Comments on: White House Mum On Legislation That Would Nix Bush “State Secrets Privilege”

By: 1080p camcorder

1080p camcorder — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 15:06:33 +0000

I do agree your point of view

By: super bright led

super bright led — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 14:27:17 +0000

More and more I dont feel right about what obama been doing since he is pesident

By: yoruba movies

yoruba movies — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:19:07 +0000

great post this is one of my main interest

By: News Reference

News Reference — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 21:53:31 +0000

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?

By: juandos

juandos — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 17:06:49 +0000

“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

By: BlueDog

BlueDog — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 16:40:18 +0000

Obama is starting to look a lot like Bush III – simply horrible.

By: sbj

sbj — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:09:38 +0000

Sorry – should have read the rather long-winded Greenwald link before posting. He makes the same point as The NY Times.

By: sbj

sbj — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:07:44 +0000

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?

By: Chris K

Chris K — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:59:14 +0000

“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

By: alan

alan — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:20:25 +0000

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.

By: sgwhiteinfla

sgwhiteinfla — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:26:06 +0000

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

By: oddjob

oddjob — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:24:42 +0000

(”If”, not “It”).

By: oddjob

oddjob — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:24:12 +0000

It it’s awkward for Obama he has only himself to blame.

By: Greg Sargent

Greg Sargent — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:18:06 +0000

sg — what in particular re David Gregory?

By: sgwhiteinfla

sgwhiteinfla — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:13:53 +0000

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.