Showing posts with label Military Commissions Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military Commissions Act. Show all posts

November 19, 2008

Human Rights Watch Wants Obama to Ban Torture


Activists Seek Executive Order Banning Torture
By Wolfgang Kerler / November 17, 2008

NEW YORK - Shutting down the infamous detention centre at Guantanamo Bay is just one of a series of measures to reform U.S. counterterrorism practices being urged by the watchdog organisation Human Rights Watch (HRW).

In a report released Sunday, the New York-based HRW urged President-elect Barack Obama to quickly repudiate the abusive policies put in place by the George W. Bush administration in its "global war on terror".

"The Obama administration is going to have a difficult task to restore America's standing in the world," Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism programme director at HRW, told IPS. "The Bush administration's counterterrorism policies deeply damaged the reputation of the United States."

HRW's 11-step action plan -- entitled "Fighting Terrorism Fairly and Effectively: Recommendations for President-elect Obama" -- suggests how the U.S. could again become a credible leader in the fight for the global implementation of human rights.

"But it depends on how dramatically the Obama administration makes a clear break with the past," Mariner added.

According to HRW, some 250 terrorist suspects are still being held as "enemy combatants" at the military detention centre at Guantanamo Bay opened in 2002. Most of the detainees have now been in custody for nearly seven years, without charge.

As president, Obama should close the detention facility -- a step he has already pledged to take -- and establish a task force to review all the detainees' cases to determine whether they should be charged and brought to trial or released.

Also among the 11 steps is the abolition of military commissions to try suspected foreign terrorists. HRW argues that these commissions lack "basic fair trial guarantees" and that federal criminal courts were the "best-equipped" and "time tested" venues to handle terrorism cases.

Similarly, plans to legalise the indefinite preventive detention of suspected terrorists – based on "predictions of future dangerousness" -- should be rejected by Obama, HRW says.

Justifying detention without charge by classifying people as "enemy combatants" in the "war on terror", as has happened to suspects arrested in locations like Bosnia, Thailand and along the U.S.-Mexico border, should also be stopped.

HRW also condemned the use of torture and inhumane interrogation techniques by U.S. armed forces and intelligence agencies -- "including stripping detainees naked, subjecting them to extremes of heat, cold, and noise, and depriving them of sleep for long periods".

To ban these practices, which have led to the deaths of some detainees, Obama should quickly issue an executive order and repudiate legal memos issued by the Bush Justice Department and presidential directives under the outgoing administration that permit torture and other abuses.

HRW called on the new administration to redress victims of abusive counterterrorism policies -- something which has not happened so far as the victims have effectively been shut out of U.S. courts.

Above all, past abuses should be investigated, documented and publicly reported by a non-partisan commission with subpoena power, and former government officials who were responsible for some of the crimes should not be given immunity from prosecution, the group said.

Last week, Rep. Rush Holt, a Democrat from New Jersey who chairs an intelligence oversight panel, issued a statement saying that "while an executive order [to ban torture] will not remove the need for legislation on the issue," if Obama did so, it would "begin to restore our moral leadership on the issue".

Holt also expressed support for the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT), a coalition of religious groups from all over the country that is lobbying to eliminate the use of torture as a part of U.S. policy.

On Nov. 12, NRCAT held a nationwide action day with more than 50 delegations of religious leaders holding meetings with members of Congress. Thirty religious groups participated in a demonstration in front of the White House, where President Bush is spending his final days in office.

While she agreed on the need to fight terrorism, Mariner of HRW rejected many of the measures taken after the 9/11 terror attacks, emphasising that "the Bush administration entirely disregarded even basic principles of the rule of law."

"The government addressed terrorism in an extremely counterproductive way," Mariner said.

Instead of diminishing the terrorist threat, reports of human rights violations at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and elsewhere fuelled the recruitment of supporters for militant groups, which argued the U.S. was in fact leading a "war on Islam".

Asked whether she believes Obama will heed the recommendations of HRW, Mariner stressed that by voting against the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to authorise trials by military courts, "Obama has already stood up against these abuses.ct"

The president-elect also explicitly pledged to close Guantanamo during his campaign.

"So we are confident that consistent with his message of change, his actions and his criticism, he is going to repudiate the abusive counterterrorism policies of the Bush administration," Mariner said.

Source / IPS News

September 29, 2008

Gitmo prosecutors seek resentencing for detainee

By MIKE MELIA


GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) — Military prosecutors have asked the judge who presided over the war crimes trial for Osama bin Laden’s driver to order a new sentencing hearing, arguing the detainee should not have received credit for time served, officials said Thursday.

The motion filed Wednesday argues that Salim Hamdan, who is eligible for release by January, cannot receive trial credit for his time detained at the Guantanamo Bay Navy base as an “enemy combatant.”

“We’re not looking to jack up the sentence, just to have it on a legally correct basis,” said Army Col. Lawrence Morris, the chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo tribunals.

A panel of six American military officers sentenced Hamdan to 5 1/2 years in prison last month, making him eligible for release by January. The judge informed the jurors that time already served would count toward the sentence before they began deliberations.

Hamdan, the only convicted detainee at Guantanamo, was found guilty of supporting terrorism but acquitted of the more serious charge of conspiracy at the first American war crimes trial since World War II.

Prosecutors recommended a sentence of 30 years to life in prison.

Hamdan, 40, could be held indefinitely regardless of the sentence. The Pentagon reserves the right to hold him and other “enemy combatants” who are considered dangerous to the United States — even those who are acquitted or complete sentences in the tribunal system.

The motion calls for the judge to order the same jurors back to Guantanamo for a new hearing, said Air Force Maj. Gail Crawford, a spokeswoman for the tribunal system.

September 21, 2008

Controversial Guantanamo legal advisor reassigned

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Leslie Schulman at 11:50 AM ET

Photo source or description
[JURIST] The Pentagon on Friday announced [news release] that US Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann [official profile; JURIST news archive], the controversial legal advisor to the US military commissions at Guantanamo and supervisor of the Office of Military Commissions-Prosecution (OMC-P), has been reassigned to the newly-created position of director of operations of the Office of Military Commissions. As director of operations, Hartmann will be responsible for the initiation, review, staffing, coordination and execution of all planning and development matters relating to military commissions. Deputy legal advisor Michael Champan will become the new legal advisor to the military commissions. AP has more.

Earlier this year military judges presiding over the military commission [JURIST news archive] trials of Guantanamo detainees Omar Khadr and Mohammed Jawad [JURIST reports] barred Hartmann from taking any part in the trials of those detainees on grounds that he was unduly biased towards the prosecution. US Army Gen. Gregory Zanetti [official profile], deputy commander at Guantanamo Bay, testified in August [JURIST report] that Hartmann routinely bullied his counterparts and was inappropriately aggressive in seeking indictments against detainees. In May, Hartman was disqualified [JURIST report] from participating in the military commission trial of detainee Salim Ahmed Hamdan [DOD materials; JURIST news archive].

Washburn Conference on Global War on Terrorism, November 13-14

Some folks at Washburn University law school asked me to announce this conference, set for November 13-14, and I’m delighted to do it:

***
The Rule of Law and the Global War on Terrorism: Detainees, Interrogations, and Military Commissions
November 13-14, 2008
Sponsored by the Washburn University School of Law Center for Law and
Government and the Washburn Law Journal
http://washburnlaw.edu/ruleoflaw/

The United States Constitution was founded on the Rule of Law. The Global War on Terrorism has tested the limits of our constitutional values and has posed unprecedented challenges for the U.S. legal system. Throughout these difficult times, the federal courts have been instrumental in upholding the Rule of Law.

The Rule of Law and the Global War on Terrorism Symposium will examine legal implications of governmental actions taken in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001. Our speakers and participants will reevaluate and reassess these complex issues to explore possible ways forward as our nation prepares for a new administration.

Speakers and presenters include: William C. Banks; Christopher W. Behan; George P. Fletcher; David J. R. Frakt; David E. Graham; Amos Guiora; Samuel V. Jones; Joseph Margulies; The Honorable Alberto J. Mora; Mary Ellen O'Connell; Michael P. O'Connor; Ambassador Pierre-
Richard Prosper; Celia Rumann; Thomas J. Romig; Philippe Sands; Charlie Savage; Robert F. Turner; Sean Watts; and Noah S. Weisbord. Papers by some of these speakers will be published in upcoming issues of the Washburn Law Journal.

Themes for the symposium are:

- Setting the Conditions for the War on Terrorism
- The U.S. Administration Responds: Detain and Interrogate
- The U.S. Congress and Courts Respond: Detainee Treatment Act, Military Commissions, and Habeas Corpus
- A New Administration: The Way Forward

Registration for the symposium is complimentary. Seating is limited. To ensure sufficient accommodations you must pre-register online at the above website.

June 02, 2008

WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS: UPDATE ON TERRORISM TRIALS

WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS

At terrorism trials, is no defense a defense?

Military defense lawyers face a dilemma at the war court: Is offering up no defense the way to defend an alleged terrorist at trial?

crosenberg@MiamiHerald.com

The Military Commissions building is seen in this August 2004 photo at the US Navy Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
MARK WILSON / GETTY IMAGES
The Military Commissions building is seen in this August 2004 photo at the US Navy Base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- Can no defense be a legitimate defense at a war crimes trial?

Attorneys for alleged terrorists who could face life prison sentences are grappling with this dilemma as a succession of detainees announce plans to boycott the first U.S. war crimes tribunals since World War II.

Most, but not all, have also fired their Pentagon-paid lawyers, or limited what they can do in their defense -- actions that critics say threaten to undermine the legitimacy of any future convictions.

But the chief prosecutor doesn't agree. The burden at the war court, he says, is not for an alleged terrorist to prove his innocence but for the Pentagon to prove his guilt.

''The accused doesn't have to do a damn thing,'' said Army Col. Lawrence Morris, chief prosecutor for the military commissions.

``And it is not necessarily a negligent or inappropriate defense to just shoot holes in the government's case and insist that they failed to meet their burden.''

Morris should know. Before this assignment, prosecuting alleged war criminals, he served as chief of the Army's Trial Defense Service -- responsible for all of the Army's lawyers as they defended American soldiers at court-martial.

But this is the war court, and unlike U.S. troops who generally welcome an opportunity to prove their innocence, with an American military defense lawyer, the detainees don't.

The next test will come Thursday when the military brings the five alleged 9/11 architects to arraignment -- and Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators say whether they will work with their U.S. military counsel.

These men would face the death penalty if convicted, which may be a greater incentive.

But for those who could face life in prison, the latest challenge came last month when alleged Afghan spy Mohammed Kamin, in his 30s, told his military judge that he didn't want to attend his trial.

Moreover, Kamin said he didn't want any help from his Pentagon-appointed defense lawyer, Navy Lt. Rich Federico, who returned to the United States from a posting in Italy to help defend captives.

''I don't want him,'' Kamin said at the commission hearing here, sitting beside Federico. ``I don't want another one. I didn't want to come to court.''

TROUBLING ISSUE

Defense lawyers find this troubling on many counts.

Some of the alleged terrorists have spent years in detention without ever consulting lawyers, and now, based on perhaps a sense of hopelessness or distrust, they say they don't need attorneys.

And they insist that they want to offer no defense.

The 30-something Afghan is accused of joining al Qaeda in 2003, spying on U.S. forces near Khost, Afghanistan, and setting up and firing missiles in their direction. Nothing in his charge sheet suggests that anyone was hurt.

Kamin's judge, Air Force Col. W. Thomas Cumbie, ordered Federico to serve as his defense lawyer anyway -- unless Federico's Indiana bar reported back an ethical conflict.

Meantime, the judge told the Navy lawyer to study the government evidence that might be used at the Kamin trial.

That allows the lawyer to prepare, if not stand up in court, while working through the ethics of defending a client who wants no defense.

The judge is also permitting the lawyer to see the detainee's prison camp mental-health records -- in case the prisoner has a profound enough psychiatric condition that prevents him from making his own decisions.

Kamin may be just one man, an alleged al Qaeda foot soldier facing life in prison. But Federico argued that, with seven of the eight men before the court engaging in some sort of boycott, the war court is now facing a ``systemic issue.''

''How do I represent him? That's the key question,'' he told the judge. ``This is not a dilemma that faces me or faces this court, but it faces the whole military commissions system as well.''

