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.”

Wow, who could that be? Remember this:

Well, you think, for example, in the intelligence arena. We ask those people to do some very difficult things. Sometimes, that put their own lives at risk. They do so at the direction of the president, and they do so with the — in this case, we had specific legal authority from the Justice Department. And if they are now going to be subject to being investigated and prosecuted by the next administration, nobody’s going to sign up for those kinds of missions.It’s a very, very devastating, I think, effect that it has on morale inside the intelligence community. If they assume that they’re going to have to be dealing with the political consequences — and it’s clearly a political move. I mean, there’s no other rationale for why they’re doing this — then they’ll be very reluctant in the future to do that.

Back in the real world, former Vice President Dick Cheney’s decisions to embrace illegality and instruct CIA operatives to carry it out have resulted in the actual convictions in absentia of 23 people. What do you think the odds are that Cheney will pay deSouza’s legal bills with all his oil money?

Maher Arar is a Canadian citizen who was seized in 2002 while changing planes at John F. Kennedy airport in New York and sent to Syria, where he says he was interrogated under torture and kept in a tiny grave-like cell. He was released almost a year later without charge, and with an acknowledgment by the Syrian government that it had no evidence against him.

After conducting its own investigation, the Canadian government confirmed that Arar had done nothing wrong, apologized for its role in providing faulty information to U.S. authorities, and paid Arar about $10 million in compensation for his ordeal. The United States, on the other hand, has never officially acknowledged the error (although former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice once conceded in a congressional hearing that the case had been “mishandled”) and still refuses to allow Arar to enter the country.

Represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights, Arar sued former Attorney General John Ashcroft in January 2004, FBI Director Robert Meuller and other U.S. officials for sending him to Syria where they knew he was likely to be tortured. Today, the full Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the case en banc in a dramatic 2-hour oral argument last December, ruled that Arar has no right to compensation from U.S. officials.

Although the opinion is long and complex, the essence of the court’s decision is that the lawsuit cannot be allowed to go forward because it would “have the natural tendency to affect diplomacy, foreign policy, and the security of the nation.” As for his claims under the Torture Victims Protection Act, Arar can’t claim compensation from U.S. authorities since it was the Syrians who tortured him, even if U.S. officials knew that he was likely to be tortured when they sent him to Syria.

The case does not bode well for other victims of the Bush administration’s “extraordinary rendition” and other abusive interrogation policies, since virtually all of those cases could similarly implicate national security concerns. The other major extraordinary rendition case, brought by five British victims of the policy against a Boeing subsidiary that assisted the CIA, is pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Obama administration recently won a re-hearing in that case, which it seeks to dismiss on the grounds that the litigation itself would reveal “state secrets” and endanger national security.

The Second Circuit judges voted seven to four to dismiss Arar’s case today. In a strongly worded dissent, Judge Guido Calabresi wrote: “I believe that when the history of this distinguished court is written, today’s majority decision will be viewed with dismay.”

Here is the court’s opinion, filed today:

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the victims and reinstated the case last spring, after it was dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Northern California.  The lower court had accepted the government’s argument (then made by the Bush administration) that letting the lawsuit move forward would expose “state secrets” and endanger national security, even though the Obama administration says it no longer engages in extraordinary rendition. But the plaintiffs appealed, and a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, historically a liberal-leaning court, reversed the district court and reinstated the case. The panel ruled that there were no grounds to claim that a lawsuit against a government contractor must be dismissed just because the contractor was working with the CIA. “Nothing the plaintiffs have done supports a conclusion that their ‘lips [are] to be for ever sealed respecting’ the claim on which they sue, such that filing this lawsuit would in itself defeat recovery,” wrote the court.

The Obama administration, however, was not prepared to accept that ruling. So it asked the full court of appeals to reconsider the case — something it does only rarely. Yesterday, the court granted that request, handing the Justice Department another chance to argue that the case against the private Boeing subsidiary should be dismissed to protect “state secrets.”

