Holder likely to reverse use of State Secrets Privilege

[Aloha Spirit]

in a case currently being reviewed.

Posted earlier

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8330802&mesg_id=8330802

[HamdenRice]

1. DOESN'T MATTER !!11!1 If I can't have my erroneous POUTRAGE I don't wanna hear about it!!!

I don't care that you and several others have posted a rational analysis that takes in account how hard it is to turn around thousands of lawsuits in progress.

I WANT MY POUTRAGE AGAINST OBAMA!11


Waaaaa! Waaaaa! Waaaaa!

[Zodiak]

7. Enough with the substanceless "poutrage" posting

In the absence of anyone posting at all, you seem to just be doing it gratuitously, decreasing the signal to noise ratio on this site and spreading negativity.

I have seen you post with substance before...stick with that.

[Kaleko]

15. Actually, it's you barking orders like your authoritarian "stick with that"...

which is spreading negativity while the poster you attacked made a point in fairly funny way.

[Zodiak]

20. Barking is an interpretation of tone

Which is impossible to convey in a post, so you have no factual basis for this argument.

As far as authoritarian, I am about as libertarian as one gets, but of course, one's liberties do end at the tip of one's nose. This is about attacking others, and my admonition carries no weight...at least not anymore.

How is asking for a person to not attack other DUers by comparing them to crying babies spreading negativity? "Stick with that" is hardly what I call vitriolic, but an admonition, yes. I'm glad you found the pictures funny, but if it was directed at you, would you?

Treating other DUers with respect should be independent of one's position, and so I hope your answer to that question is yes.

[Kaleko]

21. Tone is impossible to convey in a post?

In fact, it's quite the opposite. Every post has a certain tone, you can't escape conveying emotional attitudes.

As for the rest of your post... I agree with your statement that your admonition carries no weight. The rest strikes me as presumptuous drivel attempting to convey intellectual superiority, but, of course, that's just my interpretation.

[Zodiak]

22. The tone you chose to use was a vocal tone

Not a written one....apples and oranges. "Barking" cannot be conveyed in text without all kinds of exclamation points and/or cap letters. There were none. That interpretation was yours entirely.

As far as intellectual superiority, I made no such claims. If you are interpreting my post as that, so be it. Such supposition does not negate my initial argument, in fact, it avoids it entirely.

Back to the matter at hand. Posting snarky pictures to attack other DUers as crying babies, whether individual or in groups, is against DU rules and does not contribute to this community. Disagree, fine, but do not try to deflect the argument with some kind of judgment on my perceived intelligence, tone of voice, or demonstrated location along the authoritarian/libertarian continuum. Attacking the messenger is a rather ineffective rhetorical device, not to mention a logical fallacy.

[mkultra]

17. poutrage appologist!

[dionysus]

8. lock stepper. hope dust sniffer. DLCer.

did i miss any strawmen?

[EFerrari]

14. That's just embarrassing. n/t

[apr09]

2. I'm confused. The transcript seems to show that Holder defends the state secrets

Holder simply said that one case is under review and will likely be reversed. But he defends the use of state secrets in the three cases in question:

Couric : What's your gut though? Holder : Well, I don't know. On the basis of the two, three cases that we've had to review so far - I think that the invocation of the doctrine was correct. We - we reversed - are in the process of looking at one case. But I think we're likely to reverse it.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apr09]

4. did I do anything wrong?

?

Did I say anything misleading or offensive? If so, I apologize to you.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apr09]

6. Oh

I thought there had been something wrong or that you considered offensive or inaccurate in my post.

Thanks for the clarification.

What is your take about what Holder told Couric?

[dionysus]

9. do we need to switch you to decaf?

:rofl:

[Marie26]

10. The link doesn't really match your headline

In the link, Holder actually defends the Admin.'s use of State Secrets Privilege & just says that they're reviewing the cases. He says that in the Bush Ad. cases they've reviewed so far, the use of state secrets was justified. And he says that he'd like that review to be public, but I'm not holding my breath. And he stutters & reverses course often in that part of the interview, while he sounds very smooth & coherant in the rest of the interview.

[Phx_Dem]

11. That's okay. Some DUers will find something else to bitch about tomorrow.

[Duke Newcombe]

12. Oh, boy!! Thanks, Mr. Holder...

...guess that means you'll look out for my privacy rights SOME of the time, in CERTAIN instances. Thanks for THAT nothing sandwich.

[stillcool]

13. exactly correct...it's that damn law thing..

we should just get rid of them all, and rule by decree.

[apr09]

16. The personal view of President Obama on the state secrets argument was revealed this afternoon

I think some defenders of the DOJ have had a point in expressing their view that lawyers have been trying to do their jobs by defending the government. Maybe the President did not share that view.

Luckily, we now have President Obama's position via Robert Gibbs:

Here's the Q and A from today's press conference:

Q Last Friday, the Justice Department invoked the state secrets privilege in asking a judge to dismiss a civil suit filed against the National Security Administration regarding its domestic surveillance program. And in its brief, the Justice Department argued that Americans have no right to sue the government for alleged illegal surveillance.

Does the President support the Justice Department's positions in that case?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, absolutely. It's the -- absolutely does. Obviously, these are programs that have been debated and discussed, but the President does support that viewpoint.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Briefing-by-White-House-Press-Secretary-Robert-Gibbs-4/9/09/

[Aloha Spirit]

18. Hey thanks for the link... and he also says that Bush did abuse the state secrets privilege

Q So he still thinks that the Bush administration abused the state secrets privilege?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.


That's consistent to what Holder said in the Couric interview yesterday, that so far they've reviewed like 4 cases, and on 3 of them they support the use of state secrets privilege and one they don't.

There are a bunch more links in the post that I linked to.
I made this separate thread because I thought, as you point out above, the discovery that the Administration fully agrees with the use of state secrets privilege in the Jewel v NSA case was very important, yet nobody seemed to pick up on that. So I used this thread to try to be provocative and get people's attention about the issue I guess.
Not the coolest thing to do, but I was frustrated!

Anyway, welcome to DU
:toast:

[apr09]

19. Fair point

Thanks.