Well bitsy, let me tell you something about the difference between Obama & Bush. Less than a month into his presidency, Obama has already appeared at several public events where tickets were available to all, first come, first served. No room scrubbing, no loyaly tests, no police waiting to remove anyone who might dissent.

If you really think the room wasn't being scrubbed, you're more gullible than I took you for... that already being substantial.

Another revealing statement.

Do you think the criticism being levelled at Obama is motivated by the fact people thought he would be different?

Obama, once exposed to reality would change his views from the leftist firebreather, to more along the lines of Bush himself, thus validating Bush.

Well bitsy, let me tell you something about the difference between Obama & Bush. Less than a month into his presidency, Obama has already appeared at several public events where tickets were available to all, first come, first served. No room scrubbing, no loyaly tests, no police waiting to remove anyone who might dissent.

Just the President talking to Americans from all walks of life, something your chicken hearted hero did not have the guts to do.

Over at Balkanization (Center Left Judicial Blog) David Lubin takes a swipe at this State Secrete Privilege. To wit:

One question is whether the state secrets doctrine concerns facts or documents. That is: does it mean that government documents cannot be entered into evidence because they are secret? Or does it mean that the underlying facts are "state secrets" that can never be ventilated in an American courtroom, even if they are well known everywhere else in the world and the plaintiff can prove them using publicly available evidence?

And there lies Dr. Joyner’s argument, the case cannot go forward because the documents contain secretes, while the facts, know to all, are meaningless.

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy(Center Right Judicial Blog) not much to chew on, but Jonathan Adler does abstract the David Lubin post, picking some of the more inflammatory paragraphs. There are some links worth perusing for those who wish to expand their view point.

For those who prefer a more in depth legal analysis, albeit perhaps slanted, Amanda Frost views the issue from a Separation of Powers perspective. Caution, the link is to an abstract, with a down loaded pdf file.

Complex problems deserve some degree of simplification. What is being argued is whether secretes are more valuable than truth, and whether criminality can be hidden to prevent national embarrassment. David Lubin points out the irony of it all:

By now, it's well-known that the state secrets privilege was born in original sin. The 1953 case in which the Supreme Court established it, United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953), turned out, when documents were declassified nearly half a century later, to be a cover-up of gross negligence under a false assertion that the documents contained national security information.

Sigh, where is that guy who said that if we do not learn from our mistakes, we are bound to repeat them, when we really need him.

For all of you people I'm laughing at, I refer your to John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton,

"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."

"Why do you sound surprised that people who probably voted for Obama are ready to rip him a new one? Greenwald for example... you really think he'd cut Obama slack on civil liberties and the rule of law?"

Because during the past 8 years, Republican pundits were generally pretty reliable in supporting anything Bush the Younger did, and most Republicans are therefore amazed that Democrats are more willing to stand up to the President for their principles than they did.

There's no surprise here that their are sensitive state secrets, but this article shows that the new administration is at least going to review exactly what is sensitive. I'll pass judgment when we see what is released, and whether the Bush Administration held secrets for no good reason.

In the appeal of the judge's order to release anti-Chinese jihadists onto the streets of America, the D.C. Circuit discussed waiting for a new President to see if he might take the cup away from them. Why? The law is the law. The courts are in charge of detention policy now. Don't be surprised if the political branches stick the courts with the costs.

"Even some Obama supporters are letting him have it."

Why do you sound surprised that people who probably voted for Obama are ready to rip him a new one? Greenwald for example... you really think he'd cut Obama slack on civil liberties and the rule of law?

There was an interesting article (where was it?) I read not long ago on the continuity in foreign policy between the Obama Administration and the Bush Administration

I wrote such an article myself at Pajamas media a few weeks back... suggesting among other things, that Obama, once exposed to reality would change his views from the leftist firebreather, to more along the lines of Bush himself, thus validating Bush.. the man he spent so long trying to deride.

Neither you nor I have any clue what secrets are involved here. The fallback answer is always "sources and methods."

I think we have a pretty good idea given the available information. But if it's recognized as the the truth what is the inevitable next step?

Prosecutions?

There are no state secretes here that I can identify, other than the identification of the trail that lead to this man being identified as a terrorist target. And if he truly is a terrorist, why the fear of revealing such information?

Neither you nor I have any clue what secrets are involved here. The fallback answer is always "sources and methods."

One can oppose rendition -- as I do -- and still not want to compromise sources and methods -- i.e., get people killed -- in civil suits about them. One can simply abandon the practice.

it strikes me that you strengthen “presidential powers” by illuminating when they are wrongly used.

That's how you strengthen liberty. Power is preserved by secrecy.