The Constitutional Scholar Considers Indefinite Detention Law

Tags

, , , ,

The Constitutional Scholar-In-Chief is ready to deal away Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections in exchange for Lindsey Graham’s vote to close Gitmo. Well, not actually close it, just re-locate it to Illinois (emphasis mine):

“The White House is considering endorsing a law that would allow the indefinite detention of some alleged terrorists without trial as part of efforts to break a logjam with Congress over President Barack Obama’s plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday.

“I’m sure that that’s what Sen. Graham thinks [but] I don’t have any reason to think the administration has changed its view on this…said Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First. “In both private conversations and in public, the attorney general and other people in the administration said they’re committed to driving the people detained without charge to zero. I think that would be inconsistent with a pledge to do that.”

…speaking at a news conference in Greenville, S.C. Monday, Graham said the White House now seems open to a new law to lay out the standards for open-ended imprisonment of those alleged to be members of or fighters for Al Qaeda or the Taliban.

…While Graham has long favored closing Guantanamo, he said Monday that his support for doing so is contingent on a new law to govern the detention of those the government wants to keep in custody outside the criminal justice system. He also said that, with such a statute in place, he could support Obama’s plan to convert a state prison in Illinois to a federal facility for former Guantanamo inmates.

…Some human rights advocates said Monday that they didn’t doubt Graham had discussed a detention statute with the White House, but were skeptical that officials there are actively considering it.

Right. It would be the height of inconsistency for this administration to backtrack on a pledge or a campaign promise. There’s nothing in the past year to make anyone think they might “change” their views or principles, as if they had any, in the face of the slightest amount of pressure, or in pursuit of another sellout compromise. Perish the thought.

Why Is This Man Not Facing a War Crimes Tribunal?

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Every time I see former Vice-President Dick Cheney interviewed on any news program, national or otherwise, I think to myself, ‘Why is this man here and not facing a war crimes tribunal?’ Cheney made a remark during an interview with Jonathan Karl Sunday on ABC’s This Week, a remark made almost in passing, that once again brought that question to mind:

KARL: Did you more often win or lose those battles, especially as you got to the second term?

CHENEY: Well, I suppose it depends on which battle you’re talking about. I won some; I lost some. I can’t…

KARL: … waterboarding, clearly, what was your…

CHENEY: I was a big supporter of waterboarding. I was a big supporter of the enhanced interrogation techniques that…

KARL: And you opposed the administration’s actions of doing away with waterboarding?

CHENEY: Yes.

It never ceases to amaze me, although it’s not the first time it has happened and undoubtedly won’t be the last, that a former vice-president of the United States of America can openly and brazenly confess to something which the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention Against Torture recognize as torture, something for which members of the Japanese military were punished after World War II. Torture, a punishable offense under U.S. Code 2340A by imprisonment or death. And he can do so without any fear of reprisal, thanks to the ‘look forward, not back’ policy of the Obama administration.

Shameful.

Andrew Sullivan at the Daily Dish calls on Attorney General Eric Holder to take action or be considered an accessory, also a punishable offense:

“…the attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.

Cheney himself just set in motion a chain of events that the civilized world must see to its conclusion or cease to be the civilized world. For such a high official to escape the clear letter of these treaties and conventions, and to openly brag of it, renders such treaties and conventions meaningless.”

These are not my opinions and they are not hyperbole. They are legal facts. Either this country is governed by the rule of law or it isn’t. Cheney’s clear admission of his central role in authorizing waterboarding and the clear evidence that such waterboarding did indeed take place means that prosecution must proceed.

Twelve Civilians Killed in Rocket Attack

Tags

, , , , ,

President Obama, in the name of the Nobel Peace Prize, put a stop to this, NOW:

“MARJA, Afghanistan — An errant American rocket strike on Sunday hit a compound crowded with Afghan civilians in the last Taliban stronghold in Helmand Province, killing at least 10 people [the number now stands at 12], including 5 children, military officials said.

