Unprecedented: Obama admin. claims right to censor ‘unclassified’ materials

[babsbunny]

By Stephen C. Webster
Thursday, May 12th, 2011 -- 4:54 pm

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/12/unprecedented-obama-admin-claims-it-can-censor-unclassified-materials/

In the case of former National Security Agency (NSA) executive Thomas A. Drake -- indicted last April and accused of funneling documents to an unnamed reporter at an unnamed newspaper, for stories that have not been identified -- the president's lawyers have made a unique and potentially unprecedented claim.

With less than a month before Drake's trial begins, the Obama administration has filed a memo with the court claim the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) gives courts the right to censor and withhold material that is "unclassified."

"It is simply incorrect to argue that CIPA is a rigid set of procedures that precludes this Court from simultaneously considering the admissibility of classified information as well as other information, whether protected or unclassified," they wrote (PDF).

[villager]

1. "Just not the 'change' you were 'hoping' for, is all!"

:thumbsup:

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Autumn]

2. Who the fuck gave them that right?

What part of "unclassified" do they not understand.

[Azathoth]

3. They shouldn't be prosecuting Drake in the first place

and this kind of overreaching just looks bad. They'll almost certainly get slapped down by the court.

[kath]

4. Wow. Is this administration just FULL of major-league assholes, or WHAT??

Jeebus.

It just gets worse and worse and worse...

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

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

[Autumn]

7. No there is plenty more.n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. I'm guessing the camel's back will support only so many straws... n/t

[Exilednight]

9. WTF? and I don't mean "winning the future".

I mean WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS ADMINISTRATION THINKING?

[Pisces]

10. They have proven time and time again more than you can imagine. Outrage fail of the day.

[Exilednight]

11. Obama called Hillary "Republican Lite". Yet he has adopted most of her positions. n/t

[vaberella]

12. Non-issue and I don't get the outrage. Why? Because this is what court cases are about.

Maybe if you have never seen a case on CourtTV or an episode of Law& Order, than I can see people being shocked. But law and it's understandings are made up of PRECEDENTS. For instance, although it's not declared officially that we have a separation of Church and State---we have court cases which have created "precedents" that establish and argue that we have a separation of church and state.

Laws are used and being used in many ways of interpretation. This is why internet laws are being used in cyber-bullying. It's a new interpretation and creates a precedent. However, much like in the cyber-bully casing and internet laws, which did not hold up in court. This argument can easily fail in court since there has never been a precedent before and the argument could be proven useless.

So for me to waste energy on being outraged over this is ridiculous. Yes, it may be new for the admin and people may slam the admin of this...it's whatever. I mean I would think the same if Bush or any other admin did this. Because this is how laws work and sometimes where we can see improvement and clearly defining of our laws---such as in the case of Church and State.

That being said...it may just fail---since it's now in the judge's hands if he would accept such an argument. If he doesn't...then he doesn't. If he does, he does.

Further more I don't see how this is a referendum on the Obama administration since the DOJ is an entity separate and is fairly independent from the Presidency. The presidency can't really tell the DOJ how to run things, but the DOJ can inform the President when it doesn't see something fit to defend and recommend to the President over some issues. So ...I'm not getting the outrage.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[Cali_Democrat]

14. Ouch. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. "principals"? I think you meant "principles", and you're really one to talk.

:rofl:

[Exilednight]

17. And whom, exactly, do I blindly follow? And you are correct about principles. my apologies. n/t

[ProSense]

15. It's

media driven. From the Steven Aftergood piece linked to in the OP article:

<...>

The NSA Act exemption cited by the government is most commonly used in Freedom of Information Act cases to deny access to unclassified information. It has never been used to exclude information in a criminal case, the defense said. Even if it were permitted to be invoked in this case, it requires a detailed affidavit to support its use in each instance and no such affidavits have been produced.

<...>

So is has been "commonly used" in other cases and the missing element here is a "detailed affidavit"?

It's an unfolding legal case being used by the media to spark outrage. Aftergood's piece isn't even controversial. It's simply a description of the case and brief.