Is prosecution included in "willful disclosure"?

I'm disgusted as hell with this development, although I'm less surprised by it than I'd like to be.

Thanks for continuing to bring these stories to our attention, Glenn, and in such a lucid and (depressingly) unflinching way.

Anyone who has any suggestions on how to protest this (in addition to the usual donations to the ACLU, EFF and the like), I'm all ears.

I mean that literally. Is there someone at DOJ who might be willing to talk to you, maybe your next Salon Radio interview? Sometimes it seems there are two different administrations, one respectful of civil liberties and another run by the bushies.

Perhaps the scariest thing about this DOJ brief is that it was actually filed on April 3. I went to double-check the .pdf linked to the article, hoping against hope that it was only reported on April 3, but had actually been signed and filed on April 1. As a joke.

May the courts reject this atrocious attack on everything we know to be true. It is not a basis for dismissal of a lawsuit against the government that the lawsuit might inconvenience the government.

Nothing like a cup of Glenn Greenwald's bitter truth to start off a Monday.

The Obama defenders have a lot of ground to cover these days, between his obscene giveaways to Goldman Sachs, Citi et. al, the continuing harsh treatment at GITMO (link @ sig.), the escalation of hostilities in Afghanistan & Pakistan, and these indefensible legal positions on "state secrets."

We seem to have replaced one tyrant with another.

Admittedly, they wouldn't have had time to demand explanations (yet) for the most recent decision. But this isn't the first dubious assertion of secrecy by the Obama administration, as Glenn points out.

Where are the investigative reporters? There are some still left, right? Why aren't they calling on AG Holder, on Obama's press secretary, on Obama himself to explain this? Whay aren't they pointing out the contradiction between campaign promises and actions in office? Glenn, to your knowledge, is ANYONE aggressively asking questions about this??

I'm surprised Sen. Feingold hasn't had something to say about this.

They cover each other's asses.

It is called "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE" and "ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT."

Nice "new" administration we have here.

Bush III - keeping it cool - for Bush II.

Obushma?

I've seen enough. It's time to rise up and throw the bums out.

Stop paying taxes, tar and feather your representative, ransack Goldman Sachs HQ.

Things are so far off the rails there is no hope of setting things right via the usual means of expressing discontent. They've managed to make every avenue of protest and dissent a dead end. The groundwork for deploying the military here at home is already underway.

I'm surprised Sen. Feingold hasn't had something to say about this.

If she did, it would be something along the line of, "Nancy Pelosi said impeachment is off the table and I agree with her."

Can't figure this one out. 80% of Republicans hate and will do anything to destroy Obama and with his continuing to coverup the Bush crime syndicates horrors he will eventually lose the left of his party. I can see his apporvals dropping to the 40's if this trend continues. If he loses the left, he is mud.

Obama DOJ Brief - Page 16:

"[...]disclosure of whether the NSA has an intelligence relationship with a particular private company would also cause exceptional harm to national security - [...]"

In short, "Trust me, I'll still love you in the morning."

Why? Because the DNI says so. It is not merely specific documents, but entire lawsuits, that must be dismissed in advance as soon as the privilege is asserted because "its very subject matter would inherently risk or require the disclosure of state secrets."

In short, "Trust me, I'll still love you in the morning."

They certainly wasted a lot of words.

I may have written it too many times, but this post really drives home my point.

The USA stays "at war" somewhere in the world at all times; even if it is never declared in the required constitutional manner. We also stay "at war" on our own citizens at home in a thing called the "war on drugs", also unconstitutional.

When at war, the government can greatly increase its powers and those of us who cry out at the abuses will be called "terrorist lovers" or some similar thing. Obama is doing what all 'war time' presidents do. He is increasing his power and authority over the population.

If you want it to end, then cry out for an end to all the wars --- yes, even the ones you personally like.

The right arm of the Unitary Surveillance State of America is riveted to its five-star shoulder epaulets by a stainless steel ratchet gear which confines its rotation exclusively to the reichward direction. Once extended, its salute will not be rescinded, only rendered more rigid in its executive ascent.

Thanks Glenn for sharing this very disappointing news.

Obama is showing insufficient allegiance to the Rule of Law and the spirit of our precious Constitution. He needs to be strongly challenged on this (and on release of OLC torture memos etc., if he wimps out) in the 2012 presidential primary (where is my Gore in shining armor?).

before they sweep away the last vestiges of the old republic? Two or three regime changes? Because we are toast. The government has accumulated a critical mass of power. Governments don't give up power voluntarily. Ever. Our so-called system of justice is a joke. It will create exceptions to the clearest of constitutional language anytime the government asks. And, since they can now make anything they like secret, you won't know about it until they knock down your door at 5 in the morning. And the most egregous behavior will never be persecuted or the case will be dismissed.

We are merely a dead man walking.

I believe you confused Feingold with Feinstein

If she did, it would be something along the line of, "Nancy Pelosi said impeachment is off the table and I agree with her."

Um, Feingold is a he. I think you've got Feinstein on the brain. And that's enough to muddle anyone's brain. ;-}