Jump to content
Washington DC Message Boards

American Military Troops Serving At Guantanamo Bay


Guest John Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest John Reid

U.S. Senator George Allen (R-VA) today responded to the disparaging remarks made Tuesday by the Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Il) regarding the American military troops serving at Guantanamo Bay. Senator Durbin likened the actions of U.S. soldiers at the military base to those of “Nazis, Soviets, in their Gulags,” and regimes that had “no concern for human beings.”

 

Allen said, “Senator Durbin’s remarks were reprehensible. To compare our brave and honorable American troops to the Nazis and other brutal, murderous regimes is outrageous and irresponsible. It is appalling to me that a U.S. Senator would disparage our men and women in uniform in this way. This hateful assertion can be demoralizing to our brave troops and their families praying for their loved one’s safety back home. Moreover, it must bring glee to terrorists and those who are enemies of America.

 

“The patriots serving in Guantanamo and elsewhere around the world are truly some of the finest that our nation has to offer and I’m so proud of the way they represent America. I believe Senator Durbin should ask for forgiveness from the troops and their families for his absurd, deplorable analogy.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Thanks for reprinting George Allen's words. My father told me about Allen's response, but I didn't actually get an opportunity to read his exact words. I say amen to his words and am thankful Virginia has a great senator like him to represent Virginia. I am so sick of the negative comments coming out of the mouths of so many of our political leaders mouths. They really should be ashamed of themselves, and I hope that the people they claim they represent, let them know exactly how they feel about their unpatriotic remarks. Come on - Claiming quatanamo is like Nazi Germany??? I really believe that Dick Durbin needs a history lesson. Did he really graduate from High School ?????? I'm sure I learned of the horrers of WWII from High School.

 

At guatanamo they are given nourishment and are allowed proper medical treatment when sick. They have a place to sleep and are not crammed into every corner. They are not forced to work as slaves every day. I could go on, but it sickens me at the ignorance of Mr. Durban and others like him.

 

As for George Allen - I hear a Presidential Candidate in his voice and someone who I would be honored to call our next Comander in Chief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Woman On Target,

You might like this article by the Lynchburg News & Advance

 

 

Some Virginians believe that Senator George Allen, R-Va., did not go far enough in sponsoring a Senate resolution apologizing for that body’s failure decades ago to outlaw lynching. They believe that he also owes a personal apology to blacks for the display of a hangman’s noose in his law office more than a dozen years ago, along with a Confederate flag at his log house in Earlysville in Albemarle County.

 

They make a good point for this member of the Senate whose name keeps showing up on the GOP’s long list of potential presidential contenders in 2008.

 

Allen, along with Senator Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat, spearheaded the apology for the Senate’s refusal to support anti-lynching legislation that could have stemmed the tide of thousands of racially motivated murders from 1890 to 1964.

 

In pushing the apology that was approved in June, Allen denounced with passion the lynching of more than 4,000 people, mostly blacks, during the era that ended for the most part with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

Between 1882 and 1968, according to the resolution, at least 200 separate bills were introduced in Congress to make lynching a federal crime. The House of Representatives passed three of those bills, but a group of senators opposed to such federal protection (it was a matter of state’s rights, they said) blocked the legislation through filibusters and other tactics up through the 1950s.

 

Seven presidents had asked Congress to make lynching a federal offense.

 

Allen has said the underlying reason for taking on the resolution is for the United States to acknowledge the “warts” of its own history as it strives to promote freedom and democracy around the world.

 

“We’re proud of our history in Virginia and America,” he told reporters last fall. “But there are certain things you ought to apologize for.”

 

He’s right. And he deserves credit for lending his assistance to the resolution’s passage. Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said of the effort, “It shows a great level of moral courage to recognize the wrongdoing and to feel a sense of remorse that would actually have you apologize.”

 

But his detractors have also made an important point about his own personal history. One of them is New Hampshire state Representative Claire Clarke who suggested during Allen’s recent trip to that presidential proving ground that voting for the apology “doesn’t whitewash the records of politicians who have embraced hate and racism in their own lives.”

 

Clarke, who is black, went on to ask about Allen’s noose and the Confederate flag. “Does he think sponsorship of this bill absolves him of his past actions?”

 

Dismissing much of the criticism he has received as purely partisan, Allen explained the Confederate flag as part of his collection of historic flags. Maybe.

 

What about the noose? The native Californian said his law office was decorated with Old West items, and someone “brought this rope in with a slip knot, and it was in my secretary’s office.” Sort of a tough law and order symbol, but doesn’t that run counter to the “wart” of lynching and racism he was trying to remove with the resolution?

 

Linda Thomas of Caroline County, president of the Virginia NAACP, succinctly offered both sides of Allen’s effort when she told Media General News Service, “There appeared to be some sincerity” in his talking about gaining greater insight and advocating for the Senate apology.

 

But she has not forgiven part of Allen’s past. Nor should she.

 

The display of a noose and a Confederate flag, she said, “has a chilling effect and a sickening effect on African-Americans who saw those symbols as symbols of terrorism.”

 

“An apology,” Thomas said, “would be in order.” In much the same way as the Senate resolution apologizes to the victims of lynchings and their descendants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
Guest blingbling

BUSH IS GOING DOWN

 

Guantanamo Bay inmates scored a major victory in America's highest court today. Human rights groups are among those hailing the Supreme Court ruling on U.S. military tribunals.

 

The Court ruled that that the Geneva Convention does apply in the case of prisoners like Salim Hamed Hamdan, an admitted supporter of al-Qaeda captured in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration has spent almost five years arguing just the opposite. And if the Geneva convention applies in the case of Hamdan, it presumably applies for all 15,000 detainees held worldwide in the war on terror.

 

The secretary-general of the Council of Europe also welcomed the decision. Terry Davis said the false choice between security and the rule of law had alienated America's allies and galvanized its enemies in the war against terrorism.

 

Sen. John Warner (R-VA): "I'm sure we will look at the means to provide them justice under our law."

 

Sen. Russell Feingold (D-WI): "The Supreme Court's decision concerning military commissions at Guantanamo Bay is a major rebuke to an administration that has too often disregarded the rule of law."

 

Amnesty International says the decision is a victory for the rule of law and human rights. The group calls for President Bush to bring all of its "war on terror" policies into full compliance with U.S. and international law.

 

Human Rights Watch says the ruling upholds the U.S. tradition of fair trials and advances the important fight against terrorism. It says the decision may require that greater legal protections be given to all detainees.

 

Zachary Katznelson (senior counsel for Reprieve, which provides free legal representation to 36 Guantanamo Bay detainees): "It sends a message loud and clear that what President Bush has been doing in the war on terror is illegal. If we are going to win this fight, it is important that we fight it with the rule of law and by the ideals on which the U.S. stands."

 

Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA): "It's now time for the Bush administration to close the Guantanamo prison, and either return the prisoners to their home countries or bring them to justice in the United States."

 

The US Supreme Court ruled the military commissions set up by the US government to prosecute Hicks and other "enemy combatants" were unlawful.

 

"The military commission at issue lacks the power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ (the Uniform Code of Military Justice) and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949," Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote.

 

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT):"The justices have given our system a constitutional tonic that is sorely needed if we are to counter terrorism effectively, efficiently and with American values."

 

ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero: "The Supreme Court has made clear that the executive branch does not have a blank check in the war on terror and may not run roughshod over the nation's legal system."

 

Jose Diaz (Spokesman for the U.N. high commissioner for human rights): "It would seem to be a vindication of the need for vigilance in the protection of all human rights, including those of persons suspected of terrorism."

 

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA): "As we approach the Fourth of July, it is entirely appropriate that the Supreme Court has reminded the president and Secretary Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law, even when our country is at war."

 

Michael Ratner (President of the Center for Constitutional Rights) "What this says to the administration is that you can no longer simply decide arbitrarily what you want to do with people, you have to obey the dictates of the Geneva Convention, common article 3, which means you have to treat people humanely according to the convention."

