Skip to main content

Another Black Eye for the Bush Administration’s Detention Policy

Scott Horton writing on Harper's Magazine on the vexed and ongoing scandal which is Gitmo, and those detained there without trial, highlights the questionable way how 6 detainees were "captured" in the first place and their detention for 7 [yes, 7!] years:

"For years, lawyers representing Guantánamo detainees have dreaded getting notice from the District Court in Washington that their case had been assigned to Judge Richard J. Leon. A conservative Republican appointed to the bench by George W. Bush in 2002, Judge Leon was seen as an almost reflexive supporter of the Bush Administration’s positions with respect to Guantánamo. But today things changed. Leon took up the habeas corpus petitions of six Guantánamo detainees on remand from the Supreme Court following its landmark decision in Boumediene–a decision in which the Court had reversed Judge Leon. In his opinion for the Court, Judge Kennedy had stressed that the system crafted by the Bush Administration was “fraught with grave risk of injustice” because it allowed the government to detain people indefinitely without any showing of evidence to back its claims that the detainees were combatants who posed a risk to the United States. And as Judge Leon rendered his decision in a packed courtroom, Kennedy’s core thesis was fully vindicated. The Leon decision is very straightforward: either the government has evidence that the persons held are combatants and there is a risk that they will battle the United States if released, or it does not. In this case, Judge Leon found that in five of six cases, the Bush Administration had no meaningful or corroborated evidence to sustain its claims. Rendering his decision, Judge Leon admonished the Bush Administration lawyers against taking appeals and further protracting the injustice visited upon the five petitioners whose freedom he ordered. “Seven years is enough!” he said, with a fixed gaze directed at the Justice Department lawyers.

For years, the Bush Administration had touted their capture of the Boumediene petitioners as a triumph of counterterrorism policy. The prisoners were not captured on or near a battlefield in Iraq or Afghanistan. Rather they were Algerians who had resettled in Bosnia, where they came under suspicion of involvement in a plot to bomb the American embassy. After their case progressed through the Bosnian legal system, both the Bosnian Supreme Court and Attorney General concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the charges against them. It ordered their release. But then through a curious sleight of hand orchestrated by U.S. intelligence officials, the petitioners were seized, turned over to the Americans and flown out to Guantánamo, where they have been incarcerated in tough and at times brutal conditions for seven years. President Bush personally proclaimed them terrorists and called their capture and imprisonment a victory in the war on terror. Today, the Bush Administration’s claims about the prisoners were revealed to be a sham not backed by serious evidence. The Bush Administration’s incarceration of five of the six petitioners was pronounced an unlawful, and indeed possibly criminal act.

Judge Leon ended the hearing with an appeal to the Justice Department to stop the farce in which it had ensnared the courts and the military. But this appeal to justice is almost certain to fall on deaf ears. The hallmark of this regime is that it never admits to its own error or lawlessness. Prepare for an immediate appeal. We have sixty days of these abusive antics remaining. Mark your calendars for January 20, 2009: the day on which adult supervision resumes at the Justice Department."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...