Uncivil Liberties

With a tip of my capto my childhood friend , Mike B, who has been as far off the gird as sanity and modern living would allow for years. I have thought of him, and what I often perceived to be his sort of irrational fear, many times over these past few weeks.

On Dec-29, the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) released a trove of FBI materials they secured as a result of a Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) request regarding FBI surveillance of the NONVIOLENT Occupy Protests across the United States. The PCJF report indicated the FBI surveillance started a month before the Zuccotti Park encampment in lower Manhattan. The documents were heavily redacted, indicating that far more remains to be revealed. Even so it is clear and beyond that the FBI was coordinating and working closely with the Department of Homeland Security, The New York Stock Exchange and other business interests, as well as state and local police and the Public Safety Department on colleges and universities across the country to subvert, infiltrate and investigate the constitutionally protected Occupy protesters. Paranoia and extremism were such that criminal investigations were initiated in more than one city before the legal and constitutionally protected protests even took place. In moves that recall the illicit communications between Jim Crow southerners and the FBI, banks and other financial institutions were advised of impending (non-violent) protests. It’s hard to comprehend how such communications became part of the FBI code of responsibility, but 9-11 was such a jolt to the National Security apparatus that new norms of unconstitutional behavior sprung up in all sorts of locations. The Joint Terrorism Task Force held meetings in Anchorage to investigate Occupy Anchorage, and federal, state, and local law enforcement groups responsible in part for tracking terrorist activities in Tampa, Jacksonville, Richmond, Milwaukee, Memphis, Denver, Birmingham, and Jackson also met to track Occupy activities in these cities.

On Dec-31 President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It authorizes $662 billion in defense spending for FY 2013, up from $300 billion in 2001. Beyond the reckless and ridiculously unconstrained spending, the act also authorizes indefinite detention-- without trial or hearing-- by the military of any individual, foreign born or American, suspected of terrorist activities. The US military is prevented from engaging in Civilian Law Enforcement as a result of the Posse Comitatus Act, which was passed in 1878 and updated in 1981. However, the NDAA subverts that limitation or rather it continues that subversion. While it should be noted that Obama has publicly disagreed with these provisions, and did so again in his signing NDAA statement, it should also be noted that this is the second time he has raised similar objections, threatened vetoes, and then quietly signed. The President doth protest too little, and in retrospect, not very sincerely. Moreover, neither the Department of Justice nor the Department of Defense has shied from taking advantages of the questionable provisions.  

The synchronicity of these two events should be raising alarm bells, particularly in the so called mainstream liberal media, but neither story has garnered much press attention. The love child of a narcissistic rapper and an unrepentant media whore gathers far more pixel attention. Taken in combination we have a so called liberal administration allowing or encouraging the definition of the domestic terror threat to be expanded to include nonviolent protests at large financial institutions at nearly the precise time that the NDAA continues “the legal authority to keep people suspected of terrorism in military custody, indefinitely and without trial.” People talk about the slippery slope, but to me this looks more like a ski jump, where workers filling in planks from top and from bottom have just met somewhere in the middle.

In another area of concern for the just passed NDAA, language inserted to protect government whistle blowers backed by Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) was eviscerated by the Presidents signing statement for the legislation. Obama indicated he intends to ignore that portion of the law which would have created some space for protection for 12 million federal workers.

The case of Bradley Manning is perhaps the most noteworthy case of the outright hostility that the Obama Administration has shown towards anyone who attempts to get stories into the press that would paint America or the administration in a bad light. Mr. Manning, who turned 25 in December, has been held by the US military since May of 2010, about 2-1/2 years. The, then 22 year old, private is believed to be the government “official” responsible for the massive leak of documents which were later made available on the Wikileaks website. Though no longer confined so desperately, Manning was held in solitary confinement during lengthy stretches since his arrest. The conditions he faced rub right up against any fair definition of torture, not to mention the Geneva Conventions. He was kept often naked, in a 6 X 12 cell, without windows, or visible access to anyone, even other prisoners. After an altercation with guards in Jan-2011, which very possibly could have been caused by the extreme and inhumane nature of his incarceration, he had all his clothes removed. The cell was lit 24-7. He has been forced to stay awake, sometimes forced standing, in his cell, which was often kept brightly lit so as to prevent rest. A State Department spokesman, Phillip Crowley, who criticized the treatment, was forced to resign. 

In a December article in Rolling Stone, reporter Jeff Tietz reported that 80,000 prisoners in US jails currently reside in Supermax solitary confinement similar to what Mr. Manning endured. Psychiatrists point out that signs of mental affect can be seen in nearly all inmates incarcerated in such circumstances for longer than 90 days. Researcher and Psychiatrist, Terry Kupers who interviewed nearly 1,000 Supermax inmates, was quoted in the article as saying “I never found anyone who wasn’t damaged by the experience.” In Manning’s case this is punishment, probably in violation of the Geneva Conventions on torture, without conviction.

In another case Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times reporter James Risen has been under constant threat from the Federal Government and the Obama justice department since 2008. He wrote a book called State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. In the Book Risen documents several incidents at the Bush CIA. As with the Reagan CIA, the intelligence agency under Bush often seems to have operated outside the limits of government oversight and constitutional control. In one particular incident, according to Risen, the CIA planted notes detailing nuclear weapons components, altered to set back the Iranian nuclear efforts. Risen reports that the plan backfired horribly. The mistakes, caught by the Russians and corrected, actually helped advance the Iranian nuclear effort. It is specifically to try to limit the foolhardy and sometimes crazy schemes of field operatives and their Washington political leaders that there is Congressional oversight of the COA and the National Security apparatus. For his efforts at exposing the folly of the previous administration Risen has twice been subpoenaed by the Justice Department and ordered to divulge his sources. He has refused. The CIA agent, who the Federal government accuses of leaking confirmation to Risen, is currently under indictment. His name is Jeffrey Sterling. The justice department has repeatedly petitioned the judge in the case to force Risen to testify.

The similarities between Risen, Manning and the heroic Daniel Ellsberg are striking, just as the Wikileaks case now draws clear lines back to the Pentagon Papers case of the early 70’s, especially as it pertains to the cost of exercising our 1^st amendment rights.  On June-13, 1971 the NY Times began publishing what came to be known as the Pentagon Papers, the secret and dirty history of American involvement in Vietnam made possible by Pentagon analyst Daniel Ellsberg who leaked the Defense Department documents. After three articles in the series were published, the United States Justice Department sought and received a restraining order preventing further publication. Two weeks later, on June-30, 1971, the Supreme Court ruled in an enduring and critical 1^st amendment case that publication could continue and the public’s right to know outweighed the political and National Security concerns stated by the Nixon administration. Liberals applauded. Ellsberg was vilified and hounded by Nixon’s henchmen, up to and including the sanctuary of his psychiatrist’s office. The 30^th anniversary of the case in the summer of 2011 was revisited with great joy and reverence for enduring American principles and values. If only some shred of the importance of the truth that the Pentagon papers revealed had survived 9-11, perhaps Americans might feel differently about 25 year old Bradley Manning. While we are right to celebrate yesterday’s victory, we do so in an environment apparently far more lawless constitutionally.

On Jan-02 the Huffington Post reported that a federal judge “Rejected The New York Times' bid to force the U.S. government to disclose more information about its targeted killing of people it believes have ties to terrorism, including American citizens.” The American Civil Liberties Union and the NY Times had filed Freedom of Information Act requests for documents specifically relating to the drone attacks which resulted in the deaths of three American citizens. The judge in the case notes that “…the Constitution’s guarantee of due process is ironclad”, but then goes onto to cite competing legal doctrine. The net effect of the ruling is to turn the judge’s own words on their head. Due process rights are anything but guaranteed and there is no public right to know when constitutional decisions of that scope are executed or denied. 

The definition of this effort—How far to go and how to get there—has been led by Obama’s counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan, a holdover from the Bush CIA. In a Washington Post article in October, Brennan was interviewed about his efforts to craft a counter terrorism strategy that would outlive his and Obama’s time in office. The article makes clear that though there is substantial inter-agency review, ultimately the final call on what goes to the president is Brennan’s and the final call on who will live and who will die is the President’s. The NY Times FOIA case came up because the President signed off on the execution of American citizen’s, who it appears were members of Al Qaeda. Two people make the final call when drones are sent to kill. Obama and Brennan. Liberals can apparently live with that because one of the two is Obama. Not so long ago it would have been Bush and Cheney. I wonder how many liberals have bothered to consider that?

On January-01, the New York Times reported that “…the Obama administration has embraced rendition — the practice of holding and interrogating terrorism suspects in other countries without due process — despite widespread condemnation of the tactic in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.” It is believed that the polices of rendition and extra-judicial drone attacks are a direct response to the Congressional limitations placed on the President restricting the transfer of inmates from Guantanamo to civilian courts and justice. Some argue that given their limited options the two practices, both of which are assaultive to Constitutional practice and American values, are the only choice for this administration.

Taken in whole and in conjunction with a raft of other policies of the Obama administration it is an arguable point as to whether or not Obama chooses to assualt American Constitutional values or does it by default. The end result cannot be considered unclear though. This administration makes all the right sounds on Civil Liberties, but in action and deed, they have contributed to and in some cases extended the Bush Doctrine. Said doctrine was extremely hostile to the American Constitution domestically. Internationally in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere Bush’s doctrine resulted in the outright violation of International law as well as treaties to which the United States was a signatory if not an outright sponsor.

This is one are area where blaming the legacy of their predecessor and the hand they were dealt holds neither truth nor absolution for the Obama administration. It appears that the torture visited upon Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh has made a fair trial and the prosecution for their roles in the crimes of 9-11 an impossibility. The legal maneuvers seemed destined to carry on in Guantanamo until they both die. That is Bush and Cheney’s legacy: Justice denied for two of the most heinous and evil humans to ever soil the face of the earth, which, as it turns out, will also be justice denied for the survivors and victims of 9-11. But to the extent that Obama perpetuates the policies that Bush initiated the unjust outcomes are no longer just Bush’s legacy of immorality. They are his too. And ours..

Gun nuts run amok claiming they need weapons to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Conservative commentators blather on about Liberty and Tyranny, and Let Freedom Ring, and endless declarations of 2^nd amendment right to our guns bullsh**. But they have at best stood in in silence as American’s right to trial by jury and to confront their accusers have been willed away under threat of a terroristic enemy which can no longer be well defined or identified. Save for Rand Paul and a few other No-Govenrment zealots the right has been silent in the face of this attack on the Constitution. The “White dove of freedom” sailed into a wall of fear and paranoia as the Obama administration squandered the rights of American Citizens. Nonviolent protests, whether in response to corruption on Wall Street, or a police shooting in Anaheim, or working conditions and wages at Wal-Mart stores,  have been in Obama’s America with full regalia paramilitary police presence designed to intimidate and deter constitutionally protected speech. Americans retain a near mystical attachment to our Constitution, Bill Of Rights and the soaring language of the preamble: “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” But in practice under and threat of terrorism, and the immense power of large corporate institutions it has become increasingly unclear which of our liberties, if any, are real and enshrined and which, by fiat of our leaders, have been determined to be uncivil.

Judge: Army GI in WikiLeaks illegally punished

Jan-08-2012

FORT MEADE, Md. (AP) — An Army private suspected of sending reams of classified documents to the secret-sharing WikiLeaks website was illegally punished at a Marine Corps brig and should get 112 days cut from any prison sentence he receives if convicted, a military judge ruled Tuesday.

Army Col. Denise Lind ruled during a pretrial hearing that authorities went too far in their strict confinement of Pfc. Bradley Manning for nine months in a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va., in 2010 and 2011. Manning was confined to a windowless cell 23 hours a day, sometimes with no clothing. Brig officials said it was to keep him from hurting himself or others.

Lind said Manning's confinement was "more rigorous than necessary." She added that the conditions "became excessive in relation to legitimate government interests."

Manning faces 22 charges, including aiding the enemy, which carries a maximum sentence of life behind bars. His trial begins March 6.

The 25-year-old intelligence analyst had sought to have the charges thrown out, arguing the conditions were egregious. Military prosecutors had recommended a seven-day sentence reduction, conceding Manning was improperly kept for that length of time on highly restrictive suicide watch, contrary to a psychiatrist's recommendation.

Lind rejected a defense contention that brig commanders were influenced by higher-ranking Marine Corps officials at Quantico or the Pentagon.
Manning showed no reaction as Lind read her decision. He fidgeted when the judge took the bench to announce her ruling, sometimes tapping his chin or mouth with a pen and frequently glancing at his attorney's notepad, but those movements tapered off during the hour and 45 minutes it took the judge to read the lengthy opinion.
Mike McKee, one of about a dozen Manning supporters in the courtroom, said he was disappointed. He called the ruling "very conservative," although he said he didn't expect the charges to be thrown out.
"I don't find it a victory," McKee said. "Credit like that becomes much less valuable if the sentence turns out to be 80 years."
Jeff Paterson of the Bradley Manning Support Network, which is funding Manning's defense, said the sentencing credit "doesn't come close to compensating Bradley" for his harsh treatment.
"The ruling is not strong enough to give the military pause before mistreating the next American soldier awaiting trial," Paterson wrote in an email.
Lind ruled on the first day of a scheduled four-day hearing at Fort Meade, near Baltimore.
The hearing is partly to determine whether Manning's motivation matters. Prosecutors want the judge to bar the defense from producing evidence at trial regarding his motive for allegedly leaking hundreds of thousands of secret war logs and diplomatic cables. They say motive is irrelevant to whether he leaked intelligence, knowing it would be seen by al-Qaida
Manning allegedly told an online confidant-turned-informant that he leaked the material because "I want people to see the truth" and "information should be free."
Defense attorney David Coombs said Tuesday that barring such evidence would cripple the defense's ability to argue that Manning leaked only information that he believed couldn't hurt the United States or help a foreign nation.
Manning has offered to take responsibility for the leaks in a pending plea offer but he still could face trial on charges such as aiding the enemy.

The Crescent, Okla., native is accused of leaking classified Iraq and Afghanistan war logs and more than 250,000 diplomatic cables while working as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad in 2009 and 2010. He is also charged with leaking 2007 video of a U.S. helicopter crew gunning down 11 men, including a Reuters news photographer and his driver. The Pentagon concluded the troops acted appropriately, having mistaken the camera equipment for weapons.

Manning supporters consider him a whistleblower whose actions exposed war crimes and helped trigger the pro-democracy Arab Spring uprisings in late 2010.

___(equals)

Associated Press writer Ben Nuckols at Fort Meade contributed to this story.