If you’re a regular TPC reader, by now you are well aware of my posts on behalf of Lt. Col. Barry Wingard and his client, Guantanamo Bay detainee Fayiz al-Kandari. Barry sent me a new post that he wanted me to share with you.

Cross-posted at Huffington Post:

The U.S. government routinely uses the term “War on Terror” to describe its military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. But how do we really define this “War on Terror”? After all, terrorism dates back to at least the 14th century, and individuals, groups and even nations have employed it ever since.

It’s hard to argue that the deployment of a bigger gun or faster tank can actually alter the outcome of either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan, let alone defeat terrorism. The U.S. armed forces have undeniably defeated the organized militaries in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the question now is whether the military can obliterate the ideas and policies that drive the growing use of terrorism.

The fact is, terrorism originates from dark and damp alleys of apathy, poverty, disenfranchisement and misunderstanding. It is a tactic that can support any set of ideals, especially for groups that lack sufficient power to rebel openly. As a result, terrorism in its many forms likely will never be defeated.

More to the point, we certainly cannot expect to defeat terrorism when the “War on Terror” itself creates indifference and fosters misunderstanding among our own citizens. In America, we now accept secrecy in this “War on Terror” as common, acceptable and subject only to the amount of scrutiny that shadowy operatives in the government deem appropriate for disclosure.

In America, the “War on Terror” has become a subjective “us” versus “them” battle that serves to advance stereotypes based upon who we believe we are as Americans and who, or what, we perceive “them” to be. In a real sense, significant effort has gone toward convincing Americans with little worldly experience that a billion Muslim “them” think a certain way and hate us for our free and democratic way of life.

The “War on Terror” should be about taking the moral high ground and protecting law-abiding people of all races, ethnicity and religious faiths. But in the past eight years, it has wrongly been used to sell the idea that the arbitrary “them” are sub-human because they are not like “us.” Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib are perfect examples of what happens as a result. These military prisons are already touchstones for the “War on Terror” in history books and nothing we do will ever change that. But, certainly we can do more than continue the mistakes of current and past presidential administrations.

While prosecuting cases in Iraqi courts, I personally witnessed the consequences of misguided U.S. policies. The defendants I was prosecuting were much more likely to be unemployed Iraqis trying to make money, rather than extremists driven by religion or philosophy. Often, when it came to offering justifications for opposing U.S. forces, defendants would cite Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay or the United States’ invasion of Iraq. Very few cited historic or religious animosity as the basis for their actions.

As the number of Guantanamo detainees falls below 180 from a one-time high of 775, what will the released men say about their time at Guantanamo Bay and their opinions of the United States? Bear in mind that, for many, Guantanamo was their only American experience. How would their perceptions differ had we afforded these men the same rights we provide every American accused of a crime, no matter how malicious? At a minimum, we would have maintained the high standards of humanity upon which we, as Americans, used to pride ourselves. And we would have maintained the respect we have since lost, even from our closest allies. Instead, at a time when we should have set a shining example through exemplary adherence to the rule of law and respect for human rights, we employed arbitrary long-term detention, “harsh” interrogation techniques and a complete abandonment of due process.

My client, a Kuwaiti named Fayiz al-Kandari, has been confined in a cage at Guantanamo Bay for more than eight years. While we cannot make up for the time Fayiz has lost, we as a country can offer him justice by granting him an opportunity to hear the charges against him, present real evidence, roll back the curtain of secrecy and defend himself in an established court of law.

The only way to win the “War on Terror” is to rise above it and reclaim our leadership role by recognizing international law and not creating policy based on fear. Until we as a nation once again hold ourselves to the standards we demand of others, we will continue to lose friends and create enemies.

Our nation has survived dark times in the past and we can do so again – not by hiding our mistakes, but by publicly rejecting them and changing course. In the present instance, a fair and public trial in a real court for every detainee at Guantanamo Bay is essential. We must put an end to the approach of placing human beings in legal black holes and allowing fear to dictate a policy that contradicts what we have defined as our American way of life.

The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the United States government. Lt. Col. Wingard is a military lawyer who represents Fayiz al-Kandari and has served for 26 years in the military. When not on active duty, he is a public defender in the city of Pittsburgh.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

The ACLU is rightfully calling this giving the CIA “a license to suppress evidence of criminal activity.” I’m calling it business as usual. I am also banging my head against the wall as I type this:

A federal judge has backed CIA efforts to conceal information about treatment of detainees, even if the suppressed records contain details about illegal activity on the part of the intelligence agency.

We wouldn’t want to confirm anything we already know, now would we? Because then we might actually have to do something about it.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

H/t: mparent77772, Gr8RDH

Live streaming video by Ustream

PANELISTS: Adam Serwer, Matthew Alexander, Marcy Wheeler, Rep. Jerry Nadler, Vincent Warren

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

Jay Bybee. (Photo: U.S. Government)

Crack investigative reporter and dear friend Jason Leopold is breaking some news today. As always, he has graciously permitted me to share the post with you. However, I’ll only share part of it. Please go here to read the whole thing:

Jay Bybee, the former head of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) who signed two infamous August 2002 legal memos which gave CIA interrogators the green light to torture “war on terror” prisoners, told a congressional committee that more than a half-dozen of the tactics detainees were subjected to were not “authorized” by the DOJ.

In a closed-door interview May 26 with members of the House Judiciary Committee, Bybee, now a Ninth Circuit Appeals Court judge, said OLC did not approve of the use of diapering, water dousing, forcing a detainee to defecate on himself or wear blackout goggles, extended solitary confinement or isolation, hanging a detainee from ceiling hooks, daily beatings, or the use of loud music or noise.

In an investigative report published by Truthout on April 17, intelligence officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said Abu Zubaydah, the first high-value detainee captured after 9/11, was subjected to repeated sessions of “water dousing,” a method that, at the time interrogators used it on Zubaydah, was described as spraying him with extremely cold water from a hose while he was naked and shackled by chains attached to a ceiling in the cell he was kept in at a black-site prison.

The OLC did not approve the use of water dousing as an interrogation technique until August 2004. Use of the method is believed to have played a part in the November 2002 death of Gul Rahman, a detainee who was held at an Afghanistan prison known as The Salt Pit and died of hypothermia hours after being doused with water and left in a cold prison cell. [...]

According to declassified documents, published reports and interviews conducted by human rights organizations with prisoners over the past eight years, the CIA used the unauthorized torture tactics repeatedly on detainees in the custody of the agency. The unauthorized methods and the final 10 techniques Bybee said detainees could legally be subjected to amount to a violation of the Geneva Conventions and federal anti-torture laws.

Despite the fact that the memos have been condemned by Republicans, Democrats and several Bush administration officials and were withdrawn by Bybee’s successor, Jack Goldsmith, Bybee still defended his work and said his critics have either “misread” or misinterpreted his legal analysis on presidential power. [...]

Bybee, whose responses to questions appears to be an attempt to absolve himself of culpability, told Judiciary Committee members that interrogators who employed techniques that deviated from the guidelines contained in the torture memos he signed acted without the approval of OLC. [...]

Moreover, Bybee said the memos prohibited the “substantial repetition” of torture techniques, such as waterboarding, which suggests its repeated use was part of a human experimentation program.

Justice Department documents and a report released by the CIA’s Inspector General state that two high-value detainees, Zubaydah and self-professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, were waterboarded 83 times and 183 times in the course of a single month.

Last month, the international doctors’ organization Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) released a report that said about 25 high-value detainees were used as human “guinea pigs” to gauge the effectiveness of various torture techniques. For example, PHR said waterboarding was monitored in early 2002 by CIA medical personnel, who collected data about how detainees responded to the torture technique. The data was then used in a 2005 torture memo advising CIA interrogators how to administer the technique. [...]

Rep. Nadler said Yoo’s “close relationship” with the Bush White House “warrants further investigation.”

Believe it or not, that’s just the bare bones of Jason’s very thorough piece. Please go here to read the rest.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

Omar Khadr, now 23, has spent more than a third of his short life in Gitmo. He will not admit to killing a U.S. soldier, and for good reason:

In a pre-trial hearing at the U.S. war crimes court at the base, he told a military judge that the deal would have seen him sentenced to 30 years in prison, with all but five years suspended, in return for an admission of guilt.

Khadr said it was designed “to make the U.S. government look good in the public’s eye and other political reasons.”

“I am not willing to let the U.S. government use me to fulfill its goals,” Khadr said.

“I will not take any plea offer because it will give an excuse to the government for torturing me and abusing me as a child.” [...]

[A] U.S. military interrogator admitted making up tales of gang-rape and murder in order to frighten Khadr. Other members of the U.S. military said he was interrogated while sedated and recovering from gunshot wounds, and that he had been hooded and chained to a wall.

Charges against Khadr have been dismissed and refiled at least five times because of “legal challenges, administrative issues and changes in the law underpinning the tribunals.”

“There’s no point representing myself or having anybody else … there’s no justice,” he said.

“There’s no justice.” Sound familiar? If it does, then you’ve read this and this.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

Please watch the whole thing.  This topic deserves more attention, but unfortunately, the Obama administration has other things to focus on, and has shown no interest in tackling the subject of torture, or BushCo, head on. We must look forward, not backwards, right?

H/t: hippieCy08

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

Fayiz al-Kandari has been stuck in a Gitmo cell for eight and a half years. He has done nothing wrong, broken no laws, hurt no one. All “evidence” against him is hearsay upon hearsay upon word-of-mouth upon blahblahblah (see links below). He is the first client who his lawyer, Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, is fully convinced is absolutely innocent of any and all charges. Yet Fayiz still remains imprisoned… indefinitely.

Other cases may not be so clear cut, but indefinite detention and military commissions are not the answer. Federal court is:

US government prosecutors must present evidence that an Algerian detainee held at Guantanamo Bay for over eight years truly belongs to Al-Qaeda or release him, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The decision by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has broad implications for the credibility of evidence the administration of President Barack Obama has presented to justify holding terror suspects without trial.

Another ruling was overturned in favor of another detainee:

…Belkacem Bensayah, who was nabbed from Bosnia with five other dual Bosnian-Algerian nationals in 2001.

Those detainees have been imprisoned since 2002, and were accused of planning to go to Afghanistan to fight against us.

Judge Douglas Ginsburg:

“[T]he evidence upon which the district court relied in concluding Bensayah ‘supported’ Al-Qaeda is insufficient… to show he was part of that organization.”

Insufficient evidence. That is often the case. Fayiz was faced with pages and pages of redacted “evidence” that Barry has no way of challenging. He can’t possibly know what it says. It’s redacted. Or hearsay.

In 2008, a judge ruled that Bensayah could be held indefinitely without trial. That is not the America we should accept, unless, of course, we become desensitized and accustomed to a form of “democracy” that we would have previously shunned.

Our system of justice worked effectively until September 11, 2001. We only weaken ourselves as a nation and threaten the liberty of our own citizens if we acquiesce to the wrong kind of “justice” now.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

If you’re a regular TPC reader, by now you are well aware of my posts on behalf of Lt. Col. Barry Wingard and his client, Guantanamo Bay detainee Fayiz al-Kandari. Barry sent me a new post that he wanted me to share with you.

Cross-posted at Truthout:

In the “War on Terror,” I am amazed how every time our enemy takes action, it sets into motion a scramble by our government to take away the individual rights of Americans. Will we reach a point at which we will be completely stripped of our civil liberties in the name of eliminating danger from external threats?

