« The IceMan Cometh | Main | Lecture 1: Liberals vs. Conservatives, The Moral Mind »

January 29, 2009

Can Obama Unilaterally Overrule Acts of Congress?

When a Republican occupied the Oval Office, the answer (insofar as the media and the Democrats were concerned) was an unqualified "no". You'd have thought the idea of three co-equal branches of government operating in tension with each other under the Constitution to be something dreamed up by Karl Rove. Which rather begs the question: if the President lacked that power for the past 8 years, by what "authority" - other than that of not being George Bush - does Obama now order the military to ignore the express will of Congress?

In one of its first actions, the Obama administration instructed military prosecutors to seek 120-day suspensions of legal proceedings in the cases of 21 detainees who have been charged. There are approximately 245 prisoners held at Guantanamo.

The request was quickly granted in other cases when prosecutors told military judges that a suspension was in the "interests of justice" so that the "president and his administration [can] review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases currently pending before military commissions, specifically."

But Judge James Pohl, an Army colonel, said he found the government's reasoning "unpersuasive."

"The Commission is unaware of how conducting an arraignment would preclude any option by the administration," said Pohl in a written opinion, portions of which were read to The Post. "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."

Nashiri is facing arraignment on Feb. 9, and Pohl said the proceedings would go ahead.

Well now this promises to be entertaining. Wasn't the whole argument that we needed to give these detainees Constitutional rights? And that being so, shouldn't the right to a speedy trial be foremost among those rights? Or are we simply going to hold these detainees for up to four more months without charges while the Obama administration rethinks a matter Congress has already decided?

What to do... what to do? Is this brave dissent patriotic: an expression of the highest duty of any red-blooded American - the obligation to afflict those who stride the halls of power with alternative viewpoints? Or is this obstreperous judge just a dirty, lowdown traitor who should not dare to stand up to the President? Stay tuned for full-blown manifestations of The Kerr Effect.

The good judge's history may make him difficult for the Left to demonize:

In presiding over the 2004 and 2005 courts martial of several U.S. Army guards, Pohl made headlines by declaring the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq a crime scene and forbade its demolition.

At the time, embarrassing snapshots of soldiers abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib had already leaked from an Army criminal investigation -- and politicians were calling for the razing of the prison that had also served as a torture chamber during Saddam Hussein's time.

At Guantanamo, Pohl has shown himself at the war court to be impatient with some prison camp rules that have impacted the court.

In March, he sternly informed prosecutors in the Darbi case that lawyers who defend prisoners before him should have easy access to their clients. He also declined to issue a ruling, sought by prison camp commanders, to order a tackle-and-shackle technique called "Forced Cell Extraction" on occasions when Darbi refused to come to court.

As a result, the Pentagon recently issued a formal instruction to the prison camps to force accused to the war court -- unless a judge rules otherwise.

On Monday, Pohl on several occasions let Darbi stand and argue a point at the defense table, dressed in a white prison-camp uniform. But Pohl reminded the Saudi's Yale law school defense attorney, Ramzi Kassem, that he is permitting the accused to speak at his own peril because anything he said in court could later be used at trial.

Not that they won't try. Sometimes it's just so gosh-durned hard to choose sides in these matters.

Posted by Cassandra at January 29, 2009 01:48 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2653

Comments

"Sometimes it's just so gosh-durned hard to choose sides in these matters. "
Not really. As the man said, “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.”

Medic! =8^}

Posted by: bthun at January 29, 2009 05:10 PM

Oh, you have no idea how many articles I had to wade through to find ONE that mentioned that all-important point!

When I read through this initially I thought... "Hey! Wait a minute! Didn't Congress... umm... pass a law about this?" You would never have known that from some of the things I read :p

I don't know whether Obama is within his rights or not. I supported the Executive branch's claims to Article II authority under Bush on the theory that these were powers that logically flowed from his role as Commander in Chief. Others said, "Yeah - but not where Congress has stepped in and limited those powers". So I keep wondering for these same people to uphold that principle now that Obama is in power.

My take is that the Executive is gonna push and Congress is gonna push back and people really need to get a freaking grip. But that's what I always thought. I don't think it matters much WHO is President.

I also don't think we'll see much of that attitude over the next 4 years.

Posted by: Cassandra at January 29, 2009 05:49 PM

*hands bthun a frosty tankard of ale*

I'm not a medic, but I did sleep in the corner booth of a Holiday Inn Express lounge last night.

Posted by: Snarkammando at January 29, 2009 05:53 PM

The Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012902021.html?wprss=rss_nation

Posted by: Ted at January 29, 2009 07:59 PM

The good judge's history may make him difficult for the Left to demonize...

Nup. Assuming The Usual Suspects will read his judicial history in the first place is dicey -- and if they do and decide it doesn't advance their argument, they'll ignore it and concentrate on his *military* affiliation.

Posted by: BillT at January 30, 2009 04:39 AM

*passing bthun quart IV bag of Belgian ale*

Suburban Combat Lifesaver Training..

Posted by: BillT at January 30, 2009 08:00 AM

[S]aid Jennifer Daskal, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. "...the only sure way to ensure that the commissions process is brought to a halt is to now withdraw the charges."

Ahhhhh, won't *that* play well in the media.

"Charges Against Gitmo Detainees Dropped!"

The Left will immediately demand the unconditional release of all detainees, citing the dropping of charges as proof that there is no evidence against them, and they really *are* just Uzbek goatherds who got really, really lost.

The Right will simultaneously launch a hue-and-cry demanding to know *why* the administration unilaterally dropped charges against two-hundred guilty sumbayitches, and raising new allegations that he's secretly still a Muslim.

A win-win for schadenfreude...

Posted by: BillT at January 30, 2009 08:36 AM

I have no experience as a criminal law attorney (military or otherwise), and my understanding is no doubt influenced by that. Also, I'm not familiar with the provisions of the statutory law governing the relevant proceedings. Finally, I do not know exactly what the Judge Pohl said in his ruling (if someone has a link to it, that would be appreciated)

That all said, to me, most striking feature of this story was that this ruling issued in the face of there being no objection by the defense. It's passing strange (and (most?) often just plain improper) that a judge will sua sponte disrupt what effectively amounts to a stipulation by the parties. And for something called "the public's interest in a speedy trial" ? What's that about? Pardon my ignorance, but I thought speedy trial issues were ones created for (and to be raised by) defendants.

There may be liberals who are wont to "demonize" Pohl I suppose (there's pretty near some of everything in this world), but to the extent that the post reflects some unilateral monolith on the left in these United States - well, such an understanding is very much flawed. This "liberal" is more puzzled than anything else; why did Pohl rule as he did, really; under the circumstances and all.

As reported in the WAPO piece:

"Nashiri's military defense attorney, Cmdr. Stephen C. Reyes, did not object to postponing the arraignment but requested that discovery and other issues go forward. "It's somewhat of a shock," he said, adding that the administration's only option appeared to be the withdrawal of charges."

Un-huh; I hear you Commander; It would have been something of a shock to me too, had I been in your position.

Posted by: hoover1 at January 30, 2009 12:00 PM

but to the extent that the post reflects some unilateral monolith on the left in these United States - well, such an understanding is very much flawed.

There you go again, reading what you seem to want to see into my post. I was responding to several posts already written by lefty bloggers that *did* exactly what was posited :p

As for the judge's motivation, I am puzzled by it too. Let me suggest that he is attempting to follow the law as he sees it. The public has an interest in speedy trials too, by the way. The victim's families should not have to wait forever to see some resolution of a case that has been painful for them. Cases like this should not drag on for years and years.

Surely it isn't too much of a stretch for you to put yourself in the place of the victims of the Cole attack? They aren't owed a conviction.

They are owed some resolution.

Posted by: Cass at January 30, 2009 01:10 PM

There you go again, reading what you seem to want to see into my post. I was responding to several posts already written by lefty bloggers that *did* exactly what was posited :p

Well Cass, it was you who (a) said "the Left", as if it were monolithic; (b) did not otherwise restrict such an interpretation; and (c) did not indicate any "response" to any blogs you had read which (so you state/reveal now) already did just "what was posited" (that means "demonize" - I guess?). ( And which such blogs are even now cited? What gives with that? )

Anyhow, is the substantive point you make that there are some (unidentified) blogs on the left that would and have demonized Pohl ? That doesn't surprise me a bit - though it's not terribly interesting a factum.

As to the speedy trial issue, perhaps I was not clear enough. Let me restate - perhaps with more clarity:

I am unaware of any legal principle/authority applicable in circumstances such as these which would naturally justify a ruling that the continuance could not be granted because of a public right to speedy trial.

Maybe there is such a doctrine applicable in criminal law, and if so perhaps it stretches (naturally or unnaturally) to negate what is effectively a stipulation between the parties.

I'm ignorant on that issue and revealed that ignorance in my post. But nothing which you have said has cleared up the point in my mind. You don't seem to be talking about the law, but what it feels like "should be the law".

And so I repeat, that I understand the Commander (who is trained in criminal law, etc.) when he says that the ruling was somewhat of a shock.

If you have a case citation or two or other authority (primary or secondary, for that matter), Cassandra, for the denial of the motion on speedy trial grounds as you suggest should be and/or is the law, I'm sure you will be kind enough to pass that along.

Posted by: hoover1 at January 30, 2009 01:42 PM

CORRECTION (No. 1?):

. . .And which such blogs are even now NOT cited . . .

Posted by: hoover1 at January 30, 2009 01:45 PM

If you have a case citation or two or other authority (primary or secondary, for that matter), Cassandra, for the denial of the motion on speedy trial grounds as you suggest should be and/or is the law, I'm sure you will be kind enough to pass that along.

Under Article 4, Third Geneva Convention, they're not entitled to a speedy trial -- just a fair one, either civil or military. And, in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942), the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a United States military tribunal German saboteurs in the United States. Quirin has been cited as a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States:

"...or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

Posted by: BillT at January 30, 2009 02:14 PM

Ooop.

Amended to "...military tribunal over German saboteurs..."

Reason Number 23,475 to dislike unlawful combatants -- the rockets distract one from properly proofreading prior to posting.

Posted by: BillT at January 30, 2009 02:18 PM

I have that problem with my mind to digit communications. There are times I drop characters, words, punctuation, whole ideas, or worse into the bit bucket. By the same token, often my mind will fill in the blanks being the inherently mischievous and lacking in sufficient seriousness organ that it is.

Often I will not notice the omission until after I poke the post button. Sometimes not even then. Such was the case when I read your initial post as military tribunal over German saboteurs...

I attribute it to the fact that I'm an Eveyn Woodhead trained sped reder in an aging husk. So sue me or strain me for Soylent Green. =8^}

Take care over there Bill. And thanks to both you and Snarkamundo for the bag-o-ale. I needed that.

Posted by: bthun at January 30, 2009 02:50 PM

Hoover1: If you have a case citation or two or other authority (primary or secondary, for that matter), Cassandra, for the denial of the motion on speedy trial grounds as you suggest should be and/or is the law, I'm sure you will be kind enough to pass that along.

You may wish to read the 2008 version of the UCMJ, specifically the "speedy trial" in Sect VII, Rule 707.

You said you were "unaware" such a "legal principle/authority" for the Judge to draw on for his decision to deny.

Consider yourself now "aware".

Posted by: MataHarley at January 30, 2009 03:05 PM

No, Cass did not say 'The Left,' she said 'lefty bloggers, which neither implies Lefty Monolithism nor worship of same by the Left. Not all bloggers on the left agree, but some do, hence her use of the phrase 'lefty bloggers.' Where did she say 'all?' Hm?

Posted by: Hairsplitting Smoldering Cricket at January 30, 2009 03:31 PM

Wooooo-HOOO! UCMJ 2008!

I've always had a warm spot in my heart for whomever included Article 134...

Posted by: BillT at January 30, 2009 03:36 PM

I did say 'the Left' in my original post.

There is little point in arguing with hoover. He thrives on attention :p

Few reasonable persons take "the Right" (a term used all the time by "the Left") as a blanket statement that every single person who is right of center will have the exact same opinion. They understand it's a catchall term that means 'some on the Right', and more specifically 'the more extreme factions on the Right'. But it serves hoover's purpose to take it personally and read more into everything I write than is really there.

Let him :p It seems to amuse him and you're not going to convince him otherwise.

[shrugging shoulders]

Posted by: Cass at January 30, 2009 03:47 PM

Ummmmm -- ackshully, Cricket, she *did* say "the Left" -- 'way up there in the demonizing part.

However, when hoover said, "...it was you who (a) said "the Left", as if it were monolithic...", he implied that she was referring to the *bloggers*, rather than the vast, monolithic conglomerate commonly referred to as "the Left."

And monolithic is a pretty appropriate term, considering they nominated, campaigned for, and voted for, a man about whom they essentially knew *nothing* except for the most banal of superficialities...

Posted by: BillT at January 30, 2009 03:55 PM

If people are going to get a case of the "arse" every time someone says "the left" or "the right", it becomes really difficult to talk about anything.

Sheesh. Political correctness fun amok - we all know there are sides in politics and we all realize there's a spectrum of beliefs. It really is a bit silly to go hermitile over a word, or to pretend that both sides don't - in fact - react in entirely predictable ways to things like this.

Because they do.

But if hoover gets his way we won't even be able to joke because (quelle horreur!) somewhere, he can find some exception to the general rule! :p Good nightshirt. Of course when I poke fun at the reich (which Lord knows, I've done plenty of times) he won't have a single objection to the supposed unfairness of my snark.

Heh.

Posted by: Cass at January 30, 2009 04:06 PM

Well, I *know* that, but I also know that when he quoted her saying 'lefty bloggers,' that Cass didn't mean the vast, Left-wing Monoliths. I know that lefties can be quite fun to chat and discuss Things of Momentous Impact with, otherwise, why link to Haidt-speech?

Posted by: Cricket at January 30, 2009 04:08 PM

I plan to Demonize him, later ;p

And treat him as Other.

Posted by: Cass at January 30, 2009 04:14 PM

Haidt-speech... Heh. That turn of the phrase deserves this follow up. =;^}

Posted by: bthun at January 30, 2009 04:25 PM

Here's a Left-wing Monolith.

Well, Left-of-Center, anyway. And the Left Wing that's illustrated *is* pretty colorful:

https://www.indiemerchstore.com/monolithmerch/zoom.php?i=bdd5c505c7.jpg

Posted by: BillT at January 30, 2009 04:56 PM

Well, it can't get much more Demonic than calling oneself after a vacuum, now does it? Does hoover1 exist in a vacuum? Does nature abhor it?
On the otter heiny, I would just as soon blame him for GloBull Warming as the Goracle.

Not only that, the line of the Left being a Monolith deserves a round of snark all its own. You can tell I am getting punchy. I have to Expound on the Wrongs of Society using Terms.
AAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

I have a nice Dr. Pepper lined up for the marathon reading and marking session.

Posted by: Cricket at January 30, 2009 05:18 PM

My agency, in cooperation with Marlin Perkins and Mutants of Obamaha have developed this illustration regarding the -NSFW- Migratory Habits of the Left Wing Monolith. -NSFW-

Oh, gotta run! I'm late for the Extraordinary Rendition of Right Wing Talk Radio. In other words, I'm in, on... no, in a Rush.

Posted by: J. Edgar Hubris at January 30, 2009 05:41 PM

hoover may suck but he is still outclassed by our own "Oreck".

Posted by: Yu-Ain Gonnano at January 30, 2009 05:41 PM

J Edgar, I bet you listen with headphones so as not to miss one single syllable of crystal clear nuance.

Posted by: Cricket at January 30, 2009 06:31 PM

Thanks, MataHarley at January 30, 2009 03:05 PM for the copy of the UCMJ. I confess my ignorance again, for I do not know whether or not any provision of that Code applies to the relevant proceedings, much less whether the referenced "speedy trial" provisions do.

Assuming, however, for purposes of argument that they do, they look like the typical speedy trial provisions as I have stated I understood them -- that is rights created for and to be exercised (or waived, etc.) by defendants. In other words, not some "public right" to speedy trial.

Moreover (as I've tried to be clear on), what seems most odd to me about the judge's ruling is that it issued sua sponte in the face of what appears to effectively amount to a stipuation of the parties to the contrary.

Now, assuming for purposes of argument there did in fact exist any "public right" to speedy trial alongside and somehow analogous to the ("traditional") defendant's right to speedy trial, one would assume that the advocate for the public in these proceedings (the prosecution) could stipulate away/concerning or waive that right, just like the (advocate for a) defendant can stipulate away/concerning or waive his right to speedy trial.

So, thanks, but sadly, this still remains an unexplained mini-mystery to me.

Posted by: hoover1 at January 30, 2009 06:49 PM

hoover, I know you're having great fun throwing legal terms like "stipulation" and "sua sponte" around, but given the fact that I'm not an attorney and even if I were, the UCMJ is a different body of law with different rules than civilian rules of criminal procedure, this is really all kind of a moot question (ooh! another legal term!) now isn't it?

What do you say we leave the law to the lawyers and judges?

Stipulations, in my understanding, are pre-trial agreements between the parties to agree to facts not at issue so that they don't have to be argued/proved during the trial. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

What does that have to do with whether an arraignment is held at all, especially when this judge is contending that regardless of whether he continues with the arraignment, the ensuing trial can be held before a military tribunal, before a military court martial, or in a civilian court (IOW, continuing with the arraignment is really in the defendant's best interest to a speedy trial and doesn't prejudice the administration's wish to possibly hold the ultimate trial somewhere else one darned bit?).

Posted by: Cassandra at January 30, 2009 07:36 PM

Cassandra -

A stipulation is simply an agreement between the parties. If the parties agree as to X or Y, judges will typically go along with it. Notwithstanding the adversarial nature of litigation, an awful lot gets done by agreement. (Not enough, surely, but alot). Now apart from this general practice (sensible, if you're trying to efficiently manage a docket) where judges do fail to go along, my impression is that they are (most?) often found to be in error. (There are no doubt classes of issues concerning which the parties' stipulation will be properly disregarded - what springs to my mind is stipulating to jurisdiction where none exists (and vice versa))

Anyhow. I think I've said it as clearly as I can.

And leaving the law to the lawyers? Are you serious? That'll cut down on your postings/comments, probably, by a good third if not more. ;) As to some such of your recent postings/comments on the law I expect that you'd be just as happy had the writing not been published. :p But it hasn't been my impression that as a general rule your postings (or the comments of others) are necessarily so flawed or otherwise of such a nature that they should have been forsworn -- and the topic "left to the lawyers and the judges" (whatever that means).

Posted by: hoover1 at January 30, 2009 08:08 PM

CORRECTION (No. 1?) (Out of an abundance of caution):

". . . (or the comments of others) ON LEGAL TOPICS are necessarily . . . "

(and with no implication, either, that the change reflects an impression otherwise as to non-legal topics [if any such inference might otherwise be drawn])

Posted by: hoover1 at January 30, 2009 08:21 PM

"If the parties agree as to X or Y, judges will typically go along with it."

Well, gee, hoover, even you seem to understand that, in his/her own courtroom, a judge can do as he/she believes best achieves justice for all involved parties - provided such is within the boundaries of current jurisprudence....in this case the aforementioned UCMJ, 2008 edition. It almost seems as though you are trying to find different ways to ask a question you obviously know the answer to. Perhaps in search of your own private *gotcha* on Cassandra? Feigned stupidity, like oft-repeated lies, eventually becomes indistinguishable from reality. And, from what I've read here, you're starting to skate waaayyy out there.

Posted by: DL Sly at January 30, 2009 08:31 PM

DL Sly --

I really do have no idea what you're talking about, or to the extent I do, you're wrong on several points. In any event, I do not believe I can write anything that will help your understanding.

As I say, I think I've explained things the best I can.

Cheers.

Posted by: hoover1 at January 30, 2009 08:44 PM

I confess my ignorance again, for I do not know whether or not any provision of that Code applies to the relevant proceedings

You're confessing to much more, since a military tribunal must, by definition, be entirely conducted under the provisions of the UCMJ.

much less whether the referenced "speedy trial" provisions do.

The whole of the Code applies. That's why it's a single-source document.

Posted by: BillT at January 31, 2009 02:31 AM

The Gitmo situation is pretty amazing to me...

Regardless of what course the US takes with the detainees, albeit applying illegal combatant status, POW status, Mayberry, North Carolina's Otis, the drunks status, or whatever. And whether they be held as POW's and tried by Military Tribunal, there are those who will denounce the heartless Imperialists Yankees. < sarc > Didn't see that coming huh?! < /sarc >

The ongoing political push to transfer these detainees into the federal prison system, to be afforded the same treatment as U.S. citizen accused of a petty crime, is IMO, a train wreck waiting to happen.

Adherence to the UCMJ along with being tried before Military Tribunals for those captured during combat operations and suspected to be enemies of our Nation ought to satisfy anyone sincerely interested in rendering justice. Including those who were until recently clamoring for a speedy trial, but it seems that common sense has left the building. Or as pappy used to say, some folks are never satisfied.

Posted by: bthun at January 31, 2009 08:56 AM

Posted by: bthun at January 31, 2009 09:12 AM

Ok, my last comment on this topic, with one small OT vector in the form of a question.

Anyone want to make a wager on how much time passes before B.O. and the Congress relinquish the lease on Gitmo and turn the property over to Castro?

Posted by: bthun at January 31, 2009 09:21 AM

Anyone want to make a wager on how much time passes before B.O. and the Congress relinquish the lease on Gitmo and turn the property over to Castro?

I might be game. What terms and position do you propose to take?

Posted by: hoover1 at January 31, 2009 10:01 AM

I say the lease is terminated between years one and three of BO's administration... And a beer.

Posted by: bthun at January 31, 2009 10:07 AM

Done.

Posted by: hoover1 at January 31, 2009 10:11 AM

Between one and three years and a *beer*?

And just how long do you suppose they'll take to consume the beer?

Posted by: BillT at January 31, 2009 10:23 AM

Allow me to clarify. The wager is a beer.

And just how long do you suppose they'll take to consume the beer?
Let me say this about that... I will not provide BO or Congress with beer. Unless, I'm first allowed to process the beer.

Granted, the one to three year time period is a WAG, but I base it on the track record of Carter.

Carter pardoned the draft dodgers immediately upon entering office (parallel, suspending Military Tribunals for GITMO detainees and granting them the legal protections and privileges of US citizens) and it took Carter less than a year to sign away the Panama Canal. I suspect BO's pace will be a little slower due to having so many items on his todo list.

All we need now is a good old fashioned trade war with our trading partners.

Posted by: bthun at January 31, 2009 10:48 AM

Trade war? Agreed!

Boycott Iranian pistachio nuts!

Posted by: BillT at January 31, 2009 11:19 AM

They are our trading partners already?

Well, power to the peanut! Power to the peanut, right arm!

Posted by: bthun at January 31, 2009 11:26 AM

Haven't read it yet, but there's a pdf at the MiamiHerald site which apparently is the Pohl decision. (I'd asked before on this thread, if anyone could point me to it; I don't believe anyone did, and I just ran across this my surfings.)

I didn't get to the pdf via a Herald story, and don't otherwise vouch for it, but one imagines it's accurate, given the address.

So, for what it's worth and for those who might be interested, the link follows:

http://media.miamiherald.com/smedia/2009/01/29/14/nashiri.source.prod_affiliate.56.pdf

Posted by: hoover1 at February 1, 2009 04:19 PM

Looks like it contains the motion and response, as well.

Posted by: hoover1 at February 1, 2009 04:24 PM

Well well well. Looks like the Herald boasts a vigorous archive of source material concerning proceedings at Guantanamo. Those interested may want to note/bookmark the following link (for example)

http://www.miamiherald.com/1060/story/470755-p3.html

Posted by: hoover1 at February 1, 2009 04:43 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)