Archive for justice system

Court docs: Enron convict Jeffrey Skilling reaches deal to be released early from prison

Jeffrey Skilling

Remember former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling (aka inmate #29296-179)? I wish I didn’t. He was supposed to spend 24 years in prison for the Enron mess, but under a deal he’s reached, that could be cut by ten years, according to court documents. He had 15 years left to serve. But apparently, not any more.

He was convicted in December 2006 for fraud, conspiracy, insider trading and lying to auditors in the largest corporate fraud in history.

CNN:

“The agreement brings certainty and finality to a long painful process,” said Skilling lawyer Daniel Petrocelli of O’Melveny & Myers. “Although the recommended sentence for Jeff would still be more than double any other Enron defendant, all of whom have long been out of prison, Jeff would at least have the chance of getting back a meaningful part of his life.

What, his life wasn’t meaningful when he committed those many crimes? What about all the people who were affected by his fraudulent acts and lies? Will they get a meaningful part of their lives back? Their jobs? Their life savings?

More than 4,000 Enron employees lost their jobs, and many also lost their life savings, when the Texas-based energy company declared bankruptcy in 2001. Investors lost billions of dollars.

Part of the deal is that Skilling has to drop any further legal challenges to his conviction.

How about dropping off the edge of a cliff instead?

Military judge restricts more materials in 9/11 trial. UNclassified materials.

abu13

Just now on MSNBC, Alex Witt said this (I’m coming in mid-sentence, but she was discussing the Zero Dark Thirty controversy): “…Enhanced interrogation techniques– torture– some will call it that.”

SOME? Or anyone but the Bushies and their stellar, upstanding, patriotic Department of Justice that decided to call it something else in order to duck prosecution of Bush and the Waterboardettes? Torture is torture, and it doesn’t work, it’s illegal, immoral, and just plain wrong on every level.

Clear?

Witt casually tossed off the “some will call it that” as if it were an afterthought, not fact. “Enhanced interrogation techniques” is a Bushian euphemism for torture. That has been well established. Documented. End of story. It’s about time everyone reports about it accurately.

Which brings me to the L.A. Times piece I read today:

The military judge overseeing the trial for alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others has ruled that lawyers cannot make public even unclassified materials.

The ruling by the judge, Army Col. James L. Pohl, follows an order on Dec. 6 in which he directed that any evidence or discussion about harsh interrogation techniques used against the five men also be kept secret. He issued the ruling despite accusations by human rights groups that the government was trying to hide the fact the men were tortured. [...]

In another development, President Obama this week signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which supports overall military operations but also puts on hold his plan to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay — a pledge he repeated in October during his run for reelection.

Of course, GOP debate audiences cheered waterboarding, which means they were cool with illegally torturing other human beings. So much for the “family values” “pro-life” crowd.

______________________________________________

here; That link includes one specific to only *Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you’d like to see ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

The Bush administration “torture memos” will be 10 years old this week

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that people were tortured during the Bush administration. They can use as many euphemisms as they want– “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the third degree, or even hopscotch for all I care– but what they did to human beings was clearly torture. BushCo justified it in any number of ways, including writing law that they claimed made it all okay, but it wasn’t okay. It was cruel, it was criminal, and it didn’t work.

Retired Air Force Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for the military commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and now on the faculty of the Howard University School of Law, wrote an op-ed for the L.A. Times that he titled “Consign Bush’s ‘torture memos’ to history.”

If only those who were responsible would or could be prosecuted:

The Bush administration “torture memos” will be 10 years old this week. As the administration developed its interrogation policies, it concealed various forms of torture under the moniker “enhanced interrogation techniques.” It consulted with the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice on the legality of these techniques, including waterboarding, walling (slamming detainees against walls), forcing detainees into stress positions and subjecting them to sleep deprivation. Ultimately, the OLC provided legal cover for the use of most of these techniques. [...]

[T]he Bush administration embraced it by renaming it enhanced interrogation techniques and claiming that it was necessary for our national security. Upon taking office, President Obama issued an executive order halting the use of torture.

Torture is counterproductive. Professional interrogators — Ali Soufan of the FBI, Matthew Alexander of the Air Force and Glenn Carle of the CIA — have said this clearly. Torture is always illegal [and] is also a moral abomination.  [...]

