January 2009 Archives

Bagram... Obama's Gitmo?

January 31, 2009 11:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A sketch by Thomas V. Curtis, a former Reserve M.P. sergeant, showing how Dilawar was chained to the ceiling of his cell.

What's the Department of Defense Hiding About Bagram?

ByÂ DAPHNE EVIATARÂ Â 1/28/09 7:34 PM

As President Obama talks about building up U.S. forces in Afghanistan, it raises the inevitable question about what he's going to do with the 600 prisonersÂ the United States is holding at the prison at the Bagram air baseÂ - and whether previousÂ plans to buildÂ a new prison to hold 1000 more detainees will go forward.

As I noted inÂ a recent postÂ about Bagram and the habeas corpus cases of four detainees being held there, U.S. District Judge John Bates ordered the Pentagon to produce information about just how many of those 600 men and boys were picked up outside of Afghanistan.Â Well, the Defense Department responded to Bates, but the answer?

It'sÂ blacked out.

This matters because the Justice Department has been arguing that the Bagram prison just holds warriors picked up on the "battlefield" in Afghanistan, and under international law they can be held indefinitely.

But we know that at least some of the prisoners -- includingÂ the four habeas petitionersÂ I wrote about -- were picked up as far away as Yemen, Pakistan and even Thailand.Â That suggests that Bagram is being used more as a holding pen for suspected terrorists from around the world - much like the prison at Guantanamo Bay -- than as a temporary battlefield detention center. And the more it's like Gitmo, the more likely it is that Bagram prisoners deserve the same rights that Gitmo prisoners do under the U.S. Constitution.

I, for one, was pretty disappointed to learn that when the government filed its document responding to Judge Bates on Jan. 16 - just four days before President Obama's inauguration -- the Justice Department had redacted the part that contained the answer. (My request for an explanation earlier today from Pentagon spokesman LTC Mark Wright went unanswered.)

What's that about?Â What is the government hiding, and why is Judge Bates letting it get away with it?

Judge Bates has also asked the government -- now, the Obama administration -- to "provide input regarding the definition of 'enemy combatant'" in light ofÂ Obama's Jan. 22 executive orderÂ on prisoner detention. Bates has also asked the administration to explain whether it plans to reverse the Bush administration's position that it can hold Bagram detainees indefinitely.

Let's hope those statements won't be blacked out, too.

http://washingtonindependent.com/27899/whats-the-dod-got-to-hide-about-bagramÂ Â Â

"war on terror" doesn't pass the smell test anymore

January 30, 2009 12:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Returning to a Pre-9/11 Approach to the "War on Terror"

Â Â By Kevin Gosztola Â OpEdNews Â January 30, 2009 Â

By signing an executive order in his first days in office, Obama, for the most part, nullified U.S. authorization for capture, interrogation, and indefinite imprisonment of terror suspects all over the world.

According to Jane Mayer, author of the book "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into the War on American Ideals," in the first few days of his presidency, Obama "consigned to history the worst excesses of the Bush Administration's "war on terror"" by canceling "seven years of controversial Justice Department legal opinions authorizing methods of treating terror suspects," which Susan Crawford, a top Bush Administration official in charge of prosecutions at Guantanamo, recently said amounted to torture.

A chief architect of the legal opinions which granted interrogators the right to torture, John Yoo, could not resist the urge to respond to the actions of President Obama.

TheÂ Wall Street JournalÂ publishedÂ Yoo's editorialÂ this week, an editorial where Yoo claims, "Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001."

Yoo also claims Obama is "drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war."

Yoo's editorial seems to suggest the old Bush mantra that "we live in a post-9/11 world." The supposition that there is a difference allows for policies like Yoo's to be constructed; the idea that 9/11 means Americans must think differently is used to justify torture...

Continue reading "war on terror" doesn't pass the smell test anymore.

The Audacity of John Yoo

January 29, 2009 11:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Obama Made a Rash Decision on Gitmo

The president will soon realize that governing involves hard choices.

The Wall Street Journal Â January 29, 2009

ByÂ JOHN YOOÂ

During his first week as commander in chief, President Barack Obama ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay and terminated the CIA's special authority to interrogate terrorists.

While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001. He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.

The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.

What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks. What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)

Continue reading The Audacity of John Yoo.

protecting U.S. government prerogatives

January 29, 2009 1:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Obama lawyers set to defend Yoo

ByÂ JOSH GERSTEINÂ Â POLITICOÂ 1/28/09 4:18 AM ESTÂ

Former Bush Justice official John Yoo was the chief author of the so-called torture memos.

Photo: AP

In Democratic legal circles, no attorney has been more pilloried than former Bush Justice Department official John Yoo, chief author of the so-called torture memos that Barack Obama last week sought to nullify.Â

But now President Obama's incoming crew of lawyers has a new and somewhat awkward job: defending Yoo in federal court.Â

Next week, Justice Department lawyers are set to ask a San Francisco federal judge to throw out a lawsuit brought against Yoo by Jose Padilla, a New York man held without charges on suspicion of being an Al Qaeda operative plotting to set off a "dirty bomb."Â

The suit contends that Yoo's legal opinions authorized Bush to order Padilla's detention in a Navy brig in South Carolina and encouraged military officials to subject Padilla to aggressive interrogation techniques, including death threats and long-term sensory deprivation.Â

Continue reading protecting U.S. government prerogatives.

John Yoo, War Criminal?

January 28, 2009 6:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The chances that the notorious UC Berkeley law professor will be investigated for war crimes appear to have increased in recent weeks.

ByÂ Robert Gammon

EAST BAY EXPRESS January 28, 2009

When this newspaper printed a cover story last spring saying UC Berkeley should fire Boalt law professorÂ John YooÂ and that he should be prosecuted for war crimes, the chances of either of those things actually happening may have seemed farfetched. After all, university officials had claimed that Yoo's work for the Bush administration -- authorizing torture and warrantless wiretapping -- was protected by academic freedom. Moreover, neither the Obama nor the Clinton campaigns expressed an interest at the time in investigating the outgoing administration. But several recent developments have started to shift opinions about whether Bush and company should receive a free pass. In fact, at least one prominent legal scholar believes that if there is to be a war crimes inquiry, one of the most likely targets will be a tenured professor who lives in the Berkeley hills.

John Yoo.

Related Stories:Â John Yoo,Â UC Berkeley,Â Boalt Law School,Â Scott Horton,Â Nuremberg

"I think it's moved from possible to very likely," saidÂ Scott Horton, a lecturer at Columbia University law school and writer forÂ Harper's, who has both studied and reported extensively on the Bush administration's record of torturing prisoners and monitoring Americans' phone calls without a warrant. "And of all the people involved, the most vulnerable are the lawyers, including John Yoo." Horton pointed to the Nuremberg trials after World War II as a precedent. In the late 1940s, several high-ranking Nazi lawyers were prosecuted, convicted, and sent to prison for their roles in facilitating war crimes, including torturing prisoners.

Continue reading John Yoo, War Criminal?.

John Yoo Advises White House to Ignore Fourth Amendment Violations in Sept. 21, 2001 Memo

January 28, 2009 5:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

John Yoo advocated the position that the terrorist attacks and the prospect of future attacks would require the military to be deployed inside the U.S., and that President Bush would "be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties."

On Tuesday, January 13th, 2009, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers released a 486-page report Tuesday that called for a wide-ranging probe into the Bush Administration's broad assertion of executive powers. In the report, Conyers referred to a previously unpublished Oct. 23, 2001 Justice Department memorandum authored by John Yoo and sent to then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes. The memo provided President George W. Bush with various scenarios that would allow him to sidestep Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Eleven days after 9/11, John Yoo, a former deputy in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, drafted a 20-page memorandum that offered up theories on how the Bush administration could sidestep Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures in the event the U.S. military used "deadly force in a manner that endangered the lives of United States citizens."

Yoo came up with a number of different scenarios. He suggested shooting down a jetliner hijacked by terrorists; setting up military checkpoints inside a U.S. city; implementing surveillance methods far more superior than those available to law enforcement; or using military forces "to raid or attack dwellings where terrorists were thought to be, despite risks that third parties could be killed or injured by exchanges of fire," says a copy of the little known Sept. 21, 2001 memo.

Yoo is the author of an August 2002 legal opinion, widely referred to as the "Torture Memo," that gave interrogators the legal authority to use brutal methods against suspected terrorists.

He drafted the Sept. 21, 2001 memo in response to a question posed by Timothy E. Flanigan, the former deputy White House counsel, who wanted to know "the legality of the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist activity inside the United States,'' according to a copy of Flanigan's memo.

Yoo wrote that his ideas would likely be seen as violating the Fourth Amendment. But he said the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the prospect that future attacks would require the military to be deployed inside the U.S. meant President Bush would "be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties."
"We think that the Fourth Amendment should be no more relevant than it would be in cases of invasion or insurrection," Yoo's memo stated.

Continue reading here.

will Yoo's legal opinions provide cover from prosecution?

January 28, 2009 11:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

According to the following article, Senator Arlen SpecterÂ called "satisfactory" Justice Department nomineeÂ Eric H. Holder Jr.'sÂ statements that interrogation techniques authorized by legal opinions would provide a strong cover from prosecutions.

Holder: Prosecutorial and investigative judgments must depend on the facts, and no one is above the law. But where it is clear that a government agent has acted in 'reasonable and good-faith reliance on Justice Department legal opinions' authoritatively permitting his conduct, I would find it difficult to justify commencing a full-blown criminal investigation, let alone a prosecution.

MICHAEL CONNOR/THE WASHINGTON TIMES

EXCLUSIVE: Holder assures GOP on interrogation prosecution

Eli LakeÂ
THE WASHINGTON TIMES Wednesday, January 28, 2009

NOTE:Â Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports that an aide to Holder is denying Sen. Bond's claims.Â Updates on Bond's claim will continue at this rawstory link.

Â President Obama's choice to run the Justice Department has assured senior Republican senators that he won't prosecute intelligence officers or political appointees who were involved in the Bush administration's policy of "enhanced interrogations."

Sen. Christopher "Kit" Bond, a Republican from Missouri and the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said in an interview with The Washington Times that he will support Eric H. Holder Jr.'s nomination for Attorney General because Mr. Holder assured him privately that Mr. Obama's Justice Department will not prosecute former Bush officials involved in the interrogations program.
Mr. Holder's promise apparently was key to moving his nomination forward. Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 17-2 to favorably recommend Holder for the post. He is likely to be confirmed by the Senate soon.

Continue reading will Yoo's legal opinions provide cover from prosecution?.

Guantanamo 2.0

January 26, 2009 12:29 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

JURIST Special Guest ColumnistÂ Shayana Kadidal, senior managing attorney of the Guantanamo project at the Center for Constitutional Rights, says that the timing of military commissions convening authority Susan Crawford's admission in the last days of the Bush administration that a Guantanamo detainee he represents was tortured should not be allowed to open the door to a "preventive detention" scheme for prisoners who supposedly can be neither released nor tried...

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2009/01/torture-and-timing-explaining-crawford.php

January 26, 2009 8:49 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Are We Civilized Enough to Hold Our Leaders Accountable for War Crimes? The World Is Watching
By John W. Dean, FindLaw.com
Other countries are likely to take action against officials who condoned torture, even if the United States fails to do so.Â ReadÂ moreÂ Â»

Holy Cow: Top Democrats Are Actually Talking About Investigating Bush's Criminal Acts
By Jason Leopold, Consortium News
To the surprise of progressives and consternation of the GOP, top Dems are backing the idea of investigating torture and other crimes under Bush.ReadÂ moreÂ Â»

facelift and a new name

January 25, 2009 2:58 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Iraq to reopen notorious Abu Ghraib prison


Â Enlarge	AP file photo

The Iraqi government reportedly will reopen the notorious Abu Ghraib prison on the outskirts of Baghdad, seen here in August 2004.

BAGHDAD (AP) -- Iraq will reopen the notorious Abu Ghraib prison next month, but it's getting a facelift and a new name, a senior justice official said.

The heavily fortified compound of gray, stonewalled buildings and watchtowers has come to symbolize American abuse of some prisoners captured in Iraq after photos were released showing U.S. soldiers sexually humiliating inmates at the facility.

The scandal stoked support for the insurgency and was one of the biggest setbacks to the U.S. military effort to win the peace in Iraq.

The renovated facility will be called Baghdad's Central Prison because the name Abu Ghraib has left a "bitter feeling inside Iraqis' hearts," deputy Justice Minister Busho Ibrahim said Saturday.

Abu Ghraib, which was a torture center under Saddam Hussein, has been closed since 2006.

The prison will house 3,500 inmates when it reopens in mid-February and will have a capacity for about 15,000 by the end of this year, Ibrahim told The Associated Press in a telephone interview.

The announcement comes as the U.S. military has begun handing over about 15,000 detainees in its custody to the Iraqis under a new security agreement, prompting concern about Iraq's beleaguered judicial system. The United Nations warned in a recent human rights report about overcrowding and "grave human rights violations" of detainees in Iraqi custody.

"We have crowded prisons and the opening of Baghdad's Central Prison will help ease the problem," Ibrahim said.

He said the facility will be operated according to international standards.

Continue reading facelift and a new name.

January 25, 2009 11:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dangerous Executive Orders

By David Swanson

2009-01-25

The Center for Constitutional Rights has expressed concern that President Obama's executive order banning torture may contain a loophole. But no president has any right to declare torture legal or illegal, with or without loopholes. And if we accept that presidents have such powers, even if our new president does good with them, then loopholes will be the least of our worries.

Torture is, and has long been, illegal in every case, without exception. It is banned by our Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 2340A. Nothing any president can do can change this or unchange it, weaken it or strengthen it in any way.

Preventing torture does not require new legislation from Congress or new orders from a new president. It requires enforcing existing laws. In fact, adherence to the Convention Against Torture, which under Article VI of our Constitution is the supreme law of the land, requires the criminal prosecution of torturers and anyone complicit in torture.

Most of the seemingly noble steps taken by Congress in recent years and by President Obama in his first week have served to disguise the fact that torture always was, still is, and shall continue to be illegal.

In 2005, John McCain championed the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill for 2005, which passed the Congress and was signed into law by President Bush. This was yet another law banning torture. It was not needed, but no harm done, right? Wrong. Passing laws like this serves to create the illusion that torture was previously legal. And that allows the new laws to create exceptions. In fact, McCain allowed a major loophole for the CIA. And that would have been bad enough. But President Bush tacked on a "signing statement" throwing out the entire ban on torture. So, with Congress trying to ban torture, and the president eliminating the ban, people could hardly be blamed for believing torture was legal.

President Bush also signed executive orders and ordered the creation of legal opinions claiming that torture was legal. President Obama's new order revokes one of Bush's. But Obama has no more right to undo the legalization of torture than Bush had to legalize it in the first place. Only Congress has or should have the power to legislate. Obama's new order requires adherence to laws, rather than claiming the right to violate them, and yet there is a wide gap between publishing an order requiring adherence to the laws and actually enforcing the laws by indicting violators.

The same order that President Obama uses to ban torture also orders the closure of all CIA detention facilities. Congress never authorized the creation of such things in the first place. Ordering their closure is the right thing to do. But if a president can give the order to close them, what is to prevent another president giving the order to reopen them? The answer should be all of the laws and treaties violated.

Obama's executive order largely orders the government to cease violating various laws. But in so doing, rather than strengthening the laws, the new president weakens them almost to the point of nonexistence. For, what power does a law have to control behavior if it is never enforced? What deterrent value can be found in a law the violation of which results merely in a formal order to begin obeying it? And what status are we supposed to give all the other violated laws for which no such formal orders have been given?

Rather than picking certain of Bush's unconstitutional executive orders or signing statements to revoke, leaving the others in apparent need of revocation, President Obama should simply announce that he will not give any consideration to any past orders or statements that claim the right to legalize the illegal. And the new attorney general should appoint a special prosecutor to indict and prosecute the previous president, vice president, and all top officials who violated laws.

Source URL:Â http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/39276Â

"delays, caveats and loopholes"...

January 23, 2009 10:19 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Why the Gitmo policies may not change

Josh GersteinÂ -Â FriÂ JanÂ 23

There may be less than meets the eye to theÂ executive ordersPresident Obama issued yesterday to close the prison atÂ Guantanamo BayÂ and prohibit the torture of prisoners in American custody. Those pronouncements may sound dramatic and unequivocal, but experts predict that American policy towards detainees could remain for months or even years pretty close to what it was asÂ President Bushleft office.

"I think the administration's commitment to closeÂ GuantanamoÂ is heartening; the fact they want to give themselves a year to do it, not so much,", said Ramzi Kassem, a Yale Law School lecturer who represents prisoners like inmate Ahmed Zuhair, who was captured inPakistanÂ in 2001. "That would bring men like my client to eight years imprisonment for no apparent reason."

Continue reading "delays, caveats and loopholes"....

for the record

January 22, 2009 12:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Guantanamo: Obama's Executive Order To Close Prison

The Huffington PostÂ Â Â |Â Â Rachel Weiner Â Â |Â Â January 22, 2009 01:09 PM

On Thursday January 22, President Obama signed an executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Read the full text:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, in order to effect the appropriate disposition of individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense at the GuantÃ¡namo Bay Naval Base (GuantÃ¡namo) and promptly to close detention facilities at GuantÃ¡namo, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. As used in this order:
(a) "Common Article 3" means Article 3 of each of the Geneva Conventions.
(b) "Geneva Conventions" means:
(i) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3114);
(ii) the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3217);
(iii) the Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3316); and
Story continues belowÂ
(iv) the Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, August 12, 1949 (6 UST 3516).
(c) "Individuals currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo" and "individuals covered by this order" mean individuals currently detained by the Department of Defense in facilities at the GuantÃ¡namo Bay Naval Base whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants.
Sec. 2. Findings.
(a) Over the past 7 years, approximately 800 individuals whom the Department of Defense has ever determined to be, or treated as, enemy combatants have been detained at GuantÃ¡namo. The Federal Government has moved more than 500 such detainees from GuantÃ¡namo, either by returning them to their home country
more
(OVER)
2
or by releasing or transferring them to a third country. The Department of Defense has determined that a number of the individuals currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo are eligible for such transfer or release.
(b) Some individuals currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo have been there for more than 6 years, and most have been detained for at least 4 years. In view of the significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo and closure of the facilities in which they are detained would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice. Merely closing the facilities without promptly determining the appropriate disposition of the individuals detained would not adequately serve those interests. To the extent practicable, the prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals detained at GuantÃ¡namo should precede the closure of the detention facilities at GuantÃ¡namo.
(c) The individuals currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo have the constitutional privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Most of those individuals have filed petitions for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal court challenging the lawfulness of their detention.
(d) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch undertake a prompt and thorough review of the factual and legal bases for the continued detention of all individuals currently held at GuantÃ¡namo, and of whether their continued detention is in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and in the interests of justice. The unusual circumstances associated with detentions at GuantÃ¡namo require a comprehensive interagency review.
(e) New diplomatic efforts may result in an appropriate disposition of a substantial number of individuals currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo.
(f) Some individuals currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo may have committed offenses for which they should be prosecuted. It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how any such individuals can and should be prosecuted.
(g) It is in the interests of the United States that the executive branch conduct a prompt and thorough review of the circumstances of the individuals currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo who have been charged with offenses before military commissions pursuant to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Public Law 109-366, as well as of the military commission process more generally.
Sec. 3. Closure of Detention Facilities at GuantÃ¡namo. The detention facilities at GuantÃ¡namo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order. If any individuals covered by this order remain in detention at GuantÃ¡namo at the time of closure of those detention facilities,
more
3
they shall be returned to their home country, released, transferred to a third country, or transferred to another
United States detention facility in a manner consistent with law and the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.
Sec. 4. Immediate Review of All GuantÃ¡namo Detentions.
(a) Scope and Timing of Review. A review of the status of each individual currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo (Review) shall commence immediately.
(b) Review Participants. The Review shall be conducted with the full cooperation and participation of the following officials:
(1) the Attorney General, who shall coordinate the Review;
(2) the Secretary of Defense;
(3) the Secretary of State;
(4) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(5) the Director of National Intelligence;
(6) the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and
(7) other officers or full-time or permanent part-time employees of the United States, including employees with intelligence, counterterrorism, military, and legal expertise, as determined by the Attorney General, with the concurrence of the head of the department or agency concerned.
(c) Operation of Review. The duties of the Review participants shall include the following:
(1) Consolidation of Detainee Information. The Attorney General shall, to the extent reasonably practicable, and in coordination with the other Review participants, assemble all information in the possession of the Federal Government that pertains to any individual currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo
and that is relevant to determining the proper disposition of any such individual. All executive branch departments and agencies shall promptly comply with any request of the Attorney General to provide information in their possession or control pertaining to any such individual. The Attorney General may seek further information relevant to the Review from any source.
(2) Determination of Transfer. The Review shall determine, on a rolling basis and as promptly as possible with respect to the individuals currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo, whether it is possible to transfer or release the individuals consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests
more
(OVER)
4
of the United States and, if so, whether and how the Secretary of Defense may effect their transfer or release. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and, as appropriate, other Review participants shall work to effect promptly the release or transfer of all individuals for whom release or transfer is possible.
(3) Determination of Prosecution. In accordance with United States law, the cases of individuals detained at GuantÃ¡namo not approved for release or transfer shall be evaluated to determine whether the Federal Government should seek to prosecute the detained individuals for any offenses they may have committed, including whether it is feasible to prosecute such individuals before a court established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution, and the Review participants shall in turn take the necessary and appropriate steps based on such determinations.
(4) Determination of Other Disposition. With respect to any individuals currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo whose disposition is not achieved under paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subsection, the Review shall select lawful means, consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice, for the disposition of such individuals. The appropriate authorities shall promptly implement such dispositions.
(5) Consideration of Issues Relating to Transfer to the United States. The Review shall identify and consider legal, logistical, and security issues relating to the potential transfer of individuals currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo to facilities within the United States, and the Review participants shall work with the Congress on any legislation that may be appropriate.
Sec. 5. Diplomatic Efforts. The Secretary of State shall expeditiously pursue and direct such negotiations and diplomatic efforts with foreign governments as are necessary and appropriate to implement this order.
Sec. 6. Humane Standards of Confinement. No individual currently detained at GuantÃ¡namo shall be held in the custody or under the effective control of any officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or at a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, except in conformity with all applicable laws governing the conditions of such confinement, including Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately undertake a review of the conditions of detention at GuantÃ¡namo to ensure full compliance with this directive. Such review shall be completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections shall be implemented immediately thereafter.
Sec. 7. Military Commissions. The Secretary of Defense shall immediately take steps sufficient to ensure that during the pendency of the Review described in section 4 of this order, no charges are sworn, or referred to a military
more
5
commission under the Military Commissions Act of 2006 and the Rules for Military Commissions, and that all proceedings of such military commissions to which charges have been referred but in which no judgment has been rendered, and all proceedings pending in the United States Court of Military Commission Review, are halted.
Sec. 8. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this order shall prejudice the authority of the Secretary of Defense to determine the disposition of any detainees not covered by this order.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.Â

BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE,
January 22, 2009.Â

World Affairs Council event

January 21, 2009 11:22 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

FACING UP TO GUANTÃNAMO

ADD TO CART

EXPORT TO OUTLOOK

EVENT DATE

2/11/2009Â Â 6:00 PM - 7:15 PM
Please arrive early for registration

LOCATION

World Affairs Council Auditorium

ADDRESS

312 Sutter StreetÂ
Second Floor
San Francisco, California 94108

Elizabeth Farnsworth,Â Senior Correspondent, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

Laurel Fletcher,Â Director, International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley

Eric Stover,Â Director, Human Rights Center, University of California, Berkeley

Having denounced the detention camp as a "sad chapter in American history," President Obama has vowed to restore our nation's moral stature by closing the controversial facility.Â As the world awaits definitive action, the Council welcomes Laurel Fletcher and Eric Stover, co-authors ofÂ GuantÃ¡namo and its Aftermath, an in-depth study of former detainees.Â In a conversation led by Elizabeth Farnsworth, Fletcher and Stover will discuss the implications of their study's findings, explore what measures are currently being taken by the US government and human rights organizations on GuantÃ¡namo, and propose recommendations for theÂ Obama administration.Â Â Â Â Â Â

Advanced registration is recommended forÂ guaranteed seating. However, pre-registration is not required and walk-ins on the day of this program are welcome.

Continue reading World Affairs Council event.

United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture:

January 21, 2009 8:12 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Bush, Rumsfeld should be pursued for torture

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, left, Secretary of Defence Robert Gates and U.S. President George W. Bush.

Jason Reed/Reuters

The UN's special torture rapporteur called on the US Tuesday to pursue former president George W. Bush and defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld for torture and bad treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.

"Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation" to bring proceedings against Bush and Rumsfeld, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak said, in remarks to be broadcast on Germany's ZDF television Tuesday evening.

He noted Washington had ratified the UN convention on torture which required "all means, particularly penal law" to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it.

"We have all these documents that are now publicly available that prove that these methods of interrogation were intentionally ordered by Rumsfeld," against detainees at the US prison facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Nowak said.

"But obviously the highest authorities in the United States were aware of this," added Nowak, who authored a UN investigation report on the Guantanamo prison.

Bush stepped down from power Tuesday, with Barack Obama becoming the 44th president of the United States.

Asked about chances to bring legal action against Bush and Rumsfeld, Nowak said: "In principle yes. I think the evidence is on the table."

At issue, however, is whether "American law will recognise these forms of torture."

A bipartisan Senate report released last month found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of Guantanamo detainees in US custody.

It said Rumsfeld authorized harsh interrogation techniques on December 2, 2002 at the Guantanamo prison, although he ruled them out a month later.

The coercive measures were based on a document signed by Bush in February, 2002.

French, German and US rights groups have previously said they wanted to bring legal action against Rumsfeld.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Bush_Rumsfeld_should_be_pursued_for_01202009.html

"The Beginning of a New Era of Change"?

January 20, 2009 10:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I add this challenge to the question in the following article, "When will you be satisfied?":Â

Our movementÂ cannot be satisfied, so long as war criminals walk free.

Law School Dean Christopher Edley enjoysÂ access to PresidentÂ Barack Obama and Mark Yudof, president of the UC system. As an adviser to both, will he continue to defend an advocate of torture (professorÂ John Yoo) or will he urge a return to the rule of law?

Historic Inauguration Provides an Opportunity For the Empowerment of America's Youth

ByÂ RONALD CRUZÂ

THE DAILY CALIFORNIAN

Tuesday January 20, 2009

On this historic day, Barack Obama will be inaugurated as America's first black president. Congratulations to everyone who fought to win this campaign, who wore campaign buttons and T-shirts, who made phone calls, who walked precincts, who urged friends and relatives to vote.

For today is not only a day to celebrate this milestone in the struggle for racial equality-it is also a day to celebrate yourselves. Obama's victory would never have been possible without the determination and idealism of the students and young people who infused the campaign with leadership and energy, who made it different from other electoral campaigns and a genuine mass movement.

The Obama movement has succeeded at awakening a new sense of hope that America can be a land that realizes its principles of democracy and equality for all. Your actions have shown that, indeed, "Yes we can."

In addition to celebrating your historic accomplishment on this day, you should begin to determine among yourselves how you are going to preserve the accountability of President Obama to you.

All arguments against this consciousness of your own role and of your own right to stand up for what you believe are merely arguments that Barack Obama, as president, should only be accountable to the wealthy elite whose money fueled his entry into the primaries but could not have advanced him one practical step toward the presidency without the passionate response of rank and file progressive Democrats to his message of new hope for America.

What is most important on this triumphant day is that you recognize your own importance in history more than the importance of the particular candidate whose electoral cause you have embraced.Â Â Â

Continue reading "The Beginning of a New Era of Change"?.

Keith Olbermann demands Obama prosecute Bush

January 19, 2009 8:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677#28740622

Â Â Olbermann: Bush guilty of torture
Jan. 19: In a Special Comment, Countdown's Keith Olbermann explains that President-elect Barack Obama should not be afraid to prosecute those elected officials complicit in act of torture in order to prevent the same mistakes from happening again.

Countdown

consensus growing

January 19, 2009 2:50 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The next administration's decision about whether to prosecute the current one will ultimately come down to a political calculation: Is the public really clamoring for it, and how loudly?Â

Obama May Be Required to Prosecute Bush Officials for War Crimes

ByÂ DAPHNE EVIATARÂ 1/19/09 12:21 AM

TheÂ consensus seems to be growingÂ that, despite his oft-repeated desire to "look forward rather than backward" when it comes to the Bush administration's authorization of the use of torture on detainees in American custody, President-elect Barack Obama is going to have to open some sort of official investigation of Bush-era war crimes once he takes office.

Ever since Pentagon official Susan Crawford said she had to suspend the military commission prosecution of Mohammad al-Qahtani becauseÂ he was torturedÂ by U.S. officials, and Attorney General-nomineeÂ Eric Holder said unequivocally last week thatÂ waterboarding is indeed torture-- something legal expertsÂ have been sayingÂ for a long time -- legal scholars, advocates and bloggers have been buzzing that it may now be impossible for Obama, and Holder, to simply ignore the evidence of war crimes.

Attorney General-designate Eric Holder, right, talks with former FBI director Louis Freeh on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 15, 2009, prior to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Holder's nomination. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

As Jennifer Daskal, a senior lawyer at Human Rights WatchÂ told the New York Times: "It would be contrary to the principles of the criminal justice system for the attorney general to say he believes a very serious crime has been committed and then to do nothing about it."

Salon's Glenn GreenwaldÂ laid out the caseÂ in his blog on Sunday, arguing that it's no longer optional. Given that the United States is a party to the United Nations Convention on Torture - a treaty signed by President Ronald Reagan -- and that the U.S. Constitution holds that international treaties are the highest law of the land, the United States really doesn't have a choice: "U.S. law requires prosecutions for those who authorize torture," writes Greenwald.

Even Charles Stimson, the top official on detainee affairs at the Defense Department from 2004 to 2007 and now a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told The Times that last week's statements from Holder and Crawford "certainly will increase the pressure on Holder to mount some kind of investigation."

Internally, Obama has likely gotten plenty of mixed advice on the subject. AsÂ I've written before, senior Obama advisor Cass Sunstein -- a TWI contributor who's since beenÂ named to headÂ the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs -- is one of many close to Obama who've been, at best, lukewarm about the idea of prosecutions in the past.Â And Holder, though he's taken a clear stand against torture -- and now waterboarding -- has never said directly that the United States must prosecute the crime, even if American officials have committed it.

Continue reading consensus growing.

justice shrugged

January 17, 2009 8:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Mukasey Cites Risk in Using Term 'Torture'

ByÂ EVAN PEREZ, January 17, 2009

The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Michael Mukasey raised concerns that government agents and national security lawyers may be at risk for criminal prosecution after his likely successor, Eric Holder, declared that waterboarding of terror detainees is torture.

The 67-year-old former federal judge in New York, who took office 14 months ago, said in an interview that the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama faces a "conundrum" as it tries to shut down the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Getty Images

Attorney General Michael Mukasey

Word that Mr. Obama plans to issue an executive order to close the prison has caused worry among Justice Department lawyers who fear evidence backing the cases against many of the approximately 250 detainees wouldn't hold up in a conventional court proceeding.

Mr. Holder made the torture comment at his confirmation hearing Thursday when asked about the technique, which induces the sensation of drowning and was used by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators on at least three detainees.

The Holder response was in contrast to that of Mr. Mukasey, who declined when asked the same question at his confirmation hearing in 2007. The Justice Department's office of legal counsel issued legal opinions, later rescinded, that backed the legality of harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding. The CIA has said the method hasn't been used since 2003, but President George W. Bush has opposed congressional efforts to explicitly ban the CIA from ever using it again.

"Torture is a crime," Mr. Mukasey said in an interview Friday, adding that he worried "about the effect on...the work of fine intelligence lawyers who are called on to make judgments on questions like that, often under tremendous time pressure -- not to mention the pressure of an attack that killed 3000 people [and caused worry that] maybe there was going to be another one."

President-elect Barack Obama and his attorney general nominee, Mr. Holder, have said that once in office they will review actions taken by the Bush administration, but have declined to endorse the idea of conducting criminal probes of those involved in interrogations.

Continue reading justice shrugged.

prosecution of lawyers who gave legal cover for harsh interrogation methods

January 17, 2009 12:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"It would be contrary to the principles of the criminal justice system for the attorney general to say he believes a very serious crime has been committed and then to do nothing about it." -Â Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel atÂ Human Rights Watch

Remarks on Torture May Force New Administration's Hand

ByÂ SCOTT SHANE

January 16, 2009

WASHINGTON -- Just 14 months ago, at his confirmation hearing, Attorney GeneralÂ Michael B. MukaseyÂ frustrated and angered some senators by refusing to state thatÂ waterboarding, the near-drowning technique used on three prisoners by theÂ Central Intelligence Agency, is in fact torture.

Times Topics:Â Eric H. Holder Jr.

This week, at his confirmation hearing,Eric H. Holder Jr., the attorney general-designate, did not hesitate to express a clear view. He noted that waterboarding had been used to torment prisoners during the Inquisition, by the Japanese in World War II and in Cambodia under theÂ Khmer Rouge.

"We prosecuted our own soldiers for using it in Vietnam," Mr. Holder said. "WaterboardingÂ is torture."

In the view of many historians and legal authorities, Mr. Holder was merely admitting the obvious. He was agreeing with the clear position of his boss-to-be, President-electBarack Obama, and he was giving an answer that almost certainly was necessary to win confirmation.

Yet his statement, amounting to an admission that the United States may have committed war crimes, opens the door to an unpredictable train of legal and political consequences. It could potentially require a full-scale legal investigation, complicate prosecutions of individuals suspected of committing terrorism and mire the new administration in just the kind of backward look that Mr. Obama has said he would like to avoid.

Continue reading prosecution of lawyers who gave legal cover for harsh interrogation methods.

accountability

January 16, 2009 9:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that's not a decision he has the right to make. -Â PAUL KRUGMAN

excerpt fromÂ "Forgive and Forget?"

Â

Published: January 15, 2009

Last Sunday President-elect Barack Obama was asked whether he would seek an investigation of possible crimes by the Bush administration. "I don't believe that anybody is above the law," he responded, but "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

I'm sorry, but if we don't have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years -- and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama's remarks to mean that we won't -- this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don't face any consequences if they abuse their power.

Continue reading accountability.

"Yes, Torture is Illegal"

January 16, 2009 9:24 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

16 January 2009

Â

NY Times Letters Editor

It should not be noteworthy when a professional 'company man' (your editorial 10 January 2009 quoting Leon Panetta: "Not a Company Man")Â declaresÂ that "Torture is illegal..." After all, the US government signed on to the uncompromisable illegality of torture in 1994, when it ratified the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.Â Â Indeed, two years earlier the US's position on this issue was signed, sealed, and delivered, when we ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that ruled out deviation of any sort from the absolute prohibition of torture.Â

What has in fact turned out to be noteworthy is that over the years since 9/11, the US head of state took it upon himself to sully the object and purpose of that absolute prohibition by custom-ordering a re-crafted definition of torture. The Convention, including the clear definition of torture, is respected and enforced by 145 other governments. The incoming administration's work-plan on this issue writes itself: reinstall honest compliance with the treaties and laws concerning torture; re-invigorate procedures for assisting survivors; regain our lead position in the internationally-agreed system for ending torture; and by doing so robustly, help restore dignity and honor to the government of the United States of America.

Â

Sincerely,

Â

Rita Maran,Â Â Ph.D.,Â Â Lecturer on Human Rights, University ofÂ Â California, Berkeley

Author:Â Torture:The Role of Ideology in the French-Algerian WarÂ (Praeger 1989)

Impeach Jay Bybee

January 14, 2009 8:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Why should a suspected war criminal serve as a federal judge?

By Bruce Ackermanhttp://www.slate.com/id/2208517/Â Posted Tuesday, Jan. 13, 2009, at 4:30 PM ET

Jay Bybee. Judge Jay BybeeJay Bybee is currently sitting on the 9^thÂ U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. As assistant attorney general in President George W. Bush's Justice Department, he wasÂ responsibleÂ for the notoriousÂ torture memosÂ that enabled the excesses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and other places. While John Yoo did most of the staff work for Bybee, Yoo was barely 35 years old--and his memos showed it. They not only took extreme positions; they were legally incompetent, failing to consider many of the most obvious counterarguments.

Bybee was 49. He was the grown-up, the seasoned jurist. He had been a law professor and had served as associate counsel to President Bush. When he was promoted to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, he became the final judge of legal matters within the executive branch. Yet his opinion on torture was so poorly reasoned that it was repudiated by his very conservative successor,Â Jack Goldsmith.

Bybee has never been held accountable for his distortions of the law. At the time of his confirmation hearing, news of the torture memos had not yet leaked to the public. When asked about his role in national security matters at his Senate hearing, Bybee stonewalled: "As an attorney at the Department of Justice, I am obliged to keep confidential the legal advice that I provide to others in the executive branch. I cannot comment on whether or not I have provided any such advice and, if so, the substance of that advice."Â

If the Senate had known the truth, it would have rejected him. The story of William Haynes offers a cautionary tale. As general counsel of the Department of Defense, Haynes also played a key role in authorizing torture; and he was also rewarded by a nomination to a leading appellate court. But before he could be confirmed, the Bush administration's involvement in torture became a matter of public record, and the Senate refused its consent to the nomination. Bybee is a judge today only because of timing and the administration's assertions of executive privilege.

Continue reading Impeach Jay Bybee.

Former Gitmo prosecutor rips military trials...

January 13, 2009 1:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

calling interrogators' practices 'despicable'

Andy Worthington
Published: Tuesday January 13, 2009

In a declaration submitted to a Washington D.C. District Court Tuesday, Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld, a former prosecutor in the Military Commission trial system, delivered perhaps the most blistering attack on the US military's detention program by a former member of the Pentagon's team to date.

Speaking of the man he was once tasked to prosecute, Vandeveld said prisoner Mohamed Jawad's continued detention is "something beyond a travesty," and urged that Jawad be released given a "lack of any credible evidence."

Some of this information was revealed in September 2008, after Vandeveld resigned as a prosecutor, complaining that "potentially exculpatory evidence" had "not been provided" to Jawad's defense team, and that his accidental discovery of information relating to Jawad's abuse helped convert him from a "true believer to someone who felt truly deceived."Â

Vandeveld's declaration today constitutes the most sustained criticism of the Bush administration's trial system for terror suspects since Col. Morris Davis, the Commission's former Chief Prosecutor, resigned in 2007. Col. Davis said he'd quit because of the politicization of the trial system, attempts to endorse the use of evidence obtained through torture, and the refusal of Pentagon chief counsel William J. Haynes II to accept that any planned trials could end in acquittals.Â

Continue reading Former Gitmo prosecutor rips military trials....

"TORTURED LOGIC"

January 13, 2009 10:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Turley: Obama 'owns' Bush 'war crimes' if he looks the other way

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Tuesday January 13, 2009

President George W. Bush's offhandacknowledgementÂ in an interview Sunday with Fox's Brit Hume that he personally authorized the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may create thorny legal and moral problems for incoming President Barack Obama.Â

Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Monday, "We now have President Bush speaking quite candidly that heÂ wasÂ in the loop, we have Dick Cheney who almost bragged about it. The question for Barack Obama is whether he wants to own part of this by looking the other way."

ObamaÂ toldÂ ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, "We have not made final decisions, but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing. That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward."

"If waterboarding is torture -- and Barack Obama has said that it is torture," Turley emphasized, "and torture is a war crime, then the president has committed a war crime if he did order waterboarding. You have to do some heavy lifting to avoid the simplicity of that logic."

Turley noted that individual CIA officers who carried out torture may be able to invoke the so-called "Gestapo defense" -- that they only followed orders they were assured were legal -- but that defense does not hold for those who gave the orders.

"It only works if you can reasonably rely on the advice, and it generally does not protect people like Bush," Turley explained. "You really can't go out and get radical or extreme lawyers, like John Yoo and Viet Dinh, and get them to enable you to do things that you know is a war crime."

"There's no real question that crimes were committed here by {Obama's] predecessor," concluded Turley, "and he can either begin his administration as a man of principle, and allow the law to take us wherever it may lead, or he will inherit the same type of moral relativism that really corrupted the previous administration. I'm going to say a silent prayer for principle."

This video is from MSNBC'sÂ Countdown, broadcast Jan. 12, 2009.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley_Obama_will_own_Bush_war_0113.html

January 11 Guantanamo protest in San Francisco

January 11, 2009 11:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

S.F. protesters urges U.S. to close Guantanamo
Protesters with the group World Can't Wait gather to protest the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Sunday Jan. 11, 2009, in San Francisco, Calif. This protest was to mark the 7th anniversary of the U.S. interrogation center at Guantanamo Bay. (Lacy Atkins / The Chronicle)

Protesters with the group World Can't Wait gather to prot... (Lacy Atkins / The Chronicle)

http://www.ktvu.com/video/18459110/index.htmlÂ

meanwhile,Â Obama 'softens' Guantanamo pledge,Â http://english.aljazeera.net//news/americas/2009/01/2009111142421220621.html

Continue reading January 11 Guantanamo protest in San Francisco.

Seven Years of Guantanamo, Seven Years of Torture and Lies

January 11, 2009 9:15 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

by Andy Worthington
January 12, 2009, The Huffington Post

Seven years ago, on January 11, 2002, when photos of the first orange-clad detainees to arrive at a hastily-erected prison at GuantÃ¡namo Bay, Cuba were made available to the world's press, defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld reacted to the widespread uproar that greeted the images of the kneeling, shackled men, wearing masks and blacked-out goggles and with earphones completing their sensory deprivation, by stating that it was "probably unfortunate" that the photos were released.

As so often with Rumsfeld's pronouncements, it was difficult to work out quite what he meant. He appeared to be conceding that newspapers like Britain's right-wing Daily Mail, which emblazoned its front page with the word "torture," had a valid point to make, but what he actually meant was that it was unfortunate that the photos had been released because they had led to criticism of the administration's anti-terror policies.

Rumsfeld proceeded to make it clear that he had no doubts about the significance of the prisoners transferred to GuantÃ¡namo, even though their treatment was unprecedented. They were, in essence, part of a novel experiment in detention and interrogation, which involved being held neither as prisoners of war nor as criminal suspects but as "enemy combatants" who could be imprisoned without charge or trial. In addition, they were deprived of the protections of the Geneva Conventions so that they could be coercively interrogated, and then, when they did not produce the intelligence that the administration thought they should have produced, they were -- as a highly critical Senate Armed Services Committee report concluded last month -- subjected to Chinese torture techniques, taught in U.S. military schools to train American personnel to resist interrogation if captured.

But none of this mattered to Donald Rumsfeld. "These people are committed terrorists," he declared on January 22, 2002, in the same press conference at which he spoke about the photos. "We are keeping them off the street and out of the airlines and out of nuclear power plants and out of ports across this country and across other countries." On a visit to Guantanamo five days later, he called the prisoners "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth."

Seven years after Guantanamo opened, it should be abundantly clear that neither Rumsfeld nor Vice President Dick Cheney, President Bush or any of the other defenders of Guantanamo who indulged in similarly hysterical rhetoric, had any idea what they were talking about.

Continue reading Worthington's Seven Years of Guantanamo, Seven Years of Torture and Lies.

Torture Defended by the Bush Regime as "Still Necessary"

January 11, 2009 9:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Bush says torture still necessary
David Edwards and Andrew McLemore

With days left in office and an abysmal approval rating, President Bush is still defending the use of torture.

In an interview on Fox News, Bush told Brit Hume that he approved enhanced interrogation tactics for suspected terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

"My view is the techniques were necessary and are necessary," Bush said.

The Bush administration has faced scathing criticism from those who say waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation tactics approved by Bush to be torture.

The president disagreed with notion that such tactics amount to torture.

"I firmly reject the word 'torture,'" Bush said.

The Bush administration helped create an unclear legal landscape (at best) as to whether waterboarding was outlawed.

President-elect Barack Obama rejects the Bush administration's equivocations about waterboarding, however.

"Vice President Cheney, I think, continues to defend what he calls extraordinary measures or procedures when it comes to interrogations and from my view waterboarding is torture," Obama said.

January 10, 2009 12:03 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7821569.stm

A former guard at the US detention centre at Guantanamo Bay has spoken in his first television interview about the brutality he witnessed to inmates.

Chris Arendt told the BBC what he saw amounted to ''torture'' and that some of his fellow guards were so violent as to be ''psychotic.''

Daniel Sandford reports

CODEPINK GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE WALK FOR PEACE

January 10, 2009 9:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Sunday, Jan. 11, 11am Â Â (Please note earlier start time this month)

World Can't Wait Joins Us This Month to March Against Torture and Guantanamo

FROM GAZA TOÂ GUANTANAMOÂ TO OAKLAND CITY STREETS,

STOP THE VIOLENCE, STOP THE HATE,Â

NO MORE TORTURE, NO MORE WAR

As we move into the New Year starving for peace, hope and change,

we are greeted with the brutal escalation of Israeli attacks on the Palestinians of Gaza,

the senseless and criminal slaying of an Oakland youth by a BART Police officer, and

the passing of theÂ 7th anniversary of the horrific palace of torture known as Guantanamo.Â

This Sunday, the actual anniversary of the opening ofÂ Guantanamo,Â

we are joined byÂ World Can't Wait, who will bring their orange jumpsuits

and black hoods, to march with us as we cry out for an immediate closure of Guantanamo

and all U.S. prisons of torture and abuse. Â

WCWÂ and others will be having continued actionsÂ in the afternoon in downtown S.F.,Â

starting at Powell and Market at 1pm,Â to include rallies, a procession in orange and street theater. Â

Continue reading CODEPINK GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE WALK FOR PEACE.

MARCH AGAINST TORTURE

January 7, 2009 2:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Sun, Jan 11, 2009 1:00 PM - 3:00 PMÂ
CLOSE GUANTANAMO AND END U.S. TORTURE POLICIES EVERYWHERE!Â
Powell & MarketÂ
San FranciscoÂ
On the 7th anniversary of the opening of Guantanamo Bay Prison, say NO to torture! While Obama has said he will close Guantanamo, he has not said anything about repealing the Military Commissions Act (which legalizes torture), stopping extraordinary renditions, or shutting the other U.S. torture facilities such as Bagram Prison in Afghanistan or the many CIA "black sites."â€¨â€¨There will be street theater, a speak-out and an orange jumpsuit march. Bring your own jumpsuit, if possible. A limited number of SF WCW jumpsuits may also be made available. Bring your friends, and get the word out:â€¨â€¨"We Will Not Accept A Torture State!"Â

Cosponsored with the Berkeley Fellowship of Unitarian Universalists Social Justice Committee, Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink and Fire John Yoo.Â
â€¨â€¨â€¨â€¨Â
For more information contact:Â
415-864-5153Â
sf [at] worldcantwait.orgÂ
http://www.sfbaycantwait.orgÂ
http://WWW.WORLDCANTWAIT.ORGÂ

where is the outrage?

January 2, 2009 9:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

excerpt from

War, Lies (Photos) and Videotapes

Friday, 02 January 2009

by Deb Della Piana

It is hard for me to understand how the American people do not become outraged when looking at Abu Ghraib images. The photos of the American military personnel giving the "thumbs up" while posing with a dead detainee in a body bag - a detainee who died as a direct result of our government-sanctioned torture - is disgraceful. There has been little outrage, but I've heard some of the most callous comments by Americans, and those comments are what inspired me to write this article today. Comments like, "They're just a bunch of Arabs." or just "a bunch of towel-heads" are not uncommon, I'm finding. Another good one is, "Hey, it's war." Well, no, it isn't war, although that is bad enough. In fact, its torture and murder...and a war crime.

Continue reading where is the outrage?.

War Criminals Watch (2): William J. Haynes II

January 2, 2009 9:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

William J. Haynes: What Was Chevron Thinking?

Posted by Chevron Pit
Wednesday, December 31, 2008

John Geluardi - author of The Snitch blog over at SF Weekly - put out a post last week about William Haynes, calling him "Chevron's Prince of Darkness". Apparently Haynes - who was recently hired by Chevron to serve as their chief corporate counsel - was just called out in a Senate Arms Services Committee (SASC) bipartisan investigation that found Haynes' actions while working for the Pentagon reviewing and approving of torture "deeply disturbing". Geluardi describes the hiring:

The Chevron Corporation has exposed its pestilent underbelly by hiring William J. Haynes II, a Department of Defense attorney who compiled lists of violent interrogation techniques for shadowy U.S. detention centers... In 2002 Haynes recommended a menu of 15 dehumanizing interrogation techniques to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that included stress positions, removal of clothing, light deprivation and exploitation of phobias such as the "Arab fear of dogs." Rumsfeld eagerly signed off on Haynes' recommendations and dispatched a memo to Guantanamo Bay and other detention centers so they could be used on "enemy combatants," according to the senate investigative report.

Continue reading War Criminals Watch (2): William J. Haynes II.

« December 2008 | Main Index | Archives | February 2009 »

press conference, protest, photos, video, reports