ACLU on Obama

from aclu.com

  Quote

Justice Department Stands Behind Bush Secrecy In Extraordinary Rendition Case (2/9/2009)

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

 

NEW YORK – The Justice Department today repeated Bush administration claims of "state secrets" in a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan for its role in the extraordinary rendition program. Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen was brought on behalf of five men who were kidnapped and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were interrogated under torture. The Bush administration intervened in the case, inappropriately asserting the "state secrets" privilege and claiming the case would undermine national security. Oral arguments were presented today in the American Civil Liberties Union's appeal of the dismissal, and the Obama administration opted not to change the government position in the case, instead reasserting that the entire subject matter of the case is a state secret.

 

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

 

"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."

 

The following can be attributed to Ben Wizner, a staff attorney with the ACLU, who argued the case for the plaintiffs:

 

"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."

magic negro ain't so magic

They cant hide any form of torture, rendition and grievous human rights violations from me cos ive seen it on 24.

This probably isnt aimed at the article in question but anyone who thought things can change with in months is kidding themselves (quite alot of people it seems). It could take anything as much as a full term to see a difference.

  David R James said:

This probably isnt aimed at the article in question but anyone who thought things can change with in months is kidding themselves (quite alot of people it seems). It could take anything as much as a full term to see a difference.

this is true. obama will be considered a failure by most when he wont live up to the unrealistic expectations everyone seem to have.

I hate articles like this - the ACLU assumes they know that the claim of "state secrets" is false, even though they are not privy to the intelligence. I'm not condoning what the Bush Administration did, but to say this action is "more of the same" is ridiculous - Now, if a new case came up, and the Obama Administration made the same decision based on acts it committed, then that's a different story. They're not hiding torture or the methods used to gain the information, but more so the information itself - if there is indeed state secrets at risk.

  Joyrex said:

I hate articles like this - the ACLU assumes they know that the claim of "state secrets" is false, even though they are not privy to the intelligence. I'm not condoning what the Bush Administration did, but to say this action is "more of the same" is ridiculous - Now, if a new case came up, and the Obama Administration made the same decision based on acts it committed, then that's a different story. They're not hiding torture or the methods used to gain the information, but more so the information itself - if there is indeed state secrets at risk.

so you are ok with people who have been tortured having absolutely no right to trial because of state secrets?

I mean sure we dont know exactly what the 'secrets' are but basically what you are assuming that probably there must have been a good reason to keep these secret. ( a rather large and frankly dangerous assumption)

good thing the ACLU still takes civil liberties seriously, the american public has pretty much forgotten about it

well there are more important things to worry about like a titty popping out on tv or kids being brainwashed with the anti-life evolutionist faggot loving agenda.

  tv_party said:

well there are more important things to worry about like a titty popping out on tv or kids being brainwashed with the anti-life evolutionist faggot loving agenda.

  Capsaicin said:

  tv_party said:

well there are more important things to worry about like a titty popping out on tv or kids being brainwashed with the anti-life evolutionist faggot loving agenda.

  David R James said:

This probably isnt aimed at the article in question but anyone who thought things can change with in months is kidding themselves (quite alot of people it seems).

true but when it comes to one of the most egregious and extreme violations of the constitution that Bush put in place ie: rendition/torture/secret flights to 3rd world countries/holding people indefinitely

you would expect it wouldn't be that hard for Obama (someone who claimed he opposed every single one of these policies in his entire campaign) to reverse that obvious damage bush has cause to the constitution.

what's frightening is the transcripts of this landmark court case were released to the public and here is what they more or less said by the Obama appointed federal prosecutor.

  Quote

[A] lawyer for the government, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument on Monday, startling several judges on the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.

“No, your honor,” Mr. Letter replied.

“The change in administration has no bearing?” she asked.

“No, your honor,” he said once more. The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration,” and “these are the authorized positions,” he said.

IT really does seem to me like Obama for one reason or another really believe we need to completely strip peoples constitutional rights away to help fight terrorism. Even though he has said time and time again that he believes we should treat them civilly, he only really means this halfway. This being one of the most dangerous aspects of the Bush administration imo makes it very disappointing that Obama is americas way of 'changing' the Bush policies.

  Awepittance said:

  David R James said:

This probably isnt aimed at the article in question but anyone who thought things can change with in months is kidding themselves (quite alot of people it seems).

 

true but when it comes to one of the most egregious and extreme violations of the constitution that Bush put in place ie: rendition/torture/secret flights to 3rd world countries/holding people indefinitely

 

you would expect it wouldn't be that hard for Obama (someone who claimed he opposed every single one of these policies in his entire campaign) to reverse that obvious damage bush has cause to the constitution.

 

what's frightening is the transcripts of this landmark court case were released to the public and here is what they more or less said by the Obama appointed federal prosecutor.

 

I agree, i suppose the statement i made was more of a genralisation. Thats the impression u get when u dont live in america, everyone seems to think things will just change just like that. U could also say OB said things just to get into office, but i dont get that impression really.

Im sure some people seem to think u can just pull troops out of iraq and afganistan and everything will be alright.

  Oscar said:

http://www.aprilwinchell.com/wp-content/ca...hit//index.html

damn thats good, why did this not get passed around before he won??!

when all's said and done - i'd still rather have obama than the one eyed fifer spunk sock we've got.

  Oscar said:

http://www.aprilwinchell.com/wp-content/ca...hit//index.html

http://forum.watmm.com/index.php?showtopic=42468

  mosca said:

when all's said and done - i'd still rather have obama than the one eyed fifer spunk sock we've got.

understandable, when it comes to comparing UK and US politics it usually falls under the douche-bag/turd sandwich choice paradigm for me

I think Obama's change stays in his pocket.