Some Obama Folks Miffed about al-Haramain

In an article about the anticipated headaches Eric Holder will have once he’s confirmed as Attorney General today, some anonymous Obama figures reveal their thoughts about the last minute al-Haramain filings by Bush dead-enders.

The case dealing with the state secrets doctrine, which allows the government to rebuff lawsuits by invoking national security concerns, involves al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. A federal trial judge in San Francisco ruled that the government could not invoke the doctrine to block a lawsuit by al-Haramain, which has asserted that the government illegally listened in on its conversations.

The Bush administration used the doctrine to block more than two dozen lawsuits. In timing that was a bit of a surprise, the Justice Department lawyers who have handled the lawsuit filed a motion with the court an hour before Inauguration Day that held to the same position.

Some Obama administration figures regarded the filing before midnight on Jan. 19 as a rear-guard action to make it more difficult to reverse course.

The Justice Department has to file a new brief by Feb. 13. Jon B. Eisenberg, who represents al-Haramain, said the schedule meant that “Holder and company have to decide pretty quickly if they want to keep opposing this case with the state secrets doctrine.”

The case also provides an opportunity to have a court assess the Bush administration’s domestic wiretapping program. [my emphasis]

None of that, of course, explains what Obama will do once Holder and the rest of his department gets in place. None of it explains why Obama didn’t take a stronger stand when the dead-enders were filing documents in his name. 

But at least some folks in the Obama Administration are watching the dead-enders closely.

image_print
  1. FlakeyFoont says:

    Thanks for the new post. I admire your work. OT, I checked the website of the House Judiciary Committee and it says there are no hearings scheduled for today. I guess that means that Turdblossom was the only person who was to testify today?

    • emptywheel says:

      It was never finalized whether Turdblossom’s deposition was going to be public or not, so it’s not clear there would have been a hearing in any case.

      It’s often difficult to get actual Congressmen to show up for hearings on Monday or Friday.

  2. plunger says:

    Hopefully there are enough “true believers” within the Obama Administration to press issues such as these both within the Administration and (if dissatisfied with the pace of REAL change), in leaks to the media.

    You have to assume that whistleblowers are coming out of the woodwork to staffers within the Administration, and that those staffers subsequently feel beholden to these people to protect them, to have their stories heard – and their grievances addressed.

    If the Administration starts slow-rolling its own staff, or stonewalling true justice, we’re quite likely to hear about it one way or another.

  3. freepatriot says:

    Obama has to decide if he wants to own george bush’s war crimes or not

    george can’t lose his criminal culpability, but Barack Obama can share george’s criminal culpability

    but we’re only talking about crimes against humanity

    no big deal, right

    history is listening

  4. plunger says:

    Speaking of Turdblossom, his job was to ensure that the storyline being promoted and distributed to the media regarding the “selling of the war in Iraq” remained pristine.

    Who do you think was responsible for the twisting of the Pat Tillman story or the Jessica Lynch stories for American consumption?

    Further, if Rove was made aware that Tillman intended to meet with Chomsky to reveal his concerns about the war in Iraq (of course he was aware – he had top secret clearance), would he have gone as far as promoting the ultimate solution – the fratricide of Tillman – to ensure his silence?

    Was it Rove’s idea to out Plame in order to ensure that their WMD storyline could not be contradicted by the FACTS known within Brewster Jennings?

    Was it Rove’s idea to set-up Dan Rather with a forged document to ensure he was fired from CBS (thereby sending a message to ALL journalists who appreciate a steady paycheck)?

    Don’t underestimate his capabilities or his capacity for evil. The man has no soul (as his dancing clearly demonstrates).

    He had ALL the top secret information. Of course he used it. He had the ear of literally everyone – and he was “THE ARCHITECT” of their entire plan.

    The Crimes Of Karl Rove include Terrorism under the definition articulated by none other than the US State Department. Was “conspiracy to commit murder” among them as well?

    • LabDancer says:

      What are you doing?

      This is a logical and sharp-eyed follow up on a pretty interesting take by emptywheel [one I don’t think any other blog leader caught] on an important story with a lot of dimensions: NOT ONE of which provides any relevant or useful point of departure on Karl Rove. Meanwhile, your post in the category of ‘you’re not helping’ tin-foil foolery. Each and every one of the incidents you cite has a well-developed back story in which Rove’s role, ubiquitous if not nearly so as it is, is fairly well-known as to its general outlines, if not precisely nailed down; and in none of these cases is your re-casting of the [more than barely awful] dimensions of Rove’s role justified. And if you wanted to pick out incidents to strengthen your point as to his personification of evil pervasive thru the BC administration, why leave out the best two candidates in the Segielman railroading & the US attorneys purge? And conversely why throw in the theme at all on a post concerning an incident where I for one would have a lot of trouble seeing how he’s had any interest let alone involvement that moreover carries little that is familiar to the main veins of his sins in government?

      Give your head a shake.

    • freepatriot says:

      what labdancer said

      especially this”

      your post in the category of ‘you’re not helping’ tin-foil foolery.

      get your own fucking blog, dude

      you look like a crazy fucking dickwad interrupting threads around here

      shove yer fucking tinfoil up yer ass and stay on topic

  5. SaltinWound says:

    Worst case is that they’re upset about the rear guard action because they want to be in control, not because they’re against state secrets in this case. Now that Obama has made renditions his own…

    • LabDancer says:

      Whoa: “made renditions on his own”.

      What’s going on this morning?

      I guess our long national nightmare of being crushed under the boots of the ceaseless, unrelenting drones of Obama, over the course of 340 or so HOURS, is starting to get to some folks.

      • JohnJ says:

        Yikes..a slippery slope to tread on.

        The question is, do we continue to use “renditions” or the extra-legal version?

        It seems to me that Israel was successful at bringing a few Nazis to justice that way, but would their work be “extraordinary” or simply “renditions”?

        I guess the real test would be if someone came in the night and took chimpy or darth to the Hague, would we complain?

        • freepatriot says:

          the real test would be if someone came in the night and took chimpy or darth to the Hague, would we complain?

          as long as I don’t have to pay for it …

          well, okay, even if I have to pay for it

  6. LabDancer says:

    Even here some folks have pretty short memories, so I don’t think it’s out of line noting that Ms E Wheel picked up on a tiny passage in a report in WIRED from one of their folks who was present in court, having to do with the one of the most under-appreciated theatrical tools: silence. And now we have this from Neil Lewis at NYT that fits with that take from Fearless Leader hand in glove.

    It’s also important to ratchet up this story, because it’s not as if one sees it OTHER than from WIRED – reports from which very often have a tendency to emphasize geektech angles over nuance [fair enough, given the apparent emotional age & attention span of their typical reader commenters, at least on their THREAT LEVEL blog] – & on emptywheel’s blog. That is: Fearless Leader sees both the macro and micro view, and both are necessary to appreciate.

    That said, I’m going to ask Ms E if you’ll consider that shot at Obama – who at the time of the FILING of the dead-enders refortified shot was [a] not yet in office, [b] without his people in office, [c] without his choice for a-g having been confirmed, [d] without lawful authority to intervene, and [e] a bit busy.

    What I’d like to thing about this is that Neil Lewis – or one of his sources – caught your posts and the threads on them here – because this case has got a lot to say on wider issues, quite apart from serving up justice to the parties directly involved.

  7. SaltinWound says:

    Wheel, I agree that Hilzoy puts the best possible spin on this, but I don’t trust Obama with renditions any more than I trusted Bush or Clinton. I think some people are going to end up feeling foolish, trusting Obama when he is intentionally not being forthright on certain issues. These tend to be the issues where we find out he is not with us.

    • emptywheel says:

      Right.

      But at the same time, ignoring the actual wording of an EO to make an argument that that EO says something that is not at all what that EO says is pretty inexcusable, IMO.

      Yes, we need to remain vigilant about Obama. But we don’t need to, at the same time, throw out our ability to, you know, read.

  8. LabDancer says:

    If those who see no distinction between kidnapping and rendition are correct, then [a] a whole bunch of authoritative and standard dictionaries, encyclopedias and texts are wrong, and [b] so far I’ve ducked the consequences of that serial kidnapping binge while in government prosecutions.

    • JTMinIA says:

      Maybe I’m close to being one of those people who do not see a difference.

      If you “kidnap” someone because you think they’re a bad guy (aka citizen’s arrest), you need to be ready to prove that it was appropriate or else it really is kidnapping and you are liable.

      I’d like to see the same rules apply internationally. In other words, I have no problem with any country grabbing people off the street as long as they are ready to prove that it was appropriate. To balance the need to protect the innocent, I do not accept any form of secret rendition. If you aren’t ready to show why it was appropriate, then, I’m sorry, you can’t do it. Or, if you really think it must be done and you refuse to explain why, then suck it up and take the rap for kidnapping. After all, we’re taught in grade-school that sacrificing self for country is noble.

  9. emptywheel says:

    And then there’s this one from Scott Horton:

    The Los Angeles Times just got punked. Its description of the European Parliament’s report is not accurate. (Point of disclosure: I served as an expert witness in hearings leading to the report.) But that’s the least of its problems. It misses the difference between the renditions program, which has been around since the Bush 41 Administration at least (and arguably in some form even in the Reagan Administration) and the extraordinary renditions program which was introduced by Bush 43 and clearly shut down under an executive order issued by President Obama in his first week.

    There are two fundamental distinctions between the programs. The extraordinary renditions program involved the operation of long-term detention facilities either by the CIA or by a cooperating host government together with the CIA, in which prisoners were held outside of the criminal justice system and otherwise unaccountable under law for extended periods of time. A central feature of this program was rendition to torture, namely that the prisoner was turned over to cooperating foreign governments with the full understanding that those governments would apply techniques that even the Bush Administration considers to be torture. This practice is a felony under current U.S. law, but was made a centerpiece of Bush counterterrorism policy.

    The earlier renditions program regularly involved snatching and removing targets for purposes of bringing them to justice by delivering them to a criminal justice system. It did not involve the operation of long-term detention facilities and it did not involve torture.

    • selise says:

      re scott horton:

      The earlier renditions program regularly involved snatching and removing targets for purposes of bringing them to justice by delivering them to a criminal justice system. It did not involve the operation of long-term detention facilities and it did not involve torture.

      from jane mayer: OUTSOURCING TORTURE The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.

      The obvious choice, Scheuer said, was Egypt. The largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid after Israel, Egypt was a key strategic ally, and its secret police force, the Mukhabarat, had a reputation for brutality. Egypt had been frequently cited by the State Department for torture of prisoners. According to a 2002 report, detainees were “stripped and blindfolded; suspended from a ceiling or doorframe with feet just touching the floor; beaten with fists, whips, metal rods, or other objects; subjected to electrical shocks; and doused with cold water [and] sexually assaulted.” Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s leader, who came to office in 1981, after President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by Islamist extremists, was determined to crack down on terrorism. His prime political enemies were radical Islamists, hundreds of whom had fled the country and joined Al Qaeda. Among these was Ayman al-Zawahiri, a physician from Cairo, who went to Afghanistan and eventually became bin Laden’s deputy.

      In 1995, Scheuer said, American agents proposed the rendition program to Egypt, making clear that it had the resources to track, capture, and transport terrorist suspects globally—including access to a small fleet of aircraft. Egypt embraced the idea. “What was clever was that some of the senior people in Al Qaeda were Egyptian,” Scheuer said. “It served American purposes to get these people arrested, and Egyptian purposes to get these people back, where they could be interrogated.” Technically, U.S. law requires the C.I.A. to seek “assurances” from foreign governments that rendered suspects won’t be tortured. Scheuer told me that this was done, but he was “not sure” if any documents confirming the arrangement were signed.

      A series of spectacular covert operations followed from this secret pact. On September 13, 1995, U.S. agents helped kidnap Talaat Fouad Qassem, one of Egypt’s most wanted terrorists, in Croatia. Qassem had fled to Europe after being linked by Egypt to the assassination of Sadat; he had been sentenced to death in absentia. Croatian police seized Qassem in Zagreb and handed him over to U.S. agents, who interrogated him aboard a ship cruising the Adriatic Sea and then took him back to Egypt. Once there, Qassem disappeared. There is no record that he was put on trial. Hossam el-Hamalawy, an Egyptian journalist who covers human-rights issues, said, “We believe he was executed.”

      A more elaborate operation was staged in Tirana, Albania, in the summer of 1998. According to the Wall Street Journal, the C.I.A. provided the Albanian intelligence service with equipment to wiretap the phones of suspected Muslim militants. Tapes of the conversations were translated into English, and U.S. agents discovered that they contained lengthy discussions with Zawahiri, bin Laden’s deputy. The U.S. pressured Egypt for assistance; in June, Egypt issued an arrest warrant for Shawki Salama Attiya, one of the militants. Over the next few months, according to the Journal, Albanian security forces, working with U.S. agents, killed one suspect and captured Attiya and four others. These men were bound, blindfolded, and taken to an abandoned airbase, then flown by jet to Cairo for interrogation. Attiya later alleged that he suffered electrical shocks to his genitals, was hung from his limbs, and was kept in a cell in filthy water up to his knees. Two other suspects, who had been sentenced to death in absentia, were hanged.

      On August 5, 1998, an Arab-language newspaper in London published a letter from the International Islamic Front for Jihad, in which it threatened retaliation against the U.S. for the Albanian operation—in a “language they will understand.” Two days later, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were blown up, killing two hundred and twenty-four people.

      The U.S. began rendering terror suspects to other countries, but the most common destination remained Egypt.

      • Stephen says:

        A bit OT but it seems that a country or the U.N. can declare bush a war criminal then U.S. agents can pick him up and deliver him and others to justice in another country. I’ll buy that joint effort scenario.

  10. JTMinIA says:

    Shorter Horton: as a modifier to the word “rendition,” the term “extraordinary” should best be read as “illegal.”

  11. BillE says:

    FWIW – My questions posted on Whitehouse.gov about this and a few other questions still not answered or replied to in any way. As a campaign volunteer i thought they would at least answer with an automated we got your question email

  12. MeteorBlades says:

    The effort by Horton and Hilzoy (both of whom I respect immensely) to paint Greg Miller’s reporting – there are actually two stories, another appeared on January 23 – on this subject as “breathless” or missing the point indicates a failure to thoroughly read his stories in this. Yes, the sources are unnamed, which, as we all know, can have its difficulties. But there is no evidence in either story to indicate that Miller has confused “extraordinary rendition” with “rendition.”

    Lewis’s take on this is somewhat encouraging in what has been a disturbing couple of weeks in these matters. We’ll all have a better idea of what direction things will take when the al Haramain briefs are filed this week. But can the folks who keep telling us all to “chill” and saying there’s no reason to be skeptical give us better evidence for why they’re not skeptical?