Obama Stands Behind 'State Secrets' Defense

[DealMonkey]

This is downright depressing news to see that Obama's Administration seems intent on preserving illegal renditions of suspected terrorists. Hopefully, this is merely a stall tactic until the new Justice Dep't can figure out what they're doing, but I somehow doubt it. Very, very disappointing.

President Obama's pledge to turn the CIA's involvement in secret detention and torture into a thing of the past was sharply tested today, and critics say he failed miserably.

"This is not change," said the American Civil Liberties Union. "This is definitely more of the same."

In a federal court hearing in San Francisco this morning, a representative of the Justice Department said it would continue the Bush policy of invoking the 'state secrets' defense, which has been used in cases of rendition and torture.

The ACLU is arguing that its lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. should go forward. The suit is based on the company's alleged participation in the CIA's rendition program, and the Bush administration had previously intervened by saying that the case undermined national security interests, according to the ACLU, which is appealing the dismissal of the suit in Feb. 2008.

"Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issues," the ACLU said in a statement. "If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to gives us back an America we can be proud of again."

A spokesman for the DOJ said Attorney General Eric Holder has begun reviewing all state secret privilege matters, and that "It is the policy of this administration to invoke the state secrets privilege only when necessary and in the most appropriate cases."

Today's hearing before the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco had been highly anticipated because it was seen as the first test of the Obama's administration stance on the controversial issue of rendition - in which terrorist suspects are secretly flown to countries or secret CIA camps, in which torture has been alleged.

[...]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6837095&page=1

 

[fskimospy]

Sigh. Very disappointing.

 

[DaveSimmons]

seems intent on preserving illegal renditions of suspected terrorists.

That's quite a leap from the truth, that the Obama administration has chosen for now to preserve an existing state secret claim for a past Bush action.

The ACLU doesn't care about potential damage done to intelligence gathering by blank revocation of secret status, they just care about their clients. Good for their cause, but possibly excessive for the administration to give them everything they want.

Today's hearing before the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco had been highly anticipated because it was seen as the first test of the Obama's administration stance on the controversial issue of rendition - in which terrorist suspects are secretly flown to countries or secret CIA camps, in which torture has been alleged.

Digging up Bush's (literal) skeletons is not likely to be high on Obama's agenda while he's trying to get bipartisan support for the massive deficit goodies package.

So passing up this first chance for now makes political sense even if Obama is against future human rights abuses.

As with some of the other "Obama hasn't done X yet!" threads I'm willing to give him more than 3 weeks to accomplish his campaign promises.

 

[Farang]

Unfortunately I think Obama's political acumen is getting the best of him when it comes to investigations. There is absolutely not enough public support to sustain it, and I doubt there would be even if serious wrongdoing was exposed. He would have to take a big hit to do what is right, which would compromise his ability to do what is right elsewhere.

And before anyone accuses me of coming to his defense I don't think it is wrong to say Obama seems to be cheap when it comes to his political capital, and is not willing to toss it around if he isn't getting a good deal. In this case he would not be getting a good deal.

 

[OrByte]

what the ACLU wants and what the GWB administration wanted were two completely opposite ends of the "privacy" spectrum...so to speak.

I would be surprised if Obama's Administration doesn't fall somewhere in between.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Farang
Unfortunately I think Obama's political acumen is getting the best of him when it comes to investigations. There is absolutely not enough public support to sustain it, and I doubt there would be even if serious wrongdoing was exposed. He would have to take a big hit to do what is right, which would compromise his ability to do what is right elsewhere.

And before anyone accuses me of coming to his defense I don't think it is wrong to say Obama seems to be cheap when it comes to his political capital, and is not willing to toss it around if he isn't getting a good deal. In this case he would not be getting a good deal.

It's definitely not good politics to allow more investigation of the Bush administration, but it would be good governance.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Farang
Unfortunately I think Obama's political acumen is getting the best of him when it comes to investigations. There is absolutely not enough public support to sustain it, and I doubt there would be even if serious wrongdoing was exposed. He would have to take a big hit to do what is right, which would compromise his ability to do what is right elsewhere.

And before anyone accuses me of coming to his defense I don't think it is wrong to say Obama seems to be cheap when it comes to his political capital, and is not willing to toss it around if he isn't getting a good deal. In this case he would not be getting a good deal.

It's definitely not good politics to allow more investigation of the Bush administration, but it would be good governance.

That's true but you have to be realistic. Nobody gets everything they want done so the question becomes how can I get the most of what I want done? If one thing has a very high cost and little return, and another has a high cost and high return, you may want to skip the former in favor of the latter to have an overall high return.

 

[winnar111]

Nice job of Obama telling the terrorist sympathizers to go pound sand.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Nice job of Obama telling the terrorist sympathizers to go pound sand.

:thumbsup:

If this is "change" - sign me up

 

[Deeko]

hahaha god this recurring theme is already getting annoying.

"zomgz obama won't do wat I want! THIS ISNT CHANGE! MORE OF THE SAEM!1!!!!11!!"

Grow up ACLU.....

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama has been in office, what, 3 weeks? If we're getting the same stuff 3 months from now, then, yeh, it's their policy, too.

This transition won't occur overnight- the Bush zealots installed into every nook and cranny of govt won't be swept aside overnight, that's for sure. And they'll follow their original instructions until they get new ones or until they're shown the door, whichever comes first. Not to mention that a lot of those people will be rushing to carry out their previous orders before the changes come through. very simple.

It may also be part and parcel of the stated policy of letting the past die, of doing the right things from now on. In any case, it's a little early to extrapolate future policy from actions carried out by the principals and agents of the last admin...

 

[SAWYER]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Nice job of Obama telling the terrorist sympathizers to go pound sand.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
This is downright depressing news to see that Obama's Administration seems intent on preserving illegal renditions of suspected terrorists. Hopefully, this is merely a stall tactic until the new Justice Dep't can figure out what they're doing, but I somehow doubt it. Very, very disappointing.

President Obama's pledge to turn the CIA's involvement in secret detention and torture into a thing of the past was sharply tested today, and critics say he failed miserably.

"This is not change," said the American Civil Liberties Union. "This is definitely more of the same."

In a federal court hearing in San Francisco this morning, a representative of the Justice Department said it would continue the Bush policy of invoking the 'state secrets' defense, which has been used in cases of rendition and torture.

The ACLU is arguing that its lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. should go forward. The suit is based on the company's alleged participation in the CIA's rendition program, and the Bush administration had previously intervened by saying that the case undermined national security interests, according to the ACLU, which is appealing the dismissal of the suit in Feb. 2008.

"Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issues," the ACLU said in a statement. "If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to gives us back an America we can be proud of again."

A spokesman for the DOJ said Attorney General Eric Holder has begun reviewing all state secret privilege matters, and that "It is the policy of this administration to invoke the state secrets privilege only when necessary and in the most appropriate cases."

Today's hearing before the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco had been highly anticipated because it was seen as the first test of the Obama's administration stance on the controversial issue of rendition - in which terrorist suspects are secretly flown to countries or secret CIA camps, in which torture has been alleged.

[...]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=6837095&page=1

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

seems intent on preserving illegal renditions of suspected terrorists.

That's quite a leap from the truth, that the Obama administration has chosen for now to preserve an existing state secret claim for a past Bush action.

The ACLU doesn't care about potential damage done to intelligence gathering by blank revocation of secret status, they just care about their clients. Good for their cause, but possibly excessive for the administration to give them everything they want.

Today's hearing before the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco had been highly anticipated because it was seen as the first test of the Obama's administration stance on the controversial issue of rendition - in which terrorist suspects are secretly flown to countries or secret CIA camps, in which torture has been alleged.

Digging up Bush's (literal) skeletons is not likely to be high on Obama's agenda while he's trying to get bipartisan support for the massive deficit goodies package.

So passing up this first chance for now makes political sense even if Obama is against future human rights abuses.

As with some of the other "Obama hasn't done X yet!" threads I'm willing to give him more than 3 weeks to accomplish his campaign promises.

I understand that it may be a delaying/stalling tactic, in fact I even mention so in my OP, however I've heard rumblings that despite efforts to close gitmo and end torture, the Obama team may feel that extraordinary renditions still play a valuable role in intel gathering efforts. We'll see. I'm willing to allow more time, but I'm not necessarily liking what I'm seeing thus far.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Nice job of Obama telling the terrorist sympathizers to go pound sand.

This can be saved for posterity. Winnar111 approved of something Obama said.

 

[ericlp]

You know GWB II had 8 years to put us in this mess, you can't just require change in a few months. I'm sure it needs to be looked at to figure out how to undue 8 years of screwed up politics. This isn't something that can be changed at a flick of a switch. Policy should remain until we can come up with a plan to unwind it.

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Obama has been in office, what, 3 weeks? If we're getting the same stuff 3 months from now, then, yeh, it's their policy, too.

This transition won't occur overnight- the Bush zealots installed into every nook and cranny of govt won't be swept aside overnight, that's for sure. And they'll follow their original instructions until they get new ones or until they're shown the door, whichever comes first. Not to mention that a lot of those people will be rushing to carry out their previous orders before the changes come through. very simple.

It may also be part and parcel of the stated policy of letting the past die, of doing the right things from now on. In any case, it's a little early to extrapolate future policy from actions carried out by the principals and agents of the last admin...

You do realize that only about 5% of the government changes with an election, don't you? Most of the people in Washington are career types, not political appointees.

 

[JS80]

lulz lulz lulz your boat lulzing down the lulz

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sigh. Very disappointing.

Nope, not at all. I chuckle at anyone who actually believed the whole "change" BS package.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane

Originally posted by: winnar111
Nice job of Obama telling the terrorist sympathizers to go pound sand.

This can be saved for posterity. Winnar111 approved of something Obama said.

Holy crap! :Q Chisel that in stone somewhere.

 

[her209]

Grrr... not the transparency that Obama has been promising.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sigh. Very disappointing.

Nope, not at all. I chuckle at anyone who actually believed the whole "change" BS package.

Why? There are plenty of things he's already done that have been significant changes from how Bush ran things. SCHIP, actually moving to close Guantanamo, restricting the use of torture, etc... etc. Unfortunately this seems to be one where he's not doing that, which is a bummer.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Sigh. Very disappointing.

Nope, not at all. I chuckle at anyone who actually believed the whole "change" BS package.

i ahve to say it amazes me that people really think he is going to be able to change as much as he claimed.

Originally posted by: her209
Grrr... not the transparency that Obama has been promising.

what did people really expect? its not like they are going to open up everything. hell they can't. of course they are going to continue on what Bush did (granted not 100% i sure hope he does change most of his policy's). But the fact is Obama can only change so much. a lot of it is not going to be much diffrent.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: XMan

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Obama has been in office, what, 3 weeks? If we're getting the same stuff 3 months from now, then, yeh, it's their policy, too.

This transition won't occur overnight- the Bush zealots installed into every nook and cranny of govt won't be swept aside overnight, that's for sure. And they'll follow their original instructions until they get new ones or until they're shown the door, whichever comes first. Not to mention that a lot of those people will be rushing to carry out their previous orders before the changes come through. very simple.

It may also be part and parcel of the stated policy of letting the past die, of doing the right things from now on. In any case, it's a little early to extrapolate future policy from actions carried out by the principals and agents of the last admin...

You do realize that only about 5% of the government changes with an election, don't you? Most of the people in Washington are career types, not political appointees.

Yeh, but the career types take their marching orders from the top 5% who do change, and that change hasn't really even begun. I think it's important to recognize that the Bushistas have had 8 years to shape the career employee roster to their liking (preferentially and illegally hiring fundie lawyers from a third tier law school, for example), whereas the new AG hasn't been in his office for more than a couple of weeks.

One of Holder's biggest hurdles will obviously be in overcoming the obstructionism offered by those career employees, whose hiring was probably one of the Bush Admin's most insidious attacks on good government in general...

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: Deeko
hahaha god this recurring theme is already getting annoying.

"zomgz obama won't do wat I want! THIS ISNT CHANGE! MORE OF THE SAEM!1!!!!11!!"

Grow up ACLU.....

They are still pissed there isn't an openly gay guy in charge of the Navy or something...

And they definately don't give a hoot about security.