Earlier today, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) spoke to MSNBC about the mammoth report his Armed Services Committee released last night. The report details the evolution of a brutal interrogation policy within the Department of Defense, and implicates, for the most part, a different set of officials than the familiar folks of the Bush Justice Department. Watch:

Read more »

On Friday, we reported the comments of a lawyer for four Gitmo detainees, who told us that, in his view, the Obama administration is continuing the Bushies' policy, by stonewalling efforts by detainees to appeal their detentions in federal courts.

And that same day, another data point emerged suggesting the new administration is taking a hard line on detainee policy.

Read more »

Yesterday we told you about the Obama Justice Department's invocation of a sweeping state secrets privilege in a warrantless wiretapping case. But that may not be the only area in which the new administration's war on terror tactics recall the worst excesses of the Bush years.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo had the right to appeal their detentions in federal courts. But since then, only a few cases have been completed. And in an interview with TPMmuckraker, David Cynamon -- a lawyer for four Kuwaiti Gitmo detainees who are bringing habeas corpus claims against the government -- said that the Justice Department has been consistently dragging its heels in the case, denying detainees their basic due process rights and furthering what he called the "abandonment of the rule of law."

Read more »

In a move that represents both a formality and a historic gesture, the Obama administration has announced that it's withdrawing the designation of "enemy combatant" for Guantanamo detainees. The Bush administration had drawn widespread criticism for its use of that designation, which allowed it to deny detainees rights they otherwise would have been entitled to.

In a press release, the Justice Department said it was submitting a new standard to hold detainees at Gitmo. Rather than relying on the president's authority as commander-in-chief, the department explained, the new standard "draws on the international laws of war to inform the statutory authority conferred by Congress."

It also said that the governent is conducting a review of detainee detention policy which could lead to "further refinements."

President Obama has already announced this intention to close Gitmo within the year. In a sense, today's announcement is an equally important step in winding down the "War On Terror" concept that the Bush administration announced, and shifting to an approach that sees the fight against terrorism as an effort to be conducted within the bounds of international and domestic law.

In other words: change we can believe in.

In one of his first acts as president, Barack Obama issued an executive order instructing prosecutors in military commissions to seek delays in the proceedings, in order to allow his administration to review the comissions process as a whole.

All but one judge complied with the prosecutors' requests. That one, Army Colonel Jame Pohl, declined to do so.

But now, the Associated Press reports, Susan Crawford, the top legal authority for Guantanamo's proceedings, has decided to drop the charges in the case over which Pohl is presiding, thereby bringing the case into compliance with Obama's order.

The case being prosecuted is that of Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi citizen of Yemeni descent accused of planning the October 2000 Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole warship, which killed 17 service members.

The Pentagon says that Nashiri will remain in prison, and new charges can be filed. But
prosecutors will have to start from square one.

A group representing family members of victims of terrorist attacks has been vocally opposed to Obama's order, and isn't happy about Crawford's move.

According to the AP:

Retired Navy Cmdr. Kirk S. Lippold, the commanding officer of the Cole when it was bombed in Yemen in October 2000, said he will be among family members of Cole and 9/11 victims who are meeting with Obama at the White House on Friday afternoon.

Groups representing victims' families were angered by Obama's order, charging they had waited too long already to see the alleged attackers brought to court.

"I was certainly disappointed with the decision to delay the military commissions process," Lippold, now a defense adviser to Military Families United, said in an interview Thursday night. "We have already waited eight years. Justice delayed is justice denied. We must allow the military commission process to go forward."

Last week, in one of its first moves, the Obama administration told its military prosecutors to ask for delays in the proceedings of 21 Guantanamo detainees who have been charged, so that their cases, and the military commissions process as a whole, could be reviewed.

Most military judges have complied with that request. But one judge, Army Colonel James Pohl, has now declined to do so, saying he found the government's reasoning "unpersuasive," reports the Washington Post.

Pohl wrote:

The Commission is unaware of how conducting an arraignment would preclude any option by the administration. Congress passed the military commissions act, which remains in effect. The Commission is bound by the law as it currently exists, not as it may change in the future.

Pohl is presiding over the case of Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi citizen of Yemeni descent accused of planning the October 2000 Al Qaeda attack on the USS Cole warship, which killed 17 service members.

The Pentagon may now be forced to withdraw the charges against Nashiri if it wants to impose the broader delay. It could bring them up again, but that would bring the case back to square one, costing the government time.

But the wider impact of Pohl's opinion isn't yet clear. It may be limited to this specific case, but it could also potentially throw a wrench into the new administration's plan to put the process on hold pending a review, and even complicate Obama's plan to close Guantanamo.

We'll keep you posted as things become clearer.

Late Update: The ACLU has called on Defense Secretary Robert Gates to withdraw the charges against Nashiri so that the charges can be tried in a legitimate court. In a statement, the group's executive director, Anthony Romero, said:

Judge Pohl's decision to unabashedly move forward in the al-Nashiri military commission case shows how officials held over from the Bush administration are exploiting ambiguities in President Obama's executive order as a strategy to undercut the president's unequivocal promise to shut down Guantánamo and end the military commissions. Judge Pohl's decision to move forward despite a clear statement from the president also raises questions about Secretary of Defense Gates - is he the 'new Gates' or is he the same old Gates under a new president? Secretary Gates has the power to stop the military commissions and ought to follow his new boss' directives.

Later Update: But the commander of the USS Cole, Kirk Lippold, who is now affiliated with Military Families United, a group that bills itself as a "the nation's premier military family advocacy organization", takes the opposite view. Lippold said in a statement:

Today's decision is a victory for the 17 families of the sailors who lost their lives on the USS Cole over eight years ago. This trial is a long overdue step toward accountability and justice for the attacks on the USS Cole. The seventeen American sailors who lost their lives on October 12, 2000, when we came under suicide terrorist attack by al Qaeda, were not just sailors. They were sons and daughters, husbands and wives, and friends to so many. The sacrifice of these sailors and all of our brave military service members who have died to protect this country and apprehend terrorists is a key reason why we should not close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay precipitously.

By President Obama signing the executive order to close Guantanamo Bay within a year, he is not considering or addressing the impact on the families who have paid so dearly to defend our freedom.

President Obama moments ago signed an executive order closing the Guantanamo detention facility within a year.

The move makes good on a key Obama campaign promise.

Obama also signed two other orders, reviewing military trials of terror suspects, and banning the harshest interrogation methods.

After signing, Obama said:

The message we are sending around the world is that the US intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly, we are going to do so effectively, and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals ... We intend to win this fight, and we intend to win it on our terms.

Here's the video:

The order to close Guantanamo can be found here.

The order to review detention policies can be found here.

The order revising interrogation policies can be found here.

And the order for a review of al Marri's detention can be found here.

When we learned that David Iglesias -- one of the US Attorneys purged by the Bush administration for political reasons -- is going to be prosecuting Guantanamo detainees as a member of the Navy JAG corps, it struck us that he appeared to have been on the job for a little while. That would suggest he was tapped for the assignment by the Bushies -- which would be ironic given his past.

Turns out that's not exactly the case. Iglesias told TPMmuckraker that he had responded to an email sent out by the Navy JAG corps, looking for prosecutors for the assignment. His application was eventually approved, he said, by that office and by the Office of Military Commissions, which is run by Susan Crawford -- the retired general who last week told the Washington Post unequivocally that we tortured Mohammed al- Qahtani, a Gitmo detainee.

In other words, it appears that it was the uniformed military, rather than the civilian DOD, that brought Iglesias on board.

As for the value of his new work, Iglesias said: "It's important for people to have confidence in what's going on, in light of all the problems the office has had over the years" -- which have included allegations of rigged prosecutions.

And he called the new leadership under Defense Secretary Bob Gates "fantastic," adding "they get it."

George Bush and Dick Cheney are continuing to insist we haven't committed torture. But that's now been contradicted by the Bush administration official whose job is to decide whether to bring Guantanamo detainees to trial.

"We tortured [Mohammed al-] Qahtani," the convening authority of military commissions, Susan Crawford, told the Washington Post's Bob Woodward. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" (for prosecution).

Al-Qahtani is a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the 9/11 attacks.

According to the Post, the techniques used included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, which left al-Qahtani in a "life-threatening condition."

Crawford told Woodward:

The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge (to call it torture).

The Post adds:

[Crawford] is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.

A prosecutor in the trial against a prisoner who is on trial for war-crimes, has quit the case because of concern over the defendant's lack of due process, defense attorneys claim.

Lt. Col. Darrel Vandeveld filed a four page declaration stating that "potentially exculpatory evidence has not been provided" to the defense.

The prisoner, Mohammed Jawad, has been awaiting trial since his arrest in 2002 for attempting to commit murder for allegedly throwing a grenade into a jeep filled with troops. A judge recently set his trial for December.

From the Los Angeles Times:

"He was uncomfortable being a prosecutor under the conditions, and [his superiors] told him to do his job," [Michael] Berrigan [deputy chief defense counsel for the commissions] said, adding that Vandeveld then took his concerns to higher authorities but was rebuffed.

Both defense lawyers said Vandeveld had spelled out his allegations in the sealed affidavit. Vandeveld said in his declaration that prosecutors knew Jawad may have been drugged before the attack and that the Afghan Interior Ministry said two other men had confessed to the same crime.

The lead prosecutor has denied that "ethical qualms" with the trial were behind Vandeveld's motives, describing him as a "disgruntled" prosecutor "who was disappointed that his superiors did not agree with his recommendations in the case."

From the AP:

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - A military jury has sentenced Osama bin Laden's former driver to 5 1/2 years in prison for aiding terrorism, making him eligible for release in just six months. Salim Hamdan was acquitted of conspiracy in the first Guantanamo war crimes trial.

Even after Hamdan's "sentence" is up, the military can continue to hold him as an enemy combatant. He can be freed when one of two things happen: 1) the government decides that he is "no longer an enemy combatant" 2) the war on terror ends.

Reuters and CNN are reporting that Osama bin Laden's driver, Salim Hadam, has been convicted. No word yet on whether it's on all 10 counts of conspiracy and abetting terrorism.

Late update: From Reuters:

A jury of U.S. military officers convicted Osama bin Laden's driver on charges of providing material support for terrorism on Wednesday but acquitted him on charges of providing material support for al Qaeda in the first U.S. war crimes trial since World War Two.

The case of Yemeni driver Salim Hamdan, who faces life in prison, is the first full test of the controversial Guantanamo tribunal authorized by the Bush administration to try non-U.S. captives on terrorism charges outside the regular civilian and military courts.

Sentencing is scheduled for this afternoon.

Late late update: We know that the convicted on "providing material support for terrorism" and acquitted on "providing material support for al Qaeda" seems confusing and maybe a bit contradictory. The AP puts it another way that might clear things up:

The Pentagon-selected jury deliberated for about eight hours over three days before convicting Salim Hamdan of supporting terrorism. He was cleared of the conspiracy charge.

We posted on Monday about Attorney General Michael Mukasey's controversial suggestion that Congress pick up the slack for the federal courts on detainee rights.

But one of the other interesting things that came out of Mukasey's speech, was his scare-mongering on what would happen if was up to the courts alone to deal with the detainees . . . they could be released! . . . in the United States! . . . [cue horror music]

In his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee today, he broached this topic again during questioning by Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA):

LUNGREN: . . .It seems to me those are unsettled questions- whether the court would be able to order the government to bring detainees in the United States and release them here. Uh, clearly that has not been decided, yet I believe the court is inviting the Congress to outline the parameters of that and I would suggest- make it impossible for that to happen.

MUKASEY: The Court has left that matter open, and the fact- it has said that at the end of the day it must be open to a decsion maker to direct release. Now, um, the fact is that all of these people, every single one of them are aliens captured abroad, in essentially battle conditions um, who had absolutely no right to be here, and there's no good reason to have a court bring somebody here for purposes of release and release them to our communitities- people who could pose a significant danger. Um, we want that particular possibility cut off. Um, we don't want to face it, we shouldn't have to face it.

Attorney General Michael Mukasey angered Democratic senators when he made an unexpected call for Congress to step in and legislate detainees rights, rather than waiting for federal court proceedings.

Speaking at the American Enterprise Institute this morning, Mukasey spoke to the "unanswered questions" raised by the Supreme Court decision of Boumediene v. Bush, which stated that detainees are protected by the right to habeas corpus. Mukasey called the Court's decision a "disappointment," and said the court stopped "well short of detailing how the habeas corpus proceedings must be conducted." Currently, over 200 cases are waiting to be heard in federal court related to the Supreme Court's ruling, a problem Mukasey thinks could be circumvented by Congressional action:

Congress and the executive branch are affirmatively charged by our Constitution with protecting national security, are expert in such matters, and are in the best position to weigh the difficult policy choices that are posed by these issues.

Judges play an important role in deciding whether a chosen policy is consistent with our laws and the Constitution. But it is our elected leaders who have the responsibility for making policy choices in the first instance.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued a statement today, slamming Mukasey for failing to consult or inform the Committee of his thoughts before his speech:

"The Committee has held a wide range of hearings on issues of detainee rights and procedures. Attorney General Mukasey's call today for Congress to create new rules for these habeas proceedings is the first I have heard from the Administration on this issue," Leahy said. "The Administration made this mess by seeking to avoid judicial review at all costs, causing years of delay and profound uncertainty."

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) echoed Leahy's comments. "Our federal courts are capable of handling these cases," he said. "By repeatedly mishandling these cases, the administration has delayed justice from being served."

[Late update]: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) just chimed in with a statement from the Senate floor.

"As a result of its repeated efforts to circumvent the requirements of the Geneva Conventions and the Constitution, the Bush administration has yet to bring to justice the perpetrators of the terrorist attacks of September 11," he said. "The courts are well equipped to handle this situation, and there is no danger that any detainee will be released in the meantime."

If this doesn't set the tone for former Attorney General John Ashcroft's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on interrogation methods at Guantanamo, I don't know what does.

In his opening statement, Ashcroft admitted that he had "limited recollection" of the events pertinent to the committee's inquiry. Specifically, "it's been difficult . . . to distinguish between what I in fact recall as a matter of my own experience, and what I remember from the accounts of others."

Before these hearings commenced, I had but a limited recollection of many of the events pertinent to your inquiry. In attempting to prepare for this hearing, I have reviewed testimony from prior hearings, I've read portions of publications recounting some of the timely events, and I must admit, it's been difficult for me sometimes to distinguish between what I in fact recall as a matter of my own experience, and what I remember from the accounts of others. As a result, what I hope, what I say will be of value to the committee. Reliance on my statements and observations aught to be tempered by these awarenesses.

For smart guys, there sure seems to be an awful lot of lack of recall in the Bush administration.

Doug Feith was on the Hill today to testify about the interrogation techniques in Guantanamo. Joining him before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties was his nemesis, Philippe Sands, who goes back a ways with Feith.

As Spencer Ackerman blogs at the Washington Independent, Feith started off the hearing denying the statements made in Sand's book, and then got right down to alleging that the Guantanamo interrogators were rogue agents:

After going back and forth with Feith--in which Feith conceded there were indeed abuses in Defense Dept. detention and interrogation operations-- Rep. Bobby Scott (D.-Va) asked why the abusers might think they could torture detainees. "I don't believe they necessarily did think they did" had authority to torture, Feith said. "Some people do bad things."

[Late Update]: According to Ackerman, Feith also spent a fair amount of time, detailing the "great care" given to the interpretation of the 2002 memo written by Jim Haynes:

"I imagine one could apply these things in an inhumane fashion," Feith replied. "'Removal of clothing' is different from 'naked.' ... It could be done in a humane way. . . They could be used in a way that could violate the [Geneva] Convention," he explained, "they could be used in a way consistent with the Convention."

It took a New York Times article; a dozen phone calls and an over-eager intern running to a publishing house in 92 degree heat-- but we got it: Jane Mayer's new book, "The Dark Side," which I've been poring through for the better part of the day.

So why the rush? The book reveals new details on the CIA's torture of high-level Qaeda captives with information from a secret report by the International Committee of the Red Cross. According to Mayer, the 2007 report which was shared with the President and Secretary of State described the CIA's actions, "categorically, as 'torture'" and warned that the abuse placed the "highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted."

But besides that enormous and, (possibly) devastating claim, Mayer's "sources familiar with the ICRC report" also give horrifying details about the CIA's techniques.

One detainee claimed in the report that he was forced to stand on one leg for hours without his prosthesis and his arms chained to the ceiling.

The detainee, Tawfiq Bin Attash, was linked to the attack on the USS Cole but is being charged as part of the Sept. 11 attacks. Attash, also known as Khallad, had lost his leg below the knee following an injury in the Afghan-Soviet War.

Other detainees described similar stress positions to the ICRC, Mayer reports:

They described not just standing, but being kept up on their tiptoes with their arms extended out and up over their heads, attached by shackles on their wrists and ankles, for what they described as eight hours at a stretch. During the entire period, they said they were kept stark naked and often cold.

The International Committee of the Red Cross isn't so happy that news of this report is out. As they told the New York Times, "its work is more effective when confidential."

In a secret report last year, the International Committee of the Red Cross found that the CIA's interrogation techniques were "categorically" torture, a new book reveals.

From the New York Times:

The book, "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals," by Jane Mayer, who writes about counterterrorism for The New Yorker, offers new details of the agency's secret detention program, as well as the bitter debates in the administration over interrogation methods and other tactics in the campaign against Al Qaeda.

. . .Citing unnamed "sources familiar with the report," Ms. Mayer wrote that the Red Cross document "warned that the abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted."

Late Update: The book also reveals new specifics on Abu Zubaydah's waterboarding. Contrary to administration reports that the technique was used "on only three occasions," Abu Zubaydah told the Red Cross that he was waterboarded "at least 10 times in a single week and as many as three times a day."

And there's new info on Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as well. "KSM" says he was "kept naked for more than a month" and "kept alternately in suffocating heat and in a painfully cold room."

From the Miami Herald:

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- The U.S. government is blocking the American Civil Liberties Union from paying attorneys representing suspected terrorists held here, insisting that the ACLU must first receive a license from the U.S. Treasury Department before making the payments.

ACLU director Anthony Romero on Tuesday accused the Bush administration of "obstruction of justice" by delaying approval of the license, which the government argues is required under U.S. law because the beneficiaries of the lawyers' services are foreign terrorists.

"Now the government is stonewalling again by not allowing Americans' private dollars to be paid to American lawyers to defend civil liberties,'' Romero said.

After grilling John Yoo on the possibility of burying suspects alive, the great, grumpy committee Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) turned his attention to David Addington to question him on the Unitary Theory of the Executive, something Addington should know something about, oh, considering that was his primary justification for torturing terrorism suspects:

Conyers: Do you feel that the Unitary Theory of the Executive allows the President to do things over and above the stated law of the land?

Addington: The Constitution binds all of us, Congressman, the President, all the U.S. members of Congress, all of the federal judges. We all take an oath to support and defend it. I frankly don't know what you mean by the Unitary Theory of Government. I dont -

Conyers: Have you ever heard of that theory before?

Addington: Oh I have, I've seen it in the newspapers all the time-

Conyers: Do you support it?

Addington: I don't know what it is.

Conyers: You don't know what it is.

Addington: No, and it's always described as something Addington's the great, you know-

Conyers: I see.

We know. It's great, but it's even better in color: