- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 8,080
- Reaction score
- 3,918
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Obama's support for the new Graham-Lieberman secrecy law - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
This is an editorial, but it contains all the facts of the situation. (Also, CNN is blocked here in China, so I couldn't search for the equivalent article.)
Regardless if you do or don't support the disclosure of the abuse photos, to me it's a cause of great concern that a President can retroactively modify a law in order to circumvent a court decision. The FOIA obviously has little pull.
Can someone with legal expertise explain to me why this is acceptable?
Article said:It was one thing when President Obama reversed himself last month by announcing that he would appeal the Second Circuit's ruling that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) compelled disclosure of various photographs of detainee abuse sought by the ACLU. Agree or disagree with Obama's decision, at least the basic legal framework of transparency was being respected, since Obama's actions amounted to nothing more than a request that the Supreme Court review whether the mandates of FOIA actually required disclosure in this case. But now -- obviously anticipating that the Government is likely to lose in court again -- Obama wants Congress to change FOIA by retroactively narrowing its disclosure requirements, prevent a legal ruling by the courts, and vest himself with brand new secrecy powers under the law which, just as a factual matter, not even George Bush sought for himself.
The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman -- called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 -- that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." As long as the Defense Secretary certifies -- with no review possible -- that disclosure would "endanger" American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure. The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely. The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week.
This is an editorial, but it contains all the facts of the situation. (Also, CNN is blocked here in China, so I couldn't search for the equivalent article.)
Regardless if you do or don't support the disclosure of the abuse photos, to me it's a cause of great concern that a President can retroactively modify a law in order to circumvent a court decision. The FOIA obviously has little pull.
Can someone with legal expertise explain to me why this is acceptable?