"Only 8 percent of the detainees were characterized as al Qaeda fighters. Of the remaining detainees, 40 percent have no definitive connection with al Qaeda at all and 18 percent have no definitive affiliation with either al Qaeda or the Taliban...."The Government has detained numerous persons based on mere affiliations with a large number of groups that are, in fact, not on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watchlist . . . A large majority - 60 percent - are detained merely because they are 'associated with' a group or groups the Government asserts are terrorist organizations. (And members of almost 72 percent of those groups are allowed into the U.S.)....

"Only 5 percent of the detainees were captured by United States forces. Eighty-six percent of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody. This 86 percent of the detainees captured by Pakistan or the Northern Alliance were handed over to the United States at a time when the United States offered large bounties for capture of suspected enemies."

Hentoff adds: "Remember, these findings are based entirely on Department of Defense records. (Robert Gates can fact-check them.)...Remember, too, that in the 2006 Military Commissions Act, Congress stripped from all these prisoners any meaningful right to utilize our federal courts, thereby defying our own Supreme Court."

(For more on the MCA and Bush's larger web of arbitrary rule, see Presidential Tyranny Untamed by Election Defeat and Fatal Vision: The Deeper Evil Behind the Detainee Bill.)

This issue must now be brought to the crisis. When the new Congress convenes, it should pass a law repealing the Military Commissions Act and firmly re-establishing Constitutional principles of jurisprudence and civil liberties. Then let Bush veto it if he will, so that it will be plain at last where we stand: Constitutionalists on one side, Authoritarians on the other. These poles are fast becoming the true political divide in this country, a split that runs through all parties. To echo George Washington, "Let us have [a government] by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once."

It is folly to wait upon the Supreme Court to sort out the matter. There is little indication that the current Court will strike down the MCA; at best, it may seek to mitigate some of its most egregious excesses. But allowing the law to stand in any form represents an acceptance of the principle of unconstitutional presidential authority, of arbitrary action by the executive. And of course the MCA is not the sole building block of the vast edifice of tinpot tyranny that Bush and his anti-American minions have constructed over the years. That's why any move to repeal the Act must be accompanied by further legislation to roll back all of Bush's encroachments on our Constitutional system.

Will such a law be vetoed? Yes. But let it be so. Let it come down. Force all those who represent us in government declare which side they are on. Let all the pundits and opinion-slingers declare which side they are on. Let the people themselves see clearly and openly the choice that is before them: Do you want a republic of free citizens, or a bastardized autocracy?

Excerpts from Our Own Nuremberg Trials (Village Voice): During the mutual-admiration hearing before the Senate Committee on Armed Services - which led to the unanimous confirmation of former CIA chief Robert Gates to be Donald Rumsfeld's successor - no senator asked Gates if he approves of the Pentagon's "extreme . . . emergency" insistence on a $125 million appropriation to construct a permanent compound for a war-crimes court at Guantánamo. There, in 2007, war-crimes trials will be held for dozens of Guantánamo "detainees." The facilities will accommodate simultaneous proceedings.

Unlike the Nuremberg war-crimes trials of the Nazis, there will be no government officials in the dock, but rather - as detailed in my last column - prisoners against whom the United States has itself committed war crimes under the Geneva Conventions and our own War Crimes act. These crimes include their conditions of confinement and a total lack of the due process that the Supreme Court ordered in Rasul v. Bush (2004) and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).

Each of the defendants will have already been designated as an "enemy combatant" by previous "administrative" Combatant Status Review Tribunals at Guantánamo. At these sham hearings they were presumed guilty before any of the "evidence" against them (which they were not permitted to see) was aired. That means the presumption of guilt will continue at the war-crimes trials. The world will watch the total transmogrification of America's much self-praised "rule of law."

...The Seton Hall revelations have reached beyond the metropolitan press to, for example, the Anniston Star in Alabama. A December 1 editorial, "The Gitmo Games," quotes from the Seton Hall findings, and concludes:

"The military is holding something less than a kangaroo court that results in putting people away - without charging them with any specific wrongdoing - for an indefinite period of time . . . History will be very unkind to the rulers who constructed this very unjust, un-American system. Those un-American rulers, of course, include George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales, a coven of lawyers at the Defense Department and the White House, and Donald Rumsfeld. Will Robert Gates take his place among them?"

