Biden Won't Comment On State Secrets Law He Once Co-Sponsored

The Vice President's office is declining to weigh in on a bill that would restrict use of the "state secrets privilege" by the Department of Justice, despite the fact that, as a senator, Joe Biden co-sponsored that very piece of legislation.

"No comment on this from here," emailed Jay Carney, the vice president's communications director, when asked for Biden's position on a bill that would limit DOJ's ability to dismiss cases against government officials involved in warrantless wiretapping on grounds that sensitive information would be publicized.

The silence from the Vice President's office comes as the White House, too, has refused to comment on the new version of the legislation, introduced by Sens. Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold. The administration's general stance, as described by a White House official, has been that the DOJ "is reviewing the state secrets privilege to determine when it should be invoked" -- meaning that a new set of standards could be advocated by the Obama White House irrespective of Congress.

Already, however, critics and observers are taking the president to task for resorting to a Bush administration-used policy that he himself had criticized on the campaign trail.

The friction came to a head during the case Jewel v. NSA, in which the Obama Department of Justice argued that, "after careful consideration," it was determined that pursuing this case "could unavoidably put at risk the disclosure of sensitive information that would harm national security."

Under the law introduced by Leahy, Kennedy and Feingold (and earlier, by Biden), the government could "intervene in any civil action in order to protect information that may be subject to the state secrets privilege." Authorities, however, could not use the state secrets privilege "for dismissal of a case or claim."

Marc Ambinder, following this story over at the Atlantic, notes that another legal quibble surrounds the power the congressional legislation gives to judges to determine what information constitutes a national security related secret. The Obama White House believes such a task is the function of the executive branch. Whether they have a proper or sufficient claim on this front is subject to constitutional debate. But as Ambinder concludes: "Make no mistake: Obama will be rolling back the spirit, if not the fact, of a campaign promise by opposing this bill."

Get HuffPost Politics on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Comments

[Jezreel]

I've come to the conclusion that people who write articles like this one entitled; "Biden Won't Comment on State Secrets Law He Once Co-Sponsored" really need to get a clue.

The President and V.P. and other high ranking members of the Administration are supposed to exercise discretion on matters involving state secrets and national security. The fact that a blogger, reporter or investigative journalist uncovers information that does not comply with his or her political views does not obligate the POTUS or VPOTUS to indulge their curiosity on issues of national security or any other issue for that matter.

I think that bloggers on the Left and on the Right have taken the transparency and accountability meme too far. Transparency does not mean that the Administration is obliged to reveal everything it knows on every single issue. If that were the case, we would all be placed at greater risk.

[BigSurf]

The friction came to a head during the case Jewel v. NSA, in which the Obama Department of Justice argued that, "after careful consideration," it was determined that pursuing this case "could unavoidably put at risk the disclosure of sensitive information that would harm national security."

This is total BS, In Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA.

How can they claim "state secrets" for illegal wire tapping that is already known? Shame on Obama!!!

[merger]

Every presidential candidate makes promises that they find they can not keep once they are in office. they do so out of some naivete to what really goes on inside the White House. Hillary was the only one who knew what it was really like and the incredible security risks they are briefed on everyday and even she only knew second handed. I think we as average citizens would be completely taken aback if wehad any idea what the president is caring around on his shoulders every day. I think Obama was probably pretty shocked at what he is now facing every moment. I am not giving up on him yet. I am going to give him my trust and support for more than just his first 3 months.

[ArticleFriendly]

Why are supposed Dems and Liberals ready to completely throw President Obama under the bus just because they disagree with one thing that he hasn't done their way yet, but are totally ignoring everything he HAS done in less than 100 days in office! I smell rethugs in liberals clothing at work here!!
I disagree with this bush policy and anyone else using it, but I'm sure not going over to the dark side (republicans) just because I disagree with this subject. In 53 years, I've never seen a better President than Obama, nor have I ever agreed with everything any President (or politician) has done. But I HAVE seen the worst president (I used to think it was Nixon) and what the Repubs can do to lead us down the wrong path.
I do tho agree that the top people from bushie on down are criminals and should be prosecuted as war criminals. Not likely to happen tho, but kudos to Spain for at least trying!

[M1]

I hope this gets straightened out. Not a good thing to do when you enter office criticizing the very policy you are now doubling down on.

[Space Walker]

Four words: the society of Jesus!

[merger]

I don't get it.

[Jillianw]

Biden has to go along with Obama, no matter if he agrees with him or not.

[crazylady]

Thank goodness he doesn't comment, everytime he opens his mouth he creates problems. Couldm't BO have picked a better partner?

[HC4BO]

NO !

[crazylady]

good to know he's the best we have as a veep.

[GreatNews27]

I guess one of the qualifications for president and vice president has to be chickenshitness. Both Biden and Obama are chickenshits. I voted for them because I mistakenly believed they were telling the truth. Now I know they are chickenshits who will say and/or do anything to attain power. And once they have the power they choose to use it to protect WAR CRIMINALS. My one conclusion is that Obama and Biden are both WAR CRIMINALS themselves. Why else would they obstruct justice to keep WAR CRIMES from being investigated?

[bigbluenat4]

You really want some low level paper pusher, who was told that this was legal(by the Bushies) to be punished? Then what? trials for soldiers for committing murder?(not a policy i condone)

[CBTeabagg]

Yes I want every low level soldier/CIA agent or anyone who knowingly took part in a warcrime or illegally spied on US citizens to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as well as any official who either took part in or ignored it.

Under the UCMJ, military personnel are specifically obliged to NOT follow orders that they know are illegal.

You should know that very well, airforce right?

[FrozenNorthObserver]

you are absolutely correct, congrats on seeing the light.

[ErikW65]

Just 'cause it's inconvenient and it's not on their critical path to self-serving success.

Did you miss the word beginning with "D" in front of their names?

[Jezreel]

Please! Get over yourself and stop your knee jerk reaction to everything you read on this and other blogs. Shouting that President Obama and V.P. Biden are war criminals (with the caps locked) is a bit over the top. Don't you think?

How do you even know that half the stuff you read on this and other blogs is accurate? The fact is that President Obama and V.P. Biden have access to information that you and I will never know. How can you you or I second guess their decisions without having access to all of the facts?

[MacQ]

It's very amusing to read the posts here.

Especially the ones that say it's ok and we can rationalize it as adults now that it's Obama, but it was heinous constituti­on-shreddi­ng when it was Bush.

Look: This is probably a necessary security evil. I don't fault Mr. Obama for continuing it.
HOWEVER:
It was naivete to make it a campaign issue (as many of the things he said during his campaign were). IE: He shot off his idealist mouth before he got a dose of reality (a security briefing).
Or maybe he knew all along and just lied....he did some of that too. He is after all a politician.

[cjt1957]

Change you can believe in...

[bigbluenat4]

You don't believe in change, so what do you care?

[FrozenNorthObserver]

you are right, Obama promised change and he delivered, he changed into Dick Cheney.

[FrozenNorthObserver]

and just like Dick, the new WH thinks torture is a laughing matter. How classy.

[cjt1957]

No. I wanted things to change for the better, not get worse. You don't seem top know the difference...

[tokenconservative]

4 more years!

[bigbluenat4]

Thanks! thank you and all of your GOP failed policies that got us into this mess.

[cjt1957]

So why carry on? Read the story, Biden cosponsered it, it is the Dems doing...

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

Congress failed too. Don't forget that. There are plenty of corrupt members of Congress that call themselves Democrats.

[bigbluenat4]

The facts are:
1. All the people whining about this, Where were you when Bushco. instituted this policy?

2. Why should transparency mean that you as a common American, without security clearance, needs to know State Secrets?

3. President Obama is doing the things he said he would, the fact that he isn't doing everything that "YOU" want him to when "YOU" want him to does not mean he is doing a bad job.

4. Leave the President to clean up the mess that it took EIGHT years to create, under Bush.

[CBTeabagg]

1. I was contacting my local Senators and Congressman asking them to do the right thing, which they did not.

2. Why is illegally spying on American Citizens suddenly a "state secret"?

3. President Obama has lied to you about ending the Iraq war. He has pointlessly escalated the Afghan War. He has given the Federal Reserve (PRIVATE BANK) unprecedented powers to print even more money out of thin air, basically fighting inflation...with more inflation. He has not restored Habeus Corpus. He has now given full immunity to anyone involved with the illegal warrantless wiretaps that Bush started.

4. If you consider not only agreeing with Bush policy, but expanding the powers in them as some sort of "clean up", you perhaps should look into the actual definition of that word.

[bigbluenat4]

1. Easily said, yet, I am sure you sat there drooling on your self while Brush Lintball Told you what to think.

2. My overall point being, that after EIGHT YEARS of this policy, there might, maybe, be a little Secret information involved in this program that has to be sorted out.

3.He has NOT LIED about the Iraq war, That Mcsame would have actually just Made worse, He has already pledged to pull out all but 50000 troops and those troops will be gone within 5 years. You all continue banging on and on about the federal reserve, Yes they are coming to take your guns, money and they will make you gay. The whole printing of money thing seems to be working, The stock market has been climbing since President Obama took office, Show me where he did not restore habeus Corpus, unless you mean for the people at Gitmo, which again seems to have been made more complicated by the Bushies. If you have read the article, he did not give full immunity, unless you think that a lowly C.I.A. agent should be punished for something that they were told was legal (By the Bushco.).

4. The fact that you see any correlation between President Obama and Bushco. tells me you don't really care anyway.

[Tulka2]

Amen!

[cjt1957]

Biden COSPONSERED this. It is a DEM. thing....Read the artical...

[bigbluenat4]

oooo....Republicans signed on as cosponsors too, go find the freakin' bill at the senate web site! Guess that makes it a REpub thing!

[86masters]

Artical?

[MacQ]

To use your own words to pose a question back: why did you think that common Americans without security clearance needed to know state secrets when George Bush was president, but not now?

[bigbluenat4]

Actually, when this first began we should have had it abolished, after it has been around we need to investigate it and make sure we do not out any one, like say a CIA agent, before we release it to the public, so to answer your question, I believe that it should be made public AFTER it has been cleared.

[Hank10303]

The thing that I find funny is that most of those that are criticizing this are republicans that think they have found a mole hill they can turn into a mountain. Guess what people there are many top secret plans, memos and recordings. There are secret programs, projects and undertakings. That is how a progressive and high profile government HAS to function. That is why there are several levels of security clearances. It means not everything can be open to the public. And not everything should be. Grow up.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

This whole - Trust your Government and leaders shtick because you're all too du.mb, too unimportant and don't have the right to know what's going on behind the scenes - is the same kind of authoritarian mentality that Republicans use. Got hypocrisy?

[bigbluenat4]

The fact is, Do you think you should release all the information to Terrorists? Perhaps e should release All the Information that we have on the Bush admin., Or perhaps you think that you should run the government?

[MacQ]

Oh please. There was wailing and gnashing of the teeth riht here (and still is) about Mr. Bush "shredding the constitution" on this specific issue.
And Mr. Obama specifically campaigned on it.

Just be honest: for you, it was never about the policy. It was about the man.

I'm fine with the policy, regardless of whether it was Bush or Obama.

[bigbluenat4]

You have to vet the information before you do something DU MB like out a CIA officer or something.

[Hank10303]

I think what we need to understand as adults is that transparent doesn't mean open to the viewing public. Think of it in terms of plastic wrap - when you wrap something in it - its transparent you can see through it and know what it is. But you can't smell it, touch it or taste it. You lack the details of smell, feel and tastes.

When we as people think of the number of secrets we each have among ourselves it would be silly to want or even expect our government that keep nothing secret. There are things we as a people need to know and understand - and there are things that should be on a "need to know" basis. Transparent doesn't mean we need to know everything single thing that occures, how it occures and when. We only require a full general understanding. President Obama has NOT demonstrated in any shape or form that his judgement or decision making process is anything like Bush or Cheney. He has not shown an aggressively deceitful nature. In other words, he has not demonstrated himself to be an habitual liar.

Lets face a fact - we don't and won't ever know everything about our other half's, best friends or family and realistically we never should; is it really logical to expect that from our government and expect it to function?

[Tulka2]

Thank you. Brilliant.

[CBTeabagg]

Your stories about friends and families have no revelance here.

The true FACTS are, Bush used his powers to illegally authorize spying on American citizens.

Obama has not only continued that policy, he is now expanding both the ability to continue doing so, but also made it impossible for any victim of this illegal spying to have any legal recourse.

This is not a left/right issue. This is a continuation of a criminal issue.

End of story.

[bigbluenat4]

Glad you found jesus,after the bush admin is gone of course, But now that all this stuff is instituted, we have to be careful not to out any working operatives in the field.

[MacQ]

Why did you not understand this as adults when Mr. Bush was in office?

[bigbluenat4]

We did, he committed crimes (like this) but now that the adults ARE in office we need to clean up this mess. What is your problem anyway since you are a cheerleader for Bush policies anyway, you should love this.