Tell the Truth: The Obama DoJ

Recently the Obama DoJ seriously misstepped by maintaining Bush's position on Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen, invoking the state secrets privilege and attempting to get the case dismissed. What followed was a great deal of rationalization and interpretation.


Ambinder, for instance, saw what the Obama DoJ did and thought it wise:

"It wouldn't be wise for a new administration to come in, take over a case from a
prosecutor, and completely change a legal strategy in mid-course without a more
thorough review of the national security implications."

In another article he quoted an anonymous Obama administration official:

"Officials decided that it would be imprudent to reverse course so abruptly
because they realized they didn't yet have a full picture of the intelligence
methods and secrets that underlay the privilege's assertions, because the
privilege might correctly protect a state secret, and because the domino effect
of retracting it could harm legitimate cases, both civil and criminal, that are
already in progress.


'If you decide today precipitously to waive this privilege, you can't
get it back,' an administration official said. 'If you decide to assert it, you
can always retract it in the future.'"

Which basically echoed the statement of DoJ spokesperson Matt Miller, who said this at the time:

"'It is the policy of this administration to invoke the state secrets
privilege only when necessary and in the most appropriate cases,' he said,
adding that Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had asked for a review of
pending cases in which the government had previously asserted a state secret
privilege.


'The attorney general has directed that senior Justice Department
officials review all assertions of the state secrets privilege to ensure that
the privilege is being invoked only in legally appropriate situations,' he said.
'It is vital that we protect information that, if released, could jeopardize
national security.'"

Well, of course that sounded like B.S. then, but it certainly is now. Charlie Savage this morning quotes White House counsel Greg Craig, who justified invoking the state secrets privilege, and suggested that the Obama DoJ did so for reasons that they are not likely to reverse:

"Mr. Craig said Mr. Holder and others reviewed the case and 'came to the
conclusion that it was justified and necessary for national security' to maintain
their predecessor's stance. Mr. Holder has also begun a review of every open
Bush-era case involving state secrets, Mr. Craig said, so people should not read
too much into one case.


'Every president in my lifetime has invoked the state-secrets
privilege,' Mr. Craig said. 'The notion that invoking it in that case
somehow means we are signing onto the Bush approach to the world is just an
erroneous assumption.'"

To me, this isn't just about triangulation anymore. The Obama DoJ wants this case tossed out and wants to hide the details of the extraordinary rendition flights conducted by Jeppesen. They do actually think this is justified and necessary. We've heard all their B.S. but it seems like reality is that the Obama DoJ wants to continue down the tyrannical path of the Bush DoJ. And now that the Obama DoJ is justifying their position not in terms of "we need further review," but in terms of "we need this for national security," it is hard to imagine how they even could reverse their position. National security in their eyes was endangered yesterday, but not today? In front of this court, but not the next? Now reversing their position would be political suicide.


It is time to hold Obama accountable.



[Crossposted at TalkLeft]

Binyam Mohamed & Government Cover-Ups

This is news:

"Mohamed claims he confessed to being a terrorist only after he was
brutally abused and tortured, and that both American and British intelligence
officers were at least complicit in the torture.

Lt. Col. Bradley says there is evidence to support his claims of torture
and that it is in 42 classified documents held by the British government.

Mohamed's lawyers and British media have sued in the British High Court to
make those documents public.

The British - and American - governments are fighting that on national
security grounds. As the British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told
Parliament that Britian's intelligence relationship with the United States is
vital to the security of the United Kingdom.

'It is essential that the ability of the U.S. to communicate such material
in confidence to the UK is unaffected,' Miliband said.

Miliband pointed to a letter received from the U.S. State Department,
authored by The Legal Advisor, John Bellinger III, on Aug. 21, 2008, to bolster
his argument. The letter said, '…the public disclosure of these documents or of
the information contained therein is likely to result in serious damage to U.S.
national security and could harm existing intelligence information arrangements
between our two governments'.

That last sentence was interpreted as a threat by the British media and by the British High Court, which ruled that Mohamed’s lawyers, with security clearances, could have access to the documents, but that they must not be made public. The court harshly criticized the American government for what it characterized as U.S. interference in British affairs.

But a former Bush administration official with specific knowledge of the
case, who requested anonymity, has told CBS News the letter was written at the request of the British government and that both the U.S. and British government wanted to ensure the documents remained secret. The British Foreign Office declined to comment on the record.

The British court also said the documents contained 'evidence of serious
wrongdoing by the United States which had been facilitated, in part, by the UK
government.'

Lt. Col. Bradley has a security clearance, and has seen the documents. She
cannot say what's in them. But she did say, 'this is not a matter of national
security, this is a matter of national embarrassment. The U.S. and other
countries may not want to be embarrassed by what happened to Mr. Mohamed and the full story and information and account coming out of what happened to Mr.
Mohammed.'

The British government’s public position on torture has always been that it
does not practice or condone it. The existence of the letter, and the court’s
statement, raise the question of what the British knew about torture in
Guantanamo and other secret prisons, including some run by the CIA, when they
knew it, and what, if any, concerns were raised with the American
government." [emphasis supplied]

That's a lot of funny business to end court proceedings. It's possible this "former Bush administration official" providing the quote just wants to throw a wrench into the new Administration. But it seems just as likely that this screams COVER-UP. And what role is the Obama Administration playing now? The British requested, from Bush, a letter that would cover their @sses - and Obama, joining this cover-up game, thanks the British for their compliance?

The letter was deceptive, the threat apparently a lie.

Time to make a stink.

Update: Let's go over this one more time. From the BBC:

"The judges said they wanted the full details of the alleged torture to be
published in the interests of safeguarding the rule of law, free speech and
democratic accountability.
The details, believed to amount to just seven paragraphs, relate to the circumstances of Mr Mohamed's detention and his treatment while he was being held.
But they said they had been persuaded it was not in the public interest to do this due to the potential impact on UK national security of US stopping intelligence sharing.
By doing so, the US government could 'inflict on the citizens of the UK a very considerable increase in the dangers they face at a time when a serious terrorist threat still pertains', they said." [emphasis supplied]

The entire basis for the court's decision to block the publication of the documents detailing Mohamed's treatment was a lie. Kind of sounds like somebody should get in trouble for this, no?

More from the BBC article:

The Conservatives said the ruling raised 'serious questions' and urged ministers
to make a statement on the issue on Thursday.
'No British government should participate in or condone torture under any circumstances,' said shadow foreign secretary William Hague.
'We hope that the new US administration will look again at this decision, particularly since the judge concerned that there were no security reasons for the material not to be made public.'"

These documents should be released and published immediately. It seems like they are now but the beginning of a much broader scandal.

Update 2: The British press is all over this story, and confirms the account of the former Bush Administration official. Guardian, Telegraph. And here, a second story from the Guardian:

"The shadow foreign secretary [William Hague] wrote to David Miliband
demanding urgent clarification on a number of specific allegations about whether
the UK was complicit in the mistreatment or torture of Guantánamo detainee
Binyam Mohamed.

The move followed reports that a Foreign Office official solicited a
letter from the previous US administration asserting that the disclosure of
information relating to Mohamed's detention would harm the intelligence sharing
relationship.

Today Downing Street rallied to Miliband's defence, insisting that the
Foreign Office had merely asked the US to 'set out its position in writing' when
it solicited a letter for the American authorities to back up its claim that, if
the evidence was disclosed, Washington could stop sharing intelligence with
Britain.

The claim persuaded two high court judges earlier this month to
suppress what they called "powerful evidence" relating to the ill treatment of
Mohamed, a British resident being held in the US's Guantánamo Bay
detention camp in Cuba."

So IOW...the Foreign Office asked the United States to threaten them, in writing?

"'The Foreign Office has made clear that they asked the US to set out their
position in writing for us and the court,' a spokesman for Gordon Brown
said.

In response to the British request, John Bellinger, the US state
department's chief legal adviser, said in a letter to the Foreign Office last
August: 'We want to affirm the public disclosure of these documents is likely to
result in serious damage to US national security and could harm existing
intelligence information-sharing arrangements between our two governments.'"

The case will be reopened next month, due to previous conflicting claims on the part of the UK - in one hand, Miliband carries the manufactured August threat letter of Bellinger, on the other hand he denied that the US threatened to stop sharing intel with the UK. It's hard to imagine that the high court judges will continue to surpress this evidence. After all, their basis for doing so just disappeared. Unless the United States would like to continue the charade of empty threats vis-a-vis intelligence sharing, and Britain would like to comply, I think it's game over. Though currently in the process of getting screwed by the Obama DoJ stateside, (Mohamed et al v Jeppesen), it seems like Binyam might score a victory in the UK. Perhaps, a victory in the UK might encourage the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reject the state secrets privilege claim of the Obama DoJ. Let's hope so.

