Greenwald: Binyam Mohamed, war crimes investigations, and American exceptionalism

[Bolo Boffin]

This is Obama's shame. He has fully endorsed the Bush Administration's bullying tactics over revelations of how Binyam Mohamed was tortured into confessing.

Mr. Obama, when criminals hide behind the law to conceal their crimes, you must find a way to root those criminals out. The revelations about Mohamed do not violate any classified information vital to the security of the United States. This information has been classified to protect the guilty. It is a mockery of the law, and for you to endorse the very same threats in unmistakable language is unconscionable. I would not have this stain mar the achievements you are making, but this issue will do so. It threatens your very foundation of support, the hope that change will happen, that these actions will no longer be countenanced in America. You back up the Bush Administration in this matter to your own peril.

...the Bush administration threatened Britain that they would no longer give British authorities information about terrorist threats if Britian revealed to the world the details of Mohamed's torture. And this was a threat that the Obama administration clearly affirmed and even continued, as it actually thanked Britain for continuing to conceal this information and affirmed that Britain, as a result of its complicity in the concealment, could continue to receive intelligence from the U.S.:

In a statement, the White House said it "thanked the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information".

It added that this would "preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens".

That wasn't the only step the Obama administration has taken to keep concealed the treatment to which Mohamed was subjected. Mohamed is also one of the five plaintiffs suing Jeppesen, a Boeing subsidiary, for its role in his "renditions" -- the case where the Obama DOJ invoked the Bush theory of "state secrets" in order to demand that a federal court dismiss Mohamed's lawsuit before any facts could be revealed about what was done to him. As The Washington Independent's Daphne Evitar put it:

Call it what you will, the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration’s policy of concealing evidence that the U.S. sponsored torture and other abuse, humiliation and mistreatment of detainees. That is, as the U.K. court aptly noted, evidence of war crimes.

It looks like the Obama administration is increasingly being boxed into a corner: either it keeps concealing evidence that crimes were committed, in violation of the President’s recent pledges for a newly transparent government, or it lets the evidence come out and confronts the fact that it’s going to have to authorize some sort of an investigation of what abuses took place under the Bush administration and who was responsible.

ETA: And at this point, it may already be too late. It's hard to see how knowingly concealing evidence of war crimes does not irrevocably bind you into conspiracy charges. The cover-up, as they keep saying, is worse that the crime, and the Obama Administration has jumped into the cover-up without a life jacket.

[DCKit]

1. Is this issue really as one-dimensional as Greenwald would have us believe?

Or, perhaps a case where the new administration has simply said "Not YET"?

It's not as if they've got anything else on their plate, right?

[Bolo Boffin]

2. They have already reviewed the situation and are satisfied with their arm-in-arm stance with

the Bush Administration.

From yesterday:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/18/savage/index.html

These are not complaints that Obama has failed to act quickly enough to reverse Bush/Cheney policies. Indeed, there are many areas where Obama has explicitly said he needs time before deciding what he wants to do -- closing Guantanamo, proceeding with detainee trials; deciding if he wants to claim Bush's power to indefinitely detain "enemy combatants" on U.S. soil; responding to some FOIA requests, etc. Very few civil libertarians -- and certainly not me -- have objected to his needing more time before he finalizes his exact policies. That's perfectly reasonable. Some of these issues are truly complex, involve many moving parts, and require that many factions which he needs (e.g., inside the CIA) be placated. Taking some time is reasonable. The complaint is not that Obama has failed to move quickly enough to repudiate Bush/Cheney abuses. Virtually nobody is arguing that.

Rather, the criticisms are grounded in the opposite premise: these cases which have provoked objections are all cases where Obama has already taken affirmative actions to preserve and defend Bush/Cheney policies. In the State Secrets case, for example, the Obama DOJ explicitly rejected the ACLU's offer for more time, declaring they do not need or want more time, that they have had ample time to review the issues and have decided that they believe in the Bush/Cheney theory of what the State Secrets privilege allows. Here's what Greg Craig told Savage about why the Obama DOJ embraced Bush's State Secrets theory:

Mr. Craig said Mr. Holder and others reviewed the case and “came to the conclusion that it was justified and necessary for national security” to maintain their predecessor’s stance.

Can that be any clearer? Not even the Obama DOJ is claiming they needed more time. They're saying they had all the time they needed, so Obama supporters should really stop trying to defend them by offering up excuses that the Obama administration itself rejects.

The Charlie Savage article is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/us/politics/18policy.html?_r=2&hp

This is the Obama policy going forward. I would love to hear a reasonable explanation for Obama helping to cover up Bush Administration war crimes, of Obama's "got your back" to Bush's threats to withhold intelligence from the U.K. if the U.K. courts revealed non-classified information about Bush Administration war crimes. Maybe you could provide one. But "haven't had time" isn't an option that Obama's team is invoking. So why should you?

[DCKit]

3. Because the Obama administration is moving at light speed...

and I wasn't aware of this. Always hoping for the best, but on this, I heartily disagree with their stance. No more secret gubmint. We've had our fill.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5071365

[Bolo Boffin]

4. That's all right, I understand.

I do like many things that the Obama Administration is doing, and I don't expect perfection. But this? I do expect better than this.

Actually I can see one possible justification: that they are trying to put the criminals from the earlier administration at ease before they lower the boom. But time will tell and justice delayed for Mr. Mohamed is still a travesty.