Fitz!

aww I had News Hour on but wasn’t listening – that happens a lot lately.

Scott at 2 — they have both the transcript and the video available on the NewsHour website. :) The internet is awfully handy.

Damn EPU’d. I’ll try again:

I think it’s important to note Justice Souter’s argument because it is as clear and elegant a rebuke to the wingnuts as possible:

“For reasons of inescapable human nature, the branch of government asked to counter a serious threat is not the branch on which to rest the Nation’s reliance in striking the balance between the will to win and the cost in liberty on the way to victory.”

It has indeed been an interesting day, I’m particularly interested in Glenn’s pointing out that the decision clearly undermines not only all of Bush’s Unitary Executive meanderings around the Constitution – but also destroys the keystone of his NSA Wiretaping Arguement.

Further, I believe that the SCOTUS has exposed the Prez to War Crimes Charges, in accordance with what Amnesty International argued over a year ago – completely destroying former White House Councils Alberto Gonzales attempts to sidestep the issue.

Vyan

Vyan

Christy, here is salon.com’s piece on Hamdan, not specifically what you’re looking for.

Thanks, punaise at 5 — I did a cursory search and couldn’t find the Guantanimo piece — but I was in a rush and thought I’d get back and find it later. Thanks for the Hamdan article link. :)

Fitz!

would this it?:

Torture teachers

An Army document proves that Guantᮡmo interrogators were taught by instructors from a military school that trains U.S. soldiers how to resist torture.

By Mark Benjamin

Punaise at 9 — YES! That’s it. Thanks much — will link it above. :)

Do’t miss Digby on the heroic efforts of Navy lawyer Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift.

Colleagues attributed the high court ruling to what they considered to be Swift’s determination to protect the integrity of U.S. jurisprudence against a Pentagon bent on retribution for terrorism attacks on U.S. forces.

When we talk about “support the troops,” this is a guy who deserves some support. He walked the walk so that the rights of soldiers everywhere to the dignity and due process afforded by the Geneva Conventions would be protected. Digby notes:

The military has many men and women of great physical courage. That’s the point, after all. But it takes a person of exceptional character to be willing to take on the military hierarchy from within in order to preserve our fundamental principles. I’m skeptical that the threat of Islamic terrorism can be properly categorized as a war but if it is, one of the big battles being fought is for the integrity of the American system, and the battle is internal, not external. In that battle, this guy is a hero.

The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer actually reported last summer about interrogators being trained in the torture-resistance school:

Winkenwerder told me that bsct members are not under his command; rather, they fall under military intelligence. He said that he knew little about the program’s daily operations but had heard that a number of bsct psychologists and psychiatrists had received specialized training. “It’s connected to some military acronym,” he said. “Something to do with Survival and Evasion.”

Winkenwerder was referring to a Pentagon-funded program known as sere, which stands for “Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape.”

Good ol’ Winkenwerder. My my my.

John Yoo: “They either have to, as Andrew said, continue to hold people and have no trials at all, or have lots of Moussaoui-like trials, because the other alternative is to force the government to go into a situation where they have to put someone on trial in civilian court or a court-martial court, but at the same time risk blowing their intelligence sources and methods.”

Interesting statement. We did try Moussaoui and that trial turned out well. OK, sources and methods might be an issue but correct me if I’m wrong – our military knows how to do trials that are fair without blowing national security secrets. No?!

Off-topic in the earlier thread, but on-topic for this one:

Via Crooked Timber, Steven Poole has a great bit of snark on the dissenting opinions in the Hamdan case. He’s not a lawyer, but I hope his view on the tribunals and the Geneva Conventions is correct:

Alito does not challenge the finding that Geneva Common Article 3 applies; he argues instead that the special military commissions used at Guantanamo do in fact constitute what Geneva demands, a “regularly constituted court” [p177]. This is a difficult argument to make, given that Geneva’s elucidatory commentary explicitly defines “regularly constituted” courts as meaning “ordinary military courts”, and explicitly excludes “all special tribunals” [p180]. Because the Guantanamo military commissions do not rise to the standard of ordinary courts martial and are used nowhere else, they are clearly the sort of “special” tribunals banned by Geneva, as the Court in fact found.

Anyone have an informed opinion on this? If this is correct, it would mean that whatever enabling Specter decided to do, he can’t just reconstitute Bush’s military tribunals by congressional action (at least not without withdrawing from the Geneva Conventions.)

(BTW, though this bit is serious, the rest of his post is quite snarky and fun, and he only took down Scalia and Alito; he didn’t even get to Thomas.)

Christy 10 – glad to oblige. I still cough up the salon.com subscription fee, so at least I don’t have to wade through a commercial each time.

Otisishungry at 11,

If there is any justice, someday Lt. Cmdr. Swift will get a Congressional Medal of Frredom while John Yoo gets to wear legirons. Unfortunately, with this administration and Congress, it’s just as likely to be the other way around.

Is it me or did J. Stevens go out of his way to crush each of the arguments of J. Thomas’ dissent? Maybe like shooting fish in the barrel, but he seemed ticked.

Also, Thomas’ use of the word “unitary” wasn’t accidental, was it?

Now for the bad news– Wingnut senators Kyl and Graham are already working on legislation that would help the administration do an end-around the SCOTUS decision. I have no illusions that the administration will alter their behavior as a result of this ruling. It is a legal victory in the abstract, but its practical consequences are not likely to be great when you have a rubber-stamp Congress and a compliant media.

pgl at 14: Yoo is either believing his own propaganda or blowing smoke. Our justice system is quite capable of conducting trials involving secrets without compromising national security, however, as we’ve seen, the Bush Administration would rather pretend that’s not true to preserve their ability to quash anything the don’t like with “State Secrets,” and since they’d rather no one found out whether anyone at Gtmo is innocent or guilty, they don’t have much motivation to actually conduct such trials.

“John Yoo”

Didn’t John Dean school that boy a few months ago?

pgl says
June 30th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
John Yoo: “They either have to, as Andrew said, continue to hold people and have no trials at all, or have lots of Moussaoui-like trials, because the other alternative is to force the government to go into a situation where they have to put someone on trial in civilian court or a court-martial court, but at the same time risk blowing their intelligence sources and methods.”
———————————————————-
Excuse me, but is he really saying that military court-martial-type courts don’t have mechanisms in place to handle classified material? Or is he just whining about having to have trials in general?

Cosmo — you mean Sens. Kyl and Graham who were specifically called out in the SCOTUS opinion as having filed *cough* hastily *cough* put together legislative history in a tranparent attempt to manipulate the Court? Shocking. Shocking, I say, that both of them would be doing CYA for the Administration.

(Guess Huckleberry has reverted to Shucks and Awe Boy status again…)

Vyan — thanks for bringing back the link to the war crimes articles. Rereading the Newsweek article now is even more chilling than it was then, because we can now see clearly what even Gonzales had figured out — “jeez- we may committing war crimes!”

So what did they do? Instead of changing their behavior and complying fully with the Geneva Conventions and the War Crimes Act, they had the President sign a piece of paper that says those laws don’t apply — notions rejected yesterday by the Supreme Court.

Let’s see, what degree of legal malpractice is it to advise your clients in ways that expose them to greater likelihood of liability for war crimes? Uh . . . And that may explain why Yoo was very uncomfortable on Nightly News last night.

Anyone heard from Gonzalez (or Addington) lately? These people should be hauled before Congress and asked why they shouldn’t resign or be fired. Oh, and disbarred, too.

Frank Probst at 22 — Yoo is whining about the fact that lawful courts, be they civilian or military in jurisdiction, do not allow evidence that was obtained by torture as lawful evidence in the court of law. And the whole reason for these half-cocked tribunals that were overturned by Hamdan was to circumvent the prohibition of the use of evidence obtained via torture.

Christy,

Here’s a link to an article about what Kyl and Graham are up to….

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2….._0629.html

Another link Christy

Michael Dorf on Findlaw

The thing I’d like to see hammered on more is all the wingnut arguments that begin with the assumption that everyone there is a known terrorist. The basic right-wing approach to law and order is that if you assume any suspect is guilty, you can justify almost anything.

The reason we have trials is to find out for sure whether the people we’ve apprehended are guilty, not just as window dressing before a first-rate hanging. You’d think someone who claims to be a conservative and want government off people’s backs would get that.

And the further way to hammer this is to ask, whenever any of them start talking about “the worst of the worst” and “terrorists who want to kill us,” ask them whether the administration has released known terrorist or held innocent people, because it has to be one or the other.

… and if Professor Yoo thought he was already unpopular in Berkeley — today must be a doozy for him …

Yoo is a disingenuous asshole. There are thousands of criminal trials held every day in this country. Adding several hundred more would not be a burden on the system. His legal reasoning on the Geneva Convention was rejected by the Court, and he knows it. He is now covering his butt and hoping he can avoid being tried for war crimes.

I apologize for just driving by, if this has already been covered. After the NewsHour coverage–(Yoo looked as though he had indigestion; can you say war crimes?)–Olbermann covered it. He started by declaring that the trubunals had been found unconsitutional. John Dean didn’t correct him on it, but my uderstanding is that the court only went as far as illegal, not unconstitutional.

Mary had an excellent post on this that wasEPU’d on the last thread at # 132.

Christy Hardin Smith says:
June 30th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Frank Probst at 22 — Yoo is whining about the fact that lawful courts, be they civilian or military in jurisdiction, do not allow evidence that was obtained by torture as lawful evidence in the court of law. And the whole reason for these half-cocked tribunals that were overturned by Hamdan was to circumvent the prohibition of the use of evidence obtained via torture.
———————————————————-
Ah. And are they now expecting Congress to pass a law saying that torture confessions are okay? I’m sure Specter will roll over on command, but I don’t think McCain is going to swallow it. He tends to get testy when it comes to torture. Maybe Clarence Thomas can explain the realities of war to him.

*ilson46201 says:
June 30th, 2006 at 12:54 pm

Law schools attended:

David Addington: Duke
Alberto Gonzales: Harvard
John Yoo: Yale

Sorry, I was in court most of today and have not kept up with the threads, so if someone has already posted on this, I apologize for the duplication.

Also, this is a drive by, I gotta get some papers out before 5 EST.

The repubs are going after the judicial branch!!

The Homeland Security Committee not the judiciary committee is serving up a bill to sic an IG on the federal courts.

http://judiciary.house.gov/Hea…..aspx?ID=63

Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to this important hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security to examine H.R. 5219, the Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2006, introduced by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
…………………
snip
…………………

H.R. 5219 establishes an independent Inspector General within the Judicial Branch who is appointed by and reports directly to the Chief Justice of the United States. The Inspector General will conduct investigations of complaints of judicial misconduct, conduct and supervise audits, detect and prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and recommend changes in laws or regulations governing the Judicial Branch.

He goes on to claim that there is some huge problem with judges refusing to recuse themselves and failing to do finacial disclosure.

I practice almost exclusively in federal court, I belong to federal courts committees in regular bar associations and I even belong to a bar associaition restricted to federal practitioners.

I know many federal judges socially and they do not hesistate to carp about instituional problems.

There is no widespread problem with judges refusing to recuse themselves for conflict of interest. This is a patent lie.

I am not opposed to IGs. I used to be legal counsel to an IG. Istill do private sector IG work. I think everybody needs an IG.

But this is not that. There is no widespread proablem. The federal IG system is starved of funding right now and is having trouble doing it’s exisitng work.

This is to the courts and judges what Bushco’s crap about criminally prosecuting the NYTimes is to jouranlsts.

This is pure intimidation. They have lost a few court cases and now they want to scare good judges into leaving the bench. Oh and a side benefit, they get to pack the courts somemore.

Judges are not allowed to speak out. Lawyers must do so for them.

SCOTUS needs to have the realities of the 21st century signing statement explained to it. GOP Congress passes **something** that might allow tribunals to continue; Bush signs it and appends a signing statement.

Problem disappears.

How many divisions has SCOTUS?

Dover Bitch, thanks.

Really makes me wonder how Thomas, Alito, and Insanelia could rule the against the majority. Even I’m getting tired of comparisons to Germany in the 30s but is there any doubt now on how it IS happening here? A Dem. loss in ‘06 and another SCOTUS appointee and its over.

Op-eds and Editorials nationwide should be blasting these 3 stooges, especially Thomas for that moronic opinion, non-stop.

So when did CNN start selling ads to the floor humper? I’m looking at him right now next to the Lou Dobbs transcript. Boy, that ad sure classes up a website.

Nothing will happen! The rubber-stamp Repub Congress will now rush to make the military tribunals legal or something similar to seem like they are following this ruling. The detainees in Gitmo will continue to languish and never really be charged or if charged have a fair trial.

As this dkos diary shows a Gitmo detainee could not prove his innocence (forget about proving guilt by the prosecution) as the military said they could not locate witnesses in Afghanistan when the Guardian newspaper found them in 3 days.

The SCOTUS can’t enforce anything and the rubber-stamp Repub congress will continue to provide cover for the biggest power grab in modern US history. And the corporate media will obscure and confuse that the majority of the American people who can’t be bothered will continue to not be bothered to do anything. There is no opposition to this regime. The majority do not care. Look at the pathetic turnout in elections!

If you don’t want to read what’s on the web my npr (kqed) station had an interesting show on Hamdan this morning. Here is the link:

http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R606300900

You can also subscribe to the podcast in iTunes.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/kqedforum

After about 30 minutes of retyping punctuation (wooie), I have here an excerpt from a fresh AP article. How important are November and ‘08? THIS important:

Roberts, the smooth and savvy chief justice from central casting, promised at his confirmation hearings last September to be a “modest” justice rather than an activist. In that spirit, he opted for a basic black robe rather than the flashy gold stripes worn on the sleeves of his predecessor, the late William Rehnquist.

Roberts has spoken publicly of his desire to achieve unanimity through narrow rulings that would offer “clarity and guidance.” And he had some success, evidenced by a healthy share of unanimous opinions.

Even some cases that were expected to split the court — on abortion, campaign finance and disabled inmates, for example — were resolved unanimously and without creating upheaval.

But as more difficult cases trickled out before the justices began their summer break on Friday, it became clear that “the early buzz of peace, love, harmony and Kumbaya was probably overstated,” said Ohio State University law professor Douglas Berman. “This is a closely divided court on a lot of issues that can’t help but express genuine disagreements on the way critical legal issues ought to be looked at.”

In a 5-4 case on Monday upholding Kansas’ death penalty law, the four liberal dissenters labeled the statute “obtuse by any moral or social measure.” Justice Antonin Scalia, known for his fire-breathing opinions, countered that the liberals were contributing to international “sanctimonious criticism of America’s death penalty.”

In a 5-3 ruling on Thursday, the court’s last day, moderate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined the court’s liberal members in finding that President Bush had overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees. Justice Clarence Thomas underscored his strong opposition by reading his dissent from the bench for the only the second time in his 15-year-career.

In a major wetlands case this month, the court produced five separate opinions covering 100 pages. Roberts lamented that, because of the muddled result, interested parties “will now have to feel their way on a case-by-case basis.”

The divisions aren’t just along liberal-conservative lines.

Within the reinforced conservative wing of the court, there are strong and sometimes conflicting opinions.

Scalia took fellow conservative Alito to task for making “illegitimate and ill-advised” use of legislative history in one opinion. In another case, Alito faulted Scalia for making “a subtle but important mistake” in his analysis of a defendant’s right to counsel.

Both men seemed to be sending the message that they’re not intellectual clones: “Don’t call us Scalito,” as paraphrased by lawyer Kathleen Sullivan, moderator of an American Constitution Society panel reviewing the court’s term.

For all of the focus on the court’s new fifty-something justices and the chemistry of the so-called Roberts court, it turns out that the jurist to watch is 69-year-old Anthony Kennedy, a moderate who’s been on the bench nearly two decades. His role as a swing voter was overshadowed in years past by that of centrist Sandra Day O’Connor.

But now that O’Connor is gone, “the basic principle that you need to understand is that it’s Justice Kennedy’s world and you just live in it,” said Washington lawyer Thomas Goldstein, who regularly argues cases at the high court and tracks voting trends.

As he fancifully put it, “Justice O’Connor, having been the most powerful woman in the universe, handed the keys to him on the way out the door and said, ‘Have fun,’ and he took up that invitation.”

This term, Kennedy has provided the fifth vote on some of the court’s toughest cases, including the death penalty, Guantanamo and wetlands cases.

More often than not, he has sided with the conservatives. Court watchers expect that trend to be more pronounced next term, when the docket includes contentious issues such as affirmative action and a federal ban on what opponents call partial birth abortion.

“We’re almost certain to see next term an emphasis on those areas, namely abortion and race, where Kennedy is measurably more conservative than O’Connor in ways that likely will be utterly decisive,” said David Garrow, a Supreme Court historian at Cambridge University.

The replacement of Rehnquist with Roberts didn’t shift the court’s ideological balance much, but the substitution of Alito for O’Connor clearly pushed the court to the right.

An analysis of voting trends shows Alito’s affinity with the Scalia-Kennedy-Thomas-Roberts bloc to be as much as 15 percent higher than was O’Connor’s.

“I think everybody really has to be aware that the court has become considerably more conservative,” said Goldstein. “The real pitch in ideological cases has to be made to Justice Kennedy, and it’s very much going to have to be made on a case-by-case basis.”

The court’s shift to the right could well sharpen in years to come, depending on the timing of future departures from the bench and the political party of the next president. The court’s four conservatives — ages 51, 56, 58 and 70 — are actuarially destined to outlast the liberals — ages 66, 67, 73, and 86.

That age split has created an unusual dynamic for Roberts, at 51 the youngest chief justice in two centuries.

“The people sitting around the conference table are his parents’ generation and they call him chief,” said Thomas Baker, a Florida International University law professor who served as Rehnquist’s first administrative assistant. “His self-deprecating style helps here. His humor helps here. And, one thing that cannot be overlooked, is how impressive his intellect is.”

The court’s new lineup is likely to change the dynamic in ways that extend well beyond the differences in how Roberts and Alito might vote compared with Rehnquist and O’Connor, says John McGinnis, a Northwestern law professor who worked with Alito in the Reagan Justice Department.

For example, there are some early signs that Justice Stephen Breyer may be inclined to vote more strategically to stay within the majority on certain cases, McGinnis said. And Roberts, for his part, may be assigning Breyer to write certain opinions in an effort to keep him from reflexively siding with the other liberals.

“I think that will be a story we should be following for the next five years,” McGinnis said.

OT, re: TRex’s Late-Nite, last night:

Wolcott reviews Pam…

http://jameswolcott.com/archiv…..uments.php

“…temptress in a teapot…”

Oh, dear!

Larry @ 35

Maybe they can start with Scalia and his duck huntin’ buddy, VP McBirdshot

Off topic but couldn’t not share – a quote from the NY Times today regadring the ridiculous ‘media’ Congress hearing:

“We are here today because there hasn’t been enough red meat thrown at the Republican base just before the Fourth of July recess,” said Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts.

Loving it!

TeddySanFran says
June 30th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
SCOTUS needs to have the realities of the 21st century signing statement explained to it. GOP Congress passes **something** that might allow tribunals to continue; Bush signs it and appends a signing statement.

Problem disappears.
———————————————————-
I continue to doubt that it’s going to play out this way. If they had the votes for a stunt like this, Kyl and Graham wouldn’t have had to put their fake debate in the Congressional Record. And Bush is pretty unpopular with the House right now. There’s a world of difference between Congress bashing the NYT and enabling a Bush to get around a SCOTUS decision. And again, I think Congress is going to balk at revoking the Geneva conventions. As John McCain can tell you, they’re there for a reason.

G W BUSH: STEALING DEMOCRACY ONE ELECTION AT A TIME.

Now working on the Mexico election:

http://www.gregpalast.com/section/articles

Stealing Mexico – Bush Team
Helps Ruling Party
‘Floridize’ Mexican
Presidential Election
By Greg Palast
6-30-6

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, “ARMED MADHOUSE: Who’s Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal ‘08, No Child’s Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War.”

George Bush’s operatives have plans to jigger with the upcoming elections. I’m not talking about the November ‘06 vote in the USA (though they have plans for that, too). I’m talking about the election this Sunday in Mexico for their Presidency.

It begins with an FBI document marked, “Counterterrorism” and “Foreign Intelligence Collection” and “Secret.” Date: “9/17/2001,” six days after the attack on the World Trade towers. It’s nice to know the feds got right on the ball, if a little late.

What does this have to do with jiggering Mexico’s election? Hold that thought.

This document is what’s called a “guidance” memo for using a private contractor to provide databases on dangerous foreigners. Good idea. We know the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Persian Gulf Emirates. So you’d think the “Intelligence Collection” would be aimed at getting info on the guys in the Gulf.

READ MORE….

today’s Froomkin begins:

Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling, definitively curbing the Bush White House’s assertion of nearly unlimited executive power in a time of war, puts the other two branches of government back in business.

The Republican-controlled Congress, which has remained resolutely blind, deaf and dumb as President Bush took national security matters entirely into his own hands, now has little choice but to rouse itself to some sort of action.

And in reasserting the rule of law, the high court has opened the way to what could be major legal action over other executive branch violations of established statutes — about domestic spying, for instance. The ruling even raises the possibility that U.S. forces and Bush administration officials could be tried for war crimes.

The rousing of the legislative and judicial branches is the ultimate nightmare of the unilateralists within Bush’s inner circle, most notably Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, David S. Addington. They had argued that nothing — not Congress, not the courts, not traditional notions of basic human rights — should limit the president from pursuing the nation’s enemies however he saw fit.

Worth watching closely: Whether the high court’s decision will bolster the stature of other members of the administration, many of whom have reportedly had reservations about the Cheney-Addington approach all along. Or whether Cheney and Addington will continue to have Bush’s ear, and will keep plotting in the shadows.

. . .

Christy,

OT BUT…Security issue?
I see that there is another Larry posting @35. Never thought about this before but one can see the potential mischief, problems and disruption this could create here at FDL???

Larry

Christy

Thanks so much for putting all this together and making it accessible, great job.

The Lehrer segment was priceless.

Yoo-hoo…boo-hoo

B-o-o H-o-o

Bahahahahaha…

be leary of Larry?

P,

You crack me up. But I am being serious.

Well — that (Larry 48) clears up my confusion.

and yes yoo should be leary of larry

Larry, you’re right – that could lead to a lot of confusion.

haven’t seen this elsewhere but

Carl Levin has said he will “cooperate” with Kyl and Graham?!!

