Thanks so much for taking the time to be here. The 100 Days plan sounds fascinating. What do you think the #1 priority for the next administration should be, and how can people help push that priority?

Mr. Watt:

What do you think are the chances that this Supreme Court will overturn the Protect America Act and its effective repeal of the Fourth Amendment? Do the three cases you cited give us any vestige of hope?

Welcome Vince and Steven — so glad to have you here today to discuss human rights and civil liberties issues with us. On the day that the closing arguments in the Hamdan case occurred, I can’t think of a more fitting topic for discussion.

Are you finding it any easier to have discussions about these issues with leaders inside the Beltway? Or are you, like me, mystified sometimes at how little thee folks — including members of Congress — have really focused on fundamental rule of law issues? That boggles my mind every time it comes up in a conversation…

Thank you so much for joining us today. This is definitely a subject that warrants quite a bit of attention, particuarly following Mr. Mukasey’s recent post-Boumidiene speech, as well as the introduction of legislation by Senators Graham and Lieberman. Has CCR had a chance to look at S.3401 yet?

Thanks Christy and thanks for inviting me to participate this afternoon. I’ve just returned from a week in Guantanamo observing a couple of procedural hearings before the military commissions there. I also had the opportunity to observe the first US war crimes trial since WWII; the trial of Salim Hamdan, one of Osama Bin Laden’s drivers. Having worked on Guantanamo litigation since 2001, I am acutely aware of how fundamentally flawed the military commission system conceived by the U.S is; seeing the commissions in operation only served to confirm this view. In the two procedural hearings, for example, neither of the accused turned up as they refused to participate in a proceeding which one of them, Al-Darbi, through his appointed military counsel, called, quite justifiably, a “political spectacle”. Who can blame them for not appearing: after all, even if the system finds them innocent of the charges, the Bush administration has long stated that the U.S. military will continue to detain them anyway! I’m looking forward to this discussion.

Jus Cogens!

Welcome Vince and Steven and thank you for your First Monday series CHS.

One of the questions that we were talking about earlier today here was the fact that Hamdan’s immediate supervisor — Abdullah Tabarak — had already been released back in 2004. He had been in charge of all of Osama Bin Laden’s drivers, bodyguards and security detail arrangements, yet he was released. But Hamdan, who was a driver only, has been held all this time. Any insight as to why one was released so early and the other held?

It’s great to be on as well, Christy. i find that the inside the beltway discussions become more difficult as we have more success in the courts, ironically. Each time the Supreme Court has decided in favor of the detainees, Congress has pulled the rug out. Very problematic, indeed.

These trials are pure and simple show trials: the government figures it has more on Hamdan than Tabarack, so proceed with the low level guy than the more senior figure. Bottom line I have no idea.

Hi Madeline,

And thanks. the number one immediate priority should be to hold habeas hearings immediately, close Gitmo safely and to begin the discussion of accountability for all of the law breaking (sounds like three priorities, i know). . .

Also, I just want to take a moment to say thank you to both of you — and to the organizations for which you both work. You all have been doing extraordinarily important work under very, very difficult and challenging circumstances, and you really deserve a lot of thanks for doing so. As a lawyer myself, it has been an appalling roller coaster ride to watch the disrespect with which the Bush Administration has treated our long-held principles.

So thanks to both of you for everything you and your colleagues are doing to help restore the rule of law. It is very much appreciated.

thank you for the heads up on s.3401, the text of the bill has not yet been posted on thomas, but i include the link for later reference.

I completely agree with Steven. there’s no rhyme or reason to how these “trials” are conducted. as political show trials, of course, they don’t feel the need to bother themselves with the rules of evidence (much less the rules of logic).

I find it hard to fathom that the court could find the process under the act flawed and yet they go ahead with Hamdan’s trial. Can you explain

Vince or Stephen,

Under which treaties are you pursuing international charges against Rumsfeld et al? I would like to see trials in the Hague but am not sure that there is law that is binding on the US that allows individuals to be charged.

Welcome to the Lake Mr. Warren and Mr. Watt – a genuine honor to have you join us today.

just wish to extend to you both, my virtual but heartfelt thanks for all you and your teams have done in the face of tyranny. y’all have soundly answered Mr Greenwald’s question: How Would A Patriot Act ?