I am hopeful that this won’t happen for two reasons. First, my travels have shown me that the world as a whole is closely scrutinizing American policies and behavior. Second, American history is replete with examples of the government making mistakes that went too far by denying rights or privileges to particular groups or individuals. In each instance, society stood against these practices and demanded the same rights for everyone, eventually returning the equilibrium in a way that could never have been accomplished by a single person.

Despite our victories of the past, unjust treatment of groups and individuals continues in the world we live in today. It is being played out every day at Guantanamo Bay and throughout America, where to be Muslim is to be suspect.

At Guantanamo, we have been detaining prisoners for nearly a decade without charges or trials, claiming that the detainees fall into a special category that allows us to treat them differently from the mandates of our justice system and our values as Americans. The presumption of innocence is one of the great hallmarks of the American judicial system. At Guantanamo, the government presumes the opposite. If you are caged there, you are guilty, and you will serve a life sentence, regardless of the evidence against you.

My client, Fayiz al-Kandari, is a Kuwaiti who has been held in a Guantanamo cage for eight and a half years. He is presumed guilty and, in all likelihood, will be held indefinitely as the Obama administration considers reinstituting the worst of the worst of Bush’s detention policies. The US government has not been able to prove Fayiz actually did anything, but it does not have to because he falls into a special category of prisoner – one with fewer rights than you or me.

Imagine for a moment that American citizens were locked away for more than eight years without charges or trials. Would we as a country allow that to happen? Well, until we refuse to exclude certain groups from the rights that protect all of us, we are headed in that direction. And this is as great a threat to America as any external force.

It is only a matter of time until the tables turn against us. America’s willingness to surrender a person’s right to justice and due process at Guantanamo will ultimately find its way to the rest of society, perhaps eventually affecting us all on a personal level. When men decide how the judiciary system will function based on popular or political consensus, we have become a land of men and not laws.

If we do not change course at Guantanamo, we could ironically find ourselves subject to the same rights as Guantanamo Bay detainees: none. It’s an extreme situation, admittedly, but what we are doing to individuals in US custody is no less extreme.

It is not just the US government that may overstep its bounds with American citizens. Any American who travels abroad should consider that, once the United States sets the precedent of indefinitely detaining individuals without any legal process, other countries will follow suit. Prejudice is not a one way street. During a recent trip to the Middle East, I was told that all Christians should immediately be jailed for infliction of terror around the world. How is this different from what Americans are allowing to occur at Guantanamo Bay?

Historically, laws expand in scope and almost never retract without express legislation to the contrary. It was for a reason that our founding fathers were particularly concerned with individual liberties. In their infinite wisdom, they recognized that it is the vulnerable citizens who need buffers to protect them against government overreaching, and that the erosion of rights is a slippery slope. This is precisely why they created the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.

The continued assault on our liberties will not only increase our feelings of insecurity; it will lead to more mistakes by the government that will result in fewer individual rights for Americans. We as a society must demand that the government not be allowed to interfere with our rights and that it prove every allegation against everyone it detains beyond a reasonable doubt – in a real court, in the light of day, for all to observe.

The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of the Department of Defense or the United States government.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

If you’re a regular TPC reader, by now you are well aware of my posts on behalf of Lt. Col. Barry Wingard and his client, Guantanamo Bay detainee Fayiz al-Kandari. Barry sent me a new post that he wanted me to share with you.

Let’s start with this:

Wingard argues that the American administration is trying to avoid granting the Guantanamo detainees a fair trial in a federal court because it does not possess sufficient evidences to convict them in a fair trial. “The government of the United States is huge,” says Wingard, adding, “They have resources, they have people, they have money; they can do virtually anything they want. All Fayez has is me, a public defender from Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, and they are afraid to go to a fair trial because they don’t think, despite all their resources they can’t get by me in a fair trial with the evidences they have!

This is what he has been up against. Barry has kept me apprised of the details for months now, and it’s not pretty.

