Another Brick in the Wall...

First is was the the failure of the Obama administration to begin investigations of war crimes under the Bush administration. You remember...water-boarding, stress positions, torture. Then it was the request for dismissal of Jewel v. NSA. And, now it's this...

Obama to Appeal Detainee Ruling

On April 2nd, United States District Judge John D. Bates, ruled that three prisoners at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan were entitled to the same legal rights GITMO detainees were granted last year by the US Supreme Court. On Friday, the Obama administration announced its intent to appeal this ruling.

Habeas Corpus has been a cornerstone of jurisprudence since the Magna Carta, or even earlier, by some accounts. It does not serve to determine the innocence or guilt of the defendant but rather, it serves to determine whether or not the defendant is legally imprisoned. In the cases of the men being detained at Bagram, they were captured outside of Afghanistan and have been imprisoned for some six years without charge or trial.

The Bush administration claimed the authority to suspend habeas corpus in the cases of those individuals described as "enemy combatants", including those interred at GITMO. This policy was later enshrined in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. It wasn't until 2008 that the US Supreme Court in BOUMEDIENE v. BUSH repudiated the Bush administration by stating that the denial of habeas corpus for GITMO detainees was unconstitutional and that they were entitled to hearings where they could contest their imprisonment and the charges against them. By extension, this ruling could apply to those in US custody elsewhere...such as at Bagram Airbase, and this is what Judge Bates has done. Why the Obama administration would choose to challenge what appears to be settled law is disappointing and, in this case, disturbing.

President Obama rode into office on a pledge of change, yet here his administration stands, defending the very policies of the Bush administration that played a key role in undermining America's reputation around the world as a beacon of hope and justice. As a former professor of constitutional law, President Obama should not need to be reminded by a layman that he cannot "...support and defend the Constitution..." by undermining the very foundations upon which it stands. Nor should he need to be reminded that using the authority of the office to cover up the crimes of his predecessor is nothing less than complicity in those crimes.

Additional Sources:

Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now

Judge Rules Some Prisoners at Bagram Have Right of Habeas Corpus

MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT

An Open Letter...

...To President Barack Obama.

Dear Sir,

In November of 2008 you were elected to the office of President of the United States by me, and millions of other Americas, on a platform of hope and change. But recently, it seems to be more a case of "Meet the new boss...Same as the old boss".

It began with the reluctance of your administration to live up to its duties in investigating the Bush administration for its apparent violation of US and international human rights law regarding the abuse of detainees in US custody. Now your administration seems to not only be siding with the late, unlamented Bush administration, but are actively seeking to expand the authority they claimed to conduct domestic surveillance operations on US citizens without a warrant! This in response to the lawsuit filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The motion submitted by your DOJ does nothing short of gutting the Fourth Amendment, and all in the name of "state secrets". As a former professor of constitutional law, Mr. President, it should not be necessary for me...a layman...to tell you that a right unenforced is no right at all. Secondly, using the doctrine of "state secrets" as a means of preventing the investigation of a crime is no better than complicity in that crime.

Make no mistake sir, you and your administration have been doing some good things. But, as we said in the Navy, "One 'Awww shit!' wipes out all of your 'Attaboy!'s". In this case you have a MAJOR "Awww shit!"

Will they stop at nothing?

It appears that the GOP is attempting to beat the Obama administration into submission on the issue of releasing Bush administration torture memos. According to Scott Horton of "The Daily Beast", the Senate GOP assmonkeys are:

...(N)ow privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. - Scott Horton

...Namely the confirmation of Dawn Johnsen to the head of DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel.

If, the actions sanctioned in these memos was legal as they, and former members of the Bush administration have long held, and still do, they have nothing to worry about.

The release of the memos, already cleared by Attorney General Holder, has apparently caused a rift in the Obama administration, this according to Michael Isikoff of "Newsweek". The effort to block the release of these documents is being led by John Brennan, once considered by the Obama administration to head the CIA. Brennan has apparently persuaded DCIA Panetta that it is in the national interest to block the release of these memos. It would seem that avoiding embarrassment of "...foreign intelligence services who cooperated with the CIA, either by participating in overseas "extraordinary renditions" of high-level detainees or housing them in overseas "black site" prisons..." trumps the rule of law.

Unfortunately, for the GOP and the late, unlamented Bush administration, the actions outlined in these memos are illegal under US law and treaty obligation and international law. The attempts by Senate Republicans to suppress these documents would seem, at the very least, to constitute attempts to suppress evidence of criminal activities sanctioned by the Bush administration...If not outright collusion.

Mr. Brennan's, and now DCIA Pannetta's, efforts to suppress these documents in the name of national security is equally troubling. Did we not have enough of this under the Bush administration? Using the rubric of national security to suppress the evidence of criminal activity is collusion in said activity.

The only way to put this issue to rest is to release all documents pertaining to it and appoint a special prosecutor with the mandate, the staff and the funding to follow the evidence wherever, and to whoever, it may lead.