I agree with this analysis. We are at a critical point in history and Habeas Corpus must be preserved. But we do not have to go far away to Guantanamo Bay to see abuse. Here in New York City we have everyday violations of Constitutional Rights and Human Rights by the government against poor people, particularly people of color. There are 17,000 children who have been kidnapped by our local CPS (ACS in NYC) and are kept away from their parents with all type of legal trickery. 96.1% of these children are children of color who have ripped off from their parents under the most ridiculous excuses. The State Legislature uses the number of children in Foster Care as the best predictor to build new prisons for this ever expanding industry. They count with the unconditional support of the Family Court Judges who rubber stamp anything that our CPS does or wants. There is no Jury Trial or Due Process in Family and a generous estimate is that parents win about 2 cases out of every 1000 in a 1028 Hearing.
Foster Care violates the 13th Amendment against slavery and involuntary servitude and is one of the main feeders for the prison, homeless and mentally ill industries.

There are no guarantees that can be put in place that will stop the next Republican President (after an Obama Presidency) from doing the same things as the Bush Administration. As John Nichols said on Bill Moyers,

You are seeing impeachment as a constitutional crisis. Impeachment is the cure for a constitutional crisis. Don’t mistake the medicine for the disease.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/jour…..ript2.html

It is not that we lack remedies. We have a Congress that has shown it lacks the will to pursue them. What then can we expect in the future?

I would point out too that Obama’s support of the FISA Amendments Act does not bode well for Constitutional values even in a Democratic Presidency.

Finally, along these lines, what about fusion centers and the creation of a surveillance state in this country?

Thanks Christy and guests for this session!

I really like the idea of your 100 days campaign, and I’m ready to join, and recommend it to my networks!

One of the things our Constitutional checks and balances requires is an opposition that actually opposes. One of the most fearful aspects of the present situation is how complicit the “opposition” party has been in aiding and abetting the Bush & Cheney assault on the Constitution, first through so-called “bipartisan” legislation (on which please see Glenn Greenwald’s column on January 30, IIRC. I call his list the “dirty dozen” laws enacted with Democratic complicity.)

The second has been the complicity of the Democratic Leadership in taking off the table the primary Congressional tools to keep a rogue executive in check: i.e., impeachment (and inherent contempt.)

A third problem, if I may pile on, has been the utter and complete corruption of the Department of Justice, upon which many of the usual remedies (e.g., enforcement of subpoenas) rests.

In the face of such an onslaught, what can we do?

Bob in HI

we’ve had a chance to look at s.3401 here at CCR a little bit. unsurprisingly, it deals with all of the areas that Attorney general Mukasey outlined in his press conference several weeks ago — all designed to have congress step in an monkey with the Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene. Among the problems at first blush: it contains an expansive definition of enemy combatant, a broad open-ended mandate for wartime powers, and language designed to prevent those going through military commissions from their constitutional right to habeas corpus.

Unfortunately there is no “world court” that has jurisdiction over the United States for war crimes committed by its leaders. You may recall that Bush famously “unsigned” the statute of the ICC – WORLD CRIMINAL COURT – And absent such a court, civilian courts here in the United States have found that officials such as Rumsfeld are immune from civil cases alleging torture and other such war crimes, that or cases have been dismissed on basis of state secrets

Do you see any resolution in the near future for the Uighur problem? Beyond the underlying legal missteps of the detainee process, we’ve uncovered an unintended practical one as well. Even if the review process, which is already tilted against the detained, results in a dismallal of “charges” many of these detainees have no where to go. Stuck in limbo, and thus stuck in Guantanamo.

Gee, and I wonder how Graham and Lieberman could have possibly gotten legislation together so quickly that mirrors exactly what the Administration wants? *cough*

“Rights of Man”
“Magna Carta”
“Geneva Convention”
“The war on Terror”
Addington…Loo…Bybee torture memo

White House rules these are terrorist not war prisoners threfore Geneva is out, However the USA torture prohibition still has yo be in force? Any thought Vince?

Hey Jeanne!

Well, the CSRT/DTA process and the military commissions are linked as a matter of reality, but not so explicitly in the boumediene decision. I think the federal court got it wrong in the latest round of hamdan. it makes no sense to refuse to delay a trial by military commission in which the government does not believe the constitution applies. especially where the supreme court acknowledges what we’ve been saying all along, that the constitution extends to the detainees at guantanamo.

Among the problems at first blush: it contains an expansive definition of enemy combatant, a broad open-ended mandate for wartime powers, and language designed to prevent those going through military commissions from their constitutional right to habeas corpus.

Why, then, am I not surprise that it has Joe Lieberman’s name on it?

Another question: How can this country try detainees it has tortured? How can a court overlook such criminality or separate it out from any case the government might prepare?

must be *magic* if only we could get our tax refunds as quickly . . .

Yes, and perhaps the AG should spend less time on press junkets promoting already-failed admininstration policies and more time on trying to repair what is left of the DOJ.

What advocates are working on now is convincing third countries (not their country of origin or the current host country ie the US) to accept these detainees. I was in Sweden last year when one Uigher started the process of seeking asylum there after the administartion sent him and other Uighers to of all places Albania!

Personally, I’d start with checking for David Addington’s fingerprints on it. But then, I’m cynical. *g*

In the commission system this is an easy process; they simply don’t call the treatment torture, but rather inhumane treatment and that type of evidence can be admitted under the commission rules.

Just finished watching the “John Adams” series from HBO. The Founding Fathers and Mothers must have rolled over in their graves at least 300 times by now. They’d be considered radical Liberals by today’s standards. Be sure to recommend the box set to family and friends. As more of the electorate understands the Constitution, the more chance we’ll be able to rescue the American Experiment.

(Still blown away by the acting and filmmaking of that series)

Thanks for the reply, and thanks for your work on Medellin.

Welcome to the Lake Mr. Warren and Mr. Watt.
Christy Thank you for the outstanding First Monday Series.

Assuming that this congress fails to impeach Bush and Cheney, what are the possibilities for bringing them to justice after they are out of office, both inside this country and abroad? Specifically, I believe all signatories to the Geneva Conventions are obligated to enforce them, can we get cases started in all of these other countries?

If it was not a war prionen issue then why a military tribunal?

Technically, though, it isn’t a court — it’s a military tribunal. Which, even so, under the UCMJ should not be able to use evidence obtained through torture, which is in and of itself, a violation of the UCMJ. It’s one of the reasons why the former chief prosecutor for the military tribunals resigned in disgust last year.

Short answer: they should not be able to do so. And yet…because of congressional intervention via Lindsey Graham and others, Congress wrote into law enough loopholes to make this theoretically possible if not legally sound in the long run.

It’s a real problem. Half of the Uighers (chinese muslims) have been released and relocated to refugee camps in Albania (!) The rest remain in GTMO, although there is nothing that separates the two halves in terms of facts. Attorneys from CCR have traveled the globe, focusing on European parliament and eu countries. here’s what they’ve been telling us: “The US created this mess and can’t now expect european countries to step in and clean it up.” Frankly, there are other problems that the euro countries have to deal with as well. one is complicity in the rendition program and the other is that no one wants to mess with china (which was the key factor in the story about how chinese separatists became “world terrorists.” it’s all about china.

Thanks for coming out Vince and Stephen,

I was wondering if either of you got a chance to see or read about the House Armed Services Committee hearings last week about the next steps post-Boumediene. I thought the most intriguing character was the former Chief Prosecutor, Morris Davis.

About a year ago, this guy wrote an Op-Ed for the NY Times about how Gitmo wasn’t as bad as it’s cracked up to be, but recently he’s come out and just completely bashed the way it’s run. Do you think he’s someone who could be a valuable resource for the good guys moving forward?

Also, he vouched for a military court devoted entirely to hearing Gitmo cases. Is that something that could be feasible, or is it just a pipe dream?

What do you find is the best way to respond to the right-wing attempts at fear-mongering on this topic? “Legal loopholes for terrorists!” “Cushy living with DVDs and video games!” You know, apart from the truth, of course.

Welcome, gentlemen, and thank you both for your work to preserve the American system of justice in the face of continual assaults by this criminal malAdministration. Reading Jane Mayer’s book, I am struck constantly that this happened — and is happening — in America.

