Muslim prisoners held in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison were submerged in water-filled garbage cans with ice or put naked under cold showers in near-freezin

NEW REPORT: ABU GHRAIB PRISONERS PACKED IN ICE WATER-FILLED GARBAGE CANS AND SENT INTO SHOCK, MILITARY POLICE SAY | Submitted by davidswanson on Mon, 2008-03-17 16:26. | By Sherwood Ross

Muslim prisoners held in Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison were submerged in water-filled garbage cans with ice or put naked under cold showers in near-freezing rooms until they went into shock, Sgt. Javal Davis, who served with the 372nd Military Police Company there, has told a national magazine.

Davis, from the Roselle, N.J., area, said while stationed at the prison he also saw an incinerator with “bones in it” that he believed to be a crematorium and said some prisoners were starved prior to their interrogation.

Another soldier that had been stationed at Abu Ghraib, M.P. Sabrina Harman---who gained dubious fame for making a thumbs-up sign posing over the body of a prisoner she believed tortured to death---said the U.S. had imprisoned “women and children” on Tier 1B, including one child was as young as ten.

“Like a number of the other kids and of the women there, he was being held as a pawn in the military’s effort to capture or break his father,” write co-authors Philip Gourevitch and Errol Morris in the March 24th issue of The New Yorker magazine, which describes Abu Ghraib in a 14-page article titled “Exposure.” ...

Scalia says courts shouldn't prohibit torture: "extraordinary" to suggest that "cruel and unusual punishment," be applied to interrogators overseas .

Scalia says courts shouldn't prohibit torture | Nick Juliano | Published: Tuesday February 12, 2008

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that US courts have any control over the actions of American troops at Guantanamo Bay, argued that torture of terror detainees is not banned under the US Constitution and insisted that the high court has no obligation to act as a moral beacon for other nations.

"We don't pretend to be some Western Mullahs who decide what is right and wrong for the whole world," Scalia told a BBC interviewer Tuesday, defending narrow interpretation of the reach the US Constitution gives the nine justices on the country's high court.

Scalia said it was "extraordinary" to suggest that the 8th Amendment, which prohibits the government from engaging in "cruel and unusual punishment," could be applied to the actions of US interrogators questioning foreign subjects detained overseas. In his view, Scalia said that while the 8th Amendment would prohibit locking up someone indefinitely as punishment for a crime, for example, the CIA or military would be perfectly justified keeping a suspected insurgent or member of al Qaeda imprisoned forever if the detainee refused to answer questions.

"Is it obvious that what can't be done for punishment can't be done to extract information that is crucial to the society?" Scalia asked. ...

Bush dials back Watergate-era reforms on spying safeguards

Bush dials back Watergate-era reforms on spying safeguards | Nick Juliano | Published: Friday March 14, 2008

A little-noticed executive order President Bush signed last month dials back checks on the Intelligence Community that have been in place since revelations that spy agencies abused their power in the 1960s and 70s.
...
But Bush downsized the board's mandate to be an aggressive watchdog against such problems in an executive order issued on Feb. 29, the eve of the anniversary of the day Ford's order took effect. The White House said the timing of the new order was "purely coincidental."

Under the old rules, whenever the oversight board learned of intelligence activity that it believed might be "unlawful or contrary to executive order," it had a duty to notify both the president and the attorney general. But Bush's order deleted the board's authority to refer matters to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation, and the new order said the board should notify the president only if other officials are not already "adequately" addressing the problem.

Bush's order also terminated the board's authority to oversee each intelligence agency's general counsel and inspector general, and it erased a requirement that each inspector general file a report with the board every three months. Now only the agency directors will decide whether to report any potential lawbreaking to the panel, and they have no schedule for checking in. ...

no showing nor is no showing possible that the President had the authority to order what he did. This is a crime, defined under federal law

Contempt by The Supreme Court | By: Nicole Belle on Wednesday, February 20th, 2008 at 6:38 AM - PST

On Tuesday’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann talks to Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley about the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear the ACLU vs. NSA case on warrantless wiretapping.

OLBERMANN: Why would evidence like this entire AT&T room in San Francisco—we know the number of the room, we know the guy who hooked it all up. Why is that not sufficient to at least move this lawsuit on?

TURLEY: Well, that’s part of the ridiculous element to all this. That we know there’s an NSA program; we know that it’s illegal. There’s been no showing nor is no showing possible that the President had the authority to order what he did. This is a crime, defined under federal law. So there’s no mystery to the program, there’s not a particular debate to its illegality. The only issue is standing: the ability of someone to come in and say, “I can show I was individually harmed.” And they can’t do that because the Courts won’t give them the information they need and Congress will do nothing to force out into the public the information needed to get this type of relief. And as you noted, the Congress is going further in the opposite direction; they’re trying to extinguish suits against telecom companies that have been successful. ...

former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo's military commissions, the process has been manipulated by Administration appointees to foreclose acquittals

February 20, 2008 (web only) | Rigged Trials at Gitmo | Ross Tuttle

Secret evidence. Denial of habeas corpus. Evidence obtained by waterboarding. Indefinite detention. The litany of complaints about the treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is long, disturbing and by now familiar. Nonetheless, a new wave of shock and criticism greeted the Pentagon's announcement on February 11 that it was charging six Guantánamo detainees, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, with war crimes--and seeking the death penalty for all of them.

Now, as the murky, quasi-legal staging of the Bush Administration's military commissions unfolds, a key official has told The Nation that the trials have been rigged from the start. According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo's military commissions, the process has been manipulated by Administration appointees to foreclose the possibility of acquittal.

Colonel Davis's criticism of the commissions has been escalating since he resigned in October, telling the Washington Post that he had been pressured by politically appointed senior Defense officials to pursue cases deemed "sexy" and of "high interest" (such as the 9/11 cases now being pursued) in the run-up to the 2008 elections. Davis, once a staunch defender of the commissions process, elaborated on his reasons in a December 10, 2007, Los Angeles Times op-ed. "I concluded that full, fair and open trials were not possible under the current system," he wrote. "I felt that the system had become deeply politicized and that I could no longer do my job effectively." ...

Mike Bloomberg yesterday alleged "fraud" in the unofficial count of New York City's votes, which left Obama with zero votes in 80 election districts.

February 20, 2008 | Read More: Mike Bloomberg | Bloomberg's allegation

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg yesterday alleged "fraud" in the unofficial count of New York City's votes, which left Obama with zero votes in 80 election districts.

"If you want to call it significant undercounting, I guess that's a euphemism for fraud," he said.

This contradicts what some familiar with the system thought, which was that it's within the range of error for the sloppy, unofficial count.

Bloomberg's spokesman, Stu Loeser, reiterated the charge in an e-mail, in which he also made clear that the charge was part of the mayor's local campaign to take the Board of Elections out of the control of the local political parties.

There are plenty of people arguing that the same error could have been made by mistake more than 80 times (and counting!), but the mayor is less sanguine. Certainly, if the system for administering elections was based on competence (and if the special-interest induced gridlock in Albany hadn’t prevented the State from certifying new machines some time in the last 40 or more years), someone might have noticed that there’s a problem where Sen. Obama apparently got no votes in areas where he clearly had a lot of support. ...

US Attorney's Office KNOWINGLY Proceeded With Evidence-Against Siegelman-Which Was COERCED & FALSE

US Attorney's Office KNOWINGLY Proceeded With Evidence-Against Siegelman-Which Was COERCED & FALSE
...
Corruption in a U.S. Attorney’s Office | DEPARTMENT No Comment | BY Scott Horton |
PUBLISHED February 10, 2008
...
The implication of these passages is quite clear. White was being pressed to give false evidence against Siegelman in his trial in Montgomery, and was being threatened with the prospect of a corruption investigation and prosecution if he did not do so. In particular he was to have placed the initial meeting on a certain date, which the prosecutors needed to make out to sustain their case. White refused to give false evidence. The prosecution followed. These accusations, if true, amount to a corrupt manipulation of the criminal justice system, a felony.

