About Obama and Gitmo

For the last two years, I've constantly heard far left and far right ideologues blame President Obama for not closing the terrorist detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

And now the issue comes up yet again today when the Obama administration had to reverse course on having civilian trials for those detained at Gitmo and announce the intention of military tribunals starting with Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Remember when Obama wanted this trial in New York and was supported by Mayor Michael Bloomberg? Remember what happened next? He flip-flopped after local politicians and misinformed New Yorkers lost their collective shit at the thought of trusting their judicial system.

Let's get one fucking thing straight: The failure to close Gitmo cannot, CANNOT, be laid at the feet of Barack Obama. On the first day of elected office, President Obama signed an executive order to close Gitmo. His. First. Day. Anyone taking a step back and being honest will agree that the reason Gitmo remains open to this day, over two years later, is because there are cowards on both sides of the aisle in the Senate.

What happened after that order was signed? There was a collective gasp in the halls of Congress as politicians of all stripes got the vapors at the thought of having those evil, crazed jihadists in their back yard... in prisons... maximum security prisons that currently house the worst criminals incarcerated in the U.S. penal system. But apparently, alleged terrorists have magical powers which serial killers, sociopaths and rapists don't, that allow them to escape through steel, concrete and armed guards.

Then Congress passed a defense spending measure with an amendment prohibiting prosecution of Gitmo detainees in federal court. End of story.

Yet the "professional left" who are smart enough to know better always use this as a fallback whenever they're in the middle of a debate about how Obama is just like Bush. Google Glenn Greenwald or Jeremy Scahill on this issue and you'll inevitably find them saying the same. Obama ran on closing Gitmo and it's still open. In fact, Scahill just used it the other day on The Ed Show with no correction from Ed. And another listener called into Ed Schultz's radio show today spewing the same and how he was staying home on Election Day. Just now Rachel Maddow called going forward with the military tribunals "a kick in the teeth to the Democratic base." Even Senators Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold, stalwarts of liberalism and one of them a self-defined Democrat Socialist, voted against the Gitmo move! Was their vote a kick in the teeth as well? Where was that coverage?

Look there are a myriad of things about which progressives and liberals can be legitimately upset at Obama, but this ain't one of them. I'm tired of spineless Democrats in Congress hiding behind Obama's leg when it comes to these types of matters. And I'm not going to let this one slide anymore.

Lieberman Strikes Again!

Nothing shows human compassion, understanding the rule of law and foreign affairs more than an elected official who is the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee making waterboarding jokes.

On foreign affairs, I understand what Guantanamo has come to mean in world opinion. But we can fix that, without closing Guantanamo.

All we have to do is change its name. How about calling it the Richard B. Cheney Resort and Rehabilitation Spa?

I bet the water sports will be really great.

I'd be happy to make Joe Lieberman a reservation.

D.O.J. Decides to Try K.S.M. in N.Y.C. and G.O.P. Loses Their S.H.I.T.

What a bunch of quivering, diaper soiling pussies these GOP and wingnut mouthpieces be. Today, the Department of Justice announced that 9/11 alleged mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would stand trial in New York City  for the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center along with four other suspected terrorists currently being detained in Guantanamo Bay.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said he would seek the death penalty against the five defendants if they are found guilty in federal court.

He announced those decisions in a news conference Friday at the Department of Justice. The arrangements would mean that civilian prosecutors would handle those detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, northern Virginia and Pennsylvania, while the 2000 attack against the Cole would remain within the military system.

Holder went on to add that despite the possibility of certain evidence being thrown out of court due to the way it was obtained (damn, that waterboarding!) there was no way he would let these trials go to Federal court had he not been "confident that the outcome would be a successful one."

But the puzzling thing that I want to know is, why do these bed wetting Republicans opposed to this move have such little faith in the United States Justice system? Why do they insist on, at the the very least, a continuation of their fear mongering?

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey: "It shows a willingness to disclose how our intelligence process works and offer [the suspects] a platform in our legal system to gather intelligence for themselves," Mukasey said before an audience of conservative lawyers at the national Federalist Society's annual legal convention in Washington.

Holder's plan "creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and a circus for those being tried," Mukasey said."

House Minority Leader John Boehner: "The Obama Administration’s irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people. The possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found ‘not guilty’ due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: “Nobody in America wants these people tried in their local community,” McConnell said, adding that getting a conviction in a civilian court will be “much tougher” and that once the U.S. Justice Department “hands these people over to the court system, they have no more control.

“If they are acquitted, a judge could simply let them go,” McConnell said. “There is no rational basis for bringing these foreigners into the U.S. court system.”

Joe Lieberman: "The terrorists who planned, participated in, and aided the September 11, 2001 attacks are war criminals, not common criminals. Not only are these individuals not common criminals but war criminals, they are also not American citizens entitled to all the constitutional rights American citizens have in our federal courts. The individuals accused of committing these heinous, cowardly acts of intentionally targeting unsuspecting, defenseless civilians should therefore be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States...

...It is inconceivable that we would bring these alleged terrorists back to New York for trial, to the scene of the carnage they created eight years ago, and give them a platform to mock the suffering of their victims and the victims' families, and rally their followers to continue waging jihad against America."

These are our intrepid leaders, pissing in their pants at the thought of a fair trial.  Moaning about how our Justice system shouldn't be used for "non-citizens" while (as the Rude Pundit notes), "the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution says, 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial' and then talks about the rights that entails. That really doesn't distinguish between citizen and non-citizen and, indeed, there have been many decisions that allow for fair and speedy trial for immigrants both legal and illegal, as well as for non-Americans extradited to the United States for trial."

Speedy and public trial. Does speedy mean being held for six years without charges?

What are these chickenhawks frightened of?  Do they seriously believe that our supermax prisons, which hold  our most dangerous criminals, can't contain a terrorist? Do they have such little faith in our national security apparatus that even the idea of Gitmo detainees setting a physical foot on precious US soil would undermine our safety? Is McConnell really that dense to think that if by some infinitesimally slim chance KSM is somehow acquitted, he'd be able to walk out the front doors of the courthouse and disappear into the New York City streets?  Of course not.  It's all fear mongering and political posturing for his brainless base. Why would former AG Mukasey think that having Mohammed inside a federal courtroom "discloses our intelligence process" to terrorists?  How is it possible that a former prosecutor like Rudy Giuliani now thinks that the federal courts he worked in as a district attorney now can't handle terrorist cases?  Has he forgotten the name "Zacarias Moussaoui" so quickly?

All which leads to the question: why do these elected officials hate the Constitution (save Boehner who doesn't know the difference between the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence)?   These war mongering, pants soiling chickenhawks should have a little more faith in the system they claim to defend than throwing out the Constitution whenever it suits them.

President Obama's National Security Speech, May 21, 2009

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Ed Schultz on Morning Joe

Is it me, or did Ed Schultz just kick ass on Morning Joe? I think Scarborough had his nose bloodied and Mika was fanning herself to avoid the vapors. This is probably the last time Schultz will be on the show. Joe Scarborough didn't sign up to get his pee-pee slapped on Gitmo, Pelosi, the CIA and national security.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Douchebag of the Week: Harry Reid

It's only Wednesday but I don't even have to wait until the end of the week to nominate Senate Majority Leader Harry "Have You Seen My Balls?" Reid for Douchebag of the Week honors.

“Guantánamo makes us less safe,” the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said on Tuesday at a news conference where he laid out the party’s rationale for its decision. “However, this is neither the time nor the bill to deal with this. Democrats under no circumstances will move forward without a comprehensive, responsible plan from the president. We will never allow terrorists to be released into the United States.”

