SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
Establishing a valuable precedent in a case involving unlawful surveillance and botched state secrets claims, the Justice Department has named its price. Wired reports:
The U.S. has agreed to pay $3 million to a former government worker who accused officials with the CIA and State Department of spying on him with a bugged coffee table. Rather than comply with a court order to provide lawyers in the case with what the U.S. government says is classified information, the government has agreed to settle to end the 15-year-old suit.
A close review of the case suggests that the Justice Department also decided to pay off the plaintiff in order to quash the series of damaging legal rulings issued by the influential judge overseeing the case that would have forced them to disclose the classified information. Those decisions may have a bearing on the “state secrets privilege” that the Bush and Obama administrations have used to try and thwart a high-profile lawsuit in California over illegal wiretapping conducted in the war on terror.
The settlement agreement can be examined here. There are two reasons that the government paid up in this case rather than shouting “state secrets!” First, it ran smack into a prominent conservative judge, Reagan appointee Royce Lamberth, who served as presiding judge of the FISA court from 1995 to 2002. Lamberth smelled something fishy with the government’s state secrecy and immunity claims from the outset, and his inquiries ultimately pressured the government to confess to some serious misrepresentations to the court. Second, the government faces a court order requiring it to turn over to the plaintiff or his attorney certain classified documents, which it considers a horrifying precedent.
The settlement comes in a suit brought by a DEA agent who, correctly, argued he was the victim of illegal U.S. surveillance while serving overseas in Burma. The government tried to brush the claims aside by certifying to the court that a key defendant was a covert CIA agent, and the case could not therefore proceed. Lamberth determined that the government’s certification was bogus because the CIA agent’s role had been disclosed in 2002. The government claims it was an innocent mistake, but not everyone’s buying that account.
The Justice Department’s major concern, however, goes to the judge’s order that classified information be shared with the plaintiff. A Justice lawyer called the decision “an unprecedented departure from the Executive’s exclusive authority to control access to classified information.” In fact, consistent with the shared powers notion of the Constitution, the executive has never exercised “exclusive” control over state secrets. Consider the papers surrounding the negotiation of the Treaty of Algiers from 1793, for instance. Congress asked for the papers, and the White House insisted that they contained state secrets. Congress effectively responded, “Fine, we won’t ratify the treaty until they are produced.” And produced they were. So much for “exclusive” control of state secrets. That pattern held pretty constant for the following two hundred years.
The more immediate concern that the Justice Department has is different: namely that the victims of unlawful surveillance will secure information that will bolster their lawsuit. It’s quite likely that information has been systematically classified with two major objectives in mind, neither of which are legitimate under current law. First, to cover up evidence of the crime, since warrantless surveillance was a felony under FISA. Second, to keep the documents out of the reach of litigants who can use it to make out their case against the government, potentially costing the government much embarrassment and a lot of money. So what’s the value to the Justice Department of getting Judge Lamberth to vacate his order? Now we can quantify it: $3 million. By entering into this settlement, the Holder Justice Department has also fixed the settlement target for dozens of other plaintiffs.
More from Scott Horton:
Conversation — August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm
Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln
Conversation — March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm
Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.
Chances that college students select as “most desirable‚” the same face chosen by the chickens:
Most of the United States’ 36,000 yearly bunk-bed injuries involve male victims.
In Italy, a legislator called for parents who feed their children vegan diets to be sentenced to up to six years in prison, and in Sweden, a woman attempted to vindicate her theft of six pairs of underwear by claiming she had severe diarrhea.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Matt was happy enough to sustain himself on the detritus of a world he saw as careening toward self-destruction, and equally happy to scam a government he despised. 'I’m glad everyone’s so wasteful,' he told me. 'It supports my lifestyle.'”