 

The Supreme Court justices voted 5-3.

 

However, soon after the court revealed its decision, US President George W Bush and other US government officials hinted they would go to the US Congress to remedy the concerns raised by the Supreme Court.

 

If successful, Hicks and other Guantanamo inmates could still face the military commissions.

 

"We have people looking at it right now to determine how we can work with Congress if that's available to solve the problem," US President George W Bush told reporters at a press conference at the White House.

 

Senior US administration officials went a step further, arguing the 185 page opinion released by the Supreme Court included an "explicit invitation of the court to work with Congress".

 

Hicks, who has been locked up at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for four-and-a-half years, would not be freed because of the Supreme Court decision, the senior US official, who declined to be named, added.

 

The US government maintained the right to hold "enemy combatants" such as Hicks for as long as deemed necessary.

 

The Supreme Court decision also would not force the Guantanamo Bay prison to be shut down.

 

"Today's decision does not in any way affect the ability of the President, the commander in chief, to detain enemy combatants," the senior US administration official said.

 

"It goes only to trial by military commission and so the result of today's opinion will have no direct impact on Mr Hicks's detention or Mr Hamdan's detention or any other detainee's detention."

 

The Supreme Court ruling involved Guantanamo Bay inmate Salim Hamdan, a Yemeni national accused of being al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden's personal driver and bodyguard.

 

The fallout from the landmark case would flow on to Hicks and other Guantanamo inmates set to be prosecuted by the US at military commissions.

 

The Supreme Court pointed out the military commissions included procedures not allowed in civilian courts.

 

Under the commission rules, Hicks or his civilian lawyers could be excluded from hearing evidence against him if it was deemed "classified".

 

Hicks's US military appointed lawyer, Major Michael Mori, called on the Australian government to lobby the US for Hicks to be returned to Australia following the court decision.

 

"It's time for Australia to stick up for an Australian citizen," Major Mori told AAP.

 

The court decision leaves Hicks, Hamdan and other Guantanamo inmates in limbo.

 

Hicks was due to go before the military commission last November, but it was put on hold while Hamdan's court challenge was finalised.

 

Maj Mori said the British government successfully pushed for the release of its citizens at Guantanamo and it was now up to the Australian government to do the same with Hicks.

 

"The ball is now in the Australian government's court," Maj Mori said.

 

"Just yesterday, (Australian Foreign Minister) Alexander Downer said they would reconsider their decision if the Supreme Court found the commissions were unacceptable."

 

Hicks's lawyers have argued the court martial and civilian court systems will offer Hicks a better chance of acquittal as the military commissions were "rigged".

 

"The court marital is what we've asked for all along," Maj Mori said.

 

Maj Mori said he would travel to Guantanamo as soon as possible to break the news of the court victory to Hicks.

 

"I am going to try and get down to David fairly soon," Maj Mori said.

 

"In the near future."

 

Hicks, originally from Adelaide, was captured among Taliban forces in Afghanistan in December 2001.

 

He has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest how come

How come it sounds like most bling bling posts are against the US and for out enemy? I am not picking right or wrong here. I just dont feel bad after seeing the videos of the beheadings. Want me to email it to you? Than you can decide yourself which is worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest human_*

I too would LOVE to know why she is so anti U.S. ?

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How come it sounds like most bling bling posts are against the US and for out enemy? I am not picking right or wrong here. I just dont feel bad after seeing the videos of the beheadings. Want me to email it to you? Than you can decide yourself which is worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest blingbling

You two are fools. I love my city and my country. I just do not love bush and his hood administration. You need to go sit down and watch FOX Neocon propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest blingbling

I just dont feel bad after seeing the videos of the beheadings. Want me to email it to you? Than you can decide yourself which is worse.

 

Why don't you try walking down Southeast alone sometime. Fix the problems at home, before messing with people that do not want us there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest It doesnt seem like it

I am a fool because every post I read does not seem like you love your country. I dont think Bush is always right but he is in charge so I at least Back him instead of going on a message board and bashing him but yet you dont want to get out and do anything about it. What are we supposed to do in Southeast, declare Marshall law? They dont want us down there either. Countries will always have places like that in big towns. It is to hard to micro manage things like that. If you know a way than maybe you should work on it. But either way you can compare somebody having their head cut off with a rusty blade because they are American to Southeast DC. We are over there because they are Arab or Iraqi? Our government felt that there was a severe problem over there and they decided to do something about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest BlingBling

I am a fool because every post I read does not seem like you love your country. I dont think Bush is always right but he is in charge so I at least Back him instead of going on a message board and bashing him but yet you dont want to get out and do anything about it.

 

The man has broken laws. I will not follow a leader that makes his own laws. Congress has that duty. I am telling the truth. You want to snuff it out. I do not see you writing anything, but personal attacks. Last time I remember, the President is to serve the People. Not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest human_*

I actually watch PBS. I don't watch fox, or cnn, oh!!!! But I do love the "noaa.gov" web site for the weather.

 

Now why would you think that all republicans watch fox news???????? Could it be PROPAGANDA NEWS??

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You two are fools. I love my city and my country. I just do not love bush and his hood administration. You need to go sit down and watch FOX Neocon propaganda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest BlingBling

Just recieved some more truth on how Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld established “interrogation policies” and issued an order to the commander of the U.S. Southern Command” regarding interrogation. In their capacities as military officers, Lt. Gen. Sanchez “developed interrogation policy in Iraq,” Col. Karpinski “carried out the plans of Sanchez,” and Col. Pappas “authorized interrogation techniques while in command at the Abu Ghraib prison. This is in direct conflict with the the Fourth Geneva Convention obligations of good faith foreign nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest human_*

Blingbling; I will do what you are doing every now and then “posting information with out referring to an article", but most of my posts in here DO have a link to an article.

 

Could you please post a link to where you are getting your information from?

 

It would be like me saying that; Fenty does not stand a chance at beating Mayor Anthony Williams, because

Mayor Williams is now more in tune "not just with d.c.'s residential communities" but also with its business community. <~~~~~~~ what I have said in here is true, but it's my own personal view, or I could be just lucky.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just recieved some more truth on how Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld established “interrogation policies” and issued an order to the commander of the U.S. Southern Command” regarding interrogation. In their capacities as military officers, Lt. Gen. Sanchez “developed interrogation policy in Iraq,” Col. Karpinski “carried out the plans of Sanchez,” and Col. Pappas “authorized interrogation techniques while in command at the Abu Ghraib prison. This is in direct conflict with the the Fourth Geneva Convention obligations of good faith foreign nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess just because you post in on a community board it makes it true, I agree where is your hard proof. For all I know you are reading propagand too. I have also accepted that all politicians and leaders lie sometimes. He cant hold a public service announcement every time he makes a decision. I have agreed many times that he is always right and perfect, but there are many worse places out there than this lovely country. Sometimes citizens just need to know everything that happens. I dont care about the interrogation method of these people because the people we are interrogating are much worse. We seem to be one of the only countries that truly follow the geneva convention laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest The White House

It's important for Americans and others across the world to understand the kind of people held at Guantanamo. These aren't common criminals, or bystanders accidentally swept up on the battlefield -- we have in place a rigorous process to ensure those held at Guantanamo Bay belong at Guantanamo. Those held at Guantanamo include suspected bomb makers, terrorist trainers, recruiters and facilitators, and potential suicide bombers. They are in our custody so they cannot murder our people. One detainee held at Guantanamo told a questioner questioning him -- he said this: "I'll never forget your face. I will kill you, your brothers, your mother, and sisters.

 

I want to be absolutely clear with our people, and the world: The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values. I have not authorized it -- and I will not authorize it. Last year, my administration worked with Senator John McCain, and I signed into law the Detainee Treatment Act, which established the legal standard for treatment of detainees wherever they are held. I support this act. And as we implement this law, our government will continue to use every lawful method to obtain intelligence that can protect innocent people, and stop another attack like the one we experienced on September the 11th, 2001.

