The Obama-Gitmo myth

[MadHound]

"Most of the 168 detainees at Guantanamo have been imprisoned by the U.S. Government for close to a decade without charges and with no end in sight to their captivity. Some now die at Guantanamo, thousands of miles away from their homes and families, without ever having had the chance to contest accusations of guilt. During the Bush years, the plight of these detainees was a major source of political controversy, but under Obama, it is now almost entirely forgotten. On those rare occasions when it is raised, Obama defenders invoke a blatant myth to shield the President from blame: he wanted and tried so very hard to end all of this, but Congress would not let him. Especially now that we’re in an Election Year, and in light of very recent developments, it’s long overdue to document clearly how misleading that excuse is."
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/07/23-6

And worse yet, nobody, but nobody dares to mention the Black Hole of Afghanistan, Bagram AFB.

[SidDithers]

1. Greenwald. LOL...

There's fame and fortune in Obama bashing.

Enjoy your new position at The Guardian, Glenn.

Sid

[MadHound]

2. Can you factually refute anything he says?

No, you can't, so you have to resort to your usual blather and insults.

[SidDithers]

3. Greenwald didn't land the new gig by criticizing Republicans...

personally, I'm not a big fan of libertarians that help Republicans.

Fuck Ron Paul.

Sid

[MadHound]

4. Again, can you factually refute anything that he said in this piece?

And what does Ron Paul have to do with anything?

[Luminous Animal]

6. Dithers likes to pretend that Greenwald is a Ron Paul supporter.

Also, I'd like to note for no good reason at all, that I've heard that Obama is a socialist.

[SidDithers]

7. Well, no Greenwald thread would be complete without your vigorous defense of him...nt

Sid

[MadHound]

8. I'm still waiting on a factual rebuttal to Greenwald's article

Still don't see it coming from you, just more insults and blather.

[SidDithers]

9. Don't wait too long, 'cause it ain't comin'...

every Greenwald column in basically the same.

Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama Bad Obama

Greenwald is a clown.

Sid

[MadHound]

10. Well thanks for admitting that you can't factually refute the article

The rest of what you have to say is insults and opinion. Thanks, I prefer to deal in facts, like those presented in this article.

[SidDithers]

11. Not that I cant, but that I won't...

Fuck Gary Johnson too.

Sid

[Luminous Animal]

12. Why waste ones grey matter on discussion when propagenda is so much easier.

[msanthrope]

20. No Bain, no Citizen's United....last week poor Glenn was reduced to a tantrum about Harold Ford.

I guess he wanted something easy. Writing about Citizen's United in this election...when you supported the wingers on the court, might damage your street cred with the Far Left.

[Egalitarian Thug]

15. Have you ever read anything written by this right wing Canadian that consists of

any more information than this?

My GF tells me that he is the next incarnation of OMC. (I'm not sure exactly what that means, but I am sure that I don't want to ask her to explain).

[SidDithers]

16. ...

Sid

[Egalitarian Thug]

18. Exhibit 'A' n/t

[SidDithers]

26. Tell your girlfriend I was here way before OMC...nt

Sid

[markpkessinger]

35. NO, NO, NO! DON'T TELL ME ANYTHING I DON'T WANT TO HEAR </SNARK> N/T

[Octafish]

27. The Guardian is owned by its employees - a model of democracy in action.

BTW: In a measure of Integrity, 85-percent of DUers surveyed prefer Glenn Greenwald over Cass Sunstein.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002797594

[SidDithers]

29. I thought it was owned by The Scott Trust Company...nt

Sid

[Octafish]

30. Thanks for the correction, siddithers! Sorry, my mistake.

The Scott Trust was set up to keep the paper pro-labor, progressive and liberal. That sounds like Greenwald.

