Eric Holder interview: Discusses erosion of the civil rights division, state secrets, much more

[Aloha Spirit]

I didn't see any posts on Holder's interview with Couric that aired yesterday.
Here's the transcript:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/08/eveningnews/main4930388.shtml

The first three pages are mostly boring answers that merely rephrase the question.
She wears him down by page 4 !!
I encourage reading the fourth page in full.

For those who were wondering (as was I)....
Couric asks about the State Secrets hot potato. here's the exchange:

During a recent case in San Francisco involving five people who were part of the Bush administration's extraordinary rendition program, the Obama administration, as you know, used the same argument. Which came as a surprise, frankly, to the judge. Meanwhile, the head of the ACLU said, quote, "Candidate Obama ran on a platform that would reform the abuse of state secrets. But his Justice Department has disappointedly reneged on that important civil liberties issue.' Why?

Holder: Well, the - the premise is wrong. I have ordered a review of the state secrets doctrine. All the cases in which - we have invoked that doctrine. I think there are a total of maybe 20 or so, just to make sure that it was properly invoked. And to see, in those cases, where it was properly invoked, if there's a way we can be more surgical, whether there is a way in which we can share more information. A report is in the process of being prepared. I'll expect I'll have it in the not too distant future. And my hope is to be able to share the results of that report with the American people. So they'll understand exactly - why we've had to use the state secret - state secrets doctrine in certain cases. And why we - decided not to use it in - in certain other cases.

Couric: .... (D)o you believe the state secrets doctrine was abused by the Bush administration?

Holder: .... 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.

On the Civil Rights Division:

Couric: How do you think this department became so politicized during the Bush administration? How did that happen and why?

Holder: I'm not sure. I think that people lost sight of the fact that the department of justice is a special place. It's different from all of the other departments in the executive branch. Although the attorney general is a part of the president's team, you're really separate and apart. You have a special responsibility as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. There has to be a distance that you keep - between this department and the White House. And I think people lost sight of that.

Isn't it great?
Now with this new interview, we can continue our erudite discussion of the Justice Department through the weekend at least.


(edit-formatting)

[katandmoon]

1. "my hope is to be able to share the results of that report with the American people".

This American person will NOT hold her breath for that.

[Aloha Spirit]

2. I am! I just signed up for DOJ news updates...

http://www.usdoj.gov/govdelivery/subscribe.html?code=USDOJ_1

I'll be a good girl and let ya'll know if I get anything good.

[Aloha Spirit]

3. Should I change the title to WIRETAPPING!!11! OMFG BUSH 3 !!11! ?

[Renew Deal]

9. I wonder where the wiretapping case will fall.

[Aloha Spirit]

14. My interpretation is that the three cases that were reviewed and he agreed on the use of

State Secrets Privilege included the wiretapping NSA case.
So, for me this interview was important because for one it answers the question, is the USDOJ just posturing on the assertion of state secrets privilege or did they review the case and decide it was the right thing to do. Seems they reviewed it and decided it was the right thing.
I'm reallly interested to know what this other case is where they are going to reverse on its use.

I found this article just now, I found it useful, and it has a really good link to a 2006 analysis of the 1953 Reynolds case that established State Secrets privilege.
Maddening.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/obamas-state-secrets-overreach040909.html

[Aloha Spirit]

20. Anyone who wants to be outraged about State Secrets Privilege should read this about US v Reynolds..

I'll repost

http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=00142

In Reynolds, the Court referred to the secret equipment on the B-29: "On the record before the trial court it appeared that this accident occurred to a military plane which had gone aloft to test secret electronic equipment. Certainly there was a reasonable danger that the accident investigation report would contain references to the secret electronic equipment which was the primary concern of the mission." In fact, the report was never given to the district court and there were no grounds for concluding that the report made any reference to secret electronic equipment. The Court was content to rely on what "appeared" to be the case, based on government assertions in a highly ambiguous statement by Secretary of the Air Force Thomas K. Finletter. His statement referred to the secret equipment and to the accident report, but never said clearly or conclusively that the report actually mentioned the equipment.

The Air Force declassified the accident report in the 1990s and Judith Loether, daughter of one of the civilian engineers who died on the plane, located the report during an Internet search in February 2000. The report does not discuss the secret equipment. As a result, the three families returned to court in 2003 on a coram nobis petition, charging that the judiciary had been misled by the government and there had been fraud against the courts.

As recounted in my book, In The Name of National Security: Unchecked Presidential Power and the Reynolds Case (2006), the families lost in district court and the Third Circuit. On May 1, 2006, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. The Third Circuit decided on the ground of "judicial finality," which is an important principle. Every case cannot be relitigated. However, the Third Circuit gave no attention to another essential value. The judiciary cannot allow litigants to mislead a court so that it decides in a manner it would not have if in possession of correct information. That is especially so when the litigant is the federal government, which is in court more than any other party.

[Aloha Spirit]

4. Pelosi differs with Justice Department, suggests the relevant Patriot Act amendment

is up for review in December and could be sunsetted.
Also, suggests 'that the Justice Department's position on this issue may change in the future. "hat has been said already is not necessarily the last word from the administration," she said.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/pelosi-splits-with-obama_n_184955.html

From Olbermann last night.

[Aloha Spirit]

15. Here's the Amendment Pelosi is referring to==Section 223 of the Patriot Act

http://w2.eff.org/patriot/sunset/223.php

One could argue that the DOJ is simply following the law that Congress passed.
And yes, Obama did vote for the Patriot Act renewal.
But all you Obama canvassers should know that he also worked to include amendments that added protections from electronic surveillance, and that he voted to oppose making parts of the Patriot Act permanent....

So, the section they used in the defense will probably be sunsetted in December.



Just tryin to fill in the story a little.

[Jennicut]

5. Hmmm. Very interesting.

We shall see if Holder really does decide to be more open with us.
I did like his answer that the DOJ needs to be more separate from the President and work more independently.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Keep us up to date on this please!

Cause you know if it happens, the thread about it will sink!

Thanks! :hi:

[Aloha Spirit]

7. Oh, I'm on it. And I will

just for you!

[FrenchieCat]

10. Nice!

:thumbsup:

[Renew Deal]

8. It's reassuring.

It's reassuring that it was properly used in 2 cases and it's reassuring that they will reverse the ones they feel it's not properly used.

[Aloha Spirit]

11. I agree--and it's reassuring to read that the AG will release their report.

Honestly, for me one of the most infuriating aspects of the Bush era was the way decisions were made with no public outreach or explanation.

[Political Heretic]

17. "hopefully"

[Aloha Spirit]

19. I know dude

But I'm an optimist, I confess.

[Political Heretic]

21. .

(misplaced reply)

[Undercurrent]

12. Thanks for the info!

A great day to you! :)

[Adelante]

13. Thank you very much

I wasn't able to watch the interview. I'll read it now.

[Political Heretic]

16. What's so great about it?

I'm trying to hone in on where the greatness is... Three cases upheld, one reversed. That's not exactly the ratio I believe is appropriate.

[Aloha Spirit]

18. Ah, I agree it's not great that so far it's 3:1. That last comment was sarcastic, as in

My head hurts from thinking about this but now the AG says a bunch of provocative stuff so everybody will continue to be obsessed over it, including me.

I put a bunch of links in my posts above, if you're curious where my head's at on this.