Obama administration's anti-terror architecture: Too much like Bush (LAT editorial)

[somone]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-obama-20110410,0,7387245.story

Editorial
Obama administration's anti-terror architecture: Too much like Bush
Obama has embraced national security policies of the previous administration that he once criticized.

... With Guantanamo, Obama is unwillingly perpetuating a state of affairs from the Bush administration. But he has voluntarily continued another Bush policy that he had criticized on the campaign trail. This involves the "state secrets" doctrine, which allows the government to shut down a trial on the grounds that it would betray sensitive information. Given its proclivity for secrecy, it isn't surprising that the Bush administration invoked the doctrine to forestall the disclosure of information about abuses in the war on terror. It was more surprising when the Obama administration on several occasions embraced the same doctrine.

In one case, the Bush administration had intervened in a lawsuit brought by five men who said they had been flown to other countries and tortured under the CIA's disgraceful "extraordinary rendition" program. The administration cited the state secrets privilege in an effort to close down the trial and keep details of the program from coming to light. Some civil libertarians assumed that after Obama was elected, his Justice Department would reverse the Bush position, but instead it reaffirmed it. Holder established new procedures for assertion of the state secrets privilege, including a requirement that the attorney general approve its use on a case-by-case basis and the creation of a State Secrets Review Committee. But the similarities with the Bush policy are more significant than the differences.

A final example of Obama adopting a Bush national security policy is the president's signing of an extension of three sections of the Patriot Act. Two of the provisions are defensible: the use of "roving" wiretaps to track suspected terrorists and the surveillance of "lone wolf" suspects who aren't part of a terrorist organization. The third provision, however, is deeply flawed. It allows investigators to obtain business records or other "tangible things" with a minimal showing to a judge of a connection with terrorism. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has proposed language that would establish a higher hurdle for judicial approval. No longer would a judge be instructed to presume that a record being sought was relevant to an investigation. Obama could have held out for those and other amendments.

Obama supporters who expected him to dismantle the worst parts of the Bush administration's anti-terror architecture have the right to be disappointed. Every president discovers that positions glibly pitched on the campaign trail look different when viewed from the Oval Office, and many presidents must deal sooner or later with an assertive Congress. But neither of these realities absolves Obama of embracing or accepting arrangements that, in the name of national security, threaten privacy and undermine due process of law.

[Vinnie From Indy]

1. It's worse than that actually!

Obama and Co. have made the decision that killing suspected terrorists is far more expedient than detaining them. The drone killing program has increased drastically under Obama. For those interested in the kind of men that get up every morning, go to work, fire up their computers and get to work killing poor sob's on the other side of the planet, I recommend a recent Newsweek article about drone killing. Here is the link:

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/13/inside-the-killing-machine.html

[_ed_]

2. This is the biggest disgrace of the Obama Presidency

especially considering his quotes on the topic from his Senate / candidate past.