As featured on p. 218 of "Bloggers on the Bus," under the name "a MyDD blogger."
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Obama Adds Nothing To HRC Dinner
The President spoke at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, the biggest political event in the gay community, where he vowed to do the exact same things he's been vowing to do since he announced his campaign for President, without any timeline on when any of this would happen. About the only specific was that he would sign the Hate Crimes bill, which passed both houses of Congress in 2007 (even breaking a Republican filibuster). It's good that he didn't threaten to veto that bill, as George W. Bush did. But this is a speech that Obama could have made two years ago on the campaign trail. As John Aravosis said:
Barack Obama just promised us that if he becomes president, he's going to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act, and get ENDA passed.
He didn't even bother to mention the two big ballot fights looming in November - Prop. 1 in Maine, where the theocrats are trying to overturn the gay marriage law, and Prop. 71 in Washington, where they are trying to take away domestic partner benefits. Those campaigns in blue states could have used a soundbite from a popular President.
If you think part of life is just showing up, well, at least Obama showed up. But Obama really needs to show up when it counts. Nobody in the gay community is buying the promises anymore.
So Mel Zelaya breaks back into Honduras so he can hole up at the Brazilian Embassy, get his supporters tear-gassed, watch the nation fall under curfew and martial law and just sit there until the food ran out? This was the plan?
Honduran troops surrounded the Brazilian embassy where ousted President Manuel Zelaya was holed up with dwindling supplies and a few hundred supporters, diplomats and journalists.
Soldiers earlier fired tear gas and wielded truncheons to disperse around 4,000 pro-Zelaya demonstrators who had camped out overnight around the embassy to protect the man they see as the rightful leader of their country.
Electricity, water and telephone lines to the Brazilian embassy compound in the center of Tegucigalpa were all cut off as the de facto leadership tried to put the squeeze on Zelaya and force him out.
There were also reports of a clampdown on Zelaya's supporters, with human rights organizations in Honduras and elsewhere saying two demonstrators had been killed, others injured and hundreds arrested.
I think the ruling regime is acting in contravention of human rights and with dubious authority - Zelaya is not a Branch Davidian in a compound, and he shouldn't be treated like one. Still, I don't understand the strategy. There are apparently a bunch of kids trapped in that embassy with Zelaya, with no food. How does this help Zelaya's cause, which has a shelf life of three months before the next elections anyway?
...The interim President now says he'll talk with Zelaya. So maybe that was the point, to create an international incident to break the deadlock. There was a human cost for that, however.
We are several months away from the Obama Administration making a decision on whether to put into motion a practice of preventive detention, so that the government can hold terror suspects captured around the world without charges and despite a paucity of evidence. Despite federal judges finding that the government lacks evidence to imprison suspects in 28 out of 33 habeas corpus hearings on Guantanamo detainees so far, the White House, at least in early reports, wants to set up a system to keep those who they cannot charge but do not want to release. The courts have invalidated the 2006 provision in the Military Commissions Act that would have eliminated the right of habeas corpus for all Guantanamo detainees and so-called "enemy combatants," but the Administration is pondering a system to effectively deny that right anyway and detain suspects at their discretion for indefinite periods.
It's instructive to see examples of a system where a chief executive can lock up whoever they choose indefinitely without charges. Yesterday, citizens in Malaysia struck out in protest:
Police broke up Malaysia's biggest protest in nearly two years Saturday, firing tear gas and chemical-laced water at thousands of opposition supporters demanding an end to a law that allows detention without trial.
Witnesses estimated that as many as 20,000 people took to the streets of Kuala Lumpur, defying government warnings not to participate in the rally against the Internal Security Act, which allows the indefinite imprisonment of people regarded as security threats.
The crackdown could erode support for Prime Minister Najib Razak, who took office in April and has been battling efforts by opposition parties to portray him as a leader who disregards public opinion on issues such as human rights and freedom of expression.
Kuala Lumpur police Chief Mohammed Sabtu Osman said authorities arrested 438 people after about six hours of mayhem in which riot police wielding batons chased protesters down the city's streets, scuffled with them and dragged many into detention trucks.
Malaysia is a constitutional monarchy with a bicameral legislature and a British-style Parliamentary system. The Prime Minister is elected by the people. And yet the Internal Security Act, or ISA, has been around since the 1960s, designed to detain "security threats," no doubt including those detained yesterday after the protests. Incoming Prime Ministers traditionally let several ISA prisoners go when they first assume office, only to capture others soon after. Further, Malaysia has a troubled recent history when it comes to detention:
Human rights lawyers fought off an application by the Malaysian police to remand two youths aged 16 and 13 for allegedly taking part in an August 1 mammoth rally to protest a draconian law – the Internal Security Act – that allows for indefinite detention of civilians without trial.
“The two kids are free now. The application was denied but it was an eye-opener to see the grounds put forward by the police. They were so flimsy,” said Jonson Chong, who together with a team of other lawyers including N Surendran and S D Arunasalam challenged the bid to put the under-aged pair in jail [...]
But perhaps another key reason for the hysteria over the remand of the children was also because of the long string of custodial deaths. Through the years, hundreds of suspects and witnesses have died suspiciously while in the custody of federal agencies such as the police and the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission.
Barely two weeks ago, a 30-year Selangor state political officer Teoh Beng Hock fell to his death from the 14th floor office of the MACC after a marathon investigation. There is widespread belief that his interrogators contributed to his demise and an inquest is now taking place.
“Police ought to be trained in children’s rights. This is so basic. But what happened was that they were only concerned to carry out the bidding of their political masters without respecting the children’s rights. These two are clear cut cases of political retaliation because both parents are known activists,” said Jonson.
Another 16-year old Faizudin Hamzah was less fortunate. Arrested at 11.55pm on Friday night at the central bus station, he was remanded for four days. Police have still not given any reason. The magistrate granted an omnibus remand order without even seeing the boy, who was sleeping when he was detained.
So we have a country which engages in indefinite detention of those described as threats, though that has crept from threats of terrorism and security to "threats" of dissent. They have imprisoned even minors under this statute. And they have beaten, tortured and even murdered people in custody.
Absolutely none of this is in conflict with the recent past in America. The only thing different here is that Malaysia's indefinite detention law has proven durable and lasting, coming up on its 50th anniversary. Once an executive is handed such powers, one after another has sought not to repeal them but to implement them, even after initially freeing some prisoners. Prime Ministers of all political stripes have used the law. And the nature of power being what it is, that would surely be the outcome if Obama decided on a system of preventive detention here.
Last September, the US State Department actually had the nerve to criticize the Malaysian government for implementation of the Internal Security Act to silence dissent:
The United States summoned Friday Malaysia's top envoy in Washington to protest its crackdown on dissent at a time when the opposition was attempting to take over power in Kuala Lumpur [...]
"Peaceful expression of political opinions is a fundamental right and critical to a democracy," a State Department official told AFP.
"The United States believes that the Malaysian government should provide due process and treatment consistent with Malaysian law and international standards," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"We expect that democratic countries that purport to advocate free expression of political views will not curtail such freedom," the official said following the trio's arrest.
The Obama Administration should probably take a lesson in humility before making a similar statement. And they should look at how indefinite detention has endured in Malaysia and other countries throughout the world, with painful consequences, before trying to implement it here.
We have so many reasons from the last Administration that highlight the importance of a special prosecutor to deal with the wreck of the previous eight years, it's a serious task to count them all. Aside from torture, warrantless spying, black sites, indefinite detention, the suspension of habeas corpus, outing a covert CIA operative, lying the country to war in Iraq? You mean we need more reasons?
More broadly, one can highlight the problem of an accountability-free zone in Washington, regardless of the issue. If there is literally no issue where top officials can ever be held to account, this does nothing but give government, in particular the executive branch that deals with security and secrecy, a license to run wild. Consider just the past 48 hours:
• We finally got a report on the scope of the Administration's spying programs, the consensus of five Inspectors General, and while we learned a fair bit of interesting details about the nature of the internal debate over the program, the fact that John Yoo was one of the only human beings in America to know about it because the Cheney/Addington crowd knew he would produce favorable rulings legitimizing it, and the fact that the secrecy ultimately undermined whatever the program was designed to produce in terms of intelligence, all we really learned is that some surveillance program operated completely outside the boundaries of the law, without oversight by Congress, and we to this day have no idea about the extent or nature of the spying. As Glennzilla says, this does not comprise an investigation:
Nonetheless, because the Obama administration is actively blocking any real investigation -- Obama opposes all Congressional investigations into Bush-era crimes and, worse, is engaged in extraordinary efforts to block courts from adjudicating the legality of Bush's surveillance activities by claiming that even long-obsolete and clearly criminal programs are "state secrets" -- it is quite likely, despite how blatant is the lawbreaking, that there will be no consequences for any of it. In a Look-to-the-Future-Not-the-Past political culture, it's irrelevant how severe is the lawbreaking by high government officials. They know they will face no consequences even when, as here, they deliberately commit felonies -- which is precisely why criminality is so rampant in our political class [...]
The IG Report is more notable for what it fails to address than for what it discloses, but that's the nature of IG Reports. Most of the key players who authorized the illegal domestic spying -- David Addington, John Yoo, Dick Cheney, Andrew Card, John Ashcroft, George Tenet -- simply refused to talk to the IGs or, in many cases, didn't even bother responding to their request. The IG's have no power at all to compel them to do so; it's entirely optional. That -- aside from the fact that they work within the Executive Branch and for the very agencies they are supposed to investigate -- is what makes IGs such an inadequate substitute for real oversight: no matter how much integrity and independence they might have, they are extremely limited in what they can achieve.
As any litigator will tell you, the lack of power to compel key witnesses to answer questions and produce documents severely hampers any ability to conduct a real investigation. Yet, when they passed the FISA Amendments Act -- which legalized Bush's spying programs and immunized lawbreaking telecoms -- Democratic leaders kept pointing to the requirement of an IG Report to placate those complaining that they were whitewashing and legalizing Bush abuses. But IGs are simply incapable, given their very limited powers and their institutional allegiances, of any real investigation of this sort. What they were unable to disclose in this Report underscores how limited are their investigative abilities [...]
Over the past couple of years, there have been isolated leaks suggesting abuses of these eavesdropping powers, but there has been no real investigation into the ends to which these surveillance powers were used. As a legal question, it matters little: eavesdropping without warrants is a felony no matter the purpose for which it was done. But since FISA's warrant requirement arose from the recognition that widespread surveillance abuses were virtually inevitable if eavesdropping was conducted without judicial oversight, the lack of any investigation into this question reveals the extent to which both parties have been eager to help cover-up the crimes that were committed during the Bush years. The IG Report sheds some light onto what happened, but most of it, as intended, remains in the dark, and real accountability is still as far away as it was before this Report was issued.
Russ Feingold said in a statement that "This report leaves no doubt that the warrantless wiretapping program was blatantly illegal and an unconstitutional assertion of executive power."
• The United States government, under two Presidents, blocked any investigation into the mass slaughter of perhaps thousands of Afghans by a warlord.
American officials had been reluctant to pursue an investigation — sought by officials from the F.B.I., the State Department, the Red Cross and human rights groups — because the warlord, Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum, was on the payroll of the C.I.A. and his militia worked closely with United States Special Forces in 2001, several officials said. They said the United States also worried about undermining the American-supported government of President Hamid Karzai, in which General Dostum had served as a defense official.
“At the White House, nobody said no to an investigation, but nobody ever said yes, either,” said Pierre Prosper, the former American ambassador for war crimes issues. “The first reaction of everybody there was, ‘Oh, this is a sensitive issue; this is a touchy issue politically.’ ”
It is not clear how — or if — the Obama administration will address the issue. But in recent weeks, State Department officials have quietly tried to thwart General Dostum’s reappointment as military chief of staff to the president, according to several senior officials, and suggested that the administration might not be hostile to an inquiry.
These are the prisoners stuffed into metal containers without food and water, and left helpless as guards shot into the containers. And we never investigated it, despite having a military presence in the country for seven years. Agence France Press has more.
The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.
The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.
Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.
Remember that we have no idea what this program is, although there are some indications that this may be the infamous executive assassination ring. So because of the lack of accountability, the Vice President can order the CIA to keep a sensitive counter-terrorism program completely secret and therefore beyond oversight.
I would offer that all of these programs and secret plans and extra-Constitutional deployment of powers, well summarized here by Tom Watson, are a direct result of the complete lack of accountability for the actions taken by officials in the executive branch. The processes of oversight through the Congress and the Inspector General reports offer little opportunity for sanction. The expansion of executive power over the years gives many opportunities to short-circuit accountability through invocations of state secrets or national security. So without an independent prosecutor with subpoena power allowed to follow out the dictates of equal justice under the law, we will see an increase of air into the balloon, more and more, until it consumes us all. We have to pop the unaccountability bubble.
Watching these Republicans yipping like a bunch of chickadees about revolution in Iran from the safety of their offices in Washington is starting to infuriate me. First off, these people don't have much of a clue about who they are supporting - Mir Hossein Mousavi supports the same nuclear program Ahmadinejad supports, and he is a true heir to the reign of Ayatollah Khomeini (I actually think he would still be an improvement, and could liberalize the Islamic Republic from within - but let's get real, we're not talking about making Dennis Kucinich the leader of Iran, as Obama recognized in an interview yesterday: "The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual positions may not be as great as has been advertised.") Second, they seem to have no sense of the consequences of their actions, brilliantly summarized by Les Gelb:
"Republican leadership calls for Obama to condemn Iran's election results and speak out for the demonstrators shows no knowledge of Iran whatsoever. If he did so, America would become the issue in Iran, not Ahmadinejad, and we would become the excuse and justification for spilling Iranian blood.
"These sniping remarks by Republican leaders also shows they put pandering to their right wing above American national security. Why can't they listen to their own real foreign policy expert -- Senator Richard Lugar -- and see and say that the U.S. must exercise restraint in our public statements for Iran's sake and our own."
Iran will likely complain about American intervention anyway - but the White House shouldn't give them a reason to do that, instead making them look paranoid and foolish in the eyes of their people. John Kerry gets this right:
Mr. McCain’s rhetoric, of course, would be cathartic for any American policy maker weary of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s hostile message of division. We are all inspired by Iran’s peaceful demonstrations, the likes of which have not been seen there in three decades. Our sympathies are with those Iranians who seek a more respectful, cooperative relationship with the world. Watching heartbreaking video images of Basij paramilitaries terrorizing protesters, we feel the temptation to respond emotionally.
There’s just one problem. If we actually want to empower the Iranian people, we have to understand how our words can be manipulated and used against us to strengthen the clerical establishment, distract Iranians from a failing economy and rally a fiercely independent populace against outside interference. Iran’s hard-liners are already working hard to pin the election dispute, and the protests, as the result of American meddling. On Wednesday, the Iranian Foreign Ministry chastised American officials for “interventionist” statements. Government complaints of slanted coverage by the foreign press are rising in pitch.
We can’t escape the reality that for reformers in Tehran to have any hope for success, Iran’s election must be about Iran — not America. And if the street protests of the last days have taught us anything, it is that this is an Iranian moment, not an American one.
In other words, Sen. McCain, Rep. Cantor, Rep. Pence, et al: SHUT YOUR PIEHOLES. The best way to help the Iranian people is to stay out of it. And you don't have to believe me, but practically every Iranian dissident and reformer who has had the occasion to say two words about this.
What does Ganji think of President Obama’s statements about Iran? “From my perspective, Obama has so far said he won’t meddle in Iran’s internal situation, and that’s a good, good approach,” Ganji said, but he added, “He cannot stay silent on human rights issues.” Clearly, Ganji thinks the Obama administration isn’t striking the right balance between non-intervention and humanitarian concerns. But that’s not to say that more active American support is welcome:
“Bush’s policies toward Iran and the Middle East were completely wrong. The result of Bush’s policy, it led to Iran gaining strength. Mr. Obama is trying to change the policy. If we can separate two points, we can actually drive to a good policy. First, Iran’s path to democracy and the people’s movement to democracy is for the people of Iran. No foreign country, either America or any other, should get involved in that process.
“Secondly, human rights is an international condition. When a country denies human rights for its own people, the entire world should punish that government. So the people of Iran will not want anyone to get involved in that. But what they expect from the world is to protest an Iranian regime from a human-rights perspective. This is a policy which I stand by.
“The Iranian people are saying the Ahmadinejad government is a coup d’etat government. They’re asking that no government accept the legitimacy of his government. This is what most people want, for no government to work with the Ahmadinejad government.”
We can delineate between being forceful on human rights and overtly calling for the overthrow of a foreign government. We learned the lesson with Bush that his belligerence strengthened the regime to the point that they thought they could get away with a stolen election and a brutal crackdown. The situation in Iran is by no means settled - the government and the Revolutionary Guard could react with extreme violence. But certainly, calls from the peanut gallery in the US aren't exactly helpful.
Barack Obama often gives these speeches in aggressively non-sound bite forms. The speech on race doesn't have one line that people recite over and over, nor does his DNC nomination speech, or his speeches in Europe, or his Inauguration speech. He would rather create an event, something that needs to be read or watched in full. This morning's speech to the Muslim world from Cairo was promoted intensely on Facebook and Twitter, and translated into multiple different languages. The intended audiences are overseas, and the ideas complex and not easily boiled down.
Today's speech starts as almost a historical lecture about the challenges between Muslim countries and the United States, and like many Obama speeches, he seeks common ground between the divides, and calls for a new beginning of mutual understanding and shared principles, focusing on what unites and not what divides. And he asks that the two sides listen to each other and be honest with one another.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do - to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
He addresses the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Israel/Palestine issue, the Iranian nuclear weapons crisis, democracy promotion, religious freedom and women's rights, doing the "on the one hand, on the other hand" shtick with almost all of them. Here's a good example, and a really keen take on the Israel/Palestine debate:
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed - more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction - or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews - is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people - Muslims and Christians - have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers - for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
There was a lot of honesty in the speech. Obama asserted that "our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons" to a part of the world where women are less equal. He said that "no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other" and acknowledged American roles in past overthrows of Muslim governments, particularly in Iran. He said that "No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons," an oblique reference to Israel, and made a hedge on Iranian negotiations by admitting that they "should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."
The President, in other words, challenged the assumptions of both Americans and Egyptians, Christians and Muslims, Arabs and Israelis, and sought common understanding through honesty and a new foundation for dialogue. Some will see the speech as essentially empty, as if a speech could end all oppression in the Muslim world. And I agree that actions matter, and words fall hollow if not backed up by them; in fact, the rhetoric makes things WORSE if the actions do not match. But I also agree with MJ Rosenberg, that speaking to Muslims and Arabs as equals does have an impact. Marc Lynch has a good take as well. Ultimately, Obama seeks to bring the greater Muslim world forward into a new conversation and marginalize those extremists who pervert religion with violence, and refuses to use ideology as a wedge between the divides. In that respect the speech is not as important as its buildup and the environment created around it. You can see by the Al Qaeda freakout in reaction - as well as conservatives - that they both hate the crackup of the Manichean relationship between the Western and Muslim worlds.
More coverage in NYT and WaPo, and even from Thomas Friedman, though I advise you to read what's inside the quotes from Obama and not the Moustache's turgid prose.
Good for human rights and civil liberties groups, refusing to be dazzled by rhetoric, and almost unanimously comingouttoday to assail the President on particular detainee policies, particularly indefinite detention, as too close to the prior regime and out of step with the policies he has articulated. A sample from Human Rights Watch:
"President Obama is absolutely right to emphasize that ignoring our values undermines rather than enhances America's security," said HRW executive director Kenneth Roth. "But allowing detention without trial creates a dangerous loophole in our justice system that mimics the Bush administration's abusive approach to fighting terrorism."
A kinder, gentler, stateside Guantanamo, with the same indefinite detention and kangaroo court policies, does not and should not satisfy those committed to the rule of law. Obama may have gotten over the hump with respect to the decision to close Guantanamo, but his divide with these groups remain. They should be commended for fighting for all of us to make us safer and more respected in the world.
President Obama made a nice speech today, defending his national security policies and the theory that we should not shrink from our values in a maelstrom of fear. He stood at the National Archives, in front of the founding documents, and acted as a defender of them.
And that's great. Obama made quite a few excellent points, about the closure of Guantanamo, the need for checks and balances and vigorous oversight from the other branches of government, and the failure of the previous Administration to keep faith with our values.
Bully. Wonderful.
I'm pretty much done with talk. On these issues in particular, I will look to the actions of the Administration to make determinations on their success or failure in my eyes. And those actions are likely to fail as much as they succeed. Obama basically acknowledged this. I think this was the key moment in the speech, the moment where Obama tried to position himself as offering some wise middle path and marginalizing "absolutists" on either side of him:
We see that, above all, in how the recent debate has been obscured by two opposite and absolutist ends. On one side of the spectrum, there are those who make little allowance for the unique challenges posed by terrorism, and who would almost never put national security over transparency. On the other end of the spectrum, there are those who embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: "anything goes." Their arguments suggest that the ends of fighting terrorism can be used to justify any means, and that the President should have blanket authority to do whatever he wants - provided that it is a President with whom they agree.
Both sides may be sincere in their views, but neither side is right. The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty, and care, and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That is the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That is what makes the United States of America different as a nation.
When he talks here about absolutists, I can only assume he's talking about those of us who believe that no prisoner should be held indefinitely without charges, who believe that there need not be a military courts process outside the one used on our own soldiers, with all of the agreed-upon safeguards and rules for acquiring justice over 200-plus years, who believe that people described vaguely as "supporters" of criminal activities are not as culpable as the criminals themselves and cannot be held without legitimate charges, who believe that the government should not be able to assert state secrets as a means solely to shut down accountability by the judicial branch. If that makes me an extremist, cue the Barry Goldwater line about extremism in the defense of liberty being no vice. I'm simply articulating Constitutional principles, much like the human rights groups who met with Obama yesterday have articulated for many years. And I come out of this speech with a similar reaction to one of the participants in that discussion.
Asked whether the president had pacified some of the concerns she brought to the White House on Wednesday, (Human Rights First CEO Elisa) Massimino said that she was pleased with the opportunity for engagement. Beyond that, she still registered concerns.
"I think that many of us were disappointed by the announcement about the military commissions and wondered what the reasoning was behind that. And to be honest, I am still wondering having been in this meeting today. I don't think that this fits the overall framework that the president had articulated about using our values to reinforce a counter terrorism strategy against al Qaeda."
Obama seems committed to providing a durable framework for future Presidents to deal with these issues, and seems committed to a robust process of oversight to allow for a full examination of whether the policies are consistent with Constitutional principles. And then he throws out something like the military commissions revival or hints about preventive detention (literally, the pre-crime process from Minority Report) and you wonder if this is the same person. The actions have not matched the rhetoric, at least not always.
Now, as a token of some sort, the US government will prosecute Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, who was allegedly involved in the bombing of US Embassies in Africa in 1998, in a New York City courtroom. That's consistent with our criminal justice system and the proper method of dealing with terrorist activity. It lends credibility to the process and shows that the United States is serious about joining the community of law-abiding nations again. But one token is not enough. And I will continue to fight for civil liberties as long as I see them being abused.
The GOP geniuses think they've found an issue they can run with. This has slowly built over the past several weeks, but now they've done a full rollout. It starts with the movie trailer, a preview of coming attractions.
Then they followed through with the main event, a bill literally called “The Keep Terrorists Out Of America Act,” which would prohibit the transfer of any "Terrorist" from Guantanamo Bay into a prison facility in the United States, without approval from the state's Governor and legislature, and some other legislative hoop-jumping.
Taken to its extreme, Republicans would call for the immediate closure of all prisons ("criminals... in your community!"), and the dispatching of all 2.3 million prisoners to some offsite floating barge, Australia, or that island of plastic in the Pacific. To suggest that a maximum-security prison could not possibly hold a Dangerous Terrorist is an insult to the men and woman of the federal corrections system, who already hold convicted terrorists in custody who received justice through a court of law, and basically acknowledges that those facilities are completely insecure, and should be feared by local residents. I'm sure the RNC and the Republican members of the House will pick up the costs of moving every single prisoner over to that plastic island. Because think of the children.
A substantial chunk of the Republican Party believes that people who live in caves represent a greater threat to the American way of life than the Third Reich. Just so you know.
However, I'm convinced that this is a bit of misdirection and Overton Window-lifting. Of course the idea that Scary Terrorists would endanger local communities while in prison is absurd and should be rejected. But that's not really the ultimate plan. John McCain and Lindsey Graham posted on the conservative blackboard, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, with the more "sensible" view - that we must hold suspects indefinitely without trial for as long as we please, in violation of habeas corpus statutes, until they are tried in sham courts without Constitutional criminal justice protections.
• Second, military commissions remain the appropriate trial venue for these individuals. We would strenuously oppose any effort to try enemy combatants in our civilian courts. By an overwhelming bipartisan vote in 2006, Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which set forth procedures for trying enemy combatants for war crimes.
Our domestic criminal laws -- including their treatment of classified information -- are ill-suited for the complex national security issues inherent in the trial of enemy combatants. We have great faith in our military justice system -- appropriately modified for war crimes trials -- and we believe that military judges and lawyers render fair and impartial justice not only for our troops, but for enemy combatants as well.
• Third, preventive detention will continue to have a place in the war on terror . Under the law of war, the idea that an enemy combatant has to be tried or released is a false choice. Rather, it is well-established that combatants can be held off the battlefield as long as they present a military threat.
While there is little doubt that we initially cast the net too broadly in determining who merited enemy combatant status, the Department of Defense estimates nearly one in 10 detainees released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield, including Said Ali al-Shihri (al Qaeda in Yemen's second-in-command), and Abdullah Gulam Rasoul, who reportedly now serves as the Taliban's operational commander in southern Afghanistan. We cannot let this continue.
A significant group of detainees still in custody at Guantanamo may be too dangerous to release, but they are not suitable for war crimes trials. In these cases, a system needs to be devised in which a designated national security court, with a uniform set of standards and procedures administered by a civilian judge, hears the petitions for habeas corpus authorized by the Supreme Court, and an annual interagency review is conducted to determine whether the detainee remains a security threat to the United States.
"Preventive detention" is a nice turn of phrase. "I think you may steal a candy bar later. Better put you in jail for a few months until everything blows over."
And unbelievably, this "fallback" position, which I always considered the reason to close Guantanamo in the first place, has gained traction inside the White House.
The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself.
Officials said the first public moves could come as soon as next week, perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the Bush administration’s system to provide more legal protections for terrorism suspects.
Continuing the military commissions in any form would probably prompt sharp criticism from human rights groups as well as some of Mr. Obama’s political allies because the troubled system became an emblem of the effort to use Guantánamo to avoid the American legal system [...]
In a news conference this week, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. emphasized that if the administration did use military commissions, the rules must give detainees “a maximum amount of due process.”
But, speaking of detainees whom American officials have accused of involvement in major terrorist plots, Mr. Holder added, “It may be difficult for some of those high-value detainees to be tried in a normal federal court.”
These military commissions represent a total obviation of the rule of law, an attempt to gather convictions they could not otherwise get. And what's left unsaid is the always shaky phraseology of the Obama plan, where some Gitmo detainees would be tried, some released, and this vague "third category," where the legal black hole of Guantanamo apparently remains.
It does no service, particularly in relating to our allies, to just insource Guantanamo with the same methods. People weren't angry about the site or the symbol, but the policies. But because the Republicans are being so transparently ridiculous with their "Eek! Prisoners going to prison, they'll kill us all!!!" pose, there may be a tendency to back up the White House's viewpoint. Not until they make perfectly clear that they intend to either try Gitmo prisoners in American courts, or release them. Any other options are unacceptable.
With the glaring exception of Af-Pak policy, which is admittedly fraught with tough choices, I have appreciated the Obama Administration's work in foreign policy to this point. They have moved in a number of additional directions today.
"Human rights are an essential element of American global foreign policy," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a statement. "With others, we will engage in the work of improving the U.N. human rights system. . . . We believe every nation must live by and help shape global rules that ensure people enjoy the right to live freely and participate fully in their societies."
The United States announced it would participate in elections in May for one of three seats on the 47-member council, joining a slate that includes Belgium and Norway.
Bush's removal from the Council was entirely based on right-wing demonization of the UN. And this made John Bolton sputter with rage, which is always fun.
Next, US and Iranian officials took part in a cordial meeting today at a conference on Afghanistan.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands - In a cautious first step toward unlocking 30 years of tense relations, senior U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke had a brief but cordial meeting with Iran's deputy foreign minister Tuesday at an international conference on Afghanistan.
The rare diplomatic approach was the first official face-to-face interplay between the Obama administration and the Iranian regime. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton cautioned that the brief talks between Holbrooke and Iranian diplomat Mehdi Akhundzadeh were cordial but not "substantive."
"They agreed to stay in touch," Clinton said at the close of a one-day conference on Afghan security and development that was designed partly to allow the diplomatic turn with Iran. She told NBC News, "We think there is room for more engagement with Iran going forward." [...]
The face-to-face pleasantries, along with a diplomatic letter hand-delivered to the Iranian delegation by a U.S. official, were carefully calibrated overtures from the Obama administration aimed at testing the clerical regime's willingness to take larger steps.
This is especially encouraging in light of new Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's messianic rantings about how Obama must stop Iran "or I will." Here on Planet Earth, in the post-Bush era we engage with enemies and exhaust diplomatic avenues instead of the failed neocon policy of belligerence and unilateralism. Israel doesn't have the resources to carry out an attack on Iran, and are only left with bluster. Obama's words of engagement toward Iran mean much more.
"The administration has stopped using the phrase, and I think that speaks for itself," Mrs. Clinton told reporters as she traveled here for a United Nations-led conference on Afghanistan.
The phrase has been criticized as having inflammatory connotations in the Muslim world. Some Democratic officials believe it is better to describe more specifically whom the U.S. is fighting, such as al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Mrs. Clinton made her remarks in response to reporters' questions. Asked whether there was a specific policy decision on the terminology, she said: "I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it. It's just not being used."
President Obama used the phrase a bit during the campaign, but I'm glad to see his Administration dropping it. The entire "war" terminology is unhelpful, whether we're talking about drugs or cancer or poverty. Against terror, the phrase was particularly misapplied. In addition to it being impossible to wage war on a tactic (David Cross famously said "It would be like fighting a war on jealousy"), it has been used to justify all manner of unconstitutional unitary executive rulings that took away civil liberties. There is no reason to be imprecise when talking about war. People may get the idea that you're waging it on them.
All in all, a pretty good day for change in the Obama Administration.
The real tragedy is that for eight years America refused to sign this, a demurral that will end.
The Obama administration will endorse a U.N. declaration calling for the worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality that then-President George W. Bush had refused to sign, The Associated Press has learned.
U.S. officials said Tuesday they had notified the declaration's French sponsors that the administration wants to be added as a supporter. The Bush administration was criticized in December when it was the only western government that refused to sign on.
The move was made after an interagency review of the Bush administration's position on the nonbinding document, which was signed by all 27 European Union members as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries, the officials said.
Our ability to speak out against human rights abusers throughout the world has been severely limited by the past eight years. So this is good. However, we have a long way to go. Repealing DOMA, stopping the shutdown of lawsuits through state secrets, ending the assertion of indefinite detention, &c...
This is very disappointing from the Secretary of State, and I have to imagine, the Administration.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that she would not emphasize contentious issues such as human rights in talks this weekend with the Chinese, focusing instead on topics on which progress may be more likely: the global economy, climate change and security issues [...]
"We know what they're going to say because I've had those kinds of conversations for more than a decade with Chinese leaders," Clinton told reporters.
"We have to continue to press them. But our pressing on these issues can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis."
This is that "common ground" approach that Obama wants to make a standard, and to be sure the United States has a long history, in both Democratic and Republican Administrations, of cozying up to human rights abusers. Of course, ghetto-izing human rights as a "side issue" and not one that is linked to, say, the economy (slave labor and sweatshops in China) or cooperation on security (how can we lecture some nations on human rights but not others with more clout) does no service to American or global interests. Especially when the White House tries to highlight Clinton's commitment to women's rights ON THE SAME TRIP.
I do believe that it’s important for someone in my position to raise the role of women on an ongoing basis, even in countries where women are not given full and equal rights. So I don’t think it’s enough that people deal with me; I want them to deal with their own women, I want them to think about giving all women the rights to be fully functioning, productive citizens. So that is part of the mission that I feel I carry as the Secretary of State of the United States, and that’s what I intend to promote as I travel around the world talking about a lot of these important matters that are really at the core of the kind of future we’re going to have for ourselves and our children.
Unless we're talking about China, and then women who criticize the government, along with men, can have their rights taken away. So can any woman living in Tibet.
I was on this phone call today with Tom Malinowski from Human Rights Watch and others discussing the Obama executive orders on torture, and everyone is guardedly optimistic about what this means for the rule of law. If the gray areas on "other dispositions" besides trying or releasing Gitmo detainees and the wiggle room on extra-legal torture techniques are cleared up, we have a blueprint for restoring the rule of law. We need to be vigilant, however, to close whatever loopholes there may be.
This didn't seem to matter to one reporter on the call, who up front ADMITTED HE HASN'T BEEN FOLLOWING THE ISSUE and asked what would happen if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had to be set free because we waterboarded him. This is someone who has confessed to practically every terrorist act of the last 40 years, wants to be a martyr, and for whom there is enough evidence untainted by torture to progress to trial.
The question was certainly colored, if not outright prompted, by a false report from the Pentagon in the waning days of the Bush tenure, claiming that 61 freed detainees from the prison camp have "returned to the batlefield." Expect to hear a lot about this in the coming days, like from this Kyra Phillips bobblehead report:
Kyra Phillips: It's one of the biggest fears about releasing terror suspects from Gitmo, that they'll go back to their alleged old ways.
New Pentagon figures actually say 61 released detainees have been linked to some kind of terror activity, up from 37 as of March, 2008. About 520 Gitmo prisoners have been freed or transferred to other prisons around the world.
Let's be clear: the Pentagon report itself only cited 18 "confirmed" cases of former detainees returning to the battlefield, and offered NO EVIDENCE on that beyond an assertion. The other 43 are "suspected of participating in terrorist activities." Moazzam Begg is a writer who has led activist efforts to close Guantanamo. I'm willing to bet that he's included in the 61. The three detainees featured in the movie "The Road To Guantanamo" are ALSO included in the 61. In short, anyone who has criticized the United States is part of that number.
But Mark Denbeaux of Seton Hall University Law School has represented some of the detainees and says the Pentagon has failed to produce evidence of early claims that former detainees have returned to the battlefield.
"The numbers are wrong about who has returned to the fight; their numbers and names are wrong about who has been in Guantanamo. And, of course, the characterization of 'returned to the fight' is far broader than they would like to admit," said Denbeaux. "What they would like is to be understood to mean as 'return to the battlefield,' but, of course, that hasn't happened. So what they mean by 'return to the fight' is engaging in propaganda battles and criticisms of the United States at home and abroad."
This is a propagandistic lie designed to ensure that those loopholes stay open. And the media is totally complicit in aiding and abetting this. I heard on the radio coming in this morning some talking head yammering about how some detainees are "too dangerous to release, but they haven't committed a crime yet so we can't prosecute them." What is this, Minority Report? All of this nonsense designed to preserve the status quo has to be coming from somewhere. The media is just a conduit.
Given all this, it's a wonder how people have enough information to reject torture and indefinite detention. Maybe it's because, unlike the Christopher Hitchenses and media sycophants of the world, they have a value system.
The Central Elections Committee on Monday banned Arab political parties from running in next month's parliamentary elections, drawing accusations of racism by an Arab lawmaker who said he would challenge the decision in the country's Supreme Court.
The ruling, made by the body that oversees the elections, reflected the heightened tensions between Israel's Jewish majority and Arab minority caused by Israel's offensive in the Gaza Strip. Israeli Arabs have held a series of demonstrations against the offensive.
Knesset spokesman Giora Pordes said the election committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of the motion, accusing the country's Arab parties of incitement, supporting terrorist groups and refusing to recognize Israel's right to exist. Arab lawmakers have traveled to countries listed among Israel's staunchest enemies, including Lebanon and Syria.
This is a prelude to apartheid throughout Israel as opposed to just in the occupied territories. It's reflective of a mindset that views Arabs as trash to be taken out. That it's happening in a Jewish homeland, from a people that has seen all kinds of discrimination for centuries.
The Israeli Supreme Court can overturn this and I hope they do, because the consequences would be grave. It's bad enough for human rights to be violated in Gaza - making all Arabs in Israel second-class citizens would be irrepressible.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was left shame-faced after President George W. Bush ordered her to abstain in a key UN vote on the Gaza war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said on Monday.
"She was left shamed. A resolution that she prepared and arranged, and in the end she did not vote in favour," Olmert said in a speech in the southern town of Ashkelon.
Just so you're up to date, Israel has dropped a one-ton bomb on a top Hamas leader, killing him and 18 others. Today airstrikes are destroying homes and mosques, and they are massing lots of infantry and artillery at the border in preparation for a ground assault. Meanwhile, it's pretty clear that civilians are being killed and many more are threatened through either bombardment or the lack of resources.
There was no sign of a ceasefire on the seventh day of the conflict, in which at least 425 Palestinians have been killed and 2,000 wounded. Four Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza, which strike southern cities at random.
A United Nations agency said the civilian death toll in Gaza was over 25 percent of the total killed in the violence. A leading Palestinian human rights group put it at 40 percent.
Israel and Hamas are violating the laws of war by deliberately attacking civilians, which is why any cease-fire must apply to both sides. These are war crimes by definition.
Rocket attacks on Israeli towns by Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups that do not discriminate between civilians and military targets violate the laws of war, while a rising number of the hundreds of Israeli bombings in Gaza since December 27, 2008, appear to be unlawful attacks causing civilian casualties. Additionally, Israel's severe limitations on the movement of non-military goods and people into and out of Gaza, including fuel and medical supplies, constitutes collective punishment, also in violation of the laws of war.
"Firing rockets into civilian areas with the intent to harm and terrorize Israelis has no justification whatsoever, regardless of Israel's actions in Gaza," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division. "At the same time, Israel should not target individuals and institutions in Gaza solely because they are part of the Hamas-run political authority, including ordinary police. Only attacks on military targets are permissible, and only in a manner that minimizes civilian casualties."
It should be easy enough for any American politician concerned with the rule of law to say this, but it is not, as lawmakers of both parties remain in lockstep behind uncritical support of Israel. The public is divided on the subject and recognizes the contours of the debate. In official Washington, that is verboten.
Meanwhile, the strikes are meeting their expected objective - to bolster a Kadima/Labor victory in the next Israeli elections. The center-left parties have already gained relative to the Likud on the right. The question at this point is whether or not there's any difference.
Two American and two British protesters slipped through a smothering Olympic security net Wednesday, climbed a pair of lamp posts and unfurled banners demanding freedom for Tibet near the new stadium where the Beijing Games are to open Friday night.
The showy protest, which took place shortly before the final leg of the Olympic torch relay set out from Tiananmen Square to the cheers of bused-in crowds, constituted a substantial embarrassment for Chinese security forces, who have vowed to prevent political demonstrations by foreigners as well as Chinese during the games.
The four were led away by police but not arrested, according to Chinese authorities.
It's a global embarrassment that these Olympics are being held in China. They have rejected all the promises they made on human rights as a condition for getting the invitation to host the Games. The domestic protesters have practically all been locked up by the Chinese authorities. I'm tempted to not watch 10 seconds of this propaganda.
Aides organizing President George W. Bush's trip to China for the Olympics considered having him worship at a house church, one of the underground religious institutions that routinely face harassment, but the Chinese refused.
Pastors, lawyers and other political activists that Bush considered meeting in Beijing as a powerful signal of support have instead been ordered by the authorities to leave the city during the president's visit. Scores of others have been arrested.
The idea of giving a Reaganesque "tear down this wall" speech on human rights in China - as members of Congress and others have called on Bush to do - has been abandoned as potentially insulting to the president's hosts, said one senior administration official. It would be unlikely that most Chinese would see or hear it anyway, because of state control of the media.
It's perfectly understandable. They might not have given 43 the comfy seat cushion to watch the opening ceremonies if he pulled a stunt like that. That, or they wouldn't have lent us the $2 billion that day.
In other news, President Lincoln called off the Battle of Antietam because he considered it "too risky," FDR briefly mused about sending troops into the Far East as a response to Pearl Harbor but figured "someone might get hurt," Kennedy decided against proclaiming "Ich bin ein Berliner" out of respect for East Germans "who might not agree"....