Like its predecessor, the Obama administration has sought to dismiss several important cases involving torture and warrantless wiretapping under the so-called “state secrets privilege,” which seeks to protect genuine government secrets that, if disclosed, would endanger national security. The government’s actions have prompted anger from civil libertarians and proposed legislation in Congress to limit the president’s power to invoke the state secrets privilege to dismiss cases alleging government wrongdoing. President Obama’s new policy on his administration’s use of the state secrets privilege, announced in September, did not satisfy many critics.

In the Jeppesen case, the Obama Justice Department has been adamant that the details of the Bush administration’s rendition-to-torture program remain secret — hence it’s request to the full Ninth Circuit to re-hear the case en banc, meaning all 11 active judges, rather than just the three-judge panel that ordinarily hears cases.  Courts of appeals reserve en banc hearings for unusually controversial and important cases, usually when there’s significant disagreement among the judges in the circuit. The judges vote on whether the case should be re-heard, but the outcome of the vote is not made public.

Apparently there is significant disagreement in this case, because the judges voted to accept the request for rehearing, the court announced yesterday.

Running through the list of situations that we’ve been reporting on in which the Obama administration continues to conceal evidence of torture — from the efforts of British resident Binyam Mohamed to seek justice for his “extraordinary rendition” and torture; to the administration’s continued efforts to dismiss cases alleging government-sponsored torture and illegal wiretapping by raising the “state secrets” privilege; to President Obama’s continued insistence on hiding photos of brutal detainee abuse — The Times highlights how President Obama, despite his grand promises of openness and accountability in the early days of his administration, has caved to Republicans and some conservative Democrats who want to bury the evidence of criminal and moral wrongdoing by the United States government.

“We do not take seriously the government’s claim that it is trying to protect intelligence or avoid harm to national security,” The Times writes. And it shouldn’t. As we’ve pointed out repeatedly at TWI, the outlines of our government’s abusive and in some cases criminal conduct is already well-known and can hardly endanger us further. Only by unearthing, acknowledging and accounting completely for the past can the new administration finally move beyond it to focus, unencumbered, on making sure it does not happen in the future.

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 pressure grows on the Obama administration to close the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay by January, so too does the risk that some of the Guantanamo detainees cleared for release could be returned to countries where they’ll face persecution or torture, say human rights experts. The men remaining at Guantanamo mostly come from countries that are notorious for torturing prisoners. And the Obama administration has not ruled out returning the men to those places, even though, labeled “enemy combatants” by the Bush administration, they could face retaliation back home.

Meanwhile, it remains unclear whether the courts can step in and stop the administration from returning prisoners to countries known to torture. In April, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal courts have no authority to interfere with where the administration wants to send a Guantanamo detainee. The lawyers on that case, Kiyemba v. Obama, plan to appeal to the Supreme Court this month, but in the meantime, men from Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and other countries notorious for abusing prisoners could be returned to those countries over their objections. Their lawyers are now scrambling to try to stop that.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court deferred its decision in a related case on whether to review a ruling that judges have no authority to order Guantanamo detainees released into the United States. The court’s punt came in the case of 13 Uighurs, the Chinese Muslim prisoners who have been cleared for release by the U.S. government but cannot return to China for fear of persecution there. But while the Uighurs in that case have been denied the right to be released into the United States, in a way, they’re lucky; the Obama administration has said it will not return them to China.

To be sure, the administration has also promised not to send any detainees to countries where they’re likely to be tortured. But it has also said that in some situations it will accept “diplomatic assurances” from those countries that it will treat the returning detainees humanely. These are, essentially, promises from a torturing country that it won’t torture a particular individual being sent there. But how reliable are those “assurances” really?

Human rights advocates say they’re not at all.

