What will happen with all the torture evidence? Civvie courts don’t have that mute button.
BTW, it will be interesting to know whether the ruling applies retroactively. We might hear more about those written instructions to destroy torture notes.
Reader Interactions
19Comments
Comments are closed.
Jay B.
Tim, that’s the government’s problem. It’s not the people’s or the courts.
We’ll now see if we have a shred of a democracy left where leaders are accountable for their actions. To The Hague men! To the Hague (I’d take that beat in a flash by the way. I love me some Netherlands).
The Moar You Know
Oh, too easy, Tim. Declare it all “classified” and then you can shove these poor schmucks back into the memory hole for at least another six years while the government imposes demands for clearances, redaction of information based on “critical national security concerns”, and obstacle after obstacle on the defense team.
They’ve done this before (see Padilla, Jose). They’ll do it again. And if we get a President McCain, it’s going to become standard operating procedure.
Zifnab
Rule Number 1. Protect Dick Cheney.
If any evidence exists that could implicate Dick Cheney in anything down to a parking ticket, you can bet the evidence will be “lost” and the blame will go to the Democrats for making America less safe.
Now that the tables are turning and the GOP is losing its grip on power, I have no doubt they’ll be more than happy to kick open the gates of Gitmo and let every detainee run free, guilty or not. Then, they can blame every terrorist action or re-captured thug on liberal weakness in the face of the Greatest Threat America Has Ever Faced, Ever.
It’ll be that simple. The DoJ will completely drop the ball. The Gitmo detainees will be found innocent of wrongdoing by the truckload. The Republican Administration will make the loudest of noises about trying to protect American Freedom while their Regent University lawyers are fucking up the simplest of law cases. And we’ll be right back where we started, September 10th, 2001.
When some future hijacker easily bypasses the pathetic joke we call airport security and takes down another plane, the GOP will wave the bloody flag claiming that only re-opening Gitmo and arresting all brown people everywhere will protect us. And I’m sure they’ll gain some support, because America is full of idiots.
norbizness
Well, they can close courts; they did so in trying the first WTC bombers in the 90s
Dennis - SGMM
Bush will drag his feet on this until the clock runs out. Much of the “evidence” against these guys is likely pretty tenuous:
“After turning in his neighbor for the $1500 bounty, Mr. Aziz swore that Mr. Hakim was a member of al Qaeda and that Mr. Hakim also wore a beard and a turban.”
Once the evidence – or the lack thereof – is produced the Democratic administration will be forced to drop charges against most of the detainees. Republicans will shriek that the Democrats are freeing these menaces to Western civilization.
crw
It’s called an in camera session. These wont be public trials, period.
cleek
no tyrant, plz.
i cn haz government of teh ppl by teh ppl n 4 teh ppl ?
Tsulagi
Maybe not, but the unitary executive has all the buttons and can press them any time he wants. Constitutional authority John Yoo has said so.
If our man Yoo hasn’t yet written an opinion The Decider’s buttons extend into the civie courts, I’m sure he could write one. He’s the Constitution decider when SCOTUS gets it wrong.
wingnuts to iraq
zinfab… i should subscribe to your newsletter
Tim F.
it isn’t the public that the government should worry about. When non-Bushie judges and juries start hearing about our torturing habits and about destroying the evidence of said torture, things could get interesting.
Cain
By interesting, itmeans hopefully marching Bush, Cheney, John Woo and whoever else, frog marched to the Hague. We should demand it. Politicians should fear if they get caught doing something illegal. Otherwise, any fool will be tempted to do it. If we could send teh whole republican party to jail that would be fine by me.
cain
Tony J
Pardons. Lots and lots of specific pardons for the decision makers and their favoured assistants.
And if some non-pardoned drones start talking after January, 2009? Who cares what those losers say? “We got Presiential pardons, baby. Why do you hate the Constitution?“
Dork
I cannot believe this even has to be said…
Bush:
to think he even has to reassure us this….is amazing.
Zifnab
Bleh. If by “interesting” you mean “a bunch of sternly worded letters printed in bold faced font”. The only thing more pathetic than the Bush Administration’s handling of detainees has been the Congress’s attempts at oversight.
I recognize that the GOP has been blocking every motion or bill from the GI Bill to the Mother’s Day resolution, so I can’t exactly blame the Democrats unilaterally for this. However, it seems the fear Democrats have about looking weak is overriding their efforts to act strong.
That whole “impeachment is off the table” remark Pelosi made was the worst thing she could have said on assuming her post as Speaker. It set the table for this giant mess we’ve been forced to deal with two years later.
blogenfreude
Why all the excitement? Everybody knows that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the fourth branch of government. No one will even get a hearing. Dick Cheney can keep torturing Pakistani cabdrivers to his heart’s content.
Seriously – does anyone think that the administration will do anything different? Feh.
nightjar
I have a strong suspicion that come January 20, 2009, there will begin a trickle and later a flood of information regarding all different types of Bushie lawlessness from every quarter of the Government. They’re are likely battalions of federal employees who’ve had knowledge of grievous wrongdoing and have kept quiet out of fear for their jobs and maybe other things. I very much doubt Bush or Cheney and their top Capo’s will ever see an indictment but we will learn a lot more than we do now. In the unlikely event of a Mccain presidency, there will less info released, but more than we have now.
Sinister eyebrow
To answer Tim’s question as to whether this will apply retroactively: if a statute (or portion of one) is found to be unconstitutional as the MCA suspension of Habeas Corpus was, then the statute is void ab initio. In other words, it was not a valid law from the day it was signed and therefore was unenforceable during it’s entire existence. No one who was previously denied access to federal courts via the suspension of Habeas can now be prevented from filing a writ of Habeas Corpus and requiring the federal government to appear before a court and justify it’s detention of that person. In other words, all Habeas rights are restored whether the person was denied a writ under the MCA or not.
Every “enemy combatant” can now petition the federal courts. I haven’t read the text of the opinion, so I can’t say if it applies to all persons in U.S. custody or just those in the U.S. and Gitmo. It would be mighty interesting, though, if all those poor sods in Iraq and Afghanistan got the right to challenge their detention. First up, the journalists who’ve been detained.
rachel
It’s also useless, as I don’t believe a single word that lying cocksucker has to say–yes, that includes “and” and “the.”
TenguPhule
Between Iraqi Fatwahs and CIA sanctions, a betting man is going with how instead of when.