Just as President Bush publicly and repeatedly stated that “this nation does not torture,” but then secretly engaged in torture, President Obama’s public rhetoric against torture is increasingly at odds with his decisons to defend John Yoo (the former Justice Department official who authored the "torture memo" justifying Bush administration policy), keep in place policies that have protected torture, and even keep in office Bush-era appointees who helped establish torture policies.

Obama made a public spectacle of signing the executive orders banning torture and closing Guantanamo within a year. Flanked by a dozen former generals, the public show contrasted with Obama’s quiet signing of an order overturning the “Mexico City policy” banning the funding of abortion providers abroad with U.S. foreign aid funds.

But for the second time in a week, the Obama administration maintained the “state secrets” defense the Bush administration used to shield torturers and other illegal activities from court scrutiny. This time the “state secrets” gambit protected warrantless (i.e., unconstitutional) wiretapping of terrorist suspects in San Francisco U.S. District Court on February 11. 

“They have drawn a line in the sand between the executive and the judiciary, saying, 'You do not control these documents, we do,’ " said Jon Eisenberg, the attorney for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which filed the suit against warrantless wiretapping. The Obama administration’s assertion of the phony “state secrets” privilege strikes at the heart of the Constitution and justice system. Eisenberg is right in that if courts cannot get at the facts, they cannot decide justly. And if the executive branch can cover up crimes against the Constitution (as warrantless wiretaps are) by keeping all of the facts secret, then the court system itself becomes corrupted and irrelevant.

The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation charged in the lawsuit that the U.S. government unconstitutionally wiretapped them. The irony of the “state secrets” argument in this case is that the federal government accidentally faxed a document to the foundation in 2005 proving it had been wiretapping the organization without a warrant before it had listed the organization as linked to terrorism. The organization seeks the document so that it can be submitted to the court as evidence — something the Obama administration does not want to do because it would supposedly jeopardize national security.

Here’s the irony of the case: the Obama administration is essentially saying that even though organizations designated as terrorist have already had lengthy access to the document, it would jeopardize national security to allow U.S. district judges and lawyers to see the document as well. Imagine that. Terrorists can see our memoranda, but judges cannot. Such is the official Obama policy these days.

The same day that the Obama administration issued its second “state secrets” argument in federal court, the ACLU released copies of previously classified documents where Defense Department investigators admitted several detainees had been tortured to death. Most of the deaths occurred at the infamous secret prison at Bagram Air Force in Afghanistan, the site of most other publicized torture deaths.

Obama’s presidency started out on a positive note regarding the subject of torture, with executive orders commanding executive branch employees (including the CIA) not to commit felony torture. But his actions since that time tend to indicate that we may witness another term of lawless Bush administration policy. Americans have a clear choice of demanding their officials live under the chains of the Constitution or groveling under the dictatorial “leadership principle” where whatever the president says is law is legal. Obama's recent embrace of "state secrets" policy suggests he's a move in the latter direction.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

M. Delavar said:

Remember these events, and remind people of them often... I am convinced that part of the awakening of Americans must include a willingness to remember history--current history. Americans are famous for having very short attention spans. However, for those of us who have friends who wanted and voted whole-heartedly for "anybody but Bush" remind them gently of the above items. Today's forgotten headlines will seem more important as we place Obama's actions in context. When people see that the rhetoric does not match the actions, they will be ready for change in a different direction. Our job then, will be to shine a light on a pathway of true change that does not rely upon one man, the President, or even the Senate, but the House of Representatives. For people to believe us tomorrow, we must talk to them today.

February 16, 2009 | url

Impatience --, Lowly rated comment [Show]

John Caruso said:

Just the facts JNagarya, Regarding the rendition case: (Douglas) 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." And regarding the Al-Haramain case mentioned in this article: Department spokesman Charles Miller confirmed that the brief represented the views of the new administration and its attorney general. What's too much to ask is that we should ignore the direct statements of Obama administration officials. This isn't a case of them needing to "catch their breath"; they have looked at the cases, and they've staked out very clear and unequivocal official positions after doing so. And if you were outraged by these practices under the Bush administration, you should feel exactly the same way about them when they're done by the Obama administration.

February 17, 2009 | url

Nicholas Melas said:

Patience In the heart of the civil rights movement, Martin Luther King Jr. was chastised by some white preacher colleagues of his for organizing a sit in. In their words it was too soon. Why couldn't they wait? Exercise a little patience? MLK responded something along the lines of, it is easy for you to ask me to wait when you are so far from prosecution, when you don't have to tell your daughter why she's not allowed to sit here or there. JNagraya's comment is not accurate becuase it assumes that Obama's policies are not calculated or based on previously planned positions settled before the election. In fact, it is because of these concessions that Obama made with AT&T at the Democratic National Convention and before that allowed him to make it to the presidency. This chance that Obama will review his decision and change his position is born out of a fantasy, a HOPE that although I wish I shared, is based on ignorance. Wiretapping has always been one of the concessions Obama was ready to make, even if it meant violating the constitution (this because the benchmark was left so low by the most abusive presidency our history), and extraordinary rendition is further then the Obama administration was prepared to go. Unless we call him out on his bluff, expose his inadequacies with stories like this one, then the Obama nation will continue the deafening applause through any abuse, so long as its got that charismatic Obama flair! peace, love, God Bless njm

February 18, 2009