Saturday, December 1, 2007

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens


AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

The US government’s view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.

The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through the British courts.

During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman’s nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.

Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.

He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.”

Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be “honest about [his] position”.

Jones replied: “That is United States law.”

He cited the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a suspect who was abducted by the US government at his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1990. He was flown by Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Texas for criminal prosecution.

Although there was an extradition treaty in place between America and Mexico at the time — as there currently is between the United States and Britain — the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the Mexican had no legal remedy because of his abduction.

In 2005, Gavin Tollman, the head of Trafalgar Tours, a holiday company, had arrived in Toronto by plane when he was arrested by Canadian immigration authorities.

An American prosecutor, who had tried and failed to extradite him from Britain, persuaded Canadian officials to detain him. He wanted the Canadians to drive Tollman to the border to be handed over. Tollman was escorted in handcuffs from the aircraft in Toronto, taken to prison and held for 10 days.

A Canadian judge ordered his release, ruling that the US Justice Department had set a “sinister trap” and wrongly bypassed extradition rules. Tollman returned to Britain.

Legal sources said that under traditional American justice, rendition meant capturing wanted people abroad and bringing them to the United States. The term “extraordinary rendition” was coined in the 1990s for the kidnapping of terror suspects from one foreign country to another for interrogation.

There was concern this weekend from Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, who said: “The very idea of kidnapping is repugnant to us and we must handle these cases with extreme caution and a thorough understanding of the implications in American law.”

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: “This law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if they claim to be a civilised nation.”

The US Justice Department declined to comment

Secrecy invoked on Abramoff lawsuits

The Bush administration is laying out a new secrecy defense in an effort to end a court battle about the White House visits of now-imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The administration agreed last year to produce all responsive records about the visits "without redactions or claims of exemption," according to a court order.

But in a court filing Friday night, administration lawyers said that sometime in the past year the Secret Service identified a category of highly sensitive documents that might contain information sought in a lawsuit about Abramoff's trips to the White House.

The Justice Department declared that the contents of the "Sensitive Security Records" cannot be publicly revealed even though they could show whether Abramoff made more visits to the White House than those already acknowledged.

"The simple act of doing so ... would reveal sensitive information about the methods used by the Secret Service to carry out its protective function," the Justice Department argued.

Sensitive Security Records are created in the course of conducting more extensive background checks on certain visitors to the White House. In sworn statements accompanying the filing, two Secret Service officers said the extra attention is paid to some visitors because of the background, "the circumstances of the visits" or both.

The Justice Department said that releasing the information could allow people to figure out the protective activities of the Secret Service.

The filing came in a lawsuit by a conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch. Another private group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, also has requested Secret Service records of Abramoff's White House visits, and on Friday, the Justice Department asked that the two suits be consolidated.

To date, the government has turned over Secret Service records referring to seven White House visits by Abramoff — six of them in the early months of the Bush administration in 2001 and the seventh in early 2004 just before Abramoff came under criminal investigation.

The White House has released little information about the visits, but none of them appears to involve a small group meeting with President Bush.

"This is an extraordinary development and it raises the specter that there were additional contacts with President Bush or other high White House officials that have yet to be disclosed," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch. "We've alleged that the government has committed misconduct in this litigation and frankly this is more fuel for that fire."

The White House had no immediate comment Saturday.

Nearly two years ago, just after Abramoff had pleaded guilty in the influence peddling scandal, Bush told reporters, "I can't say I didn't ever meet" Abramoff, "but I meet a lot of people."

"I don't know him," Bush said at the presidential news conference in January 2006. "I've never sat down with him and had a discussion with the guy."

After Bush's comments, Abramoff wrote an e-mail to the national editor of Washingtonian magazine saying that Bush had seen him "in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows."

Time magazine reported that its reporters had been shown five photographs of Bush and Abramoff. Most of them, the magazine said, had "the formal look of photos taken at presidential receptions."

The Justice Department probe of Abramoff and his team of lobbyists has led to convictions of a dozen people, including former Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, former White House official David Safavian and former Deputy Interior Secretary Steven Griles.

Abramoff is serving six years in prison on a criminal case out of Florida. He has not yet been sentenced on charges of mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion stemming from the influence-peddling scandal in Washington.

Biden: Impeachment if Bush bombs Iran


Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.

Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.

“The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.

Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.

When local resident Joel Carp asked Biden why not impeach now, given what has already been done, Biden said it was a valid point, but might not be constitutionally valid and potentially counterproductive. A case for impeachment must have clear evidence, Biden said, and blame should be directed at the right parties.

“If you’re going to impeach George Bush, you better impeach (Vice President Dick) Cheney first,” said Biden, again drawing applause.

Biden said the best deterrent to prevent pre-emptive military action in Iran is to make it clear, even if it is at the end of his final term, action will be taken against Bush to ensure “his legacy will be marred for all time.”

Friday, November 30, 2007

Ashcroft On Waterboading: ‘It’s Not Something I Can Make A Decision On’


Last night, John Ashcroft delivered an address on the Cornell University campus “in the face of shouting dissenters and shrouded protesters.” At his last appearance on a student campus, Ashcroft was asked whether he would be willing to be subjected to waterboarding. “The things that I can survive, if it were necessary to do them to me, I would do,” he said.

Last night, Cornell University kept the heat on Ashcroft, repeatedly confronting him about his views on waterboarding.

Prior to his speech, Ashcroft answered students’ questions in the lounge of a resident house on campus where a small reception was held for him. One student in the adjoining dining hall (which shares a common window with the lounge) “taped a piece of paper to a window…asking Ashcroft why waterboarding was not considered torture.” The Cornell Sun reports that Ashcroft “merely stared at the piece of paper without comment.”

The Sun adds that it later followed-up on the question with Ashcroft:

In an interview with the Sun conducted just prior to his speech at Statler Hall, Ashcroft did address the question when it was again posed to him.

“The question of whether or not waterboarding is torture is defined by statute. It’s not something I can make a decision on,” Ashcroft answered. “There are laws about what is torture and what isn’t.”

Ashcroft told the Cornell students “I have no regrets” about his tenure as attorney general, adding “and I have done some crazy things.”

Ashcroft’s dodge on waterboarding is much like the answer former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) tried to give during the CNN/YouTube debate on Wednesday night. Romney claimed he can’t say specifically whether waterboarding is torture or not. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) ripped his equivocation:

McCAIN: I am astonished that you would think such a — such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that’s not torture. It’s in violation of the Geneva Convention. It’s in violation of existing law. And, governor, let me tell you, if we’re going to get the high ground in this world and we’re going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We’re not going to torture people.

We’re not going to do what Pol Pot did. We’re not going to do what’s being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.

After the debate, McCain reminded people that Japanese soldiers were tried and hanged for torturing American prisoners during World War II with techniques that included waterboarding.

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Henry Hyde is finally dead!

All the mainstream media is chattering about henry hyde and how he headed the impeachment of bill clinton and what a long and wonderful carrer he had. BullShit, he's a scumbag peice of shit who was cheating on his wife during the impeachment hearings. Once again the MSM re-writs history for a divisive republican who would rather divide this country to elevate his party. Good Riddence!

Rep. Hoekstra Was Source Of Joe Klein’s FISA Lies, Decries ‘Paranoid,’ ‘Self-Absorbed’ ‘Far-Left Critics’

From Think Progress
In Time Magazine last week, columnist Joe Klein baselessly claimed that Democrats’ proposal fix to FISA would require “every foreign-terrorist target’s calls to be approved by the FISA court.”

Today, House Intelligence Committee member and “Bush loyalist” Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) revealed that he was a “source” for Klein’s error-filled column, and proudly defends Klein in a column titled “Klein Kerfluffle” in the National Review.

In his original column, Klein insisted that Democrats’ legislation to provide constitutional protections for government surveillance of Americans, or the RESTORE Act, would require a court order to spy on foreign terrorists (Klein has since recanted these statements). In the column, Hoekstra insists that “Klein was correct in his original contention.” In reality, as the legislation clearly states:

A court order is not required for electronic surveillance directed at the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not known to be United States persons .

Klein ignorantly claimed the RESTORE Act “would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans.” Hoekstra adds that Klein’s assertions are a “demonstratable fact.” Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ), a chief author of the RESTORE Act, countered that the legislation does exactly the opposite:

This bill provides exactly what the Director of National Intelligence asked for earlier this year: it explicitly states that no court order is required to listen to the conversations of foreigners that happen to pass through the U.S. telecommunications system. It does not grant Constitutional rights to foreign terrorists.

In his National Review piece, Hoekstra repeatedly attacks the progressive bloggers as “civil liberties extremists,” stating that a “belief that efforts to target al-Qaeda operatives in foreign countries” may involve U.S. citizens is evidence of “self-absorption” and “paranoia.” “The issue is not nor has it ever been about surveillance of Americans,” he alleges.

But under the hastily-passed Protect America Act, there are “virtually no protections” for U.S. callers in international communications, leaving surveillance authority to the administration. In fact, 61 percent of voters favor court protections for surveillance of Americans.

Marcy Wheeler notes that Hoekstra “is nuts, and very much in the business of creating propaganda.” And Joe Klein is willing to blindly publish whatever lies Hoekstra spews to him.

Romney Refuses To Call Waterboarding Torture, Says He’ll Consult With Blackwater’s Cofer Black

During tonight’s CNN/YouTube debate, a YouTube questioner asked the candidates why they refuse to condemn waterboarding as torture. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney said that before making such a determination, he would need to get “counsel on a matter of this nature” from “a lot” of people. One of the people with whom Romney said he would specifically like to speak is Blackwater vice chairman Cofer Black:

I am not. I’m not going to specify the specific means of what is and what is not torture so that the people that we capture will know what things we’re able to do and what things we’re not able to do. And I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some 35 years.

Watch now:



Black is Romney’s Senior Adviser for counterterrorism and national security issues. He has described Black as a man with a “long and impressive career dedicated to making America safer and more secure in the world,” despite the fact that Blackwater has allegedly been involved in at least seven violent episodes this year that have left almost 30 Iraqi civilians dead.

Romney is also relying on a man for torture advice who in 2001, infamously ordered a CIA agent to “Capture Bin Laden, kill him and bring his head back in a box on dry ice,” and once promised put the “heads” of terrorists in Afghanistan “on sticks“:

“We’re going to kill them,” CIA counterterrorism official Cofer Black said, according to the book, which details the Bush administration’s build-up to the Iraq war. “We’re going to put their heads on sticks. When we’re through with them they will have flies walking across their eyeballs.”

Romney has repeatedly dodged answering questions during debates, instead saying he needs to consult with his advisers before taking a stand. During an October CNBC debate, Romney said that before figuring out if he’d need congressional approval to invade Iran, he’d have to ask his lawyers: “You sit down with your attorneys and tell you what you have to do.”

JONES: Recently, Senator McCain has come out strongly against using waterboarding as an instrument of interrogation.

My question for the rest of you is, considering that Mr. McCain is the only one with any firsthand knowledge on the subject, how can those of you sharing the stage with him disagree with his position?

COOPER: Governor Romney?

ROMNEY: Well, he certainly is an expert and I certainly would want to get his counsel on a matter of this nature, but I do not believe that as a presidential candidate, it is wise for us to describe precisely what techniques we will use in interrogating people.

I oppose torture. I would not be in favor of torture in any way, shape or form.

COOPER: Is waterboarding torture?

ROMNEY: And as I just said, as a presidential candidate, I don’t think it’s wise for us to describe specifically which measures we would and would not use.

And that is something which I would want to receive the counsel not only of Senator McCain, but of a lot of other people.

And there are people who, for many, many years get the information we need to make sure that we protect our country.

ROMNEY: And, by the way, I want to make sure these folks are kept at Guantanamo. I don’t want the people that are carrying out attacks on this country to be brought into our jail system and be given legal representation in this country. I want to make sure that what happened…

(APPLAUSE)

… to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed happens to other people who are terrorists. He was captured. He was the so-called mastermind of the 9/11 tragedy. And he turned to his captors and he said, I’ll see you in New York with my lawyers. I presume ACLU lawyers.

(LAUGHTER)

Well, that’s not what happened. He went to Guantanamo and he met G.I.s and CIA interrogators. And that’s just exactly how it ought to be.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator McCain?

(CROSSTALK)

(UNKNOWN): There were reports Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded.

MCCAIN: Well, Governor, I’m astonished that you haven’t found out what waterboarding is.

ROMNEY: I know what waterboarding is, Senator.

MCCAIN: Then I am astonished that you would think such a — such a torture would be inflicted on anyone in our — who we are held captive and anyone could believe that that’s not torture. It’s in violation of the Geneva Convention. It’s in violation of existing law…

(APPLAUSE)

And, Governor, let me tell you, if we’re going to get the high ground in this world and we’re going to be the America that we have cherished and loved for more than 200 years. We’re not going to torture people.

MCCAIN: We’re not going to do what Pol Pot did. We’re not going to do what’s being done to Burmese monks as we speak. I suggest that you talk to retired military officers and active duty military officers like Colin Powell and others, and how in the world anybody could think that that kind of thing could be inflicted by Americans on people who are held in our custody is absolutely beyond me.

COOPER: Governor Romney, 30 seconds to respond.

(APPLAUSE)

ROMNEY: Senator McCain, I appreciate your strong response, and you have the credentials upon which to make that response. I did not say and I do not say that I’m in favor of torture.

ROMNEY: I am not. I’m not going to specify the specific means of what is and what is not torture so that the people that we capture will know what things we’re able to do and what things we’re not able to do. And I get that advice from Cofer Black, who is a person who was responsible for counterterrorism in the CIA for some 35 years.

I get that advice by talking to former generals in our military…

COOPER: Time.

RON PAUL SLAPS DOWN CRAZY MCCAIN

Those crazy republicans are at it again. CNN?YOUTUBE debate if you want to call it that, was who could invade, torture and kill more than the other. Every candidate follows the bush/cheney/fox talking points and it makes me sick. Why is grover norquest a unindicted co-conspirator connected to ralph reed and jack abramhof allowed to ask a question? Because the MSM is afraid to ask repubs tough questions.

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

John Ashcroft: I’m Willing To Be Waterboarded

Last night, former Attorney General John Ashcroft delivered an address on national security at the University of Colorado. The event was marked by heated protests. About 20 student protesters wearing “shirts with ’shame’ written on the backs and wearing American flags over their faces, welcomed Ashcroft to the stage by standing up and turning their backs to him.”

During the speech, Ashcroft caused an uproar when he declared Guantanamo Bay was a “good place” for detainees. In addition, he defended the torture tactic of waterboarding:

Ashcroft also responded to questions from the audience. The first question came from a woman who asked if Ashcroft would be willing to be subjected to waterboarding.

“The things that I can survive, if it were necessary to do them to me, I would do,” he said.

Ashcroft apparently believes that torture should be allowed as long as it doesn’t kill him.

Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and William Delahunt (D-MA) have introduced the “American Anti-Torture Act of 2007” to make clear no U.S. government agency feels it can apply the Ashcroft standard while interrogating detainees. They write:

Waterboarding is not “simulated drowning.” It is drowning. It involves restraining a detainee — usually by strapping him or her to a board — with the head placed lower than the feet. The face or mouth is often covered or stuffed with rags and water is poured over the face to force inhalation. The victim’s lungs fill with water until the procedure is stopped or the victim dies. Waterboarding has been considered torture — even by our own government — until recently. Indeed, we prosecuted Japanese officers for subjecting prisoners to waterboarding in World War II.

Jessica Evans, a student who protested during Ashcroft’s speech, “said the angry outbursts from the audience was evidence that the Bush administration did not give enough voice to the concerns of the public.” Indeed, as John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales go around the country defending torture, they are being forced to confront the public disapproval that they did not heed while in office.

Waterboarding is Drowning, Waterboarding is Torture

Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Rep. William D. Delahunt
Torture and waterboarding have become part of our national dialogue, with the recent confirmation hearings of Attorney General Michael Mukasey highlighting concerns that many Americans have about how our government treats detainees. While Mr. Mukasey's careful answers to questions about whether or not waterboarding is torture left many things unclear, one fact is not: Congress must act to ensure that our government's interrogation practices reflect American values of human dignity, fairness, and the rule of law.

That is why we introduced the "American Anti-Torture Act of 2007." Our bill ensures that when interrogating detainees, all agencies follow the standards of conduct contained in the Army Field Manual. The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 -- also known as the "McCain Amendment" -- requires the Department of Defense to adhere to the Army Field Manual; our proposal merely extends this requirement to all other agencies, including the CIA.

We are deeply committed to making America safer and to locating and disrupting terrorist networks. These are bipartisan priorities. Contrary to the tenor of this debate, they are not within the exclusive domain of either party or the administration.

We understand the critical role that intelligence plays in helping us achieve these goals. But torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, besides being contrary to American values and traditions, have not proven to be effective in obtaining actionable intelligence. Current and former members of the military have made this clear. Indeed, General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, recently wrote in an open letter to U.S. troops that the standards in the Army Field Manual, "work effectively and humanely in eliciting information from detainees." In the same letter, he stated that those that argue that torture would be more effective are "wrong."

Despite this, we often hear the argument that torture yields valuable information, and that this justifies its continued use. Ignored is the fact that we've also gotten and relied upon false information, with devastating consequences. In making the case to invade Iraq, for example, the administration relied upon the fabricated claim that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. This claim was made after the detainee was subjected to two weeks of "enhanced" interrogation, and finally "broke" after being waterboarded and forced to stand naked in his cold cell overnight while being doused with cold water at regular intervals.

The Bush administration has long argued that it does not torture. But this is the same administration that requested and received secret legal opinions apparently concluding that techniques like waterboarding are not torture. Waterboarding is not "simulated drowning." It is drowning. It involves restraining a detainee -- usually by strapping him or her to a board -- with the head placed lower than the feet. The face or mouth is often covered or stuffed with rags and water is poured over the face to force inhalation. The victim's lungs fill with water until the procedure is stopped or the victim dies. Waterboarding has been considered torture -- even by our own government -- until recently. Indeed, we prosecuted Japanese officers for subjecting prisoners to waterboarding in World War II.

Torture is inconsistent with our democratic principles of freedom. It is un-American. And it places our service men and women, and our allies, at grave risk. We must accept that whatever we authorize and use against our enemies may be turned against us.

It is no wonder that countless current and former military officials have all called for the White House to renounce torture -- and not just through careful wordplay. It is time for Congress to clarify that waterboarding is torture and against the law. The "American Anti-Torture Act of 2007" accomplishes this by requiring adherence to the Army Field Manual, which expressly prohibits waterboarding. We were pleased when the House included our bill as part of the Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment Appropriations Act, adopted on November 14, 2007. Now, it is time for the Senate to act, and join us in renouncing torture. Permitting the CIA and other government agencies to torture does not make us safer. It makes us less free.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler is the Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and Congressman Bill Delahunt is the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight.

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

More on Time’s false balancing act

Earlier this week, Time magazine’s Joe Klein asserted that Democrats wanted to reform FISA in a way that “would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans.” After Glenn Greenwald noted the false accusations made by Klein, Time has finally posted a “correction”:

In the original version of this story, Joe Klein wrote that the House Democratic version of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) would allow a court review of individual foreign surveillance targets. Republicans believe the bill can be interpreted that way, but Democrats don’t.

Time has helpfully informed us that Democrats don’t agree with Republicans that their bill is providing terrorists equal rights as Americans. Jane Hamsher writes, “Shorter Time Magazine: Equal Time For GOP Propaganda.” Glenn Greenwald writes, “All Time can say about this matter is that Republicans say one thing and Democrats claim another. Who is right? Is one side lying? … Here, there are not two sides; the bill could not be clearer.” Kos points to the relevant text of the Restore Act:

‘CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF NON-UNITED STATES PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES’
Sec. 105A. (a) Foreign to Foreign Communications-

(1) IN GENERAL - Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, a court order is not required for electronic surveillance directed at the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not known to be United States persons and are reasonably believed to be located outside the United States for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States

Holt turns up the heat on Klein

Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) sets the record straight, after Time magazine columnist Joe Klein ignorantly claimed the Democrats’ FISA reform legislation “would give terrorists the same legal protections as Americans.” Holt explains the Reform Act “explicitly states that no court order is required to listen to the conversations of foreigners that happen to pass through the U.S. telecommunications system. It does not grant Constitutional rights to foreign terrorists.” Glenn Greenwald writes, “It would be nice if other Congressional Democrats spoke up and objected to Time’s false smearing of them.” Meanwhile, FDL reports that Time is circling the wagons around Klein, refusing to answer questions about his errors.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Probe finds fake DHS press briefing in 2006

Late last month, FEMA came under intense criticism for staging a fake news conference on the California wildfires at which agency staffers posed as journalists and asked softball questions. But as AP reports today, this “was not the first time a Homeland Security public affairs official has acted like a reporter by asking questions during a briefing”:

In January 2006, an official with Immigration and Customs Enforcement asked a question during a news conference in San Antonio, Texas, according to an investigation by the Homeland Security Department — the parent agency of both FEMA and ICE.

The ICE public affairs official was standing with about 12 reporters but did not identify herself when she posed the question, Homeland Security’s head of public affairs, J. Edward Fox, wrote in a Nov. 19 letter to the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee. The government employee was verbally reprimanded for asking the question after the news conference, Fox told Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss.

Fox has assured Thompson that “reforms to FEMA’s external affairs are already under way.”

Flight logs reveal secret rendition

THE secret flight plans of American military planes have revealed for the first time how European countries helped send prisoners, including British citizens, to the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Despite widespread criticism of alleged human rights abuses and torture at the US base in Cuba, a Sunday Times investigation has shown that at least five European countries gave the United States permission to fly nearly 700 terrorist suspects across their territory.

Three years ago, The Sunday Times published flight logs of CIA civilian jets in Europe, setting off a controversy over the whether countries across the continent have been secretly involved in America's rendition of terrorist suspects to countries that carry out torture.

The row is now set to be reignited. Inquiries by Ana Gomes, a Portuguese member of the European parliament, have uncovered not only more CIA flight logs but also more sensitive military flight plans, which until now have remained a closely guarded secret.

The logs show how most prisoners changed planes at a Turkish military airbase and flew across Greek, Italian and Portuguese airspace. Others reached Cuba after touching down in Spain, whose governing socialist party once expressed indignation at conditions in Guantanamo.

The flight logs show that three Britons — Shafiq Rasul, Jamal Udeen and Asif Iqbal — were flown across Europe to Cuba on January 14, 2002. Moazzam Begg, another Briton, was taken by the same route to Guantanamo on February 2, 2003; and Binyam Mohamed, a British resident whose release the British government is now trying to negotiate, arrived in Cuba after crossing Europe in a special flight in September 2004.

According to the flight plans, the first 23 prisoners to arrive at Guantanamo — including another British citizen, Feroz Abbasi, then 21, and an Australian, David Hicks — had arrived at the American naval base in Cuba after flying from the Moron airbase in Spain.

Abbasi has claimed in a statement that prisoners were abused within hours of arriving. "We were made to sit on our heels, one foot over the other, supported by one foot's toes alone, for hours. Some of us were old, weak, fatigued, and injured — they were the ones to drop first in the searing Caribbean heat."

Described by the Pentagon as the "worst of the worst" from Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the images of prisoners such as Abbasi dressed in orange jumpsuits, their heads shaved and shackled by their wrists and ankles, shocked the world. Within a day, Donald Rumsfeld, then US defence secretary, announced that the Geneva conventions would not apply to what were now called "enemy combatants".

Last week, Europe's leading watchdog on human rights alleged that European countries had breached the international convention against torture by giving the US secret permission to use its airspace.

Thomas Hammarberg, the Council of Europe's commissioner for human rights, said: "What happened at Guantanamo was torture and it is illegal to provide facilities or anything to make this torture possible. Under the law, European governments should have intervened and should not have given permission to let these flights happen."

Gomes added: "It's clear to me that Guantanamo could not have been created without the involvement of European countries."

Methods used at Guantanamo Bay, condemned by Britain's Court of Appeal as a legal "black hole" and as a "monstrous failure of justice" by one law lord, have included the prolonged use of isolation, sleep deprivation, and use of stress positions. "These are methods that have been declared as unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights," Hammarberg said.

The military flight plans show that all key flights arriving in Guantanamo had come across European airspace either through Spain or the Incirlik airbase in southeastern Turkey. The Sunday Times compared the military flight plans against a database compiled by Reprieve, the British-based charity that represents Guantanamo prisoners, of when prisoners first weighed in at the camp.

The investigation, cross-checked against other Pentagon documents, shows for the first time which prisoner arrived on which flight at Guantanamo, and by what route. At least 170 other prisoners flew over Spanish territory, more than 700 crossed Portuguese space, and more than 680 were transshipped at Incirlik. Most flights also crossed Greek and Italian airspace, according to a source in European air traffic control.

On February 2 2003, for example, a US Air Force C-17 Globemaster plane took off from Incirlik with 27 prisoners on board for Cuba. The same day, prisoner number 558 weighed in at 136lb (62kg) at the camp. He can be named as Moazzam Begg, now 39, from Birmingham, who was released in January 2005, and has never been charged with a crime.

Interviewed by phone last week, Begg recalled: "Inside the plane there was a chain around our waist, and it connected to cuffs around my wrists, which were tied in the back, and to my ankles. We were seated but it was so painful not being able to speak, to hear, to breathe properly, to look, to turn left or right, to move your hands, stretch your legs, or anything." At the time flights were landing in Spain and crossing Spanish airspace, socialist leaders there were expressing "indignation" over conditions in Guantanamo. Now the socialists are in government after winning an election in March 2004 just after the Madrid train bombings and they are being asked to defend Spain's continued collaboration with American operations. Under international law, government and military planes can cross another country's territory only with diplomatic permission.

In a statement to the European parliament on the visits of CIA planes to Spain, the foreign minister Miguel Angel Moratinos has testified: "Our territory may have been used not to commit crimes on it, but as a stopover on the way to committing crime in another country."

Spain, it has now emerged, had a specific agreement with the US to allow flights and visits to Spanish airbases for American planes.

In Portugal, the foreign minister Luis Amado has said flights across his country's airspace took place "under the aegis of the UN and Nato and that Portugal naturally follows the principle of good faith in the relations with its allies". Nato's role in Guantanamo stems from a secret agreement made in Brussels on October 4 2001 by all Nato members, including Britain. Although never made public, Lord Robertson, the former British defence secretary who was later Nato's secretary-general, explained that day that Nato had agreed to provide "blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other allies' aircraft for military flights related to operations against terrorism".

Today, Nato is more coy about its role in helping send prisoners to Guantanamo.

In a letter to Gomes, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the current secretary-general, said no Nato planes had "flown to or from Guantanamo Bay" and that Nato "as an organisation has no involvement or co-ordinating role in providing clearance or overflight rights for other flights". Turkey, meanwhile, has declared that its agencies had "reached no findings regarding any unacknowledged deprivation of liberty conducted by foreign agencies within the territory of the republic of Turkey or any transport by aircraft or otherwise of the persons deprived of their liberty".

In London, Clive Stafford Smith, legal director of Reprieve, said, with America threatening that Guantanamo prisoners faced the death penalty, European governments had made "pious statements" that they would never send prisoners to the US without obtaining assurances they would not be executed.

Stafford Smith added: "Some European governments, it's now clear, systematically assisted in clandestine flights and illegal prisoner transfers to Guantanamo Bay. We need a full investigation and Europeans need to face their responsibility for these crimes."

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Bush’s ‘Sixteenth Century Concept of Judicial Conduct’

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.