Innocent Men in Guantanamo?

The Seattle Times today has an interesting review of one of the prisoners currently in Guantanamo. Murat Kurnaz is a German citizen, who was arrested in Pakistan four years ago, who has been held in Guantanamo ever since. Like all prisoners in “Gitmo”, he was given a review of his status, and he was found to be an “enemy combatant”. With that new designation he is of course allowed to be held indefinitely without access to lawyers, and without hope of release.

Well thankfully for us, the courts intervened. (Damn those activist judges!!). A Federal Judge has managed to review the evidence that had convinced the Gitmo review panel that this guy was an international terrorist associated with Al Qaida. According to the judge, and the German government, there is no evidence that he is associated with Al Qaida, and the evidence is clear that he is likely an innocent man.

Apparently there is an overwhelming amount of exculpatory evidence in his file, all of which shows his innocence. Then there is also a single memo, written by an anonomous military official, with no support or backup, that claims he is associated with Al Qaida. The judge reviewing the case basically accused the military of ignoring the evidence in his file, and ruling arbitrarily against him. The Judge said the memo “fails to provide significant details to support its conclusory allegations, does not reveal the sources for its information and is contradicted by other evidence in the record.”

So what does this mean? Well the Bush Administration has been keeping hundreds of “Enemy Combatants” in Gitmo for years now. These prisoners have no access to courts, legal assistance, or review of any kind. Once a tribunal has designated them an enemy combatant, that is it. They are to remain indefinitely.

The Bush Administration claims this is legal, which is questionable in itself, but it is definitely not moral. According to all independent review, Murat Kurnaz is being held on extremely limited evidence, and should be allowed to go free. How many more of these combatants are in the same situation? Why are we keeping them if they are not connected to Al Qaida? What is the point of questioning them if they have no information?

The thing that disturbs me the most about this is that it is another example of the Bush Administration claiming that they have information that the rest of us aren’t privileged to, but that proves their assertions. The whole WMD fiasco is a perfect example where they told us to trust them, because they have the evidence of WMD in Iraq, but they just couldn’t show it to us because it was classified and a matter of national security. When the chips fell though it turned out they had no evidence at all, and in truth they were simply lying to us.

This is another example. When the military was questioned about Kurnaz’s detention, they claimed that the evidence against him was sensitive and had to be classified. However now that the evidence has been declassified, it again turns out that it is nothing but a smokescreen.

Our President and his Administration seems to think that they can do anything they want based on no evidence whatsoever, as long as they claim it is supported by “Classified Information”. The sad thing is they have proven that they can, because the public continues to give them the benefit of the doubt, time and time again.

One day we will all wake up.

Life and Politics by Jonathan Alter

I posted a couple of days ago about the Terri Schiavo case, and how no matter what your feelings about whether her feeding tube should be restored, you couldn't deny that the Republicans had been incredibly hypocritical over the issue.

Well Jonathan Alter posted a blog item that says basically the same thing I did but with a lot more eloquence. It is well worth a read:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7305206/site/newsweek/

Republican Hypocrisy: Again

Everyone is probably overloaded on the Terri Schiavo case by now, so I hate to bring it up again. As for my own feelings on this issue, I think that life is precious, and we should always do what we can to save it, unless it is the person’s wish to have the lifesaving treatment removed. In case of incapacitation, like hers, then it is up to the family to pass along the wishes of the patient. Of course this case is incredibly sticky and sad.

That isn’t what I really want to talk about now though. What I really want to talk about is the incredible hypocrisy of the Republicans over this issue:

• They continually complain about activist judges. What are activist judges? They are judges who “legislate” from the bench. That means that they ignore the law, and push through their own personal agendas. In this case, the judges did exactly the opposite, they obeyed the law as it was written (that the husband has the power of attorney). Republicans kept arguing that the judges should instead rule based on moral values, not the law. However this would be “legislating” from the bench, and is what the judiciary is criticized for all the time.
• The continually claim they are for States rights, and that the Federal Government’s power needs to be reduced in favor of the States. In this case, they overruled numerous State courts, and used an unprecedented Congressional maneuver to move the venue to Federal Courts, because they didn’t like what the State courts were doing.
• They continually talk about individual responsibility, and how the Government should not be making decisions for us, but should just get out of the way. However in this case they stepped in against a husband who was fulfilling the wishes of his wife. He was legally entitled to. This is a gross example of Federal Government overreach, and they are the ones who did it.
• They talk about good governance, but they passed a law that only applies to one individual. Why did they do that? Because they don’t believe that making it apply to all such cases would be a good idea. Basically the law would have to state that it was important to extend life at all times, even against family wishes. They don’t want that, as it is really against some of their principles, so they push through a law that only applies to one person.

This is just an amazing example of how hypocritical the Republicans have become. Power corrupts, and holding all three branches of Government corrupts absolutely. Agree with them or not on whether or not Terri Schiavo should be allowed to die, but who have to agree that they are not following their own vaunted conservative principles at all.

Prisoners sent to third countries for interrogations.

There has been a lot of talk lately about the practice of sending prisoners that we capture during the war on terror to third countries for interrogation. For the uninitiated, it has become a common practice of the United States to send prisoners to countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia for questioning.

Many of these prisoners have later claimed that they were tortured while they were in these foreign governments control, and of course this is an ethically troubling proposition. After Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo, we are already close to the line on the whole idea of torture, and its use. Many are rightly outraged at the cavalier attitude of the Bush Administration as regards to torture. Since Abu Ghraib however, they have been strenuous in their stated opposition to torture of any kind.

Which makes these prisoner transfers especially troubling. The Bush administration has come under some reasonably heavy questioning over the last few days about these transfers, and their response has been to claim that they expect the other countries to abide by treaties that prohibit torture. They say they have been assured by these other countries that torture will not occur. They say that this assurance is good enough for them.

Well then why are we sending these prisoners to these other countries? What is the point? I am assuming that we have some of the best interrogators in the world, and that they are highly skilled and highly efficient in their jobs. Is the Bush administration really trying to tell us that the interrogators in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are simply more skillful or better qualified than our own? Are they really trying to tell us that they will do a better job? Of course not, the only reason to send the prisoners there is because they will be tortured, and for obvious reasons we don't want to do it ourselves. There is absolutely no reason to send the prisoners there if they are not going to be tortured.

So when the Bush Administration makes these statements and denials, they are baldfaced lying again. I know I shouldn't be surprised, but you would think that the press would call them on it eventually. If we are not sending them to be tortured, then what is the point of sending them?

Your rights have been reduced again!

Many Americans are now getting pretty used to having our rights reduced in service of the war on terror. In fact many Americans even agree that it is a fair trade-off. Many would argue that if we have to give up a part of our freedom of speech to protect our families, it is a reasonable measure. Personally I think that giving up our rights is giving in to the enemy, but hey, that is just me.

Well yesterday Condaleeza Rice announced another of your rights that has been taken away. Under an Optional Protocol of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, foreign citizens arrested in foreign countries have the right to access and support from their home country's embassy or consular office. If they don't get that assistance, then they have the right to have their case reviewed by the International Court of Justice in the Hague. This is a protective measure, meant to allow proper representation and assistance to those arrested in a foreign country. Like all such conventions, we signed it because it would offer a measure of protection to U.S. citizens abroad. Not every country has a judicial system with the rights we take for granted in ours. Not every country will provide legal representation for all those arrested. Not every country will guarantee the right to quick review of your case. Actually, the U.S. doesn't guarantee these things anymore, but that is another topic.

The U.S. even took advantage of this protocol when they sued Iran over the hostage crisis many years ago. This was something that protected Americans, so we were happy to sign up.

Well as mentioned, yesterday we withdrew from the optional protocol. What that means is that your legal rights have been weakened if you are ever arrested while traveling overseas. This could be extremely dangerous to Americans, and for some reason the Bush administration thought that they had a good enough reason to remove that protection from it's citizens.

So what was that good reason? Well if you are like me, your first thought would be that it was about protecting us from terrorists. We have already given up many of our rights in the pursuit of terrorists, (some of them mentioned above), so that would be a reasonable assumption! The Bush Administration must be concerned about terror suspects claiming that they have the right to contact their home embassies, and we are afraid the International Court of Justice might start imposing restrictions on how we can fight terror. This is a reasonable assumption, but it is dead wrong.

The reason we had to lose this right, was that Texas has 50 Mexican nationals on death row, and Texas failed to notify their consular officials of their arrest. Under the protocol, they should have done this, and then the Mexican nationals would have had the possibility of assistance from their home country. Some of these Mexican Nationals have appealed to the International Court of Justice, and the court ruled against the United States, and stated that these Mexican Nationals should have their sentences reviewed because the U.S. didn't do what it should have. So like a boy who takes his ball home when he doesn't win, the U.S. is withdrawing from the protocol, because we don't want to have to deal with all those pesky international legal protections next time we want to kill some foreigner.

Yes it is a sad world. So in order for Texas to be able to kill Mexicans without international interference, you have to give up your right to legal protection and consular assistance if you are ever arrested overseas. Wonderful huh!

Here is a link!