Increasingly, Obama's Justice Department standing by 'George Bush secrecy'

[debbierlus]

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Increasingly_Obamas_Justi...

In the primary election battle between then Senators Obama and Clinton, few opportunities were spared for sniping between the campaigns.

One solid jibe, from President Obama's campaign manager David Plouffe, chided Hillary Clinton for exercises in "George Bush secrecy." The exact quote went, "What the American people don't need is more George Bush secrecy in the White House," uttered Friday, March 7, 2008.

Regardless of what Plouffe felt the American people did or did not need, "George Bush secrecy" is increasingly what they're getting. In a Monday report, the Associated Press notes that President Obama's Department of Justice has already sided with "half a dozen" Bush administration claims of secrecy over spying and interrogations.

"In only one case has the Justice Department agreed to suspend a FOIA lawsuit until the disputed documents can be re-evaluated under the yet-to-be-written guidelines," the wire service reported. "That case involves negotiations on an anti-counterfeiting treaty, not the more controversial, secret anti-terrorism tactics that spawned the other lawsuits as well as Obama's promises of greater openness."

"The signs in the last few days are not entirely encouraging," Jameel Jaffer, an ACLU attorney, told AP.

The ACLU has called on the Justice Department to release Bush administration documentation pertaining to torture, surveillance and other controversial national security policies.

The first signs that President Obama's Justice Department may take up Bush administration secrecy claims came in early February, when the department perpetuated a secrecy claim as a defense against a lawsuit over Bush's "extraordinary rendition" program.

"This case cannot be litigated," Department of Justice attorney Douglas Letter argued. "The judges shouldn't play with fire in this national security situation."

Asked by Judge Mary Schroeder whether the change in the White House had led to any changes in the government's legal arguments in the case, Letter said it "remains the position" of the government that the case should not proceed.

President Obama had promised to "usher in a new era of open government."

"This is not change," ACLU's executive director, Anthony Romero, told AP. "'President Obama's Justice Department has disappointingly reneged' on his promise to end 'abuse of state secrets.'"

[leftofthedial]

1. sounds like Obama is already on board with letting torture

and other crimes go.

Keep 'em secret.

Keep 'em safe.

[zipplewrath]

4. Going forward

I'm afraid that Obama was serious when during the campaign he would use the phrase "going forward from here". I heard it often and I vaguely remember thinking it meant he had no intention of "cleaning up" the mess from the past. He would stop new outrages, but have little interest in resolving old ones. He has said as much since. Congress may force his hand, we'll have to see, but it's one area in which I have little "hope".

[leftofthedial]

7. god help us when the next "bush" seizes power

the "go forward" retreat from principle has created a spiral down from Nixon to George the First to george the lesser.

Imagine how awful the next level down will be.

[Jennicut]

8. Yes, this is why I think Obama does need to eventually go after

Bush. Maybe not yet, as its very early in his presidency but he needs to do it to stop any future presidents from abusing power again. Otherwise we have to hope we keep electing Dems or Dems who don't abuse power.

[MNDemNY]

2. Do not question the ways of the lord-god.

We must trust, blindly, as we are but peons.

[Peacetrain]

12. What the hell does that mean?

[ClarkUSA]

33. Someone needs to move on from the primaries, eh?

[Jennicut]

3. I do not like this

and we need to put pressure on Obama over this. However, using "lord-god" in a sarcastic way to those who support Obama on this bored is offensive. One can like Obama as President and like pic threads and still criticize him and be unhappy with him at times.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

6. Not even a month in. The JD needs to figure out how to proceed w/o starting a political shit storm..

Thats exactly what I'm seeing anyways. Anyone that doesn't see the wisdom in approaching the past administration's sins carefully and also the wisdom in making sure the public is focused on supporting the new administration in its quest to fix the economy is thinking like a frigging child.

Face it. It would be utterly stupid for the Obama administration to go after the Bushies right now. Not only would they be accused of not dedicating full attention to the problems of the "here and now", they would also end up distracting the country from supporting the measures they need to take. The media would have a field day with it and the Republicans would make a good case for getting power back in 2010. Then we really WILL be stuck with a repeat of all the compromises that had to be made during the Clinton years.

Any investigations or charges made against the Bush administration need to be carried out carefully and it should be done in such a way that doesn't cause a long, drawn out divisive war in Washington. We simply can't afford that right now.

[jberryhill]

35. Ding - people want snap judgments from the Obama administration

...and that is not going to happen.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. Shame on you, Obama. SHAME!

[uponit7771]

10. I don't like his PRESENT stance, I'll judge after a couple of years though due to Bush messin

...things up so bad, a good reason to stick to Bush secrecy is to protect under covers or something.

[berni_mccoy]

11. Broken link and B.S. Article. Raw Story has already shown it needs to sensationalize statements

made by the Obama Administration.

Original source is the AP and we know how they spin.

And let's not forget who actually CLOSED GITMO and re-instated FOIA.

But I forget, you have a mission to take down Obama.

[Jennicut]

13. Well, if the orininal source is the AP then perhaps

we need to get a clearer article before we can come to the right conclusion. AP has zero credibility.

[MNDemNY]

19. Damn liberal media.

[Jennicut]

20. I have no more responses for you.

Go read the DU rules and then come back later, kay?

[MNDemNY]

21. O.K. I read 'em, now what? A spanking?

[MNDemNY]

28. Here is a good link to the story.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_not_Bush_now_seeking_delay_0217.html

[berni_mccoy]

36. Nope, that's a different story altogether. Maybe RawStory pulled it.

[debbierlus]

40. Here is the link:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Increasingly_Obamas_Justice_Department_standing_by_0216.html

[JimGinPA]

14. Yeah, Let's Not Allow The JD The Time For Review...

We certainly don't want them to err on the side of caution.

[Spazito]

15. Hmmm, it seems rawstory pulled the article....

Could it be the author, not for the first time, incorrectly interpreting something and have been called out on it. I suspect it will re-appear much less inflammatory but still a less than accurate assessment of the facts.

[cottonseed]

23. I don't think so. OP so excited to bash -- didn't get link in right.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_not_Bush_now_seeking_delay_0217.html

[Spazito]

34. LOL re OP excitement, cannot argue that one...

thanks for the CORRECT link, it is appreciated. Mr. Byrne, it seems, is determined to bring his slant to his interpretation of another article's interpretation of the facts. Love the originality of it all, lol.

[debbierlus]

37. Wrong link - your link is to a different story

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Increasingly_Obamas_Justice_Department_standing_by_0216.html

[AtomicKitten]

16. Nice inflammatory conclusion. Wrong, but damn it does get ya going, doesn't it?

I learned my lesson from precipitous inflammatory headlines a while back at HuffPost. The lesson is find a better source and don't let those websites that thrive on "HEADLINES!!!!" read between the lines for you. You're welcome.

[firedupdem]

17. I wonder how long it takes you to seek out these articles that

seem to blast the President? I'm glad raw story pulled it. Ridiculous.

[cottonseed]

24. I don't think it's pulled yet. In OPs zeal, the link wasn't put in right.

It's still at raw story:

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_not_Bush_now_seeking_delay_0217.html

[MNDemNY]

25. Not pulled, sorry charlie.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_not_Bush_now_seeking_delay_0217.html

[firedupdem]

26. too bad...it should be. n/t

[MNDemNY]

29. Why because it rubs you the wrong way? Too bad.

What are the factual errors in it? List them , please. Otherwise , take a nap.

[firedupdem]

30. Why the snark?

I think the headline is slanted to make it more sensational in a negative way against the President. I've read other articles that don't make it seem as if the President is totally blocking any investigation of these criminals.

Since you don't know me you don't can't really judge what rubs me the wrong way. And you can shove your nasty comments up your ignorant ass.

[MNDemNY]

31. The headline is no more sensational than the content.

This action is beyond justification.

[Jennicut]

38. Just ignore this poster...

there are major issues there.

[chill_wind]

18. Here's the AP version of that, with parts of it apparently quoted or alluded to by RawStory:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRxkXgVSW3KF4M0vDNKQIonyXsAAD96D702O1

Despite Obama pledge, Justice defends Bush secrets

By MICHAEL J. SNIFFEN – 9 hours ago

They are citing some events that have already occurred and a half a dozen decisions that Obama's admin have already weighed in on so far. Jeppesen DataPlan not the least of it.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gRxkXgVSW3KF4M0vDNKQIonyXsAAD96D702O1

[cottonseed]

22. Did you get the headline right this time?

The links broken. Sure a lot of replies here for a post with no link.

[MNDemNY]

27. Try this one. Same headline.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Obama_not_Bush_now_seeking_delay_0217.html

[ClarkUSA]

32. How many misleading Obama-bashing OPs have you posted so far? I've lost count.

[debbierlus]

39. Raw Story changed the link - here is a direct link to the story

And, if you are upset with the story and the ACLU (the most often praised institution on this board before Obama's election), write them.

I didn't even comment on the post. I just put it out there. Now, even posting stories that do show Obama in anything but a glowing light is a reason to bash the poster.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Increasingly_Obamas_Justice_Department_standing_by_0216.html

[chill_wind]

41. Maybe this opinion- will help illuminate points made

in the press about the Jeppesen case, at least.

You Cover It Up, You Own It
David Luban

Many of us have been wondering which of the Bush Administration's disgraceful litigation positions the Obama/Holder DOJ would abandon. Yesterday's Ninth Circuit hearing in Mohamed v. Jeppesen DataPlan was a newsworthy first start. It's up there with the maiden voyage of the Titanic and the flight of the Hindenburg. The excellent Glen Greenwald summarizes the bad news here. In brief, DOJ lawyer Douglas Letter astonished the judges on the panel by defending the outrageous Bush abuse of the "state secrets" privilege in a lawsuit by rendition victims against the CIA's travel service that rendered them. Letter informed the incredulous judges that the new administration had decided to maintain the old administration's position.

The state secrets privilege is the so-called "nuclear option" in litigation, which makes lawsuits against the government vanish without a trace by declaring unilaterally that all the facts the plaintiffs would use to prove their case are state secrets. With no facts to back the claim, plaintiffs' cases must be dismissed.

This one is particularly egregious, because most of the facts are well known and well documented through other sources. One question is whether the state secrets doctrine concerns facts or documents. That is: does it mean that government documents cannot be entered into evidence because they are secret? Or does it mean that the underlying facts are "state secrets" that can never be ventilated in an American courtroom, even if they are well known everywhere else in the world and the plaintiff can prove them using publicly available evidence?

The latter position -- that the state secrets privilege is a rule about facts, not about evidence -- is absurd, but it is the government's position. It's absurd, of course, because there is no point in keeping secrets that aren't secrets any longer. As the ACLU's Ben Wizner who argued against the government yesterday, said of another godawful state secrets case, "really the only place in the world where Khalid El-Masri's case could not be discussed was in a federal courtroom. Everywhere else it could be discussed without harm to the nation, but in a federal court before a federal judge there, all kinds of terrible things could happen."

the rest at Balkinization.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2009/02/you-cover-it-up-you-own-it.html

And before the naysayers go wanting to discredit THAT source as yet another "smear site", keep in mind that one of that site's well-know participants is supposed to be going to Obama's OLC.:
Marty Lederman

Jack M Balkin's Law Blog

It's been reiterated on law commentary blogs everywhere from the ACLU's to Greenwald's to Balkin's that the Obama DOJ did not ask for a delay or more review time on this case. They went in prepared to blow it up and blow it up, they did. Make what you will of the motive, but that- if we can believe the multiple legal commentary sources, including the opinions of ones of the caliber of sites like Balkin--is what happened.

Now there emerges some effort at perception management-- and Glenn Greenwald blows that up real good, too.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/11/state_secrets/index.html

[Kablooie]

42. The ACLU should pursue this but if Obama keeps something a secret I'll bet there is a valid reason.

I trust that he's not keeping secrets so he can do illegal things like Bush.

But there could be information that if released would endanger people or reveal something that would decrease the country's security.

For example, if they had a mole in the Iran government who was reporting what the real state of their nuclear plan is, this should not be revealed.

The ACLU has a duty to pursue this information but if it truly would create danger for the country if released, the administration has a duty not to reveal it.

[EFerrari]

43. Secrecy breeds corruption. n/t

[EraOfResponsibility]

44. sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't

[EFerrari]

45. Fair enough. And a democratic nation should never have to rely on those odds. n/t

[chill_wind]

47. OMg thank you. And for your next appeal, how would you like the odds of getting Jay Bybee?!

Now, apparently in the Ninth Circuit. A nod to dKos, that picked this up in the the NYT:

Jay S. Bybee, now a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, who as head of the office signed the 2002 opinions, which were later withdrawn; and Steven G. Bradbury, who wrote three more still-secret opinions on interrogation in 2005, when he was the top lawyer in the counsel’s office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/17justice.html
2-16-09

!!!

[chill_wind]

46. The only states secrets still left in this case are probably the flight numbers

of the planes still in use.

As the ACLU lawyers have repeatedly asserted, the bulk of the facts of this case have been out there in the public domain for almost two years. That apparently, they note with weary sarcasm ,the only place the facts can't be discussed is inside a courtroom in front of a federal judge where all sorts of horrible things might happen!

Facts:

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/29921res20070530.html

See also what David Luban wrote in my post above.

Will we or will we not put and end to the abuse of the Bush states secrets privlege? Will we or will we not punish and cease this evil?

In the meantime, for a second time, these victims were denied their day of justice. WHY?