Ssssshhhhh! President Obama Is Still Backing State Secrets
EmailJake Tapper and Jason Ryan report:
President Obama's Justice Department didn't just disappoint some of his liberal supporters by arguing in support of the Defense of Marriage Act this week, disappointing if not angering supporters who also support same sex marriage and were appalled by the comparison of same sex marriage to incestuous ones. The president's lawyers also repeated some of the Bush administration's national security arguments.
The Obama Justice Department on Friday asked the full 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to review an earlier appeals court ruling to determine if details about CIA rendition flights coordinated by Jeppesen Dataplan — a division of Boeing — should be protected as "state secrets."
As a candidate, then-Sen. Obama faulted President Bush for using the "state secrets" argument too often, and too broadly, though as president he has used it in at least three cases:
1) Jewel v NSA, in which the Electronic Frontier Foundation is challenging the National Security Agency surveillance by suing on behalf of AT&T customers whose records may or may not have been caught up in the NSA "dragnet";
2) Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v Obama, in which the Islamic charity, investigated for terrorist financing out of its Oregon offices, sued the government alleging it was targeted illegally under the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program; and
3) Mohamed et al v Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., a case involving five men who claim to have been victims of extraordinary rendition — including since-freed Guantanamo detainee Binyam Mohamed, another plaintiff in jail in Egypt, one in jail in Morocco, and two now free. They sued a San Jose Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen Dataplan, accusing the flight-planning company of aiding the CIA in flying them to other countries and secret CIA camps where they were tortured.
In April, a three-judge panel of the appeals court ruled that the Justice Department can only cite the "state secrets" privilege for certain evidence in the lawsuit and cannot use the state secrets defense to dismiss the suit altogether.
Friday's filing from Obama's Justice Department asks for an entire review by the appeals court.
"The panel has significantly altered the contours of the military and state secrets privilege — a constitutionally-based means by which the Executive protects critical national security information from disclosure," write the Obama attorneys. "The panel’s approach is flatly inconsistent with decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court, and this Court’s sister circuits on questions of exceptional importance applying the privilege."
Continued the Obama lawyers: "No other court of appeals has so restricted the state secrets privilege, and the panel’s order is directly at odds with the cardinal principle, repeatedly applied by courts of appeals, that a case must be dismissed regardless of its stage if it cannot be litigated further without risking disclosure of state secrets."
Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project said in a statement issued on Friday, "The Obama administration has now fully embraced the Bush administration's shameful effort to immunize torturers and their enablers from any legal consequences for their actions. … The CIA's rendition and torture program is not a 'state secret;' it's an international scandal."
During his last prime-time presidential press conference, in April, President Obama was asked about his administration's continued invocation of the state secrets privilege.
The president said: "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."
He continued: "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 an 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."
– Jake Tapper and Jason Ryan
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Ssssssssssh, President Obama is trying to keep the country safe from another terrorist attack, fix an almost totally collapsed economic system and win two wars in the Middle East! Six months into his term as president and everyone is a critic. Relax Tapper, Fox News already hacks everything president Obama does to pieces 24 hours a day.
Posted by: V. Brame | June 13, 2009, 3:44 pm 3:44 pm
Dear D.C. tourism administrator:
I have an idea for a new slogan:
‘What happens in D.C., stays in D.C.’
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 13, 2009, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
Obama1=Bush4=Clinton3 sooner people come to grips with that the sooner people will realize it’s time to vote for any candidate that doesn’t have an R or D behind their name. Every developed democracy in the world has a functional multiparty system why not the US? This is the question I would like to see the state sponsored media (FOX, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, etc.) ask instead of promoting a false Rep vs Dem fight that does not exist behind closed doors.
Posted by: mike | June 13, 2009, 4:26 pm 4:26 pm
Thank you ‘mike’…
You have summed it up for me.. we don’t really have opposing parties.. it’s just the poorest example of Kabuki Theater.. only instead a cacophony with old washed up hypocrites dancing wildly about….
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 13, 2009, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm
I agree with Mike wholeheartedly. Two huge, incredibly corrupt, deeply dug in parties is not working. They have a whole system worked out to watch each other’s backs and enable corruption by one another — while at the same time keeping third parties and alternate opinions absolutely quashed.
We have what amounts to an anti-trust in our government. It’s time to break up the two party system and provide the people with REAL checks and balances that come from TRUE opposition parties.
Posted by: paul | June 13, 2009, 5:16 pm 5:16 pm
Jake keep up the good work. You will not see this on CNN, FOX or the State run MSNBC.
Posted by: 3rd party | June 13, 2009, 6:04 pm 6:04 pm
It feels like we only have one party no matter who we vote for.
Posted by: Tina | June 13, 2009, 6:06 pm 6:06 pm
This is why I write a check to the EFF and ACLU annually, regardless of who is in the Whitehouse. I am definitely an Obama supporter, but I am under no illusions; we still have the need for vigorous citizen efforts to continuously keep government power in check.
After the tremendous power grab by the Executive and a rubber stamp Congress the last 8 years, I don’t expect Obama to turn it around overnight – or ever to be honest. A bit like you can’t really push a rope, power is never given up it is taken. The EFF and ACLU are using the tools given by the Founding Fathers to take it back for the people, via an appropriate court precedent that will stand as a foothold for the next time there has been a government power grab.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 14, 2009, 12:26 am 12:26 am
Jake,
I wish your reporting would exhibit some straight line analysis of President Obama’s policies.
Ever since the campaign trail you have been negative and critical of ever word he spoke and ever step he took.
Just think, when you look back over your ABC journalism career, how will you feel about the lack of integrity in your biased reporting skills? Do yourself a favor and try to be fair when covering Obama; just one time at least. There has to be at least one thing he has done that you are proud of as an America. What is the source of your negativity towards the president? Did you get kicked out of your press core seat on Obama’s campaign airplane? Did he ignore you on the trail? What is your distrust of Obama related to? Please fill me in.
Posted by: clarity | June 14, 2009, 2:35 am 2:35 am
539…
I agree with you..
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 14, 2009, 7:17 am 7:17 am
Mike wrote: “Every developed democracy in the world has a functional multiparty system why not the US?”
Paul wrote: “It’s time to break up the two party system and provide the people with REAL checks and balances that come from TRUE opposition parties.”
The solution is NOT to “break up the two party system.” The would probably require a constitutional convention. And that would be a very dangerous step because there is no guarantee what the end result would look like.
The solution is term limits. The House and Senate incumbent re-election rate is about 97%. We currently have representatives and senators who have been in Congress for over 40 years. The House should be limited to 5 two-year terms (10 years) and the Senate should be limited to 2 six-year terms (12 years). Other political parties would have a better chance at winning Congressional elections with the higher rate of turnover.
Posted by: James Danley | June 14, 2009, 9:26 am 9:26 am
How about the CIA show us their real budget. I would love to know how many tax dollars go to this mischief.
Posted by: Huh | June 14, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am
V. Brame, Clarity– you folks do understand the role of the press in a democratic society, right? They are not supposed to just pass along the president’s every action and pronouncement uncritically. Jake Tapper’s job is to keep the public servants in the White House honest, by reporting honestly and objectively about what is going on there. He is not a cheerleader for the president, nor is he a scold. Mr. Tapper is doing an excellent job, in my opinion.
He is not, it seems to me, motivated by personal pique. I think that is an unfair charge on your part, Clarity. We don’t need the journalists covering the WH, or covering a candidate during the campaign, simply parroting the lines fed to him or her by the press office. Don’t worry, the president has plenty of lap dogs in the press who can provide the sort of only-positive, unquestioning coverage you seem to prefer.
While the press in Washington should not take it as their job to simply tear down the public servants they cover, I do not think that is what Tapper is about. He is a very balanced and thoughful reporter. But he is not signing up for the president’s fan club. That’s for commentors, not for journalists.
Posted by: moderate | June 14, 2009, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
After the tremendous power grab by the Executive and a rubber stamp Congress the last 8 years, I don’t expect Obama to turn it around overnight
~~~
Turn it around? President Obama has grabbed more power in the first 5 months than the last 5 presidents combined.
Posted by: Plumber | June 14, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
as we all know Obama, and his adherents, have no problem with the “laws”, executive orders, wars, surveillence, and police state machinations of the Bush administration. Their only issue was that Bush/Cheney were using these methods. They don’t object to the methods simple on who is in control. This is why Obama, “The One”, still continues most of the executive orders, wars, private contracts, surveillences, star chamber courts, foreign meddling, etc.
Posted by: Ed | June 14, 2009, 11:51 pm 11:51 pm
Tapper isn’t the problem here.. his problem is the administration.. they want to control the news and the news cycle (and yes.. before you type, Rove v. World did it too.. and just as bad).
Tapper is like a prisoner trying to dig a hole under the wall to see the truth on the other side.. but he only has one shovel.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | June 15, 2009, 8:13 am 8:13 am
how long before Obama’s liberal base crumbles? The conservatives already know he is a fraud. When the Libs fold it will be “all she wrote, goodnight” for the O’mighty Godly One.
Posted by: Aaron W | June 16, 2009, 2:29 pm 2:29 pm