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, pledged to craft legislation addressing the court’s ruling that tribunals weren’t explicitly authorized by Congress and didn’t adequately protect the rights of the accused. Democrats such as Senator Carl Levin of Michigan said they would cooperate.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/…..amp;refer=

Frank at 22 (and Christy’s followup): I accept the premise that John Yoo is a whiner and I certainly can believe that Bush et al. want to introduce coerced confessions (ala torture). John whiner Yoo, however, was trying to make the argument that obeying current procedures precludes protecting sources and methods. I suspect he’s flat out wrong. Could you confirm? Incidentally, some fellow named Brian over at Tom MaGuire’s place is accusing ME of wanting trials where the government would have to air everything in the public to have a trial. I told Brian to visit FDL where the liberal ladies are very good lawyers. I’m sure Brian would appreciate a clear answer to this query.

and nthis Larry does not leery

Not to diminish the seriousness of double Identity but, Punaise,You missed the obvious. Leery O’Larry.

timothy larry’s gone
no no no no he’s outside
looking in

We need to put each and every Dem on notice now that they are not to support any efforts to pushback on the SCOTUS ruling – can we make a plan for this? perhaps a July 4 greeting to each reminding them of the constitution?

suggest more “recent” Larry adopt a suffix or modifier

Such as “Larry JD” or “Lawyer Larry,” punaise?

and Specter’s legislation will make what the bums have been doing legal. If Levin and the other dems want to go along to git along so they look like they are protecting the murkan people, then we need to throw the bums out.

Huckleberry wants guidelines to come from the UCMJ– hahaha– the one they are currently gutting?

btw, Commander Swift will be on cspan tomorrow morning at 0745 for 45 delightful minutes.

lotus, sure something like that. this come’s up from time to time (mary, etc.)

multiple names have not been an issue so far – folks do seem to just adopt a variation …
but I’d support a registration scheme that would allow us to reserve our unique logins and maybe tag them in some way (reserved logins in a diff. color or something?) if it’s possible to do this without requiring registration to post so we don’t discourage new reader/commenters.

That said, our hostesses have enough on their plates and take very good care of us so we can easily continue to monitor these things as a community without added work and expense.

just imho

Unusual as you would think, I have run into multiple Bustednuckles on the net.

what siun said re names and re Senators.

Siun is right.Agreed

be wary of larry

If you link to a website with your comments, that gives some distinguishing characteristic to your name — though some may not consider the link distinguished.

to my great disappointment, punaise at yahoo dot com was already taken.

if you ever see a post from 3sivund, it’s my upside down alter ego.

Yes, not everyone could be “HopeSpringsATurtle.” Probably the simplest way to go would be “Larry … Larry 2 … Larry 3,” if it came to that. Except: how would a newbie know?

i agree that very common names like ‘mary’ or ‘larry’ are hard to keep track of in here … some sort of appendix or descriptor is helpful like ‘Tom_of_Chicago’ does. My own moniker is made of my quasi-common first name with my zipcode…

come *ilson, you know it’s the orange hair that gives you away. or is it stalinist red now?

HopeSpringsATurtle – best handle ever

I also didn’t want to be mistaken for a distinguished Ambassador in here as well …

Tom @ 46

Bush definetly wants Calderon to win, because he’s had a long history with the economic elite of Mexico

Rouge Bolshevique, s’il vous plait !

don’t tarry, Larry.

Something else from the comments over at Tom MaGuire’s place. GOP troll Patrick Sullivan is trying to make his 1st contribution on any topic ever as he tries to explain Scalia’s dissent. Something to do with the Detainee’s Treatment Act of 2005 and the Exceptions Clause, which Sullivan claims grants Congress the right to limit Supreme Court review. Now Patrick is no lawyer and he’s getting some harsh feedback – partly from me and I’m no lawyer either. To those who know the law and the Constitution, does Mr. Sullivan have ANY point here at all?

Errrm, definitely

but you are an ambassador of sorts, *ilson.

Siun I was screwing around with my 68…

Your 65 is right, our hosts do not need any more c**p on their plate.

and ilson your 73

are you implying that I am just some common everday run of the mill Larry?

Will the REAL Larry please stand up? The guy with all my bar tabs. I don’t have a worry with someone else impersonating me…who in their right mind would do that? chuckle

Ghostman

my political sympathies were obvious years ago when I had cats named Babrak and Karmal and my first pitbull was named Najibollah

Punaise said best handle ever..

funny… I hear that often

“retardeau” had me cracking up earlier.

not best handles, plural….

Christy at 3 – that was backdoor sarcasm. I’m still pissed at Jim Lehrer for his softball talk with Rove at the RNC the summer before. And guess what – sucking up don’t work Jim – you and PBS still got funding cut and controls put in.

Ghostman ,

You and I share a common love for a certain whiskey.

The real Larry has stood up and still has your bar tabs….watch out.

our hosts do not need any more c**p on their plate.

That would be the CCCP, no? I thought they had a going-out-of-business sale. Did *ilson buy up the artifacts? Stalin’s corpse, the Lubyanka, etc.

Dover B – I missed that one

Larrys Siun Larry – well, my dear, if you care to add a little gaelic to your moniker, I’m all for it!

the gender may be a tad off for you though

(grinning to whichever Larry I’m grinning at)

Andy McCarthy over at NRO’s The
Corner states: “A big issue to watch out for as congress re-examines this: the protection of classified information from al Qaeda in the trial process. One of the principal reasons for having commissions rather than courts-martial or civilian trials is to prevent our enemies from learning what we know and how we know it.” This goes to my question about John Yoo’s whining and that comment by Brian over at Tom MaGuire’s place (where they seem to want to attack liberals who dare visit). Comments on what Andy is trying to argue here?

our hosts do not need any more c**p on their plate.

carp. mmmmmm

Ahhhh, Larry. Very good. Very good. The “Oil Of Conversation.”

Ghostman

(feeling a bit dispirited with this World Cup – no glorious teams like Korea last time … perhaps Fr v Br will help tomorrow!)

siun – I’ll be pulling for France of course, but this is almost certainly the end of the line for them.

The Lyubianka was built before 1900 as the corporate headquarters for the All-Russia Insurance Company — it became the Secret Police Headquarters after 1917 and it remains to this day offices for the Russian Border Guards …

ahem. some of us are supposed to be working…. back later

Siun your 94

I must be a having a brain fart…you are over my head with that one

.. the original Larry sheepishly admits

I would rather poll for france.

Concerning the “Torture Techniques” that SALON talked about that were learned at SERE school – I wonder just what they learned because the purpose of SERE school is to survive captivity with honor and adhere to the Code of Conduct. I’m a Navy SERE school grad. What you learn in SERE school, without giving away anything that they did to me, was to keep the faith with your fellow prisoners and to keep from doing stupid stuff so that you can come home with honor. The government doesn’t want you to get maimed or killed in prison but they do want you to learn to resist to the best of your ability. And when you fail, and you will fail, they want you to be able to pick yourself up the next day and resist again (mentally and physically). It’s not like these SERE school instructors are a bunk of torture freaks because they’re not. I’d really like to know what the SALON article is talking about. I think that they may have gone for some sensationalism here.

Christy, are you on hand?

I see Mary 133, last thread, promises analyses that are “probably going to pop in and out very OT at times.”

Could you/the moderators please snag these to collect in one place (i.e., the front page) for us? If they just show up randomly, possibly EPU’d, we could too easily miss them.

Redshift #28

The thing I’d like to see hammered on more is all the wingnut arguments that begin with the assumption that everyone there is a known terrorist. The basic right-wing approach to law and order is that if you assume any suspect is guilty, you can justify almost anything.

