That Sinking Feeling

My stomach dropped this morning. No, not a bad bagel but rather a headline in the Washington Post:

Justice Dept. Uses 'State Secrets' Defense, Obama Backs Bush Decision on Rendition Lawsuit

This is... unbelievable.

Although the president's January 22 order to ensure lawful interrogations was praised by Human Rights Watch and the Center for Constitutional Rights, both organizations expressed concern that the order leaves the door open to extraordinary renditions. Specifically, the Center for Constitutional Rights notes:

"[W]e caution that the order may leave an escape hatch if the CIA should want more tactics, i.e. torture, available in its arsenal. The Geneva conventions should be the only arbiter of what is possible for governments to do to human beings."

President Obama made repeated promises on the campaign trail to end torture and follow the rule of law. Laws like the United Nations Convention against Torture (ratified by the U.S. in 1994), which prohibits the return of persons to another state when there are substantial grounds to believe such person would be subject to torture or where the state has a pattern of human rights violations. Laws like International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ratified by the US in 1992), Torture Act 2000, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340, 2340A, and the The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998.

Under President Bush, the United States knowingly sent people to be tortured. In just one instance, we stopped a Canadian citizen (Maher Arar) at JFK International airport and rather than return him to his home, we held him incommunicado for two weeks and then sent him on to Syria. You remember Syria? It is one of the legs in the Axis of Evil stool.  Yes, yes, he retained his Syrian citizenship since it can't be renounced but he hadn't been there in more than 10 years.

And the promise that we won't do it again? I don't believe it. Not now.

This is not what I worked for. I don't expect perfection but it is simply unspeakable, unfathomable, and unacceptable that our president would continue this policy.

Photo Credit: Eisenheim on Flickr. Creative Commons License.

Comments

[Amy in Ohio]

I'm so disappointed. I didn't think I'd feel this way in FEBRUARY 2009.

[jaelithe]

The executive order you refer to is actually pretty clear when it comes to rendition, in my opinion. Obama ordered the formation of a special executive task force "to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."

This does leave the door open for removal of prisoners to other countries, but the order specifically states that such removal, as a matter of policy, should NOT result in torture or undermine U.S. treaty obligations (including the Geneva conventions). So, theoretically, the U.S. could transfer a prisoner to Sweden, but not Egypt.

That said, I am very disappointed that the President is not allowing this lawsuit to proceed. A key step in preventing torture from happening in the future is punishing those who ordered it in the past. We must hold the people responsible for violating the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions accountable; if we don't we all become their silent accomplices.

[Frank S.]

I agree on the disappointment, but a whole new administration has only come in a few weeks ago. Holder only got confirmed to take over last week. The staff (I conjecture) still has a nest of Bush moles doing what they do. The last thing you'd want is a snap decision that ends up opening up agents identities and effective tactics for truly sensitive operations.

For, bluntly, we don't know the details of the case, or what state secrets may be revealed aside from the whole torture question. And I expect even the best of attorneys would be pressed to get up to speed; I heard that the Bush people didn't even bother to make case files for some of the Gitmo detainees, since legal prosecution wasn't their concern. A simple answer in such a short time may be expecting too much.

I tend to think blogger Andrew Sullivan is on to something in his posts about the topic, describing this as a possible holding pattern ("no change") until this and other messes (such as dissolving economy) get under management.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/02/obama-bush-and.html

[Melissa]

Frank S. --

I'm not a lawyer so I'm only speaking as a reasonably informed citizen when I say that the state secrets defense for dismissing whole cases is utter crap. In United States v. Reynolds, SCOTUS said that there "must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer." SCOTUS stressed that such privilege was not to be undertaken lightly.

In this case, why not have the state secrets -- whatever they might be -- examined in camera as Reynolds intended?

Sure, it is possible that the new administration is stalling (Dahlia Lithwick offered up a couple of ideas on that front: http://www.slate.com/id/2210915) but if so, why not just ask for a stay?