Obama on "state secrets": We’re in for a week, and suddenly we’ve got a court filing

So much for the idea that Obama is pushing exactly the same state secrets policy as Bush. In fact, his explanation is pretty much what many of us were saying right here -- that it takes a lot of time to review ongoing litigation, to figure out what precedent would be set by giving up these case, how a full policy review was needed, and how in the meantime, they just decided to continue litigating the motions that were in the works.

He is acknowledging that there may theoretically be cases in the future in which national security objections may require evidence be kept secret, but that the Bush administration interpretation was overbroad.

Attorney General Holder and the Justice Department are working on a full review:

http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/04/obama-100-days-press-conference

Michael Scherer of TIME?

QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President. During the campaign, you criticized President Bush’s use of the state secrets privilege, but U.S. attorneys have continued to argue the Bush position in three cases in court. How exactly does your view of state secrets differ from President Bush’s? And do you believe presidents should be able to derail entire lawsuits about warrantless wiretapping or rendition if classified information is involved?

OBAMA: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it’s overbroad.

But keep in mind what happens, is we come in to office. We’re in for a week, and suddenly we’ve got a court filing that’s coming up. And so we don’t have the time to effectively think through, what exactly should an overarching reform of that doctrine take? We’ve got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.

There — I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake and that you can’t litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety.

But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it’s not such a blunt instrument.

And we’re interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that as we speak.

People who expected immediate change in every damn thing just don't get it.

Some even whine that he hasn't signed the Freedom of Choice Act, as promised.

Well, let's see, first it has to be passed by congress, then he can sign it.

People would do better to work hard on congress instead of second guessing the president.

:donut:

It's divided between those who think Obama is an elected king who can snap his fingers and make "the government" do anything, and those who realize that there is a process for every change, and that in many cases, that process requires study, cajoling, vote counting, cunning, and patience.

It could be, and has been, argued that the President can "lead" from a bully pulpit, that he could make strong statements on issues and that this would demonstrate his commitment to these and rally others to these causes.

Of course, this would end up polarizing people and it would kill the beauty of how he works, his chess game is a crafty and subtle one.

:patriot:

with PUMAs and teabaggers.

and that he himself is saying he believes the whole states secrets issue is a mixed bag, but one worthy of further scrutiny and reform where possible.

I fully accept the argument that a couple of the very first cases came up very fast in his admin, but even then- OTOH, they were also long-standing cases that had been plenty publicized (like the Jeppesen DataPlan case on CIA renditions, for example) and much had been scrutinized and written during the Bush admin about these cases. One of the takeaway quotes from that first action (under the first Obama DOJ pleading) was that the facts of that case were so generally widely in the public domain, that apparantly the only place they couldn't be discussed was inside a courtroom in front of a Federal judge. I haven't looked, but I wouldn't be surprised to find prior reasoned opinions (general positions) on that one by either Marty Lederman or Dawn Johnsen condemning the prior Bush DOJ actions in these cases. Marty Lederman in particular was a very prolific writer, with over 250+ opinions on Bush/OLC activities re: torture, Guantanamo, warrentless wiretapping and other Bush/Cheney abuses of the DOJ. Marty Lederman was part of the transitional team, if I'm not mistaken, and he was onboard the DOJ under Holder from Day 1. I have to think he was an important resource early on-- it just almost seems like things were on auto-cruise those first weeks, despite. Probably none of us can begin to visualize the nightmarish mess Holder has to contend with, with the vast Bush DOJ/careerists' structure still mostly intact there yet by all media accounts.

He and AG Holder inherited one big nasty corrupt mess. It's therefore very encouraging to hear him continue to offer and to refine his public remarks like the ones above.

come up in November?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/washington/18nsa.html?th&emc=th

Early Test for Obama on Domestic Spying Views
By JAMES RISEN and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: November 17, 2008
WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama will face a series of early decisions on domestic spying that will test his administration’s views on presidential power and civil liberties.

It wasn't until Holder was sworn in that they could begin reviewing the internal documents and memoranda about the implications of winning or losing these cases.

Everyone "knows about" the cases. Everyone does not "know about" the content of attorney-client privileged documents that the decisions about how to go forward, was based on.

How about - "happening or coming unexpectedly"?

You know perfectly well what he means -- that the time between the inauguration and the motions was very short, and not enough time for Holder to study the privileged information which Holder was only allowed to see after Holder was sworn in.

GOP foot-dragging. They prevent the top guys and deputy guys from getting into position so that they can then hire their underlings. Furthermore, a lot of people in all agencies are burrowed Bushies, and many are, if not burrowed, still there nonetheless because of the delay in staffing caused by GOP foot-dragging on top nominees. A continued Bushie can cause all sorts of problems in any agency, and it will take a while to study everything--especially without sufficient loyal manpower.

I am willing to trust Obama for the nonce and hope for the best, rather than immediately assuming he is a liar and a cheat. Also, a point he made last night, that I also have made here on DU, is that the president is not an absolute monarch, though the CheneyBush administration acted as though it were and tried to make it so. I think Obama is deliberately refraining from acting by fiat wherever possible, specifically in order to undo some of that unitary executive bs.

He is trying to work constitutionally to rein in and reverse some of the CheneyBush administration's worst policies. He is also deliberately presenting himself as the reasonable (and, of course, constitutional) alternative to the bad behavior of the "Party of NO."

I think he is doing a damned good job, even if I would like to see him move further and faster in many areas. I am willing to trust that he has a good sense of how fast he can safely move without creating further problems for his future plans.

Thanks for this OP. Bookmark it and be ready to kick it whenever some bitter troll brings this shit up again.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm curious if Olbermann or Maddow talked about this last night. I watched Olbermann for a little while last night, but his torture obsession made me shut it off. The guy has turned into a left wing version of O'Reilly.

Obama does not make rash decisions.

were willing to give the Obama DOJ the time they needed to "effectively think through" before filing.

By the way, there is already ample precedent for redaction, carving out certain cases, and allowing a judge in chambers to review sensitive cases.

Then there is this (the DOJ's position on Jewell vs NSA) which contradicts Obama's claim that his DOJ was compelled to use the states secrets defense because it didn't have the time to effectively think through:



As Greenwald states:

an extension while the Obama Administration reviewed the case. And also one of the DOJ filings was just a week or so ago, much later than one week in. I expect Obama to do what is right Constitutionally, especially since he is an expert on Constitutional law and, most importantly, because it is right. I am tired of excuses from any side of the political fence for poor choices. Stand up and be counted for errors in judgement or do what is right the first time.

versus the information you know and Turley knows are two extremely different things. You're getting your info after it's gotten down the ladder. You won't know or be aware of a lot. Not everything is out to the public the details of the laws and all that. I know many people like to think Turley is a God and all but he's not. I'm especially not considering someone who thought a President should be impeached because of sex. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what sex and the constitution have to do with each other besides the fact the ones who wrote it had sex at least once in their lifetime.

Leave them hanging out there as fodder for media to spin as Obama's silence on these issues? Obama stated his position and took action that ran counter to the position on cases moving through the system.

Frankly, having the courts specifically reject the past administration's argument is a good thing. It was important to have these rejections on record.

What does that have to do with what we here advocate?

Obama had plenty of time to delay the proceedings and review them. In fact, the plaintiffs were encouraging it. Face it, Obama has had the exact same policy towards state secrets as Bush. I'll take his actions on this matter over some words he said in a press conference.