The reason we have trials is to find out for sure whether the people we’ve apprehended are guilty, not just as window dressing before a first-rate hanging. You’d think someone who claims to be a conservative and want government off people’s backs would get that.

Exactly, especially considering the allegations that about 90% of those at Gitmo have been subject to torture and are innocent of any involvement with either Al Qaeda, Iraq Insurgency or the Taliban.

Vyan

97 Ghost…the pretenders are simply the “Lubricant of leers.”

last one:

Larry 102 – you better bring your “A” game if you’re going to engage siun!

On a wee more serious note, as to Gitmo, the Yoo argument is, in many ways, a load of crap. Here’s the real problem with giving the Gitmo guys a trial:
1. Many of them were captured by Northern Alliance fighters (or another tribe), and handed over to US Military. Thus, US troops have only 2nd hand info as to whether the guy is/is not a terrorist. That presents a problem in prosecution.

2. Most of the Gitmo guys experienced some form of torture a few years back. Either while housed in Afghanistan awaiting transport to Gitmo…or at Gitmo itself. Again, the obvious problems arise as to prosecuting such guys. Their “confessions” are tainted, and it’s mighty embarrassing to the US authorities once all this goes public.

Ghostman

lisadawn82

I think theres some confusion tween SERE and the old school of the americas perhaps?

Hamdan – commissions, Part II

What does the Congressionally mandated UCMJ say about commissions? Not a lot and not in a lot of detail, because presumptively Courts Martial will be the primary vehicle. Notwithstanding that, though, the UCMJ does recognize that where there is statutory authorization, or where the existing common law of war authorizes, military commissions may be used.

The provisions of this chapter conferring jurisdiction upon courts- martial do not deprive military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction with respect to offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals.

As noted by the Court, the ability to convene military commissions must, pursuant to Article 21 of the UCMJ, comply with statute or the law of war, as determined at common law. As a result, the Court’s inquiry was into whether or not the President’s Executive Order complied with those laws of war. This analysis proceeded on two fronts, one with respect to the UCMJ and Congressional actions with respect to the law of war in general, and the other with respect to the Geneva Conventions. Because Kennedy agreed with the UCMJ analysis, he did not join in the Geneva conventions section of the opinion as he felt it unnecessary to reach that question.

Under the UCMJ analysis, the Court examined the possible sources of authority for the military commissions, beginning with statutes, to see if there were some Congressional grant of authority, beyond that existing in the UCMJ and the common law of war, which established some “additional” rights in the President to constitute military commissions that went beyond the authorizations of the law of war or the UCMJ. Staggeringly, Gov tried to claim that the AUMF (authorization to use military force) and/or the DTA (detainee treatment act) created a statutory authorization for military commissions that went beyond the existing law of war and UCMJ. Ok – even the dissents don’t touch that one much. [AUMF - you are soooo facing extinction as a basis for Presidential disregard of law]

Dispensing with the statutes that either do not mention military commissions at all (AUMF) or that recognize something is going on at GITMO but expressly reserve judgment on wheher those standards and procedures being used violate the Constitution and laws (DTA), the Court is left with common law of war, UCMJ and other laws that impact on war such as the Geneva Conventions.

The Court provides multiple references to the fact that pursuant to the common law of war, the differences between a military commission and a Courts Martial had been primarily one of jurisdiction – what cases they could hear (civilian cases, on the battlefield determinations) and as a result, historically at common law th procedural rules for military commission s were the same as those governing court-martial.

Under the UCMJ, the rules governing courts-martial, as established by Congress, emphasize procedures similar to those used in criminal cases in federal district courts, but do not replicate all of the Federal Rules.

The President, under Article 36, is given the authority to make regulations for the conduct of courts-martial and military commissions, with three restraints. First, insofar as deemed practicable, he must apply principles of law and rules of evidence that are consistent with those used in criminal cases in district court(Article III courts). Second, whether he thinks them practicable or not, he cannot promulagate regulations or procedures that are inconsistent with the UCMJ provisions. Finally, he must make his regulations uniform (between courts-martial, commissions, etc.) insofar as practicable and report regulations and rules he makes to COngress.

So how do the military commissions fall afoul of the law of war common law approach of applying rules of courts-martial, or of the UCMJ (Geneva conventions dealt with later)requirements?

Well, to start with Gov lawyers argue that only UCMJ provisions that specifically mention military commissions (9 of the 158 Articles) must be met. The majority, and even by implication at least one of the dissenters, pretty much toss this out. The common law and UCMJ plainly provide that the standards of the tribunals have to be uniform unless there is a showing of impracticablity.

So what kinds of things has the President’s order authorized that are not uniform with courts-martial? Lots, from structure of the system through the rules of evidence and due process.

*Courts-martial are tiered with a system that requires, as allegations are more serious, panels with more and more legal expertise, including JAG (judge advocate lawyers) and JAG officers with specialized training as judges and whose appointment and removal is solely through the judge advocates office to insulate them from undue chain of command influence.

The commissions don’t have anything that comes close. Legal expertise and training comes in low on the scale and instead of an appellate “court” structure found in courts-martial, appeals from the commission go to Don or George. Sec of Def or President. Non-insulated military officers making determinations, extremely different legal training prerequisites, and appeals to Sec Def or Pres. -not an appellate court.

*The commissions can use any evidence that they think reasonable, including coerced testimony, hearsay, writings and statements not made under oath, did I mention COERCED testimony?, etc. Courts-martial – not so much.

*The commissions can exclude the charged party from hearing the evidence against them, knowing the charges against them, or even being present during the trial. Courts-martial – stricter standards (yes, like with Charles Manson’s outbursts in civilian courts, a charged party can be removed for outbursts, etc. but the rules are tight). Uncorroborated statements, not made under oath, passed on through a chain of hearsay, with no opportunity to cross-examine (and we know that there is no sectarian animosity that might give rise to false statements and that there was no pecuniary interest for people to lie — oh wait, strike all that) can be used in secret, without ever making the detainee aware of the statements, as a sole evidentiary basis for assessing a punishment, including death. Wow. Uh, the military doesn’t buy into that set up for courts-martial.

The commissions do allow for exclusion of evidence “established to have been made as a result of torture.” Now go look at the status of military training manuals, procedural orders and input from Gens like Sanchez, reviews by Gens like Formica, and read a Yoo memo or a Gonzales memo or a Libby novel and decide what the heck these guys have concluded constitutes “torture” (other than having to read Libby’s novel)

The examples given go on and on, but at some point before the end of the examples is reached, the majority is more than convinced that there is no practicable reason shown for the many deviations in structure, substance and procedure from the courts-martial. In particular where here, unlike the “exigent circumstances” commissions where chaos is breaking out all around and something needs to be done, the detainees have been held for YEARS before even getting around to thinking a commission should hear their case.

So military commissions are a special creature, but under the UCMJ they are supposed to operate, as much as practicable, as courts-martial. As the President has concoted them pursuant to his Exec Order, they don’t and they are so far afield from a normal courts-martial and UCMJ requirements that they are improper tribunals.

[Even Alito seems to think that they may not be using militarily or Congressionally Kosher
rules and approaches, but seems to think that the Court should revise the President’s order to strike down the parts that are bad rather than to call the commissions improper: “…if some of the procedures that may be used in military commission proceedings are improper, the appropriate remedy is to proscribe the use of those particular procedures, not to outlaw the commissions.”]

