Even as a desperate hunger strike by detainees at Guantanamo prison camp continues, with dozens in medical peril, preferring death to the lawless existence of indefinite detention and ongoing planned (or some might say, capricious) abuse, human rights and civil liberties activists often point to the Article II courts as an alternative in the prosecution of “war on terror” crimes. But an examination of actual cases prosecuted in the criminal courts shows that use of accepted rules and appeal procedures merely produce their own version of unfairness and arbitrary injustice.
|By: Jeff Kaye Saturday April 13, 2013 4:00 pm|
|By: DSWright Thursday March 14, 2013 5:56 am|
As the Obama Administration continues to expand the policies of the Bush Administration the newest theater of the War on Terror is your checking account.
|By: Norman Solomon Wednesday February 20, 2013 10:00 am|
Rep. Barbara Lee has introduced H.R. 198, a measure to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Opposed to repeal, the Obama administration is pleased to keep claiming that the 137-month-old resolution justifies everything from on-the-ground troops in combat to drone strikes and kill lists to flagrant abrogation of civil liberties.
|By: Tom Engelhardt Monday February 18, 2013 6:30 pm|
There was a scarcely noted but classic moment in the Senate hearings on the nomination of John Brennan, the president’s counterterrorism “tsar,” to become the next CIA director. When Senator Carl Levin pressed him repeatedly on whether waterboarding was torture, he ended his reply this way: “I have a personal opinion that waterboarding is reprehensible and should not be done. And again, I am not a lawyer, senator, and I can’t address that question.”
How modern, how twenty-first-century American!
|By: Shahid Buttar Saturday November 10, 2012 6:00 pm|
President Obama’s reelection has sparked an onslaught of analysis attempting to define the agenda for his second term. Will it reflect the vision of restoring liberty and security on which the president ran in 2008, or the disappointing passivity towards the national security state that characterized his first term?
More to the point, will President Obama’s legacy include emerging American authoritarianism, or instead the recovery of constitutional freedoms lost over the past decade?
|By: David Dayen Friday October 26, 2012 4:08 pm|
The United Nations special rapporteur for counterterrorism will lead an inquiry into civilian deaths from US drone strikes around the world, to determine whether the strikes violate international human rights and humanitarian laws.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday October 24, 2012 1:00 pm|
Greg Miller will shine a lighton the new American way of war for the next three days, with a multi-part series in the Washington Post on the kill list, the way in which terrorist suspects are selected for death from above by Predator drones. The goal here appears to be to codify the techniques into executive branch practice, for turnkey use by any current or future Administration.
|By: Center for Constitutional Rights Wednesday October 24, 2012 5:45 am|
When you see politicians on television cheering each other on about the use of drones, it is all made to seem so abstract and clean. The reality is quite a different story and raises some fundamental questions that are being glossed over: Is it lawful or wise for the Executive to be sending missiles and drones into other countries, outside of places where the U.S. is engaged in active combat, to kill people, including American citizens, that it suspects of involvement in terrorism? Haven’t we seen unchecked power lead to enormous life and death mistakes over the past decade? And doesn’t this set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world?
|By: Peterr Saturday October 13, 2012 9:00 am|
Religiously speaking, the answers given at the VP debate by Paul Ryan and Joe Biden to the question of how their personal faith relates to their work as politicians were striking. The difference between the two candidates — and the parties and platforms they stand for — could not have been starker. Ryan spoke with absolute certainty that he/his party/his church are absolutely correct when it comes to banning abortion, while Biden expressed both his own personal beliefs alongside respect for those who hold other views and the concomitant right to act on their religious views.
But while abortion was the specific example Martha Raddatz used to frame her question, it is hardly the only one. The editors of the Jesuit magazine “America” pose another very good question themselves, that deserves an answer from both Obama and Romney. If no one brings it up at the town hall-style debate next week, I’d love to see Bob Schieffer ask it at the foreign policy debate that follows.
|By: David Dayen Wednesday October 3, 2012 12:35 pm|
Tonight’s debate is supposed to be focused mainly on the economy, but the Romney campaign has worked hard to get the Benghazi consulate attack into the conversation. And given the shifting story from the White House and the potential implications, that might be a good idea.