That's right, Harry. All 241 detainees are "terrorists" that we're just going to let out into the streets. There's no possible way that some, if not most of these men who were swept up randomly and have been held for years without benefit of charge or trial could quite possibly be innocent. The fact that of the 29 men that have been tried in the Bush administration's sham of a military tribunal deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, only four were found guilty even with the deck stacked against them bears no significance in your view.

Even if it were true that some, more than some, most, or even all of the detainees were the worst of the worst, I'm trying to follow the thought progression of fearmongering to the point that Reid, most Senate Democrats* and all Senate Republicans are such incredible piss in their pants, weeping pussies, that they don't even want these people on US soil, behind some of the world's tightest security supermax prisons. It confounds logic.

Do they have special powers? Is Allah going to come down and flatten the prison for an easy escape? Does the specific frequency of their Islamic extremist jihad shriek pulverize concrete walls and melt steel doors? I've said it before but it bears repeating: if we can keep some of our most dangerous criminals, mass murderers, serial rapists and pedophiles, drug lords and mafia leaders safely behind bars, but can't expect the US penal system to be able to handle suspected "terrorists", what does that say of our correctional institutions? What does it say TO our institutions?

Our congressional leaders are all crying NIMBY while small towns are willing to take prisoners in order to bolster employment during a recession that's bleeding them dry. But the politicians we voted into office are more worried about their re-election bids than doing the right thing and closing Gitmo - the biggest recruitment tool going for anti-American sentiment - and Harry "The Gelding" Reid falls right into the trap of the fear of being called weak on national security while actually weakening national security by keeping Guantanamo open. Keeping us "less safe" using his own words.

Harry E. (the 'E' stands for 'eunuch') Reid: Douchebag of the Week

______________________________________
* Only Senators Durbin (D-IL), Harkin (D-IA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Reed (D-RI) and Whitehouse (D-RI) voted against cutting the funds to close Gitmo.

This Ain't Your Ordinary Bush Military Tribunal

Let's not get our panties all in a bunch. There's been a lot of talk about how the Obama administration is just a continuation of the Bush years, especially this last week with the reversal on releasing more detainee abuse photos (which I addressed earlier in the week) and now with President Obama's decision to continue military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees. But let's get one thing straight: Dubya and Dick aren't running things anymore.

Robert Gibbs: "...first and foremost the President of the United States is going to do what he believes is in the best security interests of the people of the United States.

I think military commissions have a long tradition in the United States. The President spoke in 2006 in his belief that military courts and commissions had a role to play in the detainees that were at Guantanamo Bay, but also spoke forcefully about the notion that the system that had been first set up and ruled unconstitutional, and then passed legislatively and largely ruled unconstitutional again by the Supreme Court, wasn’t working. And I think the best way to understand why it wasn’t working -- and when I say "wasn’t working," I mean, wasn’t working in seeking swift and certain justice for families of victims as well as the American people because in about eight years -- a little less than eight years’ time -- exactly three cases had gone through military commissions.

The President, as I said, during the debate said that properly structured military commissions had a role to play. The changes that he is seeking he believes will ensure the protections that are necessary for these to be conducted in order to reach that certain justice as well as live up to our values.

...statements that have been obtained from detainees using cruel, inhumane, and degrading interrogation methods will no longer be admitted as evidence at trial.

Second, the use of hearsay will be limited so that the burden will no longer be on the party who objects to hearsay to disprove its reliability.

Third, the accused will have greater latitude in selecting their counsel.

Fourth, basic protections will be provided for those who refuse to testify.

And fifth, military commission judges may establish the jurisdiction of their own courts.

Again, if you look back through the arc of this process beginning back in 2001 and 2002 through Supreme Court making decisions in 2005, moving this to the venue of Congress in 2006, and the legislation that the President supported that came out of the Senate Armed Services Committee with strong bipartisan support -- four Republican senators joining all the Democrats involved -- in passing legislation that the President believes met the goals of instituting swift and certain justice and the protections adequate enough to be reviewed by courts, and believes so."

Stating that this is simply a continuation of the Bush policies without noting the changes is being disingenuous.

