« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
U.S. Blocks Payments To ACLU Attorneys Working At Guantanamo Bay
From the Miami Herald:
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba -- The U.S. government is blocking the American Civil Liberties Union from paying attorneys representing suspected terrorists held here, insisting that the ACLU must first receive a license from the U.S. Treasury Department before making the payments.ACLU director Anthony Romero on Tuesday accused the Bush administration of "obstruction of justice" by delaying approval of the license, which the government argues is required under U.S. law because the beneficiaries of the lawyers' services are foreign terrorists.
"Now the government is stonewalling again by not allowing Americans' private dollars to be paid to American lawyers to defend civil liberties,'' Romero said.
Advertisement
You need a licence to pay debt? oh, so uncorporate a world we live in.
July 8, 2008 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
These guys are unbelievable!
July 8, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree -- these guys are unbelievable.
But I think there's a way around this.
The ACLU should have each of these lawyers give a talk somewhere -- I don't know, maybe at the local ACLU offices. Invite a few people, maybe clerical workers at the ACLU. Wouldn't need to be more than 15 minutes. Topic could be anything, maybe "Conditions at Guantanamo Bay".
Then pay them a speaking fee. An honorarium. Make out the check for, say, the exact amount they are owed for their legal services to date (without in any way referencing those services, of course).
In other words, stick it right back in the eyes of these facist bastards!!
I don't see how this would not work. (And I'd love to see the government try to sue the ACLU for doing it.)
-- ARG
July 9, 2008 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doing everything they can to prevent the truth from coming out; despicable.
July 8, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 8, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Monte. That's what I came in to say.
July 8, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I imagining things, or don't we always assume a defendant is innocent until a jury rules otherwise? So, the ACLU lawyers cannot be accused of working for "terrorists", until those defendants are convicted of being "terrorists", which would have to be after the lawyers have done their jobs and long after they have received some payments for their services. I know it is asking a lot of the Bush administration, but I do think some elementary school knowledge about how our justice system works would be helpful to them.
July 8, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not entirely. It's called "civil asset forfeiture." Under some circumstances, law enforcement agencies can seize property on only the suspicion of wrongdoing, and force you to spend years and lots of money in legal fees trying to retrieve it even if you are never charged with a crime or are found innocent.
It started out as a tool to be used against organized crime and drug dealing, but it has expanded to other offenses that don't involve criminal conspiracies or large transfers of cash (like drunk driving), and because in many cases, law enforcement agencies are allowed to use proceeds from the sale of confiscated assets to fund their operations, it is subject to gross abuses.
This move against payments to lawyers representing the defendants at Guantanamo Bay is much like the freezing of the assets of RICO defendants which is designed precisely to keep the accused from being able to pay lawyers, on the theory that the money is the proceeds of a criminal enterprise and cannot validly be used to benefet the criminal (never mind that the accused has not yet been proven to be a criminal).
July 8, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
My reading of this is the ACLU is trying to disburse funds they collected for the defense of the detainees. If I am correct, these are not the detainee's assets, so why would this apply?
July 8, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
1984...George Orwell resides at Guantanamo Bay!
This is so fucking crazy....I want Bush, Rice and Cheney for being unamerican!
July 8, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
need that review button...
I want Bush, Rice and Cheney there for being unamerican!
July 8, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is outrageous -- but not, unfortunately, surprising.
July 8, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh great, welcome to the USSR of BUSH.
July 8, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously they would not have been detained if not guilty.
Sheesh, what country did I grow up in? The country I knew had habeus corpus.
Where am I?
July 8, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am really getting worked up about this because; I Have had many friends and family sent to camps during WWII...Not a pretty depiction of the American way.
July 8, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
in bushworld, one is guilty until proven innocent... i hope the world holds bush to the same sense of justice...
July 8, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are the remaining USDAs morons?
They just had one of their biggest tax fraud cases (U.S. v. Stein 05 Crim 0888 S.D.N.Y.) thrown out of court because they tried to put pressure on the defendants by having KPMG refuse to pay for their attorney fees as owed under an agreement.
Now they want to deprive suspects in a criminal trial of the right to Counsel? They need to read Gideon's Trumpet and review the history of the Constitution.
