Folks! Obama's now using "State Secrets Privilege"! Just say NO!!! Enough's enough!

[cascadiance]

Just out. Thought that since this was from Australia, that it might be our friend Luke Ryland resurfacing again!

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5094:obama-retains-secrecy-provisoins-&catid=71:world-news&Itemid=30

Obama retains secrecy provisoins
Written by William Fisher
NEW YORK, Feb 9 (IPS) - President Barack Obama has cast doubt on his promise to put an end to secret government by allowing his Justice Department to follow a path frequently taken by his predecessor.

Before a federal appeals court in San Francisco Monday, lawyers from the Obama Department of Justice invoked the same ”state secrets privilege” used by the administration of President George W. Bush to argue that a lawsuit brought on behalf of Guantanamo Bay detainee Binyan Mohamed and four other alleged victims of the CIA's ”extraordinary rendition” programme should not go forward because revealing the evidence would harm national security

...

The ACLU last week sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, urging her to clarify the Obama administration's position on the Mohamed case and to reject what it described as the Bush administration's policy of using false claims of national security to avoid judicial review of controversial programmes.

The ACLU's Romero said, ”The latest revelation is completely at odds with President Obama's executive orders that ban torture and end rendition, as well as his promise to restore the rule of law.”

It has been 50 years since the United States Supreme Court last reviewed the use of the ”state secrets” privilege. During the Bush administration, government lawyers invoked the ”state secrets” privilege more often than any prior administration to stop cases from proceeding.

Among such cases was that of whistle-blower Sibel Edmonds, who was fired from her position as a language specialist at the FBI's Washington Field Office in March 2002, after she accused a colleague of covering up illicit activity involving foreign nationals, alleging serious acts of security breaches, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence which, she contended, presented a danger to U.S. security.

...

[choie]

1. depressing as hell

[Towlie]

2. In Bush's case we knew it was a lie, but in this case, maybe there really IS an important secret.

[cascadiance]

3. That's the way the Republicans were *taught* to think! Transparency's the ONLY way for me!

We HAVE to open up our government or it and our nation won't survive!

[MNBrewer]

5. Huh?

From Glenn Greenwald's article on the issue in Salon

UPDATE IV: The New York Times' article by John Schwartz on today's hearing contains the quotes from the exchange which I described in the Update above:

lawyer for the government, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument on Monday, startling several judges on the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

“Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.

“No, your honor,” Mr. Letter replied.

“The change in administration has no bearing?” she asked.

“No, your honor,” he said once more. The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration,” and “these are the authorized positions,” he said.

[Luminous Animal]

6. Until Bush, maintaining secrets

and justice has not been a problem.

This is a tragic stance taken by the Obama administration.

From Glenn Greenwald:

"It isn't merely that the Obama DOJ is invoking the privilege for this particular case, which contains allegations of torture that are as brutal and severe as any. That's bad enough. But worse is that they're invoking the most abusive parts of the Bush theory: namely, that the privilege can be used to block the adjudication of entire cases (rather than, say, justify the concealment of specific classified documents or other pieces of evidence), and, worse still, can be used to prevent judicial scrutiny even when the alleged government conduct is blatantly illegal and, as here, a war crime of the greatest seriousness.

They're embracing a theory that literally places government officials beyond the rule of law. No minimally honest person who criticized the Bush administration for relying on this instrument can defend the Obama administration for doing so here."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/09/state_secrets/index.html

[mmonk]

8. Yes, using it to block adjudication of entire cases is the big problem.

Beyond the law is the result. We must fight this somehow. Let's hope the court will rule against the justice department.

[cascadiance]

11. We should be helping Gerrold Nadler pass his State Secrets Reform Bill...

That seems even more essential now, since Obama doesn't seem to be taking the lead in shutting down this practice himself.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/ny08_nadler/Nadler_Holds_State_Secrets_Hearings_012908.html

[walldude]

9. Yeah, I'm sure because Obama is doing it it's OK

Gimme a break. Talk about a double standard.

[midnight]

4. Let's not use failed policies of last eight years.

[mmonk]

7. K&R

:thumbsup:
:hi:

[BlooInBloo]

10. Definitely concerning. Would like to know more.

[1]

12. oh come on. if obama does it, it's for goodness, not badness...

relax.

have faith.

change is here. did you see the press conference tonight?

[inna]

13. "provisoins"?? i'm all for constructive criticism, but....

i'm just not sure if that whole site is legit.

(sorry, i might be wrong, but i see some red flags/problems with that article.)

[mmonk]

15. It happened today.

[inna]

16. so? mmonk, i don't see your point at all. nt

[mmonk]

19. It's because you refuse to.

[liberaltrucker]

14. What comes around, goes around

Having said that, It's a bit disconcerting. We'll see.



:shrug:

[Hekate]

17. Is this link what you are referring to? If so, it's another Bush-mole speaking...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5019857&mesg_id=5019857

What do you think?

Hekate

[Luminous Animal]

21. Looks like Letter is not a Bush mole

but a career DOJer starting with Carter and working at the Clinton White House.

[HamdenRice]

18. Anyone really believe Obama/Holder could turn around the Justice Dept and all law suits in 7 days???

Eric Holder has been Attorney General for what? 7 days ago?

These lawsuits are like ocean liners chugging along with the same attorneys in charge and same litigation strategies.

Do you think that Holder, let alone Obama, has done a comprehensive review of each law suit and the applicability of the state secrets privilege to every bit of evidence yet? Do you think that given everything else on his plate, Obama himself has looked at this case and said -- continue to use the state secrets privilege to protect Bush and our alien lizard overlords?

In the meantime, the attorney in charge, probably a Bush appointee, is just doing what he's been doing.

Come on people, let's get real. I think it's great to bring this to the public's attention. It's great that the ACLU wrote to Hillary to ask the government to clarify its position. That's how the public helps get policies changed.

But it's silly to blame the continued use of the state secrets privilege on the Obama administration as though it's a conscious policy decision.

[Luminous Animal]

22. They wouldn't need to turn it around...

immediately, but in this case, the DOJ could ask for more time to review the evidence.

[EFerrari]

25. Right. Couldn't they have asked for a continuance?

I'd much rather they have done that.

[guruoo]

20. *cough*....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5019857&mesg_id=5019857

[Blue_Tires]

24. thanks for that

[EFerrari]

26. It's not a matter of belief. The man spoke in open court. n/t

[LanternWaste]

31. Thanks for the additional, relevant information...

Thanks for the additional, relevant information...

I wish we were as skeptical about our own personal cynicism as were are about anything government.

[wroberts189]

23. Call me thick headed but I want to hear what Obama says about it.

Before I pass judgment.

[JuniperLea]

27. Me too... and the beauty of it is...

He will say something about it.

[cascadiance]

28. He could set it right, but the longer he waits, the more it adds fuel to these concerns!

Silence (from the government) on issues like these is precisely the problem that circles around usage of the State Secrets Privilege.

I'm HOPING that he does set it right! But until he does, I'm DAMNED concerned! And I don't care how many other people say "Trust him!". It is HIS job to fix this problem and HIS job to speak on it to us!

[JuniperLea]

29. See post #20... eom

[cascadiance]

30. I guess using that logic, we should dismiss whatever David Iglesias says too...

After all, wasn't he a Bush appointee also?

Perhaps we should dismiss others like Scott Ritter, Russell Tice, and others like them too. They are Republicans as well...

I don't care WHO says what, unless we've already had proof that such an individual is an expert in disinformation like Karl Rove and many others in Bushco. If the fact is that this case was dismissed because of State Secrets Privilege, then the facts speak for themselves. We've had the same problem SO many times the last 8 years when the right has been dismissing us as the "extreme left" whenever we try to say anything of substance, instead of trying to look at the merits of what is being discussed.

Now, I'm still willing to give Obama and his justice the benefit of the doubt to get some time to study and correct the problems, but we need to be firm on our principles and not "bend" them, just to suit who's in charge.

[waiting for hope]

32. I honestly do not think that the ACLU

would be so vocal about it if the complaint and the situation were not as described in the article:

Justice Department Stands Behind Bush Secrecy In Extraordinary Rendition Case

(2/9/2009)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [email protected]

NEW YORK – The Justice Department today repeated Bush administration claims of "state secrets" in a lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan for its role in the extraordinary rendition program. Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen was brought on behalf of five men who were kidnapped and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were interrogated under torture. The Bush administration intervened in the case, inappropriately asserting the "state secrets" privilege and claiming the case would undermine national security. Oral arguments were presented today in the American Civil Liberties Union's appeal of the dismissal, and the Obama administration opted not to change the government position in the case, instead reasserting that the entire subject matter of the case is a state secret.

The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:

"Eric Holder's Justice Department stood up in court today and said that it would continue the Bush policy of invoking state secrets to hide the reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations committed by the American government. This is not change. This is definitely more of the same. Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets, but President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged on that important civil liberties issue. If this is a harbinger of things to come, it will be a long and arduous road to give us back an America we can be proud of again."

~Snip~

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/38695prs20090209.html

They are not known for flying off the handle willy nilly -

[inna]

33. thanks for the link! looks like some letters to Washington are in order. nt

[waiting for hope]

34. You are welcome -

:)

[inna]

35. hi to a fellow Edwards suporter btw!

:)
:fistbump:

[waiting for hope]

36. Hiya back!

:toast: