Obama admin retains Bush position on rendition secrets

[Undertoad]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us...er=rss&emc=rss

Originally Posted by NYTimes

In a closely watched case involving rendition and torture, a lawyer for the Obama administration seemed to surprise a panel of federal appeals judges on Monday by pressing ahead with an argument for preserving state secrets originally developed by the Bush administration.

In the case, Binyam Mohamed, an Ethiopian native, and four other detainees filed suit against a subsidiary of Boeing for arranging flights for the Bush administration’s "extraordinary rendition" program, in which terrorism suspects were secretly taken to other countries, where they say they were tortured. The Bush administration argued that the case should be dismissed because even discussing it in court could threaten national security and relations with other nations.

During the campaign, Mr. Obama harshly criticized the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees, and he has broken with that administration on questions like whether to keep open the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But a government lawyer, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument on Monday, startling several judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.

“No, your honor,” Mr. Letter replied.

Judge Schroeder asked, “The change in administration has no bearing?”

Once more, he said, “No, Your Honor.”

About 20th on the list of reasons why I voted for Obama: the Ds of the land need to see their leader using whatever tools are necessary to get the job done. When Bush did it they screamed bloody murder. Prosecute him, they screamed. What will they scream now?

And I always figured Obama's approach would change after he started getting the national intelligence reports. "Mr. President? Here is a list of the bad people out there, and here is what they want to do." "OK, let me change my underwear, and then let's do whatever we need to do to prevent this."

The ending of Guantanamo Bay as a resource for dealing with the assholes of the world makes rendition the only option. We can't take them to Cuba. We can't take them to the US. Fine, we'll take them to Egypt, and the public won't know a thing about it.

And if we get the wrong guy, well shit happens. And if Egypt tortures after they told us they wouldn't, well shit happens.

[TheMercenary]

Yep. I can't agree more. Funny how "The Man" will change his tune when he gets on the inside and figures out what reality is. Not in the least bit surprised.

[Beest]

Maybe the difference is that he will let it occur with a conscience, in a limited capacity, as a last resort, not so much as Standard Operating Procedure.

[Beestie]

Originally Posted by Beest

Maybe the difference is that he will let it occur with a conscience, in a limited capacity, as a last resort, not so much as Standard Operating Procedure.

You mean act the same but with different intentions?

[TheMercenary]

Who says it was anything but? How does anyone know for sure? There is a reason some things are not released to the public.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us...er=rss&emc=rss

About 20th on the list of reasons why I voted for Obama: the Ds of the land need to see their leader using whatever tools are necessary to get the job done. When Bush did it they screamed bloody murder. Prosecute him, they screamed. What will they scream now?

And I always figured Obama's approach would change after he started getting the national intelligence reports. "Mr. President? Here is a list of the bad people out there, and here is what they want to do." "OK, let me change my underwear, and then let's do whatever we need to do to prevent this."

The ending of Guantanamo Bay as a resource for dealing with the assholes of the world makes rendition the only option. We can't take them to Cuba. We can't take them to the US. Fine, we'll take them to Egypt, and the public won't know a thing about it.

And if we get the wrong guy, well shit happens. And if Egypt tortures after they told us they wouldn't, well shit happens.

I'm not that surprised by the Obama DoJ's action. I never expected, nor would I want, Obama to abandon all national security measures or make them all more transparent.

The two "safeguards" that are clearly articulated in Obama's EO on Ensuring Lawful Interrogations of Detainees:

abide by US law and international treaty obligations and NOT by the Bush DoJ memo's interpretation of such

the creation of a Special Interagency Task Force on Interrogation and Transfer Policies that provides some level of oversight of the CIAs rendition activities

But then again, who oversees the overseers when it all remains classified.

To abandon some national security measures completely would be irresponsible....to provide oversight is nearly impossible...so there we are.

We're left with it being a matter of trust that they will be conducted legally until that trust is broken.

[Happy Monkey]

I'm not excusing Obama on this issue, but using something as a last resort is not acting the same as using it as an SOP.

If a police department needed to charter moving vans to get rid of the bodies of people they shot, I would suspect they weren't using lethal force as a last resort.

[TheMercenary]

I see little evidence that this is different from what Bush did and yet there is no outcry.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I see little evidence that this is different from what Bush did and yet there is no outcry.

So many outcries about an isolated case that may completely misrepresent the administration. Easy to due when critical details are not yet provided.

The example is seriously devoid of any facts to make a conclusion. For example, was the Ethiopian native the rare guilty one who actually was a threat to America? Was he the rare case where national secrets are at risk? Nobody with criticism ever asked that question. And yet that question should have the very first asked before criticizing that government lawyer.

Meanwhile four Iraqis held for years in Guantanamo in direct violation of American legal principles were released to Iraq. Iraq, in turn, immediately released them. Iraq said all four men were guilty of nothing and that no reason existed to hold them. An example repeated hundreds of times.

What we don't yet know is which of the very few are guilty of anything and therefore might threatened national security secrets. Until something real comes from this example, the example does nothing but hype wild speculation.

For criticisms here to be valid, one must first prove these men were the massive majority who were not guilty of anything. Instead, the responsible response is to have no opinion until judges rule and therefore provide a fact.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I see little evidence that this is different from what Bush did and yet there is no outcry.

The ACLU is certainly outcrying.

[TheMercenary]

I am sorry. I do not find the ACLU as a credible source. Any group that supports child molesting men and their right to exploit children does not get my vote.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am sorry. I do not find the ACLU as a credible source. Any group that supports child molesting men and their right to exploit children does not get my vote.

Anyone who would protect a Republic from becoming a Monarchy, Democracy, Oligarchy, Anarchy, or Dictatorship? You would oppose them?

A specific reference to The American form of Government explained. in the post entitled The American form of Government

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am sorry. I do not find the ACLU as a credible source. Any group that supports child molesting men and their right to exploit children does not get my vote.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am sorry. I do not find the ACLU as a credible source. Any group that supports child molesting men and their right to exploit children does not get my vote.

Problem is, outside of the confines of Rush Limbaugh's drug-addled brain, they did no such thing.

http://www.aclu.org/freespeech/prote...s20000831.html

ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

NEW YORK--In the United States Supreme Court over the past few years, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken the side of a fundamentalist Christian church, a Santerian church, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. In celebrated cases, the ACLU has stood up for everyone from Oliver North to the National Socialist Party. In spite of all that, the ACLU has never advocated Christianity, ritual animal sacrifice, trading arms for hostages or genocide. In representing NAMBLA today, our Massachusetts affiliate does not advocate sexual relationships between adults and children.

What the ACLU does advocate is robust freedom of speech for everyone. The lawsuit involved here, were it to succeed, would strike at the heart of freedom of speech. The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.

It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I am sorry. I do not find the ACLU as a credible source. Any group that supports child molesting men and their right to exploit children does not get my vote.

How is whether you find them credible relevant? They aren't a source that's saying there's an outcry, they are outcrying themselves. As the most prominent group in terms of outcrying against Bush's rendition program, they seemed the obvious group to check whether there was "no outcry" against Obama.

As for the non-sequitur about NAMBLA, of course they defended the right to publish. That's Amendment 1.