Pushback continues over conservatives' attacks on Department of Justice attorneys who represented military detainees accused of terrorism before entering government service. The New York Times "Room for Debate Blog" includes comment from across the political spectrum supportive and critical of the attacks. In a post dubbed "Aiding the Enemy," National Review Legal Affairs Editor Andrew C. McCarthy took aim at lawyers who represented detainees accused of terrorism, writing, "Members of any other profession or institution would be indicted for coming to the enemy's aid during wartime. Lawyers not only demand immunity from the ordinary duties of citizenship, but they insist that you admire them, or, at the very least, regard them as above criticism for volunteering their services to those trying to kill Americans."

McCarthy's post triggered a sharp rebuke from George Washington University law school professor Orin Kerr, a former recipient of a prestigious Federalist Society award. On the conservative legal theory blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, Kerr blasted McCarthy's arguments as "ridiculous."

Taking on McCarthy's "basic argument that lawyers who represented detainees ‘aided the enemy in wartime,' and should normally be guilty of treason," Kerr wrote:

If that's true, isn't the federal judiciary, and aren't the Justices of the Supreme Court, also guilty of treason? In fact, aren't the judges the kingpins of this treasonous plot to "hurt the war effort"? After all, lawyers only make arguments to judges. It doesn't actually help detainees to make argument courts reject. It's up to the judges to rule one way or the other. If the lawyers are aiding the enemy, they're only minor players: It's the judges, and especially the Justices, who are the real guilty parties, as they're the ones that actually help the detainees by ruling in their favor. Does McCarthy think the Justices of the Supreme Court are guilty of aiding the enemy, and that (if we treat them like everybody else) they should be "indicted for coming to the enemy's aid during wartime"?

As noted by The New York Times, the controversy, which has been fueled by Sen. Charles Grassley's demands that Attorney General Eric Holder (above, left) release names and information of DOJ attorneys who have represented detained terrorism suspects, and Liz Cheney's group Keep American Safe, which produced an inflammatory YouTube video referring to the DOJ attorneys as the "Al Qaeda Seven," has revealed a split among conservatives. 

Richard A. Epstein, a University of Chicago law school professor and as The Times described him, "a revered figure among many members" of the Federalist Society, told the newspaper, "There's something truly bizarre about this. Liz Cheney is a former student of mine - I don't know what moves her on this thing."

Epstein and Kerr aren't the only conservatives questioning the tactics. As noted earlier this week, another prominent conservative, former Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr signed a letter calling the attacks on the DOJ attorneys "shameful." The Times also reported that Peter Keisler, former Acting Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration, also signed that letter. And as reported by Main Justice, Holder's predecessor, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal slammed the attacks on the DOJ attorneys as "shoddy and dangerous."

See previous posts on the matter here and here. 

Most of the opposition to U.S. detention policy since 9/11 has focused on the detention camp at Guantánamo Bay. But for nearly as long, the United States has been operating a prison in Afghanistan that has been, in many ways, Guantánamo's uglier twin. Stories of abuse and mistreatment at the Bagram facility have been all too common. At least two detainees were killed by guards at Bagram, the consequence of repeated beatings and shackling in stress positions.

Unlike prisoners at Guantánamo, however, whose habeas rights were restored by the Supreme Court in 2008, Bagram prisoners have never had a meaningful and adequate process to challenge their detention. Yet many Bagram prisoners have been held for years, without charge, without access to courts, without access to lawyers, and without even being told why they are being held. And according to official government investigations, reports by nongovernmental organizations, and interviews with former Bagram detainees and their families, many of the detainees at Bagram have never engaged in or been a part of groups engaged in hostilities against the United States. Many were instead originally picked up in the course of night raids, neighborhood sweeps, and cordon-and-search operations. Others were picked up by military forces acting on the basis of flimsy intelligence like anonymous tips from local rivals or business competitors. The risk that people at Bagram are erroneously detained is very high. It is therefore crucial that the people detained there have prompt access to a court or, at the very least, a fair, independent and impartial tribunal that can order their release. Just as with people held at Guantánamo, those imprisoned at Bagram must not be falsely imprisoned for years without charge.

