President Barack Obama does not plan to accept any of the Afghanistan war options presented by his national security team, pushing instead for revisions to clarify how and when U.S. troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan government, a senior administration official said Wednesday.

Obama still is close to announcing his revamped war strategy, most likely shortly after he returns from a trip to Asia that ends on Nov. 19.

The president raised questions at a war council meeting on Wednesday, however, that could alter the dynamic of both how many additional troops are sent to Afghanistan and what the timeline would be for their presence in the war zone, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss Obama’s thinking.

I reported earlier that Amherst was considering taking a few of the detainees, at the urging of a group called No More Guantanamos. At least one of the men it was considering inviting still had not been cleared for release, however. The town’s resolution last night clarified that they’d only take those that the government has determined do not pose a security threat.

Of about 220 men still being held at Guantanamo, about 75 have been cleared for release. Many have not been returned home either for fear of persecution in their home countries, or because the United States does not trust the government of their home country to ensure they don’t join local terrorist groups upon their return.

Amherst Town Meeting is the town’s governing body. Its 250 members are elected by precinct to represent the town.

“Some have opposed the closing of Guantanamo because they believe there is no viable alternative approach to handling terrorist suspects,” said Thomas Pickering, former Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs and former U.S. Ambassador and Representative to the United Nations, in a statement released yesterday. “This declaration presents a careful plan for finally bringing terrorists to justice in full keeping with our Constitution, as well as for protecting our nation’s values, security, and commitment to our international obligations.”

The bipartisan declaration, coordinated by Human Rights First and the bipartisan Constitution Project, opposes indefinite detention without charge and supports the trial of all terrorism suspects in federal courts.

An Italian judge sentenced 23 former CIA agents to up to eight years in prison on Wednesday for the abduction of a Muslim cleric in a landmark ruling against the “rendition” flights used by the former U.S. government.

The Americans were tried in absentia for the 2003 kidnapping, in a case that garnered headlines around the world.

Although the video (after the jump) doesn’t give any sense of why these men in particular were seized and detained by the United States and whether any of them did anything to attract U.S. government attention, the fact that all the men were eventually released without charge suggests, at least, that the Bush administration’s claim that they were among “the worst of the worst” didn’t turn out to be true.

The video also gives a strong sense of how and why the Guantanamo detention center, and the treatment of the men imprisoned there, ended up being a powerful recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.

Maher Arar is a Canadian citizen who was seized in 2002 while changing planes at John F. Kennedy airport in New York and sent to Syria, where he says he was interrogated under torture and kept in a tiny grave-like cell. He was released almost a year later without charge, and with an acknowledgment by the Syrian government that it had no evidence against him.

After conducting its own investigation, the Canadian government confirmed that Arar had done nothing wrong, apologized for its role in providing faulty information to U.S. authorities, and paid Arar about $10 million in compensation for his ordeal. The United States, on the other hand, has never officially acknowledged the error (although former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice once conceded in a congressional hearing that the case had been “mishandled”) and still refuses to allow Arar to enter the country.

Represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Arar sued former Attorney General John Ashcroft in January 2004, FBI Director Robert Meuller and other U.S. officials for sending him to Syria where they knew he was likely to be tortured. Today, the full Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the case en banc in a dramatic 2-hour oral argument last December, ruled that Arar has no right to compensation from U.S. officials.

Although the opinion is long and complex, the essence of the court’s decision is that the lawsuit cannot be allowed to go forward because it would “have the natural tendency to affect diplomacy, foreign policy, and the security of the nation.” As for his claims under the Torture Victims Protection Act, Arar can’t claim compensation from U.S. authorities since it was the Syrians who tortured him, even if U.S. officials knew that he was likely to be tortured when they sent him to Syria.

The case does not bode well for other victims of the Bush administration’s “extraordinary rendition” and other abusive interrogation policies, since virtually all of those cases could similarly implicate national security concerns. The other major extraordinary rendition case, brought by five British victims of the policy against a Boeing subsidiary that assisted the CIA, is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Obama administration recently won a re-hearing in that case, which it seeks to dismiss on the grounds that the litigation itself would reveal “state secrets” and endanger national security.

The Second Circuit judges voted seven to four to dismiss Arar’s case today. In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Guido Calabresi wrote: “I believe that when the history of this distinguished court is written, today’s majority decision will be viewed with dismay.”

Here is the court’s opinion, filed today:

Yesterday, Jonathan Hafetz, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who represented Al-Marri in his challenge to military detention, told The New York Times that the sentence by a federal judge was “a powerful reminder that America’s civilian courts can deliver justice even in the most challenging circumstances.” But David Rivkin, a former Reagan-era Justice Department official and strong supporter of military commissions to try suspected terrorists had a different take. Criminal courts are “ill-suited” to terror cases because the sentences are “a crap-shoot,” he said, adding that military commissions “arrive at a better judgment, being comprised of warriors, as to what level of danger the person poses.”

