From the ACLU series, Justice Denied

And as if we haven't already destroyed this man's life, it just gets worse:

On Monday, the Pentagon announced that two prisoners had been released from Guantánamo. Abd al-Nisr Mohammed Khantumani, a 50-year old Syrian (also known as Abdul Nasir al-Tumani) was given a new home in Cape Verde, a former Portuguese colony off the West African coast, while Abdul Aziz Naji, a 35-year old Algerian, was repatriated to Algeria.

(T)he focus must be on the legal maneuvering that led to the repatriation of Abdul Aziz Naji, because, for the first time in Guantánamo’s history, a prisoner has been sent home against his will, even though Doris Tennant, one of his lawyers, told the Washington Post two weeks ago that he was “adamantly opposed to going back.” At the weekend, another of his lawyers, Ellen Lubell, told the Miami Herald that Naji “fears extremists will try to recruit him — associating him with Guantánamo — and will torture or kill him if he resists.” She added, “He has nothing against the Algerian government, but he fears that the government will be unable to protect him from Algerian extremists.” In a press release, the Center for Constitutional Rights explained that Naji “fled various forms of persecution in Algeria many years ago, including having been attacked by an extremist.” CCR also sounded a note of caution about how the Algerian government will receive Naji, stating, “we are deeply concerned that he will disappear into secret detention.”

These are valid concerns, as Algeria has a poor human rights record. Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations (PDF, pp. 108-9) regularly express concerns about the use of torture in Algeria, and in its 2009 report on human rights in Algeria, the US State Department noted, “Local human rights lawyers maintained that torture continued to occur in detention facilities, most often against those arrested on ‘security grounds.’”

In contrast, an Obama administration official, speaking anonymously, told the Washington Post two weeks ago, “We take some care in evaluating countries for repatriation. In the case of Algeria, there is an established track record and we have given that a lot of weight. The Algerians have handled this pretty well: You don’t have recidivism and you don’t have torture.” This was a bold statement to make, in light of the allegations made by NGOs and the UN, and concerns about torture or other ill-treatment were not diminished by a response to the news of Naji’s repatriation in Monday’s Washington Post, in which it was noted that “The government said that Algeria has provided diplomatic assurances that Naji would not be mistreated, assurances that administration officials say are credible because 10 other detainees have been returned to Algeria without incident.” The problems with this statement concern the “diplomatic assurances,” and the claim that 10 men have been repatriated “without incident.” On the “diplomatic assurances,” Human Rights Watch explained in a press release that its own research “has shown that diplomatic assurances provided by receiving countries, which are legally unenforceable, do not provide an effective safeguard against torture and ill-treatment,” and, on the status of the 10 men returned, although there have been no allegations of torture, there has been very little information at all about the conditions in which they have been held, and what has emerged publicly is not reassuring, as it reveals both prolonged pre-trial detention, and calls for punitive sentences from the prosecutors.

As much as it hurts me to say this, the Bush administration was far more humane on the issue of repatriating Guantanamo detainees back to areas where they might be tortured--known as "non-refoulement", as evidenced by the care they took with the Uighurs. Ironic, considering the callousness with which they treated them while in detention.

The long history of the authorities grappling with the “non-refoulement” obligation at Guantánamo began with the Uighurs, 22 Muslims from China’s oppressed Xinjiang province, who were mostly seized in Pakistan in December 2001 after crossing from Afghanistan, where they had been living in a run-down settlement in the Tora Bora mountains, thwarted in their attempts to travel to Turkey or Europe in search of work, or nursing futile hopes of rising up against their only enemy, the Chinese government.

With the Uighurs, the Bush administration recognized its “non-refoulement” obligation, refusing to return them to China, and finding new homes for five of the men in Albania in 2006. When the Obama administration inherited the problem of the remaining 17 men, who had, in the meantime, won their habeas corpus petitions, it found new homes for 12 of them in Bermuda, Palau and Switzerland, although five still remain at Guantánamo, and, last spring, the administration turned down a plan by White House Counsel Greg Craig to bring some of the men to live in the US, which would have done more in the long run to defuse scaremongering about Guantánamo than any other gesture.

The issue of closing Guantanamo, a promise which many liberals relied on Obama fulfilling shortly after taking office has been unquestionably a minefield of legal and ethical considerations. It's just another black mark on the Obama presidency.

I knew it was pretty big because the earthquake made me dizzy, but I didn't realize it was a 6.9.

Lucky for LA it hit much further south, but I hope nobody got hurt.

Magnitude

6.9

Date-Time

Sunday, April 04, 2010 at 22:40:39 UTC

Sunday, April 04, 2010 at 03:40:39 PM at epicenter

Location

32.093°N, 115.249°W

Depth

32.3 km (20.1 miles)

Region

BAJA CALIFORNIA, MEXICO

Distances

26 km (16 miles) SSW (211°) from Guadalupe Victoria, Baja California, Mexico

61 km (38 miles) SW (227°) from San Luis Río Colorado, Sonora, Mexico

64 km (40 miles) SW (225°) from San Luis, AZ

173 km (108 miles) ESE (106°) from Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico

This felt like the one that hit the Bay Area in 1989, but not as intense obviously. Wave-like.

Man, they do freak me out a little now. Sammy, my cat freaked and hid under the bed. And like a true Internet geek, I was trying to twitter about it as I felt it.

Friday marked the one-year anniversary of President Obama signing an executive order to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay. We were all cheered and encouraged by this bold move on the president’s second full day in office — it signaled he was ready to make a clean break from the Bush administration's unlawful and shameful detention policies.

But when the Obama administration finally does close Guantánamo, it's vital that the administration also puts an end to the policy of detaining prisoners without charge or trial. Indefinite detention is one of the practices that's made Gitmo a disgrace in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Late last year, we debuted a video that included interviews with five former Guantánamo detainees.

Last week we released four break-out videos featuring the same five men telling their stories in more depth: They talk about their lives before ending up in U.S. custody, their experiences at Guantánamo and other U.S.-run detention facilities, and how they've pieced their lives back together after Gitmo. All of the men featured in our video series, like hundreds of others who were held for years at Guantánamo, were eventually released without any charge.

British citizen Moazzam Begg was in Afghanistan, working to open a school for girls, when he was captured. He says in the video: "My experience of America prior to this was everything I had seen in the films: the concept of the good guys, the concept of people trying to do the right thing. And that was shattered."

Bisher al-Rawi was captured in Gambia, where he hoped to open a peanut factory with his brother.

Omar Deghayes was detained at Guantánamo for six years. He was blinded in his right eye after a Gitmo prison guard jabbed him in the face with his fingers.

Childhood friends Shafiq Rasul and Ruhal Ahmed are two of the "Tipton Three," the subjects of the documentary Road to Guantánamo. They traveled to Afghanistan after attending a friend’s wedding in Pakistan, and were captured there. They both spent 2 ½ years detained by the U.S.

More than 700 men have been detained at Guantánamo since it opened eight years ago; 198 remain. Most of them could tell similar stories about their years-long detention.

To close Gitmo properly, the remaining detainees must either be released, or charged and tried in federal courts, which are better-equipped to handle these cases than the unconstitutional military commissions. Consider the military commissions' track record: A grand total of three cases have been completed since Guantánamo opened as a detention facility in January 2002. Federal courts, on the other hand, have successfully tried more than 200 terrorism cases, including those of the “Blind Sheik” Omar Abdel-Rahman for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, “shoe-bomber” Richard Reid, and Zacarias Moussoui for conspiring in the 9/11 attacks. The so-called underwear bomber, Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab, was arraigned in federal court on terrorism charges 14 days after he tried to blow up an airplane. In contrast, most detainees at Guantánamo have languished there for years, without charges brought against them and no end to their detention in sight.

Of those detainees who remain at Guantánamo, Bisher al-Rawi says: "If the U.S. thinks somebody is a criminal, that’s fine. Take him to court and let him have his day in court…either you release people or give them justice, true justice, with no deception, no lies."

The Villagers are giving this "Party Crashers" story the Anna Nicole Smith-type coverage, and it's been led by none other than the Washington Post's Sally Quinn. They seem to be the only people outraged over it, and good old Sally wants heads to roll. When Sally got on board with the story it was very predictable that she would finally come out and demand a human sacrifice at her Beltway altar, because D.C. is her hallowed grounds and to think some undesirables crashed "her" party is just too much for her to bear.

Sally was very upset when Hillary was the first lady because she was ignored and Sally will not be ignored.

Michelle Obama is now in Quinn's crosshairs and is being asked to pay a price to appease the Beltway Village Gods. Desirée Rogers is a close friend of Michelle's and so she must be taught a lesson by the Villagers.

Digby predicted this was coming too.

Just as Travelgate was about Hillary Clinton failing to respect the social pecking order by installing old Arkansas friends in a job in which the press had a personal stake, (Ryan's comments about "overshadowing" notwithstanding) I'm pretty sure this is about Michele and "her pal" somehow not respecting the pecking order and failing to understand just how sacrosanct are the invitation lists to the White House. (You'll recall that Michelle had a press avail the day of the state dinner and mentioned that she regretted not being able to invite everyone, which I thought was rather odd at the time.)

The lesson has long been clear. You do not mess with the Village tabbies. They have far more power than you might think.

Well guess what? The Queen Tabby made her move today:

Many in Washington wondered why the director of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan, did not resign over the state dinner security breach. At least Sullivan testified before Congress on the subject. White House social secretary Desirée Rogers came under fire after the Salahi scandal erupted. From the start, Rogers was an unlikely choice for social secretary. She was not of Washington, considered by many too high-powered for the job and more interested in being a public figure (and thus upstaging the first lady) than in doing the gritty, behind-the-scenes work inherent in that position. That Rogers stayed and that the White House refused to allow her to testify before Congress reflected badly on the president. He, not a member of his staff, ended up looking incompetent. Although it has emerged that a State Department protocol error is to blame for the presence of a third uninvited guest, both Rogers and Sullivan should step down.

The administration's problem extends beyond these failings. When White House counsel Greg Craig was fired over disagreements about the timing and publicity of closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, many Obama supporters were troubled. Craig was one of the most admired and trusted men in Washington. His firing was a turning point for a lot of people, who began to question the president's judgment.Whether or not the Craig decision was the president's idea, somebody else should have taken the hit for it... Emanuel, the most political animal in this town, also should understand that keeping Rogers on as social secretary reflects upon the president's judgment.

Obviously, the Obamas have made a Big Social Mistake somewhere along the line and it's time for those who really run things to assert themselves. She put it in terms of "protecting" the president, but if you read the whole thing, it's quite clear that it's actually a threat: unless they straighten up and understand who's really in charge, right quick, this could get ugly. Sally says heads must roll ... or else.

Let the games begin.

I imagine Quinn will be appearing with Bill O'Reilly soon to demand that a sacrifice be carried out.

DOWNLOADS: (2502)

PLAYS: (7280)

Sometimes Andrea Mitchell can be a tool, but sometimes she acts like a journalist. Kit Bond was on a wanker role today on MSNBC and actually had Andrea Mitchell almost jumping out of her seat with his distortions of so many facts. Bond said that the Senate Armed Services Report was a partisan report and it was wrong. When he tried to say that Abu Ghraib was just a few rogue soldiers that's when Andrea got into it with him.

Senate armed services committee released an exhaustive report detailing direct links between the harsh interrogation programme of the CIA and abuses of prisoners at the US prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, in Afghanistan and at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

When Andrea brought this fact up to Kit, he called the SASC report lies...( rough transcript. Fill in the thread)

Mitchell: Do you really feel that the CIA/terror fighters are being stabbed in the back by the President's actions?

Bond: Yes, very clearly. by released these classified has put all the CIA under the gun.There could be prosecutions for following orders and there could be prosecutions in other countries.

Mitchell: ...the Bush administration lawyers, one a sitting federal judge, on the federal appeals court on the 9th circuit in San Francisco, so those legal opinions themselves are being questioned, the practice is being questioned, the chain of how these decisions led eventually to Abu Ghraib according to the Armed Services Committee report yesterday and your own committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee has released a time line that shows that Condi Rice and others as early as July, 2002 approved these techniques, your colleagues have done on the hill.

Bond: There are about five different questions in there. No 1, Abu Ghraib had nothing to do with intelligence, that was a bunch of rogue reservists from West Virginia

Mitchell: That's not what what the Armed Services Committee report says sir.

Bond: It's absolutely wrong. It is a DOD report, they did not have access to the classified information on Intelligence community and we will be doing a review of the intelligence committee. It did not , it did not have access to what the CIA was doing. To say that Abu Ghraib had anything to do with intelligence is flat wrong.

Mitchell: So you're saying the Armed Services Committee report was in error yesterday?

Continue reading »

It's great to see someone who believes in diplomatic engagement back in the White House, isn't it?

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad and Tobago — President Obama, seeking to thaw long-frozen relations with Cuba, told a gathering of Western Hemisphere leaders on Friday that “the United States seeks a new beginning with Cuba,” and that he was willing to have his administration engage the Castro government on a wide array of issues.

Mr. Obama’s remarks, during the opening ceremony at the Summit of the Americas, are the clearest signal in decades that the United States is willing to change direction in its dealings with Cuba. They capped a dizzying series of developments this week, including surprisingly warm words between Raúl Castro, Cuba’s leader, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Other leaders here said that in watching Mr. Obama extend his hand to Cuba, they felt they were witnessing a historic shift. And in another twist, Cuba’s strongest ally at the summit, President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, no fan of the United States, was photographed at the meeting giving Mr. Obama a hearty handclasp and a broad smile.

Oh yes, and wingnuts are already frothing over that!

(...) Mr. Obama’s message was not entirely new; he has said in the past that he was willing to engage with Cuba. But making a public pledge before leaders of 33 other nations, many of whom he had not yet met, gave his words added heft.

President Obama said he's still for the "assault weapons" ban, but he knows it will be difficult to get passed. Well, duh? I know the freak-show teabaggers will get armed if you make this a priority, but some things that are difficult must be acted upon.

Listen, I want him to get universal health care first and foremost, but he has a chance to move the ball forward here. He should tread carefully, because every police officer is a bit nervous right now, but don't wimp out altogether.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Mr. President, as well. President Obama, as a candidate for your office, you said that you wanted to see the assault ban weapon -- the ban on assault weapons reinstated. Your attorney general has spoken in favor of this. Mexican officials have also spoken in favor of it. But we haven't heard you say that since you took office. Do you plan to keep your promise? And if not, how do you explain that to the American people?

And, President Calderón -- I'm sorry, if I may -- would you like to see this ban reinstated? And have you raised that today with President Obama? Thank you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, first of all, we did discuss this extensively in our meetings. I have not backed off at all from my belief that the gun -- the assault weapons ban made sense.

And I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the 2nd Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe to lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we now know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence -- violence in our own country, as well.

Now, having said that, I think none of us are under any illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy. And so, what we've focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws, because even under current law, trafficking illegal firearms, sending them across a border, is illegal. That's something that we can stop.

And so our focus is to work with Secretary Napolitano, Atty. Gen. Holder, our entire Homeland Security team, ATF, border security, everybody who is involved in this, to coordinate with our counterparts in Mexico to significantly ramp up our enforcement of existing laws.

Eight years ago today, a Department of Defense C-141 transport plane carrying 20 prisoners arrived in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. On that day, January 11, 2002, the naval base began operating as a detention center for men captured in President Bush's so-called "war on terror."

Since that day, nearly 800 prisoners, men as old as 98 and boys as young as 13, have passed through Gitmo. The notorious prison camp has seared into the mind of the world images of hooded, goggled, orange-jumpsuit-clad prisoners shackled in cages. Guantánamo has become synonymous with torture and abuse. Its very existence is a symbol of disregard for the rule of law.

In this video, "Justice Denied," a few of the former detainees tell their stories. They tell of their capture, detention — some for several years — and abuse inside the facility, and their eventual release without explanation or apology.

On his second day in office, President Obama ordered the closure of the prison at Guantánamo by January 22, 2010.

But last Wednesday, the Obama administration announced it will try a sixth Guantánamo detainee in the unconstitutional military commissions system. Congress has stymied plans to move some of the 198 remaining detainees to a prison in Thomson, Illinois, by refusing to fund an upgrade of the prison's facilities. It now seems clear that the president's deadline will pass without any meaningful change in policy for those still held there.

It's been a shameful eight years. It's time to close Guantánamo.