Login HereMarcy is in Minneapolis at the Wide Stance Film Festival National Conference for Media Reform (a really cool program I might add, the link is worth a look) and Ted Stevens clogged my tubes last night, but things look to be A-OK this morning.
Guantanamo The Showcase is starting to seep into the conscience. Marcy has pointed out the rather curious intersection of the right wing family value of hating on same sex marriage, and those who would wish to practice it, with military commission procedure. By far and away, the best national reporting on the Guantanamo Show is, and has long been, done by Carol Rosenberg at the Miami Herald. Marcy thinks it is Pulitzer Prize good; by the time the year is out, I'll bet she may be right. Our friend drational has done a couple of posts reminding us that the Gitmo Showcase is much more than a macabre puppet play for the Cheney/Bush torture fiends, it is also a big campaign commercial for the "law and order" set at the GOP.
But I want to bring attention to something that really sank in for me yesterday morning and that a few people are starting to pick up on, but not many, and not nearly enough. Rosenberg laid out the background on the day long arraignment proceedings for the detainees at Gitmo at the link cited above:
But the day was remarkable -- a 9 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. court session, including two prayer breaks -- in which each man rejected the two to four military and civilian attorneys sitting beside him.
The director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Anthony Romero, watched from the spectators gallery in a fury. He had been building a death penalty defense fund and pool of criminal defense lawyers to help the military lawyers.
''It was one of the saddest days in American jurisprudence,'' he said. 'The word `torture' was used so abundantly and the legal process continued.''
He blamed Pentagon haste to get the men to trial before the end of the Bush administration. Defense lawyers were not given sufficient time to forge attorney-client relationships ''with men who were tortured for five years,'' before Thursday's arraignment, he said.
...
Some of the men rejected the legitimacy of commissions, in which U.S. military officers serve as judge and jurors. Saudi Mustafa Hawsawi, who allegedly funneled funds for the terror plot, went last and appeared to be echoing the others who came before him.
...
At one point, after earning the right to defend himself, Bin Attash interjected with a question: ``If we are executed, will we be buried in Guantánamo or sent back to our home countries?''Kohlmann didn't answer.
However, it was a couple of lines in a teevee report by NBC/MSNBC's Jim Miklaszewski yesterday (Friday) morning that were what pegged the outrage meter for me. I cannot find a clip of the exact report I saw, it was on MSNBC at about 9-9:30 am Pacific time. If anybody knows it and/or has a link, please post it in comments and I will update accordingly. Here is how I described it at the time in an email to Marcy and some other friends you all know:
Usual junk except for what I am sure he thought were a couple of throwaway lines that I found real interesting. The first was the report we already heard about KSM in the courtroom yesterday at the arraignment being the leader and speaking to the other detainees there as a group, clearly exhibiting his authority. But then the reporter relates how a couple of the other detainees seemed hesitant to give up their military lawyers and be martyrs, but how KSM was explicit in commanding the others, and how the government is not necessarily unhappy with this because the more the military lawyers are out of the picture, the easier the detainees all will be to convict (and administer the death penalty to by extension).
Doesn't seem that earth shattering at first; however, think through the dynamics to date and the blaring significance sets in. The US has assiduously kept the detainees separated and isolated all this time so that they could not communicate and have structural control from the top down and, then, out of the blue, viola! Right in the middle of the courtroom, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is blithely allowed to huddle them up like Favre does the Packers. When they break huddle, all of them, even the hesitant ones, suddenly want to dismiss their JAG/military lawyers that have been doing such commendable work under impossible conditions. Exactly at the point it is useful to help the US rid themselves of those meddlesome military lawyers that have been beating up their dog and pony shows.
First the Cheney Administration sacked the military judge that had the gall to allow even a shred of due process to the detainees, and now they have effectively sacked the military lawyers that had the temerity to seek it. This was a knowing and intentional play to deny counsel. The US Administration knew what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would do, and they knew that, given the opportunity, he would command the other detainees to do the same. So the US made sure it happened, so as to suit their demented self serving convenience. In writing this post, I have found one other person (h/t to Siun) that has also realized what occurred, and it is none other than Anthony Romero, the Director of the ACLU; everybody should know and be ashamed of what has been done in our name.
This huge bit of legal depravity is of truly profound significance, I cannot emphasize that enough. It sure will go an awful long way to wedge out and marginalize the only lawyers actually doing their job in this whole mess, and will insure that a competent record of the torture will not be created (even if the detainees do mention it). It will also hasten the death penalty killing of these detainees that are prime evidence of the whole US torture scheme. Pretty much is one big eraser and obscurer of the legal hash the prosecution has made. Brilliant. But morally, ethically and legally craven and deplorable. This is the story from the Guantanamo arraignment last Thursday that should be being discussed and decried. This is the penultimate straw; the last straw will be the snuff films that have been facilitated and hastened by Thursday's Gitmo arraignment shame.
Share This 
Spotlight
thanks bmaz and to Rosenberg. Thanks for shining the light
“It will also hasten the death penalty of these detainees that are prime evidence of the whole US torture scheme”
So sick. Spreading this story.
Makes me wonder again about the prisoners disappeared from black locations and floating prisons who didn’t even get as far as our Dear Leaders show trial.
“Gitmo Showcase is much more than a macabre puppet play for the Cheney/Bush torture fiends, it is also a big campaign commercial for the law and order set at the GOP.”
Not Law & Order set. This is the flog ‘em & heng ‘em set. The Law & Order set would believe in due process & fair trials.
Bmaz thx for the hattip. I started to post another diary at dKos today, but pulled it because the endorsement would have certainly diluted the impact (the last 2 scrolled off in less than 15 minutes); and I just wish this story was more important to people.
Maybe tomorrow.
“…law & order set”. Waasn’t there”law & order” under Saddam? Isn’t there “law & order” in every nation? Isn’t “law & order” a meaningless generality?
Is it not similar to the oft proclaimed “A nation of laws”?
Or, “We are a democracy” asserted to proclaim superiority? When did the US become a “democracy”? 1776? After slavery was abolished abt 1865? After 1920, when women were allowed to vote in all states?
Beware meaningless generalities.
Y’all didn’t think I was using law and order literally did you? Jeebus!
I’m trying to wade through the 200-300 pages I copied SSCI and other reports and keep up with this also. I actually have had one of my client almost in tears just talking about this, torture and how sad she is that the US has taken this path, hope there are others that take notice. thanks for the post
I hope you can submit your diary tonight when the primary stuff has died down, and it will take few recommends to get the diary and subject noticed.
A little OT, you might take a look at a diary that Anthony Romero put up a diary on DKos ACLU Fights for Justice At Guantánamo Military Commissions which scrolled off much too soon.
I think you’re right, bmaz. It’s this, or it’s something that looks a lot like this. Very fine post.
drational made a sharp observation a couple of threads ago that I’ve been thinking about since. At least one of the reasons al-Qahtani’s case may have been hived off from the other five is that al-Qahtani still seems to be attached to a lawyer, which would slow this plot down, so he has been removed for separate treatment.
One of the things that has kept some of us upbeat about the Khadr case is that the kid still seems to be attached to his (exceptionally good) lawyers, in spite of what sounds like pretty serious abuse when he was first detained.
To me, judicial killing is sadism (yes, I’ve read de Sade) — the delay and the ritual are the problem. That is obviously what thrills some people (and clearly it does thrill some people). But much worse, that this should be done in the service of an election? I wish I had words. I’m looking for them hard, and I appreciate so much everyone else who keeps trying.
Oh, and a PS: This, from Roseberg’s report, just took my knees out from under me:
Unfortunately I posted and deleted immediately so i am blocked till tomorrow.
will post early…
the gist is related to EWs post from May 13: http://emptywheel.firedoglake......l-qahtani/
Basically, I think they dropped al Qahtani because he had a working relationship with his defense lawyer. And that meant he would mount a defense and slow down the show. The Admin wants so bad for these detainees to drop their lawyers that they even let KSM intimidate!!! the only one whose lawyers were trying to put up a defense. Read this link on the intimidation: http://www.miamiherald.com/gua.....59602.html
A gross practical failure of criminal law. they are not even trying to put on a pretense of fairness.
anyway IMHO it is a good post but what’s a kosser to do?
Yeah this is what I am focused on. I think they purposely let KSM intimidate Hawsawi because his defense lawyers are putting up a fight (despite his request to self-represent.
If they can get Hawsawi on the Martyr train then they all win (the detainees and the prosecution).
I heard the same MSM report. It said that the other detainees are really afraid of KSM.
The whole thing is sick, sick, sick. God help us.
Well, I think it is not just the lawyers, but the somewhat distinct posture they have placed the defense in with al-Qahtani’s unique facts on where, when and how he was tortured. There is flat a whole boatload of issues the government is on the wrong side of with al-Qahtani. And, hey, why not just dismiss the charges and avoid the mess when they can just keep him locked up in isolation until he dies anyway?
Can nobody make this stop? Gates?
bmaz,
Good post, but I don’t think that things are as dire as you make them out to be in regards to the Gitmo death penalty cases. The Bush Administration is trying everything possible to speed up the trial and guilty verdicts of these 5 guys before the November election in order to tilt the balance in favor of John McCain. That’s a given, especially after all these years of the administration skirting every law and moral decency possible.
So, why am I (somewhat) hopeful? Well, because in 3 weeks the Supreme Court is going to issue its ruling in Boumediene that will have a huge effect on the rights of the Guantanamo detainees. I suspect that the Court will rule that for all intents and purposes Gitmo is part of the US and thus, the detainees there should have some greater degree of due process rights. This would throw the entire MCA proceedings against KSM and the others into doubt and could very well mean that a new trial would have to be convened.
Good catch bmaz. I heard the same thing on NPR yesterday. Apparently one of the defendants in particular seemed reluctant to reject his lawyer, but did so under pressure from KSM. This particular defendant (whose name I can’t recall) is weak and thin and had to sit on a pillow in court. His lawyer was livid that KSM was allowed to interfere with his client’s defense, but it sounded like his objections fell on deaf ears.
Seems like there is not much honor to go around in those “court” rooms. KSM was willing to sacrifice other people’s lives before his capture and he is still willing to do so, only this time the American military is happy to lend him a hand. Nice. Good to know we are all on the same team now.
I agree regarding torture- but that only gets brought forth if someone puts up a defense. In the Rosenberg details of Thursdays show, the detainees were not allowed to talk about torture details, and KSM at least was compliant. Nobody is going to stand in the way of their conviction but a lawyer, and Al-Q had a slew of lawyers working with him on his behalf.
Oh I am fully cognizant of the implications of the upcoming decision in Boumediane v. Bush, but even assuming that the result moves things in the path you suggest, the harm from the scam run on Thursday at the arraignment will still permeate and prevail; it is only a question of to what degree. By not keeping these guys separate, and allowing them to be ordered to refuse assistance of counsel and to demand rapid death, will likely mean they will take that tact even in the restructured process you envision. That is what I was trying to get across; this was a fundamental and seminal moment, and a craven one at that. It is not being understood and exposed as it should be.
bmaz,
Oh yeah, that’s definitely a possibility. But what if, say, in the wake of Boumediene the DC Circuit (having jurisdiction over Gitmo) rules that new trials shall require various procedures that bring it more in line with US criminal trials than the current show trials are. If this happens, wouldn’t it be illegal for the court to “allow[] them to be ordered to refuse assistance of counsel”? That would prevent what happened at Thursday’s arraignment from happening again.
No, certainly not illegal. The general standard, even in regular federal courts, is if a defendant is mentally competent, and is knowing and intelligently (strictly in the legal term of art sense, i.e. understands what he is doing) in his desire to waive assistance of counsel and represent himself, then he will be allowed to do so. The court often still provides at least one “advisory counsel” to work with such defendants, but the defendant runs the show and makes the decisions and arguments.
bmaz,
Ok, that’s an excellent point but now I’m confused. If criminal defendants are allowed to represent themselves in regular courts, why is it a huge deal that KSM and the others requested it during their arraignments? It seems to me that the actual issue isn’t so much that they requested the right to represent themselves, but the fact that it means that, as you say, that will make it easier to convict and execute them before the election. But if, as I think, the SCOTUS rules in the detainees favor, it delays the entire process until well after the next President takes office. Given that both McCain and Obama have pledged that they will close down Gitmo as soon as either one is elected, that seems to be the most ideal situation.
Without interpretations like this one, bmaz, a person like myself would have no clue.
What you describe plays straight into the hands of extremists everywhere. It empowers thugs, would-be martyrs, and the despairing.
All of that is good; but they have to try these clucks somewhere, sometime. And I guess the best way I can answer your other question is that it is one thing to allow a man to make his own decision about waiving counsel and demanding to plead guilty and be put to death; it is quite another to encourage and facilitate that man in ordering four other men, that on their own did not seem overly predisposed, to do the same against their best interests. That is simply beyond the pale.
I guess Suicide by Jury is more palatable than Suicide By Tribunal.
But I am not as optimistic on Boumediene as yall.
I’m with you. I fear that the Supremes will side with BushCo.
Boxturtle (*worry*)
If any of you have been jonesing for some trash talk, there is some up.
