Obama on ’state secrets’ doctrine: It’s ‘overbroad’ and should be ‘modified.’
Obama on ’state secrets’ doctrine: It’s ‘overbroad’ and should be ‘modified.’
Though he was a critic of the Bush administration’s use of the “state secrets” argument as a presidential candidate, President Obama’s administration has pushed the same legal rationale in three ongoing lawsuits. During last night’s primetime press conference, when Time’s Michael Scherer asked Obama how his position differed from President Bush’s, Obama replied that he actually thinks that it should be “modified“:
OBAMA: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it’s over-broad. But keep in mind what happens is, we come into office, we’re in for a week — and suddenly we’ve got a court filing that’s coming up. And so we don’t have the time to effectively think through what, exactly, should a overarching reform of that doctrine take. We’ve got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.
I think it is appropriate to say that there are going to be cases in which national security interests are genuinely at stake, and that you can’t litigate without revealing covert activities or classified information that would genuinely compromise our safety. But searching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court — you know, there should be some additional tools so that it’s not such a blunt instrument.
Watch it:
On Tuesday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated a lawsuit that both the Bush administration and the Obama administration had asked a trial judge to throw out using the “state secrets” doctrine. The New York Times editorial page wrote yesterday that the courts’ decision “tamed” the use of the “state secrets” doctrine.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Isn’t the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where Bybee is seated?
If I’m correct, shouldn’t he recuse himself from this matter?
So many questions, so few honest answers…
April 30th, 2009 at 11:17 amSettin’ up the prosecution – ever so carefully…
not going to let them off on technicalities this time…
April 30th, 2009 at 11:17 amOBAMA: I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it’s over-broad. But keep in mind what happens is, we come into office, we’re in for a week — and suddenly we’ve got a court filing that’s coming up. And so we don’t have the time to effectively think through what, exactly, should a overarching reform of that doctrine take. We’ve got to respond to the immediate case in front of us.
After the press conference, Keith or Rachel were discussing this with a guest (Howard Fineman or Jonathan Turley) and they pointed out that this is a lame excuse and a cop out.
They assert that there is no court in the land that would have forced the 1-week deadline without granting an extension to truly look into the facts.
PEACE
April 30th, 2009 at 11:23 am… just… i mean… try to imagine dubya even TRYING to get through any 2 sentences in that statement…
without reading a script… hell, even WITH…
April 30th, 2009 at 11:24 amOT:
Anyone catch Virginia Fox’s statement about Matthew Shepard on Olbermann last night?
This b!tch from Hell not only suggested his death was ‘made up’, she also ’showed the facts’ that proved Saddam Hussein was training AQ in Iraq.
WTF?
April 30th, 2009 at 11:26 amDoes anyone know how vigorously the Admin defended this in the Courts?
Did they use the existing arguments (even if they knew they were flawed and probably bound to fail) in order to be able to say “See, we defended this the way you would have done and they didn’t buy the argument, so it’s time to scrap that position”?
I know I’m being very hypothetical here (and assigning a long-term thinking that MAY not apply to those involved) but is there the slightest chance they hamstrung themselves here in order to be able to defend killing or modifying the policy while minimizing GOP outrage.
The courts would never come out and say “If you had defended the position this way, you would have won”.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:28 amI give Obama a pass on this. I can imagine when you finally take office, you learn about alot of things that probably you had no idea of. For example, maybe there are a host of terror suspects inside the US that are being monitored. He may have been completely against the states secret line, but now that he knows the full truth of activities within the US, maybe he’s reconsidering.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:28 amspencers butterfly mom Says: After the press conference, Keith or Rachel were discussing this with a guest (Howard Fineman or Jonathan Turley) and they pointed out that this is a lame excuse and a cop out.
They assert that there is no court in the land that would have forced the 1-week deadline without granting an extension to truly look into the facts.
I think it’s a yes an no deal. Yes, the court could have given an extension. No, I don’t Obama is saying his people only needed to “look into the facts.” They need to reform the whole doctrine, and that takes time. Maybe they also want to see how the court rules in these cases to help them reform the doctrine. The court rulings will provide even more power behind the reform when it comes.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:32 amor it just be that he isn’t done going through and giggling at all those pics of GOP “heros with whores, kids, wearing dresses, etal…
April 30th, 2009 at 11:33 amA tip o’ the hat to Mike Scherer for asking that question, and a tip o’ the hat to Obama for explaining the pragmatic rationale behind his asserting “executive privilege” for the time being.
I imagined this was why he invoked a ‘privilege’ that was so objectionable to me when Bush/Cheney used it, but until know I’d heard or seen nothing from the White House until now to judge whether I was being reasonable or not—i.e if I was just being blindly loyal.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:34 amOkay I can accept that explanation you were just stalling for time and will revisit this issue better prepared .
April 30th, 2009 at 11:37 amNow about Habeas Corpus ……
I think that a lot of the decisions Obama has made that we disagree with were made because his Administration had not had the time to figure out what went on, much less where to go from there. At least I’m hoping that is the case.
Just imagine coming into a new job where the person who held your position previously made a mess out of it. So, you have to make quick decisions on a lot of the things your predecessor did wrong. There are many things that you think are wrong, but you won’t know until you delve into them further and find all the facts. So what do you do? Jump in and say “to hell with it, I’m going to do what I think is right”, or let things stand as they are until you have all the facts and can make an intelligent decision.
In case you haven’t noticed, President Obama is a cautious guy. I would rather have a cautious guy who makes decisions based on taking the time to figure out all the facts than one who “shoots first and asks questions later”.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:37 amHowever your obligations under both our own laws and international law requires both a full investigation and prosecutions , which at the very least means not preventing these cases from proceeding in the courts !
April 30th, 2009 at 11:39 amthe ship of state is large and must be turned slowly lest it capsize
April 30th, 2009 at 11:42 amthe pragmatic rationale behind his asserting “executive privilege” for the time being.
Strangely, “the time-being” NEVER expires…
Go figger, huh?
April 30th, 2009 at 11:44 amOh and could you please un-tap my telephone and leave my mail alone because such practices are a violation of my basic human rights ! Any other interpretation holds as much water as “Dr” Rice’ contention that because the president says so … it’s legal !
April 30th, 2009 at 11:45 amObama is a very thorough man. I like that he’s taking his time on a lot of these issues that drive loony lefties crazy. He has a grave responsibility to keep America safe. Sometimes you have to do things you don’t like in order to do that. Not ripping our troops out of Iraq, escalating in Afghanistan and continuing rendition policies are necessities when faced with enemies bent on killing massive amounts of Americans. I like that he is not going to willy nilly cave to the radical left on this one. Go Obama!
April 30th, 2009 at 11:51 amdrew is here to make sure we don’t forget that he is scared
what a pansy
April 30th, 2009 at 11:56 amCNSNews.com) – Rep. John Fleming (R-La.) said he was “disturbed” by President Barack Obama’s request to have the symbolic name for Jesus Christ – IHS – covered from a pediment that was visible behind him when he spoke at Georgetown University’s Gaston Hall on April 14.
what’s wrong with Barry Soetoro, our america’s Kenyan president
April 30th, 2009 at 11:56 amdrew3rd Says:
Obama is a very thorough man. I like that he’s taking his time on a lot of these issues that drive loony lefties crazy. He has a grave responsibility to keep America safe.
April 30th, 2009 at 11:51 am
_____________
No he doesn’t. He swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, not “to keep America safe.”
April 30th, 2009 at 11:57 amDaTruth Says:
what’s wrong with Barry Soetoro, our america’s Kenyan president
April 30th, 2009 at 11:56 am
__________
Nothing. It’s fairly standard protocol for Presidents to put up neutral backdrops for speeches. Just FYI, his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and he’s Hawa’iian, not Kenyan.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:00 pmWelcome, DuhTruth.
Please do regale us with some more of this fascinating “CNS News”, won’t you??
April 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pmand we usually capitalize America but it would be better to go with United States of America or just even U.S.A. as all the other citizens of the Americas are Americans as well…
April 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pmAs an Obama supporter [although not a 'blind' supporter], I was reading that exact article in the WaPO yesterday and wondered why in god’s name he would adapt the same stance as Bush. I was angry because I felt betrayed since he had campaigned on transparency. So when I heard him answer the question with, “I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it’s over-broad,” it blew my mind as I was appalled that he would follow Bush’s lead on anything, much less court cases! I too thought his answer was disingenuous [or BS], but at least ohe didn’t stand there trying to defend the Bush justification for secrecy. As we all know, Bush made even his ‘personal magazine reading in the lu’ a state secret!
April 30th, 2009 at 12:02 pmdbadass Says:
and we usually capitalize America but it would be better to go with United States of America or just even U.S.A. as all the other citizens of the Americas are Americans as well…
April 30th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
__________
Good point, though under the Monroe Doctrine we technically have the responsibility to protect all of them from the Spanish Armada and such.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:06 pmeven the brown ones?
April 30th, 2009 at 12:08 pmHe’s trying to get the detainees out of Gitmo and into the court system where they belong. In order to do that, they have to have cases against them. When all of the evidence on each of these people is gotten from torture and hearsay, and is all chock full of stuff that no President could even consider publishing, that’s next to impossible to do that when you can’t even show your case to the court.
Bush has left them with a gigantic crap sandwich to try to deal with. Obama’s just asking for a knife and fork before he tucks in.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:09 pmdbadass Says:
even the brown ones?
April 30th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
_________
Yup, even them. We must keep them safe and warm, with smallpox-infected blankets if need be.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:09 pmGood post Drew but may I propose that both the Constitution and and the Geneva conventions were created to keep us safe , that openly violating them and abandoning ” the rule of law is actually very dangerous both domestically and as a member of the world community .
April 30th, 2009 at 12:10 pmJust a thought .
Wow DuhTruth, an Rep. of the Party of No who has voted lockstep with regressives to attempt to grind government to a hault is “disturbed” by the inocuous actions of our President. And it’s reported on the “Conservative News Service” website owned by the Media Research Center. If the President had given his speech with the reference to Jesus Christ in the background I suspect that you idiots would have crucified him for THAT anyway. We understand that no matter what President Obama does, fools like you, Fleming and the hacks at CNS will condemn him.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:46 pmProud Says:
Why don’t you libtards cover something significant, like Joe “foot in mouth” Biden.
Wingnut busts into a thread to complain it’s not about something else. News at 11.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:00 pmProud Says:
Why don’t you libtards cover something significant, like Joe “foot in mouth” Biden. The retard of a VP is trying to destroy the entire transportation system by himself. What a moron.
April 30th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
____________
By what ridiculous metric of newsworthiness is this “significant?” Biden went off message a bit. That’s not news – that’s Biden being Biden.
April 30th, 2009 at 1:35 pmPolitico’s, of course. For their next story, they’ll be covering the controversial foul that allowed Obama’s team to ’steal victory’ in the shirts vs. skins WH hoops pick up game.
April 30th, 2009 at 2:11 pmThings like this give me hope that the President’s gameplan is to weakly defend the point which will allow others to push the investigation.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:16 pmFrom the article linked to in the post
Isn’t this a good thing? Maybe he has questionable motives. That’s certainly possible. But maybe the result is a precedent that positively shapes the law.
April 30th, 2009 at 6:48 pmProud Says:
Why dont ignorant punkass trolls like YOU just go away. If you dont LIKE what is on this site go somewhere else. What is covered isnt up to moronic pieces of garbage like you.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:26 pmdrew3rd Says:
Seems to me he is driving you MORON WINGNUTS a lot crazier than us lefties. You are stupid drew time to come to terms with that.
April 30th, 2009 at 8:27 pmThanks Sites Sesli Sohbet
May 1st, 2009 at 6:08 amSesli Chat
SesliSohbet
SesliChat
Thanks
May 1st, 2009 at 8:14 amSesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat