Statement of Sen. Russ Feingold on the Obama DOJ's brief in Jewel:

[slipslidingaway]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/09/tpm/index1.html

"I am troubled that once again the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case challenging the previous administration’s alleged misconduct. The Obama administration’s action, on top of Congress’s mistaken decision last year to give immunity to the telecommunications companies that allegedly participated in the warrantless wiretapping program, will make it even harder for courts to rule on the legality of that program. In February, I asked for a classified briefing so that I can understand the reasons for the Department’s decision to invoke the privilege in another case, and I intend to seek information on this new case as well. I also encourage the greatest possible public accounting of the use of the state secrets privilege and welcome the Attorney General’s statement that he hopes to share his review with the American people.

Beyond the particular case at issue here, it is clear that there is an urgent need for legislation to give better guidance to the courts on how to handle assertions of the state secrets privilege. The American people must be able to have confidence that the privilege is not being used to shield government misconduct. That is why I am working with Senators Leahy, Specter, and others to pass the State Secrets Protection Act as soon as possible."

[PeaceNikki]

1. Once again, Russ is right on the mark.

:thumbsup:

[slipslidingaway]

3. I did not think he would speak out so soon, but I'm glad he did. n/t

[Better Believe It]

2. K & R

[slipslidingaway]

5. Thanks n/t

[slipslidingaway]

4. DOJ's statement on the matter....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/09/gibbs-obama-stands-by-doj_n_185300.html

"...The administration recognizes that invoking the states secret privilege is a significant step that should be taken only when absolutely necessary. After careful consideration by senior intelligence and Department of Justice officials, it was clear that pursuing this case could unavoidably put at risk the disclosure of sensitive information that would harm national security.

An examination by the Director of National Intelligence and an internal review team established by the Attorney General determined that attempting to address the allegations in this case could require the disclosure of intelligence sources and methods that are used in a lawful manner to protect national security. The administration cannot risk the disclosure of information that could cause such exceptional harm to national security.

While the assertion of states secrets privilege is necessary to protect national security, the intelligence community's surveillance activities are designed and executed to comply fully with the laws protecting the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. There is a robust oversight system to ensure this compliance..."

[slipslidingaway]

6. EFF Attorney - Kevin Bankston

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlZ20rUZVus

[Better Believe It]

7. No harm to the nation (national security" will occur if the case is pursued

"allegations in this case could require the disclosure of intelligence sources and methods"

We are aware of the sources and methods that were used in illegal wiretapping. So how will the people of the United States be harmed by disclosure? This is just a bull shit claim (the same one Richard Nixon and Dubya used) to protect those who violated the Constitution and continue to violate it!

[slipslidingaway]

11. Here is what EFF attorney Bankston said...

there are methods to protect the secret evidence.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30135838/

"BANKSTON: Well, the decision to invoke the state secret‘s privilege was a decision of the administration. It did not have to do that. As you mentioned, Eric Holder is planning on withdrawing state secrets privilege assertions in another case. They could have done what we‘ve advocated they do for several years and what the courts require them to do already in another case, which is submit their secret evidence through security procedures that are already laid down in federal law."

[biopowertoday]

14. yes, there are means to

protect any secrets for security purposes.

[slipslidingaway]

16. Why not use them n/t

[Vidar]

8. Thank you, Russ!

[slipslidingaway]

9. Transcript - Olbermann and EFF attorney Kevin Bankston

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30135838/

"OLBERMANN: How much hope is there that the worry that this is excessive, that this is not the huge policy assertion that it would seem at first, second and third blush—I mean, don‘t Justice Department attorneys of every generation have to come up with whatever arguments they can when the government gets sued? Don‘t the courts have the final say on this?

BANKSTON: Well, the decision to invoke the state secret‘s privilege was a decision of the administration. It did not have to do that. As you mentioned, Eric Holder is planning on withdrawing state secrets privilege assertions in another case. They could have done what we‘ve advocated they do for several years and what the courts require them to do already in another case, which is submit their secret evidence through security procedures that are already laid down in federal law.

As for the immunity argument, well, certainly lawyers are required to make whatever credible, colorable arguments they can to defend their clients, but this argument is simple incredible, literally. No one has ever suggested that the Patriot Act section they‘re pointing to does what they claim it does—not the White House, not the Justice Department, and certainly not members of Congress.

This is completely out of left field, and is plainly wrong, as we look forward to explaining to the court..."


Video...

Countdown-attorney Kevin Bankston - EFF sues government over wiretapping
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlZ20rUZVus

[slipslidingaway]

10. Interview with Senator Feingold - After the FISA Fight...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/07/after-fisa-fight-interview-sen-russ-feingold

"...MJ: What's the fix? Is there one? And when?

RF: Hopefully, under President Obama he will acknowledge, as he has in the past, not only how outrageous this immunity is — although that's gonna be very hard to deal with because the horse may already be out of the barn — but I think, even more importantly, he will have an opportunity to review these very expanded powers that are given to the government to surveil our international communications. And to say, look, we need legislation that has some sort of court review and mechanisms for control of this, because it's completely lawless. It's much harder to pass something and change it after the fact. But I'm hoping we'll have both houses (of Congress) and I'm hoping Obama will understand how important this is. And that will be a golden opportunity for him to correct one of many things that needs to be corrected from this administration. So I'm hoping it starts as early as January 20th..."

[biopowertoday]

12. "golden opportunity for him to correct one of many things" That was the promise

by Obama at that time. Still waiting.

[biopowertoday]

13. and a big REC.

[slipslidingaway]

17. Thanks n/t

[slipslidingaway]

15. Obama and State Secrets? Shhh…

http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obama_and_state_secrets_shhh.php?page=1

"...On April 3, the Holder Justice Department filed arguments in Jewel v. National Security Agency, a lawsuit being waged by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of five people who claim that their constitutional rights were abridged when they were subjected to the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program.

While the suit was originally filed under Bush, the EFF and Justice agreed to stay the date of the Department’s filing until after the election. That would mean that a new administration would be responsible for litigating the case, one the EFF surely hoped would be more receptive, given that it looked likely that the White House would be won by a candidate whose platform decried “abuse” of the state secrets privilege, which Bush used to swat away suits related to the wiretapping program.

But on Friday, that new department sought to have the case dismissed by relying, in part, on a broad reading of a legal principle oft invoked by the Bush department, that the federal government, by claiming that any litigation of the case would reveal state secrets.

This is a big deal, but so far the story has received little light outside of generally liberal leaning portions of the media..."

[biopowertoday]

18. This response nails it for me..

...........



No, the Obama administration doesn't have some good secret plan to force the issue to be resolved by the Supreme Court or Congress. It WANTS these powers, for whatever reason (make that excuse).

If they wanted that, they could simply say so. Nothing is harmed by saying so, if that is their position.

No, even though i voted for him, and given the choice at the time, that was the right choice, I never personally thought Obama was especially principled, with his many tone-deaf or worse actions. His bringing in that "recovered" gay man, his disingenuous explanations for FISA, his continual appointment of the very people who helped bring on the financial crisis, his desire to bring in Tom Daschle, one of the most compromised democrats in the country, and virtually every judicial action has been to continue or expand on the powers Bush/Cheney illegally claimed.

At this point, one should give no benefit of the doubt to Obama, and he needs to earn it all over again. He is not trustworthy, and needs some serious pushback.

--Ron

Posted by Ron Robertson on Sat 11 Apr 2009 at 01:18 PM



http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/obama_and_state_secrets_shhh.php?page=1