War on Terror Watch: Obama's Crew Trying, Failing to Halt Court Cases on Surveillance

Another episode in the Obama tale of "Not What We Say But What We Do" in the War on Terror:

On Friday, a US Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the claim of Obama's Justice Department that surveillance without warrants (if you prefer, "domestic spying"), a procedure extended by the Bush Administration, came under the category of "state secrets" and could not be reviewed by the courts.

The case arose when Bush officials accidentally sent classified documents to the lawyers of a charity, the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, being investigated by the Treasury Department. The documents covered attorney-client discussions which were monitored by the National Security Agency.

In a second case, on Wednesday Justice Department lawyers vigorously supported Congressional legislation which granted full immunity to US telecommunications companies that participated in the Bush Administration's domestic surveillance programme.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation of San Francisco approached the US District Court to rule that the activity of the telecommunications companies was unconstitutional. Government lawyers responded, "[This] is the law of the land, and as such the Department of Justice defends it in court."

As a Senator of Illinois, Obama said he opposed the immunity clause but supported the bill for warrantless surveillance which included it.

Obama Administration to Detainees in Afghanistan: You Have No Rights

Lawyers for the Justice Department told a Federal Court on Friday that the Obama Administration "adheres to [the] previously articulated position" on the rights of detainees held in facilities such as Camp Bagram in Afghanistan.

In effect, President Obama's officials are maintaining the Bush Administration position, first set out at Guantanamo Bay but extended to US prisons around the world that "enemy combatants" have no right to challenge their detention. The prisoners at Camp Bagram can thus be held indefinitely without any prospect of a hearing in a military tribunal or US or international court.

Last year the Supreme Court voted 5-4 that detainees at Guantanamo Bay did have the right to a legal process but declined to extend the ruling to those held in other US prisons.

Failing the Torture Test? Obama Blocks Judicial Review of Bush Rendition Policy

Update: Irony Alert. State Department's DipNotes says, "Acting Spokesman [Robert] Wood states that with this President and this Secretary, human rights is a high priority issue."

As we debated on Enduring America whether President Obama was going to make a meaningful change to the Bush Administration's rendition policy, preventing the despatch of detainees to countries where they might be tortured or denied legal rights, I was waiting for developments in a court case in San Francisco. Five plaintiffs were suing a subsidiary of Boeing, Jeppesen, which carried out rendition flights.

Well, the news is now out that the President's men want to keep the matter behind closed doors:

A source inside of the Ninth U.S. District Court tells ABC News that a representative of the Justice Department stood up to say that its position hasn't changed, that new administration stands behind arguments that previous administration made, with no ambiguity at all. The DOJ lawyer said the entire subject matter remains a state secret.

An American Civil Liberties Union attorney who represented the plaintiffs reacted:

We are shocked and deeply disappointed that the Justice Department has chosen to continue the Bush administration’s practice of dodging judicial scrutiny of extraordinary rendition and torture. This was an opportunity for the new administration to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition, but instead it has chosen to stay the course. Now we must hope that the court will assert its independence by rejecting the government’s false claims of state secrets and allowing the victims of torture and rendition their day in court.

Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan offer damning indictments of the Obama Administration and the Justice Department, while a New York Times article confirms the original leak of the Government's position.