Wire Report

None Dare Call It Tyranny

(WIRE/FFF/SR) – If you want to know what tyranny is like, look around.

The national government — specifically the executive branch — can do pretty much what it wants. It could bomb Iran tomorrow without a declaration of war from Congress. It can — and does — conduct secret wars and covert operations against countries that have done nothing to us. Of course, they are secret only to the ignorant taxpayers who must finance them and perhaps suffer when the provoked retaliation occurs. It can have men behind PlayStation consoles in Nevada fire Hellfire missiles from aerial drones on people in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere.

This tyrannical government can send any foreigner picked up anywhere in the world to third countries known for torturing prisoners. It can hold people accused of nothing indefinitely in prisons in Cuba and Afghanistan and torture them into making false confessions. It can conduct a war crimes trial in a military kangaroo court for a man, Omar Khadr, held captive for eight years after he was picked up at the age of 15 during a U.S. assault on villagers near Kabul. His torture-induced “confessions” will be admissible. All this is in violation of commitments under the Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict not to treat children in war as though they were adults.

It can assassinate even American citizens abroad without a scent of due process.

It is a government that can write its own warrants without judicial review — and call them national security letters — in order to conduct fishing expeditions in anyone’s electronic records. But that isn’t enough power for the present Progressive administration, which wants the freedom to examine our browser histories and email correspondents’ names. The Bill of Rights, like the Geneva Convention, has become “quaint” and obsolete.

Like any self-respecting tyranny, it tries to keep the truth from its subjects. Comforting words camouflage the 50,000 armed and combat-ready troops that will remain in Iraq after “withdrawal.” Their “primary” mission is to train an army whose own general says won’t be ready for years. This gross deception follows on the heralded “surge,” which supposedly turned things around in Iraq. What “worked,” however, was not U.S. military prowess or Gen. David Petraeus’s brilliance, but the spreading of American taxpayers’ cash to buy off Sunni insurgents and the denouement of ethnic cleansing in Baghdad.

And, again, like any self-respecting tyranny, it bridles at leaks of classified documents that tell the people the truth. Solemn administration officials condemn Wikileaks and its sources for supposedly jeopardizing U.S. troops and Afghan collaborators, while adding that nothing new had been revealed. With no sense of irony, the same officials find blood on the hands of Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, ignoring the rivers of blood their policies and weapons have produced in the Middle East and South Central Asia. Without those policies, there would be nothing to leak. Some call for the assassination of Assange, and for all we know he is on President Obama’s kill list. Meanwhile a courageous young soldier, Bradley Manning, who apparently leaked video of American troops committing cold-blooded murder in Baghdad, faces 52 years in prison.

Now we are being softened up for the next war, against Iran. As in 2002 with Iraq’s phantom WMDs, the empire advance men tell us Iran is building nuclear weapons, and Obama and Secretary of State Clinton say “all options are on the table,” which phrase includes hydrogen bombs. Once again a Big Lie is repeated without proof. The reason is simple: all evidence runs the other way. The government’s own intelligence agencies say Iran has no nuclear-weapons program, and the International Atomic Energy Agency is on the scene. But no matter. If it suits the tyrannical administration or its partner in empire, Israel, bombs of some kind will fall. The consequences all around will be horrible.

Can it really be tyranny if we get to vote? Yes. Thomas Jefferson warned of “elective despotism.” How valuable is your one vote when the government manipulates and distorts the flow of information, when Congress capitulates, and when the “adversarial” mainstream media act like government press agents, if not adoring lapdogs. The ugly truth is out there, but you have to want to know it.

Sheldon Richman, Editor “The Freeman”

Sheldon Richman is editor of The Freeman, published by The Foundation for Economic Education in Irvington, New York, and serves as senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is the author of FFF’s award-winning book Separating School & State: How to Liberate America’s Families; Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax; and FFF’s newest book Tethered Citizens: Time to Repeal the Welfare State. Calling for the abolition, not the reform, of public schooling. Separating School & State has become a landmark book in both libertarian and educational circles. In his column in the Financial Times, Michael Prowse wrote: “I recommend a subversive tract, Separating School & State by Sheldon Richman of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank… . I also think that Mr. Richman is right to fear that state education undermines personal responsibility…” Mr. Richman’s articles on population, federal disaster assistance, international trade, education, the environment, American history, foreign policy, privacy, computers, and the Middle East have appeared in the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, American Scholar, Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Washington Times, Insight, Cato Policy Report, Journal of Economic Development, The Freeman, The World & I, Reason, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Middle East Policy, Liberty magazine, and other publications. He is a contributor to the Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics. A former newspaper reporter and former senior editor at the Cato Institute, Mr. Richman is a graduate of Temple University in Philadelphia.

The Smoking Argus

— BEGIN OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Hello. I’m Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona.

The effects of the ongoing economic slump have been severe and have touched all Americans. Too many people have lost jobs; others are working reduced hours or for lower pay. The latest report shows that unemployment has stubbornly stayed at just below 10 percent. Nearly four million workers have lost their jobs since President Obama took office.

The American people have been telling Washington that promoting job growth must be the first priority. But, for more than a year, Congress and the President have focused instead on a controversial health spending bill which a majority of Americans said they didn’t want. [FULL TRANSCRIPT]

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s)
	GOP Weekly Address, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona: Economic Recovery and Creating Jobs TRANSCRIPT (PDF 40.8KB)

Source(s): Republican National Committee • GOP Weekly Address YouTube Channel

The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT – President Obama wants Congress to pass job-killing legislation that would guarantee permanent bailouts for Wall Street. Under his plan, unelected Washington bureaucrats would be granted virtually unlimited power to pick winners and losers and hardworking American taxpayers would pick up the tab for the reckless decisions made by irresponsible bankers. [TRANSCRIPT]

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s)
	GOP Weekly Address: Representative Kevin McCarthy (CA) Jobs Killing Bill and Bailouts for Wall Street TRANSCRIPT (PDF 43.1KB)

Source(s): Republican House Conference Channel on YouTube

The Smoking Argus

In this week’s Texas Straight Talk, Representative Ron Paul discusses the need to end the war in Afghanistan, which has become an occupation, long outlasting the original authorization of force. Issued just after the attacks on September 11th, the war is now approaching a decade with no end in sight. Al-Qaeda has long since left Afghanistan and now sits and waits for America, much like the Russians, to bankrupt itself, whilst simultaneously recruiting Afghans turned off by the American occupation, who themselves have a long and bloodied history of resisting foreign occupations.

Dr. Paul opines that while many in Congress continue to couch their support for an UnConstitutional war in terms of supporting the troops via continued funding of the operation, the simple fact remains, needless deaths of American soldiers in a war long past its original mission is an immoral path to secure their bids for reelection. Further he continues that not only are members of Congress completely blind to their Constitutional duty, members even abdicate Congressional responsibility to enforce the War Powers Resolution of 1973, passed after Vietnam, which attempted to restrict the President to using troops for no more than 90 days without appearing before Congress to obtain a formal Declaration of War.

Source(s): Minnesota Chris YouTube Channel • Official Congressional Website of Representative Ron Paul

The Smoking Argus

Weekly Address: President Obama to Send Updated Elementary and Secondary Education Act Blueprint To Congress on Monday

THE WHITE HOUSE/WASHINGTON D.C. – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama announced that on Monday, his administration will send to Congress the blueprint for an updated Elementary and Secondary Education Act that will overhaul No Child Left Behind. The plan will set the ambitious goal of ensuring that all students graduate from high school prepared for college and a career, and it will provide states, districts and schools with the flexibility and resources to reach that goal. [FULL TRANSCRIPT]

—END OFFICIAL STATEMENT—

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: Government Education is the Solution TRANSCRIPT (PDF 44.3KB)

Source(s): The White House • White House YouTube Channel

The Smoking Argus

WASHINGTON D.C. – In his weekly address President Obama says Congress will schedule a final vote on reform which according to the President, will give families and businesses more control over their health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. President Obama feels that after nearly a year of debate, as well as a seven-hour summit with Democrats and Republicans the time for discussion is over and instead will pursue passage of his agenda without support from Republicans in Congress or the American people. However, with most scientific polling data indicating the American people are still not prepared to support further government largess into the health care industry, President Obama may be marching his fellow Democrats to a bloodbath in the 2010 fall elections.  [FULL TRANSCRIPT]

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: What Health Reform Will Deliver – This Year TRANSCRIPT (PDF 44KB)

Source(s): The White House Briefing Room • The Official White House YouTube Channel

The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT – Hello, I’m Dr. Tom Coburn, a practicing physician from Oklahoma and a member of the United States Senate.

