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.

DOWNLOAD (77)

PLAY (101)

Keith talks to Jonathan Turley about the Obama administrations decision to make the claim of state secrets to block a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. From Turley's post Obama Administration Invokes State Secrets To Kill Lawsuit Over Unlawful Surveillance Program:

In yet another break with its campaign promise to fight to restore civil liberties and privacy, the Obama Administration has made a breathtaking claim of state secrets to block a public interest organization from suing the government for illegal surveillance. There is not a scintilla of difference in the legal position of President Obama and the position of President Bush in trying to quash any effort to challenge unlawful surveillance by the government. It appears the “yes we can” means “yes we can do most anything that we want” when it comes to unlawful programs. I will be discussing this story (and the new disclosures on torture) tonight on MSNBC Countdown.

The Administration is moving to kill a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of AT&T customers who were unlawfully intercepted by the government. Not only is the Administration making an extreme argument under the military and state secrets doctrine but it is claimed that citizens cannot sue, even if the government engages in unlawful surveillance, under the Patriot Act. Due to changes put through with Democratic support, the statute is being used to block any lawsuit unless the citizens can show that there was “willful disclosure’” of the communications by the government.

As Jonathan noted in his interview with Keith, there are plenty of reasons to be supportive of the Obama administration but this is not one of them. Politics should not come before following the law, whether it is a Democratic or Republican administration in charge.