By Britt

Sep 23, 2009 1:06pm

“Good Government” Groups Praise Obama’s Higher Threshold for State Secrets Rule; ACLU, Feingold – Not So Much

Two groups that spend a lot of time and effort holding the U.S. government accountable, the Project On Government Oversight and OMB Watch, today praised the new Justice Department rules on State Secrets.

“The Administration’s new policy to ensure the appropriate use of the State Secrets privilege finally provides checks and balances to a tool that has too often been used to suppress claims against the government," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight. "Requiring a review committee, Attorney General approval, Congressional oversight and Inspector General review allows for a reasonable balance between preserving legitimate secrets and protecting the public interest. This is a very important policy and the administration should be highly commended. POGO applauds this open government breakthrough.”

The new rules were announced today and can be read HERE. The Justice Department press release is HERE.

Gary D. Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, said that, "Unlike past administrations, where the state secrets privilege seemed to be invoked on an almost ad hoc basis, the Obama administration is signaling that it will only exercise the privilege in situations where significant harm to national security is likely and will be guided by a specific, step-by-step process to ensure there is not abuse of the privilege."

On the other hand, Ben Wizner, staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project, was less favorable.

"On paper, this is a step forward," Wizner said. "In court however, the Obama administration continues to defend a broader view of state secrets put forward by the Bush administration and to demand that federal courts throw out lawsuits filed by victims of torture and illegal surveillance. In recent years, we have seen the executive branch engage in grave human rights violations, declare those activities 'state secrets,' and thus avoid any judicial oversight or accountability. It is critical that the courts play a meaningful role in deciding whether victims of human rights abuse will have an opportunity to seek justice. Real reform of the state secrets privilege must affirm the power of the courts to reject false claims of 'national security.'"
 
Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, added that "Legislative action is crucial to make certain that not only this administration, but future administrations, are bound by the rule of law when invoking state secrets. Bills currently pending in both the House and Senate would mandate court review of state secrets claims, adding a necessary check on executive claims of national security. …Congress must play a role in this reform to ensure an outside check on this broad executive power."

And Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., said in a statement that the new Obama policy "is disappointing because it still amounts to an approach of ‘just trust us.’"

Feingold said that "Independent court review of the government's use of the state secrets privilege is essential.  I urge the administration to work with Congress to develop legislation that sets reasonable limits on the privilege and will not be subject to change under each successive president.”
 
-jpt

*This post has been updated with the ACLU and Feingold comments.

User Comments

Team Obama has just exposed their Achille’s heel. Their hubris will be their downfall. I’ve never seen such stupefying vacuity.

Posted by: SjB | September 23, 2009, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm

This just IN Democrats defeat proposal to make Healthcare bill available online 72 hours before they vote…….ABC silent

Posted by: Obama, Prince of presidential clowns | September 23, 2009, 2:08 pm 2:08 pm

Off Topic Question: If Atlanta was under water two years ago and Bush was spending his time on the David Letterman show, would there have been a little outrage coming from the left?

Posted by: joedoe | September 23, 2009, 2:24 pm 2:24 pm

For those of who believe that “Good Government” Groups Praise Obama’s Higher Threshold for State Secrets Rule, remember…. Obama says one thing and does another. Like transparancy in Government (How trasparent is Obama about his ties with ACORN), How bout his Czars that haven’t been vetted (there are greater threats to liberty still in his outer cabinet).
Obama will expose the secrets that make our country weak and conceal the secrets that make him weak. It’s all about Obama and keeping his power base.

Posted by: rich | September 23, 2009, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm

=== If Atlanta was under water two years ago and Bush was spending his time on the David Letterman show, would there have been a little outrage coming from the left?===
I asked the same question when Kentucky was frozen solid. I think you already know the answer to your question.

Posted by: Axey | September 23, 2009, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm

“I asked the same question when Kentucky was frozen solid. I think you already know the answer to your question.”
Yeah, seems to be a double standard. Strange how that works.
The Mississippi Gulf Coast was wiped out from the Alabama line to the Louisiana line and no one hardly noticed. New Orleans missed the brunt of the storm, but the levees failed. Bush did a flyover instead of trying to land and all hell broke loose.
Atlanta is seriously underwater as well as large portions of Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama. Not a word from Obama, but he has plenty of time to do 5 Sunday talk shows repeating the same BS 5 times. Then he spends an hour with David Letterman getting his ego stroked. Letterman looked like tingles were running up both of his old.

Posted by: joedoe | September 23, 2009, 3:05 pm 3:05 pm

“If Atlanta was under water two years ago and Bush was spending his time on the David Letterman show, would there have been a little outrage coming from the left?”
That would depend entirely on how poorly FEMA was handling the situation.
But I can’t help notice how selective you are when it comes to Government being part of the problem rather than the solution…..

Posted by: Paul Dirks | September 23, 2009, 3:09 pm 3:09 pm

Wonderful. Yet another promise of accountability that we have no reason to believe will ever be enforced.
It’s one thing to promise transparency, it’s another thing to do it.
This President is just as secretive as the last.

Posted by: Q | September 23, 2009, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm

Remember when the President promised that all closed door meetings about health care would be a thing of the past and on C-SPAN…yeah, well the “kick off meeting was on C-SPAN” and then we went right back to closed door sessions. This kind of encapsulates the depth of sincerity our current administration exhibits when it comes to true openness and transparency.
The only thing transparent about the President right now is his playbook.

Posted by: Q | September 23, 2009, 3:22 pm 3:22 pm

“That would depend entirely on how poorly FEMA was handling the situation.”
How soon some forget……
The cries that Bush did not care about black people began as soon as Air Force One failed to land in New Orleans, or Baton Rouge. The screams about FEMA did not begin until much later.
Obama didn’t even bother to get off of Letterman’s couch to go check out Atlanta, much less fly to the place and assess the damage.

Posted by: joedoe | September 23, 2009, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm

GOOD GOVERNMENT??
WHERE IS THIS VARMINT?
GOOD GREIF!!

Posted by: Remember America? | September 23, 2009, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm

Why does title include “Feingold” when “Feingold” is not referenced within the story?

Posted by: tjp612 | September 23, 2009, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm

Too funny. I finally found the release from Senator Feingold. If I may use a Brit euphemism, Feingold is saying the new policy is: all talk and no trousers.
What can I say, I love the Brit’s description of Obambam. :)

Posted by: SjB | September 23, 2009, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm

“Why does title include “Feingold” when “Feingold” is not referenced within the story?”
Because the story fails to explain that the Obama administration is trying to preempt a bill being pushed that would actually include Judicial review of the DOJ’s thinking.

Posted by: Paul Dirks | September 23, 2009, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm

So true, Paul. What are your thoughts on how Holder hopes to use this in his GITMO and CIA investigations?

Posted by: SjB | September 23, 2009, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm

“Obama didn’t even bother to get off of Letterman’s couch”
Letterman doesn’t have a couch.

Posted by: Pitt Knicker | September 23, 2009, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm

Olympia Snow introduced a proposal to have the bill available on-line for 72 hours and the Dems voted down 12-11. Wonder Why??????

Posted by: Mary | September 24, 2009, 8:15 am 8:15 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.