home

What's At Stake On State Secrets

Both Jeralyn and I wrote about the Ninth Circuit decision (PDF) in Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan (I think it is is unanimous that it is a brilliantly written opinion by Judge Hawkins, no matter what you think of the result, so I again urge you to read it). I want to add the following excerpt from Glenn Greenwald's interview with the victorious ACLU attorney Ben Wizner:

GG: Now, last question, Ben. There was obviously a major controversy recently over what the Obama administration did in another ACLU case, which was brought under FOIA, where the ACLU was demanding the release of Bush-era memos. Of course the Obama administration agreed to release them as part of that lawsuit, and they were targeted with a lot of criticism, claiming they should have resisted, fought to the end of the lawsuit in order to prevent disclosure. When Obama announced he was disclosing those memos, he went out of his way to ensure the CIA and others that he would continue to, as he had done in the past, defend the secrecy powers of the government in court, and try and keep programs like this one, the rendition program, concealed from judicial review.

What is your expectation about the Obama DOJ will do in terms of seeking further appellate review, and a possible stay?

BW: Well, I'll tell you what my hope is. There are very able and intelligent lawyers in the Justice Department all the way up to the top. I have no doubt that when they read this opinion, they will know in their hearts and their minds that this court got it exactly right, on remand. Now, Obama can fulfill his promise to protect legitimate secrets by doing so in the district court. He can do it on an item-by-item basis as the court explains. He can ensure that whatever proceedings move forward in district court does not reveal genuine secrets.

If his promise to them that he was going to try and block any kind of any accountability of wrong-doing, well, that's a broader promise, and I think it's incumbent upon us to let the administration know how much of a betrayal we would deem it, if the Obama administration were to seek review, say, in the Supreme Court. It's one thing for the Obama administration to go into a federal court and not to renounce the brief that was written by the Bush administration; it would be profoundly different matter if the Obama administration were to send this matter to the Roberts court for resolution.

So I think that the Ninth Circuit did the Obama administration a big favor by pointing the way for legitimate secrets to be protected while allowing victims their day in court, and I think if the Obama administration wants to do something constructive in this area, it should support the legislation sponsored by senators Leahy and Specter, that would chart a more sane course for dealing with state secrets claims in the future.

GG: Legislation that, I might add, his own vice-president and secretary of state in the last session of Congress co-sponsored.

Well, this issue hasn't received as much attention as, say, the torture issues, but the issue of expanded, radical claims of government secrecy are as important to anyone who cares about civil liberties as any other issue, if not more important; the ability to shield conduct from public scrutiny, and especially from judicial review is really the linchpin of how the government abuses its power, and today's victory was truly extraordinary, and significant beyond what words can express. So, the jubilance that is evident in your voice is completely warranted, and congratulations again to the ACLU for this and to the plaintiffs, who will finally have their day in court, and we will certainly speak again, as there are more developments in this case.

BW: Thanks a lot, Glenn.

(Emphasis supplied.) First, I want to note, yet again, how important organizations like the ACLU are to all of us. Without the ACLU and organizations like it, our freedoms would be eroded in ways we can not imagine. So big kudos to the ACLU, and let's all become card carrying members.

Second, the discussion I excerpt I believe is critical to understanding whether there is a sincere change intended by the Obama Administration. This is truly a litmus test. Wizner says it best --

If his promise to them that he was going to try and block any kind of any accountability of wrong-doing, well, that's a broader promise, and I think it's incumbent upon us to let the administration know how much of a betrayal we would deem it, if the Obama administration were to seek review, say, in the Supreme Court. It's one thing for the Obama administration to go into a federal court and not to renounce the brief that was written by the Bush administration; it would be profoundly different matter if the Obama administration were to send this matter to the Roberts court for resolution.

(Emphasis supplied.) We will know a great deal more about the Obama Administration in its response to this decision. And about perhaps the greatest issue of the day - what Obama has trumpeted - the right of the people to know what their government is doing. As Glenn wrote:

[T]he issue of expanded, radical claims of government secrecy are as important to anyone who cares about civil liberties as any other issue, if not more important; the ability to shield conduct from public scrutiny, and especially from judicial review is really the linchpin of how the government abuses its power . . .

It was of course Justice Brandeis who wrote the famous words - "sunshine is the best disinfectant." But too often we forget another famous saying by Justice Brandeis, from his dissent in the Olmstead case:

Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face.

Important words for our time.

Speaking for me only

< Police Creating "Terror Tip Sheets" for National Database | Condoning War Crimes >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I listened to that interview last night, (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Anne on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 09:16:13 AM EST
    and found the passages you quoted also getting my attention; I hope Holder and Obama both will see the wisdom in the Court's decision.

    The tendency of those in power to want to close off scrutiny is worrisome, to say the least, and I see troubling signs that there may be forces afoot at the Congressional level that would contribute to that.

    This paragraph, from a Think Progress item on Arlen Specter's promise to be a loyal Democrat, just made my skin crawl:

    Rumor in Washington has it that Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) may step down from the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, giving the seat to Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) -- and opening the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee to the new Democrat, Specter. From this post, Specter could indefinitely delay hearings on Johnsen, not to mention completely kill Leahy's efforts to hold a truth commission to examine Bush's use of torture and other illegal practices.

    How much is rumor and how much is truth remains to be seen, but I would sure hate to see Leahy give up on a Truth Commission; aside from that, I'm not sure why we would trust Specter with Judiciary at this time, given his track record on too many important issues.  I mean, how does a man stand in the well of the Senate and shout that the Military Commissions Act will set basic rights back 900 years, and is unconstitutional - and then vote "yes" on the bill???

    At this stage, I don't trust much of anyone anymore.


    "...he greatest issue of the day... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oldpro on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 10:32:34 AM EST
    ...the right of the people to know what their government is doing."

    No 'perhaps' about it.

    Nice post. (none / 0) (#2)
    by lilburro on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 09:18:01 AM EST
    It's important to hold fast in these areas.  Much as we are labelled civil libertarians...

    Interesting sentence in the opinion (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 10:35:58 AM EST
    re government entitled to greater deference in FOIA case than in claiming state secrets privilege.

    Absolutely correct (none / 0) (#5)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 08:42:10 AM EST
    Balancing wanting to know versus wanting to know plus having a reason to need to know.

    When someone is interested in what the government is doing, there is a presumption that the person is entitled to know, except in certain areas of information (national defense, intelligence, etc.). When someone is suing, they have been injured (or they don't have standing), so they have a reason to have the information disclosed. Even then, the good of the many can outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. Also, knowing that the information COULD be disclosed can force the production of other evidence that proves the case without revealing the State Secret.

    (I know you know this, I'm just in a pontificating mood this morning).

    Parent

    Not really. I thought the presumption (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 10:08:44 AM EST
    under FOIA was in favor of disclosure and the burden on the government to assert privilege as to specific documents.

    Parent