Obama Files State Secrets Privilege in Private Lawsuit

For the first time I’m aware of, the federal government has intervened in a private defamation suit and got the entire case dismissed by asserting the State Secrets Privilege. With no information being given even to the lawyers on either side, the judge dismissed the case based solely on the government’s claim that it could reveal classified information.

A truly stunning debasement of the U.S. justice system just occurred through the joint efforts of the Obama Justice Department and a meek and frightened Obama-appointed federal judge, Edgardo Ramos, all in order to protect an extremist neocon front group from scrutiny and accountability. The details are crucial for understanding the magnitude of the abuse here.

At the center of it is an anti-Iranian group calling itself “United Against Nuclear Iran” (UANI), which is very likely a front for some combination of the Israeli and U.S. intelligence services. When launched, NBC described its mission as waging “economic and psychological warfare” against Iran. The group was founded and is run and guided by a roster of U.S., Israeli and British neocon extremists such as Joe Lieberman, former Bush Homeland Security adviser (and current CNN “analyst”) Fran Townsend, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and former Mossad Director Meir Dagan. One of its key advisers is Olli Heinonen, who just co-authored a Washington Post Op-Ed with former Bush CIA/NSA Director Michael Hayden arguing that Washington is being too soft on Tehran…

This group of neocon extremists was literally just immunized by a federal court from the rule of law. That was based on the claim — advocated by the Obama DOJ and accepted by Judge Ramos — that subjecting them to litigation for their actions would risk disclosure of vital “state secrets.” The court’s ruling was based on assertions made through completely secret proceedings between the court and the U.S. government, with everyone else — including the lawyers for the parties — kept in the dark…

Up until that point, there was nothing unusual about any of this: just a garden-variety defamation case brought in court by someone who claims that public statements made about him are damaging and false. That happens every day. But then something quite extraordinary happened: In September of last year, the U.S. government, which was not a party, formally intervened in the lawsuit, and demanded that the court refuse to hear Restis’s claims and instead dismiss the lawsuit against UANI before it could even start, on the ground that allowing the case to proceed would damage national security.

When the DOJ intervened in this case and asserted the “state secrets privilege,” it confounded almost everyone. The New York Times’s Matt Apuzzo noted at the time that “the group is not affiliated with the government, and lists no government contracts on its tax forms. The government has cited no precedent for using the so­-called state­ secrets privilege to quash a private lawsuit that does not focus on government activity.” He quoted the ACLU’s Ben Wizner as saying: “I have never seen anything like this.” Reuters’s Allison Frankel labeled the DOJ’s involvement a “mystery” and said “the government’s brief is maddeningly opaque about its interest in a private libel case.”

Usually, when the U.S. government asserts the “state secrets privilege,” it is because they are a party to the lawsuit, being sued for their own allegedly illegal acts (such as torture or warrantless surveillance), and they claim that national security would be harmed if they are forced to defend themselves. In rare cases, they do intervene and assert the privilege in lawsuits between private parties, but only where the subject of the litigation is a government program and one of the parties is a government contractor involved in that program — such as when torture victims sued a Boeing subsidiary, Jeppesen, for its role in providing airplanes for the rendition program and the Obama DOJ insisted (successfully) that the case not go forward, and the victim of U.S. torture was thus told that he could not even have a day in court.

This is all quite bizarre. It’s the second time I know of that they’ve done so in a case to which they were not a party, but the first time at least did involve government actions even though it was filed against a private corporation. That was the case filed against a Boeing subsidiary for its role in transporting detainees as part of the extraordinary rendition torture program, so it at least involved government actions. This one doesn’t involve the government at all, at least on the surface.

As I’ve argued for the last 6 years, the Obama administration’s use of the State Secrets Privilege has actually gone further than Bush ever went in making the government totally immune to justice for either illegal surveillance or torture in the war on terror. This despite the repeated lie from Obama that he only supports the narrow version of the SSP.

"Remember that Twitter has a character limit."

Hannity Shows the Usual Right Wing ..."
"Thanks for reminding us that every silver lining has a big, black cloud."

Hannity Shows the Usual Right Wing ..."
"Okay, I can't help but approach it with an attorney's eyes.First of all, nothing Franken ..."

How to Think Critically About the ..."
"He seems to like it a particular level, so part of the cycle is him ..."

OH Gov. Candidate Defends Franken by ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • D. C. Sessions

    I wonder what it would cost to get someone in the Administration to do that for other lawsuits? Obviously more than I could scrape up, but considering some of the lawsuits against Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms run to billions of dollars, surely something could be arranged.

  • colnago80

    I have a suspicion that, in fact, the US Government is involved in this activity. This is due to the presence of Meir Dagan, the former head of the Israeli Mossad in that group. Dagan, while he was the Mossad head, was behind a number of anti-Iranian covert activities, including the Stuxnet program which rat fucked and destroyed a number of the centrifuges that were being used to extract U235 by the Iranian government as part of their nuclear weapons program. That one we know about. I strongly suspect that there were a number of other covert operations launched by him and his pals in the CIA that set back the Iranian bomb program considerably. Given the current delicate negotiations going on involving that program, I suspect that the government doesn’t want any of these activities to become public knowledge. I’m sure that the Iranian Government strongly suspects the involvement of the CIA but, if it became public information at this time, they would be under heavy pressure by the hard liners there to withdraw from the negotiations.

  • matty1

    Hmm, looking at that list there are going to be people on there who know actual government secrets from the Bush era*. Could they have essentially blackmailed the DOJ into this action by threatening to reveal those if the case went ahead?

    *I think it’s pretty well established now that Obama’s approach to government crimes of that time is to prioritise protecting government institutions over holding individuals to account.

  • abb3w

    Yeah. UANI being a front for US intelligence would be the simplest explanation for how this might have been thrown on State Secrets grounds. Contrariwise, the very act of throwing it leaves major suspicion of exactly that — but not absolute proof. (State secrets might also be invoked if it was a front for the Arcturan embassy, and the Obama adminstration did not want to admit they’d made extrat-terrestrial contact yet.)

    Nohow, I’d like to see an appeal including the argument that the proper application of the state secrets privilege should have been summary judgement for the plaintiffs.