"Do you see the contortions you're putting yourself to in order to justify your Leader?"

Looks like I can cross off "Be on receiving end of Glenn Greenwald emotional tirade accusing me of being a mindless Obama apologist" off of my list of New Year's Resolutions.

Someone can counter your arguments without being an apologist or a follower. I am not putting myself in contortions. My point is that in this one instance, three weeks into the Obama Administration, and one week into the Holder Attorney Generalship, I can see a strategic reason why the DOJ allowed the argument to go forward on the State Secrets privilege. The fact that the Obama administration has not publically proffered the desire for a judicial ruling on the applicability of the privilege as a reason for going forward with the argument does not mean that in actuality it is not a reason. I do not think you would want to alert the GOP that you were actually hoping to lose the case.

If it turns out that this decision is part of the Obama Administration's decision to continue employing the State Secrets privilege in the same manner as the Bush Administration, then I will admit my error and oppose such an application of the privilege. For now, however, I cannot get too worked up about the issue, especially given the positive actions that Obama has taken regarding Guantanamo Bay and torture.

Also, I apologize for missing the part of your post which referenced the ACLU's offer to give the DOJ more time to review the issue. However, there is no need to be insulting by asking me if I can read. I can and do read almost all of your posts (usually on my lunch break), and I if you look at my prior posts you will see that I am in agreement with your positions probably over 90% of the time. Does that make you my Leader?

So, to sum up, in this one instance I have no objection to the DOJ arguing the position of the Bush Administration regarding the State Secrets privilege, given the procedural posture of the case. I expect the Ninth Circuit to reverse the District Court and reinstate the case, and for Obama and Holder to go along with that decision and not appeal to the US Supreme Court. All of this nashing of teeth will then have been much ado about nothing.

P.S. - Keep up the good work. I have enjoyed your recent flurry of TV appearances.

I was one of the people suggesting a few weeks ago that the Obama DOJ might have a strategic reason to let the appeal go forward in the Ninth Circuit in order to get a clear judicial ruling on the applicability of the State Secrets privilege. Subsequent events, however, have made me rethink this position.

Republican critics of the Stimulus bill have argued that Obama is using the cover of the financial crisis to implement a large government takeover of areas like healthcare, using the tired phrase "socialism." I am now forced to speculate that perhaps the Obama administration is using the economic crisis as a way to distract from further implementation of the policies behind the Unitary Executive.

On the other hand, presumably, the lawyers working on the appeal for the DOJ were hired by the Bush Administration. To what extent can Obama and Holder get involved in decisions handled by members of the Bush DOJ who were already handling the case? I am curious what the reporting procedures are in cases such as this, where the executive is asserting a privilege like the state secret privilege. It seems to me that Obama merely has to say that the Executive will not invoke the privilege and the case goes away. I am not trying to make excuses, but does anyone know whether there are any internal DOJ policies or procedures that make interceding in an ongoing case more difficult?