DETAINEE ABUSE PHOTOS MUST NOT BE RELEASED, AT LEAST NOT RIGHT NOW - WACKED-OUT MILITANTS DO NOT NEED ANOTHER REASON TO KILL

Abusive photos taken by United States' soldiers of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be released to the public, at least not right now. The release of 21 photos has nothing to do with privacy rights or government transparency; instead, it has everything to do with protecting American troops who are still in Afghanistan fighting a war against a bunch of lunatics. Only when every soldier is safely back on American soil should the photos be released.FILE - This 2003 file photo obtained by The Associated Press shows a detainee bent over with his hands on the bars of a prison cell at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq. Congress is set to give the Pentagon power to keep new pictures of detainee abuse from the public, a move intended to end a legal fight over the photographs' release that has reached the Supreme Court (AP Photo/file)

Understanding the Legal Battle

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the government, arguing 21 photographs of abuse should be released to the public pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act. The government has unsuccessfully argued that the photos are exempt from FOIA's mandatory disclosure because they "could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual." 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)(F).

The lower courts have ruled in the ACLU's favor and the government has lost its appeals. The district court recognized the risk of violent acts as a result of the release of the photos but said that "our nation does not surrender to blackmail, and fear of blackmail is not a legally sufficient argument." Essentially, the judges agreed with the government -- that there is a risk to our soldiers -- but that their hands were tied by FOIA. The court of appeals also said the release of the photos could "incite violence" but that the government had to identify a specific individual who would be threatened under the exemption and since it could not, the photos are not exempt.

This is craziness! The courts acknowledge the risk of violence to our troops; but, since the risk is to the group of American soldiers as a whole, not to a named individual, the risk is not "specific" enough. Well, if we use that thinking, then why the hell are we in Afghanistan in the first place? We are not only there to identify "specific" people, like named Taliban and al Qaeda leaders; we are also there to hunt down any Taliban or al Qaeda militant.

Our mission in Afghanistan is broad based; therefore, the protections to our soldiers must be broad based as well. We are at war, folks. Why risk a militant capturing an American soldier or journalist and torturing him in retaliation to the release of the photos? Requiring the name a specific soldier who could be targeted is absolutely silly.

I believe in transparency and the public's right to access government documents. (For example, Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis tried to protect the names of CPD officers accused of abuse. I believe those names should be disclosed to the public. We have a right to know the names of Chicago's worst cops.) But, there is no need to publish photos to the world that could increase the threat of violence, no matter how small, against our fathers and sons who are fighting in Afghanistan, who are putting their lives on the line in a region filled with crazy-ass insurgents. Keep in mind, the soldiers accused of the abuse were tried and convicted. It is not like the Army did not bring the abusive soldiers to justice.

Legal Battle May Be Killed by Defense Secretary

The final decision, to be made by the Supreme Court, may come as early as Tuesday; however, the White House has asked the justices to withhold their ruling until House and Senate vote on whether absolute power to decide on the photos' release should be given to the defense secretary. Basically, if they vote yes, the ACLU's legal victories will be stripped from them and we can expect Robert Gates to hold those photos closely to his chest. (That's another legal discussion for another day!) AP article here.

If Secretary Gates is granted the power to protect the photos, I hope that he will authorize their release once the war is over. For many reasons, the public has a right to see those images, just not right now. The public does not have a pressing, immediate interest in viewing those photos.

Obama Flips the Script Yet Again

Obama is becoming a master at switching his positions. In the beginning days of his presidency, Obama said he was not opposed to the photos being released and he wanted government transparency. But, in May, Obama said he was now opposed to the release of the photos.  After talking with lawyers, he decided "the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing US forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan." Interesting -- now he is in agreement with the Bush administration's refusal to release the photos. 

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/13/obama-broke-his-word-on-d_n_203065.html

Here are a few things to keep in mind:

* The "Darby photographs" are the property of the Department of Defense and Department of the Army.

* To support its position, the government submitted a declaration of General Richard Myers, (then the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Nation's highest ranking military officer.) that stated disclosing the Darby photographs "could reasonably be expected" to "endanger the lives and physical safety" of those individuals was based on his extensive military experience, assessments by his combat commanders, intelligence reports from subject-matter experts, the violent response to the release of photographs of detainees in British custody, and the widespread and deadly rioting following the publication of a false story alleging the desecration of detainees' copies of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. See Government's Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

* The government already gave the ACLU written descriptions of the photos, which the ACLU has posted on its website. See here.

* This blog is dedicated to my dear childhood friend, Marcia Hofmann, who is a staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Marcia co-authored the amicus briefs with the ACLU in the above case and it is her work that inspired me to really think about the case. Thank you, Marcia. You are such a great friend, scholar and resource.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

THE POWER OF 3: AL QAEDA, TALIBAN & AFGHAN NATIONAL ARMY

We must get out of Afghanistan now.

The WSJ reports that General McChrystal wants as many as 60,000 more troops to fight the war in Afghanistan. Whether we send 1,000 troops or 100,000 troops, are we really capable of "winning" the war against all of these negative forces? I say NO; I say get the hell out of dodge.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said al Qaeda has focused on hitting the U.S., while danger posed by the Taliban "was somewhat different" and less threatening. That's interesting because it was the Taliban, 300+ strong, that attacked our outposts last weekend. AP article here. In fact, my friend's husband led about 60 troops from the top of a mountain, down into the location of the attack. And yet the Taliban is less threatening than al Qaeda? Really?

Also reported to me by a member of the front line was that the Afghan National Army did not help the American troops at all. Apparently, members of the new army are easily paid off by the Taliban. In fact, our troops have implemented a buddy system even for bathroom breaks because they do not trust the Afghan National Army troops.

What is our mission in Afghanistan? We are not trying to bring down one regime, as we did with Sadam Hussein. There is no single leader, there is no single mission. We are fighting al Qaeda forces within Afghanistan and also seeking to keep them from entering from Pakistan. We are fighting the Taliban. And, we are trying to train an Afghan army that apparently is already rooted with corruption. Three forces, three issues, three reasons to get out of Afghanistan.

As a side note, an increase in helicopters is a silly request if the helicopters can't reach dangerous mountain regions. For example, the attack last weekend was in a remote village that prevented helicopters from landing closely; thus, the men had to be dropped off at the top of a mountain and then had to hike downhill. Here is yet another example that quantity of troops or resources are not the answer. The answer is that the United States must leave or we will never get out of there.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

A PORTION OF MY INTERVIEW WITH AN ARMY SOLDIER ON THE FRONT LINE IN AFGHANISTAN -- RECENT TALIBAN ATTACK WAS ON HIS POST & KILLED 8 OF HIS BUDDIES

Gun inside of Afghanistan postBelow is a brief portion of my interview with my childhood friend's husband, who is on the front-line in Afghanistan. He just lost 8 troops this weekend. He answered these questions last week, before the big attack this past weekend.

According to Fox News online: (Entire article here.)

Hundreds of insurgents armed with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades stormed a pair of remote outposts near the Pakistan border, killing eight U.S. troops and capturing more than 20 Afghan security troops in the deadliest assault against U.S. forces in more than a year, military officials said Sunday.

The fierce gunbattle, which erupted at dawn Saturday in the Kamdesh district of mountainous Nuristan province and raged throughout the day, is likely to fuel the debate in Washington over the direction of the troubled eight-year war.

It was the heaviest U.S. loss of life in a single battle since July 2008, when nine American troops were killed in a raid on an outpost in Wanat in the same province.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, plans to shift U.S. troops away from remote outposts that are difficult to defend and move them into more heavily populated areas as part of his new strategy to focus on protecting Afghan civilians.

My friends, this ain't no joke. Reading about the deaths is one thing, watching the war is another. Imagine being my childhood friend, the wife of an Army soldier, who constantly prays, worries and hopes for the safety of her husband and the father of her kids.

Just this past weekend, I spent some time with my friend and their two absolutely precious children. As I took turns spinning them around until I got too dizzy to stand, I thought about my friend's life and the path it has taken. She's such an incredible mom -- a "single" mom of sorts -- and yet she holds herself together so well. She smiles. She giggles. Her kids are happy and fun. Crazy to think at the very moment I was lifting her son into the tree I used to play on as a kid, the Taliban was plotting an attack on her husband's post. 

Maybe Gen. McChrystal and Obama should talk to the troops on the front line. Is that such a novel idea?

I was going to write a blog about my interview with my friend's husband but I'd rather just post some of his quotes, given the fact that he just lost 8 of his buddies. For the safety of the Army, I have chosen to leave out certain portions of the interview for now.

Something must be done. Time is of the essence.

