20/20 Hindsight on the War on Terror
Now that Gitmo prisoners have the right to habeas corpus, the New York Times has something to celebrate: the prospect of detainees walking free! The lead editorial of today's Times triumphantly points to a recent report showing that federal judges are "regularly throwing out the government’s cases against Guantánamo Bay prisoners" because they were tortured.
Regularly? Well, so far 52 detainees (out of 176) have brought habeas cases (which require the government to justify continued detention). Of those 52, 15 detainees alleged physical abuse. Of those 15 cases, the government lost 8 and won 7. That's right: 8 district court decisions (all being appealed) -- and the NYT declares that the Bush "torture" regime has been exposed. If the 8 decisions are overturned on appeal, I suspect the NYT will not retract its editorial.
Okay: Professor Yoo, help me out here. The interrogations in question were done before SCOTUS applied habeas corpus to Gitmo, so isn't this just pure hindsight: judging interrogators by civilian standards that they never expected to apply? Or is there evidence that the interrogators went too far, even by war-on-terror standards?
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: 20/20 Hindsight on the War on Terror
Thanks for bringing this up, Adam. I read that editorial this a.m. and smelled a rat. Good for you for checking their facts.
Aug '10
Re: 20/20 Hindsight on the War on Terror
Is there any facet of our government or national life that The Alien in the Black Ops House hasn't contaminated? We're seeing an epochal event, the attempted corruption and dismembering of our nation. Notice how all day, every day, and almost 24/7, he is either on television or being discussed by pundits on radio or the tube.
He's the Anti-King Midas. Everything he touches dies and turns to lead.
This is the ultimate goal of the extreme narcissist. Like black holes they suck the light and life out of everything around them.
Re: 20/20 Hindsight on the War on Terror
My sense is that these interrogations may not have comported with the standards for a civilian trial -- right to remain silent and a lawyer -- but that they were done solely to gain intelligence for military purposes. You are right, but it is worse than just hindsight. Habeas judges have no standards at all to apply to intelligence interrogations, because in the past their jurisdiction never extended to military operations abroad. So these judges are making things up as they go along, and are just deciding whether they feel the evidence is enough to meet a standard that they have made up. This will not just result in judges letting these al Qaeda operatives go, though the appeals courts are likely to reverse, but it will create confusion in the field as our troops are uncertain what rules will be applied, long after the fact, by judges in DC to their split second decisions.
Re: 20/20 Hindsight on the War on Terror
Thanks John. "Uncertainty" -- doesn't that pretty much sum up the state of the Rule of Law under Obama? Our military leaders don't know whether their decisions will be second-guessed and our business leaders don't know what new tax, mandate, or bureaucracy will be coming down the pike.
Aug '10
Re: 20/20 Hindsight on the War on Terror
Indeed, Adam. The business community also has no idea what to expect. Uncertainty in markets and the wheels of commerce has a chilling effect, causing people to withdraw and run for safety. All the imagined 'reforms' this administration has passed have done long-term damage to the nation. I have to believe it's deliberate. The legal term is Implied Malice.