|
|
|
The New Print Edition of CounterPunch, Only for Our Newsletter Subscribers! General Petraeus' Fake War
|
home / subscribe / donate / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
The New Print Edition of CounterPunch, Only for Our Newsletter Subscribers!
General Petraeus' Fake War
How the Press and Congress Eagerly Swallowed It
EXCLUSIVE to subscribers in our latest newsletter, Gareth Porter dissects two years’ worth of successful lying by Gen Petraeus and his propaganda team. Guess what? The FBI AND DOJ didn’t specially target Muhammad Ali. Those G-men were just following normal procedures! Alexander Cockburn reviews the latest effort to “revise” the Sixties. Dick Cheney “didn’t understand the legalities.” James Abourezk describes his efforts to close down the lethal liquor operators that prey on the Pine Ridge Reservation. Whatever happened to the class war? Read Serge Halimi and find out. Get your copy today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great presents.
|
Today's Stories June 28 / 29, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Jason Hribal Mike Whitney Justin E. H. Smith June 27, 2008 Franklin C. Spinney Jonathan Cook Brian Cloughley Saree Makdisi Liliana Segura Paul Krassner William S. Lind Candace Cohn Ron Jacobs Binoy Kampmark Website of the Day June 26, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Nikolas Kozloff William P. O'Connor Saul Landau Ashley Smith Dave Lindorff David Macaray Binoy Kampmark Matt Reichel Remi Kenazi Website of the Day
June 25, 2008 David H. Price Stephen Soldz Andy Worthington Marjorie Cohn Joanne Mariner Ralph Nader Robert Weissman Christopher Brauchli Suren Pillay Seth Sandronsky Website of the Day June 24, 2008 Ishmael Reed P. Sainath Nikolas Kozloff Gregory Kafoury Betty Shamieh Mike Whitney Andy Worthington Bill Christison Philippe Marlière Website of the Day June 23, 2008 Michael Hudson John Ross Peter Montague Ramzy Baroud Robert Fantina Robert Weitzel David Macaray Howard Lisnoff Richard Rhames Gail Dines Tim Matson June 21 / 22, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair Pam Martens Mike Whitney Chris Floyd Tim Wise Paul Craig Roberts Michael Winship Ron Jacobs Ramzy Baroud Alan Farago Michael Yates Dave Lindorff Bernard Chazelle Linda Mamoun Jo-Shing Yang Robert Jensen Website of the Weekend
June 20, 2008 Robert Oscar Lopez Paul Craig Roberts Bouthaina Shaaban Bill Quigley Moshe Adler Patrick Cockburn Andy Worthington Norman Solomon Martha Rosenberg June 19, 2008 Ralph Nader Chellis Glendinning Neve Gordon Dave Lindorff Sheldon Richman George Bisharat Jackie Corr Farzana Versey Website of the Day June 18, 2008 Nicole Colson Rev. William E. Alberts Vijay Prashad Parvez Ahmed Bob Moss Dave Lindorff David Wilson June 17, 2008 Conn Hallinan Wajahat Ali Marjorie Cohn Uri Avnery David Macaray Rannie Amiri Website of the Day June 16, 2008 Uri Avnery Corey D. B. Walker Howard Lisnoff Dennis Loo Paul Craig Roberts June 13 / 15, 2008 Douglas Valentine Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair Peter Linebaugh Ishmael Reed Joe Bageant Harry Browne Andy Worthington Jeff Sharlet Binoy Kampmark Alan Farago Brian Cloughley Manuel Garcia, Jr. Reza Fiyouzat Patrick Bond / David Yearsley Niranjan Ramakrishnan Ronnie Cummins Dan Bacher Michael Dickinson Seth Sandronsky Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend June 12, 2008 Judith Levine Patrick Cockburn Saul Landau Christopher Brauchli Norman Solomon Helen Redmond Laura Carlsen Jeremy R. Hammond Anne Landman Website of the Day June 11, 2008 Paul Craig Roberts Ralph Nader Joshua Frank Clifton Ross Muhammad Idrees Ahmad Stephen Lendman Diane Farsetta Ron Jacobs Deborah Rich Hop Wechsler Website of the Day June 10, 2008 Alan Farago James G. Abourezk Saree Makdisi Malini Johar Schueller John Ross Wajahat Ali Peter Morici Jordan Flaherty Gary Macfarlane Joanne Mariner Website of the Day June 9, 2008 Uri Avnery Nikolas Kozloff Allan Nairn Dennis Loo Harry Browne C. Hand Peter Morici Kenneth Couesbouc Martha Rosenberg James L. Secor Website of the Day June 7 / 8, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Ishmael Reed Jeffrey St. Clair Nikolas Kozloff Dave Lindorff Robert Fantina Conn Hallinan Neve Gordon Tom Barry Patrick Irelan Tim Wise David Ker Thomson Joshua Frank David Yearsley James T. Phillips Joe Allen P. Sainath David Macaray B.R. Gowani Fred Gardner Peter Harley Michael Dickinson Jen Roesch Poets' Basement Website of the Day