This week I had the opportunity to join President Obama and my Democrat and Republican colleagues for a summit on health care. We had a respectful and constructive discussion.

While we listened to one another, I’m concerned that the majority in Congress is still not listening to the American people on the subject of health care reform. By an overwhelming margin, the American people are telling us to scrap the current bills, which will lead to a government takeover of health care, and we should start over. FULL TRANSCRIPT

Related Material(s)
	G.O.P. Weekly Address, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma Healthcare TRANSCRIPT (PDF 43KB)

Source(s): Republican National Committee • GOP Weekly Address YouTube Channel

The Smoking Argus

OFFICIAL STATEMENT/WASHINGTON D.C. – In his weekly address, President Barack Obama said that the nation cannot lose the current opportunity to finally enact meaningful health care reform. At Thursday’s meeting on reform, both sides were able to find several areas of agreement, but there were some differences. While the President is willing and eager to move forward with members of Congress from both parties, American families and businesses cannot afford to wait another generation for reform. READ FULL TRANSCRIPT

Related Material(s)
	President Obama Weekly Address: Washington Must Use This Opportunity to Enact Health Reform TRANSCRIPT (PDF 42.5KB)

Source(s): The White House • The White House YouTube Channel

Wire Report

William F. Shughart II – Senior Fellow, The Independent Institute

William F. Shughart II is a Senior Fellow at The Independent Institute and the Frederick A. P. Barnard Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Mississippi. A former economist at the Federal Trade Commission, Professor Shughart received his Ph.D. in economics from Texas A & M University, and he has taught at George Mason University, Clemson University, and the University of Arizona. Professor Shughart is Editor in Chief of Public Choice, past President of the Public Choice Society, President-elect of the Southern Economic Association, Associate Editor of the Southern Economic Journal, and Book Review Editor for Managerial and Decision Economics. His books include Taxing Choice: The Predatory Politics of Fiscal Discrimination; The Elgar Companion to Public Choice: The Organization of Industry; Antitrust Policy and Interest-Group Politics, Modern Managerial Economics (with W. Chappell and R. Cottle); Policy Challenges and Political Responses: Public Choice Perspectives on the Post-9/11 World (with R. Tollison); The Political Economy of the New Deal (with J. Couch); The Causes and Consequences of Antitrust (ed. with F. McChesney); and The Economics of Budget Deficits (with C. Rowley and R. Tollison). A contributor to numerous other books, Professor Shughart is the author of more than 100 articles for scholarly journals and his popular articles have also appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, Oklahoman, San Francisco Chronicle, Investor’s Business Daily, San Jose Mercury News, Philadelphia Inquirer, San Francisco Examiner, Kansas City Star, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Washington Times, Detroit Free Press, Clarion-Ledger, Vision Hispana, National Post, Providence Journal, and many other publications.

Put a New Tax in Your Pipe and Smoke It.

(Wire/Ind.Inst.) – I am a college professor. My job description therefore requires that, among other things, I wear a tweed sport coat with leather elbow patches, grow a beard, spend two days a week in the classroom, and smoke a pipe.

H.R. 4439 Tobacco Tax Parity Act of 2010 (PDF 156KB)

That last essential trait is now under attack. A bill before Congress proposes to increase the federal excise tax on pipe tobacco, making it equal to the recently enacted tax on loose cigarette tobacco purchased by smokers who “roll their own.” If passed, the bill would tax pipe tobacco at nearly $25 per pound, an increase of 775 percent over the current level.

Tobacco smoking is bad for one’s health. To my knowledge, however, no scientific studies have been conducted showing that pipe smokers (or cigar smokers, for that matter) have shorter lives than nonsmokers. There certainly is no evidence that nonsmokers who are exposed to environmental pipe or cigar smoke are harmed by it. Indeed, every person who smells the ambient odor of my pipe says that they are reminded of their fathers or grandfathers.

So, why are pipe smokers selectively being targeted by Washington? The answer is political opportunism. The federal government has been on a spending binge since George W. Bush occupied the White House. Over the past nine years, America’s taxpayers have been burdened with unprecedented expansions in the federal budget to finance new educational mandates (“No Child Left Behind”), new healthcare initiatives (Medicare Part D, to pay for granny’s meds), two wars on terrorism (Iraq and Afghanistan), failed economic “stimulus” plans and the bailouts of irresponsible financial institutions.

With annual budget deficits now running at $1.4 trillion, Washington is desperate for revenue enhancements (i.e., new sources of tax revenue). Rather than increasing taxes on a broad basis, which predictably would elicit broad-based opposition from already overburdened taxpayers, it is politically expedient to single out minorities who cannot bring effective power to bear in the legislative marketplace. And so we have seen proposals to tax those who have sacrificed wages in return for generous, “Cadillac” health-insurance plans, to tax the consumers of junk food and carbonated soft drinks, and to tax transactions in common stocks.

It is naïve to think that our elected representatives are attentive to the public’s interests. What presidents and the members of Congress do in practice is to transfer wealth to the special interests that are critical to their re-election prospects. It is therefore not surprising that they finance those wealth transfers by taxing groups that are not important to them electorally.

And so the tax burden falls most heavily on anyone, anywhere who is politically impotent, especially if they can be portrayed as the consumers of products that, on the flimsiest of scientific evidence, harm themselves or impose costs on others.

That mindset unleashes the nanny state to run amok. Pipe and cigar smokers are no threat to the public’s health. Even if smoking a pipe or a cigar harms the consumers of those products, that harm is borne privately and thus is not an issue of public policy concern.

But it unfortunately is if tax policy is predatory, with the aim at raising revenue from any group that cannot marshal effective political opposition to it. Perhaps it is time to add pipe tobacco, junk food and soft drinks to the agendas of the tea parties now being organized to oppose a government that is everywhere more intrusive.

Copyright 2010 The Independent Institute

Wire Report

Andy Worthington – Journalist/Author
	Andy Worthington is the author of The Guantánamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison (published by Pluto Press) and serves as policy advisor to the Future of Freedom Foundation. Visit his website at: www.andyworthington.co.uk.

(WIRE FFF) – Last Tuesday, a little-known court — the Court of Military Commissions Review — convened to hear appeals in the cases of the only two men sentenced in the military commission trial system established by Congress in 2006, after the first version, conceived by Vice President Dick Cheney and his close advisors in November 2001, was ruled illegal by the U.S. Supreme Court.¹

The two men in question — Salim Hamdan and Ali Hamza al-Bahlul — were tried and convicted in 2008, but whereas Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden, had the major charge against him (conspiracy) dismissed by a military jury in August 2008, and was sentenced to serve just six months for providing material support to terrorism², al-Bahlul, who made a video promoting al-Qaeda and is regularly described as al-Qaeda’s “media secretary,” was convicted of conspiracy, solicitation of murder, and providing material support to terrorism, and received a life sentence in November 2008.

Under consideration are two specific questions: firstly, whether providing material support to terrorism is a valid basis for conviction in a war crimes court; and, secondly, whether al-Bahlul’s trial was unfair because he was denied the right to represent himself.

On the first point, lawyers have always maintained that providing material support to terrorism is not a valid war crime. In an email exchange last week, Lt. Col. David Frakt, who represented al-Bahlul before his trial, explained, “It has always been my position that material support to terrorism was a fabricated war crime that was not traditionally triable in a military commission as of the time of Mr. al-Bahlul and Mr. Hamdan’s affiliation with al-Qaeda, but rather was illegally retroactively applied to them several years after the fact.”

