Bush League U.S.A.

There'll be fires on the road
and the white man dancing
You'll see a woman
hanging upside down
her features covered by her fallen gown
--The Future, Leonard Cohen
________________

More on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, though not the last word.

The beginning of the KSM trial marks the start of a new era in United States jurisprudence, the certification that we have truly become a banana republic -- full-on Bush League. Since we have more people incarcerated than did the Stalin era Soviet system, an organic growth issuing from that is we would have fantasy trials lacking legal precedent that abandon the concept of the right to be proven guilty, which would imply the right to defend oneself against charges.

One cannot defend oneself when hamstrung. KSM may not challenge the validity of evidence collected during his torture. He will not confront a presumption of innocence and a standard of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Ergo, he is guilty before presumed innocent.

These bedrock defining elements of the U.S. trial system will be missing from the KSM trial because both of the U.S.'s warlord presidents have indicated that some men are too dangerous to ever be freed from Guantanamo Bay. As KSM is one of those men, the initial presumption of his guilty status makes a mockery of the entire judicial process.

Worldwide and historically-speaking, military tribunals seldom if ever meet the standards of civilized concepts of justice. When KSM is convicted by his tribunal it is we, the American people, who will bear the guilt of this sad chapter in the tale of misguided American actions.

Five'll Get You Ten

-- Pavel Constantin, Romania

Why she's neither fish nor flesh
--Henry IV (III, iii), Shakespeare

Baby, even the losers get lucky sometimes
Even the losers keep a little bit of pride
They get lucky sometimes
--Even the Losers, Tom Petty
______________

Federal District Court is hearing the habeas corpus case of six-year Guantanamo detainee, Mohammed Jawad, who was a teenager when captured.

Jawad was accused of throwing a granade, though the judge in the case, Ellen Segal Huvelle, said that 90 percent of the case had been based on his confessions, which were extracted under torture and followed death threats by Afghan officials. Huvelle said, “There is no evidence otherwise” (U.S. Judge Challenges Evidence on a Detainee.)

The New York Times reports troublingly, "Of about 200 habeas cases in the federal court in Washington, judges have so far ruled that five Guantanamo detainees are properly held and that 26 are not." Only 5 of 31 were adjudicated as being properly held -- about 15% of detainees can be justified legally.

Interesting is that though 26 of these defendents are deemed improperly held, they are not being released, either. So, why did they even get their day in court? If they are still in prison, then they did not win. They are losers, and nobody cares.

Where is America storing its collective conscious?

Ticket to Ride

--Eleanor's Rule, Rachel James

We gotta get out of this place
If it's the last thing we ever do
--We Gotta Get Out of This Place,
The Animals
________________

Though the title says "High Court Sides with Guantanamo Detainees Again," the real news is that the Constitution lives, and the Supreme Court recognizes that fact. The WaPo's Dan Froomkin called it, "Constitution 3, Bush 0" in George Bush's "slow and painful schooling in constitutional law."

"The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

"In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. . .

"Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, 'The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.'"

Amen, Justice Kennedy. The Constitution has not been trumped by a Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©.)

The category "detainee" is a farce for a farceur. Most are political prisoners held indefinitely without arrest or due process; the rest are "enemy combatants," which = "P.O.W." in the parlance of a quainter time.

Ranger is not an advocate for terrorists or terror groups, but "terrorists" and "enemy combatants" are two distinct categories. It is extremely unlikely, for instance, that a Taliban rifleman or a grass roots advocate is a terrorist. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, these Taliban riflemen had a legitimate right to defend their homeland. This does not make us at Ranger unpatriotic; it does recognize their patriotism, however.

Even if they kill U.S. service members in the process, it occurs in legal ground combat, therefore if captured these personnel are P.O.W.'s. So it goes in the rules of land warfare.

In contrast to P.O.W.'s are terrorists who are captured in theatre, like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM). KSM should be arrested, charged, interrogated and tried in open court. How can anything he says in court be secret since he is aware of it?

If KSM knows it, so does al-Qaeda, therefore it is open knowledge. Moreover, it is five years old. The secrecy argument does not wash, and neither terrorists nor P.O.W.'s should be tortured.

The issue of categorization of detainees as Taliban or al-Qaeda has been rendered irrelevant. The administration has insured the release of all the Gitmo prisoners as torture was used across the board.

What happens to concepts like chain of evidence in these court cases? How can anything gotten via questionable standards be deemed bona fide evidence? No legal court will admit tainted evidence, which is all this administration can provide.

While there are terror types being held in captivity, constitutional justice will require their release. It's a thorny issue but democracy is messy, especially since George Bush started imprudently tinkering with established jurisprudence.

"In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called 'the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.'"

Chief Justice Roberts needs to get a grip here. Enemy combatants (P.O.W.'s) are not the threat to the U.S. Terrorism is the threat, and the Court, Congress and the President always soft-shoe this fact by labeling everything terrorism. However, we have case law in place to deal with either scenario.

This administration's overreaction has caused more damage than terrorists ever could have. Of course, that is the goal of terrorism, and the U.S. fell nicely in line, thank you. Terrorism alone can not defeat America; terrorism is a nuisance, not a strategic issue. George Bush and Co.'s righteous overreaction elevated a terrorist act to Olympian standards.

"The court has ruled twice previously that people held at Guantanamo without charges can go into civilian courts to ask that the government justify their continued detention (petition of habeas corpus.) Each time, the administration and Congress, then controlled by Republicans, changed the law to try to close the courthouse doors to the detainees."

"In addition to those held without charges, the U.S. has said it plans to try as many as 80 of the detainees in war crimes tribunals, which have not been held since World War II.

"Five alleged plotters of the Sept. 11 attacks appeared in a Guantanamo courtroom last week for a hearing before their war crimes trial, which prosecutors hope will start Sept. 15."

The alleged plotters of 9-11 should be tried on charges of crimes against humanity or simple conspiracy murder. There is no "war," so why the levels of emotionally fraught charges?

The conspirators are not military types and their acts are not acts of war. They are simply criminals.

No Soup for You

Americans, indeed all freemen, remember
that in the final choice, a soldier's pack is not
so heavy a burden as a prisoner's chains
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

I know how men in exile feed on dreams of hope
--Aeschylus

There ain't no substitute for the truth
Either it is or isn't
--The Truth, India Arie
_____________

More members of the military revolt against participation in the kangaroo trials for Gitmo detainees (A Few Good Soldiers.) These defections are excellent evidence that some principled men and women in uniform still navigate by the Constitution.

"These refusals, affecting two trials [last] week, suggest that the whole apparatus—seven years and counting in the making—cannot ever be fixed. The trials are doomed, and they are doomed from the inside out (A Few Good Soldiers.)"

It is doubtful the military tribunals can ever be fixed, but why did they come into being in the first place? The U.S. has done well up to 2002 with a Department of Justice and a Federal court system, fully capable of trying terrorist cases. All terrorist acts are violations of normal U.S. Code. Terrorist acts are criminal in the same way as are murder, kidnapping, bombing, etc.

How can the Court Martial Convening Authority for these trials be a Department of Defense civilian with no military or command authority? Courts martial are convened by the Commander in a particular chain of command. Why is this different for Gitmo?

The system was created to provide an extra-legal sphere in which torture and relaxed rules of evidence could prevail in kangaroo courts. But there is no need to get tricky and cute with the law, as this tinkering threatens the integrity of a democratic society. Either we are or we aren't.

As the judicial process stands vis a vis detained potential / possible / probable enemy combatants (POW's?) and terrorists, we have created a grotesque pastiche. Small part democracy; large part gulag. They are incompatible processes, hence the attorney's declining to play on such a mined field.

If we don't trust our own legal system, what are we fighting for?