By William Fisher
A coalition of more than 200 not-for-profit human rights and social justice organizations charged today that the Bush Administration is contributing to racial, religious and ethnic discrimination in the U.S. – and attempting to cover up its violations in a report to the United Nations they term “a complete whitewash.”
The charges are contained in a “shadow report “ timed to coincide with International Human Rights Day, today, and designed to rebut a far more positive picture of American racism painted by the U.S. State Department (DOS). State’s report, quietly submitted to the U.N. last spring and posted without publicity on the Department’s website, was a requirement under the world body’s “International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD)”, to which the U.S. is a signatory.
The shadow report was prepared by the U.S. Human Rights Network (USHRN), a large group of non-governmental organizations ranging from Amnesty International to the People’s Hurricane Relief Fund.
It charges that the U.S. Government has failed both by action and inaction to promote racial and ethnic justice in a host of areas, including voting rights, health care, housing, education, homelessness, police brutality and fairness in the criminal justice system.
It says the government report “misrepresents and/or cherry picks data demonstrating ongoing racial disparities and discrimination” and “suffers from glaring gaps clearly aimed at covering up the most egregious examples of persistent racism and racial discrimination in the U.S. today.”
USHRN’s Executive Director, Ajamu Baraka, told IPS, “This report is an important effort to correct the historic record as it relates to the failure of the Bush Administration and previous administrations to address the ongoing crisis of racial oppression and discrimination in the U.S.”
Next March, the U.S. will be required to defend its record on race relations, persistent racial inequalities, and ongoing racial discrimination, before a panel of UN experts.
The USHRN highlights a number of areas where it says the Government report fails to confront the facts.
For example, said a USHRN spokesperson, the Government’s report highlights training and outreach programs for law enforcement agencies to encourage sensitivity to Arab and Muslim communities developed in the aftermath of 9/11, “while completely failing to acknowledge widespread racially and ethnically targeted law enforcement practices such as the special registration program and aggressive round-ups and interviews of thousands of non-citizen Muslims, Arabs and South Asians.”
The USHRN report says, “Since September 11, 2001, new federal laws and policies have limited non-citizens’ access to due process rights, while at the same time creating an atmosphere of elevated fear and mistrust of those who are foreign-born, as well as those who are perceived to be of a particular religious or ethnic background.”
It adds, “In an increasingly anti-immigrant climate, authorities have collaboratively advanced hundreds of measures denying immigrants and refugees access to employment and a living wage, labor protections, access to public benefits, health care, and education, and adequate public safety.”
The USHRN warns that “the humanitarian crisis at the border has reached new heights as migrant deaths hit record numbers and the federal government pours billions of dollars into militarizing the region. In the interior, workers are increasingly subject to violent and disruptive immigration raids at their workplaces and in their homes, typically targeting a population of ethnic minorities that is hugely disproportionate to the number of people actually charged with violations.”
It says that discrimination against migrants, immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers of color “is increasingly fueled by legislation, administrative regulations and enforcement policies framing immigration as an assault on the public purse, and immigrants as illegitimate interlopers rather than substantial contributors to the nation's economy.”
The report highlights a number of issues relating particularly to women. It charges that the U.S. government’s claim that “substantial progress has been made in addressing disparities in . . . access to health care has been made over the years” is belied by persistent and dramatic racial disparities in infant and maternal mortality rates, life expectancy, and prevalence and survival rates of cancer, HIV-AIDS, and heart disease shocking in a country of the United States’ wealth and resources.”
“African American women are nearly four times more likely to die in childbirth than white women and 24 times more likely to be infected with HIV/AIDS,” the report says. It attributes these disparities to “a range of government actions and inactions, from the failure to address high rates of uninsured women of color to restrictions on public funding for sexual and reproductive health services.”
Women of color, it says, “are more economically disadvantaged than white women and more likely to rely on government funded health insurance, are disproportionately impacted by federal and state policies that restrict access to and public funding for sexual and reproductive health care.”
The efforts cited by the U.S. government as evidence of progress fail to address “systemic factors driving health disparities, including obstacles to access to health care, such as lack of health insurance, unequal distribution of health care resources, and poor quality public health care,” the report says.
It also faults the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for
failing to reopen public health care facilities in the Gulf Coast communities devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, thereby contributing to
“an increase in the number of deaths due to the lack of medical services.”
Housing discrimination is another area underlined in the USHRN report. It says the government “has not adequately responded to private acts of housing discrimination. African Americans and Latinos frequently encounter discrimination when attempting to rent or purchase a home, or when attempting to secure funding or insurance for a home purchase.”
The report also links race with predatory and subprime lending. “The subprime mortgage market clearly adversely impacts members of minority groups seeking mortgages within the U.S. Women of color have been victimized by subprime lending abuses more than any other group of homeowners.”
The culprits, it says, include “federally regulated depository institutions, state regulated institutions, non-regulated independent mortgage bankers and brokers, secondary market institutions, private investors, rating agencies, and appraisers.”
The report singles out police brutality and the negative experiences of racial and ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system as examples of racist practices. It says, “Disparities generated by racial profiling and concentration of law enforcement efforts in communities of color are exacerbated by racially discriminatory exercises of broad prosecutorial discretion in charging, plea bargaining, and prosecution of criminal offenses.”
Law enforcement officers “known to have engaged in even the most egregious forms of racist police torture and violence often go unprosecuted and unpunished, and lack of transparency and effectiveness in complaint and disciplinary mechanisms allows widespread abuses to go undeterred,” the report says.
It accuses the Department of Justice (DOJ) of taking “no action to launch a comprehensive investigation into the abusive treatment of hurricane evacuees by law enforcement and military personnel, which has been documented by law enforcement agencies and non-governmental organizations. Federal courts have dismissed claims associated with these events without reaching the claims’ merits.”
It points out that “Disadvantages faced by defendants of color are aggravated by profound failures in the fragmented, patchwork public defense system in the U.S. Notwithstanding the U.S. government’s claims that the right to counsel is guaranteed to all without discrimination based on race, public defense services in most parts of the United States, disproportionately relied up on by people of color, are dramatically under-funded and lacking in oversight. The federal government provides minimal to no financial support for indigent defense in state courts.”
Education is another target of USHRN’s criticism of the government report. It says, “More than five decades since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education the U.S. has failed to provide equal educational opportunity and a high quality, inclusive education to all students. Public schools today are more segregated than they were in 1970.”
It says that major factors contributing to racial inequality in educational opportunities include “under-performing, poorly financed schools that perpetuate minority students’ underachievement due to lower teacher quality, larger class size, and inadequate facilities; student assignment policies that promote segregation.”
It adds, “The legislative and executive branches of the federal government have all but abandoned school integration and diversity as a matter of policy. The public school system has become an entry point into the juvenile justice system, in particular for youth of color. It says this ‘school to prison pipeline’ is fed by “historical inequities, such as segregated education, concentrated poverty, and racial disparities in law enforcement. Racial disparities exist in suspension, expulsion and arrest rates in school which contribute to disproportionately high dropout rates and referrals to the justice system.”
Monday, December 10, 2007
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Perturbing the Judiciary? Hurting the Country’s Image? Shame on You!
By William Fisher
By now, most of us have heard the sickening story of the “Girl of Qatif” – the 20-year-old Saudi woman who was gang-raped at knifepoint by seven men and then sentenced to jail time and 200 lashes because she was alone in a car with a male who was not a relative.
