Yesterday was International Day Against the Death Penalty, capping off a week long campaign called Cities for Life - Against the Death Penalty.

ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome Date: 2003-11-30
John Paul II Backs Campaign Against Death Penalty

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 30, 2003 (Zenit.org).- John Paul II added his voice in support of the renewal of the international campaign against the death penalty.

Before bidding farewell to the pilgrims gathered today in St. Peter's Square to pray the Angelus, the Pope greeted members of the Community of Sant'Egidio, an ecclesial movement involved in the struggle against capital punishment.

Today, at the initiative of Sant'Egidio and other non-governmental organizations that make up the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, 300 "Pro-Life Cities" lit up a monument to express their rejection of the death penalty.

Among the cities participating in this 2nd World Day Against the Death Penalty were Amsterdam, Netherlands; New York; Buenos Aires; Berlin; Hiroshima, Japan; Santiago, Chile; Vienna, Austria; Barcelona, Spain; and Paris. Their theme was "No Justice Without Life."

Mario Marazziti, spokesman of Sant'Egidio, explained that 112 countries have abolished the death penalty, in law or in fact, and 83 use it. Armenia, Serbia and Montenegro, Chile and Ivory Coast abolished it in the past two years.

"The judicial system is never infallible," Marazziti said. "The death penalty is an irreversible instrument of justice. And man cannot take what he cannot restore."

The Sant'Egidio campaign is calling for a universal moratorium on executions, an appeal that is supported by 5 million signatures.

Saudi interrogators are not known for their bedside manner at interrogations. They are more widely known for beheadings. But, they've changed their tune when it comes to questioning Al Qaeda members:

There's a plan behind all this.

Over time, the clerics position the prisoners to repent and renounce their past allegiance to the network established by the Saudi-born fugitive bin Laden. Then traditional interrogators are brought in to question the prisoners and learn tactical information, officials said. "We have learned that what drove them into this cult, and what causes them to cooperate, is religion," said one senior Saudi official involved in intelligence work.

Saudi interrogators often bring clerics and a Quran to their prison interviews to establish a religious connection, a technique that has proved successful in eliciting information from terrorist suspects and reorienting them to less violent religious beliefs.

The tactic, similar to the way cult deprogrammers work in the United States, has impressed American counterparts enough that Saudi intelligence was permitted to use some of the principles on their citizens being held at the U.S. detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Saudi officials said. The tactic is getting results.

The religious reorientation is markedly different from some hard-core interrogation tactics that can use sleep deprivation, alternate rewards and punishment and other methods to elicit information.

Here's how it works: First, the Saudis identify midlevel and low-level al-Qaida prisoners who were attracted to Osama bin Laden's network through a perversion of Islam.

Then, shortly after these al-Qaida prisoners are taken into custody, Saudi interrogators send in a cleric who appears to espouse militant Islamic views to help build a personal bond with the young men and open a dialogue based on Islam, the officials said.

Once we connect with them, the interrogators slowly hand them over to a more moderate cleric, who sits with them and goes over what the Quran says and discusses what the traditions of the prophet are," one Saudi official explained.

Experts say the religious reprogramming tactic works well as a carrot in a society that also threatens a harsh stick - Islamic trials followed by swift, public beheadings of some criminals. It has developed over decades as the Saudis have looked for ways to rehabilitate their citizens.

Atlanta Journal-Constitution Columnist Jay Bookman writes about the two of the Administration's false assertions : One is that the war on terror and the war in Iraq are the same. The second is that we are fighting each to protect America. Bookman says the Iraq war is not about terrorists. We agree. Remember this Dick Cheney statement?

"We are aggressively striking the terrorists in Iraq, defeating them there," Vice President Dick Cheney said a week ago, "so we do not have to face them on the streets of our own cities."

False.

Such statements are simply false. Our men and women in uniform are not fighting for their lives against international terrorists in Iraq. They are not fighting the people who attacked us on Sept. 11, nor are they fighting allies of those people.

Instead, the guerrillas who are launching mortars at our military bases, attacking our troops on patrol or hiding booby traps on Iraqi highways are native Iraqis who are trying to evict American troops from their country. Despicable and cowardly as their tactics are, the Iraqi resistance is almost entirely Iraqi. They are not attacking us because they hate Americans. They are attacking us because they hate Americans who are occupying their country.

The import of fighting two wars at the same time is sobering:

It is almost never wise to start a second war when the outcome of the first is still unsettled because you are inevitably forced to divide resources. With more than 100,000 troops and many billions of dollars committed to Iraq for years to come; with our limited Arabic-language intelligence assets now targeted at the Iraqi resistance, not at al-Qaida and its network; and with international support for our war on terror eroded by our high-handed invasion, we have committed the classic mistake of military overreach.

The war on Iraq and the war on terror are two different struggles. Tackled separately, either would have taken us years to win. Tackling them simultaneously was tragic foolishness on a very large scale, no matter how much the president claims otherwise.

Prisoner of Her Past is an absolutely fascinatng portrait of a holocaust survivor who developed late-onset PTSD, written by her son, a Chicago Tribune reporter:

Sixty years ago, Sonia Reich was hunted by the Nazis in Poland. Today, she is living those horrible times all over again. Her son, Tribune reporter Howard Reich, sought to find out why, and his search into her past is chronicled in this special report.

We read the whole thing in one sitting. It's long but so rich that it goes by almost too quickly.

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.