The Senate Intelligence Committee has undertaken an investigation into the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques allowed by the memos. It is essential that its findings be released to the public so that the American people can know the truth about what was done in their name.

______________________________________________

here; That link includes one specific to only *Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

Senate investigation: Torture doesn’t work

There goes another right wing talking point. Reuters has an exclusive report of a years-long investigation that found that torture does. Not. Work:

(Reuters) – A nearly three-year-long investigation by Senate Intelligence Committee Democrats is expected to find there is little evidence the harsh “enhanced interrogation techniques” the CIA used on high-value prisoners produced counter-terrorism breakthroughs.

People familiar with the inquiry said committee investigators, who have been poring over records from the administration of President George W. Bush, believe they do not substantiate claims by some Bush supporters that the harsh interrogations led to counter-terrorism coups. [...]

One official said investigators found “no evidence” such enhanced interrogations played “any significant role” in the years-long intelligence operations which led to the discovery and killing of Osama bin Laden last May by U.S. Navy SEALs.

GOP debate audiences cheered waterboarding, which means they were all for the illegal torturing of other human beings for absolutely no reason whatsoever.

Family values, my ass:

______________________________________________

here; That link includes one specific to only *Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

No real justice in Guantanamo

Via ACLU.org

I’ve written a lot about military commissions and why they’re a bad idea. This is from a previous post:

Via my dear friend and superb investigative reporter, Jason Leopold, who is an expert on the matter:

Bruce Fein, a prominent conservative who was a senior official in the Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan, told us, “The entire structure of military commissions is flawed. It combines judge, jury, and prosecutor in the same branch — the very definition of tyranny according to The Federalist Papers.”

He said,” Military Commissions are used to whitewash torture and sister outrages against the Fifth Amendment and due process.”

Other constitutional scholars expressed similar views. [...]

The Military Commission system was set up after the military began sweeping detainees off the battlefields of Afghanistan in late 2001. It has been the subject of repeated legal challenges from human rights organizations because it denied defendants many of the rights they would be granted in a civilian courtroom. When he was a U.S. Senator, Obama voted against the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which established the current system.

In several landmark decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this system, first established by executive order by former President George W. Bush, was unconstitutional.

Military commissions allow hearsay and coerced testimony in as evidence.

So, no, this isn’t a liberal vs. conservative issue, it’s a legal and civil rights one.

With that in mind, there is an op-ed in today’s L.A. Times by Reed Brody, counsel with Human Rights Watch, who concurs. The subheadline reads, “Trying accused terrorists before military commissions won’t meet international standards”:

[Abd al Rahim al Nashiri's] trial before the Guantanamo military commission raises problems that go far beyond the fact that he was tortured. Despite changes made to the commissions since President Obama was elected, they do not meet international fair trial standards. The Defense Department, for instance, handpicks the military judges and juror pool. And there is a massive inequality between the prosecution and the defense in terms of resources.

The rules permit the prosecution to present summaries of classified information, meaning that the accused and his lawyers see only summaries, not the underlying reports, transcripts and other information on which they are based. While similar protection of classified information is available in U.S. civilian courts, the commission rules also allow the introduction of hearsay. These two rules combined allow prosecutors (even unintentionally) to launder evidence obtained from other detainees by torture because they need only present a written summary of the interrogation, not offer the detainee or the interrogator in person, as a witness, or even disclose their identities.

Please read the whole op-ed here.

______________________________________________

here; That link includes one specific to only *Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

“Too much like Bush”

I came across two separate articles in the L.A. Times today, one an op-ed by David K. Shipler, and the other an editorial. Both discuss President Obama’s national security policies, specifically regarding military commissions.

I am posting without much comment, since I’ve opined about this repeatedly.

Shipler:

The commissions lack the seasoned body of precedent that guides civilian courts, so their procedures will have to survive litigation by defense lawyers. But once the commissions gain stature and become the “new normal,” every future administration will have a ready instrument to arrest, judge and sentence wholly within the executive branch, evading the separation of powers carefully calibrated in the Constitution. The judicial branch has no role except on appeal, where only the federal court for the D.C. circuit may review a verdict and sentence after the trial. [...]

Restraint usually dies during spasms of fear over national security. [...]