Her plight has now become well known through extensive worldwide media coverage. The “Girl of Qatif” – her hometown – is only one of hundreds of others we’ll never hear about. She has become the poster child for much of what we in the West find incomprehensible about the way many Islamic countries define the “rule of law.”
But there is another victim here: The rape victim’s lawyer, a 36-year old named Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem. As if to magnify its incomprehensible sentence, the Saudi court has revoked his license because of "belligerent behavior, talking to the media for the purpose of perturbing the judiciary, and hurting the country's image." He faces a disciplinary hearing tomorrow, December 5, to determine the length of his suspension.
The victims in this bizarre case were originally sentenced to 90 lashes and the rapists were sentenced to between 10 months and five years in prison. Doing what we would expect any good defense lawyer to do, Lahem appealed the sentences. He asked for harsher sentences for the rapists and called the ruling against his client unjust. The court obliged by increasing the sentences of the two victims to six months in prison and 200 lashes, and nearly doubling the rapists’ sentences. The court told the woman her punishment was increased because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."
Lest we forget, Saudi Arabia is one of America’s best buddies. It’s the place where we buy much of the oil we import. And, as President Bush incessantly reminds us, it’s a staunch ally in the “Global War on Terror.”
But here we have another kind of terror: Terror in the Courtroom. It is a kind of terror that violates the most basic tenets of what America is supposed to stand for: the rule of law. It is a terror that springs from the Saudi Kingdom’s strict Wahhabe interpretation of Islamic, or Sharia, law.
This is not to say that American jurisprudence should be the model for the entire world. Our justice system is replete with gross miscarriages, witness our despicable performance at Guantanamo Bay, our courts’ frequent failures to appoint competent lawyers to represent poor defendants, our Kafkaesque sentencing guidelines, and the reluctance of too many of our judges to report prosecutorial misconduct to their state bar associations.
But, though it is not altogether unknown, our judges don’t often go after defense lawyers simply for being tenacious. They applaud them. They and we believe a robust defense is at the very heart of our adversarial system of justice.
Our judges expect defense lawyers to be "belligerent” – while respectful of the court. They may not like it, but they expect lawyers to talk to the media. And they expect to be “perturbed.” For most judges, this is water off a duck’s back. It goes with the territory.
And as for these kinds of issues damaging the country’s image, we have to wonder what could be more damaging than meting out a jail sentence and 200 lashes to a rape victim.
By now, most of us have heard the sickening story of the “Girl of Qatif” – the 20-year-old Saudi woman who was gang-raped at knifepoint by seven men and then sentenced to jail time and 200 lashes because she was alone in a car with a male who was not a relative.
Her plight has now become well known through extensive worldwide media coverage. The “Girl of Qatif” – her hometown – is only one of hundreds of others we’ll never hear about. She has become the poster child for much of what we in the West find incomprehensible about the way many Islamic countries define the “rule of law.”
But there is another victim here: The rape victim’s lawyer, a 36-year old named Abdul-Rahman al-Lahem. As if to magnify its incomprehensible sentence, the Saudi court has revoked his license because of "belligerent behavior, talking to the media for the purpose of perturbing the judiciary, and hurting the country's image." He faces a disciplinary hearing tomorrow, December 5, to determine the length of his suspension.
The victims in this bizarre case were originally sentenced to 90 lashes and the rapists were sentenced to between 10 months and five years in prison. Doing what we would expect any good defense lawyer to do, Lahem appealed the sentences. He asked for harsher sentences for the rapists and called the ruling against his client unjust. The court obliged by increasing the sentences of the two victims to six months in prison and 200 lashes, and nearly doubling the rapists’ sentences. The court told the woman her punishment was increased because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media."
Lest we forget, Saudi Arabia is one of America’s best buddies. It’s the place where we buy much of the oil we import. And, as President Bush incessantly reminds us, it’s a staunch ally in the “Global War on Terror.”
But here we have another kind of terror: Terror in the Courtroom. It is a kind of terror that violates the most basic tenets of what America is supposed to stand for: the rule of law. It is a terror that springs from the Saudi Kingdom’s strict Wahhabe interpretation of Islamic, or Sharia, law.
This is not to say that American jurisprudence should be the model for the entire world. Our justice system is replete with gross miscarriages, witness our despicable performance at Guantanamo Bay, our courts’ frequent failures to appoint competent lawyers to represent poor defendants, our Kafkaesque sentencing guidelines, and the reluctance of too many of our judges to report prosecutorial misconduct to their state bar associations.
But, though it is not altogether unknown, our judges don’t often go after defense lawyers simply for being tenacious. They applaud them. They and we believe a robust defense is at the very heart of our adversarial system of justice.
Our judges expect defense lawyers to be "belligerent” – while respectful of the court. They may not like it, but they expect lawyers to talk to the media. And they expect to be “perturbed.” For most judges, this is water off a duck’s back. It goes with the territory.
And as for these kinds of issues damaging the country’s image, we have to wonder what could be more damaging than meting out a jail sentence and 200 lashes to a rape victim.
Monday, December 03, 2007
BEYOND ANNAPOLIS – WHAT MODEL?
By William Fisher
In the aftermath of the Annapolis peace conference, foreign policy analysts and human rights advocates are finding considerable irony in Israel’s Arab neighbors pressing for freedom for Palestinians while their own citizens continue carry a heavy burden of unrelenting political repression.
Most of those representing Middle East and North African nations at the conference appear to endorse the idea of a “two-state solution” to the decades-old conflict: a separate and contiguous Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel.
But Arab delegates to Annapolis -- including Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen – have had little to say about the nature of the state that may emerge from negotiations set to begin soon between Israel and the Palestinians.
Critics of Israel’s neighbors point out that, with a few exceptions, the governments of these countries are unelected, authoritarian, often corrupt, and willing to use any means to stifle dissent. In most of these countries, a free press has been silenced, journalists and bloggers jailed, peaceful demonstrations disrupted by police and participants beaten and arrested, political parties effectively banned, elections rigged or non-existent, and citizens detained by security authorities without charges or lawyers and often tortured or simply “disappeared.”
Many of these observers see the absence of press freedom as emblematic of a broader freedom deficit in most of the Arab countries represented at Annapolis. In most Middle East and North African states, both the media and its messages are state-controlled. Many are state-owned. All have extensive and expensive programs designed to block satellite television and a wide range of Internet websites.
Critics point to Egypt and Saudi Arabia as among the worst offenders. Both countries are seen as close allies of the U.S. The Saudi Kingdom is the source of much of the oil consumed by Americans. And Egypt is second only to Israel in the amount of U.S. aid it receives each year – its reward for making peace with Israel in 1979.
In Egypt – which has lived under draconian “emergency laws” for more than 25 years – President Hosni Mubarak promised in 2006 a long-delayed press law reform designed to give journalists more freedom by decriminalizing media offences. But, according to Reporters Without Borders (FWB), a journalism advocacy organization, the new law “turned out to be just a show.” It says, “The media were quickly disillusioned by the many restrictions on their activities contained in the amendments to it. At least seven journalists were arrested during the year and dozens threatened or physically attacked.”
The group says Egyptian journalists “can now be jailed for up to five years for ‘publishing false news’, defaming the president or foreign heads of state or ‘undermining national institutions’ such as parliament and the armed forces.”
TV and print journalists attempting to cover public events are routinely harassed, arrested, threatened or beaten.
