Government accused of biased CIA probe
Lawyers for a group of Guantanamo Bay detainees on Monday accused the Bush Adminisration of trying to arrange that only federal agencies “implicated in the destruction” of Central Intelligence Agency videotapes of harsh interrogation sessions have any role in probing that incident. In a new filing in the case of Abdah, et al., v. Bush, et al., in U.S. District Court (found here), detainees’ counsel said: “Plainly the government wants only foxes guarding this henhouse.”
While the Justice Department on Friday told U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy not to start a judicial inquiry into the tapes controversy partly because Congress was investigating, the detainees’ lawyer included in their new filing references to the fact that the Administration is trying to thwart legislative inquiries, too.
Kennedy has pending a motion by the detainees to start a court probe of the tapes’ destruction. In the new filing, the prisoners’ lawyers said the inquiry they have sought at this point would be an exploration only of “what steps, if any, might be appropriate.
The motion also made mention of a still classified document that the detainees’ counsel filed on Thursday, apparently complaining more broadly about the “government’s handling of evidence” that may bear on the government’s authority to keep detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
I wish this blog would stick to Supreme Court news, and place Mr. Denniston’s thoughts on the rights of terrorists on a differnt blog.
Comment by Charlie Eldred — December 18, 2007 @ 9:19 am
Yes, because it’s not as if the court is considering any challenges to the CSRT process. Thoughts on the rights of terrorists? He doesn’t mention rights, offer his own thoughts, or describe anyone charged with or convicted of acts of terrorism.
Comment by Sam Young — December 18, 2007 @ 11:22 am
“Thoughts” is an inappropriate characterization of Lyle’s work. What we post are thoughts, he is a working journalist. He may cover those aspects of the legal world outside the Supreme Court to which his instincts and intellect guide him, but his coverage is always factual and newsworthy. Were he to cover the dress and social life of Supreme Court justices and clerks, it would meet your relevancy criteria without adding a whit to our knowledge of contemporary legal issues.
Comment by Roger Friedman — December 18, 2007 @ 10:20 pm