Obama Continues Bush's Policy of State Secrets Exemption

[LnGrrrR]

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...9/06/29/obama/

One of the most cherished weapons for dismissing political arguments without having to engage them is to claim they come from "the Far Left" or are confined to "liberal ideologues." For years, that was what was said about withdrawing from Iraq even as majorities of Americans supported that position, and it is how the political and media establishment now demonize the call for investigations into Bush/Cheney crimes, despite large percentages and diverse ideological support for those views . Exactly the same tactic is used to dismiss those who criticize Obama for adopting Bush policies in the areas of civil liberties and secrecy: only people from the Far Left fringe or civil liberties extremists would equate Obama and Bush when it comes to such matters.
From today's Op-Ed page of The Washington Post -- the ultimate establishment organ -- one finds this observation about Obama's use of the state secrets privilege from a Post Editorial:

The second Bush administration took the state secrets doctrine to new heights by arguing that an entire case should be dismissed -- sometimes at its earliest stages -- if it could touch on any information that could conceivably have national security ramifications. The Justice Department under President George W. Bush used this approach to try to quash litigation involving, among other things, domestic surveillance and extraordinary rendition (the forced transfer of detainees to countries where they may be tortured).
President Obama has said that the state secrets doctrine should be reformed, and he has promised to be more measured. Yet when confronted with actual cases the Obama Justice Department has adopted the same legal arguments as the Bush administration.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm okay with this.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm okay with this.

Really? Why?

Given that earlier precedent allowed the government to hide certain specific pieces of evidence, why should we need to throw out an entire case?

I think there's far too much potential for abuse in the system. The President should not be able to countermand a person's ability to gain justice simply by spouting the magic words "State secrets".

[Winehole23]

The big concern is that the state secrets claim can be used to conceal official corruption -- like the warrantless surveillance of Americans.

[LnGrrrR]

The big concern is that the state secrets claim can be used to conceal official corruption -- like the warrantless surveillance of Americans.

Or times where the government went over the line with 'enhanced interrogation'.

[sam1617]

The big concern is that the state secrets claim can be used to conceal official corruption -- like the warrantless surveillance of Americans.

There is a balance. I agree that its a dangerous thing to our freedoms, but at the same time, there are situations that it is highly appropriate. Problem is how to ensure that its applied appropriately, without us knowing the secret already.

[jman3000]

When he says "state secrets should be reformed" I hope it means that it can only be used when lives could be lost from the divulging of information or legitimate security concerns are at issue.

Not just "we don't wanna look bad"