Share

Obama Tightens State Secrets Standard

by: Carrie Johnson  |  The Washington Post

photo
President Obama strengthened his commitment to openess by making it tougher for the government to claim something is a state secret. (Photo: Pete Souza / The White House / flickr)

New policy may affect wiretap, torture suits.

    The Obama administration on Wednesday announced a new policy making it much more difficult for the government to claim that it is protecting state secrets when it hides details of sensitive national security strategies such as rendition and warrantless eavesdropping.

    The new policy requires agencies, including the intelligence community and the military, to convince the attorney general and a team of Justice Department lawyers that the release of sensitive information would present significant harm to "national defense or foreign relations." In the past, the claim that state secrets were at risk could be invoked with the approval of one official and by meeting a lower standard of proof that disclosure would be harmful.

    That claim was asserted dozens of times during the Bush administration, legal scholars said.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

This is huge. For those of

This is huge. For those of us looking for indications of a break with the illegal, immoral and ineffective policies of the Bush era, this is certainly one to take note of. Transparency creates a strong pull towards compliance with the rules that are intended to put a real check on the abuse of government power. Visible actions must be justified and defended, while secrecy evades the real debate democracy demands.

This is good, but not

This is good, but not enough. Do you really think Alberto Gonzales or John Yoo would have forced Bush/Cheney to release anything they didn't want to release? This only works to the extent you have appointed good, honest people, and we know that is not guaranteed by any means. It is a good effort, but I think we need more than this.

This is about the biggest

This is about the biggest loophole going. "In the past, the claim that state secrets were at risk could be invoked with the approval of one official " So nothing has changed. There is no way to challenge Holder's decision that state secrets are involved and there is no way that a judge in a case would get to decide whether or not secrets would be revealed. There is no provision for a judge to see the supposed secrets in camera so that they don't get entered into the public record but still are evaluated in the trial. It hasn't changed a thing from the Bush era.

Good. Now there will be a

Good. Now there will be a defined difference between "state secrets" and embarrassing secrets.

This still only keeps the

This still only keeps the honest honest. The Bush/Cheney regime had no trouble "convincing" their AG and "teams" of torture-loving lawyers to cover up everything.

Good - but now it's time to

Good - but now it's time to go further and show what happens to people who lie and/or force others to lie, in the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors. It's time to take down George, the big Dick, and the rest of the criminals. They should not be allowed to continue living high off the public dole, protested by Secret Service and laughing all the way to the bank - and wherever else they do their unpatriotic sneering at the rest of us who are supporting them in the manner in which they do not deserve to live.

Right on, Mysterioso.

Right on, Mysterioso. Embarrassing secrets play a role in denial of benefits to many who have served in the military. Radiation-exposed vets; hazmat vets - Agent Orange and its "other colors;" toxic contaminants of drinking water, of ground water... the list goes on.

Hey, Texas Aggie, it says

Hey, Texas Aggie, it says there will be a "higher standard of proof". Doesn't count, huh?