The three cases in question are Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama; Mohammed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, in which five victims of "extraordinary rendition" say Jeppesen, a Boeing subsidiary, participated in their delivery to countries that tortured them; and Jewel vs. NSA, in which the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is suing the government on behalf of AT&T customers.

Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald has been avidly following these cases. His Monday post describes the controversial government actions in the Jewel case -- which, amazingly enough, go beyond the state secrets privilege and include a new "sovereign immunity" claim that would apparently prevent the government from ever being sued for spying that violates federal surveillance statutes in the absence of proof of "willful disclosure." In other words, if they keep it secret, no one can sue them for doing anything.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann had as a guest last night Kevin Bankston, an EFF lawyer on the Jewel case. "The Obama campaign promised us change we could believe in, and a new era of transparency and accountability from government," he said. "But instead, this is looking like deja vu all over again, and the Obama administration is embracing the same aggressive secrecy arguments that the Bush administration did, and is going them one better by arguing this incredible immunity argument, by saying that despite the many laws that we have that are meant to restrict the government from wiretapping us or accessing our communications records without warrant, that the government -- the U.S. government is immune from any lawsuit for violating those statutes, and essentially eviscerating the privacy rights of millions of ordinary Americans."



There is something utterly un-American about saying that the executive branch can simply tell the judicial branch to butt out of a matter for national security reasons -- and there's no recourse. And as for these cases, even if the government is worried about legitimate national security concerns -- rather than just afraid of embarrassment -- there is so much in the public domain already about the related issues that government officials should at least be able to talk about what they can't talk about.

People who put a lot of faith in President Obama's pledges of restoring transparency to the government are having a hard time rationalizing his Justice Department's actions on the three cases in question.

One common hope has been that Obama's Justice Department is still simply trying to figure out what to do. And Attorney General Eric Holder, in an interview with CBS News's Katie Couric that aired last night, said he has ordered a review of the state secrets doctrine. But asked if he felt the doctrine was abused by the Bush administration, he replied: "On the basis of the two, three cases that we've had to review so far - I think that the invocation of the doctrine was correct."

And as Charlie Savage reported in the New York Times in February, after the Obama administration's first invocation of the privilege, White House Counsel Greg Craig said, "Holder and others reviewed the case and 'came to the conclusion that it was justified and necessary for national security' to maintain their predecessor's stance."

What is motivating Obama's lawyers here? What exactly trumped his promises of transparency and the restoration of the rule of law? It's got to be something big. Is this about not wanting to give up executive power, now that they have it? Is it about protecting Bush-era secrets? Are they terrified of rebellion in the CIA or NSA? Are Justice Department lawyers still somehow under the influence of the old regime?

Holder at least indicated last night there will be some public explanations soon. He told Couric: "A report is in the process of being prepared. I'll expect I'll have it in the not too distant future. And my hope is to be able to share the results of that report with the American people. So they'll understand exactly - why we've had to use the state secret - state secrets doctrine in certain cases. And why we - decided not to use it in - in certain other cases."

Marc Ambinder blogs for the Atlantic: "Since January 20th, the Justice Department has invoked - or re-invoked - the privilege at least three times. In the case of an Oregon-based Islamic charity, the Al-Haramain Foundation, the administration argued that discovery in the case would necessitate the release of classified information that would gravely jeopardize national security, even though some classified documents were accidentally released to defense attorneys.

"In the case of a group of Guantanamo detainees who filed suit against a flight planning company involved in their renditions to other countries, the administration contended that further disclosure about the role that the company played in the renditions would harm national security.

"Most recently, the administration urged a judge to dismiss a lawsuit brought by five AT&T customers against the government and former Bush administration officials because a trial would require a broad disclosure of the government's current, highly-classified domestic surveillance activities.

"Critics contend that the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration, are wielding the privilege to dismiss entire cases based solely on the assertion by the executive branch that the information disclosed would damage national security, thereby turning what had been an evidentiary privilege into a justiciability privilege."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/obamas-state-secrets-overreach040909.html?wprss=rss_blog

whats good for the goose..i expect to be seeing cameras all over ALL government offices so i can keep an eye on them ..after all they work for us and i want to make sure my employees are doing their job...SUCK ON THAT OBAMA!!!!

i hope they enjoy the show

LOL

I Never Did Like this Guy!

The blog said:

There are two things you really need to know about the "state secrets" privilege.

*The first is that the government lied in the 1953 Supreme Court case that established the government's right not to disclose to the judicial branch information that would compromise national security. The widows of three civilian engineers who died in a military airplane crash sued the government for negligence. The government refused to turn over records, citing national security. But some 50 years later, when the records in question were made public, there were no national security secrets in them, just embarrassing information establishing the government's negligence. (More about the case here.)

The second thing is that the way the state secrets privilege has typically worked since then is that the government can refuse to publicly disclose a specific item of information if it explains why to the judge. The idea is not that government officials get to tell a judge to dismiss an entire case because they don't want to answer any questions at all.*


Is that true? I didn't know that.

Who do you like better?

This guy...

oooo that's a sexy older guy...hubba hubba lol

oops...we are talking about politics right???

He is a stud.

Isn't that the Dad from the show Frasier?

if a government is allowed to use the honor system, for all it's actions and motive's, then likewise, such should equally be used when accessing the people's action's and motive's by the government???

if the government can spy on private citizen's, under the premise of "national security", then the people equally must be able to spy on the government for "national security reasons", as the greatest national security fact, is the government hold the security and live's of the people in it's hands, and the reverse DOES NOT apply for the government???

ONLY FULL DISCLOSURE CAN BREED TRUST EARNED, WHICH IS LOYALTY EARNED, AND NOT FORCED LOYALTY, WHICH SECRECY ALWAYS IMPLY AND INSIST UPON FOR MERIT, WHICH ONLY CREATE A REBELLIOUS ATMOSPHERE IN ALL SITUATIONS???

an attitude of "deserved loyalty", is the most foul and destestable odor, of any dictatorous regime of power and money run amuck in all of history, and the thing any patriotic aware citizen most seek to expose and solve in any "equal" power system???

the most profitable thing to learn from all past history, is what "root thinking" first led many to despair???

"trust us, we're gonna take good care of ya", are not any words pure motive or wisdom or attitude, that hold another's life in it's hands, would ever speak or imply to anything, that truely seen other's as equal and precious and as valuable as itself???

the perpatual fight of millennium's throughout all history, has been the elite and powerful trying to reign over the poor and common, with all impunity and unquestionable power, as one sided decider's of morality and defined goodwill and future's direction, which if allowed by any people under any power, promote apathy as a sedative unto slumber, while the fox run wild in the chicken coop???

peace

I Voted Against J. McCain and obama! but I Would Rather Have Neither Because McCain is a Democrat Disguised as a Republican!

Is Tar and Feathers OK Yet?

it is most difficult to create change within anything, if what seek to make change, make other's afraid of itself, as even governments of immense power fear the people, and anything that is forced into "fearful" self preservation tactic's, becomes more irrational, and even sometimes manic, which proclude oneself from dealing the cards of solution forth from one's own deck and hand, never allowing or forming solutions possible, and hides from view what is in the best interest of both parties, which some call peace???

to realize one's own power, and to most effectively use it, either for good or bad, is to deem all environmental feedback as perfect, and as created by self, which give then the only true tell and extent of self power, and how to most effectively wield it for any change???

these same things "evil" use daily, so for any good to use the same principle's, allow good to always overwhelm or outsmart the "bad", as bad only think about itself, so "misses" much data, while good that consider all other's good welfare, naturally make it percieve much more data, so providing much greater awareness and insight, some calling this wisdom???

peace

so much for change

why am i not surprised

HEY WAR THEY SOUND SURPRISED

amazing simply amazing