Obama echoes Bush: CIA abductees can’t sue

On your point about their being assured their actions were legal at the time: ignorance of the law is no valid defense anywhere else in criminal law. Why should it be a valid defense in this case?

Leave aside for the moment the issue of whether you believe that the U.S. Government should have the right to abduct people anywhere in the world, ship them to faraway prisons and hold them there indefinitely without charges or any rights at all. The Bush DOJ -- and now the Obama DOJ -- maintain the President does and should have that right, and that's an issue that has been extensively debated. It was, after all, one of the centerpieces of the Bush regime of radicalism, lawlessness and extremism.

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."

My, what a ringing and inspiring defense of habeas corpus that was from candidate Barack Obama. So moving and eloquent and passionate. And that George W. Bush sure was an awful tyrant for trying to "create a legal black hole at Guantanamo" -- apparently, all Good People devoted to a restoration of the rule of law and the Constitution know that the place where the U.S. should "create a legal black hole" for abducted detainees is Bagram, not Guantanamo. What a fundamental difference that is.

Even worse, here is what Obama said on the floor of the Senate in September, 2006, when he argued in favor of an amendment to the Military Commissions Act that would have restored habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees. I defy anyone to read this and reconcile what he said then to what he is doing now:

"The bottom line is this: Current procedures under the CSRT are such that a perfectly innocent individual could be held and could not rebut the Government's case and has no way of proving his innocence.

"I would like somebody in this Chamber, somebody in this Government, to tell me why this is necessary. I do not want to hear that this is a new world and we face a new kind of enemy. I know that. . . . But as a parent, I can also imagine the terror I would feel if one of my family members were rounded up in the middle of the night and sent to Guantanamo without even getting one chance to ask why they were being held and being able to prove their innocence.

"This is not just an entirely fictional scenario, by the way. We have already had reports by the CIA and various generals over the last few years saying that many of the detainees at Guantanamo should not have been there. As one U.S. commander of Guantanamo told the Wall Street Journal: 'Sometimes, we just didn't get the right folks.'

"We all know about the recent case of the Canadian man who was suspected of terrorist connections, detained in New York, sent to Syria--through a rendition agreement--tortured, only to find out later it was all a case of mistaken identity and poor information. . . .

"This is an extraordinarily difficult war we are prosecuting against terrorists. There are going to be situations in which we cast too wide a net and capture the wrong person. . . .

"But what is avoidable is refusing to ever allow our legal system to correct these mistakes. By giving suspects a chance--even one chance--to challenge the terms of their detention in court, to have a judge confirm that the Government has detained the right person for the right suspicions, we could solve this problem without harming our efforts in the war on terror one bit. . . .

"Most of us have been willing to make some sacrifices because we know that, in the end, it helps to make us safer. But restricting somebody's right to challenge their imprisonment indefinitely is not going to make us safer. In fact, recent evidence shows it is probably making us less safe.

"In Sunday's New York Times, it was reported that previous drafts of the recently released National Intelligence Estimate, a report of 16 different Government intelligence agencies, describe "actions by the United States Government that were determined to have stoked the jihad movement, like the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay."

"This is not just unhelpful in our fight against terror, it is unnecessary. We don't need to imprison innocent people to win this war. For people who are guilty, we have the procedures in place to lock them up. That is who we are as a people. We do things right, and we do things fair. . . .

"The world is watching what we do today in America. They will know what we do here today, and they will treat all of us accordingly in the future--our soldiers, our diplomats, our journalists, anybody who travels beyond these borders. I hope we remember this as we go forward. I sincerely hope we can protect what has been called the 'great writ' -- a writ that has been in place in the Anglo-American legal system for over 700 years.

"Mr. President, this should not be a difficult vote. I hope we pass this amendment because I think it is the only way to make sure this underlying bill preserves all the great traditions of our legal system and our way of life.

"I yield the floor."

So that Barack Obama -- the one trying to convince Democrats to make him their nominee and then their President -- said that abducting people and imprisoning them without charges was (a) un-American; (b) tyrannical; (c) unnecessary to fight Terrorism; (d) a potent means for stoking anti-Americanism and fueling Terrorism; (e) a means of endangering captured American troops, Americans traveling abroad and Americans generally; and (f) a violent betrayal of core, centuries-old Western principles of justice. But today's Barack Obama, safely ensconced in the White House, fights tooth and nail to preserve his power to do exactly that.

Under Boumediene, Bagram detainees who are not Afghan citizens, who were not captured in Afghanistan, and who have been held for an unreasonable amount of time -- here, over six years -- without adequate process may invoke the protections of the Suspension Clause, and hence the privilege of habeas corpus, based on an application of the Boumediene factors. Three petitioners are in that category. Because there is no adequate substitute for the writ of habeas corpus for Bagram detainees, those petitioners are entitled to seek habeas review in this Court.

WASHINGTON " The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight....

I will not tolerate hypocrisy of anyone who says one thing, but does the opposite. And that appears to be what Obama is doing right now.

Hi Debra! Thanks for dropping in, and thanks for your links.