“The record on diplomatic assurances is extremely poor,” said Joanne Mariner, Director of the Terrorism and Counterterrorism program at Human Rights Watch. “It’s rare we see the text of the assurances, so it’s not clear what they consist of, and whether there’s a post-return monitoring mechanism. But there are some very well known cases in which people were sent to Egypt and Syria with diplomatic assurances, and then were tortured.”

Judy Rabinovitz, Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, agrees. “We think there are real problems inherently with the reliability of such assurances and the ability to monitor them,” she said. After all, she noted, most of these countries have signed the United Nations Convention Against Torture, but they’re still torturing prisoners. “When you have a country that’s notorious for torturing, how can diplomatic assurances be reliable? They know they’re not supposed to torture. They’ve signed a treaty. How is an assurance worth more than a treaty?”

One of the most infamous recent cases of torture following assurances from a foreign government involved the Canadian citizen Maher Arar, arrested at JFK airport and sent to Syria for interrogation, supposedly with diplomatic assurances that he’d be treated humanely. Arar says he was brutally tortured there. Human Rights watch has released several reports on the increasing reliance of the United States and other countries on such “diplomatic assurances,” and documented that in many cases, they have not worked. What’s more, it’s often impossible to know whether an individual returned has been tortured, since the country that returns the prisoner has no credible way of determining how he was treated, and both countries have an incentive to say the detainee was treated humanely.

Technically, the United States is bound by the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights not to send people to countries where they face a real risk of torture. (The Bush administration argued those laws did not apply to prisoners held abroad.) But as Mariner explained, that often leads those countries to rely on “diplomatic assurances” to say the risk has been diminished. That’s exactly what the Bush administration said it did when it sent terror suspects for questioning under its “extraordinary rendition” program, and many of those suspects claim they were subsequently tortured.

The choice, says Mariner, is either to trust the discretion of the executive branch, or to have some sort of system for deciding the legitimacy of the prisoner’s fears. The D.C. Circuit ruling eliminated the possibility of the federal courts playing that role. That ruling took effect in early September, clearing the way for the U.S. government to begin to return Guantanamo detainees to countries known to torture prisoners.

The administration announced earlier this week that it has cleared 75 Guantanamo detainees for release. The list includes nine prisoners from Tunisia, seven from Algeria, four from Syria, three from Libya, three from Saudi Arabia, two each from Uzbekistan, Egypt, the West Bank and Kuwait, and one each from Azerbaijan and Tajikistan. None of these countries has a strong human rights record.

About 30 of the prisoners cleared for release fear return to their home countries, said Mariner.

Ahmed Belbacha is one such prisoner at risk. He fled his home country of Algeria in 1999 during a civil war between government forces and a militant Islamic group. A former soldier in the Algerian army, he was at risk from both sides. He sought asylum in the UK, where he worked cleaning rooms in a hotel. In 2001, however, while traveling in Pakistan where he was offered free Islamic education, he was captured by the Pakistani Army and turned over to the U.S. military shortly after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. The U.S. military deemed Belbacha an “enemy combatant” because he had attended prayer services led by a fundamentalist sheik, travelled on a fake French passport and received small arms training in Afghanistan. Belbacha was sent to the prison at Guantanamo Bay in 2002. But in 2007, the Bush administration decided that he did not pose a threat and cleared him for release. But by this time, Belbacha was afraid to go home; he fears retaliation and torture from both the Algerian government and radical Islamists.

In 2007, Belbacha’s lawyers told the court that they’d learned that the U.S. government planned to return their client to Algeria, and filed an emergency motion asking the court to prevent his transfer. The court ruled it did not have the power to do that, and Belbacha appealed. The court of appeals held off deciding the case though, while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on whether detainees have the right to challenge their detention in federal courts. (It ruled they did last year in Boumediene v. Bush.) In the meantime, the court temporarily enjoined the U.S. government from sending Belbacha to Algeria.

Then, in April, the D.C. Circuit ruled in Kiyemba v. Obama that the courts have no authority over where the government sends the men. Now, Belbacha is worried again, and his lawyers are scrambling to keep the court from issuing an order that will allow the government to transfer Belbacha to Algeria. His lawyers say he’s now even more likely to be tortured by the Algerian government if he returns there because his struggle to avoid transfer there has drawn international attention and support from human rights groups. As his lawyers put in their brief to the court: “He believes that his strenuous and widely-publicized efforts to avoid transfer to Algeria place him in the government’s crosshairs.”

Belbacha’s lawyers have filed a motion with the court asking that his case be “held in abeyance” until the lawyers handling the Kiyemba case have an opportunity to file a petition to the Supreme Court, and then until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case. Holding the case off would leave in effect a June 2008 district court order prohibiting the government from transferring him to Algeria.

The Department of Justice, meanwhile, is vigorously fighting to lift that order, arguing that the D.C. Circuit has already decided that the courts don’t have authority to prevent a detainee’s transfer, and that the government has promised not transfer any detainee to a country where “he is more likely than not to be tortured.”

That’s not sufficient assurance for Belbacha and his lawyers, however. “The U.S. has not assured Belbacha that he won’t be sent back,” said David Remes, Executive Director of Appeal for Justice and a lawyer for Belbacha. As the law stands now, there is no court or independent arbiter to whom Belbacha can appeal.

Human rights advocates say that Algeria’s abusive treatment of two other prisoners recently returned there by the UK raises serious concerns. According to Human Rights Watch, the men were reportedly threatened and beaten in custody. Statements coerced from them were used against them at trial, and both were sentenced to several years’ imprisonment.

Lawyers for Guantanamo detainees from Libya and Tajikistan who similarly fear persecution if returned home have also asked federal judges to at least temporarily prevent their clients’ transfer until the Supreme Court can consider whether courts have any authority over the administration’s decisions about where to send them.

The Obama administration, in another context, has similarly indicated that it is willing to send people to countries known to torture. In making recommendations on the transfer of terror suspects to other countries for interrogation – commonly known as renditions – an Obama administration task force recommended that renditions be permitted to countries known to practice torture, so long as the administration obtains assurances that the suspect will be treated humanely. Although the Obama administration has promised to monitor and enforce those assurances, Human Rights Watch has found that “monitoring is no panacea” because the prisoners cannot be guaranteed confidentiality. Their reports of abuse to foreign monitors would be easily traceable to them, placing them at serious risk of retaliation.

President Barack Obama (WDCpix)

Although the Obama administration’s much-anticipated new policy on the use of the so-called “state secrets” privilege, announced this morning, has drawn some praise, civil liberties lawyers and other critics of the use of the privilege don’t think it solves the problem.

The state secrets privilege allows the government to conceal certain evidence in a court case that, if disclosed, would endanger national security by revealing “state secrets”. But who gets to decide what is a state secret and whether it will actually endanger national security has long been a point of contention. The Department of Justice, first under President Bush and then under President Obama, has invoked the privilege to ask courts to dismiss every single legal case that has come before them seeking compensation for torture or warrantless wiretapping by the government. That’s led critics to charge that the administration is trying to use the evidentiary privilege not to protect national security, but to conceal government wrongdoing and avoid embarrassment, or worse.

Today’s announcement says the government will use the privilege more sparingly, and requires the attorney general himself to sign off on its use. But the provision does not bar the government from using the privilege to try to dismiss cases alleging government wrongdoing.

“They don’t anywhere say, ‘we will not seek dismissal on state secrets grounds at the outset’” of a case, said Ben Wizner, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union who’s come up against the privilege while representing victims of torture. “They say we’re going to make an effort to apply it as narrowly as possible. But that doesn’t change what they’ve been doing all along.”

