There literally is no end to the extent by which Republican politicians will lie, distort, and manufacture statements in their efforts to disrupt, deny, and destroy the Obama administration's attempts to govern. At today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on 9/11 trial, the Fort Hood shooter, and terrorism, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) decided to flip-flop on the designation of the Gitmo detainees. Are they "unlawful enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war"?

SESSIONS: The enemy, who could of been obliterated on the battlefield on one day, but was captured instead does not then become a common American criminal. They are first a prisoner of war, once they're captured. The laws of war say, as did Lincoln and Grant, that the prisoners will not be released when the war - until the war ends. How absurb is it to say that we will release people who plan to attack us again?

Sessions seems to be saying that because these detainees were captured by the military, they have become prisoners of war and should not be released - even if found not guilty or after serving a prison term (assuming less than a life sentence) - until the "war on terror" is over (which, under a Republican point of view, will never be over). But on the other hand, SecDef Don Rumsfeld and the other fun-loving bunch of Bushites were very firm about NOT calling them "prisoners of war" because they were not supposed to get rights under the Geneva Convention (or any other form of legal writs - see waterboarding, justification of).

In fact, as one of the commenters at the TPM post notes, there was public law developed to explicitly designate any non-US citizen who was accused of supporting terrorism or acting against the United States as a terrorist as being eligible for military commissions.

I thought like you until I read this, from the Military Commissions Act: "‘(e) Geneva Conventions Not Establishing Private Right of Action- No alien unprivileged enemy belligerent subject to trial by military commission under this chapter may invoke the Geneva Conventions as a basis for a private right of action."

See: here.

This discussion becomes quickly complex with legal passages as a debate over whether the military tribunals should take KSM or if the federal court system has adequate jurisdiction. But it's just so interesting how Republican politicians adroitly jump back and forth as to the question of the detainees' status to how it best fits their argument of the day - are we talking about Geneva convention rights, or are we talking about the process of legal courts?

And because I want to give credit to the interesting comments over at TPM, I will close with the following observations by the commenters:

"I guess when the Right/GOP can say, print (Palin's myth filled book), promote anything without any accountability by the Beltway Press, the GOP has no need for intellectually honest consistency in their claims."

"When did Sessions stop playing the banjo?"

UPDATE: Clarified the guilt point.

Download | play Download | play

On Tuesday PBS Frontline: "Extraordinary Rendition" explored Bush's use of the CIA to kidnap persons from sovereign nations and fly them to secret locations at CIA Black Sites or to prisons in other countries to be tortured and held indefinitely in secret without charges. Although the practice of "extraordinary rendition" did not originate under Bush, after Sept 11 "the program expanded beyond recognition—becoming, according to a former C.I.A. official, "an abomination." What began as a program aimed at a small, discrete set of suspects—people against whom there were outstanding foreign arrest warrants—came to include a wide and ill-defined population that the Administration terms "illegal enemy combatants."

Continue reading »

Talk Left: Senator Lindsay Graham is introducing an Amendment to the defense appropriations bill pending in the Senate (S. 1042) that would strip those designated by the Administration as enemy combatants of the ability to seek habeas review in federal courts....read on

Obsidian Wings: This is seriously bad news. As best I can tell, it strips the courts of all power to hear any habeas motion from a detainee, or any other challenge to a detainee's detention, and that this applies to any cases that have already been brought and are now pending...read on

Body and Soul: If you've been under the impression that Lindsey Graham is one of the rare Republicans good guys on the torture issue, be prepared to lose your innocence...read on

When James Webb became a Democratic senator for Virginia in 2006 after beating George Allen, I thought it was a wonderful thing. Here was this former Reagan administration official and military veteran, recognizing that the Dem party had more potential for representing the great people of Virginia. I should have known that he was actually a conservative Democrat, at best, that it was too hard for him to hide his background. Talking Points Memorandum notes his view on the detainee trials in New York City:

"I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so. Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.

"The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.

"I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants."

Now I don't know where Sen. Webb gets his history lessons, but I don't remember any Japanese pilots being tried in a military court for their attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact, the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal was, in fact, a specially appointed international court made up of (gasp!) civilians.

As for Webb's charge that a civilian court would be "disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive," exactly how is it beneficial that we hold these detainees for six to eight years as the military tries to figure out how it can impartially judge and convict these individuals without looking like a kangaroo court? It's not the military's job, Sen. Webb, to judge non-state actors such as these terrorists. They're base criminals - they need to be treated as such. Don't give them the benefit of being judged as "combatants" equal to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. They aren't worth it.

If Sen. Webb believes that these detainees do not belong in our country, courts, or prisons, then he ought to direct the US government to let them go free (although, ironically, the US government can't seem to get rid of those detainees that they want to release). But Gimto is still a US interest, a military court is still "our" court system, and it's our responsibility to use the rule of law - a foreign concept to many in Congress - to dispose of these cases.

The Repubs want us to be afraid of trying the Gitmo detainees in US courts, because not using special military tribunals might actually be the successful way to do this. Get behind your party, Sen. Webb. Either support the quick disposition of the Gitmo detainees or let them go free. This subversion of US and international law has gone on long enough.