Graham, Levin Attended KSM Hearing

Filed under: Guantanamo Bay — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on March 16, 2007 @ 3:27 pm CET

The Washington Post reports that Senators Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) “flew to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Saturday to observe the closed military hearing for al-Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed”, they “watched the proceedings over closed-circuit television from an adjacent room” according to a spokeswoman of Levin.

Strangely, although the “fficial transcript of Mohammed’s hearing… acknowledged the presence of five unnamed military officers, a translator and an official tribunal reporter” it did not mention the fact that Levin and Graham were present as well. Those two, of course, “helped write the law codifying the tribunals.”

The two authors of the article, Dafna Linzer and Josh White, point out:

Saturday’s trip underscores congressional efforts to exert oversight of one of President Bush’s most controversial programs in his fight against al-Qaeda. After recent criticism from the Justice Department’s inspector general over its use of surveillance powers under the USA Patriot Act, the Bush administration is under pressure to demonstrate greater transparency than it has been willing to offer in the past.

As I wrote yesterday, the problem with KSM’s confessions is that he might have been tortured, or at least that he didn’t have the rights ‘normal’ suspects have, etc. His confessions are tainted and… he did quite a lot if he is to be believed. Something like a superterrorist.

It’s a good thing that Levin and Graham were present, but it would be even better if terrorism suspects would get the same treatment individuals who are suspected of other crimes get. They should not have been flown to Gitmo, because Gitmo shouldn’t be used for this.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or willfully misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid use of vulgar language as well as racial, ethnic, or religious slurs.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim) or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email.