President Obama Officially Halts GITMO Show Trials

/in , , , , , /by

h/t Amnesty International

President Obama has ordered an abrupt halt in the Gitmo Show Trials. From Peter Finn at the Washington Post:

In one of its first actions, the Obama administration instructed military prosecutors late Tuesday to seek a 120-day suspension of legal proceedings involving detainees at the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba — a clear break with the approach of the outgoing Bush administration.

The instruction came in a motion filed late Tuesday with a military court handling the case of five defendants accused of organizing the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The motion called for "a continuance of the proceedings" until May 20 so that "the newly inaugurated president and his administration [can] review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently pending before military commissions, specifically."

In the legal field, this is known as an act taken "in the interests of justice". An incredibly welcome move by an administration literally only hours into its initial term. You have to hand it to President Obama, Guantanamo is a sensitive topic, especially with the neocon screechers, yet he proved the courage of his convictions and acted immediately upon being sworn in.

It appears that the action was foreshadowed at Camp Delta, as Carol Rosenberg of McClatchy already had reported, even before Obama was sworn in, that the trial of Omar Khadr had been put on hold:

A military judge on Tuesday postponed next week’s trial of Canadian captive Omar Khadr, easing pressure on the new occupant of the White House to make a swift decision on military commissions.
…
Until Tuesday, the Khadr case was shaping up to be an early test of Obama’s pledge to close the prison camps.
…
But Parrish’s indefinite delay — he set no new trial date — also derailed Pentagon plans to airlift a jury panel of U.S. military officers to this remote base this weekend.

The stay of all proceedings at Guantanamo for at least 120 days is, as stated, wonderful news; however, the better question is what it portends for the future disposition of the legal cases of the detainees including Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-defendants accused of organizing the 9/11 attacks.

Notably, the defense teams do not appear quite as thrilled as one might would expect by the move, citing fears that the government is simply trying to clean up the tribunal process minimally in order to continue on. Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, who represents Read more →

Marty Lederman Takes over John Yoo's Former Position

/in , /by

If you needed any further proof that things are different–very different–today, there’s this: Balkinization blogger Marty Lederman will take John Yoo’s former position, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OLC.

As of today, the commencement of the Obama Administration, he begins work as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel. There he will be joined by two of his former OLC colleagues, Dawn Johnsen, nominated to be head of the office; and David Barron, who will serve as the Principal Deputy (and as the Acting AAG while the Senate considers Dawn’s nomination).

We’ve replaced the guy who did Bush and Cheney’s evil bidding with a blogger-prof and Constitutional champion, Marty Lederman.

Welcome to a new day, America.

Coach Bush is 3-23 In Real Courts On Gitmo Show Trials; Katyal, The Hero Of Hamdan, To Join Obama Administration

/in , , , , /by

If your local football coach was 3 wins and 23 losses for the season, you could rest assured of two things; one, you are a Detroit Lions fan and, two, the coach is getting fired. Well, there was an interesting little article that was published in today’s New York Times, and the upshot is that 3 and 23 is exactly what the Bush/Cheney regime’s record is when their Guantanamo Detainee cases see the sunshine of a real court. Clearly we have pretty much been endlessly detaining a lot of innocuous people on unsubstantiated evidence.

Describing the release last weekend of Haji Bismullah, an Afghan detainee held at Guantánamo Bay for nearly six years, the Times notes:

The decision was part of a pattern that has emerged in the closing chapter of the administration. In the last three months, at least 24 detainees have been declared improperly held by courts or a tribunal — or nearly 10 percent of the population at the detention camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where about 245 men remain.
…
While Mr. Bismullah’s case was decided by a military panel, the rulings for the other 23 detainees occurred in habeas corpus hearings in federal court. Since a Supreme Court decision in June gave detainees the right to have their detentions reviewed by federal judges in habeas cases, the government has won only three of them.

Get that?? 3 and 23. Not. Real. Good. Certainly puts the lie to Cheney and Bush’s promises that they were holding only the "worst of the worst" after all these years doesn’t it?

The cases provide a snapshot of the intelligence collected by the government on the suspects and suggest that there was little credible evidence behind the decision to declare some of the men enemy combatants and to hold them indefinitely.
…
“The government’s failure in case after case after case to be able to prove its case calls into question everybody who is there,” said Susan Baker Manning, a lawyer for 17 Uighur detainees from western China who were ordered released by a federal judge in October. The Justice Department has appealed that order from a federal district judge, Ricardo M. Urbina, and the men are still at Guantánamo.

Well, I guess, as shocking as it is, this is not exactly breaking news anymore. The brittle patina of legitimacy and credibility, to the extent there ever was any, began to crack with the first major Read more →

Turley Speaks Out On The Bush "Policy Of Crime"

/in , , /by

Barack Obama and his new administration need to prosecute the malefactors in the outgoing Bush Administration for the crimes and crimes against humanity they perpetrated while in office. The law is not just to punish, although it is for that; more importantly, it is to set an example for society to see and know, to exhibit what is wrong and not to be tolerated.

Tonight on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown on MSNBC, Professor Jonathan Turley made a passionate plea to Mr. Obama, his Attorney General to be Eric Holder and the incoming administration to do just that: prosecute the malefactors for the egregious conduct and set an example.

There is a difference between criminalizing policy and a policy of crimes, and that is what we have here. We just had three Attorney Generals that couldn’t tell the difference, and the question is whether he will prosecute confirmed crimes.

Indeed, that is the question. Watch the clip, it is must see teevee.

Paul Krugman said much the same in today’s New York Times:

I’m sorry, but if we don’t have an inquest into what happened during the Bush years — and nearly everyone has taken Mr. Obama’s remarks to mean that we won’t — this means that those who hold power are indeed above the law because they don’t face any consequences if they abuse their power.

These two luminaries are speaking the gospel. Spread the word.

Holder Nomination Hearing, Part Three

/in /by

Up now on the Committee Webcast.

Grassley: Quinn called you and recorded that you had no personal problem. [places notes in record] Do you remember a comment about the Southern District?

Holder: I don’t remember it. But it suggests I knew they were aware of it.

Grassley: Don’t you think this is more reliable than your memory.

Holder: I agree in general, but I’d want to note the circumstances of this note.

DiFi spoke, but I missed a lot of it.

Kyl: Internet gambling [I was waiting for this!!] You indicated that under your leadership DOJ would enforce laws prohibiting some kinds of internet gambling.

Kyl: You also said you’d shut off cash flow to internet gambling.

Kyl: "Liability protection" for FISA law. You said you would honor the certification put forth by Mukasey unless there were compelling circumstances. That certification based on investigation of previous conduct prior to the law in order to determine whether entitled to get retroactive immunity. Law provides immunity for conduct prosepctively. What circumstances could you conceive of that would relate to this previous investigation?

Holder: I’m not sure I can come up with those circumstances. I don’t know.

Kyl: YOu are aware that DOJ has taken a position in lawsuit in support of liability protection with respect to AT&T.

Holder: It wouldn’t happen with change in Admin, that would not be compelling. 

Kyl: I hope you won’t consider this out of bounds. You were DAG under Clinton when DOJ authorized warrantless search of Ames. Were you involved in that?

Holder: I don’t remember. As I understand what my staff relayed to me, national security exception not covered by FISA that would have made that legal. 

Feingold: Guidelines on investigation. Will you take a close look at these guidelines.

Holder: FBI changing its mission. I think need to see how they work in practice. I’ll commit to doing that.

Feingold: FBI document hundreds pages long, I asked if it would be made public. As AG will you support efforts to make those public?

Holder: helps to be as transparent as we can.

Feingold: Will you support legislation to end racial profiling in America?

Holder: we need to end it.

Feingold: Do you agree there’s a need for legislation?

Holder: It’s not an issue I’ve dealt with recently. 

Feingold: Bush Admin trying to preempt state law on law suits. Do you think this needs to be changed to restore common law for citizens.

Holder: Need to approach from a pro-consumer perspective.

Cardin: When you are confirmed one of your principle Read more →

Holder Nomination Hearing, Part Two

/in /by

picture-72.thumbnail.pngTo follow along, see CSPAN3 or the Committee Webcast (though the latter seems to be having the RealPlayer problem it was having earlier). 

Sorry. Started a little late. I think Lindsey Graham is beating up on Holder because he once worked for Blago, but that’s just a guess. [actually, not sure I got that right]

Graham: Is it fair to say that we’re at war?

Holder: No question that we are at war.

Still asking questions about whether our "war"–whether someone in the Philippines financing terrorism was part of the battlefield. 

Graham: What about someone who may not be subject to an Article III trial. Have you thought about that group?

Holder: I’ve struggled with that.

Leahy: Graham has discussed these issues with me, I’ve relied on his experience from JAG, we’ve also had some military people risking their own careers saying what should be done. They have been most instructive to members of this committee on how the UCMJ works. I would suggest that you may want to spend some time in informal discussions with people like Graham, we’ll at least let you know what our views are.

Holder: That’s a good idea. Didn’t want to talk about the substance of my conversation with Graham thinking he had thought about our military judgment a lot. 

Leahy (who keeps putting in letters of support at key times) is now putting in letters of support from Generals and whatnot. 

Cardin: I want to talk about Civil Rights Division. Resources reduced. Schloz. I want to give you an opportunity to tell me your own personal commitment, and how you will direct that division head what you expect to see during the Obama division.

Holder: Civil Rights is conscience of DOJ. 

Cardin: Bush Administration took zero cases supporting African Americans, but they were there to defend the draconian Georgia law that has been called the new poll tax. I’d like to find a way to prevent campaign tactics to be used to suppress turnout. 

Cardin: One other area shows a racial disparity in our country. Crack cocaine. African Americans now serve as much time for drug offenses as whites do for violent crimes.  We know we have disparities in our laws. It’s very clear that’s true wrt crack cocaine. I’d like a tough but fair system.

Holder: Our criminal justice system has to be fair, it has to be viewed as fair. I saw that in USA DC. I heard jurors talk about inadequacies in Read more →

Eric Holder Hearing Open Thread

/in /by

This should be the only really contentious one. Go to CSPAN3 or the Committee Webcast to see it.

Note, in a bit of timing jujitsu, Biden and Hillary are giving their farewell speeches on the floor of the Senate at 10 and 11, meaning CSPAN2 will be covering those speeches and not this hearing, meaning (in turn) that this hearing won’t be available to most Americans watching on teevee.

Leahy’s opening statement is a bit of a scold directed at Arlen "Scottish Haggis" Specter for his kabuki opposition to Holder.

Ah Jeebus. Specter is bitching about minority rights–complaining that, after having agreed to the schedule he originally agreed to, he then wanted to change the schedule. 

Huh. Did Specter just say that Mary Jo White refused to testify? [I may have gotten that wrong–I’m having technical difficulties with the RealPlayer streams]

John Warner: "bipartisan approach in helping President-elect face the most complicated issues that ever faced a President."

Warner: People in every corner of the country are following this hearing. [Well, they would be if two top incoming officials weren’t giving their swan-song speech on the floor of the Senate and therefore hogging the CSPAN2 time]

Note: there appears to be a RealPlayer difficulty on the feed–if you’re having problems–getting sound but not picture–try CSPAN’s Microsoft feed, which has picture for me.]

Holder’s goals:

Protect American people from terrorism. Use every available tactic, do so within the letter and the spirit of the law. America must remain a beacon to the world. 

Restore credibility of department.  DOJ will serve justice, not fleeting interests of any political party. Filip and Mukasey deserve gratitude of American people for doing much. (?)

Embrace historic role in fighting crime, protecting civil right, protecting environment, ending fraud. [Talks about accountability in finance.]

Leahy starts with waterboarding. "Two most recent nominees to serve as AG hedged on waterboarding. Do you agree with me that waterboarding is illegal?"

Holder: If you look at the history, I agree with you that waterboarding is torture.

Holder: no one above law. President has obligation to faithfully execute laws of US. Obligations from treaties and Constitution. The President acts most forcefully when he acts in manner consistent with Congressional intents and directions. It’s my belief that President does not have power to authorize torture.

Leahy: 2nd Amendment? [Leahy sets up Holder to answer one of the questions GOP will throw at him.]

Holder: My amicus brief was with respect to decisions signed before Heller. 

Read more →

The US Torture Regime – Where Is The Swift Justice?

/in , , , , /by

Earlier, Marcy and Spencer wrote about the somewhat startling admission today by Susan Crawford that the United States tortured Mohammed al-Qahtani. From Woodward and the Washington Post:

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

The entire article is worth a read just so that the bare facts of what the United States does in your name can set in. But the real thing that strikes me about Crawford’s admission is the unequivocal starkness of it. "We tortured". "Met the legal definition of torture".

Well okay then. What more could we ask for? Maybe that the statement was made by a Bush Administration official, in a position of authority, someone that actually speaks for and might could bind the government to the admission. Well, as convening authority for the military commissions, Susan Crawford darn well ought to suffice for that.

Sounds like what we have here is what the legal profession, and specifically the criminal justice portion thereof, calls an "admission against interest".

An admission against interest is an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a person to testify to a stament of another that reveals something incriminating, embarassing, or otherwise damaging to the maker of the statement. It is allowed into evidence on the theory that the lack of incentive to make a damaging statement is an indication of the statement’s reliability.

In criminal law, it is a statement by the defendant which acknowledges the existence or truth of some fact necessary to be proven to establish the guilt of the defendant or which tends to show guilt of the defendant or is evidence of some material fact, but not amounting to a confession.

Tonight, on MSNBC’s Countdown, former Navy JAG attorney Charles Swift laid out the background and implications of what our country has done and become (Attached are both the portion with Charlie Swift as well as a followup portion). What we have done is not good. It is not right. And it is not justified. It is a war crime under 18 USC § 2441.

For her next trick, perhaps Susan Crawford can tell us when the war crime prosecutions will be starting.

The Reid/Durbin Fabrication On Burris

/in , , , /by

burris1thumbnail.thumbnail.jpgBy now you know how poorly Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have played their aces and eights hand on the Roland Burris appointment to Barack Obama’s former Senate seat. Reid and Durbin went all in with their chips on the Illinois Secretary of State and, predictably, lost their pleated dandy shirts.

Illinois law and the Constitution have always been contra to Reid and Durbin’s intransigence on Burris, but the disingenuous duo have always fallen back on their precious ancient Senate Rule II. They have steadfastly portrayed themselves as honorable protectors of the high ground of ethics, and citizens and the rubes in the media have bought off on it. To wit, Durbin grandly proclaimed late Friday:

…the Senate seat could remain vacant until Blagojevich is removed from office and the lieutenant governor takes over, making a fresh appointment.

He said the Senate cannot waive a 125-year-old rule requiring the signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state on any election or appointment.

Now, it is hard to tell whether these lustrous paragons of virtue are being intentionally dishonest, or are simply tragically ignorant of the questionable foundation of the argument they rely on. But it is one or the other. First off, as Jane pointed out Friday,

the 1884 Senate rule Durbin and Reid rely on was promulgated before the passage of the 17th Amendment as well as before the Supreme Court decision in Powell v McCormack. Reid and Durbin are duplicitous in thinking their antiquated Senate rule trumps the official selection pursuant to the 17th Amendment and Illinois statutory law.

So, there is that. But, guess what? After all this, it turns out the vaunted Senate Rule II isn’t even the bright line mandate they have been stating. In fact, Senate Rule II is simply an antiquated suggestion for a document template. While subparagraph 2 of Rule II mandates that the Secretary of the Senate keep a journal of all certificates signed by the governor and secretary of state of the appointing electing and/or appointing state for each Senator, the operative language on the form of the certificate is, contrary to what Reid and Durbin have been stating, not mandatory in the least. From the official Senate Rules:

3. The Secretary of the Senate shall send copies of the following recommended forms to the governor and secretary of state of each State wherein an election is about to take place or Read more →

Eric Holder's New Pardon Controversy: Oops He Did It Again

/in , , , /by
graphic by twolf

graphic by twolf

Hot off the presses, Tom Hamburger and Josh Meyer at the LA Times have an exclusive on new information detailing Obama Attorney General nominee Eric Holder’s involvement in the ugly and controversial clemency grants given to members of the violent Puerto Rican terrorist groups FALN and Los Macheteros.

"I remember this well, because it was such a big deal to consider clemency for a group of people convicted of such heinous crimes," said Adams, the agency’s top pardon lawyer from 1997 until 2008. He said he told Holder of his "strong opposition to any clemency in several internal memos and a draft report recommending denial" and in at least one face-to-face meeting. But each time Holder wasn’t satisfied, Adams said.

The 16 members of the FALN (the Spanish acronym for Armed Forces of National Liberation) and Los Macheteros had been convicted in Chicago and Hartford variously of bank robbery, possession of explosives and participating in a seditious conspiracy. Overall, the two groups had been linked by the FBI to more than 130 bombings, several armed robberies, six slayings and hundreds of injuries.

The entire Justice Department was vehemently against Holder’s inexplicable determination to force the clemencies against all reason and factual considerations. One has to wonder exactly what was motivating Holder’s shameful refusal to back up his prosecutors and case agents (probably one of the reasons Holder has never been a favorite of line level DOJ personnel).

Holder stiffed prosecutors, FBI case agents and victims:

* He reminded Holder that Holder had in previous cases given "considerable weight" to the recommendations of federal prosecutors, and that any clemencies would "contravene the strong negative recommendation of two United States attorneys."

* Adams also warned that the convicts’ release would undermine at least four pending Read more →