The al-Haramain Stall Timeline
With the news that Bush’s DOJ submitted "inaccurate" information to Judge Vaughn Walker, I wanted to look at the recent timeline on the al-Haramain suit to identify the ways Bush and Obama/Dead-Enders postponed alerting Walker to this fact up until the moment it became clear he would get to review the wiretap log from al-Haramain. I’m guessing Obama discovered at least several weeks ago (February 11?) that the information provided to Walker was "inaccurate" and much of the actions since have been an attempt to avoid having to admit to Walker that he had received "inaccurate" information. (Though Bush no doubt knew this fact–and was trying to hide it–much longer.)
January 5, 2009: Walker announces he’ll review the wiretap log to see if al-Haramain was wiretapped illegally. He sets the following deadlines:
- January 19 (14 days): "defendants shall arrange for the court security officer/security specialist assigned to this case in the Litigation Security Section of the United States Department of Justice to make the Sealed Document available for the court’s in camera review. If the Sealed Document has been included in any previous classified filing in this matter, defendants shall so indicate in a letter to the court."
- February 13: Clearance for al-Haramain’s lawyers.
- February 19 (45 days):"Defendants shall review the Sealed Document and their classified submissions to date in this litigation and determine whether the Sealed Document and/or any of defendants’ classified submissions may be declassified, take all necessary steps to declassify those that they have determined may be declassified and, no later than forty-five (45) days from the date of this order, serve and file a report of the outcome of that review."
January 9, 2009: al-Haramain’s attorney, Jon Eisenberg emails DOJ’s lead attorney, Anthony Coppolino, to confer on joint statement on how to proceed with case.
January 12, 2009: Coppolino asks Eisenberg for a proposal.
January 13, 2009: Eisenberg emails Coppolino a plan.
January 15, 2009: Coppolino emails he hopes to respond the following day, first raises possibility of separate statements.
January 16, 2009, 8:21 PM: Bush appeals Walker’s January 5 order.
January 17, 2009: Eisenberg leaves email and voicemail about appeal.
January 19, 2009, 10:56 PM: DOJ files for a stay.
In separate filing, Bush DOJ tells Walker he already has the Sealed Document.
The Sealed Document at issue in this case has been lodged previously in this action with the appropriate court security officers.
January 20, 2009: Obama inaugurated President.
February 2, 2009: Eric Holder confirmed as Attorney General; as of this moment, he had not been read into the illegal wiretap program.
February 11, 2009: DOJ argues its case for a stay, and requests an interim stay before al-Haramain’s lawyers get their clearance and the government submits its classification review.
The Government also requests that at least an interim stay be entered by February 13, 2009—the date after which further proceedings may commence under the January 5 Order.
It asks for an immediate answer so it can request a stay from the Appeals Court.
The Government respectfully requests that the Court indicate how it will proceed by 3 pm on February 13, 2009. In order to protect its interests, the Government plans to seek relief from the Ninth Circuit before the close of business that day in the absence of relief fromthis Court.
It also reports that the Government expects the materials included in the classification review will remain classified.
Plaintiffs also contend that the declassification review ordered by the Court may also foreclose any harm to the Government. See Pls. Opp. (Dkt. 69) at 10 n. 1. The Court ordered that process to be completed by February 19, 2009, the Government expects that the relevant information at issue in the privilege assertion will remain classified, if not all of the information contained in prior classified submissions.
February 19, 2009: DOJ asks for an extension on the classification review, explaining:
The Government can report today, as we indicated in a filing made on February 11, 2009, that we expect the relevant information at issue in the privilege assertion to remain classified.
[snip]
The Government anticipated being prepared to file on time, but additional review and consultation is required to complete the forthcoming submission to the Court.
February 20, 2009: Walker grants DOJ request for more time to prepare the classification review, agrees to new deadline of February 27.
February 27, 2009: The following happens, apparently in this order.
- Obama speaks by phone with George Bush, reportedly to tell him of his Iraq withdrawal decision.
- 9th Circuit refuses DOJ’s request for a stay.
- DOJ submits a filing basically warning that they will appeal any decisions Walker makes on sharing classified information.
- DOJ submits its delayed classification review, admitting that:
The Government’s ex parte, in camera classified submissions also address an inaccuracy contained in a prior submission by the Government, the details of which involve classified information that cannot be set forth on the public record.
