War On You: Breaking Alternative News » Executive Orders

Obama says he doesn’t even need NDAA to indefinitely detain Americans

WarOnYou — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 18:45:56 +0000

Obama says he doesn’t even need NDAA to indefinitely detain Americans

EXCERPT

January 4, 2012

“My Administration has consistently opposed such measures. Ultimately, I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded.”
The president went onto say that the provisions in question – specifically Sect. 1021, which he said merely “affirms the executive branch’s authority to detain persons covered by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.” He describes the provision as “unnecessary.”

President Obama stated: “Two critical limitations in section 1021 confirm that it solely codifies established authorities. First, under section 1021(d), the bill does not limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force. Second, under section 1021(e), the bill may not be construed to affect any existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

In other words, the president is using Washingtonspeak to say he already had the authority to do what the NDAA law merely “codifies.” So the danger that many Americans, lawmakers and advocacy groups are concerned about is why this president claimed the authority to kill an American citizen in… who had not actually carried out any terrorist attacks against the U.S., but was only suspected of wrongdoing.

U.S. Court Upholds Telecom Immunity for Surveillance of Americans

WarOnYou — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 08:24:39 +0000

U.S. Court Upholds Telecom Immunity for Surveillance of Americans

December 30th, 2011

Searching for Mark Klein on Cryptogon will bring up several references to the NSA’s mass surveillance operations.

Via: Reuters:

A U.S. appeals panel on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of a federal law that grants immunity to telecommunications companies that assist the U.S. government in conducting surveillance of American citizens.

…

Several lawsuits filed in the wake of revelations about warrantless wiretapping alleged that telecom companies provided authorities with direct access to nearly all communications passing through their domestic facilities.

Besides the government itself, defendants included AT&T, Sprint Nextel and Verizon Communications Inc.

In 2008, Congress granted telecoms immunity for cooperating with the government’s intelligence-gathering activities. A district judge in San Francisco upheld the law as constitutional, and dismissed the claims against the companies.

In a ruling on Thursday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit agreed. The appeals court covers nine Western U.S. states.

…

In a separate ruling, the 9th Circuit on Thursday allowed a separate case against the government to proceed, in which plaintiffs allege a communications dragnet of ordinary citizens.

That lawsuit claims the National Security Agency diverted Internet traffic into secure rooms in AT&T facilities across the country. The proposed class action alleges “an unprecedented suspicionless general search” throughout the communications network.

New Army Jobs: Internment / Resettlement Specialist (31E)

WarOnYou — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 07:16:53 +0000

New Army Jobs: Internment / Resettlement Specialist (31E)

12-08-2011 • http://www.goarmy.com/careers-and-jobs

Internment/Resettlement (I/R) Specialists in the Army are primarily responsible for day-to-day operations in a military confinement/correctional facility or detention/internment facility. I/R Specialists provide rehabilitative, health, welfare, and security to U.S. military prisoners within a confinement or correctional facility; conduct inspections; prepare written reports; and coordinate activities of prisoners/internees and staff personnel.

Some of your duties as an Internment/Resettlement Specialist may include:

Assist with the supervision and management of confinement and detention operations Provide external security to confinement/corrections facilities or detention/internment facilities Provide counseling and guidance to individual prisoners within a rehabilitative program Prepare or review reports and records of prisoners/internees and programs

Training Helpful Skills Advanced Responsibilities Related Civilian Jobs Related Army Positions Civilian Certifications Earned

TrainingJob training for an Internment/Resettlement Specialist requires nine weeks of Basic Training, where you’ll learn basic Soldiering skills, and eight weeks of Advanced Individual Training. Part of this time is spent in the classroom and part in a field environment. Some of the skills you’ll learn are:

Military laws and jurisdictions Level of Force Procedures Unarmed Self-Defense Techniques Police Deviance and Ethics Procedures Interpersonal Communications Skills Close confinement operations Search and restraint procedures Use of firearms Custody and control procedures

Helpful SkillsHelpful attributes include:

An ability to think and react quickly An ability to remain calm in stressful situations An interest in law enforcement and crime prevention Being physically fit

Advanced ResponsibilitiesAdvanced level Internment/Resettlement Specialist provides guidance, supervises and trains other Soldiers within the same discipline. As an advanced level I/R Specialist, you may be involved in:

Supervise and establish all administrative, logistical and food support operations, confinement/correctional, custodial, treatment, and rehabilitative activities Responsible for all personnel working in the confinement/correctional facility, including security, logistical, and administrative management of the prisoner/internee population Provide command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of an Enemy Prisoner of War/Civilian Internee (EPW/CI) camp Provide command and control, staff planning, administration/logistical services, and custody/control for the operation of detention facility or the operation of a displaced civilian (DC) resettlement facility

Related Civilian JobsThe skills you’ll learn as an Internment/Resettlement Specialist will help prepare you for a future with federal, state, county or city law enforcement agencies or the federal penal system. You might also be able to pursue a career as a security guard with industrial firms, airports or other businesses and institutions.

Related Army Positions Military Police (31B) Criminal Investigations (CID) Special Agent (31D)

Apple iTunes “Flaw” Allowed Government Spying for 3 Years

WarOnYou — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 09:35:47 +0000

Apple iTunes “Flaw” Allowed Government Spying for 3 Years

November 25th, 2011

Via: Telegraph:

An unpatched security flaw in Apple’s iTunes software allowed intelligence agencies and police to hack into users’ computers for more than three years, it’s claimed.

A British company called Gamma International marketed hacking software to governments that exploited the vulnerability via a bogus update to iTunes, Apple’s media player, which is installed on more than 250 million machines worldwide.

The hacking software, FinFisher, is used to spy on intelligence targets’ computers. It is known to be used by British agencies and earlier this year records were discovered in abandoned offices of that showed it had been offered to Egypt’s feared secret police.

Apple was informed about the relevant flaw in iTunes in 2008, according to Brian Krebs, a security writer, but did not patch the software until earlier this month, a delay of more than three years.

“A prominent security researcher warned Apple about this dangerous vulnerability in mid-2008, yet the company waited more than 1,200 days to fix the flaw,” he said in a blog post.

“The disclosure raises questions about whether and when Apple knew about the Trojan offering, and its timing in choosing to sew up the security hole in this ubiquitous software title.”

NYTimes Sues The Federal Government For Refusing To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act

WarOnYou — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 06:05:38 +0000

NYTimes Sues The Federal Government For Refusing To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act

from the secret-laws-and-secret-interpretations dept

We’ve been covering for a while now how Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have been very concerned over the secret interpretation the feds have of one piece of the PATRIOT Act. They’ve been trying to pressure the government into publicly explaining how they interpret the law, because they believe that it directly contrasts how most of the public (and many elected officials) believe the feds are interpreting the law. While the two Senators continue to put pressure on the feds and to hint at the feds’ interpretation, just the fact that the government won’t even explain its own interpretation of the law seems ridiculous.

Given all of this, reporter Charlie Savage of the NY Times filed a Freedom of Information Act request to find out the federal government’s interpretation of its own law… and had it refused. According to the federal government, its own interpretation of the law is classified. What sort of democracy are we living in when the government can refuse to even say how it’s interpreting its own law? That’s not democracy at all.

Julian Sanchez points us to the news that Savage and the NY Times have now sued the federal government for not revealing its interpretation of the PATRIOT Act, pointing out that if parts of the interpretation contain classified material, the Justice Department should black that out and reveal the rest, but simply refusing to reveal the interpretation entirely is a violation of the Freedom of Information Act. You can bet that the feds will do everything they can to get out of this lawsuit, just as they did with the various lawsuits concerning warrantless wiretapping. Here’s hoping the court systems don’t let them. No matter what you think of this administration (or the last one) and how it’s handling the threat of terrorism, I’m curious how anyone can make the argument that the US government should not reveal how it interprets the very laws under which it’s required to operate.

Monthly Terror Drills Now Required By Law For Students Including Kindergarten And 1st Graders

WarOnYou — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 05:30:08 +0000

Monthly Terror Drills Now Required By Law For Students Including Kindergarten And 1st Graders

September 18, 2011

Print Version

Source: Alexander Higgins

Kindergarten and 1st grade students are now required by law to participate in monthly terrorism drills, including active shooter, bomb threat and evacuation drills.

I recently received my 1st grade students back to school paperwork. Going through the packet I found a letter serving notification that my son is now required by law to participate in monthly anti-terrorism drills.

In fact, after doing more research, I learned that all NJ schools which provide services to children from Kindergarten and up are now required by law to participate in monthly drills.

Schools must hold at least twice a year, in addition to the twice a month fire drills the following:

Active shooter
Evacuation (non- fire)
Bomb threat
and Lockdown

On top of those drills, schools will be required to also hold other security drills, which include the following:

Shelter-in-place
Reverse evacuation
Evacuation to relocation site
Testing of school’s notification system and procedures
Testing of school’s communication system and procedures
Tabletop exercise
and Full scale exercise

With a Full Scale Exercise defined by Law as:

Full Scale Exercise: This is a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional activity involving actual deployment of resources in a coordinated response as if a real incident had occurred. This exercise tests many components of one or more capabilities within emergency response and recovery, and is typically used to assess plans, procedures and coordinated response under crisis conditions.

The letter, which can be viewed here, reads as follows.

Brick Township Public Schools

101 Hendrickson Avenue
Brick, New Jersey 08724-2599
Telephone (732) 785-3000

Office of the Superintendent

September, 2011

Dear Parent(s) or Guardian(s):

The safety and welfare of our students and staff are our highest priority. To provide schools with the opportunity to practice emergency response procedures, it is necessary to conduct security drills as well as fire drills. The NJ Department of Educations has recently changed the guidelines concerning the frequency of these emergency drills. Each month a school must conduct one fire drill and one security drill which may be a lockdown, bomb threat, evacuation, active shooter, or shelter-in place drill. All schools are now required by law to implement this procedure.

The school district is working closely with the Brick Township Police Department through our school resource officers to correctly implement these procedures. Our staff members have all be trained in our emergency drill procedures and are well prepared should we have to deal with a real emergency. The goals of the training drill are to improve our ability to protect students, save lives, and reduce injuries. They also allow us to evaluate our emergency operations plan and improve our response skills.

In order to protect students, in case of an actual emergency students will only be released to the parents and/or other adults listed on the emergency information sheet. Please be sure that this information is current and accurate. It is a good idea to have several trusted adults listed with the school.

This letter serves as notification that the Brick Township Public Schools will be conducting these drills in accordance with the NJ Department of Education Guidelines. The dates and times of the drills will not be announced. you would only be notified if there were a real emergency.

If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to call your child’s school office.

Sincerely,
Walter J Hrycenko

Superintendent of Schools

Full article here

In the Wake of 9/11: 33 of 50 States Are Actively Spying on Americans

WarOnYou — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:04:46 +0000

In the Wake of 9/11: 33 of 50 States Are Actively Spying on Americans

September 11, 2011

Print Version

Source: Activist Post

The weekend of the 10th Anniversary of 9/11, has caused many to reflect on the event itself, as well as the decade that we have experienced since. There have indeed been many casualties to recall. One of the saddest casualties is the First Amendment to the nation’s founding document; it is effectively dead in 33 states according to a ACLU compilation of incident reports across America. A targeted program of surveillance and harassment has become fully centered on the population itself.

This was first made evident in the 2009 MIAC report, which cited supporters of prominent political candidates like Ron Paul, as well as an assortment of other activists who support peace, freedom and liberty, as potential threats. Law enforcement has been directed to treat such “dangers” with suspicion and extreme caution.

The ACLU has compiled an interactive map of those states which have logged incidents of police harassment and surveillance of Americans engaging in other apparently un-American activities, namely: peaceful protest, photographing public servants while on duty, questioning American leadership and policy, recording one’s surroundings while in public, and having certain religious or political affiliations that could apparently be tied to extremism.

Here are just a few examples among dozens of incident reports cited by the ACLU that show the range of First Amendment violations.

Maine – FBI Intercepts and Stores E-mails Planning Peaceful Protests.
The FBI intercepted and stored e-mail communications pertaining to protests at the Brunswick Naval Air Show and against the christening of an Arleigh Burke Class destroyer organized by Veterans for Peace and co-sponsored by Pax Christi Maine, PeaceWorks, WILPF, Peace Action Maine, Smilin’Trees Disarmament Farm, Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, Maine Coalition for Peace & Justice, Island Peace & Justice, Winthrop Area People for Peace, and Waldo County Peace & Justice

New York – Police Detain Muslim-American Journalism Student for Taking Photos for a Class Assignment.
Mariam Jukaku, a 24-year old Muslim-American journalism student at Syracuse University, was stopped by Veterans Affairs police in New York for taking photographs of flags in front of a VA building as part of a class assignment. After taking her into an office for interrogation and taking her driver’s license, the police deleted the photographs from her digital camera before releasing her.

