Taking Liberties: The War on Terror and the Erosion of American Democracy (50 page)

6
.  Speech by Senator Barack H. Obama,
The War We Need to Win,
Woodrow Wilson Center (Aug. 1, 2007),
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
.

7
.  Patriot Act § 102.

8
.  Peter Baker,
Obama’s War over Terror,
N.Y. TIMES,
Jan. 17, 2010,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/magazine/17Terror-t.html
.

9
.  
JACK GOLDSMITH, THE TERROR PRESIDENCY
71 (New York: W.W. Norton 2009).

10
.  Baker,
supra
note 8;
JONATHAN ALTER, THE PROMISE
101-03 (New York: Simon & Schuster 2010).

11
.  
GOLDSMITH,
supra
note 9, at 189–90.

12
.  Presidential Memorandum on the Freedom of Information Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 4,683 (Jan. 21, 2010).

13
.  
See Justice Department Releases Bush Administration Torture Memos,
ACLU (Apr. 16, 2009),
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/justice-department-releases-bush-administration-torture-memos
;
see also Selected Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), Department of Justice,
FEDERATION OF AM. SCIENTISTS,
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/index.html
(listing released OLC memos and Obama Administration disavowal of OLC opinions).

14
.  Dep’t of Def. v. ACLU, 543 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2009),
vacated and cert, granted,
__U.S.__, 130 S. Ct. 777 (2009).

15
.  Protected National Security Documents Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–83, § 565, 123 Stat. 2142, 2184–86 (2009)

16
.  President Obama, Remarks at the National Archives,
supra
note 2.

17
.  President Obama, Remarks at the National Archives,
supra
note 2.

18
.  
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION’S TERRORIST WATCHLIST NOMINATION PRACTICES
(2009),
http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/FBI/a0925/final.pdf
[hereinafter
Inspector Gen. Report, Watchlist Practices].

19
.  
Hearing before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary on Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT ACT,
111st Cong. (2009) (statement of Glenn Fine, Inspector Gen., U.S. Dep’t of Justice).

20
.  
9/11 Commission Report, supra
note 1, at 418–20.

21
.  
E.g
., National Security Letters Reform Act of 2007, H.R. 3189, 110th Cong. (2007).

22
.  Glenn Greenwald,
Obama and the Myth of the Public Opinion Excuse,
SALON.COM, (May 18, 2020, 6:19
A.M.),
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/18/public_opinion
.

23
.  
Establishing a New Normal: National Security, Civil Liberties and Human Rights Under the Obama Administration,
ACLU
(July 22, 2010),
http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/EstablishingNewNormal.pdf
.

24
.  For a moving account of the personal impact of the global War on Terror on Muslims,
see
AMITAVA KUMAR, A FOREIGNER CARRYING IN THE CROOK OF HIS ARM A TINY BOMB
(Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press 2010).

25
.  Committee on Technical and Privacy Dimensions of Information for Terrorism Prevention and Other National Goals, National Research Council,
Public Opinion Data on U.S. Attitudes Toward Government Counterterrorism Efforts, in
PROTECTING INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY IN THE STRUGGLE AGAINST TERRORISTS: A FRAMEWORK FOR PROGRAM ASSESSMENT
283–84 (Washington, DC: Academy of Sciences 2008),
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?rcord_id=12452&page=283
.

26
.  Adam Nagourney & Janet Elder,
New Poll Finds Mixed Support for Wiretaps,
N.Y. TIMES,
Jan. 27, 2006,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27poll.html?pagewanted=1&ref=newyorktimes-poll-watch
.

27
.  Lydia Saad,
Americans Reject Extreme Anti-Privacy Security Measures,
GALLUP
(Aug. 8, 2005),
http://www.gallup.com/poll/17686/Americans-Reject-Extreme-AntiPrivacy-Security-Measures.aspx
.

28
.  
Terrorism in the United States,
GALLUP
(Jan. 8, 2010),
http://www.gallup. com/poll/4909/Terrorism-United-States.aspx
.

29
.  
JOHN HART ELY, DEMOCRACY AND DISTRUST
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press 1980).

30
.  The other case is Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875), reaffirmed by Tenet v. Doe, 544 U.S. 1 (2005).

31
.  United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1 (1953).

