The original article, written by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal is, “Obama's Anti-terror Progress: He embraces Bush policies on secrecy, rendition.” It was published on February 13, 2009. (Note, my responses to the WSJ snow-job follow each paragraph).

***

WSJ: President Obama has done a masterful job of disguising his Administration's growing maturity in forming anti-terror policies, but this week (February 2009) produced further evidence that he is erring on the side of keeping the country safe [sic] rather than appeasing the political left [sic].

** Editor’s note: at least the WSJ is open with their support of torture and state-criminality. But their insistence in preaching lies about keeping the country safe via the imposition of torture, kidnapping, and indefinite detention (without charge) is genuinely Rovian, Orwellian, and pathological. Oh and I like the cheap shot about Obama’s move in resisting the political left – as if there were a political left of any significance in Federal government, Congress, the Courts, or the MSM.

WSJ: The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss a federal appeals case involving [illegal] rendition, and embraced an argument developed by the Administration of G. W. Bush. As Mr. Obama is learning, the [American] left's exertions [sic] to disarm America’s counter-terrorism [sic] arsenal are as dangerous [sic] now as they were prior to his election.

** Editor’s note: There still is no political left, but in regards to torture, War Crimes, and Constitutional violations there are some of us – outside of government or halls of power – who think that state-sanctioned crime is the worst sort of tyranny. Nevertheless, there is no counter-terrorism arsenal, only criminal acts of the state (e.g., kidnapping, torture, indefinite detention) and those acts are dangerous for at least two reasons: (a) they make the objects of such abuse mad – meaning they bring about terrorism (as noted by the Bush administration) and; (b) such state-sanctioned crimes ultimately are targeted toward domestic populations (all in the name of liberty).

WSJ: In this closely-watched case [sic], the American Civil Liberties Union sued the flight-logistics outfit (read CIA front/crony airline) Jeppesen DataPlan in 2007 on behalf of Binyam Mohamed and four other Guantanamo detainees. The ACLU has argued that the Boeing subsidiary was complicit in arranging flights for rendition (read kidnapping), where kidnap victims were to be tortured and interrogated. Mohamed and [the co-plaintiffs] claim they are the victims of torture by governments working at the behest of the Americans.

** Editor’s note: by the way, as the writers for the WSJ admit – through failure to deny – it is and was all TRUE. Worse still, we know that NONE of these men were involved in 9/11 because the lying Bush administration did not try to pawn off such a yarn. In addition, as long recognized by FBI, KGB, and others, torture cannot lead to collection of good information. So in effect, the Bush administration grabbed innocents who could not be held – even at Gitmo – and asked other governments to torture these men, for no material benefit. And it was and is all a crime.

WSJ: The Bush Administration argued the case should be dismissed because open proceedings could damage national security by disclosing state secrets. A lower court agreed. Most expected the Obama Justice Department to dump the secrecy line when the case came up for review before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday (9 February 2009). Judge Mary Schroeder asked Obama’s Attorneys leadingly, "Is there anything that might have happened to cause [the Department of Justice] to shift its views?” "No, your honor," replied the Justice attorney, Douglas Letter. A startled Judge Schroeder tried again. "The change in Administration has no bearing?" Mr. Letter reiterated that his positions had been "authorized" and "thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new Administration."

** Editor’s note: By the term “most” I guess the writers at the WSJ meant most human beings who know anything about American jurisprudence, commonsense (i.e., that torture does not work and is self-defeating), and a gaggle of simpletons who would ever expect that the Democratic party (which was informed all along of the Bush torture practices) might diverge from the Republicans on things of import like war, war crimes, torture, etc. But alas, none of these people are in the Obama government. So, most of us who are observant are still disgusted by the decision and move of the Obama regime to invoke the invented and unconstitutional doctrine of state secrets, but not surprised. And note, the WSJ refers to the Ninth Circuit as liberal … then why would they go along with Obama’s criminality? Hint to WSJ, if someone becomes a federal judge, they are not liberal by definition.

WSJ: The Obama Administration says that it will invoke the state secrets privilege more sparingly than its predecessor. But Obama’s team now admits that lifting the hood on classified intelligence-gathering would let terrorists know what to expect, and to shift their operations to avoid detection.

** Editor’s note: The idea that individuals can prepare for their torture is ridiculous. Worse yet, due the U.S. military training (remember the BSCT teams and efforts to reverse engineer the torture experience? It resulted in a lawsuit) we know that all torture in individuated and everyone breaks. There is no defense. Maybe the writers at the WSJ can start ripping out their own fingernails in anticipation for a new FOX network game show “Beat the Torturers!”

WSJ: Perhaps the Obama team has also stumbled upon the larger game behind lawsuits like the one against Jeppesen -- which is to intimidate private companies into refusing to cooperate with the government on national security.

** Editor’s note: Yes this claim rings true. I know that Blackwater is just shaking in their boots – worried about paying off lawsuits in American courts. The same is CACI or Titan and other military contractors. What will happen next, do we suppose that the ACLU or some organization like the Center for Constitutional Rights will use the Alien Tort Claims Act to sue manufacturers of chemical weapons (DIME bombs)? Why the left is just trying to end war. What nonsense. Thank goodness that telecoms received retroactive immunity (remember Obama was against it before he voted in favor of granting immunity). I wonder why the WSJ failed to mention that little wrinkle in support of corporate crime?

WSJ: The left has failed to achieve its policy ambitions through Congress or by directly [sic] challenging the government in court. So the latest tactic is suing third parties such as Jeppesen -- note that the ACLU is not suing here to win Mohamed's release -- to hamstring the executive branch via the courts. These companies thought they were doing their patriotic duty by lending a hand.

** Editor’s note: Yes, these companies were doing their patriot duty – the same way that Goldman-Sachs and AIG do their duty – with a handout and slurping down money at the public trough. I like the lending a hand metaphor, were they lending a hand that delivered a slap, punch, pulled a trigger, signed off on torture, or videotaped an innocent man, bleeding, begging to be released to see his wife and children? Here the WSJ is lending a hand by spewing pro-war, pro-torture propaganda. How did Edward Bernays say it? After the Nazis, propaganda had a bad name, so he called it, public relations.

WSJ: But the anti-anti-terror trial bar uses lawsuits to raise the costs for these private actors of cooperating with the intelligence community, and the legal exposure makes it that much more difficult for the feds to gain private cooperation. Sometimes the suits shut down such cooperation altogether. The telecom companies, faced with multibillion-dollar civil complaints over warrantless wiretapping, refused to proceed without legal immunity, and the 2007-2008 political dispute nearly ended the program. The FISA appeals court revealed last month that one (still anonymous) telecom even sued the government to opt out.

** Editor’s note: Is the important thing to think that domestic spying is good and practical or to note the results from actual spying?  Recall, such has been occurring for years, unabated.  The NSA admitted that their operators and translators were standing by, listening to pillow talk of U.S. military personnel and American media. Now the WSJ wants to tell us that the courts are clogged with needless suits? But if companies want legal protection, and have received it, then I guess the “actions of the left” have worked to create a bigger and better national security state? When will the writers at the WSJ give credit to the ACLU and the anti-anti-terror bar for helping?

WSJ: The larger story here is that the anti-anti-terror lobby is losing the man it thought was its strongest ally. During his campaign, Mr. Obama talked as if he really believed that the Bush Administration was uniquely wicked on national security. Joe Biden co-sponsored Senate legislation that would have prevented the executive branch from making state-secrets claims to shelve lawsuits, rather than shielding individual evidence from judicial (and public) scrutiny.

** Editor’s note: Now I see, according to the WSJ, the Bush administration was not uniquely wicked on national security – all governments are equally wicked. And as the sages of the WSJ knew (and know) the anti-anti-terror lobby (aka pro-terrorism, hate America crowd) was tricked into thinking that Obama hated America too! By the way, did the WSJ endorse Obama? No that would have confused the hate America crowd.

WSJ: Now it seems that the Bush Administration's anti-terror architecture is gaining new legitimacy, just as Eisenhower validated Truman's Cold War framework.

** Editor’s note: Yes, without the Cold War, what would the world look like, no assassinations of Nkrumah, Allende, and Arbenz. No support for military dictators like the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, South Korea, South Vietnam, South African Apartheid. At least we can be pleased that Eisenhower validated Truman and as we say, the rest is history.

WSJ: Mr. Obama claims to have banned coercive interrogation techniques [sic], except in those cases where more extreme measures are necessary to save lives. He says he'll shut down Gitmo in a year or so, but his subordinates -- including Elena Kagan during her confirmation hearings for Solicitor General this week -- admit that indefinite detention will still be necessary for some terrorists. He walked back his wiretap absolutism even before he was elected. Now the Administration has endorsed the same secrecy posture that he once found so offensive, merely saying that it will be used less frequently. We'll see. These are all laudable signs of Mr. Obama's anti-terror progress. Perhaps some day he'll acknowledge his debt to his predecessor.

** Editor’s note: Three cheers for the WSJ or is it for Obama? Anyone who practices government secrecy, and wheels out the “torture only to save lives” mantra is okay by me. Yes We Can believe that Obama is Change. Thank goodness we have the WSJ to let us know that Obama is Bush.