In 1776 we were the terrorists, asserting we had rights due to any man. This view lasted until 1783.
Depriving a person of effective counsel is only likely to cause your case to be dismissed.
July 8, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is surprising is the silence on this issue.
July 8, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
their is a media blackout on most news that is relevant.. meanwhile you can keep abreast of the sex lives of famous people in the media on a regular basis... that tells you mainstream media has morphed into the national enquirer en masse, with a lot of folks not having woke up to this fact yet....
July 8, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
the oligarchy running the usa are happy to go along with an enduced state of mass amnesia and ignorance on what is relevant as well... this is one reason you see rupert murdoch in bed with bush, while making fox news out to be some later version of prada.... not sure if that is working out as planned, but that is essentially the game plan... next move is to cancel the elections with some staged 9-11 type style event...
July 8, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction later day version of ussr news agency PRAVDA..
July 8, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Prada, Pravda, what's the difference? ;-)
July 8, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if residence at Guantanamo is a requirement?
Recall a week ago the AP story about the new administration policy from the Justice Department which eliminates the need for the FBI to have evidence or allegation of law breaking to open and investigation about you. Now all that is needed is suspicion based on your having a "terrorist profile" which is in turn based on secret intelligence gathering operations.
Now we see that you may not be able to hire an attorney, or have help from an organization like the ACLU, or perhaps even be paid by your employer, without their first getting a government license.
It appears the license is needed because the government computers decided you have a "terrorist profile". Of course since this is based upon intelligence data mining you will not be allowed to see the basis for your "terrorist profile".
July 8, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's funny is we used to get upset with Turkish, Indonesian and Mexican Jails and their Judicial sysytems.
Guess we are finally becoming part of an internationa Judicial system.
July 8, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Welcome to the 3rd World!
Between our kangaroo justice system, declining dollar, educational system, the burgeoning rift between the upper class & everyone else, etc, we are well on our way.
July 9, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does this have to do with civil forfeiture? Drug case defendants' personal assets are theoretically their ill-gotten gains. The Gitmo defense lawyers are being paid with money contributed to the ACLU. Does the Bush administration think that's "dirty" money, too, or is providing a defense in a U.S. tribunal aiding terrorism?
July 8, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks again Schumer. Suppose the AG had anything to do with the "fuck you and the horse you rode in on" attitude regarding Gitmo?
Conyers, let's subpoena Treasury. You see how far that's getting you.
Obama, can you defend this assault on America?
Pelosi, impeachment off the table? Sure showed them you were willing to cooperate.
Rockefeller, fuck you!
July 8, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the Supreme Court rules the detainees have habeas corpus rights, but the government blocks payment to any lawyer who might attempt to inform them of those rights.
Crude but effective.
Not exactly in the spirit of the law, but arguably legal.
The Treasury Secretary can claim to be carrying out an executive order issued by Bush under the International Emergency Powers Act.
Such executive orders bar material help to those deemed to be terrorists -- and legal help to prove they aren't terrorists obviously qualifies.
"(A)ll property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
"(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
"(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or ... ."
The specific executive order quoted (from July 17, 2007) refers to Iraq, but there are comparable orders for other hotspots, like Iran.
The point is that, under this order, you just have to be a suspected terrorist to have all your assets and property frozen.
And here's the kicker:
"(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person."
So not only does this presidential order bar any provision of funds to terrorism suspects, it bars provision of any services.
Like legal help that might get them out of Gitmo.
So there's the Catch 22: If you're in Gitmo, you can avail yourself of habeas corpus to try and get out.
But because you're in Gitmo, that means the government considers you a terrorist, and it's illegal for any lawyer to help you.
Unless the Treasury Secretary deigns to give that lawyer a "license."
This is so utterly fucked up, it's beyond Third World.
July 9, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
They should report it as a bad debt on George Bush's credit rating, turn it over to a collection agency, or put a lien on his homes and cars. Neocon bureaucrats are no match for bill collectors.
July 9, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anything . . . any method . . . any misconstrued legal term any, any . . . Just don't allow the truth to come out!
July 9, 2008 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well you could buy all of Pravda for what you pay for a Prada handbag in Euros.
July 9, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink