, in a concurrence, went further:
Souter said the dissenters did not sufficiently appreciate “the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years.”
The overall opinion went further, too. SCOTUS also told the Bush Administration to cut the legal hairsplitting on the status of Guantanamo.
The ruling said, in essence, that even though Guantanamo is technically on land rented from Cuba, it walks, talks and quacks like a United States piece of real estate.
Now, what effects will this have beyond the detainees? Well, with Democrats in the majority in Congress, there’s no way a new Military Commissions Act will be passed. (I think.) But, it appears not affect the status of current military commissions, beyond giving the habeas protections to defendants inside those courts. Second, the ruling was only specific to Guantanamo Bay detainees. But, it seems logical that SCOTUS, if another appeal reaches it, would extend those protections.
Beyond that, this obviously removed “terrorism trials” from the2008 election landscape. (And this ruling comes early enough that Schmuck Talk Express™ can’t exploit it this fall.)
And, any ruling that makes Scalia this spluttering mad HAS to be good.
Kevin Drum well asks what the end game is for Gitmo detainees, since, in many cases, their countries of origin don’t want them back. One waggish poster there suggests either Crawford, Texas, or Jackson Hole, Wyo., for Dick Cheney.
Drum is probably right that Afghanistan is the end of the line for most the detainees, the ones where we know they’re small fry, and now, the pressure to open the gates is going to mount.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)