(I Can't Gitmo) Satisfaction

Fortunately for our nation's interrogators, Gitmo is in no-man's land. If it were in the United States, there would the pesky problem of our Constitution and laws. If it were in some other country, the problem would be that country's rules.

When the U.S. government built the prison at Guantanamo Bay, they cleverly put it in part of Cuba that's not part of Cuba. President Teddy Roosevelt won it in 1903 from the first president of Cuba in a card game in which he wagered $24 in cigars.

[more]

Torture Me, Br'er Judge, But Don't Fling Me in that Virgin Patch

The man known as KSM and four of his good buddies all want to die. No, they're not depressed, they're giddy. They are not suicidal. Rather, they want to be rewarded for pulling a fast one over on all us evil Americans, and sent directly on the fast train to heaven.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and his cohorts are responsible for plotting the 9/11 mass murders. They are still greatly pleased with how that turned out. They will never be repentant. They are the picture of evil, and given the chance would do as much additional damage as they could. If convicted of their crimes, shouldn't they be put to death?

Think of it this way. In their belief system, as warriors for their evil cause there is no greater reward that to become a martyr. Giving them death penalty would be rewarding them for their actions. Not only that, we would be sending the message to potential recruits to their cause that even if they are captured they could become martyrs. What greater recruiting tool could there be?

So, if giving them the death penalty would reward them for their actions, would help recruit people to their cause, and would cause many people in the civilized world to feel more sympathetic towards them, what should we do to them instead if they are convicted?

Simple. Lock each one of them up in a small, dark room and don't let them out. Give them each a mattress to sleep on, a Koran, and a daily kosher meal. That's it. If there is particularly good news in the fight against their buddies, slip them a copy of the news, but nothing else. No other news would flow in or out. Make sure they get good health care, so they live long, unproductive lives. And give the Red Cross access to make sure they are not being tortured or otherwise mistreated. Let them fade away and out of everybody's mind. But make sure recent pictures are always available, so that the world knows what a man in permanent, earned solitary confinement looks like.

Speaking of torture, it's pretty clear that KSM and his gang were interrogated using "enhanced" techniques. What's up with that? Even if they got a confession (which they did), and even if it was legitimate, the judge (along with the rest of the world) is going to have to consider the validity of that confession, throwing the entire prosecution into question. What if we can't convict these evil people because their confessions were coerced illegally? Do we then let them go? Or continue to hold them without convicting them? This leads to some very bad options. Even if they are successfully convicted, many will not accept it because of the torture allegations. Why does our government insist on putting the punishment and imprisonment of these horrible people at risk? Why must they take a positive thing (capturing known terrorists) into a negative (we had to torture a so-called confession out of these people) with our own allies?

These actions are unconscionable and we should demand more responsible behavior from the people we trust to keep us safe.

An Oath and a Pledge

When our next Commander in Chief is sworn in, he or she will make the same oath as George Washington:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, our founding fathers thought it so important that they made it explicit in this oath. Protecting the Constitution is more important than protecting the Flag, protecting the Citizens, and protecting the national interest.

And yet, not all Presidents have taken this oath seriously. Our current President, George W. Bush, has taken abuses against the Constitution to new lows. Yes, you can argue that he is doing the same things as his predecessors. No doubt that is true, although he has gone much further than any in recent memory.

That is why, to me, the most important issue in the Presidential race this year is the candidates' stands on protecting the Constitution. If a candidate can only keep us safe from terrorists by locking us all up, then I say, don't bother we'll take our chances with the bad guys. If the only way to maintain a healthy economy is by scrapping freedom, then we'll scrounge for bread crumbs. Remember, our founding fathers were willing to give up their security and risk dying to create this institution. We shouldn't be so ready to give it up to keep the securities we have collected over the years.

And that is why it's not surprising that a liberal group and a conservative group with very similar names have taken on this very issue. The right-wing American Freedom Agenda and the left-wing American Freedom Campaign have both created 10-point pledges for the candidates, outlining specifically how they will undo the damage done to our founding document by the current administration.

Rep. Ron Paul, whose campaign has gotten lots of interest but few votes, was the first to sign on. He even introduced a version of the pledge as a bill on the House floor. None of the other Republican candidates (neither McCain nor Huckabee) has followed. However, all of the Democratic candidates have signed the pledge (Obama) or issued similar statements (Clinton).

Here's the bottom line, and why the founding fathers felt so strongly about this. When it's your guy (or gal) in the White House, then abuses of power are all for a good cause. No harm, no foul. But beware. The other team is bound to get a turn in control. And when that happens, they are sure to use all of the same new powers, and are likely to push them even further.