Debra Law wrote:

I will not tolerate hypocrisy of anyone who says one thing, but does the opposite. And that appears to be what Obama is doing right now.

True -- and what's worse, it seems to be a fairly consistent feature across policy issues. His policy towards the banks has the same problem. The healthcare policy his campaign proposed similarly falls short of his rhetoric, and can't be expected to get gutsier now that he's negotiating for a majority in Congress for it.

I never thought I'd ever echo Rush Limbaugh, but there are quite a few points on which I want Obama to fail these days. It's a good thing his threadbare state secrets doctrine is getting its comeuppance in court.

. . . On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. . . .

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. . . .

Debra, I have a question for you, since you know more about lawsuit tactics than I do.

Could it be that Obama is a good guy after all, and that his lawyers are arguing for the legal doctrines of the Bush administration because he wants them to lose? After all, if the courts were to shoot down those legal doctrines, that would create legal precedents, binding future administrations in a way that a mere change of policy wouldn't. Could it be that that's what he wants?

I'm asking because I've heard people float similar ideas about Obama's approach to the banking crisis. I disagree with these people, but respect them enough to explore if they may be right and I might be wrong.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

Schieffer: Did you talk about that in your big meeting with bankers at the White House?

President Obama: I talked to them. And what I said was, look, first of all, there are a lot of bankers that are doing good work in the community, that are acting responsibly, that haven't taken huge risks. I understand that. But understand that for the average single mom who is just barely struggling to pay her mortgage or medical bills for her kid, who's paying her taxes, who's playing by the rules and then finds out that a taxpayer-assisted firm is paying out multi-million dollar bonuses, that's just not acceptable. Show some restraint. Show some, show that you get that this is a crisis and everybody has to make sacrifices.

Schieffer: And what did they say?

President Obama: They agreed. And they recognized it. Now, the proof of the pudding's in the eating. So I expect to see that restraint operate.

If Obama has good motives for reneging on his promises and defending the indefensible, then he should come forward and explain. His silence in the face of the actions of his Administration is just as intolerable as the hypocrisy.

Thomas would this be a good time for me to invite everyone to my facebook page to join the "Should Have Elected Hillary" group?

No, Bipolar Bear. For one thing, it's moot; for another thing, Hillary Rodham Clinton has many virtues, but I don't expect that limiting her own powers would be one of them.

Colbert hammered Obama on this issue--first 2-3 minutes of his tax day show:

President Obama said officials involved in the questionable interrogations would not be subject to prosecution because the intelligence community must be provided "with the confidence" it needs to do its job.

"This is a time for reflection, not retribution," he said. "I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past."

Amnesty's Cox rejected that argument.

"The United States has had plenty of time for reflection -- there is very little information in the newly released material that hadn't leaked out long before," he said. Obama "also said that the United States is a nation of laws. But laws only have meaning if they are enforced.

"The United States has laws prohibiting torture, and two-thirds of Americans support an investigation into what has been done in their name. That is not seeking to lay blame; that is a call for justice long overdue."

Kabul, Afghanistan - As Fatima Fedayee clutched a banner that read "Equality Is Our Right," an angry man charged toward her and knocked her to the ground. As soon as she picked herself up, another man hurled stones at her. Then a group of men surrounded her, screaming unsavory epithets.

But Ms. Fedayee kept holding the banner, chanting "Islam means equality!" She kept up the rallying cry for more than an hour Wednesday, alongside nearly 300 other women, protesting a law that they say would greatly restrict women's freedoms.

These demonstrators belong to a women's movement that has emerged with unusual boldness in recent weeks to fight the law. Unlike other campaigns around gender issues, this marks one of the few times women have openly confronted the conservative attitudes in this country " and the first time in years they have demanded their rights in a public demonstration. Like Fedayee, many have withstood hostile, even violent, opposition " sometimes from other women.

"We've been silent for all of these years, but we can't tolerate this anymore," Fedayee says.

Law would empower husbands

The law that sparked the outrage " which was passed by both houses of parliament and signed late last month by President Hamid Karzai " regulates the actions of women of the Shiite minority, which makes up about 15 percent of the population. Among the bill's many articles, activists point to a few particularly oppressive statutes: that women should get their husband's permission before leaving the house, and husbands have the right to have sex with their wives whenever they wish.

An outpouring of international criticism has pushed President Karzai to shelve the bill for now and pledge to reconsider any portions of the law that contradict the Afghan constitution, which guarantees equal rights for men and women. The measure also stipulates that no law should contradict Islam " a fact some conservatives use to argue that the law in question can be reconciled with the constitution....

Come on, Debra, which president enforces human rights at a time of -- gasp -- disunity? Certainly you didn't believe that Obama's posturing next to Lincoln was ever more than campaign candy -- or did you?

Not too long ago, when Barack Obama campaigned for the presidency, he was all about human rights. And man did he chastise the Republicans’ approach to them. Time and time again, Obama emphasized (and I’m quoting from memory here) that under his rule America wouldn’t lead the world through the example of its power, but through the power of its example. One of his first acts as president was to announce the shutdown of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, which had come to symbolize the Bush administration’s fast, loose, and secretive approach to human rights....