February 16, 2009 –
My letter to the White House
The White House website (www.whitehouse.gov) offers an opportunity to make comments or ask policy questions, to mentioned two options. I availed myself of this opportunity and drafted a question about the use of the state secrets privilege by the Obama administration. The text of the letter appears below. I don't know what to expect by way of reply. There is the cynical prediction, of course. There's another possibility, too, though: you know, the one based on HOPE. Whatever reply I receive, if any, I'll post here.
"Early in the week, February 9, Department of Justice attorney, Douglas N. Letter, made the same arguments for the state secrets privilege that had previously been made by the Bush administration in the case of Mohammed et al. v. Jeppesen. To Judge Schroeder's question as to whether the change in administration had any bearing on the DOJ's position, Letter denied there was any change in the government's argument. I think its fair to say the judge was surprised. I certainly was, given the criticisms by candidate Obama of the Bush administration's excessive use of secrecy claims.
"Of course, the national security must be protected and there are necessarily some circumstances that justify the claim of this privilege. It is equally true that the government has a record of claiming this privilege inappropriately, protecting malfeasance rather than the national security. This case has received extensive coverage in both books and newspapers, not to mention the electronic media, making this claim of state secrets seem ludicrous on its face.
"What mystifies me is that Attorney General Holder's announcement that there will be a review of the use of the state secrets privilege comes after - not before - it claimed the privilege in the Mohammed case. My question is, "Why?" This seems disingenuous in the extreme (to be kind). Why didn't Letter ask for a postponement permitting the administration to make the promised reevaluation BEFORE making his argument in court? What he DID say is that the government's current claim of the privilege was "thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration." This gives the appearance that the promised review is a smokescreen giving cover to an already settled-upon policy on this matter.
"I just cannot express how disappointing this is. Like many, I became used to being lied to by the Bush administration. That you appear to be picking up where those people left off is just too depressing for words.
"Thank you in advance for your attention to my question."
My letter to the White House
The White House website (www.whitehouse.gov) offers an opportunity to make comments or ask policy questions, to mentioned two options. I availed myself of this opportunity and drafted a question about the use of the state secrets privilege by the Obama administration. The text of the letter appears below. I don't know what to expect by way of reply. There is the cynical prediction, of course. There's another possibility, too, though: you know, the one based on HOPE. Whatever reply I receive, if any, I'll post here.
"Early in the week, February 9, Department of Justice attorney, Douglas N. Letter, made the same arguments for the state secrets privilege that had previously been made by the Bush administration in the case of Mohammed et al. v. Jeppesen. To Judge Schroeder's question as to whether the change in administration had any bearing on the DOJ's position, Letter denied there was any change in the government's argument. I think its fair to say the judge was surprised. I certainly was, given the criticisms by candidate Obama of the Bush administration's excessive use of secrecy claims.
"Of course, the national security must be protected and there are necessarily some circumstances that justify the claim of this privilege. It is equally true that the government has a record of claiming this privilege inappropriately, protecting malfeasance rather than the national security. This case has received extensive coverage in both books and newspapers, not to mention the electronic media, making this claim of state secrets seem ludicrous on its face.
"What mystifies me is that Attorney General Holder's announcement that there will be a review of the use of the state secrets privilege comes after - not before - it claimed the privilege in the Mohammed case. My question is, "Why?" This seems disingenuous in the extreme (to be kind). Why didn't Letter ask for a postponement permitting the administration to make the promised reevaluation BEFORE making his argument in court? What he DID say is that the government's current claim of the privilege was "thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration." This gives the appearance that the promised review is a smokescreen giving cover to an already settled-upon policy on this matter.
"I just cannot express how disappointing this is. Like many, I became used to being lied to by the Bush administration. That you appear to be picking up where those people left off is just too depressing for words.
"Thank you in advance for your attention to my question."