William Neukom four months ago offered to work on due process concerns within the show trial concept. I wonder how that tender was received. He is the president of the American Bar Association. His offer was in the form of a 3pp letter to the president.
bmaz,
On that, we can definitely agree.
drational and BoxTurtle,
The thing is, we know that there are at least 5 votes of the court to grant the Gunatanamo detainees habeas corpus rights. (See Rasul v. Bush, plus Kennedy’s concurrence stating that “Guantanamo Bay is in every practical respect a United States territory”). And so, the very fact that they will be granted habeas rights means that they are entitled to some some of adequete remedy (either an actual habeas trial or equivalent process, like the CSRTs). The real question in Boumediene is whether or not the CSRT that the Bush administration set up is adequete. Initally, both Justices Kennedy and Stevens thought that they were and thus denied cert to hear Boumediene. Then, after Boumediene counsel Seth Waxman filed a amicus brief by Stephen Abraham detailing the gross inadequacies of the CSRT process, the court suddenly reversed its own decision and granted cert. This means that Kennedy and Stevens changed their minds. (Also, during the December oral argument, after Kennedy asked SG Clement whether the CSRT could order the release of a detainee that it determined was not an “enemy combatant”, Clement responded that he didn’t know, which made Kennedy ask what does that tell you about the adequacy of the remedy?”). So the question then becomes does the court remand the decision back to the DC Circuit with instructions to apply greater due process when evaluating the decision of the CSRT or whether the SCOTUS throws out the CSRTs altogether and asks Congress to create a new procedure to try detainees in accordance with the due process rights available to them.
urbanempire, you have hit the nail on the head here with you comment in general and this blurb from Kennedy in particular. And we pretty much have our answer because, far as I can tell, there are no charges whatsoever against al-Qahtani, yet I sure don’t recall anything about him being released….
JohnL, just an additional point for anyone unaware that Neukom is the 2007-08 ABA President, and also former Chief Counsel for Microsoft Corp.
A friend mentioned that the Wa State ABA Annual Dinner this year was quite the event - people more energized than they’ve seen in many a year. No info on Neukom and whether he was there, but the firing of John McKay still reverberates, one gathers.
Bad for Bush.
Hopefully quite promising over the longer term for the legal system, and more clear focus on the role of government in providing a legal framework for the pursuit of justice.
Just so no one is confused, I shifted the order of posts, because I wanted the substantive Gitmo thread up on top, as opposed to trash talk.
You just spit in my “justice” soup du jour.
Thanks.
Crap.
Not in my name. I want to move to Canada, unless something is done that validates the depravity, the hypocrisy of this situation. Nothing creeps me out more than this kind of cruelty and power and control. nothing. It’s like looking in the face of the devil.
Wavpeac, I hate to tell you this, but we have a fair amount of depravity and hypocrisy up here. Our current government is made up of Cheney wannabes. They are a minority at the moment, but they govern as though they were masters of the universe. Well, Cheney wannabes would, wouldn’t they.
I understand the sentiment, though. To me it is hard work to calm down enough to fight back usefully. I think that is what we must do, although if anyone is ever desperate, I have a spare room.
I finished reading the SSCI phase 2a report, and put up two very long comments on the Working Thread. The gist is that the conclusions are watered down to get a couple of Repub votes, Hagel and Snowe. The facts are much stronger than the conclusions. The second comment addresses the concurring views of Rockefeller, Feinstein and Feingold. They don’t go into detail, but they say that the Administration is a bunch of liars.
Honestly, my folks have property up near the gunflint trail on the MN side of lake superior. We have often joked about the situations that might lead us to pick up canoe and row quietly across the border. It just makes me sick. Torture literally brings tears to my eyes. It’s so hard to read it, but it seems that if we don’t face it, accept it, we cannot change it.
I haven’t picked out my canoe yet.
This is the first I’ve heard of agents forcing detainees to eat a baseball.
Sixty congresspersons, including Conyers write a letter asking for a Special Prosecutor.
How do you eat a baseball?
When I was a kid, it appeared that all you had to do was piss off Don Drysdale or Bob Gibson.
masaccio, you are an international treasure.
Loo Hoo and wavpeac, now I am feeling really bad. I just don’t want to believe that people do these things. wavpeac, I’m not sure that anyone has ever canoe’d to Greenland (that’s Denmark; they’re nice, sort of like Canada without the neocon part), but I think it can be done in kayaks. If this keeps up, I may keep you company.
Skdadl, thanks.
So how do we feel about Paris? I don’t speak much French, so I wouldn’t know what crap the government was doing, and the cheese and wine are great.
We all need to be clear on exactly what is going on here. This is nothing less than government sanctioned murder for political purposes.
