Much, much too late

As everyone knows by now, the Supreme Court finally got around this past week to telling the administration "hey, you can't just torture prisoners indefinitely ... at some point you have to, you know, actually provide a reason for imprisoning them."

Dear leader declared from Italy that while he might disagree with the decision he would abide by it. I am not sure why he should all of a sudden feel bound to abide by our Constitution, a flimsy piece of paper has not stopped him before. Of course, in the same set of comments where he graciously agreed he might be bound by the ruling he also suggested his administration would immediately start looking for ways to legislate around it.

I'd admire his stick-to-it attitude much more if it was dedicated to something like a reasonable national health care policy, a responsible approach to resolving issues along our border with Mexico, lowering the national debt or developing a coherent energy policy rather than finding excuses to detain people indefinitely so we can torture them whenever it suits our whim.

Even if dear leader goes against form and does actually obey the Court's decision, it's too late, the damage has been done.

Without question some number of the prisoners are bad, evil individuals who deserve to be locked away for life. However, it's also indisputable some number are guilty of nothing other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Most fall somewhere in between. One question would be should we resort to torture even with the "worst of the worst" (answer: no, we should be better than that), and another has been how many even merit that appellation. The administration has in the past claimed all of them do, that it has infallibly managed to send only those guilty of the worst crimes, or, at least, planning to commit the worst forms of misdeeds, to Guantanamo.

Of course, this has been provably wrong for some time, as some number of detainees have already been determined to not be guilty of what they were accused of and released ... generally after spending months or years in a prison where they were regularly abused.

McClatchy Newspapers published the first part of what will be a five-part series today detailing the findings of its eight-month investigation into the prisoners at Guantanamo. McClatchy has been, throughout, the best source of truly investigative reporting regarding the war and its motives, and this piece is yet another must-read. As it makes clear, administration officials have known for years that many, perhaps most, of the prisoners kept in Guantanamo had no reason to be there and were not sources of operational intelligence. However, in an administration which could not bring itself to admitting it was anything less than infallible, releasing these prisoners, or even moving them to another location where they might be treated humanely, was never an option to consider.

Instead, we set up a system where individuals have been held for reasons they were not told based on evidence they could not see provided by individuals they could not know about. Kafka would be so proud.

Darth Scalia has already predicted this ruling will lead to more deaths. Of course, this claim will never be able to be proven either way. What is provable is our nation has resorted to torturing innocent individuals. We have violated nearly every human right imaginable, all purportedly for the "best" of reasons.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Hopefully this latest ruling will help take their first steps down the road out of the abyss.

Al-Qaeda's favored candidate

John McCain has recently taken to referring to Barack Obama as Hamas' favorite candidate, apparently because Obama has advocating dialog with Hamas leadership to try to further finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem. Our glorious President joined in yesterday, equating Obama to Neville Chamberlain attempting to appease Hitler.

Hamas is certainly an unsavory organization, but like it or not it also has a political aspect, and is the party duly and freely elected to head the Palestinian government ... and currently does so in the Gaza Strip. As such, it behooves us to engage them - no peace is likely to be found in the region if we refuse to do so. Even McCain himself recognizes this ... or, at least, he did two years ago:

"They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."

That's some pretty bent-talking there, slamming someone for holding the exact same view you have previously expressed ... of course, that was before McCain become the Republican candidate for President and had to sacrifice his actual beliefs to the party extremists.

McCain was right the first time ... only a moron (and our President certainly qualifies on this count) would speak in absolutes about such matters, and fail to recognize the infinite shades of gray in between. Not surprisingly, Eggplant has drawn the wrong lesson from Chamberlain's errors. The mistake was NOT in opening discussion with Hitler's government, but rather in agreeing to Germany's forceful annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia in exchange for "Peace for our time" ... a time which lasted less than 12 months.

Talking to someone or some organization is NOT the same as "giving them everything they want".

Meanwhile numerous studies and stories (here, here and here for just a few examples) have noted how the US presence in Iraq has helped al-Qaeda garner new recruits (although this appears more difficult now in past years). Bent-talk express himself has voiced his support for being in Iraq 100 years if necessary ... which certainly seems like it would make him al-Qaeda's favored candidate.

You, too, can be a terrorist

This account details a 17th-century trial for witchcraft in Bamberg, Germany (h/t Digby), during the course of which the accused was subjected to thumb screws, leg screws (also known as the Spanish boot) and strappado during the course of the "investigation".

For a week, including through five days of torture, the subject of the inquiry, one Johannes Junius, continually protested his innocence of all charges. Enough was finally enough, however, and he eventually "confessed" to everything, after which he was further tortured until he eventually bore false witness against fellow townsmen so as to end the torment.

His "evidence" was likely used against those he named, just as they were tortured until they named him, said "evidence" used to justify his torture ... and the vicious circle wound merrily along.

At least he didn't suffer water boarding.

If anyone thinks they wouldn't confess to anything they thought their tormentors wanted to hear when subjected to such abuse, they are childishly naive.

Framer, x4mr, TR, Liza, AZAce, et. al., when they take me in I plan to implicate all of you ... just so you know.

Lies and videotape (no sex ... yet)

The NYTimes has an article this morning discussing the CIA's decision last year to destroy videotapes of interrogations the agency had conducted with terrorism suspects. The agency destroyed the tapes during a period when it's secret detention practices were under investigation, and the tapes were never handed over to either the 9/11 commission, Congress or to the courts - all of which, at different times and for different reasons had made requests for information which the tapes would seem to have fallen into.

Legal concerns were among the major motivating factors to destroy the tape was:

"The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terrorism suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. The tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that video showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks, several officials said."

So, to be clear, the CIA engaged in activities it knew were, at best, skirting the edge of the law, and likely well beyond what the law would permit. It apparently disregarded legitimate requests from both our judiciary and our elected officials to turn the tapes over, and finally decided to destroy the evidence so as to not suffer (or limit) any potential consequences which might derive from their actions.

This isn't the first set of interrogation tapes to be lost. Tapes of interrogations of Jose Padilla conveniently went missing when they were requested as evidence earlier this year as part of his criminal case. But wait! There's more! As Glenn Greenwald documented last spring, this administration has compiled a lengthy list of documents and other evidentiary items which have wandered off or "been overlooked" or "accidentally deleted" or what-have-you at times coincidentally most convenient to the administration itself, and least convenient to whatever investigating body wanted them.

Of course, destruction of evidence only needs to be relied on when Executive Privilege claims simply won't do.

Still, I am sure there are some number of members of the alleged party of "personal responsibility" (as long as, you know, members of a Republican administration aren't actually held responsible for outing a CIA agent, or illegally torturing prisoners, etc.) who will say "why the fuss - we're talking about terrorists, after all."

Except we're not. As this Washington Post article (and this) make clear, even actually being declared innocent by US intelligence wasn't sufficient to earn Murat Kurnaz his release from imprisonment, where he was kept for four years for no cause whatsoever. It took a personal plea from German Chancellor Angela Merkel to achieve that.

Meanwhile, who knows what indignities Kurnaz suffered. I'm sure any videotapes have been destroyed.

Are we done yet?

The Washington Post has a story today about a debate within the army and the administration over declaring "victory" against al-Qaeda in Iraq. The consensus seems to be AQI has taken some heavy hits in recent months, severely damaging its capacity for terror operations, and some folks want a public declaration to the effect, while others, having seen similar "Mission Accomplished" and "Last Throes" statements turn out poorly in the past, are taking a more cautious view.

Of course, there is another reason to not declare victory as well, which the article mentions but I am going to discuss here anyway ...

It's unquestionably a good thing that AQI has been significantly reduced in effectiveness by our recent operations there. Hopefully the pressure on the organization really has cracked it, to the point of being irrecoverable. If so, however, it raises two points in my mind:


1. What, exactly, does it say about our occupation that "declaring victory" over a terrorist organization in Iraq which never existed prior to our occupation is seen as a sign of progress and optimism? I mean, AQI only ever came about in the first place because we decided to invade Iraq. No invasion, no terrorists.

It's like saying "this was an offshoot of our bad planning and poor decision-making, but we've mostly fixed the direct problem (although it's true a multitude of other, related problems still exist), so lets declare victory. Huzzah!"


2. As the article notes, one reason given for not declaring victory is if there are no terrorists left it opens up the question of why we still need troops there. I.e., if it's not the terrorists doing all the shooting and killing and bombing, aren't our troops just trying to referee a civil war?

Of course, it has been true for a considerable time the vast majority of violence perpetrated in Iraq has had nothing whatsoever to do with AQI or any other recognized terrorist organization, and has had everything to do with factional conflicts within Iraq. This can't be admitted, however, or what little public support still remains for keeping our troops over there would collapse even further.



It's all a pipe-dream. The chances our troops are going to exit Iraq within the next two years is roughly the same as our cars being pooped on by dive-bombing pigs. Endless rationalizations for the war follow the same life-cycle: creation, promotion, prove to be false, discard in favor of yet another rationalization ... and the cycle of death continues unabated.

Same song, second verse

McClatchey newspapers reported last week that the neo-con wing of the administration, led by Darth Cheney himself, are ardently agitating for an airstrike against alleged terrorist training camps inside Iran.

Just what we need - open hostilities with another Islamic nation. What, two isn't enough? For all the shouts of "jihadists" coming from some quarters, it almost seems like some elements of our government are determined on creating a crusade of their own.

This all ties in with the recent chorus of claims that Iran is providing material support to Iraqi insurgents. Of course, this creates an odd catch-22 for the administration - all this supposed aid from Iran is directed to Shiite factions, and attacks from Shiite organizations are on the uprise. Shiite factions are most assuredly not associated with al-Qaeda. Meanwhile, the administration has been busily trying to conflate all insurgent attacks in Iraq with al-Qaeda in Iraq, which itself is supposedly "the same people from 9/11". Except for the fact al-Qaeda in Iraq never existed prior to 9/11.

But what's a few blatant logical inconsistencies between friends ...

What makes this article especially worrisome to me are two items:

1. Warren Strobel, one of the authors of the McClatchy piece, was one of the few journalists who consistently got things right in the run up to the Iraq war, challenging administration claims about WMDs in Iraq, alleged nuclear programs, etc. On every matter, Strobel (and his co-author on many of those pieces, Jonathan Landy, was eventually shown to be right.

There is nothing new about neo-cons such as Cheney, Norman Podhoretz and others of their ilk pushing for new and better wars. However, the fact Strobel put his name to this recent article just makes it all the more credible that, even though Cheney hasn't had his way on the issue yet, he may in the near future.

2. The military is pushing the whole "these devices must have come from Iran" angle, despite having found a factory in Iraq making them as far back as last February. This is exactly the type of misinformation and propaganda used to stampede us into invading Iraq in the first place.

When in trouble, people revert back to what they know ... and apparently what certain significant portions of this administration know is "nuke em til they glow".

I can't believe I am saying this, but I am desperately hoping Condi prevails in this matter. Even as our troops continue to die in Iraq while the Iraqi government teeters on the edge of collapse, Cheney continues doing his damnedest to prove yet again he can always make things worse.

A tale of two countries

With Hamas essentially executing a military takeover of the Gaza Strip, and President Mahmoud Abbas responding by dissolving the government and creating a new one in the West Bank, we now effectively have two semi-autonomous Palestines - one which the US and Israel (and other bodies, such as the European Union) have announced they will work with, once which they ... well, they aren't quite sure what to do with.

Ever since Hamas gained a large majority in the national elections about 18 months ago, both the US and Israel have been pointing out that while, yes, free elections are great and all, they also have consequences. In this case, the consequences have included withholding money and goods needed by Palestinians, particularly in the strip, where 1.5 million people are crowded into 139 square miles. By comparison, Tucson has about 1/3 the population in more than 1-1/2 times the space.

Hamas has attempted to blame the deteriorating conditions, especially in the Strip, on US and Israeli influences, particularly the refusal to turn over funds earmarked for Palestine, and needed to support the government. While the lack of funds has certainly been among the main contributors to the problem, it's hard to argue with the US/Israel stance in this matter, given Hamas' expressed intent to destroy Israel and replace it with a Palestinian state. Given Hamas has offered a 10-year truce but has never backed off this founding principle of the organization, has never given any recognition of Israel's right to exist, it seems ridiculous to then be surprised at Israel's reaction. "Yes, we plan to destroy you. In the meantime, would you mind forking over some money for a few years so we can stabilize and improve our national infrastructure, the better to carry out our aims in a decade or so?"

So, barring intensive Israeli military intervention in Gaza with the intent to crush Hamas and weaken it for some time to come, we are going to be left with a competition of sorts: which version of Palestine will turn out better? The "Islamist" Gaza area, or the western-backed West Bank?

Given Gaza is effectively cut off and under siege (Israel controls checkpoints in and out, even on the Egyptian border) this shouldn't be much of a competition. It's hard to see how anything can turn out well in Gaza, and it certainly behooves all interested western parties to do their utmost to see things turn out not just better than Gaza (after all, nearly anythung would be better than Gaza in it's current state), but exceedingly well under Abbas. However, there are several reasons this may not be that easy:

1) Corruption. The reason the voters went with Hamas in the first place was because, even though they were aware of the probable repercussions of a Hamas-led government, they were even more fed up with the long-standing history of corruption in the Abbas-led Fatah movement. What good was having international funding come in if that money went to line the pockets of ministers and other officials?

2) Syria. The despotic government here has no interest in seeing any kind of flourishing, semi-democratic state along its borders. Any such state would simply be a symbol to it's own people of how much better off they might be. Syria has already shown a willingness to intervene in Lebanon, and while they would be less explicit in their actions in the West Bank (no troops would be sent, for example), they certainly wouldn't hesitate to act (i.e., more assassinations).

3) Fervent Islamists. As with Syria, these people have no interest in seeing a flourishing semi-democracy anywhere in the Middle East. They don't have anything better to offer, they just don't want the "corruption" of western ways. Unlike even Syria, which at least has it's own national status to consider, these individuals have nothing to lose, are only interested in destruction, and are currently demonstrating this every day in Iraq.

Sadly, even if things in the West Bank start off well, I am afraid, over time, individuals who fall under category three above will begin to arrive in the area, and the faster things might improve, the sooner the response. I expect, within a year, to be reading about suicide bombers killing Palestinians. The more things change ...

Who are the REAL terrorists?

The U.S. Fourth circuit handed down a significant decision recently, ruling the government could not continue detaining Ali al-Marri indefinitely without charges.

For those unfamiliar with the case, some background can be found here. The short version is al-Marri was in the U.S. legally when he was arrested in Dec. 2001.He was initially charged with using illegal documents to open bank accounts, but shortly before his trial was to open the administration declared him an unlawful combatant, and placed him under military detention, where he has languished since.

The distinction is significant. As an "unlawful combatant" his rights to a lawyer have been limited (and at times non-existent). He is able to be held indefinitely without charges or trial. Etc., etc.

Not surprisingly, left-wing writers are hailing the decision and right-wing ones are decrying it. Both Glenn Greenwald and Anonymous Liberal have excellent posts (lengthy, but well-worth reading) discussing the matter, while Andrew McCarthy of the National Review and Orin Kerr give right-leaning perspective.

It's notable McCarthy and Kerr both commit the same logical fallacy which right-wing writers have been making for years, namely equating mere accusation with guilt. McCarthy describes al-Marri as "an al-Qaeda-trained terrorist embedded here by the terror network", while the opening sentence of Kerr's also associates al-Marri with al-Qaeda: "What Should Happen to Al Qaeda Cell Members Discovered in the United States?" Of course, none of these claims ever have been actually demonstrated, we are for some reason expected to simply accept them on trust.

As Greenwald's piece explicitly makes clear, though, a major principal of our system of government is to not take such assertions on trust. Our founding fathers were well aware of the dangers of granting a government the ability to simply collect citizens off the street without needing to give a cause for doing so, and they specifically set up checks and balances to prevent such abuses. Now, more than two centuries later, individuals such as McCarthy and Kerr (and, perhaps most perniciously, John Yoo) are advocating the executive branch should have such rights, rights out founders fought to get rid of.

We hear repeatedly how this is a "different kind of war we are fighting" and how "different rules apply", and that may be so. Why is it, though, the people who always seem to spout such lines inevitably advocate "new" methods which strip rights from individuals, which make us a less free society? Couldn't our "new" method of fighting this war involve adding rights?

It's true in past wars captured prisoners did not have access to the courts. It's also true, however, in past wars it was much easier to make a clear distinction between who was and was not a combatant. As those lines blur, it may be true we need a new approach to dealing with the problem, but if so I want an approach that errs on the side of extending our rights and liberties, not curtailing them. McCarthy, Kerr, Yoo and their ilk certainly are not "terrorists", but they scare me a lot more in the long run than the al-Marri's of the world.