RECENT POSTS
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama Administration Maintains Bush Position on 'Extraordinary Rendition' Lawsuit
February 09, 2009 2:44 PM
From Jake Tapper and Ariane de Vogue:
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.
-- Jake Tapper and Ariane de Vogue
UPDATE: ABC News' Jason Ryan reports that Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said of the case, "It is the policy of this administration to invoke the state secrets privilege only when necessary and in the most appropriate cases, consistent with the United States Supreme Court's decision in Reynolds that the privilege not 'be lightly invoked.'"
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."
"The Justice Department will ensure the privilege is not invoked to hide from the American people information about their government's actions that they have a right to know. This administration will be transparent and open, consistent with our national security obligations," Miller said.
UPDATE #2: 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.”
Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU, who argued the case for the plaintiffs said, “We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court.”
February 9, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (132)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
sammy--"If "Extraordinary Rendition" is legal then it's ok for everyone. How about Bush, Cheney and any other American Citizen. If it's ok to illegally kidnap folks, then it's ok to kidnap anyone." -- Do you even know what you are talking about?? Rendition has nothing to do with American detention and has nothing to do with American citizens... Its the process of returning NON citizens to their home country (or to other countries in which they are wanted) to stand trial and be processed under the legal systems inplace in their own country..
Posted by: arkie vet | Feb 9, 2009 3:38:33 PM
So... who'd he meet with?
Full press pool report:
Pool report #5
November 10, 2008
Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport
President Bush escorted President-elect Obama out of the Oval Office and walked him to down to the motorcade waiting on the south driveway.
(Josh Bolten separately escorted John Podesta to a car much further back in the motorcade.)
As they walked down the path, the president could be seen pointing things out to his soon-to-be successor.
They did not linger at the car and the motorcade took off at 3:45 p.m.
Michelle Obama left before her husband for her own separate schedule in Washington for the remainder of the day and will be traveling separately back to Chicago later tonight.
We're not being told what she will be doing in her extra time here, so we leave it to your imagination and reportorial instincts.
The motorcade encountered crowds of people gathered outside the White House as it made its way off campus and headed toward Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
After arriving, President-elect Obama went into a previously unannounced "private" meeting at the airport's Fire Station 301.
We're not being told who it's with but it will last about an hour. Podesta was not in the meeting, or at least did not stay around in the meeting,
because he was spotted walking the other direction down the tarmac a few minutes after we arrived.
O Force One Frequent Flier Bonus Points to the first blogger to post 10 guesses about the identity of today's future cabinet secretary.
We're holding on the plane.
Posted by: Abraham Ben Judea | Feb 9, 2009 3:38:16 PM
So the same old lies start from Mr. Change himself. Show a little courage and remember Jim Hightower's remark: the only things in the middle of the road are two yellow lines and a dead armadillo
Posted by: virginia cynic | Feb 9, 2009 3:37:34 PM
This is just proof that the U.S.A. has much to hide regarding its status as a war criminal state. Even Obama is agreeing to hide the filthy secrets of a rogue war criminal government. There is no way anyone knows if Americans have been disappeared or if Americans remain in torture cells in foreign countries. Barack has just affirmed that if that were the case the secret will remain a secret, even at the cost of justice. Barack has just decided to become complicit in those war crimes, specifically the illegal "extraordinary rendition" of human beings to nations which are guaranteed to torture them and which will hold them forever secretly if the U.S. tells them to. Barack Obama is now ALSO a war criminal. He has made his decision to protect -- not American secrets -- American war criminals, and to throw the lives of those extradited and tortured away. Not everyone we have done this to is even a criminal, let alone a terrorist. There are many, many innocent people in torture cells in several nations, put there by the U.S. You cannot assume that they are all guilty just because that would be the most convenient perfection. It's simply not the truth and that has been proven by the release of many innocent people without any charges after years of detention and torture. The U.S.A., with a world full of enemies over the centuries, never had to stoop so low as to torture and "disappear" anyone. Now we are stuck with a third-rate nation run by people who condone disappearing anyone they want, anywhere in the world that they want, including the U.S. according The Wuss's rules which still exist, for torture and indefinite detention without charges. This is not the U.S.A. This has nothing to do with terrorism. This instead has become a nation of horror.
Posted by: Allan | Feb 9, 2009 3:34:07 PM
It is not a false dilemma to choose between safety and ideals - it is a real choice. You COULD leave your door unlocked and your toddlers on the streets until 10 pm but you DONT. You make a rational choice to limit your freedoms. We could give severance pay to all police except a few crossing guards but we DONT
"If you will trade your freedom for security, you will find yourself with neither. I think some dumb librul said that: Benjamin Franklin!"
Franklin said that about staying under colonial oppression not about rational national security policies to protect our people and establish a DIFFERENT due process for the terrorists.
" If you are scared, please move somewhere else" NO its you leftist that like to move. We AINT GOING. We and all rational people are going to work with the Obama administration to protect US, its already working!!
What is he going to do with the GITMO detainees though?
Posted by: robert b | Feb 9, 2009 3:32:53 PM
This is the second neocon happy dance on national security - check Wired Jan 22, David Kravets "The Obama administration fell in line with the Bush administration Thursday when it urged a federal judge to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.
(Involves NSA and Treasury financial and communications investigation of Saudi charity)
Posted by: robert b | Feb 9, 2009 3:27:06 PM
National security is not as important as our freedoms and the Constitution. If we cannot keep America safe - using the laws of the land - maybe we need someone else running our intelligence offices. If you will trade your freedom for security, you will find yourself with neither. I think some dumb librul said that: Benjamin Franklin! If you are scared, please move somewhere else.
Posted by: Jimbo | Feb 9, 2009 3:26:44 PM
Glenn Greenwald did an excellent interview with ACLU's Ben Wizner that goes into the background and context of this case. (I can't seem to post the link, but Google Greenwald Wizner and it's the top hit.)
Posted by: Crust | Feb 9, 2009 3:15:20 PM
No American citizen has ever been in extraordinary rendition
( - well the American Taliban John Walker Lindh did get himself captured on the battlefield by Northern Alliance, boy I think he was glad he came out of that to America - though he's a sneaky little coward complicit in an American's murder in the Afghan prison uprising)
American citizens have gotten due process even in the Bush administration. Compare to Woodrow Wilson or the suspension of habeus to citizens by Lincoln
Posted by: robert b | Feb 9, 2009 3:07:39 PM
What a disaster. This is the one area where Obama really can demonstrate change, rather than just talking about it. But he's more concerned with covering up the crimes of the previous administration than doing the right thing.
Pathetic.
Posted by: Awktalk | Feb 9, 2009 3:01:14 PM
If "Extraordinary Rendition" is legal then it's ok for everyone. How about Bush, Cheney and any other American Citizen. If it's ok to illegally kidnap folks, then it's ok to kidnap anyone.
Posted by: Sammy | Feb 9, 2009 2:53:31 PM
You had more than an inkling of this didn't you Jake?
Well what do you know? National security IS important. Who woulda thunk it?!
Posted by: robert b | Feb 9, 2009 2:53:30 PM
Post a comment


