Happy Furry Puppy Story Time with Norbizness

This Took So Long To Type, It Refuted Itself

As far as I can tell, the current debate on taking away the right of habeus corpus from non-citizen detainees boils down to this: "look, we're making sure that nobody tortures you, now please give up your right to challenge the messed-up system that can hold you indefinitely without charges." Of course, those persons held outside of Congressional review in refurbished Eastern European or Mallorcan prisons are, as usual, SOL.

Those of us who think that the nation's obligation to its Constitutional history and international law demands a little more are trying to exert a little pressure. The fulcrum of the argument comes from the invaluable work done by Hilzoy and Katherine at Obsidian Wings, breaking down the statement in support of the habeus-stripping amendment proposed by Senator Lindsey Graham into thirteen separate parts. I encourage you to read all of the component parts, but this is my Cliff Notes' version:

(1) The Senate is trying to strip detainees of rights they are said to have under a Supreme Court decision (Rasul v. Bush);

(2) People found not to be enemy combatants by the military tribunals are still being held at Guantanamo, presumably with no legal relief;

(3) Graham's self-serving rhetoric about the detainees being terrorists (and therefore having no rights) is belied by #2, as well as the bounty system where people were essentially sold into Northern Alliance captivity;

(4) Graham disingenuously states that not stripping habeus will lead to frivolous lawsuits over medical care; meanwhile, back in the real world, medical care is being withheld as an interrogation technique (long post);

(5) and (6) Disheartening examples of the method explained in #4, including an English teacher in detention who has had two of his vetebrae broken by our torture firm, freedom-loving, fruitful interrogation.

(7) The proponents of habeus-stripping say that all of the detainees were captured on the battlefield, a claim obviously untrue on both the facts and the legal arguments used by government lawyers who didn't want any oversight (e.g. the little old lady in Switzerland giving to a false charitable front).

(8) The argument that the tribunals are enough, a claim belied by the Joseph Heller-like transcripts produced by the rights-less system. (I've actually covered this before with the help of Sergeant Ted McGinley).

(9) Another spurious example cited by Graham, which was not a frivolous jailhouse suit involving the right to watch videos, but rather a method for a detainee to verify that his lawyer was actually his lawyer (and not an undercover interrogator).

(10) Another mischaracterization of a lawsuit by Graham as an interference with interrogators, rather than a motion to get a suicidal teenager (captured at age 15 and interrogated for three years) psychiatric care.

(11) Graham believes that we'll have Congressional oversight. AH-HA-HA-HA!

(12) and (13) This post explores some of the legal ramifications of the limited review that a habeus writ or other legal remedies actually gets these prisoners, and the obvious deficiencies of the "appellate" process under military tribunals.

And now, upon Googling for the text of the Bingaman Amendment that would have restored detainee rights for judicial review, I learn that a compromise has been reached.

Well, there's a lot of cruelty, injustice, and un-American activity detailed in that 13-point post that still need to be monitored and worked against (including the tale of this detainee). For instance, another news story today, the 9-11 Commission notes that the Bush administration has not followed up on developing uniform standards for the treatment of detainees. As Bon Jovi once said: Shot through the heart, and you're to blame / You give Kafkaesque a bad name.

Posted by Norbizness at November 14, 2005 09:24 PM