All right, y'all.
Welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
I'm Scott Horton and our next guest is Christopher Anders.
He's senior legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.
Welcome to the show.
How are you doing, Chris?
Good.
How are you?
I'm doing good.
Appreciate you joining us today.
And first of all, I just want to thank you for being an ACLU lawyer.
That means by definition, you sue the federal government all day to try to keep them at bay.
And if it wasn't for the ACLU, we would all just have chains and balls tied to our legs to carry around all day long.
And so I appreciate all that you guys do.
I wish you were better on guns, but I don't even care that you're not because when it comes to Guantanamo Bay and prison without trial and the most important issues in this country, the assassination of American citizens, you guys are always on the right side and at the forefront doing the right thing.
So thanks.
Great.
Thanks a lot.
Um, one day I'll have a job that I earn a lot of money and then I'll be a card carrying member of the ACLU, but right now that's what a cigarette money, you know, $25 website.
All right.
So, um, you guys lost again, another round, I guess, on, uh, the keeping open of Guantanamo Bay.
It's more than a year now since it was supposed to be closed.
And I know you guys, uh, worked really hard to try to urge, uh, the president to veto Congress's recent was an appropriations bill had a ban on closing Guantanamo providing any money for the closing of Guantanamo, uh, in it that he signed, right?
Yeah.
It's actually the defense authorization bill.
Yeah.
Basically provide funds and authorize the funds for the current fiscal year through the end of September.
Uh, and, uh, I guess I read that he had added a signing statement saying, ah, geez, I disagree with this, but, um, I guess, uh, kind of a fish or wish there and got rid of the worst kind of signing statements.
The line item veto is the way that George W.
Bush used it basically.
And wouldn't it be nice if Obama could do that now?
Well, and it's, it is kind of interesting.
And I, and I guess I'm telling you to think about that, um, for how much frustration people often had with, uh, president Clinton, um, not taking a tough stand on some issues that, uh, that he cared about because supporters cared about, um, president Clinton did, did veto bills, uh, on issues that, uh, were important to him.
And, um, and some of them were risky issues.
I mean, issues, issues, including, you know, needle, a needle exchange program in Washington, DC that was going to be cut off by Congress.
Um, and, uh, and a partial birth abortion ban.
I think he twice vetoed a bill that, uh, that would have banned that procedure, um, and, and took some risky, risky moves.
And I think one of the, one of the concerns here is that, is that, uh, you know, as important as closing Guantanamo, Guantanamo has been, uh, to this president as important as it was in his campaign.
Um, he did not, uh, say, and, and his administration did not say, uh, during the consideration of this bill that he would veto it if it included this kind of, uh, prohibition on the use of defense department funds to close Guantanamo.
And, um, and when they don't see, remember the Congress, it's a big deal.
They, what they look for is not just saying it, you know, not just a letter from the administration saying that we, that we, um, have concerns about this.
We oppose this provision, but what they look for is that that key statement that says the president, senior advisors would recommend that he vetoed this bill if this provision is included.
And that was not done.
And that was a signal, uh, to, to the Democrats and to lots of Democrats in Congress that, that the president wasn't going to back, back them up if they voted to take this out.
Um, and, uh, so I, I think that, I think that that's, that's kind of a problem going, that's probably going forward.
And this is, this is only the first, I guess that was the last Guantanamo battle of last year, but we're going to have lots of them this year because, uh, we now have a Republican house that's very geared up, uh, on the Guantanamo issue.
And, um, well, the bogus trials are starting back up too, right?
Yep.
They're, they're, they're starting up.
And then you have, you have the, um, chairman of the new chairman of the house armed services committee, uh, saying that, that he thinks Guantanamo is a great prison and thinks there should be 800 people there instead of 175, 173.
And, uh, so he, he thinks things should move in the opposite direction.
Hmm.
And I would almost agree with that, but I'm trying to do the math.
If you added the 535 members of Congress, that still doesn't make 800 though.
Yeah.
So, but I, but I think, but I think, you know, you, you just have, you just have this, uh, you know, kind of confluence of events.
And I, and then I think that there's a lot of frustration by, um, even some of the president's strongest supporters on, uh, closing Guantanamo and Capitol Hill that, that the administration did not put the kind of political muscle into this issue that, that they have put and did put into, um, other issues that they cared about and, um, and I think the, as someone who, uh, if my job for the ACLU is to, is to lobby Congress on these issues, I don't, I'm not one of our litigators, um, I'm a lobbyist.
And one of the dynamics that we saw all last, all last Congress, uh, for two years was that every time that the president or his top national security staff engaged on the Guantanamo issue and actually made it clear that, that they're good national security reasons to, uh, shut down Guantanamo, to use federal criminal courts, to try, um, detainees, um, to repatriate and resettle on detainees who have not committed crimes.
Every time they, they made that push, um, they, they made, they got traction and they would win votes in the House and the Senate.
Um, but then, but then they would check out for months on end and, and then they would lose, they would lose momentum and then they would start losing votes.
And, um, and so it really has to be a sustained effort by this administration.
If they want this, and if they don't want it, it's just going to stay open.
