In speaking to David Kirkpatrick for a piece in the New York Times’ ongoing (and going, and going. . .) series “The Long Run,” Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) contributes to the ever-growing list of leading Republicans’ attempts to dismiss the illegal abuse of detainees at Guatanamo Bay as little more than a mild discomfort or a puckish hazing ritual.

[McCain] likes trading jokes about colleagues with a small group of friends that includes Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. . . . Entertaining guests at his property in Sedona, Ariz., [McCain] invariably drags them for long walks to indulge his passion for bird watching. “If you took all the people at Gitmo, put them in the cabin for the weekend and made them listen to John talk about the birds, they would all spill their guts.” Mr. Graham said.

   
I will agree with Lindsey Graham on one point: listening to John McCain speak is unfailingly tedious—however. . .

Has anyone else noticed the egregious, misleading use of the term "war crimes trials," by the mainstream media in describing the Military Commission Act trials that the Bush administration is now launching in Guantanamo?

Isn't it odd that the Bush administration and the brain dead, lazy, propogandistic mainstream media (including NPR of course) would start calling the military commissions trials, "war crimes trials," just as domestic and international interest in prosecuting former and current Bush administration officials for "war crimes" is reaching an all time high, and various Bush administration officials are being warned against travelling to Europe, where they might be subject to arrest for war crimes, after the end of their catastrophic administration?

Wasn't one of Rove's favorite tactics painting your enemy with your own faults -- such as calling John Kerry a coward to confuse the issue about Bush's desertion from the Texas Air National Guard -- or otherwise just plain confusing the public?

and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

ALL MEN.

That should have included Brandon Mayfield, but the FBI lied about his fingerprint. For those lies, and more, it cost us $2 milion.

That should have included Steve Hatfield, but Attorney General Ashcroft called him a person of interest. For those words and more, it cost us $4.6 million.

That should have included John Walker Lindh, but we denied his repeated requests for a lawyer, and we stripped him, blindfolded him, bound him, and held him  in a shipping container.  For that treatment he got 20 years, but it cost us our honesty

That should have included Jose Padila and Yaser Esam Hamdi.  Hell, it should have included Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

we hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. . .

Words, only words . . .

After six years of waiting, the Pentagon has rushed trials at Guantanamo to seek to achieve convictions of high value detainees before the fall elections.  Many, including myself, have argued that the rush is to try to rescue Bush's dismal record of prosecuting the "War on Terror" and benefit GOP candidates at the polls.

Yesterday, in a capitulation to defense lawyers and a step away from injustice, the Judge presiding over the Guantanamo tribunals decided to slow down the rush to prosecution to hold individual hearings of the accused to address irregularities.

John McCain talks at great length about his reluctance to talk about his POW experience. When he is not talking about not bringing it up, one of his surrogates is bringing it up.  No one can ask why  his war  experience is relevant to his running for President.  That is claimed to be an attack on his heroism and even his patriotism. Not even if it is acknowledged that McCain is a genuine hero and we are all grateful for his service.  

Yet, on the one issue to which his experience  is relevant to public policy-torture of POWs, dealt with in the Military Commissions Act- McCain  caved in to Bush.

WaPo

Initially, McCain appeared reluctant to talk about the connection between his being a prisoner of war and his presidential candidacy. "Please," he said. "I had an experience in serving - I had the privilege and honor to serve in the company of heroes."

"If it helped me be president, it made me appreciate how wonderful and great and patriotic Americans are in their leadership...," he said, before trailing off.

Ok. But he was not finished:

The DC Court of Appeals just handed Bush a major smackdown on his terrorism policy - they (may have laid the groundwork for) establishing that there's no such thing as an "Enemy Combatant"

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal appeals court, in the first case it reviewed, has overturned the Pentagon's classification of a Guantanamo detainee as an enemy combatant.

...

The court rejected the Bush administration's argument that the president has the power to detain people who never took up arms against the U.S.

This decision probably won't affect insurgent fighters captured on the field of battle, but it could affect non-combatants those captured via informants or surveillance, and following the Supreme Court's recent restoration of Habaeus Corpus, it seems unlikely that they would overturn and reverse this decision - and if taken to it's ultimate conclusion, the implications to the Bush Administration could be devastating.

This is a short Diary with the purpose of calling to your attention an article in today's New York Times about a Military Lawyer at Guantanamo who is fighting for the Rule of Law.

Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler in an American Hero.

The NY times has published McCain's National War College essay, written in April 1974. Although the point of the thesis is to offer possible changes in the POW code taught to U.S. soldiers, it is a fascinating look at McCain's thinking vis-a-vis Vietnam War (was for it, unquestionably), the antiwar movements (he despised them), and -- most interesting -- his description of the North Vietnamese torture methods.

Guess what -- most of these North Vietnamese tactics are being used today in Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan. And while McCain has talked a good game about opposing these tactics, during the last eight years he has badly compromised these values in the hopes of winning over the pro-torture right wing Republican base.

Let's look at the contrasts between McCain in 1974 and the McCain/Bush policies of the last eight years.

In criminal trials, destruction of evidence is a serious offense.  If a judge were to learn that a prosecution attorney destroyed evidence in a Death Penalty case, this would almost certainly taint the prosecution and prevent the death penalty, if not result in a mistrial.

Remember the destroyed Torture Tapes?
We still do not know who gave the orders to destroy the CIA videos of the torture of high-value detainees.

Well the orders to destroy torture evidence also extended to handwritten notes from interrogations at Guantanamo.

Democrats should expect that a major tactic to be employed by the Republicans in the coming election will be the issue of "terrorism".

Look for campaign ads exploiting the images of 9/11, the Flag Pins, and the rhetoric about "Islamofascism" and the threat to the "Homeland".

And just wait for the media circus surrounding the spectacle Government has prepared for the summer:

The War Crimes Trials of Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

The Judiciary Committee has voted this morning to subpoena Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington to testify and explain the development of the administrations interrogation program.

Amazingly Addington has actually agreed to testify, as has John Yoo reversing his previous refusals.

Listening to the Vice-President's Chief of staff explain how Pouring water down someone throat isn't as bad as Forcing it down their throat - never mind the ensuing suffocation either way - should be a real popcorn moment.

By Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. Ben arrived in Guantánamo Bay Sunday evening to attend this week's military commission hearings involving Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

Tuesday's military commission hearing began with additional testimony and evidence regarding the defense's contention that the commission system is marred by improper political influence. The defense, citing former chief prosecutor Morris Davis's testimony, maintained that Salim Ahmed Hamdan could "not be prosecuted in a system where politicians hold the final say on who will be charged and what the outcome will be." The prosecution — while insisting that it was "not the government's position that Colonel Davis is an untruthful person" (call that the watch-your-back double negative) — suggested that Davis was pursuing a personal agenda and that the commission system was fair and independent.

Yesterday, Monday April 28, 2008, the man who used to be the Chief Prosecutor at Guantanamo  gave sworn testimony that puts the lie to the farce of the of the Military Commissions AcT (MCA) proceedings being used to try alleged terrorists. Col. Morris Davis told the tribunal hearing the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan that

Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II, who announced his retirement in February, once bristled at the suggestion that some defendants could be acquitted, an outcome that Davis said would give the process added legitimacy.

"He said, 'We can't have acquittals,' " Davis said under questioning from Navy Lt. Cmdr. Brian Mizer, the military counsel who represents Hamdan. " 'We've been holding these guys for years. How can we explain acquittals? We have to have convictions.' "

(Note, there is no transcript available at this time.)

By Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. Ben arrived in Guantánamo Bay Sunday evening to attend this week's military commission hearings involving Salim Ahmed Hamdan, which are slated to conclude today.

It’s become almost cliché to observe that each time a detainee is brought before a military commission at Guantánamo, it’s the commission system itself that is truly on trial. On Monday, however, that talking point achieved a more concrete reality with the extraordinary spectacle of the commissions’ former chief prosecutor appearing as star witness — for the defense.

In an LA Times Editorial last week, Scott Horton noted that the infamous torture memos from John Yoo and Jay Baybee may in fact have been written as an after-the-fact excuse to hide War Crimes which were already in progress.

... Yoo's account of how and why the torture memos were crafted may not hold up. Congress is preparing hearings into the subject, and they have invited Yoo to testify. International law scholar Philippe Sands and other writers have punched holes in Yoo's claims about the facts. It increasingly appears that the Bush interrogation program was already being used before Yoo was asked to write an opinion. He may therefore have provided after-the-fact legal cover. That would help explain why Yoo strained to take so many implausible positions in the memos.

So the question needs to be asked, can the President and his chief Principals (Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Ashcroft, Tenet and Powell) knowingly commit War Crimes then simply blow it off with a pair of CYA memos?

If we elect John McCain, America will demonstrate how socially backward, morally bankrupt and politically inept it has truly become. Maybe Republicans want us to vote on who is more patriotic, which is completely subjective. I say that a flag lapel pin doesn’t make a patriot if that person is willing to send hundreds of thousands to death in a false war and simultaneously tear down the very laws that make us free. But, that’s just my opinion. Maybe they want us to vote on who would have the ability to provide cheap (and crappy) beer to America. Keep us drunk to keep our minds off the misery that is Bush’s reality. I guess McCain would win that contest, but as for the actual election, there is too much at stake to waste a vote on John McCain.

Instead of allowing this President - or any President - to decide what does and does not constitute torture, we could have left the definition up to our own laws and to the Geneva Conventions, as we would have if we passed the bill that the Armed Services committee originally offered.

Instead of detainees arriving at Guantanamo and facing a Combatant Status Review Tribunal that allows them no real chance to prove their innocence with evidence or a lawyer, we could have developed a real military system of justice that would sort out the suspected terrorists from the accidentally accused.

And instead of not just suspending, but eliminating, the right of habeas corpus - the seven century-old right of individuals to challenge the terms of their own detention, we could have given the accused one chance - one single chance - to ask the government why they are being held and what they are being charged with.

--Senator Barack Obama, statement to Senate floor, October 5, 2006. on S. 3930, Military Commissions Act of 2006, which approved US torture of detainees and strips Constitutional rights away from detainees.

Norm-speak^TM was on full display today as the Minneapolis Star Tribune published a letter from Sen. Norm Coleman (R-MN) on torture.  Norm still claims to oppose torture, claims he opposes its use by the military and the CIA and then tries to confuse voters over what the real issue is.  No amount of splitting hairs, no attempt to redirect the conversation will cover up Norm's pro-torture positions.  When Norm tries to claim he is not a reliable pro-torture vote in the Senate, he is lying.