Link:

The Obama administration on Thursday released controversial memos outlining the legal rationale for interrogation techniques the Central Intelligence Agency used against terror suspects apprehended overseas, and vowed not to prosecute those that carried out what the administration described as "torture."

"It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department," Attorney General Eric Holder said.

Thursday's developments underscore a quandary of sorts the administration finds itself in -- even as President Barack Obama is to be commended for his transparency in his bid to distance himself from the policies of the Bush administration.

Even as the new president has renounced those Bush administration practices, Justice Department lawyers are defending the previous administration's top officials already accused of authorizing and carrying out those policies.

Bruce Fein, former deputy attorney general under Reagan and frequent critic of Bush policies:

President Obama has embraced the national security psychology of the Bush-Cheney duumvirate not only in matters of secrecy, but the entire range of civil liberties abuses justified by a purported global and endless war against international terrorism.

Indeed, Obama has invoked state secrets in litigation to conceal torture, extraordinary rendition, illegal surveillance, or arbitrary detentions that have given rise to private damages litigation against former government officials. He has claimed that Bagram prison in Afghanistan is a sanctuary for United States lawlessness. He has asserted that the entire world is a battlefield against terrorism; thus, drones can be fired without a judicial warrant to kill persons suspected of Al Qaeda membership on the President's say-so alone.

Like President Bush, he has issued a presidential signing statement claiming plenary power over the use of the American military. He has claimed authority to detain United States citizens as "enemy combatants" indefinitely without accusation or trial.

In sum, on national security and the war on terrorism, Obama has shown that the more things change, the more they stay the same, despite his adept semantical juggleries.

Glenn Greenwald has a far more generous reading:

I'll have more details as soon as these memos are available. One can certainly criticize Obama for vowing that no CIA officials will be prosecuted if they followed DOJ memos (though that vow, notably, does not extend to Bush officials), but -- assuming the reports about redactions are correct -- there is no grounds for criticizing Obama here and substantial grounds for praising him.

dday has more at Hullabaloo.

The Left Coaster: The Bush administration's systematic destruction of the US military continues.

Consortiumblog: VA debated PR plan on Vets' suicides

Orcinus: Issues about the FLDS we're not discussing

Just because BUSHCO strips financial aid from college students with drug convictions, doesn't mean those same students are unfit to die in Iraq.

collateral news: A look at the origin of the modern state secrets priviliege, its illegitimate uses, and the threat it poses to an open society

Welshman: A disenchanted ex-Conservapedian speaks

You may remember the piece I wrote about this stalker Babe: "Cafferty debates with a Man-Stalker named Rachel Mardsen: “waterboarding is a swim lesson” The ex-FOXer who was escorted off their premises is at it again, or so it would seem. And it looks like Sarkozy might be her next target:

A right-wing former Fox TV pundit is being investigated for criminal harassment after accusing an ex-boyfriend of leaking Canadian anti-terrorism secrets. I don't know why he (gave me the documents)," she said yesterday in an email response to an interview request, "other than perhaps he was too cheap to buy me jewelry and figured state secrets would be a good substitute." She denied harassing the officer.

"I live in NYC," she wrote. "If I was going to 'stalk' anyone from that kind of a massive distance, it sure wouldn't be that loser.

"Anyone who reads my blog or column knows it would be (French President) Nicolas Sarkozy!" Backhurst's lawyer Andrew McKay said Marsden is harassing the officer through emails and inaccurate website postings.

"Her conduct is simply outrageous," he said. Backhurst, who ran unsuccessfully in 2004 as the federal Tory candidate for Scarborough-Rouge River, acknowledges a brief love affair with Marsden two years ago – not one that continued until nearly three months ago, as Marsden maintains. The OPP's criminal investigations branch recently cleared the officer of any wrongdoing. A separate internal investigation is ongoing, his lawyer said...read on

Hmmm, another case where the guy is cleared. OK, I wonder when CNN will put her on the air again?

For a presidential administration overwhelmed by humiliating mistakes, the Khaled el-Masri debacle is one of the most mortifying. Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent, was taken into custody in 2003 in a case of mistaken identity — he just happens to have a name similar to a terrorist sought by American officials.

Actually, “taken into custody” is the wrong phrase. He was abducted in Macedonia, drugged, beaten, and then flown to Afghanistan, where he faced more abuse. Five months of detention and torture later, the CIA, realizing they took the wrong man, dumped him in Albania. During those five months, Masri’s wife had no idea what had happened to him.

With help from the ACLU, Masri filed a lawsuit against the Bush administration, and the complaint described his treatment as “constituting prolonged arbitrary detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.”

The Bush administration insisted that the federal courts dismiss the case, not because of the merits, but because, administration lawyers argued, to even respond to the lawsuit would require divulging state secrets. Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided not to hear Masri’s case.

Kevin has more.

Verizon is arguing that it can violate Americans' first amendment rights and turn over phone records to the federal government because their first amendment rights permit them to exercise their free speech and do so.

arstechnica.com:

Verizon is one of the phone companies currently being sued over its alleged disclosure of customer phone records to the NSA. In a response to the court last week, the company asked for the entire consolidated case against it to be thrown out—on free speech grounds.

The response also alleges that the case should be thrown out because even looking into the issue could violate state secrets, of course, but a much longer section of the response tries to make the case that Verizon has a First Amendment right to "petition" the government. "Based on plaintiffs' own allegations, defendants' right to communicate such information to the government is fully protected by the Free Speech and Petition Clauses of the First Amendment," argue Verizon's lawyers.

Essentially, the argument is that turning over truthful information to the government is free speech, and the EFF and ACLU can't do anything about it. In fact, Verizon basically argues that the entire lawsuit is a giant SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit, and that the case is an attempt to deter the company from exercising its First Amendment right to turn over customer calling information to government security services.

Paging Mr. Orwell. Mr Orwell...

Sibel Edmonds: Gagged but not Dead

This one comes to us from our good friends at Buzzflash.com. It concerns the Sibel Edmonds case, which we have paid close attention to. For those of you who still believe it can’t happen here, read on...

Ashcroft invoked the state secrets privilege, designating my place of birth, date of birth, my mother tongue, my father tongue, my university background, and my previous employments all State Secrets. Based on this new ruling my passport would be considered a ‘top secret’ document since it contains my place of birth, my Virginia driving license would be considered a ‘Top Secret’ document, since it contains my date of birth. Read on...

By Andrew Zajac Washington Bureau

The Bush administration is aggressively wielding a rarely used executive power known as the state secrets privilege in an attempt to squash hard-hitting court challenges to its anti-terrorism campaign.How the White House is using this privilege, not a law but a series of legal precedents built on national security, disturbs some civil libertarians and open-government advocates because of its sweeping power. Judges almost never challenge the government's assertion of the privilege, and it can be fatal to a plaintiff's case.

The government is invoking the privilege in an attempt to wipe out the heart of a lawsuit that seeks to examine rendition, the secretive and controversial practice of sending terror suspects to foreign countries where they might be tortured. Use of the secrets privilege also could eliminate a suit by a former FBI contract linguist who charges that the bureau bungled translations of terrorism intelligence before and after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. read on

secretive, guess again. (hat tip jvh)