If they don't want to, they don't want to put that kind of effort into it.
It will just stay, it will just stay open.
And this same kind of limbo will just continue on for another couple of years.
Yeah.
Well, I really appreciate how you focus on what he didn't do to try to get it passed, because of course he is the president.
As I learned in junior college, that means post 1933, he's really the chief legislator too, and he can push all kinds of things through Congress if he really tries.
In this case, he talked a really big game, but he hasn't really followed through at all.
Yeah.
And I think, and I think that, um, you know, even places where he has, uh, I think this, this is the frustration of the entire two years has been that a lot of members of Congress, uh, did work very, very hard to preserve the president's authority, um, to transfer people to the United States, to have them tried in federal criminal court.
And there were five different bills that were passed by Congress and the president signed that had lots of Guantanamo restrictions, but still gave the president clear authority to transfer people here for, uh, for trial.
And, um, and the president never, with the exception of Golani, the guy who was just sentenced to life in New York, um, he didn't transfer any of the other ones here.
So, uh, even on an individual case basis, he's refusing to do what he's actually got it written in the law that he could do the right thing.
Yeah.
And now, and now, and now, you know, at least, at least with this, you know, this, with the bill that he just signed, it's either at least until the end of September, it's either, um, very difficult or more difficult or impossible for him to transfer people here to be prosecuted in federal criminal court.
And, uh, so, you know, but I think, I think that part of the frustration that happened towards the end of Congress in Congress was, but with some of these Democrats is, I think they got very, a lot of them got very tired of, of fighting to keep the president's authority to, to bring people here, to be tried in federal criminal court, uh, to take what sometimes are risky votes for themselves and then find that the president doesn't use that power anyway.
And, um, so I think, you know, the dynamic and what I got back from some of the people, uh, who were, who were kind of at the, uh, decision-making level, um, in Congress was, was that, was that they, they, they didn't see any point in fighting to, uh, to keep the president's authority if he wasn't going to use it.
I'm sorry, Christopher, we got to go out to this break.
I'm going to be right back with Christopher Anders from the ACLU right after this.
All right, y'all welcome back to the show.
It's anti-war radio.
We're on chaos radio, austin.org and the Liberty radio network.
Talking with Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel, it says here, uh, for the ACLU, but, uh, actually I think you put the lie to my initial praise there and said, you're a lobbyist, not a litigator, but still you're the ACLU.
It's all one big group of, uh, I know you're lobbying on the right side of things, so that's good enough.
I'll take it.
Um, and you were making the point before I interrupted you.
In fact, you could have finished.
It's seems like we had enough time there.
Uh, sorry about that.
But I, uh, walked all over you to go out to the break when you were talking about the Democrats in Congress who really wanted to close Guantanamo Bay have learned the hard way that, uh, Barack Obama never meant what he said.
Well, I mean, I, I don't know if he didn't mean what he said, but he hasn't put the muscle, um, the political muscle behind what he said.
And, and I think that, you know, for a lot of them, they, they took a lot.
If you go back and look at some of the votes that some of these members of Congress took, um, on Guantanamo, particularly to keep, uh, the president's ability to transfer people to the United States to be charged and tried in federal criminal court.
Um, some of these senators took a, uh, took some very risky votes and for, for who they're representing.
And they took those votes thinking that the president was going to use that power.
And, uh, and then instead what he did was he kind of waffled back and forth, um, about whether these trials are going to be held in federal criminal court, or whether he would just send everyone back to the military commissions or just continue to hold people without ever charging them with a crime and just hold them potentially for the rest of their lives.
And, uh, so I think for a lot of these senators and for some of the house members, they, they've, they've taken those hard votes.
They've taken those risky votes and seen the president do, um, nothing with the power that they worked hard to retain for him.
So when the final push came around, um, even though, you know, groups like ours and all the human rights groups were, were saying, you know, please defeat this.
Um, a lot of them were saying, well, you know, what's the point we, you know, we defeat it and, uh, take another, you know, yet another risky vote.
The president doesn't back us up.
Doesn't even say he's going to veto it.
And, uh, and then he's not going to use the power anyway.
So I, you know, I think it's really, it really is a, um, it's a, it's a lack of, it's a lack of political will, um, to get this done and to get this done the right way and, um, and truly there are lots of other priorities that the administration has had with the, you know, with the economy, the economy and healthcare.
But, um, this is, this is one that would not have required a tremendous amount of effort, um, but would have required a sustained effort by the, by the white house to, you know, to, to get Guantanamo closed and get, to get it closed the right way.
Well, now, um, there's a couple of things I want to go back over.
He talked about Gilani was the one guy who was prosecuted under the law that re legitimize that or what, however exactly it is, um, in domestic court.
But even then they announced that don't worry, even if he's acquitted, he'll still be an enemy combatant for the rest of his life and we're still going to hold him anyway.
So that was really the best that they did was that trial, which was still, I think unprecedented, right?
Where they would announce that an acquittal doesn't mean anything in this case.
Yeah.
And I, and I think that that statements like that have, I mean, sometimes, sometimes related to someone specifically, sometimes, uh, related to, you know, some of the high value detainees, detainees generically.