Last week the ACLU filed habeas petitions on behalf of four people detained at Bagram. One petition is on behalf of two brothers: a 24-year-old Afghan who, until his capture by U.S. forces nearly 20 months ago, served as a translator for the U.S. military for four years, and a 25-year-old customer service representative for an Afghan Internet service provider, who has been imprisoned for nearly two years. The second petition is on behalf of a 61-year-old Afghan government employee, and his 27-year-old nephew, who have been imprisoned at Bagram for more than one year after U.S. forces seized them from their homes. Even though they have already been locked up at Bagram for well over a year (and for some, almost two), the government has never informed our clients of the reasons why they are being detained. Neither do our clients' families have any idea why their relatives are in prison. In fact, it was months after our clients' arrest before their families learned what had become of them.

The ACLU joins other dedicated lawyers, coordinated by the International Justice Network, who have also filed habeas petitions on behalf of other Bagram detainees. Last year, the D.C. District Court confirmed that at least some Bagram detainees have the right to petition for habeas corpus. That decision is currently on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The ACLU has filed this habeas petition because it believes that the government must release our clients -- and others like them -- or else prove why they can be held in military detention. If the government does not have the authority to detain them militarily, they must be released or charged criminally under Afghan or U.S. law. Because the military's internal process for reviewing the detention of people held at Bagram is inadequate under both the Constitution and applicable international law, we are asking a court to vindicate our clients' habeas corpus rights by stepping in to review their detention.

Up until recently, the review process at Bagram was little more than a rubber stamp: detainees were not told why they were held, let alone given an opportunity to challenge their detention. The current Detainee Review Board ("DRB") policy, instituted by the Obama administration toward the end of last year, is an improvement over the prior process that existed at Bagram, but remains inadequate and unlawful. Among other defects, the DRBs are not independent or impartial -- they are composed of military officers who are not insulated in any way from the command hierarchy or other improper influences. Instead of looking only at the evidence, they are liable to be looking over their shoulders, worried that ordering the release of detainees will land them in hot water with their superiors or hinder their career progress. The DRBs also fail to afford the detainee the right to access counsel. There is therefore nobody who can stand between the detainee and the military, in order to ensure that they are treated fairly. The "personal representatives" that are assigned to detainees under the DRB process are nonlawyer military personnel responsible to the chain of command. In fact, personal representatives are appointed and removed by the same person who chooses the members of the DRB panel itself. Unlike lawyers, the "personal representatives" owe no duty of confidentiality to their "clients," and are not bound to advocate zealously on their behalf. To make matters worse, detainees are not given access to all of the evidence against them and the DRBs are not obligated to provide the detainee with evidence in the government's possession that tends to show the detainee's innocence. Furthermore, nothing in the DRB policy prevents the military from relying on testimony procured using torture or other cruel, inhumane, and degrading forms of coercion.

This isn't good enough. The current system of detention at Bagram is contrary to the Constitution and international law, and offends bedrock American principles of freedom and due process. The Obama administration should do the right thing not only at Guantánamo -- which should long since have been a distant memory -- but also at Bagram, where the indefinite detention of people without habeas rights or charge offends American values and undermines the United States' moral standing in Afghanistan and beyond.

[Image via takomabibelot.]

The Washington Post today reported: "Obama advisers are set to recommend military tribunals for alleged 9/11 plotters." The report indicates that the Obama administration now leans towards trying self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and his co-conspirators in military tribunals. Reactions were swift and are offered below without comment.

"Obama said that the choice between our security and our ideals is a false choice. He was right," writes Adam Serwer at The American Prospect. "The real choice was always between our ideals and our politics, and if the above story is true, then Obama will have made the obvious, if profoundly disappointing, choice."

At Harper's, Scott Horton introduced "Barack Obama's new attorney general: Rahm Emanuel," apparently blaming Emanuel for the administration's shift in policy. Marcy Wheeler seemed to agree.

"Three is the number of people who have been convicted in the military commissions system. Two of the men convicted in the military commission system are free today," the ACLU offerred at their blog. "Compare that to the more than 300 who have been convicted on terrorism-related charges in our federal criminal courts and are incarcerated in federal prisons."

Sen. Russ Feingold notes this track record of military commissions and warns that "[t]he best way to bring these terrorists to justice swiftly is through our civilian courts."

Spencer Ackerman is tracking commentary from former military officers opposing military tribunals for KSM.

Steve Benen wonders if fault for any potential policy shift ultimately lies with Congress, who "spent the last year cowering whenever national security came up, and threatening to side with Republicans on cutting off funding for trials and Gitmo closure."

Folks at The Atlantic's politics blog conjectured that the Post's "story is merely a test balloon."

Less charitable commentary was provided by Jeralyn Merritt at TalkLeft and Glenn Greenwald at Salon, who both voiced grave disappointment with the admistration's reported shift in position.

A final notable quote is from Attorney General Eric Holder, a former ACS board member, in an exchange with a reporter from The New Yorker earlier this year. In an extensive report on his decision to try KSM in an Article III Court, Holder eagerly defended what was then the administration's position:

"I don't apologize for what I've done," [Holder told The New Yorker]. "History will show that the decisions we've made are the right ones." Holder said that he regarded trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a courtroom as "the defining event of my time as Attorney General." But, he added, "between now and then I suspect we're in for some interesting times."

If the commentary above is any indication, interesting times may well be upon us.

[Image via The White House.]

The survivors of two Guantanamo detainees who died in U.S. military custody had their hopes of assigning civil liability dashed yesterday. The families of Yasser Al-Zahrani and Salah Ali Abdullah Ahmed Al-Salami saw their suit dismissed by a district court judge who relied on the Military Commissions Act of 2006 in her order.

The deaths, which were deemed "suicides" by the military, drew closer scrutiny after a Seton Hall study was released suggesting several reasons for suspicion. After attorney and ACS participant Scott Horton discussed the deaths on MSNBC, four soldiers who had been stationed at Guantanamo came forward and shed further light on what happened that night.

According to the Associated Press, the families of the deceased sought damages "under the Alien Tort Claims Act, alleging arbitrary detention, torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, violations of the Geneva Conventions, and cruel and unusual punishment." The judge dismissed these claims, deferring to the military's position that the detainees were enemy combatants rather than prisoners of war.

This determination "runs contrary to the evidence," Horton wrote today. 

Both men were turned over to U.S. forces for bounty payments, and a thorough investigation of their cases by American military intelligence concluded that there was no meaningful evidence to link either man to either Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Al-Zahrani had been placed on a list to be released back to Saudi Arabia, immediately behind Mani Al-Utaybi, who also died under still unexplained circumstances on June 9, 2006, at approximately the same time as Al-Zahrani and Al-Salami, according to pathologists. 

[Image via smit5334.]

Spain Accepts Five Detainees: Spain announces the largest commitment among European countries.

Intelligence, Judiciary Committee Chairs Endorse Federal Trials: Senators Feinstein and Leahy pen a letter defending domestic terror trials.

Another Senator Supports Closing Gauntanamo with Caveats: Senator Graham demands military tribunals and indefinite detention.

International Law Expert Assesses Politics: Professor Deborah Pearlstein parses the political considerations seemingly driving Guantanamo decisions.

D.C. Circuit Hears Argument Against Releasing Detainee: The Justice Department appealed the district court's order to release Mohammed al-Adahi.

