<<Prev Home PDF Next>>
U.S. Government’s Motion to Dismiss in Jewel v. NSA
U.S. District Court Notice of Dismissal
tions of Pakistani citizens, the U.S. brokered a deal to allow the Pakistani government to choose targets for the attacks as well. The CIA attacks are estimated to have killed somewhere between 326 and 538 people, many of whom were innocent bystanders, in
Obama’s frst year. While the public grows more weary of constant war,
many advocate a further reliance on the drones, the operation of which
is much like playing a video game.
Habeas Corpus:
In
2006, Bush’s Military Commission’s Act denied the writ of habeas corpus
to military detainees, allowing for their indefnite imprisonment
without any option of appealing to the courts for release. The
administration drew intense criticism for maintaining its facility at
Guantanamo Bay without allowing its prisoners to challenge their
detention.
In 2009, Obama defended the open-ended detention of
some prisoners, provided there were “clear, defensible, and lawful
standards;” however, these standards were never explained.
Obama
maintains that he plans to close the public relations fasco that is
Guantanamo Bay, despite having delayed its closure by at least a year.
However, his administration fought for and won the ability in May 2010
to deny the writ of habeas corpus to any detainees at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. Currently, at least 645 prisoners are being detained at that facility.
To read more:
House Subcommittee Hearing Questions Legality of Drone Attacks
The New Yorker: The Risks of the CIA’s Predator Drones
It was a time of national reversal;
the election of Barack Obama was
a complete denunciation
of the Bush administration.
Obama, we thought, would bring
truth and openness to American politics.
He would bring us back into
the international community.
He was just so different.
To read more:
Senate Approves Detainee Bill Backed by Bush
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/ AR2006092800824.html)
Remarks by the President on National Security
Plan to Move Guantanamo Detainees Faces New Delay
Court: No Habeas Rights for Prisoners in Afghanistan
Extraordinary Rendition:
The
Bush administration openly supported the policy of extraordinary
rendition, under which prisoners of the U.S. military could be secretly
taken to prison facilities in foreign countries where their
interrogators were not subject to U.S. law.
In the early days of the Obama administration, Obama issued executive orders which allow the CIA to continue its program of extraordinary renditions, and to maintain secret detention facilities so long as prisoners are only held on a “short term” basis.
Further,
Obama’s Justice Department maintained the Bush Administration’s
argument against allowing Boeing, Inc. to be sued by fve men who claim
they were victims of extraordinary rendition, stating that national security would be put at risk were the lawsuit allowed.
Certainly,
there are some differences between the presidencies of Barack Obama and
George Bush. And Obama should be praised for those areas in which he
has brought about positive results. However, a president who promises a
“new era of openness” should be held accountable when he defends
policies of secrecy and subversion. And a president who promises an era
of “international cooperation” should be held accountable when he
supports undemocratic elections and denies basic human rights to the
citizens of other countries. It is precisely because Barack Obama
promised something different that he should be held to a higher
standard. When he supports the same immoral policies as his
predecessor, he shouldn’t expect the support of those who elected him.
And if he can’t live up to his promises of change, then he will merely
cement his legacy as yet another “lesser of two evils” …TM
To read more:
Obama Preserves Rendition as Counter-Terrorism Tool
Rendition Case Under Bush Gets Obama Backing
Illegal Wiretapping:
In
2006, President Bush openly supported the National Security Agency’s
policy of listening in on American’s telephone conversations and
blocked a Justice Department probe of the practice. The administration
argued that any investigation would risk national security.
In
2010, the Obama administration adopted the same argument. In a motion
to dismiss a case against the NSA for illegal wiretapping, the
administration stated that the NSA cannot be investigated without “harm to national security.” Further, the administration invoked an even more dangerous argument, “sovereign immunity,” maintaining that the U.S. Government has an inherent immunity from any prosecution for illegal spying.
Despite the lack of precedent for such an argument, the Obama administration won its dismissal.
To read more:
Bush Thwarted Probe into NSA Wiretapping