Obama wins the right to invoke "State Secrets" to protect Bush crimes

[kpete]

Obama wins the right to invoke "State Secrtes" to protect Bush crimes
By Glenn Greenwald

*

In a 6-5 ruling issued this afternoon, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Obama administration a major victory in its efforts to shield Bush crimes from judicial review, when the court upheld the Obama DOJ's argument that Bush's rendition program, used to send victims to be tortured, are "state secrets" and its legality thus cannot be adjudicated by courts. The Obama DOJ had appealed to the full 9th Circuit from last year's ruling by a 3-judge panel which rejected the "state secrets" argument and held that it cannot be used as a weapon to shield the Executive Branch from allegations in this case that it broke the law. I've written multiple times about this case, brought by torture/rendition victim Binyam Mohamed and several others against the Boeing subsidiary which, at the behest of the Bush administration, rendered them to be tortured.

........ I wanted to highlight the first paragraph from The New York Times article on this ruling, written by Charlie Savage. Just marvel, in particular, at the last sentence ---



"The ruling handed a major victory to the Obama administration its effort to advance a sweeping view of executive secrecy power." That says it all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html?_r=1&hp

more:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/JEP_EN_BANC.pdf

[dkf]

1. You just had to kill the Obama love didn't ya?

[fasttense]

2. Darn, just when I thought this administrations was starting to get it.

Sigh......

[rug]

3. Let's see how Sotomayor and Kagan handle this.

[Poll_Blind]

6. My suspicion is Kagan will fold, Sotomayor probably not.

If the confirmation hearings are indicatory, anyway.

PB

[rug]

11. That's an interesting take.This decision will be a solid test.

If the Supreme Court rules state secrets are a defense to government torture, nothing is reviewable. It would be a de facto reversal of Marbury. All the power shifts to the executive, whoever that is.

[BlueCheese]

14. It's possible...

... that the Supreme Court will simply not hear the case, in which case (I think) we don't find out what the individual justices thought.

[rug]

16. It's possible but it's a 6-5 Circuit Court decion on an important case brought by the ACLU.

I don't think the Supreme Court can deny certiorari on the ground that this is settled law or a minor issue.

[Fumesucker]

4. ...

[indepat]

24. Although cornho*led by the right, we the people now get cornho*led by light not being shed on

the seeming crimes of right. Hopefully, a Democratic president will never get impeached over some trumped-up charge of a picayune nature not amounting to a hill of beans constitutionally, but don't count on it. Reagan, Bush I, and junior were not held accountable, but pubs got Bubba on that stain-on-the-blue-dress thingy and pubs are champing at the bit to gain control of the House, in part, to be able to teach that claimed non-citizen, Muslim, socialist, Marxist, like-Hitler guy a good lesson. Go figure! ;)

Disclainer: words with an * included in the spelling are metaphorically and rhetorically speaking of course, as always

[Autumn]

5. Damn n/t

[budkin]

7. This right here is one of the reasons that Dems are unmotivated

Why does he continue this shit??

[The Northerner]

17. +1

[eallen]

23. I'm not unmotivated. I'm just now part of the opposition.

I'm a civil libertarian.

When Bush trampled civil liberties, I opposed him.

Now that Obama is doing the trampling, I'll oppose him.

If that bothers any partisans, they need to start knocking sense into some heads in their parties.

:hippie:

[BlueCheese]

8. More from the NYT article

The decision bolstered an array of ways in which the Obama administration has pressed forward with broad counter-terrorism policies after taking over from the Bush team, a degree of continuity that has departed from the expectations fostered by President Obama’s campaign rhetoric, which was often sharply critical of President Bush’s approach.

Among other policies, the Obama team has also placed a United States citizen on a targeted-killings list without a trial, blocked efforts by detainees in Afghanistan to bring habeas-corpus lawsuits challenging their indefinite imprisonment, and continued the C.I.A. rendition program – though the administration says it now takes greater safeguards to prevent detainees from being mistreated.

Awesome.

[dixiegrrrrl]

15. a degree of continuity departed from.... President Obama’s campaign rhetoric

Do the Dems honestly think people cannot see this happening???

[Bluebear]

22. +

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Any chance of a Nuremburg?

If you can't expect lawyers to self-police, why should we be surprised that governments won't self-police either? Especially since it's probably lawyers who are writing up the briefs.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Does this mean *we're* complicitious if we vote for Obama in 2012?

:shrug:

[Better Today]

13. I think so, but I don't count.

[Better Today]

12. Hey, but dincha know that a couple dozen Koran burners endanger our

soldiers. Unf'ingbelievable, how entirely stupidly both GWB and BHO administrations are handling themselves when it comes to the middle east.

[Bluebear]

18. Big "change". nt

[Bluebear]

25. kick

[Karmadillo]

19. Go Team!!!

nt

[jtrockville]

20. and justice for all

[jgraz]

21. By our own rules, other countries can now kidnap Bush/Cheney for their own military trials

Since we won't pursue justice, maybe some other country will.

[2Design]

26. since he is now committing the same crimes - I guess he has too nt

[Bluebear]

27. Fired up! nt