Today's Washington Post addresses a generally underreported phenomenon: the detention, harassment, and even deportation of U.S. citizens and legal residents by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. I feel that this is an incredibly disturbing precedent being set, especially at a time when 300,000 are detained each year by the ICE. This latest development is but one out of many nefarious results of the post-9/11 American security-state. As always, it disproportionately targets those with darker skin and negligible incomes.
In this diary, I will list numerous cases in which the due process rights and legal niceties many of us take for granted are denied for those who do indeed have every right to be here. They are legally documented residents, and thus should be treated with dignity and be considered innocent until proven guilty.
A detainee, a computer engineer working in the Empire State Building, living in Queens. Jason's wife is a citizen and he has two sons born in America.
He died in US custody. Held in New England, his body riddled with cancer. Had a fractured back as well. He was denied medical examinations and treated horribly until a few days before his death. Even though he was told he didn't have much time to live, once he finally was able to be examined, they made it difficult for his family to visit. He was barely able to see his little boys, ages one and three. Shame, shame on America.
John McCain, Lindsey Graham, [and, I’m sure] Joe Lieberman, and a host of other Republican corporate-fascists in the U.S. Senate are attempting to deliver a death knell to the U.S. Constitution by adding an amendment banning habeas corpus.
They claim it would only affect detainees in Guantanamo Bay; but I would ask how long would such an amendment be limited to only the detainees at the notorious offshore prison? How long would it take for such a ban to be manipulated to better fit the greater neocon agenda? How long before we all lose habeas corpus... forever?
By the way, any so-called Democrat supporting any such antithetical amendment should immediately be thrown out of the Democratic Party, and in the case of Lieberman; he should be thrown out on his arse -- HARD.
Six "High-Value" Guantánamo Prisoners Held, Plus "Ghost Prisoner" Mustafa Setmariam Nasar
The existence of a secret, CIA-run prison on the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean has long been a leaky secret in the "War on Terror," and yesterday’s revelations in TIME -- based on disclosures by a "senior American official" (now retired), who was "a frequent participant in White House Situation Room meetings" after the 9/11 attacks, and who reported that "a CIA counter-terrorism official twice said that a high-value prisoner or prisoners were being interrogated on the island" -- will come as no surprise to those who have been studying the story closely
Of this, I believe. I believe in honesty and empathy. I trust in reports that reveal in 2002, the Department of Justice assured the Central Intelligence Agency interrogators who violated anti-torture laws they would be safe from prosecution. Emissaries only need a sincere "faith they caused no "prolonged mental harm." I believe that neither branch of government cares for what I hold dear.
Today when Bootlick Atty Gen. Mukasey gave his speech he asked for Congress to issue a new AUMF for the Bush admin. If this doesn't send out warning bells to every citizen, then they are just plain braindead.
As part of the plan, the administration also wants Congress to "reaffirm," nearly seven years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that the United States "remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda" and other terrorist groups. The administration used Congress’s original affirmation of an armed conflict, three days after 9/11, not only to invade Afghanistan, but also to incarcerate enemy combatants without trial and to conduct wiretaps on Americans without a court warrant.NYTimes
Over the last couple years many have called on Congress to rescind the current AUMF since Bush uses it as a excuse for many illegal acts including Torture.
Despite numerous court decisions, including rulings from the highest court in the land, both recent and not so, AFP (via Yahoo) reports that scheduled hearings for Guantanemo detainees will continue as scheduled.
ABC News this morning a new twist on Alberto Gonzales' role in the converging Bush administration torture and prosecutor purge scandals. According to ABC, the new Attorney General Gonzales in early 2005 sacked top administration lawyer Daniel Levin over his December 2004 memo declaring "torture is abhorrent," only to promise him a U.S. attorney slot to placate him. But lost in ABC's account is the fact just before he carried out his retribution against Levin, Alberto Gonzales lied to the Senate about President Bush's torture policies during his January 2005 confirmation hearings.
Physicians for Humans Rights just laid the smackdown on a Pentagon spokesman who dissed PHR's new report on medical evidence of U.S. torture and its enduring impact on former detainees, men who were never charged with any crime.
This is juicy. In a moment, the Pentagon talks smack and gets smacked down. First, a bit of background.
Both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had unjustifiedly obscure but majorly important serious guests tonight. First, Jon Stewart interviewedLara Logan, the chief foreign correspondent for CBS News, who said of the "mainstream media" news coverage of Iraq and Afghanistan, "If I were to watch the news that you're hearing here in the United States, I'd just blow my brains out, because it would just drive me nuts." I've posted a full transcript on my personal blog.
If you're still questioning the righteousness, morality, or constitutionality of the activities at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, President Bush has a message for you:
Just in case Republicans still wonder why the GOP routinely garners less than 10% of the African-American vote, the reactions of some of their leading lights to the Supreme Court's Guantanamo detainee decision should provide a quick reminder. While John McCain Friday simply called the Court's Boumediene ruling "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," right-wing legal analyst David Rivkin and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich were much more specific. The Court's restoration of habeas corpus, they insist, is worse than the infamous Dred Scott slavery case which helped precipitate the Civil War.
Not entirely surprising--RedState blogger Mark Impomeni is urging Shrub to disregard Boumediene v. Bush. What is surprising, however, is the line he's taking--SCOTUS itself may have committed an unconstitutional act.
The unpleasant fact overlooked by Justice Anthony Kennedy and the four justices who signed on to his majority opinion, is that in ruling the military tribunals set up by the Military Commissions Act to be unconstitutional, the Court itself committed an unconstitutional act. Congress, acting under its Article III power to regulate the judicial branch, stripped the Supreme Court of the jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from detainees in the custody of the United States when it passed and the president signed the Military Commissions Act.
Just one problem with that ... a problem named the Suspension Clause of the Constitution
In the wake of the Supreme Court's restoration of habeas corpus rights in its Boumediene decision Friday, John McCain and his allies on the right have predictably forecast an American bloodbath at the hands of terrorists unleashed from Guantanamo. While Justice Antonin Scalia claimed the ruling would "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed," Newt Gingrich contended the Supreme Court "could cost us a city." As for McCain, he simply regurgitated a soon-to-be familiar GOP talking point, "30 of the people who have already been released from Guantanamo Bay have already tried to attack America again."
According to Bush and his merry band of neoconservatives the only function of this Court should be TO DO AS THEY TELL IT TO DO. Well the 4 lackeys' did just that, 2 of which he appointed himself, the others, one his Daddy's choice and the other(he wished he was his daddy) Reagan's. Good ole Reagan appointee Anthony Scalia, (Scalia on capital punishment: "Death is no big deal" {unless of course it's his or his loved ones} - Hypocrisy to the highest degree!) did Bush's bidding just like a good little justice was suppose to do. But the tie breaker was Kennedy (Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged the terrorism threat the country faces — the administration's justification for the detentions — but he declared, "THE LAWS AND THE CONSTITUTION ARE DESIGNED TO SURVIVE AND REMAIN IN FORCE, IN EXTRAORDINARY TIMES!") Thank all that is good that Reagan slipped up on this nomination, when he nominated a THINKER to the Supreme Court. Will wonders never cease?
thinkingblue.blogspot.com
