Don't Bring Those 'Detainees' Here... 'And Give Them Rights'
Can we just stop pretending that congress stripping the funding for closing Gitmo from the bill is anything other than an attempt to prevent detainees from being moved into the jurisdiction of US law?
Does anybody really believe that we can't handle the imprisonment of the detainees and keep americans safe?
I have heard the media talk about this today but what they seemed to skirt around was the fact that the whole 'not in my backyard' hype is really just a smokescreen about preventing accountability for tortured and abused detainees under US law. They denounce the hype but leave the real reason behind all of this unspoken and don't point out that it really is the primary motive here.
I don't know if you really need evidence to back this up. It seems apparent but the only one who came close to getting there was Chris Matthews today in a segment of Hardball where two senators stated amongst there blah, blah, blah, 'not in my backyard' BS that they did not want these detainees to have rights.
If you are afraid of what being held accountable will bring, this makes sense.
But what doesn't make sense is that today it was announced that one of the detainess will be brought to the US.
I am guessing the case is clear, that he was not tortured, etc. so this guy is safe for them to bring over.
I am pissed off about this demonstration by congress in near lockstep against accountability.
And I am sick of Obama's excuse that we are not going to pursue accountability because it's 'too distracting'.
From me to the whitehouse and congress:
I know that there is a LOT to deal with right now but I will not be letting go, 'moving forward'(code for let's just forget about it), or be silenced until appropriate action is taken!
There is too much at stake here. We must find a way to include a real investigation and appropriate consequences for the laws that have been violated involving deliberate deception leading us to war, torture, and abuse during the Bush administration among the responsibilities that must be faced and dealt with.
You're right, and not only is Washington reluctant to grant rights to the detainees, the sorry truth behind the whole impasse is probably due to the fact that the highest echelons of BOTH parties signed ON to the state torture program. A few reputed journalists, eg. Jeremy Scahill, Phillippe Sands, are suggesting that might be the case, some lawmakers are even goading on more "enhanced" torture methods as they were briefed. (See Amy Goodman's Democracy Now site).
What's even more amazing is that the CCR is alleging that torture is STILL going on at Gitmo, and even "ramped up", since Obama's election.
While I understand that issues like Healthcare and Choice might take a while longer to effect change, I cannot believe that torture and abuses perpetrated by the "Immediate Response Team," aka the Goon Squad, are impossible to bring to a complete stop by Executive Order.
And I cannot understand that many on a progressive site like TPM is waffling on holding Obama and other Dems accountable for the lack of transparency and change on the issue of torture and abuse, forsaking the stance of fellow progressives, the ACLU, CCR, etc.
Pls. check out the interviews with Scahill, Sands and Mayer on
http://www.democracynow.org/
May 21, 2009 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Scahill, "... the fact is that Nancy Pelosi was fumbling in her press conference through a statement that someone else clearly wrote for her. This is not some secret that Nancy Pelosi was briefed on this. In fact, the Washington Post reported on this in 2007, that she had been briefed and that other Democrats that were senior figures in the Democratic leadership, particularly on the Intelligence Committee, had received briefings about the tactics that were being used at Guantanamo.
I think what’s going to be important is that we know that some of the members of Congress, Democrat and Republican, who were briefed actually pushed for stronger tactics to be used during these briefings. I think one of the reasons why the Democrats are—the Democratic leadership is not pushing for a special independent prosecutor in this case is because if you actually examine the record, you will find that the Democrats funded these programs, supported these programs, and refused to speak up when it actually mattered. That’s the pattern we saw through the eight years of the Bush administration. Now that the Democrats are in power, you see Obama—the right wing tries to say flip-flopping—you see Obama upholding the consistent one-party system in this country when it comes to foreign policy."
May 21, 2009 3:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm... I actually think that many here at TPM want to see the truth come out no matter what and many of us speak out against what the adminstration is or is not doing regardless of 'party' etc. While we may be liberal leaning I don't think most of us are really as 'party' blind as some reactionary, less liberal leaning would paint us.
I think part of the problem is that the 'accountability' creates a huge mess as to who may have been involved etc. and I agree that this and I agree that this is what is likely slowing and muffling calls for accountability.
I can't agree necesarily that Pelosi speaking from a prepared statement 'means' the 'meanings' that people have placed on it. I am not sure. It is possible that having a written statemet and being nervous is about not revealing classified information and about wording things very carefully and precisely having been given legal advice.
I have heard talk of how far back disregard for the law goes in our government and thus the talk of 'if you investigate our people, we'll investigate your people'. This really appears to be a BIG mess that is going to be challenging to clean up.
I really want to support the ACLU right now in their efforts as they seem to be one of the driving forces taking action and bringing things to light.
Thanks for you link!
May 21, 2009 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'd be more surprised if Pelosi, as a ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, wasn't briefed at all from 2002 onwards about torture and the euphemistically named EIT. Scahill wasn't just referring to the fumbling, but to the open record, particularly to this Washington Post piece published in 2007 before the current brouhaha. In it, Pelosi did recall being briefed about waterboarding, her aide simply said she didn't think at that time that it was already administered. Surely she would know subsequently that it was, as Jane Harman did after she replaced Pelosi.
The article is worth revisiting in the light of the current uproar.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html
In the end, what is more disturbing is that clearly the support for the EIT was bi-partisan, regardless of which individual lawmakers were briefed. Even John McCain objected to the program and protested privately to the WH. Where are the Dems?
I'd prefer to see not only a trial for the perpetrators, but also reprimand for those implicated by complicity - after all, where is the system of checks and balance? It doesn't become of Dems if we're as partisan in apportioning blame as the Repubs we despise for supporting their Party through their worst abuses. Accountability should transcend politics.
May 21, 2009 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with what you are saying as to what individuals knew and what they did about it... I agree in theory that depending on the facts they should be reprimanded but I am not clear what courses of action were open to them.
Is it a catch 22 to be in a position of security clearance that is very limited and find out information that to you appears illegal? If I was Pelosi, what would I have done for example? Go to Mukasey? Should be able to go to the DOJ but in this case no, probably not. The legal interpretations were coming from the DOJ. I am not clear what she could have done when the adminstration was really wielding power over the judiciary and the congress.
It is a complex web of deceipt and corruption. For now I think it is helpful to focus on those that made the decision to use torture and those that conspired to make it 'legal' and those that engaged in torturing.
It is interesting that the congress passed a law to make it illegal for the CIA to engage in waterboarding among other things and Bush vetoed it. They must have been aware, at least some of them, at that point of the torture memos and the interpretation of law that was being put forward to justify torture and were trying to push back against it.
May 21, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that both the CIA and Pelosi are self-serving in their accounts, it is the nature of Washington after all. In that sense, I am not that interested in what Pelosi knew and how she acted, etc., but that the media spotlight keeps this whole issue on the front burner. I hate to think it, but it seems Obama is not going to fulfill his campaign promise wrt this issue until the heat is turned on, and the fact that this just doesn't go away will provide it.
May 21, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that no matter the spin, this issue of state-sanctioned torture remains in the spotlight. The louder the fights, the greater the uproar, the more riveting the accounts from both sides, the more urgent the need to establish a Truth Commission to get to the bottom of this. And if Pelosi is innocent of complicity, it will prove it, which would work well for her rather than the insidious attacks. So yes, I don't want this to go away, I don't want Obama to soothingly urge us to "put this behind us", I don't want the Dems to cower AGAIN, and back off, simply because they were at some levels complicit and might join a "bi-partisan" with the Repubs' effort to "move on".
May 21, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The political elite and powerful persons of this country have long since abandoned any committment to justice or social equality. Their only interest is what's in it for them. You need only look at the messes they make to know this. The idea that they inadvertently deliver one screwed up result after another is a load of crap. This country is screwed up because in practice they serve a very narrow constituency with all the rest of us scrambling for crumbs.
The incessant arguments between democrats and republicans is really about money, which of them have the most, and nothing else.
It's stupid that we draw a line when it comes to honoring the things we believe in. Our values are based on a moral disposition and can't be applied arbitrarily. Our national leadership does this all the time. They decide almost whimsically which laws they want to follow and when and aginst whom. I think we have as many or more criminals in congress who arguably have harmed this country far more than the Gitmo detainees.
May 21, 2009 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it all comes down to money and I would 'add' power...
And I appreciate that you are a most likely a 'cynic' and I am an 'idealist' so we are not going to agree in perspective.
I will fight for what I believe in and it may appear arbitrary as it can be true that it appears selective 'as I respond to what comes to my attention'. But I respond and through the pebble of my voice in the pond.
My understanding and actions may be imperfect and not absolute because they occur relative to what I learn and what I know. But for me that does not mean I throw my hands in the air and say 'that's just the way it is, I give up'. I will not do that. And I know that my voice and my actions matter. I don't doubt it. It may not matter to the extent I would like and it sometimes matters more than I expect.
We are dealing with human beings here. I do not expect perfection but we can strive to be 'more perfect'. I believe that requires willingness to take responsibility for our actions and to hold and be held accountable. We are not and may never be 'perfect', we are perfectly human which is something else entirely.
May 21, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
But I respond and throw the pebble of my voice in the pond.
I find it hysterical the substitutions my 'eye to hand' throws in when I am typing quickly. I get all sorts of errors and substitions:)
May 21, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right that I'm a cynic. However, it doesn't mean I have thrown in the towel. I write letters to my congresspersons and call them. I've also written Obama a real letter on paper and lots and lots to the WH web site. So I have made my views known. I appreciate we have to participate if we expect a reasonable result. If more people made that effort perhaps we would be in a different situation. That they don't is what makes me a cynic. There are a lot of people who aren't necessarily in our corner who work overtime making their voices heard. We have to do the same. We all see the news every day. If people took five minutes a week to go on the WH web site or to their congresspersons or senators web site and shot off a quick note we might stand a chance.
May 21, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
On this we agree. However I also notice that people who are active, as we are, do have an effect on others, in big and small ways and help to spread that 'fire' a bit. So I like to imagine that it is possible. Human beings have an aversion to pain. Right now the country is growing more and more uncomfortable and this will in my opinion this will lead to more people being more active. Thanks for the exchange.
May 22, 2009 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I have heard the media talk about this today but what they seemed to skirt around was the fact that the whole 'not in my backyard' hype is really just a smokescreen about preventing accountability for tortured and abused detainees under US law."
We do not want to know. This is an important point Sync. Accountability. But I heard a couple good speeches on the Senate Floor yesterday calling for investigations. I had to listen to right wing crap against such investigations too.
Good post.
May 21, 2009 5:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks DD for mentioning that some are pushing for accountability. I just find it strange and awkward that more in congress are not?
When the republican put out their scary commercial about how it would be terrifying and dangerous for detainees to be brought to the US, I did not realize what a major PR move this was to keep them out of the jurisdiction of US law. I just thought they were being ridiculous as usual.
They have been waging a major campaign against accountability using every power at their disposal.. holding up nominations, being the party of 'no' to try to prevent the release of reports, memo, et al.
Where is the OPR report? etc.
Thanks for watching the senate. I, in fact, used to make it a point to listen to the senate in the background while I worked. I can't do it now so I appreciate that others are listening.
May 21, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention it is ridiculous to expect other countries to take them in if we won't.
May 21, 2009 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It actually makes us look silly refusing to take them when we have for ages been beating our chests about how we are such a 'superpower' and flaunting our military 'prowess'.
Now we are supposed to accept that america is 'weak and terrified' because the powers that be are really terrified of being held accountable for violating the law?
The government and the 'entertainment' news media seem to consider it their job to 'mess' with the american public and tell us what to think and feel and when.
May 21, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point about the REAL reason for objecting to these people in the United States is well-taken. The argument that these terrorists cannot be safely detained in Federal max-security prisons is curious, to say the least.
As to the 'rights' argument:
I'm not an attorney (or otherwise making any claims to legal scholarship), but one element of this puzzles me: I thought there was such a thing as HUMAN RIGHTS - those rights one properly claims simply as a man or woman, without respect either to nationality, or to the geographical location in which one may be standing when those rights are invoked, or even to the context in which one may have come under the requirement for that protection.
It seems to me that our American system of justice is not founded upon the idea of granting some special 'bonus' to American citizens only, or as applying in America only, but upon our best ideas as to the right way to go about things, period. Can there really be such a concept as one standard for Americans, another lesser standard for others? Or one standard for Marion, Ill., and another lesser standard for Gitmo, Cuba? Or one standard for either ordinary criminals or POW's, and another lesser standard for 'enemy combatants'?
Far too much hair-splitting for my taste, and it leads me to the inevitable suspicion that the system is being arbitrarily rigged. Why is that a legal system that has dealt effectively with the likes of Al Capone, Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, Aldridge Ames, and Chuck Keating (to name only a few) should find itself so baffled in its efforts to confront Islamic terrorists?
May 21, 2009 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps because those folks weren't tortured, and therefore putting them on trial wouldn't be an embarrassment to those who allowed it when the details come out at trial. Or, they know they don't have evidence that will convict them, but they "know" they're bad men and don't want to let them go. Take your pick.
May 21, 2009 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apparently our 'government' believes that Gitmo moves people to a place where the law applies differently. I would not have imagined it necessary but we may need a law going forward clarifying that US law still applies when we set up a base outside of the US.
I don't quite understand the logic or legality of Gitmo operating as a US facility outside of US law?
But as you say international law and basic human rights should apply regardless.
We should not be doing to people what we would not want other countries doing to american citizens. That's just stupid, I don't care how far back it goes, etc. Much of what has been done has made americans less safe everywhere.
May 21, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
My only two cents here. If we follow John Locke and his disciple Thomas Jefferson we don't give anyone "rights". Being human gives us human rights. All governments can do is violate them. The nature of these rights has been articulated and refined for more than 2500 years. Suborning those rights suborns our own humanity.
May 21, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surprise, surprise! For only two cents we can get the truth. Quite a bargain.
Thanks, amike for an important reminder.
May 21, 2009 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well there are apparently many differing views on legal rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
Here you will find a suggestion to what may be an ironic origin for Locke's views"
"Likewise, the notion of inalienable rights was found in early Islamic law and jurisprudence, which denied a ruler "the right to take away from his subjects certain rights which inhere in his or her person as a human being." Islamic rulers could not take away certain rights from their subjects on the basis that "they become rights by reason of the fact that they are given to a subject by a law and from a source which no ruler can question or alter."[5]
These ideas may have later influenced John Locke's concept of inalienable rights through his attendance of lectures given by Edward Pococke, a professor of Arabic studies.[
May 21, 2009 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The concept that rights exist simply because we are human may sound nice, but unless a "right" is enforceable it is meaningless. Otherwise, there never would have been slaves.
The source of any enforceable rights the Gitmo detainees may have depends on the basis on which our government is detaining them. If the US is detaining them for violation(s) of US criminal laws, then they have enforceable rights under US laws, including the Constitution, that govern the treatment of persons accused of having committed criminal acts in violation of US law. If the US is detaining them under international laws relating to war, then the Geneva Convention governs their treatment and provides the source of their enforceable rights. Finally, if the US is detaining them under international criminal law, then their enforceable rights are supplied by that same body of law.
May 21, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, I wasn't suggesting that we have legal rights just because we are human... perhaps you were responding to amike's comments about this. I was simply responding to his post in my sharing the variety of views of rights.
However, I do not have any clarity that US law, international law, or the Geneva Convention applies at Gitmo. It seems Gitmo was created to be a place 'beyond law' even it isn't.
May 21, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
even 'if' it isn't.
...and I do believe that we have do have human rights but I agree it only matters if they are enforcable.
May 21, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
To answer one of the questions, yes I do believe there are those that believe we can't handle the imprisonment of detainees & keep Americans safe. They also believe in WMD & think Georgie porgie was a great president.
As far as stopping pretending. With all the lies & spinning it's hard, if not impossible to get to the truth.
May 21, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL... okay you got me there...
Yes it does seem to be a challenge to get to the truth and yet I believe it will come out, hopefully sooner, than later.
May 21, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right on. Happy to lighten it up for you. Maybe we'll get truth at 200 or 300 days? Or in Obamas' second term, that works.
May 21, 2009 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we really took our constitution to heart maybe we wouldn't be having this argument. Unfortunately, we have a lot of people who measure equality in ways with which everyone may not be familiar. We have 330 million or so people in this country. There are over 5 billion on this earth. By an inexplicable and cockeyed reckoning the majority of those 5 billion are less equal than us.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".
May 21, 2009 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly humanity and our country has not evolved to the point that we are able to live up to this great vision.
We can however continue to aspire to achieve this level of humanity.
May 21, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can't have it both ways...if we don't have a "Creator" then we don't have any inalienable rights to be endowed with by Him...
hmmmmmmmm...
May 21, 2009 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Stilli,
Thanks fo stopping by:)
Hope your having fun with the grandkids.
May 21, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I so am, Synch...It's wonderful getting up 5 days a week and knowing that I am making such a huge contribution to my family's well-being. Couldn't ask for a better job. Seeing the world through a child's eyes is such an amazing thing.
As I get my "systems" in place, I'm finding I'm better able to get here, my second favorite place to be!
May 21, 2009 10:58 PM | Reply | Permalink