http://newsecurityaction.org/ en Copyright 2010 2010-12-02T17:19:46+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-reality-of-civilian-trials-for-terrorists/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-reality-of-civilian-trials-for-terrorists/ One thing you can always count on is the right-wing having a rabid reaction to the the use of civilian trials for terrorists. Without hesitation, they vehemently insist civilian trials for terrorists are security risks, cost taxpayers ton's of money, and do not produce successful results. Instead, they demand military commissions for all terrorists, where convictions are guaranteed and "real justice" is exacted. Never mind the fact that only five cases in the military commission system at Guantanamo Bay have resulted in a conviction. As this chart from the New York University Center on Law and Security demonstrates, civilian trials are overwhelmingly successful:     While charts like this one are helpful in offering a clear illustration of the effectiveness of civilian trials for terrorists, one only needs to point to the recent terrorist trial of Ahmed Ghailani to see proof that they work. The Ghailani trial was safe, cost-effective and resulted in his conviction, for which he will serve a minimum of 20 years with the potential of a life sentence. After his sentencing, he most likely will be transferred to serve out his punishment in solitary confinement at a federal super max prison. 2010-12-02T16:19:46+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/new-york-times-some-skeptics-questioning-rosy-reports-on-war-zone/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/new-york-times-some-skeptics-questioning-rosy-reports-on-war-zone/ While Gen. David Petraeus and his staff attempt to project a unified front of optimism on the war in Afghanistan, their are many in the State Department and the Pentagon who really know that all is not well with the administration's surge in the desolated country. Per Elisabeth Bumiller in the latest edition of The New York Times: The recent reports circulating in Washington’s national security establishment about the Afghan battleground of Marja show glimmerings of progress: bazaars are open, some 1,000 children are in school, and a new (and only) restaurant even serves goat curry and kebabs. In Kandahar, NATO officials say that American and Afghan forces continue to rout the Taliban. In new statistics offered by American commanders in Kabul, Special Operations units have killed 339 midlevel Taliban commanders and 949 of the group’s foot soldiers in the past three months alone. At the Pentagon, the draft of a war assessment to be submitted to Congress this month cites a shift in momentum in some areas of the country away from the insurgency. But as a new White House review of President Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan gets under way, the rosy signs have opened an intense debate at the Defense Department, the White House, the State Department and the intelligence agencies over what they really mean. Are they indications of future success, are they fleeting and not replicable, or are they evidence that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top United States and NATO commander in Afghanistan, is simply more masterful than his predecessor at shaping opinion? Bumiller then gives us this gem: A former C.I.A. official with longtime experience in Afghanistan said that the recent statements about American progress in Afghanistan reminded him of what was sometimes written about the Russians before they began withdrawing from Afghanistan in defeat in 1988, when they had been at war there for nearly 10 years. “I don’t find many people I talk to who really believe any of this,” he said. The rest of the article here. 2010-11-08T19:07:56+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/judge-to-hear-arguments-on-targeted-killing-of-u.s.-citizen-by-obama-a/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/judge-to-hear-arguments-on-targeted-killing-of-u.s.-citizen-by-obama-a/ Is it legal to target a U.S. citizen for execution far away from any battlefield, without due process? Arguments for and against the power of targeted killing, asserted by the Obama administration, will be heard today by a federal judge. Warren Richey of The Christian Science Monitor has the story: A federal judge is set to hear arguments on Monday in a lawsuit challenging an alleged secret Obama administration plan to use lethal force against an American-born Islamic cleric hiding in Yemen. The cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, is a leader of the Yemen-based group Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. He has facilitated training camps in Yemen, encouraged new recruits, and helped prepare Umar Abdulmutallab in his attempt to blow up an airliner near Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, government lawyers say. In July, US authorities listed al-Awlaki as a “specially designated global terrorist.” According to press reports, he is on a US government “kill list." The lawsuit, filed on behalf of al-Awlaki’s father by the American Civil Liberties Union, challenges the government’s authority to carry out the intentional killing. ...The use of lethal force may be justifiable, according to the ACLU, if the individual poses an imminent threat to the life or safety of others and there is no non-lethal alternative open to the government to neutralize the threat. The lawyers say these conditions do not apply to al-Awlaki. The ACLU brief quotes a 2004 US Supreme Court decision written by then Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. “A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation’s citizens,” she wrote. Regardless of how this lawsuit is revolved, one thing is for certain: the decision to use lethal force against U.S. civillians without due process sets a dangerous precedent.  More from the article here.   2010-11-08T18:33:55+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/new-york-times-mental-health-visits-rise-as-parent-deploys/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/new-york-times-mental-health-visits-rise-as-parent-deploys/ In today's New York Times, Benedict Carney gives us a tragic view into the effects of repeated deployments of military service members on the mental health of their children: In the study, a research team led by Dr. Gregory H. Gorman of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences analyzed the health records of 642,397 children ages 3 to 8 with parents in the military. It compared the frequency of health visits from 2006 to 2007 when a parent was deployed with those when the parent was home.   The researchers found that the children saw a doctor or other health professional about six times a year and about once every two years for a mental health reason. During deployment of a parent, however, the visit rate dropped by about 11 percent for physical problems but rose by 11 percent for psychological complaints. Stress, anxiety and attention-deficit problems were among the more common diagnoses, and mothers were far more likely than fathers to take a child to a doctor.   Read the whole article here 2010-11-08T17:20:14+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/close-gitmo-and-use-the-legal-system/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/close-gitmo-and-use-the-legal-system/ A year and a half after his inauguration, Obama has failed to deliver on a key counterterrorism goal: to close Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, with new revelations about a secret prison in Bagram, proposals to legalize indefinite detention, and the festering debates about where to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, questions about how and where we should hold detainees remain contentious. This panel will revisit these questions and discuss ways to close Gitmo and return to the rule of law in our detainee treatment. Featuring Marcy Wheeler, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Matt Alexander, Adam Serwer and Vince Warren. 2010-07-26T11:58:04+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/for-terrorism-trials-civilian-courts-are-up-to-the-job/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/for-terrorism-trials-civilian-courts-are-up-to-the-job/ We haven't heard much lately from the folks who say the Obama administration is making America vulnerable by trying terrorists in federal criminal courts instead of in military commissions. It's probably because their rhetoric has been dealt a serious blow by the flurry of guilty pleas this year by high-profile terror suspects. They include: • Faisal Shahzad, who pleaded guilty in June to attempting to blow up a bomb-laden SUV in Times Square in a plot supported by the Pakistani Taliban. • David Headley, who admitted in March to helping plan the deadly 2008 attacks in Mumbai and to plotting to bomb a Danish newspaper. • And Najibullah Zazi, who admitted in February to a suicide bomb plot aimed at New York's subways and supported by Al Qaeda. All three pleaded guilty in federal courts, and all three now face maximum terms of life in federal prison — where there is no possibility of parole. All three are also cooperating with authorities. In another case, this month, federal prosecutors in Brooklyn unsealed an indictment charging five men in an Al Qaeda plot to attack targets in Britain and the United States, including the New York City subway system. It is believed the indictment was crafted, at least in part, with information supplied by Zazi and a co-defendant. So much for the claim that our federal courts aren't up to the job. These cases are not anomalies. They are the latest in a long line of successful terror indictments and prosecutions that underscore our federal criminal justice system's unparalleled ability to elicit intelligence, charge and prosecute terrorists and deliver substantial prison sentences. Swift guilty pleas and cooperation are hardly the stuff of a weak justice system. And it's important to note that cooperation happens often in federal criminal prosecutions, but not in military commissions. Terrorist conviction statistics, provided by the Justice Department's National Security Division, are impressive: • By mid-March of this year, 403 terrorism suspects had been tried and convicted in federal district courts since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. • Of these, 159 were convicted of Category I crimes — violations of federal statutes directly related to international terrorism. • The other 244 were convicted of Category II crimes — violations of fraud, immigration, firearms, drugs and other statutes in cases with identified links to international terrorism. A dozen of these convicted terrorists were sentenced to life in prison. One was sentenced to 155 years, and 18 others received sentences of 20 years or more. The average sentence handed down to defendants charged with terrorism, between 2001 and 2009, is 19.7 years, according to the Center on Law and Security at New York University's School of Law. And the most dangerous have been jailed in the highest-security facilities operated by the Bureau of Prisons. This includes roughly three dozen terrorists, many with ties to Al Qaeda, incarcerated at the "Supermax" prison near Florence, Colo. How have military commissions done by comparison? Since 9/11, only four Guantanamo detainees have been prosecuted in military commissions. Two of them received light sentences and are now free. That's not to say that there may be instances in which a military commission might be a superior venue, such as cases involving attacks aimed at U.S. military facilities. But results matter. And the lopsided statistics clearly show that military commissions should be the exception, not the rule. In any event, the decision of the best venue in which to prosecute a terror suspect should be the president's to make, and the call should be made based on facts, not political rhetoric. Our federal courts have an unmatched record of putting terror suspects on trial, collecting intelligence when possible — and sending them away for good. Dianne Feinstein is a Democratic U.S. senator from California.     2010-07-20T16:12:45+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/move-the-movement/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/move-the-movement/ Pressure from military circles, the right wing, Congressional Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats has set the political stage for a national security policy that includes the largest defense budget in our nation’s history and two major escalations of the war in Afghanistan. And that’s just in the last year. It’s time for the progressive movement to rise to this challenge and counter this pressure from conservatives to set our foreign policy on a new path -- starting with the escalating war in Afghanistan. Congress is poised to approve a major supplemental funding bill to provide another $33 billion for the war. With unemployment the highest its been in decades and millions of taxpayers forced out of their homes by forclosure this money is desperately needed for nation-building here at home. And even as the war in Afghanistan officially becomes the longest war in US history this week, we still have no commitment from the President on when the last of our troops will come. It's time for progressive voices to be heard in this debate. Call your Representative now at (202) 224-3121 and tell them to: 1. Vote NO on the 2010 War Supplemental 2. Co-Sponsor Rep. McGovern's bill, HR 5015, requiring a timeline for withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. Beating the powerful forces in Washington calling for more troops and more war won't be easy, and we need all the help we can get. Ask your friends to help "move the movement" by tweeting this message and making it our status on Facebook, LinkedIn and other social networking sites: #MoveTheMovement and end the #Afghanistan war! Tell Congress NO MORE WAR $$$ http://bit.lycxJ0kX #p2 #afn10 Pls RT! Why We Need to End the War: •       This week, the war in Afghanistan officially surpassed the Vietnam War as the longest war in US history. •       A recent poll by ABC News / Washington Post showed that 52% of Americans believe the war in Afghanistan has not been worth it. •       On May 27, Marine Cpl. Jacob C. Leicht became the 1,000th American serviceman killed in Afghanistan. He was only 24 years old. •       The direct cost for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan now exceeds $1 trillion dollars. For the same cost, the United States could transition to a clean energy economy so we could solve global warming, pay the salaries of 2 million teachers for a decade, or give $1,000 to every one of the billion children around the world living in poverty. •       Spending over $100 billion this year alone sending nearly 100,000 troops half-way around the world to defend against what the President's National Security Advisor Jim Jones admitted is less than 100 members of al Qaeda in Afghanistan doesn't make any sense and it doesn't make America any safer. Afghanistan 2010-06-08T23:07:50+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/who-needs-a-constitution-anyway/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/who-needs-a-constitution-anyway/ In response to the failed Times Square bombing, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) had this great wisdom to contribute: "If you've joined an enemy of the United States in attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans, I think you should sacrifice your rights of citizenship." And he's not alone. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) both think he shouldn't have been read his Miranda warning. But, to be fair, that only means they think he shouldn't know what his rights are, not that he shouldn't have them. WHAT!? This whole line of "reasoning" by "conservatives" like Lieberman and McCain is so infuriating, so un-American and so incredibly contrary to what at one time were basic principles of conservatism that I don't know where to begin. As the rest of us know, the founding fathers, in composing the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights (collectively called the "Charters of Freedom" by the National Archives) had a pretty radical idea for their time: the rule of law. Rather than be a nation ruled by a monarch who would serve as the sole source of power and authority, the United States would be a nation of laws designed to protect the "inalienable rights" of our citizens. Not only would those laws protect us from each other, but most importantly, they would protect us from our own Government. The whole point of the Constitution is to prevent the very thing Joe Lieberman is proposing. But of course anyone over the age of 12 can tell you this, and if Lieberman, McCain and King need a refresher they can always go read Dennis Kucinich's copy of the Constitution. The real question here isn't whether American citizens who are suspected of terrorism should keep their Constitutional rights - of course they should. But what does this say about the state of the conservative movement? There was a time when conservatives wanted to "get government out of our lives" and keep it from interfering in the exercise of our freedoms. But now it looks like Glenn Beck of all people is the one defending intellectual conservatism from the crass politicking of our elected officials, arguing on Fox and Friends earlier this week that "He is a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution." I definitely didn't see that one coming. And if, as President Bush so eloquently put it, they "hate us for our freedom," then Lieberman, McCain and King essentially hand those terrorists a "win" by suggesting we throw out those freedoms and our Constitution every time someone straps defective firecrackers and bags of the wrong fertilizer to some jugs of gasoline. Then there's that quintessential American elephant in the room: race. Last February, Joseph Stack successfully flew a plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, "attacking the United States and trying to kill Americans" in what was clearly an act of terrorism. Yet the response from conservatives wasn't condemnation, but thinly veiled praise. Rep. Steven King (R-IA) offered his sympathy at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC): I think if we’d abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn’t have a target for his airplane. And I’m still for abolishing the IRS, I’ve been for it for thirty years and I’m for a national sales tax. [...] It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America. You see, when the terrorist is white and his grievance is paying taxes, it's something we can let slide. Pro forma statements that violence isn't the answer aside, we all hate the IRS and if we'd gotten rid of it years ago this wouldn't have been a problem. It's OUR fault for not abolishing the IRS. But, when the terrorist is non-white, and he's retaliating for drone attacks in Pakistan, well it's a whole different ballgame isn't it?   2010-05-05T11:49:09+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/dianne-feinstein-hears-you/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/dianne-feinstein-hears-you/ Your voice was heard. This week, New Security Action members sent over 50,000 letters to Democratic Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, encouraging them to stand up for justice and stand with Holder. Senator Dianne Feinstein was clearly listening, offering a strong defense of Holder and article three courts and a pointed critique of her fearmongering colleagues: And I've come to the conclusion that a lot of the attacks are just to diminish you. And I don’t think you should buy into that at all. I think you should remain strong...I also understand why the best interests of our country are served if you remain strong and make the decisions based on the legal facts and where we best get a conviction. And I just want to urge you to remain strong in that respect. The record of the article three courts in the conviction of terrorists in this country is unparalleled. And that is absolute fact. PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer provided good coverage of the hearing with more stellar quotes from Senator Feinstein:   2010-04-15T15:01:43+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/watch-the-holder-hearing-live/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/watch-the-holder-hearing-live/ New Security Action members sent over 45,000 letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats telling them to stand up for justice and stand with Holder. Did they get the message? Watch Secretary Holder's testimony live at http://bit.ly/bY4faA 2010-04-14T13:08:41+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/peter-galbraith-time-to-withdraw/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/peter-galbraith-time-to-withdraw/ In what amounts to a shocking degree of candor for a high-level diplomat, Peter Galbraith, a former UN envoy to Afghanistan, continues his criticism of Afghan President Hamid Karzai today with an OpEd in the Washington Post on "Why Hamid Karzai Makes a Bad Partner for the U.S." After detailing how Karzai's ineffective governance has earned Afghanistan the honor of being ranked the second most corrupt nation in the world, how Karzai himself managed to steal 1 million votes in the latest Presidential election - fully 1/3 of his vote total, and how he recently told Afghan parliamentarians that he might join the ranks of the Taliban, Galbraith concludes: President Obama should halt the surge in Afghanistan and initiate a partial withdrawal -- not as a means to pressure Karzai but because Karzai's government is incapable of becoming a credible local partner. Galbraith, you may remember, has already been in the news this week for suggesting that Karzai might have a problem with drug abuse, telling MSNBC's program "The Daily Run Down": "There are reports to that effect. But whatever the cause is, the reality is that he is — he can be very emotional." Read Gailbraith's full editorial here and coverage of his accusation that Karzai might have a drug problem here and here. 2010-04-08T18:05:49+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/where-military-victory-is-an-oxymoron/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/where-military-victory-is-an-oxymoron/ When it comes to Afghanistan, “military victory” is an oxymoron.  Even President Obama and his Defense Secretary Robert Gates say so. Repeatedly. The only path to peaceful resolution to the Afghanistan conundrum, they point out, is by winning the “hearts and minds” of the Afghan people. That is why the grim news from Afghanistan about the cover up of the a botched US military raid of a baby shower near Gardez is so devastating. Unfortunately, the public response to-date from US and NATO officials in Kabul has been dreadful. It turns out that the Obama administration’s Afghanistan strategy is being defeated by self-inflicted wounds, and it is unclear that US officials over there even have a clue that they continue to inflict them. This is why a truly independent investigation of what happened is so critical to the President’s strategy in Afghanistan. Please join our campaign calling on the president to investigate the baby shower raid that resulted in the killing of innocent Afghans, including two pregnant women. If you haven’t read about this horrendous incident, and the US response to it, brace yourself. Afghan investigators are claiming that US Special Operations forces tried to cover up the horrific killing of five Afghan citizens in February following a raid of what turned out to be a baby shower.  Three women were killed. Two of them were pregnant. Also killed was a police commander and his brother, a government prosecutor. As if this wasn't bad enough, military officials went about fueling Taliban claims about how barbaric the foreign military occupation is by immediately putting out false information about the raid.  They claimed that NATO soldiers had stumbled upon the “bodies of three women who had been tied up, gagged and killed” after the raid was over.  According to the New York Times, military officials also claimed at the time that the bodies showed signs of puncture and slashing wounds from a knife and appeared to have died several hours before the raid.  They went on to imply that the women had been killed by their own families. CNN reported the story under the headline: “Bodies Found Gagged, Bound after Afghan ‘Honor Killing’” . Now it turns out that the claims by the US military were false.  The London Times and New York Times reported this week that Afghan investigators have determined that American forces tampered with evidence at the scene and even “dug bullets out of their victims bodies” after the killing. The US led military command finally admitted on Sunday night that their previous denials of any involvement in the killing of the women were false.  Special Forces had, indeed, killed them.  Still, they denied any cover up. A US military official declared: “We strongly deny having dug any bullets out of bodies. There is simply no evidence.” While denying any tampering with evidence, he went on to say that the military is “further investigating” the incident. Who else might possibly have had a motive to cover up the evidence at the scene was left to the imagination. The Taliban could have hardly made this up to fuel their campaign against the foreign invaders and military occupiers. Don’t get me wrong – I think that the current US strategy in Afghanistan is a grave mistake and cannot be set right by correcting the Pentagon’s botched reaction to a horribly botched raid. But, this incident is one more illustration of why a military led strategy in Afghanistan – that is tone deaf to the damage that something like this does to its own cause – is doomed to failure. Nothing short a complete demilitarization of US Afghanistan policy is required. But, while no one his holding their breath that this is in the cards, at the very least the administration can take steps to deal responsibly with this horror. And stop the damage that it continues to inflict on its own cause. A thorough and truly independent investigation of the baby shower killings is required NOW. Justice and accountability demand it. So does a strategy that is dependent on winning “hearts and minds”. 2010-04-07T16:23:25+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/rev.-kings-anti-vietnam-words-still-resonate-today/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/rev.-kings-anti-vietnam-words-still-resonate-today/ From NPR: Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Beyond Vietnam" was a powerful and angry speech that raged against the war. At the time, civil rights leaders publicly condemned him for it. PBS talk show host Tavis Smiley's new documentary, MLK: A Call to Conscience explores King's speech. The film is the second episode of Tavis Smiley Reports. Smiley spoke with both scholars and friends of King, including Cornel West, Vincent Harding and Susannah Heschel. By the time King made the "Beyond Vietnam" speech, Smiley tells host Neal Conan, "he had fallen off already the list of most-admired Americans as tallied by Gallup every year." Smiley continues, "it was the most controversial speech he ever gave. It was the speech he labored over the most." After King delivered the speech, Smiley reports, "168 major newspapers the next day denounced him." Not only that, but then-President Lyndon Johnson disinvited King to the White House. "It basically ruins their relationship," says Smiley. "This was a huge, huge speech," he continues, "that got Martin King in more trouble than anything he had ever seen or done." Read more here. 2010-04-02T12:10:01+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/terrorism-on-the-homefront/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/terrorism-on-the-homefront/ They're alleged religious fantatics. They allegedly plotted violent attacks on U.S. government officials. They trained themselves in insurgency tactics used on the battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan. But they aren't Muslims. They aren't foreigners. They aren't al Qaeda. They're American extremists -- and they're criminals. Not the holy "Christian Warriors" they paint themselves as. The Hutaree militia, recently arrested for plotting attacks against the U.S. government, were stopped and caught by U.S. officials and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This is the justice all terrorist suspects deserve, whether they are from here or abroad. From The Wall Street Journal: The indictment said Hutaree, a small, armed militia group based in rural southeast Michigan, had practiced attacks and other military maneuvers for more than a year, and had planned to use homemade bombs like those used against U.S. forces by insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bombs were the key part of the alleged plot to attack the funeral of a law-enforcement officer, the indictment said. After that attack, the group planned to retreat to a remote "rally point" from which members would resist an expected response by the government, sparking what Hutaree's alleged leader, David Brian Stone, hoped would be a wider uprising against the government, the indictment said. FBI agent Andrew Arena called Hutaree "an example of radical and extremist fringe groups which can be found throughout our society." The group, whose name means "Christian Warrior," according to its Web site, didn't respond to emails. The Web site said the group was preparing for "the anti-Christ" and expected to "one day see its enemy and meet him on the battlefield." The site quotes scripture passages alluding to battle and the sacrifice of lives for a greater cause. The group used tiger-striped camouflage uniforms, the indictment said. We're spending so much time worrying about al Qaeda we're ignoring the reality of home-grown extremists here in the United States. Ever since President Barack Obama was sworn into office there has been an increase in activity by local extremists, yet right wingers are still focused on the threat from abroad only. The only difference between these domestic terrorists and al Qaeda is country of origin. Why would we doll out one form of justice for local terrorists, but use an inferior, problematic military tribunal system for foreign terrorists? We have a system and it works. It's worked hundreds of times and we have more than 300 domestic and foreign terrorists currently in our prisons. It's a no brainer. We should use what we have, what works. Not a system that is plagued with Constitutional issues. What's good enough for Hutaree is good enough for al Qaeda. A terrorist is a terrorist 2010-04-01T12:30:48+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/public-view-shifts-against-closing-gitmo/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/public-view-shifts-against-closing-gitmo/ According to CNN, views about closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay are rapidly shifting and not in our favor. In a new national poll conducted by CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, CNN reports that support for closing Gitmo has dropped 12 points in 14 months. That's 12 points since President Obama took office with the biggest loses being among Independent voters. From CNN: Shortly before Obama's inauguration, 51 percent of Americans said they thought the facility in Cuba should be closed. Now that number is down to 39 percent, and six in ten believe the United States should continue to operate Guantanamo. The poll, released Sunday, suggests independent voters are contributing to the 12 point overall drop. "Just Democrats still think that Guantanamo should be closed, but Independents have completely changed - from an even split in January 2009 to three-quarters who want to keep the facility open today," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. More than three out of four Republicans questioned in the poll think that the facility should stay open. These numbers are bound to give right wingers more fuel to put pressure on the President to keep him from doing the right thing and closing Gitmo. We need to keep up the pressure on our side to make sure political expediency doesn't trump ending Bush era policies of detention without charge or trial. Just like with the health care debate, the more the facts get out and the less there is of "fear-mongering fiction," we have a greater chance for success. The more people know about why Gitmo needs to close the more support we will have. In the health care debate it was a combination of relentless truth telling and political courage that won the day over the right-wing health care “socialism” fear machine. Our opponents thrive when their shrill fear based fiction has center stage. Our side – starting with our allies in the Obama administration and Congress, need to fully engage. And, so do we, by challenging the Cheney crowd and making our voices heard in Congress and the White House. 