WATCH: No Accountability for US Torture

Investigative reporter Jeremy Scahill went on Countdown with Keith Olbermann to call attention to the Obama administration’s continuation of Bush-era policy, complicity to any torturing that might still be occurring, and obstruction to holding anyone accountable.

Glenn Greenwald’s post today properly excoriates President Obama for what started as a perversion of rule of law through his and his administration’s actions to its mockery in his rhetoric. Below is an excerpt but is a must-read for progressives who cannot and should not turn a blind-eye to this kind of disregard of rule of law that harks back to his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Protesters yesterday interrupted President Obama’s speech at a $5,000/ticket San Francisco fundraiser to demand improved treatment for Bradley Manning. After the speech, one of the protesters, Logan Price, approached Obama and questioned him. Obama’s responses are revealing on multiple levels. First, Obama said this when justifying Manning’s treatment (video and transcript are here):

We’re a nation of laws. We don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate. He broke the law.

The impropriety of Obama’s public pre-trial declaration of Manning’s guilt (“He broke the law”) is both gross and manifest. How can Manning possibly expect to receive a fair hearing from military officers when their Commander-in-Chief has already decreed his guilt? Numerous commentators have noted how egregiously wrong was Obama’s condemnation. Michael Whitney wrote: “the President of the United States of America and a self-described Constitutional scholar does not care that Manning has yet to be tried or convicted for any crime.” BoingBoing’s Rob Beschizza interpreted Obama’s declaration of guilt this way: “Just so you know, jurors subordinate judging officers!” And Politico quoted legal experts explaining why Obama’s remarks are so obviously inappropriate.

It may be that Obama spoke extemporaneously and without sufficient forethought, but it is — at best — reckless in the extreme for him to go around decreeing people guilty who have not been tried: especially members of the military who are under his command and who will be adjudged by other members of the military under his command. Moreover, as a self-proclaimed Constitutional Law professor, he ought to have an instinctive aversion when speaking as a public official to assuming someone’s guilt who has been convicted of nothing. It’s little wonder that he’s so comfortable with Manning’s punitive detention since he already perceives Manning as a convicted criminal. “Sentence first - verdict afterward,” said the Queen of Hearts to Alice in Wonderland.

But even more fascinating is Obama’s invocation of America’s status as a “nation of laws” to justify why Manning must be punished. That would be a very moving homage to the sanctity of the rule of law — if not for the fact that the person invoking it is the same one who has repeatedly engaged in the most extraordinary efforts to shield Bush officials from judicial scrutiny, investigation, and prosecution of every kind for their war crimes and surveillance felonies. Indeed, the Orwellian platitude used by Obama to justify that immunity — Look Forward, Not Backward — is one of the greatest expressions of presidential lawlessness since Richard Nixon told David Frost that “it’s not illegal if the President does it.”

But it’s long been clear that this is Obama’s understanding of “a nation of laws”: the most powerful political and financial elites who commit the most egregious crimes are to be shielded from the consequences of their lawbreaking — see his vote in favor of retroactive telecom immunity, his protection of Bush war criminals, and the way in which Wall Street executives were permitted to plunder with impunity — while the most powerless figures (such as a 23-year-old Army Private and a slew of other low-level whistleblowers) who expose the corruption and criminality of those elites are to be mercilessly punished. And, of course, our nation’s lowest persona non grata group — accused Muslim Terrorists — are simply to be encaged for life without any charges. Merciless, due-process-free punishment is for the powerless; full-scale immunity is for the powerful. “Nation of laws” indeed.

One final irony to Obama’s embrace of this lofty justifying term: Manning’s punitive detention conditions are themselves illegal, as the Uniform Code of Military Justice expressly bars the use of pre-trial detention as a means of imposing punishment. Given how inhumane Manning’s detention conditions have been — and the fact that much of it was ordered in contradiction to the assessments of the brig’s psychiatric staff — there is little question that this is exactly what has happened. The President lecturing us yesterday about how Manning must be punished because we’re a “nation of laws” is the same one presiding over and justifying Manning’s unlawful detention conditions.

Read the complete post here.

In yet another example of President Obama’s hypocritical rhetoric starkly contrasting his actions and that of his administration, the President said in a statement:

I strongly believe that the American system of justice is a key part of our arsenal in the war against al-Qaida and its affiliates, and we will continue to draw on all aspects of our justice system – including (federal) courts – to ensure that our security and our values are strengthened,” Obama said in a statement. Going forward, all branches of government have a responsibility to come together to forge a strong and durable approach to defend our nation and the values that define who we are as a nation.

and yet proceeded to recommence the military trials of terrorism suspects held at Gitmo. So much for rule of law, habeas corpus, separation of powers, and all that nonsense. Apparently, it’s better to bow to congressional asshats who cannot stomach trying the detainees in civilian courts and on U.S. soil. EPIC FAILURE OF PRINCIPLE, Mr. President.

+ here

+

Daphne Eviatar, Senior Associate at Human Rights First’s Law and Security Program, reports how the Obama administration has “continued the Bush policy of interfering in other countries’ attempts to apply the rule of law.”

More on the Obama’s administration and how much “rule of law” has become more of a rhetorical flourish than a substantive principle here.

Glen Greenwald’s acount from February of the Democrats’ dubious support of the public option during healthcare reform elucidates the reasons why I left the Democrats and joined the Green Party. Here he goes for the jugular, indicting the party’s pattern of “support” for progressive policy measures:

This is what the Democratic Party does; it’s who they are.  They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it.  They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do?  We just don’t have 60 votes).

Greenwald exposes Democratic posturing at its most repugnant: in the extension of win-less wars and the disavowal of rule of law, civil liberties, and human rights of American citizens and foreign nationals in detention.

ProPublica’s excellent investigative piece on the Department of Justice’s deceiving the public regarding federal judge Henry Kennedy Jr.’s court opinion that ordered the release of Uthman Abdul Rahim Mohammed Uthman, a Yemeni national held at Guantánamo Bay without charges for nearly eight years, shows how the status quo of the Bush regime has not changed since President Obama took office.

Although President Obama inherited many aspects of U.S. detention policy from his predecessor, Guantánamo detainees have been fighting their detentions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia almost entirely on his watch.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008, as Obama was campaigning for president, that detainees could challenge their detentions in federal court under the constitutional doctrine of habeas corpus, which protects individuals from unlawful imprisonment by the government.

Obama, still a senator then, issued a statement calling the ruling “an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy.”

And yet, Obama’s DoJ continues to undermine habeas corpus and rule of law, failing to protect freedom and fairness, and turning the President into a bald-faced hypocrite.

Extraordinary Rendition by Andrew Becraft

Dear President Obama,

Let’s try delivering on that campaign promise to close Guantánamo Bay.

Cheers,
daniel extra

[via:legoexpress]

One core truth that I taught to more than 5,000 service members is that torture, stress and duress, fear and despair and the heartless brutality that is physical and psychological coercion do not work. There is no yardstick long enough to measure the failure of torturers. I can say to you quite assuredly that torture never works.

Malcolm W. Nance, Counter-terror intelligence specialist and combat veteran

More about torture from Amnesty International USA.

[via:caraobrien]

CCR and ACLU Charge It’s Illegal For Government To Deny Counsel To Targets On Kill List

Jen Nessel, CCR, (212) 614-6449; jnessel@ccrjustice.org

Rachel Myers, ACLU, (212) 549-2689; media@aclu.org

David Lerner, Riptide Communications, (212) 260-5000

ACLU press line, (212) 549-2666

August 3, 2010, Washington, DC and New York – The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) and the American Civil Liberties Union today filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Treasury Department and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to challenge their refusal to grant a license that would allow the groups to file a lawsuit challenging the government’s asserted authority to use lethal force against U.S. citizens located far from any battlefield without charge, trial, or judicial process of any kind.

In early July, CCR and the ACLU were retained by Nasser al-Aulaqi to bring a lawsuit in connection with the government’s decision to authorize the targeted killing of his son, U.S. citizen Anwar al-Aulaqi, whom the CIA and Defense Department have targeted for death. On July 16, however, the Secretary of the Treasury labeled Anwar al-Aulaqi a “specially designated global terrorist,” which makes it a crime for lawyers to provide representation for his benefit without first seeking a license from OFAC. CCR and the ACLU have sought a license, but the government has not yet issued one despite the urgency created by an outstanding execution order. CCR and the ACLU have not had contact with Anwar al-Aulaqi.

“The government is targeting an American citizen for death without any legal process whatsoever, while at the same time impeding lawyers from challenging that death sentence and the government’s sweeping claim of authority to issue it. This is a dual blow to some of our most precious liberties, and such an alarming denial of rights in any one case endangers the rights of all Americans,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU. “Attorneys shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission in order to challenge the constitutionality of the government’s conduct.”

The OFAC requirements generally make it illegal to provide any service, including legal representation, to or for the benefit of a designated individual. A lawyer who provides legal representation for the benefit of a designated person without getting special permission is subject to criminal and civil penalties. The ACLU and CCR charge that OFAC has exceeded its authority by subjecting uncompensated legal services to a licensing requirement, and that OFAC’s regulations violate the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the principle of separation of powers. Today’s lawsuit asks the court to invalidate the regulations and to make clear that lawyers can provide representation for the benefit of designated individuals without first seeking the government’s consent.

The lawsuit that CCR and the ACLU seek to file would charge that the government has not disclosed the standards it uses for authorizing the premeditated and deliberate killing of U.S. citizens located far from any battlefield. The groups argue that the American people are entitled to know the standards being used for these life and death decisions.

“President Obama is claiming the power to act as judge, jury and executioner while suspending any semblance of due process,” said Vince Warren, Executive Director of CCR. “Yemen is nearly 2000 miles from Afghanistan or Iraq. The U.S. government is going outside the law to create an ever-larger global war zone and turn the whole world into a battlefield. Would we tolerate it if China or France secretly decided to execute their enemies inside the U.S.?” He added, “This sets a dangerous precedent for other countries that will only lead to more violence and further diminish the rule of law.”

While there are circumstances in which the government can legitimately use lethal force against civilians, the authority contemplated by senior Obama administration officials is far broader than what the Constitution and international law allow, the groups say. Under international human rights law, lethal force may be used outside of armed conflict only when there is an imminent threat of deadly attack and when lethal force is a last resort. A system in which names are added to a list through a secret bureaucratic process and stay there for months at a time does not appear to be limited to imminent threats or lethal force as a last resort.

Moreover, targeting individuals for execution who are suspected of crimes but have not been convicted — without oversight, due process or disclosed standards for being placed on the kill list — also poses the risk that the government will erroneously target the wrong people. Since the tragic events of 9/11, the U.S. government has detained many men as terrorists, only for courts or the government itself to discover later that the evidence was wrong or unreliable and release them.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Attorneys on the case are, for CCR, Pardiss Kebriaei, Senior Attorney Maria LaHood and Legal Director Bill Quigley; for the ACLU, Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer, Ben Wizner, Jonathan Manes and Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro; and for the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital, Arthur B. Spitzer

For more information on the case, fact sheets and legal papers, visit www.aclu.org/ofac and www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings.

The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country. Visit www.aclu.org.

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. Visit www.ccrjustice.org.

[via:peoplesmovement:ccrjustice.org]