Ashcroft Getting The Once Over... Can Gonzalez Be Far Behind?
Appeals Court Hears Post-9/11 Detainee Lawsuit Against Ashcroft
It certainly does not defy logic that, given the reality of who was behind the events that occurred on 9-11-2001, persons from certain areas of the world deserve more scrutiny as they visit the United States, seek assylum, or seek to immigrate to our great nation. It does not defy logic that certain persons, including US citizens--naturalized or native born--deserve more scrutiny than others. After all, we have seen fundamentalist Muslims with terrorist mentalities present in our nation. But these realities do not excuse the government from doing its job as a just institution. If a person is suspected of a crime, especially one involving terrorist conspiracy and efforts to harm our people, then the FBI, the ATF, the IRS, the Secret Service, state and local police and our intelligence agencies all have a role to play out in making sure that these people are not only scrutinized, but are also submitted to the most rigorous of surveillance and investigation.
However, even in the case of a clear connection to Al-Qaeda, the Islamic Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist organization, we are required to establish probable cause and develop a criminal case against these persons in accordance with our Constitution and our basic values... the first principles embedded and embodied in our Constitution. The case being reviewed by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals takes former AG John Ashcroft to task on these issues.
It appears that the programs of torture, renidtion, mistreatment and racial/ethnic/religious profiling (which cast such a wide net that it was patently unjust and unconstitutional) began on Ashcroft's watch. Given that the US government settled with one of the named plaintiffs in this suit, that the Court has refused a motion to dismiss, and that the remaining plaintiff has a high probability of success, one would think that the current AG, Alberto "Nut Case" Gonzalez would be running for cover.
But let us examine some issues regarding the widely cast net of intelligence and law enforcement abuses in the post-9/11 era:
Canadian citizen Arar was imprisoned, sent to Syria, abused and tortured, kept in communicado for over a year, and has ultimately been proven to be innocent.
A returning US soldier has been detained after serving faithfully in Iraq because he was improperly placed on a no-fly list because gun powder was detcted on his combat boots. Since his comrades in arms were good soldiers and committed to the espirit de corps that is part and parcel of being in the military, this action delayed the return home of over 300 soldiers, many of whom had served two tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Over 400 detainees at Guantanamo Bay were released and classified as NLC (no longer combatant). After review by independent sources like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the United Nations refugee committees, and the EU Human Rights Council, all 400 were determined to have never been combatants in the first place. The reality is that all 400 of those released from Gitmo were innocent of the charge of being terrorists, insurgents or enemies of the United States. (One would think that they now harbor some ill will toward the US after being held for years without legal recourse or contact with the outside world.)
While adamantly denying the allegations of secret CIA prisons, extraordinary rendition, the use of torture to "interview" detainees, etc., the Bush administration, justified by the legal opinions issued by Ashcroft, Gonzalez and Rumsfeld, held, tortured and illegally imprisoned at least a dozen people classified as Al-Qaeda.
Then there is the culture of abuse that has been the plan of the day for prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq (Abu Ghraib), Gitmo and the secret prisons and renditions operated by the US.
There are numerous other examples where the US government, under the Bush banner of "war on terrorism," has violated the laws of our nation (including ratified treaties) and international laws. Certainly Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rice, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft have qualified themselves as having committed crimes against humanity, if not war crimes as well. Even in war, there are standards that are not negotiable. When our leaders violate these standards thay should be held accountable.
As a side note, I have to acknowledge the courage of certain soldiers that have decided that our government has engaged in an illegal and unjust war, violating the very principles of our nation and Constitution. Lt. Ehren Watada is now facing criminal prosecution under the UCMJ, and new charges are being added daily. But Watada is fulfilling his oath of office in that he recognized that the war in Iraq is being operated in an unconstitutional manner and refused to be a part of it. As a soldier, the idea of rejecting an order to engage in warfare is contrary to ever thing that a soldier stands for... except when it means defending the Constitution. If I were Watada's lawyers, I would make the unconstitutional nature of the war and the actions of the Bush administration part and parcel of his defense. It is lawful, under the Constituion and the UCMJ, to refuse to follow illegal orders... orders that are crimes against humanity... orders that violate the Geneva Conventions... and orders that are based upon lies and falsified information.
But the case against Ashcroft is just the beginning. I predict that cases will soon be filed against AG Gonzalez as well as Secretary Rumsfeld. I predict that more court cases will be forthcoming on matters concernign the actions, attitudes, decisions and assertion of powers not delineated in the Constitution... cases filed against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzalez, Chertoff, and the generals/admirals in the military that chose to follow unconstitutional orders rather than fulfill their oath to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic."
It must be noted that some of the arguments coming from Bush and his gang of fascist thugs make the case that the Constitution does not apply to them in times of war or emergency. Since the Bush administration has managed to create a state of "emergency" that has lasted over five years, the question becomes not only how do they justify suspending the US COnstitution, but how can a state of emergency exist for such a period of time... and doesn't the fact that it has gone on for so long indicate incompetence?
It certainly does not defy logic that, given the reality of who was behind the events that occurred on 9-11-2001, persons from certain areas of the world deserve more scrutiny as they visit the United States, seek assylum, or seek to immigrate to our great nation. It does not defy logic that certain persons, including US citizens--naturalized or native born--deserve more scrutiny than others. After all, we have seen fundamentalist Muslims with terrorist mentalities present in our nation. But these realities do not excuse the government from doing its job as a just institution. If a person is suspected of a crime, especially one involving terrorist conspiracy and efforts to harm our people, then the FBI, the ATF, the IRS, the Secret Service, state and local police and our intelligence agencies all have a role to play out in making sure that these people are not only scrutinized, but are also submitted to the most rigorous of surveillance and investigation.
