Supreme Court Slaps Bush, Congress on Habeas Corpus

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional the provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that suspended the use of habeas corpus by detainees in Bush's "war on terror." The MCA was pushed by Bush, and overwhelmingly approved by Congress, including both supposed anti-torture politician John McCain and many Democrats.

From Justice Kennedy's majority opinion:

Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and to interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom’s first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers. It is from these principles that the judicial authority to consider petitions for habeas corpus relief derives....

The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law....

Congress has enacted a statute, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), 119 Stat. 2739, that provides certain procedures for review of the detainees’ status. We hold that those procedures are not an adequate and effective substitute for habeas corpus. Therefore §7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), 28 U. S. C. A. §2241(e) (Supp. 2007), operates as an unconstitutional suspension of the writ. [Thanks to Phil at Daily Kos for the quotes]

The decision was a defeat for the attack on civil liberties championed by the Bush administration, which has led to years of indefinite detention and torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and other prisons in the U.S. gulag established in the wake of 9/11 and Bush's invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. While championed by Bush, Cheney, et al., this tyrannical program of rights suspension and abuse has been backed by the Democratic Party, or at least a significant section of the party, which voted for MCA, the Patriot Act, and other anti-democratic legislation, and has also failed to hold the Bush Administration to account for any of their crimes.

The latest example of the failure of the Democratic Party leadership was the shameful suppression of Congressman Dennis Kucinich's resolution to impeach George W. Bush. Despite a throrough vetting of the crimes of the Bush administration in a speech that lasted over four hours on the House floor, the Democrats voted practically unanimously to send the bill to an ignominious fate: a referral to committee, where the bill could languish unheard and ignored for eternity, if need be. Democratic Party chair Howard Dean explained, "The American people sent us there [to Congress] to get things done... They didn't send us there to impeach the President." The failure to get anything of note done in this current Congress belies Dean's statement, and stands as mute testimony to the impotence of the mainstream Democratic Party's opposition policies.

To remind us of the Democrats role in the habeas controversy, let's refer back to an excellent article Glenn Greenwald wrote in May 2007:

It is worthwhile to review briefly the history of how this legislative atrocity came to be. When the White House proposed this bill, Democrats were as meek and as silent as could be. They literally disappeared from the debate, allowing the illusion of "negotiations" between the White House on the one hand, and a handful of allegedly principled and independent Republican Senators (McCain, Warner and Graham) on the other.

When -- as was both painfully predictable and predicted -- those Republican Senators capitulated almost in full to the White House, "winning" only the most meaninglessly symbolic linguistic changes to the bill while acquiescing to its most Draconian provisions, the fate of the bill was sealed because Democrats had ceded their authority to those "rebel" GOP Senators....

It is true that most Democrats in both the House and Senate ultimately voted against this law (though 12 Democratic Senators out of 44 voted in favor). But even among the Senate Democrats who did vote against its enactment, many of them did not even reveal how they would vote until -- literally -- the very day before the vote occurred, and many such Democratic Senators announced their opposition only once it became clear that it would pass....

Far worse, many Democrats -- led by Harry Reid (who at the last minute announced his opposition) -- even spoke favorably of the MCA in the days immediately preceding the vote.

In all the disgust and even hatred that Bush's bellicose and autocratic and illegal policies have engendered, it becomes easy to forget that the Democrats acted way too often as a handmaiden to Bush, beginning with the Patriot Act, and further to the Iraq War. Even today, the supplemental funding bills for the continuation of U.S. military adventures and occupation policies in Iraq and Afghanistan are seen by the Democrats as opportunities to bargain for concessions on other issues, e.g., unemployment insurance, rather than as opportunities to secure principled opposition to a failed war policy. Along these lines, Speaker Pelosi now promises she'll deliver Bush's $170 billion war funding bill by July 4 (how patriotic of her).

The euphoria in certain circles over Obama's candidacy masks some very important political realities that cannot be ignored. The recent Supreme Court decision in the consolidated cases of Boumediene v. Bush and Al-Odah v. Bush is very welcome news. But in very important ways, it also points out how very, very far off the track politics in America has gone.

Chris Floyd's Obama Critique

I think Chris's article poses some starkly difficult questions for those who support Barack Obama for president. If nothing else, it places his candidacy securely in the realm of the non-revolutionary and the status quo, at least when it comes to the foreign policy of Bush/Cheney and their gang.

I'm not "writing Obama off" -- whatever that means. I'm just looking at what he is actually saying, his actual positions, and what he has actually done -- and not done -- in the U.S. Senate. In the previous post, I noted a long list of actions -- both substantive and symbolic -- that Obama could have already taken from his position of national power, then I concluded: "But he did not do so; he is not doing so now; and there is no reason to believe that he will do so in the future, despite the eloquent lip service he occasionally pays to one or two of these points."

Of course, I can't predict the future. Anything is possible, and perhaps Obama will astound us all with a new American revolution that will restore the Republic and dismantle the vast military empire America has built over many decades. Perhaps he will declare an end to the "War on Terror" -- the use of massive, nation-breaking military force, state terror, torture, rendition, secret prisons, concentration camps, and Constitution-stripping tyranny -- to deal with isolated groups of extremists that pose no existential threat to the United States. Perhaps he will establish a "Truth Commission" to investigate and prosecute the many high crimes of the Bush Administration. Perhaps he will change his position on Iraq, and call for a genuine withdrawal of all American forces there. Perhaps he will change his bellicose position on Iran, which he enunciated so forcefully to AIPAC recently. Perhaps he will forthrightly condemn the American-backed "regime change" invasion of Somalia, which has created the worst humanitarian disaster in the world (outside of Asia's recent natural disasters). Perhaps instead of stoking fears about the non-existent "Social Security crisis" -- and attending to the many Wall Street bankers and elitist lobbyists on his team -- he will call for the repeal of the draconian Bankruptcy Bill, he will shift billions of dollars from the Pentagon to the rebuilding of New Orleans and the restoration of the thousands upon thousands of refugees to their homes. Perhaps he will do all these things, and more -- even though he has not given the slightest indication whatsoever that this is what he would do in office.

Rather, in many cases, the opposite is true. He says he will do "everything, and I mean everything" to stop Iran from getting a single nuclear bomb like the thousands in the American arsenal and the hundreds in Israel's arsenal. He will take "no options" off the table in this feverish quest, including, one can only assume, the Hillary-like "obliteration" of Iran and its 70 million people. He has pledged to enlarge the American military machine, already gorged to monstrous, unmanageable size by blood and corruption. This in turn will guarantee the continued militarization of the American economy and our foreign policy, geared toward the continual fomenting of "war and rumors of war" to justify the all-devouring machine. He pledges to continue the "War on Terror," but to do it "better, smarter," and perhaps even expanding it into Pakistan. He pledges to leave behind an unspecified number of American troops in Iraq "and the region" -- forces that will continue to launch attacks in that broken land, sowing more hatred, more blowback for America.

These are simply facts, drawn from Obama's own speeches and position papers. What sort of "perspective" should we take toward these facts? Should we squint real hard and pretend they're not there?

....There is always hope of America becoming better, there is always hope for positive change. But that hope does not reside -- and has never resided -- in a single politician, or party, or faction. It resides in every individual citizen: in what they think and believe, in what they will accept and countenance, in what they will not stand for, in what they will work for. Hope resides in the amount of knowledge and truth and insight that we can all produce and disseminate and act upon. And hope depends on our ability -- and our willingness -- to confront reality as it is, to deal with our leaders and would-be leaders as they are, not as we wish them to be. For how can you change anything if you cannot see it clearly?

My pro-Obama friends will shake their heads, but the whole piece is worth reading. We better know what's going on, because it's coming right at us.

Did Bush Direct Destruction of Evidence in Gitmo Torture Cases?

Yesterday, via ABC News report on an AP story:

The Pentagon urged interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to destroy handwritten notes in case they were called to testify about potentially harsh treatment of detainees, a military defense lawyer said Sunday.

The lawyer for Toronto-born Omar Khadr, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, said the instructions were included in an operations manual shown to him by prosecutors and suggest the U.S. deliberately thwarted evidence that could help terror suspects defend themselves at trial.

According to a UK Guardian story today, the Pentagon is making the trying of Guantanamo prisoners in Bush's controversial military tribunals a "number one priority," assigning more military lawyers to both prosecution and defense. The tribunals have been criticized by human rights groups as denying due process rights to the accused, and for allowing the presentation of "evidence" gained via torture. This latest news seems likely to gum up their precious show trial scenario.

The story continues, via Canada.com (bold emphasis added):

"By destroying handwritten notes containing 'interrogation information' and preserving only the sanitized summaries, interrogators effectively destroyed evidence of illegal treatment of detainees -- as well as evidence that could be used to contradict the statements recorded in the summaries," Kuebler said in a statement.

