Obama DoJ Continues to Assert BushCo's "State Secrets" Argument

By GottaLaff

Forgive my not offering more commentary today, but it's hard to type.. wrist issues. As a result, it's a copy-and-paste day. However, you can imagine that I am not thrilled with this:

In legal papers filed in the middle of the night, the Obama administration has weighed in again on the case of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation et al. v. Obama, asking the judge to drop the case and continuing to wield President Bush's "state secrets" argument that has drawn criticism from civil libertarians, liberals and progressives.

The Saudi charity the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, investigated for terrorist financing out of its Oregon offices, sued the government in 2006, alleging it was targeted illegally under the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program. They made this assertion after U.S. officially accidently turned over logs of phone calls. [...]

Jon Eisenberg, one of the attorneys for the charity, said the filing indicated "not only that the Obama administration isn't hedging on the state secrets argument, if anything it's solidified."

The Obama Justice Department continues to assert, as first reported by Politico's Josh Gerstein, that the charity's officials have not yet "set forth specific, uncontroverted facts establishing that they were the targets of, or have been subjected to, warrantless electronic surveillance. Plaintiffs instead continue to rely on the same speculative 'inferences' and conjecture that plainly fail to establish their standing."

There has been some confusion among legal experts about the argument the Obama administration is making, because its lawyers assert they are not relying "on an assertion of the state secrets privilege to cover-up alleged unlawful conduct. The central concern in a case such as this is that the disclosure of whether or not someone is or has been subject to surveillance (and, if so, what type of surveillance) would reveal intelligence sources and methods—in this case, sources and methods concerning alleged surveillance of an entity determined to have provided support to the al Qaeda terrorist organization."

Follow the link for more details.

Federal judge threatens to sanction ObamAdministration over secrecy

By GottaLaff

Was the judge watching the Rachel Maddow Show, because Rachel's been steaming mad over issues like this one:

U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco warned the Obama administration on Friday of severe sanctions if it does not comply with the court’s order to turn over a secret document an Islamic group says proves they were illegally spied upon.

The case, Al-Haramain v. Obama (see also: Al-Haramain V. Bush), springs out of a government mistake in which a secret document detailing the wiretapping of calls between attorneys and Saudi charity Al-Haramain was turned over to the charity’s counsel.

The document was taken back by the government, and the Department of Justice has since maintained that the attorneys who read it should not be allowed to use their memories to pursue litigation over the illegal spying.

There's that S word again.

“The Court noted the government was ‘continuing to assert legal positions already specifically rejected by the court in previous orders’ and ‘government officials in one or more defendant agencies, including the NSA Director … are refusing to cooperate with the court’s orders,’” noted the Electronic Frontiers Foundation. “Judge Walker ordered the government to show cause as to ‘why, as a sanction for failing to obey the court’s orders’ the government ’should not be prohibited … from opposing the liability’ for spying without warrants and that the ‘court should not deem liability … established and proceed to determine the amount of damages to be awarded to plaintiffs.’ A hearing is set for June 3, 2009 in the San Francisco federal court.”

That should do it, right? Not so fast:

Should Walker rule in favor of Al-Haramain, it would not fully satisfy the group’s legal aims, but “it would be a stiff rebuke to an administration that has pledged to reconsider Bush’s broad claims of secrecy in all cases touching on national security,” noted Bob Egelko at The San Francisco Chronicle.

Now let's see if Rachel mentions this on her next show.

Court of Appeals Denies DOJ Attempt to Hide Evidence of Warrantless Wiretapping

By GottaLaff

An appeals court disagrees with the Obama Department of Justice on the subject of wiretapping:

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco today rejected the Obama Justice Department’s attempt to continue to conceal evidence of warrantless wiretapping. [...]

[T]he government filed an emergency appeal last week hoping to halt the release of documents showing that the National Security Agency, under President George W. Bush, had secretly wiretapped the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation [...] Al-Haramain and its lawyers, who claim they were also wiretapped, need the documents (which they’ve already seen because the government released it accidentally) to proceed with their lawsuit against government officials.

Today, they got a significant step closer. [...]

The Ninth Circuit’s refusal to consider the emergency appeal is significant because it also leaves the district court’s ruling in effect. The lower court had rejected the government’s argument that the “state secrets privilege” allows executive agencies to disregard the requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.