Intellpuke: This editorial appeared in the New York Times edition for Tuesday, September 29, 2009.
One of the ways that the Bush administration tried to avoid
accountability for its serious misconduct in the name of fighting
terrorism was the misuse of an evidentiary rule called the state
secrets privilege. The Obama administration has essentially embraced
the Bush approach in existing cases, trying to toss out important
lawsuits alleging kidnapping, torture and unlawful wiretapping without
any evidence being presented.
The other day, Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr., issued new
guidelines for invoking the state secrets privilege in the future. They
were a positive step forward, on paper, but did not go nearly far
enough. Mr. Holder’s much-anticipated reform plan does not include any
shift in the Obama administration’s demand for blanket secrecy in
pending cases. Nor does it include support for legislation that would
mandate thorough court review of state secrets claims made by the
executive branch.
The rules, which replace a less formal set of procedures used
during the Bush years, establish a high-level review process at the
Justice Department before a privilege claim may be invoked in court.
Executive agencies will have to persuade a Justice Department committee
that disclosure of information would risk “significant harm” to
national security.
The new rules instruct the Justice Department to look for ways to
avoid shutting down an entire lawsuit and to reject privilege requests
motivated by a desire to “conceal violations of the law, inefficiency
or administrative error” or to “prevent embarrassment.” The rules
sensibly give the attorney general the responsibility to sign off on
all state secrets claims.
|