At hearings in Guantanamo, prosecutors have responded to Kuebler's requests for the handwritten interrogation notes by saying most appeared to have been lost or mislaid. But the SOP directive appears to suggest that those that existed were destroyed to minimize the chance interrogators ever have to explain how they extracted information....

According to Kuebler's notes, the directive says: "Once . . . created, handwritten interrogator notes may be destroyed. This mission has legal and political issues that may lead to interrogators being called to testify, keeping the number of documents with interrogation information to a minimum can minimize certain legal issues."

Kuebler has charged that destruction of the interrogation notes is a "violation of (U.S.) federal and military law." The SOP directive was included in a Pentagon operations manual that was attached to the Pentagon's Schmidt-Furlow report, which was one of a series of military investigations, mostly whitewashes, into detainee abuse. The operations manual addendum to the report was not released at the time the Schmidt-Furlow report was made public.

Tester over at TPM Cafe makes the following important points:

A. The President was informed of Prisoner abuse, but nothing was done;

B. There was a DoD policy connected with the President that ordered the destruction of evidence

As breaking news has Congressman Dennis Kucinich introducing articles of impeachment on the floor of the House of Representatives, even as I write this, the question becomes: who ordered the destruction of evidence in criminal investigations? who ordered destruction of evidence of crimes committed, such as torture? Is this not part and parcel of a long string of illegal and unconstitutional activities by the executive branch of the government, led by one George W. Bush?

I'm positive we will be hearing more about this in the days to come.

"Settlement" in CSU Loyalty Oath Case

A press release by People for the American Way has announced a settlement to the dispute wherein Quaker teacher Wendy Gonaver was fired by California State University, Northridge, for refusing to sign a state-required loyalty oath. A representative for CSU is listed as a co-contact on the press release.

Ms. Gonaver cited her religious convictions as reason to withhold signature to the oath, which is a throwback to McCarthyite repressive legislation aimed against Communists and other anti-government activists during the Cold War.

The PFAW/CSU statment says:

CSU has agreed to appoint Gonaver as a temporary lecturer teaching two classes in American Studies and Women's Studies during the fall 2008 semester, and to allow the attachment of a revised explanatory statement to the oath that CSU agrees does not undermine or qualify the oath.

"CSU is committed to working with individual employees to accommodate their religious beliefs in order to allow them to sign the oath," said CSU General Counsel Christine Helwick. "If an explanatory statement is needed to accomplish this, CSU must ensure that any such statement does not undermine or qualify the oath.

The spokesperson for PFAW believes the settlement clears the way "for others with religious or other objections to the oath to attach an explanatory statement, as long as the statement does not undermine or qualify the oath."

It is touching that everyone is so concerned about undermining or qualifying the oath. The PFAW-brokered deal in the Gonaver case is a classic liberal capitulation via an attempted runaround of an antidemocratic government measure. While I am glad that Ms. Gonaver will be able to exercise her livelihood without worrying about her religious convictions disqualifying her employment, the loyalty law remains on the books. Who knows who will be victimized next?

As I wrote in my original article on the subject last month:

... it strikes me that the proper stance to take is to demand an end to all loyalty oaths. They are not meant to really stop saboteurs, terrorists, communists, or anyone else who would really wish to powerfully oppose this country -- what person so inclined would feel any compunction about lying on such an oath anyway? Loyalty oaths are meant to police and frighten the population. They are against everything this country was founded upon. They should be banned.

Fourth Circuit Alibis Torture Confession in Abu Ali Case

Also posted at The Public Record

Last Friday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, long considered one of the most conservative courts in the the nation, rejected the appeal of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was sentenced in 2005 for conspiracy to assassinate President Bush and make other terror attacks upon U.S. targets on behalf of Al Qaeda. Abu Ali, who is a U.S. citizen and the son of naturalized Jordanian parents, was arrested in June 2003 in Saudi Arabia and held there until the U.S. requested his extradition almost two years later. He was 23 years old and attending a Saudi university at the time of his arrest.

During his incarceration, the Saudis refused his repeated requests to see an attorney. At no time has Abu Ali ever been linked to an actual terrorist event or action. In 2003, the government secretly broke into his parents' home, utilizing provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act that allows warrantless search and seizure to go fishing for evidence of Abu Ali's "dangerousness."

Human rights groups such as Amnesty International and the ACLU have publicized the Abu Ali case, particularly as it highlighted the admissibility of coerced confessions in the trial of individual prosecuted in the government's so-called "war on terror". The controversy over admitting evidence obtained via torture, whether by domestic police or intelligence agencies, or by foreign governments, has roiled the government campaign to try high-profile prisoners held by the U.S. at in military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Use of torture evidence lead to the resignation of government prosecutors in protest, and testimony last month from the former chief prosecutor of the tribunals that "higher-ranking officers exerted illegal influence over the process, pushing prosecutors to use coerced evidence."