What the Department of Justice has been doing all along is essentially what the Obama administration has done in one case Wizner’s working on, in which a victim of torture due to the CIA’s “extraordinary rendition” program sued Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of Boeing, claiming the company was partly responsible for helping transport CIA prisoners to other countries to be tortured. The government claimed that allowing the case to go forward would reveal state secrets and endanger national security, and asked the court to dismiss it. Eventually, the ACLU won the right to proceed with the litigation, but the Obama administration in June asked the court of appeals to reconsider and dismiss the case.

“Any new policy will be an empty gesture if the administration continues to assert the same expansive theory of state secrets to dismiss cases brought by torture victims,” Wizner said Wednesday. “At the same time that they are rolling out this new policy with fanfare, they are asking the Ninth Circuit [Court of Appeals] to reverse its own decision and rehear the case because of state secrets.”

The Jeppesen case is one of several where the Obama administration has made the same expansive arguments that entire cases should be dismissed to protect state secrets, rather than simply excluding the particular piece of evidence that could actually endanger national security.

The real problem, say critics, is that the Obama administration is trying to use its new policy as a way to prevent the passage of legislation that will clarify the role of the executive versus the role of the courts.

“The Bush administration’s approach to state secrets was wrong-headed, causing significant public distrust and potentially shielding government wrongdoing and embarrassing mistakes behind a questionable legal doctrine,” said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) in a statement released after the Justice Department’s announcement today. Feingold is a cosponsor of the proposed State Secrets Protection Act, which would provide guidance to federal courts considering cases where the government has asserted the state secrets privilege. “While I am pleased that the Obama administration recognizes that the Bush approach was a mistake, its new policy is disappointing because it still amounts to an approach of ‘just trust us.’ ”

Or as Wizner put it, “this is voluntary executive self-policing.” Legislation would “bind not just this president but the next one. That’s critical.”

What’s more, the new policy doesn’t really address the role of judges in cases where the privilege is invoked. The proposed legislation, on the other hand, “says courts cannot dismiss cases simply on the basis that the government claims the case involves state secrets. The legislation says courts are required to look at the underlying evidence” and decide for themselves.  In many of these cases that have come up so far, it’s the government agency being sued — such as the CIA — that submits a statement to the court saying that the evidence that it committed a crime would endanger national security. “The court shouldn’t be able to rely just on an affidavit filed by the perpetrator,” said Wizner.

Under the proposed State Secrets Protection Act, if a court looks at the evidence and determines that some piece of it really does constitute a state secret — say, the identity of a CIA agent — then that evidence would be removed from the case. But before making that determination, the judge would have to explore every alternative, to see if other tools, such as protective orders, could be used to protect the evidence but still allow it to be used. If carefully and narrowly applied, says Wizner, only particular pieces of evidence that are not important to the litigation would have to be excluded. “No one’s saying we can litigate the identity of covert agents in civil cases,” says Wizner.

Ken Gude, Associate Director of the International Rights and Responsibility Program at the progressive Center for American Progress, expressed similar concerns about the Obama administration’s new state secrets policy. “My main concern is that the government should not be able to have a whole case dismissed simply by asserting a state secrets claim,” he said in an e-mail on Wednesday. “There may be instances when it’s simply not possible to proceed without certain evidence, but that should result from a subsequent decision after the plaintiffs have had a chance to plead their case without the material.”

That seemed to be what President Obama supported, too, when he first spoke about the state secrets privilege back in April. At an April 29 press conference, he called the state secrets doctrine “overbroad.” He went on to say that “searching for 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 an open court — you know, there should be some additional tools, so that it’s not such a blunt instrument. And we’re interested in pursuing that. I know that Eric Holder and Greg Craig, my White House counsel, and others are working on that, as we speak.”
Today’s announcement is the policy that resulted from that process. But critics aren’t convinced it that it will actually accomplish what the president has promised.

As Feingold said today: “Independent court review of the government’s use of the state secrets privilege is essential. I urge the administration to work with Congress to develop legislation that sets reasonable limits on the privilege and will not be subject to change under each successive president.”