I don’t think I could kayak or canoe to Paris. But dang, those french sure did give a try at confronting the USA. Why didn’t they take it all the home?? It certainly wasn’t because we started using the term “american fries.” I mean we can theorize about why our congress didn’t stand up. But I am thinkin’ that France, Germany, Italy, Britain, and yes, Canada. Had to have some idea that this was all bogus stuff. They have intelligence people, right? Why didn’t anybody stop us!!
My definition of war that is is the use of destruction and death to meet an objective or goal.
All war is that, basically. The goal might be self preservation or it might be oil, to free the slaves, or to save the jews in internment camps. But it is basically meeting an objective by using death and destruction.
I know what you mean. How does one conclude that putting someone’s hand in gasoline and lighting it on fire would be productive on any level? I’m afraid we haven’t learned the worst of it.
How in the world do we repair this? The sixty congress critters are on the right track. And an impeachment between the election and January 20th? Is this possible? George Bush should not be able to pardon anyone for these kinds of crimes against humanity. Crimes against all of nature.
ReaderOfTeaLeaves, I’m reading The Sociopath Next Door. Just started, and it’s fascinating. Thanks.
Wow, just wow. This is a wonderful development. 56 Democrats in Congress signed that letter calling for a special counsel to investigate torture. Key sentences:
This language stands out to me because if you have spent any time looking at the website for the International Criminal Court, you will find that key issues to establish standing include that the crimes result from a systematized, top-down policy, just as stated in this letter. Note they also refer to international law. This is a powerful move by a courageous set of Congressmembers. They are setting the stage to threaten Bush, Cheney, Rice, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Gonzales and others with being shipped off to The Hague if they don’t cooperate fully with the investigation. Will they have the balls to follow through?
Punishment under our laws should be good enough for many purposes in moving our country out of this terrible nightmare. By structuring the situation in this way, they can use the threat of the ICC to make sure they don’t pull their usual BS to try to make this go away.
Someone in Congress understands jus cogens and obligatio erga omnes.
sociopath next door…great book. Every single person in my circle who has read it has thought of our fearless leaders and had to discuss them in reference to the book.
Jim White:
I think we’re safely at the point where the congress critters who do NOT go after BushCo for war crimes will be the ones losing their seats. But hell, I’ve been thinking that for a long old time.
I agree, and I hope I am not over-reacting, but I’m doing a Snoopy happy dance over seeing them actually take a bold move. I just hope they don’t lose their nerve like they usually do if a Republican says “boo”.
He won’t do it. The OLC has spoken through the loathsome John Yoo, and many people acted in reliance on it, and they won’t prosecute. As we Cubs fans say, maybe next year.
They relied on John Yoo to make somebody eat a freaking baseball? What planet are we on?
This is what I was wondering: if Scott McC’s book helped jar loose those last few votes?
Bob in HI
I love the the thought of the prospect. but, regrettably, think you guys may be getting way ahead of any possible reality. This paper contains a fairly decent discussion of a lot of the general parameters that are involved in such an attempt at general international jurisdiction. Note that, although there is discussion of criminal charges, including torture, the main focus is civil; and the conclusions are not blindingly promising even for civil application, much less criminal application to top governmental officials. That maintains well before even mentioning, much less discussing, the various exceptions, limitations and prohibitions that are littered throughout US laws and treaties.
At least I was happy for a while…
Even without the ICC, this is quite a bit more courage than Congress has been showing.
Here is the discussion of standing from the ICC prosecutor that I was discussing:
This is the passage that had me thinking that the ICC already agreed torture within its jurisdiction had been documented and that establishing it as policy was a key step in moving forward. The revelation of the high level meetings, and Bush’s approval of them, seems to meet that. Further, the wider application of these techniques that is coming to light also seems to meet the other concern mentioned here.
A final requirement is for prosecutions to be initiated within the home state.
All these seem to come together for me through the letter from Congress.
From the Washington Post:
You have to hand it to the Bush Administration, they are nothing if not consistent, there is no modality they will not implement to abuse and degrade humanity. It is disturbingly ironic that literally the only thing they have shown themselves adroit and competent at is continually finding new and inventive ways to make the United States look like shit. We should keep our eyes open for the Denbeaux report. I am familiar with previous work of theirs, and it is very good.
Geez, bmaz, not only a law journal article on Saturday night, but one by a Cambridge professor. and he doesn’t cite the Nuremburg war crime trials. I’ll read it tomorrow.
Parts of it can be skimmed rather quickly. Don’t know how much substantive you will get out of it; was meant mostly as kind of a general background and indication for those not law trained of the difficulty and conflicts inherent in any contemplation of submitting US officials to the Hague, it shows fairly well that the consideration is difficult even on civil cases, much less criminal ones.
You’re amazing; that was fast!
Suggest you read something else before falling asleep, though.
I’m glad to see you think it’s worth your while; wavpeac, ditto.
FWIW, I happened to be in Europe during a period in the months prior to the war. Even people in the bistros and greengrocer shops knew that the BushCheney admin was cooking books and selling shit.
Which is simply to underscore how shameless and pathetic the US media were (except for Christian Science Monitor, Sy Hersh, and McClatchy that I can think of offhand).
As one person said quite frankly, “Of course we know what Saddam has. The Germans probably sold him the chemicals, and the French know a lot more than they tell.” Made sense.
Coming back to US was like walking through a warp field.
bmaz, I was going to marvel earlier at their unerring “instinct” for the jugular of our system of laws. It’s not just that they break serious laws and violate the Constitution. They really go all out against such underpinnings as habeas corpus, right to counsel, access to courts, citizenship, any potential avenue by which a petitioner might then attempt redress of immediate violations. It’s what makes them truly unspeakable. Unfortunately, it is also what there is too little evidence of anyone in Washington having grasped (though I’m certainly glad to see today’s letter from the Congresspeople).
hi folks, al the spook here momentarily materializing with a really relevant link to this story. Laura at iamtrex sent email to a mcclatchy reporter on the whole mess and get a really awesome reply back that we all need to be aware of. I’m linking to her comment where the posted the replay from the reporter.
http://www.iamtrex.com/?p=1044#comment-110712
*poof*
Yikes!!
Okay, I see a promise of small jet fighters approaching the Death Star.
Please, Mr Spooky-Whoever-You-Are — DO NOT TEASE! Damn, this better be good.
WoOT!!
rotl: i’m not teasing but don’t know the contents anymore than anyone else. this just showed up after i linked to this thread over there and did a quick post on my blog about it. so we’ll have to wait and see. but i’m hopeful.
Heh… Okay, I think there’s plenty of us really wanting to be hopeful!
Was mighty interesting to see what happened with Gates and the Air Force last week, after reading your posts wayback last fall.
Still spooky.
yeah but so far it has turned out okay. i’m more concerned about a carrier group being sacrificed to a small boat attack to justify an iran attack now. will try to put up a post on that in next day or so. ndfg and i are engaged and she’s moving here to be with me so we’re in frantic move mode along with my dad being in hospital on and off due to problems with his diabetes meds. bottom line, posting is slow but determined.
I’m not sure they’re trying to get this in before the election. I think that what they’re doing is trying to get these men executed before Cheney leaves office. I don’t think this is political theater for the American people. I think it’s just pure spite from Cheney. He wants them dead. And, as always, he doesn’t care how many laws he needs to trample to get what he wants.
i think he doesn’t want them alive to testify about how they were tortured. it’s been tried before. didn’t work then either.
Probably some of both; but for the record, there is direct evidence (Hartmann?) that the timing is considered to be critical for the GOP election posture, so, whatever else it is, it is that at least partially.
bmaz and EW (and massacio), I hope it’s okay to put the info here on this thread that I’ve taken from massacio’s end of thread message referenced @35 above. Massacio asks, “Why is the SSCI document stating that the intel agreed with Cheney’s Aug 2002 speech if the evidence shows otherwise?”
First, a caveat: I’m not sure that I’ve read massacio accurately. Nevertheless, I’ve attempted to ‘translate’ his comments into a format that might make it easier (and faster) to compare information contained within the SSCI report against its conclusions.
Statement #1: The first speech is Cheney on August 26, 2002. He asserts that Iraq has resumed pursuit of a nuclear weapons development program, and said that Hussein would obtain nuclear weapons fairly soon.
Here is my effort at translating the content in massacio’s comment into a table summary:
(1) Saddam would need min 5 to 7 years for nuke development and therefore the nuclear threat was *NOT* immediate
2001
YES = CIA (Apr 01) ***** NO = unclear ***** MAYBE = none
2002
YES = DIA ***** NO = none ***** MAYBE = CIA
If I read massacio correctly, he points out that the agency support for Cheney’s claims shifted, perhaps ahead of, or in response to Cheney’s claims (rather than to objective evidence) . In addition, it appears that DIA evidence did NOT support Cheney’s 2002 claims.
YES means ‘the threat is not immediate’.