Pretrial, trial, and post trial procedures, including modes of proof, for cases arising under this chapter triable in courts-martial, military commissions and other military tribunals, and procedures for courts of inquiry, may be prescribed by the President by regulations which shall, so far as he considers practicable, apply the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases in the United States district courts, but which may not be contrary to or inconsistent with this chapter.

concerning SERE: the military’s anti-torture school at Fort Huachuca (as I recall). It seems reasonable that they would know the efficacy of various contemporary torture methods in order to learn how to resist such torture and to teach such resistance methods to our troops. Very laudable and good and necessary!

It is also likely that some of the torture techniques were taught so that some US interrogators could use them on “the enemy”.

Punaise

No engagement intended…was being serious.

*ilson –

Okay, you didn’t buy the Lyubianka. How about Stalin’s corpse? GazProm? A slightly used nuclear submarine?

If not, just what kind of capitalist are you?

Punaise dear – merci!

Larry … I was just referring to the gender of my name and it’s origin though there are asian “siun’s” as well, I am of the irish persuasion. That said, I’m happy to share … as I recently learned I already do with a nice little Altan reel with my name.

And along comes Mary…..

I aint no Browderite! I think the Georgians have dibs on Dzugashvili’s corpse — GazProm is already sold — nuclear submarines dont travel well in Indiana …

Digby (linked by Christy above) has good words to say about the military lawyer who represented Hamdan in his Supreme Court case, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles Swift. Digby quotes Swift in an appearance on Hardball last night, when Matthews suggested that all the Guantanamo types should be treated like “thugs”:

“What the Supreme Court said is you have the trial first, you use the procedures that are set up under international law, and then you decide whether they’re a thug. You don’t make the thug determination going in.”

Why can’t everyone see the issue that clearly?

Larry at 110 – The Salon article talks about SERE school which is Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape. I don’t think they were talking about the School of America’s. Each branch of the service has a SERE school for those that they feel have a higher than normal chance of falling into the wrong hands. There are three sets of “Rules” that service members fall under for three different types of situations. The first is if your in WAR and you find yourself behind enemy lines. The second set of rules is if you say crash land in China and even if we aren’t at war with them they aren’t exactly our friends and we don’t want to give away any secrets if we can help it. The third is if you are caught by terrorists. Then you’re sucking.

*ilson’s going anti-ballistic.

Dang it. That last paragraph in my 111 is Article 36 of the UCMJ – I thought I dropped it in somewhere else. I really need to proof and preview.

But it’s more exciting with typos, dropped thoughts and random assaults by errant punctuation.

Thanks again Mary. I am going to save these and peruse them later so as not to get too behind in the thread. I read the first one. Which BTW was EPU’d, And found it to be highly informative . Thanks for the digging and commentary. You do wonderful things!

ilson46201

Many lifes ago I was an H2H instructor at the Armys Jungle School in Panama….that was when Noriega was our good buddy….kinda reminds you of Saddam. Anyway lotsa that stuff was taught there then.

lisadawn82,

I think you meant Mary @110 not Larry..yes?

Meanwhile, in much more important news. Starr Jones is talking…

and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking, and talking…

I’m sure FauxNews is assembling a crack panel of experts to discuss the upshot.

Humble submissions for naming Specter’s new bill:
the “If George W. Bush Doesn’t Like You, You’re Not a Person and Have No Rights” bill, or:

The “Geneva Conventions are for Sissies” bill.

Mary!!! I can’t wait to read your thoughts.

Also, if Mary or any of our legal friends would like to help a touch – Erdla (Du’s wonderful fiance) over at GorillasGuides has a few questions on Hamdan (three posts down – click my name for the link) and it would be great to have some answers posted in comments there. GG gets a lot of readers from overseas and esp from the Middle East who are obviously very interested in these issues and who are unlikely to come here for the full briefing. (And Erdla is finishing her degree and does not have time to learn US law as well as all the rest she studies plus keeping two gentlemen in line when they are at home rather than in harm’s ways).

lisadawn82
My mistake..confusion cleared…

Refresh button is our friend also

Hmmm, vi much, BobbyG?

best quote from a google quick search:

Latter-Day Apostle of Marxism-Leninism or Neo-Browderite Tool of Revisionism and Capitulation?

Let me ask you directly, Comrade *ilson46201 (if that really is your name): “Are you now, or have you ever been, a Neo-Browderite Tool?”

Jayt or anyone – have you seen any info on Levin’s support of Spector or the hints from Bloomberg of other Dem’s joining in.

BGL @ 95

I did not read the McCArthy piece, just you quote, but let me take a guess as to what he may be geting at, and I think he would have a point.

You bring gitmo prisoner X to trial. Douring the course of the trial you have to prove what X did that is a crime.

You have to expose to X (or at least his lawyers) who your witnesses are. Some of them will be uncover operatives and informants.
So, he will learn who they are.

He will also learn how much, or how little, we know about his activies and maybe the activities of other Al Quaeda.

Right now, Al Quaeda’s uncertainty about how much we know is one of the biggest factors keeping them from operating more openly. If they think we know more than we do, if they think we have more assets than we do, if they think we are better able to track them than we can. Their own operations will be that much more laborious and that is good for us.

Because of the terrible betrayal of her oath as an officer of the court, Lynn Stewart has brought an extra layer of complexity.

Don’t forget, Andy McCarthy, was at the recieving end of Stewart’s deception. She swore, as an officer of the court, not to transmit information from her client to the outside world and that whatever she learned was to be used only for her client’s defense.

Then she broke her word, repeatedly. people may have died because she was transmitting instructions from the Blind Sheik.

It used to be that if information was too secret to be revealed to the client, you could under a court order that was really really hard to get, limit the information to the defense lawyer who was honor bound not to reveal it to the client or anyone else.

Because of the Lynn Stewart oath betrayal (and yes she literally took an oath), both prosecutors and courts are not very comfortable with using that method.

But what other method is there? Who is the genius who will come up with a practical alternative.

I cannot overstate how much I believe Lynn Stewart’s reckless and dishonorable behavior has not only harmed the legal profession, but how much it has harmed criminal defendants for years to come. Not just in terrorism cases, in mafia cases, in drug cartel cases, in gang case.

She broke rules designed to protect the rights of DEFENDANTS, and now that they are broke and useless where are we gonning to find equivelant replacement rules?

So, if that’s what Andy was getting at, he has a point IMHO.

I was a Crew Chief and did a SERE thing in the Air Force. It was much more about ’survival’ than toture. My course was designed for “in case of plane crash” scenario. LisaDawn would love to know what you did in the service..

new thread — http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/06/30/close-one/

“larry” at 132 was me!

It was LHP. The machine not only gave my post larry’s name, but it then showed me Larry’s email address. Which I immediatly deleted.

Guys, we are back in the land of accidently outing again. Techies. We need help from techies!!!!

Oh, if anybody saw mine, please delete and keep info to yourself. Thanks

Hi firepups -

The following psychorant was epu’d, (and my repost reflects shameless narcissism upon my part.)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Can SCOTUS provide deep insight-oriented psychotherapy to POTUS – by, say, August?

I fear that Dubya’s and the neo-cons’ sustained, ruthless assault upon representative democracy and distributed power arise from their own deep pathologies.

Their pathologies may be refractory to judicial authority.

Bush’s apparent pre-occupation with control, dominance, and autonomy – even after becoming “the most powerful man in the world” – brings us all back to little George’s tender years.

Imagine – if you can – a young George – too young even to take pleasure in torturing frogs. Probably still young enough to cry – maybe even for a hurt animal.

Then imagine a very small George around ambitious Bar and cold, stilted, calculating GHW. For small George to develop empathy – the capacity to imagine another’s emotional experience – at least one big person has to be able to extend empathy young George.

Bar and GHW do empathy as well as they do compassion. Shit out of luck on that one, little George.

For small George to develop autonomy – the experience of functioning as an individual – at least one big person needs to have the awareness and altruism to allow young George to make small decisons in his life. Someone has to stand back and be unintrusive enough to wait for small George to make (very small) bad choices and allow him to integrate that experience in his future explorations. Someone needs to be able to allow the very small bad choices to safely unfold in context of greater safety.

Letting little George choose the wrong clothing for playtime wouldn’t kill him. Letting little George go play at the oil pump might. (Ideally, the big people offer play choices that don’t include the oil pump…even in the Bush/Cheney playgrounds.)

Now imagine Bar having any sense, any inkling that very small George had an independent inner existence. Imagine Bar deciding to make the time in her obsessive quest for power to allow George to make small choices, rather than just deciding for him. Imagine GHW having the insight to foster little George’s autonomy – cause GHW has such empathy and compassion.

If you all can imagine it, good on ‘ya. I just tried and my vision started to go all funny and the cats looked scared. (Warning – these are the prodromal symptoms of spontaneous cranial explosion).

Shit out of luck on autonomy, too, little George.

Bar and GHW’s obsessive quest for power and money doesn’t leave time for niceties like child-centered play. Little George is told to do what works for Bar and GHW – and punished when he doesn’t.

Little George can’t develop introspection – that’s a luxury available to small people who are asked about their perceptions, feelings, ideas. So little George doesn’t have the tools to conclude: “I am angry when Mom and Dad tell me to quit smirking”.

Little George probably lacks the tool that would allow him to identify his emotions (you think Bar ever asked?), much less name them.

Little George’s development of core emotional and human competencies is permanently deformed by the very bad fortune to have undergone child development around Bar and GHW and whatever ghouls would endure the grown-ups.

Little Georgie is so stepped upon when most small people learn to make choices that he NEVER feels he is free to choose. Even when he is all grown up and POTUS, he is still fighting to assert his absolute autonomy.

Just as one should at around twenty-four months – but not with armies and Constitutions and biospheres and clemency petitons.

I watch (when I can stomach it) and listen to the braying neo-cons and Bush/Cheney cultists defy logic, Constitutional law, American history, and the Enlightenment so they can re-fight their terrible two’s.

Time to go grill some beef and have a cold one.

Life is good here in n.c. mtns…. thinking about starting a “Camp Firedog Retreat”

Larry

Swimdeep at 133 – I was a Naval Aircrewman in a reconaissance aircraft (EP-3E) from 1991 to 1999. I went to Navy SERE school in Maine in November of 1990 – BRRRRRR!!!

Mary — thanks… need to digest all that.

On a separate vein… I think it’s high time that the Democrats turn this attack on the media around and point out that the only reason any of our intelligence methods are being compromised is that the Bush administration failed to implement them in with the civil protections necessary to make discussing them a moot point.

If Bush had gotten warrants — like he said he was — nobody would’ve had any reason to write about the NSA wiretapping.

If Bush had worked with the other branches of government in an honest manner, we’d not only be winning by a wide margin, but he would have the support of the majority of Americans.

If Bush had asked America to make sacrifices instead of cutting taxes and asking us to go shopping after 9/11, we’d not only be winning by a wide margin, but he would have the support of the majority of Americans.

If Bush hadn’t been willing to abandon the rule of law and our principles about things like, say, torture, we’d not only be winning by a wide margin, but he would have the support of the majority of Americans.

And then there’s Iraq…. But this rebuke from SCOTUS, the efforts by the media Bush thinks are damaging and Bush’s craptastic JAR… All of it is his fault and it’s made America less safe.

psychorant part 2/2:

The Yoo’s, Addington’s, Gonzales’, Cheney’s – I’m sure they and the other wingers’ parents did the best they could. I’m sure even Bar and GHW did the best they could.

But I am also certain the fundamental structures and implements of America’s national power are very dangerous in the hands of children.

There’s a reason that a significant hunk of the Freeper pool (yecch – I think I just developed aquaphobia) is comprised of males living with their parents. There’s a reason that Bush/Cheney’s pro-corporate jihad on regulatory power is celebrated and promoted by closeted Congressmen (hi Randy Cunningham), GOP officials (hi Ken Mehlman) and telepreachers (hi too numerous to count) oppressed by their own internalized homophobia every waking minute.

Although I’d like to say this perspective gives me understanding, and thus compassion and contentment, it doesn’t.

The developmental arrest evinced in those who – even with the deepest legal training – pretend to find a basis in Constitutional law the pretext for them to claim as adults the omnipotence they craved as toddlers scares me.

If you have an empty stomach, imagine someone like Cheney or Addington or Rumsfeld – someone so insecure that they have spent thirty fuckin’ years re-telling the US disaster in Vietnam until they can tell themselves their nation (and so, though projection, their self) is invincible.

Imagine the yawning pit of inadequacy and fear these adult children carry with them in every decision.

And imagine the lies they will tell themselves – and the military, intelligence, and law enforcement – when the whole fantasy of ultimate Imperial tyranny is snatched away from their hollow, empty lives.

Toddlers need to feel omnipotent because they find utter helplessness unbearable. When the adult toddlers Bush and Cheney feel helpless – they’ll do what any terrified, angry two year old does.

But they’ll do it with armies and navies and NSA’s and FBI’s and DIA’s and those helpful camps Halliburton has rushed to put up for FEMA.

FEMA – not so good as a helping hand. The FEMA plan drawn up for civil unrest in response to a US military invasion overseas was, of course, not intended as a helping hand. Nope, before he was selling electric fence Ollie North drew up the FEMA plan for what to do with those pesky citizens if they exercised their First Amendment rights in incovenient numbers.

Ollie’s plan for FEMA is a mailed fist: mass internment of US citizens.

And the folks Col. North worked with after he drew up the FEMA plan – why – bless me – some of these same folks have popped up to help save us from – how convenient – Iran.

So I celebrate SCOTUS’ assertion of the primacy of our Constitution and the rule of law.

And at the same time I fear that POTUS is so severely impaired (and has gathered to him those similarly afflicted) that the preservation of the Republic will feel like an assault upon his very self.

And I fear that ignorant, fearful, yawningly insecure man and his equally damaged followers will destroy two hundred and thirty years of lawful government in order to redress the wrongs they suffered at twenty-four months.

We’ve already seen what happens when the toddlers drop FEMA. What will happen when they pick it up and use it a club?

And when the toddlers lash out at Iran – what is their plan for the blowback at home?

Some days the victory celebration I’m expecting for Joementum seems impossibly far off.

Hope it’s just a trick of the summer fog.

Mary, thank you for these wonderful analyses! But as I plead at 105 ^ , they should feature more prominently, so that no one need go away hungry for what you’re so elegantly serving. Please let headquarters highlight your series somehow.

I know a veteran whose experience of sere-type training was very much like what is described in the article, complete with some exposure to humiliations, water tortures, and trashing of bibles and the like. From what he said, the type of such training that a person gets is related to the job they do; he was in a specialized unit in which a high degree of exposure to the enemy could take place, and from which if captured, a knowledgeable enemy group would make pretty big assumptions about what a person might know or might have been intending to do. He said it helped him focus on those parts of his training that were concerned with not getting captured.

Dover Bitch @ 2:40 pm (#139) – It’s an excellent retort. The Democrats mostly seem happy to let the Republicans frame this issue as one of not allowing the government to listen to terrorists. “No we’re not”, is their answer. What they should say is that it’s about lawlessness, and they should just say that until people get the message that the President broke the law, and then broke the law a second time by classifying the illegal programs. And yes, that’s why we’re discussing it. If they’d just followed the rules, we wouldn’t have to discuss it.

