Obama Continues Expansive Bush "State Secrets" Doctrine

[Formaldehyde]

“When (President Franklin) Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression,” Austria said. “He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That’s just history.” - Rep. Steve Austria

Trying to blame FDR for the depression, which most historians now claim started 4 years before he even took office with the stock market crash, is like trying to give Reagan credit for the demise of the Soviet Union.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/liv...2/10/copy/caproos.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

It may make for a great sound bite on Fox News, but it's as far from being "historical" as you can possibly get. No one man created the Great Depression, which spanned most of the world, much less FDR.

 

[Arwon]

Is this a Bush doctrine or is it older than that?

 

[Sharwood]

Is this a Bush doctrine or is it older than that?

It's older, but Bush used it more extensively than any President before him, and with less reason than most. In fact, I believe he used it more than every other President since it came into force combined.

 

[amadeus]

I never said we didn't have a responsibility to do what the government says.

That is just plain creepy.

 

[BasketCase]

Is it too early to criticize Obama for possibly just using someone else's playbook (Clinton's, Bush's) until he figures out his own?

Not at all. I knew from the start that Obama was gonna do this.

True, I don't know WHY Obama did it, because there are two possible reasons. Number one is that Obama promised us the moon merely in order to get elected--and no longer cares now that he's been elected. Number two is that he genuinely believed in the promises he made--but, after he got elected, discovered through briefings and reports by the top personnel in America's intelligence departments that most of his campaign promises were bad ideas.

Side note: no, I don't find "state secrets" to be alarming. In fact, it's a good thing. When suing the government, it has always been a common tactic of lawyers on the plaintiff side to demand access to government documents, knowing they were asking for access to secret stuff. The strategy is to force the government to concede the lawsuit in order to avoid having its secrets made public. It's called "graymailing", and I think it's a despicable tactic.

Other side note: the list of "ways Obama is identical to Bush" just went up to 22. (I TOLD people it was gonna happen.....but did anybody listen to me??? NOOOOOOOO--well, actually some did, I just like doing that "did anybody listen" gag )

 

[illram]

Not at all. I knew from the start that Obama was gonna do this.

True, I don't know WHY Obama did it, because there are two possible reasons. Number one is that Obama promised us the moon merely in order to get elected--and no longer cares now that he's been elected. Number two is that he genuinely believed in the promises he made--but, after he got elected, discovered through briefings and reports by the top personnel in America's intelligence departments that most of his campaign promises were bad ideas.

So either 1) Obama is a liar; or 2) Most of Obama's ideas suck? I think there are more options.

Side note: no, I don't find "state secrets" to be alarming. In fact, it's a good thing. When suing the government, it has always been a common tactic of lawyers on the plaintiff side to demand access to government documents, knowing they were asking for access to secret stuff. The strategy is to force the government to concede the lawsuit in order to avoid having its secrets made public. It's called "graymailing", and I think it's a despicable tactic.

"Graymailing" is a tactic of defense lawyers in national security related criminal cases where the government is prosecuting someone, such as Scooter Libby. Not Plaintiffs in civil cases. We have a federal statute, Criminal Information Procedures Act, that is meant to deal with that. It has specific procedure for "in camera" (i.e. judges looking at stuff in chambers) inspection of evidence to determine if it is relevant, how it could or should be used to prove the government's case, etc.

These are two very different things. In a civil suit such as this, the government has its cake and eats it too: they get to claim stuff is a secret, and they win. In a criminal case if the government claims stuff is too secret to ever reveal, they lose. And practically speaking, graymailing will rarely if ever work in a criminal trial because CIPA provides avenues to still prosecute and Federal Judges are very, very biased in favor of federal prosecutors when they see "graymailing" tactics.

Still, I would welcome something like CIPA that formalizes the process by which the government has the ability to claim the privilege, such as through judicial inspection of the evidence. It would be a step in the right direction. The way it is now, in a civil case against the government, they basically get a blank check and we are just supposed to trust them on it.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

illram,

Someone -- Feingold? -- introduced a statute to codify the state secrets privilege in a form that's less open to abuse. So the idea's out there. It hasn't passed, fr whatever reason (a Democrat's in the Oval Office?).

Cleo

 

[Cutlass]

That is just plain creepy.

Not if the government is answering to us rather than only us answering to it.

 

[bhsup]

It's older, but Bush used it more extensively than any President before him, and with less reason than most. In fact, I believe he used it more than every other President since it came into force combined.

YOu have no idea if he used it with less reason. Why do you have no idea? Because it is a state secret. Maybe they were entirely valid reasons. Don't try to claim you know otherwise.

 

[woody60707]

Trying to blame FDR for the depression, which most historians now claim started 4 years before he even took office with the stock market crash, is like trying to give Reagan credit for the demise of the Soviet Union.

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/liv...2/10/copy/caproos.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

It may make for a great sound bite on Fox News, but it's as far from being "historical" as you can possibly get. No one man created the Great Depression, which spanned most of the world, much less FDR.

