Monday, November 2, 2009

Obama Administration continues to expand Bushco State Secrets doctrine; supporters remain silent

This is what Senator Barack Obama said of the Bush State Secrets doctrine while running for President in 2008 [and defending his own vote for telecom immunity]:

I wouldn't have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush's abuse of executive power. It grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that may have violated the law by cooperating with the Bush administration's program of warrantless wiretapping. This potentially weakens the deterrent effect of the law and removes an important tool for the American people to demand accountability for past abuses.


Here, Glenn Greenwald explains, is the stunning reversal in recent Obama Administration DOJ filings on the issue:

The Obama administration has, yet again, asserted the broadest and most radical version of the "state secrets" privilege -- which previously caused so much controversy and turmoil among loyal Democrats (when used by Bush/Cheney) -- to attempt to block courts from ruling on the legality of the government's domestic surveillance activities. Obama did so again this past Friday -- just six weeks after the DOJ announced voluntary new internal guidelines which, it insisted, would prevent abuses of the state secrets privilege. Instead -- as predicted -- the DOJ continues to embrace the very same "state secrets" theories of the Bush administration -- which Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically once vehemently condemned -- and is doing so in order literally to shield the President from judicial review or accountability when he is accused of breaking the law.

The case of Shubert v. Bush is one of several litigations challenging the legality of the NSA program, of which the Electronic Frontier Foundation is lead coordinating counsel. The Shubert plaintiffs are numerous American citizens suing individual Bush officials, alleging that the Bush administration instituted a massive "dragnet" surveillance program whereby "the NSA intercepted (and continues to intercept) millions of phone calls and emails of ordinary Americans, with no connection to Al Qaeda, terrorism, or any foreign government" and that "the program monitors millions of calls and emails . . . entirely in the United States . . . without a warrant" (page 4). The lawsuit's central allegation is that the officials responsible for this program violated the Fourth Amendment and FISA and can be held accountable under the law for those illegal actions.

Rather than respond to the substance of the allegations, the Obama DOJ is instead insisting that courts are barred from considering the claims at all. Why? Because -- it asserted in a Motion to Dismiss it filed on Friday -- to allow the lawsuit to proceed under any circumstances -- no matter the safeguards imposed or specific documents excluded -- "would require the disclosure of highly classified NSA sources and methods about the TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program] and other NSA activities" (page 8). According to the Obama administration, what were once leading examples of Bush's lawlessness and contempt for the Constitution -- namely, his illegal, warrantless domestic spying programs -- are now vital "state secrets" in America's War on Terror, such that courts are prohibited even from considering whether the Government was engaging in crimes when spying on Americans.


Here's an excerpt from the brief filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of the plaintiffs:

Defendant's argument is breathtaking. If the Executive successfully uses the state secrets privilege to dismiss this case at the pleading stage, there will be virtually no check left upon the ability of an overly-aggressive Executive to violate the rights of ordinary Americans.


Here is the response from all the folks--both locally and nationally--who were so stridently agonizing over President Bush's destruction of the US Constitution:















[source]

2 comments:

Nancy Willing said...

Oh, I see, you glom onto Greenwald a day after he writes this post and then jump all over the local bloggers for not getting there ahead of you?

I try to take a second deep breath whenever I am tempted to resort to such chest-thumping, Steve.

I was tempted to shout WHERE is Nemski or Cass on the great theft on Wall Street story that broke this weekend.

When a check around the place found silence on the Goldman Sachs / NY FED / US TREASURY collusion problem - I was glad to see that you did -a ha- manage to cover it.

But Ms. Cassandra attended the lecture hosted by DELCOG / DE PRESS ASSN. She wrote a post announcing the event but to my knowledge has never delivered any content nor analysis.

Now that the featured speaker, Michael Greenberger, has been getting a huge amount of facetime -(he's been on Frontline and on MSNBC's Morning Meeting several times, anyway) people should start to get the word out. Sure, it is highly critical of the Obama White House and his Rahm Emanuel - Tim Geithner - Larry Summers problem, but it is one of the biggest stories of the year, IMHO.

Dylan Ratigan has a HuffPo piece up calling for Tim Geithner's resignation this morning and McClatchy has their next-in-series about GS with more to come.

:-)

You would think that both the left and right would find something to like about reporting on this one.

Steve Newton said...

Nancy
I have been writing about the continuing expansion of the State Secrets doctrine for MONTHS.

I have been chronicling virtually every attempt to expand those provisions....

... and the answer has routinely been silence.

I have also been covering Goldman Sachs--as you have--for MONTHS without seeing anyone else around here pick it up.

So no, I don't feel bad about noticing their continuing silence.