Lt. Col. BARRY WINGARD says he used to think all the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay must be terrorists, but not anymore

post-gazette.com, Sunday, July 26, 2009 (see sig)

I received military orders last year directing me to report to Washington, DC, to defend a Kuwaiti detainee at Guantanamo named Fayiz al-Kandari. Prior to accepting these orders, I assumed Guantanamo Bay was full of al-Qaida operatives and others involved with the Sept. 11 attacks on our nation. I have since learned that is not the case.

My career has taken me down many paths, some of which were totally unexpected. I have served in the U.S. military for two and a half decades -- 14 years in the Army infantry and 11 and counting in the Air Force as a judge advocate general.

As a JAG attorney, war crimes trials and investigations are not uncharted territory for me. Among my prior military assignments, I was charged with prosecuting in Baghdad more than 100 cases involving more than 170 individuals who had attacked coalition forces in Iraq. I have investigated various crimes in Bosnia.

My current assignment representing Fayiz, however, may be the most challenging and eye-opening case in my long military career. As a military lawyer, I am duty bound to defend Fayiz every bit as zealously as I defend American soldiers. But I must admit that, at first, a part of me assumed Fayiz and the other detainees at Guantanamo probably deserved to be there.

The more I investigated Fayiz's case and examined the government's evidence against him, my initial assumptions quickly changed.

Fayiz likely was sold to U.S. forces by Afghan bounty hunters; he wasn't captured on the battlefield. The evidence that has kept Fayiz locked up without charges for more than seven years is razor thin and questionable at best. Despite being subjected to harsh treatment and "enhanced interrogation techniques," Fayiz's story has remained consistent. When he was captured in Afghanistan, Fayiz was doing charity work that his religion requires, known in Islam as Zakat.

If the U.S. government believes my client is guilty, it should give him a trial. If the government is not sure, it should allow him to challenge his detention before a federal judge. But what the government cannot do -- in a country that believes in the rule of law -- is imprison a man on a whim and throw away the keys. If that's what our country has come to, then there's a bitter irony here. We are fighting for democracy abroad while abandoning our democratic principles at home.

[...]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09207/986168-109.stm

Pakistan's Activist Judges Target Musharraf

Time, By Omar Waraich / Islamabad Saturday, Jul. 25, 2009 (sse sig)

When General Pervez Musharraf stepped down as Pakistan's president last year, he looked forward to a quiet life of golf, lucrative speaking engagements, and evenings clinking glasses and tugging on cigars with friends over a game of bridge. He certainly wasn't expecting the summons issued on Wednesday by Pakistan's Supreme Court to appear later this month and defend his November 2007 imposition of a state of emergency — when he sacked the very judges, led by the recently reinstated Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, who are now demanding answers from him.

Musharraf's resort to emergency rule was widely derided as a self-serving move by to stave off political challenges. As both army chief and president, Musharraf suspended the constitution, sacked the Supreme Court bench, arrested opposition activists and muzzled sections of the media. Many Pakistanis, including even some of Musharraf's erstwhile allies, have welcomed the court's decision to hold him accountable. But there are also fears, even among some of Musharraf's staunchest opponents, that the move represents an activist judiciary overstepping its role, playing to popular sentiment and positioning itself as an alternative authority to the unpopular civilian government. (See pictures of the Pakistani Lawyers' movement celebrating the reinstatement of Chief Justice Chaudry.)

Musharraf currently faces no charges, but the court has demanded his presence for an interview that could form the basis of a future prosecution. Leading political figures such as former prime minister Nawaz Sharif — who was overthrown by Gen. Musharraf in a 1999 coup — have long demanded that he be charged with "high treason" for "subverting the constitution."

[...]

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1912681,00.html?xid=newsletter-daily

Mike Malloy was down with a virus, so Brad Friedman was the Guest Host on The Mike Malloy Show and interviewed Glenn for the first hour of the show. The topic is Gitmo detainees and torture.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7320#more-7320

I totally agree with your point and plead guilty to attempting all the things that you listed except running for office. I still want control over the remainder of my life in terms of time and priorities. That is not possible when you run for office or get elected. That may be why too many of our legislators do it more for personal reasons than helping the greater community.

If we had a system where our national representatives didn't have to spend so much time chasing money for reelection and could spend it on developing effective, fair legislation, more high character people would run for office.