With liberty and justice for all.

Unlike Bush and Cheney, Obama does not need to break rules in order to feel like a man.

LHP, do we really want a “new and improved” military tribunal system? In your opinion, why is our current system of civilian and military courts (note, I am excluding BushCo’s military commission travesty from my use of the term military courts here) inadequate?

is it me, is it that we’ve seen so little done for so long, or is this adminsitration “gittin er done”?

man this looks like a whirlwind of movement

or is it just me?

we definately need a better tribunal system and no, all cases cannot be tried in normal court, though hard to believe there are some cases that have national security implications

I do not understand why Obama would not want to drop the tribunals in the trash. We have well-understood systems of military and civilian justice. The only reason the Bushies seemed to want the tribunals was so they could admit evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible, i.e., coerced by torture.

Digg is open

and Obama signs us back on to the Geneva Conventions and opts for humane interrogation on my tv right now. stunning.

Obama signing into law the closing of Guantamo. Then the ending of torture. One more to go. Wowee what a change.

I, for one, would still like to have Mr. Iglesias’ explanation of what he did during the time he knew of crimes being committed that he was asked to perpetrate by the government, and when he let everyone know? I would like to trust the man, but there is a gap in time that must be explained. That explanation has not come. Will it now?

So why can’t we use the military court system rather than inventing a third system? What are the limitations? My question is genuine, I’m not a lawyer and I really don’t know…

Badwater @ 2: it’s that simple and that powerful. so true. and it changes absolutely everything.

and Obama signs us back on to the Geneva Conventions and opts for humane interrogation on my tv right now. stunning.

stunning is right, I am pretty certain he understands the implications, to wit, article VI;

The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.

obama: ”we intend to win this fight. we are going to win it on our terms.”

I am not certain the military court system is secure for data or if it has contingencies based on sensitive data

if so, I agree

ps, ianal

OT Geitner confirmed by Finance Committee 18 -5

Thanks perris. Hopefully LHP will take a peek and respond later…

perris @ 13: yuppers. no choice. anything else is denial and obama doesn’t appear to do denial. at all.

obama’s approach will do more than anything else the US could do to take some of the air out of terrorism around the world. cheneyco has been pumping up the conflict all these years. these things actually HAVE to be done now: it’s the only positive move to make at this juncture in the fight.

i notice obama is not using ”war” in reference to ”terror.” exactly what i expected.

Iglesias has been on the job for a while according to TPM. He was appointed by Susan Crawford before Obama took office.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..lesias.php

Just for grins, in case anyone is unfamiliar with Spanish, Iglesias = Church(es). As he is a Christian Fundamentalist it is a fitting name.

Where is it stated “Obamas Administration” tapped Iglesias, as opposed to normal rotation of Reserve JAG types to active duty by the DoD? Give credit when due.

Cheneyco profitted billions of dollars and crashed the World Economy by turning up the heat.

i notice obama is not using ”war” in reference to ”terror.” exactly what i expected.

good spot on your part

“terror” can’t possibly be an enemy, it’s a tactic, you cannot have a war against a tactic

I hope there is a mechanism for federalizing his assets

I know there are some brilliant legal minds here at the lake so I’m curious what the options are for Gitmo detainees that can’t be tried in civilian courts.

My first thought was trying them in the International Criminal Court. But this is not my area of expertise, so maybe someone can explain why that’s not a good idea.

I’m heartened by Obama’s quick movement on this important issue, but I’m a little concerned about creating a new system to try some of these people. I’m confident the Obama administration will develop a system with adequate checks and balances, but it will be difficult to create a system that will be “perceived” to do that. And perception is very important.

I don’t see this as a good thing. I think any prosecutions of Guantanamo detainees should be done in the federal courts. I have nothing against Iglesias, even if he is a conservative, but I want the military commissions route closed.

“Iglesias told TPMmuckraker that he had responded to an email sent out by the Navy JAG corps, looking for prosecutors for the assignment. His application was eventually approved, he said, by that office and by the Office of Military Commissions, which is run by Susan Crawford — the retired general who last week told the Washington Post unequivocally that we tortured Mohammed al- Qahtani, a Gitmo detainee.

In other words, it appears that it was the uniformed military, rather than the civilian DOD, that brought Iglesias on board.”

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpoi…..ush_ad.php

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..lesias.php

The MSM dutifully diffused any impending backlash when it was revealed by Tom Ridge, that the Color-Coded-Terror- Alert Notifications were politically motivated and accordingly timed.

I believe he was fired, would have to be recommended to overcome that dismissal me thinks

alley cat, here is a pretty darned interesting snippet from your link;

the person who approved him for the position was Susan Crawford, who runs the Office of Military Commissions. That makes sense in terms of who in the system would make the choice. But Crawford, you’ll remember, is also the one who just unambiguously used the word ‘torture’ to describe at least some treatment of detainees in US custody.

The fact that Crawford only used that term (or allowed the words to be published) as Bush and Cheney were days from leaving office showed pretty clearly that people in the military bureaucracy were already starting to shift in expectation of the changing of the guard. And Iglesias’s appointment would seem to fall into the same category.

Yes, interesting indeed.

We never signed up with the ICC, so that won’t happen:

“As of November 2008, 108 states are members of the Court. A further 40 countries have signed but not ratified the Rome Statute. However, a number of states, including China, Russia, India and the United States, are critical of the Court and have not joined.” -wiki

I would ask why they can’t be tried in federal courts? The blind sheik and the bombers in the first attack on the World Trade Center were tried and convicted in federal courts. And much as the prosecutions in the Moussaoui and Padilla cases were bungled (both by the judge and prosecutors in the Moussaoui case, and by the judge in the Padilla case), trials were held and convictions obtained. As I have said before, these cases have shown A) that such cases can be tried in federal courts and B) the bar is very low for obtaining a conviction in a terrorist case. The federal courts have long dealt with classified matters and know how to segregate out tainted (obtained by torture) evidence. I see no reason why these cases can not be tried in federal courts. Given the repeated failures of the military commissions process, I see plenty of reasons not to pursue this route further.

We can haz Rule of Law? Yes, we can.

speaking of torture, our girl marcy is now a well known pundit!

At the Progressive Media Summit on Capitol Hill yesterday, Marcy Wheeler asked Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), the chairman of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, about congressional plans to continue investigating torture. “There needs to be, I believe, an accounting of torture in this country,” replied Levin. He then said that he had suggested to Attorney General-nominee Eric Holder that he appoint “an outside person who’s got real credibility” to continue to investigate:

That’s going to be the next thing we push Obama to do: Sign us up for the ICC.

we can haz cheney qualing in teh bootz?

yez we can indeedydoo

perris @ 4: it’s a brisk wind blowing through all our troubles!! go obama.

so much for ”obama’s hands will be tied.”

so much for ”obama will have to read all the files before he can decide what to do.”

so much for ”obama will {have to} water down his {rash} campaign promises when he gets to the oval office.”

so much for ”obama will have the shit scared out of him by the nsa’s daily briefings on the really bad people out there …”

so much.

go obama. god speed.

teh cheney. indeed. spit.

speaking of levin, this at think progress with video;

December 2008, Levin’s committee released the executive summary of an investigation into the Bush administration’s detainee policy, which concluded that top Bush administration officials “bore major responsibility for the abuses committed by American troops in interrogations.” Levin said yesterday that the full report would be released “in the next couple of weeks.”

thingz b happening right darned quick!

In the Blair hearings, they are all going off on the importance of punishing leakers. Of course, without whistleblowers we would never have heard anything about the illegal and unConstitutional wiretapping of American citizens.

Wyden then asks why information about such programs was withheld from committee members for years. Blair waffles and then kind of says he will keep members informed.

Thanks, LHP.

The endeavor to create a specialised court system, is for the allowance of testimony or confessions obtained through torture. Right Winger Susan Crawford has thrown down the gauntlet. She is not an Obama ally in this. Her last minute torture revelation serves to increase pressure on Obama.

Obama’s look forward not back rhetoric has served Bushco especially well in this case. It has facilitated Crawford’s wiley play here.

what the options are for Gitmo detainees that can’t be tried in civilian courts.

My question is why they cannot be tired in a federal court?
What makes they soooooo special that they cannot be tried in traditional and standard processes?
Federal courts have been trying cases with “secret” information for decades and it has not been an issue….. WHY?

tee hee

cheney is none too happy with bush, may the bus throwing begin;

Asked for his reaction to Bush’s decision Cheney said: “Scooter Libby is one of the most capable and honorable men I’ve ever known. He’s been an outstanding public servant throughout his career. He was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice, and I strongly believe that he deserved a presidential pardon. Obviously, I disagree with President Bush’s decision.”

i love the momentum that obama is clearly constructing. it’s going to be hard for people to keep up. there is going to be precious little time to construct false counter-arguments, let alone get them wallpapering the airwaves!

and with the way the media (well, cnn is what i watch, don’t have the others) craves ”breaking news” such that they make it up and have it breaking all day and night long, long after the story actually broke … obama is feeding them what they want!!!!!! continuously breaking news.

wow. wowee.

The White House site finally has up its first executive orders on records and ethics. The Gitmo EO has yet to appear.

perris @ 45: perhaps it was the only decision bush got to make on his own, on the way out the door. they will eat each other alive!!!!! and chew on rove during their coffee breaks.

Blair hearings: DiFi brings up intelligence contractors as we thought. 27% of all intelligence personnel are contractors. Decries use of contractors in interrogations.

Blair hearings: DiFi brings up intelligence contractors as we thought. 27% of all intelligence personnel are contractors. Decries use of contractors in interrogations.

I am pretty certain the “real” cia would have very little to do with torure, I am thinking if it’s cia involvement it would be these private contractors or team b

this is my hope

Rockefeller blathering about cyber-security. I do not expect him to bring up privacy issues. And he isn’t.

Cheney is lying. He actually prefers Libby the way he is now – a convicted felon. Libby can still plead the fifth. With Presidential pardon immunity, Libby could spill the beans on Cheney.

perris @ 50: so, if that’s what it is, it wouldn’t be very risky for obama to say ”we aren’t planning on prosecuting agents.” i hope you are right. it’s concerning that large groups in the cia and dod will have to be prosecuted to avoid allowing a defense of ”we were just following orders” to stand.

This situation is a bloody mess. Apparently we will end up with a multi tiered system of justice where some detainees won’t get tried at all, some will be sent “home” to be tried, some will get normal US trials and others will get a kind of trial yet to be invented.

It may be the best way to handle a sorry situation but it sure makes a mockery of “equal justice”.

It is now going on 7 years that the nation has been on threat level ORANGE….. which is one level below of RED which means that the world is spinning out of control… it has never dropped below Orange.

Air travelers are given their Proctology exam every time they go through security, legal Americans are refused access to flights because they got on some list without ANY way to have it removed. Yet anyone can ship cargo on an airliner and rarely does anyone look or validate the contents.

Thanks. I guess that takes Obama out of the picture in activating Iglesias and makes more sense.

cheney may be lying and may be pursuing his own campaign of misinformation, perhaps for Libby’s ear. how many friends have these fuckers got left?

hugh – from your question (previous thread) about army field manual and detainee abuse. i think this was brought up again a few minutes ago. here is relevant bit from my notes (i’m only catching parts of the hearing, so pls treat as v incomplete):

11:49am

q: on army field manual re detention and treatment detainees – training manual for our adversaries

a: want to revise army field manual and then make it uniformly used across agencies. will contain generic info. specific techniques that are permitted will be handled much more closely.

