Lamberth Doesn’t Seem to Think the Boumediene Sky Is Falling

Because Chief Judge Royce Lamberth of the DC Circuit (where many Gitmo habeas petitions are currently pending) sure seems to be moving forward on developing procedures to give the Gitmo prisoners their habeas petitions.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth met today with lawyers from the Department of Justice and representatives of the Guantanamo detainees to discuss how the court should proceed in light of last week’s Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush.  In the off-the-record meeting, lawyers for both sides discussed a number of security and procedural issues that are common to many of the nearly 200 cases pending before the court.  “We had a constructive meeting today and will have a follow up meeting next Wednesday.  I plan to meet soon with the judges of this court to discuss the lawyers’ suggestions for how we can move these cases most efficiently and expeditiously,” said Chief Judge Lamberth.          

"Efficiently and expeditiously." Golly. Once again Article III seems to be missing the Republican script about how the Boumediene decision is the end of the world.

66 replies
  1. bmaz says:

    Heh. Go figure. My guess is that he also wants to get some on the record and decided before Bush and the Gooper Gang start pushing their next piece of crappy legislation. Good for Lamberth.

  2. Bushie says:

    “…In the off-the-record meeting, lawyers for both sides discussed a number of security and procedural issues….”

    I wonder who asked for off the record? Heavens, we wouldn’t be interested in procedures; what’s in the details anyway.

    • bmaz says:

      No. This was a very appropriate way to go about things actually. My guess is that it was Lamberth’s initial suggestion, and it was a good one.

  3. maryo2 says:

    I read some right leaning web sites on the day that the Boumediene decision was delivered and you pegged it: they were saying that the decision had caused the detainees’ trials to be delayed indefinitely.

    I had wondered how that could be worse than facing a rigged trial with only one possible outcome.

    I am sure the right leaning web sites are rejoicing and reporting today’s development.

  4. janetplanet says:

    OT – House Jud. hearing re torture, starting now on Cspan3. Lawrence Wilkerson is up first.

  5. MarkusQ says:

    Mildly offtopic, but there’s an interesting thread on slashdot about wikileaks putting up the US Special Forces counterinsurgency manual.

    It directly advocates training paramilitaries, pervasive surveillance, censorship, press control and restrictions on labor unions & political parties. It directly advocates warrantless searches, detainment without charge and the suspension of habeas corpus. It directly advocates bribery, employing terrorists, false flag operations and concealing human rights abuses from journalists. And it directly advocates the extensive use of ‘psychological operations’ (propaganda) to make these and other ‘population & resource control’ measures more palatable.

    Proceed with caution. Your tax dollars at work.


    • bigbrother says:

      We are and have been for three decades living in a “Mind Control” environment. Big Brother is in control. The question now is how to control it. Every shock, threat or trdgedy is used by Big Brother as an opportunity to shrink our constitutional freedoms. It work for concentrating capital in the hands of those who know “what is best for us”. The Oligarchy is not happy with political campaigns that they do not fund. That is their big hook. We have a movement to refuse their funding let’s keep it growing. Barack, Donna Edwards, Howie and others kudos!

    • behindthefall says:

      That’s not ‘counterinsurgency’; that’s counter-democracy. Imagine what happens to the public’s opinion of a nation backing use of these techniques when the news gets out? Oh, wait…

  6. skdadl says:

    We are being told here that, because charges have already been brought in Khadr’s case and the pre-trial sessions are already underway (with a new judge who is trying to speed things up), it will be harder for his lawyers to make a habeas argument for him. Could the lawyers present offer opinions?

    The new judge, btw, Col Patrick Parrish, apparently has the nickname “rocket-docket.” Khadr’s chief interrogator, Sgt Joshua Claus, also has an interesting nickname:

    Mr. Kuebler also wants Mr. Parrish to order the release of numerous records he believes will help him show Mr. Khadr’s interrogators essentially shaped the statements he’s made since U.S. forces seized him following a 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.

    Key among them are the service records of a Sgt. Joshua Claus, who was Mr. Khadr’s chief interrogator in the three months he was held in Afghanistan’s Bagram detention facility, and who was later court-martialed for his role in the death of another detainee there.

    Mr. Claus, who has since said he treated Mr. Khadr well, wrote in a recent e-mail under a return address marked “hellspawn” that he would not voluntarily speak with the defence.

    That’s not the best report on the current state of things (the Notional Pest, creation of Conrad Black), but it had the colourful details.