President Obama on 60 Minutes

Here's why I like my new President. He tells people the truth. He tells people what the need to hear although it may not necessarity be what they want to hear.

President Obama sat down with Steve Kroft for a 60 Minutes interview to take his message directly to the American people. Yes, it's edited by CBS, but an extended interview is better than a 30 second sound bite from the cable chatter news networks.

Here's a question: Do you think another President would be honest enough admit to a fear of further "systemic risks" when interviewer Steve Kroft asked? I don't. I'm also happy that he got a chance to reply to the criticism Dick Cheney has been spewing of late, and exactly the reasons Cheney and the Bush administration were wrong when it came to the detainees at Guantanamo.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Here is the more complete response (bold indicates comments left out of video above):

"I fundamentally disagree with Dick Cheney. Not surprisingly. You know, I think that Vice President Cheney has been at the head of a movement whose notion is somehow that we can't reconcile our core values, our Constitution, our belief that we don't torture, with our national security interests. I think he's drawing the wrong lesson from history," Obama said.

"The facts don't bear him out. I think he is, that attitude, that philosophy has done incredible damage to our image and position in the world. I mean, the fact of the matter is after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world," he added.

"Some of it being organized by a few people who were released from Guantanamo," Kroft pointed out.

"Well, there is no doubt that we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting through who are truly dangerous individuals that we've got to make sure are not a threat to us, who are folks that we just swept up. The whole premise of Guantanamo promoted by Vice President Cheney was that somehow the American system of justice was not up to the task of dealing with these terrorists. I fundamentally disagree with that. Now, do these folks deserve Miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not," Obama said.

Asked what should be done with these people, Obama said, "Well, I think we're gonna have to figure out a mechanism to make sure that they not released and do us harm. But do so in a way that is consistent with both our traditions, sense of due process, international law. But this is the legacy that's been left behind. And, you know, I'm surprised that the vice president is eager to defend a legacy that was unsustainable. Let's assume that we didn't change these practices. How long are we gonna go? Are we gonna just keep on going until you know, the entire Muslim world and Arab world despises us? Do we think that's really gonna make us safer? I don't know a lot of thoughtful thinkers, liberal or conservative, who think that that was the right approach."

Of course, the only thing taken out of this interview by the right wing crazies today is that President Obama laughed and smiled through a couple of questions that were no laughing matter. Steve Kroft set them up for it, and the wingnuts swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.

"You're sitting here. And you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people gonna look at this and say, 'I mean, he's sitting there just making jokes about money.' How do you deal with, I mean, explain the…mood and your laughter," Kroft asked. "Are you punch drunk?"

"No, no. There's gotta be a little gallows humor to get you through the day," Obama explained. "You know, sometimes my team talks about the fact that if you had said to us a year ago that the least of my problems would be Iraq, which is still a pretty serious problem, I don't think anybody would have believed it. But we've got a lot on our plate. And a lot of difficult decisions that we're gonna have to make."

Steve Benen notes that this should be put in perspective, and if you did watch the interview, this is exactly the perspective that I drew.

About half-way through, Kroft brings up aid to the auto industry, and public opposition to additional government investment. The two share a laugh at the one-sided polling numbers, which led to Kroft's question about "laughing." As Steve M. explained, "[I]t's obvious -- the chuckling is mutual as they agree about the extraordinary unpopularity of bailing out the auto industry."

When you see reports today about the president laughing at economic hardship, keep this in mind.

More Morning Joke™ Hijinks (Another in a seemingly never ending series)

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

My e-mail to Morning Joke™:

Hi Morning Joe Team,

During your interview with Rudy Giuliani, he mentioned that a released Guantanamo prisoner was discovered killing people the day after President Obama order Gitmo to be closed. (He said it with some unfortunate laughter.)

I have two questions:

1 - Why didn't anyone respond to Giuliani with the fact that Obama isn't talking about releasing those in Gitmo, but transferring them to other prisons. He respects the rule of law and habeas corpus.