And that’s the way it is. Obsurd.

if cheney had a normal brain I would believe you but he is a moron…true

cheney believes he is still above the law, he believes he still has executive priviledge regarding libby regardless of libby’s standing in law

in addition, any judge can give libby immunity for the sake of testimony so that’s really not a stop gap

blair hearing: whitehouse following up on this issue of separate doc for specific tech of detainee treatment

Thanks, still a lot of wiggle room in this.

Rockefeller: “We are under attack.” There is a man who not only has drunk the koolaid he is positively drowining in it.

whitehouse explicitly asks if the separate more detailed docs on detainee treatment would be outside the bounds of army field manual. blair says no

Yet anyone can ship cargo on an airliner and rarely does anyone look or validate the contents.

instead of the assets needed to inspect cargo, bush figured he’d give the wealthiest people on the planet a 5000 dollar tax gift

true

The ongoing claim is that much of the information is classified. This information is now what seven years old. Why does its status as classified need to remain. If this info was deemed to be actionable why has that action not already taken place. It appears to me that what they are defining as classified is what the US has done.

Whitehouse too blathering about leaking. Whitehouse is a disappointment. What is Whitehouse’s view on whistleblowing? What about all the political leaking that goes on by Congress and the White House? If Whitehouse leaks something, can we prosecute him?

Cheney is lying. He actually prefers Libby the way he is now – a convicted felon. Libby can still plead the fifth. With Presidential pardon immunity, Libby could spill the beans on Cheney.

I tend to agree that Cheney is using a devise otherwise known as “reverse psychology” on us because he knows he’s better off with Libby in limbo. OTOH, just because Bush didn’t pardon him does not preclude Obama from pardoning Libby, which I would call “poetic justice.”

I msut post a snippet from that link, this was written in rolling stone before bush was [not] elected the second term, notice how on the money this writter has the moron we call darth;

Should George W. Bush win this election, it will give him the distinction of being the first occupant of the White House to have survived naming Dick Cheney to a post in his administration. The Cheney jinx first manifested itself at the presidential level back in 1969, when Richard Nixon appointed him to his first job in the executive branch. It surfaced again in 1975, when Gerald Ford made Cheney his chief of staff and then — with Cheney’s help — lost the 1976 election. George H.W. Bush, having named Cheney secretary of defense, was defeated for re-election in 1992. The ever-canny Ronald Reagan was the only Republican president since Eisenhower who managed to serve two full terms. He is also the only one not to have appointed Dick Cheney to office.
This pattern of misplaced confidence in Cheney, followed by disastrous results, runs throughout his life – from his days as a dropout at Yale to the geopolitical chaos he has helped create in Baghdad. Once you get to know his history, the cycle becomes clear: First, Cheney impresses someone rich or powerful, who causes unearned wealth and power to be conferred on him. Then, when things go wrong, he blames others and moves on to a new situation even more advantageous to himself.

“Cheney’s manner and authority of voice far outstrip his true abilities,”

Whitehouse too blathering about leaking. Whitehouse is a disappointment. What is Whitehouse’s view on whistleblowing?

man I hate that word, in many circles, (including my own) that is a perjuritive, it’s synonym is “rat fink”

I wish we changed the dialgue to “watch dog”

I tend to agree that Cheney is using a devise otherwise known as “reverse psychology” on us because he knows he’s better off with Libby in limbo. OTOH, just because Bush didn’t pardon him does not preclude Obama from pardoning Libby, which I would call “poetic justice.”

the judge can infer immunity don’t forget, there are so many methods around his supposed imunity that I do not believe for one minute that was a consideration for not pardoning him

Senator Tom Harkin on CSPAN taking about the Ledbetter fair pay act….. OMG is he really GREAT about unfair wages for women…… He has a straight forward answer to employers on how to stop their liability for unfair pay…… review pay for each employees and up the pay for each employee who is not receiving equal pay.

from blair hearing: whitehouse says good people caught up in detainee treatment procedures because they thought what they were doing was right. they deserve to have from their country good legal advice about what their liability is. for example they may want to avoid foreign travel. asks blair to see about getting access to this kind of legal advice for people.

I am glad that he was not pardoned. There needs to be punishment for acts that are made. Martha Stewart spent several months in prison for the same offense with fewer counts. There needs to be equality of justice.

Levin asking about the National Counterterrorism Center. Is it effective?

How would Blair know? Does Levin have a point?

Levin: Is waterboarding torture?

Blair: No waterboarding on my watch.

Levin: Let me repeat. Is waterboarding torture?

Blair: won’t answer, says he won’t reopen cases of anyone so involved.

Levin: This troubles me. (Troubles the hell out of me too.)

blair hearing:

levin asks if waterboarding is torture?

blair says there will be waterboarding on his watch, but won’t answer the question because he doesn’t want to put anyone in jeopardy.

cheney’s superiority is a figment of cheney’s imagination.

levin could have pushed that question (is waterboarding torture) a lot further but backed off. does he have a problem re conflict avoidance?

cheney’s superiority is a
figment fraction of cheney’s imagination.

fixed it

I think that Blair just blew any credibility he may have had. He can’t call waterboarding torture he has no business being DNI or even a dogcatcher. What an absolute weasel. His duty is to the Constitution, not protecting those who tortured. What part of this does he not understand? And that he does not understand clearly indicates he is unqualified for the job.

I hope he gets asked this again. He needs to be hammered on this and the whole concept of rule of law to which he said he would adhere.

OMG Hatch praising that idiot Hayden.

blair doesn’t want to indict cia agents during a hearing. whitehouse recommending legal advice for officers is big. all of this is heading to the logical conclusion that we want. it’s going to be sad though, because people depended on the false legal protections they were given.

@ 75 that should have been: no waterboarding on blair’s watch.

blair can’t even meet the holder standard on torture. what a sad statement that is on the state of our country.

must step away for a bit. glad i didn’t miss that last.

exactly. what does it mean for blair to say that he will follow the law but wants to look away when someone else breaks not just the law but some of our most important principles and constitutional guarantees?

when this debate about how the torturers were victims too is done and people are clear on what happened with the memos (even based on what we know now and we will know more) there will be no doubt cheneyco must be charged and tried. the ”few bad apples” meme is done.

This is Obama saying to the world and the DFHs, yes, I intend to follow the rule of law, whether it be federal or international. Yippee!

exactly. what does it mean for blair to say that he will follow the law but wants to look away when someone else breaks not just the law but some of our most important principles and constitutional guarantees?

Not to mention international treaties and our image of fairness and justice to the world.

people depended on the false legal protections they were given.

nobody in the cia did that’s for certain, they know the history of torture and war crimes and they know with no doubt orders are not orders when it comes to torture

they might make believe they counted on the orders but they will be acting the part because they know the history

Thank you! My instinct agrees that we need to find a way to get them in federal court. If they can’t be tried there, their detention is unconstitutional.

Maybe we’ll have to release some dangerous people who now have an even more legitimate reason to hate us, but sometimes doing the “right” thing is hard with some serious consequences. But that doesn’t justify doing the wrong thing.

ps

I believe yoo is culpable as well for submitting his clearly irresponsible opinion on the matter

I sure hope obama can get yoo disbarred for a start

perris @ 88: it’s becoming clear to me that this whole thing about ”good people being asked to do bad things” and oh dear we must be sympathetic is more a spin than a summary. we just need to get the facts and follow the law. thanks for engaging!

If you or I do something that is illegal and had been told it was legal by an attorney the reply usually is ignorance is no excuse. I don’t think that we can have one set of rules for us and another for govt. employees.

and i expect obama to blast this out of the water just like every other prescriptive spin that we’re having to put up with.

Jane’s upstairs..

foothillsmike @ 92: i completely agree. i see a realization of this tough reality we are facing beginning to take hold. it’s sad but it’s encouraging that we are struggling with this so soon.

