Obama Takes Bush Position On Habeas Corpus

[slipslidingaway]

Run time: 07:48 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdXDpsUgXn4   Posted on YouTube: April 14, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 14, 2009 By DU Member: slipslidingaway Views on DU: 1347

 
ACLU Agrees To Extension Of Torture Memo Deadline Based On DOJ Pledge To Consider Releasing Bybee Memo (4/2/2009)

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39276prs20090402.html?s_src=RSS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]

"NEW YORK – The Justice Department has sought an extension of the government's deadline to decide whether to disclose three legal memoranda authored in May 2005 by Steven Bradbury, then a lawyer in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The memos authorized the CIA to subject prisoners to torture methods including waterboarding. In ongoing Freedom of Information Act litigation brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, a federal judge had given the Justice Department until today to disclose the memos or explain its refusal to do so. The ACLU has consented to extend the production deadline to April 16 in return for the government's representation that high-level officials will consider the release not only of the Bradbury memos but also a memo authored in August 2002 by Jay S. Bybee, who was then the head of the OLC. The Bush administration had previously withheld the Bybee memo.

The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project:

"We reluctantly consented to this extension based on the government's representation that within two weeks it will re-review not only the May 2005 Bradbury memos included in today's deadline but also the August 2002 Bybee memo that was one of the cornerstones of the CIA's torture program. Collectively, these memos supplied the framework for an interrogation program that permitted the most barbaric forms of abuse, violated domestic and international law, alienated America's allies and yielded information that was both unreliable and unusable in court. Using national security as a pretext, the Bush administration managed to suppress these memos for years, denying the public crucial information about government policy and shielding government officials from accountability. While we are disappointed that the Bradbury memos were not released today, we are optimistic that the extension will result in the release of information that would not otherwise have been available to the public."

The Justice Department's letter seeking an extension is available online at: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/39274lgl20090402.html

[lovuian]

1. Habeas Corpus must be returned

whats Obama talking about

[slipslidingaway]

5. Not sure, this from the NYT article...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/washington/03bagram.html

"...The importance of Bagram as a holding site for terrorism suspects captured outside Afghanistan and Iraq has increased under the Obama administration, which prohibited the Central Intelligence Agency from using its secret prisons for long-term detention and ordered the military prison at Guantánamo closed within a year. The administration had sought to preserve Bagram as a haven where it could detain terrorism suspects beyond the reach of American courts, telling Judge Bates in February that it agreed with the Bush administration’s view that courts had no jurisdiction over detainees there.

Judge Bates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2001, was not persuaded. He said transferring captured terrorism suspects to the prison inside Afghanistan and claiming they were beyond the jurisdiction of American courts “resurrects the same specter of limitless executive power the Supreme Court sought to guard against” in its 2008 ruling that Guantánamo prisoners have a right to habeas corpus..."

[indepat]

2. One knows one is wrong when taking the same position as junior on any issue for junior was

patently wrong on every issue since junior solely implemented a far RW PNAC agenda which was wholly inimical to the interests of this nation and in violation of his oath of office eos :P

[slipslidingaway]

6. Well said :))) n/t

[RedCappedBandit]

3. This is infuriating. nt

[slipslidingaway]

7. Yes, so far it is n/t

[florida08]

4. I'm afraid Obama

is going to stand by Panetta who is pushing back against any investigation stating: Officers who act on guidance from the Department of Justice—or acted on such guidance previously—should not be investigated, let alone punished. This is what fairness and wisdom require.”
I hope I'm wrong

[slipslidingaway]

8. I hope you are wrong as well n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

15. Just following orders

That's why we let the Nazi's go unpunished after WWII.

[winyanstaz]

9. so this is change????

I am upset because I wanted Obama to be what he appeared to be..a man of the people and a constitutional scholar...which I mistakenly took to mean he actually cared about the Constitution and freedom...and the law..and Habeas Corpus.
This is the new boss...same as the old boss because the list is getting mighty long indeed.
I dont want to give up on him dang it! What the hell is going on?

[lovuian]

11. this isn't change this is business as usual

I just don't think he is going to fool anybody here anymore
Habeas Corpus was easy to bring back

[soulcore]

10. I will patiently await the Obama cheerleaders...

...to tell me to calm down, just wait, it's only been a couple of months, etc, ad nauseum.

This is NOT change I can believe in or the change I voted for. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

I'm slowly realizing that no matter what letter is in front of your name, if you're a politician you are most likely compromised.

K & effin' R!

[soulcore]

19. Still waiting. n/t

[RufusTFirefly]

12. Don't you get it? When Obama does it, it's OK. Besides, Maddow and Isikoff are..

Limbaugh-loving, McCain-Palin-enabling fellow travelers.

They are nothing but PUMAs, who want Obama to fail.

:sarcasm:

[MedioGringo]

13. Why haven't the republicans picked up on this?

The amazing thing about republican criticism of Obama is that there are PLENTY of legitimate reasons to oppose him, they instead choose to call him a socialist and say we should freeze spending.

Also, why are liberals (Maddow, Olberman, Greenwald) the ONLY people picking up on this? Is the mainstream media really in the tank for Obama? Was Fox News right? If so, why isn't Fox picking up on this? Could it be that they'd rather push a conservative agenda than call out someone they oppose if it might yield results they might not want?

Finally, kudos to Rachel for continuing to push this story. We need this story out there as much as possible.

[slipslidingaway]

14. Glen Greenwald - Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/index.html

"...Back in February, the Obama administration shocked many civil libertarians by filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue -- the Obama DOJ argued, as The New York Times's Charlie Savage put it, "that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team." Remember: these are not prisoners captured in Afghanistan on a battlefield. Many of them have nothing to do with Afghanistan and were captured far, far away from that country -- abducted from their homes and workplaces -- and then flown to Bagram to be imprisoned. Indeed, the Bagram detainees in the particular case in which the Obama DOJ filed its brief were Yemenis and Tunisians captured outside of Afghanistan (in Thailand or the UAE, for instance) and then flown to Bagram and locked away there as much as six years without any charges. That is what the Obama DOJ defended, and they argued that those individuals can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind -- as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo.

Last month, a federal judge emphatically rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that the rationale of Boudemiene applies every bit as much to Bagram as it does to Guantanamo...


Consider, instead, what Barack Obama -- before he became President -- repeatedly claimed to believe about these issues. The Supreme Court's Boudemiene ruling was issued at the height of the presidential campaign, and while John McCain condemned it as "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," here is what Obama said about it in a statement he issued on the day of the ruling:

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy."


Entire at link above.

[rudy23]

16. I think it's just about time we got organized over this crap, don't you?

Am working on a facebook group, for starters.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Yes and definitely time to stop being distracted by trivial matters.

[slipslidingaway]

18. More info....

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/washington/03bagram.html

"...After taking office, Mr. Obama ordered a review of the evidence against each of the roughly 240 prisoners at Guantánamo as a first step toward closing the prison within a year.

He did not extend the steps he was taking to resolve the fate of the Guantánamo prisoners to those held at Bagram, although a comprehensive review of detainee policies is due to be completed in July. Ms. Foster said that the Bagram case may force the administration to speed up its decisions."


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/11/Obama-sticks-to-Bush-detainee-policy/UPI-16001239474561

"...In appealing a decision by U.S. District Judge John Bates, Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd told the newspaper that because the administration is still reviewing its detainee policies, "we concluded that it was necessary to appeal this ruling," but he did not rule out a change of heart once the review is complete....

In its appeal, the Justice Department said the consequences of granting the Bagram detainees immediate access to U.S. courts would be severe. The department warned that if foreigners imprisoned at Bagram could legally challenge their incarcerations, the U.S. military wouldn't be able to hold captured Pakistani militants there for "security or centralized intelligence gathering" without having to defend the transfers in court, the Post reported."


http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2009/04/obama-administration-to-appeal-bagram.php

"...In seeking a stay of the proceedings during the appellate review process, the DOJ motion concluded:

...any potential for harm to petitioners in continued detention during appellate proceedings does not outweigh the need for a stay. First, the Government intends to seek expedited appellate review of the jurisdictional ruling in the April 2, 2009 Order. Second, the President has established, by Executive Order, a deliberative process to address questions concerning Executive detention authority and options. See Executive Order 13,493: Review of Detention Policy Options, 74 Fed. Reg. 4901 (Jan. 22, 2009). That Executive Order commands the creation of a Special Interagency Task Force to “conduct a comprehensive review of the lawful options available to the Federal Government with respect to the apprehension, detention, trial, transfer, release, or other disposition of individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counter-terrorism operations, and to identify such options as are consistent with the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.” Id. ¶ (e). The Task Force is scheduled to provide preliminary reports to the President and a final report by July of this year. Id. In particular, the Task Force will be reviewing the processes currently in place at Bagram and elsewhere, and will make recommendations to the President regarding those processes.

In sum, the extensive harms to the Government and the public interest involved in further proceedings envisioned by the Court in these cases, and the likelihood of respondents’ success on the merits of appeal, strongly warrant a stay pending appeal."

[rollingrock]

20. The mask is coming off, isn't it?

[slipslidingaway]

21. Maybe for some....

my doubts began when the corporate media started promoting Senator Obama as a possible candidate in December 2006.

[Divine Discontent]

22. that's deeply disturbing. why does he keep pushing for the same damn thing Lil Boots did for 8 yrs?