The week in the most transparently slouching toward Gomorrah administration in history

OK, "the most transparent administration in history" is anything but that, in general, but it's been hitting a new pitch this week.

Let's start with this plan to force Facebook, Google, et al to cough up even more private information about us, when the gummint orders it. Again, if BushCo said that, liberals would be having a massive group coronary, but, once again, the "soft bigotry of low expectations" may come into play.

Next, and speaking of communications? A telecom mogul and lobbyist gets tabbed to be the fox watching the chickens at the Federal Communications Commission.

Tom Wheeler then gets topped.

The woman who foisted Dear Leader on the presidency, Penny Pritzker, gets a birthday president when he nominates her to run the Commerce Department. (Must be a Chicago deal, since Bill Daley did that gig before.)

Meanwhile, Obama's private banker, Jamie Dimon, where Dear Leader I believe still has a $500K checking account, is in a heap of new trouble. I'm sure slaps on the wrist are forthcoming.

Finally, Eric Posner says there's nothing stopping Obama from closing Gitmo.

No wonder Obama was his laughing self at the White House press gang's annual shindig. He cleared a whole lot of work off his plate.

Gitmo to go on trial

Spanish judge Balthasar Garzon may have been suspended from investigating allegations that the U.S. has tortured people at Guantanamo, but another magistrate there will hear a similar claim by a Moroccan.

Center for Constitutional Rights has more.

Too bad we can't send the Three Stooges, aka George W. Shrub Bush, Rummy Rumsfeld and Darth Cheney, over to Spain to stand in the docket as Obama continues to look forward.

Guess Spain didn't get that memo from Preznit Executive Order Kumbaya.

Torture and murder at Gitmo

Let's not pretend we're not doing it, because we are. Period. End of story. (Except for Obama's broken promise to close the place.)

Andrew Sullivan hits the highlights of Horton's story. Glenn Greenwald gives it some context, including how widespread this was. (And maybe still is? Bagram, anybody?)

Note to Alberto Gonzales – don’t plan a Spanish vacation

You may be indicted for trial there -- trial on war crimes related to Gitmo.

You, Doug Feith, John Yoo, David Addington, John Bybee, David Haynes.

Judge Baltasar Garzon, the same judge who nailed Pinochet, has agreed to open a case.

Mohamed: Don’t scapegoat MI5 on Brit torture

British subject and joint British-U.S torture victim Binyam Mohamed instead wants the light of British criminal investigation shown high up the British political system. If only both countries’ governments (that’s you, President “Change”) would stop blocking his legal actions, he might get that.

Don’t read too much into Obama ‘no enemy combatant’ decision

Groups such as the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights says it means little to moderate difference from BushCo policies, so far.

“It appears on first reading that whatever they call those they claim the right to detain, they have adopted almost the same standard (as) the Bush administration ... with one change, the addition of the word 'substantially' before the word ‘supported,’” the Center for Constitutional Rights said in a written statement. “This is really a case of old wine in new bottles.”

This is yet another thing that the MSLBs won’t tell you, though.

Anyway, let’s see actions match verbiage.

We don’t torture? Do we?

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?

Believe Obama Admin or lying Gitmo prisoner injuries?

Last week, the Obama Administration’s Pentagon claimed Guantanamo met all Geneva standards.

The injuries of Binyam Mohamed, beaten up to the day of his release to Britain – the day AFTER the What-a-gon’s claims – say otherwise.

I emphasize the Obama Administration’s Pentagon, as B.O. could put an end to these bullshit lies.

Hat tip to Greenwald, for also reporting Obama staff is already lining up sycophants in the media on this and similar issues.

MUCH more on that point from David Johnston. A WH press office staffer saying – not asking – he’s going off the record? And, on the first phone call? And, over just being asked to spell his name and give his job title?

Are you surprised? Or, are you ready for more protesting-too-much Obamiac outrage?

I already am getting more and more confirmation for another Green presidential vote in 2012, or Socialist, if I have that option.

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.

“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.

Barney music used to torture at Gitmo

Dude, I would soooo talk if somebody used Barney music to torture me, like BushCo did with Guantanamo detainees. I would go so nuts I’d probably let Shrub and Uncle Fester fondle me or something.

Ditto for having to listen to Britney Spears.

I agree with Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello. Let’s do the same to Bush.

Judge orders five Gitmo detainees freed

Judge Richard J. Leon of Federal District Court in Washington said the five, Algerian nationals, including SCOTUS landmark name Lakhdar Boumediene, had been held unlawfully for nearly seven years and should be freed.

Leon said the evidence against the five was too thin to keep holding them; at the same time, he did say a sixth Algerian had enough evidence against him to keep in custody.

“The decision by Judge Leon lays bare the scandalous basis on which Guantánamo has been based — slim evidence of dubious quality,” said Zachary Katznelson, legal director at Reprieve, a British legal group that represents many of the detainees. “This is a tough, no-nonsense judge.”

The ruling also gives president-elect Obama perfect timing for leverage on closing Guantanamo.

Ted Rall hopes President-elect Barack Obama remembers her very well, specifically, that he remembers her 1996 Peruvian show trial for allegedly helping Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement.

Rall says its similar trials to that which we would get here if we adopt Obama’s “special court” system for trying Guantanamo detainees.

That said, Rall appears to have left his brains, and certainly any Realpolitik, lying on the side of the road on this one.

Rather than next saying we should try all Gitmo detainees in regular federal courts, he instead says that, because evidence may be tainted, we ought to set them all free.

And then give Gitmo to Cuba.

Sorry, Ted, but you lost me on this one.

Gitmo cases – new court, or new version of old one?

Is a new “hybrid court” the answer for Gitmo detainees? President-elect Obama thinks the answer is yes. Off the top of my head, I wonder if the FISA court couldn’t be adapted to try cases like the most serious, intelligence-tangled Gitmo cases instead.

Why was Nino Scalia at …

(The pics that will make you hurl!)

A “Lady Liberty” dinner honoring long-term ACLU President Nadine Strossen?

First, we have Nino getting a hug from Nadine, while fellow Supreme Court Justice David Souter DOES look like he’s going to hurl. Or crap his pants. Or like he's already crapped his pants.

Or, maybe he's struggling to hold in a bad joke.

But, that’s not the best!

HERE’S the best. Nadine making love eyes at Nino.

Nadine, did you smoke a cigarette afterward? Did you use protection? Did you ask him to lock you up in a mock Gitmo cell? Did he offer to waterboard you?

Anyway, back to the rhetorical question:

Why was Nino Scalia at a “Lady Liberty” dinner honoring long-term ACLU President Nadine Strossen?


That would be like the Sierra Club inviting Dick Cheney to a Carl Pope dinner. (Of course, that, too could still happen.)

OK, that would be like Defenders of Wildlife inviting Sarah Palin to a fundraising banquet.

I saw this with my own orbs on page 11 of the summer 2008 issue of “Civil Liberties,” the ACLU’s national newsletter, and then Google Imaged for the pics.

This is the same issue where hypocritical Executive Director Anthony Romero (after being hired as ACLU’s executive, he was teaching major U.S. companies how to comply with the Patriot Act, and when an ACLU board brouhaha broke out, Strossen supported him) has the P1 column entitled “Fighting for Justice at Guantánamo.”

Excuuusseee me, but hasn’t your biggest adversary in the judicial branch been Antonin Scalia?

Maybe if the ACLU had Dick Cheney’s shotgun to raffle, with part of the prize including a free shot or two at Nino, but otherwise …

Latest Gitmo shit hits BushCo fan as judge bans evidence

Navy Capt. Keith Allred, the judge in the trial of Osama bin Laden driver Salim Hamdan, has banned some prosecution evidence from being used.

Why?

The no-duuhh answer, from a civil liberties perspective.

Because of the “highly coercive environments and conditions under which they were made.”

The administration, via Army prosecutors, is of course appealing the ruling.

Actually, they probably don’t even care. In a reversal of civilian court death penalty appeals, BushCo is probably content with another decade of various appeals to serve its purpose.

Dems take a pass on real civil liberties action

Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute, Attorney General Mike Mukasey challenged Congressional Democrats to pass comprehensive legislation on Iraq/Afghanistan detainees rights, claiming the courts had made a hash of it.

Now, I think Mukasey is too harsh on that, as well as too clever by half; the courts have made a hash of Bush’s plans, more than anything.

But, he’s not all wrong, either. And yes, having Congress address some of the convoluted issues could be good.

Here’s why I claim Congressional Democrats are taking a pass.

Mukasey and the rest of BushCo want to coopt Congress into nailing some jello to the wall.

Congress doesn't want to go along.

The Democratic-controlled Congress is still afraid of the GWOT/Soft on Terror GOP talking points.

So, rather than going past calling Mukasey to seriously raising the bet, Congressional Dems go chicken-shit.

As for specific Democrats, yes, Sen. Pat Leahy is right that Mukasey has had plenty of chances, in front of Leahy’s Judiciary Committee, to propose general outlines of such legislation.

But, that’s not stopping you from taking the bit in your own teeth, Pat.

Instead, I suspect Dems view this idea with about as much relish as they do actually invoking the War Powers Act.

And, given the FISA cave, maybe it’s better that Dems decline Mukasey’s invite anyway. They’d be sure to cave in the end.

And, as for Leahy’s ride on the wahhmbulance that Mukasey didn’t “check in with him” before speaking at AEI, what the hell is up with that? Last I checked, Mike Mukasey wasn’t top counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, he was Attorney General and employed by the executive branch.

Political silly season from both sides will continue to gear up.

Maybe a judge will hold Mukasey in contempt — for real

Judge Thomas Hogan told the Department of Justice to make Gitmo trials job No. 1:

“The time has come to move these forward. Set aside every other case that’s pending in the division and address this case first.”

Snark aside, Hogan even offered to help DOJ find countries of repatriation or expatriation for Guantanamo detainees.

Of course, there’s this little issue of the government not wanting to pay the detainees’ public defenders.

“Now the government is stonewalling again by not allowing Americans’ private dollars to be paid to American lawyers to defend civil liberties,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said.

What if Hogan threatens to rule that detainees have no possibility of receiving a speedy trial, under the Sixth Amendment, if the Bush Administration keeps this up?

Parhat NOT an ‘enemy combatant’

Coming hard on the heels of the Boumediene ruling, a federal appeals’ court’s finding that Uyghur Muslim Hazaifa Parhat, a Chinese native, is

In a word,NOT an enemy combatant can only push the Bush Administration further back on its heels.

Gitmo habeas calls BushCo cases bluff

So, the Bush Administration wants to rewrite the cases against Guantanamo Bay detainees:

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.

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.