Tag: Civil liberties

There has been plenty of controversy on the issue of conducting a Congressional or independent investigation into the interrogations policy and torture activities of the Bush administration over the last seven or eight years.

One of the primary worries by those who oppose a “truth and reconciliation”-style investigation is that it would preempt possible prosecutions, or at worst, be a cover-up of some of the worst crimes involved. Those who favor such an investigation believe that is only with a broad investigation will all the information really be unearthed.

The hearing today by the Senate Judiciary Committee — “Getting to the Truth Through a Nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry” — chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), was called to explore options for investigating past torture and counter-terrorism policy.  The committee called six witnesses, some for, some against such an investigation. But a close look at the backgrounds and affiliations of even most of the pro-investigation witnesses should give us deep pause, and ask what kind of commission are we being set up for?

The topic below was originally posted in my blog the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Longtime readers of the Intrepid Liberal Journal may recall my April 2006 posting entitled, “Brain Fingerprinting and Civil Liberties.” One mistake I made at the time was conflating the acronym FMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) with the term brain fingerprinting. Perhaps the most accurate generic term is brain mapping.

The Election Committee of the American Psychological Association announced today that the referendum of APA members, in regards to prohibiting psychologist participation in settings where human rights violations take place, has passed with almost 60% of the vote. The total vote, which took place by mail ballot and closed officially on September 15, exceeded the total number of votes cast in the 2005 and 2007 APA presidential elections, and recent by-law votes. The vote turnout clearly indicates a great deal of interest in the interrogations issue by the membership.

The vote for the referendum represents an important victory for anti-torture, civil liberties forces, both inside and outside the APA. Dan Aalbers, one of the authors of the referendum text, and who along with psychologists Ruth Fallenbaum, Brad Olson, and Ghislaine Boulanger, was one of the members of Psychologists for an Ethical APA who worked hard to secure the measure’s passage, in a phone interview called the vote “a decisive victory…. Now we have to work to ensure that APA bows to the will of its members.”

Amy Goodman reported from the Twin Cities (Minneapolis-St. Paul), site of the Republican National Convention, September 1, 2008, Labor Day:

Armed groups of police in the Twin Cities have raided more than a half-a-dozen locations since Friday night in a series of preemptive raids before the Republican convention. The coordinated searches were led by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher but conducted in coordination with federal agencies….

Minnesota Public Radio is reporting that the FBI is at least one of the “federal agencies” acting in concert with the Minneapolis/St. Paul police departments. A professor at the University of Minnesota has snapped a photo of FBI presence at one of the raids. Many of these police gestapo actions involved two dozen or more riot police entering private homes with guns drawn, handcuffing the residents, and rifling through the house to search computers, and political literature.

Cross posted from my morning Open Thread on WWL this morning.

Finally had time to cross it! Have a grin. (kind of)

I am thinking about the slaughter of the Bill of Rights. Of course, when written it only inferred itself to rich white men anyway; now it blatantly applies to rich white men.

(Hat tip to Mentarch for sending me off on this tangent a couple times this week!!)

Being in a snarkilicious mood, lets examine these shall we? I’m dying to see what I come up with, and dying to see if you can find a better, more humorous way to re-define them in the comments.    

“No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed, or outlawed, or banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him, nor send upon him, except by the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” 1

“One of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” 2

“The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” 3

Last Friday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, long considered one of the most conservative courts in the the nation, rejected the appeal of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, who was sentenced in 2005 for conspiracy to assassinate President Bush and make other terror attacks upon U.S. targets on behalf of Al Qaeda. Abu Ali, who is a U.S. citizen and the son of naturalized Jordanian parents, was arrested in June 2003 in Saudi Arabia and held there until the U.S. requested his extradition almost two years later. He was 23 years old and attending a Saudi university at the time of his arrest.

During his incarceration, the Saudis refused his repeated requests to see an attorney. At no time has Abu Ali ever been linked to an actual terrorist event or action. In 2003, the government secretly broke into his parents’ home, utilizing provisions of the U.S.A. Patriot Act that allows warrantless search and seizure to go fishing for evidence of Abu Ali’s “dangerousness.”

The UK Guardian is reporting the United States is holding hundreds of detainees from its international wars on at least 17 “floating prisons” in different harbors around the world. The detainees are interrogated, and then many of them sent via extraordinary rendition to other countries for further interrogation and torture.

According to research carried out by Reprieve, the US may have used as many as 17 ships as “floating prisons” since 2001. Detainees are interrogated aboard the vessels and then rendered to other, often undisclosed, locations, it is claimed.

Ships that are understood to have held prisoners include the USS Bataan and USS Peleliu. A further 15 ships are suspected of having operated around the British territory of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which has been used as a military base by the UK and the Americans.

The U.S. House of Representatives today refused to grant telecommunications companies retroactive immunity for assisting dictator George W. Bush in his illegal spying.

I interrupt this report for a brief rant: I really wish Reuters and other news agencies would cease using the word ‘defy’ and its derivatives when reporting about stories such as this.  Congress is the legislative body, and the branches of government are supposed to be co-equal.  Congress cannot, according to the Constitution, defy the executive branch because it is not subservient to it.

I now return to the story at hand.

But the 213-197 vote was far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a promised veto by Bush. He has demanded that any telecommunication company that participated in his warrantless domestic spying program secretly begun after the September 11 attacks receive retroactive immunity.

As MSNBC reports, ‘Because of the promised veto, “this vote has no impact at all,” said Republican Whip Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri.’

Republicans falsely accused Democrats of endangering national security by refusing to grant immunity.  But their arguments are based on deception; since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — passed in 1978 and updated in 1994 — set up a secret court that doles out ninety-nine percent of all warrants applied for, there is no legal block to using the power of the federal government to spy on alleged terrorist communications.  It is also unlikely that terrorists would be foolish enough to use telephone and Internet services to pass on information.

Bush’s illegal spying on American citizens is motivated, like Richard Nixon’s administration, to keep tabs on political enemies and to monitor dissent.  If telecommunications companies face prosecution for their role in helping him break the law, they may be more likely to cooperate with investigators to go after members of the White House who ordered the illegal wiretaps.  Bush wants to provide immunity in order to take away any incentive for that cooperation, because testimony and evidence is likely to directly implicate him in lawbreaking.

Cross-posted from EENR