Scott Fenstermaker, a lawyer defending one of the men, told The Associated Press that they won’t deny their role, but will use the opportunity to “explain what happened and why they did it,” and they will provide “their assessment of foreign policy.” Fenstermaker reportedly met with his client, Ammar al Baluchi, a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), at the Guantanamo Bay prison last week. Baluchi told him the men had discussed the trial among themselves.

Critics of the trial have complained, among other things, that KSM — who has boasted that he was the lead planner behind the 9/11 attacks, as well as many others — will use the opportunity to grandstand and spread terrorist propaganda. The alternative, however, would be to not allow them to speak at their own trial, which would hardly showcase the American principles of open government and fair trials that the attorney general presumably wants to highlight.

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd told the AP on Sunday that he’s not worried that the men will dominate the trial or be able to use it as a vehicle to win new recruits. “We have full confidence in the ability of the courts and in particular the federal judge who may preside over the trial to ensure that the proceeding is conducted appropriately and with minimal disruption, as federal courts have done in the past,” he said.

The Southern District of New York, where the Justice Department wants to hold the trial, is the most experienced of all U.S. federal courts in handling major international terrorism cases.

The federal judge who helped draft Justice Department memos on torture has set up a legal defense fund to pay the costs of defending against possible disciplinary or impeachment proceedings. Jay Bybee, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge in Las Vegas, quietly set up the fund last July following widespread news reports that he and a former deputy, John Yoo, were the focus of a long-running investigation by the Justice Department’s internal ethics unit, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), over their role in crafting the memos.

Attorney General Holder said yesterday he expected the Justice Department would finally release a version of the OPR report by the end of the month. Judge Bybee is evidently prepared for the rather nettlesome case of his former employer considering him unfit to practice law: Isikoff reports that he’s got Liz Cheney’s advocacy group, Keep America Safe, on his side.

One interesting question arises. Bybee’s former deputy John Yoo helped him craft the torture memos in 2002. Yoo faces similar criticism and legal difficulty, and is reportedly implicated in the OPR report alongside his old boss. But Yoo’s personal legal expenses are, risably, covered by the American taxpayer. Will Bybee similarly stick us with the bill?

Holder was trying to reassure his many Republican critics, who insist that trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his alleged al-Qaeda colleagues in a New York federal court is a “grievous mistake” that will endanger American citizens and undermine the “war on terror.”

But Holder’s statement was also eerily reminiscent of one made during the Bush administration by Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes — a statement which outraged Democrats and contributed to the resignation of the military’s top prosecutor.

In October 2007, Col. Morris Davis resigned from his post as military commission chief prosecutor, saying that he refused to report to Haynes. Davis later testified that he felt there was interference in his cases from Defense Department officials, citing specifically Haynes’ statement that “We can’t have acquittals. If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can’t have acquittals. We’ve got to have convictions.”

Haynes resigned several months later.

Davis, now a civilian, is still concerned about justice and the appearance of justice for Guantanamo detainees. He recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that using both federal courts and military commissions to try terror suspects “is a mistake. It will establish a dangerous legal double standard that gives some detainees superior rights and protections, and relegates others to the inferior rights and protections of military commissions. This will only perpetuate the perception that Guantanamo and justice are mutually exclusive.”

Section 215 of the Patriot Act, known as the “business records provision,” relaxed the previous standard the government had to meet to obtain personal information from banks, hospitals, libraries, retail stores and other institutions. Previously, the government had to show that it had evidence that the person whose records it sought was a terrorist or spy. With passage of the Patriot Act, that standard was lowered to permit the government to collect any records it considered “relevant to an investigation.”

Wyden, Feingold and Durbin have been arguing that the relevance standard is far too broad and violates the privacy rights of ordinary law-abiding Americans. But they also claim that the government is withholding key information from Congress that would allow lawmakers to make an informed judgment about the issue. Although it’s not clear exactly what information they’re talking about, since even a description of the information is classified, it would seem to be information about how the government has used the business records provision, and what evidence it has obtained by its use.

As Jennifer Hoelzer, Wyden’s communications director, said in an e-mail: “The fact that I can’t in anyway characterize the information in itself highlights the problem and why we believe it is so essential that the Justice Department declassify this information. Senators should know what they are voting on.”