A Dangerous Precedent

A statement by Amnesty International in March 2006 described the salient issue in the Abu Ali case:

Amnesty International remains seriously concerned that the trial of Ahmed Abu Ali was flawed as the jury was not allowed to hear evidence supporting his claim that he was tortured into confessing while he was held for one and a half years without charge or trial in Saudi Arabia. Amnesty International is seriously concerned that the case may have set a worrying precedent on the admissibility of torture evidence in US courts. Amnesty International urges that, if appealed, the courts will address this issue.

Now that the case has been appealed, and a decision rendered, we will see how the courts chose to "address this issue." But first, let's consider what occurred at the initial Abu Ali trial. Again, from Amnesty International:

Judge Gerald Bruce Lee ruled that only evidence that related directly to Ahmed Abu Ali's interrogation would be admissible, thus denying the defence the opportunity to present relevant contextual evidence. Judge Lee had ruled during pre-trial proceedings that the US government had shown by a "preponderance of evidence" that the statements made by Ahmed Abu Ali in Saudi Arabia were "voluntary", and that his incriminating statements were admissible at trial. During the trial, general statements from Saudi Arabian officials were used to undermine Ahmed Abu Ali's allegations whilst his defence lawyers were not allowed to present any evidence pertaining to Saudi Arabia's human rights record on torture....

Amnesty International is seriously concerned that the trial of Ahmed Abu Ali may have set a precedent in US courts of according unqualified support to the declarations of a foreign government regarding its human rights record as a means of rendering evidence admissible, including statements obtained by torture and ill-treatment.

What was the evidence that Ali's lawyers sought to present? It included documentation of Saudi human rights violations and use of torture, and the psychiatric evaluations done on Mr. Abu Ali himself, which supported the contention that his mental and emotional state was consistent to someone who had been tortured as he alleged. According to an ACLU document, Abu Ali was held in solitary confinement. "During the first three days of interrogation, he was punched, kicked in the stomach, struck with a hard object more than ten times, whipped while he was chained to the floor, and threatened with amputation or beheading." He did not see a U.S. embassy official for his first month of captivity. His "confession" came about three weeks later.

As for evidence of Saudi Arabian use of torture to obtain confessions, the court could have used documentation from the U.S. State Department Report on Saudi Arabia human rights practices released in March 2002, just one year prior to Abu Ali's arrest.

Shar'ia (Islamic law) prohibits any judge from accepting a confession obtained under duress; however, there were credible reports that the authorities abused detainees, both citizens and foreigners. Ministry of Interior officials are responsible for most incidents of abuse of prisoners, including beatings, whippings, sleep deprivation, and at least three cases of drugging of foreign prisoners. In addition there were allegations of torture, including allegations of beatings with sticks, suspension from bars by handcuffs, and threats against family members. Torture and abuse are used to obtain required confessions from prisoners (see Section 1.e.). There were reports that in detention centers some boys and young men were flogged, forced constantly to lie on hard floors, deprived of sleep, and threatened with whipping and other abuse.

The government report also notes that Saudi Arabia "has refused to recognize the mandate of the U.N. Committee Against Torture to investigate alleged abuses". Furthermore, the Saudis do not allow international observers to investigate complaints of torture. Interestingly, even in the Abu Ali case, FBI agents were not allowed to see or interview the prisoner while he was held in Saudi custody. (The FBI ultimately submitted a list of nine questions they wanted the Saudis to ask.)

Implausibility and Credibility Turned Upside Down

The unanimous decision by the Fourth Circuit to uphold the Abu Ali conviction (there was one dissent over the question of resentencing guidelines) rubber-stamps the decision by the trial court to suppress evidence that Abu Ali's confession was elicted under torture. This is their reasoning (from Friday's ruling -- I quote extensively, as it is a remarkable document, with emphases in bold my own editorial emendation):

Initially, the court properly recognized that "torture, and evidence obtained thereby, have no place in the American system of justice." Abu Ali, 395 F. Supp. 2d at 380. But, based on its evaluations of "the credibility of the witnesses," and "the quality of the evidence presented," id. at 374, the district court found itself "left with lingering questions concerning the credibility of Mr. Abu Ali and his claim that he was tortured," id. at 378. The court credited the testimony of the Saudi Arresting Officer and the Lieutenant Colonel (the Warden at the Medina detention facility where Abu Ali was held for two days following his arrest) that no Saudi official used coercive interrogation techniques on Abu Ali. The court found that the Lieutenant Colonel’s testimony that Abu Ali was never abused was believable while Abu Ali’s contrary testimony "raise[d] questions that bear on the defendant’s credibility." Id. at 373.

In addition, the court relied on the testimony of two other Saudi officials, the Brigadier General and the Captain, that the interrogation of Abu Ali in Riyadh "was conducted in the absence of threats or torture." Id. at 373. The court found "implausible" Abu Ali’s "claim about having been whipped" during the early period of his detention because several Saudi and American witnesses who observed him during this period reported behavior "that do[es] not coincide with how a recently beaten person would behave." Id. at 374. Moreover, the court found that "[s]ome aspects" of Abu Ali’s testimony "just do not flow logically," id. at 378, and observed that "during his testimony, there were times where Mr. Abu Ali seemed to deflect the question," id. Finally, the court considered, but found deficiencies in, the testimony of Abu Ali’s medical experts who supported his torture claim, crediting instead the testimony of the government’s experts that Abu Ali showed no physical or psychological signs of mistreatment.

The district court largely rested its legal conclusion that Abu Ali’s statements were voluntary on its factual findings concerning his claims of torture and abuse. Our thorough review of the record provides no basis for finding clear error in any of those findings. This, however, does not end our inquiry. We must evaluate the voluntariness of Abu Ali’s confessions de novo, looking to the totality of the circumstances to determine whether his will was "overborne." See Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 225.

In making this evaluation, we consider that Abu Ali was not provided the legal protections — including prompt presentment and Miranda warnings — that the Constitution requires be provided to suspects by United States law enforcement officers. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation with its own legal system, and the failure to provide Abu Ali these protections does not, in and of itself, require exclusion of the statements Abu Ali made in Saudi custody. At the same time, we do consider the absence of these protections as one factor in the totality of circumstances in evaluating whether Abu Ali made his statements voluntarily....

In addition, the district court rejected Abu Ali’s testimony that the Saudis subjected him to coercive conditions of confinement. Instead, the court found believable the testimony of Saudi officers that they confined Abu Ali under reasonable conditions, including provision of three meals a day, and a cell with a bed, blanket and pillow. The court further found believable Saudi testimony that Saudi authorities did not question Abu Ali during his initial detention in Medina, and noted that Abu Ali’s own description of the Riyadh interrogation suggested that he was not questioned in Medina....

After consideration of all of the evidence and the extensive factual findings made by the district court, we conclude that Abu Ali’s statements were voluntary. Abu Ali was intelligent, articulate, and comfortable with the language and culture of the country in which he was detained and questioned. The district court found, based upon copious record evidence, that he was not tortured, abused, threatened, held in cruel conditions, or subjected to coercive interrogations. On the basis of the totality of these circumstances, we conclude that Abu Ali’s statements were "the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice." Culombe, 367 U.S. at 602.

In summation, both the initial trial court and the Federal appeals court chose to believe the stories of the corrupt Saudi high police officialdom, and suppressed any evidence to the contrary. The professional observations and conclusions of medical and psychiatric personnel were ignored while "'Abu Ali’s "claim about having been whipped' during the early period of his detention" is rendered "implausible" because unidentified Saudi and American "witnesses" to the early period of his incarceration thought his behavior inconsistent "'with how a recently beaten person would behave.'" This is truly remarkable. Who were these Saudi and American witnesses? I thought that no American saw Abu Ali in the early days of his arrest. Beyond that, by what criteria were these "witnesses" able to judge how a beaten individual should act? We aren't told, nor are we expected to ask.

Rubber Stamp Court for Bush's Reign of Terror

The Fourth Circuit's decision in the Abu Ali case is a travesty of justice. It positions acceptance of coerced confessions as one of the centerpieces of Bush's planned prosecutions of "terror" suspects in his star chamber military tribunals. For a moment last summer, it looked as if even the arch-conservative Fourth Circuit wouldn't countenance Bush's imperial presidential dragnet. Writing in a decision regarding another U.S. citizen marked as an "enemy combatant," Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, the same court wrote:

The government cannot subject al-Marri to indefinite military detention. For in the United States, the military cannot seize and imprison civilians -- let alone imprison them indefinitely.

But that was a year ago, and politics never does stand still. The judges reconsidering the Abu Ali case found no problem in ignoring a defendant's Miranda rights (which was another aspect of Abu Ali's appeal), or choosing to believe foreign torturers over examination of medical personnel, or even the studied opinions of the United States' own State Department. (The appeals court's refusal to consider the lack of Miranda and other legal rights as bearing upon the voluntariness of a confession is a further outrage that deserves its own full discussion.)

These judges also ignored obvious precedent. They never referred to United States v. Hall (1996), wherein the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a kidnapping conviction when expert testimony relating to police interviews of the defendant were excluded.

The court noted that:

[O]nce the trial judge decided that Hall's confession was voluntary, the jury was entitled "to hear the relevant evidence on the issue of voluntariness and [the trial judge was to] instruct the jury to give such weight to the confession as the jury feels it deserves under all the circumstances" (p.1344).

Yet, the judge in the Abu Ali trial disallowed psychiatric reports and government documentation of Saudi torture, and the high judges of the Fourth Circuit upheld this suppression of evidence. the Bush Administration and its military and CIA backers were handed a judicial victory in their war against the Constitution and equal justice under the law. As one of Abu Ali's own attorneys, Elaine Cassell, summarized the situation after the initial trial judgment, the Abu Ali case means:

The U.S. can work with a foreign government to arrest and imprison a U.S. citizen and torture him. It can allow the imprisonment to go on indefinitely....

Then, if the U.S. (or allied country) citizen confesses under torture -- and virtually everyone does, even if the confession is a lie -- the U.S. may try to use the confession against him in a U.S. court, as well in a foreign court.

The Abu Ali decision represents an ominous development in the government's attack on civil liberties, and a blow against those who struggle to end the hideous governmental practice of torture. I fear the decision will be felt from the kangaroo courts of Guantanamo to the asylum hearings of the INS, where applicants from countries across the globe -- many of them tortured by allied U.S. governments such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Uzbekistan, and others -- seek safety and legal residency, often utilizing psychological evaluations as their only evidence of the torture they endured abroad.

Meanwhile, the decision has barely made a stir in the mainstream press or the so-called blogosphere, where the agony and ecstasy of discussing electoral politics mask the reality of state policies and oppressive actions that day in and day out act as a heavy yoke upon the shoulders of a desperate humanity.

"For What It's Worth" Department...

After five years of investigations the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on the use and misuse of "intelligence" in the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and we have this in the New York Times: Bush Overstated Evidence on Iraq, Senators Report:

The 170-page report accuses Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other top officials of repeatedly overstating the Iraqi threat in the emotional aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Its findings were endorsed by all eight committee Democrats and two Republicans, Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

In a statement accompanying the report, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the intelligence panel, said, “The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.”

Hmmm... You'd think they'd have heard of this before. Meanwhile, the Times can't resist a memory trip down Double Talk Lane (bold emphases added, just to make your head spin):

The report on the prewar statements found that on some important issues, most notably on what was believed to be Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons programs, the public statements from Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney and other senior officials were generally “substantiated” by the best estimates at the time from American intelligence agencies. But it found that the administration officials’ statements usually did not reflect the intelligence agencies’ uncertainties about the evidence or the disputes among them.

"Substantiated" public statements that were "overstating the Iraqi threat", not reflecting intelligence agencies' "uncertainties".... I suggest someone send an ambulance over to the Times Building, as someone's head must have exploded writing or editing such unabashed garbage.

While the report, long-delayed for public release, represents another limited hang-out of criminal operations by the United States government around their Iraq operation, perhaps of more significance in its release is some new information about a "rogue intelligence operation" run by then Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley, and Paul D. Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary to Donald Rumsfeld at the time of the Iraq invasion. The significance of this new revelation lies in the rumors swirling around a possible military attack by the United States and/or Israel against Iran, in addition to Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama's statement the other day that he would "everything in my power -- everything" to prevent Iran from trying to gain nuclear weapons (which, by the way, they claim they are not, and for which there is no evidence that they are, per a recent National Intelligence Estimate) (bold emphasis added).

In a separate report released Wednesday, the intelligence committee provided new details about a series of clandestine meetings in Rome and Paris between Pentagon officials and Iranian dissidents in 2001 and 2003. The meetings included discussions about possible covert actions to destabilize the government in Tehran, and were used by the Pentagon officials to glean information about rivalries in Iran and what was thought to be an Iranian “hit” team intending to attack American troops in Afghanistan, the report said.