But this is no blanket one-size-fits-all boycott.

Each of the Arab and Afghan detainees has dealt with it differently. And so have their Pentagon-appointed attorneys -- a collection of reservists and active-duty Judge Advocate General officers, who have converged on this remote base from posts around the world as well as from civilian law practices to defend clients at the war crimes tribunals.

CLIENTS' WISHES

Salim Hamdan of Yemen, one of two alleged Osama bin Laden drivers and bodyguards now charged, has said he wants to keep his lawyers, but doesn't want them to say a thing in court when he opts to boycott. His attorneys have so far continued to file motions for his defense, but at the last hearing sat silently because Hamdan was boycotting.

Ali Hamza al Bahlul of Yemen, bin Laden's alleged media secretary, has fired every U.S. military lawyer assigned to him -- and said he will represent himself, by not doing a thing. His judge has appointed Bahlul's latest defense lawyer, Army Maj. David J.R. Frakt, to serve as ''standby counsel,'' a status that means Frakt could be ordered to defend Bahlul if the detainee is found incapable of doing it himself.

Frakt's other client is Mohammed Jawad, an Afghan accused of tossing a grenade into a van at the Kabul bazaar. Two U.S. soldiers were hurt. Jawad refused his defense attorney and was forced into court the first time, but came voluntarily the second time, Frakt said, for fear that he would be forced again.

Now, Jawad has allowed Frakt to defend him for two limited purposes -- to attack the legitimacy of the war court, and to try to improve his prison conditions.

What of a trial?

''There is precedent for defendants -- even defendants facing very serious charges -- to simply remain mute in the face of those charges. And they are well within their rights to do so,'' said Frakt, who in civilian life is a law professor in California.

That's because, in the end, it is up to a prosecutor to prove guilt, not a defense lawyer to prove innocence.

But generally, he said, ``I think it would be frustrating to a counsel who believed that he had a potentially viable defense and was unable to put it on because the client did not wish him to do so.

``Any trial lawyer likes to mix it up in the courtroom, and it's supposed to be an adversarial process. But the desires of the client have to remain preeminent.''


December 03, 2007

Impeachment TOOLKIT: Why Impeachment


Can't We Just Depend (or wait? after all, it's only 2 more years) On the Political Process?



Consider the following statements by the Democratic leadership:

"I know half your audience wants us to impeach the president…but it's not going to happen."

Howard Dean, November 8, 2006

"…Impeachment is off the table; she is not interested in pursuing it,"

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) spokesman Brendan Daly
at weekly caucus meeting - Wednesday May 10, 2006

“I have said, and I say again, that impeachment is off the table.”

House Majority Leader In-Waiting Nancy Pelosi
Wednesday November 8, 2006

“So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader.”
Rep. John Conyers Jr., Thursday, May 18, 2006;
The Washington Post Company

"I think there is an orderly and dignified way to find out what happened… And, if there was a legal violation there needs to be accountability... you can't put the cart before the horse, but I would not rule out any form of accountability.” That would include impeachment, Feingold told reporters.

Rep. Russ Feingold, January 8, 2006; Vermont Guardian

"I'm concerned about the abuses of executive power in the areas of torture and the areas of spying - and about how we're treating individuals in terms of the court systems."

"I don't think that's [impeachment] called for now."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, ABC’s “This Week”, Jan. 2006

Impeachment? "No. While we will vigorously exercise our oversight responsibilities, Democrats are interested in working to improve the lives of middle-class families, not tying up the House in endless investigations."

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Chairman DCCC), Oct. 6, 2006, Chicago Sun Times

“?”

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.NY)
“?”
Sen. Charles Schumer (D.NY)

Then Consider The Following:

The Vice-President:: "I think it [a democratic mid-term election victory] will have some effect, perhaps…but the President has made clear… his objective is…victory in Iraq. And full speed ahead on that basis, and that's exactly what we're going to do. It may not be popular with the public. It doesn't matter, …we have to…do what we think is right. And that's exactly what we're doing. We're not running for office…’”

Q: If you're subpoenaed by the Democrats, would you go?

The Vice-President: “…probably not…constitutional officers…don't appear before the Congress.
Vice-President Richard Cheney, ABC News November 5, 2006

"the American people clearly were voting for change” …they "were not voting for anything less than a success in Iraq."

President George W. Bush, quoted by Condoleeza Rice


“Prepare(ing) to bomb Iran should be a top priority for the movement in the next two years…

Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office… We need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes."

Joshua Muravchik; American Enterprise Institute Fellow
Wednesday, November 1, 2006

Comment:

It is neither my intention, nor my place, to tell you what to think but I believe that all the above information and representative statements demonstrate several things.

First, I think they show the Democrats are unwilling to ‘rock the boat’ to any extent beyond that necessary to achieve electoral victories and push a limited ‘bipartisan’ progressive agenda. To this end, and despite what I perceive as a veritable mountain of evidence of Bush’s & Cheney’s direct responsibility in crimes against the American people and Iraq - the nature and magnitude of which exceed the abuses of any prior administration - they are willing to ‘let bygones be bygones’, wipe their hands of the campaign grime, and get on with the ‘hard job of running the country’. Essentially, giving the Bush Administration’s a free ride for their crimes against the American and Iraqi peoples as they become lost in the ‘day to day’ of running the country. I may be wrong, perhaps their outrage is as deep as mine and is only concealed behind a political mask and their statements of moderation are only ‘politics’ to gain the necessary foothold from which to effect real change…but I doubt it. The recent midterm elections will be proven to not have been a “change in direction” only a change in drivers.

Second, unless Congress moves to impeach Bush and remove his Administration (unlikely at best despite the new Democratic majority - as I noted above), he will have more than two years in which to accomplish his agenda. He has been sufficiently forthcoming about the nature of that agenda that, based on his statements, his prior performance, and reasonable extrapolation one may reasonably believe that, before he leaves office, he intends to:

  • Attack Iran, effect “Regime Change” there, and consolidate U.S. hegemony over the oil- & natural gas-rich regions of western-central Asia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, and Tajikistan which, despite many questionable governments and human rights violations, our government supports and overlooks its stated commitment to ‘spreading Democracy’) and the Mideast (Iraq and Iran). Our huge network of military bases throughout the region (including the Balkans) and the maintenance of our armed forces at ’Cold War’ levels serves no other useful purpose. Would the “new” House & Senate stop him? I don’t know. It is clear, however, that the Democrats do not have a single, unified, view on the issue capable of stopping him if necessary.
  • Effect “Regime Change” in North Korea by continuing to deal in bad faith with the dysfunctional government of Kim Jung Il creating (as he did to Iraq and is currently doing with Iran) a ‘case’ for overthrowing that government by military force and against the wishes of the other nations in the region. Again, recent changes in Congress might not be sufficient to prevent him.
  • Continue the repressive & regressive agenda of ultra-conservative right-wing Christianity (so-called “Christian Reconstructionism”) in the functions of our government with the further disenfranchisement of women, the denial of their reproductive freedom, and the destruction of the 1st Amendment “wall” between Church & State begun before the November 2006 elections and which, despite having a simple majority, the Democrats could probably not push corrective legislation past a Presidential veto.
  • Defend his attack on the fundamental liberties & rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights from repeal or corrective legislation by use of the Presidential veto.
Of Concern in this respect:

The “Military Commission Act of 2006” (MCA 2006) which:

  • Grants unprecedented and unchecked authority to the Executive Branch to label as "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain an overly broad range of people, including U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents inside the United States.
  • Denies any right to independent judicial review of these detentions (loss of ‘Habeas Corpus‘).
  • Eliminates accountability for past violations of the law & the Geneva Conventions.
  • Authorizes the President, without accountability, to re-define the protections of the Geneva Conventions and to define what does, and does not, constitute torture.
  • Permits the use of evidence obtained through coercion & torture and prevents the accused from knowing that evidence and challenging it…even in death penalty trials.
  • Gives the Secretary of Defense authority to deviate from time-tested military justice standards for fair trials…at his whim, and without accountability.
  • Creates crimes of “conspiracy” and “providing material support for terrorism”, the definitions of which are deliberately vague and may even include giving or reading this website!
The 2007 Defense Appropriations Bill which:
  • On June 22, 2006, modified the Insurrection Act. As part of the 2007 Defense Appropriations Bill Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order.
  • The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws."
  • The new law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."

