Nadler: Obama Admin - 'Embracing' Bush - 'courts lack authority to disagree with executive branch'

[kpete]

Further Comments from Jerrold Nadler on the “New” State Secrets Policy
By: emptywheel Friday September 25, 2009 10:30 am

.......................

Finally, I asked specifically about the way that the Administration had refused to give lawyers in the al-Haramain and Horn cases the "need to know" to conduct a CIPA-like process, even in cases where the Courts had limited or rejected the application of state secrets. Nadler's spokesperson reassured me that they, too, are following how the Admininstration is approaching these cases.

NADLER: We have also been following, and are concerned by, some of the arguments being asserted in al-Haramain and Horn and will continue monitoring those cases and considering what, if any, adjustments in our legislative proposal are necessary. With regard to affirmation of classification authority in the new policy, we agree that the underlying authority to classify information should remain intact, but also believe that where the Attorney General has decided that the state secret privilege is not appropriate in a given case, or a judge has otherwise ruled that the state secret privilege does not apply or does not prevent disclosure to opposing counsel, the Department should not then use its classification authority as an auxiliary route for avoiding disclosure. By doing so, this Administration seems to be embracing - in the guise of classification authority rather than state secret privilege - its predecessor's argument that the courts simply lack the authority to disagree with the executive branch's claim of secrecy. Congressman Nadler's bill (H.R. 984), as well as Senator Leahy's, makes clear that courts must review the information that the government seeks to withhold and determine whether the claimed risk of significant harm to national security that might result from its public disclosure is valid. Our Constitution demands nothing less.

I guess it's time to start persuading members of the Judiciary Committees how important real state secrets reform remains.

more:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/09/25/further-comments-from-jerrold-nadler-on-the-new-state-secrets-policy/

[aquart]

1. This is what happens when you don't impeach the criminal president.

His stolen power passes intact, unchallenged, and supported by precedent to the new president. Essentially, by our cowardice over Bush, we have any president unimpeachable.

Until another lawless Republican majority takes office. But even then?

Congress and the judiciary will have to revolt together.

It does not matter if the dictatorship is benign. It is the precedent of unchecked power which matters.

[KoKo]

2. K&R

[joeycola]

3. so many seem to think it is OK for Obama to have this power but for

bush, they went crazy!!