Obama has not said so, but that might be what is about to happen.

So glad you're on that, Glenn.

As Glenn and DCLaw1 point out, the State Secrets Protection Act addresses the imbalance that has resulted from the unitary executive theory and the amassing of huge amounts of power in the executive branch. This part bears repeating:

A President who seeks to aggrandize his own power through wildly expansive claims of executive authority ought to be vigorously criticized. But the ultimate responsibility to put a stop to that lies with the Congress (and the courts).

I wouldn't even put the parentheses around the courts. It is my hope that this bill is just the beginning of the process re-asserting that all three branches are equal.

This is how our system was designed to work. We now have a huge problem, with the executive branch claiming to be able to shut down civil (and criminal) suits merely by stating, before any evidence is brought forth, that to proceed with the suit would damage national security. In a properly functioning system, such a claim of national security would need to be vetted through an independent judge who would examine the evidence in question, protect information actually relevant to national security and find workable non-secret solutions where possible. This bill seeks to do just that.

Take as an example the original FISA law and the FISA court. Note that FISA was enacted after the Church Commission investigation revealed that because there were no checks on government use of surveillance, there was massive abuse of surveillance. With the FISA court in place, the government knew that it could only carry out surveillance under appropriate conditions and this system worked very well until the Bush administration chose to avoid it. Some have railed about the fact that the FISA court has refused so few surveillance requests, but I would counter that argument with the fact that the parameters for approval are known in advance of submission and frivolous or illegal surveillance was filtered out before the applications to FISA were submitted.

Note that it was when Bush went to the FBI carrying out surveillance through the issuance of National Security Letters that had no judicial oversight and other outright defiance of the FISA court, massive illegal surveillance re-appeared.

Setting aside the current horrid state of FISA and the changes to it under Bush, the original FISA is a shining example of the three co-equal branches of government carrying out their designed functions. When the executive overstepped on surveillance, the legislative set out strict boundaries in the law and established a judicial watchdog. That same model is appropriate here with regard to state secrets. Massive lawbreaking on the part of the executive branch is being shielded from legal scrutiny by hiding behind the state secrets claim. The legislative branch is proposing a new set of boundaries and guidelines for the judicial branch to interpret and enforce them. There is concern, both real and troll-like (I'm lookin' at you, Laddie!), over just how to set and enforce these boundaries, but I still praise the original beauty of our founders in establishing a system where we can set the three branches of government into action with each maintaining checks and balances over the other two.

the bill, if it passes, will legitimise abuse in the same way previous such things have done, e.g. the FISA court, which never saw an administration argument it didn't like.

but since there will be a judge to rubber-stamp the abuse, it will all be ok, and American Democracy will be saved from the spectre of ... well, of not being quite American ... iykwim ...

Hope springs eternal, as the saying goes, in the hearts n minds of Democrat wannabe believers.

When are you going to realise that there cannot be bipartisanship when there is only ONE party?

Don't worry, I assure you the question is purely rhetorical.

the bill, if it passes, will legitimise abuse in the same way previous such things have done, e.g. the FISA court, which never saw an administration argument it didn't like.

-- ScuzzaMan

This bill, while currently having some problems that need to be addressed and, ultimately, changed, has a lot more teeth to it than does FISA. But, according to you, their is no point in Congress writing, voting on or passing legislation at all because it's all just a game and nothing more.

I suggest you read DCLaw's writings on this subject. DCLaw is actually, unlike you, doing the work of reading the bill, trying to understand what it actually says, and then explaining his take on it. If all you are offering is 'poo, poo' what point are you making besides the ol' 'I'm the all knowing cynic and the rest of you are the know-nothing suckers'?

You mistake my attitude for cynicism: it is much closer to contempt.

You are NOT "know nothing suckers" at all. You damn well KNOW that your man is, like every other before him, nothing but a liar, thief, and murderer. The same is true of both Senate and Congress.

You would simply prefer not to know, and hence your hostility.

I recommend watching "Lawrence of Arabia", particularly the scene where the diplomat and the reporter have their little chat:

"A man who lies to others hides the truth, but a man who lies to himself has forgotten where he put it"

I have no regard whatsoever for your hurt feelings, so don't bother to parade them at me as if they mean something.

It could prove instructive about how serious the President is or isn't about reversing his predecessor's bad direction to know if he's receptive or not to this bill.

I'd also like to know what's happening in the House on this. Any news about an equivalent piece being introduced there?

I have no regard whatsoever for your hurt feelings, so don't bother to parade them at me as if they mean something.

-- ScuzzaMan

Is this a conversation or are you just doing all of the talking for both of us and I need not bother? Because that's what I read in you comment. You speaking for me as well as yourself. I don't have "hurt feelings" and - hate to use this once again with folks like you who insist on being too lazy to get beyond their easy pigeonhole descriptions - I'm not the cartoon cutout that you roll around in your imagination in order to pretend like you're winning an argument by playing the roll of yourself and of your imagined opponent.

I simply suggested that you actually do some homework, but I see that you are too lazy for that and that you feel better about yourself when you take the easy way out and just laugh at everyone.