Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
It just sends a quiver up my leg every time I see that Obama is so much better than Bush.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html?_r=2&emc=na&pagewanted=all
Get that folks? National security trumps human rights under Obama.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/08/08-15693.pdf
But we don't have to worry, because Obama is not doing anything like Bush did.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
That makes me feel better, they promise they won't torture them.
The sharply divided ruling was a major victory for the Obama administrations efforts to advance a sweeping view of executive secrecy powers. It strengthens the White Houses hand as it has pushed an array of assertive counterterrorism policies, while raising an opportunity for the Supreme Court to rule for the first time in decades on the scope of the presidents power to restrict litigation that could reveal state secrets.
By a 6-to-5 vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed a lawsuit against Jeppesen Dataplan Inc., a Boeing subsidiary accused of arranging flights for the Central Intelligence Agency to transfer prisoners to other countries for imprisonment and interrogation. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the case on behalf of five former prisoners who say they were tortured in captivity and that Jeppesen was complicit in that alleged abuse.
Judge Raymond C. Fisher described the case, which reversed an earlier decision, as presenting a painful conflict between human rights and national security. But, he said, the majority had reluctantly concluded that the lawsuit represented a rare case in which the governments need to protect state secrets trumped the plaintiffs need to have a day in court.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/us/09secrets.html?_r=2&emc=na&pagewanted=all
Get that folks? National security trumps human rights under Obama.
Here, further litigation presents an unacceptable risk of disclosure of state secrets no matter what legal or factual theories Jeppesen would choose to advance during a defense. Whether or not Jeppesen provided logistical support in connection with the extraordinary rendition and interrogation programs, there is precious little Jeppesen could say about its relevant conduct and knowledge without revealing information about how the United States government does or does not conduct covert operations. Our conclusion holds no matter what protective procedures the district court might employ. Adversarial litigation, including pretrial discovery of documents and witnesses and the presentation of documents and testimony at trial, is inherently complex and unpredictable. Although district courts are well equipped to wall off isolated secrets from disclosure, the challenge is exponentially greater in exceptional cases like this one, where the relevant secrets are difficult or impossible to isolate and even efforts to define a boundary between privileged and unprivileged evidence would risk disclosure by implication. In these rare circumstances, the risk of disclosure that further proceedings would create cannot be averted through the use of devices such as protective orders or restrictions on testimony.
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/08/08-15693.pdf
But we don't have to worry, because Obama is not doing anything like Bush did.
The Obama administration will continue the Bush administrations practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but pledges to closely monitor their treatment to ensure that they are not tortured, administration officials said Monday.
Human rights advocates condemned the decision, saying that continuing the practice, known as rendition, would still allow the transfer of prisoners to countries with a history of torture. They said that promises from other countries of humane treatment, called diplomatic assurances, were no protection against abuse.
It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture, said Amrit Singh, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/us/politics/25rendition.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
That makes me feel better, they promise they won't torture them.