The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 - passed by Senate on Friday

[Duer 157099]

Did you all know about this? Unanimously passed by the Senate on Friday, making another retroactive (like telecom immunity) law! And it probably won't even go before the House for a vote, but will be added in Committee, so no chance for the voice of We The People to be heard by our so-called Representatives. Frikken beyond outrageous.

When does it end?

Glenn Greenwald has a column about it today:

Obama's support for the new Graham-Lieberman secrecy law

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/01/photo...

The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman -- called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 -- that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." As long as the Defense Secretary certifies -- with no review possible -- that disclosure would "endanger" American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure. The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely. The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.

...(snip)...

What makes all of this even worse is that it is part of a broader trend whereby the Government simply retroactively changes the law whenever it decides it does not want to abide by it. For decades, we had laws in place authorizing citizens to sue their telecommunication carriers if the telecoms allowed government spying on their communications in violation of the law, but when it was revealed that the telecoms did exactly this, the Congress simply changed the law retroactively so that it no longer applied. For decades, we had laws imposing civil and criminal liability on government officials who engaged in or authorized torture, but when it was revealed that our government did that, the Congress just retroactively changed the law to protect the torturers. And now that courts have ruled that our decades-old transparency law compels disclosure of this torture evidence, the Congress is just going to retroactively change the law -- again -- this time to empower the President to suppress that evidence anyway.

[endarkenment]

1. Change that is going in the wrong direction.

This is exactly what I was voting for.

[solstice]

2. Obama's obsession with secrecy and power is truly becoming frightening.

I read Glenn Greenwald's column every day and the news just gets worse and worse.

[Duer 157099]

3. Yes, and that the Senate is wholly on board is doubly troubling

Glenn is one of the last voices of solid reason that I have found, and although I am newly outraged daily after reading his blog, I continue. Can one die of complete and utter despair? I think so.

[zett]

51. Not Wholly on Board

It's pitiful that there were only 3 that voted against it, but I don't want people to think that Feingold or Sanders (ma boyz in da Senate)for this crap.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

[JDPriestly]

23. It's fear, pure and simple. He is isolated and feeling fearful.

Kucinich is the only one with courage.

[Syntheto]

58. How dare you criticize Him!!!! This is the One We've Been Waiting For!!

[solstice]

60. I know!!!! Change we can believe in!!!! Let the angels sing!!!!!!

[K Gardner]

4. WTF? If we can't see it, we'll forget about it? Wow.

[mvd]

5. How can it not go to the House?

Has Obama made any official statements on this? I knew it's bad news when I saw the sponsors.

[jillan]

14. That's what I was wondering - this doesn't sit right with me.

Have to wait and see how this plays out.

[grantcart]

15. I think they are saying that it will be added as an ammendment and not

voted seperately. It will be incorporated into a bill and go through conference and the ammended bill with all of the changes will get a final vote in both houses.

This is a common, and unfortunate practice, that allows large omnibus bills to contain many individual matters that have not recieved a vote on the particular ammendment in one of the houses.

[mvd]

18. Thanks - glad it does have a final vote

Looks like it will pass easily, though.

[No Elephants]

30. Obama supports it.

[zulchzulu]

6. Greenwald is being disingenuous... ever hear of SCOTUS case ACLU v. Department of Defense (06-3140)?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/us-plans-appeal-on-abuse-p... /

Obama doesn't support the Senate vote... he's taking the issue to the Supreme Court. Greenwald is just itching to do a documentary and is willing to lie about Obama for his financial gain.

Is Greenwald going to go after Feingold too... since he voted for the bill?

[Jennicut]

10. Feingold is allowed to let off the hook according to some

but Obama is to be blamed for everything.

[zett]

52. Feingold voted against it so he ain't on no hook

If you don't believe me, look here:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

[Senator]

11. Uh...Your Own Link Confirms Greenwald And Refutes Your Claim

It says he's only taking the issue to the SC if the "Cover-Up Evidence Of Torture" bill does not become law -- which only happens after he himself signs it, to "support the Senate vote."

In the motion filed in the Circuit Court Thursday, Solicitor General Elena Kagan and other Justice Department officials noted that, if both houses of Congress adopt the FOIA amendment, the Defense Secretary would be allowed “to preclude release under FOIA of the photographs at issue in this case.”

“If the aforementioned bill does not become law by the deadline for seeking Supreme Court review, the United States will file a petition for a writ of certiorari,” the motion said. “Recalling the mandate would serve the important purpose of preserving the status quo pending a determination by the Supreme Court.”

And yes, by implication Greenwald is "going after" Feingold and anyone else who supports this.

I'll bet we can also guess which side cheney is on.

--

[NYC_SKP]

12. People just LOVE to go to Salon to find out how to think...

Ferchristssake, Salon Writes an 'opinion' and people go crazy...


Does anyone read laws, or do we just go to Salon to find out what to think???

First, it passed unanimously, so I guess the whole goddamn Senate is in on this.

So, with the safety of our people still out there in mind, maybe we can discuss this sucker and not get all...

Interesting that it only covers photos from 9/11/2001 through 1/22/2009.

Sec. 1305. (a) Short Title- This section may be cited as the ‘Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009’.
(b) Definitions- In this section:

(1) COVERED RECORD- The term ‘covered record’ means any record--

(A) that is a photograph that was taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States; and

(B) for which a certification by the Secretary of Defense under subsection (c) is in effect.

(2) PHOTOGRAPH- The term ‘photograph’ encompasses all photographic images, whether originals or copies, including still photographs, negatives, digital images, films, video tapes, and motion pictures.

(c) Certification-

(1) IN GENERAL- For any photograph described under subsection (b)(1)(A), the Secretary of Defense shall certify, if the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, determines that the disclosure of that photograph would endanger--

(A) citizens of the United States; or

(B) members of the Armed Forces or employees of the United States Government deployed outside the United States.

(2) CERTIFICATION EXPIRATION- A certification submitted under paragraph (1) and a renewal of a certification submitted under paragraph (3) shall expire 3 years after the date on which the certification or renewal, as the case may be, is submitted to the President.

(3) CERTIFICATION RENEWAL- The Secretary of Defense may submit to the President--

(A) a renewal of a certification in accordance with paragraph (1) at any time; and

(B) more than 1 renewal of a certification.

(4) CERTIFICATION RENEWAL- A timely notice of the Secretary’s certification shall be provided to Congress.

(d) Nondisclosure of Detainee Records- A covered record shall not be subject to--

(1) disclosure undersection 552 of title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of Information Act); or

(2) disclosure under any proceeding under that section.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude the voluntary disclosure of a covered record.
(f) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act and apply to any photograph created before, on, or after that date that is a covered record.

00" target="_blank">http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2346/text?version...

[Luminous Animal]

17. I read it, alright.

It is a blatant suppression of war crimes.

[No Elephants]

28. The language of the bill you posted supports Salon.

[Egnever]

46. Thats been clear here for quite some time now.

[zett]

54. It didn't pass unanimously

there's now at least 3 posts on this thread linking to the actual US Senate site where anyone who cares to can see the actual vote tally.

I am not posting the link again. I'll probably get tossed for spamming as it is, but I cannot damn stand for anybody to lie (or even be sloppy with facts) about Feingold. Or Bernie Sanders either.

[solstice]

59. As opposed to singing in the choir here.

[slipslidingaway]

19. Feingold, Sanders and Coburn voted against the bill - link...

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

Thanks to OmmmSweetOmmm in this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[No Elephants]

27. Obama has been fighting the ACLU in court to prevent disclosure. .

[zett]

53. Greenwald has no need to go after Feingold - he voted against it

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

Check there if you don't believe me.

[Canuckistanian]

7. The WH is supporting a bill by a Republican and an Independent?

And I suppose Harry Reid was just fine with this.

Something's going on here.

[No Elephants]

29. Obama wants this covered up, so the Democrats support it. And the Republicans want it

covered up, so they support it.

I don't see a mystery.

[Wednesdays]

8. K&R

[Dragonfli]

9. Rules, Laws, Transparency ...Just not "pragmatic" enough for this administration I gather

I am to blame as much as that snake oil salesman I guess, I bought a bottle of the stuff and sold it to all the people I could in my progressive activist group.

I owe each and every one of them an apology.
It would have been more honest had I sold him as a stop-gap against fascist repugs but come to think of it there hasn't been much of a policy gap and not much is being stopped so I suppose that would have been a dishonest sale as well.

I will only support progressive candidates (preferably non Dem after this last election) and will only vote for the worthy (no more stop gap that stops nothing). There will be plenty of rubes for the Centrists Republicans to fool into another term without help from us followers of that "god Damned Piece of Paper".

[inna]

13. holy shit! i had no idea!!

thanks for posting this! rec'd.

[leftstreet]

16. What an Orwellian name - 'protecting' detainees. Very 'Healthy Forests!'

[Occam Bandage]

20. The bill's name doesn't imply it protects detainees.

It claims it protects photographic records. Which is kind of strange, because photographic records do not need "protecting," but hey.

[slipslidingaway]

21. There were three votes against the final bill...

thread in GD.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Duer 157099]

40. Thank you for that correction

I was so outraged when I read about this, but later saw that there were a few who voted against.

[slipslidingaway]

43. YW and thanks to OmmmSweetOmmm for posting the vote. n/t

[zett]

56. Sorry Duer, I didn't notice that you saw the correction

I'm sorry I jumped on you.

[dionysus]

22. i fail to feel the faux moral outrage that many here feel.

so many are putting on this front of "i'm some kind of brave uber-liberal fighting for the constitution", when the truth is, a lot of the people up in arms never liked the guy in the first place. They portray themselves as some kind of champion for the cause, but really, they don't give a shit about these issues, they're just going to seize on whatever the outrage of the moment is. Be it GLBT issues, the war, the economy, torture photos... it's just a smorgasbord of excuses to trash.

This doesn't apply to everyone voicing concerns around here, but for quite a few it does.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

25. I LOVED the guy

I voted for him for state senator in IL I campaigned for him, I gave money to his campaign when I was unemployed and didn't have a lot of money to spare. I told everyone I knew about his policy positions and to get out the vote. I supported him all through the "primay wars" on DU. He was my guy and I am a "brave uber-liberal fighting for the constitution". Too bad you arent.

[dionysus]

31. maybe i'm too pragmatic. while i'd like to see the bush administration locked away for treason, i

don't think it's feasible or realistic to expect. Outside of the very small group of people who are politically aware (okay, political junkies) and not neocons, unfortunately, the vast majority of people don't give a shit about any of this. That's why I don't think it would happen. And if it did, it would be a political three ring circus, define Obama's administration, and he'd be out on his ass in 4 years. Just my opinion. I think thats the realpolitik of it.

[No Elephants]

34. So, the end justifies the means, even if the only "end" in question is Obama's 2nd term?

Wow.

One poster's "pragmatic" is another poster's "totally lacking in principle," I guess.

Karl, is that you? Alberto? Yoo?

[dionysus]

36. strawman of the highest order. were this three ring circus to occur, kiss health care, economic

reform, you name it... goodbye. I'd rather have the economy fixed, universal health care, and hopefully be out of iraq rather than have revenge on bush,that's all.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

39. I think you are basically correct

Which is why Obama has tried to stop it at every turn.

[No Elephants]

32. Faux moral outrage?

I donated to this guy--the legal limit--primary and general. I am not rich. I worked for this guy. On the basis of deceit, as it turns out.

In not prosecutiving Bushco and covering up, Obama is not only violating treaties, but he is also putting this nation in greater danger of another attack on our soil AND endangering our troops more than necessary. This is abandoning the rule of law AND giving people a pass for war crimes.

Faux morals on our part or no morals on your part?

[dionysus]

38. ok, maybe it's righteous outrage, but my argument is that by trying to take these guys down, the end

result is, nothing gets done and boom we've got the GOP back in power. It's a moral stand to prosecute but i estimate that it would fail, and lead to a disaster and nothing will get accomplished in the next 4 years if we go down that road.

As i said before, aside from the very small segment of the population that is politically aware, most people don't give a shit, and you'd have a hard time getting public support for it. It would probably split the country right down the middle, and we'd all be screwed. like isaid, that just my opinion, you're entitled to yours.

And for what it's worth, my statement wasn't directed at people that actually care about this stuff. I think there's people here who will glom onto issues they don't even care about, so long as it gives them a reason to be angry.

[Duer 157099]

42. and what, do you suppose, is the end result of continuing to ignore the "rule of law"??

Prosecuting BushCo crimes is not "revenge" in any sense whatsoever, and perhaps such a so-called "distraction" might actually ENABLE other issues to go forth without the media hoopla, since the M$M would be consumed with the "revenge"

[dionysus]

44. i'm not saying the situation is ideal, i'd like to see those guys thrown behind bars too.

it's just my opinion that it would be a distaster. I don't have a solution.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

24. Just think that if Bush was still in the WH, what an uproar this would cause here at DU.....

Recommended and thanks for posting!

[ShortnFiery]

26. OMG! This is so wrong. Our damn Senators are bordering on TREASON. NT

[No Elephants]

37. It is so wrong, but a charge of treason would be very hard to prove on this basis. A lot

easier to prove is violations of treaties that the Senate ratified.

[vaberella]

33. Could our president still veto this? Secondly, when did O said he supported this. n/t

[No Elephants]

35. Yes, he can! But, he won't. Change, my ass. Hope, my ass.

[Wednesdays]

41. K&R

[Generator]

45. The never look back amendment

Obama has his own Constitution. Hey, it works for him. (and of course it works for those cretins called our represent ives too! they never have to be held to account or deal with the messiness of holding anyone else to account) WHAT a country ladies and germs. THANK JESUS for reality tevee. I can't take no real reality. It's a joke. The government is a joke.

[rug]

47. What happened January 21 and January 22?

[Duer 157099]

50. They took all the cameras away n/t

[mmonk]

48. It ends when we quit voting the bastards in power.

[ProSense]

49. First of all that amendment was slipped into the funding bill. Second, it may not survive

Conference:

The President decided this month, however, that release of the photos “would pose an unacceptable risk of danger to U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.” A federal judge in New York was then advised of the switch in position. Shortly afterward, the Senate took up legislation to block the release — the Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act — by changing the language of the Freedom of Information Act.

The Senate adopted that provision May 21 as part of a new government funding bill. The House version of that bill does not include the photos provision, but the Senate has asked for a conference with the House to work out the differences between the two bills — an action expected to occur early in June.

The deadline for filing a petition for review in the Supreme Court is now June 9. Under the Court’s Rules, if the Administration wanted a postponement of the filing deadline, it would have to ask for an extension ten days before the deadline — that is, in this case, by no later than this weekend.

In the motion filed in the Circuit Court Thursday, Solicitor General Elena Kagan and other Justice Department officials noted that, if both houses of Congress adopt the FOIA amendment, the Defense Secretary would be allowed “to preclude release under FOIA of the photographs at issue in this case.”

“If the aforementioned bill does not become law by the deadline for seeking Supreme Court review, the United States will file a petition for a writ of certiorari,” the motion said. “Recalling the mandate would serve the important purpose of preserving the status quo pending a determination by the Supreme Court.”

link

Obama admin gets more time to appeal abuse photo ruling

[zett]

55. It sucks and Glennzilla is great, but it didn't pass unanimously

Not enough voted against it to matter in the long run, but it wasn't unanimous. Saying that smears Feingold and Sanders.

They didn't go over to the dark side on us.

The job now is to call the Progressive Caucus in the House to keep enough of them from flipping their vote against it to a vote for it. Firedoglake has a list of peeps to call.

http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/Supplemental

[arcadian]

57. No, I didn't notice

I was too busy being distracted by Obama eating a cheesburger on the Giza Plateau.