Another image taken in Afghanistan

Direct from a soldier on the front-line in Afghanistan

More troops: "Troops is tricky because it depends how you use them and what troops are being sent, I feel the answer is yes. But let me explain my answer. What most people fail to realize is that two types of Soldiers exist here Combat and Support. Combat Soldiers (Cavalry Scouts like myself and Infantry) are the ones that go out find the enemy and kill him -- well, we do when it is convenient for the Afghan Army/Government . Support Soldiers are cooks, supply clerks, admin and so forth they make sure the Combat Soldiers get water, food , bullets or whatever they need. Support Soldiers are just as important as Combat Soldiers, but what is needed here is more Combat Soldiers. When some politician says and this is just an example not actual numbers "we are sending 20,000 troops to Afghanistan" only a small percentage are actually combat troops. It does no good to send Troops if all they do is stay in the FOB and do nothing."

Afghan attitude: "Personally I would prefer and so would other Soldiers to have ten well trained, disciplined and motivated ANA Soldiers willing to fight for their country next to me during a fight. Instead of fifty ANA that might shoot me in the back because they don't want to be there or their leaders are taking half their pay and they might get a better deal from the enemy."

Winning: "First of all "winning" is a word we do not use around here to much. Our president (which a large majority of Soldiers I know did not vote for) said that we are not here to win, that is very confusing to a Soldier that is trained to fight and win wars. At times it seems that he places Afghan politics in front of U.S. Soldiers lives. Another confusing issue is the U.S. strategy here if there is one, a U.S. general said, "So we don't get to shoot at those that are shooting at us, that is not always bad." Now, would he have said that if he had seen his friends torn to pieces by those bullets? I have seen it. I want to shoot back and so do my Soldiers. Since we are at the receiving end and not him."

Thank you, my friend, for answering these questions.

Now, please watch this video - my friend's husband is a soldier filmed in the video.

In the first, one Army troop says, "We're in a bowl." Another is asked, "Why are you here?" The response, after a nervous chuckle is, "My boss told me to come here." The video shows the troops getting shot at and the journalist saying, "We don't know where the shots are coming from," as they seek cover in the mountainous area.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

SUPERINTENDENT WEIS NEEDS HELP; OBAMA & DALEY NEED TO BE CONCERNED WITH KEEPING OUR KIDS ALIVE TO SEE 2016 OLYMPICS

Chicago Police Superintendent Jody Weis (AP)It is time to support Chicago's fairly new superintendent, Jody Weis, who comes with 23 years of FBI experience. It's time to give him the help that he needs. Even the most fabulous, wonderful, brilliant and powerful person cannot win a war by himself. Weis has the ability to carry out his job but he still needs strategy; he needs support; he needs infrastructure; he needs soldiers.

We are in a war on our streets. The other day, Derrion Albert was savagely beaten to death in broad daylight, just 10 miles south of President Obama's Chicago residence. Last year, Blair Holt was killed on a school bus as he tried to break up a fight. These boys are just a couple of the 100+ student who have died in the past year on Chicago's streets. The number of our children killed at home are WAR NUMBERS!

Superintendent Weis needs help - he cannot fight this war alone. While Daley and Obama are flitting around Europe and schmoozing with the IOC in an attempt to get the Olympics to Chicago, Superintendent Weis is in the streets of Chicago, assigning detectives to solve the brutal murder of Mr. Albert. (Don't forget, within hours, CPD had several suspects in custody, even though they did not receive one tip -- that's right, not even ONE tip!)

The innocent are getting killed. You must understand it's not just the drug dealers and gang bangers. Both Derrion Albert and Blair Holt were honor roll students. I'll never forget the funeral I attended at Rainbow Push a couple of years ago for a young, female college student who was shot to death in her car as she drove to get some food with her friends. It was a case of mistaken identity - the shooters got the "wrong" person. I just sat in the chair at Push and stared at the made-up face, reconstructed with cheap wax, of a young girl who had so much of a future ahead of her. I remember thinking, "What's wrong here? She didn't have a chance."

So, thank you, General McChrystal for your report on what we can do to "win" the war in Afghanistan. But we need the same kind of detailed report on how we are going to win the war on the streets of America.

We cannot and shall not bash Superintendent Weis. We need him to do his job and he needs the help of our leaders to come up with a plan on how we are going to save our kids. I've been to those "community" meetings held by the "community organizers" of our city. The people mean well. They have been crying out for help and change for years. Problem is, nobody is really listening.

