Goodbye secret prisons, hello Guantanamo

September 6, 2006

At first blush, this sounds rather encouraging. But as with most announcements from the Bush White House, particularly about national security, context makes all the difference.

President Bush today announced the transfer to the Guantanamo Bay naval base of 14 al-Qaeda terrorist suspects previously held by the CIA in a secret detention program, and he called on Congress to pass legislation on special military tribunals so that they can be tried for crimes including the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

In a speech at the White House, Bush said the 14 include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 plot.

He said their transfer “means there are now no terrorists in the CIA program.”

Listening to the rhetoric, it all sounded pretty reasonable. Detainees will face charges (instead of indefinite detention without charges), have the presumption of innocence, be treated with “the humanity that they denied others,” and the Red Cross will be advised of their detention. The CIA’s so-called “black sites” will reportedly be shut down.

But TNR’s Spencer Ackerman offers a helpful look at the big picture.

However, look deeper and not only is the White House not giving an inch in the debate, the KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] Shift of 2006 actually takes a mile. That’s because, to be blunt, we have tortured the dickens (to use a Rumsfeldian locution) out of KSM. All Guantánamo detainees, according to the Supreme Court, have the right to at least some access to the U.S. legal system. KSM, therefore, will pose an interesting test: Should his probable trial reflect the legal doctrine of the “fruit of the poisoned tree” — that is, will evidence obtained through torture be admissible in the military tribunals or not? McCain’s Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 says “of course not!” but Bush indicated in his infamous “signing statement” that he thinks he has the right to torture whoever he pleases. Now Congress will face a very unpleasant question: Unless it rejiggers the military tribunals to bless torture/coercion, KSM and other Al Qaeda figures might in fact be set free by the courts. Is Bush so cynical as to force Congress into the odious position of either setting the stage for murderers to walk out of Gitmo or blessing torture? Of course he is!

Last thing. I’ll have more on this in a forthcoming piece, but the CIA wants very, very badly to get out of the detention business. It’s afraid that whatever administration follows Bush will prosecute operatives and officials for complying with illegal Bush administration policy. It may be that Bush and his aides see an opportunity to neutralize a whole bunch of threats at once. That would be kind of admirable if it weren’t, you know, evil.

Stay tuned.

September 6, 2006 at 4:36 pm

“It’s [CIA] afraid that whatever administration follows Bush will prosecute operatives and officials for complying with illegal Bush administration policy. It may be that Bush and his aides see an opportunity to neutralize a whole bunch of threats at once.”

Well, then I would suggest that the next administration have sort of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission similar to that held in South Africa post-apartheid. The CIA folks can have a chance to publicly confess about their forced attrocities, telling all, and those that do will not be subject to prosecution or loss of position.

“He said their transfer “means there are now no terrorists in the CIA program.””….

Question: Does that also mean that there are no people/enemy combatants/non-legal combatants/suspects/whatever in custody? I think they left themselves some serious wiggle room with that statement, and I would love to hear someone follow up for clarification that no person is being secretly held.

Um, is it just me or was the story up until now “What secret East European secret prisons?” I guess this si news to the BBC too http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5321606.stm.

Should we not start shuffling through archives of Bush administration statements regarding these secret CIA prisons and begin throwing thier statemetns back at them. If they cannot lose any more credibility it is our duty to take it from them.

Oh, and weren;t we supposed to have to close GITMO (heh-Gitmo) after the SCOTUS ruling on military tribunals? We are moving the world’s most dangerous terrorists to a prison we are supposed to close?

Ah, for the days when the right wing bloggers were writing posts about the Hamdan decision with “US ordered to surrender to terrorists by Supreme Court!!!” Now, when the Bush Administration claims it’s complying with said decision, nothing (AFAICT).