MAYBE means ‘there may be a threat within 5 - 7 years at the earliest.
——
(2) Saddam seeks aluminum tubes for nukes
2001
YES = none ******* NO = none ****** MAYBE = CIA (Apr 01)
2002
YES = ??CIA ****** (NO = DOE, DIA, INR ****** MAYBE = none
If I have correctly interpreted massacio’s information, it appears that three agencies provided analysis that make Cheney’s claims preposterous by 2002. I have placed a ??CIA notation under “YES” for 2002 to signal that I’m not entirely sure I am correct in assigning CIA to this category here.
——
(3) Saddam seeks to restart nuke program
2001
YES = none ***** NO = ?? ***** MAYBE = CIA, DOE
2002
YES = CIA (Aug 02) ***** NO = ?? ***** MAYBE = DIA (’has not abandoned the [nuke] program”)**
Again, in 2001 two agencies thought he ‘may’ restart his program.
In 2002, the analyses did not support Cheney’s claims.
—————
To repeat: I’m not certain that I’ve correctly interpreted Massacio’s information. Nevertheless, if I’m even half correct, then he makes a hugely important point — the TEXT and language of the SSCI conclusions are directly contradicted by the EVIDENCE. He says the report is characterized by this confusion. It’s my hunch that people can’t ’see’ that because they don’t have time, expertise, patience to wade through the entire document(s).
I’ll see whether I can find time to go back to that thread on Sunday and do a bit more, if this leads in a direction that is helpful… feedback…? thoughts…?
** Hardcore types would argue that this belongs in “yes”, and it’s a judgment call. This is phrased as a negation, so if it is a ‘yes,’ it’s the weakest possible type.
I realize they’re desperate for ANYTHING they can put a positive spin on, but I can’t think of any legal proceeding since 9/11 that’s made the Republicans look good. This one is already so unbelievably tainted that they can’t possibly expect to get much out of it.
bmaz and all,
I’m thinking that massacio is correct in his point that the report has been watered down to the point that the meaning is almost leached out by the polite, courteous ‘Senatorial’ compromising language. From what I’ve read, I agree.
But if the report is in fact that obtuse, then the way to extract that info is to validate the specific statements, summarize them into a ‘validity table’ (T, F) and then discuss from there. But before spending any more time, it would be necessary to get some feedback.
Useful?
Or TWOT (total waste of time)?
Heh heh, I didn’t say it was a bright, effective or defensible strategy, just that there has been some fairly compelling indication that they are indeed manipulating for that purpose.
Well that would depend on the time/value assessment of the individual or individuals contemplating the task. I remember when the Iraq Study Group Report (Baker-Hamilton) came out and most everybody thought is useless, stale and irrelevant upon arrival. And as to a lot of the ultimate use of it, that may have been true; but there was simply a ton of very useful and significant factual findings and hard hitting intermediate conclusions that when lined up and spelled out, painted a pretty devastating picture. And, to me at least, I thought that very powerful because the tact that the Republicans, and the Administration, took was to not attack the foundation and content of the report but to instead just trivialize and marginalize the grander recommendations. Thing is, that meant they did not challenge, and therefore effectively admitted all those hard hitting facts and intermediate conclusions.
The same could likely be done here. While the general conclusions that everybody wants to focus on may be terminally watered down and thinned out past usefulness, why bother with those? Cull the hard critical factual findings and citations, and intermediate conclusions, list them and spell them out for each area that needs to be addressed, and they will likely be powerful enough to exhibit, unequivocally, the obvious conclusion we want. So, I think it is a worthy task, the better question may be whether people capable of getting the work product out to a point and audience that can realize the powerful effect will actually do so. That I don’t know.
The two admininstration talking points I’ve heard are:
1. “this is a report from the democrats”, as if it were only opinion and not a study and analysis, and
2. ” we’ve heard all this before….no news… move on…”
There’s also another:
3. “The democrate only looked at 5 or 6 documents (lazy), so it’s not comprehensive…
Thanks for thoughtful response, especially this bit
As for this:
I was narrowing the scope to massacio’s info back on the other thread. He’s provided plenty of info to demonstrate his point — it just needs some kind of table summary that makes comparing BushCheney claims against the evidence more quick and simple.
It’s not feasible to take on the whole report (certainly not, at least, for me). But the samples that massacio has provided are do-able, IMHO.
People get confused by words (which Rove knows all too well).
There’s a reason companies use billboards and engineers use table summaries to spot conflicting, and also changing, data. (Why more attys don’t use table summaries baffles me, but I assume it’s because the law is all about language…?
kspena, couldn’t agree with you more.