That is it exactly. Blair is willing to protect torturers but wants to go after whistleblowers. Great priorities those. Whistleblowers have a legitimate defense that they expose wrongdoing. Torturers can’t hide behind the Jack Bauer defense that it was for a good cause.

i missed the whistleblowers part – that makes blair’s response re torture much worse than even what i was thinking. he is advocating ignoring law breaking and worse (violations of human rights, constitutional protections) and wants to punish those people who speak up where he wants to look away.

awful.

Totally agree. Wasnt the whole point to end the tiered system of justice, not to make injustice more palatable with technical adjustments. If thats even possible.

Aim higher people!

Nobody mentioned whistleblowers. It was all couched in the language of leaks. And that was important. No distinction was made between whistleblowing and other forms of leaking. This is especially hypocritical because most leaks come from the Congress or the Executive and are deliberate.

I often wonder does the intelligence committee attract people who are paranoid or do they become so after joining. I am thinking of Whitehouse in particular here but look at the types like Rockefeller. I can see him carrying an umbrella everywhere he goes just in case the sky starts falling.

Our current system of JAG courts is to try our own military personael. There haave been military tribunals used to try forgeign enemy combatants since at least WWII.

There is nothing wrong with it conceptually–as long as there is meaningful due process protections.

Unlike the kangaroo courts set up by Shrub. I’m not hoping for modest improvements here, I hoping for vast improvement in the military tribunals

The US didn’t sign the treaty for the international criminal court. We are not memebers, so I don’t think we have standing to try them there.

But I’m not 100% sure on the standing issue

JAG courts can work for our military personal because there is motivation by most involved to make it fair. but that is not the case with a separate system set up for foreigners especially when for years there has been statement after statement that they are the worst of the worst.

the only thing to do now is to use federal courts and make the process as open as possible. anything else will most likely devolve back into a kind of faux justice. now is the time for us to do our very best by the principles we claim to have. no second measures. we’re out of excuses now.

Thanks LHP — I really appreciate your response. You make an important distinction that military tribunals are not a problem in principle, provided due process is incorporated in practice. Thanks for the clarification!

Our current system of JAG courts is to try our own military personael. There haave been military tribunals used to try forgeign enemy combatants since at least WWII.

There is nothing wrong with it conceptually–as long as there is meaningful due process protections.

Unlike the kangaroo courts set up by Shrub. I’m not hoping for modest improvements here, I hoping for vast improvement in the military tribunals

OTOH, I would like to see the courts actually have some power. Willet Sabin said that his client, a Uighur named Adel, was found not guilty of anything, yet after his innocence was affirmed, they took him straight back to his cell and chained him to the floor like some animal. All of this was the result of us paying some Pakistani a bounty of $5K for Adel. This is the crap that needs to stop, and we also should at the very least now allow the Uighurs to correspond with their families and ultimately be reunited with them.

on CNN: packistani gitmo detainee picked up in indonesia who was tortured and released without charge who tried to kill himself at gitmo who has permanent physical damage suing US government for justice.

very sympathetic story. interesting. where are the very bad people?

I think, but don’t actually know that part of the issue is HUM INT sources in the affected regions.

That the US may have what in civilian courts we call “confidential informatnts” that they don’t want exposed because we need spies on the ground looking for Al Q.

That’s my guess

The whole Uighar thing seems bizzare to me. From begining to end, non of it makesany sense to me

There needs to be punishment for acts that are made. Martha Stewart spent several months in prison for the same offense with fewer counts. There needs to be equality of justice.

It wasn’t precisely the same offense. She did lie to an investigator, but she was not in front of a grand jury and she was not under oath and (IIRC) she claimed she didn’t know it was illegal to lie when you weren’t under oath. In fact it was a relatively new law and she received quite a lot of sympathy from friends and lawyers because of that.

Nevertheless, she spent time in jail in West Virginia and came to realize the superiority of cheap fast food served from machines. See, there’s a silver lining.

What might be commonly known was that she was a Dem giving money to campaigns and Bushies probably wanted to stop her, especially after she’d made a billion in the market.