32
.  
BARRY SIEGEL, CLAIM OF PRIVILEGE
(New York: HarperCollins 2008).

33
.  Dan Christensen,
Secrecy Appealed,
MIAMI DAILY BUS. REV.,
Sept. 25, 2003.

34
.  Dan Christensen,
Secrecy Within,
MIAMI DAILY BUS. REV.,
Mar. 12, 2003.

35
.  Warren Richey,
Secret 9/11 Case Before High Court,
CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR,
Oct. 30, 2003,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1030/p.01s02-usju.html
.

36
.  Brief Amici Curiae of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Support of the Petitioner, M.K.B. v. Warden, 540 U.S. 1213 (2004),
http://www.rcfp.org/news/documents/20031103-mkbvwarden.pdf
.

37
.  
M.K.B.,
540 U.S. 1213.

38
.  
See
SUSAN N. HERMAN, THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL
22-30 (Westport, CT: Praeger 2006).

39
.  Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 195 F. Supp. 2d 937, 940 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2002),
reh’g and reh’g en banc denied,
303 F.3d 681 (6th Cir. 2002).

40
.  Detroit Free Press v. Ashcroft, 303 F.3d 681, 683 (6th Cir. 2002).

41
.  
Id.
at 709.

42
.  
See
David Pozen,
The Mosaic Theory, National Security, and the Freedom of Information Act,
115
YALE L.J.
628 (2005).

43
.  North Jersey Media Grp. v. Ashcroft, 308 F.3d 198 (3d Cir. 2002),
cert. denied,
538 U.S. 1056 (2003).

44
.  Center for Nat’l Sec. Stud. v. Dep’t of Justice, 331 F.3d 918, 928 (D.C. Cir. 2003),
cert. denied,
540 U.S. 1104 (2004).

45
.  
North Jersey Media,
308 F.3d 198.

46
.  
Detroit Free Press,
303 F.3d 681.

47
.  ACLU v. United States, 538 U.S. 920 (2003). Because there was only one party to this case—the government—and the government had won below, no one had the right to file a petition for certiorari, so the Court had an easy out, as described in
chapter 6
.

48
.  
M.K.B.,
540 U.S. 1213.

49
.  Center for Nat’l Sec. Stud. v. Dep’t of Justice, 331 F.3d at 928.

50
.  United States v. Awadallah, 349 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2003),
cert. denied,
543 U.S. 1056 (2005).

51
.  ACLU v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007),
cert. denied,
552 U.S. 1179 (2008).

52
.  United States v. Afshari, 426 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2005),
cert. denied sub nom.
Rahmani v. United States, 549 U.S. 1110 (2007).

53
.  Mayfield v. United States, 599 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010),
cert. denied,
__U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 503 (2010).

54
.  El-Masri v. United States, 479 F.3d 296 (4th Cir. 2007),
cert. denied,
552 U.S. 947 (2007).

55
.  
See
Khaled El-Masri,
I Am Not a State Secret,
L.A. TIMES,
Mar. 3, 2007,
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/03/opinion/oe-elmasri3
.

56
.  
See, e.g.,
James Meek,
Khaled el-Masri Describes America’s Secret Offshore Prison Network,
GUARDIAN,
Jan. 14, 2005,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jan/14/usa.germany
.

57
.  Arar v. Ashcroft, 585 F.3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009) (
en banc
),
cert. denied,
__U.S. __, 130 S. Ct. 3409 (2010).

58
.  
See Harper’s Apology “Means the World”: Arar,
BROADCAST NEWS,
Jan. 26, 2007,
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/26/harper-apology.html
.

59
.  ACLU v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 493 F.3d 664; Amnesty Int’l USA v. McConnell, 646 F. Supp. 2d 633 (S.D.N.Y. 2009),
rev’d sub nom.
Amnesty Int’l USA v. Clapper, __F.3d__, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5699 (2d Cir. 2011).

60
.  Jewel v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, No. C 06–1791 VRW, 2010 WL 235075, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2010).

61
.  Al-Haramain Islamic Found., Inc. v. Bush, 507 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2007),
remanded sub nom.
In re Nat’l Sec. Agency Telecomms. Records Litig., 700 F. Supp. 2d 1182, 1189 (N.D. Cal. 2010).

62
.  
Jewel,
2010 WL 235075, at *1.

63
.  Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2009),
reh’g en banc denied,
598 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2010),
cert. granted,
Ashcroft v. al-Kidd,__U.S.__, 131 S. Ct. 415 (2010).

64
.  
See
Jane Mayer,
Outsourcing: The C.I.A.’s Travel Agent,
NEW YORKER
(Oct. 30, 2006),
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/10/30/061030ta_talk_mayer
.

65
.  John Schwartz,
Obama Backs Off a Reversal on Secrets,
N.Y. TIMES,
Feb. 9, 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10torture.html?_r=2&hp
.

66
.  Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, 579 F.3d 943, 950 (9th Cir. 2009),
rev’d,
614 F.3d 1070 (9th Cir. 2010),
cert. denied,
563 U.S.__(May 16, 2011).

67
.  Ashcroft v. Iqbal,__U.S.__, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009).

68
.  
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GEN., U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, THE SEPTEMBER II DETAINEES: A REVIEW OF THE TREATMENT OF ALIENS HELD ON IMMIGRATION CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH THE INVESTIGATION OF THE SEPTEMBER II ATTACKS
(2003),
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0306/full.pdf
.

69
.  For critiques of
Iqbal, see, e.g.,
Richard G. Bone,
Plausibility Pleading Revising and Revised: A Comment on Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
85
NOTRE DAME L. REV.
849 (March 2010); Elizabeth M. Schneider,
The Changing Shape of Federal Civil Pretrial Practice: The Disparate Impact on Civil Rights and Employment Discrimination Cases,
158
U. PA. L. REV.
517 (2010).

70
.  
ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, THE CONSERVATIVE ASSAULT ON THE CONSTITUTION
(New York: Simon & Schuster 2010).

71
.  There are, of course, deep and ardent differences of opinion about the proper role of the judiciary. For one vigorous argument that the courts should defer to the elected branches on antiterrorism policy,
see
ERIC A. POSNER
&
ADRIAN VERMEULE, TERROR IN THE BALANCE
(New York: Oxford Univ. Press 2007).

72
.  Norman Dorsen,
Foreign Affairs and Civil Liberties,
83
AM. J. INT’L L.
840 (1989);
see also
WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST, ALL THE LAWS BUT ONE
224-25 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf 1998) (“It is neither desirable nor is it remotely likely that civil liberty will occupy as favored a position in wartime as it does in peacetime”).

73
.  Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944).

74
.  
See
Korematsu v. United States, 584 F. Supp. 106 (N.D. Cal. 1984)
(coram nobis
petition); Peter Irons,
JUSTICE AT WAR
206–18 (New York: Univ. Press Oxford 1983).

75
.  Hirabayashi v. United States, 828 F.2d 591, 598 (9th Cir. 1987).

76
.  
GEOFFREY R. STONE, PERILOUS TIMES
180 (New York: W.W. Norton, 2004).
See
Lee Epstein, Daniel E. Ho, Gary King, & Jeffrey A. Segal,
The Supreme Court During Crisis: How War Affects Only Non-War Cases,
80
N.Y.U. L. REV.
1 (2005) (attempt at empirical study of Supreme Court behavior during wartime, concluding that “when crises threaten the nation’s security, the justices are substantially more likely to curtail rights and liberties than when peace prevails,” but that cases not concerning the war itself are most affected).

77
.  W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

78
.  For a fascinating exploration of whether the Supreme Court actually reflects popular will,
see
BARRY FRIEDMAN, THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE
(New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux 2009).

79
.  
See, e.g.,
JEFFREY ROSEN, THE NAKED CROWD
132-47 (New York: Random House 2005);
JAMES B. RULE, PRIVACY IN PERIL
195 (New York: Oxford Univ. Press 2007); Epstein et al.,
supra
note 76, at 110–11.

Conclusion

1
.  
ANTHONY D. ROMERO
&
DINA TEMPLE-RASTON, IN DEFENSE OF OUR AMERICA
205-06 (New York: HarperCollins 2007).

2
.  
THE DOUGLAS LETTERS
16 (Melvin I. Urofsky & Philip E. Urofsky eds., Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler 1987).