LMAO, I was just thinking how a OT-er like you wasn't going to post in this type of thread because there no way to bash Bush/fox news. And yet somehow... lol

 

[Formaldehyde]

I just noticed that quoting the original message did not include the quote to which I was referring. I fixed it. Try reading it again and claim that my response isn't germane to that post.

And also notice my rather lengthy post on the topic on the first page.

So much for your reactioanry rhetoric...

 

[Sharwood]

YOu have no idea if he used it with less reason. Why do you have no idea? Because it is a state secret. Maybe they were entirely valid reasons. Don't try to claim you know otherwise.

Considering that some of the things he claimed as state secrets are actually public knowledge, you are incorrect, I am more than capable of stating that it was with no valid reason,as are you, and every person in this thread. Things that aren't public knowledge I can't judge, so I don't, but at least one torture case I know of is damn well public knowledge, and there's probably others I don't know about. So you lose that little argument.

 

[.Shane.]

There's no more secrecy interest if we're not doing them anymore. Maybe the judge will reject the privilege on those grounds.

Cleo

One can only hope. Its a very big disappointment.

 

[BasketCase]

So either 1) Obama is a liar; or 2) Most of Obama's ideas suck? I think there are more options.

On #1: Why is it so hard to believe?? Obama is a POLITICIAN. That should make it obvious.

On #2: Why do you think the U.S. government flip-flops back and forth between the Republicans and Democrats all the time??? If either of these parties had a lot of good ideas, those ideas would ACTUALLY WORK, and the party with the ideas that actually worked would stay in office.

And here's the really good bit: why do you think every single U.S. President we've ever had in our lives has done the same thing Obama is doing? They promise us the moon and then go back on their word after they get elected. Think it over--and you'll realize there ARE no other options.

Either (1) Presidents must lie to us in order to get elected, or (2) they genuinely believe their own rhetoric until they get into the White House and receive a very unpleasant reality check.

One of those two must be true.

"Graymailing" is a tactic of defense lawyers in national security related criminal cases where the government is prosecuting someone, such as Scooter Libby. Not Plaintiffs in civil cases. We have a federal statute, Criminal Information Procedures Act, that is meant to deal with that. It has specific procedure for "in camera" (i.e. judges looking at stuff in chambers) inspection of evidence to determine if it is relevant, how it could or should be used to prove the government's case, etc.

These are two very different things.

Yeah, well, used the same word for both of those things. I don't really give a crap what your definition is--that was mine.

So, do you have anything else you want to talk about besides the composition of the next edition of Webster's Dictionary? Well, no--probably not, because I'm being a smartass again and you probably don't feel like talking to me at all.

 

[amadeus]

Not if the government is answering to us rather than only us answering to it.

Two wolves, one sheep. (No, it's not a video.)

 

[Bill3000]

Two wolves, one sheep. (No, it's not a video.)

Rule of law, man.

 

[illram]

Yeah, well, used the same word for both of those things. I don't really give a crap what your definition is--that was mine.

So, do you have anything else you want to talk about besides the composition of the next edition of Webster's Dictionary? Well, no--probably not, because I'm being a smartass again and you probably don't feel like talking to me at all.

Basketcase, the difference between plaintiff/defendant/civil/criminal etc. makes a huge difference. And I don't know what you are referring to when you say "my definition." My definition of state secrets is the same as yours.

I was just pointing out that what you brought up is not what is happening here. I would be comfortable with some sort of solution that was used to prevent "graymail" in criminal trials, i.e. the judge at least gets to see what the government is claiming is secret, and then go from there. As it stands the government has too much leeway to claim state secrets in order to make the case go away.

There are other things involved in a criminal trial that make the analysis a little different if the government wants to accuse someone of a crime, and then claim their evidence against the defendant is secret. A criminal defendant holds a lot more leverage over prosecutors by being able to claim a violation of their constitutional right to confront their accusers if the government withholds evidence or witnesses; the prosecution has the burden of proof, and the defendant has 6th amendment rights to confront the evidence against him. Civil plaintiff's don't really have that same constitutional leverage, e.g. if the government doesn't comply with a discovery request they usually don't lose the case.

These are two very different scenarios.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Either (1) Presidents must lie to us in order to get elected, or (2) they genuinely believe their own rhetoric until they get into the White House and receive a very unpleasant reality check.

One of those two must be true.

It's certainly a lot of #1 and probably a bit of #2, but you completely forgot #3 which trumps them both:

Once in office, they will do everything in their power to make sure they get a second term.

We need to start picking the president by hooking every member of Congress up to polygraphs and waterboarding them. Whoever wants it the least gets the job, but only for one term.

 

[Sharwood]

It's certainly a lot of #1 and probably a bit of #2, but you completely forgot #3 which trumps them both:

Once in office, they will do everything in their power to make sure they get a second term.

We need to start picking the president by hooking every member of Congress up to polygraphs and waterboarding them. Whoever wants it the least gets the job, but only for one term.

Hook a man to an electrical device and dunk him underwater? Yeah, that'll work.