What kind of judges would a President McCain appoint to the Supreme Court? A President Obama?
Tom Lassetter writes about an eight month investigation by McClatchy news on how the U.S. came to wrongfully imprison dozens, perhaps hundreds of men in Afghanistan and Guantanamo.
The McClatchy investigation found that top Bush administration officials knew within months of opening the Guantanamo detention center that many of the prisoners there weren't "the worst of the worst." From the moment that Guantanamo opened in early 2002, former Secretary of the Army Thomas White said, it was obvious that at least a third of the population didn't belong there.
Late in 2003, Knight-Ridder reported a trio of retired military officers Rear Adm. Don Guter, Rear Adm. John Hutson and Brig. Gen. David Brahms had filed a Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of 16 detainees who had been held for almost two years at Gitmo. They were motivated by their "worry that lengthy incarcerations at Guantanamo without hearings will undermine the rule of law and endanger U.S. forces."
For two years, the Bush administration has described the detainees as "the worst of the worst" and "killers." The three former officers are skeptical, noting that 88 have been released so far from the prison camp.
"We're trying to separate the goat-herders from the real terrorists, and that's not easy, but I'm not convinced they're all guilty," said Hutson, now the dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H.
Continuing with more from the Lassetter piece:
Rather than taking a closer look at whom they were holding, a group of five White House, Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers who called themselves the "War Council" devised a legal framework that enabled the administration to detain suspected "enemy combatants" indefinitely with few legal rights.
devised a legal framework = came up with some word mumbo jumbo word to self-justify
The threat of new terrorist attacks, the War Council argued, allowed President Bush to disregard or rewrite American law, international treaties and the Uniform Code of Military Justice to permit unlimited detentions and harsh interrogations.
Disregard or Rewrite American Law, etc = BREAK American law, international treaties and the UCMJ.
The "trick" to breaking international law was two-fold: (1) Hold the "terrorists" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and (2) Define the "terrorists" as "enemy combatants", a new classification of foe.
The International Red Cross say it is unacceptable that the United States continues to detain more than 600 people at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba without charges or prospect of a timely trial.
...
The Red Cross, which has an international mandate to monitor compliance with the Geneva Conventions and visit people detained in conflicts, has repeatedly expressed its concerns about aspects of the detention camp at Guantanamo, which was deliberately chosen because of its legal ambiguity.
Picking up on the McClatchy investigation once more:
The group further argued that detainees had no legal right to defend themselves, and that American soldiers — along with the War Council members, their bosses and Bush — should be shielded from prosecution for actions that many experts argue are war crimes.
They needed shielding from prosecution because they were COMMITTING war crimes and recognized full well that THEY, the War council members, their bosses and Bush were all complicit in war crimes
The majority of the detainees taken to Guantanamo came into U.S. custody indirectly, from Afghan troops, warlords, mercenaries and Pakistani police who often were paid cash by the number and alleged importance of the men they handed over. Foot soldiers brought in hundreds of dollars, but commanders were worth thousands. Because of the bounties — advertised in fliers that U.S. planes dropped all over Afghanistan in late 2001 — there was financial incentive for locals to lie about the detainees' backgrounds. Only 33 percent of the former detainees — 22 out of 66 — whom McClatchy interviewed were detained initially by U.S. forces. Of those 22, 17 were Afghans who'd been captured around mid-2002 or later as part of the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan, a fight that had more to do with counter-insurgency than terrorism.
The hand of the free market at work here - advertise what your looking for, offer and pay an attractive price, and people will tell you they've got just what you want. A win-win situation - informants and officials looking to settle old grudges get paid to accuse innocents of being terrorist, and we got "terrorists." Well, not a good situation for innocent men (and children) falsely accused.
American soldiers and interrogators were susceptible to false reports passed along by informants and officials looking to settle old grudges in Afghanistan, a nation that had experienced more than two decades of occupation and civil war before U.S. troops arrived. This meant that Americans were likely to arrest Afghans who had no significant connections to militant groups. For example, of those 17 Afghans whom the U.S. captured in mid-2002 or later, at least 12 of them were innocent of the allegations against them, according to interviews with Afghan intelligence and security officials.
This should surprise no one. It is really, nothing new. From the Knight-Ridder story of late 2003:
For two years, the Bush administration has described the detainees as "the worst of the worst" and "killers." The three former officers are skeptical, noting that 88 have been released so far from the prison camp.
"We're trying to separate the goat-herders from the real terrorists, and that's not easy, but I'm not convinced they're all guilty," said [former JAG, Rear Admiral] Hutson, now the dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center in Concord, N.H.