SCOTUS Considers Dismissing Kiyemba: With countries willing to accept all seven Uighurs at Guantanamo, the Supreme Court ordered briefing on whether to dismiss their case.

[Image via christophe dune.]

Maher Arar is appealing his torture suit to the U.S. Supreme Court, presenting the justices an opportunity to review the controversial "state secrets" privilege asserted by the Bush and Obama administrations. Arar's suit against the United States government stems from his 2002 arrest in New York and transfer to Syria for alleged ties to terrorism. At a prison in Syria, Arar alleges, he was tortured, interrogated and detained for almost a year.

Arar (pictured at right) is a Canadian citizen who successfully sued his government for its role in misinforming the United States about his ties to terrorism. In lower courts here, though, Arar has been rebuffed. The government's assertion of the "state secrets" privilege has barred Arar from presenting evidence necessary to the advancement of his suit.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), which is representing Arar and filed his petition for certiorari yesterday, has a collection of resources on the case here. ACS also has a wealth of resources, including Issue Briefs on the "state secrets" privilege and the U.S. ban on torture by Prof. Amanda Frost and Devon Chaffee, respectively. ACS also hosted Prof. David Cole, who is working with CCR on the case, as part of a national security and human rights symposium at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. last fall. Video of that event is available here. 

[Image via CBC.]

On January 20, 2009 the world changed for a moment. President Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. He became the first African American to hold this office and one of his first acts as President was to publish the now infamous "transparency memo" on January 21, 2009. This memo highlighted three key policy objectives: 1) government should be transparent; 2) government should be participatory; and 3) government should be collaborative.

This promise of transparency is at best illusive. On January 22, 2010, almost one year to the date that this memo was published, the Obama administration announced that it would be implementing a policy of indefinite detention for 50 or so Guantanamo Bay detainees. The President has decided to travel upon this path in part to "cover up" our use of "harsh interrogation techniques" and intelligence gathering procedures. In theory, the evidence obtained through these techniques cannot be used to successfully sustain a conviction.

If the techniques are that egregious, the President should grant immunity to those who engaged in such conduct so that closure can be obtained and this sad chapter in American history can be closed. Disclosure of the torture techniques that are purportedly no longer sanctioned can cause no harm. If the concern is incitement of the enemy, then the government can pursue National Security Courts or remit the persons to others jurisdictions to be investigated for their alleged war crimes and/or civil crimes.

It cannot be that the United States views itself as the only legitimate prosecutorial authority. We certainly allowed Iraq to adjudicate Saddam Hussein and be hanged without so much as a blink of an eye. Indeed we provided security for the proceedings which if conducted on U.S. soil would most likely have been a violation of cruel and unusual punishment by hanging him and severe deprivations of due process in that the system of justice that adjudicated him and carried out the sentence was tantamount to a lynch mob.

As President Obama prosecutes the "Overseas Contingency Operation" (formerly known as the War on Terror) we must consider that this is a position of unilateral preemptive war which is a paradigm shift in foreign policy of titanic proportions, ratified by both political parties. We are conducting this "war" in violation of human rights, international law, and national sovereignty.

Reflection upon the Vietnam War era informs the absurdity of our position. As has been noted in "The Dark Side" by Jane Mayer, the "North Vietnamese refused to respect U.S. pilots as legitimately covered by the Geneva Conventions, calling them 'pirates' in an illegal war." Many of these pilots were tortured and killed. "The Viet Cong, meanwhile, defied conventional rules of warfare, often fighting without uniforms, disguised as civilians. The United States nonetheless gave the Viet Cong the protection of the Third Geneva Convention." The Vietnam Conflict demonstrates that even under the most challenging circumstances we as a Nation were able to "stay above the fray." This was in the face of over 58,000 service members who died during that conflict (as compared to the over 5,000 during Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom) and the civil outrage that permeated throughout the Vietnam conflict.