The nomination of Obama for Democratic Party presidential candidate does represent a milestone in U.S. race relations, and has raised the hopes of millions that true change in America is possible. But thus far it has not changed the calculus of U.S. foreign policy, nor the constitution of the military-industrial complex. In fact, Obama's recent characterization of the Iranian National Guard Quds force, in a speech yesterday to the American-Israeli Public Affairs Council, as "rightly... labeled a terrorist organization", seems to represent a turn-around for the Senator, who specifically opposed such sabre-rattling language when he opposed the Lieberman-Kyl amendment last year. Such political turnabouts are not without significance.

Of course, Obama is not in power yet (presuming he can defeat the sclerotic and Bush-craven GOP candidate John "Uriah Heep" McCain). But besides promising a slow retreat from Iraq and a promise to better utilize diplomacy, it's not clear that Obama differs in any strategic way from general U.S. policies in the Middle East. It must seem to many that anything is better than Bush and Cheney. Millions, faced with a choice between Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson thought the same thing back in 1964, as they cast their ballots to elect JFK's former VP. The result was a little thing called the Vietnam War.

Radack on OIG/FBI Whitewash; Kurnaz on Life Inside Gitmo

Former Justice Department ethics advisor, Jesselyn Radack, who blew the whistle on illegal abuse in the case of John Walker Lindh back in the early days of the U.S. war in Afghanistan, has a blistering article up at Daily Kos, castigating the Office of the Inspector General for its "demi-candor" whitewash on the FBI role in "war on terror" interrogations. U.S. citizen Lindh was beaten seriously, "duct-taped naked to a board, and had government officials posing with him for pictures." Radack explains:

In 2001, I told the Criminal Division, which was advising the FBI in Afghanistan, that Lindh could not be interrogated without his counsel. That was on a Friday. The Criminal Division called back on Monday and said that the FBI had interrogated him anyway. They wanted to know what to do. I advised that the interview would have to be sealed and used only for national security purposes or intelligence-gathering, not criminal prosecution. Again, my advice was ignored.

Three months later, I inadvertently learned of a discovery order, which had been deliberately concealed from me, for all Justice Department correspondence related to Lindh's interrogation. When I went to comply, my e-mails had been purged from the file. With the help of technical support, I recovered them from my computer, turned them over to my boss, took home a copy in case they "disappeared" again, and resigned.

As the criminal case barreled toward trial, the Justice Department continued to assert that Lindh was never represented by counsel and that his rights had been "carefully, scrupulously guarded." I did not believe the Justice Department would have the temerity to make public statements contradicted by its own court filings if my e-mails had indeed reached the court. So I blew the whistle, which unleashed a torrent of retaliation....

In 2002, my lawyer made it abundantly clear to the OIG that I took several steps to thwart efforts to conceal material regarding Lindh's interrogation from the court. In January 2003, Inspector General Glenn Fine, who issued the recent FBI report, told my attorney that the OIG had looked into my whistleblower allegations and was not going to pursue them. (OIG did not look too searchingly because it did not even bother to interview me, the complainant.) To add insult to injury, OIG turned my case over for criminal prosecution, which eventually closed with no charges ever being brought. But the Justice Department was not through with me yet. It put me on the "No-Fly List" and referred me to the state bars in which I'm licensed as an attorney, based on a secret report - by the OIG - to which I did not have access. [emphasis in original]

The Justice Department OIG is a limited hangout, i.e., an admission of some crimes, but a cover-up of the total barbaric scenario unfolding in Bush's torture prisons. For a heart-rending but comprehensive look at what these detainees have endured, I strongly recommend Murnat Kurnaz's memoir, Five Years of My Life: An Innocent Man in Guantanamo.

A few excerpts from Kurnaz's book:

I looked around. This was truly nothing more than a ship's container with a door. The walls were reinforced by corrugated metal sheeting like the one in fairground stalls. Every surface -- the walls, the floor, the ceiling -- was covered with it. There was no mattress or wool blanket. A toilet and a sink were sunk into the floor. If I stared for too long at any one point of the metal sheeting I got dizzy....

The light went off. It was cold. The metal on the floor felt like ice.... I heard a rumbling. It was an air-conditioning unit mounted above the door. Icy air streamed in.... They've put me in a giant refrigerator.

After a while, I couldn't feel my hands or legs....

Sometimes I had to move to stop the cold, but I tried not to. I needed to save my energy since all I was given to eat was a piece of toast and a bit of apple, three times a day. but I had to move around sometimes, when it got colder.....

In late 2002, General Geoffrey Miller took over command of Guantanamo, and our situation dramatically worsened. The interrogations got more brutal, more frequent, and longer....

I was moved from one block to the next. The escort team would storm in, put me in chains, run with me through the corridors, push me to my knees, and leave me there. The whole procedure would be repeated an hour later.... I had to stand and kneel -- twenty-four hours a day....