Indefinite detention is basically a presumption of guilt:

When we came here last time in December 2009, one of our objections was the possibility that Fayez Al-Kandari might be tried in a military commission system -a system that was custom-designed to allow evidence that wouldn’t be admissible in a normal court; essentially a system that was designed to get convictions. Since then things have gotten much worse,” said Kevin Bogucki, the attorney assigned by the military commission to represent Fayez Al-Kandari.

Now what they are talking about is this concept of indefinite detention, which essentially means that if there is not enough evidence to take you to trial, you get the worst possible result, which is that they continue to detain you forever, and you never get an opportunity to appear before a judge,” he added.

Bogucki:

“At this point it’s really just about saving face,” he said, adding “once you have held someone for eight years, and you’ve told the United Nations that the reason you are holding them is because they are the worst of the worst, when it comes down to it, you can’t simply say ‘Oh, guess what, we made a mistake, this guy really wasn’t a bad guy, we just held him for eight years without a trial’!

I’ve had indirect correspondence with Fayiz via Barry, meaning quotes, messages of thank you’s for my posts, insights into his feelings about being imprisoned, abused.. He holds no grudges, despite the fact that eight long years of his young life have been spent in a cell. Everything I’ve heard about and from Fayiz has been respectful, sweet, and smart.

In addition, this is the only detainee Barry has ever represented whose innocence he stands behind. He is certain that Fayiz has done nothing wrong, despite initial skepticism.

Wingard said that his client, Fayez Al-Kandari is still counting on the support of the Kuwaiti people for his release. “He is as doing as well as anybody who is living in a cage could be, but he is still holding out hope that his people will at some point help him,” concluded Wingard. The Kuwait Times contacted the US Department of Defense, and the US Embassy in Kuwait to ask their comments on the accusations brought up in this news report, but received no response.

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

My dear friend and hero Lt. Barry Wingard has graciously allowed me to share his latest op-ed in its entirety. Information on Barry, Fayiz al-Kandari, their cause (and one of mine) follow this post:

Imagine the following scenario: Four Americans are apprehended and detained by a foreign nation. This foreign nation, a close ally of the United States (US), suggests a willingness to return the American detainees, but only if the US is willing to take them back. In response, the US announces its eagerness to take custody of its own citizens. Meanwhile, rumors begin to circulate that the American detainees are being mistreated.

The foreign nation then advises it will only return the Americans if the US can ensure the returned detainees will take no future action contrary to the foreign nation’s interests. Again, the US agrees, asserting it will take all necessary steps to ensure the security of both countries. Meanwhile, documentary proof surfaces that the American detainees are being subjected to harsh interrogations.

The foreign nation thanks the US for its guarantees, but expresses concern that the US does not have a state-of-the-art center where the detainees can be “reintegrated.”  In response, the US spends 40 million dollars to build and staff a reintegration center that, in every way, exceeds the foreign nation’s expectations.  Meanwhile, the foreign nation’s own court orders the release of two of the four Americans, finding no evidence to justify their continued detention.  The foreign nation grudgingly complies with the order of its court, but refuses to release the final two Americans.

Instead, the foreign nation thanks the US for building the reintegration center, but insists the US sign a memorandum of understanding (MOU), agreeing to confine the final two Americans for six months, permanently restrict their passports, and monitor them on a regular basis.  In response, the US begins researching whether it can sign such an MOU without violating domestic law.  Meanwhile, any progress toward trying the remaining American detainees grinds to a halt as political opponents within the foreign nation debate the proper forum for such trials.

With diplomatic resolution as the only remaining option, the US expresses a willingness to sign the MOU, agreeing to all it legally can.  The foreign nation thanks the US, but adds a requirement that the previously-returned American detainees must now also be subject to passport restrictions and regular monitoring, even though the foreign nation’s legal system found no evidence against the returnees.

In this hypothetical situation, how long would the US tolerate the foreign nation’s ever-increasing and shifting demands? The answer is: the US would not tolerate such conduct at all. Rather, it would demand its citizens be returned and apply whatever diplomatic pressure was necessary to affect that result.

Nonetheless, the reverse of this scenario is exactly how the US has treated its ally Kuwait in connection with the remaining Kuwaiti detainees confined at Guantanamo Bay. For eight years, in response to each U.S. demand, Kuwait has given the required assurance or taken the required action, only to face expanding requirements and watch the goal line shift further back.

Now imagine this scenario: For more than eight years, you have been imprisoned by a foreign government on an island prison thousands of miles from your home.  Two years earlier, a foreign prosecutor drafted charges in a specially-designed military court–but it is anyone’s guess whether you will ever go to trial (let alone receive a fair trial).  So, with little else to do, you spend your days worrying about the health and the welfare of friends and relatives you have not seen since you were very young–and whom you may never see again.  This is the story of Kuwaiti citizen Fayiz Al Kandari.

Kuwait is undeniably a strong and faithful ally of the US.  Yet, in the case of Fayiz Al Kandari, the US has treated Kuwait more like an enemy.  Most recently, after Kuwait agreed to all previous demands, the US insisted Kuwait restrict the passports and regularly monitor two innocent Kuwaitis previously ordered released by a US Federal Court.  In other words, the US’s ever-increasing demands have now entered the realm of the absurd.

How much more can Kuwait be expected to take?

****

All my previous posts on this subject matter can be found here; That link includes one specific to only Fayiz al-Kandari’s story here.

Here are audio and video interviews with Lt. Col. Wingard, one by David Shuster, one by Ana Marie Cox, and more. My guest commentary at BuzzFlash is here.

Lt. Col. Barry Wingard is a military attorney who represents Fayiz Al-Kandari in the Military Commission process and in no way represents the opinions of his home state. When not on active duty, Colonel Wingard is a public defender in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

If you are inclined to help rectify these injustices: Twitterers, use the hashtag #FreeFayiz. We have organized a team to get these stories out. If you are interested in helping Fayiz out, e-mail me at The Political Carnival, address in sidebar to the right; or tweet me at @GottaLaff.

If you’d like to see other ways you can take action, go here and scroll down to the end of the article.

Then read Jane Mayer’s book The Dark Side. You’ll have a much greater understanding of why I post endlessly about this, and why I’m all over the CIA deception issues, too.

More of Fayiz’s story here, at Answers.com.

We’re not that old, but a face lift was in order.

Welcome to the new Political Carnival. Hopefully, you’ll like the changes and the transition will be smooth for all of us.

One change is our Contact Us form that you can fill out if you have any private comments for us. See? A new toy!

Check out the other tabs. There is now a page where you can view all of the Blunt webisodes on one page.

And there’s also a page called About if you’d like to view mini-bios of Paddy and me, along with descriptions of the site itself.

If you click on the Newsletter tab, it will take you to a form that signs you up for e-mail alerts (Still learning how to use that myself, so we can send you TPC posts). You’re able to unsubscribe at any time. You can find that same link to the sign-up form in the right sidebar; just click on the TPC logo that says, “Get TPC News Alerts”.

And we now have an Archives option. Just click on that tab, and you’ll see a calendar filled with links to previous posts.

The rest will look familiar to you. You can still pal around with us on Facebook by going to the right sidebar and click on “The Political Carnival (duh) on Facebook”.

And of course, we still have links to all posts related to Gitmo/torture/Fayiz al-Kandari/Lt. Col. Barry Wingard in the right sidebar, too. Same goes for the Donate and Subscribe (auto-donations) icons.

And look! A new Paddy/Laffy pic!

That concludes our tour of the New and Improved TPC… but we’re still the same old Paddy and Laffy. Some things never change.

Thank you for playing Extreme Makeover. And welcome home.