White House Mum On Legislation That Would Nix Bush “State Secrets Privilege”
The White House is declining to say whether the Obama administration will support legislation introduced by Senate Democrats that would roll back the use of the “state secrets privilege,” one of Bush’s most controversial legal tools.
The White House’s silence on the bill will give more fodder to critics who charge that Obama has broken a campaign promise to dramatically scale back use of the Bush legal maneuver and wants the latitude to use it himself. It also sets up a potential showdown with Senate Dems who continue to view the legislation as crucial to rolling back Bush-era abuses.
Making this particularly dicey, the original co-sponsors of the bill when it was first introduced in 2008 included then-Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, now both top members of Obama’s administration.
The legislation — which represented the consensus view of the Democratic Party a year ago — would drastically limit use of the state secrets privilege, which is the invocation of national security to justify government secrecy and get anti-government lawsuits tossed out of court. The bill was reintroduced this year by Senators Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, and Ted Kennedy in response to Obama’s use of the legal tool, with Feingold calling the need for the legislation “urgent.”
Despite Obama’s campaign promise, the Obama Department of Justice has repeatedly invoked the state secrets privilege, most recently in a lawsuit against government warantless wiretapping, prompting many legal observers to conclude that Obama was mimicking Bush’s approach.
In response to my questions, a White House spokesperson declined to say whether the Obama administration would support the legislation. Earlier this month, Attorney General Eric Holder said that he had ordered a comprehensive review of the state secrets doctrine, and promised a report on it in the “not too distant future.”
If the Obama administration does decide against backing the legislation, it sets up an unappetizing political prospect: The President would be opposing the corrective that is favored by prominent Senate Dems and once enjoyed the support of his Vice President and Secretary of State.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Frankly I am disappointed with Obama; and I am not going to give him the benefit of the doubt or listen to the crowd whispering in the ear: “Hey, wait, the Man knows what he is doing”. Frankly Obama and Holder need to stand up and be counted or be tarred with the Bush-lite brush when it comes to FISA and related legal issues. “Trust me” won’t work for me.
Its not a Bush legal manuever. States Secrets has been invoked for many different Presidents. Bush just abused the privilege. I haven’t been happy with the Obama administration invoking the same prlivilege wrt old cases aimed at Bush but I think I can see whats going on here. If they end up dropping the privilege you can just about guarantee that the Republicans will accuse him of trying to allow people to go after Bush AND they will scream that he is giving away material that is crucial to our national security. As for the legislation there is a good reason why the White House might not come out for the bill and its in this last sentence of the text of the bill.
.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:1:./temp/~c110nYabEC::
.
The amendments made by this Act shall apply to any civil case pending on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
.
I don’t think the WhiteHouse will come out against the measure either way. What I think will happen is either they will negotiate to get that clause taken out so that it only applies to cases going forward that only have to do with what happens on his watch. Or if they can’t then they will simply take no position on the legislation. Trying to kill it will be politically damaging. But coming out for it will be painted as a partisan attack by Republicans and their media enablers.
.
Speaking of which did you see David Gregory yesterday? That guy is a straight up wingnut.
sg — what in particular re David Gregory?
It it’s awkward for Obama he has only himself to blame.
(”If”, not “It”).
Greg
.
He rehashed every conservative talking point against President Obama’s g20 trip like a week after it all happened. He teamed up with Byron York to straight up wingnut out with a minor assist by Jeffrey Goldberg. See what Gregory does is quote from Conservative op eds to question any and everything about President Obama. This time it was Charles Krauthammer whom Joe Klein blasted for his column last friday. Check the video.
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9qviaHbSzI
Greg: I agree with sg, If you watch Gregory over time he parrots Republican talking points. I never thought I’d say this but Timmeh was better, altho’ he did his bowing to power routine as well. Both Byron York and Jeff Goldberg , using language less crude that Cantor or Limboff, are what I call “sophisticated wingnuts”. Their language is less offensive but their message is standard wingnuttia.
“Making this particularly dicey, the original co-sponsors of the bill when it was first introduced in 2008 included then-Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, now both top members of Obama’s administration.”
That is a good point, but I think even more relevant is that the Pres himself made all thess same points very strongly as a candidate and Senator:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/11/bagram/index.html
Obama’s DoJ is also appealing the recent decision to grant habeus corpus to detainees in Afghanistan.
“The Obama administration said Friday that it would appeal a district court ruling that granted some military prisoners in Afghanistan the right to file lawsuits seeking their release. The decision signaled that the administration was not backing down in its effort to maintain the power to imprison terrorism suspects for extended periods without judicial oversight.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/11/world/asia/11bagram.html?_r=4&partner=msnbcpolitics&emc=rss
As a conservative, I can agree with Obama’s decision here, but did I misunderstand his position on the campaign trail?
Sorry – should have read the rather long-winded Greenwald link before posting. He makes the same point as The NY Times.
Obama is starting to look a lot like Bush III – simply horrible.
“States Secrets has been invoked for many different Presidents. Bush just abused the privilege”…
Now that you’ve made the charge sgwhiteinfla, how about something of credible substance to back it up?
What was your link about? Here’s what’s there now: Please resubmit your search
Replacing Dick Cheney’s mouthpiece (Tim Russert) with Karl Rove’s dance partner (David Gregory) wasn’t an improvement, it was a gift to right wingers angry about the MSNBC lineup of three hosts that balanced out the three hours of Republican politician Joe Scarborough.
.
As for the ’states secrets’ privilege, while I don’t subscribe to the idea Obama is playing 11 dimensional chess, doesn’t this need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court to have some finality?
.
Republican Bush repeatedly ignored legislation. But while Republican Bush’s contempt of the Legislature knew no bounds, he (to my knowledge) didn’t subvert decisions by the Supreme Court.
.
Short of a Supreme Court decision, the legality of the “state secrets” use is going to be up in the air. Even Legislation limiting the use of the “states secrets” claim would likely be subverted by the next President that decides to ignore that legislation, at least until that legislation was tested in the Supreme Court.
.
While the right wing Supreme Court has produced some abysmal decisions, they have still repudiated several of Republican Bush’s pet legal theories.
.
In a sense, a right wing court might have even greater pause in granting a left wing President the profound powers inherent in the invocation of “states secrets” to hide misdeeds.
.
If the Supreme Court rules against Obama on “state secrets”, that would have a more definitive result than legislation limiting “state secrets.”
.
Wouldn’t it?
great post this is one of my main interest
More and more I dont feel right about what obama been doing since he is pesident
I do agree your point of view