“After all, as Napoleon himself was fond of pointing out, ‘An army marches on its stomach,’” Judge Leon said.

I don’t know how 19th century Frenchmen walked back then, given the effects of evolution, but these days soldiers march on their feet. Even Nancy Sinatra knows what boots are made for: walking all over you (Afghans).

That said, the U.S. government must aggressively pursue those who enable the Taliban to march with shoes or sandals or hole-filled socks, from the manufacturers to the salesmen who sold them.

While some may dismiss the idea of punishing those who shine and wax Taliban shoes, it is important to keep in mind that shiny shoes indicate that the Taliban is not being opposed. The people of the villages will see the gleam of Taliban boots and think they are destined to rule. If they were muddy and scoffed, the people would think the Taliban were on the ropes. Thus, they enable pro-Taliban propaganda.

The Taliban’s (and the [t]aliban’s) shoe shiners must be captured.

If you are unconvinced, just imagine if an Afghan fighter gets a chance to throw his shoes at Karzai or Obama. While dirtier footwear would be more insulting, it would at least be a sign of coming from the mountains. Nicely shined shows would remind people of prosperity and advancement, and attract many Afghans to the Taliban.

The War on Terror suffered a major lexical loss yesterday when the Obama administration tossed the legalistic euphemism, and Bush invention, “enemy combatant” into the dustbin of shameful history.

The Bush administration invented the term in order to circumvent preexisting legal structures that gave the accused an inconvenient array of rights.

Observers debated how significant a departure this move means for the overall program of American extraterritorial law enforcement/prosecution of those who use politically-motivated violence against institutions and individuals.

It did not set anyone free yet, and the resulting institutional framework is still taking shape, so it is hard to tell.

In filings, the kidnap victims previously known as “enemy combatants,” are now “detainees.” And non-citizen detainees have no great experience with the United States.

Some saw the detention camp has half-empty: “What’s important about it is it’s a plan on how they will evaluate Guantánamo detainees and future detainees,” said Eugene R. Fidell, -military law Professor at Yale University. “It sets the bar higher than it had been set in the Bush administration.”

Seeing the camp has half-full, the Center for Constitutional Rights said dropping the term “enemy combatant” was hardly a change.

“They have adopted almost the same standard the Bush administration used to detain people without charge — with one change, the addition of the word `substantially’ before the word ‘supported.’ This is really a case of old wine in new bottles.”

I tend to agree with CCR until we see the actual effects. It will take time for the nature of the change to be fully understood. For instance, what is substantial support. Some may say this post substantially supports Al-Qaeda just for questioning the country’s policies.

The machinery of injustice is a lot faster than its counterpart, especially when it comes to the War on Terror. With the United States, I presume the change won’t be “substantially” — to borrow the government’s new word — different.

With Obama’s intention to close the camps at Guantanamo, and now dropping this term from its paperwork, the fate of the military commissions that Congress established to try Guantánamo detainees for alleged war crimes is still an open question. Obama suspended these travesties of justice shortly after taking office.

The military commission law says that only “alien unlawful enemy combatants” can be tried at the Guantánamo war court. Will the law need to be changed to include detainees? Or does the Obama administration intend their end?

The Obama administration position, according to a Military Commissions spokesman, “very much contemplates the existence of ‘enemy combatants’ and justifies detention at Guantánamo on that basis under the laws of war.”

So, only Muslims apparently violate the laws of war now. It looks like the rule of law won’t do much better even with a law professor as president.

Still, some hail this as the beginning of the unraveling the Bush administration’s kangaroo legal structure.

As CCR warns, it could be old wine in new bottles. I estimate it will be watered down old wine in shiny, new, well-marketed bottles. And the Obama administration will likely move in very slow steps, testing the political winds and legal ramifications each way.

Obama will strike down the most objectionable and glaring faults, but leave the American imperial, politically-grounded, imperial quasi-judiciary in place. It is enough that the American military dominates so many beyond this nation’s borders, why play legal games with the administration of justice — it is a transparent attempt to give the whole stinky enterprise the facade of legality.

It is apparent these two ex-prisoners did not get the “Stockholm syndrome.” Though it sounds like a Scandinavian STD, it’s a fuzzy psychological term that describes when people held captive come to empathize with their captors.

As far as I can tell, the term is not connected to the sometimes overbearing hospitality of the Swedes.

I’m not sure why their stays at camp X-Ray or Delta, or whatever the resort’s name was, is angering them. American taxpayers kept them on a tropical island, provided them with free rent, food, orange jumpsuits, Quran disposals, health care, and all the Eminem music they could listen to (and more), and this is how the re-pay us? Geez.

What next? Gazans will hate Israel for its generous renovations to their run-down buildings and infrastructure?!

In this NPR story that was on All Things Considered today (good lord i’m turning into my dad!), elderly former interrogators talk about their now declassified work in a secret POW camp near Washington D.C.. The “P.O. Box 1142″ highly classified interrogation center held top German scientists and other prisoners of war- including scientists who had been working to enrich uranium for the enemy.

Were they ‘enemy combatants’? That’s a new term; but torture is ancient. Were they tortured? Nope! It seems they were a little too white for that. Or Christian. Or both…

Transcripts show that interrogations at Fort Hunt were usually straightforward, almost cordial affairs. Veterans say they often got their best information just by being friendly. Some prisoners were even wined and dined to soften them up.

Dean, who later became a top U.S. diplomat, says it was very effective.

“I was a pretty good athlete. … I would do sports with them in order to make them more cooperative. I would take some of the people out for dinner at a restaurant in town in civilian clothes,” he recalls.

One of the interrogators from P.O. Box 1142 actually traveled to Europe to locate one particular prisoner’s wife. That prisoner ended up spending the rest of his life teaching and living in the US.

Contrast this with Guantanamo. Anyone else ever see that social experiment where actors ‘passed out’ on the street in different areas to see if passersby would stop and help? Those passed out people who happened to look like the potential good samaritans were the ones who got the help. Those who looked different, well, got to lay around a while.

Frail and malnourished from the effects of torture and a 2 year hunger strike, Al-Hajj’s weak body (strapped to an ambulance cot) was transported back to his country of origin, Sudan, and taken straight to a Khartoum hospital after he was released from gitmo.

The Al-Jazeera journalist was captured by American forces while covering America’s “war on terror” on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He was detained at gitmo for 7 years without ANY charges brought against him! He described the lurid conditions of his detainment, “rats were treated with more humanity.” Explicated in greater detail, is the heartbreaking story of Sami Al-Hajj’s unjust detention at Guantanamo Bay as told by Al-Jazeera English:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuJsCi_BiM0]

Interesting Facts about the Sami Al-Hajj case:

• He explained that the reason for his detention was “to silence the work of free media.”
• According to Al-Hajj, detainees were banned from praying.
• “Rats were treated with more respect,” said Sami Al-Hajj of the conditions at gitmo.
• He was interrogated 130 times. Roughly 125 times of those investigations have focused solely on Al Jazeera. According to his lawyer, Americans wanted Sami to say that Al-Jazeera was funded by Al-Qaeda.
  
• Al-Hajj underwent a 2-year hunger strike. In response, American forces in gitmo force fed him with a feeding tube shoved down his throat.
• He was the only journalist to be detained in Guantanamo Bay
• US authorities invited him to spy on Al-Jazeera activities.