Gibbs: Obama Stands By DOJ's Use Of State Secrets Privilege

The President fully supports the Department of Justice's citing of the state secrets privilege to brush aside lawsuits targeting officials who oversaw warrantless wiretapping, spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Thursday.

"Absolutely, absolutely he does," Gibbs said, when asked if the president deemed the DOJ's legal reasoning fair. "Obviously these are programs that have been debated and discussed but the president does support that viewpoint... Obviously we are dealing with some suits and the Department of Justice will make determinations based on protecting our national security."

The DOJ has insisted that lawsuits against government officials involved in the warrantless wiretapping program be dismissed when a trial could reveal sensitive national security information. During the campaign trail, Obama had criticized the practice of evoking the state secrets privilege as used by the Bush administration. Asked if the president continued to find his predecessor's use offensive in light of his own use, Gibbs replied, "Yes."

The distinction between how Obama and Bush were handling the issue, a White House official told the Huffington Post, would come to light once the Attorney General continued to review the cases involving the use of the state secrets privilege.

UPDATE: Per the White House official, here is the DOJ's statement on the matter as it pertains to one of those state secret cases: Jewel v. NSA.

The administration recognizes that invoking the states secret privilege is a significant step that should be taken only when absolutely necessary. After careful consideration by senior intelligence and Department of Justice officials, it was clear that pursuing this case could unavoidably put at risk the disclosure of sensitive information that would harm national security.

An examination by the Director of National Intelligence and an internal review team established by the Attorney General determined that attempting to address the allegations in this case could require the disclosure of intelligence sources and methods that are used in a lawful manner to protect national security. The administration cannot risk the disclosure of information that could cause such exceptional harm to national security.

While the assertion of states secrets privilege is necessary to protect national security, the intelligence community's surveillance activities are designed and executed to comply fully with the laws protecting the privacy and civil liberties of Americans. There is a robust oversight system to ensure this compliance.

Comments

[Patriot0259]

Damn him. Hypocrite.

[TAFL]

We've been duped. Change, my @ss.

[wvinvent]

I am disgusted beyond words. Obama's argument to support unlimited "State Secrets" power and to even to EXTEND IT BEYOND THE BUSH ASSERTIONS simply sickens me. We are not a country ruled by a person. We are a country ruled by law. When precedent and practice allows an individual President to override any legal review of his actions, then we are no longer a country of laws but simply a DICTATORSHIP. The argument that "he's not going ot abuse the power" does not satisfy. The power remains and the next dictator can use without limit.

Obama will lose my vote and (rather substantial) financial support over this very critical issue.

[sofia]

Bush used the states secret excuse to spy on his enemies, not to keep us safe. Now that Obama is in power, he will be just like Bush. This is change you can forget about. I don't recognize my country anymore! This story should be the main headline!!!

[chloespaz]

Why not get congress to change the wiretap laws so we can have the privacy we deserve?

[Grannysue]

Sorry, I'm a big Obama supporter, but he's wrong on this, completely wrong. This is a Cheney/Bush decision that has screwed the American people and anyone else who walks the planet.

[realpolitic]

This tendency to follow the Bush secrecy arguments and perhaps maintaining the Bush wiretapping program is the most disappointing aspect of the Obama presidency. Obama should have made a clean break with Bush and tried the Bush administration for their crimes.

[Gumby123]

Now it will never happen. The libs will have to put this in their pipe and smoke it.

[figuringitout]

No, President Obama. No. No. No. No. No. No. You are wrong, period. Global schmoozing does not distract us from this incredible miscarriage of justice. We supported you based on your word.....what a quaint, and seemingly archaic, notion. That was wishful dreaming on my part.

These are the things the Founders fought the most powerful nation in the world over. And won. You are continuing, and enlarging, a betrayal of the principles on which any true strength of this nation relies. You can orchestrate many "programs". But those are empty pacifiers when you disregard, and trample the principles that create our strength. Unless you return to serving the truth, and rescind this grevious error, we the people will stand against you, as we stood for you at one time. Yes we can.

As one commentator mentioned, and as the rock band, The Who, gave us....."Meet the new boss....same as the old boss."

[Lemeritus]

Sadly but too truly, Obama used the word "transparency" but never once said he would reverse Bush's policies in this regard. He did say, of course, that he would "look into it" even as he voted -- during the campaign -- for a badly flawed FISA bill which many of us on his website pleaded with him to oppose. As has been noted elsewhere in these comments, in various forms, all with equal veracity: Power does not relinquish power -- once the people give it up as so many were frightened into doing during the Bush administration, it does not come back, even when we elect someone we think we can believe in.

[Gumby123]

Bill O'Reilly complete agreed with Obama on this issue last night.

[wvinvent]

And THAT says everything that needs to be said about Obama's horrific position.

[solarian]

I was a obama supporter untill this happened they all the same rotten

[mummbleswers]

Yeah let's dismiss this guy's entire political career over one decision that you know nothing about. I'm not defending what he's doing here, but I will say it's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize. Learn every fact you possibly can before you make a knee jerk reaction and say you don't support the guy AT ALL.

[wvinvent]

We know a great deal about this, and we know it is WRONG. When you remove judicial review from Presidential action, you create TYRANNY. Obama may not abuse this power, but the next GOP nutcase who wins the Presidency will.

A nation of laws cannot allow a President to create a tool that allows that President to hide ANY ACTION that they do not want in public view. Call it a "State Secret" and by magic a President can DO ANYTHING THEY PLEASE. It allows unfettered power and eliminates the checks and balances that protect the liberty of ALL OF US. With "State Secret" there is no obscenity against the Constitution, our laws, or individual Americans that can not be committed by a President. Simply by uttering the magic words "State Secret", the Congress, the Courts, and the People become powerless.

It is sadly disappointing to see Obama siding with the Authoritarian GOP over this critical issue of American liberty. Americans fought to be free of this kind of despotic power 230 years ago. We fought for a Constitution and law that stood above any man of power. We fought to protect the individual from the fist of oppressive government. We created the greatest documents ever conceived to establish a government ruled by the people. All of that is trumped by the odious words "State Secret" and an American King that wields them.

[wvinvent]

The first modern "State Secrets" claim was used to hide federal government wrongdoing, not to protect "secrets". The first modern use was in 1953 to block attempts by family members to find out what happened to the crew of a crashed B-29 bomber. The government claimed that revealing anything about the accident would endanger national security and reveal a "top secret mission". The Supreme Court allowed the government to bury the information, and thereby established the "State Secrets" precedent. The families never got the truth.

In 2000, ALL of the information in this case was released. It revealed all claims of "national security" were fraudulent. There was NO SECRET INFORMATION. However, there WAS information that revealed the crash was caused by GOVERNMENT WRONGDOING, which would have been embarrassing to the President. This was the real reason the information was kept from the American People.

The idea of "State Secrets" is completely un-American. It was NOT a law passed by Congress. It was created by the 1953 Supreme Court ruling (where are the "Strict Constructionists" to decry "judicial activism" on this one?). "State Secrets" use has exploded in the last 8 years. It allows the President & his people to hide the truth forever and hide their crimes. This is not what our country stands for. Americans need to wake up and fight to eliminate "State Secrets" through legislation and litigation.

[bbbear]

dylansfan wrote: "I will not support him again if he sticks by this decision.
Hoping it is a misunderstanding."

Yeah, well I hoped it was a misunderstanding when Senator Obama broke his word and voted for the Heinous FISA bill which he now intends to use against we the sheeple. I stopped sending him money at that time... Then Palin got in the race, scared the dickens out of me....and I started donating again.. But I've been uneasy for a long while....What really bothers me is the silence of the Corporate Media.... My question is, who does Obama really work for? Uh, answer too? It's certainly not we the sheeple!

[Independent voter]

Is anybody surprised by this?

Obama voted in favor of Bush's FISA 'spy on Americans' plan and voted to give retroactive immunity to telcos who did the spying. And the telcos didn't even have to say what they did that they needed immunity for doing. They just wanted immunity for anything that they might have done.

Obama this is not change. This is not transparency. This is BUSH 3.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..........

[Lemeritus]

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." --John Adams

[Dr Manhattan]

Surpised, not one bit. I didn't vote for this phony. Whenever I hoped he'd be different, he'd then support FISA or get R. Emanuel in his cabinet, etc. If people wanted "REAL" change, they'd voted for Kunich. However, black pride, white guilt, middle class hopes and foolish youth were all manipulated to get Obama elected. Coming from IL I knew he was full of it. At least I got a clear conscience, I voted straight Green.

[zjr909]

All Bush did was set the stage for whatever (and whomever) follows. Obama's job is to take it to the next level. And, if there are still a few civil liberties that haven't been stamped out, whoever takes over from Obama will complete the job. This has been predicted by so many through the years - all of whom have been summarily dismissed as "crack-pots" - that nobody ought to have the unmitigated gall to say, "Who knew?" Anyone whose brain hasn't been rotted by an unending diet of Sports of the Week and Idol of the Week and Reality Survivor of the Week knew - that's who. Now the rest know.

[Rule Of Law]

Crackpots, woo woos, tin foil heads--all designed to diminish the person and in that way--sort of like calling someone a Socialist removes their credibility--the power of their message is lost.

If there is anyone who still believes that we are Not on a slippery slope into a new feudal age and that our Constitution and our Right are not being destroyed with every new Administration, then you must also still believe in Santa and the tooth fairy.

Until we can break the hold of the financial system on the throat of our government, we will continue to edge ever closer to the one world order that Kissinger spoke of again just this last February: The ruling of the world by self appointed Masters of the Universe--the same guy busy looting our Treasury now and avoiding any responsibility for the meltdown. The same guys working on Wall Street and for Obama in Treasury and in the FED. And this has been coming now for at least 30 years. Like a glacier, it moves almost to slowly to be seen, but the damage left behind is massive and undeniable.

[Space Walker]

correct my friend, the stage was paved for O by bush, just like the stage was paved for bush by clinton, but i guess sheeps will be sheeps. O's job is to either complete the job or simply set the stage for the job to be completed.

[freedomitchy]

Civilian libertarians were apoplectic over former President George W. Bush’s “warrantless wiretap” program, which sought to monitor communications from terrorist networks overseas. So why are they not screaming bloody murder now that President Barack Obama appears slated to receive unprecedented power to monitor all Internet traffic without a warrant and to even shut the system down completely on the pretext of national security? The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 - introduced by Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, and cosponsor Olympia Snowe, R-ME - bypasses all existing privacy laws and allows White House political operatives to tap into any online communication without a warrant, including banking, medical, and business records and personal e-mail conversations. This amounts to warrantless wiretaps on steroids, directed at U.S. citizens instead of foreign terrorists.

The bill gives the Secretary of Commerce and a new national cybersecurity czar power to shut down all Internet transmissions in the event of a yet-to-be defined “cyber emergency.” This is a dangerous power, even for a president who in a 2008 campaign appearance at Dartmouth College harshly criticized Bush for anti-terrorist “wiretaps without warrants,” and promised that if elected he would leave such policies behind.

[bbbear]

The Supreme Court open this door when they illegally installed Bush. If Obama is the next step to total control of we the sheeple, then I guess all we can hope for is a benevolent dictator who only east us one leg at a time..

[bbbear]

BTW, thank you for the excellent post.

[MsLiz]

Don't dismiss the suits, just rule for trhe plaintiff and pay the damages.