Comments on: A Grain of Salt http://brendancalling.com/2007/02/20/a-grain-of-salt/ "living in an alternative universe of permanent outrage and relentless negativity fostered and fueled by the blogosphere." Wed, 13 Jul 2011 01:18:48 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Brendan Calling - I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. » Things I Learned From Arlen Specter’s Office Today http://brendancalling.com/2007/02/20/a-grain-of-salt/comment-page-1/#comment-9437 Brendan Calling - I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. » Things I Learned From Arlen Specter’s Office Today Wed, 18 Jul 2007 17:30:44 +0000 http://www.brendancalling.com/2007/02/20/a-grain-of-salt/#comment-9437 [...] Act so the President could bypass the Senate’s confirmation of US attorneys general”, his knowledge of abuses at Walter Reed or last night’s filibuster, you can count on Specter’s staff to tell you outright lies [...] [...] Act so the President could bypass the Senate’s confirmation of US attorneys general”, his knowledge of abuses at Walter Reed or last night’s filibuster, you can count on Specter’s staff to tell you outright lies [...]

]]> By: Brendan http://brendancalling.com/2007/02/20/a-grain-of-salt/comment-page-1/#comment-8960 Brendan Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:51:45 +0000 http://www.brendancalling.com/2007/02/20/a-grain-of-salt/#comment-8960 It's Arlen Specter's america, where you're entitled to the best justice you can afford. "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." It’s Arlen Specter’s america, where you’re entitled to the best justice you can afford.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

]]> By: phillybits http://brendancalling.com/2007/02/20/a-grain-of-salt/comment-page-1/#comment-8959 phillybits Tue, 20 Feb 2007 17:36:37 +0000 http://www.brendancalling.com/2007/02/20/a-grain-of-salt/#comment-8959 Speaking of Arlen Specter and the Military Commission act, it has now been ruled that <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_go_su_co/detainees_lawsuits" rel="nofollow">Detainees can't challenge cases</a>: <blockquote>Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush's anti-terrorism plan. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners. Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.</blockquote> Surely it will be appealed but I want you (and your readers) to take a listen, if you have a chance, to an interview that aired last week on NPR with Navy lawyer Charles Swift who represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan. Very interesting and disturbing stuff in the interview including allegations by the lawyer that when he was first put on the job, it wasn't to defend Hamdan but to get a guilty plea from him. When Hamdan spoke up about that, they almost refused access to Hamdan unless Hamdan first plead guilty to the charges before him. I'm pretty sure that's what was said in the interview but regardless, it's something to listen to. And although Hamdan didn't plead guilty before seeing his attorney, since his attorney spoke up and fought for the man, it makes one wonder how many other detainees, possibly innocent detainees, <i>have</i> plead guilty just to see their attorneys? I mean...what the fuck good is an attorney if you've already plead guilty in a military tribunal without being able to see or challenge the evidence that allegedly incriminates you as it poses a direct threat to national security? What kind of America is that? Speaking of Arlen Specter and the Military Commission act, it has now been ruled that Detainees can’t challenge cases:

Guantanamo Bay detainees may not challenge their detention in U.S. courts, a federal appeals court said Tuesday in a ruling upholding a key provision of a law at the center of President Bush’s anti-terrorism plan.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 that civilian courts no longer have the authority to consider whether the military is illegally holding foreigners.

Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects.

Surely it will be appealed but I want you (and your readers) to take a listen, if you have a chance, to an interview that aired last week on NPR with Navy lawyer Charles Swift who represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan.

Very interesting and disturbing stuff in the interview including allegations by the lawyer that when he was first put on the job, it wasn’t to defend Hamdan but to get a guilty plea from him.

When Hamdan spoke up about that, they almost refused access to Hamdan unless Hamdan first plead guilty to the charges before him.

I’m pretty sure that’s what was said in the interview but regardless, it’s something to listen to. And although Hamdan didn’t plead guilty before seeing his attorney, since his attorney spoke up and fought for the man, it makes one wonder how many other detainees, possibly innocent detainees, have plead guilty just to see their attorneys?

I mean…what the fuck good is an attorney if you’ve already plead guilty in a military tribunal without being able to see or challenge the evidence that allegedly incriminates you as it poses a direct threat to national security?

What kind of America is that?

]]>