What do you think was deficient in the legal educations of the attorneys who justified this system? And how do you think we can ever redress the wrongs done to entirely innocent people?

Thank you again, very much.

In the commission system this is an easy process; they simply don’t call the treatment torture, but rather inhumane treatment and that type of evidence can be admitted under the commission rules.

This raises the question of whether Obama as President would continue the commissions process. I would think that one of the principal goals for the future would be to do away with the kangaroo courts of the commissions. Then the issue becomes what can you do with a process that is already so tainted.

Yes, and John Adams would have been called a traitor twenty times over for standing up for the rule of law in representing those British soldiers, wouldn’t he? Funny how the same rabble keeps turning up throughout history, isn’t it?

well, actually, in the Hamdan case (in 2006), the Supreme Court said that ArticleIII of the Geneva Conventions applies. So, Geneva is in (which makes those who act in contravention of Geneva war criminals, btw). the other piece is that Congress narrowed the definition of “torture” and amended the federal “war crimes act” to literally make what the world knows to be torture, “not torture” under US. law. The next question is how do we hold officials accountable for their actions?

Law Makers and courts overseas are starting to review the actions of this administration in both civil and criminal proceedings. For example, in Italy there is a criminal trial on-going seeking to hold accountable CIA operatives for their participation in the rendition of Abu Omar from Italy in 2003. In Germany the Parliament there is looking into US abduction of Khaled El Masri and there is an on-going criminal prosecution. Proceedings have also begun in Macedonia in this case. So there is a possibility down the line that US officials will be held accountable just as Argentinian officials are now being prosecuted for their involvement in the “dirty wars” in the 1970s.

I think Mo Davis was called to testify for the defense. Am I right on that right, Steven?

Mo Davis’ testimony in the Hamdan trial was used in one of the recent procedural hearings I attended at Guantanamo to have the charges against Al Darbi dismissed because of undue influence by the military leadership. However, it seemed to me anyway that his testimony wasn’t given that much credibility by the judge and I doubt therefore, he will be of much use in the commissions as they proceed.

I think that’s correct — I remember reading about testimony from him, maybe in Ben Wizner’s blogging from Gitmo on the ACLU blog?

He was called in Hamdan’s case as well as Jawad and Omar Khadar’s cases, but as I just said, his testimony wasn’t given much credence by the judge in the Al Darbi hearing on the issue of undue influence.

I notice that restoring the War Powers Act is one of the planks of your 100 day program, but isn’t it part of the problem? Isn’t it just another step in the Congress’ abdication of its Article I Constitutional responsibilities?

Thanks Christy and guests. So Steven, if world courts are out, and US civil courts are out, that does leave US criminal courts, right?

And I wonder why I’ve been under the impression that a president can’t just undo a treaty without congressional approval, OR did he get congressional approval?

civilian courts here in the United States have found that officials such as Rumsfeld are immune from civil cases alleging torture and other such war crimes,

Isn’t that a judicial admission that ‘torture and other war crimes’ are within the scope of their employment? (otherwise, no immunity, right?)

Torture rendition no Habeus, crimes against humanity no rule of law equal Anarchy. The order of a civilized society is in shambles with the economy on it’s heels. Is marshall law threatened? Where is the other groups that defend intenational human rights on this? CIA has a long history of supporting or using torture and black flag operations to destabilizes governmenrs that do not welcome corporate control.
So strange to see people captured who are not enemy combatants, but terrorist, handled by military tribunal. What used to be covert ops is now overt ops. Sort of in your face giving you a 1984 sense of fascism with all the propaganda tools owned by neocams.
These kind of trials defy our traditional justce system.

There was an article in the LATimes today that laid out in stark terms what detainees who are found not guilty and/or who are sentenced to a term less than what they have already served in Gitmo will be facing from current standing Bush Administration orders:
…

“Asked how Hamdan could be segregated from the rest of the approximately 265 prisoners yet not be in solitary confinement, Thomas said he would “cross that bridge when I come to it.”

Another irony of Guantanamo is that the judge is weighing a formula for recognizing the time Hamdan has already served for potential sentence reduction in the event that he is convicted. But even if he should be sentenced to less time than he’s already served, he’ll still be imprisoned until the open-ended war on terrorism is over — unless a new administration rescinds Bush’s order.

Hamdan’s defense was encumbered by “protective orders” that prohibited even the mention of the CIA or its handling of Hamdan during a month in late 2001 when the defendant disappeared into “a black hole” in Afghanistan, said the tribunal’s deputy defense chief, Michael J. Berrigan. He called the two-week trial an “obscenity.”

“What’s the purpose here? Mr. Hamdan is going to be held until the government wants to release him,” Berrigan said. “It really has no connection to the underlying reality.”

Citing national security concerns, none of the agents nor the reports from CIA interrogations of Hamdan were available to the defense. Four prosecution witnesses testified anonymously, and two Army special forces officers called by the defense were questioned behind closed doors, with no media or independent observers allowed….”

So, Vince, is there any possibility that ‘pursuing’ Bu$h Co for engaging in “cruel and inhuman” treatment of ‘detainees’ rather than ‘torture’, which as you say has been ‘defined’ away, might be more successful?

Thanks YOU. It’s truly outrageous what has been done to these men, our rule of law, and our collective sense of justice. These were very “smart” men that wrote these legal memoranda. I think the key component that was missing for these lawyers was a sense of justice and humanity. The Center For Constitutional Rights is a place where we hire “people’s” lawyers: lawyers that put people before profit and government politics. These lawyers were, in my view, aiding and abetting the administration in getting around the law. helping them to commit crimes. it’s unconscionable, but redressable. if you are suspected of commiting a crime, you should be prosecuted. period. it’s interesting that while according to the government, over 90% of the men who have been at gitmo have NO connection to terrorist orgs and a majority have never taken up arms against the US. that what the government says. yet, they’ve been sitting in a law-free zone for 6 plus years. meanwhile the DOJ/OLC folks who give the admin the legal green light to torture have no concern about being brought to task for their actions.

I do not see how any reform of the current abuses can leave the military commissions process intact. It is tainted from beginning to end. What form then would a successor process take?

In theory criminal cases can be brought against US officials for war crimes. The War Crimes Act of 2004 permits such prosecutions. I say in theory because I don’t believe the political will is there to mount such prosecutions – at this stage anyway but the possibility down the line is there; there is no statute of limitations on war crimes.

The ICC treaty had not received the approval of two thirds of the senate and without such approval it was not in full force and effect when Bush “unsigned” it

I caught that great article too, Christy. and it lays bare the fundamental unfairness of the commissions. even if – by some miracle – a person is found not guilty, they’d still be building a new isolation wing at guantanamo to keep you in until the president says that the “war on terror” is over. any legal proceding that has NO possibility for a finding of innocence is a mockery of justice.

That’s correct. Lower courts who have looked at this issue have all said that torture and war crimes falls within the scope of a US official’s employment. Unbelievable!

Patience, grasshopper — they are getting hit with a lot of questions at once and typing like fiends to answer all that they can…

Mr. Warren and Mr. Watt, thank you for taking the time to be here and thank you for your efforts on behalf of the detainees and torture law. I have some experience in coerced confession cases in criminal cases and, for the life of me, cannot understand how the tribunal court can bifurcate the time, conduct and statements in relation to the torture. It appears fairly clear that certainly Hamdan, and I fully expect most all of the supposed high value detainees, were tortured very soon, if not immediately, after capture. If statements thus obtained are deemed sufficiently unreliable or otherwise inappropriate for admissibility, how can any subsequent statements made by the detainee while under the same detention, dominion and control be suddenly deemed to have sufficient reliability and veracity so as to be admissible? The experts I have spoken with and employed have all indicated that subsequent statements in this regard are still the product of the torture/coercion because the the subject is still responding to the knowledge, fear, pain and perception of the initial torture from the same hands. Should this not be evidentiary fruit of the same poisonous tree? Especially when, as has been alleged, there are abusive treatment at night and then buddy interrogation in the daytime?

What do you consider the likelihood of success arguing against this ruling(s) on appeal?

Our position is that these men should be prosecuted before federal courts and there is no reason why these courts cannot deal with these terrorism cases, as they have done in the past

CCR has filed cases in France and Paris under the theory of Universal Jurisdiction — which stem from the Nuremberg principles. The theory being that even without the political appetite for prosecution in the US, the international community can and must take steps to hold people accountable for the crimes committed. We lay out the evidence in our forthcoming book: The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld: Prosecution by Book.

Steven — I know that you are originally from Scotland. I’ve read a lot of the analysis from Philippe Sands with great interest, including a lot of the “lessons learned” information he has provided from the IRA days in Britain. How does the system there differ now from what we are doing in terms of sifting through human rights claims — and how ought we be improving some of this, including holding public officials who have been complicit in breaking the Geneva Convention treaty obligations and US law to account?

We have a different system, obviously, but a lot of the foundation principles are still very, very similar. And I wonder how we can apply some of those “lessons learned” from your Maggie Thatcher/IRA days forward to what we are dealing with now and the reforms that must come in the future.

I agree. There’s no good reason to have military commissions except (for this administration) you can stack the deck in the governments favor and side step things like the constitution. Criminal trials are imperfect, to be sure, but at least they’re not made up by the president and the last Congress.

Our position is that these men should be prosecuted before federal courts and there is no reason why these courts cannot deal with these terrorism cases, as they have done in the past

but we know that this cannot/will not happen, because all, or almost all, of the govt’s evidence is going to be subject to exclusion on the grounds of coercion.

Is there any appellate process available for the “show trials” now beginning?

If so, is that process also strictly confined to and within the military?

Is there any way to get an appeal from one of these “trials” into a United States court?

While the Commssion rules prohibit the use of any confession or evidence procured under torture, they permit the admission of testimony extracted under “cruel and inhumane” conditions if admission of such testimony was in the public interest. This exact scenario played out in the Hamdan proceeding. Here the judge found Hamdan’s confession admissible under Commission rules despite the fact that evidence was adduced that Hamdan had been subject to sexual humiliation and sleep deprivation prior to the interrogation. The Commssion rules bind commission appeal courts, but not federal court, so eventually, when this case reaches the civilian court appellate level – many years down the line – US courts will rule on this issue.

These were very “smart” men that wrote these legal memoranda.

I beg to differ. The Yoo memo is grotesque self-parody, the product of a third rate legal mind. I keep coming back to what Addington said that they would push until somebody pushed back harder and stopped them. In practical terms, it doesn’t matter what the memos say and how poorly they are reasoned. All that was needed was a piece of paper with something written on it and the confidence that no one would mount an effective challenge to their actions. So far Addington has been proved right. Rasul didn’t stop it. Hamdan didn’t. Neither has Boumediene. It will only stop when somebody pushes back harder. The only means to do so that I can see is impeachment and thathas been taken off the table.

Steven and Vince:
Great Post and discussion I hope it is Dugg often the woeld needs to hear your voices and court domestic and intrernational need to have your briefs submitted in the name of jurispridence. Add a picture of justice holding the balances with the blindfold. Most of these characted that write torture memos hold Isreali citizenships and one has to wonder where their hearts are as avowed zionists. The passing of state secrets by two AIPAC offiicial to Isreal and He Rosen)has been under federal indictment since August 4, 2005 for alleged violations of the Espionage Act in the conduct of AIPAC’s work, and faces a trial in the U.S. Courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia scheduled to begin on April 29, 2008. Rosen also was part of the Rand corproration war think tank. Where is this case going? The fact that Attorney General Mukassey is a supporters of similar convictions seems a conflict of interest and also holds dual citizenship. Most signed the PNAC request to President Clinton to go to war with Iraq in 1998.
The whole legal process is beyond tainted with political agendas and the rule of law has been nuetralized.

FWIW please do not overlook the good Justice down in Madrid who made the charges against Pinochet that the British courts refused to uphold against Thacher’s good mate, them fascists stick together, the law be damned. I suspect charges from that quarter would make all members of the ruling US cabal and their enablers, persona non grata for most the rest of the world, put a clip on their wings so to speak.

What are the implications for the Democratic leadership of the Congress for failing to punish the administration? Are they not complicit in the crimes?

There is a Commission appellate process but ultimately appeal from commission decisions lies with the US Supreme Court.

You are 100% right on this. Anyone who has been tortured, worked with victims or even tortured people know that the effects are long lasting and people who have gone through it live in constant fear of the threat of having it done to them again. Thus to say that the torture stopped in 2003 but the person was ‘requestioned’ in 2004 so the 2004 statement should be admissible, is ludicrous. These men have been under the boot of the US government and many have suffered cruel and inhumane treatment. the sad truth is that this was a “policy choice” made by our government. it matters not to the detainee whether the interrogator was CIA, FBI, or DOD. As such, courts should recognize the fundamental and longstanding prohibition on admissability of torture evidence on appeal.

Please keep to the topic at hand. Our guests are only here for a short period of time, and have prepared to discuss the topics in the post — not every legal topic available for discussion. Thanks!

It has been a very fruitful and informative discussion, thanks all for participating. My colleague Ben Wizner is still in Guantanamo so look out for future blogs from him on the Hamdan trial. I would encourage all of you today to take action and sign the ACLU petition (available here https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=close_guantanamo&s_s=fdlchat) to close Guantanamo.

Thanks so much for being here today, Steven — really appreciate you coming by for discussion. Come back any time!

That’s the prime example of how Universal Jurisdiction works. This is why CCR has pursued cases against Donald Rumsfeld in Germany and France.

I’m late to the “party” this afternoon but as a non-lawyer observer, it seems that a stacked-deck/show trial is about the only way the current administration can gain a conviction and even then it’s problematic.

I base this on their track record of supposed “terrorists” they’ve brought to trial here in the SU since 9/11.

Vince — what actions can our readers take that will help you all in your efforts on these issues?

As you say, Vince, these men have suffered “cruel and inhumane” treatment. Is that not a possibly successful legal tact to use in bringing the ‘abusers’, one and all, to justice?

Clearly there has been ‘evidence’ that such treatment has occurred, certain of the ‘abusers’ have even bragged, quite publicly, about ‘endorsing’ or ‘okaying’ said treatment.

Interesting question. There are a number of ways to pursue accountability. one is by prosecution by the attorney general. another is by appointment of a special prosecutor by congress. Yet a third way is to hold investigatory hearings in congress with subpoena power, etc.

This has been an unprecedented period in our history as a country. CCR and other groups have been to the courts, to congress, to third countries in pursuit of justice. the story has got to come to an end in which we know the truth and have some measure of confidence that those who broke the law will be punished. Otherwise, what type of democracy is this?

Thank you for your hard work and dedication Steven.

And again, folks, let’s stay on topic in the chat thread — please take any off-topic discussions to the prior thread. Thanks!

see my post above to zarnuk (84). the real question is WHO will prosecute. what they should be prosecuted for seems clear.

Thank you so much for the work you are doing…attempting to restore America’s good name.

There have been a number of cases filed, some of which are wending their way through US courts — a lot of which were dismissed for a number of reasons that Vince and Steven have talked about earlier in the thread, including saying that the conduct is in the scope of their government employment.

But they have continued to work on ways to challenge this…

Thanks for everything Vince

If congress held hearings, is there any possibility that any of the detainees would testify, or are they all ruined by the torture or too afraid to trust any American system?

IIRC, Henry Kissinger has countries that he can not go to due to outstanding long term, war crime allegations against him. Are we going to see the same situation with folks like Rumsfeld, Addington, Yoo and even Cheney and Bush? That they will be limited in their foreign travel “opportunities” after 1/20/2009 due to the possibility of arrest and trial?

(I can hope anyway)

Action is really the key to how we operate at the Center for Constitutional Rights. First, we will be drafting a series of white papers in our First 100 Days campaign. Check out http://www.ccrjustice.org for details. Each white paper will have an action component. We would encourage you to sign up for our action alerts. They encompass a whole range of things people can do to help us in our work (including off topic things like our lawsuits against Blackwater and the CACI corporation for abuses at Abu Ghraib).

Together, we can call on the next adminstration to not just fix these things, but to make them a priority.

Is there particular legislation you all are targeting going into the Fall? Anything — other than the Graham/Lieberman bill we talked about earlier — that you recommend folks keep an eye on?

CCR is involved with hundreds of current and former detainees. our view with working with victims of torture and abuse is — let them regain some control over their lives and then let them make the decision of whether they choose to recount their story for the congress or the american public. so, it’s not clear whether people would chose to put themselves in the spotlight. most simply miss their families and want to get home. . .

There are no particular bills that i would have people focus on right now, but I would strongly caution people to look out for bills that call for preventive detention (detained because you might commit a crime) and those that continue to use immigration law as a backdoor source of criminal investigation. We expect to see a lot of activity on those two fronts. . .

Very cool site. Bookmarked and I signed up for email alerts and events nearby.

Thank you, how do you view the chances for success once you hit the regular appellate courts?

Vince, I really want to thank you for being here today and for all the work that you and the folks at CCR have done — and continue to do — on civil liberties and human rights issues. It is very much appreciated. Thanks again for giving us such a chunk of your time today!

thanks! we’ve got a lot of very cool things going on. tell your friends!

Applause and petition signed. Thanks for an unending effort in the pursuit of justice for all.

Thanks Christy and thank all of you for your very insightful questions. i really enjoyed my time here at the Lake. i hope that folks will stay plugged in on these and other issues we work on at CCR. Do, sign up to receive information on our First 100 Days Project.

Thanks

Vince

Perhaps it’s just me but I do not see a viable plan to replace the kangaroo courts/military commissions. Watt said that cases should be sent to federal courts but then both Watt and Warren questioned how any evidence could be used against most detainees since it was almost certainly obtained from torture or as fruit of the poisoned tree. So I am still left wondering how a process can be developed that will see both that the guilty are punished and that justice is done.

Feel free to drop by and chat any time — we’d love to have you!

I look forward to seeing 100 Days campaign.

Have you heard of Amnesty International’s unsubscribe-me.org?

Thank you very much Vince for all your hard, dedication and discussion here today.

Yes, Vince, profound thanks for spending time here, educating us, as well as for all that you are doing to encourage WHOMever to rise courageously to the desperate needs of our times and nation. Visit again, please, if ever you can squeeze in the time.

Thank you Vince & Steven for the privilege to read/listen to this discussion.

What a coup, Christy!

Yes, excellent First Monday, CHS. Thank you!

And thank you, Steven, most heartily as well, for spending time with us.

You perspective is much appreciated.

But wouldn’t that be the true execution of justice? That those who were tortured and there is no evidence against them other than what has been obtained by torture, are set free? If they then go out and commit other crimes/acts of terrorism, then it would be on the heads of those who performed the torture and refused to use legitimate sources to make the case.

It goes back to the old saying, “better 100 guilty go free than one innocent go to jail.”

Obviously YMMV

Your group CCR is awesome taking on CACI and Blackwater in the courts,
Standing on mountain top cheering along with a symphony. Human rights and animal rights. Right on! We owe you.

And Christy;

Last but NOT least, thank YOU for this series. It is a ‘must-catch’ occassion, so far as I’m concerned.

;~D

Thanks to Vince and Steven for a wonderful opportunity today.

And thank you, Christy, for making it happen.

So they might as well save a lot of time and money by flipping a coin…
Heads, the Government wins…
Tails, the accused loses…

What have we become?

Bob in HI

Bob, some will claim we’ve become ‘more and better’, but ‘far less and much worse’ might be closer to the truth.

One wonders where ‘we’ will ‘be’ this time, next year?

But, actually, it just might take years to get any ‘recognition’ of ‘anything’.

The question is not simply,’what have we become’, but also. ‘where are we going’, ‘where do we think we’re going’ and the most critical of all, ‘who cares’?

But wouldn’t that be the true execution of justice? That those who were tortured and there is no evidence against them other than what has been obtained by torture, are set free? If they then go out and commit other crimes/acts of terrorism, then it would be on the heads of those who performed the torture and refused to use legitimate sources to make the case.

It goes back to the old saying, “better 100 guilty go free than one innocent go to jail.”

Yes, it would be, but if that is the conclusion then we should have the honesty to say so. It would also be at least in some cases a wildly unpopular and politically untenable position. KSM could be nailed on his statements before his capture but others of the 14 high value prisoners I am less sure about. Those who were captured on a battlefield probably could be tried under some authority. Those who were turned in for bounties almost certainly not.

New CHS