2010-03-29T12:55:06+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/gitmo-news-round-up/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/gitmo-news-round-up/ Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham continues to move forward on his "plans" to close Gitmo, but keep detention without charge and military commissions. He, naturally, is ignoring the fact that military commissions don't work, have only convicted three people in nine years, are beset with legal questions and are regularly challenged in court. He's also ignoring the Constitution and habeus corpus by encouraging the continuation the Bush era policy of holding people without charge or trial. The White House and even Graham say that nothing is a done deal, but things keep moving forward. We need to stay viligant about this because it doesn't look good. From the Washington Post: Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) has submitted draft legislation to the White House in an effort to create a broad framework for handling terrorism suspects, mapping out proposals that appeal to the administration and others that do not, officials said. Senior White House officials have begun briefing leading Democrats on Capitol Hill on the Graham proposal, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss a matter under negotiation. President Obama opposes some items that Graham has promoted publicly, such as the creation of a national security court to handle detainees, but the White House is urging Democrats to treat the proposal seriously as a way to break the logjam over the closure of the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other detainee-related issues. Newsweek is reporting that the Pentagon is moving forward in naming a new chief of military commissions. Another bad sign. The appointment of retired Admiral Bruce MacDonald, who formerly served as the chief Judge Advocate of the Navy, as the new "convening authority" for the Office of Military Commissions is among the most important moves in an apparent gearing up for the expected new wave of trials. As convening authority, MacDonald--who replaces Susan Crawford, a Bush political appointee who retired two months ago--will have the responsibility to "refer" charges against Guantanamo terror suspects to trials after receiving recommendations from military prosecutors. Such "referrals"--the equivalent of indictments--have been on hold ever since last year when the White House ordered a halt to all military commission proceedings as part of its larger review about how to close Gitmo. But now that "hold" is, for all intents and purposes, being lifted. Military prosecutors are actively working on as many as 50 cases of Gitmo detainees who can be referred for trial before the commissions, according to two commission sources. The trials would take place under new rules that were enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama last year aimed at making the tribunals fairer and more respectful of the rights of defendants--even while they continue to offer greater latitude to prosecutors. (Under the new rules, for example, hearsay evidence that would be banned in civilian court trials continues to be admissible before military commissions.) The Los Angeles Times has a story online featuring human rights activists and their growing disenchantment with President Obama, as they fear he is choosing political expediency over detainee rights. Obama began his presidency vowing to close Guantanamo, end CIA detention practices and transform the post-9/11 system created by Bush. But the administration gradually has backtracked, and is now revisiting some of the practices in use under Bush: military tribunals, detention without trials and overseas prisons. Human rights activists have objected to what they see as a trend in the administration toward favoring long-term detention of terrorism suspects and military commission proceedings rather than public court trials. In the latest possible shift, administration officials said last week that they may use a prison at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan for long-term detainees captured elsewhere. "That would be George Bush's wish list," Christopher Anders, the senior legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said of the possible policy changes. The activists believe the administration is not unified on the issue, saying that Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. believes the president should stick to the positions he outlined during the campaign, while others, including White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, see the detention issue more as a political problem. The administration says no such divisions exist. The White House believes it must compromise with lawmakers to preserve Obama's core detention policies. Read more here. 2010-03-25T12:46:31+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/now-is-the-time/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/now-is-the-time/ Look what happens when you fight, follow through and stick together? This past Sunday the House passed the most sweeping legislation in forty years -- health care reform. It didn't come easy. It was a bitter fight to the end with the votes coming down to party lines. No Republicans voted for it, but they didn't need to. The Democrats had the majority and the votes. It's time to see Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama do the same when it comes to national security. During the health care debate, White House Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel tried to encourage the President to pare down his plans to make them more palatable to Republicans. Speaker Pelosi scoffed at this, and according to the New York Times, called the compromise "kiddie care." In the end, the President and Pelosi rejected Emanuel's idea and pushed for the health care reform that did pass the House this Sunday. Now Emanuel is at it again, pushing for compromise on closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. It's been reported in the press that he's in talks with GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham who says he wants to help close the prison if the President keeps in place Bush-Cheney era policies like detention without charged and the unconstitutional military commissions system. He's cutting deals and in this deal he could cut the Constitution's habeus corpus protections to shreds. Emanuel is trying to par down the Gitmo deal to make it more palatable for Republicans who have already been vociferous in their claim that nothing could ever make them vote to close Gitmo. If President Obama and Pelosi want to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, they can't wait for the other side to come to the table. They need to reject the fool's bargain Emanuel is pushing with Sen. Graham (especially when even Graham is conceding that his deal is far from done), roll up their sleeves and fight for what's right. It's time to give Gitmo the same treatment health care received. If President Obama and Congressional Democrats want to close the prison, they're going to have to do it on their own, by their own terms. Here's what went down as Pelosi pushed the President to stand firm on his principles on health care. From the New York Times: The White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, once Ms. Pelosi’s right hand man on Capitol Hill, was pushing Mr. Obama to scale back his ambitions and pursue a pared-down bill. Mr. Obama seemed open to the idea, though it was clearly not his first choice. Ms. Pelosi scoffed. “Kiddie care,” she called the scaled-down plan, derisively, in private. In a series of impassioned conversations, over the telephone and in the Oval Office, she conveyed her frustration to the president, according to four people familiar with the talks. If she and Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, were going to stick out their necks for Mr. Obama’s top legislative priority, Ms. Pelosi wanted assurances that the president would too. At the White House, aides to Mr. Obama say, he also wanted assurances; he needed to hear that the leaders could pass his far-reaching plan. “We’re in the majority,” Ms. Pelosi told the president. “We’ll never have a better majority in your presidency in numbers than we’ve got right now. We can make this work.” Democrats can do this again. They can find a way to close Gitmo and end the failed national security policies of the Bush-Cheney administration. They can do the right thing. 2010-03-23T13:56:09+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-truth-about-waterboarding/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-truth-about-waterboarding/ Salon.com recently posted about the reality behind the "harsh interrogation tactics" touted by the Bush-Cheney administration. What they revealed is horrifying in detail, making what former Vice President Dick Cheney called "a dunk in the water" sound like a torturous nightmare. From Salon.com: Interrogators pumped detainees full of so much water that the CIA turned to a special saline solution to minimize the risk of death, the documents show. The agency used a gurney "specially designed" to tilt backwards at a perfect angle to maximize the water entering the prisoner's nose and mouth, intensifying the sense of choking – and to be lifted upright quickly in the event that a prisoner stopped breathing. The documents also lay out, in chilling detail, exactly what should occur in each two-hour waterboarding "session." Interrogators were instructed to start pouring water right after a detainee exhaled, to ensure he inhaled water, not air, in his next breath. They could use their hands to "dam the runoff" and prevent water from spilling out of a detainee's mouth. They were allowed six separate 40-second "applications" of liquid in each two-hour session – and could dump water over a detainee's nose and mouth for a total of 12 minutes a day. Finally, to keep detainees alive even if they inhaled their own vomit during a session – a not-uncommon side effect of waterboarding – the prisoners were kept on a liquid diet. The agency recommended Ensure Plus. "This is revolting and it is deeply disturbing," said Dr. Scott Allen, co-director of the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights at Brown University who has reviewed all of the documents for Physicians for Human Rights. "The so-called