Here’s part of what Wyden wrote in The Huffington Post on this issue a few weeks ago:

I have served on the Senate Intelligence Committee for eight years, and I have yet to see evidence — classified or otherwise — that has convinced me that revising the business records provision to include a less intrusive standard would be harmful to U.S. national security. Yet as Congress considers whether to reauthorize this standard — written in a rush to judgment eight years ago — some will undoubtedly argue that Congress should just trust that the provision is essential and blindly sign-off on reauthorization. I disagree. While “just trust us” has passed as informed national security debate in this country for eight years, it hasn’t resulted in good national security policy.

The senators’ latest letter to the attorney general on this issue is here.

The White House was also dissatisfied with Craig’s handling of political appointments, believing that Craig should have spent more time working with the Justice Department and with Congress to force through some of the president’s most eagerly awaited principals, like Dawn Johnsen, whose nomination to be head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel still languishes. The issue of nominations is especially sensitive for the president, a constitutional law lecturer in his former life.

My colleague Daphne Eviatar has reported extensively on the parliamentary machinations keeping Johnsen bottled up in the Senate.

Attorney General Eric Holder (WDCpix)

On October 30, the Justice Department for the first time applied its new “state secrets” policy to a case charging the government with breaking the law. Open government advocates hoping for a significant change in the government’s stance toward secrecy in national security cases were sorely disappointed. Attorney General Eric Holder said that in the case of Shubert v. Obama — a class action filed in 2007 claiming that the National Security Agency has an ongoing dragnet surveillance program spying on the telephone and e-mail communications of ordinary Americans — the government would do the same thing it’s done repeatedly in the past: it would move to dismiss the case, because even to respond to the charges would endanger national security by revealing sensitive “state secrets.”

The state secrets privilege allows the government to ask a court to dismiss a case filed against it by claiming that merely allowing the case to move forward in court would reveal government secrets and jeopardize national security. It’s frequently used by the Justice Department in cases alleging warrantless wiretapping, “extraordinary rendition” and abuse of detainees by U.S. officials has angered open-government advocates, who claim that the Bush administration, and now President Obama, is using the evidentiary privilege to conceal government wrongdoing.

Image by: Matt Mahurin

“We are not invoking this privilege to conceal government misconduct or avoid embarrassment, nor are we invoking it to preserve executive power,” Holder insisted, adding that “we have given the court the information it needs to conduct its own independent assessment of our claim by filing a classified submission outlining the underlying facts and providing a detailed record upon which it can rely.”

Because that information is filed with the court under seal, however, it’s impossible to know whether the government’s reasons are legitimate. That decision will be made by Judge Vaughn Walker, the federal judge in the Northern District of California who’s presiding over this and several other pending cases that the government also claims involve “state secrets.”

But lawyers and advocates for government transparency were dismayed that the Obama administration would even assert the privilege in the Shubert case after promising to severely restrict its use.

“What they’re saying is, ‘because of state secrets, we can’t tell you what the program is,’” said Ilann Maazel, a lawyer representing Virginia Shubert and the three other Brooklyn residents named in the the case who claim the government has been wiretapping them without a warrant. “There’s no limit to the state secrets privilege in their view. There’s no law they cannot violate that implicates national security in their view. Their view is, ‘just trust us.’ ”

Maazel is hardly the only one disappointed with how the Obama administration has used the privilege so far.

“The DOJ continues to embrace the very same “state secrets” theories of the Bush administration—which Democrats generally and Barack Obama specifically once vehemently condemned—and is doing so in order literally to shield the President from judicial review or accountability when he is accused of breaking the law,” wrote Salon blogger and constitutional lawyer Glenn Greenwald after the Justice Department moved to dismiss the Shubert case.

Daniel Metcalfe, a former Justice Department official and now Executive Director of the Collaboration on Government Secrecy at American University’s Washington College of Law, also thinks the new administration’s record on the issue overall has been disappointing.

“On the state secrets privilege as well as other transparency issues, the Obama administration has an easy act to follow, in that the Bush administration was so extremely secretive across the board,” he said. “But from early on, specifically as of February 9 when the Obama administration began following the Bush administration’s state secrets position in the case of Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan,” a lawsuit challenging the government for its role in torture and extraordinary rendition, “open government advocates have been quite alarmed,” said Metcalfe. Although he acknowledged that it takes time for a new administration to develop its own policies, “the Obama administration’s eventual state secrets policy issuance of September 23 has done very little to assuage these growing concerns.”