[Luminous Animal]

5. The point of the article...

Last week, the Obama administration imposed new arbitrary rules for Guantanamo detainees who have lost their first habeas corpus challenge. Those new rules eliminate the right of lawyers to visit their clients at the detention facility; the old rules establishing that right were in place since 2004, and were bolstered by the Supreme Court’s 2008 Boumediene ruling that detainees were entitled to a “meaningful” opportunity to contest the legality of their detention. The DOJ recently informed a lawyer for a Yemeni detainee, Yasein Khasem Mohammad Esmail, that he would be barred from visiting his client unless he agreed to a new regime of restrictive rules, including acknowledging that such visits are within the sole discretion of the camp’s military commander. Moreover, as SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston explains:

Besides putting control over legal contacts entirely under a military commander’s control, the “memorandum of understanding” does not allow attorneys to share with other detainee lawyers what they learn, and does not appear to allow them to use any such information to help prepare their own client for a system of periodic review at Guantanamo of whether continued detention is justified, and may even forbid the use of such information to help prepare a defense to formal terrorism criminal charges against their client.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. Very disappointing.

But no longer surprising.

I expected more from Obama.

[msanthrope]

22. Um--according to the documents provided, these are rules stemming from a 2008 Bush-era protective

order that concerned post-habeas representation of Gitmo clients....

Now, that Glenn is a crappy lawyer is readily apparent to me, but I would expect that a protective order dated SEPTEMBER 11, 2008 would not escape his notice. Maybe it didn't, and he just thinks that the people who read him are too stupid to remember who was in office at the time.

Remember...these are post-habeas proceedings.

[Luminous Animal]

31. According to the article... these are new rules on top of old rules.

We are smart enough to recognize the old and decry the new.

[msanthrope]

33. No...they aren't new rules. They are the rules for a post-habeas detainee, issued in 2008,

but not used until now, because this is the probably the first one.

[Luminous Animal]

34. So, I guess thanks to Obama for enforcing Bush's disgusting rules?

By the way, you are still wrong but thanks for the propagenda.

[msanthrope]

36. Did you miss the part where this came from a court? As in the judiciary?

Please, clarify which part of this protective court order the Executive branch is supposed to ignore?

I am never surprised that Mr. Greenwald's faux-progresssive schtick routinely fails to include inconvenient facts....but I am surprised that actual progressives seem to have no problem advocating for increased Executive powers when it suits their agendas.

Again...tell us which part of the court's protective order should be ignored???

On edit...I assume you've read the 2008 order and the MOU?

[Luminous Animal]

39. I am familiar with the MOU. What you are ignoring is that this is a new MOU which the

lawyers refuse to sign. Greenwald links to the pdf. From lawyer David Remes:

We went to court Monday night to try to beat back DOJ’s latest attempt to turn GTMO back into a legal black hole, as described below. In 2008, Obama the candidate deplored Guantanamo as a legal black hole. Does he know what his Justice Department is doing now? I’d be shocked if Eric Holder knew either. The issue is joined because what happens in court can affect a visit I plan to make to GTMO in August. When I go, DOJ may try to prevent me from seeing one of our Yemeni clients, Yasein Ismael. A copy of our motion is attached.

The government has begun asserting that the current GTMO protective order, which has governed GTMO attorney-client contacts since 2004, does not apply after a detainee’s case has “terminated,” by which the government seems to mean that judicial proceedings in the client’s habeas case have come to an end (and the client did not ultimately prevail). The government is asserting that counsel may no longer have contact with the client unless counsel signs a purported “post habeas” Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). . . . The MOU gives the Commander, Joint Task Force-Guantanamo (JTF) absolute, unreviewable control over attorney-client contacts, including whether to allow contacts at all. (I suspect DoD pushed the new policy on DOJ, but that’s another story.)

Beyond giving JTF total [control over] attorney contacts with their detainee clients, the MOU appears calculated to prevent counsel from using information gleaned from the client to (1) continue to advocate the client’s release through the media, collaboration with human rights groups, or proceedings in other forums, (2) share such information with counsel for other detainees, or even use such information in the case of another client, (3) discuss the client’s possible transfer with potential receiving countries, or, (4) apparently, even prepare for Privilege Review Board (PRB) and military commission proceedings. The MOU will also apparently prevent us from preparing adequately for new habeas petitions if circumstances change. Further, the MOU expands the power of the Privilege Team (which decides what information we may and may not make public), opens the door to involvement in Privilege Team decisions by originating classifying agencies, and threatens the attorney-client privilege. The MOU also specifies that yet other, “separate procedures” will apply in PRB and military commission proceedings.

Other habeas counsel are facing the same problem.

As for deploring the legal black hole during the 2008 campaign: “Mr. Obama issued a statement calling the [Boumediene] decision ‘a rejection of the Bush administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantánamo’ that he said was ‘yet another failed policy supported by John McCain.’” Kate Zernike, McCain and Obama Split on Justices’ Guantánamo Ruling, N.Y. Times, June 13, 2008. President Obama’s full (I think) statement can be found here.

We’re asking the court to make clear that the current access procedures in the long-standing protective order remain in force for these clients, and that the government is violating the protective order by requiring us to sign the new MOU as a condition of contact with Yasein, whose case the government asserts is “terminated.” The government denied our request to meet with Yasein on our last visit, in May, unless we signed the MOU. We refused and so were kept from meeting with him. We’re putting in a request to meet with Yasein when we visit GTMO in August.

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/07/7995/

[msanthrope]

40. Your source talks about the 2004 protective order--then the 2008 one. And your legal cites are

before the 2008 protective order was issued. To be clear, I understand that the blogpost you are linking to is recent, but this is about a 2008 protective order.

We’re asking the court to make clear that the current access procedures in the long-standing protective order remain in force for these clients, and that the government is violating the protective order by requiring us to sign the new MOU as a condition of contact with Yasein, whose case the government asserts is “terminated.” The government denied our request to meet with Yasein on our last visit, in May, unless we signed the MOU. We refused and so were kept from meeting with him. We’re putting in a request to meet with Yasein when we visit GTMO in August.

Without a doubt, the attorneys for the detainee and I are talking about the September, 2008 protective order.


Interestingly, the attorney you reference has apparently run the clock on a SCOTUS appeal. Any thoughts on that?


This is a Bush-era protective order. Why can you not admit that?

On edit....perhaps the thing you are not considering is that under Bush, none of the detainee reached this status.

[Luminous Animal]

42. These are new rules implemented under the Obama admin Why can't you admit that

Everyone from Scotusblog, to Lawfare, to the NY Times, to Greenwald knows this. Everyone.

The lawyer may have only mentioned the 2004 MOU in his email but he also mentions the 2008 MOU in his lawsuit and specifically requests that the conditions of Judge Hogan's 2008 MOU continue (see bolded below).

You can read the petition here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:8BlTSlGHQIgJ:www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Motion-re-Protective-Order-Esmail-July-9-2012-ALL-AS-FILED.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShqpZ6XBUUhx1Cr6sP4dPswaLAXOeWnJA6ryeNjpGJWCcnpyiwc4P7TZ-ayFkjX0hHsAv5107fpxSlh5drv0qL9Kj88sExBXtsx4W5ISv2YaEvJXPFKHCkf3ughbkFIPsCcG6jA&sig=AHIEtbTBprInuuoLjiTPQB5d6lncCdE8eQ

The undersigned represent numerous Guantánamo detainees. For nearly eight years,

their access to and communications with their clients have been governed by two protective

orders—first, by an order issued by Judge Joyce Hens Green in November 2004, and second,

by a similar order issued by Judge Thomas F. Hogan on September 11, 2008 (“Protective

Order”).

On April 8, 2010, Judge Henry H. Kennedy denied the petition for habeas corpus of

our client Yasein Khasem Mohammad Esmail (ISN 522). Abdah v. Obama, 709 F. Supp. 2d

Case 1:04-cv-01254-RCL Document 1001 Filed 07/09/12 Page 2 of 10

25 (D.D.C. 2010). On April 8, 2011, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the denial. Esmail v. Obama,

639 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2011). Counsel last met with Esmail, under the Protective Order, on

July 21, 2011.

When counsel most recently sought to meet with Esmail, in May 2012, the

Government took the position that Esmail no longer had the right to meet with counsel, on the

asserted ground that his habeas case had been “terminated.” The Government took the

position that counsel may not visit Esmail unless counsel signed a Memorandum of

Understanding (“MOU”). The MOU would replace the system of access to counsel provided

by Judge Hogan’s Protective Order, which is subject to judicial supervision, with a system

purporting to give the Commander, Joint Task Force–Guantanamo (“JTF”), absolute,

unreviewable control over such access. Rather than accede, counsel refused to sign the MOU

and, accordingly, were not permitted to meet with Esmail.

This motion seeks a ruling that Judge Hogan’s Protective Order continues to apply to

Esmail, that the Government may not condition Esmail’s access to counsel on counsel’s

submission to the new MOU, and that the Government’s refusal to permit Esmail to have

access to counsel under Judge Hogan’s Protective Order is a violation of that Order.

[msanthrope]

43. Thank you for finally agreeing with me! This is about the 9/08 order then? nt

[Luminous Animal]

44. No it is not. And I am not agreeing with you. Did you even read the petition?

The Government took the

position that counsel may not visit Esmail unless counsel signed a Memorandum of

Understanding (“MOU”). The MOU would replace the system of access to counsel provided

by Judge Hogan’s Protective Order, which is subject to judicial supervision, with a system

purporting to give the Commander, Joint Task Force–Guantanamo (“JTF”), absolute,

unreviewable control over such access. Rather than accede, counsel refused to sign the MOU

and, accordingly, were not permitted to meet with Esmail.

They are requesting that the government apply the 2008 MOU. The government does not want to and is requiring a new MOU.

In other words:
1) The government wants the lawyers to sign a new MOU that replaces the 2008 MOU.
2) The lawyers want to continue to operate under the conditions of the 2008 MOU.

[msanthrope]

46. "Judge Hogan's Protective Order"--direct quote from YOU, is the 2008 protective order

I am referencing.

So, having read the new MOU provided to the post-habeas detainee counsel, tell us how it violates the 2008 order? Be specific.

[Luminous Animal]

47. "The MOU would replace the system of access to counsel provided by Judge Hogan’s

Protective Order, which is subject to judicial supervision, with a system purporting to give the Commander, Joint Task Force–Guantanamo (“JTF”), absolute, unreviewable control over such access."

IT WOULD REPLACE JUDGE HOGAN'S 2008 PROTECTIVE ORDER

[msanthrope]

48. Again...tell me how the new MOU violates that order.

You are quoting a defense attorney, but you still haven't indicated how the new MOU is in violation of the 2008 order.

So, take the 2008 order, and say what section is violated...and then show me the section of the new MOU that violates it.

Thing is, I've read the Complaint. It's bullshit. Of course the JTF gets to determine security issues. They get to decide if there's been a breach in security. That is completely in keeping with the 2008 order.

The new MOU does not allow the JTF to deny access to counsel, but according to the protective order, they can and do call the shots on security.

This particular attorney has challenged the protective order before, and lost.

I am surprised, however, that he didn't appeal the habeas termination.

[Luminous Animal]

49. Today a judge agreed with the defense Attorney....

Using strong words, a federal judge has rejected the Obama administration's efforts to change the rules under which Guantanamo Bay detainees are represented by lawyers.

Denouncing what he called "an illegitimate exercise of Executive power," U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth said in his 32-page ruling that an existing 2008 court order will continue to guide detainees' access to counsel, even in cases where there is not an active habeas corpus petition.

"It is clear that the government had no legal authority to unilaterally impose a counsel-access regime, let alone one that would render detainees’ access to counsel illusory," Lamberth declared

....

"At its heart," Lamberth wrote, "this case is about whether the Executive or the Court is charged with protecting habeas petitioners’ right to access their counsel."

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/06/166866/judge-sides-with-gitmo-detainees.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=news#storylink=cpy

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/09/06/166866/judge-sides-with-gitmo-detainees.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_term=news

[Luminous Animal]

14. Kick!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. In the face of political expediency, common decency and justice are left behind.

He's gotta look "tough on terra'" and to hell with human rights.

[msanthrope]

19. "Senate Votes 90-6 To Block Funds For Guantanamo Closure."

The Senate and the House voted overwhelmingly to block the administration's attempts to close Gitmo, and transfer remaining prisoners to US soil.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/senate-votes-to-block-fun_n_205797.html


Funny, how poor Glenn doesn't mention facts he does not like.

If Glenn can come up with a way for the President to force the Congress to vote him the $, he should print it.

If Glenn can come up with a way to force certain countries to take back their citizens, he should print it....at this point, we can't even get CANADA to take back a prisoner arrested as a minor. And forget Yemen.

Interesting--Glenn doesn't want to talk Bain, Citizen's United, but wants to talk about an MOU originating from a 2008 protective order???? What a pantload.

[Luminous Animal]

21. He actually did mention that. Then, accurately points out that

even though he could not close Guantanamo and bring the inmates to the U.S., what is barring the inmates from getting a fair trial there?

[msanthrope]

24. Where does Greenwald mention the 90-6 vote??? As for inmates getting a 'fair trial,' kindly be

specific.

You have 168 remaining detainees.

Name the detainee you and Glenn are concerned about?? Because if it is the dude mentioned in the article, I suggest you read this opinion before you comment further....

http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/CF90BB9790E6DDB68525786C004EBE28/$file/10-5282-1302328.pdf

(on edit the link needs to be copied and pasted because hotlinking is failing. I am sorry...)

Make sure you read the parts where the dude claims he didn't know he was in an Al-Qaeda-run weapons camp when he picked a weapons camp to go to in 1999.

And then read the part about how that he was kidnapped and taken to Tora Bora in December of 2001 where he was wrongly arrested......I mean, apparently he was just in Afghanistan post September 11th for a wedding....and then he got kidnapped and dropped off at Tora Bora.

Yeah. He's now in post-Habeas proceedings, governed by a 2008 protective order. His attorney can dispute the nuts and bolts of the protective order with the judge, but you do realize that Mr. Obama does not control that branch of government, right?

[TheKentuckian]

23. Only because Obama wanted to thread the needle and effectively relocate

the prison rather than shutting it down. There were no restrictions on transfers, releasing the prisoners, or setting trials for a full six months.

Congress refused to fund the new supermax (Gitmo North) they then also placed extra-constitutional restrictions on due process and Obama signed his own handcuffs into law.

Could he have closed Gitmo, absolutely. He had no legal impediment. In fact even after the law passed but before he signed it, he could have made his moves but chose not to.

[msanthrope]

25. Would you kindly cite your legal assertion as to the authority of the President?

Assuming you can read Boumediene to say that the Executive has the power you describe, would you kindly tell us all where the prisoners were to go?

Be specific. Tell us where the 168 left are supposed to physically go....you might look to the example of the Uyghur detainees in formulating your answers.

[HiPointDem]

28. Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises

It might be President Obama's biggest broken promise: closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay.

As a candidate, Obama vowed so many times that he would shutter the prison he called a recruitment tool for terrorists that he himself even noted how often he's promised to do so, in an interview with Steve Kroft shortly after he was elected.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/guantanamo-bay-open-promises/story?id=16698768#.UA39nKDVa9s

[Nye Bevan]

32. "Too difficult to prosecute; too dangerous to release".

I'm certainly glad that I don't fall into that category.

[Dragonfli]

37. Are you sure you don't fall in that category?

I believe the criteria they use to decide who falls into this category relies on simply an accusation, without proof, trial, or a chance to face one's shadowy, unnamed accusers.

"too difficult to prosecute" is more a euphemism for a complete lack of evidence to even charge.

"too dangerous to release" refers to the political danger of people learning you were accused abused and jailed forever without any legally justifiable cause, it is too dangerous for the black booted thugs we have abdicated justice to, not our people.

[whatchamacallit]

38. +1 n/t

[Robb]

41. This kind of article is very important in an election year.

Very important to Republicans, that is.

The feedstock of noble, useful idiots.

[MadHound]

45. So you're essentially saying that we should ignore human suffering that the US is causing,

Because it is an election year.

Wow, what an. . .interesting set of morals you have there.