Sure, we can have the "accountability" argument - until parents teach their kids to be accountable, we will continue to have violence. And sure, we can have the "blame the police" argument - since the police were a block away from the scene of the latest violent crime, it's CPD's fault. Because you know what? Even if CPD was there to save Derrion, there still is going to be another shooting or another beating the next day and the next day and the next day. So, those arguments only take us so far. The problem is so pervasive and so widespread that we need strategy, we need planning, we need infrastructure, and we need solidified leadership. Until then, the innocent will continue to die. And, your good kid could be next...

After Obama and Daley come back with their little "Chicago 2016" pins, they need to start planning on how to keep our kids alive so that they can actually see the Olympics in their hometown.

 PS: Please, let's not make this about race. Let's make this about saving our kids.

 www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

BILL O'REILLY WRONG, "IF WE PULL OUT ON AFGHANISTAN, THE TALIBAN WINS."

Bill O'Reilly Interviews Obama (Courtesy of Fox News)Last night, Bill O'Reilly suggested we give Gen. McChrystal the troops he needs -- that if we pull out of Afghanistan now, the Taliban wins.

No so fast, Mr. O'Reilly. This isn't entirely about the Taliban. We have the al-Qaeda problem too, don't forget - remember those are the people who killed us in 9/11? Um, yeah, they were not the Taliban.

What Does Obama Think?

Seems like Obama may not agree with O'Reilly. (That's not a surprise!) This isn't about winning or losing to the Taliban. In July, Obama told ABC News, "I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur."

And just last Sunday, Obama told David Gregory of Meet the Press, "And we are going to see how this is fitting what I think is our core goal, which is to after the folks who killed 3,000 Americans in 9/11 and who are still plotting to kill us - al-Qaeda. How do we dismantle them, disrupt them, destroy them?"

Protecting Afghanistan from TWO Groups: The Taliban AND al-Qaeda

McChrystal's report begins with the stated goal to "to disrupt, dismantle and eventually defeat al-Qaeda and prevent their return to Afghanistan.'' And that it's "his mission" to protect the Afghan government from the Taliban.

al-Qaeda = Pakistan
Taliban = Afghanistan

McChrystal is essentially saying that we are protecting Afghanistan from not only the re-entry of al-Qaeda from Pakistan but also protecting them from their internal Taliban.

The purpose of our mission in Afghanistan has changed. Our original goal was to destroy "terrorist" training camps so that we would be protected from attacks on American soil. Now, it looks like the entire goal is to protect Afghanistan & the Afghan people, NOT the American people or others who live in the free world. 

"Stability in Pakistan is essential, not only in its own right, but also to enable progress in Afghanistan,'' McChrystal reports. "Nevertheless, the insurgency in Afghanistan is predominantly Afghan.''

Geez, this is getting awfully confusing! If stability in Pakistan is essential, how is the United States and its allies going to accomplish such stability? And is it our job to do so? How long is that going to take?

More Troops

Obama approved 21,000 additional U.S. troops earlier this year, on the advice of Gates and other senior defense and military leaders. That will bring the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan to a record 68,000 by the end of this year, working alongside 38,000 NATO-led troops.

Before we send an additional 30-40,000 more troops into Afghanistan, we must re-define the mission, purpose and goals.

Biden's Idea Back on the Table

Looks like Obama may reconsider Biden's idea that adding additional troops may not be the answer. Biden suggests we re-evaluate the Pakistan/al-Qaeda issue before sending more troops into Afghanistan.

Mr. O'Reilly, sending more troops into Afghanistan for the purpose of defeating the Taliban is not proper answer.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

JESSE JACKSON, JR. WITCH HUNT PREPOSTEROUS - PRESS HAS FORGOTTEN THE ISSUE: BLAGOJEVICH'S ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO SELL SENATE SEAT

The witch hunt against Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. must come to an end. Today, it was reported that Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. has paid his wife approximately $250,000 for her assistance in his campaign. Article here.

Most importantly, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee states that at least 40 members of Congress, from both parties, employ spouses or family members in their campaigns. As for Illinois, the practice is very very common. 

This is issue spinning at its best.

1) The reason for the Congressional Ethics inquiry into Jesse Jackson, Jr. was specifically to determine if he was involved in any quid pro quo with then-Governor Rod Blagojevich for the Obama's vacant senate seat. Congressman Jackson was not the subject of an inquiry for any other reason.

2) The Congressman's wife, Sandi, has been his #1 supporter. She is not a stay-at-home wife but instead a highly educated lawyer with real practice experience. She brings great talent and expertise to the campaign.

3) The amount he has paid his wife, has been for real consulting work. She has been at the forefront of his campaining and her work has always been publicly known.

4) All payments to Sandi have been pre-approved. Congressman Jackson never paid her without full disclosure of his intent to do so.

5) Congressman Jackson fully disclosed to the Ethics Committee all payments to Sandi upon their request of his financial records.

6) From Rick Bryant at Congressman Jackson's office:

"There is nothing wrong and nothing new here.

"The fact is the Congressman sought and received written permission from the FEC to pay Sandi as a consultant. He also sought and received written FEC permission to contribute to her campaign. They both honor the practice of transparency.

"Sandi was paid on average $27,400 a year to regularly file FEC reports and advise his campaign. She has enormous experience -- a lawyer, former congressional chief of staff, former vice president of the U.S. Export/Import Bank, a former deputy director of the DNC. She's paid fair market value for bonafide services as the FEC stipulated eight years ago.

"The Alderman and Congressman remain each others biggest supporters, and their public life is an open book."

THE WITCH HUNT AGAINST JESSE JR. MUST COME TO AN END. THE ETHICS COMMITTEE'S JOB IS TO INQUIRE INTO THE BLAGOJEVICH - JACKSON RELATIONSHIP AND WHETHER THERE WAS ANY QUID PRO QUO CONVERSATION. LET'S GET BACK ON TRACK, IN THE INTEREST OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE.  QUIT SPINNING, QUIT EVADING THE REAL ISSUE AT HAND.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

OBAMA CORRECT TO URGE CONGRESS TO FIX CRACK VS. COCAINE FEDERAL SENTENCING DISPARITY

Yesterday, the Obama administration gave its support for lesser mandatory sentences possessors of small amounts of crack-cocaine.

The 1986 and 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Acts created a mandatory federal sentence for those in possession of a small amount of crack-cocaine. (We are not talking about major drug-dealers here; we are talking about users.) Those caught in possession of just 5 grams of crack-cocaine were required to be sentenced to a statutory minimum of 5 years in federal prison; however, a person would have to be caught with 500 grams of powder-cocaine to trigger the same mandatory 5-year sentence. The 5 grams/crack vs. 500 grams/powder = a 100-1 disparity. (21 U.S.C. 844.)

The federal sentencing laws were created in an effort to reduce the rampant spread of crack-cocaine in the 1980's. But the effect did not slow down the use of the drug; instead, it created a disparity between blacks and whites because blacks are more likely to use crack-cocaine while whites are more likely to use powder-cocaine.

According to the Sentencing Project, in 1980, approximately 40,000 people were incarcerated for drug offenses; however, approximately 500,000 people are incarcerated for drug offenses today – that is a 1100% increase!

As a criminal defense attorney, I am in the courts daily. The majority of my clients facing drug charges are black. In fact, I do not think I've ever represented a white person caught with cocaine. (That said, I often expunge and seal records of whites caught with small amounts of cocaine.)

SENTENCING IS THE SECONDARY PROBLEM - WE MUST FOCUS ON ENFORCEMENT

The problem is not just the sentencing laws; sentencing is the final step in prosecution. If we are going to apply the same sentencing laws for crack and powder cocaine, then we also must apply similar drug enforcement strategies.  Drug use is more prevalent in college fraternities and in the fanciest clubs and restaurants than it is in predominantly black areas - the difference is enforcement. The police patrol the streets of black and poor areas far more than they patrol the streets where whites reside and socialize. Have you ever seen a police surveillance camera on the corner of Rush St. in Chicago or outside of the casino at the Bellagio?  Users who are patrons inside of a fancy establishment are protected!

CAUTION - THIS LAW DOES NOT CHANGE THE STATE LAWS

I do not think that the federal sentencing guidline amendment for crack cocaine will change the number of blacks in our state prisons and jails. This crack v. powder law is specific to federal sentencing.  I have never personally represented a person arrested and charged with federal possession of such a small amount of crack-cocaine.  Usually, most users are arrested by the local police, not the Feds.  So, as much as I support the amendment of the federal sentencing disparity laws, let's not get lost in the issue because most low-level offenders are charged with state possession, not federal possession!

Until we recognize that general drug abuse is not color blind, regardless of the type of drug, sentencing issues are a secondary issue. Drug enforcement must not have barriers based on demographics and we must focus on rehabilitating addicts, not incarcerating them.  Whether a person gets probation, serves 5 months or 5 years in prison, punishment does not cure addiction.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

Setencing Project's Testimony before House on April 29, 2009