Obama Adopts Bush Position on Renditioning, State Secrets
By Anthony Gregory on Feb 16, 2009 in Civil Liberties, Constitution, Criminal Justice, Law, Personal Liberty, Presidential Power, Torture
Those who hoped the rise of Obama would signify a shift toward more respect for civil liberties must be disappointed about this: The new administration fully embraces the last administration’s stance on state secrets and foreign detainees in the war on terror. Rather than the “states secrets” privilege being introduced rarely and depending on the circumstances, cases involving the torture of renditioned detainees would be thrown out of court wholesale. These cases have been discussed in the press and investigated and exposed for years, but supposedly mentioning them in federal court would endanger national security.
The Democratic Congress appears that it may still attempt to rein Obama in on this, as the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee tried to with Bush. And at least some critics—the ACLU, some liberal bloggers like Glenn Greenwald, libertarians, constitutionalist conservatives—are voicing protest, but, unfortunately, much of the mainstream press and the pro-Obama left are defending the administration. Furthermore, there are reasons to worry that renditions would actually be expanded under Obama.




















Expanded renditions qualifies as “change,” right?
Steve Hogan | Feb 16, 2009 | Reply
Different puppet, same bleep bleep…Don’t blame me, I voted for a REAL American, one who isn’t afraid to PROVE he’s an American born HERE. One who don’t need to seal his records to hide his true past. One who believes in America FIRST, I voted for Ron Paul…
Mr. E | Feb 17, 2009 | Reply
Mr. E,
If Obama governed as one that acknowledged the Constitutional limits placed upon him, I wouldn’t care if he were born on the moon. As it is, you could occupy the better part of your waking hours documenting the lies and deceptions of this administration—and he’s only been in office for a month!
It’s going to be a very long four years.
Steve Hogan | Feb 17, 2009 | Reply