Provided the offense is committed in the context of “hostilities,” defined as “any conflict subject to the laws of war,” commissions may try a noncitizen on charges that include spying, seizing property for private use, taking hostages, rape, sexual assault, hijacking, mistreating a dead body or improperly using a truce flag or distinctive emblem, as well as murder, torture or material support for terrorism. [...]

[T]hey still allow certain hearsay and statements coerced during combat or capture. So the military commissions’ findings may be less reliable.

The editorial:

So Obama eventually backed down. Why? Partly because public and congressional opinion had quickly moved from hostility to a trial in New York to hostility to a trial anywhere in the United States. But Obama cooperated in dooming civilian trials. First, he provided cover to his critics by retaining the option of military commissions for some detainees, an inconsistent policy that encouraged critics to urge a military trial for Mohammed and the other Sept. 11 conspirators. Second and more important, Obama was maneuvered into signing a defense authorization bill that barred funding for transferring any Guantanamo inmate to the United States….  [B]y signing the legislation, Obama guaranteed two outcomes: The detainees wouldn’t be tried in a civilian court, and Guantanamo wouldn’t be closed. [...]

[C]ongressional resistance plays a role. [...] With Guantanamo, Obama is unwillingly perpetuating a state of affairs from the Bush administration. But he has voluntarily continued another Bush policy that he had criticized on the campaign trail. This involves the “state secrets” doctrine, which allows the government to shut down a trial on the grounds that it would betray sensitive information. [...]

A final example of Obama adopting a Bush national security policy is the president’s signing of an extension of three sections of the Patriot Act. [...] Obama could have held out for… amendments.

Both articles should be read in full. I whittled them way down to give you only the gist of the main points they make. Please follow the links to each to see the fuller picture.

I do understand the Congressional resistance, but between the two pieces, a few arguments were clarified that were a little fuzzy until now.

One point I do want to make. While I am critical of President Obama, I also make a habit of expressing my appreciation of him whenever I feel he deserves it. I will be voting for him in 2012, because the thought of any potential Supreme Court nominee hand picked by a Republican in the White House is beyond disturbing and is not an option.

“When conflict is irreconcilable, shouldn’t liberty and justice prevail?”

Okay, I’ll go along with the cable news dee jays who are into all-day discussions about what happened on 9/11, but not the way they’re covering it. I feel the sorrow, the auto-fear that comes with seeing the Twin Towers collapse, the anger, the urgency, the pain.

However, there is more to the repercussions of that horrific day than defeating the enemy, there are more 9/11-related issues than the not-at-ground-zero community center, more than the lunacy of Terry Jones, and more than remembering those who died.

Something else is dying. Tim Rutten explains:

The story of how the Bush-Cheney administration rushed to make torture an instrument of national policy in its “war on terror,” and of how it created an international gulag in which to abuse prisoners, is well known. Less remarked on — for reasons that do nobody credit — is the fact that President Obama and his administration have embraced the secrecy and usurpations of power that made possible the Bush-Cheney betrayal of American values.

I’d call that 9/11 commemoration worthy, wouldn’t you? There are long term consequences to consider:

Obama campaigned on the promise to end torture and shut down the gulag, but the infamous prison camp at Guantanamo remains, trials for accused terrorists have yet to be conducted and the “extraordinary renditions” reportedly continue. (We don’t know for sure because they’re done in secret.) Equally troubling, the White House reportedly has authorized U.S. intelligence agencies to kill Anwar Awlaki, an Islamic clergyman turned jihadist who was born and raised in the U.S. and is now hiding in Yemen. The summary execution of a U.S. citizen is something not even Bush and Cheney authorized.

As former CIA Director Michael V. Hayden told the Washington Times this week, differences between the Bush-Cheney White House for which he worked and the Obama administration on these issues essentially are minor.

Now before you criticize me for criticizing President Obama, remember two things: 1) He deserves it sometimes… when done constructively, and 2) I’m still a supporter, but one who would appreciate his pulling off a couple of more changes. Apparently I’m not alone.

The notion that evidence may be withheld from public scrutiny for reasons of national security is well established, but the idea that injured parties can be denied legal redress because the executive branch wants the matter kept secret is an appalling novelty. [...]

And why, when conflict is irreconcilable, shouldn’t liberty and justice prevail?

As they say, never forget… what we stand for. Fear and power must never trump democracy.