And as far as I’m concerned, it’s absolutely shameful that the GOP was able to delay that report for so long. It also, however, shows how much they fear its real contents.
Mwhahaahahahahah…
Hi there. I see that TRex is down, so you can’t follow Spook’s link to my comment there. here’s the letter in full that I received from John Walcott at McClatchey, after I sent him your post, bmaz, asking that McClatchey feature this issue more prominently:
Thanks for writing.
Fear not, and stay tuned. Next Sunday, June 15, McClatchy will begin publishing the most extensive investigation to date of the treatment of detainees, not only at Guantanamo but also at Bagram and Kandahar in Afghanistan. Reporters Tom Lasseter and Matt Schofield tracked down and interviewed 66 former detainees-more than any other organization, media or NGO, we think- in 11 countries on three continents.
They also interviewed former prison guards, interrogators, translators, Pentagon and administration officials, defense lawyers and Afghan intelligence and security officials to paint the most complete picture we could of who U.S. picked up, how and why, what happened to “suspected enemy combatants” and who’s responsible.
The package was overseen by the McClatchy Washington Bureau’s Pulitzer Prize-winning foreign editor, Roy Gutman, the editor of “Crimes of War” and the author of a new book on U.S. policy toward Afghanistan before 9/11. It includes five main stories, a video, photos, numerous sidebars, the stories of all 66 former detainees and an online database.
If you don’t live in an area served by one of our papers, or even if you do, you can find the whole package at www.mcclatchydc.com starting on Sunday, June 15 and running for five days.
Please pass the word, and thanks again for writing.
John Walcott
treehouse was broken momentarily by an animated wedding gif. fixed now.
Heh, you sent that to McCaltchy eh? Cool, those are good guys there. Thanks!
if you happen to go to the treehouse tonight, do NOT believe the F*ck post. it’s a rickrolling. frakking patrex.
Morris Davis is the former lead prosecutor who spoke out most damningly of the political timing of the trials (as he resigned). Thomas Hartmann is the senior DoD legal adviser to the Convening Authority who was ordered to step back from one trial (Hamdan) because Judge Allred questioned his impartiality (so I think we’re assuming that he shouldn’t be involved in any of them?).
Like Frank @ 70, I don’t see how anyone could expect to profit politically from a tainted mess that is just getting worse daily, but then I’m never sure how out of touch I am with certain mentalities. Some people never seem to feel embarrassed or ashamed about the messes they create. And I guess they’ve got a constituency.
I keep thinking about bmaz’s last line — about the snuff films. If anything, the minds that want those horrify me as much as the executions will. But they’re there, aren’t they.
People here are wonderful. Getting the word out day after day is the best antidote to the horror. Well, it’s the only one some of us have, anyway.
There is some nice gathering of sources for this post. Local lawyers who have volunteered to work at Gitmo who are experienced from excellent law firms have been saying for a couple years that Gitmo is a surrealistic travesty.
Looming large over Gitmo is a Supreme Court opinion that could be released as early as tomorrow. Those companion cases are Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195) and Al Odah v. U.S. (06-1196).
One book I have meant to read that is not on Gitmo per se but sure provides the context for it and DOJ’s very systemic contribution to it was reviewed in the NYT Book Review this morning, Review Erich Lichtblau’s Bush’s Law I think reading this review will make people want to read the book.
I’d like to make it very clear that in full view of every attorney who has recently or is now practicing in the SDNY and every bar association that is vibrant there, Mike Mukasey as a district court judge was a very active dysfunctional participant in the rounding up of hundreds of innocent “material witnesses.” Hence, people I know call him “Material Witness Mukasey.”
Someone asked Bmaz the other day about the prospects of suing the government for malicious prosecution. Congress has set the bar very high in the code section that controls it, with enough legislative intent language to make it difficult to do, and easy for law clerks straight out of law school to pen the case law that reenforces that difficulty.
But attorney Branden Mayfield, arrested in Portland Oregon did it, and he took several million dollars from the pricks and prickesses at DOJ (in reality he took your gas money that these people squandered with their dishonesty and inept, incompetent egregious lawyering–something that has become a Main Justice trademark in the Bush administration and makes former AUSAs I know cringe. Mayfield is a Muslim. You should get very used to that word because the McCain campaign and their 527s are going to morph it into profanity reinforcing the vibrant pulsing bigotry that is a stong part of the infrastructure of many US citizens.
Elden Rosenthal, an Oregon civil rights attorneyrepresented Lichtblau when he sued the government.