The 180-Degree Reversal of Obama's State Secrets Position

From the Obama/Biden campaign website, mybarackobama.com, here was what the Obama campaign was saying -- back then -- about the State Secrets privilege:

From the Obama/Biden campaign website, mybarackobama.com, here was what the Obama campaign was saying -- back then -- about the State Secrets privilege:


Apparently,
the operative word in that highlighted paragraph -- unbeknownst to most
people at the time -- was "the Bush administration," since the Obama administration is now doing exactly that
which, during the campaign, it defined as "The Problem," the only
difference being that it is now Obama, and not Bush, doing it. For journalists who haven't bothered to learn the first thing about this issue even as they hold themselves out as experts
on it, and for Obama followers eager to find an excuse to justify what
was done, a brief review of the State Secrets privilege controversy is
in order.

Nobody -- not the ACLU or anyone else -- argues that
the State Secrets privilege is inherently invalid. Nobody contests
that there is such a thing as a legitimate state secret. Nobody
believes that Obama should declassify every last secret and never
classify anything else ever again. Nor does anyone even assert that
this particular lawsuit clearly involves no specific documents or
portions of documents that might be legitimately subject to the
privilege. Those are all transparent, moronic strawmen advanced by
people who have no idea what they're talking about.

What
was abusive and dangerous about the Bush administration's version of
the States Secret privilege -- just as the Obama/Biden campaign pointed
out -- was that it was used not (as originally
intended) to argue that specific pieces of evidence or documents were
secret and therefore shouldn't be allowed in a court case, but instead,
to compel dismissal of entire lawsuits in advance based on the claim that any judicial adjudication of even the most illegal secret government programs would harm national security. That
is the theory that caused the bulk of the controversy when used by the
Bush DOJ -- because it shields entire government programs from any
judicial scrutiny -- and it is that exact version of the privilege
that the Obama DOJ yesterday expressly advocated (and, by implication,
sought to preserve for all Presidents, including Obama).

Go read any critic of Bush's use of the State Secrets privilege and those are the objections you will find (.pdf). Kevin Drum last night explained it quite clearly:

By
itself, this [the quantitative increase in the post-9/11 use of the
privilege] is bad enough. But it's not the worst part of the Bush
administration's use of the privilege.

Before 2001, the
state secrets privilege was mostly used to object to specific pieces of
evidence being introduced in court, something that nearly everyone
agrees is at least occasionally necessary. But the Bush administration
changed all that. In their typical expansive way, they decided to apply
the privilege not just to individual pieces of evidence, but
to get entire cases thrown out of court. What's more, they did this not
merely when a state secret was incidental to some unrelated complaint,
but when the government itself was the target of the suit.

Now
Barack Obama is president, and unfortunately he's decided to continue
the Bush administration's expansive reading of the privilege.

To
underscore just what a complete reversal the Obama DOJ's conduct is,
consider what Seante Democrats were saying for the last several years.
In early 2008, Sens. Kennedy and Leahy, along with Sen. Arlen Specter,
sponsored the State Secrets Protection Act. It had numerous co-sponsors, including Joe Biden. In April, 2008, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill, with all Committee Democrats voting for it,
along with Specter. The scheme restrictions imposed on the privilege
by that bill was the consensus view of the pre-2009 Democratic Party.

The primary purpose of that bill is to bar
the precise use of the State Secrets privilege which the Obama DOJ
yesterday defended: namely, as a tool to force courts to dismiss
entire lawsuits from the start without any proceedings being held,
rather than as a focused instrument for protecting specific pieces of
classified information from disclosure.

That bill explicitly provides that "the state secrets privilege shall not constitute grounds for dismissal of a case or claim" (Sec. 4053(b)). Instead, the President could only "invoke the state secrets privilege as a ground for withholding information or evidence in discovery or for preventing the introduction of evidence at trial" (Sec. 4054(a)), and must submit each allegedly privileged piece of evidence to the court for the court to determine
whether each item is legitimately subject to the privilege (Sec.
4054(d-e). Where the court rules that a specific piece of evidence is
privileged, it must attempt to find an evidentiary substitute (e.g.,
a summary of the evidence, a partially redacted copy, compelled
admissions by the Government of certain allegations), and then -- only
after all the evidence is gathered in discovery -- can the court
dismiss the lawsuit only if it finds, in essence, that the plaintiffs
cannot prove their case without reliance on the specific privileged
information (Sec. 4055).

That has been the argument of Democrats for quite some time -- as well as civil libertarians such as Russ Feingold and the ACLU,
both of whom endorsed that bill: that what was abusive and dangerous
about Bush's use of the State Secrets privilege was the preemptive,
generalized use of this privilege to force dismissal of entire lawsuits
in advance, even where the supposed secret to be concealed was the
allegedly criminal activity itself. And that is exactly the usage that
the Obama administration is now defending.

It doesn't take much
time or energy to understand why that instrument is so pernicious. It
enables a Government to break the law -- repeatedly and deliberately --
and then block courts from subjecting its behavior to any judicial
accountability, and prevent the public from learning about the
lawbreaking, by claiming that its conduct generally is too secret to
allow any judicial review. Put another way, it places Presidents and
their aides beyond and above the rule of law, since it empowers them to
break the law and then prevent their victims -- or anyone else -- from
holding them accountable in a court of law. As Russ Feingold put it:

When the executive branch invokes the state secrets privilege to shut down lawsuits,
hides its programs behind secret OLC opinions, over-classifies
information to avoid public disclosure, and interprets the Freedom of
Information Act as an information withholding statute, it shuts down all of the means to detect and respond to its abuses of the rule of law - whether those abuses involve torture, domestic spying, or the firing of U.S. Attorneys for partisan gain.

In defending the Obama administration's position (without beginning to understand it), The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder revealingly wrote -- on behalf of civil libertarians who he fantasizes have anointed him their spokesman:

It
wouldn't be wise for a new administration to come in, take over a case
from a prosecutor, and completely change a legal strategy in mid-course
without a more thorough review of the national security implications.
And, of course, the invocation itself isn't necessarily an issue; civil
libertarians and others who voted for Obama did so with the belief that
his judgment and his attorney general would be better stewards of that
privilege than President Bush
and his attorney generals (and vice president.)

We
don't actually have a system of government (or at least we're not
supposed to) where we rely on the magnanimity and inherent Goodness of
specific leaders to exercise secret powers wisely. That, by
definition, is how grateful subjects of benevolent tyrants think ("this
power was bad in Bush's hands because he's bad, but it's OK in Obama's
hands because he is good and kind"). Countries that are nations of
laws rather than of men don't rely on blind faith in the good character
of leaders to prevent abuse. They rely on what we call "law" and
"accountability" and "checks and balances" to provide those safeguards
-- exactly the type that Democrats, when it came to the States Secret
privilege, long insisted upon before January 20, 2009.

Democrats
have large majorities in both houses of Congress; they ought to use it
to legislatively bar the power that the Obama DOJ is now attempting to
vest in the new President by enacting the legislation they spent all of
last year insisting they favored. Now that the Obama DOJ is seeking to
acquire that power for its new President, the need for that law is more
acute than ever.

Join Us: News for people demanding a better world


Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place.

We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference.

Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today!

© 2023 Salon