Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
AFP:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gWFoE2jjFp5p3qqVaPzEIfuIKuFQ
US seeks to modify rules governing Guantanamo appeals process
* * * * *
Lyle Denniston:
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sweeping-challenge-to-detainee-process/
Sweeping challenge to detainee process
Tuesday, November 18th, 2008 11:07 pm | Lyle DennistonIf the 113 cases involving some 200 prisoners have to go forward first in District Court, the new filing said, that could produce an “entirely unwarranted” situation of reverses on appeal “months from now” and “only after volumes of classified information have been unnnecessarily disclosed.”
As an alternative — and apparently the preferred step — the Department suggested that the case be sent immediately to the D.C. Circuit Court to consider quickly the sweeping challenge.
The multi-faceted attack on the system of District Court habeas review [...] had a close parallel in the government’s attempts to pare down another form of civilian court review of detention decisions under the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The latter effort, however, has foundered, and now the government is seeking to shut down the DTA process altogether, leaving only the habeas cases. (The new filing recycled some of the documents submitted to courts during the challenges to the DTA system.)
The new filing came in four parts: first, a motion to clarify and reconsider key parts of a Nov. 6 “case management order” issued by Senior District Judge Thomas F. Hogan or, in the alternative, a motion to send the case to the Circuit Court along with a delay of specific parts of the Hogan order, second, a set of proposed orders; third, a series of sworn statements by Pentagon and intelligence officials on the risks to national security; and, fourth, a sworn statement on national security risks by FBI Director Robert S. Mueller. Also filed, but not made public, were secret statements from intelligence and military officials.
[...]
- - Lyle Denniston
"We are pleased with the Court’s decision affirming the determination that Bensayah Belkacem is an enemy combatant and may be held during this armed conflict. [...] As the Court requested, we are promptly reviewing the decision with respect to the other five petitioners. [...]"- - Peter A. Carr, Acting Director of Public Affairs, USDOJ
-- sysprog
Did I miss something? Here, we have this USDOJ spokesman saying that they will "promotly" review the decision.
I wasn't aware that the judge asked them to "promotly" review anything. They were ordered to "promptly" (forthwith) RELEASE these prisoners, not to promotly review the decision.
Is this some sort of joke?
I don't have any inside information or insights into the CommonDreams operation.
I have Googled in a desultory fashion, and have turned up a few criticisms of CD's odd ways, including a history of comments censorship of which I was not previously aware.
See http://tinyurl.com/6zn7rq, especially "HIGHLY AMUSING UPDATE:" mid-page.
Having posted fairly regularly there for many months, I am aware that the site never, ever responds to any sort of inquiry or request for assistance with technical problems, or informs readers of technical issues that affect posting. Oh, they have the usual generalized and ambiguous policies, but they really don't say much except that management reserves the right to do what it wants.
The only exception is a couple of months ago, when Executive Director Craig Brown condescended to explain what I call the Great Comments Reformation-- a technical overhaul that included improved comments software, but also "hid" the comments threads so that the default access concealed them.
He also has sent fund-raising e-mails-- the last one before the election encouraged the CD "community" to support Obama. So they can be interactive when it suits them; otherwise, there is a creepy reclusive character to the site administration.
I'm aware that progressive blog readership is distributed along an axis with a positive pole of mush 'n milk "polite" visitors who are easily disturbed and offended by not only profanity, but any passionate views, and a negative pole of those of us who can cope with rigorous and passionate expression. Brown justified the Reformation by claiming that many loyal readers were appalled by the "anger", "hate", etc. polluting the once-placid and pristine constructive dialogue. But until November 3rd, "dissident" views were still tolerated.
This draconian purge came out of nowhere. And in the admittedly slight ripple effect, questions like yours have been asked by others-- including questions about CD's lack of public accountability for its funding and contributions. This purge has released many bad vibes; speculation ranges from the site being taken over or somehow sabotaged by anti-progressive forces (farfetched at best) to Brown just getting tired or bored with the site since his wife and co-founder passed away a few months ago.
I wrote a caustic, but civil, letter to Brown about this, but I'm not expecting an answer. I'm ticked off enough to continue looking for clues.
Meanwhile, I can only say: "Heckuva job, Brownie!"
. . . for the collaborators, quislings and sundry other criminals who have not been responsible for not only implementing these crimes, but for the 'good Germans' who actually put the boot in. The guys that did this to other people. Only following orers kinds of people (I believe there is an option in the military for people NOT to do shit that goes against their conscience -- that's a whole different can of worms, the pressure to do bad shit because you'd like like a pussy, or would not be a patriot, or you'd be off the team, or whatever). Yup, there may have been a few good eggs, like the mythical 'gook' that drew a cross in the sand for McCain while he was doing his hard time, but for the most part, what do we do with the goons that participated?? Do we forgive them, as the South Africans did, or do we get all vindictive on them?? Me? I'd hate to know that the guy (or woman) living next door was a former prison guard / interrogator / wedding-party bomber or just a jarhead who rained willy-pete on civilians . . .
Our nation should be shamed...
I would prefer that the Bush administration not be seen as a "stain" on the honor of the US government. It's not a mere stain, but a fully-saturated, nearly whole-cloth DYE.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
