States Secrets Fix Introduced In House

[chill_wind]

Source: ACLU

State Secrets Fix Introduced In House (2/11/2009)

ACLU Welcomes Attempt To Rein In Overbroad Use Of Privilege

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: [phone]; [e-mail]

WASHINGTON – With today’s introduction of legislation to rein in the overbroad use of the state secrets privilege, the executive branch may soon have one less tool in its chest to stymie legitimate cases against government misconduct. A bill introduced in the House will aim to narrow the scope of the privilege and could open the courthouse doors to people who have suffered real and legitimate harm by the government. The government has attempted to block several important lawsuits with an overbroad and improper assertion of “state secrets,” most recently this week in the ACLU’s case against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan for its role in facilitating extraordinary rendition.

“For too long, the government has hidden behind an overly-broad interpretation of the state secrets privilege to protect itself from the scrutiny of oversight,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “This bill will ensure that victims of government wrongdoing will be allowed to seek justice.”

The bill, the “State Secrets Protection Act of 2009,” was introduced by Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman John Conyers (D-MI) as well as Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Thomas Petri (R-WI), William Delahunt (D-MA) and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). A Senate version of the legislation is expected shortly.

Read more: http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/38713prs20090211.html

---

[woodwrite]

1. Okay,... that was good

State secrets,..... executive privilege,.... signing statements,... are all part of the same problem. All they all have to go or be substabtially diminished in their excessive use.

[midnight]

6. Let's get rid of the whole lot of them. State secrets? How

creepy. Edit to add this part that is welcome.“For too long, the government has hidden behind an overly-broad interpretation of the state secrets privilege to protect itself from the scrutiny of oversight,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “This bill will ensure that victims of government wrongdoing will be allowed to seek justice.”

[No Elephants]

2. Where was this bill in 2000,or, better yet, in 2006? What are the chances that Congress will

pass it now that Bush is out and Obama is in?

[The American citizen is so screwn.}

[biopowertoday]

9. This bill will also address FISA which Obama voted for. He also

promised to fix Fisa. So, my feeling is that Obama will support it. IMHO.

............“This bill will allow the court to review government claims of national security, thus lowering the wall of the current state secrets privilege to an appropriate hurdle,” said Michelle Richardson, ACLU Legislative Counsel. “The current form of the state secrets privilege has allowed the administration to successfully hold off scrutiny of its extraordinary rendition program and its warrantless wiretapping program. The cloak must be lifted and we urge Congress to waste no time in passing this bill.”

# # #

[biopowertoday]

10. ooop, maybe not.....................

I just read this from the press release:

..................On Monday, the Obama Justice Department maintained the position of the Bush administration that the ACLU lawsuit against Boeing subsidiary Jeppesen DataPlan should be dismissed under the state secrets doctrine. Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen was brought on behalf of five men who were kidnapped and secretly transferred to U.S.-run prisons or foreign intelligence agencies overseas where they were interrogated under torture. The Bush administration intervened in the case, inappropriately asserting the "state secrets" privilege and claiming the case would undermine national security. Oral arguments were presented on Monday in the ACLU’s appeal of the dismissal, and the Obama administration adopted the Bush administration’s position in the case, reasserting that the entire subject matter of the case is a state secret. ............

[sofa king]

38. There was a cry for help.

In early 2000, the Clinton Administration declassified the documents behind the first recognized use of the privilege, as described in US v. Reynolds.

Yeah, it turned out the government was lying.

The Bushites have already scrubbed Wikipedia and other places, now claiming that the "secret" the feds were trying to cover up was the "fact" that the B-29 was unreliable. An unusual appeal was filed and then refiled, with a judge eventually finding in 2005 that disclosure of "glitches" and "technical remedies"--no doubt the same glitches over which the bereaved were suing--could compromise national security. How very Microsoft of that judge.

Of course, that reputed unreliability didn't stop the United States from using two B-29s to fly 2400 miles round trip to successfully drop atomic bombs on Japan.

[Paulaguyon]

3. Isn't it too late for the 5 torture victims?

The ones whose lawsuit got tossed due to the State Secrets excuse the other day?

And...will Republicans vote for this bill?

[midnight]

7. Justice is woefully slow, but justice can never be too late.

[No Elephants]

14. Sure it can.

[Zhade]

41. "Justice delayed is justice denied." -- MLK

NT!

[DCKit]

13. The Republics will vote for it to deny Obama the same abuses avialable to BushCo...

but you can bet they'll never mention their complicance or any use/abuse before 1/20/09 when railing against it. They are, after all, 100% All American Patriots, above everything else - despite their collusion in a fascist attempt to destroy the Constitution.

[liberalsince1968]

4. But will Obama veto it? I'm beginning to wonder.

[chill_wind]

5. Here is a bit more, posted at firedoglake (emptywheel):

Text and discussion about the House Bill (The State Secret Protection Act)

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/11/the-state-secret-protection-act/

The Senate Secrets Bill

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/11/the-senate-state-secrets-bill/

[pleah]

8. It is a shame we even need to have this kind of legislation,

we are supposed to have an open government.

K&R

[superconnected]

40. That's exactly my problem.

[cosmicone]

11. Will never pass the senate n/t

[chill_wind]

12. Greenwald and emptywheel:

"As Marcy Wheeler notes, the co-sponsors of this bill are among the most influential in the Senate. The bill is endowed with the two most precious Beltway commodities -- bipartisanship (with Specter on board) and the blessing of a saintly "centrist" (McCaskill). It's a bill that is co-sponsored by the two leading Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (Conyers). If they are serious about imposing meaningful limits on the Obama DOJ's attempt to shield the executive branch from judicial scrutiny, they will be able to move this bill quickly. I hope to have more shortly on ways to push that process along, but more vital even than limits on this privilege is having a Congress that once again acts as a meaningful check on executive transgressions. Restoration of that system is of far more enduring value than Obama's issuance of magnanimous and irrevocable-on-a-whim decrees."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

"They've got more firepower here than they do in the House--having Haggis may be very useful. And having centrists like McCaskill may win some votes."

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/02/11/the-senate-state-secrets-bill/

[loyalsister]

44. McCaskill and Obama are pretty tight

If she's on board it has probably been discussed.

[sabra]

15. (Congressman) Nadler Slams Obama Over State Secrets Privilege

Source: WNYC

NEW YORK, NY February 12, 2009 —New York's Jerrold Nadler is one of the first members of Congress to criticize the Obama administration for its decision this week to invoke the state secrets privilege - and he's introduced legislation to keep it from happening again. WNYC's Isaac-Davy Aronson has more.

REPORTER: The state secrets privilege allows the government to prevent information coming out in court that could jeopardize national security. The Bush - and now Obama - Justice Department has used it to argue that a lawsuit from five men who claim they were abducted, imprisoned and tortured at the behest of the CIA should be thrown out entirely on national security grounds. Congressman Nadler calls the new administration's decision "a step in the wrong direction," which he says denies people their right to a day in court.

Nadler's legislation, which he re-introduced with four colleagues yesterday after first introducing it last year, would require a court to make an independent assessment of a privilege claim, and determine whether a case could go forward while keeping certain evidence secret. For WNYC, I'm Isaac-Davy Aronson.

Read more: http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/123687

[ck4829]

16. K&R

State Secrets Privilege shouldn't be used by the government to cover up mistakes, no matter who is declaring it.

[JDPriestly]

30. Amen! The states secrets privilege should exist, but Obama

needs to make sure that his administration does not use it to cover up mistakes and wrongs. Using the privilege to cover up mistakes and wrongs causes the public to mistrust the government. We need to know that the privilege will only be invoked when it is absolutely necessary.

I am inclined to vote against any the re-election of any president who abuses the state secrets privilege. No matter how much I might agree with the rest of a president's agenda, this issue is so indicative of integrity of the administration, that I would not vote for a person who abuses this privilege.

We cannot trust a government that covers up its crimes by invoking the state secrets privilege.

[ixion]

17. change! now! damnit!

put and end to fascist 'Murika once and for all.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. Go Nadler!

It's the right thing to.

[biopowertoday]

19. Yes, it IS the RIGHT thing to do.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

23. Yup. Right and wrong are...

crystal clear sometimes, like in this instance.

I've been here at DU so long my signature line is becoming a tome. :D :hi:

[biopowertoday]

20. btw. I love your sig line.

[cascadiance]

21. HE should have been the new NY Senator!

And perhaps we're seeing why in this State Secrets Privilege mess WHY he wasn't looked at!

Come on Obama, support Nadler's bill, and perhaps you can right the ship! Otherwise, your stepping into the door of Bush's hell if you continue down that path!

[Piewhacket]

22. Nadler's approach is correct. Obama needs to reverse course on this.

[biopowertoday]

25. Feingold Hits Obama Administration Over Extraordinary Rendition Decision

and Russ weights in also.


Feingold Hits Obama Administration Over Extraordinary Rendition Decision



icon gravatar.comtheplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/exclusive-senator-feingol...


sent by nasrudin since 1 day 35 minutes, published about 12 hours 24 minutes


"I am troubled by reports that the Obama administration has decided to invoke the state secrets privilege in a case brought by five men who claim to have been the victims of extraordinary rendition," Feingold said in a statement sent by his office, in a rare instance of criticism directed at Obama by a Senator in his own party.

The case has been closely watched as an early signal of how Obama would handle one of the Bush administration’s most controversial “war on terror” legal weapons — specifically, whether the Obama administration would uphold the Bush administration’s claims of state secret privileges, citing national security, to prevent courts from ruling on such matters. Feingold’s statement suggests he intends to maintain a controversial posture towards the White House on the issue.

The current extraordinary rendition case is being taken by some critics as a hint that the new administration may prove to be insufficiently aggressive in reversing Bush-era legal justifications for certain aspects of what used to be called the “war on terror,” as well as the Bush administration’s use of “national security” as a shield against charges of general governmental wrongdoing.
tags: change

http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=1002065

[midnight]

28. Senator Feingold knows that this States Secrets is being

used incorrectly. "as a shield against charges of general governmental wrongdoing."

[biopowertoday]

34. He was also the only Senator to vote against the Patriot Act.

[Soylent Brice]

24. glad to see someone with common sense. n/t

[midnight]

26. States Secrets was never intended to be used as immunity.

The controversy was and is only about one thing: the use of the privilege to compel the dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance -- in other words, to convert the State Secrets privilege from what it always was(a focused evidentiary privilege)to what it was never intended to be (full-scale immunity for government lawbreakers from all judicial accountability). Therefore, had the Obama administration adhered to its alleged beliefs -- and simply told the court that it does not support the Bush administration's use of the privilege to bar entire lawsuits in advance -- it would still have had every opportunity to protect whatever genuine secrets it believes are present in this case.<5>

had they abandoned the Bush position, they then would be in the position they claim to want to be in, whereby they can protect whatever legitimate secrets exist.http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_n7/privilege-secrets-case.html

[goforit]

27. Hmmmm.....Obama will be treated worse than Bush. The jig is up!!

[Jefferson23]

29. K&R, this is so important yet I still believe the general public is uninformed

of how serious the consequences are for our country. Good for you Nadler, we all must stay vigilant and if Obama is distancing himself in order to see how it goes over with Americans, I hope that public reaction becomes an influence of more direct and substantial change.

[JDPriestly]

31. Is this really Obama policy? Or are some Bush moles in the Justice Department making motions that

the Obama administration is not aware of?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

32. Since you and I and everyone reading this are aware

I suspect that the administration is well aware of this too.

[atreides1]

33. State Secrets Privilege

First used to cover someone's ass, just like it's being used now!!!


Supreme Court recognition in U.S. v. Reynolds

The privilege was first officially recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1953 decision, United States v. Reynolds (345 U.S. 1). A military airplane, a B-29 Superfortress bomber, crashed. The widows of three civilian crew members sought accident reports on the crash but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret mission.

The court held that only the government can claim or waive the privilege, and it “is not to be lightly invoked”, and last there “must be a formal claim of privilege, lodged by the head of the department which has control over the matter, after actual personal consideration by that officer.” The court stressed that the decision to withhold evidence is to be made by the presiding judge and not the executive.

As a footnote to the founding case establishing the privilege, in 2000, the accident reports were declassified and released, and it was found that the argument was fraudulent, and there was no secret information. The reports did, however, contain information about the poor state of condition of the aircraft itself, which would have been very compromising to the Air Force's case. Many commentators have alleged government misuse of secrecy in the landmark case.

Despite this ruling, a case might still be subject to judicial review since the privilege was intended to prevent certain, but not all, information to be precluded.

[DCKit]

35. So this information comes out in 2000... just in time to spark the idea and give BushCo one more...

illegal, immoral, UnAmerican tool to use against U.S..

It's really beginning to hit home that it's not so much what BushCo did, but what Congress let them get away with.

[Eric J in MN]

36. Email form

http://action.aclu.org/site/R?i=krSnXdbDIE8jDnJ8RLtuZw..

An email I received from the ACLU:

Yesterday, ACLU lawyers encountered a recurring -- and troubling -- obstacle in our lawsuit seeking justice for torture victims caught up in the CIA’s extraordinary rendition program. But this time, the objections were not coming from the Bush administration.

To our surprise and disappointment, the new Justice Department urged a federal appeals court to dismiss our lawsuit charging a Boeing subsidiary with providing critical support for the CIA’s rendition program based on the same “state secrets” claim that the Bush administration had repeatedly invoked to avoid any judicial scrutiny of its actions. During the course of the argument, one judge asked twice if the change in administration had any bearing on the Justice Department’s position. The attorney for the government said that its position remained the same.

This isn’t the kind of change we need if we want an America we can be proud of again.

If the judges rule in the government’s favor, our clients -- who were tortured as part of the government’s rendition program -- will never get their day in court.

We’re still hoping the court will rule in our favor and allow our case to move forward. But, in the meantime, we must do everything we can to end the abuse of the “state secrets” doctrine both in the courts and on Capitol Hill.

Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Specter and Representative Nadler introduced legislation in 2008 to narrow the scope of the state secrets privilege -- and open the courthouse doors to people who have suffered real and legitimate harm by the government. Clearly, this legislation is needed now more than ever.

Send a message to these members of Congress to let them know you support the State Secrets Protection Act.

This crucial civil liberties bill recognizes the need to take precautions when it comes to national security. But, it also acknowledges that courts have been competently managing the balance between the security of classified information and the right to a fair trial in criminal cases for years. And, most important of all, it makes it much more difficult for the government to abuse the state secrets doctrine to escape accountability for illegal behavior.

We can’t allow any administration to invoke state secrets to hide a reprehensible history of torture, rendition and the most grievous human rights violations.

Send a message to support the State Secrets Protection Act.

Yesterday, the Obama administration had an opportunity to act on its condemnation of torture and rendition. But, instead, the Justice Department opted to stay the course.

Now, we must hope that the court will assert its independence, reject the government’s false claims of state secrets, and allow victims of torture and rendition their day in court.

Thanks for standing with us as we work to pursue justice on this critical civil liberties issue.

Sincerely,


Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
ACLU

P.S. The ACLU has been working on this case for years. To learn more about rendition and the people impacted, watch our short video.

[biopowertoday]

37. ACLU action: get the word OUT now...................

Help Get the Truth Out

Just as we're in court challenging the government's use of the "state secrets" doctrine, we must also confront the doctrine on Capitol Hill.

Send a message to Senators Kennedy, Leahy, Specter, and Representative Nadler to let them know you support the State Secrets Protection Act. (form at link)


https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=state_secrets

[No Elephants]

45. That's fine, but also tell your own Senators and your Representative. Kennedy et al. already

favor the legislation. But, while you are at it, you can email your good wishes to Senator Kennedy. His Senate website has a special place for that purpose.

[chill_wind]

39. Thanks you all for the links. n/t

[file83]

42. If it passes, will Sibel Edmonds finally be able to speak!?

[mmonk]

43. Can we make it retroactive

like the criminals did making unclassified information retroactively classified?