You Can Forget Prosecutions For Torture Orders Now

By Cernig

As I wrote over the weekend, progressives who really hoped the Obama administration would rollback Bush years secrecy over illegal renditions and torture were waiting with intense interest to see what would happen in a key court case today. Five men were suing 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.

One of those men is Binyam Mohamed, who was illegally kidnapped and had his penis sliced to bits because he read a spoof online about how to make an H-bomb and who is now still held at Gitmo, where he is on hunger-strike, even though he is no longer accused of any crime. He made headlines at the end of last week because two British judges accused the Bush and Obama administrations of threatening the British government to keep evidence of torture supressed. Two other plaintiffs are in jail in Egypt and Morocco, both countries known to practise torture, after being sent there by the US and the other two are free after being held for years.

Last year, the case went nowhere because the Bush administration invoked a special defense of state secrets, as it always did to prevent any cases brought by victims of illegal rendition and torture from even getting to word one. But the ACLU had filed an appeal which was held today.

The Obama administration announced that it would keep the same position as the Bush Administration:

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.

...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.”

A spokesman for Holden says the AG is going to conduct a "review" of state secrets defense to ensure that "the privilege is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations". How much of a review is needed to decide that invoking state secrets to bury Binyam Mohamed's attempts to seek justice is "appropriate" ferchrissake?

Many progressives are going to be upset by this. Glen Greenwald, for example, writes that "Obama fails his first test on civil liberties and accountability -- resoundingly and disgracefully". Based on his conversation after the case with the ACLU's Ben Wizner, Glenn continues:

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 there from being any judicial accountability of any kind.

You can forget the notion that those who ordered torture and those who wrote legal opinions for them will ever see the inside of a US court on those charges. If Holden is continuing to invoke state secrets in cases such as today, no prosecution of Bush administration criminals will ever get to the satge of even hearing evidence. Thus, the Obama administration collectively become accessories to the Bush administration's crimes. In my opinion, any cabinet member who had an ounce of spine and an ounce of belief in the rule of law for all would resign over this travesty of justice. Watch for an utter lack of that.

Comments

[anderson]

Cernig,

We are in the zone now. I'm sorry to say it, but this was written on the wall years ago, when Pelosi said that there would be no impeachment. It didn't matter what was exposed. This was the Dems line and they are sticking to it, protecting the barbarous criminal pricks of the Bush admin. They're all part of the whole goddamn sham. I don't know why we keep looking for them to do the right thing. It hasn't happened in decades.

Obama is a tool, just as critics said he would be. I hope he enjoys GOP caterwauling, because they and their media brethren aren't going to give him one moments respite, despite his apparent comity. And after this abdication, he deserves nothing less than constant torment.

Enjoy your Bush-Cheney made bed, Obama. You know not what you reap. If he thought the GOP was going to be nice just because he's protecting their made guys, he's got another thing coming. In fact, it is coming already. His stimulus package is now stillborn. And the GOP will prefer to sink the country into depression, as long as they can blame it -- and they will -- on Obama.

So, Barack. What are you going to do? Hold back on obvious war crime prosecutions for people who desperately deserve it, or try to get along and hope the GOP becomes your new BFF? Well, if it is not obvious that the latter is not going to happen, it would be great to see Obama announce, ok, fuckers, you are going down.

But he won't.

The question really posed here is, are they all part of the scam? or is there any possible chance that the Dems could muster the balls to stop the endless caving in and turn toward prosecuting a former Republican administration that preceded? Is there some sort of president's glee club that we don't know about? It certainly looks that way.

[Nikola]

Thanks for your insightful posts and analysis, Cernig.
I've come across your posts on C&L, and they are lately the only posts there I know I'll find interesting and reasonably objective (that is, critical of the administration regardless of who's in charge). Ever since I got banned from posting on C&L for pointing out their sycophantic and very hypocritical coverage of the election process, I haven't been able to comment on your posts there. They always provide well-researched insight for developing situations that is badly needed. Thanks, keep it up.
Of course, the compliments extend out to the crew of this site.

[Steve Hynd]

Thanks for the kind words, Nikola. Although I'm sure if you emailled the C&L site team asking for your ban to be rescinded, you'd now get a fair hearing.

Anderson, I think the glee club exists but not in any formal sense - just that the folks in power have more in common with each other than with us peons.

Regards, C

[opit]

Ouch. I think that 'folks in power' quip likely has more truth than we would be comfortable knowing. I spent some time with the privileged class when I was young : attitudes were, um,alienated.
Ten Percent has brought up nasty home truths about the Hague and what Belgium is willing to do re: extraterritoriality and prosecutions for War crimes.
Also, on the home front, bases were covered in 2002.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Servicemembers%27_Protection_Act
http://tenpercent.wordpress.com/
2/3 War Criminals Stalking Horse
2/7/ Change This

[opit]

Anderson
I appreciate the irony of one with your name questioning the Matrix. Have you ever seen the likes of this ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy/

[Nikola]

Thanks for the tip, Cernig. However, it would require me to change the way I talk and to be careful what I write. That would be a sham.
Anyhoo, apparently I don't fit in there as I'm not an Obama fanboy, but merely anti-McCain et al.
I only have energy to distrust politicians, and it makes me sad that I'm so far gone so as not to be surprised by the current developments.
Btw, Pratchett books are awesome, and I've just started to listen to the audiobooks for the nth time already:P

[empty]

Hi C,
This is a major disappointment. I have a hard time understanding why the courts keep accepting the state secret argument. Especially, as it has now been shown that the original state secret case was a con. I didn't have much hope for the Obama administration actually pursuing cases against torturers but some part of me hoped that they would at least not run interference for them. This is depressing.

On the other hand learning that you are perhaps a Pratchett fan is a nice little gift :)

[Steve Hynd]

Very much a Pratchett fan. I met him twice back in the 90s and he impressed as few others have with his broad horizons and massively eclectic reading. Although it pleased me no end to hear him say his own favorite author was George MacDonald Fraser, writer of the "Flashman" books.

Regards, C

[Nikola]

Flashman books, you say?
Well, now I understand the inspiration for Rincewind.
Cheers.