Enforcement of the Convention Against Torture

Perhaps the winds of change are blowing through the District of Columbia, for a change. Professor Manfred Nowak has spoken publicly about his belief that George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld should be brought before a court because of the conditions of imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay. A video of an interview with CNN's Rick Sanchez is posted for context below.



For those readers unfamiliar with the various levels of complicity, such as John Ashcroft's infamous quote, Condoleeza Rice's admission, or Dick Cheney's admission from Taxi to the Dark Side, a few highlights are presented below by liberal pundit Rachel Maddow, for a quick brief.

To summarize the argument even further into condensed legal flavor, Article 4 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment compels member states to prosecute allegations of torture, casting a wide net to catch everyone between the interrogator to those who knew about it and did nothing, in theory. The Text is quoted below.

1. Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture. 2. Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.

This, to state the obvious, is the largest test of the new administration. How will Obama handle these allegations? I hope this is a question that is being asked again in the White House and in various agencies of the Federal Government, to the logical conclusion that these allegations must be investigated as a matter of legitimacy. How the Rule of Law is enforced will set the tone, as it a lack of credible enforcement of the law as it is written set the tone of the Bush Administration. Simply issuing a subpoena to  former officials will not work, just ask Karl Rove. There can be no pleading and begging for a notionally independent branch of government for morsels of information and the respect due such an august body. Flaunting of Congressional subpeonas must stop, and the words of the anointed, yet not confirmed, Attorney General, Eric Holder, are encouraging, if unsettling to certain people, such as Alberto Gonzalez. Unfortunately for the shamed former AG seems to rest precariously on the words of John Yoo, former counselor in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel. 

The Walk of Shame: A Shameful Roundup

Saving the best for last.

First, a new study shows that half of all American doctors prescribe a placebo to their patients, and most of them that do, do not inform the patient that the medication will not do anything for their condition. The study goes on to say that doctors usually use pain medication, vitamins, or stress medications rather than the sugar pill one usually associates with placebo.

This throws into question medical ethics and the doctrine of informed consent. It would be possible to meet the standard of informed consent and still get the beneficial effects of a placebo. It also raises questions of further wasting money in the already inefficient American medical system.

This strikes me as similar to the use of tazers since in both cases a professional with a fiduciary duty to the people is using a device as a shortcut around dealing with the psychological difficulty's of the individual they are faced with at the time. It's lazy. It's laziness that has harmful consequences.


Second, the McCain campaign volunteer who claimed to have been attacked and beaten by a black man who carved a "B" into her face to signify Barrac Obama, admitted to lying about the attack. Apparently the woman is mentally unstable and probably did it to herself.


Lastly, we have the Maryland police spying scandal. The state police went to public meetings of politically left protest organizations and entered the names of participants in a database of persons suspected for involvement in terrorism. So essentially what we have is a law enforcement body labeling as terrorists, U.S. citizens who are exercising their constitutionally guaranteed first amendment rights without any evidence that any crime had or would be committed.

The ACLU were the ones credited with this story seeing the light of day because of an information request. This week the state started sending out letters to people who's names are on the list. There are varying accounts of what the letters say or what their purpose is. Questions need to be answered like; why were these people targeted, was it because they were politically liberal, why not investigate groups like the KKK which is already listed as a terrorist group, what prompted this spying, will the victims be able to see what is in their file, what criteria are used to determine someone is a terrorist, how does someone get their name off the list, is it possible to remove someones name?

This again gives an answer the question, "if you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to fear?" These people were not doing anything wrong. One officers reports even showed that these people were not planning on doing anything wrong. Yet they were labeled as terrorists. At this point we still do not know why. Again, most people don't concern themselves with the draconian methods of dealing with suspected terrorists since 9/11. Except we have been repeatedly shown that one does not need to do anything wrong to be labeled a terrorist and be subjected to torture. But then again, this woman seems to think that protesters, or anyone that is vocal about their political opinions deserves to be given the third degree.

Flagrant Fascism Fronts RNC Convention

Instead of waiting for scenes of peaceful protesters being outnumbered and surrounded by riot control police, or being sprayed with a pepper spray cannon that looks like a fire extinguisher, or being callously shoved to the ground as was the case in Denver, the police in the greater Minneapolis/St. Paul area have been proactive in suppressing potential problems. Instead, they have staged a series of raids on houses and meeting places of potential protesters, and confiscated computers and written materials. Of those arrested so far, the only charge that has been brought forth is a constitutionally questionable charges of "conspiracy to incite a riot." The St. Paul police spokesman Tom Walsh said that the cause for the search warrants that police were executing is not public at this time. Also targeted in the raids were journalists from other parts of the country in the area to cover the protests.

The group targeted, the RNC Welcoming Committee, which describes itself as "anarchist/anti-authoritarian," was described by Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher as "a criminal enterprise made up of 35 self-described anarchists...intent on committing criminal acts before and during the Republican National Convention."

For a bit of editorializing, the police are engaged in an active campaign to block freedoms of speech and assembly, which form the cornerstone of representative democracy is unabashedly loathesome. The fact that only a handful of those detained have been arrested is a clear indication that the authorities in Ramsey County are limiting their actions to those which rest in the ambiguous grey margins of the law, as evidenced by use of the 'conspiracy to commit riot' charges.

Probable Cause II

(click here to view)

First, in answer to the "Case for Telecom Immunity," specifically: "2. Beyond the theoretical case for the warrantless program’s legality, the telecoms here specifically relied on written representations from the administration that the program had been reviewed by the president and determined to be legal." The question of the legality of this program is anything but theoretical, and the argument so often so cleverly invoked to defend this insidious assault on the very freedoms that Bush notionally seeks to defend.

Addressing the National Association of Attorney Generals, the debate surrounding the FISA renewal and telecom immunity was Bush's primary topic. In a case of misrepresentation, W says the target of the whole program of the big bad jihadis sitting in the mountains of Afghanistan, dialing their favorite operatives in Anywhere, Homeland. I would imagine being so far away from home, in a land where no one can speak their language, they would be pretty homesick.

However, evidence has emerged that the real target of this program may really be the e-mails. Which, makes me want to breath a sigh of relief, given the Bush Administration's track record of handling e-mail. It's not that the NSA, by means of this warrantless wiretapping program, invaded your privacy and cracked open a Pandora's box where probable cause and the very slim margin of institutional procedure that keep Americans from having to fear what goes bump in the night, but they probably wouldn't know how to manage it.

And if you were wondering how probable cause died, and if it will make a sound? I would say probably not. Our newest candidate for the vaunted 'Republicrat' status, Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes said that he hopes to bring the matter to a vote within a week. Also of interest, is the point that the House has seen and reviewed documents in relation to this matter, and they're "pretty much finished." So, what was in those documents? Or, were they mostly redacted? Some of the potential deals that are in discussion would continue to leave this entire matter beneath the lock and key of classification, away from the prying eyes of the interested or not public. The Senate version of the bill that has already been passed allows the Attorney General to wave his magic pen and pronounce everything legal and dismiss any and all related lawsuits.

For extra flavoring, try the aforementioned NPR coverage, now with audible delight. Or Senator Feingold issuing a public service warning about the already-passed Senate version.




Some editorialization from the Young Turks. Yes, the Democrats do suck.



And if you haven't seen Bush enough today, here he is addressing the National Association of Attorney Generals. And no matter how many times Bush said that his government told these telecommunications companies that the program that they were requested to participate in was legal, it clearly wasn't and every instance of him saying that the government said this program was legal before it saw the light of day could be used as evidence against him.

Probable Cause

We have talked before about the nature of police work and its effect on individuals. Both on the mental state of the individual peace officer and the effect on the people being tazed. To rehash somewhat, when your principle mode of interaction with other people is as an authority figure dealing with the most violent and depraved elements of society it tends to color your perception of the world. This can lead to the effect that an officer looses the ability to differentiate between a clear and present danger and a normal person. I have no study or authority to point to that says this, it is just my observation in dealing with the police. Which has colored my own perceptions.

The example I want to talk about is my own recent experience in being falsely accused of a crime. I won't get into too many details of what happened until I consult a lawyer but, basically I was accused of something I didn't do because my name is similar to the person who the evidence points to.

The two things above seem unrelated until you consider the example of Arabic looking persons trying to use air travel since 9/11.

Mistaken identity and prejudice by law enforcement exacerbate an already stressful situation of being falsely accused of being dangerous or a criminal with an affront to your human dignity. Furthermore, in a situation where one must resolve a bureaucratic error one must remain calm so as not to upset the desk jockey that holds ones fate in their hands.

Combine all the above with the already stressful situation of dealing with air travel, the Muslim persons who actually complete travel by air must have the patience of a saint.

Probable Cause

Kenneth Wainstein was on NPR today discussing the warrentless wiretapping bill currently stalled in the legislature. The man must be an excelent litigator, he never became distressed even when faced with difficult questions or confrontational or callers. The part of the interview that sent me into a patriotic rage was his explination as to why FISA is insufficient to aquire necessary intelligence on terrorists. Unfortunately no transcript of the interview is available currently but audio file of the show should be on NPR's website tonite. So I will be forced to paraphraze.

Mr. Wainstein explained that FISA is insufficient because it requires them to show probable cause. Showing probable cause to a judge requires expendature of manpower and time. Those intelligence analysts and lawyers could be doing other things.

So basically the justice department finds it inconvenient and cumbersome to deal with our justice system designed to protect innocent people from abuse of police power. Or in other words, the warrentless wiretapping bill, in its avoidance of probable cause, is designed to circumvent our Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Or to put it another way the government wants the ability to spy on anyone with or without probable cause.

In discussions of this nature the question is often raised, "Why do you care?" or, "You should not have anything to worry about if you are not a criminal." These kinds of statements being based in a naive trust not just in the institution of government but in the individuals acting as agents of the government.

Honest, law abiding people have reason to fear not only of being wrongly accused by mistaken identity, beureucratic error, mistake from lazyness or stupidity, intentional framing by the real perpetrator of the terrorism, but we also have reason to fear simple corruption in the hourly employees of the various agencies handeling the information. For example, if you purchase anything over the internet, use internet banking, or speak about your financial information on the phone, you put your account numbers and pin numbers at risk of simple opportunistic theft by the employee handling your info.

For a real world example of things "going missing" after being handled by agents responsible for national security. boingboing

More pertinent article outlining other reasons to be conserned.