WHY DOES OBAMA CONTINUE INHUMANE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT BAGRAM?

The BBC has talked to 27 former inmates at the notorious U.S. military prison at Bagram, Afghanistan, and reports that most say that American soldiers inflicted periods of sleeplessness, forced standing, loud music and other wise inhumane and cruel treatment.

Ian Pannell reports for the BBC on this story:

"Many allegations of ill-treatment appear repeatedly in the interviews: physical abuse, the use of stress positions, excessive heat or cold, unbearably loud noise, being forced to remove clothes in front of female soldiers.

"In four cases detainees were threatened with death at gunpoint.

""They did things that you would not do against animals let alone to humans," said one inmate known as Dr Khandan.

""They poured cold water on you in winter and hot water in summer. They used dogs against us. They put a pistol or a gun to your head and threatened you with death," he said.

""They put some kind of medicine in the juice or water to make you sleepless and then they would interrogate you.""

So who is responsible for the operation of this prison and who made up these harsh interrogation methods and installed them as standard operating procedure? We know the answer to the two latter questions: it was George Bush and Dick Cheney who devised and then implemented these methods of torture, not some sergeant or specialist in the U.S. Army. But as to who is responsible - now it is Barack Obama and his Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. It is anyone's guess as to whether this awful treatment of Afghanis still continues. But if it does continue, it is up to Obama and Gates to shut it down without delay.

Furthermore, Obama has adopted the Bush line that prisoners in Afghanistan are not deserving of the protections of the U.S. constitution. This means that Obama is trying to deny to these prisoners basic human rights, such as receiving a fair trial, and asking for habeas relief from an independent court, such as that found in the Fourth Amendment that allows a court to consider whether a person is being held unjustly.

Obama's position against granting basic protections to these prisoners at Bagram is beyond comprehension. Americans voted for Obama as president because they believed that he would end the injustice and violations of human rights. Has he now dismissed the views of all those who voted for him?

MEAN JOHN MCCAIN OBJECTS TO SUPREME COURT GRANTING HABEAS RELIEF TO GUANTANAMO INMATES

John McCain criticizes the U.S. Supreme Court for ruling that inmates at Guantanamo have a right to seek relief in federal district court. Why? Because McCain says they are bad people.

Nadine Elsibai and Hans Nichols report today in Bloomberg:

"McCain called the court's 5-4 ruling ``one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,'' warning that the court system would be clogged with petitions from the 270 inmates. He suggested that many inmates still present a threat.
"
``Thirty of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again,'' said McCain, 71.

"The court June 12 invalidated a 2006 law, backed by McCain, which stripped Guantanamo Bay inmates of the right to file so- called habeas corpus petitions in U.S. courts. The court's majority opinion, in a rebuke to the Bush administration and Congress, held that inmates at Camp Delta in Guantanamo Bay are protected by the Constitution and may seek release in federal court."

McCain apparently feels that since 30 of the released detainees were later involved in attacks against American forces, none of the remaining 270 should have their day in court. Surely Mc Cain knows that the vast majority of the detainees got sent to Guantanamo because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many have turned out to be sheep herders or farmers, sold into the hands of the United States by Afghanis wanting to settle scores and/or revenge insults or injuries. Others ended up in Guantanamo because Afghan war lords collected thousands of U.S. dollars per head for each hapless "terrorist" turned in to the Americans.

The Great Writ, as it is called, traces all the way back to King John and the Magna Carta of the 13th Century. The king, or in this case, the executive, is not allowed to lock people up and throw away the key. There must be grounds, there must be due process, there must be a chance to rebut adverse evidence and/or witnesses.

Apparently John McCain thinks it is alright to up "enemies" and keep them in prison without any fair and equitable recourse. How will he explain this to fair-minded voters?

SCALIA DOESN'T CARE HOW MANY IN GUANTANAMO ARE INNOCENT - NO HABEAS HEARINGS SHOULD BE ALLOWED

Justice Scalia in his dissent in Boumedienne v. Bush granting habeas corpus relief to the 270 inmates at Guantanamo claims that:

"[t]he Nation will live to regret what the Court has done today."

I would like to ask, how does affording inmates at Guantanamo cause regret to the United States? Does Justice Scalia think that a hearing in front of a judge at the district federal court will cause mayhem and chaos? Or is it that Scalia thinks all 270 inmates are the most dangerous and already convicted in front of an impartial tribunal?

It is like what you would expect some pope of churchman to say during the darkest days of the Inquisition. "We know she is a witch, so burn her at the stake." Scalia gives the impression he like the priest of old already knows each and every one of the 270 is a terrorist.

But what if that were not so? What if there were one innocent person caught up in the rush to give the Americans what they wanted in Afghanistan, people with swarthy complexions and beards who were Islamists? What if of the 270 there were 10 innocents or 100 or 200? Scalia seems to care not a whit for the non-terrorist arrested in the massive dragnet after 2001. And he is not ready to grant them a habeas hearing to find out.

Writes Scalia:

"[This opinion] will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed. "

What is Scalia trying to say here? That Boumedienne v. Bush will cause more Americans to be killed? Or that the opinion probably will cause more Americans to be killed? Or that it is not certain that more Americans will be killed? Note the sieve through which those words "almost certainly" flow. Surprising imprecise words from a jurist noted for stressing words' plain meaning.

GREAT DAY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS - INMATES AT GUANTANAMO CAN SEEK HABEAS CORPUS FROM FEDERAL COURTS

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that inmates held at Guantanamo have constitutional rights to seek redress from federal courts. So much for the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld machiavellian scheme to hold such prisoners outside the confines of the 50 states and thus keep them from bringing their cases and grievances into federal court. But the Court ruled that Guantanamo is subject to full sovereignty of the U.S. government, and therefore prisoners held there are not deprived of the protections of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus.

DAN FROOMKIN ASKS HOW COME CLINTON, OBAMA & EDWARDS SAY LITTLE CRITICAL OF GEORGE W. BUSH'S POLICIES?

I see where Dan Froomkin in Nieman Watchdog suggests that the Democratic candidates do something more than fill their speeches with "hope" and "change." Specifically, Froomkin wonders why Obama, Edwards and Clinton are not confronting the disastrous polices of George W. Bush.

Where do we see their arguments against the War in Iraq? Where is Obama on the violations of the Fourth Amendment in Bush's illegal wiretapping? How come we don't hear from Hillary on the disgrace of Guantanamo and the removal of the the protection of the Great Writ of Habeas Corpus? And how come we have heard little to nothing from Edwards on Bush's policy of torturing suspects to obtain " valuable information"?

Instead of just mouthing platitudes, the Democratic candidates must confront the pressing problems created by Bush. They must go on record as against them. They must also explain why the polices constitute an American disaster, and how Democratic policies would remedy these problems.

GEORGE BUSH IS BIGGER THREAT TO DEMOCRACY THAN HUGO CHAVEZ

Jonathan Diehl writes in today's The Washington Post on the excesses of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Diehl writes:

"During eight years in office, Chávez has already taken control of Venezuela's courts, congress, television stations and petroleum industry; his congress granted him the right to rule by decree. The constitutional rewrite will allow him to control the central bank and its reserves, override elected local governments with his own appointees, declare an indefinite "state of emergency" in which due process and freedom of information would be suspended, and use the army to maintain domestic political order under the slogan "fatherland, socialism or death!" "

But wait! If we substitute the word "Bush" for "Chavez," the sentence would be more correct. Bush has taken extraordinary emergency powers; he has had the Congress give him war-making ability; he has taken control of the Supreme Court by naming Alito and Roberts, two neo-con favorites of Dick Cheney.

Mr. Diehl, how come you chose to write about Hugo Chavez instead of George Bush? Bush is the bigger threat to democracy.

Bush has siezed extra constitutional powers. He has suspended habeas corpus. Bush has used the word "homeland" to scare Americans. He has incited anti-immigrant campaigns with his Homeland Security Department. Bush has politicized the Justice Department. At least Chavez is engaging in a referendum by the people before he takes full control. And above all, Chavez has not invaded and occupied another country.

BUSH COMPARED TO GEORGE WASHINGTON BY SUCK-UP FRAN TOWNSEND

Fran Townsend resigns as Bush's Homeland Security Adviser today and presents a hoaky letter of resignation comparing Bush with George Washington. Townsend must be some suck-up because here's is her letter. (Thanks to ThinkProgress.org for pointing this out.)

Townsend writes:

"In 1937, the playwright Maxwell Anderson wrote of President George Washington: There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in their lifetime.

"Mr. President, you are such a man. . . ."

But Steve Clemons in his The Washington Note praises Townsend as level-headed and a counterweight to Cheney.

Writes Clemons:

"Fran Townsend, in my view, actually did a very good job and was one of the more reasoned advisers that Bush kept close to him. In my estimation, she was an important balance to Vice President Cheney's national security advisor John Hannah."

Frankly, I cannot understand Clemon's good feelings towards her. Townsend compares Bush to George Washington and include him among the giants who " . . . lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in their lifetime." About Fran Townsend I have serious reservations and doubts.

Remember Townsend is talking about Bush who:

• refuses to close Guantanamo
• refuses to stop waterboarding or other and worse forms of torture and "harsh interrogation"
• believes in extraordinary rendition (a/k/a kidnapping)
• vetoes the Children's Health Plan
• started the disastrous and foolhardy War in Iraq
• is responsible for the deaths of almost 4,000 U.S. forces
• is responsible for the deaths of over 650,000 Iraqis
• is against habeas corpus for prisoners caught in Iraq or Afghanistan
• believes in the death penalty
• and on and on

And Steve Clemons praises Townsend? Townsend's letter indicates that she thinks Bush is among those giants of men who uplift those with whom they come into contact. Townsend must be as bad as Bush if she really believes her own words. And Clemons must be on some mind-altering drug to praise her.

VALUES OF LEADING THREE REPUBLICANS OFFEND AMERICAN VALUES

I cannot see voting for any of the Republican candidates. Consider the three leaders, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain. All three would give us a redux Bush, maybe a little smarter than W but maybe even more extreme.

John McCain seems the least crazy as well as the most likeable. McCain comes off as genuine, what you see is what you get. On the plus side, he is against torture and water-boarding. But his big negative is that he continues to support this unjustified and illegal war in Iraq.

Mitt Romney comes off as duplicitous and willing to say anything to help his chances. Mitt generates an unlimited amount of political cynicism. By saying that he would double the size of Guantanamo, he tries to out-do Bush in his cruelty towards suspects caught in Afghanistan and Iraq. We know that Guantanamo is the black hole where once you end up there, whether guilty or not guilty, you lose all right to appeal. You have no right to a trial, you have no right to a lawyer, you have no right to appeal to a federal court for relief under the Great Writ of habeas corpus. And Mitt would double Guantanamo? Has he no decency?

As to Rudy Giuliani, it is clear he has no decency. Rudy comes right out and endorses waterboarding and says he inflicted "harsh" interrogation methods on mafia suspects when he was federal prosecutor in NYC. Rudy never served in the army, has no combat experience, but endorses torture. Maybe his forebears utilized torture during the years of the Inquisition.

I cannot imagine how Republicans or anyone else could vote for any of the above. Unless this is how a person wanted life and society in today's United States - one where war was always the answer, constitutional rights for prisoners did not exist, and torture was the modus operandi du jour.

FORMER FEDERAL JUDGES DENOUNCE USE OF TORTURE TO EXTRACT STATEMENTS OF GUILT IN MILITARY COMMISSIONS

In the case of Boumediene v. George W. Bush, to be decided in the next term of the U.S. Supreme Court, the question is whether federal judicial review of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal is an adequate substitute for the common law Great Writ of habeas corpus, when the CSRT may have relied on statements extracted by torture and other impermissible coercion. In other words, may the government extract confessions by torture and then prohibit the accused from seeking the protection of habeas corpus in federal courts?

Many entities have filed briefs as Amici Curiae seeking to bar torture as a legitimate means of information extraction without any possibility of the accused seeking relief under habeas corpus. One in particular is from former federal judges found at Scotusblog.

The former federal judges review the common law tradition in England barring torture and coercion. I want to reproduce one section because it recites that as far back as the year 1215, almost 800 years ago, the English courts ("King's Bench") abandoned the use of torture as both cruel and unreliable.

Write the former federal judges:

"More than a millennium ago, torture was allowed
in England in trials by ordeal, which required the accused
to submit to various painful tests, to decide questions of
guilt and civil liability. See A. Lawrence Lowell, The
Judicial Use of Torture, 11 HARV. L. REV. 220, 221-222
(1897). The use of such torture tactics—often involving fire
or water—was not based on any theory that such methods
would lead to reliable statements, but rather on the belief
that God would intervene to disclose the truth. See John
H. Langbein, Torture and Plea Bargaining, 46 U. CHI. L.
REV. 3, 4 (1978).

"Torture was abandoned as part of the truth-seeking
function in England in 1215, when trial by jury was
introduced. Indeed, England prided itself at that time on
its rejection of the legal system adopted by continental
Europe, which incorporated torture of criminal defendants
as a systemic element of its legal machinery. See John H.
Langbein, Torture and The Law of Proof 73 (1976). In the
late 1400s, for example, Chief Justice Fortescue of the
King’s Bench emphasized that the torture conducted in
Europe, but rejected in England, yielded unreliable results (7)
and thus did “its utmost to condemn the innocent and
convict the judge of cruelty.” John Fortescue, De Laudibus
Legum Angliae, A Treatise in Commendation of the Laws
of England 73 (Francis Gregor, trans., Cincinnati, Robert
Clarke & Co. 1874) (c. 1460-1470)." (6-7)

Consider how this squares with the dark outlook of George Bush and Dick Cheney on using torture to extract information from suspected terrorists. The American president and vice president wish to overturn a millenium of legal tradition protecting people arrested in favor of "protecting the homeland" against feared future terroristic acts. People are seized and held incommunicado solely on the basis of suspicion generated by torture and coercion. The right of the individual to be free from torture and to be granted access to lawyers as well as rights to seek habeas corpus relief in the courts have been denied in favor of putative interests of the state.

CLOSE GUANTANAMO

The New York Times today reports an AP story on capture of a top leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. What is noteworthy is that the CIA apparently captured Abd al-Hadi (al-Iraqi) and then handed him over to the Defense Department which then took him to Guantanamo.

Whoever is the next president must close Guantanamo. Karen J. Greenberg blogs in Tomdispatch.com and asks will Guantanamo ever be closed. Guantanamo is a stain on the American tradition of the rule of law. At Guantanamo, the inmates and prisoners are to date outside the rule of law, meaning that the solid principles of American legal jurisprudence, such as the inalienable right of habeas corpus, the barring of evidence on torture, and the right to access to legal counsel, all these have disappeared and vanished in the Guantanamo kangaroo court proceedings.