A Prize for Truth-telling - Now That is a Wonder!
I found myself the other night seriously wrapped around the axle trying to assemble a blog basec on yet another great Glenn Greenwald post and a three-star article in Harpers his post referenced. (Actually, around here, a better metaphor is dog-hairs wrapped around the vacuum reel. Pretty amazing what those seemingly innocent and innocuous - as long as they are not in your mouth - hairs can do in thwarting the machine.)
Glenn's post was somewhat uncharacteristically an omnibus, partially due to his anticipating blog-eclipse from travel in connection with imminent book release. This blog likewise is less single-issue than most you find here.
Greenwald has a great upbeat find (for those in favor of human rights):
This news is both huge and great:
The lawless detention of Bilal Hussein was one of the worst American travesties of the U.S. occupation. He was but one of 24,000 Iraqis (at least) detained without charges. But the fact that he was an AP photojournalist (part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning team covering the war) whose journalism reflected negatively on the Bush administration, and who became controversial (and then lawlessly imprisoned) as a result of that work, made his detention -- imprisoned for over 19 months without even any charges before finally being turned over to an Iraqi court -- that much more reprehensible.
I wrote about the Bilal Hussein case many times (including here and here), and interviewed AP executives about the case here. AP, in general, deserves criticism for many things, but they did a very commendable job of standing behind their journalist and battling the Bush administration's lawless detention of Hussein every step of the way.
How ironic -- and tragically revealing -- that Hussein had to wait until he was turned over to the Iraqi Government before he could avail himself of the most basic precepts of due process. Continuing with a theme over the past couple of days, I'm going to quote Robert Jackson again, the Chief U.S. Counsel at the Nuremberg Trials, in his closing remarks to the tribunal:
As we abolish habeas corpus and indefinitely imprison tens of thousands of people around the world with no charges or process of any kind, we have obviously repudiated those principles -- principles that, back then, we even applied to the most heinous Nazi war criminals.
But, at least in this case, the Iraqi judicial system has not repudiated those principles, as they ordered Hussein released after doing what the U.S. military refused to do for almost two years -- offer him a chance to contest the charges against him and accord him basic due process (it doesn't appear that they found him not guilty -- or even adjudicated the question of his guilt at all -- but instead, ruled that he was legally entitled to amnesty under Iraqi law). The Philadelphia Daily News's Will Bunch has some additional thoughts.
-clip-
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (same post, but there is some history here worth your time if you choose), Glenn has somewhat of a dust-up going with a couple hard-core charlatans (of the many) who don't think they should have to be accountable for their on-going war-mongering (a la "we had a great idea and it was just this administration's incompetence that screwed it up"). I encourage you to explore the full length and width of Greenwald's post, including comments. Once again I would offer him up as a daily "must-read."
-clip-
If I were Dan Drezner and Megan McArdle, I, too, would want the media to ignore things like the torture regime implemented by the U.S. Government and would be tempted to concoct all sorts of rationale to explain away their doing so and why it's perfectly fine that they focus on Barack Obama's bowling score instead. That's precisely why there's such a strong incentive on the part of the establishment to avoid discussing what they've spawned -- the number of innocent civilians slaughtered in Iraq, the wholesale destruction of that country, and all of the abuses which accompanied it.
When you talk about those things and demand that they be investigated and exposed, point out the responsible parties involved, and insist that there be accountability for it -- that what our Government has done and is doing not be ignored or suppressed -- that's when you become "simplistic and Jacobian," ignorant, "disgusting," "bizarre, even lunatic" and "the kind of frenzied conspiracy-theorizing [] generally associated with Ron Paul's more wild-eyed supporters," and all of the other angry insults those two managed to spit out in one 24-hour period.
The things that have happened in the U.S. over the last seven years haven't just magically emerged. They had actors behind them and ideas underlying them and acting as though it's all just a matter to leave politely in the past -- even though none of it has really changed -- is just a recipe for guaranteeing that it continues. It's hardly surprising that those who want it all minimized, ignored and forgotten will be hostile towards those who believe it shouldn't be.
-clip-
And then there is GG's link to extremely moving and important Harper's article:
On Thursday in the National Press Club in Washington, a crowd gathered to witness the presentation of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling to Lieutenant Commander Matthew Diaz. The story of Matthew Diaz was chronicled in this space repeatedly (also here and here). It is a story of courage, fortitude, conviction and suffering. Joe Margulies introduced the honoree with clarity:
Matthew Diaz served his country as a staff judge advocate at Guantánamo. He watched a shameless assault on America’s Constitution and commitment to the rule of law carried out by the Bush Administration. He watched the introduction of a system of cruel torture and abuse. He watched the shaming of the nation’s uniformed services, with their proud traditions that formed the very basis of the standards of humanitarian law, now torn asunder through the lawless acts of the Executive. Matthew Diaz found himself in a precarious position—as a uniformed officer, he was bound to follow his command. As a licensed and qualified attorney, he was bound to uphold the law. And these things were indubitably at odds.
Diaz resolved to do something about it. He knew the Supreme Court twice ruled the Guantánamo regime, which he was under orders to uphold, was unlawful. In the Hamdan decision, the Court went a step further. In powerful and extraordinary words, Justice Kennedy reminded the Administration that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was binding upon them, and that a violation could constitute a criminal act. One senior member of the Bush legal team, informed of the decision over lunch, was reported to have turned “white as a sheet” and to have immediately excused himself. For the following months, Bush Administration lawyers entered into a frenzied discussion of how to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.
One of the crimes the Administration committed was withholding from the Red Cross a list of the detainees at Guantánamo, effectively making them into secret detainees. Before the arrival of the Bush Administration, the United States had taken the axiomatic position that holding persons in secret detention for prolonged periods outside the rule of law (a practice known as “disappearing”) was not merely unlawful, but in fact a rarified “crime against humanity.” Now the United States was engaged in the active practice of this crime.
The decision to withhold the information had been taken, in defiance of law, by senior political figures in the Bush Administration. Diaz was aware of it, and he knew it was unlawful. He printed out a copy of the names and sent them to a civil rights lawyer who had requested them in federal court proceedings.
Diaz was aware when he did this that he was violating regulations and that he could and would, if caught, be subjected to severe sanction. What he did was a violation of law, even as it was an effort to cure a more severe act of lawlessness by the Government. Diaz violated the law in precisely the same sense as Martin Luther King reminds us, in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, that his arrest was based on a violation of law. That everything the Nazis did in Germany was lawful. And that every act of the Hungarian freedom fighters was a crime. In terms of the moral law, however, Diaz was on the side of right, and the Bush Administration and the Pentagon had, by engaging in the conduct that the Supreme Court condemned, placed themselves on the side of lawlessness, corruption and dishonor.
Diaz was charged, tried and convicted for disclosing “secrets.” For the Bush Administration, any information which would be politically embarrassing or harmful to it is routinely classified “secret.” In this fashion the Administration believes it can use criminal sanctions against those who disclose information it believes will be politically damaging. The list of detainees at Guantánamo, which by law was required to be disclosed, was classified as “secret.”
Diaz spent six months in prison and left it bankrupt and without a job. In addition to his sentence, the Pentagon is working aggressively to have Diaz stripped of his law license so he will not be able to practice his profession. The Bush Administration has sought to criminalize, humiliate and destroy Diaz. Its motivation could not be clearer: Diaz struck a blow for the rule of law. And nothing could be more threatening to the Bush Administration than this.
-clip-
Now that's what I call a patriot and a hero.
Glenn's post was somewhat uncharacteristically an omnibus, partially due to his anticipating blog-eclipse from travel in connection with imminent book release. This blog likewise is less single-issue than most you find here.
Greenwald has a great upbeat find (for those in favor of human rights):
This news is both huge and great:
Detained AP photographer receives amnesty by Iraqi panel in battle with US military
BAGHDAD (AP) -- An Iraqi judicial committee has dismissed terrorism-related allegations against Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein and ordered him freed after nearly two years in U.S. military custody.
The decision by a four-judge panel says Hussein's case falls under a new amnesty law and orders Iraqi courts to "cease legal proceedings." The ruling says that Hussein should be "immediately" released if no other charges are pending.
The lawless detention of Bilal Hussein was one of the worst American travesties of the U.S. occupation. He was but one of 24,000 Iraqis (at least) detained without charges. But the fact that he was an AP photojournalist (part of a Pulitzer Prize-winning team covering the war) whose journalism reflected negatively on the Bush administration, and who became controversial (and then lawlessly imprisoned) as a result of that work, made his detention -- imprisoned for over 19 months without even any charges before finally being turned over to an Iraqi court -- that much more reprehensible.
I wrote about the Bilal Hussein case many times (including here and here), and interviewed AP executives about the case here. AP, in general, deserves criticism for many things, but they did a very commendable job of standing behind their journalist and battling the Bush administration's lawless detention of Hussein every step of the way.
How ironic -- and tragically revealing -- that Hussein had to wait until he was turned over to the Iraqi Government before he could avail himself of the most basic precepts of due process. Continuing with a theme over the past couple of days, I'm going to quote Robert Jackson again, the Chief U.S. Counsel at the Nuremberg Trials, in his closing remarks to the tribunal:
Fairness is not weakness. The extraordinary fairness of these hearings is an attribute of our strength . . . . Let me emphasize one cardinal point. The United States has no interest which would be advanced by the conviction of any defendant if we have not proved him guilty on at least one of the Counts charged against him in the Indictment. Any result that the clam and critical judgment of posterity would pronounce unjust would not be a victory for any of the countries associated in this Prosecution.
As we abolish habeas corpus and indefinitely imprison tens of thousands of people around the world with no charges or process of any kind, we have obviously repudiated those principles -- principles that, back then, we even applied to the most heinous Nazi war criminals.
But, at least in this case, the Iraqi judicial system has not repudiated those principles, as they ordered Hussein released after doing what the U.S. military refused to do for almost two years -- offer him a chance to contest the charges against him and accord him basic due process (it doesn't appear that they found him not guilty -- or even adjudicated the question of his guilt at all -- but instead, ruled that he was legally entitled to amnesty under Iraqi law). The Philadelphia Daily News's Will Bunch has some additional thoughts.
-clip-
Meanwhile, back at the ranch (same post, but there is some history here worth your time if you choose), Glenn has somewhat of a dust-up going with a couple hard-core charlatans (of the many) who don't think they should have to be accountable for their on-going war-mongering (a la "we had a great idea and it was just this administration's incompetence that screwed it up"). I encourage you to explore the full length and width of Greenwald's post, including comments. Once again I would offer him up as a daily "must-read."
-clip-
If I were Dan Drezner and Megan McArdle, I, too, would want the media to ignore things like the torture regime implemented by the U.S. Government and would be tempted to concoct all sorts of rationale to explain away their doing so and why it's perfectly fine that they focus on Barack Obama's bowling score instead. That's precisely why there's such a strong incentive on the part of the establishment to avoid discussing what they've spawned -- the number of innocent civilians slaughtered in Iraq, the wholesale destruction of that country, and all of the abuses which accompanied it.
When you talk about those things and demand that they be investigated and exposed, point out the responsible parties involved, and insist that there be accountability for it -- that what our Government has done and is doing not be ignored or suppressed -- that's when you become "simplistic and Jacobian," ignorant, "disgusting," "bizarre, even lunatic" and "the kind of frenzied conspiracy-theorizing [] generally associated with Ron Paul's more wild-eyed supporters," and all of the other angry insults those two managed to spit out in one 24-hour period.
The things that have happened in the U.S. over the last seven years haven't just magically emerged. They had actors behind them and ideas underlying them and acting as though it's all just a matter to leave politely in the past -- even though none of it has really changed -- is just a recipe for guaranteeing that it continues. It's hardly surprising that those who want it all minimized, ignored and forgotten will be hostile towards those who believe it shouldn't be.
-clip-
And then there is GG's link to extremely moving and important Harper's article:
On Thursday in the National Press Club in Washington, a crowd gathered to witness the presentation of the Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling to Lieutenant Commander Matthew Diaz. The story of Matthew Diaz was chronicled in this space repeatedly (also here and here). It is a story of courage, fortitude, conviction and suffering. Joe Margulies introduced the honoree with clarity:
no one can think it is fun when you sit in a courtroom as an accused, and a United States prosecutor points an accusatory finger at your chest and calls you a criminal and tells you that you have betrayed your oath and you have betrayed your country, and you have endangered the safety of the men and women that you swore to share your burdens with. And no one can think it is fun when you have to sit with your heart pounding in your chest as the jury files back into the room with a piece of paper folded in its hands, and that piece of paper holds your fate. And no one can think it is fun when that jury, your peers, pronounces you guilty. And no one can think it is fun when you have to face that same jury that will sentence you for what may be many years; many years that you will be way from your family, your life in tatters, your career ruined.
Matthew Diaz served his country as a staff judge advocate at Guantánamo. He watched a shameless assault on America’s Constitution and commitment to the rule of law carried out by the Bush Administration. He watched the introduction of a system of cruel torture and abuse. He watched the shaming of the nation’s uniformed services, with their proud traditions that formed the very basis of the standards of humanitarian law, now torn asunder through the lawless acts of the Executive. Matthew Diaz found himself in a precarious position—as a uniformed officer, he was bound to follow his command. As a licensed and qualified attorney, he was bound to uphold the law. And these things were indubitably at odds.
Diaz resolved to do something about it. He knew the Supreme Court twice ruled the Guantánamo regime, which he was under orders to uphold, was unlawful. In the Hamdan decision, the Court went a step further. In powerful and extraordinary words, Justice Kennedy reminded the Administration that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was binding upon them, and that a violation could constitute a criminal act. One senior member of the Bush legal team, informed of the decision over lunch, was reported to have turned “white as a sheet” and to have immediately excused himself. For the following months, Bush Administration lawyers entered into a frenzied discussion of how to protect themselves from criminal prosecution.
One of the crimes the Administration committed was withholding from the Red Cross a list of the detainees at Guantánamo, effectively making them into secret detainees. Before the arrival of the Bush Administration, the United States had taken the axiomatic position that holding persons in secret detention for prolonged periods outside the rule of law (a practice known as “disappearing”) was not merely unlawful, but in fact a rarified “crime against humanity.” Now the United States was engaged in the active practice of this crime.
The decision to withhold the information had been taken, in defiance of law, by senior political figures in the Bush Administration. Diaz was aware of it, and he knew it was unlawful. He printed out a copy of the names and sent them to a civil rights lawyer who had requested them in federal court proceedings.
Diaz was aware when he did this that he was violating regulations and that he could and would, if caught, be subjected to severe sanction. What he did was a violation of law, even as it was an effort to cure a more severe act of lawlessness by the Government. Diaz violated the law in precisely the same sense as Martin Luther King reminds us, in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, that his arrest was based on a violation of law. That everything the Nazis did in Germany was lawful. And that every act of the Hungarian freedom fighters was a crime. In terms of the moral law, however, Diaz was on the side of right, and the Bush Administration and the Pentagon had, by engaging in the conduct that the Supreme Court condemned, placed themselves on the side of lawlessness, corruption and dishonor.
Diaz was charged, tried and convicted for disclosing “secrets.” For the Bush Administration, any information which would be politically embarrassing or harmful to it is routinely classified “secret.” In this fashion the Administration believes it can use criminal sanctions against those who disclose information it believes will be politically damaging. The list of detainees at Guantánamo, which by law was required to be disclosed, was classified as “secret.”
Diaz spent six months in prison and left it bankrupt and without a job. In addition to his sentence, the Pentagon is working aggressively to have Diaz stripped of his law license so he will not be able to practice his profession. The Bush Administration has sought to criminalize, humiliate and destroy Diaz. Its motivation could not be clearer: Diaz struck a blow for the rule of law. And nothing could be more threatening to the Bush Administration than this.
-clip-
Now that's what I call a patriot and a hero.
posted by Sir Gumbo at 10:43 PM
0 comments