    • bmaz says:

      As a general rule, and I don’t know how that specifically interrelates here, an incarcerated person may file a writ of habeas corpus at any time to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, provided that the specific grounds asserted have not been previously litigated to a conclusion, or, in the case of a person already convicted, that the issues are not still available for review on appeal (commonly known as a requirement to exhaust all available remedies).

  7. bmaz says:

    Couple of questions:

    Thanks to JanetPlanet above, I turned on cspan3 and EEEEKKK, David Rivkin was on my TeeVee. Brutal. Does Rivkin actually do anything other than run around to every hearing scheduled as the designated NeoCon spew boy? I don’t think he does do anything else. I will say this, from what I have seen over far more than a decade observing the bow tied toadie, he doesn’t have enough attorney skills to litigate his ass out of Larry Craig’s bathroom stall.

    Did you all read the LA Times piece on Curveball I linked last night? There is, believe it or not, even more than we already knew about how infinitely bogus this guy was and is. It is not that long and worth a quick read. Bring your vomit bag though. Why are we in Iraq? Here is your answer. anybody that believed this dude ought to be locked up in Belleview themselves.

      • bmaz says:

        Bloody hell. It got worse. Got up to go get a drink, came back and was treated to Darrell Issa questioning David Rivkin. Talk about your torture….

        Then, then Issa started comparing his “military training” with that of Col. Larry Wilkerson. Jeebus.

        • Petrocelli says:

          I almost lost my lunch when Issa compared himself to Wilkerson … nice of Iss-hole (H/T Jayt) to pin all this on Janis and the troops …

    • bigbrother says:

      Curveball is not a reliable source for either side of the run up to war What makes you bring it up. LA Times gives the Impeachment case more legs?
      Conyers is holding the Geneva Convention as the bar to meet on torture see cspan 3 judiciary.

  8. BoxTurtle says:

    I’m trying to work this through logically and here’s how it seems to come out, no matter what the lawyers and Bushies do.

    1) There will be trials, convictions, and sentencing this year. Note that I did not use the word “aquittial”.

    2) After BushCo is gone, the cases will work their way through the courts. And will get thrown out due to evidence irrevocably tainted because of the torture.

    3) Obama will be put in the position of releasing these folks or holding after their convictions are overturned. He will either be crucified by the GOP for letting dangerous terrorists lose or by the world any many in his own party for not respecting our own laws.

    Have I missed something?

    Boxturtle (Somebody in BushCo is channeling the spirit of Joe Stalin)

    • Bushie says:

      Too true.

      Love your thought on channeling though, when I read it, El Duce came to mind. David Addington, take away the beard and shave him bald, what do you get?

      • freepatriot says:

        more specifically

        I remember the statement “we can’t have acquittals”

        that’s why they got a kangaroo flag in the court room, ain’t it ????

      • skdadl says:

        The “We can’t have acquittals” line was Haynes to Col Morris Davis, I believe.

        At least Haynes doesn’t scratch himself in public. That image of Shiffrin yesterday keeps coming back to me. I wish it would go away.

        • skdadl says:

          Now, EW would know that better than I (because she’s read his book), but my impression has always been that he’s sort of gentlemanly-evasive about why he left, as are some other people I can think of.

          The immediate history I recall is that he rescinded the Yoo memo of [help], leaving it, I believe, for Levin to write the revision, and then he left the DoJ — all that only months after the hospital confrontation on teh program (”other intelligence activities,” to quote AGAG). It sounds as though he did what he could but recognized that his future with this admin was pretty much done for.

        • Diane says:

          Sounds right – so much skullduggery to try and keep up with, I don’t know how EW keep up!

        • freepatriot says:

          I don’t know how EW keep’s up!

          apparently they were selling score cards or programs listing repuglitard crooks at some point, and ew bought one

          it’s that, or she’s really a computer or something

          maybe it’s cuz she buys those “repuglitard crooks” trading cards

        • skdadl says:

          When I were a tad, you got trading cards with bubble gum and other things (movie stars on ice cream lids). Don’t they do that any more? (And does EW chew bubble gum?)

        • kspena says:

          and Diane @37…The “We can’t have acquittals” line was Haynes to Col Morris Davis, I believe.

          The message I read is “We can’t have acquittals; we need DEATH!”

  9. RevDeb says:

    So am I missing something or was Issa actually asking the right questions? I just walked in and turned on the hearing, so my wits might not be totally collected, but it sounded like he was not trying to BS for the administration.

