Friday 27th of December 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

our 'special' friend ...

our 'special' friend ... the world's greatest hypocrite ...

With its power declining, Washington was not able any longer to keep Russia out of the World Trade Organization. Congress showed its spite over its impotence by hooking the normalizing of trade with Russia to what is called the “Magnitsky rule.” 

Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian attorney who represented a British investment firm accused of tax evasion and fraud in Russia. Apparently, the UK firm supplied information to media alleging government misconduct and participation in corruption inside state-owned Russian companies.

Magnitsky represented the accused UK firm. He claimed that the firm had not committed fraud but had been a victim of fraud. In turn, Magnitsky was arrested. He developed serious illnesses in prison for which he apparently received inadequate medical care.

Whether he died of untreated illnesses, we cannot know. But the US Congress, acting on the unsubstantiated allegation that Magnitsky was tortured and murdered, attached to the trade normalization bill a provision that requires the US government to release a list of Russian government officials believed or imagined to have been involved with the violation of Magnitsky’s human rights and to freeze the assets of these members of the Russian government and to deny them visas to travel to the US. Considering Washington’s belief that its law is the universal law of humankind, Washington probably intends for every country to enforce its edict or to be sanctioned in turn.

The Russian government finds the “Magnitsky rule” amusing. Here is the Russian government accused, without any evidence, of ONE torture and death, while Washington has such a large number of torture deaths from Abu Ghraib to Gitmo to the secret CIA torture centers to endless drone attacks on kids‘ soccer games, weddings, funerals, medical clinics, schools, farm houses and aid workers. The evidence is completely clear that Washington has tortured a number of individuals to death and into false confessions and blown to pieces thousands of innocents known as “collateral damage.” No one but Washington and its servants denies this. But one alleged Russian offense against human rights brings forth an act of the US Congress, all in a huff about the violation of a Russian lawyer’s human rights.

A number of rulers in human history have been this arrogant. But has a democracy ever been? Athens perhaps, but Sparta taught Athens a lesson.

What do the members of Congress think is the response of the rest of the world to Washington’s utter hypocrisy? How can Washington pass a law punishing Russian government officials for allegedly doing once what we know for an absolute fact Washington does every day?

The holier-than-thou presence that Washington presents to the world is so phony and shopworn that Washington is becoming not only despised but a laughing stock. Peoples cease to fear the “superpower” when they laugh at its folly, hypocrisy and utter stupidity.

Certainly, the Russians are not afraid. The Russian Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev, responded to the Washington morons as follows: “It is inadmissible when one country tries to dictate its will to another.” The Magnitsky rule will bring forth a “symmetrical and asymmetrical reaction from Russia.” The Russian Duma seems intent  that this be the case. http://rt.com/politics/prepares-russias-reply-magnitsky-705/print/

Washington is like the drunk in a bar who picks a fight with a bruiser. Washington is full of itself, but Russia and China are not going to put up with a financially busted and militarily overstretched popinjay. The evil in Washington is driving us into nuclear war and into the destruction of life on earth.

and, to further illustrate the breathtaking hypocrisy of our ‘special friends’ …

A military judge has ruled that statements made by defendants on trial for their involvement in the September 11th attacks could be censored if they make statements about how they were tortured or abused.

Judge Col. James Pohl ruled the government had “submitted declarations…from representatives of the CIA, [Department of Defense], and FBI invoking the classified information privilege and explaining how disclosure of the classified information at issue would be detrimental to national security in that the information relates to the sources, methods, and activities by which the United States defends against international terrorism and terrorist organizations.” These explanations included how the government believed disclosure of methods of interrogation or torture would be harmful.

The judge further explained in his ruling:

…the Government requested the Commission to institutionalize a practice that has been in use for several years- the so called “40 second rule,” Because of the security constraints at the Expeditionary Legal Center courtroom (Courtroom 2) there is a 40 second delay between something said in the courtroom and when those viewing the trial in the gallery or at closed circuit television (CCTV) sites actually hear what was said, The ACLU and collective press, as well as the accused, object to this delay as an unwarranted closure of the court. The Commission is acutely aware of its twin responsibilities of insuring the transparency of the proceeding while at the same instance preserving the interests of national security. Commission finds the brief delay is the least intrusive and least disruptive method of meeting both responsibilities The delay permits the Commission to assess and remedy any negligent or intentional disclosure of classified information without unduly impacting on the ability of the public and press to fully see and understand what is transpiring… [emphasis added]

Director of the ACLU’s National Security Program, Hina Shamsi, reacted, “We’re profoundly disappointed by the military judge’s decision, which didn’t even address the serious First Amendment issues at stake here. The government wanted to ensure that the American public would never hear the defendants’ accounts of illegal CIA torture, rendition and detention, and the military judge has gone along with that shameful plan.”

Shamsi added, “For now, the most important terrorism trial of our time will be organized around judicially approved censorship of the defendants’ own thoughts, experiences and memories of CIA torture. The decision undermines the government’s claim that the military commission system is transparent and deals a grave blow to its legitimacy.”

Not only did the ACLU oppose censorship, but the Miami Herald, ABC, Inc., Associated Press, Bloomberg News, CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox News Network, The McClatchy Company, National Public Radio, The New York Times, The New Yorker, Reuters, Tribune Company. Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post all signed on to a response to a motion by the government to “deny public access to all records and proceedings involving any classified information.”

To add some context, during oral argument on October 16,  Justice Department lawyer and deputy trial counsel for the prosecution Theresa Baltes stated in court that an executive order issued by President Barack Obama was in force that authorized classification of “orally conveyed information that falls within the subsection of foreign or intelligence sources and methods.” Baltes was alluding to observations and memories of torture or, to use Vice President Dick Cheney’s phrase, “enhanced interrogation techniques.” The “intelligence sources” are the agents who tortured them. The “methods” are how they were tortured and that is not something the government thinks the press or American public should ever find out about.

Baltes said to Judge Pohl later in the proceedings the government had originally proposed an order that required defense attorneys to treat everything their client said as classified, including details on what their client had for lunch a day or two ago. The order was narrowed to protect statements on what occurred while in CIA custody.

“The prosecution is proposing that they only treat as classified and handle as classified statements that they know to be classified based on their security clearance,” Baltes told the commission. “And that would specifically include — or believe to be classified, and specifically include information about the CIA RDI program and their prior custody, detention, interrogation.” (RDI being the CIA’s Rendition, Detention and Interrogation program.)

…Now, the only one of those that the government can even arguably rely upon is under the control of the United States Government. If you can go to the next slide, please. So again here, they are relying upon the prong that this statement is arguably under the control of the United States Government….Okay, but the only reason that they think they  have control over this information, the only reason that theythink that final prong is satisfied is because they are holding our clients essentially in isolation…

What Bogucki is suggesting is his client has been completely dehumanized. To the government, he is not a person. He is a vessel containing details that if disseminated would invite scrutiny or possibly undermined current operations or missions against terrorism. Therefore, this vessel cannot come in contact with other prisoners or else those prisoners might come into possession of this information that the government wishes to keep secret. So, Bogucki’s client must be held in solitary confinement and suffer under those conditions because some agents used classified methods of interrogation or torture on him.

Navy Lieutenant Commander Kevin Bogucki, who represents former CIA captive and former translator for Osama bin Laden, Muhammad Rahim, argued the government is arguing statements his client and other defendants would make are “under the control of the United States government” because they are in the government’s custody. “The only reason that they think they have control over this information, the only reason that they think that final prong is satisfied is because they are holding our clients essentially in isolation,” Bogucki explained.

What Bogucki meant was Rahim and the other defendants have been completely dehumanized. To the government, they are not human beings. They are fleshy vessels holding information that, if disseminated, would invite scrutiny or possibly undermine current operations or missions against terrorism. Therefore, these vessels cannot come in contact with other prisoners or else those prisoners might come into possession of this information that the government wishes to keep secret. So, Bogucki’s client must be held in solitary confinement and suffer under those conditions because some agents used classified methods of interrogation or torture on him.

With this ruling, the government has won the privilege to keep the press and public in the dark on how they have treated 9/11 defendants. They have also won a precedent that will likely become a fixture of the process in this second-class legal justice system, which President Barack Obama chose to use over trials in federal courts.

This means any detainees held at Guantanamo that may find themselves being brought to trial will find it impossible to communicate to the world that their rights have been violated. Even if they are ultimately guilty of terrorism, entrenching this into the process proves the military commissions cannot be fair and that the government is capable will do whatever necessary to prevent violations of due process or human rights from infringing their ability to win convictions.

Judge Rules Torture Testimony At Guantanamo Military Commission Can Be Censored 

 

keeping-up appearances ....

A mystery is unfolding that highlights the peculiarities of the military commission system.

Over the week of January 28-31 a great mystery played out at JTF-GTMO, the notorious military base and indefinite detention facility better known as Guantanamo Bay. The question at hand: who cut the media feed during a pre-trial hearing for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, self-proclaimed mastermind of 9/11, thus temporarily censoring the proceedings? Was there an unknown, outside force controlling the court? If so, who was it? What was intended to be a dry week of legal wrangling became a full-on whodunnit that was part Law & Order, part spy novel – if the final 50 pages had been blacked out.

On top of that, the week ended with defense attorneys openly questioning whether their conversations with clients were being secretly monitored. “We have significant reasons to believe we have been listened in [on],” David Nevin, defense attorney for KSM said at at press conference. “After this week,” said defense attorney James Connell, “the paranoia levels have kicked up a notch.”

If none of this sounds familiar, you can be forgiven. In the Obama era, news about GTMO (the military doesn't use the “i”) is either unwarrantedly optimistic – we're closing it, we swear – or, more frequently, totally ignored. And, quite tellingly, rather than close the prison, Obama has instead decided to close the office responsible for determining how to close the prison.

Last week the government held a round of what's called pre-trial motion hearings, which establish the specific rules of a trial. Given the almost complete lack of precedent in military commissions – more on that shortly – this process is even more important than it would be in a normal court.

The cast of characters in this would-be Agatha Christie play are numerous and colorful. At the center are Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his four co-defendants, all of whom stand accused of war crimes and face the death penalty. They've been detained at GTMO since 2006.

The attorneys representing the accused are an impressive posse of civilian and military lawyers given the difficult task of navigating a legal universe that, despite the government's claims to the contrary, often feels like it's being created before our very eyes.

Brig. Gen. Mark Martins is the lead prosecutor and the man most singularly tasked with defending the legitimacy of this young legal universe. Gen. Martins is the picture of the military's self-perception. Tall, disciplined, and by all accounts extremely intelligent, he's also stoic as a Brit. He once said, after being asked his feelings on a week's events, “I don't tend to experience highs and lows in litigation.”

Overseeing the endeavor is Army Colonel Judge James Pohl, a man with a self-deprecating sense of humor and a passing resemblance to Bill Murray.

The final character in this drama is the new legal universe itself. Military commissions, as GTMO trials are called, are a confusing mix of civilian court, which is overseen by the judicial branch, and courts martial, the justice system for members of the military, which is under the purview of the executive branch. Military commissions are similarly overseen by the executive branch, though Gen. Martins is quick to point out any similarity they share with civilian court. Congress created military commissions in 2006, and updated them in 2009.

Last week was supposed to be boring. But then lightning struck, the lights went out, and when they came back on there was a dead body in the middle of the room – metaphorically speaking, of course. The mystery had been set in motion.

Mystery

It's hard to imagine the week going any worse for the government. On the first day of proceedings, a previously unknown, outside entity reached into the courtroom like the hand of god and cut the audio/visual feed to the media – which is on a 40-second delay – apparently surprising even the judge. The judge and his assistant, a court security officer (CSO), have always had the authority to cut the feed, but they didn't hit the button. Neither had the CSO's assistants.

When the button is pushed, a red light that looks like a hockey light goes off. That has now happened three times including the most recent instance, and each time the judge ruled the censoring inappropriate, so the hidden testimony was put on the public record.

So who was that outside entity? The open secret among everyone on base is it was the CIA, though no one can confirm that on the record because the information is classified. That's just one of many instances where “classified” doesn't mean secret as much as it means controlled.

Whoever secretly pushed the button is known as an Original Classification Authority, or OCA. OCA is not a position, rank, or job title. It's a term to describe someone, usually fairly high-level though not always, who “owns” the information that's classified, and is able to declassify it. There are also OCAs in the DoD, FBI, NSA, and other government agencies, and we don't know if any of them also had access to the kill switch.

Whether or not the judge knew an outside someone – or several someones – had the power to cut the media feed prior to it actually happening is unclear. Once the feed came back on, he certainly seemed surprised, and furious, about what had happened. “[N]ote for the record, that the 40-second delay was initiated, not by me,” Judge Pohl said when the feed came back. “I'm curious as to why.” He continued, “if some external body is turning the commission off under their own view of what things ought to be … we are going to have a little meeting about who turns that light on or off.”

But it's also possible that he wasn't totally aware of or familiar with his own rules for shutting court to ensure classified information doesn't “spill” accidentally.

What's certain, however, is that the defense was not aware that an outside entity could shut down the court. “I would like to know who has the permission to turn that light on and off, who is listening to this,” defense attorney Nevin said once the feed returned.

Many at the prosecution table, however, seemed non-plussed. Prosecutor Joanna Baltes actually offered to explain to the judge what had happened in his chambers, away from the public. James Connell, defense attorney for Ammar al-Baluchi, said that the OCA's cutting of the feed on Monday, "demonstrates a level of involvement by the OCA on the prosecution side that we had never previously seen.”

Judge Pohl issued a ruling at the end of the week demanding the government disconnect any system that allows an outside body to trigger the hockey light and cut the media feed, but as lawyers like to say: you can't unring a bell. The damage caused by an independent entity that is widely recognized to be the CIA temporarily shutting court – to the apparent surprise of everyone but the prosecution – will be difficult, if not impossible, to repair. Making matters worse for the government, defense attorney Cheryl Bormann characterized the discussion that triggered the closing as “innocuous.”

The location of the OCA could be important as well. A reporter for the Miami Herald asked defense attorney David Nevin if there could be constitutional implications if the OCA killed the feed from US soil. Nevin said there almost certainly would be, though he reiterated that the government has provided no information about who the OCA is or where they were.

Whether or not the Constitution applies at Guantanamo Bay remains an unresolved matter. Judge Pohl denied a defense motion to presume the applicability of the Constitution, saying instead he would review the matter on a case by case basis, as the prosecution argued was appropriate.

Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, the lead prosecutor and primary advocate for the legitimacy of the commissions, constantly extols the openness of the proceedings and the fairness of the process. He's in an unenviable position, and this week only made his job more difficult.

Paranoia

The procedures for military commissions are unclear, especially when compared with civilian court. In response to a question I asked regarding whether or not the case could effectively be tried in a regular courtroom in the United States, Gen. Martins reiterated that Congress had ruled GTMO detainees couldn't be transferred to US soil. “The case is in this jurisdiction, this is the only place it's gonna be tried,” he said at a press conference at the beginning of the week. “That doesn't mean it's gonna be unfair. It urges us on to make [military commissions] laudable, fair, and accountable.”

Despite Gen. Martins' reassurances, the five defense teams are united in their criticisms of the entire system as fundamentally flawed, and possibly susceptible to outside influence. “Who is the master of puppets?” Commander Walter Ruiz asked at the end of the week in a wry homage to Metallica, suggesting that there are hidden players pulling the strings of the case. Ruiz also said he believed the killing of the media feed on Monday was in direct violation of the rules governing closure of the court. The judge's order removing the outside entity's ability to kill the feed is further evidence for Ruiz's claim.

The defense is also united by a troubling concern that goes to the very heart our our idea of justice: they claim to have reason to suspect their private conversations among themselves and with their clients may have been secretly recorded. Defense attorney David Nevin introduced an emergency motion on Thursday morning to abate – or halt – the proceedings until the question of whether or not attorney/client privilege has been compromised has been adequately explained and resolved. Judge Pohl saw the importance of the motion, and moved it to the top of the pile.

All the tables in the courtroom have desktop microphones with mute buttons on them. On the final day of the proceedings, defense attorneys James Connell and Lt. Col. Sterling Thomas both bent their microphones away from them, pointing them at the floor. “The question of who listens to microphones from the defense tables is still very much an open question,” Connell said, regarding the motion defense attorney Nevin filed on Thursday morning. A note on the courtroom door reads: “Assume microphones are live at all times.” During a brief recess on Thursday morning, the five defense teams huddled against the wall, away from their desks for fear of secret monitoring.

If it is true that defense attorneys' private conversations, among themselves or with their clients, have been surreptitiously recorded it would a catastrophic blow to a system who's fairness is constantly under scrutiny. Even if that information hasn't been provided to the prosecution – Gen. Martins has stated unequivocally that his team has not been given any privileged information – the ramifications would be hard to overstate. “If attorney client privileges are being violated, and it's not clear that is the case, it would be a serious violation of one of the most important fundamental protections provided in the US criminal justice system and would have serious implications for the validity of these proceedings,” Laura Pitter of Human Rights Watch wrote in an email.

The first evening we were there, security officials gave reporters a tour of the Expeditionary Legal Complex – the courtroom and nearby holding cells. There hadn't been a tour in years, as near as I could tell. DoD officials repeatedly stressed that they were trying to make the GTMO experience more transparent; this tour was one example of that.

Inside the courtroom a security expert said, “Everything said in here is recorded.” Ironically, journalists weren't allowed to bring recording devices inside. Our tour happened before the defense's allegations of secret monitoring, and one wonders whether that security expert would've used the same phrasing had the tour been given at the end of the week.

Beyond the defense's specific questions, general suspicions of surveillance are common at GTMO. Some people will say off-handedly that they have no idea if their phone conversations or personal email are actually private, or are subject to monitoring. I've certainly wondered about that, and I doubt I'm the only journalist who has.

Uncanny Justice

As the military commission system begins to take shape, slowly, I'm reminded of the artificial intelligence phenomenon of the uncanny valley. That theory states that as the appearance of non-human entities comes to resemble real humans closely but not exactly, the observer responds with revulsion.

What's happening at Guantanamo Bay now is something that could be called uncanny justice. As the proceedings inch toward what defense attorney Nevin suggested was merely the “appearance of justice,” the military commissions don't become more pleasing and comforting. Rather, they've taken on a ghastly, unfamiliar complexion, like if the Department of Justice had a wax museum wing.

It's not only human rights groups that are critical of the military commission system. Phyllis Rodriguez's son Greg was killed on September 11th. She attended the week's hearings along with several other family members of victims. She's against the death penalty, and so was her son. She characterized the attacks on 9/11 as “political opportunities to get into the Middle East.” On numerous occasions over the week, she said she'd prefer that the trial took place in regular civilian court.

The secrecy and civil liberties concerns that have arisen in the United States since 9/11 bother her, too. “Our rights have been compromised,” she said, standing in a gigantic hangar that houses the media center. “We live in fear. It reminds me of the Cold War and McCarthy era.”

Mystery, Paranoia, Confusion - You Won't Believe What's Happening At Guantanamo