Yesterday, the ACLU's team that was challenging a post-9/11 US program that flew terrorism suspects to secret prisons, suffered a major legal setback. Jeppesen, a Boeing subsidiary was contracted out by the CIA to conduct said flights. The ruling, which was handed down by the 9th district Court of Appeals, was divided 6-5 and narrowly upheld the state secrets doctrine used by the Bush Administration and now defended by the Obama DOJ. The case will undoubtedly be appealed to the SCOTUS, which in all likelihood will uphold the appeals' court's ruling.
In light of the recent developments Jeppesen case, I thought I'd share a couple of relevant links. In this first video from a panel hosted by the American Constitution Scoiety (ACS), Ben Wizner, the ACLU's attorney in the Jeppesen case, discusses state secrets and national security. This is back from 2008, but the points Wizner makes are the same as the ACLU made in Jeppesen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJpcq6VO7N4
Here are two other great clips of Wizner on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow Show:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#29129616 - This one starts a little silly with a reenactment of a 9th circuit ruling on Jeppesen from 2009, but quickly gets serious as Wizner joins Maddow to discuss state secrets, national security and the details of the Jeppesen case. This clip is the only one I could find where Wizner specifically discusses Jeppesen.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#31378360 - This clip has Wizner discussing the Bush Administration's state secrets doctrine. Wizner additionally provides proof of the use of State Secrets for political purposes.
Ben Wizner also came and spoke at Oxy in October 2009 about Jeppesen, the history of the state secrets doctrine, and ACLU involvement with other torture cases. I took extensive notes on the lecture/Q&A and posted them on my blog here: http://powertothepundits.blogspot.com/search/label/Ben%20Wizner
Showing posts with label gitmo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gitmo. Show all posts
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Friday, November 13, 2009
Return to the Rule of Law?
Breaking News: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 other men accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks will finally be put on trial in NYC. Unfortunately, it was also announced that 5 other men will face military commissions. Regardless, though this is specifically being politically framed as bringing the 9/11 perpetrators to justice, it is a massive step in favor of law and order. President Obama is finally fulfilling President Bush's promise to bring the accused 9/11 conspirators to justice. This is a huge political risk for President Obama. If successful, the trials will make him a man of justice, and if plagued by complications from US-committed torture could be a major political albatross.
The GOP of course, is outraged. Surprise, surprise. Some pretty crazy things are being said by individuals such as Sen. Jeff Sessions and Sen. John McCain, but the crown jewel of crazy goes to former NYC Rudy Giuliani, who said on Fox that "We think they're criminals! These are soldiers in a war against us; and the rules of war should apply." Apparently the new chapter in Republican revisionist history is that we have treated these men as "prisoners of war" and should continue to do so. If they're POWs, the Geneva Conventions apply. Are you and the Republican party willing to accept that Mr. Giuliani? The hypocrisy of these men is astounding, as they flood the media with the message that these accused terrorists are POWs and hence can't be tried in civilian court. A reminder to Mr. Giuliani, Sens. McCain and Sessions and their ilk: it was you who supported the declassification of these men as POWs and the creation of the "Geneva Convention-immune" classification of "enemy combatant". You cannot call them POWs again out of convenience after 8 years of illegal detention, torture and Geneva Convention violations. That is revisionist history and blatantly deceptive.
Additionally, the Republicans seem to be arguing that the US courts are incapable of dealing with terrorism cases. As Rachel Maddow pointed out tonight, this is an absurd proposition. We've imprisoned Charles Manson, the "blind sheik", the "unabomber", the "shoe bomber" and even another 9/11 conspirator through the federal courts. This, as Maddow points out, is sheer cowardice.
I would go further than Maddow does though and outline the political implications of these proceedings for Republicans. I believe that the Republicans do have legitimate reasons to be afraid, though not for the safety of the American people. Rather, the Republicans are all too aware that these trials for the first time will allow the Guantanomo detainees to testify in a real American court about the torture they were subjected to at the hands of the US. No longer will the culpability of the Bush White House's torture program be shielded by a censor and thick glass, as Wizner described it as being in the Gitmo military tribunals. If the details of detainees gruesome torture at the hands of US operatives becomes public, Republicans could be forced to answer for the Bush administration's actions. I'd be panicking if I were them too.