2 - Since President Obama has only been sworn in since Tuesday, who was it that released these 30 or 40 prisoners that Giuliani talked about? Oh, right. It was the Bush Administration. God forbid you should mention those facts to America's Mayor.

Adding - After further review of the video, Giuliani acknowledged that "Obviously, even the Bush administration made mistakes in releasing these people." (2:40 mark) But he still insists that that is the reason we can't "let them go."

If anyone has been paying attention, we're not letting them go. If Rudy was paying attention, his suggestion of reviewing Gitmo prisoners on a case by case basis is exactly the reason there was a 120 day suspension of the legal proceedings at Gitmo.

Guantanamo is shutting down because it's an illegal operation. And the reason the Bush administration had to "release these people," is because evidence was flimsy, and any coerced confession was deemed inadmissible even according to the military tribunal system that they devised! If they had gone about using the legal system and incarcerating those they thought were the enemy without denying them habeas corpus and kept them in a legally state run prison, chances are they would have gotten a better conviction rate. All they did was to infuriate some of these people (not all, but some) to the point of becoming terrorists after their release. The same people that Giuliani's complaining about.

I also think it's asinine for Senators with an 'R' after their name to be outraged at the possibility of transferring current Gitmo detainees to prisons in their home states. What are they going to do? Do these alleged terrorists have special terrorist super powers that allows them to break out of maximum security prisons that serial killers and rapists don't? Are they worried that the prison walls will crumble around a Gitmo detainee once he's inside? The cowardice of these Republican Senators is astonishing.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

Obama Closing Gitmo - UPDATED

CNN reports that Barack Obama has issued a draft order to close Guantanamo Bay within a year. More to follow.

UPDATE (12:40pm):

Associated Press: A draft executive order has been readied for President Obama that would close Guantanamo Bay detention center within a year, the Associated Reports.

The AP, which says it has obtained a copy of the draft order, says it would also declare a halt to all trials currently under way at the facility, where roughly 800 detainees.

UPDATE (1/22/09 4:30pm):

PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer: Obama closing Guantanamo as he reshapes US policy

The Bush Legacy Project

For an administration so adept at the Reverse Midas Touch, where everything they touch turns to shit, the one thing I give the Bushites credit for is their ability to spin. They are Rembrandts in the art of Flim-Flam. They were able to, for eight long years, fool enough of the people enough of the time to remain in power just long enough to fill their coffers and almost destroy the country in the process. And the P.T. Barnum of the political three-ring circus that is the White House? Karl Rove.

Ron Suskind, 2004: In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

We all now know that "the senior adviser" in Suskind's piece was Karl Rove. And Rove was right. Study we did. While everyone was flipping out over the latest Bush Administration outrage, the Bushites were creating another and another. And another. Until this endless avalanche of bullshit was so overwhelming, the focus of the "judicious students of history" Rove was talking about splintered apart. There was no consolidated front. There was no one particular story that would stick.

Hurricane Katrina was really the first time they took a big hit, but how many people still talk about Bush and Cheney testifying together, not transcripted and not under oath during the 9/11 Commission investigations? How many of us are still thinking about Alberto Gonzales and the mockery he made of the Justice Department? And when one jamoke resigns, another is ready to take his place and condone torture while avoiding answering what torture is. Who talks about the devastation that still haunts New Orleans over three years later? Or even the slow recovery efforts of Hurricane Gustav's wake just a couple of months ago?

We all know the long, long list that George W. Bush leaves as his legacy: 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, illegal wiretapping, cherrypicking intelligence reports, the Iraq War, rendition, torture, waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, economic meltdown, record foreclosure rates, and on and on. That's just scratching the surface. Amazing isn't it?

And here we sit, eight years after the first national Bush atrocity that no one could have anticipated would become the norm from the crooks residing in the White House. Yet we are now hearing that Karl "Bush's Brain" Rove, former Bush communications director Karen Hughes and other senior Bush advisers are brainstorming ways to salvage Bush's legacy. A Bush legacy project. And they're meeting in the White House with current officials. They're doing it on our dime! How does one wrap their mind around the dilemma of attempting to create a positive spin on Bush's "legacy"? And since when is a president's legacy part of a White House agenda? Legacies are made, not manufactured.

This think tank's plan is to rewrite history. Already we're seeing Bush's farewell tour, kicked off with a Charles Gibson/ABC interview in which the Chimp in Chief tries to pass the buck in a sad, Bart Simpson-like "it was like that when I got here" attempt.

GIBSON: Do you feel in any way responsible for what's happening?

BUSH: You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President.

"... before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President." What the fuck?! How does one turn that into anything positive? And isn't it ironic that Karl Rove, the man who only a short time ago was plotting a permanent Republican majority (possibly the last Republican majority for at least a generation), the man Bush nicknamed "Turdblossom," now has the dubious task of polishing a turd?

leg⋅a⋅cy  [leg-uh-see]noun, plural -cies.

1. Law. a gift of property, esp. personal property, as money, by will; a bequest.
2. anything handed down from the past, as from an ancestor or predecessor: the legacy of ancient Rome.
3. an applicant to or student at a school that was attended by his or her parent.
4. Obsolete. the office, function, or commission of a legate.

Hmmm.... Oh, here's one!

leg⋅a⋅cy - A gift of property by will, esp. of money or personal property; a bequest. Also Fig.; as, a legacy of dishonor or disease.

That last line nails it. Bush will be remembered for his indifference; for his lack of curiosity; for his ineptness; for his butchering of the English language; for his disregard of that "goddamned piece of paper," the United States Constitution; for his preference to be at his photo-op Crawford, Texas ranch; for the hubris of his crony appointments.

But most of all, the George W. Bush legacy will be one of dishonor to the office of the Presidency. His legacy is one of a parasitic disease that sucked our treasury dry, bled us of our moral standing in the world and crippled the last remaining superpower (if such a thing still existed). And no amount of revisionist history will scrub The Shrub's "legacy" clean.

More Obstruction? Lindsay Graham and the GOP

After Attorney General Michael Mukasey refused congressional demands for information Friday, the Justice Department filed late-night court documents urging a federal judge not to begin his own inquiry.
...Congressional inquiries and criminal investigations frequently overlap and it is not uncommon for the Justice Department to ask lawmakers to ease off. The request for the court to stand down is more unusual. Judges take seriously even the suggestion that evidence was destroyed, but they also are reluctant to wade into political debates.

Kennedy ordered the administration in June 2005 to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."
Five months later, the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos, which involved suspected terrorists Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri.

...[Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey S.] Bucholtz argued that the tapes were not covered by Kennedy's court order because Zubaydah and al-Nashiri were not at the Guantanamo military prison in Cuba. The men were being held overseas in a network of secret CIA prisons. By the time President Bush acknowledged the existence of those prisons and the prisoners were transferred to Guantanamo, the tapes had been destroyed.

...Even if Kennedy agrees that the government did not violate his order, he still could schedule a hearing. He could raise questions about obstruction or spoliation, a legal term for the destruction of evidence in "pending or reasonably foreseeable litigation."

Speaking of obstruction, Senator Lindsay Graham is becoming the new Arlen Specter. The House passed a bill that bans waterboarding yesterday and Graham blocked it from being voted upon in the Senate. So even though he believes waterboarding violates the Geneva Convention ("I don’t think you have to have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates Geneva Convention common article three, the War Crimes statutes...") and plainly was pissed off at Brigadier General Hartmann during a Senate Judiciary Commitee hearing on Guantanamo detainees, he still protects the Worst President Ever and prevents Bush from having to veto a bill banning waterboarding.

Just like Specter, Graham is all talk, talk, talk and then continues to tow the party line. Heckuva job, Grahamy.