Yeah, I read that. And from the same email Emptywheel posted,there is this:

"The Administration's decision this week to adopt its predecessor's argument that the state secret privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case challenging rendition to torture was a step in the wrong direction and a reminder that legislation is required to ensure meaningful review of the state secret privilege," said Rep. Nadler. "This important bill recognizes that protecting sensitive information is an important responsibility for any administration and requires that courts protect legitimate state secrets while preventing the premature and sweeping dismissal of entire cases. The right to have one's day in court is fundamental to protecting basic civil liberties and it must not be sacrificed to overbroad claims of secrecy."

Rep. Petri commented, "Imagine the government locks you up but says you can't see the evidence for reasons of national security. I'm sure there are cases where national security is truly at risk, and that information must be protected. But we shouldn't have to simply take the executive branch's word for it. Shouldn't an independent, responsible party apart from the executive branch review the material to determine when and how national security really necessitates restricting the use of sensitive material? The answer is, quite obviously, yes. We have a procedure for criminal cases, and we need one for civil cases as well."

You see, they precisely are arguing against what you say. Pay close attention to the "independent, responsible party apart from the executive branch" making the determination. Maybe it's time for you to take a little holiday out of London to clear the fog.

Ah but the Judge Ware, who ruled on this case last year, did review confidential government information, and made his ruling base on that.

Here's one story on what Ware did:

The judge said he had reviewed declarations from Michael Hayden, the director of the CIA, in his assessment of the case.

"The Court's review of General Hayden's public and classified declarations confirm that proceeding with this case would jeopardise national security and foreign relations and that no protective procedure can salvage this case," Mr Ware wrote.

Link:http://tinyurl.com/cmhyo8

It's not at all clear that Ware got into the details of what should and should not be classified in this case. My first interpretation is that he merely accepted a wide-ranging argument from Hayden that national security would be harmed by the act of getting into the details of what should and should not be public. Given what is already generally known about this particular case, if Ware had been operating under the proposed bill (where he would be obligated to find a protective procedure), it seems very easy to envision how the secret details could be worked around to evaluate the claims of the five plaintiffs.

Note also the recent tiffs over "foreign relations" and the US-UK special relationship if details are released in this case. We've seen arguments here spanning from threats that the US would terminate intelligence sharing with the UK if details are released to the UK actually being responsible for slicing Mohamed's genitals. Hayden very well could have been making the argument that airing this case too publicly would affect US-UK relations, independent of other concerns over whether the information should remain secret.

Emptywheel just posted the announcement she got by email:

The bipartisan State Secret Protection Act is modeled on existing protections and procedures for handling secret evidence. Specifically, the bill would require a court to make an independent assessment of the privilege claim, and would allow evidence to be withheld only if "public disclosure of the evidence that the government seeks to protect would be reasonably likely to cause significant harm to the national defense or diplomatic relations of the United States."

Under the bill, when this standard is met, a judge must protect the evidence from harmful disclosure, and shall consider whether a non-privileged substitute can be created that would prevent an unnecessary dismissal of the claims. The sponsors noted that through reasonable and uniform procedures and standards, their bill would strengthen national security and the rule of law, and would help restore checks and balances.

Linked at my name.

The bill is jointly submitted by Nadler, Petri, Delahunt and Lofgren.

It will be interesting to see this one play out. If Obama stands by the position taken by DOJ in Jeppesen, wouldn't he veto this bill if it passes?

That is a very interesting thought. I also don't remember anyone suggesting that. Benefit to corporations will be a useful filter for looking at future actions, indeed.

he linked to Maddow because he thinks it's important for readers to see that prominent figures agree with him. Ambinder did the same.

Yeah, I suppose the fact that Maddow was interviewing the ACLU attorney who is arguing the case had nothing to do with that link.

Just to ruin your breakfast a bit more, someone has had some fun with that photo and altered it a bit. See the link at my name.

If you dare.

MediaBistro has done a revealing interview with Ambinder, complete with a photo of him. It is linked at my name. Here are two excerpts:

What single person played the biggest role / had the biggest influence on your journalism career? Mark Halperin

/snip/

If you could have one superpower, which one would it be? The ability to pose the right questions at precisely the right moments and receive, in turn, the exact answers I'm looking for.

The entire interview is not to be missed, especially if you want to know the answers to the questions of what color his bathroom is and whether he considers himself cute, pretty, hot or beautiful.

With all the journalism role models out there, Ambinder chooses Halperin. Reaveals a lot, doesn't it? And I think he showed today that he still has a long way to go before he reaches superpower levels on those questions he's asking. Maybe he should spend a little time talking to Helen Thomas.