EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Under Obama, Same Stance on Rendition Suit
SAN FRANCISCO - President Obama's Justice Department signaled in a San Francisco courtroom Monday that the change in administrations has not changed the government's position on secrecy and the rights of foreign prisoners - and that lawsuits by alleged victims of CIA kidnappings and torture must be dismissed on national security grounds.
Vice President Joseph Biden huddles with Attorney General Eric Holder after Holder's swearing in ceremony, Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at the Justice Department in Washington. President Obama's Justice Department signaled in a San Francisco courtroom Monday that the change in administrations has not changed the government's position on secrecy and the rights of foreign prisoners - and that lawsuits by alleged victims of CIA kidnappings and torture must be dismissed on national security grounds. (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert) "Judges shouldn't play with fire," Justice Department lawyer Douglas Letter told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which is considering a suit accusing a San Jose company, Jeppesen Dataplan, of arranging so-called extraordinary rendition flights for the CIA.
Once the judges privately examine the government's classified evidence, Letter said, "you will see that this case cannot be litigated."
Letter said the Justice Department's position, previously argued by the administration of former President George W. Bush, has been "thoroughly vetted with appropriate officials of the new administration."
Mixed signals
He did not mention extraordinary rendition, the practice of abducting suspected criminals and terrorists and taking them to foreign countries or CIA prisons for interrogation. Although Obama has issued orders banning torture and closing secret CIA prisons, his administration has sent mixed signals on extraordinary rendition and the legitimacy of court challenges.
Obama's nominee for CIA director, Leon Panetta, said last week that he approved of rendition for foreign prosecution or brief CIA detention, but not for extended confinement. Like his Bush administration predecessors, he also said he would require a foreign government to promise not to torture a prisoner.
On Monday, Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said Attorney General Eric Holder has ordered a review to make sure government secrecy is invoked only to protect national security and not "to hide from the American people information that they have a right to know."
But the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents five men suing Jeppesen for allegedly flying them to foreign torture chambers, said this case is the new administration's chance to live up to its promises.
"Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on this important civil liberties issue," the ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, said after the hearing.
Widely known secret
ACLU attorney Ben Wizner told the court that the supposedly ultra-secret rendition program is widely known. He noted that Sweden recently awarded $450,000 in damages to one of the plaintiffs, Ahmed Agiza, for helping the CIA transport him to Egypt, where he is still being held and allegedly has been tortured.
"The notion that you have to close your eyes and ears to what the whole world knows is absurd," Wizner said.
Agiza and the other plaintiffs - one now imprisoned in Morocco, one held at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and two who have been released without charges - accuse Jeppesen of colluding in their abduction and torture.
A Council of Europe report in 2007 identified the company, a Boeing Corp. subsidiary, as the CIA's aviation services provider.
The Bush administration persuaded U.S. District Judge James Ware to dismiss the suit last year on the grounds that it would expose state secrets - the CIA's alleged relationship with a private contractor, the agency's methods of interrogating terror suspects and the alleged cooperation of foreign governments.
Protecting secrets
Wizner asked the appeals court Monday to reinstate the suit and said Ware should be able to protect any legitimate state secrets.
Letter countered that the core of the case - "their allegation that Jeppesen is complicit in a clandestine foreign intelligence matter" - could not be examined in court without endangering national security.
One member of the three-judge panel seemed skeptical.
"You can say something is secret even when a newspaper reporter has it?" Judge William Canby asked Letter. Even if the men had been snatched from the streets in Missouri, he said, "it would still be a big black hole. The plaintiffs, the judiciary, the Constitution all have to step aside."
Not so, Letter replied - Congress can still scrutinize the program, and judges can review the classified documents that explain the need for secrecy.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
22 Comments so far
Show AllAnti-Constitution, constitutional attorney President!
If it wasn't obvious from his writings or his belief that separate can be equal in respect to marriage - it became obvious when he supported immunity for the telecoms who violated our Constitutional Rights with the illegal wire tapping. I suppose if anyone knows how to violate the Constitution it's a Constitutional attorney.
At this rate Obama will be a one term Guy.
He is not even listening to his supporters.
I did not vote for Obama because I knew he would let his supporters down.The only hope for his supporters is to hold his feet to the fire and refuse to accept the same ol bs that because it would jeopardize national security we cannot divulge this or that blah,blah,blah!
