Obama Justice Department signals it will go to the Supreme Court to defend the Bush Administration

[kpete]

Sen. Whitehouse: Before We Can Repair the Harm, We Must Learn the Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGt87QKPpHs&eurl=http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/27/whitehouse-before-we-can-repair-the-harm-we-must-learn-the-truth/

Obama DOJ Signals It Will Continue To Fight For Bush Invocation Of "State Secrets" Privilege
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2009/2/28/12755/2372
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Feb 28, 2009 at 11:07:55 AM EST

Via Greenwald,

The Obama Justice Department signals it will go to the Supreme Court to defend the Bush Administration's invocation of the "state secrets" privilege in the Jeppesen rendition case.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/28/al_haramain/index.html

The AP reports:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/02/27/washington/AP-Warrantless-Wiretaps.html?_r=3

The Obama administration has lost its argument that a potential threat to national security should stop a lawsuit challenging the government's warrantless wiretapping program. A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Friday rejected the Justice Department's request for an emergency stay in a case involving a defunct Islamic charity.

Yet government lawyers signaled they would continue fighting to keep the information secret, setting up a new showdown between the courts and the White House over national security.

..............

(Emphasis supplied.) Greenwald writes:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/28/al_haramain/index.html

One of the worst abuses of the Bush administration was its endless reliance on vast claims of secrecy to ensure that no court could ever rule on the legality of the President's actions.

They would insist that "secrecy" prevented a judicial ruling even when the President's actions were (a) already publicly disclosed in detail and (b) were blatantly criminal -- as is the case with the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program, which The New York Times described on its front page more than three years ago and which a federal statute explicitly criminalized.

Secrecy claims of that sort -- to block judicial review of the President's conduct, i.e., to immunize the President from the rule of law -- provoked endless howls of outrage from Bush critics.

Yet NOW, the Obama administration is doing exactly the same thing. Hence, it is accurately deemed "a blow to the Obama administration" that a court might rule on whether George Bush broke the law when eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. Why is the Obama administration so vested in preventing that from happening, and -- worse still -- in ensuring that Presidents continue to have the power to invoke extremely broad secrecy claims in order to block courts from ruling on allegations that a President has violated the law?

I have no adequate answers to Glenn's questions.
The Obama Administration's behavior on this matter is simply indefensible.

(we can do better, kp)

[villager]

1. If one had to pick a "worst thing" about the Obama Admin. so far, this would probably be it...

n/t

[midnight]

3. It sure is a curious thing isn't it?

[librechik]

35. it just occurred to me--maybe they figure they'll lose,

but they would still be doing the standup thing and getting Bush's back one last time.

They can't let on that they are expecting to lose though, and have to sincerely defend the Bush admin--one last time. Just because of the timing.

[TheWraith]

11. So let's see: "government lawyers" hired under Bush fighting a court case = worst thing about Obama?

Just want to make clear what we're talking about, unless we expect that after a month, Obama's supposed to have replaced every decisionmaker in every job to which they've been hired or promoted in the last 8 years.

[villager]

14. Let's see: Obama's decision -- not Bush's -- to keep fighting the case...

n/t

[williesgirl]

2. Obama owes this country an explanation of why they're fighting this. rec'd

[ThomWV]

4. No, what they owe this country is to abandon this fight.

They need explain nothing. They just have to drop this and let the case proceed.

[Vincardog]

5. may be they are going to send one of *'s Regents U lawyers to argue the case. When they lose it

will be settled forever.

[MadHound]

6. I realize that this looks bad,

But there might be a deeper strategy here on the part of the Obama administration. If they just dropped all of this, then another 'Pug or authoritarian president could pick it up at a later time and use it with no penalty.

However if Obama takes it to the SC, and gets a negative ruling(which is likely to happen), then this is a closed avenue to all future presidents. I think that this is exactly what the Obama administration is angling for by pursuing this case.

[Cha]

7. I would think so after

keeping an eye on Obama and his "strategies" for almost two years now.

[biopowertoday]

9. You are saying he purposely wants to lose. I disagree. see this.........

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3760115&mesg_id=3760868

[MadHound]

13. Actually going to the courts in order to lose a case is a time proven tactic

One that has been used time and again. Yes, it is a risky tactic, yet if is succeeds, then it is now a precedent and is virtually unassailable. Besides, if this the game that Obama is playing, then I'm sure he's counted his justices carefully. It isn't that difficult to handicap the court, hell bookies in England do it all the time(they bet on anything)

Trying to get this done via the Congress would be a nightmare and in the end it would probably wind up in court anyway. Why waste time and money doing that when a loss in court accomplishes it easy and quickly.

[villager]

17. Except that they *already* lost in court... why are they pursuing it further?

n/t

[MadHound]

18. Getting a precedent in the Supreme Court is the best insurance that it will never happen again n/t

[villager]

19. "We had to pretend we were really really for it, in order to be against it!"

It all sounds a little too Kool-Aidy for me.

Either way, we both want it to lose in the Supreme Court. What if it doesn't?

[MadHound]

21. If it doesn't, we're not necessarily screwed,

But we're close. We would have to rely on Congress to pass a countervailing bill, and for Obama to sign it into law. I'd be more worried about the Congressional side of that, who knows what would get thrown into in the name of bipartisanship.

[villager]

23. Well, Obama notwithstanding, when the Executive Branch *appears* like it wants more power

I'm generally willing to believe it does.

So I'm agin 'em already, on this issue...

We'll see you on the ramparts after Scalia et al grant the continuing spying rights...

[MadHound]

24. If that happens, I'll beat you to the ramparts,

Hell, I'll probably be building them.

[villager]

25. I'm puzzled, then, as to why you're so unconvinced they're needed now

on this issue....

Oh well...

[MadHound]

28. Because I've actually heard that this tactic I'm speaking of is being tossed around

The Obama administration concerning some of the more egregious Bushco excesses. Both Maddow and Olberman have talked to some in the know people concerning it. Plus, I'm trying to give the Obama administration half a chance before I completely write them off. Obama is dealing with the biggest power grab by the Executive Branch ever, and I think that he learned from the last one done by Nixon. After Nixon we either let the shit lie, or passed half assed measures through Congress that wound up being ineffective. Having the gravitas of a Supreme Court precedent will prevent more problems in the future.

I could very well be wrong, and like I said earlier, I'll be right there with you if this fails. But I'm also willing to wait and see what happens before going off half-cocked.

[villager]

33. I'm not half-cocked, just healthily skeptical...

I never imagined I'd support every Obama Admin. policy or initiative 100%...

That said, I like a helluva lot more than I dislike, at this point...

That won't stop me from calling them out on any D.C. bullshit, however...

[AntiFascist]

41. What guarantee is there that it would lose?

Recall Bush v. Gore.

[glinda]

15. I hope this is true

[librechik]

36. I think you are on to something--they probably know they will lose

but Obama feels honorably bound to finish out this last case as if he were being tried himself--but in a hurry, because the worst part of the Bush strategy on this has been delaying or avoiding judgment. After this case is is out of the way as an issue, then we can go on as if it never happened. State Secrets powers will be saved for the next president to use BUT ONLY PROPERLY.

[ThomWV]

40. That sounds absurd to me. Why pursue a later loss when one is at hand?

Because the Supreme Court provides a stronger precedent than a Circuit Court? I think not.

[Thickasabrick]

8. WTF???? Calling FrenchieCat......talk us down eom

[Kahuna]

10. LOL! Good one. Calling FrenchieCat! nt

[dipsydoodle]

12. Anyone read Animal Farm ?

:shrug:

[notadmblnd]

16. Did anyone really think that once the executive office usurped the power

that they would give it up? No one, and I do mean no one, is ever going to be allowed to be elected President of the United States that will ever go against the powers that control the government.

[Demeter]

20. It's Called Blackmail and Extortion and Death Threats

Obama needs to use Bush's fascist powers to put the BFEE out of business. And Blackwater, their little private army (they must have lost control of the CIA, to build up a replacement.)

Then Obama needs to ensure that nobody ever has such power again.

[mmonk]

22. Yes, in this case it is indefensible.

But many will tell you they are "reviewing" whatever that means.

[shraby]

26. What better way to get the matter before the Supremes?

The gov't has a leg in the mess and can cover the costs as opposed to the public who might be told they have no standing.

[mmonk]

27. So you trust a Roberts court?

The Supreme Court already knocked down Sibel's case.

[shraby]

29. Better than no ruling which would leave a future

president to implement whatever he wants. Even with a court ruling for wiretapping, the congress can write a law prohibiting it. This avenue might just avoid a fight in congress over it.

[mmonk]

31. We currently have members of the Supreme Court that do not believe

in Constitutional checks and balances. That means no justice given to those that seek it in these cases. Obama said and signed he would not let any president abuse power or ignore the Constitution.

[agent46]

30. I see this in a good light

It seems the Justice Department has decided to do its job to defend the suspects who are really on trial here. If they take it to the Supreme Court, then we may actually be looking at a highly visible test of the Constitution.

If I'm reading this right, then I say, "Good. Let's put our money where our mouth is and test this thing by Law. This could be no less than a showdown on the legitimacy of priveldge-by-decree of an Authoritarian Unitary Executive and the balance of functions and powers in government established in the constitution.

Who makes the Law? Who decides the Law? Who challenges the Law? WIll the Rule of Law be observed by a stacked court of Neocon shills and thugs? Who enforces the Law?

And maybe I watch too much Boston Legal.
B-)

[mmonk]

32. Works only if a court interprets the Constitution in the correct manner.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

34. State Secrets vs Transparancy in Government - controlled by the executive.

What ever happened to "an informed citizenry" in an (alleged) democracy?

[mmonk]

37. Currently, it's a lie.

[bluesmail]

38. Perhaps all the seemingly 'idiotic' messes with Speaker of the House, Dennis

Kucinich entering into the official record articles of impeachment, Sen's Leahy and Whitehouse, Joe and Valerie Wilson, The Translator(s), Sibel, Sy hersch's 'talk to me after Jan 20 group, et al whistleblowers. This is going to be a very interesting time. (Juxtaposed with the * Adm). Enlightenment. :evilgrin:

[ooglymoogly]

39. How can O be so right on so many things and be so

wrong on this issue, the prosecution of bush and FISA. I hope he loses this battle and I hate saying that. I just wish he was not fighting this strange battle which seems so foreign to his character.