In between transfers, I was interrogated... I estimated the sessions lasted up to fifteen hours.... I sat chained to my chair, or kneeling on the floor, and as soon as my eyelids drooped, soldiers would wake me with a couple of blows. (pp. 161-177)

U.S. Secret Prison Ships Hold Untold Number of Detainees

The UK Guardian is reporting the United States is holding hundreds of detainees from its international wars on at least 17 "floating prisons" in different harbors around the world. The detainees are interrogated, and then many of them sent via extraordinary rendition to other countries for further interrogation and torture.

According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as "floating prisons" since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.

Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans.

Reprieve will raise particular concerns over the activities of the USS Ashland and the time it spent off Somalia in early 2007 conducting maritime security operations in an effort to capture al-Qaida terrorists.

At this time many people were abducted by Somali, Kenyan and Ethiopian forces in a systematic operation involving regular interrogations by individuals believed to be members of the FBI and CIA. Ultimately more than 100 individuals were "disappeared" to prisons in locations including Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guantánamo Bay.

Reprieve believes prisoners may have also been held for interrogation on the USS Ashland and other ships in the Gulf of Aden during this time.

According to Reprieve's legal director, Clive Stafford Smith, the U.S. admits to holding 26,000 people without trial in various secret prisons, and Smith believes "up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001."

Smith was interviewed on May 19 by Amy Goodman at Democracy Now, and had more to say about the prison ship program (thanks to ask at Daily Kos).

And we’ve identified thirty-two prison ships, sort of prison hulks you used to read about in Victorian England, which have been converted to hold prisoners, and we’ve got pictures of them in Lisbon Harbor, for example. And these are holding prisoners around the world, as well. And there’s a bunch of proxy prisons -- Morocco, Egypt and Jordan -- where this stuff is going on. And this is a huge concern, because the world focus is on Guantanamo Bay, which really is a diversionary tactic in the whole war of terror or war on terror, whatever you’d like to call it. And actually, most of these people who have been severed from their legal rights are in these other secret prisons around the world. [bold added for emphasis]

While there may be more detainees held in other secret prisons, or Iraqi and Afghani jails and U.S. military and CIA black site prisons, the idea of prisoners held in small holds and cells for an indefinite time, out of sight of land or hope, conjures memories of tryanny that predate the democratic revolutions of the late eighteenth century. Prison ships harken back to the days of the British deportations of convicts to America and Australia, and even earlier, to the slave ships which transported the kidnapped and sold Africans into what was supposed to be eternal servitude. An article at Newsday describes the "wretched prison ships" of the American Revolutionary War (h/t to Edger at Docudharma for this):

More Americans died in British prison ships in New York Harbor than in all the battles of the Revolutionary War.

There were at least 16 of these floating prisons anchored in Wallabout Bay on the East River for most of the war, and they were sinkholes of filth, vermin, infectious disease and despair....

Few aspects of the war were documented as well as life on the prison ships, presumably because the experience, for those who survived, was forever imprinted in their memories.... In 1778, Robert Sheffield of Stonington, Conn., escaped one of these ships, and told his story to the Connecticut Gazette. He was one of 350 men jammed in a small compartment belowdecks.

"Their sickly countenances and ghastly looks were truly horrible," the newspaper wrote on July 10, without identifying the ship. "Some swearing and blaspheming; some crying, praying, and wringing their hands, and stalking about like ghosts; others delirious, raving, and storming; some groaning and dying -- all panting for breath; some dead and corrupting -- air so foul at times that a lamp could not be kept burning, by reason of which the boys were not missed till they had been dead ten days."

In George Bush and Nancy Pelosi's America, we know less about the crimes done in our name than your average American or European knew about the atrocities of their day. Outstanding blogger GreyHawk has an essay just out that shows that news about the prison ships has been leaking out, without making much of a stir, for years.

So, now we will have to add secret prison ships to what Reprieve at their website calls the "global matrix of CIA torture flights and secret prisons scattered from Poland to Afghanistan."

Soon, I will be writing a rather lenghty piece about the history and current U.S. policy of targeted assassination: torture, assassination, aggressive invasion and occupation of other countries, disputed elections, out-of-control war profiteering and an oil industry raping the economy without any governmental restraints. This nation is sliding into a totalitarian nightmare. While the population is diverted by the entertainment of the mainstream election, the worst crimes are taking place, and if the many are ignorant or indolent today, the consequences tomorrow will be unable to escape.

On Break