The Collaboration on Government Secrecy gives President Obama a “D” on its secrecy/transparency scorecard for his use of the state secrets privilege so far. Metcalfe added that the Justice Department still has not completed a promised review of the cases where the government has invoked the state secrets privilege to dismiss them. The new state secrets policy announced in September did not mention that review.

The problem isn’t only that Holder wants to ues the privilege once again to dismiss a case that challenges government conduct. As Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists has pointed out in his blog, the government may not even be following all aspects of its new policy.

Part of that policy, announced in September after months of delay, attempts to respond to the concern that the state secrets policy can be used to conceal government lawbreaking. The new policy requires more thorough review by senior Justice Department officials, including the Attorney General himself. But it also says that if the Attorney General believes the case “raises credible allegations of government wrongdoing,” he’s supposed to refer those allegations to an Inspector General for further investigation.

Shubert v. Obama claims the government is engaged in a broad surveillance “dragnet” that monitors ordinary Americans’ phone and internet communications without a warrant and without any suspicion that the targets have done anything wrong. It would all sound very sci-fi — and therefore, perhaps, not credible — if there weren’t strong evidence to back it up. That evidence was first introduced in the case of Jewel v. NSA, brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation last year. In that case, a former AT&T telecommunications technician named Mark Klein submitted a sworn declaration describing how AT&T routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA. Only employees cleared by the NSA were allowed to enter the room. The government has likewise moved to dismiss that case on state secrets grounds. The matter is still pending in the same federal district court in California where the Shubert case is filed.

After Klein’s testimony became public, another whistleblower came forward, this time a former NSA Intelligence Analyst. In January, Russell Tice told Keith Olbermann on MSNBC that “the NSA had access to all Americans’ communications – faxes, phone calls, computer communications. They monitored all communications.”

But is that enough evidence to require the Attorney General to refer the claims to an Inspector General for investigation, as the new policy requires? It’s impossible to know, because the new policy doesn’t say how the AG should decide which claims are “credible.”

Asked whether the Justice Department referred the matter to an inspector general, spokesperson Tracy Schmaler told TWI that she “can’t comment specifically” on that question, adding: “just to be clear, there is no automatic referral in the policy.”

As for whether guidelines or regulations govern the credibility determination, Schmaler said she couldn’t go beyond the statement made by the Attorney General when he announced his application of the state secrets privilege to the Shubert case.

Ultimately, critics say the problem with even the new state secrets policy is that it leaves too much discretion to the executive to decide what information is so sensitive that it cannot be disclosed even to a judge behind closed doors – and what constitutes a credible allegation against the executive branch that’s worth investigating. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act provides various ways that the government can produce information to a court and have it still remain secret, but allow a legal challenge to government conduct to proceed.

The Obama administration’s use of the state secrets privilege to try to dismiss the Shubert case “demonstrates that we can’t count on the executive to rein itself in when it comes to the state secrets privilege,” said Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation working on the Jewel case.

Although the debate over the privilege sounds technical, what’s at stake isn’t just courtroom procedure. It’s whether the government can get away with engaging in illegal conduct simply by claiming that the evidence is too sensitive to reveal.

“There is not a single person in the United States government who has disavowed the dragnet program, who has said that it’s stopped,” said Maazel, referring to the claims in the Shubert case. Although the government has said that warrantless wiretapping under the Terrorist Surveillance Program has stopped, the Obama administration has not said that warrantless wiretapping isn’t ongoing under some other program. “We have every reason to believe that the copping and splitting in San Francisco is continuing,” said Maazel, referring to the way the government allegedly duplicates messages for monitoring purposes.

Experts note that the state secrets privilege actually encourages illegal conduct in national security matters, since the government knows it can be invoked as a shield. “The basic nature of the state secrets privilege always has been that it can remove a disincentive that the government ordinarily would have against engaging in highly questionable, if not outright wrongful, conduct,” said Metcalfe.

Regardless of how Judge Walker rules in these cases (they’ve all be transferred to his court), the issue isn’t going away. Democrats in Congress have introduced legislation that would keep courts from dismissing cases based solely on the government’s assertion that the case would reveal state secrets. Last week the House Judiciary Committee approved the bill introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), after Nadler called the government’s use of the privilege “the greatest threat to liberty at present.”

President Obama, for his part, has avoided taking any position on it. In fact, when a House Judiciary subcommittee in June held a hearing on the proposed legislation, the Justice Department did not even send a witness to testify about its use, saying only that the policy was still under review.

