What Will Be Obama's Position On States Secrets Legislation?

Greg Sargent asks the question:

The legislation — which represented the consensus view of the Democratic Party a year ago — would drastically limit use of the state secrets privilege, which is the invocation of national security to justify government secrecy and get anti-government lawsuits tossed out of court. The bill was reintroduced this year by Senators Russ Feingold, Patrick Leahy, and Ted Kennedy in response to Obama’s use of the legal tool, with Feingold calling the need for the legislation “urgent.”

. . . In response to my questions, a White House spokesperson declined to say whether the Obama administration would support the legislation.

Good work by Sargent.

Speaking for me only

< Irrelevance | NYTimes Winning The Online Newspaper Battle? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I realize I'm in the running (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 10:41:17 AM EST
    for most pessimistic Obama critic, but there really is no sign that the Obama team will roll over for this bill.  If Feingold, Leahy, Kennedy & co want to get their way they're going to have to fight and compromise.  Again, the reason I think so is because the Obama people (Craig, Holder) have not been shy about tying state secrets to NATIONAL SECURITY (ooo...aaahh!) as a way of justifying their use of the privilege.  They are digging themselves into a little hole here.  They are making it essential.  

    Sounds Good (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 01:06:48 PM EST
    Legislation is the way to reign in expanding executive power. If and when the bill passes a telling moment will be what Obama does with his pen.

    The response will be (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 08:41:43 AM EST
    "I won."

    Seriously, he's not about to give up power - no one would.  There is not one person who ran for president last year (or who would in the future) that would've walked into the Oval Office and said "no more states' secrets privileges, no more wiretapping, no more warrantless searches," etc. Not.One.Candidate.

    This is will get brushed under the rug - only to be like an annoying little gnat that pops up every now and again, and the administration will swat it down and create diversions to get the media to look at another shiny object.

    Mike Gravel (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 12:07:27 PM EST
    Ok (none / 0) (#6)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 02:07:07 PM EST
    Fair point.  I'd like to revise my statement.

    "No candidate who actually stood a chance of winning anything would surrender this kind of power."


    Glad to see (none / 0) (#2)
    by CST on Mon Apr 13, 2009 at 09:48:39 AM EST
    some big name senators stepping up to the plate.

    They won too.