So if the bill passes we'll know pretty quickly if President Obama was doing some agitation from on high (or was simply unprepared to change course that soon) or if he really means to try to use the state secrets excuse where he shouldn't. He either signs or vetoes.

I've wondered many times just what horror-show bits of information have been dropped onto Obama's lap since becoming POTUS (think: that lunch with the living former Presidents..).

Aside from learning that, yeah, we do have aliens stored in Area 51 (and that you MUST maintain the silence re same), I rather imagine Barack has been told a few things of most unsavory nature - and that he has no choice but to go along to get along.

Wish it weren't so, but this particular veteran has become quite the cynical cuss in his old age.

I kinda of agree with MM, but that would involve a level of faith in BO that doesn't sit right with this agnostic, not does it jibe with the language he was using during the campaign to "rebuild America's moral stature."

I'm sure there's the mother of all can of worms (pardon the mixed metaphor) at stake, but it needs airing.

One of the rationalizations for keeping the remaining incarcerated Guantanamo detainees that is most irksome was the idea that if these people weren't terrorists before their ordeal in Cuba, they sure as heck are now, so we better not release them.

I don't fall for that, but I also wonder, as per the Binyan Mohamed case, that things so horrific happened to them that we dare not let the rest of the world find out. Honesty is the best disinfectant. Time to air out the dirty laundry.

Wandered away from the laptop to think a bit... Cannot help but think that any country that has "sliced the penis" of people we hold in questionably-legal captivity is a country that has sworn off any moral authority whatsoever.

I support Barack - with same fervor with which I loath and despise the Bu$hco republicans. But this attempt at denying such a salient reality (as horrific and painful as it is) truly bothers me.

The South Africa model looks good to me - as a first step; criminal prosecutions, as warranted, to follow.

But whitewash?? No. I cannot sign-on for that.

What is this, some kind of sick joke? The "state secret" we're protecting is that our fancy, black-ops, secret national security policy is to threaten to slice the genitalia of suspects?

Fuck the "truth and reconciliation commission" idea; we need to have war crimes investigations and trials -- and anyone who's uncomfortable can volunteer to have someone torture them for no good reason *first*. If anyone *else* had a national-security policy of carving up people's cocks, we would think it was fucked up. Apparently we do, and that's no reason to say it's not (except for Rudy "Waterboarding's only torture if it happens *TO* Americans!" Giuliani, who's just a fucking nationalistic psychopath; I'm surprised he didn't do better in the primaries).

And Hilzoy? Do you really, REALLY, *REALLY* think that the argument "does it sound plausible that [some Bush-Cheney Administration official/staffer] [got away with ignoring a command from a Democratic authority figure]" carries any water? Have you been paying attention for the last eight, or better yet sixteen, years? Rules are for suckers, which is to say, *Democrats*. There *are* no rules for *Republicans*, because Democrats do a shitty job of enforcing them (granted, the media doesn't help one bit), for a variety of reasons, which includes that Democrats can't imagine how deliberately depraved Republicans are willing to be.

Who's 'Thomas'?

something to consider. Maybe Obama and dems in congress will move forward with the new state secrets law, which would give political cover to wait till it passes and claim continuing to exert it in this lawsuit would be contrary to the new law.

They are likely doing all kinds of planning behind the scenes to coordinate things like this, that we don't see, to change course on Bush policies with soft landings.

The memo with blacked out portions looks completely legit to me. The last two pages were classified, legitimately or not. Mr. Smith submitted a letter with a classified memo attached and requested that it be scoured of classified information so that the letter plus memo would be unclassified. The censor did not have the authority to declassify the memo. His authority was only to redact the classified portions. Mr. Smith made his point that the memo needs to be declassified as there is not enough unclassified material in it to make it useable.

In general only the original classifying authority ("OCA", probably CIA) can declassify material. Obama can't declassify the material himself nor can he order the OCA to declassify specific material. He can replace the OCA leadership with someone who will declassify the material.

Obama does have access to all classified material. If the memo is in the classified system then there is an unclassifed descriptor for the memo (like the Re: and From: fields). Mr. Smith could place the memo in the classifed realm and reference it in an unclassified letter. Obama would then have access to the unredacted memo.

Glad to hear this bill is in the works.

As for "hiding from Obama." Just think how much is in his inbox. So you hand him the memo with two blacked out pages, assure him it is just some technical stuff and he moved on to the next item and the next meeting.

"... he confessed, under torture, ... and afterwards had his penis sliced up ..."

The only evidence for this is his own assertion.

Hilzoy chooses to believe the unsupported assertions of a probable radical Islamist because it makes the US look bad.

Two notes for hank:
There is almost certainly more evidence than "his own assertion". Remember the interrogation tapes? The only way to collect, analyze and disseminate intel is to document it first. You can't get men, material, money or anything else without documentation. Management wants to know how you're spending your time and what you're spending their money on. There is almost certainly a series of cables documenting all aspects of his outsourced interrogation. This was not a rogue one man operation and nothing happens in that world without documentation.

However, the evidence that the prisoner is or was involved with terrorists is pretty thin. Certainly not enough to bring charges even if the court would allow confessions elicited by torture. Un-American, shameful, criminal and worse.

This is really quite simple to resolve: Ask Mr. Obama if he saw that letter, and verify if the attorney-in-question actually sent it. If the President never saw the letter, then we've either got someone at DoD who needs to be packed off to Leavenworth for a few years, or a headline-hunting attorney who needs to be disbarred and prosecuted.

See? Simple....

"And Hilzoy? Do you really, REALLY, *REALLY* think that the argument "does it sound plausible that [some Bush-Cheney Administration official/staffer] [got away with ignoring a command from a Democratic authority figure]" carries any water?"

No. But that's not the argument I was making. What I did mean to say was: suppose someone wanted to keep Obama from knowing something: is this a remotely plausible way to do it? Keeping him from getting the letter at all would be. But giving him the letter with two pages blacked out, when he has the authority to ask what is in those blacked out pages?

re: redacted portions;
It would appear that what has occurred is that the lawyer, in writing his letter to President Obama, included information that someone in the chain that the letter passed through, en route the President's desk (no idea who), felt required classification. Then, when a copy of the letter was returned to the originator, since the lawyer wasn't cleared to read the classified portions (even though he originally wrote them), those parts of the letter were redacted.
However, the question now becomes: when did relating how the U.S. government treats prisoners become a "classified" matter? And by whom?