Obama Says He Wants To Narrow State Secrets

Potentially good news. Keep us informed.

Good, serious question tonight MS.

MS:
.
Certainly a substantive question, and credit for that. I'd take issue with your characterization of his answer, though. Obama didn't "distance himself from the legal positions his administration has taken in court;" he explained intelligently why the circumstances required a prudent temporary assertion of a litigation position at the start of his administration. Any competent counsel will tell you it's crazy to abandon a position outright because you plan to analyze the extent to which you expect to modify that position soon after.
.
In any event, thanks for giving him the opportunity to ease some overwrought concerns.

MS: Good job tonight. Looking forward to your updates as this matter is resolved.
.
Care to take on FISA...?

Great question, Michael, and a fair treatment. I am in disbelief that we have such an intelligent President--it feels so odd. Bush 43 was just so arrogant and painful to watch. I wish we could have followed up on your question to Obama--I wonder what he's thinking on the FISA/domestic wire-tap issue...

It was a damn good question, especially for the fact that it was probably one of the only questions that come mostly from the liberal/progressive sphere. I don't know of any right wingers who have opined much if at all about the states secrets issue. Glenzilla tweets that he will give you a two week pass for that lol.

Michael Scherer:
.
I was beyond impressed today with your having taken full advantage of the opportunity to question the President.
.
I have nothing but superlatives with which to describe your conduct as a journalist.
.
Obama's answer, though, was puzzling in one important respect:

He said there should be "ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it's not such a blunt instrument."

Is it not true that every piece of evidence in a case can review evidence that carries implications for national security out of view of open court now, and that this has been the case for many years? If this is so, then what need is there for "additional tools" the to which Obama is referring?
.
Also, in light of Obama answer to you, shouldn't the Obama Administration be asked the question "Does the President support Sen. Feingold's 'State Secrets Protection Act'", as the shrill one pointed out two weeks ago?

On Friday, I suggested to Greg Sargent on Twitter that the White House should be forced to say whether Obama supports passage of the State Secrets Act -- legislation which would significantly limit Obama's power to invoke "secrecy" as a means of blocking judicial review of presidential actions and which (during the Bush years) was supported by leading Senate Democrats, including Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, as a response to Bush's use of the same doctrine. The Act was re-introduced in February of this year by Russ Feingold, Arlen Specter, John Conyers and others as a response to Obama's abusive invocation of the privilege in the rendition/Jeppesen case.
.
Sargent reports today that he posed the question and the White House simply refuses to say whether Obama supports or opposes the legislation. As Sargent notes, the Act "represented the consensus view of the Democratic Party a year ago" and this question thus "sets up an unappetizing political prospect: The President would be opposing the corrective that is favored by prominent Senate Dems and once enjoyed the support of his Vice President and Secretary of State."
.
The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reports that, like Sargent, he was "stonewalled" when trying to find out if the White House supports the State Secrets Act (in addition to Sargent, last week I also prodded a New York Times reporter to try to get an answer from the White House on this, and was told then, too, that they refuse to say what Obama's views are).
.
Ambinder, however, notes that his "reporting leads [him] to believe that senior administration officials, including the White House counsel, Gregory Craig, oppose the current version of the legislation" and concludes: "Make no mistake: Obama will be rolling back the spirit, if not the fact, of a campaign promise by opposing this bill." Those are pretty strong words from one of the best friends the Obama White House has in the press corps.

How do such reports of "rolling back the spirit of the campaign promise" square with your knowledge of the Obama Administration's position with respect to the Feingold legislation, Michael Scherer?

Sorry, that should read:

Is it not true that a judge can review every piece of evidence in a case that carries implications for national security out of view of open court now, and that this has been the case for many years? If this is so, then what need is there for "additional tools" the to which Obama is referring?

So, in essence, Obama distanced himself from himself. Ouch! That must have been a very painful contortion. Do the Cossacks no longer work for the Czar?

Excellent question at the presser Michael and follow up here. Thanks for the info.

I fully agree with commenters above - thanks for asking such a good question, and thanks for posting about it here. I hope to see more about this executive power stuff from you in the future!

President Obama's agenda is being used by the radical right to promote their Mainfesto for American Bloodshed. ...........

http://thefiresidepost.com/2009/04/29/the-conservative-manifesto-for-american-bloodshed/

see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court,
.
This is, of course, why the state secrets privelege as has been asserted so far is wrongly applied and why Justice keeps losing these rulings. I'm forced to wonder if, Obama actually believes that it's being invoked improperly or like any practical person anywhere, he's simply tired of being on the losing side of the issue.
.
Certainly his release of the Bybee memos is an example of him simply complying with a binding court order. And he made it clear when talking about his inability to "push a button" to make things happen, that he is aware of the Constitutional limits of his office. The contrast between him and his predecessors on that topic is tremendously reassuring.
.
I don't think Obama is any less secretive than BushCo was. He's just more respectful of the law and Constitution.
.
Thanks for your work on this issue, and please keep it going. It's exceedingly important.

All nice and good, Michael, but the real question is 'when did you start reporting for the Washington Post?'

Michael me lad, I be right proud o' ye !

As others have said, great question, Michael.
.
Obama's answer seemed reasonable. But, (a) what Stuart said, and (b) Jonathan Turley claimed on Maddow that Obama's explanation "we didn't have time" was bogus, because they would have been granted an extension if they had asked for it.
.
Hope you follow up on this important issue.

what the pirate wench said

Excellent, excellent question. You forced him to address a substantive issue outside his political comfort zone. Obama's answer may not have been crystal clear, but those were his first public comments on the state secrets privilege since taking office. Keep it up.

I'll bet POTUS and DoJ are working to figure out if they can live with the Ninth Circuit ruling. I'm sure they hope they can.
.
This may prove to be be the biggest overall change from the Bad Old Days – this administration won't routinely act solely to maximize its own power. We'll see this change evolving – it just won't happen all at once..
.
If I'm wrong I'll join you all at the barricades.

(b) Jonathan Turley claimed on Maddow that Obama's explanation "we didn't have time" was bogus, because they would have been granted an extension if they had asked for it.
_
exactly. It should also be noted that the "deadline" didn't just pop out of nowhere -- Team Obama had months to come up with a legal position on the question, and could have doubtless enlisted the gratis participation of constitutional scholars simply by asking for their help.
_

Team Obama had months to come up with a legal position on the question....
.
And they did so.
.
It's only now that that legal position is being rejected with predictable regularity that they intend to revisit it.
.
-2 points for trying.
+1 for relenting and agreeing to comply with the law.

I know everybody else has said this already, but ... kudos to Michael for asking this important question! Nice reporting. And, as usual, thanks to all the commenters here giving even more interesting and informative context (and commentarty). I'm getting the idea that Michael and others on Swampland are starting to understand that comments can actually help them do their job better (and even make things easier) -- it's like having a whole staff of unpaid researchers at beck and call!

It can also be like having a whole bunch of critics.

[...] in three ongoing lawsuits. During last night’s primetime press conference, when Time’s Michael Scherer asked Obama how his position differed from President Bush’s, Obama replied that he actually [...]