Glenn Greenwald's Answer to "A Few Weeks"

I asked below if Obama will change his mind in a few weeks on invoking the state secrecy privilege vis-a-vis Mohamed et al. v. Jeppesen. Glenn Greenwald says today, more or less, are you kidding me? To quote:

What makes Ambinder's uncritical, mindless, one-sided recitation
particularly galling is that the excuses he is passing on for the Obama DOJ's
behavior are so patently frivolous. Let's just consider each of them in
order:
1. The Obama DOJ, and Eric Holder specifically, had insufficient time to review the issues here and therefore embraced the pending Bush position as a "holding pattern."

I'd be willing to bet that 90% of non-lawyers know what parties do in
situations when there is a court deadline approaching and, for whatever reasons,
they need more time. The Obama administration has certainly shown in
the past that they know what to do:

"President Obama’s Justice Department is asking a federal judge
for at least two more weeks to answer the thorny question of who is and
who isn’t an 'enemy combatant.'

In a filing in federal court in Washington Wednesday, government lawyers asking for the delay cited Obama’s inauguration last week and the executive order he signed ordering a review of the cases of the roughly 245 war-on-terror detainees presently held at Guantanamo Bay. . . .

'The Government is now assessing how it will proceed in the above-captioned Guantanamo Bay detainee habeas corpus cases, in light of the change in Administrations and the requirements of the Executive Order,' Justice Department lawyers wrote in their new motion. 'Time is needed to make that assessment and determination. Accordingly, the Government requests a two-week extension…to allow the new Administration to assess the Government’s position in this matter.'

Or this:

"In his one of his first acts in office yesterday, President Barack Obama instructed prosecutors to seek 120-day delays in all cases now before U.S. military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba while his administration evaluates the situation."

If, as Obama's Atlantic spokesman claims, this were really the problem
-- that the Obama DOJ needed more time to review what they wanted to do --
then the solution is easy and obvious: you ask the court for more
time. You don't march into court and explicitly advocate a Bush weapon
that you've spent the last several years excoriating as a dangerous abuse of
power -- thus risking that this tyrannical weapon becomes judicially approved
and torture victims forever denied the right to a day in court.

Greenwald goes through the litany of other reasons why the use of state secrecy privilege is unnecessary here, but this I thought was most important - calling out the Obama administration on their bullshit. "Pledges" to "ask for secrecy 'only in legally appropriate situations'" are worthless, as are statements by DoJ spokespeople.

A little scary no?

A Few Weeks

From the LA Times:

At the same time, Justice Department officials in Washington pledged to
review all cases in which the Bush administration invoked the right to protect
state secrets and pledged to ask for secrecy "only in legally appropriate
situations."

The Obama administration's assertion of the so-called state secrets
privilege in a San Francisco courtroom -- the first instance since President
Obama took office -- reflected the continuing debate among national security and
Justice officials about what clandestine operations should be shielded from
public scrutiny.

...

The randomly drawn appeals court panel, consisting of three Democratic
appointees, appeared skeptical of the government's claims."I can understand the
government saying we have secrets and you the court can't pry them open," said
Judge William C. Canby Jr., a Carter appointee. But noting that disclosure of
rendition details has been made in other litigation, Canby said of the Jeppesen
case, "So what?"

...

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit on behalf of the
five terrorism suspects, told the 9th Circuit panel that there was no basis for
branding the entire case secret and urged the judges to allow trial.

ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said foreign governments have been "very open" about
their roles in the covert operations. By permitting a trial, "the court is not
exposing the government to any harm," he told the judges.

"The notion that you must close your eyes and ears to what the whole world
knows is absurd," Wizner said.

A federal trial judge ruled in favor of the Bush administration last year
and dismissed the suit. The ACLU appealed to the 9th Circuit, arguing that the
men should be given the opportunity to prove their case without classified
material.

At one point during the hearing, Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, a Clinton
appointee, told the government's lawyer that he was not convincing.

"So any time the executive branch of the government says the fact is
classified, it means it cannot be examined?" Hawkins asked Letter.

Letter, noting that national security was at stake, told the court it
should "not play with fire" by permitting the suit to go forward.

"Nor should the government in asserting [secrecy] privilege," Hawkins shot
back.

Judge Mary M. Schroeder, a Carter appointee, said the court had not yet
read the classified information about the government's case and noted that the
law "may really preclude" the court from permitting the case to go to
trial.

A ruling is not expected for several weeks.

You think Obama will change his mind in a few weeks?