A justice department attorney is expected to appear at a conference next week on the subject being held at Washington College of Law at American University, and will surely be asked about the administration’s views. Metcalfe, who’s convening the conference, hopes the department will also be prepared to report the results of the litigation review that Holder said the department was undertaking in February. That review could lead the government to change its position on asserting the privilege in some pending cases.

Ultimately, if Congress doesn’t pass legislation on the state secrets privilege, the matter could end up in the Supreme Court, which first recognized this controversial executive privilege back in 1953. The court dismissed that case, brought by widows of civilians killed in a military plane crash, because the government claimed it would reveal military secrets. But when the accident report was finally declassified in 2000, rather than military secrets, it revealed gross military negligence that would have been damning evidence against the government in the case. (The case settled in 1953 for $170,000.)

“The Supreme Court hasn’t heard a state secrets case since 1953,” said Maazel. “There’s no question they will have one sooner rather than later.”

As I reported earlier this week, Republicans have stalled Johnsen’s nomination with their ambivalence about supporting cloture and the leadership’s refusal to agree to a time limit for debate on the vote. Although Johnsen clearly has the 51 votes she needs to be confirmed and may have enough votes to support cloture, Republicans’ insistence on 30 hours of debate before the Senate can actually vote on the nomination has made it difficult for Reid to put the vote on the calendar.

Johnsen has angered Republicans by being openly critical of OLC policies under the Bush administration, and by supporting abortion rights 20 years ago as a lawyer for the National Abortion Rights Action League, or NARAL (now NARAL Pro-Choice America).

Johnsen may have more support now than she did at the time of her hearing, however, since Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, then a Republican and one of her harshest questioners back in February, has switched parties. After saying he opposed Johnsen’s nomination back in April, Specter recently met with her a second time and said he is reconsidering his position.

Update: Here’s a copy of the letter pressing for Johnsen’s confirmation sent to Sen. Reid today by a coalition of civil and human rights groups.

Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's alleged driver, was held in Cuba at Guantanamo Bay prison camp like these detainees. (Department of Defense photo by Petty Officer 1st class Shane T. McCoy, U.S. Navy)

As the Obama administration nears its deadline for deciding where to try the men suspected of masterminding the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorists attacks, there are strong indications that those trials could take place in federal courts in the United States. That’s prompting fervent opposition from Republicans, who say the 9/11 terrorists should never be allowed anywhere on U.S. soil, let alone in a civilian U.S. court.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Military Commissions lead prosecutor Capt. John F. Murphy told reporters in September that four different U.S. attorneys offices in New York, Washington and Virginia were vying for the opportunity to try the five now-infamous defendants, which include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek Bin ‘Attash; Ramzi Binalshibh; Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi are the other four. According to Murphy, the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, based in Brooklyn and Manhattan, respectively; the Eastern District of Virginia, based in Alexandria; and the District of Columbia had all submitted requests to hold the high-profile trials in their courthouses, and to detain the suspects in their jails during trial. The military commissions are also seeking to try the defendants.

Meanwhile, White House lawyers, a task force advising the president, and President Obama have all said that their preference is to try terror suspects in federal courts whenever possible, although they have not ruled out the possibility of using military commissions to try some of them. It remains unclear which ones.

The administration has promised to make its final decision on where to try the 9/11 suspects by Nov. 16. Fearing that the administration is inching toward bringing them to New York City or the Washington, D.C., area, opponents of trying high-level terrorists in U.S. federal courts are stepping up their efforts to keep the five men out of the United States for any purpose. On Oct. 9, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he’d attached an amendment to an appropriations bill that would prohibit the Obama administration from spending money on prosecuting and trying these five alleged terrorists in U.S. civilian federal courts.”Khalid Sheik Mohammed needs to be tried in a military tribunal,”Graham told McClatchy Newspapers. “He’s not a common criminal. He took up arms against the United States.”

Graham is not alone in that view. In August, he joined Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Jim Webb (D-Va.) in sending a letter to President Obama expressing concern over reports that the Administration may try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other alleged war criminals in civilian courts. The senators urged the administration to try them in military commissions instead, saying in part:

The bill, H.R.2847, is pending in the Senate as an amendment to an appropriations bill.

On Tuesday, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey made a similar argument against allowing the 9/11 defendants to be tried in a civilian federal court in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. Mukasey warned that the costs and burdens of security would be enormous, that housing suspected terrorists in U.S. prisons would threaten national security, and that a public trial would elicit sensitive evidence that would compromise intelligence sources and that terrorists will later use against us.

Those sorts of arguments outrage many legal experts and former military officers, who say that only a public trial in a U.S. federal court that affords terror suspects the same rights as all ordinary criminal suspects will carry the legitimacy necessary for such an important trial. And they dismiss the claims that housing terrorists in U.S. maximum security prisons, where terror suspects have been imprisoned for many years, would create any danger at all.

“The federal criminal justice system has adjudicated nearly 200 cases involving international terrorism in the year shortly before and since 9/11,” said Gabor Rona, International Legal Director of Human Rights First, which opposes the use of military commissions to try any Guantanamo detainees. “The idea that it cannot handle classified evidence, evidence from abroad, evidence obtained in the context of armed conflict, all of those have been proven false by the existence and the adjudication of all of those case in the federal criminal justice system, and many of those cases feature precisely those problems.”

“The bulk of resistance to bringing Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. is simply uninformed,” Rona continued. “The ‘not in my backyard idea,’ which I think is a crazy notion of people fearing that they’re going to have to be sitting next to a member of al-Qaeda when they go into Starbucks, is just nuts. We’re not talking about releasing suspected or known terrorists into the streets. We’re talking about transferring them to highly secure correctional and detention facilities for purpose of trial. If they’re found not guilty or guilty and they serve sentences, they’re still not entitled to be in the U.S., they will be deported. I think the administration is confident, and should be confident about being able to convey that this is not a situation that involves risk to Americans.”

Some former military officials hope the president will see it that way as well. On Tuesday, a group of retired generals sent an open letter to Congress, kicking off a campaign to close Guantanamo Bay and have the detainees brought to the United States for federal court trials.

“With 145 convicted international terrorists being held in our prison system, there has been no escape from a supermax correctional facility in the United States,” said retired Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, Chairman of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, on a conference call with reporters on Tuesday. “It does not threaten the security of this country to move however many of the remaining 226 detainees that we cannot farm to other countries or try and incarcerate, to move them from Guantanamo into our supermax facilities. The claim from members of Congress that this threatens American security is shameful and without a basis.”

Still, even some civil libertarians believe it would be legitimate for the administration to try the Sept. 11 suspects in military commissions at Guantanamo Bay or on U.S. military bases. “Our view is that as a legal matter, the 9/11 conspirators, unlike some other detainees at Guantanamo, could be tried in either federal court or military commissions,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. “Then it’s a matter of policy considerations.”

Although Martin says a defendant could get a fair trial in a military commission, that’s not necessarily the case under the current Military Commissions Act, even if recent amendments passed by the House were adopted. “One of the hallmarks of a fair trial is that it’s public,” and the military commissions have so far severely restricted public access. “If they choose the forum based on an interest in keeping parts of the trial secret, then they will lose their legitimacy right there,” she said.

Some military commission critics claim that one reason some Republicans support using military commissions is to keep hidden any evidence that the detainees were tortured by U.S. authorities, which the defendants or their lawyers would almost certainly present in their trials.

“There is a second objective in everything that someone like Mukasey is saying,” said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Denise LeBoeuf, who directs the John Adams Project, which organizes defense lawyers to represent the Guantanamo detainees. “That is covering up the details and the identities of torturers. This country had a systematic system of torture through the military and through contractors. Some of those people objecting to federal court trials now either implemented it, or knew about it and should have said something,” she said, adding that some are still in the administration and have an interest in preventing the information from surfacing.

Indeed, according to Justice Department memos revealed earlier this year, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed was waterboarded 183 times. Details of his treatment would likely come up in his defense, if he were to present one. On the other hand, he has confessed and even boasted to having masterminded the attacks numerous times, and has said he does not want a lawyer and wants to be martyred. He still could bring up his treatment by U.S. authorities in a trial, however.

LeBoeuf and other lawyers involved in the defense of high-level detainees say they’ve heard rumors that the administration wants to try the 9/11 detainees in federal court, but it’s impossible to know for sure what U.S. officials will do until they issue their decision.

To LeBoeuf, the fact that the 9/11 case is so high-profile is a strong reason for trying the suspects in public, in a civilian federal court in the United States.

“When you say the whole world is watching a case, this is the one,” LeBoeuf said. “This is the one where the administration has the greatest urgency and pressure to do it in a fair court. It’s also the one where there are mountains of evidence — for both sides. It’s the most investigated crime in the history of the United States. If you can’t put this case into a federal court, then what case can you?”

At the time, the report didn’t get a huge amount of attention. But the Justice Department got defensive, and shortly before TRAC posted the report on its Website, the department, which had received an early copy of the report from TRAC, sent out a public attack on the organization. DOJ said it could not verify TRAC’s data or conclusions because “they routinely differ from other data and statistics reflected in Justice Department reports, U.S. Sentencing Commission data or U.S. Courts Data. Furthermore, TRAC has had a pattern of omitting certain statistics, resulting in misleading information regarding prosecutions.”

Now, TRAC has shot back, demanding a retraction — and re-issuing the critical report on terror prosecutions, along with its latest press release about DOJ’s complaints.

“All of the reports and data we post on our web sites are based on very detailed material we obtain from government itself, generally under the Freedom of Information Act,” reads the letter, signed by TRAC’s directors. “Among others, TRAC’s data sources include various Justice Department divisions and agencies, the Office of Personnel Management, the Department of Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.” What’s more, they wrote, the Government’s own General Accountability Office in a recent report favorably cited TRAC’s report on the immigration courts. And “[v]arious inspector general offices, the OMB, the Supreme Court and other government bodies subscribe to our data services.”

The letter goes on to describe the range of multi-level data checks and double-checks the organization uses, and noted that its report on the Justice Department’s botched efforts to categorize and prosecute terrorism was based completely on data obtained from the government itself.

Given that the government is the original source for all of the data presented in our reports and the extensive and varied efforts to check and double check the material before it is passed along to the public, we were astonished by the statement your Public Affairs Office provided reporters several days before the posting our latest report on September 27 . In that report we examined and compared data from the U .S. Courts, the National Security Division, and the EOUSA on the government’s record on criminal enforcement of the country’s terrorism laws . (See http ://trac .syr.edu/tracreports/terrorisml215/) TRAC had provided your office early access to our embargoed study to enable the Justice Department to have an informed comment about the questions it raised. Instead, the short statement asserted that the Department “stands by its record” and then went into an ad hominem attack on TRAC. And contrary to the initial claim, the statement provided no concrete information about the department’s record.

Personally, I’ve reviewed and relied on TRAC data myself, as have many other reporters in a broad range of respected news organizations. It’s often not that flattering to the federal government, but then, flattery really isn’t the job of a data analysis and open-government organization. TRAC has been providing an enormous and unmatched service to news organizations, scholars, nonprofits and businesses for years. If the Justice Department is going to publicly attack the group’s efforts, to have any credibility it ought to be able to use the same level of specificity to back up its complaints as TRAC uses to document its data analyses.

Take the nomination of Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s pick to the head the Office of Legal Counsel, which provides critical legal advice to the president. The OLC, of course, is the same office that got into all sorts of trouble under the Bush administration, and several of its former lawyers are the subject of a much-awaited report from the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which reportedly has concluded that the lawyers violated legal ethics in recommending President George W. Bush permit the abuse of detainees and other suspensions of constitutional rights in the so-called “war on terror.” That report, although reportedly drafted last year, is apparently still being reviewed by the very lawyers it apparently censures, and is likely being edited and potentially watered-down as a result.

But even as President Obama says he wants to look forward, not back, he’s not exactly pushing very hard to get a new director for that Office of Legal Counsel confirmed so she can lead his legal department on its forward march. The nomination of Johnsen, a highly-respected law professor who was second-in-command at OLC under President Clinton, was voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee with full Democratic support in March. She has yet to get a full Senate vote — though back in May, Attorney General Eric Holder called her confirmation “probably my top priority.”

Republicans have made clear that they’ll fight the Johnsen nomination and slow the voting process down, even though it seems clear Democrats have enough votes to confirm her. GOP lawmakers have painted Johnsen as a radical for publicly challenging some of the advice given by the Office of Legal Counsel during the Bush years. And during her confirmation hearings, some Republicans seized on the fact that Johnsen was a lawyer for the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) early in her career, and 20 years ago was one of ten co-authors on a brief in which there was a footnote that some Republicans found objectionable.

With the health care debate ongoing and the president staking much of the success of his first term on its outcome, the Obama administration may not have much interest in pushing the Johnsen nomination just now, since Republicans will likely insist on cloture — and the 30 hours of debate that comes with it — which would detract from the president’s current mission.

As a result, according to the White House and Senate staffers, a vote on the Johnsen nomination isn’t even on the calendar yet.