...when one is responsible for results rather than yapping on the sidelines with no idea what's really at stake. On the other hand this could be just another step along the path of Chavezing the US.

Either way, it seems Greenwald et. al. are on the losing end of Obama policy yet again.
Keep up the good work.

…it might be too late to begin impeachment proceedings against the President.

Glenn, in that filing, see footnote 8 on page 6.

There the Obama DOJ attempts to slip one by the Court, and US, by explaining the new Obama State Secrets Privilege invocation policy and describing the individual requirements that must be met before they do so with this:

...Section 1.C of the Department’s policy places further limitations on the Government’s defense of a state secrets privilege assertion, for example, by prohibiting such invocations for the purpose of concealing violations of the law or to prevent embarrassment to the Government. Id. § 1.C...

The Obama DOJ claims in the footnote to have met the requirements of Section 1.A, and to have met the requirements of Section 1.B.

But notice that while they describe the requirements of Section 1.C above, nowhere to they assert that they've met those very requirements.

By doing so, the Obama DOJ makes abundantly clear, that it in fact cannot meet the requirements of Section 1.C., and in fact this very state secrets privilege invocation is meant "for the purpose of concealing violations of the law or to prevent embarrassment to the Government".

And only a four year old could possibly read it any differently!

__________

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/10/obama-administration-invokes-state-secrets-privilegeagain.html

Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

Obama Administration Invokes State Secrets Privilege…Again
October 30, 2009 10:53 PM

[...] The statement and legal documents were released in a particularly active Friday afternoon document dump [...]

__________

* * * * *

__________

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/10/30/transparency-you%E2%80%99ve-never-seen-0

The White House Blog

Transparency like you’ve never seen before
October 30, 2009 at 04:31 PM EDT

Today marks a major milestone in government transparency [...]

[...] the latest in a series of unprecedented steps by the President to increase openness in government. [...]

- - The White House Blog, Friday, October 30, 2009

__________

And only a four year old could possibly read it any differently!

--Mad Dogs

But our resident one is here to tell us that the threat to the US is so heinous but so secret that you have to president before they tell you about it.

Isn't just amazing what happens...

...when one is responsible for results rather than yapping on the sidelines with no idea what's really at stake.

--shooter

And of course he believes it like any good four year old listening to a fairy tale.

I am interested to hear Glenn's view as to why the Obama DOJ is doing this and/or why Obama is permitting it? Could it possibly be that they have found certain things

Also, as I understand it this is a case about something the Bush administration did; is the Obama administration doing the same thing?

Could it be that having come into office and come to grips with the realities of combatting terror, that Obama has changed his mind and concluded that this is what he has to do? Maybe! Rather than jump to the conclusion that he has, for some inexplicable reason, gone over to the darkside, why not examine the possibility that the secrecy is necessary. Investigate.

homeruk wrote:

I am interested to hear Glenn's view as to why the Obama DOJ is doing this and/or why Obama is permitting it? Could it possibly be that they have found certain things

What, in your opinion, factual learning might have motivated President Obama to opt to take the path leading towards dictatorship? Do you think you know what it or they are?

Yes, of course, Homer, they have found certain things that are so awful that they must be kept secret from those threatened. In order to counter these threats, it is necessary to throw away our (admittedly short) constitutional tradition and adopt absolute executive power. This is why the courts are so in favor of it! It is necessary!

that didn't apply vis-a-vis the ussr? i don't see any plausible justification of this based on external threats.

Mike Sulzer, have the courts always been correct? Didn't circumstances during the Great Depression, an emergency the likes of which we had never experienced before (like the war on terror), require a new interpretation of the Constitution to allow for the New Deal?

or the new deal?

Recent history shows that the introduction the elements of a social democracy into a country is compatible with maintaining individual freedom. Absolute executive power is not.

Pretzelattack, was that my point?

I was making the point that at times in our history we have had to change and/or re-interpret the Constitution to deal with new threats and circumstances. That's why it's referred to as a "living document"?

pyrrhus wrote:

Could it be that having come into office and come to grips with the realities of combatting terror, that Obama has changed his mind and concluded that this is what he has to do? Maybe! Rather than jump to the conclusion that he has, for some inexplicable reason, gone over to the darkside, why not examine the possibility that the secrecy is necessary. Investigate.

Emergencies are often noticeable, and one typically does not need to resort to a counterfactual statement to defend actions and self-understandings typical of an emergency regime, that is, of a constitutional dictatorship of some sort. The issue, then, isn’t whether Obama can justify these dubious measures by relying upon the situation he and the country faces but whether he is even authorized to claim this power to shield the executive from legal accountability.

Of course, the path which would conclude the War on Terror is clearly before the country? Obama needs only to demobilize America’s armed forces and dismantle its empire.

Mike Sulzer,

Are you telling me that the New Deal didn't expand the power of the executive branch? What were the effects of West Coast vs. Parrish? The federeal bureaucracy is part of the executive branch.