NationStates Jolt Archive

Pulitzer Prize winning reporter for the Boston Globe, Charlie Savage, reported January 28th on boston.com that "more than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees" (not all the Guantanamo lawyers it should be made clear) have endorsed Senator Obama's campaign for the Democratic Nomination and Presidency.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/01/lawyers_for_git.html

Full article:

More than 80 volunteer lawyers for Guantanamo Bay detainees today endorsed Illinois Senator Barack Obama's presidential bid.

The attorneys said in a joint statement that they believed Obama was the best choice to roll back the Bush-Cheney administration's detention policies in the war on terrorism and thereby to "restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community." The attorneys are representing the detainees in habeas corpus lawsuits, which are efforts to get individual hearings before federal judges in order to challenge the basis for their indefinite imprisonment without trial.

The attorneys praised Obama for being a leader in an unsuccessful fight in the fall of 2006 to block Congress from enacting a law stripping courts of jurisdiction to hear Guantanamo detainee lawsuits. The constitutionality of that law, which was part of the Military Commissions Act, is now being challenged before the Supreme Court in one of the most closely-watched cases this term.

"When we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us," they wrote. "Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates."

The attorneys did not say why they sided with Obama over his chief rival, New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Like Obama, Clinton too opposed the Military Commissions Act, arguing during the Senate debate that a major flaw of the bill was its provision stripping habeas corpus rights for non-citizens named by the president as "enemy combatants."

"This bill would not only deny detainees habeas corpus rights – a process that would allow them to challenge the very validity of their confinement – it would also deny these rights to lawful immigrants living in the United States," Clinton said in September 2006. "If enacted, this law would give license to this Administration to pick people up off the streets of the United States and hold them indefinitely without charges and without legal recourse."

The Gitmo attorneys contrasted Obama's record during the fight over the Military Commissions Act with that of "some politicians," whom they did not name but accused of being "all talk and no action" and who, they said, "stood back" while Obama took a more active role amid the controversy. Chicago lawyer Gary Isaac, who helped draft the statement, said that this wording was intended not to be a jab at Clinton. Rather, he said, it is "really intended to respond to the contention that Senator Obama is all talk and no action. We wanted to share our experience where he was a leader on an issue of great importance to us."

Several Boston lawyers were among the signatories to the endorsement statement, including P. Sabin Willett, Stephen H. Oleskey, Jason Pinney, and Neil McGaraghan. Other names on the list included Washington lawyer Thomas Wilner, retired federal appeals court judge John Gibbons, Center for Constitutional Rights president Michael Ratner, and retired Rear Admiral Donald Guter, who was the Navy's top JAG officer from 2000 to 2002 and who is now the dean of the Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh.

This was also reported on online by the Wall Street Journal and Miami Herald.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/01/28/guantanamo-attorneys-back-obama/

http://www.miamiherald.com/campaign08/story/397317.html

For Democratic and independent primary voters (and cacus-goers) who care about civil liberties, human rights, and the rule of law, this is significant.

Full Statement:

January 28, 2008

Dear Friends:

We are at a critical point in the Presidential campaign, and as lawyers who have been deeply involved in the Guantanamo litigation to preserve the important right to habeas corpus, we are writing to urge you to support Senator Obama.

The Administration's Guantanamo policies have undercut our values at home and stained our reputation around the world. All of us are lawyers who have worked on the Guantanamo habeas corpus litigation for many years, some of us since early 2002, and we were all deeply involved in opposing the Administration’s attempt to overturn the Supreme Court's Rasul decision by stripping the courts of jurisdiction to hear the Guantanamo cases. We have talked with Senator Obama about why the Guantanamo litigation is so significant, and we have worked closely with Senator Obama in the fight to preserve habeas corpus.

Some politicians are all talk and no action. But we know from first-hand experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated extraordinary leadership on this critical and controversial issue. When others stood back, Senator Obama helped lead the fight in the Senate against the Administration's efforts in the Fall of 2006 to strip the courts of jurisdiction, and when we were walking the halls of the Capitol trying to win over enough Senators to beat back the Administration's bill, Senator Obama made his key staffers and even his offices available to help us. Senator Obama worked with us to count the votes, and he personally lobbied colleagues who worried about the political ramifications of voting to preserve habeas corpus for the men held at Guantanamo. He has understood that our strength as a nation stems from our commitment to our core values, and that we are strong enough to protect both our security and those values. Senator Obama demonstrated real leadership then and since, continuing to raise Guantanamo and habeas corpus in his speeches and in the debates.

The writ of habeas corpus dates to the Magna Carta, and was enshrined by the Founders in our Constitution. The Administration's attack on habeas corpus rights is dangerous and wrong. America needs a President who will not triangulate this issue. We need a President who will restore the rule of law, demonstrate our commitment to human rights, and repair our reputation in the world community. Based on our work with him, we are convinced that Senator Obama can do this because he truly feels these issues "in his bones."

We urge you to support Senator Obama.

We encourage you to forward this message to anyone who might be interested.

Gary A. Isaac (Chicago, Illinois)
Elizabeth P. Gilson (New Haven, Connecticut)
Joshua Colangelo Bryan (New York, New York)
Thomas B. Wilner (Washington, DC)
Ismail Alsheik (Chicago, Illinois)
Diane Marie Amann (Berkeley, California)
Elizabeth Arora (Washington, DC)
Baher Azmy (Brooklyn, New York)
Scott Barker (Denver, Colorado)
Douglas Behr (Potomac, Maryland)
G. Michael Bellinger (Glen Ridge, New Jersey)
Amanda Shafer Berman (Washington, DC)
Catherine A. Bernard (Chicago, Illinois)
Carolyn Patty Blum (New York, New York)
Patricia A. Bronte (Chicago, Illinois)
Carol Elder Bruce (McLean, Virginia)
Charles H. Carpenter (Washington, DC)
Jennifer Ching (Brooklyn, New York)
George M. Clarke (Washington, DC)
Jerry Cohen (Boston, Massachusetts)
John J. Connolly (Baltimore, Maryland)
David J. Cynamon (Chevy Chase, Maryland)
Joshua W. Denbeaux (Westwood, New Jersey)
Mark P. Denbeaux (Newark, New Jersey)
James Dorsey (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Rebecca Dick (Arlington, Virginia)
Wells Dixon (New York, New York)
Heather Lewis Donnell (Chicago, Illinois)
Buz Eisenberg (Ashfield, Massachusetts)
Marc Falkoff (Chicago, Illinois)
Tina Monshipour Foster (Queens, New York)
Murray Fogler (Houston, Texas)
Matthew Freimuth (New York, New York)
Hon. John J. Gibbons (Newark, New Jersey)
Jared Goldstein (Providence, Rhode Island)
R. David Gratz (Westwood, New Jersey)
Eldon Greenberg (Washington, DC)
Dean Donald J. Guter, Rear Admiral, JAGC, USN (Ret.)
(Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
Gitanjali Gutierrez (Ithaca, New York)
Jonathan Hafetz (Brooklyn, New York)
Osman A. Handoo (Falls Church, Virginia)
Sarah Havens (New York, New York)
Gaillard T. Hunt (Silver Spring, Maryland)
Kristine Huskey (Austin, Texas)
Varda Hussain (Arlington, Virginia)
Dean John D. Hutson, Rear Admiral, JAGC, USN (Ret.)
(Concord, New Hampshire)
Thomas R. Johnson (Portland, Oregon)
Stephen J. Kane (Chicago, Illinois)
Zachary Katznelson (San Francisco, California)
Samuel Kauffman (Portland, Oregon)
Michael Y. Kieval (Bethesda, Maryland)
Daniel Kirschner (New York, New York)
Jan Kitchel (Portland, Oregon)
Eric Lewis (Bethesda, Maryland)
Ellen Lubell (Newton, Massachusetts)
Lawrence S. Lustberg (Newark, New Jersey)
J. Triplett Mackintosh (Denver, Colorado)
Emi MacLean (New York, New York)
Brian D. Maddox (Brooklyn, New York)
Neil McGaraghan (Boston, Massachusetts)
Brent Mickum (Bethesda, Maryland)
Nicole M. Moen (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Daniel P. Moylan (Baltimore, Maryland)
Richard G. Murphy, Jr. (Washington, DC)
William J. Murphy (Baltimore, Maryland)
Brian J. Neff (South Orange, New Jersey)
Stephen H. Oleskey (Boston, Massachusetts)
Charles H.R. Peters (Chicago, Illinois)
Kit A. Pierson (Washington, DC)
Jason Pinney (Boston, Massachusetts)
Wesley R. Powell (New York, New York)
Robert D. Rachlin (Burlington, Vermont)
Jana Ramsey (Brooklyn, New York)
Michael Ratner (New York, New York)
David H. Remes (Silver Spring, Maryland)
Jeffrey D. Robinson (Laurel, Maryland)
Brent Rushforth (Washington, DC)
James C. Schroeder (Chicago, Illinois)
Jessica Sherman (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
R. Michael Smith (Baltimore, Maryland)
Michael J. Sternhell (Brooklyn, New York)
Jeffrey M. Strauss (Chicago, Illinois)
Mark Sullivan (Bedford Hills, New York)
Danielle R. Voorhees (Denver, Colorado)
Vincent Warren (New York, New York)
Carolyn Welshhans (Arlington, Virginia)
P. Sabin Willett (Boston, Massachusetts)
Jill M. Williamson (Takoma Park, Maryland)
Elizabeth A. Wilson (Washington, DC)
Jeff Wu (Rockville, Maryland)


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
GARY A. ISAAC at (312) 701-7025

There should be one thread where all of this election news could be collected... The front page is getting cluttered.

See, now we just need to wait for the NSG resident neocons to come on and say how this proves that Obama supports terrorsits and blah blah blah.


*Awaits New Maitini and CoalitionoftheWilling*

And throw in Islamaphobic references to him like "Barack Hussein Osama" too, don't forget!

See, now we just need to wait for the NSG resident neocons to come on and say how this proves that Obama supports terrorsits and blah blah blah.


*Awaits New Maitini and CoalitionoftheWilling*

And throw in Islamaphobic references to him like "Barack Hussein Osama" too, don't forget!

Obama Bin Laden!

There should be one thread where all of this election news could be collected... The front page is getting cluttered.

At least a few 'super threads.' One super thread would be too unweildy to follow, but I agree-our election does NOT need to monopolize the front page.

To the Topic...

Of course they do. Who else do they have left?

See, now we just need to wait for the NSG resident neocons to come on and say how this proves that Obama supports terrorsits and blah blah blah.


*Awaits New Maitini and CoalitionoftheWilling*

*prepares pie launcher*

We're not letting them come in without a fight.

Obama Bin Laden!



Dont give them ideas...

Who cares?

A few lawyers voting for Obama? I bet each candidate has many lawyers who support them.

Who cares?

A few lawyers voting for Obama? I bet each candidate has many lawyers who support them.

What matters is the type of lawyers.


Lawyers who fight for civil rights for all endorsing you means a lot more than a corperate whore...erm lawyer voting for you.

At least a few 'super threads.' One super thread would be too unweildy to follow, but I agree-our election does NOT need to monopolize the front page.

Why? This a political forum and the US Presidential election is by far the most important political event in the world at the moment

Why? This a political forum and the US Presidential election is by far the most important political event in the world at the moment
I think you'll find that through another lens that isn't so much the case.

Yes, we are the 800 pound Gorilla and a lot of the things we do effect the rest of the world, from invasions to shoddy lending practices, so what we do does in fact matter beyond our borders despite what some foot stompers would like to believe, but that doesn't mean that our dog and pony show needs to dominate the front page-frankly, what other countries do matters beyond their borders as well and we'd do well to stop shouting now and then and take notice.

Sounds like his primary demographic: Highly educated individuals with a liberal bent. What a shocker.

Anybody that would volunteer to defend terrorists are scum. It's one thing to be a defense attorney who is assigned a case and doing your job. But volunteering your time to defend enemies of the country while there is plenty of people here that use free legal council is despicable.

The only people that should interested in that list work for the federal government. I wonder if they are doing their jobs and exposing more Lynne Stewart's. I'd expect them to be looking closely at all these lawyers.

Anybody that would volunteer to defend terrorists are scum. It's one thing to be a defense attorney who is assigned a case and doing your job. But volunteering your time to defend enemies of the country while there is plenty of people here that use free legal council is despicable.

The only people that should interested in that list work for the federal government. I wonder if they are doing their jobs and exposing more Lynne Stewart's. I'd expect them to be looking closely at all these lawyers.



Ah, looks like when I called out the neocon crazies I missed one.


You know that not everyone at Gitmo is convicted right? In fact, you know that when ordered to actually start giving them trials, some of them were realised right off the bat do to lack of evidence, right? Most importantly, you know under American law you are garunteed the right to a trial and attorny, evn if you are not a citizen, right?


Actually, you probably knew none of that. As Ive told you before, GTFO.

And you know that more than 15 that were released because there wasn't substantial "evidence" were recaptured fighting against us again right?

And these are not prisoners in the United States. They have zero rights under any laws, much less any that we should care about.

And you know that more than 15 that were released because there wasn't substantial "evidence" were recaptured fighting against us again right?

And these are not prisoners in the United States. They have zero rights under any laws, much less any that we should care about.

Considering Gitmo is US soil, yes, they are prisoners in the US.


It doesnt matter if they are guilty or not. Innocent until proven guilty and the right to a trail are the laws of the land. End of story.


Just because the Bush Cabal likes to ignore laws when it isnt convienent to their agenda doesnt mean they arent there or arent valid.

What laws are you talking about?

The reason there hasn't been trials and everything has gone on for years is because it's hard to figure out a system to judge people who have no rights.

Who is surprised by this story? Why is this a story in fact?

One more reason in a huge long list of reasons of why I would never vote for Obama.

What laws are you talking about?

The reason there hasn't been trials and everything has gone on for years is because it's hard to figure out a system to judge people who have no rights.


No, its because George Bush likes to ignore rights when they dont suit his goals.


They have the same rights as any other prisoner in the US, under the Constitution. A trial, an attorny, innocent until proven guilty. Gitmo is US soil. Subject to US law. And even forgeiners have the same legal rights under US law.


The Supreme Court has consistantly ruled against Bush and his "interpertation" of whether they have rights or not.

Oh yeah, George Bush is really overseeing all this.

And your assumption that they are covered by US laws is completely ridiculous. Everyone knows that is not the case. The entire argument is about them being covered under the Geneva Conventions, despite the fact that they meet none of the requirements to be considered a POW.

I would like any of you to explain what you think should happen with the Gitmo detainees?

Ah, looks like when I called out the neocon crazies I missed one.


You know that not everyone at Gitmo is convicted right? In fact, you know that when ordered to actually start giving them trials, some of them were realised right off the bat do to lack of evidence, right? Most importantly, you know under American law you are garunteed the right to a trial and attorny, evn if you are not a citizen, right?


Actually, you probably knew none of that. As Ive told you before, GTFO.

Are the men at gitmo Americans citizens though? If not, does the constitution protect them?

Oh yeah, George Bush is really overseeing all this.

And your assumption that they are covered by US laws is completely ridiculous. Everyone knows that is not the case. The entire argument is about them being covered under the Geneva Conventions, despite the fact that they meet none of the requirements to be considered a POW.

I would like any of you to explain what you think should happen with the Gitmo detainees?



Actually, there are lots of arguements that US law applies to them. And yes, George Bush gives these orders.

What would I like to see happen? Give them all a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty. Exact same rights as anyone tried in America (and for the record, some of the detainees at Gitmo are American Citizens).

Are the men at gitmo Americans citizens though? If not, does the constitution protect them?


Some are, but regardless, because they are on US soil, the are under US laws.

Why not summarily execute them?

*shock, horror, gasp!*

What? They're just terrorists, they don't have any rights. We should torture them to death, film the righteous purging of terrorist vermin, and display the bodies as a warning to those who would oppose the Bush Order.

Sounds cruel? Barbaric? Savage? Good.

Now that we're in agreement that they shouldn't be summarily executed, we've agreed that they have rights. Since they have rights, we must decide exactly what rights they have. The right to life, obviously. But what use is that if every day is living hell? The right not to be tortured must also be included. So should the right to freedom, if we can't prove that these people are in fact terrorists.

In b4 merge/deletion

Shouldn't this be in the other thread?

Are the men at gitmo Americans citizens though? If not, does the constitution protect them?

Tell me, would you like to be thrown in jail, randomly tortured, have limbs hacked off and the like, the moment you step out of America? Because if constitutional rights, which are declared for all people, don't protect non-Americans in American soil, then neither should any other nation's constitutions protect Americans the moment they leave the country.

I imagine several hundred thousand Americans out of the country at this point of time who would make excellent torture subjects if you answer yes.

Are the men at gitmo Americans citizens though? If not, does the constitution protect them?
It has been shown in court that the Constitution covers non-citizens. It just needs to be reaffirmed that anyone detained by the US is subject to constitutional protections. The government is just stonewalling and blocking this from happening. As soon as a new White House emerges, it will all come to light.

In b4 merge/deletion

Shouldn't this be in the other thread?

It's a zombie! (this thread predates the mega) Get a shotgun!

Anybody that would volunteer to defend terrorists are scum. It's one thing to be a defense attorney who is assigned a case and doing your job. But volunteering your time to defend enemies of the country while there is plenty of people here that use free legal council is despicable.

In this country, all people under our government's jurisdiction are guaranteed basic due process rights. This is a constitutional protection and is not subject to a vote, a ruling, or an executive order. If you don't like it, I'm afraid your only recourse is to get the hell out. That's assuming you live here, of course; if you don't, I suppose it's really none of your concern to begin with.

Edit: Old thread is old, but point stands.

Eric, the only person to be 'successfully' tried by the Gitmo court was David Hicks, who is living free now in Australia.