The Mubarak regime also continues its crackdown on Internet freedom. Hundreds of websites have been blocked, and at least seven cyber-dissidents jailed. The courts ruled that authorities could block, suspend or shut down websites considered a threat to “national security.” A number of bloggers have been jailed. One was detained for posting criticism of Islam and is still in prison. Another was jailed for four years after he used his weblog to criticize the country's top Islamic institution, al-Azhar university, and President Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.
Saudi Arabia also remains high on the list of countries that have aggressively cracked down on press freedom. The Saudi regime maintains very tight control of all news and self-censorship is pervasive. According to RWB, “Enterprising journalists pay dearly for the slightest criticism of the authorities or the policies of ‘brother Arab’ countries. The tame local media content means most Saudis get their news and information from foreign TV stations and the Internet.”
The Al-Jazeera TV channel is banned and was not allowed to cover the annual pilgrimage to Mecca for the fifth consecutive year. Like Egypt, Saudi Arabia also blocks more than a thousand Internet websites.
Two journalists were dismissed for going beyond the limits set by the
dominant ultra-conservative religious authorities. A writer for a government
daily, Arab News, was dismissed for writing about the atrocities perpetrated by Indonesia,a Muslim country, during its 1975-99 occupation of East Timor. The
editor of another government daily, Al Watan, was forced to resign as the paper’s editor after reporting that US troops were using the country’s military bases. The privately-owned daily Shams was closed for a month and its editor dismissed
for reprinting some of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed first carried by a
Danish paper in 2005.
Blogs are also becoming a growing problem for Saudi censors, who maintain a “blacklist” said to contain hundreds of personal websites. In 2005,
authorities tried to completely bar access to the country’s main blog-tool, blogger.com, but gave up after only a few days because of the ubiquity of the blogosphere. Today, government censors blogs they object to.
In the Reporters Without Borders annual survey of press freedom, Egypt
ranked 146th and Saudi Arabia 147th, out of a total of 169 countries worldwide.
Israel, including the occupied territories, ranked 44th.
Human rights groups have also been highly critical of Middle Eastern and
North African governments for imposing press restrictions, as well as for
other numerous and widespread human rights abuses.
Looking forward to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations emerging from the
Annapolis conference, Mary Shaw of Amnesty International USA is urging both
sides to respect the basic human rights of the other. She told us, “The parties should agree to the deployment of international human rights monitors in Israel
and the Occupied Territories, with a mandate to monitor and report publicly on compliance and on violations by either party of their commitments under international human rights and humanitarian law.”
But given the consistently flawed human rights records of Israel’s neighbors, critics wonder how eager any of the Annapolis delegates will be to endorse this proposal.
This is the question raised by the Egyptian-born journalist and lecturer
Mona Eltahawi, Distinguished Visiting Professor at the American University
in Cairo,who has lived in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
She told us, “When I was a Jerusalem-based Reuters correspondent in 1998, many Palestinians would tell me they wanted a future Palestinian state to be like Israel. They meant an open and democratic country. I thought it was ironic that their ‘role model’ state was the one occupying them.”
Ms. Eltahawy, who is a contributor to the Washington Post’s “On Faith” series, charged that the late Yasser Arafat and other Palestinian officials “modeled a nascent Palestinian state on Egypt, Jordan and other repressive Arab neighbors. Arafat introduced military trials and Palestinians were horrified to discover that the Palestinian Authority, and not just Israel, also detained and tortured Palestinians with often little reason. I would hear from Palestinians that it was worse for them when their fellow Palestinians were the ones doing the torture.”
She added, “After years of struggle and sacrifice for Palestine, Palestinians deserve a free and democratic state. I hope they insist it be nothing like the Arab states that have fought several wars with Israel ostensibly in the name of such a Palestinian state.”
In the aftermath of the Annapolis peace conference, foreign policy analysts and human rights advocates are finding considerable irony in Israel’s Arab neighbors pressing for freedom for Palestinians while their own citizens continue carry a heavy burden of unrelenting political repression.
Most of those representing Middle East and North African nations at the conference appear to endorse the idea of a “two-state solution” to the decades-old conflict: a separate and contiguous Palestinian state living in peace alongside Israel.
But Arab delegates to Annapolis -- including Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen – have had little to say about the nature of the state that may emerge from negotiations set to begin soon between Israel and the Palestinians.
Critics of Israel’s neighbors point out that, with a few exceptions, the governments of these countries are unelected, authoritarian, often corrupt, and willing to use any means to stifle dissent. In most of these countries, a free press has been silenced, journalists and bloggers jailed, peaceful demonstrations disrupted by police and participants beaten and arrested, political parties effectively banned, elections rigged or non-existent, and citizens detained by security authorities without charges or lawyers and often tortured or simply “disappeared.”
Many of these observers see the absence of press freedom as emblematic of a broader freedom deficit in most of the Arab countries represented at Annapolis. In most Middle East and North African states, both the media and its messages are state-controlled. Many are state-owned. All have extensive and expensive programs designed to block satellite television and a wide range of Internet websites.
Critics point to Egypt and Saudi Arabia as among the worst offenders. Both countries are seen as close allies of the U.S. The Saudi Kingdom is the source of much of the oil consumed by Americans. And Egypt is second only to Israel in the amount of U.S. aid it receives each year – its reward for making peace with Israel in 1979.
In Egypt – which has lived under draconian “emergency laws” for more than 25 years – President Hosni Mubarak promised in 2006 a long-delayed press law reform designed to give journalists more freedom by decriminalizing media offences. But, according to Reporters Without Borders (FWB), a journalism advocacy organization, the new law “turned out to be just a show.” It says, “The media were quickly disillusioned by the many restrictions on their activities contained in the amendments to it. At least seven journalists were arrested during the year and dozens threatened or physically attacked.”
The group says Egyptian journalists “can now be jailed for up to five years for ‘publishing false news’, defaming the president or foreign heads of state or ‘undermining national institutions’ such as parliament and the armed forces.”
TV and print journalists attempting to cover public events are routinely harassed, arrested, threatened or beaten.
The Mubarak regime also continues its crackdown on Internet freedom. Hundreds of websites have been blocked, and at least seven cyber-dissidents jailed. The courts ruled that authorities could block, suspend or shut down websites considered a threat to “national security.” A number of bloggers have been jailed. One was detained for posting criticism of Islam and is still in prison. Another was jailed for four years after he used his weblog to criticize the country's top Islamic institution, al-Azhar university, and President Mubarak, whom he called a dictator.
Saudi Arabia also remains high on the list of countries that have aggressively cracked down on press freedom. The Saudi regime maintains very tight control of all news and self-censorship is pervasive. According to RWB, “Enterprising journalists pay dearly for the slightest criticism of the authorities or the policies of ‘brother Arab’ countries. The tame local media content means most Saudis get their news and information from foreign TV stations and the Internet.”
The Al-Jazeera TV channel is banned and was not allowed to cover the annual pilgrimage to Mecca for the fifth consecutive year. Like Egypt, Saudi Arabia also blocks more than a thousand Internet websites.
Two journalists were dismissed for going beyond the limits set by the
dominant ultra-conservative religious authorities. A writer for a government
daily, Arab News, was dismissed for writing about the atrocities perpetrated by Indonesia,a Muslim country, during its 1975-99 occupation of East Timor. The
editor of another government daily, Al Watan, was forced to resign as the paper’s editor after reporting that US troops were using the country’s military bases. The privately-owned daily Shams was closed for a month and its editor dismissed
for reprinting some of the cartoons of the Prophet Mohamed first carried by a
Danish paper in 2005.
Blogs are also becoming a growing problem for Saudi censors, who maintain a “blacklist” said to contain hundreds of personal websites. In 2005,
authorities tried to completely bar access to the country’s main blog-tool, blogger.com, but gave up after only a few days because of the ubiquity of the blogosphere. Today, government censors blogs they object to.
In the Reporters Without Borders annual survey of press freedom, Egypt
ranked 146th and Saudi Arabia 147th, out of a total of 169 countries worldwide.
Israel, including the occupied territories, ranked 44th.
Human rights groups have also been highly critical of Middle Eastern and
North African governments for imposing press restrictions, as well as for
other numerous and widespread human rights abuses.
Looking forward to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations emerging from the
Annapolis conference, Mary Shaw of Amnesty International USA is urging both
sides to respect the basic human rights of the other. She told us, “The parties should agree to the deployment of international human rights monitors in Israel
and the Occupied Territories, with a mandate to monitor and report publicly on compliance and on violations by either party of their commitments under international human rights and humanitarian law.”
But given the consistently flawed human rights records of Israel’s neighbors, critics wonder how eager any of the Annapolis delegates will be to endorse this proposal.
This is the question raised by the Egyptian-born journalist and lecturer
Mona Eltahawi, Distinguished Visiting Professor at the American University
in Cairo,who has lived in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
She told us, “When I was a Jerusalem-based Reuters correspondent in 1998, many Palestinians would tell me they wanted a future Palestinian state to be like Israel. They meant an open and democratic country. I thought it was ironic that their ‘role model’ state was the one occupying them.”
Ms. Eltahawy, who is a contributor to the Washington Post’s “On Faith” series, charged that the late Yasser Arafat and other Palestinian officials “modeled a nascent Palestinian state on Egypt, Jordan and other repressive Arab neighbors. Arafat introduced military trials and Palestinians were horrified to discover that the Palestinian Authority, and not just Israel, also detained and tortured Palestinians with often little reason. I would hear from Palestinians that it was worse for them when their fellow Palestinians were the ones doing the torture.”
She added, “After years of struggle and sacrifice for Palestine, Palestinians deserve a free and democratic state. I hope they insist it be nothing like the Arab states that have fought several wars with Israel ostensibly in the name of such a Palestinian state.”
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
ANN OF A THOUSAND SLURS
By William Fisher
I’m shocked! No, outraged!
Ann Coulter, the extreme right-wing motormouth who insults everyone left of Ghengis Kahn, is being harassed.
A greeting card delivered to her home that read, “You self-aggrandizing sociopath! The only thing left after a nuclear war are you and cockroaches.” A phone message saying, “Hey, Ann, now that you’ve moved to Florida and you’re in your 40s, did you know that you can join the Florida National Guard? You love war until you have to put your own a** on the line. I don’t call that patriotism. I call it cowardice.”
And more. You get the idea.
So upset by all this was the Goddess with the flaxen hair that she’s had the local property appraiser remove the address of her $1.2 million home in Palm Beach, Florida, from public records.
According to that fount of scholarly discourse, Newsmax, Coulter’s is one of 2,674 properties in Palm Beach County whose owners are confidential in property appraiser records. Homeowners seeking anonymity must submit an affidavit stating why they believe they require it. Exemptions are made for people in occupations that could make them targets — including police officers, judges, prosecutors, and child abuse investigators — and for victims of domestic violence, stalking, or harassment.
I guess “harassment” would be Annie’s beef.
Oh, the shame of it all! To think that such things could happen in a country that so values reason and civil discourse! Whose politics are steeped in the laudable tradition of listening respectfully to views not our own, of making that special effort to walk in someone else’s shoes.
Surely, there can be no more perfect poster child for our devotion to these values than Annie-Get-Your-Gun Coulter. No better example of reason on steroids.
One has only to quickly peruse the titles of Annie’s books to confirm her dedication to walking the high road: "If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans,” “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,” “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).”
Or read some of the quotes from her recent columns and speeches:
On Jews: "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say." --arguing that it would be better if we were all Christian.”
On terrorists: Or, in responding to terrorists "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
On women: "I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
On Liberals: "With their infernal racial set-asides, racial quotas, and race norming, liberals share many of the Klan's premises. The Klan sees the world in terms of race and ethnicity. So do liberals! Indeed, liberals and white supremacists are the only people left in America who are neurotically obsessed with race….”
On John Edwards: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
Predictably, I don’t agree with Ms. C. all that often. And my guess is that she wouldn’t agree with too many of my views either. Except one: The free speech part of the Constitution.
Because without it, she wouldn’t be living in a confidential Palm Beach mansion.
I’m shocked! No, outraged!
Ann Coulter, the extreme right-wing motormouth who insults everyone left of Ghengis Kahn, is being harassed.
A greeting card delivered to her home that read, “You self-aggrandizing sociopath! The only thing left after a nuclear war are you and cockroaches.” A phone message saying, “Hey, Ann, now that you’ve moved to Florida and you’re in your 40s, did you know that you can join the Florida National Guard? You love war until you have to put your own a** on the line. I don’t call that patriotism. I call it cowardice.”
And more. You get the idea.
So upset by all this was the Goddess with the flaxen hair that she’s had the local property appraiser remove the address of her $1.2 million home in Palm Beach, Florida, from public records.
According to that fount of scholarly discourse, Newsmax, Coulter’s is one of 2,674 properties in Palm Beach County whose owners are confidential in property appraiser records. Homeowners seeking anonymity must submit an affidavit stating why they believe they require it. Exemptions are made for people in occupations that could make them targets — including police officers, judges, prosecutors, and child abuse investigators — and for victims of domestic violence, stalking, or harassment.
I guess “harassment” would be Annie’s beef.
Oh, the shame of it all! To think that such things could happen in a country that so values reason and civil discourse! Whose politics are steeped in the laudable tradition of listening respectfully to views not our own, of making that special effort to walk in someone else’s shoes.
Surely, there can be no more perfect poster child for our devotion to these values than Annie-Get-Your-Gun Coulter. No better example of reason on steroids.
One has only to quickly peruse the titles of Annie’s books to confirm her dedication to walking the high road: "If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans,” “Godless: The Church of Liberalism,” “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism,” “How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must).”
Or read some of the quotes from her recent columns and speeches:
On Jews: "We just want Jews to be perfected, as they say." --arguing that it would be better if we were all Christian.”
On terrorists: Or, in responding to terrorists "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
On women: "I think [women] should be armed but should not [be allowed to] vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned. They have a lot of ideas on how to spend it. And when they take these polls, it's always more money on education, more money on child care, more money on day care."
On Liberals: "With their infernal racial set-asides, racial quotas, and race norming, liberals share many of the Klan's premises. The Klan sees the world in terms of race and ethnicity. So do liberals! Indeed, liberals and white supremacists are the only people left in America who are neurotically obsessed with race….”
On John Edwards: “I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.”
Predictably, I don’t agree with Ms. C. all that often. And my guess is that she wouldn’t agree with too many of my views either. Except one: The free speech part of the Constitution.
Because without it, she wouldn’t be living in a confidential Palm Beach mansion.
Monday, November 26, 2007
PATRIOT ACT LITE?
By William Fisher
Civil liberatarians are worried that a little-known anti-terrorism bill now making its way through Congress with virtually no debate could be planting the seeds of another USA Patriot Act, which was hurriedly enacted into law after the Al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001.
The “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act,” co-authored by the former chair of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Jane Harmon (D-California), passed the House by an overwhelming 400-6 vote last month, and will soon be considered by the Senate.
The bill’s co-author is Congressman David Reichert (R-Washington). The Senate version is under construction by Susan Collins of Maine, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which is chaired by the hawkish Connecticut independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman. Harmon is chair of the House Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee.
Civil liberties groups including the American Civil Liberties Uinion (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) say the measure could herald a new government crackdown on dissident activity and infiltration of universities under the guise of fighting terrorism.
The CCR’s Kamau Franklin, a Racial Justice Fellow, told IPS, “This measure looks benign enough, but we should be concerned about where it will lead. It may well result in recommendations for new laws that criminalize radical thought and peaceful dissent, posing as academic study.”
Franklin added, “Crimes such as conspiracy or incitement to violence are already covered by both State and Federal statute. There is no need for additional criminal laws.”
He speculated that Congress “may want to get this measure passed and signed into law to head off peaceful demonstrations” at the upcoming Republican and Demoncratic Party conventions. “And no Congress person of either political party wants to vote against this bill and get labelled as being soft on terrorism.”
Harman’s bill would convene a 10-member national commission to study
“violent radicalization” (defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change”);and “homegrown terrorism” (defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened, use of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States […] to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”).
The bill also directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to designate a “center of excellence,” a university-based research center where academics, policy-makers, members of the private sector and other stakeholders can collaborate to better understand and prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Some experts are concerned that politics will unduly influence which institution DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff will designate.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Chertoff was head of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice (DOJ), and played a key role in implementing the Department’s roundup of hundreds of Muslims who were detained without charge, frequently abused, and denied access to legal counsel.
Critics of Harmon’s bill point out that Commission members would all be appointed by a high-ranking elected official. Those making these appointments would include the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Speaker and ranking member of the House, the Majority and Minority leaders of the Senate, and senior members of the House and Senate committees overseeing homeland security.
Critics also fear that the bill’s definitions of “extremism” and “terrorism” are too vague, its mandate too broad, and government-appointed commissions could be used as ideological cover to push through harsher laws.
Congressional sponsors of the bill claim it is limited in scope. "Though not a silver bullet, the legislation will help the nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take to stop it,". Harman told Congress.
But the bill's purpose goes beyond academic inquiry. In a Nov. 7 press release, Harman said, "the National Commission [will] propose to both Congress and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent."
According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Commission “will focus in on passing additional federal criminal penalties that are sweeping and inclusive in criminalizing dissent and protest work more surveillance on thought rather than on actions. Further, this bi-partisan attempt can set the ground for an even more acquiescent Congress to Presidential power, never wanting to look weak on terrorism.”
The Commission would be tasked with compiling information about what leads up to violent radicalization, and how to prevent or combat it with the intent to issue a final report with recommendations for both preventative and countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence in the United States.
At the end of its 18-month term, it would cede its work to one of the Homeland
Security Department’s university-based Centers of Excellence. The bill also
includes the creation of a new such center -- or the designation of an existing
one --for the study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the
United States.
Implementing the bill would likely cost some $22 million over the 2008-2012 period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But critics point out that the bill would duplicate work already being done in and out of government. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) already has a domestic terrorism unit; the U.S. intelligence community monitors the homegrown terrorists and overseas networks that might be reaching out to U.S. residents; and many universities and think-tanks are already specializing in studying the subject.
But Harman argues that a national commission on homegrown terrorism could benefit the country in much the same way as the 9/11 Commission, the Silberman/Robb Commission or other high-profile national security inquiries.
The bill defines “violent radicalization” as the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.”
But groups like the CCR are asking, “What is an extremist belief system? The term is left undefined and open to many interpretations -- socialism, anarchism, communism, nationalism, liberalism, etc. -- that would serve to undermine expressions that don’t fit within the allowable areas of debate. A direct action led by any group that blocks traffic can be looked upon as being coercive.”
The bill says the Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization,
ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the U.S. by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related
propaganda to U.S. citizens.”
While civil liberties groups agree that focus on the internet is crucial, they fear it could set up far more intrusive surveillance techniques, without warrants, and the potential to criminalize ideas and not actions could mean penalties for a stance rather than a criminal act.
The bill also uses the term “ideologically-based violence, meaning the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.”
But the CCR and other groups ask, “What is force? Is civil disobedience covered under that, if arrested at a protest rally and charged with disorderly conduct, obstructing governmental administration, or even assault, does that now open you up to possible terrorist charges in the future?”
Rep. Harman emphasizes that the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to protect the constitutional and civil liberties of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. But critics point out that it also “directs the DHS to write its own rules to protect civil rights and puts the Department’s office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in charge of making the rules for the commission and the research center as well as administering the audits.”
Some of the most egregious terrorist attacks in U.S. history have been carried out by American citizens, including the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
Civil liberatarians are worried that a little-known anti-terrorism bill now making its way through Congress with virtually no debate could be planting the seeds of another USA Patriot Act, which was hurriedly enacted into law after the Al Qaeda attacks of September 11, 2001.
The “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act,” co-authored by the former chair of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Jane Harmon (D-California), passed the House by an overwhelming 400-6 vote last month, and will soon be considered by the Senate.
The bill’s co-author is Congressman David Reichert (R-Washington). The Senate version is under construction by Susan Collins of Maine, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which is chaired by the hawkish Connecticut independent, Sen. Joe Lieberman. Harmon is chair of the House Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee.
Civil liberties groups including the American Civil Liberties Uinion (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) say the measure could herald a new government crackdown on dissident activity and infiltration of universities under the guise of fighting terrorism.
The CCR’s Kamau Franklin, a Racial Justice Fellow, told IPS, “This measure looks benign enough, but we should be concerned about where it will lead. It may well result in recommendations for new laws that criminalize radical thought and peaceful dissent, posing as academic study.”
Franklin added, “Crimes such as conspiracy or incitement to violence are already covered by both State and Federal statute. There is no need for additional criminal laws.”
He speculated that Congress “may want to get this measure passed and signed into law to head off peaceful demonstrations” at the upcoming Republican and Demoncratic Party conventions. “And no Congress person of either political party wants to vote against this bill and get labelled as being soft on terrorism.”
Harman’s bill would convene a 10-member national commission to study
“violent radicalization” (defined as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change”);and “homegrown terrorism” (defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened, use of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States […] to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”).
The bill also directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to designate a “center of excellence,” a university-based research center where academics, policy-makers, members of the private sector and other stakeholders can collaborate to better understand and prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Some experts are concerned that politics will unduly influence which institution DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff will designate.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Chertoff was head of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice (DOJ), and played a key role in implementing the Department’s roundup of hundreds of Muslims who were detained without charge, frequently abused, and denied access to legal counsel.
Critics of Harmon’s bill point out that Commission members would all be appointed by a high-ranking elected official. Those making these appointments would include the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Speaker and ranking member of the House, the Majority and Minority leaders of the Senate, and senior members of the House and Senate committees overseeing homeland security.
Critics also fear that the bill’s definitions of “extremism” and “terrorism” are too vague, its mandate too broad, and government-appointed commissions could be used as ideological cover to push through harsher laws.
Congressional sponsors of the bill claim it is limited in scope. "Though not a silver bullet, the legislation will help the nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take to stop it,". Harman told Congress.
But the bill's purpose goes beyond academic inquiry. In a Nov. 7 press release, Harman said, "the National Commission [will] propose to both Congress and [Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael] Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent."
According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Commission “will focus in on passing additional federal criminal penalties that are sweeping and inclusive in criminalizing dissent and protest work more surveillance on thought rather than on actions. Further, this bi-partisan attempt can set the ground for an even more acquiescent Congress to Presidential power, never wanting to look weak on terrorism.”
The Commission would be tasked with compiling information about what leads up to violent radicalization, and how to prevent or combat it with the intent to issue a final report with recommendations for both preventative and countermeasures to violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism and ideologically based violence in the United States.
At the end of its 18-month term, it would cede its work to one of the Homeland
Security Department’s university-based Centers of Excellence. The bill also
includes the creation of a new such center -- or the designation of an existing
one --for the study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the
United States.
Implementing the bill would likely cost some $22 million over the 2008-2012 period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But critics point out that the bill would duplicate work already being done in and out of government. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) already has a domestic terrorism unit; the U.S. intelligence community monitors the homegrown terrorists and overseas networks that might be reaching out to U.S. residents; and many universities and think-tanks are already specializing in studying the subject.
But Harman argues that a national commission on homegrown terrorism could benefit the country in much the same way as the 9/11 Commission, the Silberman/Robb Commission or other high-profile national security inquiries.
The bill defines “violent radicalization” as the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.”
But groups like the CCR are asking, “What is an extremist belief system? The term is left undefined and open to many interpretations -- socialism, anarchism, communism, nationalism, liberalism, etc. -- that would serve to undermine expressions that don’t fit within the allowable areas of debate. A direct action led by any group that blocks traffic can be looked upon as being coercive.”
The bill says the Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization,
ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the U.S. by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related
propaganda to U.S. citizens.”
While civil liberties groups agree that focus on the internet is crucial, they fear it could set up far more intrusive surveillance techniques, without warrants, and the potential to criminalize ideas and not actions could mean penalties for a stance rather than a criminal act.
The bill also uses the term “ideologically-based violence, meaning the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.”
But the CCR and other groups ask, “What is force? Is civil disobedience covered under that, if arrested at a protest rally and charged with disorderly conduct, obstructing governmental administration, or even assault, does that now open you up to possible terrorist charges in the future?”
Rep. Harman emphasizes that the bill requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to protect the constitutional and civil liberties of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. But critics point out that it also “directs the DHS to write its own rules to protect civil rights and puts the Department’s office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in charge of making the rules for the commission and the research center as well as administering the audits.”
Some of the most egregious terrorist attacks in U.S. history have been carried out by American citizens, including the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
GITMO LAWYERS KEEP TRYING
By William Fisher
The Bush Administration's legal justification for continuing to hold prisoners without charges at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be back in the U.S. Supreme Court - again - early next month.
And the decision of the nine Justices could bring the entire Bush Administration's detention policy down in flames - or not.
On December 5, the High Court will hear oral arguments in a case known as Boumediene v. Bush and al-Odah v. USA. Boumediene and al-Odah have been held in indefinite executive detention at Guantanamo since 2002 without charge or trial.
Boumediene and al-Odeh are Algerian-born Bosnian citizens who were detained in Bosnia in 2001 on the basis of a diplomatic note delivered by the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo to the Bosnian government. Though the note did not allege any supporting evidence, it asked the Bosnian government to arrest the men because of fears that they were involved in a plan to attack the Embassy. After an extensive investigation yielded no evidence to justify the arrests, the Bosnian Supreme Court ordered the men released for lack of evidence. But they were then immediately arrested and were transferred to Guantánamo.
Their case has been bouncing around the U.S. courts ever since. Earlier this year, after a series of lower court losses, the detainees sought review of their case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In April, the high court declined to review the case. But two months later, in an unusual action taken only three times since the founding of the US, the Supreme Court reversed its own decision, agreeing to hear the case -- the third time the High Court will consider a case concerning the rights of detainees.
The core issue before the Court is whether the Military Commissions Act (MCA), hurriedly pushed through the Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2006, violates the U.S. Constitution by stripping the courts of jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions from the Guantánamo detainees.
The government will tell the high court that current law provides "is a fully adequate substitute for habeas corpus in this extraordinary wartime context."
Habeas corpus, or "The Great Writ," is one of the most fundamental protections of individual liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It has its origins in common law dating back to the time of the Magna Carta in 1215, and is a remedy that protects fundamental human rights, including the right not to be subjected to enforced disappearance, secret detention, arbitrary detention, unlawful transfer, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Several U.S. presidents have suspended this ancient right, including Abraham Lincoln during the U.S. Civil War. But it has always been restored by the judicial branch of government.
Embedded in the controversy over the Military Commission Act is the legality of executive bodies known as Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), which were established to determine whether the detainees held at Guantanamo were "properly detained" as "enemy combatants". The CSRTs were authorized by an order from the then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in 2004 -- some two and a half years after detentions began at Guantánamo.
Combat Status Review Tribunals consist of panels of three military officers who can consider any information, including information that is hearsay, classified, or that has been obtained under torture or other ill-treatment, in making their determinations. The detainee, held thousands of miles from home (or any battlefield) and virtually cut off from the outside world, does not have a lawyer or access to any classified evidence used against him. Critics charge that there is a presumption in favor of the government's information presented to the tribunal.
The CSRTs were established following one of the Bush Administration's major legal defeats. In 2004, in a case known as Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. courts had jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of the Guantánamo detainees.
The Bush Administration's prisoner detention policies have suffered a number of other legal setbacks. Arguably the most important case was known as Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In 2004, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the captured and detained former driver for Osama bin Laden, filed suit for a habeas corpus hearing in U.S. court. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hamdan.
The aggregate result of these various legal setbacks is that to date none of the more than 300 detainees still held in Guantánamo has had his detention reviewed in court. None of the over 400 detainees freed from the base to release or further custody in their own or other countries was transferred by judicial order. And there have been no trials of detainees. There has been one "conviction", based on a plea deal by an Australian detainee, who was quickly transferred back to his home country.
The CSRT process has also come in for harsh criticism by an Army reserve officer who served as a member of one such panel. In an affidavit, Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Abraham said the process is deeply flawed, relying on vague evidence prepared by poorly trained personnel, and is subject to undue pressure from the military chain of command.
Under the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), passed by Congress in 2005, judicial review of CSRT decisions is limited to a single court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Many in the legal and human rights communities see the upcoming arguments as potentially the first step in restoring one of America's founding tenets -- the rule of law - even to those whose goal might be to destroy the country.
Prof. David Cole of Georgetown University Law Center told IPS, "If our detentions of enemy combatants are ever to be accepted as legitimate by the rest of the world, we must be willing to conform our actions to basic principles of due process and fundamental fairness. Thus far, we have failed."
Cole's view is echoed by Prof. Peter Shane of the University of Ohio Law School. He told IPS, "When President Bush issued his November 2001 'Notice,' which set in motion the military commissions at Guantanamo, the Administration plainly hoped that the approach would provide a rough-and-ready version of 'Adjudication Lite' that, without anyone's interference, could provide the appearance of adhering to the rule of law without treating too fastidiously the rights of Guantanamo detainees."
Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild, expressed a similar opinion. She told IPS that the Supreme Court should "determine that the judicial review of the decisions of CSRTs do not provide an adequate substitute for constitutional habeas corpus."
Brian J. Foley, visiting associate professor at Drexel University College of Law, agrees. He told IPS that the CSRTs serve "no purpose other than to expand executive power. The CSRT simply rubberstamps the executive's earlier decision to imprison and interrogate suspects, by making it practically impossible for a prisoner to prove he is not an 'enemy combatant'."
The overwhelming view of the human rights community was expressed by Mary Shaw of Amnesty International USA. She told IPS, "The current system of legal tribunals suggests a lack of independent review, no guarantee of legal counsel, use of secret evidence that may be been obtained through unlawful methods such as torture, and no meaningful way for a defendant to confront the government's case against him. It's a no-win situation."
Some legal observers think there is another factor that might result in a ruling against the government. One source, who declined to be identified because he is not authorized to comment on the issue, told IPS, "The Supreme Court has an institutional aversion to being told by Congress or by the President which cases it can consider and which ones it can't. It's in the high court's DNA."
The Bush Administration's legal justification for continuing to hold prisoners without charges at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, will be back in the U.S. Supreme Court - again - early next month.
And the decision of the nine Justices could bring the entire Bush Administration's detention policy down in flames - or not.
On December 5, the High Court will hear oral arguments in a case known as Boumediene v. Bush and al-Odah v. USA. Boumediene and al-Odah have been held in indefinite executive detention at Guantanamo since 2002 without charge or trial.
Boumediene and al-Odeh are Algerian-born Bosnian citizens who were detained in Bosnia in 2001 on the basis of a diplomatic note delivered by the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo to the Bosnian government. Though the note did not allege any supporting evidence, it asked the Bosnian government to arrest the men because of fears that they were involved in a plan to attack the Embassy. After an extensive investigation yielded no evidence to justify the arrests, the Bosnian Supreme Court ordered the men released for lack of evidence. But they were then immediately arrested and were transferred to Guantánamo.
Their case has been bouncing around the U.S. courts ever since. Earlier this year, after a series of lower court losses, the detainees sought review of their case by the U.S. Supreme Court. In April, the high court declined to review the case. But two months later, in an unusual action taken only three times since the founding of the US, the Supreme Court reversed its own decision, agreeing to hear the case -- the third time the High Court will consider a case concerning the rights of detainees.
The core issue before the Court is whether the Military Commissions Act (MCA), hurriedly pushed through the Republican-controlled Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in October 2006, violates the U.S. Constitution by stripping the courts of jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions from the Guantánamo detainees.
The government will tell the high court that current law provides "is a fully adequate substitute for habeas corpus in this extraordinary wartime context."
Habeas corpus, or "The Great Writ," is one of the most fundamental protections of individual liberty guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It has its origins in common law dating back to the time of the Magna Carta in 1215, and is a remedy that protects fundamental human rights, including the right not to be subjected to enforced disappearance, secret detention, arbitrary detention, unlawful transfer, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Several U.S. presidents have suspended this ancient right, including Abraham Lincoln during the U.S. Civil War. But it has always been restored by the judicial branch of government.
Embedded in the controversy over the Military Commission Act is the legality of executive bodies known as Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), which were established to determine whether the detainees held at Guantanamo were "properly detained" as "enemy combatants". The CSRTs were authorized by an order from the then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in 2004 -- some two and a half years after detentions began at Guantánamo.
Combat Status Review Tribunals consist of panels of three military officers who can consider any information, including information that is hearsay, classified, or that has been obtained under torture or other ill-treatment, in making their determinations. The detainee, held thousands of miles from home (or any battlefield) and virtually cut off from the outside world, does not have a lawyer or access to any classified evidence used against him. Critics charge that there is a presumption in favor of the government's information presented to the tribunal.
The CSRTs were established following one of the Bush Administration's major legal defeats. In 2004, in a case known as Rasul v. Bush, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. courts had jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of the Guantánamo detainees.
The Bush Administration's prisoner detention policies have suffered a number of other legal setbacks. Arguably the most important case was known as Hamdan v Rumsfeld. In 2004, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the captured and detained former driver for Osama bin Laden, filed suit for a habeas corpus hearing in U.S. court. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hamdan.
The aggregate result of these various legal setbacks is that to date none of the more than 300 detainees still held in Guantánamo has had his detention reviewed in court. None of the over 400 detainees freed from the base to release or further custody in their own or other countries was transferred by judicial order. And there have been no trials of detainees. There has been one "conviction", based on a plea deal by an Australian detainee, who was quickly transferred back to his home country.
The CSRT process has also come in for harsh criticism by an Army reserve officer who served as a member of one such panel. In an affidavit, Lieutenant Colonel Stephen Abraham said the process is deeply flawed, relying on vague evidence prepared by poorly trained personnel, and is subject to undue pressure from the military chain of command.
Under the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), passed by Congress in 2005, judicial review of CSRT decisions is limited to a single court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Many in the legal and human rights communities see the upcoming arguments as potentially the first step in restoring one of America's founding tenets -- the rule of law - even to those whose goal might be to destroy the country.
Prof. David Cole of Georgetown University Law Center told IPS, "If our detentions of enemy combatants are ever to be accepted as legitimate by the rest of the world, we must be willing to conform our actions to basic principles of due process and fundamental fairness. Thus far, we have failed."
Cole's view is echoed by Prof. Peter Shane of the University of Ohio Law School. He told IPS, "When President Bush issued his November 2001 'Notice,' which set in motion the military commissions at Guantanamo, the Administration plainly hoped that the approach would provide a rough-and-ready version of 'Adjudication Lite' that, without anyone's interference, could provide the appearance of adhering to the rule of law without treating too fastidiously the rights of Guantanamo detainees."
Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law and president of the National Lawyers Guild, expressed a similar opinion. She told IPS that the Supreme Court should "determine that the judicial review of the decisions of CSRTs do not provide an adequate substitute for constitutional habeas corpus."
Brian J. Foley, visiting associate professor at Drexel University College of Law, agrees. He told IPS that the CSRTs serve "no purpose other than to expand executive power. The CSRT simply rubberstamps the executive's earlier decision to imprison and interrogate suspects, by making it practically impossible for a prisoner to prove he is not an 'enemy combatant'."
The overwhelming view of the human rights community was expressed by Mary Shaw of Amnesty International USA. She told IPS, "The current system of legal tribunals suggests a lack of independent review, no guarantee of legal counsel, use of secret evidence that may be been obtained through unlawful methods such as torture, and no meaningful way for a defendant to confront the government's case against him. It's a no-win situation."
Some legal observers think there is another factor that might result in a ruling against the government. One source, who declined to be identified because he is not authorized to comment on the issue, told IPS, "The Supreme Court has an institutional aversion to being told by Congress or by the President which cases it can consider and which ones it can't. It's in the high court's DNA."
Sunday, November 18, 2007
CHARITY BEGINS…WHERE?
By William Fisher
Forget the Red Cross. Forget the United Way. Forget your church building fund. Forget those Bangladesh cyclone victims.
There’s a far more urgent need, and your job is to step up to the plate and meet it.
Alberto Gonzales, our former Attorney General, is being investigated by the Justice Inspector General, who is looking into whether Gonzales misled Congress in sworn testimony about the National Security Agency’s “terrorist surveillance program”, and improperly sought to influence testimony of an aide, Monica M. Goodling, about last year's firings of nine U.S. attorneys.
But poor Al is broke. He can’t pay his lawyers.
So his friends – yes, he apparently still has quite a few – are setting up a legal defense fund. You will recall that Scooter Libby’s buddies did the same thing.
One of the founders of the Gonzales legal defense fund says poor Al “does not have the means to pay for his legal defense after a career spent mostly in public service.”
That news comes from one of those Gonzales friends, David G. Leitch. Leitch happens to be the top lawyer at the Ford Motor Company. In a begging-bowl email he sent to a list of Republican fatcats last month, Leitch asserted that
Gonzales is "innocent of any wrongdoing."
He said, "In the hyper-politicized atmosphere that has descended on Washington, an innocent man cannot simply trust that the truth will out. He must engage highly competent legal counsel to represent him. That costs money,money that Al Gonzales doesn't have."
Leitch solicited contributions of amounts from $500 to $5,000 to the Alberto R. Gonzales Legal Expense Trust.
Leitch also reported that Gonzales's attorney,George J. Terwilliger III of
White & Case in Washington, "has substantially reduced his fees to represent
Al Gonzales, but the costs will likely be high nonetheless."
Terwilliger, you might recall, was a leader of the Bush-Cheney legal team in the 2000Florida recount fight.
"We have been engaged to assist Judge Gonzales in his continued effort to provide assistance to the Department of Justice as it examines the Department's role in various programs and operations to combat the terrorist threat," Terwilliger told Newsweek. "An unbiased assessment of the facts will show that Judge Gonzales, while holding high public office during a time of great peril, worked to help maintain the safety and security of the American people and acted always with the intent and commitment to honor the rule of law."
In the interests of accuracy, we note that Gonzales has not yet been charged with any crime and champion his right to the best legal help he can find. That’s The American Way. And the least we can do for “the people’s lawyer.”
Checkbooks at the ready? After all, don’t we all owe poor Al our support in his time of need?
Lest we forget, Gonzales toiled for years in the loyal service of George W. Bush. He was Bush’s lawyer when Dubya was governor of Texas. The two of them spent a lot of time – some say up to five minutes per case – reviewing death sentences before they were carried out. He was rewarded with an appointment to the Texas Supreme Court.
When the governor became the president, what choice could have been more visionary than Al as White House Counsel? In that role, our former AG distinguished himself as the conveyor belt and chief rubber-stamp of recommendations from high-level Bush appointees in the Department of Justice to justify torture and the suspension of habeas corpus.
All this effort was not without its reward. Al got nominated and confirmed as our attorney general. As “the people’s lawyer,” Al outsourced to inexperienced ideologues the recruitment and screening of prospective career DOJ officers, presided over the outstanding legal scholarship used to justify warrantless snooping on phone calls and emails, trashing the Constitution’s checks and balances, continued unlimited expansion of executive power, and the still unexplained firings of nine US Attorneys.
Al had a problem, however: His memory. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his incantation, “I can’t recall,” might as well have been a pre-recorded announcement.
Al’s current predicament reminds me of a 1932 depression-era song, a plea from a once high-and-mighty magnate, now fallen on to hard times, “standing in line just waiting for bread.”
The lyrics were eerily prescient:
Once I built a railroad, I made it run,
Made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad, now it's done.
Brother, can you spare a dime?”
Say don't you remember? They called me Al.
It was Al all the time.
Why don't you remember? I'm your pal.
Say buddy, can you spare a dime?
So let’s all get behind our pal Al and his lawyers. Particularly in this holiday season of Peace on Earth and Good Will To Men, can you think of a better way to show our appreciation for everything Alberto Gonzales did for us?
Forget the Red Cross. Forget the United Way. Forget your church building fund. Forget those Bangladesh cyclone victims.
There’s a far more urgent need, and your job is to step up to the plate and meet it.
Alberto Gonzales, our former Attorney General, is being investigated by the Justice Inspector General, who is looking into whether Gonzales misled Congress in sworn testimony about the National Security Agency’s “terrorist surveillance program”, and improperly sought to influence testimony of an aide, Monica M. Goodling, about last year's firings of nine U.S. attorneys.
But poor Al is broke. He can’t pay his lawyers.
So his friends – yes, he apparently still has quite a few – are setting up a legal defense fund. You will recall that Scooter Libby’s buddies did the same thing.
One of the founders of the Gonzales legal defense fund says poor Al “does not have the means to pay for his legal defense after a career spent mostly in public service.”
That news comes from one of those Gonzales friends, David G. Leitch. Leitch happens to be the top lawyer at the Ford Motor Company. In a begging-bowl email he sent to a list of Republican fatcats last month, Leitch asserted that
Gonzales is "innocent of any wrongdoing."
He said, "In the hyper-politicized atmosphere that has descended on Washington, an innocent man cannot simply trust that the truth will out. He must engage highly competent legal counsel to represent him. That costs money,money that Al Gonzales doesn't have."
Leitch solicited contributions of amounts from $500 to $5,000 to the Alberto R. Gonzales Legal Expense Trust.
Leitch also reported that Gonzales's attorney,George J. Terwilliger III of
White & Case in Washington, "has substantially reduced his fees to represent
Al Gonzales, but the costs will likely be high nonetheless."
Terwilliger, you might recall, was a leader of the Bush-Cheney legal team in the 2000Florida recount fight.
"We have been engaged to assist Judge Gonzales in his continued effort to provide assistance to the Department of Justice as it examines the Department's role in various programs and operations to combat the terrorist threat," Terwilliger told Newsweek. "An unbiased assessment of the facts will show that Judge Gonzales, while holding high public office during a time of great peril, worked to help maintain the safety and security of the American people and acted always with the intent and commitment to honor the rule of law."
In the interests of accuracy, we note that Gonzales has not yet been charged with any crime and champion his right to the best legal help he can find. That’s The American Way. And the least we can do for “the people’s lawyer.”
Checkbooks at the ready? After all, don’t we all owe poor Al our support in his time of need?
Lest we forget, Gonzales toiled for years in the loyal service of George W. Bush. He was Bush’s lawyer when Dubya was governor of Texas. The two of them spent a lot of time – some say up to five minutes per case – reviewing death sentences before they were carried out. He was rewarded with an appointment to the Texas Supreme Court.
When the governor became the president, what choice could have been more visionary than Al as White House Counsel? In that role, our former AG distinguished himself as the conveyor belt and chief rubber-stamp of recommendations from high-level Bush appointees in the Department of Justice to justify torture and the suspension of habeas corpus.
All this effort was not without its reward. Al got nominated and confirmed as our attorney general. As “the people’s lawyer,” Al outsourced to inexperienced ideologues the recruitment and screening of prospective career DOJ officers, presided over the outstanding legal scholarship used to justify warrantless snooping on phone calls and emails, trashing the Constitution’s checks and balances, continued unlimited expansion of executive power, and the still unexplained firings of nine US Attorneys.
Al had a problem, however: His memory. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, his incantation, “I can’t recall,” might as well have been a pre-recorded announcement.
Al’s current predicament reminds me of a 1932 depression-era song, a plea from a once high-and-mighty magnate, now fallen on to hard times, “standing in line just waiting for bread.”
The lyrics were eerily prescient:
Once I built a railroad, I made it run,
Made it race against time.
Once I built a railroad, now it's done.
Brother, can you spare a dime?”
Say don't you remember? They called me Al.
It was Al all the time.
Why don't you remember? I'm your pal.
Say buddy, can you spare a dime?
So let’s all get behind our pal Al and his lawyers. Particularly in this holiday season of Peace on Earth and Good Will To Men, can you think of a better way to show our appreciation for everything Alberto Gonzales did for us?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