Judy White’s affidavit provides strong evidence that the prosecutors knowingly proceeded against Siegelman on the basis of evidence or claims that they knew or should have known were false. And even more substantial evidence to the same end will very shortly appear in the media. ...

Wiretaps:only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue ... but the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret

Top court rejects ACLU domestic spying lawsuit | Supreme Court decision doesn't explain reason for turning down appeal | updated 1:40 p.m. CT, Tues., Feb. 19, 2008
...
The justices, without comment, turned down an appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union to let it pursue a lawsuit against the program that began shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The action underscored the difficulty of mounting a challenge to the eavesdropping, which remains classified and was confirmed by President Bush only after a newspaper article revealed its existence.
...
ACLU says it's caught in 'Catch-22' situation
A federal judge in Detroit largely agreed, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the suit, saying the plaintiffs could not prove their communications had been monitored and thus could not prove they had been harmed by the program.

The government has refused to turn over information about the closely guarded program that could reveal who has been under surveillance.

ACLU officials described the situation as a “Catch-22” because the government says the identities of people whose communications have been intercepted is secret. But only people who know they have been wiretapped can sue over the program. ...

C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes as Judge Sought Interrogation Data

C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes as Judge Sought Interrogation Data | By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE | Published: February 7, 2008

WASHINGTON — At the time that the Central Intelligence Agency destroyed videotapes of the interrogations of operatives of Al Qaeda, a federal judge was still seeking information from Bush administration lawyers about the interrogation of one of those operatives, Abu Zubaydah, according to court documents made public on Wednesday.

The court documents, filed in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, appear to contradict a statement last December by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, that when the tapes were destroyed in November 2005 they had no relevance to any court proceeding, including Mr. Moussaoui’s criminal trial.

It was already known that the judge in the case, Leonie M. Brinkema, had not been told about the existence or destruction of the videos. But the newly disclosed court documents, which had been classified as secret, showed the judge had still been actively seeking information about Mr. Zubaydah’s interrogation as late as Nov. 29, 2005. ...

three terrorism suspects were subjected to waterboarding in 2002 and 2003 puts to rest any doubt about whether President Bush authorized torture

A President Who Tortured | Waterboarding will leave an indelible stain on the legacy of George W. Bush. | Friday, February 8, 2008; Page A18

"We do not torture."

-- President Bush, Nov. 7, 2005

" Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees. . . . We used it against these three high-value detainees because of the circumstances of the time."

-- CIA Director Michael V. Hayden,

Feb. 5, 2008

THE ADMISSION this week by CIA Director Michael V. Hayden that three terrorism suspects were subjected to waterboarding in 2002 and 2003 puts to rest any doubt about whether President Bush authorized torture.

For centuries, civilized countries have considered waterboarding, or simulated drowning, to be torture. The United States rightly condemned as war criminals Japanese soldiers who employed the technique against U.S. personnel during World War II. It prosecuted U.S. military officers who waterboarded prisoners at the turn of the 20th century. The practice, which causes its victims to feel that they are about to die, is unquestionably cruel. Every administration prior to this one has judged it to be prohibited by U.S. law and treaty obligations. It is incontestably a blot on the reputation of this country and a breach of the very values we claim to want to export to the rest of the world. ...

previous board was accused of being little more than a White House whitewash commission; now Bush seemingly has no interest in letting board continue

Bush inaction guts privacy oversight board | Nick Juliano | Published: Monday February 4, 2008
...
The 9/11 Commission recommended creating the five-member Privacy & Civil Liberties Oversight Board in its 2004 report, and it began work in March 2006 as a subsidiary of the Executive Office of the President. Last year, Congress further implemented 9/11 Commission recommendations and reconfigured the board to make it more independent and bipartisan -- no more than three members can be of the same party -- after the previous board was accused of being little more than a White House whitewash commission; now Bush seemingly has no interest in letting the board continue.
...
Although terms of its current members expired Jan. 30, Bush has made no effort to nominate any new members to the Senate Homeland Security Committee, which would have first crack at approving any appointments. The committee's chairman and ranking member say this failure on Bush's part has created a gap in oversight aimed at protecting Americans' rights. ...

New GAO Study Says Bush Follows Through on Signing-Statement Announcements of Intent to Violate Law

Another New GAO Study Says Bush Follows Through on Signing-Statement Announcements of Intent to Violate Law | Submitted by davidswanson on Wed, 2008-03-12 17:52.
...
One of the most underexplored aspects of Bush's unprecedented use of signing statements has been the practical consequences.

A year ago, the Government Accountability Office found that, indeed, Signing Statements Watch

One of the most underexplored aspects of Bush's unprecedented use of signing statements has been the practical consequences.

A year ago, the Government Accountability Office found that, indeed, federal officials had not complied with at least some of the provisions that Bush objected to in signing statements.

In testimony to a House committee yesterday, GAO general counsel Gary L. Kepplinger announced the results of another study, this one of provisions in the 2008 defense authorization, which found more of the same. The GAO examined how 21 agencies executed 29 different provisions of the law that Bush asserted his right not to follow -- and found that in nine cases "the agencies had not executed the provisions as written."

As with the earlier study, the specific examples are less than compelling -- the investigation, for instance, avoided "a close examination of provisions involving national security, intelligence, or foreign relations matters, because of our limited access to such information and the time constraints on our work.".

In testimony to a House committee yesterday, GAO general counsel Gary L. Kepplinger announced the results of another study, this one of provisions in the 2008 defense authorization, which found more of the same. The GAO examined how 21 agencies executed 29 different provisions of the law that Bush asserted his right not to follow -- and found that in nine cases "the agencies had not executed the provisions as written."

As with the earlier study, the specific examples are less than compelling -- the investigation, for instance, avoided "a close examination of provisions involving national security, intelligence, or foreign relations matters, because of our limited access to such information and the time constraints on our work." ...

About 5.3 million U.S. citizens are ineligible to vote due to felony disenfranchisement ... Bush would not be in the White House

February 7, 2008 by TruthDig.com | Millions Without a Voice | by Amy Goodman
...
Felony disenfranchisement is the practice by state governments of barring people convicted of a felony from voting, even after they have served their time. In Virginia and Kentucky, people convicted of any felony can never vote again (this would include “Scooter” Libby, even though he never went to jail, unless he is pardoned). Eight other states have permanent felony disenfranchisement laws, with some conditions that allow people to rejoin the voter rolls: Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee and Wyoming.

Disenfranchisement-people being denied their right to vote-takes many forms, and has a major impact on electoral politics. In Ohio in 2004, stories abounded of inoperative voting machines, too few ballots or too few voting machines. Then there was Florida in 2000. Many continue to believe that the election was thrown to George W. Bush by Ralph Nader, who got about 97,000 votes in Florida. Ten times that number of Floridians are prevented from voting at all. Why? Currently, more than 1.1 million Floridians have been convicted of a felony and thus aren’t allowed to vote. We can’t know for sure how they would have voted, but as scholar, lawyer and activist Angela Davis said recently in a speech honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Mobile, Ala., “If we had not had the felony disenfranchisement that we have, there would be no way that George Bush would be in the White House.”

Since felony disenfranchisement disproportionately affects African-American and Latino men in the U.S., and since these groups overwhelmingly vote Democratic, the laws bolster the position of the Republican Party. The statistics are shocking. Ryan King, policy analyst with The Sentencing Project in Washington, D.C., summarized the latest:

About 5.3 million U.S. citizens are ineligible to vote due to felony disenfranchisement; 2 million of them are African-American. Of these, 1.4 million are African-American men, which translates into an incredible 13 percent of that population, a rate seven times higher than in the overall population. Forty-eight states have some version of felony disenfranchisement on the books. All bar voting from prison, then go on to bar participation while on parole or probation. Two states, Maine and Vermont, allow prisoners to vote from behind the walls, as does Canada and a number of other countries. ...