The fact that these “high profile” names were released…and that one might presume that the story will be paraded in the media for all to see…almost immediately after the President and the GOP have just rolled out their campaign strategy for the November midterm election seems all too convenient. Granted, it may well be coincidental but I’m not convinced. Nothing would serve the President better than having Americans see some “tangible” results of our effort to fight the war on terror at a time when he is attempting to convince them to keep the GOP in power.

http://www.thoughttheater.com

Uh, wasn’t revealing the existence of those prisons supposed to be a heinous act empowering our enemies and such a vile leak that the Justice Department was going to start investigating and maybe imprisoning journalists? Weren’t we accused of being disloyal Americans for even talking about them?

So, now it’s OK??

And is he really trying to get us to believe that there are were prisoners, but aren’t now, in the facilities that didn’t exist, but do now? Riiiight…

I just wish he’d make up his mind. First it’s Osama dead-or-alive, then it’s Osama’s not important, then it’s Osama is Hitler and Lenin. First it’s ‘what prisons?’, then it’s ‘talking about any such possible prisons is treasonable’, then it’s ‘Oh, by the way, we emptied out those prisons, … you know, the CIA ones?’

If I was at CIA I would sooo be looking for a way to get out of this. They have a bad reputation in this area (as well as a few others), deservedly or not deservedly, and they should be afraid of what will happen under the next administration – especially if it is not a Republican one that has an interest in papering over the previous president’s policies.

Screw a Truth and Reconciliation Commission – up against the wall, motherfuckers! If there are any scum so low they are undeserving of the protections of the United States, it is these low bastards who “only followed orders.” And the pissants – starting with Bush – who ordered it. I would love to see the next President take the oath and as his first act have W arrested for war crimes before he can leave the podium. He and fatass Dickless both led off in chains, forget handcuffs, for their treason against the Constitution.

Erm… Tom, if you don’t let the small fry off the hook, you’ll never be able to nail the bigger fry, because they’ll close ranks, circle the wagons, whatever. Besides, we’ll need them on our side in other ways (not just as witnesses) as well. So, let them off lightly and focus on the real badasses.

While I may find such tactics as distasteful as you do, one has to be practical.

Is it really the case that without the “poisoned fruit” of evidence extracted via torture, they don’t have *anything* against KSM and his ilk? Not even a DUI or an equipment violation? I’d think someone as imaginative as Alberto Gonzales could dream *something* up.

Ugh: “Now, when the Bush Administration claims it’s complying with said decision, nothing”

Worse than nothing. Rush Limbaugh crowed, as if a rooster, when Bush today announced his tribunals bill. As if Rush was waiting for Congressional approval all along.

What I don’t get is: if we didn’t torture these guys or do anything illegal, why did we need CIA prisons? Why were they so crucial, as Bush claims, as if nothing else would suffice? And why are there still detainees in limbo at Gitmo? If everything we’re doing is aboveboard, as promised, then we can’t lose by giving them access to regular courts.

So—Herr Bush is now releasing high-profile combatants who were in “non-existent” prisons. He denied their existence in the past; are we to believe that they “won’t exist” tomorrow?

Quick queries on this should include:

1.) Where are these detention centers located? If they’re “closed down,” then there’s really nothing to hide—not even from the enemy.

2.) Where did they find CIA personnel who never heard the phrase “war crimes” before? Who never heard of such things as “international law” or “Geneva”—or fundamental human rights?

3.) Who were the individuals that ran these facilities; that operated these facilities; that worked in and knew about these facilities? Each and every one ought to be brought before the Hague—and let the world know that “the Spirit of Justice Served” still exists today. The excuse of “I was only following orders” was not acceptable for those who operated the concentration camps of the previous century—not even the guards—and it is no less acceptable in this century. Let them be brought to Justice—beginning with “The Gentleman on Pennsylvania Avenue” who five years ago beat those words into the very thoughts of every American man, woman, and child.

Yes, Herr Bush—“Let Justice be Served….”

I am simply horrified and mortified to be in a country that has been running secret prisons, torturing prisoners, and holding people without either charging them or treating them as POWs and living up to the Geneva conventions. This is not what America stands for. Bush and perhaps about a dozen of his top people should be turned over to the Hague, because we are so clearly unwilling to clean our own house.

ROLMAO … you limo liberals just got punked by GWB… again. Checkmate on the game of painting Bush & Co weak on National Defense as these Islamo Jehadi freaks get dumped right into your laps for legal disposition and retribution for 9/11..

Maybe Bush should just boil the War on Terrorism down to just 2 simple words so you can comprehend what world events scream as the only solution for World Peace… DISARM ISLAM.

Mike H, dahlin’

Will “I’ll teach you democracy if I have to kill every last one of you” suit you as an alternative to the — imposssible — “disarm Islam”?

Actually, Mike H. brings up a real point. This is not really a move in the ‘war on terror’ but a move in the ‘keep control of congress so that no one in the Annie’s-Secret-Circle goes to jail’.

I’m sure Rove thinks this is a brilliant triangulation. ‘Corner Dems’, ‘Switch focus from the utter failure that is Iraq’, ‘Use GOP sheep in Congress to end run the constitution’…

Rather it is a brilliant table turn or the boy who cried wolf will depend mostly on the public. Yes, we know that a segment of braindead snivelling chickenshits will crap themselves and fall over in a faint every time Bush and Co. shout ‘Boo’ – even if they do so from the same hiding place with the same mask for 1,000 years. But will the public at large fail to notice that the interest is feigned, the timing is self serving, and ‘Blame Clinton’ is the same excuse they have been using for five years every time a sniveling coward has the audacity to lift his head slightly despite the color coded terror alert and whine about the jet streaks the last baseless ‘Boo’ left in his drawers.

I’m hopeful. Deception and ignorance don’t help, but one thing the bulk of Americans don’t like to be is fearful sheep. I’m thinking that the ‘Lay low and take it up the butt at the gas pump and in your paycheck while I protect you from the same boogie man I’ve been pulling out of the closet as needed for five years’ is getting thin.

-jjf

I think the only way this country will redeem itself, is exactly what several posters, here, have suggested: Bush, Cheney et alia have to be tried for war crimes.

But, as for protecting “small fry” to get them — that’s the wrong tactic.

Better to pack Bush et alia off to Guantanamo, and let him rot, without trial or representation. That would make Scalia and Alito raving civil libertarians, in a heartbeat. When the Federalist Society manages to get the Habeas Corpus case thru the Courts and the Constitution is fully restored by all the necessary precedents and case law, then Bush over to the Hague.

Wow…Mikey stops in, throws a bit of raw meat (I don’t do roadkill, Mikey—lemme know when you’ve got something that’ll at least pass USDA inspection—for human consumption, that is), and then probably hopes that we’ll all go tripping over to his “site” and buy worthless stuff from him.

Solutions for the “High-Profile Detainees:” If they were, indeed, involved in the 9/11 plot, then try them for making aggressive war against civilians—and then, regardless of what “Islam” says—hang them for their atrocities.

If the Rule of Law dictates that any of Herr Bush’s gang have committed atrocities worthy of the same punishment, then let that same punishment be meted out against them—and this being regardless of what “Christianity” says.

No one—not even a President of the United States—can be above the Rule of Law….

“CIA wants very, very badly to get out of the detention business.” – Spencer Ackerman

Wow! Someone finally noticing that the first line of defense, our HUMINT Intelligence Agency, is starting to suffer from bad morale.

Considering Cheney has done everything he can to destroy them for not providing him with the lies for the Iraq war, I’m surprised we have an CIA at all.

I find Mike H’s choice of words interesting, and (unintentionally?) revealing.

Why is it that the wingnuts see all this as a giant game? It’s like the superbowl features liberal vs. neocon, and the neocons are all in their little cheerleader getups and pompoms rooting for their side.

As far as I’m concerned, this is no game, and there are no winners – we all lose as long as every f***ing issue gets used as a political football.

I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but this makes me sick.

Comments are closed.