However, even in the case of a clear connection to Al-Qaeda, the Islamic Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist organization, we are required to establish probable cause and develop a criminal case against these persons in accordance with our Constitution and our basic values... the first principles embedded and embodied in our Constitution. The case being reviewed by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals takes former AG John Ashcroft to task on these issues.
It appears that the programs of torture, renidtion, mistreatment and racial/ethnic/religious profiling (which cast such a wide net that it was patently unjust and unconstitutional) began on Ashcroft's watch. Given that the US government settled with one of the named plaintiffs in this suit, that the Court has refused a motion to dismiss, and that the remaining plaintiff has a high probability of success, one would think that the current AG, Alberto "Nut Case" Gonzalez would be running for cover.
But let us examine some issues regarding the widely cast net of intelligence and law enforcement abuses in the post-9/11 era:
Canadian citizen Arar was imprisoned, sent to Syria, abused and tortured, kept in communicado for over a year, and has ultimately been proven to be innocent.
A returning US soldier has been detained after serving faithfully in Iraq because he was improperly placed on a no-fly list because gun powder was detcted on his combat boots. Since his comrades in arms were good soldiers and committed to the espirit de corps that is part and parcel of being in the military, this action delayed the return home of over 300 soldiers, many of whom had served two tours in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Over 400 detainees at Guantanamo Bay were released and classified as NLC (no longer combatant). After review by independent sources like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the United Nations refugee committees, and the EU Human Rights Council, all 400 were determined to have never been combatants in the first place. The reality is that all 400 of those released from Gitmo were innocent of the charge of being terrorists, insurgents or enemies of the United States. (One would think that they now harbor some ill will toward the US after being held for years without legal recourse or contact with the outside world.)
While adamantly denying the allegations of secret CIA prisons, extraordinary rendition, the use of torture to "interview" detainees, etc., the Bush administration, justified by the legal opinions issued by Ashcroft, Gonzalez and Rumsfeld, held, tortured and illegally imprisoned at least a dozen people classified as Al-Qaeda.
Then there is the culture of abuse that has been the plan of the day for prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq (Abu Ghraib), Gitmo and the secret prisons and renditions operated by the US.
There are numerous other examples where the US government, under the Bush banner of "war on terrorism," has violated the laws of our nation (including ratified treaties) and international laws. Certainly Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rice, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft have qualified themselves as having committed crimes against humanity, if not war crimes as well. Even in war, there are standards that are not negotiable. When our leaders violate these standards thay should be held accountable.
As a side note, I have to acknowledge the courage of certain soldiers that have decided that our government has engaged in an illegal and unjust war, violating the very principles of our nation and Constitution. Lt. Ehren Watada is now facing criminal prosecution under the UCMJ, and new charges are being added daily. But Watada is fulfilling his oath of office in that he recognized that the war in Iraq is being operated in an unconstitutional manner and refused to be a part of it. As a soldier, the idea of rejecting an order to engage in warfare is contrary to ever thing that a soldier stands for... except when it means defending the Constitution. If I were Watada's lawyers, I would make the unconstitutional nature of the war and the actions of the Bush administration part and parcel of his defense. It is lawful, under the Constituion and the UCMJ, to refuse to follow illegal orders... orders that are crimes against humanity... orders that violate the Geneva Conventions... and orders that are based upon lies and falsified information.
But the case against Ashcroft is just the beginning. I predict that cases will soon be filed against AG Gonzalez as well as Secretary Rumsfeld. I predict that more court cases will be forthcoming on matters concernign the actions, attitudes, decisions and assertion of powers not delineated in the Constitution... cases filed against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzalez, Chertoff, and the generals/admirals in the military that chose to follow unconstitutional orders rather than fulfill their oath to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic."
It must be noted that some of the arguments coming from Bush and his gang of fascist thugs make the case that the Constitution does not apply to them in times of war or emergency. Since the Bush administration has managed to create a state of "emergency" that has lasted over five years, the question becomes not only how do they justify suspending the US COnstitution, but how can a state of emergency exist for such a period of time... and doesn't the fact that it has gone on for so long indicate incompetence?
A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sharply questioned federal officials Wednesday during oral arguments in the case of a Pakistani man who says he was detained because of his race, religion or national origin soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and tortured while in custody. Javaid Iqbal, who was held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn after a US immigration and security sweep picked up some 1,200 mostly Arab and Muslim men in November 2001, claims he was abused and held for no legitimate reason. Iqbal sued several defendants, including former US Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Bureau of Prisons head Kathleen Hawk Sawyer, seeking to find out whether they knew about the abuse, which allegedly included severe physical and verbal abuse, unnecessary body-cavity and strip searches, and interference with Iqbal's exercise of religion and with attempts to communicate with counsel. The defendants appealed a US district judge's decision last year rejecting Ashcroft's motion to dismiss the suit. (NOTE: The argument that Ashcroft used was essentially that the Constitution doesn't apply in times of emergency.)
A lawyer for Ashcroft and Mueller argued Wednesday that the attacks created a national emergency requiring special action and that it is not apparent that his clients were involved. Other defendants argued that Iqbal's allegations of mistreatment while in custody did not give rise to a due process claim, an argument which met with harsh criticism from the panel. No terrorism charges were ever filed against Iqbal, who was deported to Pakistan for credit card fraud. A second plaintiff in the suit, Egyptian Ehab Elmaghraby, settled with the US government for $300,000. In July, Algerian Benamar Benatta, the last individual believed to have been still in detention following the post 9/11 sweep was released.
posted by Jim Downey at 7:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home