science here is a total departure from any ethics or any legitimate purpose. They are saying, ‘This is how risky and harmful the procedure is, but we are still going to do it.' It just sounds like lunacy," he said. "This fine-tuning of torture is unethical, incompetent and a disgrace to medicine." Read more here. 2010-03-22T13:31:33+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/gitmo-sell-out-near/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/gitmo-sell-out-near/ This morning the Wall Street Journal reports that the White House is close to giving-in to the baseless attacks of his right-wing critics and giving-up on the Constitution and the rule of law. In exchange for Sen. Lindsey Graham's support in closing Gitmo, President Obama would put Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other top terror suspects before military commissions, while nearly 50 unnamed prisoners would be kept in legal limbo, held without charge or trial indefinitely. We can't let President Obama sell-out our values and continue some of the Bush/Cheney Administration's worst practices. Click here to tell President Obama: "No deal!" The Wall Street Journal: Any such deal would represent the final repudiation of Mr. Holder's November decision to bring the 9/11 plotters to civilian trial in New York City, and a switch for the White House, which suspended the Bush-era military commissions as one of its first acts in office. The White House and the Justice Department appear to be at loggerheads on the matter, and Justice Department officials say they are not a party to the negotiations. The framework of the deal is being led in Congress by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Mr. Graham wants civilian courts to be reserved for low-level Al Qaeda operatives and terrorist financiers, a far smaller group than previously considered. Forty-eight Guantanamo prisoners—men who cannot be convicted in court but deemed too dangerous for release—would face indefinite detention without trial. Democrats are willing to expand the number of detainees brought before military commissions, but want more discretion than in Mr. Graham's proposal. WHAT? Forty-eight prisoners will just disappear into legal limbo? Never to be seen again? Conservatives love to harangue about how "our" Constitution doesn't give rights to foreigners, which is sort of like saying it's ok to kick someone else's dog. What makes the Constitution strong, and America such a great nation, is that we hold ourselves to a high standard. The Bill of Rights, with its protection against unreasonable search and seizure, guarantee of due process and trial-by-jury, was created by our founding fathers in large part to prevent just this scenario and keep the United States government for detaining individuals, without charge or trial, forever. The question is not whether some practices should be permissable because the detainee isn't an American, its how we as a people act, and how the government we've created acts. What are the values we chose to live? This is no less a violation of the basic human rights of those detainees because they're not American. That's why Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees everyone the right to a fair trial, regardless of nationality. That President Obama has so lost his way that he would consider giving up on such a fundamental right is mind-boggling. Making this deal with Sen. Graham for the political win of "closing Gitmo" is a complete 180 from his promise as candidate Obama to depoliticize the Justice Department. Help President Obama find his way back to American values. Tell him "No deal!" with Sen. Graham. 2010-03-19T12:06:35+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/liz-cheney-pushes-myth-that-civilian-trials-leak-secrets/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/liz-cheney-pushes-myth-that-civilian-trials-leak-secrets/ In their rush to push back against Attorney General Eric Holder's testimony to Congress, Liz Cheney's fearmongering, McCarthyite group Keep America Safe continued its attack on any attempt to end the failed national security policies of the Bush-Cheney era. When it comes to justice, military commissions are slow, problematic and the rulings are regularly challenged for their legality. The families and victims of 9/11 have waited more than nine years for justice, yet Cheney and Keep America Safe want to push a system that has only managed to convict three people since 2001. They're stuck on what people should and shouldn't call terrorism suspects. Stuck on whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others are "warriors" or not, instead of focusing on what's the best way to finally see terrorists prosecuted and exact justice for their victims. How much longer will New Yorkers and others have to wait? It's been almost a decade since the attacks yet the so-called "mastermind" of them, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, still remains without a trial. No one has been held responsible for the lives ruined by the attacks. Liz Cheney thinks military commissions can do it, but facts show, they can't. Slow and promblematic, they've bumbled along -- often stuck being challenged on their legality in court -- leaving both the victims and the suspects in limbo. There is not justice. There is no closure. There is no prosecution that would bring the truth out and finally deal with what happened that horrid, tragic day. During his testimony, Holder compared KSM to mass murderer Charles Manson, calling them both murderers and stating that a civilian court could handle KSM just at it handled Manson. Keep America Safe pounced, again backing military commissions using misinformation. From Politico: “Comparing the prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the trial of Charlie Manson is a perfect example of why the American people have lost confidence in the Holder justice system,” Debra Burlingame, a member of the Keep America Safe board of directors, said in an interview. “Putting Charlie Manson in a civilian court didn’t endanger any intelligence secrets,” she said. “When he draws analogies like that, that’s when he loses people. It appears as if he doesn’t know we’re at war.” Spokesperson Debra Burlingame claimed that Mohammed's trial "isn't anything like trying Charlie Manson." But just as Manson's victims deserved justice and got it from his prosecution, the stateside trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is just as necessary and in some ways more important than the Manson trial. While the story of Manson's victims is a tragedy, KSM is accused of being responsible for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11. An action that has lead to two wars and even more lives lost. Yet he's not been held accountabile. He sits in limbo while his victims wait for justice. And we have the best way to deliever justice -- our criminal courts. The trial of KSM is important and many victims of 9/11 understand that. They know that his trial, on U.S. soil, is not only an affirmation of our beliefs as a society, but a repudiation of the flawed national security policies of the Bush-Cheney administration. It is a signal to the world that Americans are not afraid and are using the best tools at their disposal to fight for justice. Recently September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows released a statement in support of a criminal trial for KSM. We believe that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the four detainees who will be tried with him must be tried in civilian courts.  We believe that where in our country these trials are held is irrelevant, as long as they occur on our soil where the crimes were committed, where the people who deserve transparent government once again have it. Our daughters, sons, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives who worked in or rushed in to save others in the World Trade Center and died there, and those in the Pentagon, and those on the planes: passengers and pilots and crew members, all loved our country.  In their names we ask that you honor and preserve our constitution and our rule of law. Criminal trials work. They've prosecuted terrorists hundreds of times without incident. Many of Burlingame's and Keep America Safe's so-called "fears" about civilian trials are no more than "urban myths." They say they can't handle sensitive information, but The Washington Independent reports that "The military framework for handling classified information is almost exactly the civilian framework for handling it." Cheney, Burlingame and other right wingers blindly back military commissions, failing to mention that they have been slow in delivering justice (again three convictions in nine years) -- when and if they ever get around to doing it. From The Washington Post: Military prosecutors are likely to rely on statements the defendants made to an FBI team that arrived after more questionable interrogations had taken place as proof of the alleged plotters' criminal intent. Assistant U.S. attorneys working in the civilian courts have developed a larger body of sensitive evidence, which they might not be willing to use in a military proceeding because of concerns about the legal standards there. One of the most fraught legacies of the Bush years is the issue of detainee mistreatment that could taint confessions and accounts from informers about other prisoners. Supporters of the military system say they have resolved problems with alleged torture by ensuring that fresh FBI interrogation teams got new, "clean" confessions from detainees. But in January, senior U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan excluded nearly two dozen interrogation summaries in the case of an al-Qaeda-linked suspect who was challenging his detention. The suspect had been interrogated in Afghanistan and later questioned by a "clean team" in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Hogan said the reports were "not reliable" and questioned whether enough time had passed between interviews for the man, Musa'ab Omar al-Madhwani, to have recovered from physical and psychological mistreatment. Military commissions are not a practial as a solution. Not for justice for those victims of 9/11. Yet Burlingame, Cheney and others right wingers keep pushing the mythology. They don't care about a system that works. They care about creating political wedge issues to attack the President and divide Congress and the public. 2010-03-18T13:07:06+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/rahm-emanuel-used-to-be-against-indefinite-detention-holder-still-believes-/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/rahm-emanuel-used-to-be-against-indefinite-detention-holder-still-believes-/ It's politics versus principle. On one hand you have White House Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel searching for a political compromise on Guantanamo Bay because he sees the debate as a liability and in the way of more important issues. On the other you have Attorney General Eric Holder holding fast to his belief in the rule of law, wanting to push back on the failed national security polices of the Bush-Cheney administration and focus on the tools we have that work -- our justice system. Holder is not only concerned about upholding principle, he knows that criminal trials are the right thing to do. Our courts have more experience prosecuting terrorism suspects. They have a track record that has lead to the convictions of more than 300 terrorists since 2001. So it's not just the most sound constitutional decision, but it's the right decision. Yet what is right on principle won't always work politically -- or at least that what Emanuel seems to believe now. When he was in Congress, though, he didn't feel that way. He was against detention without charge and he wanted to close Gitmo. He was passionate about those issues. Where did that passion go and lead to political cynicism? Firedoglake's Marcy Wheeler recently published an excerpt from a letter by Congressman Norm Dicks from 2007 where he called for the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay and an end to holding prisoners without charge or trial. Among those signed on to the letter is current White House Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel. From Rep. Dicks' letter: Since the time that captured “enemy combatants” were first brought to Guantanamo Bay in 2002, the detainment facility has undermined America’s image as the model of justice and protector of human rights around the world. Holding prisoners for an indefinite period of time, without charging them with a crime goes against our values, ideals and principles as a nation governed by the rule of law. Further, Guantanamo Bay has become a liability in the broader global war on terror, as allegations of torture, the indefinite detention of innocent men, and international objections to the treatment of enemy combatants has hurt our credibility as the beacon for freedom and justice. Its continued operation also threatens the safety of U.S. citizens and military personnel detained abroad. While for the closure of the prison and ending Bush-Cheney era policies then, Rahm Emanuel seems up for taking a much more political approach now. He's even taken to calling Guantanamo "a waste" of political capital as it is a "second-tier" issue. Guantanamo isn't an actual problem to Emanuel, but "politically" it causes problems for the President, so he believes it should be avoided. That is a travesty. Wheeler, in her post, wonders: What changed between the time when Rahm recognized how unacceptable indefinite detention is and his willingness now, in cahoots with Lindsey Graham, to set up a system of indefinite detention? Heck, this Rahm has even called closing Gitmo a distraction. Would I be foolish to ask for that other Rahm back? Where did that Emanuel go? In a recent story in New York Times Magazine by Peter Baker, Baker describes a "pragmatic" Emanuel working the political tract to get things done. That it's not about what's right or ideology or reversing past Bush-Cheney era policies. It's about politics. About winning and losing. And Emanuel has demonstrated he is all about compromising principle in the hopes of winning on politics. From New York Times Magazine: He has been leery of or has resisted the most aggressive efforts to overturn Bush-era national-security policies, like closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay, investigating C.I.A. officers accused of abusing detainees and taking Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to New York to try him in a civilian court for masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks. The issues pitted him against Attorney General Eric Holder and the White House counsel, Greg Craig, and eventually Craig resigned. Emanuel is not particularly vested in the substantive merits or drawbacks of the specific plans. He sees them as politically problematic, wasting scarce capital and provoking unnecessary fights on what he regards as second-tier issues that distract from higher priorities. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Attorney General Eric Holder, still arguing for U.S. criminal trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees. Holder has been under blistering attack ever since he announced the decision to hold stateside trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other other Gitmo detainees. Right now, right wingers are attacking Holder for an amicus brief he was part of in 2004 that questioned former President Bush's authority to hold people, indefinitely, without charge. ABC's Jake Tapper described this as " the latest attack by members of the Bush administration against current officials of the Obama Justice Department, in which the values and judgments of current Justice Department officials are questioned and assailed as inadequate if not somehow collusion with terrorists." Despite the attacks and the accusations from groups like Liz Cheney's "Keep America Safe" that by questioning the then President's authority, Holder is some kind of "terrorist sympathizer," the Attorney General went before the House Appropriations Committee Tuesday. Not surprisingly, he was again attacked by Republican members who were pushing their own political agenda for keeping Guantanamo open and using unconstitutional military commission trials. They attempted to trap him in ridiculous arguments. ("Osama bin Laden, in your opinion, has the same rights as Charles Manson?" said Rep. John Culberson of Texas. Holder replied that he thought Mason and Bin Laden actually had a lot in common being "mass murderers.") And they focused on hypotheticals. Holder, though, held fast to his principles. During testimony Holder said, "They are tested ... they are secure, we have tried these cases in a safe manner," Holder told a House Appropriations subcommittee. "Our allies around the world support us in bringing these cases in (criminal) courts." Holder is right. Emanuel is wrong. But they used to be on the same side. Let's hope that political expediency doesn't permanently reinforce the failed policies of the past. 2010-03-17T13:03:35+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/sen.-lindsey-graham-has-no-credibility-on-gitmo-terror-trials/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/sen.-lindsey-graham-has-no-credibility-on-gitmo-terror-trials/ After describing in detail many of Sen. Lindsey Graham's failures on Guantanamo Bay and his unwavering support for military commissions -- even after they were found to be unconstitutional and fraught with problems -- Human Rights First's Daphne Eviatar begins to question why anyone would even entertain Graham's thoughts on the issue. From Huffington Post: Graham is now also making a far more sweeping attempt to undermine suspected terrorists' right to a civilian trial. Senator Graham is reportedly trying to broker a deal with the White House and his Senate colleagues to get them to pass a new law authorizing indefinite detention without trial of terror suspects on U.S. soil. In return, Graham claims, he will deliver Republican support for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. Graham doesn't seem to have much support for his proposal from either side of the aisle, with objections on both legal and practical grounds. "There is a law already on indefinite detention," Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, (D-MI), told Congressional Quarterly. "It's called the Geneva Convention." Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said "I don't think there's any need for a new statute," adding that it "confuses the issue to suggest that we don't have that authority now." That hasn't stopped Senator Graham from promising the White House once again something he appears wholly unable to deliver. The question is whether anyone will fall for it this time around. Read more here. 2010-03-16T14:32:42+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-republican-resistance-to-closing-gitmo/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/the-republican-resistance-to-closing-gitmo/ We hope the White House was watching CNN this Sunday when House Minority Leader John Boenher said he wouldn't vote to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay even "if you put a gun to my head." Right now the White House is considering a deal with Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham that would close the prison under the condition that so-called 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others would be prosecuted in military commission trials only. But if the White House goes back on their decision to have criminal trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees in the hopes of getting the votes to close the prison they'll be destroying their principles while going on a fool's errand. Republicans in the House and Senate are not going to vote to close Gitmo. Rep. Boehner, like other Republicans before him, makes it clear to CNN's Candy Crowley that there aren't ANY circumstances he'd close Guantanamo Bay under. It's just a bad deal President Obama is considering with Sen. Graham. Not only would the White House be choosing an inferior, problemantic system by trying suspects in military commissions, they would be doing it for nothing. The Washington Post ran a story Sunday explaining just some of the many problems with military commission trials. Eugene R. Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice, said in an interview that the civilian courts are the best venue. "Military commissions are antithetical to the administration of justice," Fidell said. "They're slow, they're opaque, the rules are currently unknown." During the Bush years, the commission system ran into legal trouble at the Supreme Court. But its supporters say that the military courts are on a firmer, fairer path because of reforms lawmakers passed last year. New protections for classified information are in place, and judges can close the courtroom easier, for example. ... (T)he nature of the military legal system leaves open several of the same critical questions about such a trial. Among them: It is unclear what, if any, constitutional rights would be triggered if Mohammed and his four co-defendants were moved onto U.S. soil for a military trial. There is little, if any, case law to guide the judges' decisions on defendants' challenges to their mental competency, their allegations that they have not been afforded a speedy trial and their ability to confront witnesses. Military prosecutors are likely to rely on statements the defendants made to an FBI team that arrived after more questionable interrogations had taken place as proof of the alleged plotters' criminal intent. Assistant U.S. attorneys working in the civilian courts have developed a larger body of sensitive evidence, which they might not be willing to use in a military proceeding because of concerns about the legal standards there. 2010-03-15T12:29:33+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/blog-round-up-on-gitmo-terror-trials/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/blog-round-up-on-gitmo-terror-trials/ Here's a wrap of the best news of the week being passed around on the blogs, Twitter and Facebook, starting off with this zinger of a rebuke to Liz Cheney from MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Also in the news -- Karl Rove is totally keen about water-boarding. Proud even. "I'm proud that we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists and gave us valuable information that allowed us to foil plots such as flying airplanes into Heathrow and into London, bringing down aircraft over the Pacific, flying an airplane into the tallest building in Los Angeles and other plots." He's (surprise, surprise) promoting a new book that defends the Bush-Cheney torture policies among other disasters. Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld and Joshua Dratel write how now is NOT the time to be experimenting with unproven military commissions. Especially when we have a U.S. criminal court system that has tried terrorists and works. Gawker takes a humorous look at why we shouldn't be listening to "President" Lindsey Graham. (Something about him NOT being President and having TERRIBLE ideas about national security.) And even Bush era attorneys, including former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, think Liz Cheney is eleventy billion kinds of wrong. 2010-03-12T15:35:57+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/lindsey-graham-wants-to-put-detainees-slated-for-release-into-DHS-limb/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/lindsey-graham-wants-to-put-detainees-slated-for-release-into-DHS-limb/ South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has been in the news a lot lately about his work with the White House trying to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. He's saying "close it" but let's keep the military commissions and keep holding people without charge or trial. Now he's suggesting that Homeland Security take over the detainees slated for release. He's got tons of ideas to close Guantanamo. All of them bad. According to an interview with The Hill, Graham says "released detainees should be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security until they can be sent to another country." What the article doesn't mention is the "released detainees" Graham is referring to have already won their court cases, were deemed not a threat and should be released as soon as possible. They should NOT be sent to yet another prison where they will sit for even longer waiting on the DHS to decide whether or not an innocent man should be set free. These individuals don't pose a threat and Graham's suggestion of putting cleared detainees in the hands of Homeland Security doesn't address the REAL problem -- that these detainees need to be freed. Adding further insult, Graham, and his horrible policy ideas are all over the press as the White House continues to negotiate with him. And if President Obama buys into any of this "compromise" to finally close the prison in Guantanamo Bay he'll just be capitulating to the fear-mongering wing of the Republican Party who wants indefinite detention and failed military commissions, while at the same time gaining no new votes to close Guantanamo. Graham, for whatever his intentions, is dealing with a Republican Party that is by-and-large FOR waterboarding, FOR Gitmo and FOR indefinite detention. It's Gitmo stays open or nothing. The White House has to realize that any compromise with Graham would be both short-sighted and fruitless. Don't believe me? Just take a look at what Graham's colleagues are saying about his special negotiating time with the White House: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: "When a foreign national terrorist is captured in the United States like the Christmas bomber, or overseas—he should be sent to Guantánamo, detained there, interrogated there, and the case adjudicated there. They should be treated as military prisoners, not like U.S. citizens." Republican Rep. Lamar Smith: "Guantánamo Bay is best equipped for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, not a prison inside the U.S." Rep. Pete Hoekstra (Mich.), the senior Republican on the House intelligence committee: "I think it’s crazy to be negotiating with the White House on this ... Lindsey didn’t want the detainees in South Carolina when it was under consideration." Michael Steel, a spokesperson for House Republican Leader John Boehner: “Our focus is keeping dangerous terrorists from being brought to this country, where they will have the same rights as American citizens." Liz Cheney’s group, Keep America Safe: 'We are concerned by reports that this will be part of a deal to close Guantanamo Bay and bring terrorists onto US soil," a statement sent over by the group says. "We continue to call on the President to reverse his decision to close the facility." "I’m getting a lot of grief," Sen. Graham admitted to Bob Schieffer, host of CBS News' "Face the Nation." And he's going to keep getting grief. Graham can't get the votes to close Gitmo no matter how many backwards, unconstitutional Bush-Cheney era policies he keeps in place. Right wingers want Gitmo. They've been clear about this. Any compromise with Graham is a setup for failure. It's better to get rid of the Bush-Cheney National Security mindset, the indefinite detention and release prisoners who are deemed not a threat AND close Gitmo, rather than play "let's make a really bad deal" with Graham. Said blogger Spencer Ackerman on this same subject: The White House can surely cave on its plan to try KSM in civilian court, but it’s doubtful Graham can actually deliver on his end of the deal. Greg Sargent asked around GOP circles and found that Graham has practically no levers of GOP authority supporting the deal, whether inside government or outside. This might be the most unsurprising aspect of the whole prospective deal. Graham hasn’t been able to bring over any significant GOP support for a climate bill. Rather than bring Republicans along or even provide the administration cover, Graham himself has earned rebuke from his party. That might be admirable from a progressive perspective on principle. But Graham is asking the administration to compromise its principles in exchange for delivering votes that he shows no sign of being able to deliver. Why would any administration take this deal? 2010-03-10T14:59:25+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/mccain-and-lieberman/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/mccain-and-lieberman/ Sens. John McCain and Joe Lieberman have come out in favor for the indefinite detention of ... you. Not just foreign terrorism suspects, but now all American citizens.  Under the guise of "getting tough on terrorism," McCain and Lieberman have chosen to ignore the Bill of Rights and introduce a bill that would allow for U.S. citizens to be held, indefinitely, without charge or criminal trial for "the duration of hostilities against the United States." Conservatives have long claimed they are for the Bill of Rights and that they want less government in people's lives. But breaking the law and rounding up U.S. citizens to have their rights denied DOES NOT fit America's values. This bill undermines everything that Americans believe in and stand for. It's wrong. It's not constitutional. And it makes no sense. Here's what the bill actually says: SEC. 5. DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL OF UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENTS. An individual, including a citizen of the United States, determined to be an unprivileged enemy belligerent under section 3(c)(2) in a manner which satisfies Article 15 5 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War may be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities. This is as dangerous as it is illegal. We're already denying the rights of nearly 200 men in Guantanamo Bay. Now we want to spread that broken system and use it on American citizens. To what gain? There's no benefit in holding Americans without charge or trial indefinitely. This shows McCain and Lieberman's true feelings about our justice system and the rights of citizens -- they don't think we should have them. We're expendable, political capital to be used at will to gain points in the effort to appear "tough" on terrorism. It doesn't matter that this bill would impact every American's life by opening a door our Founding Father's thought they'd nailed shut when they created the Bill of Rights.  On top of this, if the President ever needed proof that working with Sen. Lindsey Graham to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay is a folly, this is it. These are two of Graham's closest colleagues and they have a bill wanting to take the illegal practices held in Guantanamo and apply them to citizens. From The Washington Independent: My emphasis. Lieberman is constantly described as a moderate. McCain — at least once upon a time — used to buck his party and is now taking a for-it-before-he-was-against-it position on closing Guantanamo. And they favor keeping U.S. citizens detained indefinitely, a position that wouldn’t withstand a second of judicial scrutiny. These are Graham’s closest allies in the Senate. They would be the very first people he would call to round up their votes for closing Guantanamo if the White House agrees to a deal. And they favor keeping American citizens detained forever! These are the people Graham would be reaching out to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. They "hate" the prison, but LOVE the denial of rights. 2010-03-09T14:52:15+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/welcome-to-washington-politics-at-its-worst-ksm-belongs-in-a-u.s.-crim/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/welcome-to-washington-politics-at-its-worst-ksm-belongs-in-a-u.s.-crim/ I didn't know we elected Sen. Lindsey Graham president? I didn't know White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was over the Department of Justice? Yet somehow the partisans have taken over what should be the domain of our independent criminal justice system. The Washington Post is reporting today that the President's advisers are pushing for Obama to hold KSM and other Gitmo detainees trials in military commissions. Flawed, failed, constantly challenged for their constitutionality -- military commissions. All this compromise to keep Bush-Cheney Era national security policies in place even if Gitmo is closed. This is wrong. And we need to tell the President it is wrong. (Join us at New Security Action. Right now we're sending letters to the White House demanding that KSM and other detainees have their day in court -- a U.S. court. Not a military commission. Click here to participate.) Attorney General Eric Holder was right when he said KSM would be tried in a U.S. criminal court and face justice. To reverse on this decision because of pressure from the right wing and to win the favor of Sen. Graham would be, in a word, horrendous. From The Washington Post: Marine Col. Jeffrey Colwell, acting chief defense counsel at the Defense Department's Office of Military Commissions, said it would be a "sad day for the rule of law" if Obama decides not to proceed with a federal trial. "I thought the decision where to put people on trial -- whether federal court or military commissions -- was based on what was right, not what is politically advantageous," Colwell said. Various news outlets have reported that Graham and Emanuel are in the middle of a tit-for-tat horse trade involving the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay in turn for the continuation of the failed national security policies of the Bush-Cheney administration. Change the location, but keep the lawlessness -- that's what Graham wants. That's what Emanuel is bargaining for. And now we have this story in The Washington Post. Why are we even discussing the continuation of policies that were deemed unconstitutional? Why are we "staying the course" on Bush Era policies that didn't work the first time? Said Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham to Roll Call: We must try them in a court bound by our laws, according to our laws, because anything else is something less. A substitute for a court of law is not a lesser court but a lawless institution. It is, as former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, then chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials, warned, a court created to convict as to which there can be no respect as to the outcome. We can't go back. Gitmo must close, but we also must end the policies that made Gitmo the horror show that is in the first place. We can't just change the address and continue to perpetuation the politicization of national security that happened under President Bush. No trade for Gitmo's closure, President Obama. Say no to Bush Era policies. 2010-03-05T17:17:41+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/deal-or-no-deal-no-deal-mr.-president/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/deal-or-no-deal-no-deal-mr.-president/ Sen. Lindsey Graham seems to think our issue with the prison at Guantanamo Bay is purely a "real estate" problem.According to various media reports, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is in talks with the South Carolina senator about closing the prison. Sen. Graham says he wants to end Gitmo's tragic legacy, yet his ideas on just how to do that seem to be little more than that old business truism of "location, location, location." Sen. Graham's conditions for the closure are disturbing. He's for indefinite detention and against criminal trials for detainees -- even though the New York-based trial of would-be subway bomber Najibullah Zazi proved that our civilian system works best. He's instead backing the heavily flawed and unsuccessful military commissions system, a system that has only convicted three suspects since 2001 and has been besieged by legal issues. Graham says he is for ending "Gitmo," as long as all the hyporcitical, hyper political and unethcial policies and practices surrounding Gitmo remain. He's proposing Gitmo by another name and address -- but it's still Gitmo. Methinks Graham doesn't get what the real issue is about the prison at Guantanamo Bay. Yes, it's a symbol of torture that needs to be closed. But what difference does it make to close Gitmo, only to continue the same wrong-headed, immoral policies that are affiliated with it?Our country was founded on the belief that it is wrong for the government to detain a person without charge. It's called habeas corpus and it's the principle pillar in our Democracy. It's that notion that you can't just be hauled off to jail and thrown into a dark hole, never to be heard of again. There must be charges. There must be due process. There must be public trials. But again, conservatives like Graham are charging that somehow terrorists are different. That because they claim they are warriors and they claim they are fighting for a higher cause we must take that into consideration and honor it -- ignoring the fact that most terrorists we've tried and prosecuted were often wannabe mass murderers who manipulate religion -- not "holy warriors." These are individuals, not countries. They aren't representing any fight bigger than themselves. When our troops are sent out to fight in the field they have the United States backing them up. When a lone gunman, bomber or murderer heads out, spreading fear in the name of religion, they are backed (just barely) by a pack disparate ideologues seeking to exploit these isolated actions in an effort to push their tortured agenda. Graham wants to ignore our constitution. He wants to hold people indefinitely. He wants to ignore habeas corpus. Why? Does he not understand that the perversion of our laws is what made Gitmo the lightning rod it is today? That if we keep in place the same practices we will have proven to the world that we've learned absolutely nothing? The problem with Gitmo was how the prison operated outside of the rule of law. So Graham's solution is the change the address, but keep the lawlessness? We can't go for that. We can't agree with that. If that's the best deal the Obama administration can muster to close the prison at Guantanamo, we say there should be no deal at all. If we're going to close the prison, if we're going to end the legacy of Gitmo, we have to end the broken policies that came with it. A gulag by any other name is still a gulag. 2010-03-03T18:04:15+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/rahm-emanuel-lindsey-graham-form-unlikely-alliance-on-guantanamo-bay/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/rahm-emanuel-lindsey-graham-form-unlikely-alliance-on-guantanamo-bay/ Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is in talks with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel about closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. While both Graham and the White House agree the prison should be closed, they differ on what to do with the detainees. Graham is for military commissions, while the White House is fighting to try some detainees in U.S. court. Military Commissions don't work. They've been frought with problems from the very beginning regarding their legality. Criminal courts, on the other hand, have prosecuted hundreds of terrorism suspects since 2001. From Newser: Rahm Emanuel and Lindsey Graham have become unlikely friends, and the most visible fruit of that friendship may be a new agreement on Guantanamo Bay. Emanuel hasn’t officially endorsed Graham’s plan—which would close the prison, but put the kibosh on civilian 9/11 trials, and allow the indefinite detention of terror suspects—but the two speak about it frequently. Emanuel recently commented, “You can’t close Guantanamo without Sen. Graham.” Graham’s Guantanamo plan, for example, has elements the White House dislikes, but Emanuel “understands what I’m trying to do,” Graham says. “He understands you can only go so far by yourself.” We don't know where this partnership will lead. We hope it leads to the closure of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, but detainees need to be tried in U.S. courts where we already have a good history of trying terrorists. Read more about Graham and Emanuel here at Politico. 2010-03-02T14:05:01+00:00 http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/and-justice-for-none/ http://newsecurityaction.org/blog/entry/and-justice-for-none/ "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal." -- Richard Nixon Recently the Department of Justice released a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility regarding the torture memos written by Bush-Cheney era attorneys John Yoo and Jay Bybee. The report condemned the duo for their "poor judgment," but did not offer any further insight on whether or not anyone would ever be held accountable for committing torture during the eight years Bush administration. The slap on the wrist results of the report pose some disturbing questions:1. Will anyone ever be held responsible for torture committed during the Bush presidency? From former Vice President Dick Cheney openly admitting that he pushed for water-boarding in the second Bush term on national television, well after the President had turned sour on the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques, to the case of Yoo and Bybee who continue to argue that there was nothing illegal about their memos which authorized the torture to begin with -- It is obvious that torture of detainees was authorized at the highest levels, yet no one is expecting anyone from the Bush-Cheney administration to be hauled in for questioning, to be detained, arrested or put on trial. There is no public outcry for justice. There is no internal movement for justice within the DOJ. 2. Was Richard Nixon right? In the famed interview with David Frost in 1977, former President Richard Nixon said, that when the President does something, it's not illegal. More and more, history seems to be proving Nixon right. Whereas there was a partisan fervor to punish President Bill Clinton for lies he made about an extramarital relationship in the late 1990s, there was little to no movement from any political party to hold the Bush administration accountable for possible war crimes. What kind of precedent does this set when a President can face impeachment for perjury in a civil sexual harassment lawsuit that was largely forgotten the minute he was no longer in office, but another President, accused of authorizing torture, can have lawyers write memos promoting it, can have a Secy. of Defense in Donald Rumsfeld to execute it, can have it as the most open secret in Washington and have NO ONE ever face any sort of punishment? What does that mean for our country? What does that mean for future presidential administrations? In school we are taught that Congress -- the legislative branch -- writes the laws. The judicial branch ensures the law. And the executive branch -- where the office of the President lies -- executes the law. Perhaps this office now has a second purpose. It is the one branch that can operate outside of the law. The one branch that is above the law. Above accountability. If the public doesn't care that the executive branch may have broken the law and if Congress and the current administration doesn't care if the law was broken, who can prove Nixon's words wrong? 2010-03-01T14:56:20+00:00