Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

GITMO: Government admits error after reviewing new information


Would not say what information surfaced during the latest review that led the panel to its decision Ref.

Could it be, that Governments are wrong; that other reviews are important; that a single military man can make errors?

Indeed, this is why Congress [a group] is the one that declares war, not a single error-prone man.

Not only might the GITMO impartial, but the [God forbid] the prisoners might actually be ... innocent. Shocked!

Held all that time, and unable to access informatoin that would show they are innocent. Looks like the FBI I-drive needs to get reviewed; this says nothing about Brady violations. Whow says the accused do not have rights? We used to be innocent until proven guilty; why wasn't the information that was "now available" not provided in a timely manner at a write of habeous hearing?

"Oh, can't have that..." Can't let people demand information be shown that might show they are innocent; we need more excuses to hold people.

"All this time they were being held, and there was information out there that they were innocent." Uh, the burden of proof is on the government to show that they are guildty and it is not the job of the accused [innocent until proven guilty] to prove that they are innocent.

So, America why are we allowing this "guilty until proven innocent" non-sense to continue?

Why is the "information that proves they are innocent" even given credence--the real standard should be to require the government to provide that information first, to justify why they are being held. Otherwise, the accused [unable to talk t olawyers or review information] have no chance of getting access to infromation that would otherwise show they are innocent.

This is why Congress and the Courts oversee the President: To make sure he conducts his affairs in accordance with the law of war. The reason the President is in this mess [holding people without evidence that they are ghilty] is that he stated that he had new power [outside the constitution] to define "enemy combatant" as anyone he accuses of being guilty, when there is no evidence to justify that label.

Checks and balances is a great concept, if the idiots on the Senate Judiciary Committee actually had some power to check this President, and call the Attorney General, WHite House Counsel Gonzalez, and Rumsefeld before the Judiciary Committee to epxlain themselves.

But no, we get into the argument of "DoD doesn't report to the JUdiciary..." Of course, not, that's why DoD's been given judicial authority--so that it wouldn't be called before the COngress on a judicial matter. Indeed, even the SEnate Armed SErvices Committee is in no position to oversee DoD in legal matters, because [Oh dear] the HASC and SASC have "no idea" what is going on with legal matters, only defense matters.

This is the exact "mess" that the Executive is taking advantage of: Get an agency in GITMO to engage in goernmental affairs otuside its primary charter [DoD acts as a court] and then nobody in Congress will have the expertise to oversee this new bold move; DoD knows Congressional staffers will nod their head at whatever they're told and say, "Gosh, those guys in DoD said..."

Sure, ask DoD to self-regulate. This is impressive. You know, if we really want to have some adequately investigations into matters from "people in government who are supposed to help us," it might be good if the government actually hires people who are competent.

You know, understand english, can construct a sentence. People who actually do what they're told, and agree to really "investigate" something, not simply "ask the agency being investigated what the facts are" and then come back with, "Well, those guys said..."

What a crock! That's not an investigation. It's simply parroting back the same "defense" [read = "excuses, drivel, and cover-up to avoid accountability for malfeasnce] that caused the problem in teh first place.

Translation: The reason the "Staffers get called" is that the primary agency [DoD] hasn't done their job, or is mucking things up. It is ridiculous for the world to believe there's oversight of DoD when the staffers simply parrot back "whatever DoD says" without actually doing independent testing of the information.

Translation: When you're asked to "take information" and you promise to "take care of it" ... "taking care of it" isn't simply "listing to their denials" and coming back with "there is no problem." This isn't checks and balances.

Rather, real checks and balances is to "look at what is being charged or alleged" and then send in independent people who will test the information. THis means sending people in without warning/notice to gather information [sometimes without warning] as to what is really going on.

Congres has no credibility when it is tasked/asked by someone to "look into something" and Congress comes back with "there is no problem". No, the point of the call to Congress was, "There needs to be a game plan put together to ensure that the idiots in DoD are actually complying with what they're doing; and to find out why they're not doing what they say the are doing.

Once again, we have more evidence that Congress simply "takes whatever the agency says" and rubber stamps it: "Gosh, DoD says they wouldn't do that" [as they said before the SUpreme Court in re abuse, torture at Guantanmo.] But does anyone in Congress actually get off their butt and go check out the infromation indepdenently?

I don't see Congressional staffers using NSA-like surveillance of DoD facilites to find out what is going on. Oh, you say the DoDIG does that through the various agencies that monitor fraud? Give me a break! They work for DoD, not Congress. They lie, they make up information, they explain away things. Their auditors even destroy evidence when they're given a heads up that Congressional staffers are arriving no notice for an audit.

Congressional "checks and balances" means using the allegations that come in, and developing a plan to do some integrity testing, evaluate the claims, and see if there are some other indicators that tend to corroborate that.

Where are the same interrogations of those who commit crimes within DoD that are given to those who are held at Guantanamo? WHy aren't US soldiers who are committing these abuses put under Congressional interrogations? It's good enough for innocent people held at Guantanamo; why aren't DoD personnel subjected to the same "special interst" and "methods to sofeten them up"?

Answer: We only abuse those we can get away with abusing; while those who actually have the same colored skin as "the man" in the WHite House....they get a pass.

If you're Arab-Amreican, Muslim, or even accused of being "possibly" related to "seomthing" you're wrong; while all the fair-haired arrogant DoD personnel who commit war crimes in Abu Ghraib, "not a problem."

Don't ask about those memos. Don't bother looking into the security requirements to release that information. Don't even ask, "How could a classified message get from Guantanamo to AFghanistan" without there being an approval, release, and authrizatin to move that document from Point A to Point B.

Translation: The memo was known to have traveled from Guantanamo to Afghanistan to Iraq; the issue is not "the memo showed up" but that the ~policy~ was written, and personnel implemented that policy in three different places.

Ignore the memo, and focus on the ~policy~ that was ~enacted~ and ~put into practice~ by the ~same people~ who traveled from GITMO to Afghanistan then to Iraq. It was known in the White House that the "same crew" and "same personnel" who did interrogations in Guantanamo were also going to be used in Iraq and AFghanistan; how do we know that? The contracts hired the ~same~ companies to do these interrogations; and the leadership was the same in GITMO, Afghanistan, and Iraq: Crossflow of personnel.