“It also should concern us all that the Conference agreement includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law.“

Sen. Patrick Leahy, Conference Report, Congressional Record, September 29, 2006
He will continue to ignore, and obstruct responding to, the only current threat to the ongoing survival of human society as we’ve known it - Global Warming - while continuing to reward fossil fuel energy mega-corporations with more ‘corporate welfare’ and an undeserved, excessive, voice in the energy affairs management of our nation and the world.

Continue to violate Federal law and our Constitutional rights through illegal surveillance by obstructing corrective legislation by use of the Presidential veto.

While the new Democratic majority may provide a new direction on some issues (Alternative Energy, Congressional Oversight, Global Warming, and Corporate Welfare as examples) there is no reason to believe they - as a Party - understand the inherent criminality of the American invasion of Iraq and the need to reverse it as quickly as humanly possible, that they understand that America is not the center of the Earth and that our national priorities must take a place in line the those of other nations - particularly where another nation’s natural resources are of interest, that our nationalistic foreign policy is - in large part - the root cause of the world’s antipathy toward us, or that they are any more willing to address the fundamental realignment of our national resources needed to meet the only true existential threat to mankind’s current civilization - Global Warming.

Third I believe that the Bush Administration is guilty of crimes that disqualify them from continuing to serve in office, disqualify them from representing our country to the world, and that failing to address those crimes makes those who ignore them complicit in them. I believe the allies were right to remove the Nazis from public office and punish them after WWII, that leaders of the Khmer Rouge were brought to trial in Cambodia for the mass murder of their own countrymen in furtherance of justice, that the International Criminal Court was right to try Slobodan Miloševic and other Serbian & Croatian human rights abusers for the genocidal murder of ethnic Albanians & Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, that Spain’s indictment of the past leaders of Guatemala’s government for the attempted genocide of the Mayan people is just, that South Africa’s ‘Truth & Reconciliation Commissions’ addressing the facts of the Apartheid were a good and healing thing, that the prosecution of leaders of the Hutu extremists who committed the Rwandan Genocide who have been tried and convicted in ICC-led courts was just, and that Chile’s revocation of Augusto Pinochet’s immunity for the crimes he committed as their leader 25 years ago is also just and that Saddam Hussain deserves to be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. I believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and the remainder of the Bush Administration may be guilty of similar crimes against Iraq and, if so, they should not be allowed to lead or represent our nation - the issue of their prosecution and punishment for their crimes aside.

In order secure justice for those harmed, to prevent ongoing violations, and who knows what else more there seems, to me, only one immediate recourse: Impeachment of President Bush and Vice-President Cheney.

To delay is to invite disaster and delays justice and accountability.


Protest at Wiley College

IMPEACH! ...because they lied.

Click here to download a copy of my "Impeachment Handbill"

Please feel free to print it and copy it to hand out to your friends & other contacts. It is conveniently formatted for two-sided copying to get two handbills from each page.

Tee Shirt Detail (click on image to order one):

Jail to the Chief!

To View the "It's Worse Than You Think" teach-in conducted by
"The World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime" on Oct. 30, 2006 Click here.

Enjoy the Dixie Chicks' "I'm Not Ready To Make Nice"
...neither am I!




November 19, 2007

"Civil Liberties in Wartime"

This is a must watch video

Andrew Napolitano, Fox News' Senior Judicial Analyst, gives a speech entitled "Civil Liberties in Wartime" at The Future Freedom Foundation's "Restoring the Republic"

Readers with limited time may wish to begin watching at part 2, where Mr. Napolitano addresses the topic.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Click on "comments" below to read or post comments

Comments (2) Comment (0)

Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and relevant to the story. We encourage engaging, diverse and meaningful commentary. Do not include personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers and emails. Comments falling outside our guidelines – those including personal attacks and profanity – are not permitted.
See our complete Comment Policy and use this link to notify us if you have concerns about a comment. We’ll promptly review and remove any inappropriate postings.

Send Page To a Friend

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)


Here are a few related links and sites that Judge Napolitano recommends:

October 07, 2007

Don't Let it be said we DID NOTHING!!

Please! Let the lieing STOP!!

ShareThis