For this blog, the timing of this decision couldn't be better. In my recent posts on Ben Wizner's talks, I quoted him as saying that "[state] secrecy is the source of rot". If AG Holder is serious about these prosecutions, and the accused 9/11 conspirators are only the first of many to face constitutional justice, our long national nightmare of secret torture may finally come to an end. That end is still a long way off, but today marks a historic first step. Friday night is when the most contentious policies are always announced (nobody listens to the news Friday night. Except me.), but this story will hopefully dominate the news for a long time.
Further Viewing:
On the decision to put the 5 men on trial and Republican outrage:
On the challenges facing the court and a possible referendum on the Bush torture policy:
The GOP of course, is outraged. Surprise, surprise. Some pretty crazy things are being said by individuals such as Sen. Jeff Sessions and Sen. John McCain, but the crown jewel of crazy goes to former NYC Rudy Giuliani, who said on Fox that "We think they're criminals! These are soldiers in a war against us; and the rules of war should apply." Apparently the new chapter in Republican revisionist history is that we have treated these men as "prisoners of war" and should continue to do so. If they're POWs, the Geneva Conventions apply. Are you and the Republican party willing to accept that Mr. Giuliani? The hypocrisy of these men is astounding, as they flood the media with the message that these accused terrorists are POWs and hence can't be tried in civilian court. A reminder to Mr. Giuliani, Sens. McCain and Sessions and their ilk: it was you who supported the declassification of these men as POWs and the creation of the "Geneva Convention-immune" classification of "enemy combatant". You cannot call them POWs again out of convenience after 8 years of illegal detention, torture and Geneva Convention violations. That is revisionist history and blatantly deceptive.
Additionally, the Republicans seem to be arguing that the US courts are incapable of dealing with terrorism cases. As Rachel Maddow pointed out tonight, this is an absurd proposition. We've imprisoned Charles Manson, the "blind sheik", the "unabomber", the "shoe bomber" and even another 9/11 conspirator through the federal courts. This, as Maddow points out, is sheer cowardice.
I would go further than Maddow does though and outline the political implications of these proceedings for Republicans. I believe that the Republicans do have legitimate reasons to be afraid, though not for the safety of the American people. Rather, the Republicans are all too aware that these trials for the first time will allow the Guantanomo detainees to testify in a real American court about the torture they were subjected to at the hands of the US. No longer will the culpability of the Bush White House's torture program be shielded by a censor and thick glass, as Wizner described it as being in the Gitmo military tribunals. If the details of detainees gruesome torture at the hands of US operatives becomes public, Republicans could be forced to answer for the Bush administration's actions. I'd be panicking if I were them too.
For this blog, the timing of this decision couldn't be better. In my recent posts on Ben Wizner's talks, I quoted him as saying that "[state] secrecy is the source of rot". If AG Holder is serious about these prosecutions, and the accused 9/11 conspirators are only the first of many to face constitutional justice, our long national nightmare of secret torture may finally come to an end. That end is still a long way off, but today marks a historic first step. Friday night is when the most contentious policies are always announced (nobody listens to the news Friday night. Except me.), but this story will hopefully dominate the news for a long time.
Further Viewing:
On the decision to put the 5 men on trial and Republican outrage:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
On the challenges facing the court and a possible referendum on the Bush torture policy:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Ben Wizner pt. 3: Q+A Session (Oct. 23)
In the Oct. 23rd conversation our class on torture had with ACLU attorney Ben Wizner, we discussed in greater detail and specificity the legal issues regarding torture. We covered a large range of topics, but with an emphasis on state secrets and the classification of the so-called "enemy combatant". Here are some of the gems of knowledge Wizner shared with us:
On State Secrets:
This is the final installment in the Wizner Talks! Here are the earlier installments: Part 1 and Part 2 .
On State Secrets:
- In relation to torture: "secrecy is the source of rot".
- Secrecy and abuse are cyclical: State secrecy sets the stage for torture. Torture creates the need for state secrecy. Etc. etc.
- Though there are legitimate state secrets (e.g. military technology in wartime), secrecy must be balanced with the need for an open government of and for the people. State secrets have been abused since their very inception, as evidenced by the pentagon papers. The pentagon papers were held secret on the grounds of national security when ultimately it was revealed that they were kept secret because they were a political liability. Governments have an irresestible temptation to use state secrets for political ends, and this is where the courts must intervene.
- Between 2000-2006, FOIA was the only oversight of the Presidency. The Republican controlled congress did not perform it's constitutional duty.
- "Secret people, secret laws, secret proceedings". Enemy combatants, being tried under "state secrets protected" secret laws, and the few human rights representatives present could only watch through a soundproof screen. Indeed, they had a censor at the ready to bleep out anything a detainee could say regarding his treatment in Gitmo.
- The tribunals, according to Wizner, were "not about keeping information from terrorists, but about keeping information from the American people.
- The purpose of the courtroom was to prevent testimony about torture from leaving it. The detainees were allowed to talk about martyrdom and other purported evils of the US, and indeed even call for direct assaults on the nation. But when they talked about their treatment in Gitmo, they were censored. In other words, they were allowed to call for assaults on the US, but it was far more important that evidence of US torture be kept secret.
- Bush: the "War on Terror" is not a normal war. Enemy combatants are not normal enemies. There are no rules for enemy combatants beyond what we make up. Even individuals acquitted by the Bush-created tribunals remained enemy combatants.
- Where Bush argues no laws apply to enemy combatants, as they are a new class of enemy, Wizner argues that they have additional protections. They are both private citizens and enemy fighters. Both criminal laws and rules of combat (e.g. Geneva Conventions) apply.
- Wizner opposes a truth commission. Such a commission assumes we all agree that torture occurred. As congressional Republicans exemplify, we do not.
- The rule of law is diminished by the 24-hour news cycle. He-said she-said partisan standoffs always assume two sides to any issue. In other words, the mass media legitimizes fringe believers in the usefulness of torture.
- Wizner hopes that congress will pass legislation defining, and hopefully limiting, the breadth of executive "state secrets".
This is the final installment in the Wizner Talks! Here are the earlier installments: Part 1 and Part 2 .
Monday, October 26, 2009
Ben Wizner pt. 1: The Lecture (Oct. 22)
On October 22nd and 23rd, we here at Occidental College were lucky enough to have ACLU attorney Ben Wizner come speak. Ben Wizner joined the ACLU directly before the September 11th attacks, and has been working largely on cases regarding torture and Guantanamo bay since the beginning of the so-called "war on terror". I will be splitting up my summary and analysis of the two talks into three posts, one for his Oct. 22nd lecture, one for his Oct. 22nd Q+A session, and one for his Oct. 23rd conversation with the Torture class.
On the 22nd, I came to the lecture hall expecting minimal turnout. From my experience as an RA, I know that anything less than an all-out advertising blitz usually results in low turnout. Thankfully, this was not the case. The hall was packed, and I was glad to know all the questions for Mr. Wizner would not be my own.
The beginning of Mr. Wizner's lecture was spent alternating between reading John Yoo's infamous "you would like" torture memo and reading the Red Cross testimony of Abu Zubaydah. Wizner provided a striking contrast between all of the forms of torture Yoo authorized in the memo with the actual memories and suffering endured by Abu Zubaydah. Part of what was truly horrifying about hearing the two pieces together was realizing how sterile and deceptive Yoo's methodical descriptions of the techniques he authorized were in comparison to the deeds that were actually committed.
To quote John Yoo's 2002 memo, "You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects... As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure you are outside the predicate death requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain. If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death...". The fact that this extremely Orwellian authorization failed in any way to capture the horrors of Zubaydah's experience is testament to the true nature of the memos. The torture endured by Zubaydah, by insects among other things, was far worse than even the disturbing "guidelines" established in the memo.
Wizner noted that Yoo's and the other torture memos were not truly legitimate legal opinons for the supposedly impartial White House Office of Legal Counsel, but rather a defense against later retribution. Arguing that the Bush administration knew the illegality of its actions, Wizner said the memos were "an effort to protect [the administration] from prosecution, from universally recognized war crimes". Wizner used the example of the "golden shield" provided by the OLC: if individuals were following OLC guidelines for legality and constitutionality, they would be extremely difficult to prosecute. These secret laws, guidelines and legal opinions not only gave authorization for the military to use torture, but first and foremost provided protection for administration and military officials from prosecution. For this reason, Wizner argues it is critical to directly challenge the memo authors, like Yoo and Bibey, and those who commissioned them in the Bush administration.
One of the problems Wizner said was most troublesome is how there has been no debate surrounding torture, only narratives. By discovering our torture program in a piecemeal fashion, Wizner argued that the Bush administration was able to frame torture as an acceptable national security necessity. There were two competing and mutually exclusive narratives said Wizner, a "bad apples" frame in which America does not torture but a few "bad apples" do, and the "ticking time bomb" narrative wherein torture is a necessity. As Wizner pointed out, these two frames are abusrdly opposed: one articulates torture as a moral wrong used only by a few moral degenerates (as the Bush administration characterized the Guantanamo Bay torture), while the other argues that torture is both morally correct and necessary for national security. These two narratives existed at the same time, and unfortunately never caused a media debate or public outrage.
In conclusion, Wizner said that the only way to "look forward" (in Obama's words) is by addressing the omnipresent specter of our recent past. For Wizner, the only way to restore the United States' reputation is if we actively uphold our international treaties and conventions surrounding torture. This means, in other words, not attempting to avoid prosecutions of Bush administration officials out fear that it will grind Washington politics to a halt. Wizner argued that it was this exclusion of certain politicians from legal retribution politicizes the legal system.
I couldn't agree more: not prosecuting obvious war crimes ruins our international credibility, makes us hypocrites on issues of morality, allows other countries to use us an excuse to torture, and establishes that political power can put you outside the reach of the law. Nothing could be more antithetical to what I perceive to be the promise of the United states. Moving on means facing our collective demons and showing to the world that we can be its moral compass. That is true leadership. After the Bush years, that would be change I can believe in.
On the 22nd, I came to the lecture hall expecting minimal turnout. From my experience as an RA, I know that anything less than an all-out advertising blitz usually results in low turnout. Thankfully, this was not the case. The hall was packed, and I was glad to know all the questions for Mr. Wizner would not be my own.
The beginning of Mr. Wizner's lecture was spent alternating between reading John Yoo's infamous "you would like" torture memo and reading the Red Cross testimony of Abu Zubaydah. Wizner provided a striking contrast between all of the forms of torture Yoo authorized in the memo with the actual memories and suffering endured by Abu Zubaydah. Part of what was truly horrifying about hearing the two pieces together was realizing how sterile and deceptive Yoo's methodical descriptions of the techniques he authorized were in comparison to the deeds that were actually committed.
To quote John Yoo's 2002 memo, "You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects... As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure you are outside the predicate death requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain. If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death...". The fact that this extremely Orwellian authorization failed in any way to capture the horrors of Zubaydah's experience is testament to the true nature of the memos. The torture endured by Zubaydah, by insects among other things, was far worse than even the disturbing "guidelines" established in the memo.
Wizner noted that Yoo's and the other torture memos were not truly legitimate legal opinons for the supposedly impartial White House Office of Legal Counsel, but rather a defense against later retribution. Arguing that the Bush administration knew the illegality of its actions, Wizner said the memos were "an effort to protect [the administration] from prosecution, from universally recognized war crimes". Wizner used the example of the "golden shield" provided by the OLC: if individuals were following OLC guidelines for legality and constitutionality, they would be extremely difficult to prosecute. These secret laws, guidelines and legal opinions not only gave authorization for the military to use torture, but first and foremost provided protection for administration and military officials from prosecution. For this reason, Wizner argues it is critical to directly challenge the memo authors, like Yoo and Bibey, and those who commissioned them in the Bush administration.
One of the problems Wizner said was most troublesome is how there has been no debate surrounding torture, only narratives. By discovering our torture program in a piecemeal fashion, Wizner argued that the Bush administration was able to frame torture as an acceptable national security necessity. There were two competing and mutually exclusive narratives said Wizner, a "bad apples" frame in which America does not torture but a few "bad apples" do, and the "ticking time bomb" narrative wherein torture is a necessity. As Wizner pointed out, these two frames are abusrdly opposed: one articulates torture as a moral wrong used only by a few moral degenerates (as the Bush administration characterized the Guantanamo Bay torture), while the other argues that torture is both morally correct and necessary for national security. These two narratives existed at the same time, and unfortunately never caused a media debate or public outrage.
In conclusion, Wizner said that the only way to "look forward" (in Obama's words) is by addressing the omnipresent specter of our recent past. For Wizner, the only way to restore the United States' reputation is if we actively uphold our international treaties and conventions surrounding torture. This means, in other words, not attempting to avoid prosecutions of Bush administration officials out fear that it will grind Washington politics to a halt. Wizner argued that it was this exclusion of certain politicians from legal retribution politicizes the legal system.
I couldn't agree more: not prosecuting obvious war crimes ruins our international credibility, makes us hypocrites on issues of morality, allows other countries to use us an excuse to torture, and establishes that political power can put you outside the reach of the law. Nothing could be more antithetical to what I perceive to be the promise of the United states. Moving on means facing our collective demons and showing to the world that we can be its moral compass. That is true leadership. After the Bush years, that would be change I can believe in.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Congressional leaders agree to try Gitmo detainees in US
For the first time since Guantanamo Bay's establishment as a detainment facility by George W. Bush in 2002, congressional leaders have agreeed to try the detained in the United States. This is a landmark decision that is a dramatic reversal of the unconstitutional system of military tribunals currently being implemented in Guantanamo Bay. This is not to say that this "compromise", as the NY Times calls it, is not highly problematic.
I have several questions I'd like to ask about the agreement in question:
1. Does this mean the prisoners will be granted habeus corpus rights? Can they go to trial in the US when we haven't even informed of their alleged crime?
2. The article states: "In addition, it was not clear whether the compromise would permit detainees to be brought to the United States for indefinite detention. An undetermined number of detainees are deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be put on trial because there is insufficient evidence against them". Is there the possibility that we will suspend habeus corpus on US soil? The entire Bush "legal argument", as articulated and ultimately rejected in Boumediene v. Bush, was that the constitution's 4th amendment protections don't apply on foreign soil. This appears to leave open the possibility that we will simply continue to detain prisoners whom we don't have sufficient evidence to convict. Does this compromise intend to only send suspected "dangerous" inmates to trial if we are sure of conviction? Last time I checked, that's not how the criminal justice system works.
3. Why would the agreement "forbid the Obama administration from releasing detainees in the United States"? If they are found innocent in the criminal justice system, aren't we obligated to release them? Where do we send them? To their home countries to face persecution and suspicion (or in the case of the Chinese Uighurs, death)? This seems to follow the same fear-inspired logic that caused congress to forbid Gitmo detainees from being held in US maximum security prisons. Nobody has ever escaped from a maximum security prison. Not the Unabomber, not Charles Manson,and certainly no terrorists. If our system of laws deems these detainees guilty, why can they not be held in our extremely effective high-security prisons? If they are innocent, what right have we not to release them immediately?
I have several questions I'd like to ask about the agreement in question:
1. Does this mean the prisoners will be granted habeus corpus rights? Can they go to trial in the US when we haven't even informed of their alleged crime?
2. The article states: "In addition, it was not clear whether the compromise would permit detainees to be brought to the United States for indefinite detention. An undetermined number of detainees are deemed too dangerous to release but cannot be put on trial because there is insufficient evidence against them". Is there the possibility that we will suspend habeus corpus on US soil? The entire Bush "legal argument", as articulated and ultimately rejected in Boumediene v. Bush, was that the constitution's 4th amendment protections don't apply on foreign soil. This appears to leave open the possibility that we will simply continue to detain prisoners whom we don't have sufficient evidence to convict. Does this compromise intend to only send suspected "dangerous" inmates to trial if we are sure of conviction? Last time I checked, that's not how the criminal justice system works.
3. Why would the agreement "forbid the Obama administration from releasing detainees in the United States"? If they are found innocent in the criminal justice system, aren't we obligated to release them? Where do we send them? To their home countries to face persecution and suspicion (or in the case of the Chinese Uighurs, death)? This seems to follow the same fear-inspired logic that caused congress to forbid Gitmo detainees from being held in US maximum security prisons. Nobody has ever escaped from a maximum security prison. Not the Unabomber, not Charles Manson,and certainly no terrorists. If our system of laws deems these detainees guilty, why can they not be held in our extremely effective high-security prisons? If they are innocent, what right have we not to release them immediately?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
September Torture News Round-Up
1. Legal News: Spanish Court asking US DOJ for info on Bush-era Torture Practices: The Spanish Court, which announced its intent to investigate Bush administration officials on their role in the US torture program, is now officially requesting new information from the Holder DOJ.Though many cry foul at the Spanish investigating the US, the "Audiencia Nacional", or Spanish National Security Court maintains jurisdiction because Spanish citizens were some of the victims of the torture program. How the Holder DOJ responds is anybody's guess (mine is they won't), but this is the story to watch as an indicator of international legal momentum on the US torture program.
On a more frustrating domestic note, GOP senators have pulled out of the inquiry into the CIA torture plan. Apparently they are so outraged by Holder's decision to investigate the torture program that they refuse to take part in the Senate's effort to investigate the torture program. Huh?
2. Bagram News: The US has issued new guidelines granting significantly more rights to prisoners being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Each detainee is being assigned one military official who will gather witnesses and evidence. They still don't get Geneva rights, lawyers or habeus corpus, but it's a step in the right direction.
3. Gitmo News: Some huge news on the Gitmo front. Apparently the January deadline that Obama set for closing Gitmo in the beginning of his presidency is no longer hard. Obama says he's committed to closing the prison, but that more time will be needed to process all the cases. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the deadline was good politics but "it's going to be tough" to meet the January deadline. As much of a blow as this is to those of us who think that the time to close Guantanamo for Obama was when he took office, he's at least releasing 75 of the 223 prisoners still in Gitmo. Though the prisoners still are being denied their basic rights, it's a relief to see that steps are being taken towards their release.
On a more frustrating domestic note, GOP senators have pulled out of the inquiry into the CIA torture plan. Apparently they are so outraged by Holder's decision to investigate the torture program that they refuse to take part in the Senate's effort to investigate the torture program. Huh?
2. Bagram News: The US has issued new guidelines granting significantly more rights to prisoners being held at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Each detainee is being assigned one military official who will gather witnesses and evidence. They still don't get Geneva rights, lawyers or habeus corpus, but it's a step in the right direction.
3. Gitmo News: Some huge news on the Gitmo front. Apparently the January deadline that Obama set for closing Gitmo in the beginning of his presidency is no longer hard. Obama says he's committed to closing the prison, but that more time will be needed to process all the cases. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the deadline was good politics but "it's going to be tough" to meet the January deadline. As much of a blow as this is to those of us who think that the time to close Guantanamo for Obama was when he took office, he's at least releasing 75 of the 223 prisoners still in Gitmo. Though the prisoners still are being denied their basic rights, it's a relief to see that steps are being taken towards their release.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Obama Admin. contends that Bagram Detainees have no rights
Even as the Obama administration makes platitudes about closing Guantanamo and ending the US torture program, the DOJ filed a brief on September 14th asserting that, unlike Guantanamo detainees, prisoners in Afghanistan's Bagram air base have no rights whatsoever. Nada, zip.
The briefing appears to depend on a very narrow reading of the US Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush which firmly established habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees. The ACLU says in their statement that the DOJ has missed the entire point of the Boumediene ruling, and that it obviously upheld judicial review in all cases of detention.
This filing on the part of the Obama administration is deeply disappointing. What good is phasing out Guantanamo if, as the ACLU purports, the federal government can just send the detainees to Bagram instead, where they will have even less rights. Though the Obama administration is starting to give Bagram prisoners avenues to challenge their detentions, the prisoners' lack of habeas corpus rights is morally reprehensible.
For further reading see this ABC News Blog article.
The briefing appears to depend on a very narrow reading of the US Supreme Court ruling in Boumediene v. Bush which firmly established habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo detainees. The ACLU says in their statement that the DOJ has missed the entire point of the Boumediene ruling, and that it obviously upheld judicial review in all cases of detention.
This filing on the part of the Obama administration is deeply disappointing. What good is phasing out Guantanamo if, as the ACLU purports, the federal government can just send the detainees to Bagram instead, where they will have even less rights. Though the Obama administration is starting to give Bagram prisoners avenues to challenge their detentions, the prisoners' lack of habeas corpus rights is morally reprehensible.
For further reading see this ABC News Blog article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
