More On President Obama’s Bush-like ‘State Secrets’ Advocacy

Obama can keep his change; I’ll keep mine.

There is more here than meets the eye. I am not sure of the answer. A campaign promise or position on this matter is one thing, but the reality is something different. It is a thorny issue, but I have my doubts about it being settled by some pundits view.
Politics aside this State secret stuff is being supported by two Presidents One very Conservative the other Liberal.
I hear both sides of the argument, but I must say from what I see posted, I am glad it isn’t the posters who are making the decisions.

Thinking:”Politics aside this State secret stuff is being supported by two Presidents One very Conservative the other Liberal.
I hear both sides of the argument, but I must say from what I see posted, I am glad it isn’t the posters who are making the decisions.”
While I agree to a great extent, I am also satisfied in my support of groups like the EFF and ACLU so I know there is an informed advocate keeping an eye on the issue. (Liberals can fund lobbyists too…)

Here’s Mr. Obama on January 7, 2008:
“In our own Technology Voters’ Guide, when asked whether he supports shielding telecommunications and Internet companies from lawsuits accusing them of illegal spying, Obama gave us a one-word response: “‘No.’”

“I have my doubts about it being settled by some pundits view.”
It’s not. It’s being settled by the president, just as it was in the prior administration. Are you suggesting the pundits should just shut up, like the poor guy who’ getting treated so shabbily by the VA?

While I’m pretty unhappy with Obama’s embrace of secrecy in these cases, I do like the way it separates out the people with principles from the naked partisans.
I still have fond memories of the Republicans, led by John Ashcroft howling over Bill Clinton’s efforts to implement Clipper and give government a back-door into private communications.
.
Strangely silent during the Bush years, principled Republicans now have an opportunity to join with principled progressives in an effort to restore checks and balances.

“I have my doubts about it being settled by some pundits view.”
It’s not. It’s being settled by the president, just as it was in the prior administration. Are you suggesting the pundits should just shut up, like the poor guy who’ getting treated so shabbily by the VA?
****************************************
No it isn’t being settled by the President. It will be settled by the courts. The President can make his case, but it is the courts that will make the decision. Now if the President should ignore the court that is another matter; should the court support the President that is another. Then it would be up to the Congress to change the law if it disagrees, and if we disagree with congress then it is up to us to change Congress.

Pb0 voted to support Bush’s spy bill that takes your constitutional rights away by peeking into your private lives without the check and balance of the court. This is no secret, and you have supported Candidate 0bama, during the primaries and the general election. Now, you are surprised that he keeps Bush’s spy bill under his belt? Pb0 is going to create a National Security Force (NSF) to enforce his socialist agendas.
Incidentally, if you still have memory left, both HRC and McCain voted against Bush’s spy bill.

Ok. Smart guys. Who here is practical/pragmatic?
One glaring obvious reason that “state secrets” aren’t available to federal judges or whoever ,is that that if that were allowed ,pretty soon there would be NO “state secrets”
Often times ,as was just witnessed in the inadvertent classified information leak by the british intelligence officer (that led to his resignation ) regarding a current al quaeda plot that WAS under surveillance ,even the best experts in the field are human ,and thus fallible. National security is one glaring area where even the slightest indiscretions and miscalculations can result in catastrophic consequences.
Loss lips sink ships…ever hear that?
The less that know to begin with and the less that do in fact know vital security info ,the better ,imo.
Additionally , those who got access to such security information would themselves then be national security risks themselves , either for possibly selling the information (which has actually not been that uncommon ,historically) or for possible extortion schemes ,e.g. being kidnapped and tortured ,family members kidnapped as ransom for information etc etc…
Just opens up a can of worms that really could (and should imo) just as easily stay closed.

“It will be settled by the courts.”
The question of whether the state secrets doctrine will be invoked by the executive branch will be–indeed, has been–settled by the president. Which is fine with me, except that during the campaign he said he wouldn’t do so.
The courts will determine whether he is successful, but regardless of whether he succeeds, he has once again gone back on his word.

The courts will determine whether he is successful, but regardless of whether he succeeds, he has once again gone back on his word.
****************************************
If the case warrants it so what? I would rather he go back on his word then expose something that would put us all at great risk.
The problem is would it? The only way to make the choice is to tell us what it is, but then if we decide that he is correct it is too late.
My gut feeling is that you do not disagree with his decision to change his mind, but you are just making a partisan statement.

No one wants secrets published. Even this blog post notes that we only want judges to review the papers. Federal judges are more than capable of handling classified material.
****************************************
What is my position? Have I said that I want secrets revealed? Have I said this case does not belong in the courts?

“If the case warrants it so what?”
That’s what Bush (and I) said. Obama said something different while he was seeking office; now he agrees with Bush and me.

This is one of the campaign promises that we wanted him to keep!

Change has come to America and everybody including republicans know it. Obama disagrees with Bush on most issues, not every issue. Guantanamo,Torture, Weapons contracts, Cuba, actual fron for war on terrorism, the economy. The whole world including America know this.
The economy is bouncing back and republicans are getting nervous because they were hoping Obama fails. Some of them even said Obama`s policies were wrong and going to make matters worse.
They are dead wrong.

“I was upset when Obama voted for FISA, but I’m more upset now. I’m a huge Obama fan, but I’m disappointed.”
Agreed

“I agree with Greenwald’s statement but note that Obama is moving beyond the Bush position.”
How so?

Mr. Tapper,
I salute you for covering this urgent issue. This is the kind of journalism that our country needs at this time, and that it is in perilously short supply of.
Obama is eviscerating our privacy rights, and all citizens should know about this.
Also, Glenn Greenwald has been vocal about this issue. He offers a brilliant analysis of this problem on his blog, and should be required reading for all Americans.
Thank you again, and keep up the great work.

“Ever notice when in debate with a republican he immediately goes back to recall what was going on in WW1, WW2, 911, Civil War.
This takes the cake.
They are are now back in the 1700′s”
Yeah, because it’s nutty to know history and have a frame of reference for how and why things happen the way they do.
What’s that wise and famous saying…oh yeah, I think it’s “Like, let’s totally forget history so we can like, totally repeat it, k?”

“Sometimes I think media heads take themselves to serious. Somethings are to be classified or “secret” if that’s what you want to call it. So long as we stop torturing people in secret, I think we are on the right track.”
Yeah, just don’t torture foreigners in secret…but everything else should be kept from the public. What right do we have to know what our government is doing anyhow?
We should answer to them, not the other way around, right? I mean, it worked in the Soviet Union for a long time, and the Chinese people seem to love it.

“Hay Mr.Tapper what is your account number… Oh, so now you want to keep secrets, I thought nobody was supposed to keep secrets.”
If you don’t know the difference between the rights of a private citizen and the public government, you may be beyond hope.
In the current setup, you, the private citizen, have no right to privacy or secrets. That is a large part of the point here.
“Somethings are not for you to know. Can you imagine the administration telling you (Mr.Tapper) all they know, in hopes you would keep it hush.”
You will make a great foot soldier for the fascist dictatorship we are headed for if this keeps up.

“Ever notice when in debate with a republican he immediately goes back to recall what was going on in WW1, WW2, 911, Civil War.”
On the issue of invoking the state secrets doctrine in litigation, I’m content to go back to what Mr. Obama was saying in 2008. Any further historical explication is often useful, but also generally lost on today’s Democrats.

On the issue of invoking the state secrets doctrine in litigation, I’m content to go back to what Mr. Obama was saying in 2008. Any further historical explication is often useful, but also generally lost on today’s Democrats.
****************************************
Enlighten us please>

“Not really Bush didn’t use the court system set up by FISA to do the wiretapping, so Bush abused the State Secret doctrine…”
They’re two different, unrelated things.
Both Bush and Obama have contended, in civil litigation against telcom companies, that ddocuments relating to which people were intercepted cannot be disclosed in court because of the state secrets doctrine. If pressed on this, Gibbs will have to concede. It’s a separate matter from whether the president had the inherent power, regardless of FISA, to make the intercepts in the first place. (The only court to consider the question has said that he did.)