North Carolina — Pentagon Surveils Veteran.
Debbie Clark, who was honorably discharged from the US army after eight years of active duty and who is married to an active duty military man, found herself under Pentagon surveillance when she participated in a protest at Fort Bragg in March 2005 led by veterans and military families.

Texas — Fusion Center Describes Conspiracy to Spread Tolerance.
In February 2009, a DHS-supported North Central Texas Fusion System intelligence bulletin described a purported conspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations, lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, a former U.S. Congresswoman, the U.S. Treasury Department, and hip hop bands to spread tolerance in the U.S. The bulletin was reportedly distributed to over 100 different agencies.

Colorado — FBI JTTF Monitors American Indian Movement, Peace Groups, and Environmental Groups.
In August 2005, the ACLU obtained the documents in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request containing information on the Colorado American Indian Movement and the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center. The files show that JTTF agents opened “domestic terrorism” investigations after they read notices on web sites announcing an antiwar protest in Colorado Springs in 2003 and a protest against Columbus Day in Denver in 2002.

Arizona Maricopa County Sheriff Department Surveils Political Enemies.
An internal report accuses the Maricopa County’s Chief Deputy Sheriff of using Maricopa’s anti-corruption unit to conduct politically motivated investigations and of surveiling Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio’s political rivals.

California — Military Monitors Campus Anti-Recruiting Protests. Two Department of Defense (DOD) Threat and Local Observation Notices (TALON) from April 2005 describe anti-recruiting protests by students at the University of California campuses of Berkeley and Santa Cruz. The source for both TALON reports, a “special agent of the federal protective service, U.S. Department of Homeland Security,” relayed protest information he received through email alerts.

Undercover Campus and County Sheriffs Attend Cal State Fresno Lecture on Veganism. On November 10, 2004, the California State Fresno student group Campus Peace and Civil Liberties Coalition (CPCLC) hosted an on-campus lecture by a speaker formerly employed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The lecturer addressed approximately 60 people about the benefits of a vegan diet. Six of those 60 attendees were undercover police officers—three from the county sheriff’s department and three from the campus police department.

The scope of the incidents compiled on the ACLU map reflects a new America; one where the Bill of Rights and Constitution have been re-defined as the most serious threat, rather than the greater threat that exists from promoting an atmosphere of hysteria and fear that is inevitably leading to the eradication of protections afforded by those very documents.

First, do you believe that it is only 33 states? Do you believe that the principles of freedom outlined in the Bill of Rights and Constitution make America less safe in The Age of Terror? Are these incident reports examples of your tax dollars well-spent? Please use the comment section below to give us your thoughts, as well as other incidents that exemplify the loss of our Constitutional rights.

Army Judges Weigh Military Trials for Civilians, U.S. Citizens

WarOnYou — Fri, 03 Jun 2011 05:23:17 +0000

Army Judges Weigh Military Trials for Civilians, U.S. Citizens Share | June 2, 2011 Print Version Source: Ap WASHINGTON (AP) — Three Army judges are weighing a question that hasn’t cropped up in decades: whether a civilian contractor working for the U.S. military can be tried in a military court. The issue eventually could end up at the Supreme Court. The case of Alaa “Alex” Mohammad Ali, a former Army translator in Iraq, challenges the notion that courts-martial only have authority over members of the armed forces. But it also runs up against complaints that using U.S. civilian courts to prosecute contractors working with U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq has been largely ineffective, and trying them in local courts often has not been possible. Ali, an Iraqi-Canadian, was prosecuted by the military after an altercation in Iraq during which he allegedly stole a U.S. soldier’s knife and used it to stab another translator. He pleaded guilty to lesser charges. Ali’s appeal is before the Army Court of Criminal Appeals. He was convicted under rules issued after Congress amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice in 2006 to allow courts-martial of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. Read Full Article Here…

New Congressional Legislation Gives President Unchecked War Power

WarOnYou — Fri, 13 May 2011 02:53:22 +0000

New Congressional Legislation Gives President Unchecked War Power

May 12th, 2011

Mmm hmm.