Um, but the, you know, the top lawyer for the defense department, Jay Johnson has made, uh, statements like that, as has the attorney general, Eric Holder.
Um, and, uh, and, uh, the attorney general, you know, even made statements, uh, that, uh, that sound like he's, he's guaranteeing, guaranteeing convictions.
And certainly the, the evidence might be, um, very strong, but, uh, prosecutors can never, uh, guarantee convictions.
And if, if you can do that, then what's the point of having a trial, right?
Um, the trial, the trial is to, is to test the evidence and to determine guilt or, or innocence.
Well, now, so the whole saga with whether College State, Muhammad or Ramzi bin al-Sheib are going to be given trials in New York or anywhere else is pretty much over, right?
They're going to be tried at Guantanamo with anywhere.
No, I, well, I, at least from the New York times report, it looks like Al-Mashiri, the, uh, who's alleged to have been involved in the USS Cole, uh, bombing is likely to be, um, charged in front of the military commission for the, for the alleged nine 11, um, you know, planners and, uh, conspirators.
They have not said anything about them and, um, and they remain, they remain in kind of this endless limbo and, um, and which, which really ought to concern.
Uh, you know, I, we, you know, we've been taking kind of a, you know, certainly due process and civil liberties, uh, perspective to it.
But I think, you know, for, for those people who, who, you know, lost people in nine 11 or whose lives were, uh, forever altered, um, by the nine 11 attacks, um, this is we're almost 10 years out from, from that time.
And, um, and to date only one person has been convicted, um, for his role in the nine 11 attacks.
And that was Zachariah Masali, the, uh, the, the person who was, uh, trying to have been one of the hijackers and was convicted years ago in federal criminal court.
He's serving a life sentence in the supermax prison in Colorado.
Um, and, uh, but meanwhile, the, the, you know, the alleged, uh, masterminds of it are, are sitting uncharged with any crime at Guantanamo 10 years later.
And meanwhile, um, one of the things that we saw with the Kalani trial is that the longer you wait to try someone, um, evidence does get bad, go, go stale.
And, uh, witnesses do get lost.
And, uh, with the Kalani trial, um, there were two witnesses, um, who, who had died, not of any suspicious causes, uh, but just, uh, uh, two witnesses that the government would have had, um, who had died in the time, uh, that the government started holding Kalani.
So by, by having him sit at Guantanamo for years and years, they lost two key witnesses, um, and so there's, there's a price to be paid.
And for, you know, anyone who really does, they want to see justice done.
I want to see, uh, and wants to see, you know, people held responsible for their, uh, roles in the nine 11 attack, um, to just let, you know, let time, time go by, um, without charging anybody, um, doesn't make any sense.
Well, so have they, they haven't officially taken back what they said about, yeah, we are going to try them in New York or they have said, no, we're not after all, or no, they've, uh, they're, they're in limbo.
They're, they're undecided.
Uh, they're every, every, every once in a while, uh, uh, the attorney general will be in front of a, here in front of a congressional committee or a press conference.
And we'll say a decision is coming soon.
Uh, and sometimes there'll be a decision coming in a few weeks, but that, but that literally has been going on for, uh, for about a year now.
I mean, it was about a year ago that they, uh, pulled back on the decision to send them to New York, but they did not, but they'd not, they did not make a decision to not send them to New York.
So it's, uh, their, their fate is, their fate has been, um, in limbo, uh, since about a year ago, I think it was early February or late January of last year.
All right.
Now on the, uh, issue of Anwar al-Waqi, the American born American citizen that, uh, Obama's head of intelligence last March, Dennis Blair announced before Congress that there was a hit out for this guy, basically that the CIA and or the military special operations guys have been ordered to simply kill this American citizen.
Now you guys in the center for constitutional rights, he's in Yemen right now, they say, um, you guys in the center for constitutional rights tried to sue, uh, in the name of his father.
And the last I heard an appeals court, uh, said, I think two things.
One, uh, we don't want to challenge the president of the Congress on this.
It's up to them to decide, not us.
And then really too, and they hid behind the standing that the father doesn't have standing to sue.
And this was, I think a federal appeals court, three judge panel.
So what's the next step is assuming what I just said is correct.
What's the next step from here?
Um, well, you know, it's, it's up to, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not one of our litigators and it really is a litigation decision that they are reviewing.
Um, and I think, you know, but it does, it does fit into the overall pattern that we've seen, um, over the past two years, which has been, which has been that the courts are not places that are bringing any accountability, um, to detention practices or targeted killing practices.
And that this administration, uh, is just as, uh, works just as hard and has been just as successful as the Bush administration in, um, using state secrets, defenses, and, um, and other procedural, um, uh, defenses to, to frustrate the ability of court to, to have any oversight.
So, um, you know, I, we've, we've, we've bought a bunch of different cases in different areas where people have been innocent, people have been tortured by the government.
Um, people have been kidnapped, uh, through the rendition program and sent overseas.
I'm sorry.
We haven't gotten anyone.
I'm sorry.
Uh, music's playing.
Thank you very much for your time.
Christopher Anders, everybody from the ACLU.
Thanks again.
Great.
Thanks so much for having me.
