Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit

[BlueJessamine]

Source: ABC News

The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.

The case involves five men who claim to have been victims of extraordinary rendition -- including current Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, another plaintiff in jail in Egypt, one in jail in Morocco, and two now free. They sued a San Jose Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.

A year ago the case was thrown out on the basis of national security, but today the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the appeal, brought by the ACLU.

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

This is not going to please civil libertarians and human rights activists who had hoped the Obama administration would allow the lawsuit to proceed.



Read more: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/02/obama-a...

---

The ACLU says the Obama administration reneged on civil liberties, offers "more of the same."

Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU said of the decision: “Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. 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 issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again.”

[ixion]

1. wtf

[HereSince1628]

2. I hope scrotum slicing is no longer considered an operating procedure

that we accept as part of dropping these detainees in foreign lands.

[ima_sinnic]

3. well, isn't that special. I think I really do want my campaign contributions refunded.

I actually believed him, about "change" and all that fucking BULLSHIT.

FUCK YOU, I did NOT vote for "RENDITION." sheesh. I wash my hands of the whole stinking "change administration" as a trojan horse for the war criminals.

[crikkett]

7. Has it occurred to you that there may be a strategy in play here that you haven't imagined?

How much can you change in two and a half weeks?

[acmavm]

10. Well Sweetie, let us in on this brilliant plan. And tell us why you know so

much about it and no one else does.

BUT THIS IS WHAT I EXPECTED! No disappointment here for me.

[superconnected]

78. Come one the guy signed so many changes on his 3rd morning in office

that his hand hurt - over 500 I believe. he's changing things by the minute.

I don't like his answer on this one but I like a whole lot of things he's overturned and changed already. Let's not kick him out quite yet. Eventually maybe we will get everything we want. He's at least a start in the right direction.

[acmavm]

85. Oh stop it. You know that he's fudging on the points he was elected

on. Iraq, the economy, the criminality of the bush** admin, his cabinet picks.

[superconnected]

91. Well at least you're not a 1 issue voter. I still prefer him to the other candidates.

Do you have someone who will deliver that can get elected or do you just want anarchy?

[ima_sinnic]

29. the "strategy" is to keep dangling "change" that will come, er, "some day"

in front of our gullible faces.

I don't really give a flying f*ck about "strategies" that are too estoteric and clever for us mere peasants to understand. I care about the U.S. engaging in torture of people, including youths, who have never even been charged with a crime. They should have been released like yesterday. they are not be exploited for "strategies" that will enable Obama to kowtow yet again to the unconscionable war criminals and republican greedheads and scofflaws.

For a "community organizer," his sense of justice and compassion and the role of the United States in ethics and leadership seems particularly lacking. He is coming across more and more as a wishy washy gutless appeaser who puts the myth of "bipartanship" (read waffling) ahead of the interests of human beings and of the well-being of ordinary Americans--you know, the taxpayers and working class. he is only too happy to accommodate the shithead, selfish republicans and their tax cuts--is that a "strategy" also?

[The Wielding Truth]

61. I hope you are right. The WH has posted this....

http://www.whitehouse.gov/search/?keywords=rendition

Reviewing the practices of the out going administration probably is taking time and until then, it would remain the same. It seems out of sync to assume there would be no change after an examination.

[closeupready]

64. Would you be willing to turn yourself over to Gitmo in the service of Obama's brilliant "strategy"?

[Zhade]

70. How many times will people keep excusing Obama's bad acts?

How far can he go before you realize it's not always some super-secret-squirrel strategy, but just WRONG?

[ProgressIn2008]

75. That's a question I'm asking myself too. How far are these excuses going to go? nt

[depakid]

84. Mid 2010

by which time it may well look like 1994.

[stillcool]

15. The "RENDITION" program is over...

didn't you get the memo?
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=6877
http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing_room/PresidentialAct... /

This involves a court case and 'classified documents'. And by the way..lest you forgot..."Change" is 'we the people'. Have you called your Senator, Representative today?
http://www.capwiz.com/sjhs/dbq/officials /

[EFerrari]

25. Panetta argued for keeping rendition at his hearing. Last we heard

we will not sign off on torture but CIA is keeping rendition. Loophole City.

[stillcool]

39. I seem to remember that...

he backtracked on what he said about the rendition thing which is why I provided the link to Bradblog's story on that, and the executive order. When I think about what the CIA has done through-out its history, I wonder if the government needed the torture law because they were planning on using it in such a large scale. Perhaps the new guidelines are a return to the pre-Bush days?

[EFerrari]

41. He backtracked on his statement that it was Bush policy to torture.

And, imho, the reason he did that is, if the Obama administration admits that, they are obligated by US law to prosecute.

I don't believe they want to be backed into that position this early even if it is the right one.

[stillcool]

44. You are the best you know...

a smart cookie! I wonder if all the detainee's could file a class-action suit against the United States?

[EFerrari]

48. I know that five men who were in the sweep after 9/11 did.

But the way BushCo quashed it was to ship 'em out of the country so they couldn't make it to court.

We're looking at reparations, for sure!

[ima_sinnic]

32. my senators are both repubilcan shitheads. calling them does no good at all.

and I've written Obama so many stinking e-mails, I now give up. He talks big talk about "involvement of citizens," but when it gets down to it, the same loathsome neocons, AIPAC creeps, and DLC shitbags are still calling the shots. Look at how the stimulus package was gutted and made virtually useless, just as they planned. But it was "bipartisan" gutting, so I guess that makes it okay.

and "classified documents" is a nice way of telling the citizens to fuck off--you remember, the way bushie boy used to hide behind "classified documents"?

yeah, I got the phony memo that came out A WEEK AGO about how the rendition program was not being maintained--I'm talking about TODAY'S news that "The Obama Administration today announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration in the lawsuit Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc.," involving among others the case of Binyam Mohamed, whose case was so heartrendingly outlined yesterday, the one who was rounded up, arrested, and tortured after browsing a cooking website.
Ironically, I had started a snail-mail letter yesterday to Obama about this case, imploring him to take notice and act swiftly to release not only Mohamed but all Guantanamo detainees because there is no evidence against them that is not tainted.

But apparently Obama thinks that Mohamed deserved to be tortured and will continue to be so for visiting that cooking website and engaging in other "terrorist" activities that have never been proven.

[stillcool]

42. Does it hurt you to call your Representative..

or your Senator? It didn't hurt me at all..took me about a half hour to call not only mine, but a bunch of Republicans as well. Does doing nothing help? Do you know the stage of this court case? As someone pointed out down-thread, this could be a stalling tactic. Especially if the new Justice Dept. officials need to get up to speed. I guess I don't knee-jerk as good as I used to. I'm all for being critical as long as the criticism is based in knowledge. Same goes for the stimulus package. What will the final bill look like? And if you aren't calling your Senators, or your representative, do you really care?

[ima_sinnic]

47. I called Snowe and Collins re the stimulus bill

we can see how that really influenced Collins.

[stillcool]

51. you never know what would happen

if a small percentage of the 300+ million of us, actually contacted these people. It's never been done.
Edit to add...I called them too.

[GinaMaria]

46. I've been calling and writing for so many years

Over the last week I've emailed daily. I don't see the impact. I'm not even getting the auto response to emails any more.

[stillcool]

52. We don't know what would happen...

if a percentage of the 300+ million of us contacted them. It's never been done.

[sharp_stick]

4. You missed an important paragraph

Miller said that Attorney General Eric Holder has started a review of all state secret privilege matters. "The Attorney General has directed that senior Justice Department officials review all assertions of the State Secrets privilege to ensure that the privilege is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations. It is vital that we protect information that, if released, could jeopardize national security."

Perhaps they need some time to figure out what's going on over there before opening the gates?

[Baby Snooks]

6. Perhaps...

Or perhaps they just want you to think they need some time. While they dismantle what's left of the Constitution.

