NYT: After Terror, a Secret Rewriting of Military Law

[kskiska]

WASHINGTON - In early November 2001, with Americans still staggered by the Sept. 11 attacks, a small group of White House officials worked in great secrecy to devise a new system of justice for the new war they had declared on terrorism.

Determined to deal aggressively with the terrorists they expected to capture, the officials bypassed the federal courts and their constitutional guarantees, giving the military the authority to detain foreign suspects indefinitely and prosecute them in tribunals not used since World War II.

The plan was considered so sensitive that senior White House officials kept its final details hidden from the president's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and the secretary of state, Colin L. Powell, officials said. It was so urgent, some of those involved said, that they hardly thought of consulting Congress.

White House officials said their use of extraordinary powers would allow the Pentagon to collect crucial intelligence and mete out swift, unmerciful justice. "We think it guarantees that we'll have the kind of treatment of these individuals that we believe they deserve," said Vice President Dick Cheney, who was a driving force behind the policy.

But three years later, not a single terrorist has been prosecuted. Of the roughly 560 men being held at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, only 4 have been formally charged.…

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/international/worldspecial2/24gitmo.html?oref=login

[lfs5]

1. And the ones who weren't terrorists when they went in...

are fighting us when released...ie..we've provided a great radicalizing force in their lives to add to all the forces toward johad that were already there!

[54anickel]

2. US considers holding terror suspects indefinitely:

http://news.newkerala.com/india-news/?action=fullnews&id=38398

: Washington, Oct 23 : After at least eight former detainees of the Guantanamo Bay military prison were found to have joined terrorist groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the Pentagon is considering whether or not to hold terror suspects indefinitely.

snip>

"One might wonder, and I don't think it's an unfair question, have we hardened some of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, holding detainees for up to three years with, as we're beginning to hear, coercive interrogation tactics and solitary confinement?

"Perhaps we've made some of these detainees into greater foes of the United States," said Avi Cover.

In fact, US military officials have said some of those being held at Guantanamo Bay could be detained there for years. And plans are now under way for building an additional medium security prison there to house more detainees.

[DeepModem Mom]

3. Page-one story - read this "hidden from view" excerpt:

"The story of how Guantánamo and the new military justice system became an intractable legacy of Sept. 11 has been largely hidden from public view.

But extensive interviews with current and former officials and a review of confidential documents reveal that the legal strategy took shape as the ambition of a small core of conservative administration officials whose political influence and bureaucratic skill gave them remarkable power in the aftermath of the attacks.

The strategy became a source of sharp conflict within the Bush administration, eventually pitting the highest-profile cabinet secretaries - including Ms. Rice and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld - against one another over issues of due process, intelligence-gathering and international law.

In fact, many officials contend, some of the most serious problems with the military justice system are rooted in the secretive and contentious process from which it emerged."

[gatlingforme]

4. It is sick to think a VP can do such harm... and Bush can care less.n/t

[Judi Lynn]

5. The NY Times should have been producing articles like this far earlier!

Hope it's not too late now.....

From the article:

In the days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Flanigan sought advice from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel on "the legality of the use of military force to prevent or deter terrorist activity inside the United States,'' according to a previously undisclosed department memorandum that was reviewed by The New York Times.

The 20-page response came from John C. Yoo, a 34-year-old Bush appointee with a glittering résumé and a reputation as perhaps the most intellectually aggressive among a small group of legal scholars who had challenged what they saw as the United States' excessive deference to international law. On Sept. 21, 2001, Mr. Yoo wrote that the question was how the Constitution's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure might apply if the military used "deadly force in a manner that endangered the lives of United States citizens."

Mr. Yoo listed an inventory of possible operations: shooting down a civilian airliner hijacked by terrorists; setting up military checkpoints inside an American city; employing surveillance methods more sophisticated than those available to law enforcement; or using military forces "to raid or attack dwellings where terrorists were thought to be, despite risks that third parties could be killed or injured by exchanges of fire."

Mr. Yoo noted that those actions could raise constitutional issues, but said that in the face of devastating terrorist attacks, "the government may be justified in taking measures which in less troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual liberties." If the president decided the threat justified deploying the military inside the country, he wrote, then "we think that the Fourth Amendment should be no more relevant than it would be in cases of invasion or insurrection."
(snip/...)

Thanks a lot, kskiska. This is a good one.

[Moderator]

6. Duplicate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=926859