BTD has posted at TalkLeft about the need to contact our House reps to get enough Dems to vote against the current wars supplemental bill to kill it and kill the outrageously bad FOIA revision Lieberman and Lindsey Graham amendment the Senate voted to attach to it.

Why? Because Obama has gone beyond eschewing transparency into more executive secrecy privileges than BushCo dared ask for. FISA, FOIA--what next will Obama back or demand?

Read this post by BTD--and weep, then blow your nose and begin acting. Vote postponed until next week.

Update: Greenwald had weighed in on Obama's support of Lieberman-Graham earlier in the week.

Monday June 1, 2009 05:02 EDT
Obama's support for the new Graham-Lieberman secrecy law

It was one thing when President Obama reversed himself last month by announcing that he would appeal the Second Circuit's ruling that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) compelled disclosure of various photographs of detainee abuse sought by the ACLU. Agree or disagree with Obama's decision, at least the basic legal framework of transparency was being respected, since Obama's actions amounted to nothing more than a request that the Supreme Court review whether the mandates of FOIA actually required disclosure in this case. But now -- obviously anticipating that the Government is likely to lose in court again (.pdf) -- Obama wants Congress to change FOIA by retroactively narrowing its disclosure requirements, prevent a legal ruling by the courts, and vest himself with brand new secrecy powers under the law which, just as a factual matter, not even George Bush sought for himself.

The White House is actively supporting a new bill jointly sponsored by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman -- called The Detainee Photographic Records Protection Act of 2009 -- that literally has no purpose other than to allow the government to suppress any "photograph taken between September 11, 2001 and January 22, 2009 relating to the treatment of individuals engaged, captured, or detained after September 11, 2001, by the Armed Forces of the United States in operations outside of the United States." As long as the Defense Secretary certifies -- with no review possible -- that disclosure would "endanger" American citizens or our troops, then the photographs can be suppressed even if FOIA requires disclosure. The certification lasts 3 years and can be renewed indefinitely. The Senate passed the bill as an amendment last week. (My emphasis)

This is to enable a cover up, pure and simple. How many of these things will Obama et al need to get passed in order to cover everything up?

Update 2: Dems postpone vote on war supplemental; not sure of enough votes.

At a party whip meeting Thursday, top House Democrats warned the language must come out if Obama is to get his IMF funds. But to the surprise of its allies, the White House even Thursday wasn’t willing to commit to this option.

“I’ll swallow IMF, but I won’t vote to suspend Freedom of Information,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who chairs the House Rules Committee and is close to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who has been Obama’s strongest House ally on the IMF issue, put the choice bluntly.

“They can have the IMF. They can’t have the IMF and no pictures,” Frank told POLITICO in his animated shorthand. “They certainly miscalculated on this pictures thing. I don’t know how the hell they thought that would work. The IMF drives away the Republicans. The pictures drive away the liberals you need. You have to choose.”