 

I know Americans have heard conflicting information about Guantanamo. Let me give you some facts. Of the thousands of terrorists captured across the world, only about 770 have ever been sent to Guantanamo. Of these, about 315 have been returned to other countries so far -- and about 455 remain in our custody. They are provided the same quality of medical care as the American service members who guard them. The International Committee of the Red Cross has the opportunity to meet privately with all who are held there. The facility has been visited by government officials from more than 30 countries, and delegations from international organizations, as well. After the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe came to visit, one of its delegation members called Guantanamo "a model prison" where people are treated better than in prisons in his own country. Our troops can take great pride in the work they do at Guantanamo Bay -- and so can the American people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Dear President Obama,

 

As heads of four prominent civil liberties and human rights organizations, we greatly appreciate your decisive action in restoring U.S. commitment to the rule of law and respect for human rights by issuing executive orders to close Guantánamo, suspend the military commissions, prohibit CIA prisons, and enforce the ban on torture. We eagerly await your continued actions to renew American justice.

 

Today, we write to request full access to the Guantánamo Bay detention camps so that we may independently review and report on the conditions of confinement there and make concrete recommendations for change. In August 2004, our four organizations were granted observer status to observe the military commissions, but for years the Bush administration has denied our organizations' repeated requests for full access to the detention camps. We have only been offered the VIP tour to observe a model Guantánamo detention camp, which was far from adequate access.

 

Section 6 of your January 22, 2009 executive order, "Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantánamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities," addresses the issue of conditions of confinement and orders Secretary of Defense Gates to "immediately undertake a review of the conditions of detention at Guantánamo to ensure full compliance with [Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions]."

 

Our presence can assist this effort. We will provide an outside assessment of current conditions and, as improvements are made, credibly, independently, and publicly report them to the world. Such access and reporting would further the objectives of the current Department of Defense (DoD) review and amplify the international benefits of improving conditions at the camps. Our presence itself will be welcomed as another break from the prior administration's policies on detainees, and set an example of transparency that will help advance human rights worldwide.

 

We ask you to reconsider our organizations' request for full access to the Guantánamo Bay detention camps and honor it in light of the current DoD review. According to your executive order, the DoD review "shall be completed within 30 days and any necessary corrections shall be implemented immediately thereafter." We ask that, if granted full access, our independent review should take place within the next few weeks, to allow time for us to finalize our report and recommendations before the completion of the DoD's review.

 

The Bush administration's past policy of secrecy regarding detention conditions at Guantánamo makes it critically important for your administration to open Guantánamo to independent review as part of a new government policy of transparency. Full and independent review of conditions of confinement by human rights organizations is urgently needed because of the secrecy regarding detention conditions at Guantánamo Bay as a whole. The ACLU and other organizations continue to struggle for production of materials requested pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding Guantánamo Bay. The Bush administration denied full access to several UN independent human rights experts who insisted on confidential interviews with the detainees as dictated by UN protocol for such visits.

 

While the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has had access to Guantánamo detainees, its access has been restricted in the past and the extent of its current access is unclear to us. A leaked version of the Camp Delta Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) from March 2003 revealed that the ICRC was denied access to various groups of detainees at the camp, and a leaked version of the SOP manual from 2004 revealed continued restrictions on ICRC access.

 

Regardless of the ICRC's present level of access, its role is distinct from that of our organizations. While the ICRC plays an important role in visiting prisoners under the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC maintains full confidentiality in order to preserve the exclusively humanitarian nature of its work. The role of our human rights organizations in reviewing and reporting on conditions at Guantánamo would be distinct and equally important.

 

Granting human rights organizations full and unfettered access to a detention facility where torture and abuse have occurred will send a powerful message to the world regarding your administration's commitment to transparency and openness, consistent with your January 21, 2009 FOIA directive, which noted, "A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency." Opening Guantánamo to full review by human rights organizations would help to restore American legitimacy and standing in the world, and place pressure on other governments to open their detention centers for independent inspections.

 

Furthermore, independent review of conditions of confinement by human rights organizations will assist your administration in revising its policies and improving detention conditions in the camps. If granted full access, our independent human rights delegation would include experts on detention conditions and medical professionals, and would offer your administration concrete recommendations on how to improve conditions of confinement in order to comply with relevant national and international standards and guidelines on persons in detention.

 

We hope that you will act quickly on this matter in the interest of transparency and the protection of human rights.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union

 

Larry Cox, Executive Director, Amnesty International USA

 

Elisa Massimino, Executive Director, Human Rights First

 

Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Guest Charlotte Dennett

he Justice Robert Jackson Steering Committee, a group of lawyers, journalists and advocates formed in the fall of 2008 to pursue the prosecution of top Bush administration officials for alleged war crimes while in office, is both greatly concerned and guardedly hopeful by the recent release of 2 different assessments from inside the Department of Justice on whether John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the lawyers who crafted "torture memos" inside the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel, engaged in professional misconduct.

 

The committee expressed grave concern that David Margolis, a senior lawyer in the Department of Justice, wrote a final opinion in January which completely exonerates the two lawyers for legally justifying the illegal torture of detainees. "Thanks to news leaks, we had expected and indeed braced ourselves for a greatly toned-down final report by David Margolis" commented Charlotte Dennett, a lawyer with the group. "What we had not expected – and this is the good news -- was the Justice Department's prompt compliance with a FOIA request we made in January, releasing not one, but three separate versions of a much more critical report by the Department's ethics watchdog group, the Office of Professional Responsibility, recommending disciplinary action. Our group had filed a FOIA request asking for all versions of the OPR reports, including the original version completed in December 2008 which reportedly was a 'scathing indictment' of Yoo and Bybee. We wanted to see how it might have been altered over time. Now we have some idea of what happened, thanks to the DOJ releasing a total of ten documents, including 3 different versions of the OPR report, Yoo's and Bybee's response, and the final report by Margolis." What emerges from the documents, Dennett adds, is a significant change from the OPR's original, December 2008 finding that both lawyers had engaged in professional misconduct (such as crafting memos to suit what their superiors wanted, i.e. memos that would shield them from criminal liability for authorizing torture) to Margolis's conclusion in January, 2010, that the two lawyers had merely exercised "poor judgment" and would not even be recommended for disciplinary action.

 

Notes RJSC member journalist Kristina Borjesson, "to read the contents of the first OPR report, the subsequent reports, and then the DOJ conclusions, is to read an account of a classic whitewashing process, one that has been exercised often since the Iran-Contra hearings and before. The first report presents the real evidence, a parade of enumerated horribles that, by the final report by Margolis, have been erased or minimized according to the interests that the reviewing parties want to protect. The end result is always the same: no accountability for laws broken. These were not little legal infractions committed by the OLC lawyers. These were infractions that destroy the very fabric of our democracy."

 

Observes, Peter Weiss, another attorney who filed the group's FOIA request, "We welcome the fact that DOJ has released a voluminous set of documents relating to this crucial matter, including - perhaps in response to our FOIA action - the two earlier drafts of the OPR report. But we question the redactions which accompany the release and we deplore the fact that David Margolis, speaking for the department, has gone very far toward accepting Yoo and Bybee's argument that, in times of emergency, legal norms as fundamental as the absolute prohibition of torture may be violated with impunity by the President and other high officials. If that is to become official US policy, it will merely reinforce the international movement toward universal jurisdiction for particularly heinous crimes, instead of leaving it to American courts to deal with Americans accused of such crimes."

 

David Swanson, who chairs the Robert Jackson Committee, believes that the DOJ's report is not the final word on this matter despite The New York Times' conclusion on Saturday that this "brings to a close a pivotal chapter in the debate over the legal limits of the Bush administration's fight against terrorism and whether its treatment of Qaeda prisoners amounted to torture." Comments Swanson: "The universal pretense in the Fawning Corporate Media that bar associations and congress are prevented from acting because the Justice Department released a self-contradictory pile of papers with a weak conclusion must be nipped in the bud. Imagine if impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon had been called to a halt because Nixon ordered a subordinate to release a report opposing his impeachment. Congress is independent, as are bar associations, as are -- at least in theory -- newspapers."

 

Ben Davis, another lawyer with the Jackson Committee, believes that American citizens "should refer immediately the OPR report in all its package to the relevant bar associations for those bar associations to determine whether there are ethical violations by Yoo and Bybee." Citizens are advised to go to the website http://disbartorturelawyers.com

 

Concludes Swanson: "What's going to be needed in the end is prosecution. But that's going to have to come through massive public pressure and intense pressure from Congress, from abroad, and from a strengthened independent communications system."

 

Meanwhile, the Jackson Committee will continue to examine all the documents released by the Justice Department and then determine whether it wants to proceed with its FOIA request, which also asked for additional documents including Attorney General Michael Mukasey's 10 page rebuttal of the December 2008 OPR report, emails, and OPR procedures bearing on the ethics probe and its conclusions, all of which can be viewed on the website of the Robert Jackson Steering Committee:

http://lawsnotmen.org

 

-- -- --

 

Members of the Robert Jackson Steering Committee are:

 

Chair David Swanson is the author of Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union by Seven Stories Press, Co-Founder of AfterDowningStreet.org. Swanson became chair in November 2009.

 

Past Chair Lawrence Velvel served as chairman of the Steering Committee of the Justice Robert H. Jackson Conference On Planning For The Prosecution of High Level American War Criminals, or the Robert Jackson Steering Committee for short, through October 2009. Velvel is Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law and a professor of law.

 

John Bonifaz, Legal Director of Voter Action, author of Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush.

 

Kristina Borjesson, an award-winning print and broadcast journalist for more than twenty years and editor of two recent books on the media.

 

Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee.

 

Marjorie Cohn, a law Professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, immediate past president of the National Lawyers Guild, author of Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law (PoliPointPress, 2007), and editor of "The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration and Abuse" (NYU Press, Fall 2010).

 

Colleen Costello, until recently Staff Attorney of Human Rights, USA, of Washington, D.C., and coordinator of its efforts involving torture by the American government.

 

Ben Davis, a law Professor at the University of Toledo College of Law, where he teaches Public International Law, Contracts, and International and Domestic Arbitration”. He is the author of numerous articles on international and related domestic law.

 

Charlotte Dennett, investigative journalist, attorney, 2008 candidate for Attorney General of Vermont, and author of The People v. Bush: One Lawyer's Campaign to Bring the President to Justice and the National Grassroots Movement She Encounters Along the Way (Chelsea Green, January 2010).

 

Valeria Gheorghiu, attorney.

 

Jeanne Mirer, President of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.

 

Chris Pyle, a Professor at Mount Holyoke College, where he teaches Constitutional law, Civil Liberties, Rights of Privacy, American Politics and American Political Thought, and is the author of many books and articles, including Getting Away with Torture: Secret Government, War Crimes, and the Rule of Law..

 

Elaine Scarry, the Walter M. Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and the General Theory of Value at Harvard University, and winner of the Truman Capote Award for Literary Criticism.

 

Peter Weiss, vice president of the Center For Constitutional Rights, of New York City, which was recently involved with war crimes complaints filed in Germany against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others.

 

Andy Worthington, British journalist and author of The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America's Illegal Prison (Pluto Press, 2007).

 

Kevin Zeese, attorney, activist, serves as Executive Director of Voters for Peace and Prosperity Agenda. He has filed complaints with bar associations seeking the disbarment of 15 Bush-Cheney lawyers for facilitating torture (two who also served Obama-Biden) as part of the Disbar Torture Lawyers Campaign of Velvet Revolution on whose board he serves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...