I heard this program by a former interrogator today on npr– worth a listen even if only to see from one military man that nothing good comes from torture:

>>>>>>>>
http://www.npr.org/templates/s…..Id=5523727

Cujo359 143,

It really is that simple, isn’t it? If Bush had done things correctly, there would be nothing to report. If Bush had been up front with America, he’d have the same support he had on 9/12/2001.

These guys are the sorriest bunch of excuse-makers in history. It’s always somebody else’s fault. Trial lawyers. Activist judges. Socialists.

It’s the Bush Administration, stupid!

Ditto what siun 2:32 pm said — any other Dem names coming up?

I will be drafting a missive to send to Levin’s office. I am extremely concerned about him, having read the Bloomberg article above. I think I can get a critical mass of attorneys in state here to co-sign a letter, but I have to gather more data and a specific point of view or action request — something besides “stop aiding and abetting Graham & Kyl”.

Keep me posted, gang.

Larry @ 132. Many thanks. So we do have procedures that can keep sources and methods secret if you can avoid lawyers like Ms. Stewart. The military attorneys during late 2001 were fashioning a means for fair trials to be properly conducted. The JAG core of defense attorneys are often quite good but also quite ethical. So we could have gone that route but the White House said no in late 2001. We could go back to listen to what these military attorneys were suggesting back then. Ah, but this would steal a partisan issue away from the demagogues in the GOP.

Okay, regarding pushback ON Senate Dems, for pushback BY Senate Dems:

——————————————–
Are You Independent from the Unitary Executive?

Dear {your Senate Dem}:

Please do not cooperate with Senate Republicans seeking to legitimize the Bush Administration’s power grab that’s been ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. Finally, a branch of government has called President Bush on his cockamamie Unitary Executive theory of an all-powerful wartime presidency! Should the Congressional GOP change the law to make it okay?

NO.

Please oppose this attempt to make legitimate what the Supreme Court ruled illegal. As your constituent, this is a make-or-break issue for me. I cannot support a Democrat who supports the Senate Republicans as they attempt to paper over this President’s illegitimate power grab.

Thank you for your service to {your state} and to the United States of America. Happy Independence Day!

Sincerely yours,
{your name}
——————————-

Michigan folks better get started early, since it sounds like Levin needs to grow a spine quickly…

TeddySanFran — thanks for that draft, it’s a start.

I still want a more specific action plan for Levin besides “stay away from Graham and Kyl”, something that tells him why he should support either option 1, 2 or 3 as specified in the SCOTUS decision, or whether there’s another option we should suggest.

I don’t know if Levin will be traveling to local offices; when I spoke with the closest local office this week, they said they didn’t think he’d be in our area. It’s Cherry Festival week in Michigan; he’ll probably be making the rounds up near Traverse City and squeeze in some vacation.

Might have to have a one-on-one with Levin’s regional rep instead.

Shez — you out there?? We’re going to need you on board to help with this outreach to Levin.

Emptywheel? you up for this, too? I’ll contact Frank P. up north and ask the same.

Rosa Brooks’s op-ed in todays LA Times, http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/063006B.shtml, is a must:

But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court’s holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda – a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.
…
Under federal criminal law, anyone who “commits a war crime … shall be fined … or imprisoned for life or any term of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be subject to the penalty of death.” And a war crime is defined as “any conduct … which constitutes a violation of Common Article 3 of the international conventions signed at Geneva.” In other words, with the Hamdan decision, U.S. officials found to be responsible for subjecting war on terror detainees to torture, cruel treatment or other “outrages upon personal dignity” could face prison or even the death penalty.

If I recall correctly, at Nuremburg, they held the propagandists who supported and justified the war crimes to be equally guilty, e.g., the death penalty for Bill Kristol and John Yoo.

Thanks so much to Christy for the links. I’m looking forward to your July 4 reading recommendations. Even I won’t start anything until the 5.

The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) 1005(e)(1) provides that “no court … shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider … an application for … habeas corpus filed by … an alien detained … at Guantanamo Bay.” The Court found that the DTA’s jurisdiction stripping provisions do not apply retroactively to Hamdan’s case, in which the crime charged allegedly occurred the AUFA (Authorization to Use Force in Afghanistan) and the charges were brought before the enactment of the DTA.

Justice Scalia noted that if the court had not denied retroactive application of this jurisdiction stripping statute, it would have had to deal with the provision of the Constitution which states that the Writ of “habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

The bad news for lovers of freedom is that the power of the Great Writ to survive Congress’ efforts to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction is still in doubt. .

In order to deny retroactive effect to the jurisdiction stripping provisions of the DTA, the majority looked at the legislative and drafting history of the statute, including the statements of various Senators made during the debate. The dissenters criticized the manner in which this was done, arguing that the statements were quoted selectively.

What I find especially troubling is this parenthetical remark in Scalia’s (and Thomas’s and Scalito’s) discussion of the majority’s perusal of legislative history:

(Of course in its discussion of legislative history the Court wholly ignores the President’s signing statement, which explicitly set forth his understanding that the DTA ousted jurisdiction over pending cases.)

I first wrote about the pernicious signing statements on January 4, 2006, here and here.

It should be observed that when Congress passes a law, the President can sign it or veto it. He knows what is the congressional intent, and he chooses whether to agree or disagree. If he disagrees, then Congress has an opportunity to over-ride the veto. But Bush does not veto bills: he just ignores them. Does Congress have any recourse?

Well, there is always the impeachment thing.

For more, visit the Schapira blog, What we know so far

” … and tell ‘em Big Mitch sent ya!”

Here’s how this Arab-American housewife sees it. If the law applies to the US President, and the US Supreme Court says the President must follow not only US but international law, then we should at least hold our allies to said laws.

Bombing the power plant at Gaza is against international law. Google collective punishment and click on the Israeli human rights group site B T’Selem. Women and children are dying. It’s illegal. We shouldn’t use such tactics and we damned sure shouldn’t allow our allies to do so.

That’s what I take from the Supreme Court ruling. And I’m very grateful for that little good news this week …

Michael Scaapira (154):

Perhaps foolishly, I keep coming back to Article VI of the US Constitution:

… all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Such treaties would include the Geneva Conventions. And (as I understand it), in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the specific applicability of Article 3 of the Geneva convention to detainees in the Global War on Terror.

Also, per the War Crimes Act of 1996:

[Any U.S. national who] commits a war crime [including any “grave breach in any of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party”] … if the victim dies, shall … be subject to the penalty of death.

This give me hope that members of the media will ultimately be brought to justice.

lisadawn at 138

Sorry, I had to go and missed your follow-up.
I was a USAF F-4 Fighter Crew Chief. I went to tech school at Sheppard AFB, Witchita Falls, TX, and then TOT Training at Seymour Johnson AFB, Goldsboro, NC. We did a SERE thing but not the GI Jane thing you gals go through. We are the ‘Chair Force’ afterall. But there was a lot of survival training and weapons training and I carried a sidearm while on the flightline. Anyway, hope you get this or someone mentions it in another thread. Take care, there weren’t many of us girls out on the line in those days, matter of fact I was the only woman on the flightline in my squadron. Ah, the ‘good ole days’. Glad its over.

course, i wrote this after your posted yours, christy, but don’t forget skippy on the hamdan decision around the web.

Did you see this one?

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com…..amdan.html

Too many comments to check.

Shouldn’t this decision focus some more attention on David Addington, Cheney’s legal counsel, and provider of the half-baked legal justifications for the tribunal/detention policy?