The NYT reports that the prisoners of the Gitmo Gulag are at best small potatoes — most having nothing to do with Al Qaeda at all — and that the Pentagon and Dubya administration have continually overstated the detainees’ level of knowledge about Al Qaeda in order to justify the continued existence of the Guantanamo camp. “‘It’s like going to a prison in upstate to find out what’s happening on the streets of New York,’ a counterterrorism official with knowledge of Guantanamo intelligence said. ‘The guys in there might know some stuff. But they haven’t been part of what’s going on for a few years.’” When it comes to the War on Terror, is there anything the Bush administration doesn’t lie about anymore?
Tag: Civil Liberties
1600 Pennsylvania’s Room 101.
I missed most of the recent discoveries about Dubya’s pro-torture policy changes during my cable outage, but Value Judgment has birddogged a nice Washington Post editorial that sums up the story so far. “There is no justification, legal or moral, for the judgments made by Mr. Bush’s political appointees at the Justice and Defense departments. Theirs is the logic of criminal regimes, of dictatorships around the world that sanction torture on grounds of ‘national security.’“
Geneva Schmeneva.
Jan 25, 2002: “‘As you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war,’ Gonzales wrote to Bush. ‘The nature of the new war places a high premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly obtain information from captured terrorists and their sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against American civilians.’ Gonzales concluded in stark terms: ‘In my judgment, this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva’s strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.’ Dismissing the Geneva Conventions, two full years before the atrocities at Abu Ghreib? That giant sucking sound you hear is the void left by White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales’s incredible imploding Supreme Court bid. He’s probably got less chance now than Ken Starr of taking the nation’s highest bench, and for good reason.
Patriotic Defectors.
A handful of GOP libertarians join Dems in blocking reauthorization of the Patriot Act.
A “Lawless Enclave.”
Despite Justice Scalia carrying water for Ted Olson and the Bush team as per usual, it seems that a majority of the Supreme Court may not be amused by Dubya’s defense of the Gitmo gulag.
Meanwhile, in Room 101.
Nat Hentoff files another dispatch on Guantanamo, and it ain’t pretty. “The authority to unilaterally keep a defendant locked up — conceivably for the rest of his or her life — used to be reserved solely for kings, who could ignore any part of the realm’s legal system. This monarchical power — as I’ve indicated in reporting on the indefinite imprisonment, without charges, of American citizens Yaser Hamdi and Jose Padilla — has been expanded by George W. Bush to include defendants at Guantanamo.“
Ashcroft Justice.
In keeping with his Judge Danforth-like predilections, Attorney General Ashcroft issued an edict that would limit plea bargains and lawyerly discretion over which charges to bring in a federal suit. Again, when will Ashcroft follow his own pronouncements, lock up his nephew, and throw away the key?
Ashcroft Agonizes, Powell Punts.
Looks like it’s a bad day for imperious Dubya appointees. In the wake of Congress’s recent decision to limit the powers of the Patriot Act, a defiant Ashcroft wants his toys back. Also facing considerable bipartisan and public criticism, Michael Powell appoints a task force on media consolidation. As Copps notes in the article, next time perhaps it’d be better to do the fact-finding before you vote.
“Patriots” at Work.
The LA Times relates the sad story of Ansar Mahmood, who has paid a heavy price for being a Muslim in America after 9/11. In not-unrelated news, Ashcroft cracks down on lenient sentencing. Perhaps they’ll reconsider his nephew’s drug bust, then.
Who’s the Patriot?
The ACLU and six Muslim groups launch the first constitutional challenge against the Patriot Act. This should be one to watch. In related news, James Ridgeway examines the Clintonian antecedents of the Act.