They’re two different, unrelated things.
Both Bush and Obama have contended, in civil litigation against telcom companies, that ddocuments relating to which people were intercepted cannot be disclosed in court because of the state secrets doctrine.
****************************************
It is not two unrelated things. It is the same case! What he claims is that litigation will reveal State Secrets. That is for the US to defend or for the litigators to press the issue would demand that Sate Secrets be revealed. The question isn’t who was intercepted but was Bush doing so legally. As far as who it also may be a State Secret. I have no Idea. But as far as I know the court has the right to view all documents to make the decision, but in the past the courts have deferred to the Government’s position. If this sets precedence, I do not know. I couldn’r argue one way or the other.
Other than then thatr earlier today you supported Obama’s position.
***************************************
If the case warrants it so what?”
That’s what Bush (and I) said. Obama said something different while he was seeking office; now he agrees with Bush and me.

Given the White House take over of the Census and their coziness with ACORN and the like, I don’t have the same confidence that it’s on the up and up.
****************************************
Hmm…. That is queer, not trusting Obama being on the up and up defending Bush’s position.

“It is not two unrelated things. It is the same case!”
You’re in error. A very large civil case was brought against many telcom companies alleging illegal intercepts of communication that originated or ended abroad, but were not exclusively within the borders of the US. That raised the issue, among others, of the president’s inherent authority to intercept communications related to foreign intelligence. If he has such authority–as the FISA court has says he does–then the congress cannot circumscribe it, as the FISA court said.
That issue became moot in the civil litigation when the congress passed–and Obama signed–legislation granting immunity to the telcoms.
That left a handful of litigants who claim that they were intercepted in entirely domestic communications. If their claim is correct, then they are not covered by the amnesty (whether or not their communications could be construed as involving foreign intelligence is not known to me).
Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have taken the position that they will not turn over the documents that might show, as plaintiffs contend, that their communications were wholly domestic. They have both relied upon the state secrets doctrine. Thus, whether or not the original intercepts were lawful, they may have violated, say, the Fourth Amendment and other statutes, but they had nothing to do with any abuse of the state secrets doctrine. The two administrations’ positions have been identical, and I support both of them.

“I wonder why the GOP would be so against voter registration drives and being involved with the Census.”
I am only opposed to corrupt voter registration drives, undertaken for the purpose of registering ineligible voters. ACORN stands accused of precisely that practice.
I am opposed to White House “supervision” of the census because, for good reason, it has never been done before. For two centuries it has been done by independent actors, for quite some time within the Commerce Department but not answerable to anyone in the White House. Now it is proposed that the process be supervised by Rahm Emmanuel. If you think that’s OK, you’re a mere partisan hack.
It is a dangerous procedure to follow, and I oppose it regardless of which party is in the White House.

“Keep in mind that Obama has not only flip-flopped on the use of the state secrets doctrine, he did so on the legislation granting immunity to the telcoms.”
=======================================
I fully support both continuations of Bush/Cheney policy.

ACORN stands accused of precisely that practice.
****************************************
Stands accused? Not convicted? So now we stand accused forever? Hmmmm……. So now all the GOP has to do is accuse, well let us face it that is what they do anyway. Perhaps it is another reason that only about 25% of the population ID themselves as Republican.

“Stands accused? Not convicted?”
ACORN members have been convicted of voter fraud in many states.

This is just part of the lengthy statement issued by ACORN before the election:
“Fact: Voter fraud by individuals is extremely rare, and incredibly difficult. There has never been a single proven case of anyone, anywhere, casting an illegal vote as a result of a phony voter registration. Even if someone wanted to influence the election this way, it would not work.”

Yeah, because it’s nutty to know history and have a frame of reference for how and why things happen the way they do.
What’s that wise and famous saying…oh yeah, I think it’s “Like, let’s totally forget history so we can like, totally repeat it, k?”
Posted by: paul | Apr 10, 2009 6:30:13 PM
==========================
What’s even nuttier is that the world enters into a new century, into a new age, the “historians’ are still trying use antiquated backwards thinking logic to solve the problems of today.
Hmmm. Maybe the tea parties back in the seventeen hundreds have NO relations to the lunacy being displayed today.
where were the tea parties when bush was spending like a drunken sailor. where were the tea parties when the national debt was being doubled by gwb.
smells like hypocrisy to me.
smells like politics to me
smells like disingenuous minds a play

drjohn, some ACORN employees have been convicted of defrauding ACORN. The ACORN staff were the people who reported them. What’s your REAL problem with ACORN? Just don’t like it when people get organized?