TPM Muckraker:
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that detainees at Guantanamo had the right to appeal their detentions in federal courts. But since then, only a few cases have been completed. And in an interview with TPMmuckraker, David Cynamon -- a lawyer for four Kuwaiti Gitmo detainees who are bringing habeas corpus claims against the government -- said that the Justice Department has been consistently dragging its heels in the case, denying detainees their basic due process rights and furthering what he called the "abandonment of the rule of law."
"The Department of Justice has been doing everything in its power to delay and obstruct these cases," said Cynamon, whose clients were picked up in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in the period after the 2001 U.S invasion of Afghanistan. "They're not doing anything to move the case along, and doing everything to avoid it."
Asked whether he had observed a shift of any kind in the government's approach since the Obama administration came into office, Cynamon flatly replied: "None whatsoever."
Nor is this.
TPM Muckraker:
Is the Obama administration mimicking its predecessor on issues of secrecy and the war on terror?
During the presidential campaign, Obama criticized Bush for being too quick to invoke the state secrets claim. But last Friday, his Justice Department filed a motion in a warrantless wiretapping lawsuit, brought by the digital-rights group EFF. And the Obama-ites took a page out of the Bush DOJ's playbook by demanding that the suit, Jewel v. NSA, be dismissed entirely under the state secrets privilege, arguing that allowing it go forward would jeopardize national security.
....
Ken Gude, an expert in national security law at the Center for American Progress, supported the administration's invocation of the state secrets claim when it was made earlier this year in an extraordinary rendition case. But its position in Jewel is "disappointing," Gude told TPMmuckraker, calling himself "frustrated."
Gude confirmed that the Obama-ites were taking the same position as the Bushies on state secrets questions. "They've taken the maximalist view that the judge has hardly any role in determining whether national security" would be compromised by the release of classified information," he said. "There's going to be people who are very unhappy, and justifiably so."
He added: "I'm very uncomfortable with the notion that the people who get to decide [whether national security would be jeopardized] is the government."
Obama is getting bad advice, and he should know better than to listen to it. We did NOT elect him to mimic Bush on habeas corpus or state secrets.
I think the new Administration is probably reluctant to be seen as too radical a change...
ReplyDeleteBut change is needed, isn't it?
And was it not what the American people voted for?
Change we can beleive in.
I'm very disappointed in Obama. I'm not happy with his support for Israel, his combat troops' presence in the Middle East and his whole continuation of his so called 'war on terror' and now this is absolutely heart breaking. So much for promises. He was the one promising 'change'.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's a shame he had to get a pedigree for his kids when he could have saved a homeless dog from the SPCA. At least his Mrs has started a vegetable garden. Hopefully she will inspire to world to get down to earth.
I am not surprised. Governments do not easily surrender power of any kind.
ReplyDeleteIt's not good at all, but I am not surprised either. Disappointed, though. Jim is right that surrender of power is not easily accomplished. Particularly, in the U.S., when the presidential powers have been expanded beyond constitutional limits they have seldom shrunk back without courts, and congress, and the people pushing them back. And new presidents, even if they campaigned against abuses, find themselves reluctant to voluntarily lose their powers.
ReplyDeleteSo, we have to push to change this.
And to think that Republicans called Obama a far-leftist and a socialist, which I knew he never was.
ReplyDeleteGöran, we did, indeed, vote for change.
Steph, Jim, and Michael, correct. Governments do not surrender power easily, and we, the citizens, must push back on these and other issues in which Obama shows himself to be too much of the same-old same-old.
I am very disappointed in this also. I have several gripes with the Obama administration in areas of law like this. We, the People, must indeed push back on this.
ReplyDeletePaul the BB
Friends,
ReplyDeletePlease consider this: This administration has been in office less than 100 days.
The kinds of secrets we are talking about are the cover-up kind. There are secrets, valid national security secrets, which need to remain unilluminated. Unfortunately, the necessary ones have been thoroughly intertwined with the massive garbage 'secrets' of the Bush administration. Can we give this guy a few months to get an accurate assessment of what can be revealed without harming national security? He has already released some information, and I believe as Depts of Homeland Security and Defense untangle the mess, much more will be revealed. President Obama cannot be expected to change 8 years of damage overnight. It is important that we not make the opposite extremist mistakes in an attempt to fix previous extremist mistakes.
Let's give this administration enough time to get its pants on. It's just the earliest of the morning for these 8 years.
Pat, I understand what you say, but I believe that the pushback from the citizens of the US on the state secrets matter is vital to keep Obama aware that we want change from the Bush maladministration's policies.
ReplyDeleteI do not want my government illegally spying on its citizens. Ours is a country under the law, and Obama must move to return us to that status quickly.