As Lt. Col. Frakt also mentioned, the problems with the material-support charges had been advanced by Hamdan’s attorneys in a pre-trial motion to dismiss the charge back in February 2008, when they also attempted to dismiss the conspiracy charge for the same reason. On July 16, the judge in Hamdan’s case, Army Capt. Keith Allred, rejected the motion to dismiss on ex post facto grounds, finding that “conspiracy and material support for terrorism have traditionally been considered violations of the law of war,” as Human Rights First explained in a summary of Hamdan’s case.³

Assist. Attrny. Gen. David S. Kris Statement to Comm. of Armed Srvcs U.S. Senate July 7, 2009 (PDF 61KB)

However, as Lt. Col. Frakt described it, Allred indicated that it was “a very close issue. Although he acknowledged that the crime of material support to terrorism had never been the subject of charges in a military commission before, he reasoned that similar conduct, essentially being part of an armed insurgent group committing war crimes against civilians, had been treated as a war crime in the past, such as during the U.S. Civil War. He argued that Congress was merely providing a new name to conduct that had always been treated as a law of war offense triable by military commission.”

Significantly, Lt. Col. Frakt added, “What Captain Allred ignored is that what Mr. Hamdan was charged with was essentially serving as a personal driver and servant to Osama bin Laden and there was no indication of involvement in any war crimes, against civilians or otherwise.”

Even more significantly, when the Obama administration and Congress revived the Commissions last summer, David Kris, a senior Justice Department official in the National Security Division, testified that the Justice Department had concluded that material support to terrorism was not a traditional war crime and should be removed from the new version of the Military Commissions Act. As Kris explained:

“While this is a very important offense in our counter-terrorism prosecutions in Federal Court … there are serious questions as to whether material support for terrorism or terrorist groups is a traditional violation of the rules of war … our experts believe that there is a significant risk that appellate courts will ultimately conclude that material support for terrorism is not a traditional law of war offense, thereby reversing hard-won convictions and leading to questions about the system’s legitimacy.”

David S. Kris
U.S. Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
National Security Division

As Lt. Col. Frakt explained to me, despite Kris’ concerns, “Congress rejected this sound advice and included material support to terrorism in the revised 2009 MCA, possibly in part because I advised CongressNov when I testified that if they removed this crime from statute there would be very few detainees left to prosecute.”

Noticeably, Kris was more enthusiastic about retaining the conspiracy charge, but as I explained in an article in November, “this, too, is fraught with problems. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the case in which the Supreme Court shut down the Commissions’ first incarnation, Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion in which he was joined by three other justices, made a point of mentioning that ‘conspiracy’ has not traditionally been considered a war crime.”

In Hamdan’s case, a successful appeal on the material support charge would have little practical effect, as he is already a free man⁴ (although Charles Schmitz, who served as his interpreter during proceedings at Guantánamo, told the Wall Street Journal that it was “important to him to clear the conviction,” because “In Yemen, they look at him as a criminal. He’s been tainted.”).⁵

To be honest, a successful appeal on the material support charge would mean little to al-Bahlul either, although, it would, of course, fulfill the Justice Department’s own fears about including it in the new legislation, especially as the Obama administration has already announced its intention of using it against several prisoners currently held at Guantánamo.

It remains to be seen, of course, whether material support and/or conspiracy survive an appeal, but in court last week, lawyers for al-Bahlul pushed both points. As the Wall Street Journal described it, Michel Paradis, representing al-Bahlul, argued that the charges on which al-Bahlul was convicted “weren’t traditionally considered war crimes under international law, and thus Congress in 2006 couldn’t retroactively make them so. International law strongly discourages viewing conspiracy as a war crime. Providing material support for terrorism, while a domestic U.S. crime since the 1990s, has never been considered a war crime.”

Ingeniously, the lawyers also argued that al-Bahlul’s production of propaganda material for al-Qaeda should have been protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech. One of his attorneys, Mike Berrigan, told reporters, “Mr. al-Bahlul’s conduct in making this documentary — his prosecution for that conduct — was a violation of the U.S. First Amendment. Not that Mr. al-Bahlul had particular First Amendment rights, but the constitutional restrictions on the U.S. government prosecuting someone for speech made the prosecution itself illegal. Mr. al-Bahlul’s conduct in making that documentary does not come close to the standard of inciting violence that can be criminalized.”⁶

The prosecution disagreed, of course, and Navy Capt. Edward White, who argued for the government at the appeal, stated, “Our position was that, as an enemy combatant waging war against the United States from abroad, he does not have First Amendment rights. He crossed the line into criminally, soliciting other people — inducing, enticing, encouraging, persuading them — to commit war crimes.”

