The Party Of Moral Values Strikes Again

by hilzoy Presumably, everyone who reads this has already heard that Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), author of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, has resigned after he was revealed to have sent revolting sexual emails and IMs to several pages. (The one whose age has been reported was 16.) If you … Read more

Worth Bearing In Mind

by hilzoy Glenn Greenwald wrote a very good post today. It’s worth reading in its entorety, but there’s one point I wanted to highlight: “There is one other consideration which, by itself, ought to be determinative. The only branch of government that has shown any residual willingness to defend the Constitution and the rule of … Read more

Hiatus

by Charles For family, work and personal reasons, I going to have to end blogging.  My thanks to all of the editors for putting up with me and giving me this forum, and my thanks to all of the readers as well.  I wish you all well.

Juxtaposition

by Katherine "Again, these are people, these are enemy combatants, people that have been picked up on the battlefield with ill will or creating acts against the American people."–Senator Bill Frist *** "They took our land. They killed my mother. You can ask. This is true information. They killed my family. My wife said they … Read more

….?????

by hilzoy Honestly: I can’t even begin to imagine what to say about the vote on the torture bill. I just can’t. I think I used all my words up beforehand. And how could I even start to describe the unbelievable, unAmerican, utterly corrupt cynicism of doing something like this as an election ploy?? As … Read more

Ikuko Toguri, RIP

by Andrew I find it at once sad and ironic that Tuesday, as the House prepared to pass HR 6166, Iva Toguri breathed her last. Ms. Toguri is better known as ‘Tokyo Rose,’ the sobriquet given to various English-speaking Japanese women who broadcast popular music laced with appeals for Allied personnel to surrender to the … Read more

“The Year of the Police”

by Charles Every day, the stream of anti-Bush administration sentiments flows incessantly, with commentary ranging from mild rebuke to paranoid unmedicated DU-sized hyperbole. The hard part sometimes is separating the wheat (legitimate concerns about how things are going) from the chaff (politicized grandstanding and raging cases of BDS). But in this article, it looks like … Read more

The NYT Opens Whole New Dimensions Of Shrillness

by hilzoy Check it out: “Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to … Read more

Don’t Get Mad; Get Even.

by hilzoy

Having wallowed in despair over the detainee bill, I have decided to do something constructive, namely: inflict more misery on you, my gentle readers. — I was looking at the Cook Political Report’s new rankings of the most competitive Senate races, and to my horror and amazement, my own race, which I don’t think of as all that competitive, was ranked ahead of the Virginia Senate race, which pits James Webb against the awful George Allen.

This cannot be allowed to continue.

If Webb wins, several wonderful things happen. First, there’s one more Democrat in the Senate. Second, there’s one more Democrat who is capable and confident about national security. Third, George Allen loses, and macaques everywhere breathe a sigh of relief. But here’s the most important thing: George Allen’s chances of ever successfully running for President become really, really remote.

This matters. We’ve already had an incompetent faux Cowboy with a streak of cruelty as President for eight years. I’m not sure we can withstand another. Allen’s chances of becoming President have already been damaged, but losing his Senate race would drive a well-deserved hemlock stake through their heart.

However, there’s a problem. To illustrate, I made a little graph in Excel:
Fundraising

See what I mean about misery?That’s an eleven million dollar fundraising advantage. And we can’t have that, can we? Of course not. So here’s the link: donate.

If you require actual reasons, read on.

Read more

Sad, But True

by Andrew A very good point raised by a Corner reader, and a good reminder of why it’s important to contact our representative and Senators about pending legislation to make sure they understand where we stand. America is a  democracy. Politicians take their positions, by and large, because those positions get them votes. Terrorism was … Read more

More Swedish Triumphalism!

by hilzoy One might imagine, if one were into armchair speculation, that a contrast between the economies of Sweden and the United States might go something like this: Sweden has provided an extensive safety net to its citizens. They don’t have to worry about how to pay for medical expenses, or whether they’ll be able … Read more

We Can All Be Enemy Combatants!

by hilzoy There seems to be a new draft of the “compromise” bill on military tribunals and detention. I haven’t read it through in its entirety. However, a few points: First, it still strips alien enemy combatants of habeas rights. It also still contains this horrible provision: “(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and … Read more

Some Things Defy Excerpting

by hilzoy Via Atrios, a transcript of the testimony of three retired Generals. Gen. Batiste, who “was offered and declined a promotion to three-star rank to return to Iraq and be the No. 2 U.S. military officer there, because he no longer wished to serve under Rumsfeld”: “Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader. … Read more

Historical Accuracy

by hilzoy

Glenn Greenwald in Salon:

“One of the central prongs in the right-wing effort to blame Bill Clinton for the growth of al-Qaida (and one of the central aspects of the general neoconservative mythology of how to fight terrorism) revolves around Somalia. Specifically, the right-wingers claim that President Clinton’s withdrawal of troops from Somalia after a Muslim militia dragged the bodies of U.S. troops through the streets of Mogadishu conveyed weakness to the Muslim world and showed that we could be easily defeated. We suffer a few casualties, and we run away. They claim that that perceived weakness — “cutting and running” from Somalia — is what “emboldened” Osama bin Laden in the 1990s to wage war against us.

But that is pure historical revisionism; it is just completely false. (…) After the U.S. troops were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu, numerous conservative senators and representatives — mostly Republican along with some conservative Southern Democrats — demanded that Clinton withdraw all American troops immediately, insisting that the U.S. had no interest in Somalia and that not one more American troop should die there. They gave speeches stoked with nationalistic anger and angrily demanded immediate withdrawal, and even threatened to introduce legislation to cut off all funding for any troop maintenance in Somalia.

Clinton — along with Democratic senators such as John Kerry — vigorously argued against immediate withdrawal, in part because of the concern that America would look weak by panicking and abandoning its mission at the first sign of trouble (just like President Reagan did in 1983 when he immediately withdrew U.S. forces from Lebanon after the attack on U.S. Marines). Clinton had to virtually beg to be allowed to keep troops for an additional six months (and he even increased American troop levels) to stabilize the situation, demonstrate U.S. resolve and a commitment to the mission and, most of all, avoid a panicky, fear-driven retreat.”

I remember this, and have always found it odd that our withdrawal was painted as a Clinton move, when as I remember it he worked against it. But unlike me, Glenn actually went to the trouble of looking up quotes from the debate over Somalia. He has put them here. It’s worth reading, in order to remind yourself who, exactly, was in favor of cutting and running as soon as we took casualties, and who, in the face of considerable pressure to cave, said this:

“So, now, we face a choice. Do we leave when the job gets tough or when the job is well done? Do we invite the return of mass suffering or do we leave in a way that gives the Somalis a decent chance to survive? Recently, Gen. Colin Powell said this about our choices in Somalia: “Because things get difficult, you don’t cut and run. You work the problem and try to find a correct solution.” (….)

So let us finish the work we set out to do. Let us demonstrate to the world, as generations of Americans have done before us, that when Americans take on a challenge, they do the job right.”

— On reflection, and because I too have TimesSelect ;), I’m going to paste longer sections of Clinton’s speech on Somalia below the fold, in the interests of historical accuracy.

Read more

Specter-Levin Amendment

by Katherine

There is still a chance–maybe not a very good chance, but a real chance–to change one of the worst aspects of the detainee bill. Carl Levin and Arlen Specter* are apparently planning to co-sponsor an amendment to remove the section that strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus claims over Guantanamo.

I don’t have time to write a long post about why this is important. There are many, many such posts in our archives if anyone wants to look. Here’s one. Here’s another, which contains links to still others.

This list gives the contact information for every U.S. Senator.

Please call, and ask them to support the "Specter-Levin amendment restoring habeas corpus". (I don’t have the amendment #). Please also consider asking other people to call, and if you have a weblog, writing a post asking them to do so. Obviously, you might also consider asking them to filibuster the detainee bill itself.

I don’t know what the odds are on this, but the vote was close last fall; it should at least be close again. Even if it’s not–I think it matters that as many people contact their representatives as possible. (It matters to me, at any rate). And it takes five minutes.

Also, if you can get an answer out of your Senator about his or her position, please post it here. Thanks.

Read more

Presented Without Comment

by hilzoy NYT: “A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks. The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role … Read more

A World Beyond The Law

by hilzoy

In my last post, I asked the question: why are Lindsey Graham and the administration so eager to strip detainees of their legal rights? I considered various arguments that they have advanced, and as far as I can tell, they don’t really hold up. Detainee cases are not clogging the courts, and while they might interfere with interrogations by, for example, breaking detainees’ isolation and giving them a ray of hope, they do not in any way make it impossible for those interrogations to continue.

So why are they doing this? Everyone has probably figured this out long before I did, but: I was thinking of the habeas-stripping provisions from the point of view of a detainee, who might wonder: what legal recourse do I have if this bill goes through? How can I protest my detention if, for instance, I have been found innocent but not released, or if I have been tortured? The answer to that question is, as far as I can tell, ‘you have no recourse’; and that horrified me.

But then it occurred to me to think of it from a different angle: from the perspective of the system of extraterritorial prisons that we seem to be setting up. From that point of view, the main question raised by the “compromise” bill (pdf) is a different one, namely: who has the right to question, in a court of law, any aspect of our treatment of alien combatants held outside the US? As far as I can tell, with very limited exceptions, the answer to this question is: no one but the very same government that set the system up in the first place.

This means, basically, that this bill will remove the entire system of detention, with the exception of its military commissions and combatant status review tribunals, from any judicial oversight at all.

Courts do not get to decide for themselves to investigate some activity that they suspect might violate the law. In order for a court to consider the question whether something is lawful, someone has to bring them a case that raises that question. By preventing anyone but the government from bringing any such case, this bill ensures that unless the government decides to bring one itself, no case that would give the courts a reason to consider anything that goes on during a prisoner’s detention and interrogation can ever be brought. Which is to say: it removes the entire system of detention, except for its military commissions and CSRTs, from any judicial review. Literally anything could be going on during interrogation and detention, and the courts would have no way to pronounce on its legality, or to require anything to change.

Read more

Justified Blogosphere Triumphalism

by Katherine In case anyone is desperate for actual good news this weekend, I’m turning the microphone over to Jim Henley (via unfogged): " It looks very likely that Radley Balko has saved Cory Maye’s life." Consider this an open thread.

Why Are They Doing This? (Special Habeas-Stripping Edition)

by hilzoy

As most of you know, the “compromise bill” (pdf) on military tribunals, like the various drafts that preceded it, would strip habeas rights from any alien enemy combatant detained outside the US. According to the AP, we are now holding about 14,000 detainees abroad. We have scheduled military commissions for ten of them. Of the remaining 13,990, the 450 or so at Guantanamo have already been stripped of their habeas rights, and the Graham Amendment last year said those whose cases had not already been filed could onlycontest their detention on the grounds that their Combatant Status Review Tribunals had not followed proper procedure. That leaves roughly 13,540 detainees who will be deprived of any right to contest their detention if the “compromise bill” becomes law.

I asked myself: why, exactly, are Lindsey Graham and the administration so eager to strip detainees of habeas corpus rights? In what follows, I will consider the reasons they have given, and ask whether they are plausible. (Answer: no.) In a subsequent post, I’ll consider an alternative explanation.

Read more

Throw Them Out

by hilzoy I’ll be writing more about the horrible “compromise” on torture later. (Good posts at Balikization and Legal Fiction.) I don’t really have time to post now; but I did want to draw attention to the following debate, by our representatives, in the House Judiciary Committee: “But the talk of sleep deprivation caused Rep. … Read more

Thailand: Background

by hilzoy dr ngo has graciously agreed to let me front-page his comment on Thailand from Charles’ thread. Everything after this point is his — and you should be grateful for that, since he knows something about Thailand, and I don’t. Or didn’t, until I read this. *** Desultory Musings on the Thai Coup of … Read more

Christian Values

by hilzoy

Via Balkinization, a statement from the Traditional Values Coalition, which, according to its website, “is the largest non-denominational, grassroots church lobby in America”, and seeks “to empower people of faith through knowledge”:

“The Traditional Values Coalition asked members of Congress to support President Bush’s reform of prisoner treatment policies because “this is a war unlike any other we have fought — the enemy is faceless and deliberately attacks the innocent.”

TVC Chairman Rev. Louis P. Sheldon said American military and intelligence experts are hampered by a vague “outrages upon personal dignity” statement in Article Three of the Geneva Convention of 1950.

“We need to clarify this policy for treating detainees,” said Rev. Sheldon. “As it stands right now, the military and intelligence experts interrogating these terrorists are in much greater danger than the terrorists. Civil suits against our military personnel are tying their hands as they try to get vital information which will save the lives of our young military people and the innocent.”

“Our rules for interrogation need to catch-up with this awful new form of war that is being fought against all of us and the free world. The post -World War II standards do not apply to this new war.

“We must redefine how our lawful society treats those who have nothing but contempt for the law and rely on terrorizing the innocent to accomplish their objectives. The lines must be redrawn and then we must pursue these criminals as quickly and as aggressively as the law permits.

“And since this debate is, at its very core, about preserving the traditional value of prosecuting injustice and protecting the innocent, TVC will score this vote in both the House and the Senate. We encourage all of our supporters and affiliated churches to contact their elected representatives and let them know we support President Bush’s efforts to update our methods of interrogating terrorist detainees in order to provide greater protection for our troops and the innocent.””

Brian Tamanaha, who wrote about this at Balkinization, adds: “This can’t be right (although I’m not a Christian).” Well, I’m not a Christian either, but I used to be one, and retain a lot of respect for my old religion. Therefore, I don’t feel the least hesitation about saying: it’s not just that this isn’t Christianity; this is the antithesis of what Christianity is supposed to be all about. And I think it’s worth documenting this. I am not in favor of pretense generally, and so I am not in favor of Democrats who don’t like religion pretending that they do. For that very reason, however, I think it’s worth pointing out that there’s a lot in Christianity that is genuinely worthy of respect; and that whenever those in power, or those who wish to ingratiate them, have sought to pervert its message, they have always stood condemned by the words of the God whose name they take in vain.

Documentation below the fold.

Read more

Administration Torture Bill Loses In House Judiciary Committee

by hilzoy Reuters: “In a rebuke of President George W. Bush, a U.S. House of Representatives panel on Wednesday rejected his plan for interrogating foreign terrorist suspects. The bill, however, will still go to the full House for consideration. The House Judiciary Committee, in a surprise move, rejected the measure 20-17. The Republican-led panel had … Read more

Throw The Rascals Out

by hilzoy If we want our political news to involve something more heartening than debates about just how much torture we will allow this administration to practice, how many rights we’re prepared to strip from people who have never been charged with any crime, or whether to wreck our country’s finances and our international credibility … Read more

Bill Frist: Man Of Conscience

by hilzoy The Republican leadership never ceases to amaze me: “Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist signaled yesterday that he and other White House allies will filibuster a bill dealing with the interrogation and prosecution of detainees if they cannot persuade a rival group of Republicans to rewrite key provisions opposed by President Bush. Frist’s chief … Read more

“They told him yes, he could invent a story”

by Katherine

Von notes below that Syrian intelligence forces beat Maher Arar into falsely confessing that he had received terrorist training in Afghanistan. It’s actually worse than that. Arar wasn’t just tortured into a false confession in a Syrian prison. He also seems to have been sent to be tortured in Palestine Branch partly because of false confessions that two other Canadian citizens made under torture in the same prison.