As Newton discovered "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The shortsightedness of this policy determination does not make us safe as a Nation, nor does it contemplate third and fourth order consequences. President Obama just proclaimed in his first State of the Union that he will not "accept second place for the United States of America." I hope that this is not just another empty promise and that we apply this philosophy with regard to human rights and the rule of law.

[Image via smith5334.]

Justice at Guantánamo

One Woman’s Odyssey and Her Crusade for Human Rights

By Kristine A. Huskey

[Available Here]

"Justice delayed is justice denied" would become our great battle cry in the advocacy efforts on behalf of our clients detained at Guantánamo. We would hum it like a mantra in court hearings, before Congress, in closed meetings with government officials, and to the public in attempt to obtain for the detainees the right to habeas corpus -- the right to challenge their detention. Eight years and counting, and our cry for justice continues for the men still imprisoned at Guantánamo. Despite the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush that the detainees are constitutionally entitled to habeas and despite President Obama's promise to close Guantánamo within a year of his taking office, the prison remains open with approximately 196 men, the majority of whom have had no habeas hearing nor been charged with any crime. Several years ago, a D.C. district court judge once concluded: "It is often said that ‘justice delayed is justice denied.' Nothing could be closer to the truth with reference to the Guantánamo Bay cases."

My colleagues and I at the white-shoe law firm of Shearman & Sterling began representing Kuwaiti citizens detained at Guantánamo in March of 2002, just six months after 9/11. Then, it was worse than controversial to do so, it was considered unpatriotic. We were called terrorists by some and The Washington Post printed a letter to the editor suggesting that we be sent to Cuba to join our clients. Because Guantánamo really was a legal black hole back then, we sued the government on behalf of our clients and wound up before the Supreme Court in the case, Rasul v. Bush, which ultimately held in 2004 that the detainees had a statutory right to habeas. We had won! When we went to Guantánamo for the first time -- soon after Rasul -- we ecstatically told our clients about the ruling that would allow them a fair hearing and eventually to go home. But, Congress intervened twice -- first with the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005, and then with the Military Commissions Act in 2006 -- all in attempt to cut off the basic right of these imprisoned men to challenge their detention.

Following our "win" in Rasul, we had four more years of litigation and countless visits to Guantánamo to deliver bad news to our clients -- men who had not seen or spoken with their families in years, men who had been abused and tortured and who had participated in hunger strikes to protest the injustice of their situation. One of my most upbeat and ever-optimistic clients wrote out his last will and testament and sliding it across the small card table, quietly told me that he just "couldn't take it anymore." Then in 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in Boumediene that the Guantánamo detainees had the constitutional right to habeas -- the right to challenge their detention -- a right which couldn't be taken away by Congress or the lower courts. We had won, again! But, the Department of Justice intervened and delayed, slowing the habeas litigation down to a crawl such that in the year and a half since the Court concluded the detainees were entitled to "prompt habeas hearings" only 41 detainees have had habeas hearings. In bittersweet victory, federal judges have determined that in 32 of those cases, the government's evidence did not justify the detentions. Some of those men are still at Guantánamo today.

When President Obama signed an executive order -- just two days after taking office -- requiring the closure of Guantánamo within one year, we rejoiced. We had won, big time! But, Congress and the fear-mongering talking heads intervened by passing legislation and inciting public opinion that would make closing Guantánamo and transferring the men to their home countries or other safe countries extraordinarily difficult.

Some people have remarked that the title of my book "Justice at Guantánamo" is an oxymoron and sadly, I couldn't agree more. I wrote the book -- a memoir -- because I wanted to tell the story of Guantánamo and how it came to be. I wanted to tell the story of my clients and me-as human beings. The book is far from a legal text, rather it is the human side of Guantánamo-an attempt to reveal the cost to the men there and the difficulties and discoveries I encountered as a young attorney. The book ends with my HOPE that President Obama would make good on his word. Yet, Obama's promise of change has atrophied into empty rhetoric.

This January is a significant month for Guantánamo observers: January 11th marked the 8th year of its existence and January 22nd was the deadline for its closure. The latter date passed without much fanfare by the government. No new deadline has been set for the prison's closure nor has any official plan been announced for dealing with the men still detained there. It is time to close the detention center, not by transporting it to Illinois, but by really closing it and all U.S.-run prisons outside the law. Justice at Guantánamo and an end to the injustice it has come to represent is long overdue.

After publishing his latest, extensive review of the Seton Hall study on three questionable detainee deaths at Guantanamo Bay, Harper's Magazine's Scott Horton took to the airwaves last night to discuss the details provided by a new whistleblower and the government's response.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Obama Administration's decision to bring criminal charges against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (pictured at left), the suspected perpetrator of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of a jetliner over Detroit, has provoked a firestorm of controversy. What is the appropriate balance between a foreign national's right to due process and the national security concerns of the American public? Critics insist that alleged terrorists not be afforded Fifth Amendment rights, including that against self-incrimination, lest it delay or obstruct the timely collection of intelligence. Others suggest that a betrayal of American values is in and of itself a betrayal of American security. The only thing that both sides can agree on is that the Congress should reform the rules and procedures governing terrorism prosecutions to better protect intelligence sources and methods, the legitimacy of the justice system, and the rights of the accused. In the interim, however, there are a number of pragmatic reasons to believe that subjecting at least some classes of suspected terrorists to criminal proceedings would improve our ability to prevail in the fight against terrorism.

Most importantly, by adhering to the principles of due process, the U.S. Government increases the likelihood that the family and friends of individuals contemplating terrorist attacks in the future will inform the appropriate authorities. We stand to prevent far more attacks by enlisting the cooperation of the moderate associates of radicalized individuals -- parents, siblings, friends, and co-workers -- than we do by subjecting suspected terrorists to harsh interrogation and indefinite detention.

Second, the criminal justice system affords the government the credibility to offer incentives to suspects in exchange for truthful, timely cooperation. Interrogations sometimes yield information of dubious quality in the hours and days after an attack, in part, because security officials don't always possess the credibility to incite meaningful cooperation from suspects facing an uncertain fate. On the other hand, FBI interviewers and federal prosecutors have successfully worked within the criminal justice system for decades to secure intelligence, run informants, and aggressively dismantle organized crime networks. Why shouldn't we put their experience to good use against terrorists too?

Third, the humane, transparent, and just treatment of terrorism suspects denies al-Qaeda one of its most valuable recruiting tools. Al-Qaeda propaganda materials draw heavily on perceptions of American injustice to Muslims. The harsh interrogation and indefinite incarceration of terrorism suspects figures prominently in al-Qaeda's hate-infused narrative. We can only begin to succeed in the fight against terrorism when al-Qaeda loses members faster than it recruits them. In other words, it is not enough to simply "drain the swamp" by incarcerating terrorists. We must also "turn off the faucet" by undercutting al-Qaeda's recruiting message.

Finally, it's important to note that the U.S. Government maintains an excellent track record of putting indicted terrorists behind bars. According to the New York University School of Law - Center on Law and Security, the government has successfully convicted over 88% of the individuals charged with terrorism or national security violations since September 11, 2001. Even in cases far more dubious than that of Mr. Abdulmutallab, the government is wholly-capable of subjecting terrorists to American justice.

The problem of Islamist radicalization and al-Qaeda inspired terrorism is not going away anytime soon. As the events of the past few months demonstrate, the threats of homegrown and transnational terrorism are growing increasingly complex. The stop-gap measures of years past are no longer sufficient. For too long now, we have alienated the very people who are most essential to preventing terrorist attacks against America -- the moderate Muslim community at home and abroad and friendly governments around the world. It's time for the U.S. to get savvy about how it deals with suspected terrorists by engendering the respect, trust, and cooperation of the only people who can help us to prevail.