Disclaimer: The content of the guest contribution is the opinion of the guest and does not necessarily represent the opinion of the management of Moonhowlings.com.

Tuesday, Feb 7, 2012 11:00 AM 12:21:25 EST

Published in Salon.com

The secretive military system for prosecuting accused terrorists is a travesty says the man once ran it

The U.S. Defense Department specializes in euphemism. “Limited kinetic action” is a polite way of saying “war” and “collateral damage” does not sound as blunt as “dead children.” When I was chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay during the Bush administration, I was told not to say publicly that a detainee had “attempted suicide.” The government-approved term for the act was “self-injurious behavior.” I could not say “torture,” or as some called it, the “T-word.” Instead, I had to say “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

The euphemism tradition remains alive and well in the Obama administration. The slogan “fairness, transparency, justice” is featured prominently throughout the military commissions’ new half-million dollar web site. The slogan even shows up when case document links lead to a notice saying the “document you are trying to access is currently undergoing a security review” and might be posted later if the government decides it is “publicly releasable.”

Say you are interested in the case against Abd Rashim Nashiri, the alleged mastermind of the USS Cole bombing in Yemen in October 2000 that killed 17 U.S. sailors. You are not allowed to see the judge’s docketing order setting April 11-13 for the next session to consider motions.

You are not allowed to see a key motion seeking authorization for Nashiri’s lawyers to depose former Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh while he is in the United States. The Obama administration is permitting Saleh to visit New York City for medical care; many believe he should be at the International Criminal Court facing charges for turning his forces on Yemeni protestors resulting in 270 civilian deaths.

Before being elected to the presidency, Barack Obama condemned what he said were “flawed” Bush-era military commissions. He voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006 when he was a member of the Senate and he argued that detainees accused of criminal conduct should be tried in federal courts or courts-martial, either of which he said would “demonstrate our commitment to the rule of law.” Six years later it appears all it takes to transform fatally flawed into fundamentally fine for Barack Obama is to tack a new word onto an old title to give it a euphemistic revival: now we have “reformed military commissions.”

Brigadier General Mark Martins, the sixth and current chief prosecutor for the military commissions, gave a talk to the New York City Bar Association last month. In it, he used the phrase “reformed military commissions” more than three dozen times. Apparently tacking the word “reformed” onto “military commissions” and using it over and over is supposed to erase a decade-long record of failure that has, as then-Senator Obama said, tarnished “our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law.”

The failure of the military commission system is well-documented. President Bush first authorized military commissions in an order he issued on November 13, 2001. Six military commission trials were completed in the decade that followed. Two of the six “worst of the worst” war criminals – David Hicks and Salim Hamdan – have served their short military commission sentences and are free men back in their home countries.

Over the same period, hundreds of terrorism-related cases were tried with success and without incident in federal courts resulting in typical sentences that exceeded those in military commissions by a wide margin. The Bush administration’s initial notion that military commissions would be more swift, more secret, and more severe than federal courts has proven clearly wrong. Nonetheless, the Obama administration intends to press ahead with “reformed military commissions,” U.S. credibility be damned.

I was one of the most public advocates of the original military commission structure that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled was illegal in June 2006. Congress revived and reformed the military commissions in September 2006 with the Military Commissions Act (that Senator Obama voted against.) These “reformed” military commissions were implemented through a series of documents that set out new rules and procedures to improve the process that the Supreme Court had struck down. Once again, I publicly praised their virtues to an increasingly skeptical world audience. Before I resigned as chief prosecutor in October 2007, I personally authorized charges against David Hicks, Salim Hamdan and Omar Khadr under the 2006 “reformed” military commission system.

President Obama ordered a halt to military commissions as soon as he took office in January 2009, but he backtracked a few months later in the face of conservative fear-mongering. Nine months after President Obama took office, the Democrat-controlled Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2009 to replace and reform the process it had created in 2006 to replace the process President Bush created in 2001. The slight change in 2009 is supposed to let President Obama save face. The military commissions authorized in 2001, 2006 and 2009 have so far generated 51 implementing documents totaling 2,352 pages setting out rules and procedures. Each series of reforms purports to be better than the last which had purported to be better than ones before. Each has failed.

I honestly believed we were committed to full, fair and open trials when I became chief prosecutor in 2005, but I lost confidence in that commitment over time as political appointees tried to manipulate the process and make it more like a theatrical production than a judicial proceeding. After more than a decade of futility and failure, the question is no longer whether the U.S. could proceed with “reformed again and again and again military commissions,” but whether it should.

In his recent talk, Brigadier General Martins said “… while federal courts will and should objectively be the appropriate forum in most instances, reformed military commissions will sometimes be the better choice.” His rather vague statement raises some issues that should be considered before lumbering along even further down the sullied military commission path.

Which cases are candidates for military commissions? Brigadier General Martins said federal courts are the appropriate forum in most instances and that military commission cases may be “numerically few.” The administration has identified fewer than three dozen detainees they intend to prosecute for alleged criminal conduct. How will those cases be divided between federal courts and military commissions? Senator Diane Feinstein hinted at the answer during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in 2010 when she told Attorney General Eric Holder that in choosing between the two forums, “make the decisions based on the legal facts and where we best get a conviction.” If you peel back the rhetoric and examine the ground truth, military commissions likely end up the “better choice” when there is a chance the U.S. government might not be assured of a conviction elsewhere. In other words, the U.S. will afford an accused all the justice possible while ensuring the cards are stacked decidedly in the government’s favor.

Military commission proponents rationalize the need for this peculiar forum citing the exigencies of war and the unique circumstances presented on the battlefield. That argument would be more persuasive had most of the Guantanamo detainees been captured under circumstances bearing some resemblance to battle. They were not. For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was rousted from a bed in a house in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, by Pakistani authorities and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri was captured in the United Arab Emirates without any U.S. military involvement. In the end, it is not so much what the detainees did that make military commissions the better choice, it is what the U.S. did that may not stand up to traditional principles of justice.

The U.S. has invested a great deal of effort in trying to revive a military commission process it last used in World War II and make it fit the unique circumstances of a handful of post-9/11 terrorism cases. There have been 779 men detained at Guantanamo over the past decade. Only 171 remain, and a majority of them have been cleared for transfer (about 89 men) or designated for indefinite detention without trial (about 46 men). Four more have already been convicted and sentenced, leaving 32 potential cases for prosecution. The last of the 32 was captured in 2006, so the facts of any case have not changed in more than five years.

Rather than developing these few cases to conform to the rules of regular federal court, the U.S. has tried to develop an irregular military court to accommodate the cases. The end result – at least until the next reform attempt – is a process where an accused can spend a decade or more waiting for his day in court; nearly all of the information is classified and the accused only gets to see what the prosecution decides is appropriate; the government demands that it gets to see the information shared between the accused and his attorney; and even if the accused wins, he is likely to still spend the rest of his life in prison.

This is the kind of ‘heads we win, tails you lose’ process the U.S. condemns when it is used in other countries. If President Obama thinks this is going to restore America’s reputation as a nation committed to the rule of law he is mistaken. Pinning the word “reformed” to the title does not make a silk purse out of this sow’s ear of justice.

Morris Davis was chief prosecutor for the military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from 2005-2007. He is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and a member of the faculty at the Howard University School of Law in Washington, D.C.

Ron Paul has enough flaws in his views on abortion that you could drive a truck though them. Life begins at conception but….so if someone is raped a shot of estrogen is ok.  Then why isn’t the morning after pill a good thing?  This guy is a medical doctor.  If I listened to him, I would be so confused.  

I have never met a single person who believes abortion is exceptable  acceptable [sorry about that, gang] at 9 months.  I doubt I ever will.  No one does.  Surely they mean a life or death of the mother situation.  I am tired of that even being part of the discussion.  Roe v. Wade does not find that acceptable either.  But the lies and confusion continue.

Mr. Libertarian sure wants to put some restrictions on women. His logic is non-existent.   Perhaps he isn’t really a libertarian.  It seems like behind the scenes this entire election is about abortion, contraception and planned parenthood rather than about recovery and jobs.

From Moe Davis:

There was more patriotism in the Clint Eastwood ad than in any real political ad by either real party I’ve seen all year. I was ready to go kick ass and take names, and charge up the hill.

 

Could it be that Clint Eastwood just called out America for being so divisive?

Your reaction?

How about those commercials!? 

I enjoyed the Mayan end days one. 

Predictions?

UPDATE:  BOCS MEETING Tues. Feb 7 @ 2 pm

Carlos Martinelly Sentenced to 20 Years in Car Crash That Killed Nun: MyFoxDC.com

Carlos Martinelly was sentenced to 20 years in prison for his drunk driving accident (August 1, 2010)  that injured 2 nuns and killed a third.  Martinelly was also charged with felony murder. 

Wikipedia defines ‘felony murder’ as follows:

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder in two ways. First, when an offender kills accidentally or without specific intent to kill in the course of an applicable felony, what might have been manslaughter is escalated to murder. Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. While there is some debate about the original scope of the rule, modern interpretations typically require that the felony be an inherently dangerous one, or one committed in an obviously dangerous manner. For this reason, the felony murder rule is often justified by its supporters as a means of deterring dangerous felonies.

I keep thinking about this case being Corey Stewart’s launch pad into state politics.  For over a year we have heard about this case, day after day.  This case has been all over Fox News time after time, as some sort of landmark illegal immigrant case rather than a drunk driving case.  Martinelly was brought here illegally  as a child.  He had a green card.  He just didn’t have legal status.  He became the ‘nun killer.’ 

Meanwhile, another drunk driving case  was barely mentioned.  William John Mallory was sentenced to 20 years for the deaths of a grandmother and her toddler grandson.  17 years of that sentence  were suspended.  Mallory serves 3 years.

There is some inequity here.  I excuse no one nor am I attempting to excuse drunk driving. However, why is Martinelly serving all 20 years and why was he charged with murder?  I feel certain he didn’t get in his car that morning and decide to go mow down a car load of nuns in cold blood.  I feel certain William Mallory didn’t plan on killing a grandmother and her little grandson. 

Why is there so much disparity between these two cases?  Could it be that the Commonwealth Attorney’s office caved in because Martinelly was an illegal immigrant?  Could it be that killing nuns is worse than killing grandmothers? Judge Farris sentenced Martinelly to 20 years. 

 On the other hand,  Judge Johnston also ordered that  Mallory, who hit the family in 2009,   also has to serve 5 years probation and put a wreath on the graves of the deceased to remind him of what he did.  The family feels short-changed.  On the other hand, the Benedictine nuns said from the beginning that they wanted no retribution and they didn’t want the case to become political. 

Mallory did not receive national attention.  Martinelly did.  Stewart won’t catapult into a state election on the back of Mallory like he is trying to do over Martinelly.  I would just like to see similar cases treated equally. 

Is this guy a redneck or what?

Social conservatives emboldened by Republican gains in the General Assembly in November suffered a major setback Thursday when a Senate committee deadlocked on a bill to prohibit women from having an abortion beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy.

But today, the House of Delegates appears ready to pass a bill to defund state-paid abortions for low-income women expecting a child with “gross and totally incapacitating physical deformity or mental deficiency” after the chamber advanced the measure Thursday.

The vote was 7-7 on Senate Bill 637 sponsored by Sen. Mark D. Obenshain, R-Harrisonburg. Republicans hold an 8-7 majority on the committee, but Sen. Harry B. Blevins, R-Chesapeake, abstained, deadlocking the measure.

After the vote, Blevins said he was moved by the wrenching testimony of Tara Schleifer, a mother from Haymarket in Prince William County. She tearfully described ending a pregnancy in its second trimester after learning the fetus had congenital heart and bowel defects that would translate to debilitating pain and suffering as a child.

“I would rather have died than do this to my baby,” said Schleifer, who brought her 3-year-old son to the proceedings.

She said the bill prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks would give families virtually no time to decide whether they need more testing to determine the viability of the fetus.

“It was just traumatic for me to sit there and think about what that woman was going through and not give her any consideration,” Blevins said.

The vote came after conflicting testimony over at what point during gestation a fetus can feel pain. The proposed 20-week limit was predicated on the assumption that fetuses can feel pain beyond 20 weeks, but other citations suggest that does not occur until at least 24 weeks, or roughly the beginning of the third trimester.

In Virginia, abortions are permitted up to a physician’s determination of viability, typically 24 to 25 weeks at the end of the second trimester.

The tie vote, stalling the bill, is a blow for abortion opponents and Republicans who on Wednesday advanced legislation through the full Senate that would require women seeking an abortion to first have an ultrasound.

“It is unfortunate that by one vote, pain-capable unborn children will continue to suffer the horrific death caused them by abortion,” said Olivia Gans, president of the Virginia Society for Human Life.

Is this woman being deliberately obtuse?  Does she not understand that the abortions being discussed were for fetuses with profound abnormalities, very often conditions that would be horribly painful  post birth?  We treat our animals better than humans if this is the mentality that is being used.  Most of us would never give birth knowingly to  a child who would suffer horrible pain during the course of its life. 

The backlash from this war waged by some of the social conservatives is going to be terrific. It needs to be.  Warnings from the reproductive rights activists were going unheeded.  This daily attack is the end result.  It needed to happen to shake the pro-choice community off its apathy. 

SB637 was stalled but will probably reappear since a similar bill is coming through the delegate assembly and will probably end up in the same committee.  Senator Blevins is to be commended for his careful consideration of an issue that is incredibly painful for women and couples who must consider the termination of a very wanted pregnancy because of severe abnormalities.  Tara Schleifer of Haymarket is a hero for her brave, painful testimony before this group.  It had to be difficult as she spoke through her tears.   Often people who step up and do the right thing subject themselves to harassment by zealots. I sincerely hope that does not happen to this brave woman.

HB 67 should come out of the gate at a fast pace.  That bill is a state funding bill.  Currently poor women who have been victims of rape or incest can have state funded abortions.  

The House of Delegates advanced House Bill 62, introduced by Del. Mark L. Cole, R-Spotsylvania. The measure would repeal a section of state code authorizing the Board of Health to fund abortions in cases of gross incapacity and deformity for women on medical assistance.

The Virginia Department of Health approved funding of 23 abortions in fiscal 2010 with a total cost of $14,681, according to a fiscal impact statement attached to the bill. In fiscal 2011, the department approved funding for 10 abortions for a total cost of $2,784.

Cole said the bill conforms Virginia Medicaid law to federal law by incorporating the Hyde Amendment, a federal provision — named for former Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois — that bars the use of tax dollars to pay for abortions in circumstances other than rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life.

Democrats argued against the measure for the impact it could have on women with no financial means.

“Think about the human beings behind this,” said Del. Vivian E. Watts, D-Fairfax, pointing to the “tremendous burden borne by someone on Medicaid” if her child is born in such a condition.

As of Friday afternoon, HB67 passed the House of Delegates.  NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia released the following:

“No woman plans to have an abortion, but if she needs one, every woman deserves the opportunity to make the best decision for her circumstances. Women and their families should have access to safe and affordable health services, especially in a medical crisis despite her financial circumstances,” said Keene. “Virginia is a Commonwealth which by definition should seek to care for the most vulnerable among us during their most difficult times. The Commonwealth has failed women today.”

Hopefully there will be private funds available.  The anti-choice crowd always over-reaches.  Keep going.  The sleeping giant is awakening.  The women of Virginia won’t go back because of fools who simply refuse to look at the complexities of life outside of a binary operation.  All in life is not good or bad.  Sometimes as humans we have to weigh our choices, like  Tara Schleifer did.  Surely that was not a decision she wanted to have to make.

I will freely divulge that I am a friend of Kim’s and she is one of the most honest, selfless, decent human beings I have the privilege of knowing. She  has a policy of fairness for all, developer and citizen alike. As a planning commissioner she simply expects that everyone will follow the rules that are intended to be applied to development practices, and for that, she is clearly feared by the development community.

Corey Stewart appointed Austin Hayes who is a partner in Christopher Realty. Apparently for one of his very first cases before the Planning Commission he recused himself. So a Developer is perfectly fine as a Planning Commissioner but someone who has no direct monetary gain is NOT!

Citizens should be furious, I know I am. Kim has nothing to gain but ensuring that PWC citizens have access to clean water and air, she works hard to prevent PWC taxpayers from footing the bill for bad development proposals.

She is only one voice and yet, her voice must be very powerful to have scared so many.

I will be writing more on this in the near future, but I felt it was critical to get the information out ASAP.

PWC Dem. Delegate Luke Torrian has introduced HB 405, which seeks to limit participation on Planning Commissions and appears to target nonprofits. It is online here, although the amended language is not yet posted. The bill was referred to the Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns, which met this morning and voted in favor of HB 405 with the following amended language:

“In Planning District 8, no private citizen may be appointed as a member of the commission who is a compensated employee or a compensated member of the board of a nonprofit association or organization where such organization advocates for or against the environment and land use policies or regulatory determinations of local government.”

PWC Chamber of Commerce and PWC builders testified for the bill.

Mark Flynn of VML spoke against the bill, citing the unusual nature of targeting one specific Planning District, of the need for qualified people from differing perspectives, of the exemption of homebuilders/developers from this, and because in one quick amendment the bill could be applied statewide.

A Fairfax County rep also spoke against the bill, noting that the PC is advisory to the Board of Supervisors which makes the ultimate decision, that it is hard enough to get citizens to serve and this further limits the pool, that PC’s can have a diversity of viewpoints, and that the conflict of interests statute already covers relevant situations.

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?121+sum+HB405

I wrote this last week but tabled it as I was told by Delegate Torian’s aid that they were working very hard on getting the bill pulled from committee. They were indeed successful and pulled the bill. It is officially dead and will not rise again from Delegate Torian’s office.

The News and Journal Messenger has written a comprehensive accounting of the “we don’t want Kim Hosen serving as Planning Commissioner” HB405 bill. I will share with you that citizens were concerned that Kim would be targeted as Planning Commissioner, but no one EVER thought it would be through Richmond. Was Corey involved behind the scene? Is Corey afraid that Kim makes him look bad while he runs for Lt Governor?

Mayor Porta had a fabulous quote about this legislation.

It appears to use state law to specifically target an individual who
cannot be removed through Prince William County’s normal processes
because that individual continues to have the support of the county
supervisor who is responsible for her appointment,” stated Porta in a
recent email sent to Torian.

Shame on the PWC Chamber of Commerce for using their influence to try to get rid of a planning commissioner they don’t like, how incredibly juvenile. If you don’t like the development rules in PWC then work to change them, don’t sneak around behind closed doors like cowards.

I take this story very personally. My mother is a breast cancer survivor, both my grandmothers died from breast cancer. I am at high risk for carrying a specific breast cancer gene. I use to be a huge supporter of the Susan G. Kohmen Foundation. That support  has ended as of today. Apparently their leadership has made a choice to cut off the most at risk women who require low cost health care from their funding.

Furor Erupts Over Susan G. Komen Halt Of Grants To Planned Parenthood

The reaction has been intense this evening to the news from The Associated Press that “the nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates.”

Much of it is highly critical of the charity, such as this message from Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif.:

“Komen’s decision hurts women — it puts politics before women’s health. @komenforthecure should be ashamed.”

Or this tweet from political satirist and Daily Show co-creator Lizz Winstead:

“I am crying in a cab at this Komen decision. Tomorrow we will rally. Who is in this fight with me! You can no longer sit idly by.”

The AP story posted on NPR.org  has nearly 400 comments as of this moment. The most recommended at this time:

“I will be halting my support for Komen and I will be telling them why.
This is just silly.” [From "Fly Butterfly."]

According to the AP, the Komen foundation says it has stopped sending money to Planned Parenthood affiliates — who used the funding to provide breast cancer screening and education programs to women — because of an inquiry initiated by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., into whether Planned Parenthood has used public money to provide abortions. The Komen foundation’s position is that it does not give grants to organizations that are under investigation. It gave about $680,000 to Planned Parenthood affiliates last year and $580,000 the year before, according to the AP. Planned Parenthood says Komen grants have paid for about 170,000 breast exams in the past five years.

This is part of the letter that Planned Parenthood  has sent to all its members today.

This is for all the anti-choice, anti-women people out there.

Listen up.

You can spend every minute of every day trying to force the rest of us to live by your ideology. You can go after federal funds for health care and pressure private organizations like the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation to stop funding breast cancer screenings for poor women. You can try to make it impossible to get birth control.

But you know what you can’t do? You can’t win. You can’t break us. Planned Parenthood isn’t just a family of organizations. It’s a movement. It’s women and men of all ages who believe that health care — including reproductive health care — is a basic human right. We are millions strong. We are everywhere. We act, we give, and we do whatever it takes to make sure that Planned Parenthood is there for the women, men, and teens who rely on them.

Know this: When you go after Planned Parenthood and the people they serve, you go after ME. I stand with Planned Parenthood. I stand with them against anyone who wants to stop women from receiving the health care they need. I stand with them today, tomorrow, and for as long as I need to.

Thursday will be the day for this big guy.  Will he see his shadow?  We haven’t had that much winter yet so if he sees his shadow, do we have 6 more weeks of this spring weather? 

I can’t remember a winter this mild.  What is causing it?  Does anyone have daffodils blooming?  Mine have lots of buds.  If we get a hard freeze, will there just not be daffodils this spring?  How does that work?