Obama Stands Behind 'State Secrets' Defense

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: 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.

Well, their name is the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American National Security Union, so you can see where their priorities are. As they should be. WTF would they need to worry about national security? The gov't has got that covered just fine.

Do you expect the NRA to defend net neutrality too?

Geeze, get with the program already.

 

[CPA]

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...

BS, Obama put in place 5 Executive Orders in his first week. There is no excuse other than he sold a bill of goods on this issue.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

It might be a difficult possibility for some to grasp, but maybe Obama's justice department has discovered that there actually ARE state secrets involved in this process; secrets that override the partisan desire to flog GWB?

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CPA

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...

BS, Obama put in place 5 Executive Orders in his first week. There is no excuse other than he sold a bill of goods on this issue.

Keep in mind that a lot of that work was done before his inauguration which is why everything seemed to happen very quickly at first. It was bound to slow down back to a more reasonable pace.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It might be a difficult possibility for some to grasp, but maybe Obama's justice department has discovered that there actually ARE state secrets involved in this process; secrets that override the partisan desire to flog GWB?

naa! that can't be it? youmean there MIGHT actually be state secrets and Obama does not want to show those? NEVER HE SAID CHANGE!

it really amazes me that some are expecting from him. Not just the ones that dislike him but those that voted for him.

 

[Jaskalas]

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

I haven't seen condemnation like that since, well, the previous President!

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
It might be a difficult possibility for some to grasp, but maybe Obama's justice department has discovered that there actually ARE state secrets involved in this process; secrets that override the partisan desire to flog GWB?

This .......... (you beat me to it

 

[Fern]

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."

Seems reasonable to me

Fern

 

[SAWYER]

I would expect outrage from the same who flamed Bush

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
Well, their name is the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American National Security Union, so you can see where their priorities are. As they should be. WTF would they need to worry about national security? The gov't has got that covered just fine.

Do you expect the NRA to defend net neutrality too?

Geeze, get with the program already.

IMO, the word "American" should have bolded too.

These poeple aren't American citizens, aren't captured in the USA, so 'American civil liberties' don't apply to them. Is the ACLU now in the business of enforcing international laws? (Something of which is NOT in their title/name).

Fern

 

[AAjax]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I would expect outrage from the same who flamed Bush

Dont hold your breath.

Change, change change........ Change of fools.

 

[fskimospy]

Here's a good article from Glenn Greenwald on it.
Text

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
Well, their name is the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American National Security Union, so you can see where their priorities are. As they should be. WTF would they need to worry about national security? The gov't has got that covered just fine.

Do you expect the NRA to defend net neutrality too?

Geeze, get with the program already.

IMO, the word "American" should have bolded too.

These poeple aren't American citizens, aren't captured in the USA, so 'American civil liberties' don't apply to them. Is the ACLU now in the business of enforcing international laws? (Something of which is NOT in their title/name).

Fern

According to the ACLU some were transferred to US run prisons. The ACLU stands for the protection of the civil liberties of all American citizens and all people within the scope of US law.

Hopefully that clears it up.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
Well, their name is the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American National Security Union, so you can see where their priorities are. As they should be. WTF would they need to worry about national security? The gov't has got that covered just fine.

Do you expect the NRA to defend net neutrality too?

Geeze, get with the program already.

IMO, the word "American" should have bolded too.

These poeple aren't American citizens, aren't captured in the USA, so 'American civil liberties' don't apply to them. Is the ACLU now in the business of enforcing international laws? (Something of which is NOT in their title/name).

Fern

Except the lawsuit is against an American company, a Boeing subsidiary, accused of participating in the rendition programs, and involves the behavior and practices of US intel orgs. Furthermore, the rendition program permits government agents to detain foreign nationals without legal process and employ interrogation methods that would not be permissible under federal or international law. If there are federal laws being violated, it hardly matters what the nationality of the victims are.

There is plenty of reason for the ACLU to be involved in this case, however in the event you need more convincing:

In its letter to Toope, the ACLU said the rendition program violates international treaties and customary international law binding on the United States, including the U.N. Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The ACLU also said the program violates the United States? own federal laws. In addition to violating the Fifth and Eighth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution ? which ensure due process of law and ban ?cruel and unusual punishment? ? the ACLU said the program is in violation of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, which states ?it shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in where there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.? The ACLU said the program also violates the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act, which prohibit torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment wherever it occurs.

So Fern, you seem to be of the opinion that the US gov't can do whatever they wish with a foreign national and no federal or international law should apply?

 

[Atreus21]

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

Surprising what a single intelligence briefing will do to a man.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: Sawyer
I would expect outrage from the same who flamed Bush

Why?

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
-snip-
Well, their name is the American Civil Liberties Union, not the American National Security Union, so you can see where their priorities are. As they should be. WTF would they need to worry about national security? The gov't has got that covered just fine.

Do you expect the NRA to defend net neutrality too?

Geeze, get with the program already.

IMO, the word "American" should have bolded too.

These poeple aren't American citizens, aren't captured in the USA, so 'American civil liberties' don't apply to them. Is the ACLU now in the business of enforcing international laws? (Something of which is NOT in their title/name).

Fern

According to the ACLU some were transferred to US run prisons. The ACLU stands for the protection of the civil liberties of all American citizens and all people within the scope of US law.

Hopefully that clears it up.

No... not so much.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: 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.

I thought that was a done deal years ago

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Surprising what a single intelligence briefing will do to a man.

Absolutely.

One plus is that the wide-eyed impressionable voters are hopefully one step closer to understanding the differences between election rhetoric and reality.

He promised everyone ice cream. Never told us how he was going to do it. Now, it appears there wasn't any ice cream at all.

Politics in the U.S. Nothing's changed, just new voters. Well, notwithstanding those that keep hoping things are really going to change.

A little levity.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: 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.

Credit is to be given when credit is due. I think Gates might have told him what to do.