Blue Commonwealth - Guantanamo

Main Stream Media Continues With Pentagon Lie

Rusty5329 — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:53:42 GMT

cross-posted at Sum of Change

Back in May, the Pentagon told the press that 1 in 7 Guantanamo detainees "returned to terrorism or militant activity." The New York Times ran with this lead, without even requesting a definition of "returned to terrorism or militant activity." Weeks later, the New York Times had to run a correction, essentially blaming the whole confusion on not receiving documents from the Pentagon. This was, of course, a ridiculous excuse. The Pentagon responded to my request for documentation in a matter of hours, with a pdf that described, entirely, how they define whether or not someone is suspected of returning to the battle field:

Definitions for Confirmed and Suspected Cases
Definition of "Confirmed" - A preponderance of evidence-fingerprints, DNA, conclusive photographic match, or reliable, verified, or well-corroborated intelligence reporting-identifies a specific former Defense Department detainee as directly involved in terrorist activities.
Definition of "Suspected" - Significant reporting indicates a former Defense Department detainee is involved in terrorist activities, and analysis indicates the detainee most likely is associated with a specific former detainee or unverified or single-source, but plausible, reporting indicates a specific former detainee is involved in terrorist activities.

You see, the claim is absolutely "unverified" (according to the Pentagon).

So you would imagine my surprise to see CBS running with this same "unverified" information as if it is true. That is pure crap, calling itself journalism. Once again, these journalists could not even manage to ask the Pentagon, how do you define that? This must be the "making stuff up" that Sarah Palin was so upset about.

Must Read from Bob Herbert - How Long Is Long Enough?

teacherken — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:44:27 GMT

also posted at Daily Kos

It begins like this

No one seems to know how old Mohammed Jawad was when he was seized by Afghan forces in Kabul six and a half years ago and turned over to American custody. Some reports say he was 14. Some say 16. The Afghan government believes he was 12.

The penultimate paragraph

There is no credible evidence against Jawad, and his torture-induced confession has rightly been ruled inadmissible by a military judge. But the Obama administration does not feel that he has suffered enough. Not only have administration lawyers opposed defense efforts to secure Jawad's freedom, but they are using, as the primary basis for their opposition, the fruits of the confession that was obtained through torture and has already been deemed inadmissible - without merit, of no value.

Read the column. I have words to offer below, but they will not matter if you read the column
The officer assigned to prosecute him is now retired, and works with his military defense lawyers to try to free Mohammed Jawad.

There is nothing I can say about the case itself that Herbert does not already present as lucidly as is possible. Let me illustrate with one additional paragraph from the piece:

Jawad also complained about being mistreated at Guantánamo, saying he had been moved with absurd frequency from cell to cell - the idea being to deprive him of sleep. A check of the official prison logs showed that Jawad had in fact been moved 112 times, without explanation, from one cell to another in a two-week period - an average of eight moves a day for 14 days.

But there is something else I must say.

I do not know who these administration lawyers are, whether they are burrowed in Bush political appointees, career personnel who are still following the guidance of the previous administration, or whatever possible reason might be offered for this kind of behavior.

This administration has now been in office, as of today, June 20, for 5 months. And yet legal arguments being present in courts are largely unchanged from those of the previous 8 years.

We have seen it on DOMA.

We have seen it in the apparent decision not to hold torturers to account.

We have seen it in the continued use of the state secrets doctrine.

We have seen it again and again and again.

And almost all of the examples either I have cited or have been cited by others seem to violate the commitments Obama made to the American people, to us, when he sought the office he now holds.

How long does it take competent lawyers to examine the case records and come to a determination of how to do things differently? If the lawyers addressing these cases cannot do so in five months, why are they not being removed? If they are deliberately ignoring the guidance of the President and his administration, why are they not removed?

And if neither of those are the reasons, does that mean the President and his administration accept the reasoning now being presented to courts around the nation? And if so, does not the President owe us, owe the American people, a clear and forthright explanation of why he is pursuing a different approach legally than we were led to believe would be his direction?

I understand that trials under military authority are supposed to be protected from command influence. That doctrine was implemented to protect those being court-martialed. A commander always has the right to decide not to bring charges. Anyone who doubts that merely need examine how few of those responsible for the horrors of Abu Ghraib ever faced Courts Martial. Thus there should be no reason for the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the President of the United States stating clearly that given the set of facts that are not in dispute in a case like this,

1. all charges should be dropped against Mohammed Jawad

2. he should be immediately released back to his family

3. the Afghan government should be informed in no uncertain terms that he is to be protected

4. he should be given compensation for his mistreatment, torture and unlawful confinement by agents of the United State of America.

I find myself having to again be critical of an administration for whose success I strongly hope - I am not Rush Limbaugh saying that I want Obama to fail.

And I acknowledge that the administration faces many major issues, and cannot right every wrong instantaneously.

There is much good the Obama administration has already done.

But when it comes to human rights, to civil liberties, to basic fairness, justice delayed is, as William Gladstone told us, justice denied.

To continue to use discredited legal argumentation, especially when it means a person we have already badly mistreated, continues to remain in indefinite limbo, in our custody, should be viewed as a violation of much of what we hold dear.

No cruel and unusual punishment.

Equal justice before the law.

Due process of law.

The right to confront the accusers and evidence against one.

Basic fairness.

Simple human decency.

So Bob Herbert is right to ask his question, How Long is Long Enough?

When the basis of continuing to hold a person is the result of our having tortured him, any time is already too long.

Peace.

Cheney's "Misstatements" Debunked

Teddy Goodson — Sat, 23 May 2009 02:27:19 GMT

The corporate media is making a great deal out of what they refer to as "dueling speeches." They refer to the coincidence of Obama speaking Thursday on national security in front of the Constitution at the National Archives, followed almost immediately by former Vice-President Cheney's speech to the American Enterprise Institute, defending the Bush administration's policies on torture in the name of national security. By and large, corporate media reporters have performed the usual ballet of "he said," and then "the other one said," treating the speeches as equal, and telling listeners to decide which one they preferred, without getting off their hindquarters and doing a little fact-checking. Had they done so, it would have exposed Mr. Cheney's egregious lies and distortions, perhaps raising the question: has Richard Cheney totally slipped the bonds of reality---- or does he have another agenda underlying his many recent torturous defenses of torture?

Fortunately, McClatchey newspapers' Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, did do the fact-checking, and provided us with a roster of troubling "omissions, exaggerations and misstatements" by the former Vice-President. (http://www.freep.com/article/20090522/NEWS15/90521105).
Here are some of Cheney's "misstatements"and the truth for you to use if a Republican accosts you:
Cheney: The harsh interrogation techniques approved by the Bush administration like waterboarding, forced nakedness, and sleep deprivation, were "legal," and garnered information that "prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people." He claimed that Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, actually said that the information so gathered provided us with a "deeper understanding of the Al Qaeda organization."
Fact: On April 21 Blair said the information "was valuable in some instances" but that "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means." He pointed out that "these techniques hurt our image around the world," that the "damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security." Moreover, in 2004 a report from the CIA inspector general was unable to find any conclusive proof that information gained through torture ever helped prevent any "specific imminent attacks," and Robert Muller, Director of the FBI, also told Vanity Fair last December that he did not think the techniques disrupted any attacks.

Cheney: President Obama's release of the four top secret Bush memos on interrogation techniques was "flatly contrary" to national security and would help terrorists to learn how to resist our interrogation.
Fact: Blair actually recommended releasing the memos, "strongly supported" Obama's decision to prohibit the use of torture, and said "we do not need these techniques to keep America safe."

Cheney: Maintains that the Bush administration moved "decisively" against terrorists in their "hideouts and sanctuaries."
Fact: The truth is, Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant Ayman al Zawahiri are still at large eight years after 9/11. Bush diverted US forces, intelligence assets, time, and money to planning the invasion of Iraq before he finished the war against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Today we have 49,000 US troops in Afghanistan where insurgents have returned in full force, plus, there is the dangerous surge of extremist attacks in nuclear-armed Pakistan.

Cheney: Claims the abuses at Abu Ghraib had no connection to Bush's interrogation policies, and were the result of "a few sadistic guards," (that is, bad apples in the lower ranks).
Fact: A bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee report last December, signed by Senators Carl Levin (D-Mich) and John McCain (R-Ariz), said "The abuse of detainees... cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own... senior officials of the United States government... redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality." The report pointed at top Bush officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, as having approved the torture.

Cheney: Says that "only detainees of the highest intelligence value" were subjected to the "harsh interrogation techniques," like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of 9/11.
Fact: He did not mention Abu Zubaydah, the first senior Al Qaeda operative captured, who was interrogated by FBI special agent Ali Soufan. Soufan told a Senate subcommittee last week (May 2009) that he had used "traditional methods" of interrogation (i.e., no torture) and pried out crucial information including Zubaydah's alleged role in 9/11. Soufan said bluntly that using harsh interrogation methods "was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made;" his criticism was echoed by Philip Zelikow who worked for Condi Rice in the 2004 internal fight to overhaul Bush's detention policies.

Cheney: Says that "the key to any strategy is accurate intelligence."
Fact: The Bush administration ignored warnings from experts in the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, State Department, Department of Energy and others about questionable and unreliable "intelligence," and used false or exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to make the case for invading Iraq in 2003.

Cheney: Fails to mention the case of Al Qaeda operative Ali Mohamed al-Fakheri (aka Ibn Sheikh al-Libi), whom the Bush administration secretly sent to Egypt for interrogation, January 2002.
Fact: In Egypt, under torture, al-Libi supplied false information linking Al Qaeda with Iraq, information used by Bush despite warnings from DIA the information was unreliable. Al-Libi has recently been reported to have committed suicide.

Cheney: Accuses Obama of "the selective release" of documents, and of withholding records which Cheney says prove that information gained from "harsh interrogation" prevented terrorist attacks. Cheney says he requested that the other information be declassified, but his request was denied.
Fact: The CIA withheld the referenced documents because a 2003 executive order issued by former President George W. Bush himself prohibited the release of materials "that are subject to lawsuits."

Cheney: Maintains that only "ruthless enemies of this country" were detained overseas and taken to secret US prisons.
Fact: A 2008 investigation by McClatchy Newspapers found that "the vast majority" of Guantanamo detainees captured in Afghanistan and Pakistan 2001-2002 were "innocent civilians or low-level fighters" of little intelligence value who were turned over to the US for bounty money or because of personal rivalries. German Chancellor Angela Merkel in October 2005 complained that the Bush administration had admitted to her that it "mistakenly abducted" a German citizen, Khaled Masri, from Macedonia, flew him to Afghanistan for harsh interrogation, then released him in May 2004 on a "remote road in Albania." As a result of this caper, Germany issued arrest warrants for 13 alleged CIA operatives for kidnapping Masri.

Cheney: Attacks Obama's decision to close Guantanamo and send detainees to other countries.
Fact: The effort to shut down Guantanamo actually started during Bush's second term and was promoted by Condi Rice and new Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Rice, in an interview on BBC in October 2007, said "...we need help in closing Guantanamo."

Cheney: Claims that "the Bush team," in assessing security after 9/11, had to take into account dictators like Saddam Hussein with "known ties to Mideast terrorists." (When in office, Cheney repeatedly insisted that Saddam cooperated with Al Qaeda, but did not say so explicitly in his most recent speech).
Fact: Saddam's association with terrorists "vacillated," and was mostly aimed at crushing opponents and critics at home and abroad. The last State Department report on international terrorism issued prior to 9/11 said Saddam's regime "has not attempted an anti-Western terrorist attack since its failed plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush in 1993 in Kuwait." A Pentagon study released in 2008 reviewed 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the US invasion, and concluded that Hussein supported militant Palestinian groups, but that the Iraqi security services had no "direct operational link" with Al Qaeda.

WHY? Given that most of Cheney's rants have been adequately debunked, why has he suddenly exited his undisclosed location and plastered himself all over a compliant and receptive media, aggressively defending himself and the Bush crew, and attacking Obama in an exercise strikingly unusual for a former Vice-President so soon after leaving office? I believe there are several factors at work here.

Offense is the best defense, and Cheney is prudently laying the groundwork to defend himself in the event of an investigation. There is also an element of self-justification, a re-affirmation of his rightness and righteousness, and an attempt to re-impose his infamous "one percent doctrine" (if there is a one percent chance of something bad happening we must exert all our forces to prevent it---- regardless of the fact that in going after the one percent you may be blindsided by something else which had a forty or eighty percent chance of happening).

Then there is the perception that Cheney is hoping to box in Obama, prevent his implementation of new policies, and set him up to fail---- perhaps even to encourage terrorists, either domestic or foreign, to create another deadly attack on American soil, which would devastate Democrats and re-establish Republican authority. I myself can see such nefarious intentions because I well remember that some have accused Bush senior of arranging with Iran to withhold release of the American embassy hostages until after Reagan was installed as President. Then there was the Iran-Contra conspiracy undertaken by Ollie North, supposedly unbeknownst to Reagan. There is a long history of secret Bush-Mideast connections there. Much of the current brouhaha created by Cheney is both a smoke screen and an effort to re-animate the Republican Party. He should be reined in, and his pretensions deflated.