Obama administration vows it will continue to use "state secrets" defense

[Bluebear]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Obama administration has informed a federal judge it will continue to invoke the "state secrets" privilege in a legal battle with an Islamic charity suspected of funding terrorism.

The United States has designated the Oregon-based al-Haramain Islamic Foundation as a terrorist organization. The group, which has sued the government over alleged warrantless wiretapping, is demanding classified information about the program.

U.S. officials have refused to tell the charity's lawyers whether the group was subjected to presidentially authorized, warrantless, foreign intelligence surveillance in 2004 and, if so, what information was obtained.

In a court document filed overnight in San Francisco and released early Saturday in Washington, the Justice Department said its case-by-case review of the government's use of the state secrets defense has not changed its position in the al-Haramain case.

The defense allows courts to block lawsuits against the government on grounds that the litigation could harm national security.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/30/court.state.secrets/

[MadHound]

1. Oh boy, is this here some more of that "change" Obama was promising?

Another sign of the two party/same corporate master system of government in action.

[bigtree]

2. part and parcel of the 'brotherhood'?

It really make no sense at all to try and make excuses for this (or ignore it), as some will do here. These artificial constructions of the last administration will become codified into law if the Obama administration has its way. I think its all about preserving some of the 'extra-constitutional' (assumed) power for themselves. It's despicable, really.

[Bluebear]

3. Well, you really never liked Obama anyway

That's the heady response I get whenever the topic comes up about something that is less than hopeful.

[bigtree]

4. and, you know

I really do like the man, personally. It's a shame that many folks have convinced themselves that the defense of policy decisions like this is some necessary defense of the president's person and office. I'm all for humanizing the Obamas. They are really nice folks and we shouldn't get in the business of dehumanizing them as we object to the policy of the administration, I believe, But, we shouldn't shy away from the (consistent) criticisms of the continuation of Bush's artificial constructions.

[Fumesucker]

19. Is it some sort of crime not to have been taken in by a winning smile?

And an easy attitude?

I didn't really care for any of the major candidates, I've been around long enough to have become extremely cynical and distrusting, particularly so when it comes to politicians.

The more likable someone is the more tightly I hold on to my wallet.

[alarimer]

25. No, it certainly isn't a crime.

I felt the same way about Obama as a candidate, like I was being sold a bill of goods. When everyone was gushing over him (I guess because in comparison to McCain or Bush he is certainly a relief) I felt like the odd person out. Like maybe I was being TOO cynical and just didn't get it.

But it turns out that you and I are completely correct in our assessment of Obama. Yet another politician that makes lofty promises while running but breaks most of them once in office. And yet another corporate Dem, proving once again that all we have is one corporate party.

[Echo In Light]

21. I know...makes you wanna ask: why do you base everything on which media personas you "like?"

[Hoopla Phil]

5. What happened to a new transparency in government?

[Bluebear]

7. "Filed overnight and released Saturday morning"

:rofl:

[spanone]

6. administrations rarely roll back their own power

[Selatius]

9. The history books back up your assertion, sadly.

Power is usually never given up willingly. It is taken away.

[Q3JR4]

8. Well duh...

A president can only use the powers a previous administration secured for him/her and that can only happen if the other branches of government fall asleep at the wheel.

The current administration must exercise the same obstructionist rules as the predecessor or the next person to be elected president won't be able to. Also, someone who wants power isn't going to give it up willingly.

Q3JR4.
Not surprised.

[cascadiance]

10. Promises, Promises... er... NOT!!!

Come on Obama! You can do better than this! Let the trial go through and if you HAVE to protect some secure issues, protect the pieces that need to be secure, not throw out the trial like Bushco did counter to procedures that previous presidents used...

What kind of crap here in Oregon is so damn secret that you have to not even allow a trial here!

[AlexanderProgressive]

26. He should have asked for more time...while the review he ordered is complete

Didn't Obama ask for a thorough review of the State Secrets invocation so as to use it more fairly? Why then not ask the judge to give him more time instead of attempting to block this lawsuit? Isn't the review going to be complete in June?

[flyarm]

11. surprise, surprise................

notttttttttttttttttttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!

[1]

12. come on... is there anyone here that doesn't think some of the shit we do shouldn't be kept secret?

are you that naive?

[leftstreet]

13. Like what?

:shrug:

[flyarm]

14. you mean by illegally wiretapping?? because when they did it it was illegal as hell!

and the court ordered Obama admin to release the info..he didn't ask them he ordered them..Obama Admin is now disobeying a court order!

[cascadiance]

27. You can do that AND allow court cases to happen, even with "state secrets" privilege!

In the past, before Bush, the state secrets privilege was used primarily as a means to block presentation/usage of evidence in civil cases that was deemed too secure to be revealed in court and therefore the lawyers were informed that they could proceed with their cases, but that such evidence wouldn't be allowed to be a part of their case.

In many cases, court cases still could be made and decisions rendered even without such evidence provided. And if used that way, the "state secrets" privilege arguably is a reasonable means to prevent secret information that could be damaging (though it hasn't been very well defined as it should be as a concrete set of "laws").

However, Bush and Obama now seem to think that the "state secrets" privilege is the "get out of jail free card" to stop any cases they call potentially jeopardized by "state secrets" from even starting, claiming that even just having the trial proceed in court at all is a threat to national security. I would argue that used in that fashion, it is not used to protect secrets in a constructive manner, but used to protect those in government's collective asses from any sort of scrutiny.

And note that "state secrets" privilege is only claimed in civil court cases, where coincidentally it is primarily US ("we the people") bringing cases against the government as a means not only of getting redress for government actions, but also a citizen's means of keeping them accountable.

Criminal court cases are covered by a different set of laws in terms of presentation/restriction of secret evidence that trumps the more nebulous "state secrets" privilege, and is a lot harder for those involved to "gray mail" them to avoid them from even being heard.

Libby and his lawyers tried to get his case "gray mail"'d by claiming that for him and others to testify effectively in his defense, he'd have to present secret evidence, and therefore the case shouldn't be heard. But ultimately they still had to have the trial in that case. Albeit, George Bush still let him off the hook after it was over with his pardon, after he was convicted.

And coincidentally, the same judge that heard Libby's case, Judge Walton, was the one that dismissed *TWICE* civil court cases from Sibel Edmonds based on "state secrets privilege", who arguably should be able to proceed with her cases without having to have truly secret evidence being presented, but wasn't allowed her day in court, and her appeal to the Supreme Court wasn't heard either.

"State Secrets" privilege is a dangerous mechanism that isn't sufficiently defined to keep our democracy in place if it is allowed to persist without reform. Please go ask congress to endorse Nadler's bill, and I believe Ted Kennedy's equivalent bill in the senate to reform State Secrets privilege, and bring it to a vote. We need that reform NOW, since it appears that even Obama and his administration doesn't want to really fix the problems associated with it, but wish to surreptitiously use it instead!

Be careful calling others naive... What goes around comes around!

[Bluebear]

28. Bravo.

[struggle4progress]

15. U.S. Resists Order in Wiretapping Case

... Judge Walker on May 22 threatened to punish the administration for withholding the document, which he ordered be given to lawyers suing the government over its domestic wiretapping program.

The judge has ordered department lawyers to appear before his court on Wednesday to make the case why he should not award damages to the Oregon chapter, now defunct, of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation. That group is challenging the wiretapping program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/politics/31wiretap.html?_r=1&ref=politics

[LooseWilly]

16. So much for respect for coequal branches of government...

Ok, I shouldn't've said that aloud while the case was still being "argued"... I should wait... because some might still be sure that Obama's WH will release the wiretapping info necessary to the defense if... if the Supreme Court asks them to nicely, I guess.

Gods forbid that a defense attorney be given access to evidence against his/her client...

[struggle4progress]

18. Here's the EFF webpage

http://www.eff.org/cases/al-haramain

You misstate the nature of the case: it is not criminal but a civil action, and the judge has repeatedly ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, against motions to dismiss. The government lawyers, I think, will be facing an unhappy judge this week

[leftofthedial]

17. this 11th-dimensional chess

is sure getting complicated...

[mmonk]

22. I'm still waiting for checkmate.

[mmonk]

20. This hits at my profound disappointment in the Obama administration

and my party.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

23. But he's so much smarter than any of us and knows what he's doing......

:puke:

[alarimer]

24. I hope he loses these cases in court.

This absolutely unacceptable.

[struggle4progress]

29. I think he will -- but if he doesn't, we must demand that Congress rectify