"Obama's nominee for CIA director, Leon Panetta, said last week that he approved of rendition for foreign prosecution or brief CIA detention, but not for extended confinement. Like his Bush administration predecessors, he also said he would require a foreign government to promise not to torture a prisoner."
The "change we can believe in" is turning out to be just the same old crap. But there is a bright side. If the U.S. can kidnap people and render them to foreign countries, then so can everyone else. I can't wait for someone to kidnap Rumsfeld and the rest of them from the streets of D.C. and render them to countries where they'll be put on trial.
Check this out:
http://www.metimes.com/Opinion/2009/02/10/rumsfelds_prosecution_could_set_precedent/7244/
"Rumsfeld's Prosecution Could Set Precedent." There is now enough evidence to try former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes, declared recently Manfred Nowak, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture, to "Frontal 21," a German television program.
And did anyone notice that Obama would not answer Helen Thomas's question: What countries in the middle east have nuclear weapons? That's because the only country in the middle east with nuclear weapons is Israel, which has more than 200 illegal nuclear bombs, and that is why every other country in the middle east needs nuclear weapons, as a deterrent to Israel's aggression.
Yes, petrkrop, it looks like the Obama administration is looking for a policy that establishes "torture we can believe in."
Like the Bushies, the Obama administration can get a wink from counties like Egypt that they won't torture the guy. Wink. Wink. The fact that they aren't being crystal clear on this important matter suggests they want to continue Bush's extraordinary rendition policy.
I also heard Helen Thomas' great question to Obama about which country in the Middle East has nuclear weapons. He didn't answer the question, but I don't think it was out of ignorance. For some reason, a U.S. president has to check himself before saying that Israel has about 200 nuclear bombs.
Israel's possession of nukes certainly diminishes the notion that Iran is the big threat in the region. Iran fought Iraq after being attacked, but Israel has attacked nearly all of its neighbors. Would they do so if Iran had nuclear bombs in some sort of MAD scenario? It's horrible to contemplate, but Obama should be telling Israel to get rid of its nukes, while getting rid of them in the United States too.
-TIA
Obama is claiming the power to have any case dismissed, in its entirety, by slapping the State's Secret tag on it.
This is the ultimate power of the Unitary Executive that Bush/Cheney started building.
Obama has delivered the final tool to make the President untouchable and above the law.
You'll probably never hear about this case on any mass corporate media disinformation news.
Obama has been used as a Trojan Horse to make the President a King.
This is change I don't want to believe in.
This is why I started to refer to him as "Bonnie Prince Barack" after he clinched the nomination.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Well, the ACLU comes out looking good. I guess I know where my donation is going next, and it isn't moveon....
I wonder how long it will take CCR (ccrjustice.org)
Perhaps you should all read Glen Greenwald's piece on why rendition should remain legal.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/02/02-16
Rendition is a useful tool for catching terrorists.
I hope you're being paid well for your comments.
Fair enough, Greenwald supports the policy of extraordinary rendition but was critical of how it was used by Bush and to a certain degree Clinton.
Do you support "limited and transparent rendition"?
I'm with you on "limited" rendition. But I think "transparent" might be asking too much. That would be difficult given the nature of covert operations.
Joehope,
Your omissions make you a liar.
There is nothing in the article indicating that the author supports rendition. He asks questions designed to make the readers think about the nuanced issues around "rendition."
"Second, I have a question for those who believe that rendition, in all cases (even when it's not used to disappear individuals or send individuals to countries where they will be tortured), is inappropriate and wrong:"
There is a huge difference between the Socratic method of teaching and supporting something obviously illegal.
Your methods make you look uneducated.
I'm afraid it's you who are guilty of omission. Greenwald answers his own question. You leave out what precedes the section you have quoted:
"I have a question for those who believe that rendition, in all cases (even when it's not used to disappear individuals or send individuals to countries where they will be tortured), is inappropriate and wrong:
Suppose (for the sake of discussion) that: (a) the U.S. learns exactly where Osama bin Laden is located in Pakistan; (b) there is ample evidence that bin Laden (i) perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and (ii) is in the advanced stages of planning new imminent attacks on the U.S.; and (c) the Pakistani Government is either unwilling or unable to apprehend bin Laden in order to extradite him to the U.S. for trial. Further suppose that efforts to compel the Pakistanis to do so through the U.N. are blocked (because, say, China or Russia vetoes any actions).
What, if anything, is the U.S. (under current facts) permitted to do about Osama bin Laden, who -- we're assuming for purposes of these discussions -- clearly perpetrated the 9/11 attacks and is in the process of plotting new attacks? As far as I can tell, the options would be: (a) drop a bomb on him and kill him with no due process; (b) enter Pakistan, apprehend him, and bring him to the U.S. for a trial (i.e., rendition); or (c) do nothing, and just leave him be. "
Greenwald's argument is that Obama has yet to use rendition in the same way as Bush and and that Rendition is sometimes preferable to options a) or c).
He states:
"Those who are arguing that rendition is illegitimate in all cases (rather than in the torture-enabling and disappearance-causing forms used by Bush) have the obligation to answer that question specifically (and the same question would pertain to a common criminal -- say, a mass murderer -- who flees the U.S. to a country which refuses to comply with its extradition obligations to send him to the U.S. for trial)."
You call this the Socratic method? Saying you're stumped is not the same as the Socratic method. Greenwald gives us no option "d". That he invites others to do so is irrelevant. It's his essay. He's is saying that if there is another way to handle these situations other than rendition, he can't see what it would be.
The truth is, there is no option "d". That's why extraordinary rendition is sometimes necessary.
Joe H. says " rendition is a useful tool for catching terrorists". I guess according to that logic, we ought to use it on Bush,Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi and the rest!
Now that we know OBushma is keeping the old unitary executive privelege, what next?
But this should not surprise anyone as the new administration has NOT mentioned repealing or declaring void:
1. The Patriot Act
2. The Military Commissions Act
3. Presidential Security Directive 51
4. Building of detention camps by KBR
5. etcetera, etcetera
"Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets/index.html
"There's no doubt about that. Wizner pointed out that after the interview he did with me 10 days ago, there was substantial press coverage of this matter. Both The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times wrote editorials in the last week demanding that the Obama administration adhere to its prior pledge and abandon the Bush administration's reliance on "state secrets" in this case. Wizner said that reporters calling the DOJ were told that the case was under active review. This was an active, conscious decision made by the Obama DOJ to retain the same abusive, expansive view of "state secrets" as Bush adopted, and to do so for exactly the same purpose: to prevent any judicial accountability of any kind, to keep government behavior outside of and above the rule of law."
The speed and scope of Mr. Obama's betrayal of the people of America is shocking. He has not been in office one month and the America I grew up in is officially beyond legal redemption.
If we can render people in other countries; why can not other people come here and render us? Is that like making sausages?
Barack has traded the lives of himself and his family for defending the rule of law--before you judge him too harshly, stop and consider what you would do in a similar situation.
There are not that many Patrick Henry's ("give me liberty or give me death")left among us. They have been mostly either liquidated or bought off with material comforts and promises of "protection".
The decision we all have to make is the same that those who followed Dr. King in the Civil Rights movement--do we resort to the weapons of our persecutors or do we understand that "only love can conquer hate".
*******************
"A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.
This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one's tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all mankind. This oft misunderstood, this oft misinterpreted concept, so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man.
When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am not speaking of that force which is just emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality.
This Hindu-Muslim-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John: "Let us love one another, for love is God. And every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God, for God is love." "If we love one another, God dwelleth in us and his love is perfected in us." Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day.
We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says: "Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word" (unquote).
We are now faced with the fact, my friends, that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history, there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked, and dejected with a lost opportunity.
The tide in the affairs of men does not remain at flood -- it ebbs. We may cry out desperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is adamant to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residues of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words, "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. Omar Khayyam is right: "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on."
***********
Poet
Ah.
Poets.
Good.
LaoTzu---"Pursue an offender only to show him the Way."
Snydly---"...And get your money back."
Namaste.
Council on Foreign Relations.
"We shall have world government whether or not you like it; by conquest or consent." - James Warburg, CFR, February 1950
Barack and Michelle Obama - CFR
Joseph Biden - CFR
George W. and George H. W. Bush - CFR
Dick Cheney - CFR
Bill and Hillary Clinton - CFR
David Rockefeller - CFR
The king is dead, long live the king. There is no two party system in the US.
Keep electing CFR sockpuppets, and you keep getting the same (lack of) leadership, and a growing corporate/foreign bank oligarchy running our nation.
There were many of us who saw through the Obama mania to who his financers are, who owns him, and we knew there would be no promised change. You had hope, now it's gone.
I think suckers are born a bit faster than every minute now.
Aloha, salud, lechiem,
- Tobias
http://www.youtube.com/user/tobiasaurusrex