Gordon Brown hasn't had a great couple of months, but he showed some backbone today and greatly improved prospects for an international ban on cluster bombs.
In a major diplomatic defeat for the U.S., Britain broke ranks Wednesday and joined more than 100 nations in agreeing in principle to an international ban on cluster bombs, the small, insidious weapons that have killed thousands of civilians in the aftermath of battle.
Though the Bush administration has lobbied hard against the treaty and many U.S. and British officials consider cluster bombs valuable weapons, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown overruled elements of his own military and threw his support behind the prohibition. Brown's decision cleared the way for an agreement that supporters said would lead to the removal of cluster munitions from arsenals around the world.
Most interestingly, the convention not only prohibits the use and stockpiling of cluster bombs among signatories, but it calls on any nation conducting joint military operations with a non-signatory to "actively discourage use of the weapons." With Britain on board, that will have an impact on the United States regardless of what a future President and Congress do with the treaty (for example, these have been used in Iraq).
Cluster bombs are a truly hideous by-product of modern warfare, canisters that open upon ejection and pour a series of "bomblets" across a wide area that are meant to explode on impact. However, up to 25 percent do not, creating minefields that kill hundreds or even thousands of civilians wherever they are deployed.
But while a ban on these weapons would be a major human rights victory, it is more reflective of the waning credibility of the United States under Bush. It would have been unthinkable a few years ago for a stalwart ally like Great Britain to break with the US on a diplomatic issue such as this. But Brown is in trouble domestically, and may have seen such a split as a political cure-all. It's not only McCain who wants to show his independence from Bush. Moreover, here is the United States, on the wrong side of a human rights issue YET AGAIN, lining up with China and Russia and using technicalities like "China and Russia don't support it, so we won't" to justify their behavior. Which is essentially saying that "We don't think this effort will succeed until you bring users of the weapons, like us, to the table."
How many foreign policy failures from this Administration can you name off the top of your head? Because you can add this one.
Bob Gates says we're stuck with that Guantanamo prison. Just nothing we can do about it.
Mr Gates told a US Senate hearing: "The brutally frank answer is that we're stuck. We have a serious 'not in my backyard' problem.
"Either their home government won't accept them or we're concerned that the home government will let them loose once we return them home," he said.
"What do you do with that irreducible 70 or 80 who you cannot let loose but will not be charged and will not be sent home?" he asked.
Dianne Feinstein, who has been good on this issue, brushed up against this point, but Gates makes an enormous understatement when he says that those 70 or 80 "will not be charged." He fails to give the reason why, because they've been tortured to obtain information that wouldn't hold up even in their kangaroo courts. Yesterday the Congress heard from a detainee who was tortured and subsequently found to be innocent:
Murat Kurnaz told members of Congress today he was subjected to "water treatment," electric shocks and other abuse during the almost five years he spent in U.S. custody, putting a face to the Justice Department's inspector general report released today, detailing abuses witnessed by FBI agents overseas at detention facilities run by the military and CIA.
Kurnaz, a Turkish citizen, was arrested in Pakistan in late 2001 after the 9/11 attacks while he traveled with a religious tourism group, and was eventually handed over to U.S. forces. He was held in U.S. facilities in Afghanistan and then at Guantanamo Bay.
Speaking to the House Foreign Affairs Committee via video link from Germany with his lawyer at his side, Kurnaz described how he was abused while he was held at a U.S. base in Kandahar, Afghanistan, and described how he was subjected to "water treatment" while in custody.
"They stuck my head into a bucket of water and punched me in the stomach," he said. "I inhaled the water. ... It was a strong punch."
Kurnaz testified that, although he had no links to al Qaeda, and German intelligence services told U.S. officials in 2002 that he was not a terrorist, he languished at Guantanamo until August 2006.
While he was detained in Kandahar, Kurnaz testified, he was chained by his arms to the ceiling with his feet dangling and subjected to electric shocks. Kurnaz also alleges U.S. interrogators tried to force him to sign papers admitting his guilt.
These 70 and 80, whom the Pentagon claims are guilty, received the same treatment. But the claim against sending them to their home countries has always been that they would be tortured or killed by their governments. So we insourced the torture and played buddy-buddy with those new authoritarian partners.
U.S. military personnel at Guantanamo Bay allegedly softened up detainees at the request of Chinese intelligence officials who had come to the island facility to interrogate the men -- or they allowed the Chinese to dole out the treatment themselves, according to claims in a new government report.
Buried in a Department of Justice report released Tuesday are new allegations about a 2002 arrangement between the United States and China, which allowed Chinese intelligence to visit Guantanamo and interrogate Chinese Uighurs held there.
According to the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, an FBI agent reported a detainee belonging to China's ethnic Uighur minority and a Uighur translator told him Uighur detainees were kept awake for long periods, deprived of food and forced to endure cold for hours on end, just prior to questioning by Chinese interrogators.
Susan Manning, a lawyer who represents several Uighurs still held at Guantanamo, said Tuesday the allegations are all too familiar.
U.S. personnel "are engaging in abusive tactics on behalf of the Chinese," she said Tuesday. When Uighur detainees refused to talk to Chinese interrogators in 2002, U.S. military personnel put them in solitary confinement as punishment, she said.
"Why are we doing China's dirty work?" Manning said. "Surely we're better than that."
Surely we're not. We've now become a country with an extra-judicial detention system, one where suspects can be held, tortured, interrogated, and left to die without charges, where the prisoners see the only escape as suicide.
We've now become a country where we aid the Chinese in their own repression of ethnic minority groups.
We've now become a country where all of this is done and our own Secretary of Defense tells us he's very sorry but we can't stop.
If you think one election will wash all this away, you're crazy.
I am a film and video editor, stand-up comedian, and blogger. My editor resume is here. A sample of my stand-up is here. The blog is what you're reading right now. Wasn't that easy?
View blog reactions
