Friday, September 28, 2007

Supreme Court Preview: Detainee Rights on the Docket As a new Supreme Court term begins on Monday, legal observers on both sides of the aisle are eyeing Boumediene v. Bush, which could decide the constitutionality of the Military Commissions Act[~]and the fate of detainees held in legal limbo at Guantanamo. Stephanie Mencimer September 27 , 2007 In a moment of rotten timing, dueling legal groups from the right and the left converged yesterday, both holding lunch events at the National Press Club to offer assessments and predications for the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court term, which starts Monday. The conservative Federalist Society offered up better food (watercress and pear salads, on plates, no less), while the liberal upstart American Constitution Society got by on boxed lunch. Likewise, the presenters couldn't be farther apart ideologically, but both groups agreed on one thing: The most important cases coming before the high court this term involve detainees held by the government at Guantanamo Bay. Major players on both sides of the detainee litigation previewed some of the arguments likely to be made before the justices in those cases, particularly in Boumediene v. Bush, which challenges Congress' decision to strip foreign citizens confined at Gitmo of their right to seek relief from unlawful detention in the federal courts. The case dates back to 2002, when the U.S. government forced Bosnia to hand over Lakmar Boumediene and five other Algerian-born men it accused of plotting to attack the U.S. Embassy in Sarajevo and then sent them to Guantanamo, where they've languished ever since. Bosnian prosecutors and police officials had previously conducted a lengthy criminal investigation that exonerated the men, and the Bosnian Human Rights Chamber had ruled that the men could not be deported. But the Bush administration threatened to withdraw peacekeeping troops from the country if the government didn't turn over the suspects. Since then the Bush administration has dropped any talk of an embassy plot and has instead come up with various creative explanations for why it's still holding the men. According to the Washington Post, the military claimed one man was a security threat because he taught karate to Bosnian orphans and knew how to use computers. Another once performed mandatory military service in the Algerian army[~]as a cook. So Boumediene and the others challenged their detention in federal court. But last year Congress passed the Military Commissions Act, which abolished federal court jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions filed by the Guantanamo detainees. As a result, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit tossed out Boumediene earlier this year and, initially, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal. After what must have been a doozy of a request for rehearing written by former Solicitor General Seth Waxman, the court reversed itself and decided it would take the case after all[~]a virtually unprecedented decision that requires at least five votes. (Oral arguments in the case have yet to be scheduled.) Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal laid out the detainees' prospects yesterday for the ACS audience. Katyal is something of a legal rock star, a young, dashing media darling who successfully argued Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the 2006 case in which the court determined that the Bush administration's military tribunals for detainees were illegal. Katyal noted that the administration's legal track record on detainee rights isn't stellar, and the fact that the Supreme Court decided to grant certiorari in the Boumediene case doesn't augur in its favor. "It's really hard to lose a case before the Supreme Court involving executive power in a time of war. It's like flunking a class at Georgetown. You really have to try," Katyal said, marveling at how badly the administration has fared in court and predicting that the detainees in Boumediene will prevail. Down the hall before the well-fed Federalists, though, Gregory Katsas, acting associate attorney general, countered with a talk about, "Why we think we're right." Katsas' legal credits include a full complement of right-wing red meat, cases involving everything from the Defense of Marriage Act and gays in the military to partial-birth abortion, and he's been heavily involved in defending the administration's enemy combatant policies. Despite his Harvard pedigree and Clarence Thomas clerkship, Katsas is not a rock star, except maybe to the Federalists, though even many of them were yawning by the end of his presentation. Katsas launched into his lengthy spiel by talking forcefully about "aliens," those foreign creatures the Bush administration believes have no constitutional rights at Guantanamo. As is so often the case with conservative legal arguments, Katsas highlighted the government's need to avoid chaos and unpredictability. "Imagine a world where the constitution does apply outside the U.S.?" he asked, going on to paint a dire portrait of Marines forced to knock and announce themselves (à la the Fourth Amendment) before searching caves in Pakistan for Osama bin Laden. But the real problem with granting all those "aliens" constitutional rights is that they' have access to the federal courts, and, according to Katsas, "federal judges are not well situated to make the relevant judgments" in these cases, a view that might not be so well received by the numerous Federalist Society members who happen to sit on the federal judiciary. Katsas also made the counterintuitive argument that the military adjudication system set up by the Bush administration actually has better protections for the detainees, er, aliens, than they'd otherwise receive in federal court. After all, he said, in the military system, "aliens can seek review for compliance" with the Military Commissions Act. Of course, the detainees in the military system don't get lawyers, noted Katyal back at the ACS brown-bagger, so how exactly are they supposed to receive such a review? Given the limp arguments coming from Justice, and the fact that the Supreme Court has already ruled that Guantanamo is essentially part of the United States and not, say, a cave in Pakistan, Katyal speculated that the administration would try to moot the detainee cases, possibly by releasing the men in question, before the Supreme Court can rule against them. "They know they have a weak case," Katyal said. Stephanie Mencimer is a reporter in Mother Jones' Washington, D.C., bureau and the author of Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue (Free Press, 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . This article has been made possible by the Foundation for National Progress, the Investigative Fund of Mother Jones, and gifts from generous readers like you. © 2007 The Foundation for National Progress 12:38:11 PM    comment []

Laura Scher: The Smart Choice. Actions speak louder than words. That's what I was thinking when I heard that Verizon, the second-largest U.S. mobile company, had refused to allow NARAL Pro-Choice America to send opt-in text messages to its members (then reversed its decision on Thursday morning after a storm of criticism). Let me repeat that: Verizon would not allow NARAL to send its members text-message alerts that these members had opted to receive. Not that it should come as a surprise that Verizon would behave in such a away. After all, it's public record that they have given millions to right-wing candidates. And Verizon had the distinction of acting alone: the mobile monolith was the only carrier that exercised corporate censorship in blocking the text messages. In initially turning down the program, Verizon had told NARAL that it does not accept programs from any group "that seeks to promote an agenda or distribute content that, in its discretion, may be seen as controversial or unsavory to any of our users." Unsavory? How's this for unsavory: Verizon believes it can quash an organization's communications to its own members. As the CEO of a mobile company that has a mobile text activism program, and as a reproductive-rights activist, I know that there is another way. I don't just call for choice. I march for choice: on Washington, D.C. in 2004. I advocated for family planning in Ethiopia, where I saw how, thanks to the Bush administration's global gag rule, families had no more access to reproductive services. And I continue to run a proudly pro-choice mobile company. The truth is, as consumers, we still have a choice in phone companies. We can choose to be a part of a pro-choice company, like Working Assets, which has donated over two million dollars to women's organizations like NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood since its inception, or we can stick with Verizon. I know I'm happy with my choice. Are you? [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com] 8:43:34 AM    comment []

Matt Littman: Breaking News: Rudy Giuliani Reveals He Was Mayor of New York on 9/11!. I don't know if you know this, but it appears that Rudy Giuliani was the Mayor of New York on September 11, 2001. Did he mention it already? Oh, you say he sells Rudy and "9/11" more than The Donald sells products with the Trump name on them? When Mayor, Rudy had a banner taken off buses because it read "New York Magazine: About the Only Good Thing in New York that Rudy Hasn't Taken Credit For." It was said that it hurt his feelings to be portrayed as such an opportunist. But really, Rudy and Opportunist go together like Fred and Lazy or Mitt and Magic Underpants. Even before September 11th, it appeared that Rudy had slipped off the deep end of, as the new "View" host Sherri Shepherd might say, the end of the earth. Toward the final days of his term as Mayor, his actions seemed so illogical that it appeared he was no longer listening to his closest advisors; how could they compete with the excellent advice Rudy was getting from his toaster oven? What else can explain the way Rudy's second marriage ended? After a widely-rumored affair with his press secretary, he held an infamous press conference in which he told the media - and through them, his wife, Donna, and their kids -- that he was getting a divorce. Not exactly the actions of a sane person. Now, Rudy is remarried, and his kids don't speak to him. As a matter of fact, one of his children is supporting Barack Obama's campaign. I'm sure Rudy's taking that really well. If I'm Rudy's kids, I'm grabbing my backpack and heading to Patagonia. For the rest of their lives, or until the world ends, which, if Rudy becomes President and gets his hand on the nuclear trigger, may be January 21, 2009. I'm sure Rudy has a better relationship with the family of his first wife. Oh, of course he does, she's his cousin. After 9/11, Rudy claimed to have a better understanding of terrorism because he was in New York when the terrorists attacked. I don't know of anyone who sees an actual connection between the two, but since that day, Rudy made millions in the private sector capitalizing on his supposed knowledge of security issues. Let's be clear: Rudy did a great job on 9/11 because he filled the leadership vacuum left by our President. When told that we were under attack, President Bush continued reading "My Pet Goat," and then hid on his plane. When it was time to step up, the President's reaction was basically, "Why me? I wanted to be Commissioner of baseball. Waaaa!" Rudy stepped up. He seemed to be in charge. But now, he's using 9/11 so shamelessly that he has made Mr. Trump look like Willy Loman. He recently claimed to have gone to the WTC site as often as the first responders, and he said he suffered no ill effects. Physically, yes, mentally, no. Rudy spent a few hours at the WTC site, mostly showing visitors how hard the first responders were working. Rudy spent much more time at Yankee games than at the WTC site. Rudy also learned from 9/11 that more people should be able to have guns. That's right, Rudy told the NRA, in between phone calls, that 9/11 indicated to him that people have to be able to protect themselves. Huh? What would the people of New York have done with the guns? Shoot at the other people waiting in line to give blood? The fact is that Rudy uses 9/11 whenever it suits his needs. Now, his fundraisers are charging people $9.11 to get into a Rudy event. At this rate, Rudy's going to be hawking a Rudy 9/11 steak, and Rudy 9/11 vodka. I'm truly excited to get my Rudy 9/11 cologne. I recall a time when Marvin Hagler, the boxer, legally changed his name to Marvelous Marvin Hagler. It's time for Rudy to go all the way and become 9/11 Rudy Giuliani. You know, in case there's any confusion over whether he was Mayor on September 11th. [The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com] 8:41:28 AM    comment []

Ray McGovern | Bush, Oil - and Moral Bankruptcy. In an editorial for Consortium News, Ray McGovern writes: "It is an exceedingly dangerous time. Vice President Dick Cheney and his hard-core 'neo-conservative' proteges in the administration and Congress are pushing harder and harder for President George W. Bush, isolated from reality, to honor the promise he made to Israel to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. On Sept. 23, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warned pointedly: 'If we escalate tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war [with Iran], which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster for us.'" [t r u t h o u t] 8:29:34 AM    comment []

Waxman, Committee Blame Blackwater in Fallujah Uprising. Richard Lardner and Mike Baker of The Associated Press report: "Blackwater USA triggered a major battle in the Iraq war in 2004 by sending an unprepared team of guards into an insurgent stronghold, a move that led to their horrific deaths and a violent response by U.S. forces, says a congressional investigation released Thursday. The private security company, one of the largest working in Iraq and under scrutiny for how it operates, also is faulted for initially insisting its guards were properly prepared and equipped." [t r u t h o u t] 8:28:35 AM    comment []

The Mega-Lie Called the "War on Terror": A Masterpiece of Propaganda. The fraudulence of the "War on Terror" is clearly revealed by looking at the pattern of actions that preceded and followed its launch. [AlterNet.org] 8:27:38 AM    comment []