June 6, 2008 Frank Barat Patrick Cockburn Gary Leupp James Abourezk Peter Morici Faheem Hussain Andy Worthington Ayesha Ijaz Khan Dave Lindorff Website of the Day June 5, 2008 Patrick Cockburn Sharon Smith Nikolas Kozloff Linn Washington, Jr. Omar Barghouti Scott Pellegrino John Walsh Dan Bacher DC Larson Robert Jensen Website of the Day June 4, 2008 Eric Walberg Gary Leupp Ralph Nader Dave Lindorff George Wuerthner Victor M. Rodriguez Remi Kanazi Stephane Luçon Farzana Versey Laray Polk Website of the Day June 3, 2008 Paul Craig Roberts / Mike Whitney Steve Early Manuel Otero George Bisharat Nikolas Kozloff Dan Bacher Website of the Day June 2, 2008 Uri Avnery Nikolas Kozloff Allan J. Lichtman Malini Johar Schueller Robert Weissman Peter Morici Manuel Garcia, Jr. John Ross Ahmad Al-Akhras Website of the Day May 31 / June 1, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair Gary Leupp Stan Cox Rannie Amiri P. Sainath Binoy Kampmark Robert Fantina Seth Sandronsky Corporate Crime Reporter Anthony DiMaggio Karl Grossman Matt Reichel Paul Myron Hillier Andy Worthington David Yearsley Daniel Cassidy Charles Thomson Gary Corseri Wajahat Ali Ron Jacobs Poets' Basement Website of the Day
May 30, 2008 Bassam Aramin Andrew Cockburn Saul Landau Nikolas Kozloff Robert Sandels Dave Lindorff Martha Rosenberg Harvey Wasserman Doug Giebel Shaun Harkin Website of the Day May 29, 2008 Jeffrey St. Clair Nikolas Kozloff Col. Dan Smith Karl Grossman William S. Lind Robert Weissman Dave Lindorff David Macaray Chris Genovali Laura Carlsen Website of the Day May 28, 2008 Wajahat Ali Ralph Nader Brian McKenna Corporate Crime Reporter Brian Cloughley Eric Walberg Michael Dickinson Ijaz Khan Website of the Day May 27, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Greg Kafoury Jean Bricmont Tim Wise Ricardo Alarcón Stephen Soldz Andy Worthington Alan Singer Richard Neville Susie Day May 26, 2008 Uri Avnery Bill Quigley Col. Dan Smith Cindy Sheehan Marjorie Cohn Fred Gardner Raymond J. Lawrence Harvey Wasserman Moncia Benderman David Rovics Website of the Day May 24 / 25, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Jeffrey St. Clair Barbara Rose Johnston Nikolas Kozloff Adriana Kojeve Robert Fantina Dave Lindorff David Yearsley Nelson P. Valdés Kathleen M. Barry John Ross Allison Kilkenny Fred Gardner Elizabeth Schulte Daniel Gross Christopher Brauchli Richard Rhames Daniel Cassidy Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
May 23, 2008 Paul Craig Roberts Alan Farago Conn Hallinan Mark Engler George Wuerthner Kamran Matin Sandy Boyer / Robert Weitzel Cindy Sheehan Liaquat Ali Khan Website of the Day
May 22, 2008 Vijay Prashad Joanne Mariner Sharon Smith Jeff Birkenstein Brendan McQuade Peter Morici Niranjan Ramakrishnan Dave Zirin Ron Jacobs Stephen Lendman Website of the Day May 21, 2008 Jeffrey St. Clair Nikolas Kozloff Alan Farago Dave Lindorff David Model Eric Walberg Franklin Lamb Kenneth Couesbouc Website of the Day
May 20, 2008 Ralph Nader Uri Avnery Patrick Irelan Ray McGovern David Macaray Chris Genovali Ibrahim Fawal Christopher Ketcham Andy Worthington Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day May 19, 2008 Saul Landau Paul Craig Roberts Brian McKenna Patrick Cockburn B. R. Gowani Dr. Trudy Bond Cindy Sheehan John Mohawk Remi Kanazi Robert Day Website of the Day |
Weekend Edition
June 28 / 29, 2008 The Washington Post on Habeas Corpus Bush and the Press vs. the ConstitutionBy JEREMY R. HAMMOND Last week, an article in the Washington Post explained how decisions of the Bush administration with regard to detention policies have been overturned by the Supreme Court. The tone of the article is interesting. It's title is "White House Dismissed Legal Advice On Detainees".* The "advice" in question came from lawyers who "repeatedly warned the White House that it was risking judicial scrutiny of its detention policies in Guantanamo Bay if it did not pursue a more pragmatic legal strategy that considered the likely reaction of the Supreme Court." This is the advice that was "ignored". The only problem with the policy decisions, then, was that they risked being overturned in court. In other words, that they would be illegal. But notice it's not the illegality of the policies which were of any concern. Quite the contrary, the fact that the policies would be illegal is of precisely zero concern. The only issue was in implementing the policies in a way that would not invite judicial scrutiny. The Post cites the example of a warning from a top lawyer at the State Department, John B. Bellinger III, who wrote in an email that it was virtually guaranteed that "without a legislative basis, federal courts are not going to be willing to uphold the indefinite detention of unlawful combatants." The White House, the Post notes, wished to keep Guantanamo "free of judicial oversight." But instead the Supreme Court ruled last week that detainees at the facility "have a constitutional right to a review of their detention in federal courts"--in other words, that habeas corpus applied. The right of habeas corpus, Latin for "you have the body", is a fundamental legal principle by which prisoners may bring their case to a court to determine whether their detainment is lawful or not. A person may not be held if there have been no charges made against them, and unless there is a good or compelling reason to detain a person, they must be set free. The principle is enshrined in the US Constitution, which states that "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The Supreme Court has recognized that "The writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." In sum, the White House sought to deny habeas corpus to detainees in the "war on terrorism". But rather than seeking Congressional legislation allowing it to do so, the Bush administration has insisted the President has the power to unilaterally declare habeas corpus suspended. This as a "misjudgment" on the part of the White House, the Post quotes Matthew Waxman, a lawyer for the State Department and Pentagon, as saying; a "misjudgment" that brought about "the very result it sought to avoid -- heavy judicial involvement and erosion of deference to the president's view of wartime necessities." The Post quotes Philip D. Zelikow, who was involved in policy making for the White House, as saying that the White House had "planned for the best instead of preparing for the worst". Ergo, the "best" situation would be a legal black hole at Guantanamo in which detainees had no recourse to challenge their detainment; the government could hold people without charge for as long as it wanted. The "worst" situation would be that detainees would be able to actually challenge their imprisonment and might even potentially have to be released if no charges were filed against them. This is, unsurprisingly, the White House framework. What is perhaps only slightly more surprising is that the Post does nothing to challenge or question this framework, instead only quoting people who accept this framework and commenting as though it was the correct and proper one; indeed, as though it were the only one which existed. "Even some conservative allies of the administration," the Post article says, "agree that the White House may have mishandled elements of its strategy, but they pin most of the blame for the administration's predicament on the leanings of the Supreme Court." Thus, the White House is to blame, but only for not foreseeing the "leanings of the Supreme Court", which, the Bush administration should have known, would favor preserving habeas corpus. It is the Supreme Court which should bear most of the blame for adhering to such silly and archaic judicial principles. Reinforcing this framework, the Post quotes M. Edward Whelan III, a former Justice Department official, who says that "It may well be fair to fault the Bush administration for failing to work with Congress early on to develop a statutory framework governing detainees. But the narrow Supreme Court majorities in the Guantanamo cases deserve far harsher criticism for their gross misreadings of the law and their abandonment of sound precedent on which the administration reasonably relied." And so it is that criticism of the Bush administration is due, but only insofar as it chose to unilaterally deny habeas corpus to detainees, instead of seeking Congressional authorization to do so. But it is the Supreme Court that is deserving of "far harsher criticism" for seeking to uphold this most basic of legal principles, this most basic foundation of law and protection against arbitrary and unlawful arrest and imprisonment. The Post quotes another "top official" as saying that it's unfair to criticize the Bush administration for not formulating policy "based on the expectation that the Supreme Court would misinterpret the Constitution." For an alternative view, the Post turns to the former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel who butted heads with the administration, Jack L. Goldsmith, author of "The Terror Presidency". What information does the Post cite from Goldsmith? In his book he wrote "of a White House meeting he attended in February of that year in which Paul D. Clement, of the solicitor general's office, warned that the administration might lose the case before the Supreme Court, despite it's 'solid legal arguments.' "Goldsmith said he suggested that the administration seek a congressional sign-off for the entire detention program, something that would make it harder for the court to strike down the program. "Goldsmith's view was supported by Clement, then-National Security Council lawyer Bellinger and Pentagon general counsel William J. Haynes II -- but not, Goldsmith said, by David S. Addington, then legal counsel to Vice President Cheney. "'Why are you trying to give away the president's power?' Addington asked, according to Goldsmith..." Addington's view was supported "by then-White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales", who Bush later appointed Attorney General. The Post then goes on to note that the White House did indeed try to get the Congress to provide a fig leaf cover for its detention policies, and "persuaded Congress to enact the Detainee Treatment Act, which stripped the courts of any right to hear habeas corpus challenges from Guantanamo detainees." And, "At the White House's behest, the Senate narrowly defeated a proposal to give detainees the right to seek habeas corpus review of their imprisonment in federal courts." But the White House had been "warned that a lack of habeas corpus protections for detainees would be struck down by the Supreme Court -- as it was last week." The debate as presented in the Washington Post is thus not whether the government should have the power to strip prisoners of basic legal rights or not, but rather whether the best way to strip them of those rights is for the Executive or the Legislative branch to do so. There might be something instructive in this state of affairs. But only for those who reject this framework; for those who might not see the White House's "misjudgment" as being that it didn't go to the Congress first, but rather that it tried to do away with habeas corpus at all in the first place; for those who might not agree that the Supreme Court is worthy of "far harsher criticism" than the White House for upholding this most elementary principle of jurisprudence, or that the Court had "misinterpret[ed] the Constitution" in doing so. The Washington Post, of course, doesn't find anyone espousing such a radical fringe view worthy of representation. Such a heretical alternative framework simply isn't suitable for print. And that, arguably, is the most insightful and news-worthy aspect of the whole article.
|
Now Available from CounterPunch Books!
Born Under a Bad Sky: Coming Soon! RED STATE REBELS:
Edited by  Buy End Times Now! CounterPunch Books of the Crossroads: HOW THE IRISH INVENTED SLANG By Daniel Cassidy AMERICAN BOOK AWARD!  Click Here to Buy! Click Here for Dates & Venues Michael Neumann's Devastating Rebuttal of Alan Dershowitz  Click Here to Buy! Saul Landau's Bush and Botox World Foreword by Gore Vidal  Click Here to Order! How They Made a Killing on the War on Terrorism     
    
 
 Humanitarian Imperialism By Jean Bricmont               CITY BEAUTIFUL By Tennessee Reed                   |
