Remember the two Afghans who died mysteriously while in U.S. custoday at Bagram Air Force base in Afganistan? Their deaths were ruled homicides, caused by blunt force injuries. The U.S. promised an investigation. Turns out, they won't tell us what they found.

Amnesty International criticized the U.S. today:

When apparent homicides occur in secret prisons, and promised investigations show no results, the country's cherished values of humane treatment and respect for the law are dishonored," William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, said in a written statement. "The failure to account for the prisoners' deaths indicates a chilling disregard for the value of human life."

The official response to Amnesty's statement?

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty said in Bagram on Saturday, "I accept that people under custody died here. I deny that they were mistreated."

Hundreds of prisoners were held and interrogated without charges at Bagram, and like those at Guantanamo, they were not afforded prisoner of war status.

Amnesty said that interviews of former Bagram prisoners that were conducted by the human rights group and by journalists have shown that detainees were subjected to ill treatment that may constitute torture, including blindfolding, prolonged forced kneeling, sleep deprivation and the cruel use of shackles.

The interrogations reportedly took place in a special area on the second floor. The Red Cross was denied access to this area. during their visits to other parts of the facility. For more on reports of mistreatment at Bagram, go here.

Update: Read the letter the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights sent to Lt. Gen. John Vines, U.S. Commander in Afganistan, about the deaths.

Time reports on the interrogation techniques being used on the detainees at Guantanamo:

Every week close to half the detainees are brought in for sessions that may last anywhere from one to 16 hours. They are conducted by any of the 40 four-person "tiger" teams -- two interrogators, a linguist and an analyst. The commanders have concluded that interrogators should be young, maybe mid-20s, fairly new to the service. "Intelligence gathering is a young person's job," says Miller. "They're inventive and thoughtful." The idea is to build rapport with the detainees and come at them again and again, using new leads from intelligence gathered at Gitmo or elsewhere. "We got five times as much intelligence (from the detainees) last month as in January '03," says Miller, which, depending on whom you talk to, means that either the interrogators are getting better or the inmates more willing to say anything.

As Time points out:

If you are a government hungry for clues about the enemies' plans, one problem with the Geneva Convention governing treatment of traditional prisoners of war is that it includes strict rules limiting interrogation. So these detainees are called "enemy combatants," and there is no field manual outlining the rules for handling them. Inmates arrive with no knowledge of how long they will stay, facing the possibility of trial by a military tribunal whose procedures have yet to be tested, on charges that have yet to be revealed and that carry sentences that may depend on not just what crimes they committed but what country they are from.

[comments now closed]

We're pleased to learn that the U.S. plans to release 140 detainees from Guantanamo. On the other hand, we're outraged by this:

According to Time, activities leading toward release of the 140 prisoners have accelerated since the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. It said U.S. officials had concluded some detainees were kidnapped for reward money offered for al Qaeda and Taliban fighters. (our emphasis)

It took the U.S. over two years to figure out that up to 20% of these detainees were total innocents? During which time they were kept in cages without access to families or lawyers?

And this isn't much better.

Slated for release were "the easiest 20 percent" of detainees, a military official told the magazine. It did not identify its source, who said the military was waiting for "a politically propitious time to release them." (our emphasis)

They should have been let go the minute it was determined they were not connected to Al Qaeda or terrorism. Maybe these officials should stand in their shoes--and cages--for a while.

The Time Magazine report is called Inside the Wire.

Security breaches. Suicidal detainees. A legal challenge heading to the Supreme Court. Welcome to Guantanamo.

Lawyers for accused sniper defendant John Lee Malvo have subpoenaed convicted sniper John Muhammad to testify for the defense at Malvo's trial. While prosecutors are predicting Muhammad won't testify, Malvo's lawyers say they have received no notice from Muhammad's team that he will try and quash the subpoena or take the Fifth.

Opinions are split on whether Muhammad's testimony will help or hurt Malvo:

On the one hand, a jury might feel pressure to reach the same verdict. On the other, if jurors are reticent to recommend execution for a defendant who was 17 at the time of the sniper attacks, the Muhammad verdict may in a sense let them off the hook.

We think Muhammad's testimony could help Malvo in the penalty phase, if his insanity defense is rejected, particularly if Muhammad were to acknowledge being the mastermind. However, if we were Muhammad's lawyer, we would have to advise him not to testify and to invoke his 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination since the appeals process has not yet begun. Of course, Muhammad has not shown any predilection to following the advice of counsel, so we won't be too surprised if he does testify.

Two trials of interest are scheduled to begin Monday. The first is that of former S.D. Governor (currently a Republican Congressman) Bill Janklow on manslaughter and lesser charges arising from an accident in which he ran a stop sign and a motorcyclist died. If convicted of manslaughter, the penalty could be up to ten years in prison. He is expected to raise a "lingering medical condition" as a defense.

The second trial is that of the Cuban hijackers in Key West, see here.

The Key West trial of six Cuban hijackers begins Monday. It is expected to be a politically charged trial, with U.S. policy at issue. Many Cubans believe the U.S. is too lenient on hijackers.

The plane, escorted by U.S. fighter jets, landed safely and the suspects tossed their weapons out. None of the 31 passengers or the six crew members was hurt. The defendants face life sentences if convicted.

The Judge has all but prevented a political defense.

The judge in the case, James Lawrence King, ruled in mid-November that the men's attorneys could not use Cuba's political or economic conditions as part of their defense. The men didn't appear to be under threat of harm, he wrote, and did not try to leave Cuba legally. Moreover, he said there was no proof that Cuba's living conditions necessitated a hijacking. ''Many Cubans live under such conditions, yet few hijack planes,'' King wrote.

The ruling triggered hostile reaction from Cubans in Miami who say it "robs the trial of context." Others disagree, and say the Cubans should be treated as terrorists.

Another bone of contention in the case is the Government's reluctance to allow defense witnesses to come to the U.S. to testify. Prosecutors believe that once here, they will defect and stay here. And the Cuban Government has decided that only prosecution witnesses may leave the island to appear and testify.

More details of the case are available here, in an article that outlines the plot with information obtained from post-arrest statements of the hijackers.

This is our feel-good story of the day: Volunteers in Oxford, England trained the homeless to perform an opera :

The charity behind the project, Streetwise Opera, helped train volunteers to sing, perform and develop theatre skills. Professional opera singers joined them for last night's production at New College, which was sold out. The show's director, Matthew Peacock, said he hoped the music boosted the confidence of the homeless people involved and would help them in life.

This is the third such performance. Provided funding continues, more are planned:

The Oxford show involved at least 25 local organisations in addition to the New College choir. It followed past successes including two performances of Benjamin Britten's Canticles at Westminster Abbey in 2002. Mr Peacock hopes many others will follow, as long as funding continues. He hopes to stage at least one big show a year and to continue the 250 workshops a year currently conducted in homeless hostels in London.

[link via We are Not Sheep]

Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiassen dubs Iraq Operation Sitting Duck. We agree with him. He criticizes Bush and the false reasons he gave and continues to give for our being in Iraq in the first place. He correctly notes that now we are stuck and are likely to remain in Iraq for a long time. But what we especially like about the piece is his reminder to us that we do have a say in all this:

The question for Bush is how long before the American people decide that the best exit plan is to elect a president with an exit plan.

Vince Schiraldi, executive director of the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute, has an excellent op-ed in today's Washington Post about the decline of the lock 'em up and throw away the key mentality that politicians have foisted on us the past few decades.

We've written about this several times, here and here for example, providing the usual explanation--states are facing unprecedented budget crunches. But, Vince writes, there's another (more heartening) factor at play here as well:

So history suggests that dollars have never been the single motivating factor in prison policies. Rather, some policymakers are stepping back to evaluate corrections systems, finding that there is a better way to achieve public safety that is supported by opinion leaders and public opinion alike.

In state after state, research has called into question the effectiveness of imprisonment and supported the use of treatment and other alternatives to incarceration -- and policymakers have taken notice. After the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that certain treatment options reduced rearrests and yielded better public safety outcomes than prison, officials there enacted legislation diverting offenders from prison into treatment. The reforms saved the state $50 million over two years, $8 million of which was spent to expand treatment options. Joe Lehman, Washington state's corrections secretary, stated, "It's not just about money, it's about informing our sentencing policies with what we know from research works in mitigating the risk of offenders and enhancing community safety."

[link via How Appealing.]

Viet Dinh is a law professor and former top aide to Attorney General John Ashcroft. He is largely credited with being the author or chief architect of the Patriot Act. Dinh has left the government's employ and is now expressing serious concerns about the Bush Admninistration's detention policies and treatment of enemy combatants. Specifically, Dinh says the detention of Jose Padilla is "flawed" and he predicts that the Supreme Court will rule against the Administration.

Dinh's turnabout is especially surprising because for the past two years he consistently has refuted charges that the anti-terror war is responsible for civil rights abuses of immigrants or anyone else.

Dinh isn't the only former Justice Department official jumping ship on the enemy combatant issue. So is Ashcroft's former Criminal Division Chief, Michael Chertoff, now a 3rd Circuit appellate judge, appointed by Bush (and confirmed without serious objection by the Democrats):

...Chertoff.... has said he believed the government should reconsider how it designates enemy combatants. We need to debate a long-term and sustainable architecture for the process of determining when, why and for how long someone may be detained as an enemy combatant, and what judicial review should be available," he said. Chertoff... also mentioned at a judicial conference in Philadelphia this month the need to reexamine procedures for combatants. "Inevitably, decisions of war are made with imperfect information," he said. "Perhaps the time has come to take a more universal approach."

Here is Dinh's current position on the Jose Padilla case and Bush's enemy combatant policy:

Attacks in Iraq left 11 dead yesterday: 7 Spaniards, 2 Japanese and 2 U.S. Soldiers, further solidifying November as the bloodiest month in the war to date.

Excerpted from Things You Have to Believe to Be a Republican Today:

• Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

• Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.

• The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.

• A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

• Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

• Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.

• Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.