…It was unclear whether one or more rockets hit the building. Officers said the barrage had been fired from Camp Bastion, a large British and American base to the northeast, by a weapons system known as HIMARS, an acronym for High Mobility Artillery Rocket System. Its munitions are GPS-guided and advertised as being accurate enough to strike within a yard of their intended targets.”

…The strike came after American Marines and Afghan soldiers had been taking intense small-arms fire from a mud-walled compound in the area, American officers said. The answering artillery barrage instead hit a building a few hundred yards way, striking with a roar and sending a huge cloud of dust and smoke into the air. As the wind pushed the plume away, a group of children rushed outside.

“Within a yard.” These rockets missed their intended target by 300 yards.

This is how we intend to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people? And how many recruits will the Taliban gain from this? Only the number of casualties in the days, weeks, months, and years to come will tell us the answer to that question.

Get. Out. Now.

“A Culture of Compulsive Sociopaths”

Tags

, , , , ,

Jesse’s Café Americain nails it in this commentary on Simon Johnson’s piece at Baseline Scenario about the possibility of an audit of Goldman Sachs by the European Commission over Goldman’s role in helping the Greek government hide its debt:

“…the American Wall Street banks have become dominated by a culture of compulsive sociopaths who are incapable of reforming or restraining their greed. Like all addicts, they push the envelope, emboldened by each successful scam, the weakness of regulators, and the craven support of politicians, going further and further until at long last they go one step too far, with spectacularly destructive results.

Goldman Sachs may have reached that point… the rebuke may be coming from foreign nations who become weary of the extra-legal antics of the rogue American banks.”

Johnson posits:

“..the US government, at the highest levels, has to ask a fundamental question: For how long does it wish to be intimately associated with Goldman Sachs and this kind of destabilizing action?  What is the priority here – a sustainable recovery and a viable financial system, or one particular set of investment bankers?”

Given the infestation of the Obama administration with Rubin/Goldman acolytes, I’m betting on the latter.

Washington’s Got a Secret—And They Intend to Keep It

Tags

, , , , , ,

Gretchen Morgenson in yesterday’s New York Times on the lack of action on financial reform from our alleged representatives in the District of Columbia

“As Washington spins its wheels on financial reform, it’s becoming painfully clear that the problem of entities that are too interconnected or “too politically powerful to fail” is also too hard for our policy makers to tackle.”

What Ms. Morgenson calls Washington “spinning its wheels,” is more appropriately named the “appease the peasants” circus. That time-honored D.C. tradition of giving the appearance of doing something while actually, and intentionally, doing nothing. And it’s not that it’s “too hard to tackle,” they have a financial interest in not tackling it.

“As taxpayers, we obviously can’t rely on lawmakers to address the risks we face from the ever-expanding corporate safety net thrown under teetering behemoths. But because we are footing the bills for these rescues — and will do so again if more crises occur — don’t you agree that we should know what these implied federal guarantees will cost us?…If the government won’t reduce the size of the safety net, and it has shown no appetite for doing so, it should at least tell us the price tag.”

To the contrary, “the government”—and not just the Capitol Hill gang but those who give lip service to openness and transparency at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue—is doing everything in its power to keep us from seeing that “price tag” as well as who received what.

“The Federal Reserve asked a U.S. appeals court to block a ruling that for the first time would force the central bank to reveal secret identities of financial firms that might have collapsed without the largest government bailout in U.S. history.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan will decide whether the Fed must release records of the unprecedented $2 trillion U.S. loan program launched after the 2008 collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.”

The Obama Justice Department cites the need for secrecy “confidentiality:”

“Confidentiality is essential to the success of the board’s statutory mission to maintain the health of the nation’s financial system and conduct monetary policy,” Assistant U.S. Attorney General Tony West and Fed lawyer Richard Ashton wrote in a legal brief to the appeals court.”

Never mind this:

“The lawsuit, brought under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, came as President Barack Obama criticized the previous administration’s handling of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program passed by Congress in October 2008. Obama has said funds were spent by the administration of former President George W. Bush with little accountability or transparency.”

Hypocrisy you can believe in.

Consider All Options? Well, All But One

Tags

, , , , , ,

Another campaign promise bites the dust:

“President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.

“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”

Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Consider all options? All ideas are on the table? Hmmmm, I don’t see War Defense Department spending cuts on that list. Just an oversight, I’m sure.

Obama’s Attitude Adjustment Toward “Fat Cats”

Tags

, , , , , ,

President Obama certainly has had a “change” of heart regarding Wall Street bonuses. He has gone from referring to the payouts as “shameful,” “the height of irresponsibility,” and “obscene” to saying he doesn’t “begrudge” Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein their bonuses because, “I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen.”

What happened in between the time the president said, “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” and “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”

This happened:

“Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda…And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.”

Warning duly noted and appropriate corrective measures taken.

Obama DOJ v. Fourth Amendment

Tags

, , , ,

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss:

“The government argued on Friday that it should be allowed access to people’s cell-phone records to help track suspected criminals… A Justice Department attorney urged a federal appeals court to overturn lower court rulings denying it the right to seek information from communications companies about the call activity of specific numbers that authorities believe are associated with criminal activity.”

Believe? What happened to probable cause?

“Law enforcement agencies hope to obtain cell phone location data from cellular providers without first showing probable cause of a crime _ and without the customer’s knowledge. The data comes from cell phone towers, and in densely populated cities can pinpoint a person’s location to within a few hundred yards.

“An individual has no Fourth Amendment-protected privacy interest in business records, such as cell-site usage information, that are kept, maintained and used by a cell phone company,” [Justice Department lawyer Mark] Eckenwiler wrote in his brief.”

One of the judges on the Third Circuit panel hearing the case, Judge Dolores Sloviter, questioned Eckenwiler:

“You know there are governments in the world that would like to know where some of their people are or have been. Can the government assure us that it will never try to find out these things? Don’t we have to be concerned about this? Not this government right now, but a government?”

Yes, Judge Sloviter. This government. Right now.

Financial Reform? Don’t Count On It

Tags

, , , , , , ,

While watching the Senate Banking Committee Kabuki theater on reforming and regulating the financial industry, keep in mind the findings of this study from Consumer Watchdog:

* The financial sector is the largest source of campaign contributions to federal candidates and parties. Members of the Senate Banking committee aretop recipients of that largesse. Senate Banking committee members have received $41.9 million in campaign contributions from PACs and individuals in the financial sector since 2005.

* 24 former Senate Banking committee members or committee staff currently lobby on behalf of the financial sector. The total includes 4 former Senators and 7 former committee staff directors.

* Committee chairman Christopher Dodd (D-CT) raised $9 million from the financial sector, 51% of his fundraising over the five year period. Ranking member Richard Shelby (R-AL) raised $2.5 million, 28% of his total money raised, from the financial sector.

* Last November, Chairman Dodd tasked himself and seven other Banking committee members with re-drafting the major sections of financial reform legislation. These eight senators – Dodd, Shelby, Corker, Crapo, Gregg, Reed, Schumer, and Warner – have received the lion’s share of financial sector contributions to the committee: a total of $26.1 million.

* The financial sector and its lobbyists hosted at least 43 fundraisers for 11 members of the Senate Banking committee in 2009.

But on the bright side, jobs are being created:

* The financial sector hired 2567 lobbyists in 2009 and, in the first three quarters of the year, spent over $336 million lobbying Congress.

More Openness and Transparency: Patriot Act Extension Hidden In Jobs Bill

Tags

, , , ,

Other than President Obama’s apparent determination to be seen as George W. Bush’s third term, why is the extension of the Patriot Act in the new jobs bill?

 SEC. 645. EXTENSION OF INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY SUNSETS.

(a) USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT ANDREAUTHORIZATION ACT OF

 2005.—Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–177; 50 U.S.C. 1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 211861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is amended by striking ‘‘February 28, 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’.

(b) INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF

2004.—Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–458; 118 Stat. 3742; 50 U.S.C. 1801 2note) is amended by striking ‘‘February 28, 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’.

 Gotta love that openness and transparency.