The Anniston Star's indictment-editorial ends: "[History] also will be unkind to people who tolerated [this un-American system.]" That means us.

But, it seems the constitutional authority of the president is not the case for the US president in light of his negligence of losing seats to the Democrats in the mid-term Congressional election, because the message of the November election for Mr. Bush was that he should shift gear in Iraq from military approach and give a go-ahead to democratic means.

Regardless of the reality that there is no a military solution to Iraqi crisis taking tolls on civilians every day and the US troops as well, he has planned to a surge in numbers of troops.

But, in Iran, democracy is being respected by Iranian chief executive and he lacks the power to exceed his Constitutional authority.

There are several Constitutional Offices monitoring performance of the president in Iran and the president cannot produce nuclear bomb.
Is it the case in the United States?

Constitutionally, the Supreme Leader's Office is in charge of administration of the state affairs and in case of Iranian nuclear program, the Supreme Leader has made it clear that production of nuclear bomb and weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in forbidden in Islam.

Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei has said in one of his private speech on prohibition of nuclear bomb in Islam that when Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein sprayed Iranian soldiers in frontier areas with chemical weapons, Iranian government never contemplated using such weapons, because WMDs is forbidden in Islam.

Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran has emanated from Islamic principles so that producing weapons of mass destruction will never have a place in Iran.

President Bush is escaping from debate with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The logic requires Mr. Bush to hold a TV debate with Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian president believes that Hitler of Germany also killed several million non-Jews in the World War and why the US is magnifying deaths of the Jewish community of the European states?

It is a concept Ahmadinejad has got from his studies and is it logic to accuse him of producing nuclear arms for expressing such a concept?

Earlier this year, Gallagher was one of five conservative talk radio hosts invited to the White House to meet with President Bush.

Full transcript:

GALLAGHER: You know, it's a little bit ridiculous that we continue to watch these TV stars and movie stars who smear our leaders. I just wonder, Rob, if you'll think for a moment what our enemies think of seeing TV personalities compare the outgoing defense secretary to Adolph Hitler. I mean, you know, conservatives never get a pass. Strom Thurmond is wished a happy birthday by Trent Lott and the sky falls in on Trent Lott. But Joy Behar goes on national TV and compares a good man like Rumsfeld to the evilest man in the world and nobody, you know, there's no repercussions for Joy Behar. I think we should round up all of these folks. Round up Joy Behar. Round up Matt Damon, who last night on MSNBC attacked George Bush and Dick Cheney. Round up Olbermann. Take the whole bunch of them and put them in a detention camp until this war is over because they're a bunch of traitors.

THOMPSON: They're not traitors, they're Americans. And you know what the great thing about America is you get to say what you like and you don't get thrown into detention camps.

GALLAGHER: No, you don't.

THOMPSON: And that's what the rest of the world sees. They see free Americans say what they like without having any fear of going to jail. So, if I wanted to compare someone to Hitler or anybody else, Pol Pot, whatever it might be, I have no fear of going to jail because that is what an America is.

GALLAGHER: There's such a thing as treason, Rob.

THOMPSON: That's not treason. That's just political talk and satire and it might be funny at the best, at the least.

Similarly, after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush simply asked Americans for their "continued participation and confidence in the American economy." From the Internationald Herald Tribune, 1/14/03:

Bush did nothing to mobilize public opinion to accept the sacrifices that war implies - the first thing a leader would do. Tax cuts could go ahead as planned, and energy saving was dismissed out of hand. "Go shopping" was the administration's message.

Bush added today that 2007 will "require difficult choices and additional sacrifices" from the American people.

Transcript:

As we work with Congress in the coming year to chart a new course in Iraq and strengthen our military to meet the challenges of the 21st century, we must also work together to achieve important goals for the American people here at home. This work begins with keeping our economy growing. ... And I encourage you all to go shopping more.

"He has sort of fallen through the cracks as far as medical care goes," said Dr. Susan Okie, contributing editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. "He has made, physically, a fairly remarkable recovery considering how badly he was wounded, but he has significant residual medical problems and symptoms."

Pepper, along with Sergeant David Emme, were first profiled in the pages of the journal last year while undergoing treatment and rehabilitation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, in Washington, D.C.