- DOJ submits four classified declarations (presumably correcting the previous "inaccuracy"), from:
- Anthony J. Coppolino of the Department of Justice
- Andrea M. Gacki of the Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control (note, Gacki had previously served as a DOJ defense attorney on this case, representing FBI)
- John F. Hackett of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
- Joseph J. Brand of the National Security Agency
Is “al-Eisenberg” (Jan 12 entry) a joke or a typo? (I am humorless, so I can’t tell.)
Yeah, that is a typo. Jon Eisenberg is al-Haramain’s attorney.
Dang. I saw that when I was finishing up, and said to myself, “better make sure you get that typo, it’s really really stupid.”
Thanks for alerting me.
It’s the Eisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The government certainly won’t disclose what it’s asked for. When it’s forced to, it’s uncertain what it has, what it can or will disclose, and whether any of it is accurate. It’s equally certain that neither it nor its lawyers professionally will face consequences. They’re part of the Executive Branch.
Actually, its the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. And I’m not clear how that applies here. Clarify?
Bob in HI
as punaise might say, you have pundamentally misunderstood the situation.
of is Cheney’s “barnacle” branch still up and running?
Pretty much nails it for any bureaucracy, and according to news reports the Bush administration was uncharacteristically sloppy (even for them) about the information they kept on detainees.
I would hate to be the one tasked by Eric Holder to pull together all of what the government knows about each of the detainees.
DIGG WAS OPEN when I got there
Going now to learn about those lawyers for hiding state secrets.
Has the end of this diary been cut off? Last I have is the Feb 27 line for
Joseph J. Brand of the National Security Agency
Below that, there’s something that looks like the top of a few characters at the beginning and end of the lines. Doesn’t look normal.
Was there more?
Bob in HI
I’m not seeing anything in the source that seems to indicate that there’s more. (I was thinking those might be periods or maybe hyphens, like spacers.)
Sorry. Another error–stupid word press, but that’s all you get for now!!
;-p
Guess this means I will have to find a Saturday night fall back position.
Any idea what the four classified declarations on 2/27 from DOJ might say?
See comment 7. Working on a post. It’ll take a while.
Patience…and huge thanks.
Curious to know what Dawn Johnsen thinks about these developments.
Has anyone asked her if she is still looking forward to working in Obama’s OLC?
The DoJ submitted its declassification review several days late. Does a late submission have consequences that hurt the government’s case and potentially help the plaintiff– the al-Haramain lawyers?
To what extent is Obama a prisoner of the security clearance-wall that limits his sources of information?
As he is fond of FDRoosevelt, is he aware that FDR had privately selected other sources of info deliberately to better evaluate his official sources [his Cabinet, Adm. Leahy, etc.]?
To name a few: USMC Capt.Evans Carlson in China [later Carlson’s RAiders]; Gen. Joseph “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell; Edgar Snow [1st to interview w Mao, Gen.Chu Teh, Chou En Lai in Asia, India [Nehru, Ghandi], Russia [only American at Stalingrad battle]. Clearly there were others.
Whose “unofficial” trusted eyes, ears and senses, consistently demonstrated over time, does Obama have to balance the “official”, mostly contaminated communication lines?
* by vested interests, lobbies, personal ambitions, bureaucracies, conflicts-of-interest, incompetence, etc.
we need to email Obama’s blackberry
Heh, well, among other things, that may be why Greg Craig is such a problem.
Obama would do well to read the book, ‘JFK and the Unspeakable – Why He Died and Why It Matters’, by James W. Douglass. It contains much info from declassified material and much that I had never read before.
He had few supporters in his own cabinet and was undermined by the CIA. All the Joint Chiefs were aligned against him – they were hell-bent too nuke Cuba and Russia. He used Salinger as a secret courier to Kruschev and they cooperated that way to keep the world from nuclear war. That was the method he used to work out the test ban treaty (which infuriated the Joint Chiefs).
Finally, he could really trust only Bobby and Salinger.
Although I haven’t read the Douglass book, I recently finished Russ Baker’s book on Family Secrets and some other great books on the Bay of Pigs problem. I also have long advocated that in order for Obama to understand the forces aligned against him, it would be wise to read all he can on the early Kennedy years. I would imagine that Ted Kennedy has also pushed this approach. The mix of the intelligence agencies and corporate American is an adversary that must be dealt with.
Leon Panetta must quickly delve into the secret ops programs that Cheney initiated in the last 4 years. There are many landmines for him to avoid. Cheney saw how the Nixon/CIA/Bush family left traps and road blocks for Kennedy. He also saw how a few failed. Cheney has a brilliant although criminal mind.
I am convinced that the Allen Stanford case is another Iran-Contra problem but much bigger and more ugly. Dawn Kopecki wrote about some of it for BusinessWeek in late May, 2006.
http://www.businessweek.com/bw…..3_2210.htm
Thanks, NCDem, it’s so good to hear from a a fellow mental-traveler. I agree with you about Cheney. Am going to your link to see about Stanford. Didn’t know he went that far back. Thanks for the link.
This book needs to be read by more people and the lessons it contains on the dangers of allowing the Joint Chiefs too much leash are stunning.
Obama should be reining in Petraeus and Odierno and nipping the revolt in the military in the bud. He also should stop Bush’s practice of giving FOX news carte blanche to broadcast to the troops overseas to the exclusion of other sources.
Did you note that today on FOA is Mike Mullen, Chrmn Joint Chiefs (along with 2 Repubs from Congress), and Gates is on NBC’s MTP.
What agenda are they peddling? Mass invasion of Pakistan? /s
INMHO, Obama should reign in a lot of the top brass. I live not too far from Ft Hood (huge army base). Last week the 4th CAV returned from Iraq and was replaced by a dif unit. I saw a clip of the replacement CO General giving his introductory speech after landing in Iraq = = he was near to frothing at the mouth! paraphrased: …together with our Iraqi brothers we’ll hunt ‘em down, smoke ‘em out, kill ‘em off….that sort of bring-’em-on talk. Seriously, he gave me the impression of a man gone berserk.
Glad to know you have read Douglass’ book. Makes the gut quiver, doesn’t it?
typo at my 27, should be today on FOX is Mike Mullen
The role of the Joint Chiefs has flown way under the radar in this situation. The attacks of Cdr. Kirk Lippold from Military Families United was most likely directed by the Joint Chiefs, or associates close to them. A quick look at their website will see that, despite its many thousands of dollars that could pay for a full-page ad in the nation’s newspapers against the release of Binyam Mohamed, the site is not fully finished. Its “heroes” page has only nine entries, headed by an obit for the son of the president of the organization. (My heart goes out to Colonel Ellsworth, who seems to have been chosen as a figurehead for the organization, and who obviously is in agony over the death of his son while inspecting a bomb in Iraq.) The “testimonials” page has… zero testimonials. Someone is not serious about the site, which means we have a front organization, most likely, and a well-funded one. It’s exec director is Brian Wise, a well known neo-con, and former Director of Media of the neo-con and military-led Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and “lead columnist” for Intellectual Conservative.
Lippold is MFU’s “senior military fellow”, and “working in the War on Terrorism Division of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Directorate for Strategic Plans and Policy, Lippold ‘was instrumental’ in the creation of detainee policy in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks” (as emptywheel pointed out the other day). His final job at the Pentagon, after retiring in May 07, was for Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, i.e., the Navy’s branch of the Joint Chiefs.
We know, from the SASC documents released late last year, that approval for the torture at Guantanamo went all the way up to the Joint Chiefs office. And we know that Adm. Walsh, whose report on Gitmo released the other day was a complete whitewash, was another representative from the Joint Chiefs office.
We are staring directly into the heart of darkness of the U.S. state, wherein sit the top Pentagon brass, along with the CIA, DIA, ONI/AI and NSA leaderships (with the FBI as junior partner), and they have NO intention of relinquishing power without a fight. This is why we have endless temporizing by Obama and the “dead enders” on al-Haramain, and on other “state secrets” cases, and also the push-back on Guantanamo, not to mention the recent Bagram decision.
This has been great reporting and analysis by EW. But Marcy, I’d be careful about calling the Bush admin remnants “dead enders”… we might come to believe it, and think they are fighting only a rear-guard battle, when in fact, they still hold the reins in national security/military matters. Obama’s pick of Gates now makes sense, i.e., Obama could not be his own man on Defense. He had to accept Gates, who, rather than the meek servant of the bureaucracy serving his boss he is painted as, is an Iran-Contra criminal and smart operator, with plenty of savvy and CIA connections.
The battle now rages on two fronts: the budget/economy and the military/national security. Obama will have a big fight on the former, and naturally also on the latter. But he has less allies on the national security front. Obama is not radically different on nat sec. than the GOP, but what small differences he may have are being fought tooth and nail by the Pentagon and intelligence services.
IMHO, the “inaccuracy” by the government will have to do with attributions of documents, or rather documented actions, by different services/agencies within the government. The same kind of issue has held up the declassifications of documents by the SASC. The incredible cross-fertilization of the military and intelligence agencies means that documents, whose classification status is related to its bureaucratic origin. Translated: the CIA will not surrender certain documents, or claim that they threaten ongoing operations. — This latter paragraph by me is entirely speculative, and I leave it to the more legally minded and experienced to guide us here.
Along those lines, read “Family of Secrets – The Bush Dynasty, The Powerful Forces That Put It In The White House, and What Their Influence Means For America” by Russ Baker.
PS, by page 40, you have Poppy and Barbara establishing cast iron alibis for the date of JFK’s murder.
Thanks, Kathryn in MA. I may have the book (got so many unread that I can’t keep up). If not, I’ll order it. I have read a lot about the Bush family way back to Prescott’s Dad, P’s wife and her father George Walker, the ball bearings for Hitler guy…nice folks, ancestors to be proud of…/s
GHWB was in the CIA before becoming its director. Haven’t learned exactly when he began there. He was definitely buddies with Nxon when JFK beat him for president. And….both Nixon and GHWB were in Dallas on that fateful day. …doesn’t take a rocket scientist, huh.
From a few newspaper items it looks like Jeb’s son (George, doncha know) at about 20 years old is following in W’s footsteps – alcohol, rampages, women abuse, lawlessness etc. Imagine a world without an original male Bush.
I’ll be hosting Russ Baker for a book salon on March 14, for those who are interested.
Thanks, Marcy. I just marked my calendar.
Man. Sisters, that should be a scorcher of a discussion!You take care of yurself now, ya heah? We, and the world, need you.
Also worth reading for background is Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann’s Ultimate Sacrifice: John and Robert Kennedy, the Plan for a Coup in Cuba, and the Murder of JFK.
The book shows how the Mafia’s involvement with the CIA was instrumental in JFK’s murder, and how that same CIA entanglement motivated the ensuing coverup.
After the Bay of Pigs fiasco, JFK made a statement to Bobby that he would like to shred the CIA and throw it into the wind. Some reports are that he was taking steps to disband or reorganize the CIA when they did away with him.
I haven’t had much faith in our Supreme Court since Chief Justice Earl Warren headed up the investigation of JFK’s murder. Such a pack of preposterous lies! Shows what they think of the American public’s intelligence (lone gunman, magic bullet, phony autopsy, mysterious deaths of all who would be witnesses…on and on). Senator Arlen Specter was on that commission and was the origin of the magic bullet theory – and now 45 years later he is still in the Senate!
Is that the same Bobby who was in charge of the CIA’s Castro assassination attempts?
You might be interested in this if you haven’t seen it before.
**********
The US government has finally made available to the public the biggest secret of JFK’s presidency: In November 1963, JFK was secretly working with the #3 official in Cuba — Commander Juan Almeida, head of the Cuban Army — to stage a “palace coup” against Fidel Castro. “
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1019-21.htm
makes sense
Great perspective.
Love your inference, perhaps, that Obama told Bushie that his “inaccuracy” gig was up.
What kind of poker are they playing (strip)?
What are the odds of an emergency stay from the Supremos?
http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..0533.story
I think EOH is referring to the similarity between the government’s likely response and that of the tobacco industry under cross examination, the Eisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
oh, by the way, The Bush Dynasty will be an upcoming book salon.
Please keep us alerted as to date of that book salon, Kathryn in MA. There’s so much going on here at the lake that I miss a lot. Thanks.
I’m interested!
It’s easy to read too much into things and the only things I know about govt secrecy cases have been learned in connection with the Bush-DOJ criminal excursions and coverups to the extent made public, but what strikes me the most, after the language on inaccuracies, is that there are two declarations by government counsel, and both are counsel who have actually worked the case.
Generally speaking, if you look at Reynold’s type of invocations of state secrets and the declarations used, they will be from the heads of the intel agencies involved and/or the AG as head of DOJ. For example, this Declaration by Comey in Arar’s case, with Ashcroft a named plaintiff, has Comey as actin AG for the matter, signing off and as set forth in the notice, Comey and Tom Ridge, filing for DHS, are specifically filing as heads of their agencies to meet the Reynold’s standards: “In their capacities as the heads of their respective agencies, each declarant formally asserts the states secrets privlege over information at the core of…”
Just a quicky google (I really should have set up files a couple or more years ago for this stuff, my googling always gets different results) indicates Other filings have been made by Hayden when he was head of NSA, and then, for example in Hepting, by Alexander as the new head of NSA.
Is Alexander being replaced at NSA? Bc by July of 2008, while McConnell as head of DNI was still signing off on declarations, this article indicates that Brand as associate director of NSA signed off on the declarations in a GITMO detainee request for information.
And Blair is confirmed, right? So why is it Hackett, who is apparently the director of the information management office, signing off?
If the declarations were supposed to meet the Reynolds state secrets standards, by having the new administration’s appointees pony up by signing declarations as well (maybe that’s not the purpose?) the seem to have managed to miss Blair, as agency head, and Alexandar, as agency head. And if there is a legal declaration on that front needed, it would typically need to be coming from the AG, not Coppolino and Gacki.
As a matter of fact, once Coppolino and Gacki are signing off on something, they are in the nature of fact witnesses before the court – something you typically avoid. So the facts that they are describing would presumably be ones that go to the inaccuracies made to the court, not the classification issues.
I dunno – maybe the declarations are being technically made for non-Reynold’s reasons (?) but it seems to me that Obama’s agency heads are ducking out of signing off. And actual lawyers who worked on the case are having to ante up fact declarations to the court – without heads of agency affidavits. Maybe there’s an easy explanation, but it strikes me as very weird.
And if I were al-Haramain’s lawyers I’d be thinking about asking the court to clarify that the new ex parte filings met the Reynolds head of agency standards for state secret invocations and about asking whether or not Coppolino is now a fact witness who needs to be disqualified. If the only facts involve misrepresentations to the court that have not been disseminated to opposing counsel yet, maybe he doesn’t need to disqualified as a fact witness, but as a sanction might be a possiblity as well.
OTOH, it could all be nothing I guess.
He is involved in the, ahem, dishonesty perhaps. Here is how he opened a previous declaration back on May 12, 2006:
The better question is why is he now having to, ahem, file a new declaration. I have an inclination there will be a post forthcoming soon on this……
Just a reminder: All public evidence is consistent with Maher Arar being a law abiding Canadian citizen, who did nothing to warrant rendition and torture, and who has never had any association with Al Qaeda.
That is an interesting point.
EW, is there any other information about January 17th email and voice mail about the appeal?
18 -”It’s equally certain that neither it nor its lawyers professionally will face consequences. “
I think that’s where the introduction of Walker into the equation has them a little tiny bit shook and suddenly filing to correct misrepresentations. It’s been pretty certain with a chunk of the Judges that they faced no consequences, but they aren’t quite sure with him, esp now that the circuit court seems to have given Walker some room to swing.
I’m guessing Obama discovered at least several weeks ago (February 11?) that the information provided to Walker was “inaccurate” and much of the actions since have been an attempt to avoid having to admit to Walker that he had received “inaccurate” information.
What’s the basis for this guess? Obama is inaugurated Jan 20, Holder is confirmed Feb 4, and of course they have absolutely nothing else to do except read DOJ submissions ?
I admire Obama enormously and Holder seems very capable, but a new manager at an effin Dairy Queen won’t know what’s going on in a couple of weeks let alone someone taking over the US government in the middle of an economic collapse and two wars. Is it your idea that Obama has super powers?
“A new manager at an effin Dairy Queen won’t know what’s going on in a couple of weeks let alone someone taking over the US government in the middle of an economic collapse and two wars. Is it your idea that Obama has super powers?”
Evidently someone at Justice does as the decision to continue the Bush Admin position on state secrets in the Binyam Mohamed case had been “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration” on 2/9, two days before the date of EW’s “guess,” according to the NYT:
“A lawyer for the government, Douglas N. Letter, made the same state-secrets argument on Monday [Feb. 9], startling several judges on the panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
“Is there anything material that has happened” that might have caused the Justice Department to shift its views, asked Judge Mary M. Schroeder, an appointee of President Jimmy Carter, coyly referring to the recent election.
“No, your honor,” Mr. Letter replied.
“The change in administration has no bearing?” she asked.
“No, your honor,” he said once more. The position he was taking in court on behalf of the government had been “thoroughly vetted with the appropriate officials within the new administration,” and “these are the authorized positions,” he said.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02…..=1&hp
So if they lacked “super powers” or needed “effin Dairy Queen” training to get up to speed, why not ask for more time or at least not reverse their campaign promises on this issue less than 3 weeks in?
Notice that the “appropriate officials within the new administration” are unnamed. A lot of dead enders could be considered as “appropriate officials within the new administration” until their replacements are confirmed and they take office.
How far down the organization chart have appointments been put in place?
But if you’re allowing holdover dead-enders to advocate the former administration’s positions several weeks into your boss’ administration on the most important holdover case involving renditions such that the first line of the next days’ WaPo article on the case states “The Obama administration invoked the same “state secrets” privilege as its predecessor in federal court in San Francisco yesterday,” aren’t you clearly incompetent?
I’m sure that the admin’s stamp couldn’t be placed on all cases at all levels this quickly but if it wasn’t applied to this case, that’s inexcusable IMHO.
Sigh. The assertion was made that Obama personally knew about problems in the submission and that the stream of actions was intended to cover it up.
There are 115,000 employees in DOJ and they include FBI and ATF. The head of DOJ was confirmed February 4. It takes an extreme commitment to irrelevance to assume that Obama is personally involved in vetting submissions to every DOJ lawsuit.
An outside opinion, but if Obama’s top aides like Holder are not keeping him apprised of the details of a leading edge case of such importance as this, they are not doing him a service. And if Obama does not realize the importance of these details, or does not have time for them, more’s the pity. I know he has a lot to do, but these terrorism cases will determine his whole relationship to the rule of law.
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. Submissions to courts in the first 6 months of the Presidency are not as important as making sure General Betrayus is not plotting a coup and that AIG and Citi don’t take the financial system down and that there are not 20million unemployed people on the streets by summer. If Obama is smart, an all indications are positive, he will not spend 10 minutes on this shit.
It kind of takes a little something out of the judicial system if the person in charge of enforcing it doesn’t pay attention
To each his own.
BTW, if the economic or military problems were really important, Obama would have a different staff in charge of them.
Exactly what truck of insipid turnips did you roll in on? It is the duty and oath of office of the POTUS to defend and protect the Constitution. Nothing short of the very foundation of this country, i.e. the Constitution and the rule of law, is at issue here. Run along now.
By god you’re right. Send him the priority list you’ve come up with ASAP and you’ll save the country. Sorry for troubling your beautiful mind with mere practicality.
45 – Oh please. Obama has been getting classified briefings for quite a long time, including prior to his actual election and definitely after elction and through inaugeration. Supposedly even as a Senator exercised a pretty fair amount of due diligence in connection with his FISA amnesty vote. And oddly enough, in addition to the relatively ENORMOUS staff of advisors he had during his two year campaign (including, as it did, all his references to Bush’s misuse of state secrets – which hopefully he actually knew something about before speaking) he has a much bigger staff now and had lots of time to pre-plan what part of the staff would be responsible for distilling what important informatino for him.
The family of cases involving a) the illegal FISA program; b) GITMO and detainees held at US bases and elsewhere and detention powers, and c) detainees and ex-detainees who have been tortured and state sponsored torture – are things that Obama would have had to have been consciously neglectful to not require briefing for himself and for Holder as soon as Holder could receive them. Unlike Obama’s invocations of state secrets to cover up Executive branch crimes, which does require a belief in supernatural and deified powers, getting an accurate briefing on the most important national security cases in the country in a timely fashion only involve Executive branch, not super, powers.
Go find a new manager at Dairy Queen who has Volker ready to drop everything and show up to manage the store at a moments notice, then pitch that ice cream ball over home.
OT – but tied to the discussions in other threads on reasons for not disclosing torture info, the Guardian is reporting that both Jacqui Smith and Miliband are now refusing to testify before a Parliamentary Human Rights Committee.
Horton has a piece up here
One interesting aspect of the piece is that it offers up a lot of detail from Britain on the point I see glossed over here. At home, we have so many arguing that the “way we treated” detainees will prevent their trials. I think that in most cases it probably should, but that has not been the reality here in the states, or, as the article lays out, in Britain either. The Padilla case is a prime example that mistreatment of detainees, even to the point of deliberately creating lasting mental illness, hasn’t been even a feather to be puffed off the path to convictions. That is a very sad aspect of what the Dept of Justice and the lawyers who collect their paychecks everyday without a shrug, have been willing to blithely do to this country, but it also points out the real issue on torture and forever detention.
It’s not that we need forever extra-detentions because torture prevents securing convictions, it’s that we need forever extra-judical detentions to keep victims out of courts and protect the torturers.
45 – Oh please. Obama has been getting classified briefings for quite a long time, including prior to his actual election and definitely after elction and through inaugeration. Supposedly even as a Senator exercised a pretty fair amount of due diligence in connection with his FISA amnesty vote
And these included the DOJ submissions to Judge Walker?
I’m sorry, but the level of unreality here is sad. If I were in Obama’s shoes, I’d delegate this entire issue to other people to delegate to other people and spend my time trying to fix the economy and avoid a coup.
49 – I know, that’s one reason I tend to delete the St. that often precedes references to Comey.
46 – that’s helpful. I still have to wonder how a declaration from Hackett met the Reynold’s standards, though, which seem to require personal review by the agency head and certification. I’m guessing this gets to the problem that was at issue in the showdown between the FISCt Chief Judges and DOJ – that the systems in place couldn’t even allow for anyone to certify to the FISCt that someone on a FISA application had or had not been surveilled under the illegal program, bc it was so broad.
If this case doesn’t die a fast death, the really interesting future plaintiffs would be all the non-terrorist US citizens who had their communications with their lawyers listened in on by Gov with no warrant.
I’ve been offline all weekend and am just now catching up. I’ll take a SWAG at what the inaccuracy involves. I think somebody lied to Andrea Gacki and she misinformed the court. The lie probably had something to do with whether or not the FBI had taken certain actions based on the warrantless wiretap information.
Gacki came into OFAC long after the original wiretapping had occurred. I don’t think the Bushies trusted her. It took me 5 minutes with ‘the google’ to discover that she donated $900 to Obama in 2008 and was in Teach for America in 1991. That sounds like the sort of career trial attorney at DOJ that wouldn’t have been trusted with the ‘good stuff’.
One of the key issues in this case was whether or not the actions the government took against al-Haramain were based on the information in the wiretaps. It wouldn’t surprise me if the insiders told Gacki that the terrorist designation was based on other classified info (that she didn’t have a need-to-know) and now that they realize they might have to face the music, they have to fess up to the fact that they’ve got nothing other than the wiretaps.
nice to hear someone call the “inaccuracy” a lie
Well, who really thinks DOJ would have two of their lawyers file classified, ex parte, declarations over anything less than a big, fat, whopping lie about a central fact in the case.
geeze mary .. if i evah get in trouble .. i’d like to retain you as “counsel for the defense” .. primarily just to deprive the “other side” of potentially tapping your obvious talents ..
I talked to Sen. Feingold today, at his birthday party/re-election fundraiser.
He’s going to give the Administration “a few more weeks” to come up
with a bill to roll back the FISA amendments, introduce his own bill
if they don’t.
In his speech, Russ referred to the recent Court ruling on the Al
Haramain case as an area on which he disagrees with the Justice
Dept,position, ‘fortunately the Court ruled against them.” No mention
of the Administration’s appeal.
Thanks, Ben. Encouraging about his bill ready to go.
Also, I have a suggestion for the Plaintiffs in this case. The government keeps saying that it’s up to the NSA to decide on declassifying this information. But even within the Executive Branch, there’s another option. From EO 13292:
I think somebody ought to suggest to the judge that tell the government they need to ask that guy’s opinion before they go appealing his order. This would be a great way to force Obama to take a personal stand on this. When confronted with putting his personal stamp on the really outlandish claims contained in this suit (which boils down to even though the plaintiffs have already seen the document, confirming what’s in it would damage national security), I think Obama would have a Captain Renault moment.
Any such decision by the Director may be appealed to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
Is that Jim Jones? Or…?
Yes, that’s Jones. Oh, and by the way, wasn’t Jeppesen, at least, really decided when Obama decided to appoint Marine Corps General James L. Jones, a member of the Board of Directors at Boeing, as his National Security Advisor? (He resigned from the board when Obama appointed him, but just sayin’…)
wasn’t Jeppesen, at least, really decided when Obama decided to appoint
Marine Corps General James L. Jones, a member of the Board of Directors at Boeing, as his National Security Advisor?
That’s right up there in the cavalcade of possible explanations for the abusively broad assertion of state secrets privilege in Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, the one they actually ran on ending…
Eric Holder doesn’t have to deal with the economic collapse or the at-least-two wars. He was confirmed Feb. 2, took office Feb. 3. There’s certainly a lot on his plate, but the deadlines set out for high-priority cases were tracked by him and other DoJ transition staff and would have gotten early focus.
You’re entitled to ask what EW’s guess is based on, but please drop the knee-jerk economy/wars justification for anything and everything that the new administration is doing or failing to do.
EW’s guess was that Obama, not Holder, knew about the case. And anyone who paid attention during the Clinton administration should know that a Democratic AG has a number one initial priority of taking control of the FBI. If you then take into account that the USAs are all hacks and need to be replaced as fast as possible particularly since there is an out of control set of scandals relating to the Ponzi economy, that the DOJ was in the process of destroying environmental laws, and that gaining control over the rendition system/Gitmo will take months – you’d have a start on understanding the complexity of Holder’s job.
Book Salon up at the Mothership with Will Bunch’s Tear Down This Myth hosted by Cliff Schecter
Jeebus. You guys have been busy over here while I’ve been busy over there.
It’s a little OT, but I found this interesting 5/06 article from Alternet about attempts to break in to Oregon attorney Thomas Nelson’s home and office. (I’m new here so hope it’s not old news)
Nelson, a “close friend of Brandon Mayfield” is significant because “when the New York Times broke the news of the NSA spy program last December [’05], Belew and Ghafoor realized that the logs obtained of their attorney-client communications were probably a result of the program… [and] contacted …Nelson, an attorney representing al-Buthi in a separate case.”
Belew and Ghafoor had already returned their copies of the logs to the FBI, per its request, “but the FBI failed to contact both Al-Buthi and Seda, both now living overseas, to get their copies back.
– Nelson officially started representing al-Buthi in September 2004; soon after, the FBI document was inadvertently released.
– A few months later, Nelson observed inconsistencies when he came to his office: His computer would be left on, disks still in the drive, materials shifted.
– Fellow lawyers from the office…noticed someone… posing as a member of the janitorial crew, trying to get into the office.
– Though Nelson approached the security people at the building, they wouldn’t talk to him. “They were very blunt,” he told AlterNet
– He said, ‘You probably couldn’t tell me if something was going on anyway.’ He said, ‘That’s probably right.’”
– After these incidents, Nelson brought the al-Buthi files to his house. That’s when he and his wife experienced lapses in his home alarm that the company monitors refused to explain.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/35807/?page=entire
More scenes for the movie to let people know what’s at stake in these cases and what else “state secrets” might be covering up?
Beautiful. And thank you, very good info. I have noticed you here recently. Welcome to our little nook of the universe; please stay and contribute often.
Thank you. I appreciate it, both the invite and the blog, so I’ll definitely stick around. You seem to (at least usually) have some of the most informed commenters around, and I’ve been reading for a long time. To paraphrase Homer J. Simpson, “why go looking for Meow Mix when you have Fancy Feast right here?”
BTW, did you notice EW’s latest mentions Nelsen?
And Nelson’s in the house!
Not mentioned in your actually fascinating timeline is the fact cited in an L.A. Times story on the case — http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..0533.story — that in early February Holder ordered a review of “all cases in which the government had fought off lawsuits by invoking the state secrets doctrine.”
Wonder how that’s going.
The Constant Weader at Reality Chex