Their names are Ahmad Abou El-Maati and Abdullah Almalki. Unlike Arar, they both traveled to Syria voluntarily. El-Maati flew to Damascus for an arranged marriage in November 2001. Almalki went there to visit relatives in May 2002. Both were arrested by Syrian intelligence forces when they arrived at the Damascus airport, and taken to a prison called the Palestine Branch. Both have since been released, returned to Canada, and given detailed chronologies of their experiences in Syria to their lawyers. (Here is a PDF of El-Maati’s chronology; here is a PDF of Almalki’s).

Read more

Fire Army Chief, Leave Country, Lose Job

by Charles I’m not an expert on Thailand, but from this vantage point, when you have the combination of an unpopular prime minister (at least in Bangkok) and the firing of the highest-ranked commander in the Royal Thai Army, then the prime minister may well get ousted while cavorting at the UN (more here).  Although … Read more

America: Where Anyone Can Run For Office!

by hilzoy Consider the Senate primary in Washington, taking place even as I write this post. I was reading TPMCafe’s Midterm Madness Primary Roundup, which mentions some (but not all!) of the odder candidates. For starters, there’s Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson, running on a platform of orbital space colonization. And there’s Mike the Mover (his actual … Read more

Not About Torture!

by hilzoy The BBC has this wonderful story: “A German art student briefly fooled police by posing as one of China’s terracotta warriors at the heritage site in the ancient capital, Xian. Pablo Wendel, made up like an ancient warrior, jumped into a pit showcasing the 2,200-year-old pottery soldiers and stood motionless for several minutes. … Read more

What Price? What Gain?

by von Katherine questions (below) whether the CIA’s "enhanced interrogation techniques" are effective.  I can’t answer that; as Katherine rightly points out, the evidence for and against is classified (and perhaps rightly so).  We can know, however, that torture did not work in the case of Maher Arar, a case long chronicled on this blog.  … Read more

“An Intelligence Program We Know Has Helped Save Lives”

by Katherine

Senator Mitch McConnell, via the Corner:

"For example, I imagine it would be awkward for many of my Democrat colleagues to go home and explain a vote to provide sensitive, classified information to terrorists, to shut down an intelligence program that we know has helped save lives, or to allow international courts to define the meaning of Common Article III—rather than the U.S. Congress—and put our troops at risk.

What we do know for sure, without question — no ambiguity — is that the current program works and has saved us from terrorist attacks and prevented us from being attacked again at home for over five years. The President needs tools to conduct these programs effectively to protect Americans at home. His proposal for terrorist detainees is one of those important tools. We do not all agree at this point, but we will have that discussion on the Senate floor."

This isn’t true. We do not know that the CIA’s "enhanced interrogation techniques" have saved lives. The President claims that they have, but he is not a disinterested or trustworthy source. Although he was able to selectively declassify the intelligence that he thought best supported his argument, his evidence of the program’s "saving lives" was vague and conclusory, and maybe also false.

What we do know for sure, without question — no ambiguity — is that the CIA’s program has led to prisoners being tortured to death.

Read more

Still More Sweden-Blogging

by hilzoy Sweden just turned the Social Democrats out of office: “Sveriges nye statsminister heter Fredrik Reinfeldt. ”Svenska folket har röstat fram en alliansregering”, utropade moderatledaren inför jublande partimedlemmar sent i går kväll. Göran Persson avgår som statsminister och ledare för socialdemokraterna. Strax före klockan elva i går kväll sträckte Fredrik Reinfeldt armarna i luften … Read more

Krugman On Torture

by hilzoy And here’s Krugman on the administration bill, in an editorial called ‘King of Pain’: “A lot has been written and said about President Bush’s demand that Congress “clarify” the part of the Geneva Conventions that, in effect, outlaws the use of torture under any circumstances. We know that the world would see this … Read more

Numbers

by hilzoy

I’ve been wondering for a while exactly how many people we have in detention outside the US. Roughly 455 at Guantanamo and 560 at Bagram: that was relatively easy to find out. But how many at all those other facilities whose names I didn’t know? Apparently the AP wondered too, and reports the following (via TPM):

“In the few short years since the first shackled Afghan shuffled off to Guantanamo, the U.S. military has created a global network of overseas prisons, its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the reach of established law.

Disclosures of torture and long-term arbitrary detentions have won rebuke from leading voices including the U.N. secretary-general and the U.S. Supreme Court. But the bitterest words come from inside the system, the size of several major U.S. penitentiaries.

“It was hard to believe I’d get out,” Baghdad shopkeeper Amjad Qassim al-Aliyawi told The Associated Press after his release — without charge — last month. “I lived with the Americans for one year and eight months as if I was living in hell.”

Captured on battlefields, pulled from beds at midnight, grabbed off streets as suspected insurgents, tens of thousands now have passed through U.S. detention, the vast majority in Iraq.

Many say they were caught up in U.S. military sweeps, often interrogated around the clock, then released months or years later without apology, compensation or any word on why they were taken. Seventy to 90 percent of the Iraq detentions in 2003 were “mistakes,” U.S. officers once told the international Red Cross.”

Suppose the actual error rate is 80%: that’s 11,200 people who are now locked up for no reason. An awful lot of lives broken, and an awful lot of people who probably now hate us:

“Another released prisoner, Waleed Abdul Karim, 26, recounted how his guards would wield their absolute authority.

“Tell us about the ones who attack Americans in your neighborhood,” he quoted an interrogator as saying, “or I will keep you in prison for another 50 years.”

As with others, Karim’s confinement may simply have strengthened support for the anti-U.S. resistance. “I will hate Americans for the rest of my life,” he said.”

And that’s also 14,000 people who are about to be definitively stripped of habeas rights if either the administration bill on military commissions or the Warner/Graham/McCain alternative passes:

“Human rights groups count dozens of detainee deaths for which no one has been punished or that were never explained. The secret prisons — unknown in number and location — remain available for future detainees. The new manual banning torture doesn’t cover CIA interrogators. And thousands of people still languish in a limbo, deprived of one of common law’s oldest rights, habeas corpus, the right to know why you are imprisoned.

“If you, God forbid, are an innocent Afghan who gets sold down the river by some warlord rival, you can end up at Bagram and you have absolutely no way of clearing your name,” said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch in New York. “You can’t have a lawyer present evidence, or do anything organized to get yourself out of there.”

The U.S. government has contended it can hold detainees until the “war on terror” ends — as it determines.

“I don’t think we’ve gotten to the question of how long,” said retired admiral John D. Hutson, former top lawyer for the U.S. Navy. “When we get up to ‘forever,’ I think it will be tested” in court, he said.”

When we get to ‘forever’, if we ever do, those detainees will have been in prison, uncharged and untried, for a very long time. Those who are innocent will have been needlessly deprived of the ability to live their lives, see their families, and do whatever it is they wanted to do with themselves. We will have broken their lives apart, and even if we manage to undo the damage Bush has done to our legal system and our republic, the damage we have done to them can never be undone.

And the crowning touch to all of this is that it was completely unnecessary. The need to find some way to distinguish genuine enemy combatants from people detained by mistake is not a novel one, nor is this the first time we have ever fought in a war in which it’s hard to tell enemies from noncombatants. In almost every war between the drafting of the Geneva Conventions and George W. Bush’s election, we managed to deal with this problem without just tossing the Conventions aside and detaining huge numbers of people [Please see update below fold.] In Vietnam, for instance, we convened “Article 5 Tribunals” and used them to decide which detainees to keep in custody and which to free. (Basic history and doctrine here. I said that we did this in ‘almost all’ wars before Bush because, as the JAG manual quoted here puts it, “No Article 5 Tribunals were conducted in Grenada or Panama, as all captured enemy personnel were repatriated as soon as possible.”)

But our clever President decided to throw out decades of military doctrine and procedure, declare that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to anyone captured in Afghanistan, and decline to set up tribunals to determine the status of detainees. This is directly related to the fact that we now have 14,000 of them, many of whom are probably innocent. Just one more brilliant move in Bush’s never-ending campaign to alienate the entire Middle East in the name of making us safer.

Read more