A man of integrity

Does not fit in the Bush administration:

The Pentagon was successful in preventing Col. Morris Davis from testifying before Congress. But he's taking a step that could be even more damaging: agreeing to testify as a defense witness in a Guantanamo Bay tribunal.

From the AP:

Air Force Col. Morris Davis, who resigned in October over alleged political interference in the U.S. military tribunals, told The Associated Press he will appear at a hearing for Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

"I expect to be called as a witness ... I'm more than happy to testify," Davis said in a telephone interview from Washington. He called it "an opportunity to tell the truth."

At the April pretrial hearing inside the U.S. military base in southeast Cuba, Hamdan's defense team plans to argue that alleged political interference cited by Davis violates the Military Commissions Act, Hamdan's military lawyer, Navy Lt. Brian Mizer, told the AP.

The Wall Street Journal reports (sub. req.) that Morris' testimony could potentially impact all of the tribunals.

We are all mudbloods now...

To the Ministry of Magic enacting more pureblood resolutions. Can you believe this?

Steve Bates of The Yellow Doggerel Democrat:

The short version: Rep. Jane Harman (D-California) (yes, you read that right, 'D'), chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, authored a bill called the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, HR 1955, intended to designate a whole list of things as "homegrown terrorism." The bill passed the House in late October by an overwhelming bipartisan vote... but it is a terrifying bill nonetheless. It is now before the Senate as SB 1959.

Philip Giraldi of The Huffington Post:

More recently, there has been the post 9/11 creation of a virtual avalanche of legislation and commissions designed to protect the country at the expense of the Bill of Rights. The two Patriot Acts of 2001 and 2006 and the Military Commission Act or 2006 have collectively limited constitutional rights to free speech, freedom of association, freedom from illegal search, the right to habeas corpus, prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from the illegal seizure of private property. The First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights have all been disregarded in the rush to make it easier to investigate people, put them in jail, and torture them if necessary. A recent executive order of July 17th, 2007 goes even farther, authorizing the President to seize the property of anyone who "Threatens Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." The government's own Justice Department decides what constitutes "threatening stabilization efforts" and the order does not permit a challenge to the information that the seizure is based on.

One would have thought that the systematic dismantling of the Constitution of the United States would have been enough to satisfy even the most Jacobin neoconservative, but there is more on the horizon, and it is coming from people who call themselves Democrats. The mainstream media has made no effort to inform the public of the impending Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. The Act, which was sponsored by Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, was passed in the House by an overwhelming 405 to 6 vote on October 24th and is now awaiting approval by the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which is headed by Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. It is believed that approval by the committee will take place shortly, to be followed by passage by the entire Senate.

[snip]

As should be clear from the vagueness of the definitions, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act could easily be abused to define any group that is pressuring the political system as "terrorist," ranging from polygamists, to second amendment rights supporters, anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, and peace demonstrators. In reality, of course, it will be primarily directed against Muslims and Muslim organizations. Given that, there is the question of who will select which groups will be investigated by the roving commissions. There is no evidence to suggest that there will be any transparent or objective screening process.

[snip]

The view that 9/11 has "changed everything" is unfortunately all too true. It has unleashed American paranoia, institutionalized mistrust of foreigners, and created a fantasy universe in which a US beset by enemies must do anything and everything to counter the alien threat. If it were a sane world, it would be difficult to imagine why anyone would believe that a Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act is even necessary.

Jeff Dinelli of The Left Coaster:

Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-California), the chair of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence and author of the bill specifically identifies the Internet as a tool of radicalization.

"The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens."

If Congress finds the Internet is dangerous, then we all will have to worry about censorship and limitations on First Amendment activities. Why go down that road? Law enforcement should focus on action, not thought. We need to worry about the people who are committing crimes rather than those who harbor beliefs that the government may consider to be extreme.

The bill, in its current form, lacks specific definitions, which would give the Commission expansive and possibly dangerous powers. The Committee would be set up to address the process of "violent radicalization," which the bill defines as "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change." It does not adequately define "an extremist belief system," opening the door for abuse.

Can these people remember Joe McCarthy? Do they really intend to take us back to that benighted era?

Where are we going and why is this basket getting so hot?

Maybe they'll bring back the rack, too!

I can hardly wait!



(Via billw of Crooks and Liars who has a brilliant pic) Scott Horton of Harper's Magazine:

The Bush Administration is slowly introducing the Court of Star Chamber to the process of American justice. We see its elements everywhere. In the farcical Combat Status Review Tribunals created in Guantánamo, now repeatedly denounced even by judges serving on them as a travesty. In the Military Commissions, crafted in conscious avoidance of the standards both of American military and civilian justice. And in the steady press to lower the standards of our federal courts to introduce practices that continually tip the scales of justice in favor of prosecutors. Reports have begun to circulate that the Administration has put together a group of scholars headed by a right-wing activist judge to craft legislation to introduce a new court of Star Chamber, perhaps to be floated in the coming year. As we see in the public pronouncements of the Bush Administration, accusations leveled at detainees in the war on terror are leveled for political effect, and often to parallel partisan political campaigns. If those accusations are rejected by a court, it therefore undermines confidence in the Administration and the Party. Which is why, in the Bush view of justice, a failure to convict is unacceptable. And which is why the Bush view of justice is no justice at all.

Federal judge sides with Military Commissions Act

Christian Science Monitor:
"In a decision that backs a key portion of the Military Commissions Act (MCA), a federal judge has ruled that foreign prisoners held at the US prison camp Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, may not sue in US courts for their freedom. But US District Judge James Robertson also ruled that the law's attempt to deny that right to legal US immigrants was unconstitutional.

The Los Angeles Times reports the ruling came in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni national and the onetime driver for Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Mr. Hamdan is charged with conspiring to commit terrorism."

Can we save Habeas Corpus?

Glenn Greenwald is doubtful of the efforts at this moment:
"If Leahy, Chris Dodd and other Democrats are going genuinely to pursue the restoration of habeas corpus, they should do so in a way that creates some genuine opportunity for succeeding. The bill introduced yesterday has none. Their intention might be to introduce a full-fledged habeas restoration bill at first and then negotiate a more limited version that can attract the 66 votes needed to override a presidential veto (even forcing a presidential veto by overcoming a filibuster would be worthwhile on many levels). But it remains to be seen if this will be a real attempt or just a symbolic, futile one."

In the news:
"Specter on Tuesday repeated his contention that the act violates the Constitution.

"The Constitution of the United States is explicit that habeas corpus may be suspended only in time of rebellion or invasion," Specter said on the floor. "We are suffering neither of those alternatives at the present time. We have not been invaded, and there has not been a rebellion. That much is conceded."

His co-sponsor, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who'll become chairman of the Judiciary Committee when the Democrats take over in January, noted that the effort to secure habeas appeals for all detainees failed by only three votes.

"Since then, the American people have spoken against the administration's stay- the-course approach to national security and against a rubber-stamp Congress that accommodated this administration's efforts to grab more and more power," Leahy said. "Abolishing habeas corpus for anyone who the government thinks might have assisted enemies of the United States is unnecessary and morally wrong. It is a betrayal of the most basic values of freedom for which America stands.""

Senator Lindsey Graham is working actively to prevent modification of the Military Commissions Act of 2006:
"But Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who's served as a military lawyer and a judge and who helped craft the detainee legislation, said he'd oppose the move. And he said he doubted that even a Democratic-led Senate would go along with it. During the debate, Republicans had sought to portray Democrats who were opposed to lifting such rights as soft on terrorists.

"I'm curious to see what the five new Democrats would think about giving terrorists the ability to sue our troops in federal court and having federal district court judges make wartime decisions," Graham said Wednesday. "I got a feeling a lot of them would agree with me.""

Remember Keith Olbermann's take on this in his October 11th broadcast.