–

You can follow TWI on Twitter and Facebook.

Previous cases have been dismissed on grounds that government officials had “qualified immunity” for their actions — meaning they’re immune from suit if it wasn’t clearly established that what they did was illegal — or based on the government’s claim that the case would expose “state secrets” and endanger national security.

Will the case of Mohammed Jawad, arrested around age 12, tortured and held in U.S. custody in Afghanistan and then Guantanamo Bay for the next six and a half years with no reliable evidence he’d committed a crime, be any different?

Eric Montalvo, one of Jawad’s military defense lawyers who recently entered private practice and paid his own way to accompany Jawad back home earlier this week, hopes he’ll have a better case. The fact that a U.S. military judge confirmed that Jawad was tortured by Afghan authorities, then interrogated under a range of abusive and threatening conditions by U.S. authorities, could help.

“The short answer is, factually we have a different set up given that we have judicial findings of mistreatment,” Montalvo wrote to me yesterday in an email, since he’s not back in the United States yet. “I will have to figure out which way to go to be most successful,” he added, saying it will take some time to develop and file the case.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court could weigh in on the issues. Earlier this week lawyers representing four British former detainees who claim they were tortured at CIA black sites filed a petition asking the court to review dismissal of their clients’ cases. In that case, Rasul v. Myers, the Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit dismissed the men’s claims, ruling that it wasn’t clear at the time that the U.S. wasn’t allowed to torture detainees. The court also ruled that they’re not “persons” within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, so their claims that they were denied the right to practice their religion in custody don’t count. The court interpreted that federal law to apply only to U.S. citizens or lawful U.S. residents.

The men are British citizens who were abducted by U.S. officials and imprisoned from 2002 to 2004 at the U.S.-run detention center at Guantanamo Bay. None was a member of any sort of terrorist group or ever charged with a crime.

That’s because the current administration announced earlier this week that it will continue the rendition program, albeit under the authority of a broader inter-agency team. But the administration has not ruled out sending terror suspects to countries that are known to torture them in custody.

A Justice Department release on Monday clarified that the U.S. government will obtain “assurances from foreign countries” that they’ll treat the prisoners humanely, and will “insist on a monitoring mechanism” to check up on the prisoner every once in a while, although it may provide some “advance notice to the detaining government.”

Whether or not that “trust me” approach is really worth trusting, given the similar assurances provided by the Bush administration, it does suggest that the Obama team may not welcome an Inter-American Commission inquiry into rendition.

Although the original El-Masri court case that Spencer referred to was brought against the Bush administration, more recent attempts to sue the government on behalf of innocent victims of extraordinary rendition have been similarly rebuffed by the Obama Justice Department, and on the same “state secrets” grounds.

As a result, not one victim of the Bush administration’s rendition program has had his day in court.

El-Masri, a German citizen, was kidnapped in 2003 in Macedonia and flown by U.S. agents to a CIA-run “black site” in Afghanistan. There, he claims he was beaten, drugged, blindfolded, confined in a tiny dirty cell, and prevented from communicating with anyone in the outside world, including his own family or the German government. About four months later, after apparently concluding that they had captured the wrong person, the CIA flew him to Albania and left him on a hillside in the dead of night. El-Masri has never been charged with a crime.

Update:  According to Steven Watt, El-Masri’s lawyer, the Obama administration probably couldn’t make the “state secrets” claim in the Inter-American Commission, which does “not recognize blanket prohibition on accessing courts to assert fundamental rights.”  However, ” Obama can try to argue that the state secrets privilege was legitimately raised before domestic courts and El Masri thus wasn’t denied access to a remedy (one of El Masri’s claims before the IACHR) but in our view, based on our assessment of international law, Obama wouldn’t prevail.”

He adds: “there is no equivalent of the state secrets privilege recognized under international human rights law to bar a human rights victim accessing an international tribunal such as the Commission. ”