Presidential War Power by Louis Fisher

Via: ACLU:

Tucked inside the National Defense Authorization Act, being marked up by the House Armed Services Committee this week, is a hugely important provision that hasn’t been getting a lot of attention — a brand new authorization for a worldwide war.

This stealth provision was added to the bill by the committee’s chairman, Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.), but has a bit of a history. It was first proposed by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey in 2008 after the Bush administration lost the Boumediene v. Bush case, in which the Supreme Court decided that federal courts would subject the administration’s asserted law of war basis to hold Guantanamo detainees to searching review. An idea that may have originally been intended to bolster the Bush administration’s basis for holding Guantanamo detainees is now being promoted as an authorization of a worldwide war — and could become the single biggest ceding of unchecked war authority to the executive branch in modern American history.

The current authorization of war provided the constitutional authority for the executive branch to go to war in Afghanistan. Subsequently, it has reportedly been invoked by the executive branch much more broadly to also use military force in Yemen and elsewhere, to justify torture and abuse of detainees, to eavesdrop and spy on American citizens without warrants, and to imprison people captured far from any battlefield without charge or trial.

Before Congress this week, the proposed authorization of a worldwide war goes much further, however, allowing war wherever there are terrorism suspects in any country around the world without an expiration date, geographical boundaries or connection to the 9/11 attacks or any other specific harm or threat to the United States. There have been no hearings on the provision, nor has its necessity been explained by Rep. McKeon or anyone else in Congress.

Domestic Surveillance Court Approved All 1,506 Warrant Applications in 2010

WarOnYou — Mon, 09 May 2011 05:27:56 +0000

Domestic Surveillance Court Approved All 1,506 Warrant Applications in 2010

Share |

May 8, 2011

Print Version

By David Kravets – Wired

The secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court approved all 1,506 government requests to electronically monitor suspected “agents” of a foreign power or terrorists on U.S. soil last year, according to a Justice Department report released under the Freedom of Information Act.

The two-page report, which shows about a 13 percent increase in the number of applications for electronic surveillance between 2009 and 2010, was obtained by the Federation of American Scientists and published Friday.

“The FISC did not deny any applications in whole, or in part,” according to the April 19 report to Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).

The 11-member court denied two of 1,329 applications for domestic-intelligence surveillance in 2009. The FBI is the primary agency making those requests.

Whether the FISA court, whose business is conducted behind closed doors, is rubber-stamping the requests is a matter of debate.

Read Full Article

DHS Will Work with NSA and Military in Carrying Out Domestic Cyberwar Operations

WarOnYou — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:19:55 +0000

DHS Will Work with NSA and Military in Carrying Out Domestic Cyberwar Operations

Published on 10-21-2010

Email To Friend Print Version

Share |

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has adopted new procedures for using the Defense Department’s vast array of cyberwarfare capabilities in case of an attack on vital computer networks inside the United States, delicately navigating historic rules that restrict military action on American soil.

The system would mirror that used when the military is called on in natural disasters like hurricanes or wildfires. A presidential order dispatches the military forces, working under the control of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Under the new rules, the president would approve the use of the military’s expertise in computer-network warfare, and the Department of Homeland Security would direct the work.

Officials involved in drafting the rules said the goal was to ensure a rapid response to a cyberthreat while balancing concerns that civil liberties might be at risk should the military take over such domestic operations.

Read Full Article Here…

Change: Closing Guantánamo Fades as a Priority

WarOnYou — Sat, 26 Jun 2010 20:23:02 +0000

Change: Closing Guantánamo Fades as a Priority

June 26th, 2010

Via: New York Times:

Stymied by political opposition and focused on competing priorities, the Obama administration has sidelined efforts to close the Guantánamo prison, making it unlikely that President Obama will fulfill his promise to close it before his term ends in 2013.

When the White House acknowledged last year that it would miss Mr. Obama’s initial January 2010 deadline for shutting the prison, it also declared that the detainees would eventually be moved to one in Illinois. But impediments to that plan have mounted in Congress, and the administration is doing little to overcome them.

“There is a lot of inertia” against closing the prison, “and the administration is not putting a lot of energy behind their position that I can see,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and supports the Illinois plan. He added that “the odds are that it will still be open” by the next presidential inauguration.

The Bigger Picture Behind Allegation that the Bush Administration Allowed Illegal Medical Experiments on Prisoners

WarOnYou — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 02:36:34 +0000

The Bigger Picture Behind Allegation that the Bush Administration Allowed Illegal Medical Experiments on Prisoners

The allegation by doctors with expertise in prison experimentation and torture that the Bush administration conducted “illegal and unethical human experimentation and research” on detainees while in CIA custody after 9/11 is certainly newsworthy. See this, this and this.

Specifically, Physicians for Human Rights – an international doctors’ organization – alleges that:

High-value detainees captured during the Bush administration’s “war on terror,” who were subjected to brutal torture techniques, were used as “guinea pigs” to gauge the effectiveness of various torture techniques, a practice that has raised troubling comparisons to Nazi-era human experimentation.

***

“Health professionals working for and on behalf of the CIA monitored the interrogations of detainees, collected and analyzed the results of [the] interrogations, and sought to derive generalizable inferences to be applied to subsequent interrogations,” said the 27-page report, entitled “Experiments in Torture: Human Subject Research and Evidence of Experimentation in the ‘Enhanced’ Interrogation Program.” “Such acts may be seen as the conduct of research and experimentation by health professionals on prisoners, which could violate accepted standards of medical ethics, as well as domestic and international law. These practices could, in some cases, constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

***

For example, CIA medical personnel obtained experimental research data by subjecting more than 25 detainees to individual and combined torture techniques, including sleep deprivation and stress positioning, as a way of understanding “whether one type of application over another would increase the subjects’ susceptibility to severe pain,” the report said, adding that the information derived from that research informed “subsequent [torture] practices.”

If the allegations are true, such experimentation would certainly violate the Nuremberg Code, the Geneva conventions, and the War Crimes Act of 1996.

Nuremberg Code

Among other things, the Nuremberg Code prohibits experimentation conducted without the voluntary consent of the subject. Voluntary consent means:

The person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.

Moreover, the Code requires that the subject be allowed to stop the experiment at any time “if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.”

The Code also requires that “the experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.”

Here, the experimentation did not seek consent at any point. And – rather than limiting pain – the experimentation was specifically conducted as a way to determine how to maximize the pain the subject would experience.

Geneva Convention and War Crimes Act

The Geneva Conventions prohibit torture, mutilation or humiliating and degrading treatment. For example, the Fourth Geneva Convention prohibits:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; [or]

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment

And the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal statute set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 2441, makes it a federal crime for any U.S. national, whether military or civilian, to violate the Geneva Convention by engaging in murder, torture, or inhuman treatment. The statute applies not only to those who carry out the acts, but also to those who ORDER IT, know about it, or fail to take steps to stop it. The statute applies to everyone, no matter how high and mighty. Indeed, even the lawyers and other people who aided in the effort may be war criminals; see also this article, this one, and this press release

The detainees were obviously subjected to mutilation, cruel treatment, torture, and humiliating and degrading treatment, and so both the Convention and the War Crimes Act were violated.

The Bigger Picture

But it is important to keep the medical experimentation story in context.

The bigger picture is that torture doesn’t work, it reduces our national security, and it is mainly used to extract false confessions and as a form of intimidation to squash dissent.

Don’t believe me?

Okay, then don’t read this (and whatever you do, don’t click through to look at the links!)

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review

WarOnYou — Sun, 23 May 2010 07:14:25 +0000

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review

Glenn Greenwald

Reuters/Jonathon Burch. A detainee holding cell is pictured at the detention centre at the U.S. Bagram Air Base, north of Kabul.

May 22, 2010

(updated below – Update II) Few issues highlight Barack Obama’s extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world — far away from any battlefield — and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court. Back in the day, this was called “Bush’s legal black hole.” In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. Since then, detainees have won 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.

Immediately following Boumediene, the Bush administration argued that the decision was inapplicable to detainees at Bagram — including even those detained outside of Afghanistan but then flown to Afghanistan to be imprisoned. Amazingly, the Bush DOJ — in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention — contended that if they abduct someone and ship them to Guantanamo, then that person (under Boumediene) has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind. In other words, the detainee’s Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged. One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, Obama lawyers “told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team.”

But last April, John Bates, the Bush-43-appointed, right-wing judge overseeing the case, rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that Boumediene applies to detainees picked up outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram. I reviewed that ruling here, in which Judge Bates explained that the Bagram detainees are “virtually identical to the detainees in Boumediene,” and that the Constitutional issue was exactly the same: namely, “the concern that the President could move detainees physically beyond the reach of the Constitution and detain them indefinitely.”

But the Obama administration was undeterred by this loss. They quickly appealed Judge Bates’ ruling. As the NYT put it about that appeal: ”The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.” Today, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Bush/Obama position, holding that even detainees abducted outside of Afghanistan and then shipped to Bagram have no right to contest the legitimacy of their detention in a U.S. federal court, because Boumediene does not apply to prisons located within war zones (such as Afghanistan).

So congratulations to the United States and Barack Obama for winning the power to abduct people anywhere in the world and then imprison them for as long as they want with no judicial review of any kind. When the Boumediene decision was issued in the middle of the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.” But Obama hailed it as “a rejection of the Bush Administration’s attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo,” and he praised the Court for “rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.” Even worse, when Obama went to the Senate floor in September, 2006, to speak against the habeas-denying provisions of the Military Commissions Act, this is what he melodramatically intoned:

As a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence. . . .

By giving suspects a chance — even one chance – to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .

Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody’s right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

Can you smell the hypocrisy? How could anyone miss its pungent, suffocating odor? Apparently, what Obama called “a legal black hole at Guantanamo” is a heinous injustice, but “a legal black hole at Bagram” is the Embodiment of Hope. And evidently, Obama would only feel “terror” if his child were abducted and taken to Guantanamo and imprisoned “without even getting one chance to ask why and prove their innocence.” But if the very same child were instead taken to Bagram and treated exactly the same way, that would be called Justice — or, to use his jargon, Pragmatism. And what kind of person hails a Supreme Court decision as “protecting our core values” — as Obama said of Boumediene — only to then turn around and make a complete mockery of that ruling by insisting that the Cherished, Sacred Rights it recognized are purely a function of where the President orders a detainee-carrying military plane to land?

Independently, what happened to Obama’s eloquent insistence that “restricting somebody’s right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer; in fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe“? How does our policy of invading Afghanistan and then putting people at Bagram with no charges of any kind dispose people in that country, and the broader Muslim world, to the United States? If a country invaded the U.S. and set up prisons where Americans from around the world where detained indefinitely and denied all rights to have their detention reviewed, how would it dispose you to the country which was doing that?

One other point: this decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which serves to further highlight how important the Kagan-for-Stevens replacement could be. If the Court were to accept the appeal, Kagan would be required to recuse herself (since it was her Solicitor General’s office that argued the administration’s position here), which means that a 4-4 ruling would be likely, thus leaving this appellate decision undisturbed. More broadly, though, if Kagan were as sympathetic to Obama’s executive power claims as her colleagues in the Obama administration are, then her confirmation could easily convert decisions on these types of questions from a 5-4 victory (which is what Boumediene was, with Stevens in the majority) into a 5-4 defeat. Maybe we should try to find out what her views are before putting her on that Court for the next 40 years?

This is what Barack Obama has done to the habeas clause of the Constitution: if you are in Thailand (as one of the petitioners in this case was) and the U.S. abducts you and flies you to Guantanamo, then you have the right to have a federal court determine if there is sufficient evidence to hold you. If, however, President Obama orders that you be taken to from Thailand to Bagram rather than to Guantanamo, then you will have no rights of any kind, and he can order you detained there indefinitely without any right to a habeas review. That type of change is so very inspiring — almost an exact replica of his vow to close Guantanamo . . . all in order to move its core attributes (including indefinite detention) a few thousand miles North to Thompson, Illinois.

Real estate agents have long emphasized “location, location, location” as the all-determining market factor. Before we elected this Constitutional Scholar as Commander-in-Chief, who knew that this platitude also shaped our entire Constitution?

UPDATE: Law Professor Steve Vladeck has more on the ruling, including “the perverse incentive that today’s decision supports,” as predicted by Justice Scalia in his Boumediene dissent: namely, that a President attempting to deny Constitutional rights to detainees can simply transfer them to a “war zone” instead of to Guantanamo and then claim that courts cannot interfere in the detention. Barack Obama quickly adopted that tactic for rendering the rights in Boumediene moot — the same rights which, less than two years ago, he was praising the Supreme Court for safeguarding and lambasting the Bush administration for denying. Vladeck also explains why the appellate court’s caveat — that overt government manipulation to evade habeas rights (i.e., shipping them to a war zone with the specific intent of avoiding Boumediene) might alter the calculus — is rather meaningless.

UPDATE II: Guest-hosting for Rachel Maddow last night, Chris Hayes talked with Shayana Kadidal of the Center for Constitutional Rights about the Bagram ruling and Obama’s hypocrisy on these issues, and it was quite good, including a video clip of the 2006 Obama speech I excerpted above:

And in The New York Times, Charlie Savage has a typically thorough examination of the impact of the ruling. As he writes: ”The decision was a broad victory for the Obama administration in its efforts to hold terrorism suspects overseas for indefinite periods without judicial oversight.” But GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham (author of the habeas-denying provision in the Military Commissions Act) ”called the ruling a ‘big win’ and praised the administration for appealing the lower court’s ruling,” and that’s what really matters.

Link: www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/21/bagram/index.html

Obama Signs Patriot Act Extension

WarOnYou — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:58:02 +0000

Obama Signs Patriot Act Extension

February 28th, 2010

Via: AP:

President Barack Obama has signed a one-year extension of several provisions in the nation’s main counterterrorism law, the Patriot Act.

Provisions in the measure would have expired on Sunday without Obama’s signature Saturday.

The act, which was adopted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, expands the government’s ability to monitor Americans in the name of national security.

Three sections of the Patriot Act that stay in force will:

-Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.

-Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.

-Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group.

Obama’s signature comes after the House voted 315 to 97 Thursday to extend the measure.

The Senate also approved the measure, with privacy protections cast aside when Senate Democrats lacked the necessary 60-vote supermajority to pass them. Thrown away were restrictions and greater scrutiny on the government’s authority to spy on Americans and seize their records.

War On You: Breaking Alternative News » Executive Orders

Obama says he doesn’t even need NDAA to indefinitely detain Americans

Obama says he doesn’t even need NDAA to indefinitely detain Americans

Related Posts:

U.S. Court Upholds Telecom Immunity for Surveillance of Americans

U.S. Court Upholds Telecom Immunity for Surveillance of Americans

Related Posts:

New Army Jobs: Internment / Resettlement Specialist (31E)

New Army Jobs: Internment / Resettlement Specialist (31E)

Related Posts:

Apple iTunes “Flaw” Allowed Government Spying for 3 Years

Apple iTunes “Flaw” Allowed Government Spying for 3 Years

November 25th, 2011

Related Posts:

NYTimes Sues The Federal Government For Refusing To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act

NYTimes Sues The Federal Government For Refusing To Reveal Its Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act

from the secret-laws-and-secret-interpretations dept

Related Posts:

Monthly Terror Drills Now Required By Law For Students Including Kindergarten And 1st Graders

Monthly Terror Drills Now Required By Law For Students Including Kindergarten And 1st Graders

Brick Township Public Schools

Related Posts:

In the Wake of 9/11: 33 of 50 States Are Actively Spying on Americans

In the Wake of 9/11: 33 of 50 States Are Actively Spying on Americans

Related Posts:

Army Judges Weigh Military Trials for Civilians, U.S. Citizens

Related Posts:

New Congressional Legislation Gives President Unchecked War Power

New Congressional Legislation Gives President Unchecked War Power

Related Posts:

Domestic Surveillance Court Approved All 1,506 Warrant Applications in 2010

Domestic Surveillance Court Approved All 1,506 Warrant Applications in 2010

Related Posts:

DHS Will Work with NSA and Military in Carrying Out Domestic Cyberwar Operations

Related Posts:

Change: Closing Guantánamo Fades as a Priority

Change: Closing Guantánamo Fades as a Priority

Related Posts:

The Bigger Picture Behind Allegation that the Bush Administration Allowed Illegal Medical Experiments on Prisoners

The Bigger Picture Behind Allegation that the Bush Administration Allowed Illegal Medical Experiments on Prisoners

Related Posts:

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review

Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review

Glenn Greenwald

Related Posts:

Obama Signs Patriot Act Extension

Obama Signs Patriot Act Extension

Related Posts: