Time Is Of The Essence - Close Gitmo Now

You know, sometimes it amazes me that the Obama transition team, widely hailed for getting its act together quickly and being well-organized and efficient, is now dragging its feet on a number of truly life-or-death issues relating to torture and Guantanamo. They have begun their review of the detainee case files there - but it is completely unclear as to what the conditions are at Guantanamo now. If Lt Col Yvonne Bradley's account is true, the prison guards should be behind bars for the way they are STILL treating detainees. If they're still operating under Bush policy, these abusive guards are now, simply enough, criminals (seriously, this is pretty cut and dry)- and we should be able to read about their arrests in the papers. So where are those stories? When will the Obama administration's so-called commitment to transparency and accountability include letting us know if detainees are being treated humanely? When do the human rights monitors go in - or when is some type of team dedicated to investigating prison guard misconduct announced, assembled, and put to work? There is no reason why the situation at Guantanamo should be so vaguely presented to Americans. Saying "give Obama time, it's only been x number of days" is an inadequate response.

While Obama & co. fiddle around in Washington, their legal representatives in the Justice Department have taken recent steps elsewhere that suggest the review of Guantanamo detainees will not result in real, fair criminal trials for detainees. Is the same Obama DoJ that wants Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. dismissed for state security reasons going to allow fair trials of Gitmo detainees? At present, the logical answer to that question is no. Get ready for that fight.

The key to ending torture is not waiting on Obama. Hell, in two years, he will be facing a Republican opponent and readying for re-election. He will doubtless be challenged on each of his anti-torture policies, and it seems likely (based on today's GOP, anyway) that a Republican administration open to "coercive interrogation" will be presented as an alternative to whatever he does. We aren't out of the woods yet. What we need to do is push for legislation that is more effective than Obama's executive orders. There must be a concerted outcry each time Obama reverts to Bush policies, like unnecessarily invoking the state secrets privilege.

We can and should support Obama when he is right. But right now, he is going too slowly to be right - we must press him to be faster. Some Obama supporters may not yet feel comfortable protesting his administration - but trust me, he needs the pressure and our country needs to keep the torture/war crime discussion in the forefront.

Greg Bruno has a Gitmo overview here.

Who is Lt Col Yvonne Bradley?

Binyam Mohamed's lawyer has attracted attention in recent days, as she visits the UK to make the case for Mohamed's' immediate release from Guantanamo.

Here are two articles on Lt Col Bradley - McClatchy and BBC. Some snippets from McClatchy:

"Bradley, 45, who calls herself 'a lawyer and a soldier' and a 'lifelong
Republican,' told McClatchy in an interview that she blames the Bush
administration for Mohamed's arrest and for his treatment in captivity. Asked if
she thinks her client is innocent, Bradley replied that he 'was in the wrong
place at the wrong time.'

'If 9/11 never happened, this whole series of events would never have
happened,' Bradley said. 'This was an experiment that failed. It is a shame and
a legacy that will follow (the United States) in its history.'

...

Her views have changed dramatically since she joined Mohamed's legal team
in 2005. She said that when she was assigned to his case, she was 'a true
believer' in America's campaign against terrorism.

Bradley recalled that after she got a call to defend Mohamed at
Guantanamo Bay in 2005, she was ready to shut down her law practice in suburban
Philadelphia. 'I knew these were war crimes,' she said of the charges against
her client.

Then she received orders that her assignment would last 90 days. 'That
should have been my first warning that something was wrong,' she said. 'I can't
try a small possession of marijuana (case) in 90 days, let alone a major war
crime.'

When Bradley first visited Mohamed at Guantanamo Bay, she recalled, she
was 'scared,' although as a federal public defender she'd represented a serial
killer and other murderers on Death Row. 'I believed my government when they
told me he was a terrorist,' she said.

A review of Mohamed's charge sheet raised more questions. 'I was waiting
for the blood on his hands, the trigger finger, links to the dirty-bomb plot,'
she said. Instead, over time, she came to believe that 'his story was all spun
out by the CIA' after Mohamed was held in several countries, including
Afghanistan and Morocco — and, he alleges, tortured.

Bradley's defense of Mohamed has ruffled feathers and nearly landed her
in trouble."

Lt Col Bradley's dedication and ability is a testament to the potential of our legal system. Our refusal to try terrorist suspects in our existing criminal justice system discredits the work people like Lt Col Bradley do. And want to do.

We need more people like her - and we are not going to get them if we set up a separate criminal justice system for terrorist suspects, if we continue to invoke the state secrets privilege to completely dismiss cases that might reveal government corruption and criminal behavior.

We need to change course, drastically. Jerrold Nadler's legislation is a good step. The best step, of course - to investigate and prosecute Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.