Today's LA Times--They got it right: Too Much Privilege

[CaliforniaPeggy]

At the beginning of this year, just as President Obama was taking office, a lawsuit was heading to court in California in which the Bush administration had invoked what's known as the "state secrets privilege." The administration wanted the case, which had been brought by five alleged victims of torture, dismissed on the grounds that if it went forward, it would require the disclosure of sensitive classified information.

The Bush administration loved to invoke the state secrets privilege, and did so more than any previous administration. As a result, people who said they had been subjected to torture, kidnapping or other mistreatment at the hands of the U.S. government often had their cases summarily dismissed and found themselves without any opportunity to seek redress through the courts. Now the question was: Would Obama, who on the campaign trail had criticized the overuse of the state secrets privilege, stick with the Bush position, or would he allow the case of the five alleged victims to go forward?

Sadly, he made the wrong decision. Just two weeks into the new term, in a move that left civil libertarians deeply discouraged, the Obama Justice Department reasserted the state secrets privilege in Mohamed vs. Jeppesen DataPlan Inc., saying nothing had changed and urging the court not to "play with fire" by allowing the case to proceed.

We were gravely disappointed by Obama's decision. But this week, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has a chance to put itself on the right side of history by rejecting the administration's arguments and ordering that the Jeppesen case continue.

This is particularly important because, over the last 11 months, the Obama administration has used a variety of arguments to get potentially embarrassing cases dismissed on procedural grounds.

The rest: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-secrets14-2009dec14,0,4149604.story

[Vincardog]

1. The problem with the current administration is that they do not now want to embarrass the prior

administration's WAR CRIMINALS. This is not the change I can believe in.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. Maybe things look different from the inside...

But I agree: Not the change I can believe in. In fact, NO change at all.

[WhiteTara]

6. one thing that I think lays like a veil

over the whole prosecution is the aura of not wanting to be perceived as "uppity black men" with the back handed racism charge that goes along with it. With his desire to be inclusive of all Americans, it would be hard to be a black pres with a black AG prosecuting the ultimate white men. In addition, there are still many many of the monkey's appointees in the DOJ. Of course, I could be so off base and wrong and maybe he is in league with them all.

[Soylent Brice]

2. too embarassing/in the interest of national security/insert other BS = we don't like/want

accountability.

doesn't sit well in their tummy tum tum, and all that.



K&R

[undeterred]

4. Torture is so embarrassing.

:shrug:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. Isn't it?

To have to admit that we live in a country that condones this.

Never mind how the tortured feel about it.

x(

[Major Hogwash]

7. Wow. This is a great article.

Gives me some hope that somewhere in this country a judge will say "enough" to this bullshit and we can get on with prosecuting those responsible for the torture.