[sharp_stick]

8. I suppose, but

all Governments are going to have secrets that need to be kept, all we can do is elect the people that we most trust with keeping those secrets.

If there is some massive conspiracy taking place to gut the constitution, rather than the much more simple direct coup attempt, I don't think we'll see it coming for awhile.

Besides tinfoil scratches my thining hairline so I'll try to stick to the simplest explanation

[Luminous Animal]

89. A kinder gentler despot is still a despot...

The U.S. does not simply trust the executive with secrets, rather, they trust the judiciary...

As Greenwald states: "We don't actually have a system of government (or at least we're not supposed to) where we rely on the magnanimity and inherent Goodness of specific leaders to exercise secret powers wisely. That, by definition, is how grateful subjects of benevolent tyrants think ("this power was bad in Bush's hands because he's bad, but it's OK in Obama's hands because he is good and kind"). Countries that are nations of laws rather than of men don't rely on blind faith in the good character of leaders to prevent abuse. They rely on what we call "law" and "accountability" and "checks and balances" to provide those safeguards -- exactly the type that Democrats, when it came to the States Secret privilege, long insisted upon before January 20, 2009."

m/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/10/obama/index.html

[Diane R]

17. Thanks for being the voice of reason, sharp-stick.

[Tiggeroshii]

5. Can we feel any more insulted?

Fuck.

[placton]

9. Ohhhhhh don't criticize

we must all support this stuff, because we need to keep our powder dry - and really, Obama is different - we just have to give him more time - blah blah blah

Greenwald sez:
"I just spoke with Wizner about today's hearing. It's really remarkable what happened. One of the judges on the panel explicitly asked the DOJ lawyer, Doug Letter, whether the change in the administration had any bearing on the Government's position. Letter emphatically said it did not. He told the court that the new administration -- the new DOJ -- had reviewed and vetted this case and the Bush positions and decisively opted to embrace the same position"
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state... /

here's smores:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state... /

But no doubt there is some secret strategy - yeah right!

[stillcool]

12. What do you know about this case?

what classified documents are these..and when did this happen?

[placton]

14. I updated, with link to Greenwald

read it and weep friends - we are such suckers!

[sharp_stick]

16. ooohhh golf clap (clap clap clap)

I mean this is such a well crafted response to what is an interesting OP, the fact that it has nothing to do with the OP is fantastic. What absolute and total brilliance you show by injecting a vapid series of grunts that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, did you learn that at Harvard or what?

Sheer light of fantastic debate. It would have been nothing but a steaming pile of poodle dung in any other forum but the fact that it's here right in the middle of a post about something that it has nothing to do with.... Wow, I bow before your incredible intellect, how can you regurgitate the same inane tripe over and over again? I really don't know how you are able to do it?

[placton]

19. can you read? n/t

[snot]

63. don't let 'em get to you.

[ima_sinnic]

38. what are you smoking? the post you are mocking has EVERYTHING to do with the OP

[sharp_stick]

71. I reiterate...

bullshit, it was a POS reply and still is no matter the edit.

[stillcool]

18. That is not good...perhaps someone..

will ask about this at the press conference tonight. I don't know if it's worth anyone's time to send an email........

http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

[EFerrari]

40. The Obama administration does not want to be put in the public position

of having to open torture prosecutions.

While I will continue to demand that they do, I understand that after only three weeks, that's a big decision to make.

But, you don't get much more than that from me, Barack. You have to prosecute these criminals. That's the law of the land.

[EFerrari]

11. How secret is it if we all know about it?

[stillcool]

20. I can imagine what is in those documents..

that needs to be kept locked up. Countries involved, cut-out companies, signed orders, names of those involved... for starters.

[EFerrari]

24. I bet you Paul Thompson has 80% of it up at History Commons already.

A bunch of countries have been called out for enabling rendition flights. Several companies have been caught providing services, Bush/Cheney have already copped to orders and names are littered in all those stories that you and I talked about over the weekend.

I can see that the Obama admin wants to protect itself and move cautiously. But, this information is mostly already out here and this is likely only a delaying tactic.