Beyond all these claims, however, the most disturbing aspect of al-Bahlul’s conviction is the nature of his trial, and what Lt. Col. Frakt described to me as his “best hope” is that the Court of Military Commission Review will recognize that the one-sided trial, in which he refused to mount a defense, was fundamentally unfair — or, as Lt. Col. Frakt put it, the judge’s “denial of his right to self-representation essentially denied him of a fair trial because the judge knew that he would not allow me to represent him.”

This was indeed what happened. Al-Bahlul sought strenuously to represent himself, but although his request was granted by Army Col. Peter Brownback, his first judge in the revived Commissions, Brownback was then involuntarily retired from the Army, and the new judge, Air Force Col. Ronald Gregory, revoked al- Bahlul’s pro se status (his right to represent himself).

As I explained at the time, after Maj. Frakt (as he was at the time) announced that al-Bahlul was boycotting the trial, because he wished to represent himself, and did not wish to be represented by a military lawyer, Frakt then asked to be relieved, noting that he was obliged to respect his client’s wishes. When Col. Gregory refused, he declared that he too was unable to participate. “I will be joining Mr. al-Bahlul’s boycott of the proceedings,” he said, “standing mute at the table.” He then refused to answer any further questions from Col. Gregory, even though the judge attempted to argue that he was “obliged to participate,” before conceding that it was not in his power to force him to do so. As Lt. Col. Frakt described it to me last week, Col. Gregory’s actions “ensured there would be no defense at all in the final military commission trial of the Bush era.”

Lt. Col. Frakt also explained that, although appeals are automatic in the Commissions unless waived in writing, the only reason that al-Bahlul failed to waive his right to appeal in writing was because he “refused to accept any papers from his lawyers or the court.” As Frakt described it, “Mr. al-Bahlul made it plain to me that he did not wish to appeal any conviction and he categorically refused to meet with his appointed appellate counsel to discuss any possible grounds for appeal.”

Lt. Col. Frakt was full of praise for the lawyers attempting to defend al-Bahlul, even though they “were hampered by the fact that I did not preserve any issues for appeal (other than the self-representation issue) because I did not speak during the entire trial.” He noted that they “managed to find a way to raise a number of interesting and important issues that strike at the core of the legitimacy of the military commissions,” but in the end, what is most noticeable about al-Bahlul’s case is how he remains in a position of extraordinary isolation at Guantánamo.

Not only is he imprisoned, alone, to serve out his life sentence, but as Lt. Col. Frakt explained, “it remains a mystery what will happen to Mr. al-Bahlul. Although he is serving a life sentence, under current U.S. law, he can’t be transferred out of Guantánamo to a prison on the mainland because detainees can only be transferred to the U.S. to face trial.”

Unless he is to stay in Guantánamo, as the prison slowly empties around him, until, perhaps, he is the only prisoner left, it seems, as Lt. Col. Frakt also explained, that “special legislation will be required” to enable him to leave Guantánamo, even if it is just to resume his life sentence elsewhere.

Lost in the system, essentially, Ali Hamza al-Bahlul is another example of the way in which justice at Guantánamo never progressed much beyond an ad hoc system full of holes, and, whatever the outcome of these appeals, it should give the Obama administration some salutary reminders as to why the commissions remain an unsuitable system for any kind of credible trial.

© 2001-2010 The Future of Freedom Foundation. All rights reserved.

Source(s): ¹HAMDAN v. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 05–184. Argued March 28, 2006—Decided June 29, 2006 • ²The UK Guardian “Profile: Salim Ahmed Hamdan” by Mark Tran published Tuesday, June 5th, 2007 • ³Human Rights First, “In the Courts: The Case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan” • ⁴The Star “Bin Laden’s Driver Talk” by Michelle Shephard, published Monday, August 17, 2009 • ⁵The Wall Street Journal “White House Defends Use of War Crime Tribunals” by Jess Bravin • ⁶Voice of America “US Military Panel Hears 1st Guantanamo Appeal” by Michael Bowman, published January 26, 2010