Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
EJ
Published Letters: 486 Editor's Choice: 1
Countdown is available here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/
Olbermann mentioned Katie Couric's interview with Eric Holder, which aired this week (tonight?).
Holder:... I have ordered a review of the state secrets doctrine. All the cases in which - we have invoked that doctrine. I think there are a total of maybe 20 or so, just to make sure that it was properly invoked. And to see, in those cases, where it was properly invoked, if there's a way we can be more surgical, whether there is a way in which we can share more information.
A report is in the process of being prepared. I'll expect I'll have it in the not too distant future. And my hope is to be able to share the results of that report with the American people. So they'll understand exactly - why we've had to use the state secret - state secrets doctrine in certain cases. And why we - decided not to use it in - in certain other cases....
Couric: So you think it's appropriate to invoke it at certain times?
Holder: At certain times. But I want to make sure that we only do it where it's absolutely necessary. I would only apply the doctrine where - national security was at stake, where the lives of the American people were at stake. Where sources and methods used by our intelligence - at - our intelligence assets were used. This is a very transparent administration.
This is going to be a very transparent Justice Department. But I'm not gonna sacrifice the safety of the American people or our ability to protect - the American homeland. And that is - as I said, first and foremost.
Couric: Having said that, do you believe the state secrets doctrine was abused by the Bush administration?
Holder: Well, I'm in the process of looking - that is being reviewed now. And so, I'll see what the result of that - review is. And as I said, try to share the results of that review with the American people.
Couric: What's your gut though?
Holder: Well, I don't know. On the basis of the two, three cases that we've had to review so far - I think that the invocation of the doctrine was correct. We - we reversed - are in the process of looking at one case. But I think we're likely to reverse it. [p. 4]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/08/eveningnews/main4930388.shtml
Thanks, DCLaw1 - I tried to read it and the part of the Patriot Act it references, and couldn't make heads or tails of it.
From the Columbia Journalism Review article Glenn links to:
But while that full exchange is available online as part of the interview’s transcript, the broadcast version doesn’t quote a word of Holder’s answers on the topic, and Couric’s narration only glancingly refers to the general complication of trying “sensitive” cases in “open court.” Wednesday’s seven-minute Evening News segment made no mention of the administration’s filing or even of the phrase “state secrets.”
Another source mentions that this part of the interview didn't make it on the air. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/04/09/couric-presses-holder-left-guns-probing-bush-crimes
I couldn't find others - it seems that all other reports of the interview came from the transcript. The source reports what parts of the interview were aired (it's accurate - the entire show can be viewed here: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4930423n)
What did make the cut was Mexico/guns/DEA, Guantamamo/torture, and Cheney's big mouth.
... that supports Bush policies, we move farther away from the possibility of holding anyone in that administration accountable. How can a president support (dare I say allow?) the investigation and possible prosecution of a previous administration for "policies" he himself embraces?
A president's actions concern me more than his motives do. Motives are independent of the capabilities the executive branch now has and the motives future administrations may have won't change those capabilities. And even if Congress is able to pass legislation reining in the executive, what's to stop a president from "ensuring the nation's security or defending its Article II powers in the future (e.g., Bush & FISA)? Only being held accountable can do that.
Bystander - thanks for that!
"I certainly hope he releases the memos in full, but he would deserve no credit for doing so."
See Operant Conditioning: Positive Reinforcement. Any good dog owner knows the value of that technique.
Just as an FYI - I was specifically not talking to you.
I disagree. Adults are also capable of responding to positive reinforcement. I think it's as important to let political leaders (journalists and others) know when they're moving in the right direction as well as when they're not - especially when we have such low expectations of them.
Wow. Thanks for the NSA story. "Overcollection" sounds a lot like "dragnet surveillance." It puts the EFF's case, Jewel v. NSA, in a whole new light.
Glenn has to be up early tomorrow morning to kick some ass.
glenngreenwald On Democracy Now tomorrow at 8 am EST talking about new NSA revelations and Obama's deadline tomorrow for releasing Bush torture memos [via Twitter]
This will probably be one of the first places information about the memos shows up, since Glenn has contacts at the ACLU. He wrote in the post: "As soon as the court and the ACLU receive the Obama DOJ's response, I will write about it in a separate post along with an interview with Jameel Jaffer, the lead ACLU lawyer in this case."
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
