Jose Padilla Gets "Lenient Sentence": 17 Years, 4 Months

Jose Padilla, who was convicted last August of conspiracy to murder, kidnap and maim people in a foreign country, and of two lesser counts of material support for terrorists, has been sentenced to 17 years and four months in prison.

The sentence is seen as a "victory" for the defense, since Padilla and both his co-defendants were eligible for life sentences.

But the judge, Marcia G. Cooke, of the Federal District Court in Miami, said

there was no evidence linking [Padilla and the two others] to specific acts of terrorism anywhere or that their actions had resulted in death or injury to anyone

so she gave them all relatively "light" sentences. Or so the media spin goes.

The un-spun version goes something like this:

The feds arrested Padilla in 2002 and charged him with plotting to detonate a "dirty bomb". They held him in utterly inhumane conditions for three and a half years, doing permanent mental damage to him, and then they decided he wasn't a "dirty bomber" after all. But they still needed to keep him in prison, for political reasons and not because he posed any danger to anyone, so they connected his case to that of a couple of others who had been under surveillance for years.

In the trial it came out that the FBI had collected 300,000 intercepts during their investigation, of which exactly 7 included Padilla's voice, and that in those conversations he had never advocated violence, not even using the code-words employed by the others.

The feds also had a piece of paper which was allegedly an application to join al Qaeda and allegedly had Padilla's fingerprints on it. It was their only semi-solid evidence against him but it was good enough for a conviction. There's tremendous irony here, of course, because the CIA has been recruiting terrorists and training them to go to foreign countries to kill people for decades.

Funnily enough -- ha, ha, ha! -- that's how al Qaeda got started. See how lucky we are?

For more details, please see my post from July of 2007, "Jose Padilla Trial: Prosecution's Case Is Thin; Defense Could Blow The GWOT Out Of The Water ... But Don't Count On It".

Guilty, Guilty, Guilty!

What else did we expect? The bogus show trial of the bogus phony war yields a bogus guilty verdict as the bogus world's greatest democracy goes even further down the actual physical drain.

There's not much else to say about this except that even if Padilla had been cleared of all the bogus charges, the result would still be bogus.

The Soviets used isolation and sensory deprivation to identify and discredit political dissidents. US prisoners of war confessed to nonexistent war crimes in the Korean War after similar treatment.

Fear of "brainwashing" prompted the CIA and Defense Department to underwrite research in the 1950s and '60s into the impact of isolation and sensory deprivation. The findings were included in a 1963 CIA handbook, later declassified. The book discusses the possible use of such techniques, including isolation. But it warns of the "profound moral objection" of applying "duress past the point of irreversible psychological damage."

That's what happened in Padilla's case, says Grassian. "It is clear from examining Mr. Padilla that that limit was surpassed."

He has "undergone a profound, tremendously prolonged psychological stress involving extended periods of utter isolation and deprivation," the psychiatrist writes. Grassian's report concludes: "Given the extensive research on this issue, much of it funded by the United States government, it follows necessarily that the United States government was well aware of the likely consequences of its conduct in regard to Mr. Padilla."

And that, of course, is exactly why they did it.

They didn't have enough on him to try him for the crimes he was originally charged with:

Padilla was first detained in 2002 because of much more sensational accusations. The Bush administration portrayed Padilla, a U.S. citizen and Muslim convert, as a committed terrorist who was part of an al-Qaida plot to detonate a radioactive ``dirty bomb'' in the U.S. The administration called his detention an important victory in the war against terrorism, not long after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The charges brought in civilian court in Miami, however, were a pale shadow of those initial claims...

So instead they destroyed him, and now -- after a trial featuring almost no evidence against him -- he's guilty as charged.

It's a splendid victory for President Bush in his Endless War.

Stalin never had it so good.

Jury Says They Have A Verdict In Padilla Trial -- Details To Follow

The jury has reached a verdict in the trial of Jose Padilla and two others accused of supporting terrorism. The verdict will be announced at 2PM ET.

I've already said everything that I think needs to be said about the Padilla trial, except for the things that I never thought of, and those have been said by the likes of Scott Horton and Chris Floyd. I'll be back with you shortly and hopefully I will have an update on this case.

Jose Padilla Trial: Prosecution's Case Is Thin; Defense Could Blow The GWOT Out Of The Water ... But Don't Count On It

Back to the GWOT for a moment: The case against Jose Padilla has been laid on the table in a Miami courtroom, and Curt Anderson of the AP has some details courtesy of the Seattle Times:

MIAMI — For a defendant whose name is known around the world, Jose Padilla has become almost a bit player in his terrorism support trial.

Prosecutors rested their case Friday after nine weeks, 22 witnesses and dozens of FBI wiretap intercepts played at trial, most of them in Arabic with written translations for jurors. Defense lawyers for Padilla and his two co-defendants begin presenting their case next week.

Much is at stake for the government, which once heralded Padilla's arrest as a success in the war on terror, accused him in an al-Qaida "dirty-bomb" plot, and held him for 3½ years as an enemy combatant.

Padilla's voice was heard on only seven intercepts, a tiny fraction of the 300,000 collected by the FBI during the long investigation.

Padilla was never linked to any specific acts of terrorism or murder and, unlike his co-defendants, he was not accused of using purported code words such as "tourism" for "jihad" or "eggplant" for "rocket-propelled grenade."

The dirty-bomb charge was dropped long ago, of course, and the government has decided not to share the confessions they obtained from Padilla while they held him incommunicado for those three and a half years!

Why? Because everything is in the framing: if this story included the conditions under which Padilla was held, the feds would look even worse than they already do. And if his defense attorneys were given an opportunity to talk about how he was tortured ... well, who are we kidding? Holding somebody in isolation for that long without a hearing or a trial or anything resembling due process is torture in itself.

Nonetheless, the feds could have used confessions obtained under torture, and the fact that it was their choice is a terrible crime in its own right. It's a crime against longstanding and honorable traditions in American justice, and we're all victims, but we don't have the legal standing to do anything about it in a court of law, so please don't get me started on that one!

Former Miami U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis said prosecutors often are forced to present a "watered-down" case when much evidence is classified to protect national security.

More on this in just a second.

"It's a loose-knit conspiracy with very few overt acts," Lewis said. "You didn't catch them committing a terrorist act. Talk only, and talk is cheap."

A very few overt acts, indeed. The main -- if not the only -- evidence the government seems to have against Padilla is a form allegedly obtained by the CIA in Afghanistan that allegedly has Padilla's fingerprints on it.

The key to the case against Padilla, according to attorneys and legal experts, is how much weight jurors give to the five-page "mujahedeen data form" he allegedly filled out in July 2000 to attend an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan. Seven of Padilla's fingerprints are on the form, which the CIA recovered in Afghanistan in December 2001.

"The question is whether the defense has a plausible theory for how Padilla's fingerprints got on the form that doesn't implicate him," said Stephen Vladeck, law professor at American University in Washington, D.C.

It seems almost too obvious to point out, but didn't the mujahadeen work for the CIA?

It's been well-documented; Zbigniew Brzezinski was Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor and they decided to give a bit of money, some weapons, and radical ideology to this rag-tag bunch. Then Ronald Reagan got elected and he cranked open the spigot ... Do you remember all this? We talked about it -- and an essay by Juan Cole called "Fisking The War On Terror" -- not long ago.

The CIA, helped by Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, funded the so-called Freedom Fighters who fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The same group -- with the same backers -- came to be involved in Kosovo, and Chechnya, and elsewhere in the Islamic world.

Professor Cole's essay gets interesting right about here:

In 1998, al-Qaeda and al-Jihad al-Islami, two small terrorist groups established in Afghanistan as a result of the Reagan jihad, declared war on the United States and Israel (the "Zionists and Crusaders"). After attacks by al-Qaeda cells on US embassies in East Africa and on the USS Cole, nineteen of them ultimately used jet planes to attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.

Whoa! Run that by me again?

In view of what we now know about 9/11, in view of what we always knew about 9/11, in view of what we now know about the uses of false flag operations, it seems quite appropriate to ask:

When did the relationship between al-Q'aeda and the CIA end? Did it ever end?

And is it any coincidence that the purported leaders of al-Q'aeda pop up just when Bush needs them, saying exactly what he needs them to say?

Chris Floyd has been tracking this scent lately: Wednesday he pointed out how

Arrowhead Ripper has been tearing through Diyala's capital city, Baquba, since June 18 [...] The announced goal of the operation is to cleanse the area of "al Qaeda terrorists" [...] But just as in the destruction of Fallujah in late November 2004 [...] the long, noisy PR build-up to the Diyala operation gave the leaders of the "al Qaeda associated groups" plenty of time to melt away into the night, safe and sound to fight another day. Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of U.S ground forces, admitted cheerfully that 80 percent of what he called upper-level al Qaeda leaders fled before the attacks began [...]

From Fallujah, the curiously untouched "al Qaeda" leaders [...] spread mayhem elsewhere while American forces were attacking hospitals, raining chemical weapons on residential areas, and driving 300,000 people from their homes in the city. In similar fashion, the curiously untouched terrorist leaders from Diyala are obviously raising murderous hell elsewhere -- perhaps in previously peaceful Amerli, where more than 150 people were killed last week in one of the worst terror bombings of the war.

This from Saving Al Qaeda: Collective Punishment and Curious Policy in the "Surge", more fine work from Chris, and I'm really shredding it here, throwing away valuable asides and links and so on, because I need to get to the point soon -- or else you'll click elsewhere, won't you?

It's an excellent piece and you really should read it all ... just not now! Here's Chris again:

A cynic might be forgiven for believing that at this point, the Bush Administration is happy to have an amorphous mass of violent groups out there, just beyond reach, able to keep the country in constant turmoil -- a turmoil which requires the continued presence of American forces to keep it from worsening, as Bush and his Iraqi capos have been stressing this week. It is certainly an open fact that the United States has begun giving weapons to an alarming array of groups in recent months, some of which have been involved in the insurgency, and all of them beyond direct U.S. control.
...

No one pursuing a rational strategy of containing violence in Iraq would adopt such a policy. That leaves us with two basic choices. Either the Bush Administration is pursuing a rational strategy whose true aims are not the ones given publicly for the surge; or else the Bushists have come to believe their own lies about al Qaeda's "central" role in the insurgency.

I tend to favor the former explanation, but as Chris points out, both are plausible. Indeed, "the Bush Administration" consists of quite a number of people, some of whom may believe the lies while the others are pursuing a strategy -- rational or not -- whose true aims are definitely not the ones given publicly. Later Chris writes about the strategy:

They know the only chance they have left of accomplishing their war aims -- the bases, the "Oil Law" -- lies in keeping those cowed, weak, deeply unpopular collaborators in office. Unbridled violence aids this objective, for it "justifies" the continuing presence of the American military -- which is the sole prop for the only kind of regime that would give away the nation's oil and accept foreign bases on its soil.

If this is indeed the "reasoning" behind the otherwise inexplicable policy of embittering the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people while arming violent groups and letting terrorist chieftains roam free, then this too is ultimately a delusion.

Maybe so, maybe not. It seems to be working pretty well so far.

In any case, it seems fair to repeat the questions:

When did the relationship between al-Q'aeda and the CIA end? Did it ever end?

I asked a similar question at Professor Cole's blog not long ago, by the way. But the eminent Middle East expert declined to publish my comment ... which in itself answers the question, does it not?

Onward: Chris Floyd was riding the same horse again on Thursday. In Curiouser and Curiouser: The Comeback Kids of Al Qaeda he wrote:

The situation in Iraq simply mirrors the Administration's approach to al Qaeda throughout the whole "War on Terror" -- a policy that could be very charitably described as "benign neglect" (although more sinister constructions on this policy are also quite plausible).

For example, counterterrorism officials are now telling Congress that al Qaeda has restored its power and capabilities to pre-9/11 levels, AP reports. The curiously elusive group has been thriving in its safe haven in Pakistan – that staunch "War on Terror" ally which, with the blessing of President Bush, has curiously signed "truces" that give al Qaeda and the Taliban carte blanche to live and train on Pakistani soil.

The mention of Pakistan resonates heavily here.

And that's not all. This sudden reassessment of al-Q'aeda's supposedly renewed power has raised serious red flags for this cold writer, although not for Larisa Alexandrovna, who wrote that the assessment mirrors what all credible intelligence reporters have been saying for years.

Elsewhere, Larisa also writes about the sudden surge of terror fears, the bogus reporting coming from ABC lately, and the threats against the American people that have recently been made by such luminaries as Michael Chertoff and Rick Santorum. Here's Larisa again:

Consider this fine piece of propaganda from the Associated Press:

"BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The U.S. military expects al Qaeda in Iraq to strike back with "spectacular attacks" after major U.S.-led offensives that have disrupted its activities, a military spokesman said on Wednesday."

Why does this read like it is a good thing? Or is it just me? And why is the term al Qaeda coupled with the term Iraq? But wait, the last line tells us what we need to know. So the real story is that "A military spokesman said ... blah blah."

Curiously, Chris Floyd hit a similar note in his piece on Thursday, speaking of a different piece of propaganda, also from the AP:

What is even more curious is the mention later in the [AP] story that the Bush Administration sees this assessment as good thing, a political winner:

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq.

What does all this have to do with Jose Padilla? Plenty.

If al-Q'aeda is merely a covert instrument of American foreign and domestic policy, then why should Jose Padilla be held for five years, then tried -- just for giving them his fingerprints? He should be hailed as a national hero!

Jose Padilla -- and Adam Gadahn and John Walker Lindh for that matter -- should be feted all over the country. "Civic leaders" like Michael Chertoff and Rick Santorum, who crave another terror attack to snap us all into line, should be wining and dining these guys from sea to shining sea.

That's probably not how the Padilla defense is going to present it, but

The defense says its case will focus on expert witnesses who can provide an alternative view of history, Islamic principles and global politics for the jury.

In other words, the real question is whether the administration has a plausible theory for how Padilla's fingerprints got on the form that doesn't implicate them!

The defense in this case could blow the entire GWOT out of the water!

Not that the media would cover it, or anything...

Speed Bump: TIME Spins While The Constitutional Republic Burns

Get a load of this spin! From Reynolds Holding at TIME Online:

How to Botch Another Terror Case

How many times does the Bush Administration have to bungle a legal challenge to its detention of suspected terrorists — and, thanks to its own deception, leave yet another shady suspect looking sympathetic — before it gets its act in order?

I nominate this opening paragraph for a "Deceptive Frame Of The Month" award, based on the fact that this case is not entirely -- or even mostly -- about the bungling of a legal challenge. But who cares? Not Reynolds Holding -- clearly. I can't even count the rotations!

A week after two judges halted detainee hearings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, over a statutory glitch, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ordered Al Saleh Kahlah al-Marri released from military detention. As a civilian in the United States on a student visa, al-Marri has the right to a full and fair hearing in court and cannot be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant in the war on terror, the court ruled Monday.

Al-Marri won't get out of the military brig in South Carolina immediately,

... if he ever gets out at all ...

but the Administration has to decide soon whether to try him in criminal court, hold him temporarily as a grand jury witness against other suspected terrorists, deport him — or let him go.

And there's the rub. Who defines "soon"? "Soon" to a geologist means "sometime in the next ten or twenty thousand years". To those guys, the Rockies are "young mountains".

And there's your answer: they can hold him forever as long as they keep promising to do something else "soon". But first they can spend years appealing the decision.

As for letting him go, Reynolds Holding presumes to know what everybody thinks; always a bad sign:

Probably no one outside of al-Marri's wife and kids in Peoria, Illinois, prefers the last option.

Why not? Because he's been accused of something?

In a word, yes!

A citizen of Qatar, al-Marri allegedly trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, palled around with Osama Bin Laden and came to the U.S. on Sept. 10, 2001 as a "sleeper agent," a computer hacker bent on disrupting the American financial system. He was arrested at home three months later as a material witness in the investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks. Al-Marri denies any connection with al-Qaeda or terrorism, but constitutional issues aside, we might all rest easier if the military could just keep him out of circulation for awhile.

Why should we toss constitutional issues aside? That's the heart of this case -- the crux of the problem.

What? Did you think the big issue was keeping al-Marri out of circulation for a while?

They've kept him out of circulation for five years already! Is it awhile yet? And if not, when will it be awhile? Are people entitled to a hearing? A trial? Or should the military be allowed to keep people incarcerated forever just because of an allegation?

After all, that's what it has been allowed to do with people like Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen captured while fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan (he was eventually deported to Saudi Arabia in exchange for renouncing his citizenship). Al-Marri isn't even a citizen, and he was caught allegedly pursuing terrorism within the U.S. Isn't he exactly the kind of guy that the Administration should be allowed to declare an enemy combatant and hold in a military brig?

Listen: What's in an accusation? And if the accusation is serious enough, does that mean the accused is guilty without a trial?

These are not rhetorical questions: the answers we produce now may guide our hand for generations. And it might matter quite a bit.

For instance, the president has been accused of foreknowledge of 9/11. Isn't that a fairly serious accusation? And isn't he exactly the kind of guy that We The People should be allowed to declare an enemy combatant and hold in a military brig?

I don't think so: I think he should have a fair trial before he's sent away for the rest of his miserable life ... but then again, there's so much more evidence against Bush than there is against Al-Marri that perhaps a trial is not even necessary!

But the real question is this: Should the administration be allowed to declare somebody an enemy combatant -- without hearing, without a trial, without providing any evidence whatsoever -- and then hold that person in a military brig forever without a hearing, without a trial, without presenting any evidence?

Reynolds Holding says:

This is not an easy question.

But that's not true. Not even close. It's as easy a question as there is in law or politics. It boils down to "Are we or are we not innocent until proven guilty?"

If we live under a rule of law, there's due process -- not indefinite detention and torture -- for all defendants, in all cases, no matter what crime the defendant is accused of committing.

But that didn't even come up in this case. They chose to split another hair instead. Or as Reynolds Holder rotates it,

Fortunately, two of the three appeals-court judges were clear-headed enough to see a distinction.

You don't need to see any distinctions on this case unless you want to spin it. And unfortunately for the slight little matter of Constitutional law, this story contains several built-in spin-points.

Hamdi and others captured while actively fighting the U.S. on a foreign battlefield, or shortly after leaving the battlefield, naturally fit under the laws of war and can be held, with minimal rights, by the military so that they do not return to the enemy to fight again.

Naturally? Maybe so. But in more temperate times, one might be excused for asking the following question:

Why is it that somebody "actively fighting the U.S. on a foreign battlefield" is worthy of a lifetime of detention and torture, while somebody actively fighting foreigners in their own countries is considered to be engaged in a noble cause and serving his country (and therefore worthy of a lifetime of neglect at Walter Reed)?

Oh, right! It's because Americans are better than anybody else in the entire world, and can do no wrong! Sorry about that; it just slipped my mind for a moment.

In the actual court case,

The Bush Administration argued that al-Marri was also an enemy combatant, committed to fighting on behalf of al-Qaeda, but the court didn't see it that way. It ruled that al-Marri, no matter how dangerous, is just a civilian. And any civilian in the U.S. legally has the right when arrested to hear the charges against him, to be tried by a jury and to receive all the other benefits of due process under the Constitution. As the three-judge panel said in its majority opinion, to allow the President "to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians, even if the President calls them 'enemy combatants,' would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country."

Well of course it would, especially when you consider that there is no requirement for the President to substantiate his claim. All he has to do is call you an "enemy combatant"? He can throw you in prison forever on the strength of that unsubstantiated claim? How would you feel about it if it happened to you?

It's a question Reynolds Holding appears to have asked himself; he and his editors are obviously in agreement on it. Thus they feed us relentless spin, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that when it comes to this presidency, and especially the GWOT, all is not what it seems. So we get statements like this one:

Though compelling, the panel's conclusion is not obvious,

Oh yes it is, unless you're ignorant of civilized law ... or unless you've been brainwashed!

and the full court to which the Administration has appealed may disagree (as might the U.S. Supreme Court, if it ever hears the case).

Of course, the full court, or possibly the Supreme Court, may disagree -- and they may do so for motives entirely unrelated to the merits of the case. No? Bah! They do that all the time! What would make this any different?

The Administration, then, can't necessarily be blamed for trying to treat al-Marri as an enemy combatant so that it could detain him indefinitely and prevent him from rejoining the enemy during the war on terror, right?

Wrong! They certainly could be blamed, but not by a "journalist" who is busy polishing their jackboots with his tongue! Even if that was what they were doing.

Except that's apparently not what the Administration was up to.

Oops! Wrong again!!

As Marty Lederman, a visiting professor at Georgetown University Law School, points out, al-Marri was already on ice. He was being held on credit-card fraud and other criminal charges for 16 months before the president abruptly designated him an enemy combatant in June 2003 and had him moved to a military prison. And the move came shortly after a court scheduled a hearing on al-Marri's motion to suppress evidence allegedly obtained through torture.

But how can that be? We don't torture! And we've got all sorts of shifty new legal definitions to prove it.

In a long footnote to its opinion, the appeals court suggests what was really going on. As the court explains, al-Marri claimed that the government suddenly named him an enemy combatant merely because it wanted to interrogate him in a way that would have violated the rules of criminal prosecution. Referring to al-Marri's claim, the court says, "we trust that this is not so, for such a stratagem" would violate a Supreme Court ruling that prohibits indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation.

Sad but true, the justices of this court -- like many other still-deluded citizens -- "trust" their naive view of this clearly criminal administration more than they "trust" the evidence -- even when there's no alternative explanation, as in this case:

"We note, however, that not only has the Government offered no other explanation for abandoning al-Marri's prosecution, it has even propounded an affidavit in support of al-Marri's continued military detention stating that he 'possesses information of high intelligence value.'"

That's pretty clear, isn't it? Or is it? Why should the court "trust" that what they have been told is false?

Especially when the implications of that evidence is clear, even to Reynolds Holder:

So, contrary to Supreme Court precedent as well as its own legal arguments before the appeals court, the Administration threw al-Marri in the brig just because it wanted to squeeze him for more information.

Or maybe not. The problem with this explanation is that our authorities know "enhanced interrogation techniques" don't provide reliable intelligence. So we must look elsewhere for an explanation.

Is this just the latest in a long string of GWOT-related government lies, parroted without question by organs of state propaganda? Unfortunately, given the track records of the administration and its lapdog media, we cannot avoid asking this question, which otherwise might seem quite loony. But there's been too much lying, and now there's no reason not to question everything. You just never know.

This sort of deceptive behavior seems a recurring flaw in the Administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

Recurring flaw? Heck, no, that's not a flaw! It's the artist's signature! It's the modus operandi!

The current prosecution of suspected terrorist and U.S. citizen Jose Padilla, for example, almost collapsed because of Padilla's claim that his guards' abuse made him incompetent to stand trial; as with al-Marri, the government has changed its legal approach against Padilla, initially branding him an enemy combatant and then, when it seemed that it might lose its case before the Supreme Court, deciding to charge him criminally.

These are all examples (and I could provide many more) of the administration lurching from one ludicrous lie to another, in an attempt to legitimize an illegitimate enterprise! The phony "terror war" needs a continuous supply of phony "terrorists" so the government can provide phony "protection" which they use to "justify" becoming more and more repressive!

It's all very clear, and it has been clear (to some of us at least) since about noon on the eleventh of September, 2001. But unfortunately for all of us, journalists who say things like this get published nowhere.

On the other hand, even if you write for a state propaganda organ like TIME, you can still talk about the technicalities:

Lederman says the improper reason for declaring al-Marri an enemy combatant will probably doom the government's appeal in the case.

And rightly so. But that's scary, too. Because the appeal should be doomed even without the improper reason. If opponents of the Bush administration's new approach, "indefinite incarceration without hearing or evidence", want to make their feelings known, now would be as good a time as any.

Thinking of the assertion that the appeal is doomed, Reynolds Holder concludes with the following very confused paragraph:

Whether or not that's true, the President seems once again to have jeopardized his "war on terror" with an inflated notion of his own power.

Oops! Whether or not that's true is highly debatable.

I would phrase it differently: Bush is using the "war on terror" to justify an inflation of his own power. He hit a little speed bump the other day, but the mission is still on target.

I find it interesting to speculate on how Reynolds Holding and his editors at TIME would approach this subject if they were more familiar with the history of totalitarian states -- the USSR, for example.

He might have said something about how the right of habeas corpus has been a basic part of all western justice systems for 900 years, about how we don't have that protection anymore, and about how the Congress hasn't shown any sign of trying to get it back.

He might have mentioned that of the nearly 400 people being detained at Gitmo, only a handful have been charged, and -- even though the "rules of evidence" have been "relaxed" -- the government doesn't have enough evidence against them to charge more than another dozen or so.

He might have mentioned that many of the people there were detained because they were sold into captivity. And how even though they've never been charged with any crime -- much less convicted! -- they may very well stay incarcerated for the rest of their lives! He might even have mentioned some of the people who are still being held there, despite having been told they're free to leave!

In short, Reynolds Holder might have made a bit of a difference.

But then again, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So why should he share it with his readers?

Court Head-Slaps Chimp, Appeal Is Certain

The Chimp Administration never takes "NO" for an answer, no matter where it comes from, and especially if the source happens to be a court of law. "Rule of Law is for the weak, and we are strong," his chimperial drunkenness maintains, "therefore the rule of law is our enemy and we must fight it wherever possible." Which explains virtually every aspect of the administration's policies about virtually everything.

If I were able to blog full-speed, I would be writing reams about yesterday's court decision, which was reported by Adam Liptak of the New York Times as follows:

In a stinging rejection of one of the Bush administration’s central assertions about the scope of executive authority to combat terrorism, a federal appeals court ordered the Pentagon to release a man being held as an enemy combatant.

“To sanction such presidential authority to order the military to seize and indefinitely detain civilians," Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, “even if the President calls them ‘enemy combatants,’ would have disastrous consequences for the Constitution — and the country.”

As Carol D. Leonnig of the Washington Post reported,

Civil libertarians who championed Marri's case had warned that if the administration prevailed in its argument, the military could next round up U.S. citizens and jail them without trial. The court appeared to agree.

"The President cannot eliminate constitutional protections with the stroke of a pen by proclaiming a civilian, even a criminal civilian, an enemy combatant subject to indefinite military detention," the panel found.

Back to Adam Liptak of the NYT:

“We refuse to recognize a claim to power,” Judge Motz added, “that would so alter the constitutional foundations of our Republic.”

The ruling was handed down by a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., in the case of Ali al-Marri, a citizen of Qatar and the only person on the American mainland known to be held as an enemy combatant.

Mr. Marri, whom the government calls a sleeper agent for Al Qaeda, was arrested on Dec. 12, 2001, in Peoria, Ill., where he was living with his family and studying computer science at Bradley University.

He has been held for the last four years at the Navy Brig in Charleston, S.C.

Judge Motz wrote that Mr. Marri may well be guilty of serious crimes. But she said that the government cannot circumvent the civilian criminal justice system through military detention.

Mr. Marri was charged with credit-card fraud and lying to federal agents after his arrest in 2001, and he was on the verge of a trial on those charges when he was moved into military detention in 2003.

The government contended, in a partly declassified declaration from a senior defense intelligence official, Jeffrey N. Rapp, that Mr. Marri was a Qaeda sleeper agent sent to the United States to commit mass murder and disrupt the banking system.

Two other men have been held as enemy combatants on the American mainland since the Sept. 11 attacks. One, Yaser Hamdi, was freed and sent to Saudi Arabia after the United States Supreme Court allowed him to challenge his detention in 2004.

The other, Jose Padilla, was transferred to the criminal justice system last year just as the Supreme Court was considering whether to review his case. He is now on trial on terrorism charges in federal court in Miami.

The Jose Padilla saga is a full indictment of the so-called GWOT and our so-called legal system, all by itself. This decision will do nothing for him. And neither will it effect the goings-on at Gitmo, much less the clandestine CIA torture facilities that we still don't know much about.

The decision does not appear to affect the rights of men held at the American naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Judge Motz stressed that the court analysis was limited to those who have substantial connections to the United States and are seized and detained within its borders.

A dissenting judge in today’s decision, Henry E. Hudson, visiting from the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, wrote that President Bush “had the authority to detain al-Marri as an enemy combatant or belligerent” because “he is the type of stealth warrior used by Al Qaeda to perpetrate terrorist acts against the United States.”

Henry E. Hudson needs to wash his brain out with soap. There is no provision anywhere in our Constitution or in any other other civilized legal system that gives the president -- or anyone else -- the authority to detain people indefinitely without charge or hearing, based on anything -- let alone an uncorroborated accusation that the person being held is of a certain "type".

Jonathan Hafetz, the litigation director of the Liberty and National Security Project of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law and one of Mr. Marri’s lawyers, said of the court’s decision: “This is landmark victory for the rule of law and a defeat for unchecked executive power. It affirms the basic constitutional rights of all individuals — citizens and immigrants - in the United States.”

Let's not get carried away, Jonathan. It is a step in the right direction, but it is a very minor step -- one sure to be appealed forever and a day -- and it doesn't really guarantee anything, especially given the Chimp administration's track record when it comes to compliance with legal strictures.

Writing for the majority, Judge Motz ordered the trial judge in the case to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the Pentagon “within a reasonable period of time” to do one of several things with Mr. Marri. He may be charged in the civilian court system; he may be deported; or he may be held as a material witness; or he may be released.

“But military detention of al-Marri,” Judge Motz wrote, “must cease.”

We'll see how long it takes for them to get around to complying. Who decides what constitutes "a reasonable period of time"? The Pentagon itself?

And what happens if the Pentagon fails to issue such a writ "within a reasonable period of time"? I'm certainly not planning to hold my breath.

For a much more thorough treatment of this case and the issues it raises, please visit Chris Floyd's excellent site, Empire Burlesque, and read what he has to say about this. I'll get you started:

Now we've got something going on. Now there's a little something to play for. This ruling draws a clear line in the sand on one of George W. Bush's most egregious abuses of the illegitimate power he was given (by the courts) in 2000: his self-proclaimed, arbitrary, unchecked right to designate anyone he pleases an "enemy combatant" and keep them locked up indefinitely in military detention.

Now it seems certain that the case will reach the Supreme Court, and we will have a clear-cut answer at last: Are we still a semblance of a Republic, where our liberties are inalienable – or is our freedom simply the "gift" of an autocrat (elected or otherwise), who can bestow it or take it away at his own will?

Please go read the rest. Click a few links, too.

No problem; you can thank me later.

The Phony War On Terror

To properly fight the war on terror, it's not enough to identify the terrorists. You also have to decide whether they should be prosecuted or protected.

Confusing? Maybe. But that's the signal being sent by the Bush administration, and the signal is being sent over multiple channels simultaneously.

From the Washington Post: A Protected Friend of Terrorism

By Douglas Farah

Monday, April 25, 2005; Page A19

The Bush administration is touting the rule of law and democracy as priorities in its effort to create stability and defeat terrorism. Yet it remains curiously apathetic about the activities of one of the world's most notorious indicted war criminals, a man who is also an abettor of al Qaeda and Hezbollah. I am speaking of former Liberian president Charles Taylor, who has not only escaped answering for his crimes so far but who may be given an opportunity to repeat them if the United States does not act.

It seems to matter little here that Taylor's efforts to escape justice may well succeed because of U.S. inertia. Indicted on 17 counts of crimes against humanity, Taylor poses a clear and present danger to West Africa and U.S. interests. Yet the State Department continues to respond to congressional inquiries with bland assurances that everything is fine and Taylor is no longer a problem. It's not true.

Unless Taylor is turned over quickly to the U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone to stand trial, he will never face punishment for the crimes he committed in the region at the cost of tens of thousands of dead and hundreds of thousands of lives destroyed. The mandate of the court, largely funded by the United States, expires at the end of the year. It was established to try those "most responsible" for the atrocities in Sierra Leone. Taylor is at the top of the list.

Taylor's were brutal, vicious crimes. For more than a decade he presided over forces that murdered, raped and mutilated children; they also abducted children to use them as cannon fodder. He created "Small Boys Units" made up of specially trained children who, while high on amphetamines, were used to raze villages and murder civilians. He trained and supplied the Revolutionary United Front in neighboring Sierra Leone, whose signature atrocity was hacking off the arms, legs and ears of civilians, many of them children.

Taylor also hosted diamond buyers from al Qaeda and Hezbollah for several years, allowing the two designated terrorist groups to earn and hide their wealth in an asset that is untraceable and easily convertible to cash.

Is that disgusting? There's much more. Click here if you dare. Meanwhile, mixed reviews for the Washington Post. One thumb up for running this story; the other thumb down for putting it on page 19.

But wait! There's even more. From Robert Parry, at Consortium News, comes a story that is possibly even more disturbing: The Bush Family's Favorite Terrorist

While the Bush administration holds dozens of suspected Muslim terrorists on secret or flimsy evidence, one of the world’s most notorious terrorists slipped into the United States via Mexico and traveled to Florida without setting off any law enforcement alarms.

Though the terrorist’s presence has been an open secret in Miami, neither President George W. Bush nor Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has ordered a manhunt. The U.S. press corps has been largely silent as well.

The reason is that this terrorist, Luis Posada Carriles, was a CIA-trained Cuban whose long personal war against Fidel Castro’s government is viewed sympathetically by the two Bush brothers and their father. When it comes to the Bush family, Posada is the epitome of the old saying that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

The Bush administration – which has imprisoned Jose Padilla and other alleged Muslim “enemy combatants” without trial – has taken a far more lenient approach toward the 77-year-old Posada, who is still wanted in Venezuela for the bombing of a Cubana Airlines plane in 1976 that killed 73 people. Posada also has admitted involvement in a deadly hotel bombing campaign in Cuba in 1997.

There's much more here, too, of course! Click this link to read the rest of it.

And now ... What can I tell you? If you still believe the so-called "war on terror" is legitimate, you need more than words. You need a slap across the head!