Al-Marri, a legal U.S. resident living in Peoria, Ill., before his arrest in late 2001, spent almost six years in a U.S. Navy brig in South Carolina without charge, mostly in isolation. Shortly before his case questioning the legality of his indefinite detention on U.S. soil was set to reach the Supreme Court,  the Obama administration transferred him to civilian custody, incarcerated him in a federal prison and prepared for his trial in federal court. But prosecutors agreed to accept a plea bargain, in which Al-Marri admitted that he’d been ordered by al-Qaeda official Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to move to the United States from his native Qatar and await instructions. Al-Marri moved his wife and five children to Peoria and he enrolled at Bradley University, where he had studied earlier. He admitted in his plea that he “researched online information related to various cyanide compounds” and communicated with other al-Qaeda operatives.

When al-Marri was arrested in December 2001 on charges of financial fraud, he hadn’t carried out any terrorist acts. But 18 months after his arrest, the government dropped the criminal charges and named al-Marri an “enemy combatant,” which in the Bush administration’s view, gave the government the right to hold him indefinitely in military custody. He remained at the Navy big, without charge or trial, until February.

Whether it’s legal for the United States to imprison indefinitely a lawful U.S. resident in a military prison on U.S. soil remains an open question, largely because the Obama administration did not give the Supreme Court an opportunity to rule on it. That may have been a strategic move designed to leave open the possibility of using that power again, particularly since President Obama promised to close the Guantanamo Bay prison by January 2010, but hasn’t yet decided what to do with many of the detainees imprisoned there.

For Al-Marri, however, it means he will now serve another eight years in prison. (He faced up to 15 years, but the judge agreed to consider the time he’d already served.) Al-Marri yesterday tearfully apologized for helping al-Qaeda and said he no longer wants to harm the American people.

Notwithstanding Rivkin’s criticism of the federal court’s sentence, it’s worth noting that in the two contested cases where terror suspects were sentenced by military commissions for similarly assisting al-Qaeda, both received lighter sentences. Salim Hamdan, for example, Osama bin Laden’s driver, was sentenced by a military jury of “warriors” to just five and a half years in prison, and given credit for time served. He’s already back home in Yemen. In the other case, Australian David Hicks pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism and was sentenced to only nine months in prison. A former kangaroo-skinner, Hicks is now home.

Elliot Madison, who counsels seriously mentally ill patients, first came under suspicion when, at the G-20 gathering of world leaders in Pittsburgh in September, he was arrested for allegedly listening to a police scanner and then sending out the information on Twitter to help protesters avoid the heavily armed police. Wired notes that the State Department applauded the same activity when protesters did it in Iran.

But in Madison’s case, the following week the Joint Terrorism Task Force got a warrant and raided the 41-year-old social worker’s home, where he lives with his wife and some roommates. The feds seized his computers, books, camera memory cards, air-filtration masks, bumper stickers and political posters. These were all supposedly evidence of his breaking the federal anti-rioting law. If found guilty, he could spend up to five years in prison.

Among his possessions taken were an electronic manuscript of a book he was working on. His first book, written with the “Curious George Brigade,” is called “Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs.”

Madison and his lawyer are now claiming that the search and seizure were unconstitutional.

Wired reporter Ryan Singel is decidedly sympathetic, suggesting that Madison is “yet another casualty of the government’s nasty, post-9/11 habit of considering political dissidents as threats to national security.”

The House Judiciary Committee is actually holding a hearing on a related subject this afternoon — the case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, in which one of the thousands of Muslims rounded up, treated harshly and detained in the United States just after 9/11 sued the government for wrongful imprisonment and violation of his constitutional rights. In May, the Supreme Court dismissed Iqbal’s claims.

While that sounds good, remember that the Detainee Treatment Act was interpreted by the Bush administration’s Justice Department to allow such “enhanced interrogation techniques” as sleep deprivation, food deprivation, shackling, forced standing in stress positions, and a variety of “corrective techniques” that include physical slaps and grabs – either alone or in combination. The new “protections” in the MCA amendments are therefore not all that reassuring.

The amendments also continue to allow judges to admit hearsay evidence, even though the source of the evidence is unavailable for cross-examination by defense counsel. Classified evidence can also still be used against a defendant, although he does not have the right to see it. Protections were added, however, so that the procedures used to protect classified evidence essentially mirror those used in a civilian federal court.

This post has been updated.

“At Guantanamo, the U.S. government turned a jukebox into an instrument of torture,” said Thomas Blanton, the Archive’s executive director, in a statement released today. “The musicians and the public have the right to know how an expression of popular culture was transformed into an enhanced interrogation technique.”