Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Pbama Admin Invokes Preserving State Secrets And Privilege On Rendition
This should have blood in the stools of every Widdle Pbama Cultist.
The Pbama Administration has taken the exact same stance as did the Bush Admin on the issue of rendition, and the preservation of state secrets. (Secrets in the Pbama White House?! Say it Ain't So!) From The New York Times (so it must be true!):
In a closely watched case involving rendition and torture, a lawyer for the Obama administration apparently surprised a panel of federal appeals judges Monday by pressing ahead with an argument for preserving state secrets originally developed by the Bush administration.
President Obama had harshly criticized the Bush administration’s treatment of detainees during the campaign, and has broken with the previous administration on such questions as whether to keep open the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But a lawyer for the government, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument on Monday, startling several judges on the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
[Reacting was] Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs in the case.
“This is not change,” he said in a statement. “This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama’s Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again.”
"Impeach Pbama! Impeach This Warmonger Now! No More Blood For Oil! When Will Pbama Stop Occupying Iraq?"
Oh, that gnawing pain of hypocrisy and denial inside each and every Pbama Cultist must be growing to epic proportions.
You have to love this kind of karma. It's Schadenfreudely Delicious!
"...enter default judgment against the government and grant the remedy the plaintiffs seek..?"
I don't know. I think something like this can only be on a case by case issue. And no, I don't necessarily think that because "state secrets" is applied means a default judgment should be granted to the plaintiff(s).
Links to this post:
accordance and compliance with Fair Use Section 107 U.S. Copyright Code.
All other images and content © 2005-2009 David Drake.
Not responsible for content contained at linked sites.
Policy on commenting:
- Anonymous comments have little chance of being published.
- Comments made on posts 60 days old or older have little chance of being published.
- Published comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this blog author.
- Discretion of publishing or rejecting submitted comments rests solely with the owner and creator of this blog.
- Comments that egregiously "plug" (i.e. advertise or promote) another site or blog will be rejected. This doesn't mean you cannot include a link to your story, blog or to another site, but don't go overboard.
- Profanity is not a disqualifying factor, but profane rants solely for purposes of profanity are unlikely to be published.
- The owner and creator of this blog is not liable or responsible for the opinions of those who comment.