[stillcool]

33. Ah...thanks!

Do you think maybe this is a test case? I wonder about Cheney and the posse's virulent opposition to closing Gitmo and releasing those remaining detainee's. If those detainee's are on U.S. soil, and protected under U.S. law, that could be problematic no? Especially if there is documented evidence of torture and maltreatment. I also wonder if those that have been released had to sign any kind of waiver that they wouldn't prosecute.

[EFerrari]

36. What I know for sure is from Clive Stafford Smith's testimony last Summer.

The State Department was not co-operating in repatriating prisoners who were cleared of wrong doing EVEN AFTER their home countries gave the green light. My assumption: BushCo wants these people no where near a lawyer or a real system of justice.

And, these people are asked/bullied/threatened, before they are released and as a sort of "exit interview", into signing a statement that they will not fight with al Qaida again. The former prisoner that testified to this did not sign it because like most of these souls, he had never fought with AQ in the first place.

[bdab1973]

13. Why the hell did they sue Jepp?

All they do is sell flight planning software. Dataplan is a program we use in the military too...all it is, is a program that allows you to print charts and navigation products. Jepp is used by thousands of operators, and I doubt they know exactly where they are always going. If that's the case, then perhaps they should get sued for allowing the US military to flight plan all those flights to Gitmo, or Iraq or wherever.

Not arguing about Gitmo itself, but suing Jepp isn't really the source of the problem, and no wonder why there's little legal footing there anyways. That's like you giving someone a map, and then getting sued because they murdered someone after using it to get somewhere.

I'm sure someone's going to post on here screaming that Jepp must have known they were planning such flights...but really...the CIA probably doesn't approach a company like Jepp and say "hey, we'd like to buy your nifty flight planning program so we can go torture people". Likely, Jepp was bought through a government contracting agency, and they never knew where the program ended up.

[Solly Mack]

31. Jeppesen's International Trip Planning Services

http://cfs.jeppesen.com /

Jeppesen International Trip Planning can offer everything you need for your next trip, including: More Information


Itinerary and Route Planning
Internet Access to Trip Status and Reports
Overflight and Landing Permits
Computerized JetPlan Flight Plans
En-Route Charge Reports
Hotel Accommodations and Travel Services
Weather and NOTAMs
Contract Fuel
Ground Handling
Trip Kits and Charting
Airfield Slots
AND MORE!


http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/29920prs20070530.h...


"The complaint, to be filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges that Jeppesen, through its travel service known as Jeppesen International Trip Planning, has been a main provider of flight and logistical support services for aircraft used by the CIA in the U.S. government's extraordinary rendition program."

That's why they sued Jeppesen

[bdab1973]

34. Yeah, I know what the program does for you...

But it's quite unlikely that Jeppesen knew what the flights were for. Whenever we use Jeppesen, we don't call them and tell them what our mission is all about.

[Solly Mack]

37. No. From your previous post you don't know everything they do

This isn't a "program" ...this is a service that's part of their larger company.

You said, "All they do is sell flight planning software."

That's incorrect.

They also offer a service that includes mapping out your entire itinerary..from flight plans, to airports you stop at, to where you refuel, to gaining clearance for landing, to booking hotel rooms. This isn't "software" ...this is a hands-on service.

This link Jeppesen goes to their primary website.

The link I gave you goes to Jeppesen International Trip Planning

[bdab1973]

54. I've used the program before...

And yes, if you call Jeppesen, they will make arrangements for you. Jeppesen's primary business is flight planning software. But I am aware they make trip arrangements too, as a flight planning program (and by program, I don't mean computer program). I flew Learjets for the US military for 3 years and we used a Jeppesen account on occasion.

But you need to consider this...

The CIA operates a fleet of aircraft that are largely disguised as civil government aircraft. They are not clearly marked with "CIA" all over them. They operate the flights under a guise that they are normal civil charter aircraft. They would never tell Jeppesen, even if they were making trip arrangements for the CIA, that it was a CIA flight and what the flight's actual intended purpose was for.

Point in case...I have used Jepp contacts to arrange a flight to South America a number of years back, and they might have known we were military, but the only way they would have known that is through my use of rank. We pay for those services out of a GSA contract, it's not billed to our flying unit directly. Secondly, we never sat there and told them who we were flying to S. America, or why we were going. We just said "hey, we're going here and here and here". Some of the stops have AMC station managers, others do not. In any case, Jeppesen personnel would not have known if our flight was conducted for legal purposes or not (it was legal, just a passenger move).

Sounds like the plaintiffs are looking for someone easy to blame for the flight, as is in many cases like this. The real culprit is a government agency that has a knack for pretending to do something harmless when it's really not. Not a civilian company that likely had ZERO idea what was going on. Chances are, Jeppesen probably didn't even know it was a CIA flight. The CIA has a habit of not broadcasting it's operations to everyone. The aircraft they fly are US government aircraft, but they look inconspicuous and are not marked as US government aircraft. If they go to such lengths to avoid attention, they why would they spill the beans to a civilian contractor?

[Solly Mack]

59. There's evidence to suggest they did know the flights were "extraordinary rendition" flights

Sworn declaration from a former Jeppesen employee. The ACLU documents their cases, just go to their site...or use the link I provided earlier.


And they are suing Jeppesen because that's the easiest way to expose the government/CIA...lot easier than suing the government outright.

It's a strategy...Expose the CIA and the government through Jeppesen...and for what the evidence suggest they (Jeppesen) did know

[EFerrari]

81. It doesn't matter if they knew. They did it. It was illegal.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

21. Do we know, without fail...

That this is not some stunt created in the DoJ by Bush moles who are burrowed in deep and are covering their own asses, playing for keeps?

Until the administration makes a statement outside of the court, I am witholding judgement.

[EFerrari]

26. It's more likely just an early and inconvenient court date that DoJ

wasn't prepared to deal with better than this.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

28. That's what I mean?

What do we TRULY know? Not to take anything away from Greenwald, long may he write. But geez louise, some of the posts on DU are getting to sound like this guy:

http://blog.lehighvalleylive.com/committeeofcorresponde...

[EFerrari]

30. Don't come crying to me. He was dead to me when he lost that game of bowling.

lol

[Kolesar]

90. Glenn Greenwald said that Obama's DOJ could have asked for more time, but did not

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/s...

(for) peakdavid
Would be that:
(a) the Obama DOJ, whose AG was only recently sworn in due to Rethuglican obstruction, has not had a chance to thoroughly examine the case and thus is erring on the side of caution. After all, they would be reversing a serious national security claim made by previous DOJ crew.

No. This is not plausible. I explained why in the Update. If they wanted more time, all they had to do - like they've done in other cases - was ask for an extension of time. They definitely would have obtained one. They didn't even ask.

The DOJ lawyer was asked specifically about this and he said that the new DOJ reviewed and vetted these issues and opted to keep the same position.

-- GlennGreenwald

[NewsDrunk]

22. This is incredible!

How could he do this? I mean, I was just watching these vids and thinking how nice it is to be back in the "reality" and then there is this inherited stance.

Where is the Obama of bringing law and order back?

[Solly Mack]

23. I got nothing

K&R

[freemarketer6]

27. OMG! This is wrong.

dd

[mdmc]

35. Change

you can dream.. (its not like McCain would have stood up against torture..would he?)

[EFerrari]

43. What we may not be understanding is that if the Obama Admin admits

that BushCo tortured, at that moment they must begin to prosecute or, they are in violation of US law via the Geneva Convention on torture that we signed onto.

Obama and his people know they have to deal with this. This dealing with BushCo crimes is going to be one of the biggest challenges of this administration.

[ima_sinnic]

50. yeah, well, it's hard work. He knew going in, didn't he, that they were war criminals

and that the people had been clamoring for a long time for justice.

It's not all about faith-based happy land and the big shining alternative energy utopia we've got just ahead of us.

sheesh, he wants to be a "great" president? what could be greater than bringing the traitors and war criminals to justice? but that would take something beyond the smiley happy-face kumbaya of "bipartisanship." he might actually have to stick his neck out and seek justice.

[stillcool]

55. I think it's that whole legal thing..

case law, evidence, charges, procedure..that kind of stuff. Can you imagine what is there after 8 years, and more important what isn't? But I agree with you. Obama sucks.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stillcool]

72. I should always use the sarcasm tag....

I think if you back and look at what I was responding to, you might get it..or maybe not. But speaking about what I have accomplished...Last week I called more Senators than I ever have before!!! I am very proud of myself!

[EFerrari]

56. If you expect me to defend the Obama position, you have yourself the wrong poster.

[ima_sinnic]

58. I didn't mean it as a "challenge"--I appreciate your insights (nt)

[EFerrari]

62. It's cool. I guess I'm just trying to figure out what's going on.

Gitmo, absent politics, would/should be close already.

[Zhade]

73. AND? These criminals must be prosecuted!

What, we should just let them walk? Applaud Obama if he lets them walk?

[EFerrari]

74. I think you must be responding to someone else. n/t

[Zhade]

76. I hope I read it wrong. If so, cool.

NT!

[EFerrari]

77. I'm not siding with the administration. I'm just trying to figure out their thinking.

Solly Mack and I and other folks have been following this pretty closely.

[ima_sinnic]

45. looks like the "change administration" is going to cooperate in a coverup

in addition to apparently not giving a shit that people were tortured who were never even charged with a crime, it appears that Obama wants bush, cheney, rumsfeld, et al. to get away with their war crimes.

He no longer has my support. He can kowtow to the republican losers all he wants, groveling for "bipartisanship" while he sells us down the river and allows the injustice of Guantanamo to continue so the crimes of bushie boy and his pals will never be revealed or punished. go on, barack, blather on with your lies about "change" and "restoring the image of the U.S." The BULLSHIT is starting to smell oh so FAMILIAR.

Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU said of the decision: "Eric Holder’s Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. 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 issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again."

[EFerrari]

49. I have a big investment in seeing the torturing motherfuckers behind bars and

I do not want the new administration to go at this half-cocked. You don't go into a courtroom unless you know what is going to happen.

I don't see how it's possible for Obama's people to be up to speed yet. But, my clock is running.

[ima_sinnic]

53. what can I do besides "wait to see what happens"?

I will be more than "disappointed" if it all goes the way Iran-Contra did with Bill Clinton.

[EFerrari]

57. I'm too impatient myself to have the nerve to tell anyone to wait for anything.

[dipsydoodle]

67. In doing so

it then becomes a conspiracy.

[LynnTheDem]

60. There ya go! Just call it "state secrets" and any nation can do anything it wants.

Torture.

Render.

Rape.

Plunder.

Invade.

Slaughter.

All is ok if ya call it "state secrets".

[dipsydoodle]

65. aka Animal Farm.

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

[Vattel]

66. This looks bad.

My only hope is that there are genuine state secrets that need to be kept in this case. Looking at the bigger picture, a lot of the problem here is that govts like ours commit themselves to secrecy way too much. (E.g., govt A says to govt B: trust us, we'll keep this secret; then govt A thinks: we can't reveal the secret because then govt B will no longer cooperate with us.)

[Zhade]

69. What. The. Fuck.

"Change". Yeah. Right.

[defendandprotect]

79. So . . . is America still torturing . . . ???

[Piewhacket]

80. despicable

[tan guera]

82. Here's what Glen Greenwald has to say on "Salon" about state secrets

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state...

[Piewhacket]

94. Start with proposition:Criminal conduct by exec cannot be hidden as a 'state secret'

I say 'state secret' is not law if it hides heinous acts by the exec.
And what about criminal prosecutions? State secret too?
so are we a nation of laws, or not? that is the question.

(we could submit the civil case for fair compensation by judge, iow
SETTLE THE CASE without formally admitting liability. Then we make
Bush and Cheney pay it back out of their own pocket. hey!)

[Kablooie]

83. If Obama maintains the same position I believe there must be a reason. But it's not Bush's reason.

[mmonk]

86. The battle for Constitutional government continues for we the people.

[Paulaguyon]

87. if someone slashed my penis

If I had a penis, of course, I would sue somebody.

[No Elephants]

88. This thread reflects all the standard responses to stories that

suggest that Obama may be doing something wrong:

1/ Obama is always 36 steps of everyone else, so this must be part of some master plan/strategy that only Obama is smart enough to understand;

2/ Obama always sucks;

3 Obama never sucks--you're the one who really sucks;

4/It's been only X weeks--give him a chance;

5/ McCain would have been worse;

6/ We all knew this when we voted for him.

Thing is, folks, it's becomeing clearer and clearer. Our government is up to us. We'd damn well better figure out some way to impact it--and soon--or we are even more screwn than we think we are.

[eppur_se_muova]

92. Boo hiss nt

[Xenotime]

93. HOW THE FUCK CAN HE DO THIS?!? THIS ISN"T FUCKING CHANGE!!!!

[Piewhacket]

95. ITS MORE OF THE FUCKING SAME!!!

Obama voted for the FISA immunity too, and I swallowed hard but stood fast,
but if I seriously thought he would go "McCain" on this shit, I'd have found
someone else to waste my vote on.

Signed,
Furious.

[GinaMaria]

96. ACLU perspective/email

Dear ACLU Supporter,

Yesterday, ACLU lawyers encountered a recurring -- and troubling --
obstacle in our lawsuit seeking justice for torture victims caught up
in the CIA's extraordinary rendition program. But this time, the
objections were not coming from the Bush administration.

To our surprise and disappointment, the new Justice Department urged a
federal appeals court to dismiss our lawsuit charging a Boeing
subsidiary with providing critical support for the CIA's
rendition program based on the same "state secrets" claim
that the Bush administration had repeatedly invoked to avoid any
judicial scrutiny of its actions. During the course of the argument,
one judge asked twice if the change in administration had any bearing
on the Justice Department's position. The attorney for the
government said that its position remained the same.

This isn't the kind of change we need if we want an America we
can be proud of again.

If the judges rule in the government's favor, our clients -- who
were tortured as part of the government's rendition program --
will never get their day in court.

We're still hoping the court will rule in our favor and allow
our case to move forward. But, in the meantime, we must do everything
we can to end the abuse of the "state secrets" doctrine
both in the courts and on Capitol Hill.

Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Specter and Representative Nadler introduced
legislation in 2008 to narrow the scope of the state secrets privilege
-- and open the courthouse doors to people who have suffered real and
legitimate harm by the government. Clearly, this legislation is needed
now more than ever.

Send a message to these members of Congress to let them know you
support the State Secrets Protection Act.
http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=XJ4udCrjAt94wLX6ns0v-A ..

This crucial civil liberties bill recognizes the need to take
precautions when it comes to national security. But, it also
acknowledges that courts have been competently managing the balance
between the security of classified information and the right to a fair
trial in criminal cases for years. And, most important of all, it
makes it much more difficult for the government to abuse the state
secrets doctrine to escape accountability for illegal behavior.

We can't allow any administration to invoke state secrets to
hide a reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most
grievous human rights violations.

Send a message to support the State Secrets Protection Act.
http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=oaKwwsApPe8uayJMHO0J3w ..

Yesterday, the Obama administration had an opportunity to act on its
condemnation of torture and rendition. But, instead, the Justice
Department opted to stay the course.

Now, we must hope that the court will assert its independence, reject
the government's false claims of state secrets, and allow
victims of torture and rendition their day in court.

Thanks for standing with us as we work to pursue justice on this
critical civil liberties issue.

Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

P.S. The ACLU has been working on this case for years. To learn more
about rendition and the people impacted, watch our short video.
http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=0fgBGN9Gf1Dl36UmV17W7A ..

[burrowowl]

97. WTF!

Where is the CHANGE?
Where is the protection of the Constitution?!?!