Time Is Of The Essence - Close Gitmo Now

You know, sometimes it amazes me that the Obama transition team, widely hailed for getting its act together quickly and being well-organized and efficient, is now dragging its feet on a number of truly life-or-death issues relating to torture and Guantanamo. They have begun their review of the detainee case files there - but it is completely unclear as to what the conditions are at Guantanamo now. If Lt Col Yvonne Bradley's account is true, the prison guards should be behind bars for the way they are STILL treating detainees. If they're still operating under Bush policy, these abusive guards are now, simply enough, criminals (seriously, this is pretty cut and dry)- and we should be able to read about their arrests in the papers. So where are those stories? When will the Obama administration's so-called commitment to transparency and accountability include letting us know if detainees are being treated humanely? When do the human rights monitors go in - or when is some type of team dedicated to investigating prison guard misconduct announced, assembled, and put to work? There is no reason why the situation at Guantanamo should be so vaguely presented to Americans. Saying "give Obama time, it's only been x number of days" is an inadequate response.

While Obama & co. fiddle around in Washington, their legal representatives in the Justice Department have taken recent steps elsewhere that suggest the review of Guantanamo detainees will not result in real, fair criminal trials for detainees. Is the same Obama DoJ that wants Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc. dismissed for state security reasons going to allow fair trials of Gitmo detainees? At present, the logical answer to that question is no. Get ready for that fight.

The key to ending torture is not waiting on Obama. Hell, in two years, he will be facing a Republican opponent and readying for re-election. He will doubtless be challenged on each of his anti-torture policies, and it seems likely (based on today's GOP, anyway) that a Republican administration open to "coercive interrogation" will be presented as an alternative to whatever he does. We aren't out of the woods yet. What we need to do is push for legislation that is more effective than Obama's executive orders. There must be a concerted outcry each time Obama reverts to Bush policies, like unnecessarily invoking the state secrets privilege.

We can and should support Obama when he is right. But right now, he is going too slowly to be right - we must press him to be faster. Some Obama supporters may not yet feel comfortable protesting his administration - but trust me, he needs the pressure and our country needs to keep the torture/war crime discussion in the forefront.

Greg Bruno has a Gitmo overview here.

Who is Lt Col Yvonne Bradley?

Binyam Mohamed's lawyer has attracted attention in recent days, as she visits the UK to make the case for Mohamed's' immediate release from Guantanamo.

Here are two articles on Lt Col Bradley - McClatchy and BBC. Some snippets from McClatchy:

"Bradley, 45, who calls herself 'a lawyer and a soldier' and a 'lifelong
Republican,' told McClatchy in an interview that she blames the Bush
administration for Mohamed's arrest and for his treatment in captivity. Asked if
she thinks her client is innocent, Bradley replied that he 'was in the wrong
place at the wrong time.'

'If 9/11 never happened, this whole series of events would never have
happened,' Bradley said. 'This was an experiment that failed. It is a shame and
a legacy that will follow (the United States) in its history.'

...

Her views have changed dramatically since she joined Mohamed's legal team
in 2005. She said that when she was assigned to his case, she was 'a true
believer' in America's campaign against terrorism.

Bradley recalled that after she got a call to defend Mohamed at
Guantanamo Bay in 2005, she was ready to shut down her law practice in suburban
Philadelphia. 'I knew these were war crimes,' she said of the charges against
her client.

Then she received orders that her assignment would last 90 days. 'That
should have been my first warning that something was wrong,' she said. 'I can't
try a small possession of marijuana (case) in 90 days, let alone a major war
crime.'

When Bradley first visited Mohamed at Guantanamo Bay, she recalled, she
was 'scared,' although as a federal public defender she'd represented a serial
killer and other murderers on Death Row. 'I believed my government when they
told me he was a terrorist,' she said.

A review of Mohamed's charge sheet raised more questions. 'I was waiting
for the blood on his hands, the trigger finger, links to the dirty-bomb plot,'
she said. Instead, over time, she came to believe that 'his story was all spun
out by the CIA' after Mohamed was held in several countries, including
Afghanistan and Morocco — and, he alleges, tortured.

Bradley's defense of Mohamed has ruffled feathers and nearly landed her
in trouble."

Lt Col Bradley's dedication and ability is a testament to the potential of our legal system. Our refusal to try terrorist suspects in our existing criminal justice system discredits the work people like Lt Col Bradley do. And want to do.

We need more people like her - and we are not going to get them if we set up a separate criminal justice system for terrorist suspects, if we continue to invoke the state secrets privilege to completely dismiss cases that might reveal government corruption and criminal behavior.

We need to change course, drastically. Jerrold Nadler's legislation is a good step. The best step, of course - to investigate and prosecute Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.