    If true, I’m shocked. Really.

  10. MichaelDG says:

    Rivkin and Rep King from Iowa had a little lovefest going putting down the SC decision about HC. A real laugh. Worthless use of Kings time.

  11. bmaz says:

    Ooohhh EW, clearly it is his reasoned conjecture, but Wilkerson (upon Wasserman-Schultz examination) just laid all the bogus legal opinions at the feet of Addington. Was quite clear and direct about it too. Not an earth shattering revelation of course, but always nice to hear from someone like that.

    • Petrocelli says:

      Did you catch Conyers’ statement that they will have to call others for further questioning ?

  12. Mary says:

    The “neoRepublican” script. Remember that Fein, Walker, Lamberth – there are quite a few actual political ideology Republicans who never got the Neoschool tie.

    11 – Nah, I don’t think you’ve missed anything, although what is more likely is that they would move appeals of trials to real courts or to an actual credible military appellate review process.

    The big issue that I think they will have to address for the habeas cases is the one that Roberts ran into with the Chinese Uighurs in the case he handled. What do you do with innocent people who were in Afghanistan hiding from non-US torture regimes?

    for bmaz –
    special assistant to Haynes, Cap’n Jack, seems to indirectly work his way into the most recent Lasseter story.…..38886.html

    See back in late 2001, it seems Haynes went to Guter, then JAG for the Navy, and wanted to discuss a pretty unusual concept:

    Guter said he began to think that Haynes “was playing games” in late 2001, when the two met regularly to figure out how to handle detainees in Afghanistan.

    Haynes, then the Pentagon’s head lawyer, had asked whether hundreds of the prisoners could be detained on Navy warships.

    Guter said “it became apparent pretty quickly” that Haynes wanted a place “outside of the courts,” where no judge could consider whether detainees were being held lawfully or under appropriate conditions.

    I don’t think he technically came onboard with Haynes until 2002 (but I’m not sure and a fast google didn’t give me anything very “date oriented”), still, his ‘law of the seas’ trident was a part of the mix from the beginning.

    Another name that was on my mind during EW’s liveblogging has emerged too – although for a very different reason.


    “General Accuses WH of War Crimes”

  13. freepatriot says:

    sorry folks, but it’s time for a little snoopy dancin

    Meet America’a newest member of Congress


    this “Blue America” thingy is workin out PRETTY GOOD

    we picked up three seats in the House, and we pitched a blue dog out on his ass (actually, he crawled away in shame after he lost the primary)

    I’m thinking that, for the repuglitards, the sky really IS falling

    but they are totally misreading what the sky actually is

    keep on telling us that our constitution is the problem, we really like that

    (if you can’t defend the fucking constitution without destroying the constitution, why do you even want the fucking job of defending the constitution ???)

    • Elliott says:

      Donna said:
      “Just so you know, I will be sworn in tomorrow, Thursday, midday — tune in to C-Span — I will have one minute on the floor and I will use it judiciously.”

  14. Mary says:

    4 – Here’s the bull on that. Of the hundreds and hundreds at GITMO, most don’t have any kind of “trial” at issue bc they aren’t charged with anything.

    • Leen says:

      Legal limbo. How low can you go? Or how long can you wait?

      Have been thinking about Haynes testimony and when guys like that and Gonzales are willing to look right at some of the people that they are supposed to answer to and then they lie and lie why does anyone why folks have such disrespect for the Bush administraion. They have such dis respect for the rule of law. Trickle down indeed. Our children are watching and so is the rest of the world.

  15. randiego says:

    okay I’m finally back at work and almost finished digging out from the 2+ weeks of life that piled up while I was away…

    bmaz – sending you email. reply at your leisure.

  16. freepatriot says:

    I got another off-topic question

    did mcsame and bush announce an energy policy or a suicide pact ???

    end the off-shore drilling ban ???

    you can kiss any chance of winning California goodbye

    not playing to well in Florida either

    Mayday, Mayday, going down …

    • randiego says:

      howdy FP – I’ll go even further with your OT – do we have anyone currently pushing back against this ‘blame the democrats for high gas prices since they won’t let us drill in the ANWR’ thing?

      As I clicked by, I heard dickhead Glenn Beck last night quote the number of 100 freaking million barrels of oil a day…

      Is there anyone on this?

      • randiego says:

        PS – I’ve been away – believe it or not there are still places on this earth that don’t have cell coverage of any sort and the only way to contact the outside world is via satellite phone… and I was in one of ‘em.

      • freepatriot says:

        I saw wolfie laughing at some repuglitard schmuck from Ohio

        told him “it’s real easy to be for off-shore drilling when you live in Ohio”

        and wolfie asked him why george didn’t have an energy policy after EIGHT FUCKING YEARS

        after mumbling some shit about nuclear power and alternative energy, he finally mentioned ANWR

        the repuglitards think we’re stupid

        the reason george bush doesn’t have an energy policy is george’s stubborn stupidity over ANWR

        every energy bill for the past 8 years has had ANWR in it, and it failed EVERY FUCKING TIME

        now the repuglitards wanna act like that didn’t happen

        george bush:

        2001; hey, I got a good NEW idea, how about drilling in ANWR

        2002; hey, I got a good NEW idea, how about drilling in ANWR

        2003; hey, I got a good NEW idea, how about drilling in ANWR

        2004; hey, I got a good NEW idea, how about drilling in ANWR

        2005; hey, I got a good NEW idea, how about drilling in ANWR

        2006; hey, I got a good NEW idea, how about drilling in ANWR

        2007; hey, I got a good NEW idea, how about drilling in ANWR

        2008; hey, I got a good NEW idea, how about drilling in ANWR

        now john mcsame wants to change things:

        hey, I got a good NEW idea, how about drilling in ANWR

        it’s like watching a cartoon, cept it ain’t funny, and people are actually dying an stuff …

        • randiego says:

          you’re right – it ain’t funny – but that sure as hell was – I almost spewed my coffee over here…

  17. BayStateLibrul says:

    OT but Mike Barnicle just gave a great eulogy for Tim Russert.
    Full of joy and funny as hell…
    I know it’s kinda been overkill, but wow…

  18. freepatriot says:

    jack mccafferty just ripped mcsame a new asshole

    why does consistency hate john mcsame

    gonna copyright that one too

  19. freepatriot says:

    people are fishin in corn fields in the midwest, and george bush symbolically vetoed the farm bill (remember the typo)

    the bill has been passed, vetoed, and the veto has already be overridden, but 34 pages missed the signing ceremony, so Congress had a “do over”, just to be sure

    last I checked, half of next year’s popcorn crop is under water. I know a little bit about gardening, and I can assure you, that ain’t good

    george picked one hell of a day to tilt at windmills

  20. timbo says:

    I sure hope they can mention that they’ve been tortured in their petitions…and that there is some willingness by the United States legal system to bring the anti-Constitutional thugs behind that to justice (alleged).

  21. kimocrossman says:

    Well just a reminder that this judge as Chief of FISA was the only one read into the warrantless spying and signed all FISA Warrants which used info obtained from them keeping the rest of FISA court in the dark.…..index.html

    This is also discussed in Ny Times Eric Lichtblau’s Bush’s Law: The Remaking of American Justice

    You don’t get picked to be on FISA in the first place for your liberal views.

    • bmaz says:

      You shouldn’t get picked for that spot for your liberal views. Or any other kind of views for that matter. all things considered, Lamberth has been pretty stand up i think.

      • kimocrossman says:

        This judge has the ability, position and legal knowledge to blow the roof off wiretapping and did not do so.

        • bmaz says:

          That would be both illegal and unethical, and unethical in two regards, against both lawyer canons and judicial canons; is that what you think he should have done? I have a real strong inkling that we wouldn’t know 60%-75% of the stuff we do if not for the roadblocks set up by, and efforts of, Lamberth and Kollar-Kotelly. With all due respect, I think your position here is way off base.

        • freepatriot says:

          With all due respect, I think your position here is way off base.

          I kinda agree with BMAZ, but we don’t yet know what we’re talkin about here

          we can only sort this out after we sift thru george’s bullshit clasification system

          if any of those wire taps are for Democrats, maybe this judge IS a crook

          we don’t know

          January 20, 2009

          then we can know

        • bmaz says:

          Well, yeah. And Obama may yet be Osama, we don’t know yet; but there sure is a lack of credible evidence to that effect. But seriously, Carlos Gonzales is making you forget all about Dan Haren isn’t he?

        • LabDancer says:

          And I in turn am with Fearless Freep.

          Per the bmaz exchange with kimcrossman re speculation of Lamberth et al complicity in unregulated domestic spying:

          [A] My personal experience supports the take of bmaz.

          [B] There are more than enough battles to be fought with the Syndicate without going all Man of La Mancha.

          [C] It is AT LEAST as likely the Syndicates preference for dealing with Bernice [“one ringy dingy”] over the FISA court derived from the Syndicate having being apprised by its mouthpieces at DOJ of the thrust of some such informal chitchat with the members of the DC Circuit court.

          Personal Experience: In over a decade spent intermittently chasing warrant paper for the authorities- I cannot remember a single solitary occasion of ever being turned down flat – not one-

          but I have very vivid recollections of a number of occasions early on in that ‘career’ of being gently encouraged to go back & try again – or beating a full retreat all the way back behind the lines & even back to the drawing board – or being required to submit the proffer to some extraordinary or excrutiating embarrassing third degree by a member of the court- causing a lot of excess perspiration & anxiety & significantly blunting my eagerness to return to fight THAT dragon again-

          & once I stopped making rookie & hubristic errors of ommision & commission I was able to gain enough cred with my masters that they stopped ordering me over the trenches into the path of judicial machine gun fire –

          & from that I earned a little further cred as some sort of secular guru internally & thus was invited to pass on the lessons learned to benefit my successors –

          & thus my employer 0
          & to the general relief of judges –
          & presto! the “win” rate kept going up.

          Observation: For some reason[s] the Syndicates mouthpieces were no longer willing to deal with the likes of Lamberth et al – from a period largely coinciding with the hegemony of Gonzo Law.

          Conclusion: Someone confused crime with patriotism.

      • freepatriot says:

        if by “Liberal Views” you mean supporting an individual’s right to be free from tyranny, then YEAH, I want someone with “Liberal Views” in that position

        depends on your definition of Liberal

        are we talking about the caricture image created by the repuglitards, or the historically acurate view of Liberals

        Jesus was a Liberal. George, John, Tom, James, and James were Liberals (the first five presidents) Abe Lincoln was a liberal. Most of the progress that has been made in protecting human rights has be the work of liberals

        I’m not sure I’m really a Liberal, … I’m just kinda … “Out There” … in a strange and disturbing way. But I support this political experiment our forefathers* started in 1787, so maybe I really am a liberal. I sure ain’t no fuckin Royalist, I can tell ya that

        *my ancestors fought at the battle of CowPens, and one of em married the daughter of the guy who owned the cow pen

        • behindthefall says:

          It’s hard to even comprehend these days that for centuries (millenia) there have been societies where the only liberties people could exercise were the ones PERMITTED them by a monarch who derived his (rarely her) position from a divine source. If you weren’t the king you HAD NO INALIENABLE RIGHTS, AMONG THEM LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Any person who believes that every person has inalienable rights is a liberal. Be very wary of anyone who says they are NOT a liberal, because that person is after everything we take for granted. IMHO.

        • JThomason says:

          Kennedy was not afraid to shoot straight and name “tyranny” in Boumediene. I think the time has come for those who have been reserved and polite to a fault in their discourse to begin to match their words with the extreme conditions we are now encountering.

    • bmaz says:

      And a torn ACL. He is just different than the rest in a way that few in history really are. Never thought I would say that about a golfer, even Nicklaus; but there it is.

  22. JohnLopresti says:

    re: Friar. One of the structural aspects about the Fine report was the FbI’s negotiations early about Qahtani. A quick perusal seems to say Q emerged after Q’s torcha path thru the prison(s) Condi swore all over Europe did not exist in the former E.Europe operated by US intell. Another account I found seemed to say the Zub experience was the chip DoD was playing in the jostling over whether FBI would wait for a cooling off period before interviewing Q; another rendition had it that FBI had interviewed Q first. So, it is a jumbled set of tales. Fine at one point said Q had a known breaking point threshold that Gitmo wanted to exceed again, FBI lost the negotiations, and Q finally broke after about 5 months of torcha, April 2oo4. I may have the dates confused, too. I am too busy to trace it, but Fine has the mosaic, scattered in its chapter overlaps. What interested me were negotiations, e.g. the policy group excluding Condi but including State. But I think the overarching plan from WH was to assure all the leadership people in the administration were sullied, kind of a corporate guarantee all or none would ever reveal what happened and who made the topmost decisions. I doubt I will have time to pursue this much, as I am obligated in many ways this year in employments.

Comments are closed.