So, if you trust George Bush to decide who is an enemy combatant, would you also trust Hillary Clinton to make the same determination?

Here's the list from the conservative group. See if there's anything on here that's not a no-brainer:

• Prohibit military commissions whose verdicts are suspect except in places of active hostilities where a battlefield tribunal is necessary to obtain fresh testimony or to prevent anarchy;
• Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture or coercion in military or civilian tribunals;
• Prohibit the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants without proof of criminal activity on the President’s say-so;
• Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien enemy combatants, i.e., non-citizens who have allegedly participated in active hostilities against the United States, to protect the innocent;
• Prohibit the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or emails or breaking and entering homes on the President’s say-so in violation of federal law;
• Empower the House of Representatives and the Senate collectively to challenge in the Supreme Court the constitutionality of signing statements that declare the intent of the President to disregard duly enacted provisions of bills he has signed into law because he maintains they are unconstitutional;
• Prohibit the executive from invoking the state secrets privilege to deny justice to victims of constitutional violations perpetrated by government officers or agents; and, establish legislative-executive committees in the House and Senate to adjudicate the withholding of information from Congress based on executive privilege that obstructs oversight and government in the sunshine;
• Prohibit the President from kidnapping, detaining, and torturing persons abroad in collaboration with foreign governments;
• Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without fear of prosecution; and;
• Prohibit the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on secret evidence.

Now, go vote based on your candidate's willingness to follow the Presidential Oath of Office.

Kafka Was Right

Speaking of Gitmo, it turns out that there is a way to get out after all. All you have to do is be convicted of terrorism.

David Hicks has been held there for five years. Finally, he pled guilty and was sentenced. To nine months. To be served in his home country of Australia. And, since Australia is a penal colony itself, I'm pretty sure that means he's just going home.

Abd al Rahim Hussein Mohammed al Nashiri, a Saudi Gitmo prisoner suspected of masterminding the 2000 bombing on the USS Cole has apparently not figured this out. He earlier confessed his role, and almost certainly was on his way home, but now he has recanted. Seems now he claims he was tortured by the CIA, and only confessed to make them stop. Now they're never gonna let him out!

Meanwhile, superstar detainee Khalid Sheikh Mohammed made a detailed confession of planning everything from the 9/11 attacks to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. No doubt he was on the short list for a "vacation" in a Pakistani prison. But now he is claiming to be a victim of CIA torture. That has surely put his release plans on hold.

When will these terrorists learn? It's almost as if the CIA doesn't want them to be let out.

Gitmo For Life

Here are some fresh pictures from the prison that just keeps on giving:

The noble terrorist hunt:


There'll be none of this:


Every prisoner has access to his lawyer:


Victim of the shoe bomber (as confessed by Gitmo prisoner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed):


The prisoners are happy:


Professional, friendly prison guards:


Fun stress positions:


Humane interrogation methods:


Cultural sensitivity:

Mr. Castro, Let Our Terrorists Go!

One of the major arguments for denying basic Constitutional rights (such as habeas corpus, due process, ban on cruel and unusual punishment, jury trial, confronting of witnesses, etc.) to the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay is that the prisoners are outside sovereign U.S. territory.

Well, if Gitmo isn't part of the U.S., then it must be part of Cuba. That means that we should be turning these prisoners over to the government of Cuba. Or at least we should be looking at Cuban law to determine how to treat these people.

To make it easy for those running Gitmo, I've summarized some of the relevant aspects of the Cuban constitution.

The Cuban constitution claims sovereignty over the entire island of Cuba, and the Cuban government does not recognize the jurisdiction of the U.S. government over the Naval base at Guantanamo Bay. According to the Cuban constitution, foreign residents within Cuba are equal to Cuban citizens in terms of rights provided by the constitution. This implies that Gitmo prisoners are due all of the rights guaranteed by the Cuban constitution.

According to the Cuban constitution, all prisoners are guaranteed inviolable personal integrity. Trials and sentencing must be by competent courts based on existing laws and as guaranteed by law. Every prisoner has the right to a defense.

Also, no violence or pressure of any kind can be used to force people to testify. If such violence or pressure is used, any statements used will be null and void, and those responsible for the violation will be punished.

So, as I see it, we have a few choices with regard to these prisoners. We can bring them to the U.S. and provide them with the guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. Or we can turn them over to the Cubans and them them provide them with Cuban justice. Or we can treat them under the guarantees of the Cuban constitution. Or we can let them all go free.

Mr. Bush, your choice.