1115.org

Here’s some news that made a splash in the blogs on Wednesday, but it still hasn’t managed to hit the mainstream media: the Obama Justice Department’s latest effort in their extremely successful ongoing campaign to out-Bush the Bushies.

The Justice Department made a legal filing on Wednesday, urging the Supreme Court not to reconsider the dismissal of Valerie Plame and Joe Wilson’s lawsuit against Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage:

CREW learned today that the Obama administration is opposing our request that the Supreme Court reconsider the dismissal of the lawsuit, Wilson v. Libby, et al. In that case, the district court had dismissed the claims of Joe and Valerie Wilson against former Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Richard Armitage for their gross violations of the Wilsons’ constitutional rights.

Agreeing with the Bush administration, the Obama Justice Department argues the Wilsons have no legitimate grounds to sue. It is surprising that the first time the Obama administration has been required to take a public position on this matter, the administration is so closely aligning itself with the Bush administration’s views.

It may well be that the Obama administration’s position is legally sound:

The Wilsons sued … for damages under the First and Fifth Amendments and a common-law tort claim for the public disclosure of private facts. The District Court and the Court of Appeals both dismissed the case, finding monetary damages to be an inappropriate remedy for constitutional claims, and that the Court lacked jurisdiction because administrative remedies under the Federal Tort Claims Act were not exhausted.

(The appeals court decision, by the way, was 2-1. And they threw out the lawsuit partly because “Congress exempted the offices of the president and vice president from a federal law protecting the privacy of individuals” and because “any suit would involve the disclosure of sensitive intelligence information”.)

But even if the Justice Department position is sound in law, surely it’s not just about law but also about justice?

There have been no criminal charges as a result of the leak. Libby was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison for obstructing justice and making false statements to a grand jury investigating this case; however, this sentence was commuted by President Bush.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) … complained that “the government had moved to have the case dismissed before the Wilsons had the opportunity to uncover the details of how Ms. Wilson’s covert identity was revealed.”

Regardless of the legal merits of the case, the Obama administration’s decision to openly oppose this appeal is disappointing. It is unconscionable that there has been no accountability in a case where power was so clearly abused in a blatant effort to punish someone who brought the truth to light.

I’m not sure what the Obama administration thinks it’s gaining by opposing the appeal. If it is so legally misconceived, the Supreme Court will presumably reject it anyway. It seems the sensible course of action may have been to simply stay out of the fray. But the Obama administration seems to eagerly embrace every opportunity to embrace, defend or protect from public scrutiny some of the Bush-Cheney administration’s ugliest decisions. It wouldn’t have anything to do with an all-consuming need to keep portraying itself as bipartisan, would it?

In other news, President Obama yesterday addressed the state secrets privilege in his are-you-ready-to-rrrrrrumble match-up with Prick Cheney:

…while this principle is absolutely necessary in some circumstances to protect national security, I am concerned that it has been overused. It is also currently the subject of a wide range of lawsuits. So let me lay out some principles here. We must not protect information merely because it reveals the violation of a law or embarrassment to the government. And that’s why my administration is nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice.

And we plan to embrace several principles for reform. We will apply a stricter legal test to material that can be protected under the state secrets privilege. We will not assert the privilege in court without first following our own formal process, including review by a Justice Department committee and the personal approval of the attorney general. And each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the privilege and why because, as I said before, there must be proper oversight over our actions.

On all these matters related to the disclosure of sensitive information, I wish I could say that there was some simple formula out there to be had. There is not. These often involve tough calls, involve competing concerns, and they require a surgical approach. But the common thread that runs through all of my decisions is simple: We will safeguard what we must to protect the American people, but we will also ensure the accountability and oversight that is the hallmark of our constitutional system. I will never hide the truth because it’s uncomfortable. I will deal with Congress and the courts as co-equal branches of government. I will tell the American people what I know and don’t know, and when I release something publicly or keep something secret, I will tell you why.

That’s fine, fine rhetoric. When the walk he’s walking is no longer diametrically opposite to the talk he’s talking, I’ll be sure to give him a round of applause for it.

For now, the question I have for the President is: if the administration is still nearing completion of a thorough review of this practice, then why the eff has the Justice Department been taking such extreme stands on the issue — even more extreme than the Bush Justice Department did — instead of waiting for the review to be completed?