Emme also has a traumatic brain injury (TBI) and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a result of his service in Iraq.

Okie revisited the two men, this time in their homes -- Pepper, an hour outside Nashville, Tenn., and Emme, north of Allentown, Pa.

Pepper and Emme are among some 22,600 U.S. soldiers who have been wounded in the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and other locations, most commonly by blasts. Fifty-nine percent of those injured by blasts have been found to have a TBI, which has been called the signature wound of this war. This and other features of the conflicts may be overwhelming the veterans' health-care system.

"There are probably more people like these two guys who have a combination of PTSD and TBI, and that's probably something the VA has not seen in such numbers before," Okie said. "Because of the body armor, there is a higher survivor rate of those with multiple wounds, so a bigger influx of those with severe injuries and maybe head injury as well as amputations or wounds to the limbs. The VA's obviously got a big burden of people recovering from severe injuries, more than in previous conflicts."

"The nature of the wounds is completely different because of the improvised explosive devices," added Phil Kraft, program director for the National Veterans Services Fund, in Darien, Conn. "The guys who were injured to this extent in Vietnam are dead. These guys are being saved when, ordinarily, they wouldn't have made it. The VA system is designed for soldiers who took a bullet, stuff like that. These aren't your traditional wounds."

The VA's plans for a "seamless transition" from military to civilian health care are largely unrealized. About 80 percent of soldiers recently discharged after serving in Iraq have not even enrolled as patients in the VA system.

Pepper, a former Army combat engineer, hasn't seen a doctor since he left Walter Reed in September 2005. He did enroll with Tricare, an agency that administers a national health-care plan for military personnel, veterans and their families, but said he was unable to contact the civilian primary-care physician that Tricare referred him to.

Pepper takes escalating doses of a barbiturate-containing pain medication left over from Walter Reed, along with medications to reduce his anxiety and help him sleep. At the same time, he has cut his daily antidepressant dose in half and has gained 50 or so pounds since his discharge from Walter Reed. He feels he can't exercise safely because he can't see.

Emme also has not seen a doctor since his discharge. His headaches have largely disappeared since his skull was reconstructed, but he still has muscle twitching (a result of his brain injury), sleep apnea and anxiety, which may be a symptom of PTSD. Emme also enrolled in Tricare but has yet to follow up with a civilian neurologist.

Neither Pepper nor Emme has a case manager to ensure continuity of care.

"Everybody has tried to come up with a system that involves case managers to try to help them stay on top, but they're not using them," Okie said. "Theoretically, they could both get them simply by arranging it."

And it's hard to say precisely where or how people are slipping through the cracks.

"Just the sheer size of the caseload is unbearable for any health-care organization," Kraft said. "I couldn't with any conscience point my finger at the VA, and say they're doing this on purpose. They're trying. They really are, but they're not being given any money. How the hell are you going to take care of these people if there's no money to do it? They're always willing to send young men and women over there, it's just they don't think it all the way through."

More information

For more on issues facing returning veterans, visit the National Veterans Services Fund Inc..

Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, was seized at a New York airport in 2002, and sent to Syria, where he was tortured. A judicial inquiry into his case was set up after he returned to Canada more than a year later.

It concluded that Arar had no terror links, and the RCMP had given misleading information to U.S. authorities, which may have been the reason he was sent to Syria.

Parliament apologized to Arar, and the government has been asking Washington to remove him from a watch list, which means he can't travel to the U.S. and is a marked man, despite being cleared in Canada.

However, the U.S. has refused, and has not explained why.

Questioned about Arar on Dec. 18, a State Department spokesman said: "It was a conscious decision to keep him on this watch list ... people tell us that there is good reason for his being on the watch list. I can't get into those reasons."

Harper frustrated

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told Sun Media that "as near as I can see, we simply have a U.S. government that won't admit it's wrong."

He said he can't compel the U.S. to explain why it stills views Arar with suspicion.

"I'm not aware of the U.S. violating any law by not sharing it with us, but I'm obviously disappointed that they don't seem at this point to have responded fully to the conclusions of our own inquiry, and I have no explanation for why they're taking the position that they are."

MacKay and Rice are expected to meet reporters after their talk.

Arar's lawsuit against the U.S. has been cited as one reason American authorities won't talk about the case.