use != abuse in all cases

I think what is more relevant is the fact that he told government agencies to err on the side of disclosure and the previous administration told them to err on the side of secrecy in Freedom of Information Act requests.

FTA:

"In the al-Haramain case, Obama has not only maintained the Bush administration approach, but the dispute has intensified, with the Justice Department warning that if the judge does not change his mind, authorities could spirit away the top-secret documents. "

/love campaign promises
//both sides do this shiat

Wow...the Bushies actually may have been on to something. Imagine that.

yeah, obama isn't perfect. thankfully, the ACLU and other progressive groups haven't backed down in their opposition to the tactic.

OBTW:
when this goes green, it may spiral out of control like the fact finding thread yesterday.

/that thread was HILARIOUS!

So wait, are you Repubs actually calling for all material to be freely published? Wow, you people really will flip-flop on anything if you get to attack Obama for it.

Campaign Obama:
My fellow Americans, as President, I promise you the most transparent presidency in the history of this country. Nothing will be withheld and the public can rest assured that I will not keep secrets from you.

President Obama:
LOLLERS, I got elected, I WUZ KIDDING HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH NOOBS

newaddict: OBTW:
when this goes green, it may spiral out of control like the fact finding thread yesterday.

/that thread was HILARIOUS!

But this one won't be hilarious until THE WEEKEND!

You can bet that the NSA wiretaps are all still in place too.

BKITU: newaddict: OBTW:
when this goes green, it may spiral out of control like the fact finding thread yesterday.

/that thread was HILARIOUS!

But this one won't be hilarious until THE WEEKEND!

Goddamit, keyboard please.

Even if it won't get here until THE WEEKEND!

newaddict: OBTW:
when this goes green, it may spiral out of control like the fact finding thread yesterday.

/that thread was HILARIOUS!

Eh what thread is that? How did I miss it?

Talon: newaddict: OBTW:
when this goes green, it may spiral out of control like the fact finding thread yesterday.

/that thread was HILARIOUS!

Eh what thread is that? How did I miss it?

Link (new window)

newaddict: Link (new window)

Wait, that's not the "until the weekend" thread, unless it got sanitized.

Yeah ... I got nothin' here ... have at him.

Lucidz: Campaign Obama:
My fellow Americans, as President, I promise you the most transparent presidency in the history of this country. Nothing will be withheld and the public can rest assured that I will not keep secrets from you.

President Obama:
LOLLERS, I got elected, I WUZ KIDDING HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH NOOBS

You're right. I should have voted for McCain. You've convinced me.

Maybe Obama figured out once he took over that Bush may have done it for an actual reason... just a guess...

GAT_00: So wait, are you Repubs actually calling for all material to be freely published? Wow, you people really will flip-flop on anything if you get to attack Obama for it.

Apparently, civil liberties groups= republicans

Man. I was really hoping for a different kind of change.

dillenger69: Yeah ... I got nothin' here ... have at him.

Saw that on SA. It's pretty brilliant.

Yep, like I said the other day. He is wrong here.

Change you can believe in....

There are two ways to look at this:

(1) This is bad, everything government does should be immediately transparent, with no delay in declassification. Therefore, Democrats are just as bad as republicans.

(2) This is fine, the government needs to keep some secrets so as to keep things running properly, the obvious example being the protection of intelligence agents in the field and their operations. Therefore, the Democrats were just attempting to be obstructionist before (unsuccessfully) and the republicans are doing the same now (equally unsuccessfully).

I'll note that both cases make the two big parties look childish and incompetent at best, and move on from there.

FTFA: " Legal scholars say there are legitimate reasons for the state-secrets privilege, pointing out that it may be necessary to keep from disclosing government sources and methods of intelligence gathering. And Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller countered the criticism, saying that "in just two months, the Justice Department has already moved on a number of fronts to ensure Americans have access to information about their government's actions, and with respect to state secrets, the attorney general has ordered a review of pending cases to ensure the privilege is only invoked when absolutely necessary."

OUTRAGE!!!!

I'm hoping Olbermann does a "HOW DARE YOU SIR!" rant at Obama over this.

Work is lame today and I was going to troll the sweet ass off of this thread, but I really don't know where to begin.

"The ACLU will never..." - no.
"Yeah I'm sure the Libs will find all sorts of..." - no.
"Black Insane Osama shows his true colours... " - no.
"rolfcopter yuo now have Bush 2.0" - not bad, but offends my parietal lobes.

If I could ask him one question right now, it would be about this. So far I am very pleased with what he has done in other areas. But this is troubling. Has Obama actually had anything to say about this? The article has no quotes or references of him making any kind of statement in this area.

Call me when the "abuse" portion of your statement applies, subby.

dillenger69: Yeah ... I got nothin' here ... have at him.

That's pretty clever.

zarberg: I'm hoping Olbermann does a "HOW DARE YOU SIR!" rant at Obama over this.



Well, he will have to take Obama's cawk out of his mouth for a few seconds.

pd771: Maybe Obama figured out once he took over that Bush may have done it for an actual reason... just a guess...

a bullshiat reason.

As an Obama supporter, I find this article troubling and slightly disappointing, while also acknowledging that Obama never pledged to "never invoke the state secrets defense" - he merely decried the abuse thereof. We'll see how this plays out, I reserve judgement while noting that it doesn't look good so far.

Sorry is this doesn't jibe with binary thinkers out there.

Jim_Callahan: (2) This is fine, the government needs to keep some secrets so as to keep things running properly, the obvious example being the protection of intelligence agents in the field and their operations. Therefore, the Democrats were just attempting to be obstructionist before (unsuccessfully) and the republicans are doing the same now (equally unsuccessfully).

I'll note that both cases make the two big parties look childish and incompetent at best, and move on from there.

Where does it say anything about Republicans in the article?

I mean sure, you have the idiots on here doing the "hypocrite" thing, but Fark is not exactly a good gauge of actual feelings.

LMAO, look at all of the outrage from the independents, then look at those damn libs...

Note the independents are OUTRAGED! But the libs, they seem to have some questions they want answers to.

zarberg: I'm hoping Olbermann does a "HOW DARE YOU SIR!" rant at Obama over this.


Don't hold your breath.

newaddict: FTA:

"In the al-Haramain case, Obama has not only maintained the Bush administration approach, but the dispute has intensified, with the Justice Department warning that if the judge does not change his mind, authorities could spirit away the top-secret documents. "

/love campaign promises
//both sides do this shiat

What was so significant about the al-Haramain case was that it was the first time evidence was produced in court that warrantless wiretaps were performed on US persons.

The states secrets defense, while troublesome, was not necessarily the issue at hand--it simply made it look like the Bush Administration was trying to cover for itself and avoid repercussions of lawbreaking.

In this case, it is possible that in order to defend the concept of 'states secrets' a broad states secrets policy is justifiable. And since there is no implication that the Obama administration is applying this doctrine selectively to protect themselves, it is less problematic than the case of the Bush Administration.

However, it is advantageous to critics of the president to conflate the two issues into one, and to make a false equivalency between the actions of the two administrations.

Just remember: The underlying issue at hand is the violation of the 4th amendment and Federal statutes by the Bush administration.

The states secrets position is merely a complication of the resolution of that issue.

/Not terribly happy that Obama has taken this position, but I can see how it can be justified.

They can't back down off of the "state secrets" stance now. If they did the shiat would really hit the fan in terms of how many government officials would face indictment from the Bush era.

Translation of entire thread:


It's okay when my president does it, but when that asshole YOU voted for does it, it's unethical.

But totally okay for my guy to do.

I Am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

Remember how he said he was going to start pulling out troops in the first 60 days? And then he changed his mind once he had his initial intelligence briefing?

So Obama's administration is going to review these issues on a case by case basis and then render some kind of decision regarding the release of possible state secrets?

Is he making a blanket statement, closing down ALL such cases?

Didn't think so.

How is what he is doing, actually thinking about each case and then deciding, a bad thing?

Anybody get the feeling that this whole presidency thing is a bit harder than the Big O thought it was going to be? That maybe flowery rhetoric and massive spending isn't all it takes?

Headso: pd771: Maybe Obama figured out once he took over that Bush may have done it for an actual reason... just a guess...

a bullshiat reason.

So, let me ask... this is a group who is suspected of funding terrorism. They have sued. The records on them probably not only contain information on agents who have looked into them stateside, but information on agents who have infiltrated terrorist cells around the globe. If this information has a chance to put their lives in danger, is it right to give it to the organization?

It's a tough call.

Marcus Aurelius: You can bet that the NSA wiretaps are all still in place too.

THAT would be a big problem, if true. Anyone see what Obama has said about this program? It is very likely that he would not publicize one way or another what the policy is.

"There has to be other ways to protect secret information without having to block accountability," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine. He said that "state secrets" has become a sort of "talismanic phrase" uttered by government officials who want to dispose of inconvenient or troubling challenges to their authority.

Couldn't agree more with that...

This "state secrets" option smacked of bullshiat when Bush was using it (a lot), and it smacks of bullshiat now with the Obama administration.

This is one of the issues I've disagreed with Obama on since the FISA vote.

I'd really like to hear a detailed explanation on this from the Obama administration.

ChaoticLimbs: Translation of entire thread:


It's okay when my president does it, but when that asshole YOU voted for does it, it's unethical.

But totally okay for my guy to do.

I think you posted this in the wrong thread.

The false equivalencies will never stop, will they.

I can't decide if this is willful, or if the Bush defenders just don't understand why his actions upset people.


I remember from the US Attorney firings.

Accusation: "Bush fired US Attorneys for improper reasons."
Response: "Clinton fired some attorneys too!"

It wasn't the firing. It was the firing for improper reasons.


Update to today:

It isn't the use of the state secrets. Everyone is OK with the government declaring some things to be secret. It is the abuse of state secret protections that's a problem. Show me Obama has done that, and I'll join you in outrage. Simply foam at the mouth because he declared something to be secret, and you'll just keep losing credibility.

greatmoose: Anybody get the feeling that this whole presidency thing is a bit harder than the Big O thought it was going to be? That maybe flowery rhetoric and massive spending isn't all it takes?

I don't. I think it's a hell of a lot harder than most of his supporters think it is.

It's kind of like how I view Christianity. I have no problem with Christ, it's just all the Christians that fark it up.

See, the deal with state-secrets is that you have no idea how legitimate the claim is until you are told the secrets. Has anyone considered that he found out that there actually was something to protect?