Slashdot Mirror
Senate Proposal To Clarify 'State Secrets' Doctrine
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and other lawmakers are pushing legislation to limit the power of the state secrets doctrine in blocking lawsuits. The doctrine has been used as a 'get out of jail free' card in cases like the EFF's warrantless wiretapping lawsuit. This new legislation would make it harder for the administration to invoke the doctrine, and provide new allowances, such as using attorneys with security clearances to enable the lawsuits to go forward even when the issue is appropriately raised." Update: 04/28 16:58 GMT by KD : The New Yorker is running a detailed piece, State Secrets, by Patrick Radden Keefe, about how the use of the state secrets doctrine is playing out in one particular case.
Oh please, like the administration gives two shits about what the laws say or that our Senate could think about falling forward onto a bill that will pass and make a difference. This is has colossal fail written all over it, and the Dems can just blame the Reps when it doesn't pass. Someone get Kennedy a martini and a bridge so we can see if we can leave the right body in the river this time. And yeah, before you get all up on my nuts about that, I know that's not the right one. They're like the Baldwins; nobody really keeps track anymore because nobody cares. If either of our branches of government had a pair they would have done something to keep Bush from driving the stagecoach into the desert years ago, or, at the very least, airlifted him out once we realized we lied to get there. ...not like this country needs anymore lawsuits anyway, and THIS one seemed justified. Fail. /soapbox
This administration will veto this faster than you can blink.
Is anybody gullible enough to believe that Bush would actually sign a bill that could hold his administration responsible for its crimes?
http://filmcow.com/flash-charlietheunicorn2.html
That'd be a cool job... suave lawyer type during the day, secret agent spy CIA-type at night! Like a corporate Indiana Jones.
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
What, they think they have some kind of power to question the authority of our Decider and Commander and Chief?
Who appointed them as the law makers?
Next thing you know those "Representatives" will claim they can hold the president accountable for lying, breaking the law, and violating his oath of office.
I'd like to see them just try something like that.
Really. I would.
Please.
This seems so obvious; did no one had (the courage to have) that idea before?
That said, "special attorneys" with security clearence are not that good of a solution if they are a small group and no one has to right to check on what they did.
Plus, I would hate to see a whole "secret justice" aside from the normal one. What I mean is that cogress rejected the idea of "secret laws" a while ago, and I wouldn't want the governement to use "secret attorneys" as a way to push that idea again.
Don't take my posts literally; it's just code to control my botnet.
Seriously, the whole secrets privilege thing is about as bogus as it gets.
.gov.
If there is info that really can't be released without jeopardizing security, then of course it should be kept secret and not disclosed. BUT... for the purpose of the lawsuit, that failure to disclose should be treated the same as any other failure to disclose. Which means "in the worst light possible" for the
Basically, invoking the privilege is fine, but it should mean the government basically loses the case automatically.
But, if we clarify it, then it's no longer secret.
Why does Congress hate Amerika?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
It's about time.
I wouldn't mind seeing the whole concept of "state secret" repudiated. It really has no place in a free society.
If we really have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people what gives some part of that government the right to keep secrets from every other part, including the parts that are supposed to be watching over them and keeping them in check? The very notion should set warning bells off from here to next Tuesday.
Think about it? In what other context would that sort of inversion of ultimate authority be considered even remotely reasonable? If you told your boss that you were working on a project that was so secret you couldn't tell them about it, or any of your co-workers, including accounting, HR, the legal department, and it involved you needing to have building security look the other way while you took things in and out of the building...how long do you think you'd be employed?
-- MarkusQ
By passing a law to "limit" the power of the government to do CLEARLY ILLEGAL things it is already doing, they legitimize the very practice they are claiming to try to stop.
What a crock of shit. Especially since it is so hypocritical. The effect would be almost the opposite of the stated intent.
This is a privilege that should never have existed. Literally from the case that established it the privilege has been consistently abused. Anything that can be done to reduce or eliminate its use should be done.
If the government truly has secret information that bears on the case, they should have two choices. The first is to follow established legal procedures to present the information off the official record for the judge to make a decision on. And the second is to lose the case.
But they should not have the right to say, "You'll have to trust that we could defend ourselves if we could tell you the full story, but we can't for national security reasons." Because giving them that right gives them the ability to wave a "get out of jail free" card whenever it is convenient. And it is convenient far, far more often than it is true.
> Is anybody gullible enough to believe that Bush would actually sign a bill that could hold his administration responsible for its crimes?
FYI: They cut off the last sentence of the submission where I said there was no way it was going to pass this term. Not that it matters, but yeah. If it gets to Bush, I expect him to accuse the supporters of aiding terrorists or something.
- I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property
Secrets do need to be kept for the sake of national security.
However, if the executive branch has unlimited authority to designate its activities "secret for the necessity of national security", then there are no checks and balances left - the executive is in charge of everything.
The legislative branch should give the executive branch a limited budget of secrecy credits which can be spent on denying inquiries. This will force the executive to prioritize its secret-keeping to the most important matters.
Another solution is for the two closest runners-up in the presidential election to be given a "counter-executive" office, which is privy to all state secrets, and may reveal them at will.
This will prevent state secrets from being used as a partisan tool.
the Stargate Program is finally going Public...?
Seriously, IANA American, but I happen to know first hand what happens when a government is able to keep too many secrets(google Zimbabwe Election Results..) from its people. Its a recipe for disaster. It implies the government controls what you hear.
I'd say that the idea of an Open Government is best: Only critical secrets may be kept with full disclosure after a short period of time, say two years maximum. But then having been burnt perhaps I'm not as objective as I should be...
I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
I believe this link works:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s2533is.txt.pdf
That's for the bill as it was introduced -- couldn't find a copy of the bill post-committee amendments, probably because it hasn't been formatted by GPO yet.
Sure the lawyers for the big defense contractors have clearances. But don't hold your breath waiting for the EFF lawyers or your local solo practitioner to be issued clearances. The clearance rules disfavor people who have taken risks, people who have been entrepreneurs, and members of various arbitrarily disfavored social, ethnic, religious, cultural and/or political groupings.
So far, the courts have usually accepted the "state secrets doctrine" and squashed the lawsuits if the doctrine was invoked. Under this law, they might be less willing to do so and eventually the administration would have to choose between complying and openly ignoring court orders.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Not quite. He's "the Executive," which makes him a rather important boss (roughly equivalent to a CEO), but not "THE BOSS" in the sense of being beyond question. Just as a real CEO still has to answer to HR, Legal, Finance, the board of directors, etc. the President of the US is still answerable to Congress and the Courts. Or at least is supposed to be.
We have a system of "checks and balances" wher no one is "THE BOSS" in the sense of being unaccountable. The doctrine of "State Secrets" flies in the face of that, and is just as silly as if we gave Congress the right to pass "Symon Says" laws or let the Courts operate like Bush's "Military Tribunals."
--MarkusQ
Having Kennedy(or for that matter any of the senate or house)working on this kind of legislation is kinda like having an arsonist driving the fire truck ,isn't it?
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
but we needed this eight years ago. Stonewalling and hiding behind the too often invoked curtain of national security are the tools of scoundrels. We need a more transparent mechanism for protecting bona fide secrets while maintaining accountability.
The "counter-executive" used to be the Vice-President. Back in Washington's time, electors voted for two people, and the person with the second most votes was Vice-President. What this meant was that there were very real possibilities that the Vice-President was someone of the opposing political party. It's not necessarily in the best interest of the country for the Vice-President to have a vested interest in the demise of the President...
yours,
kbs
He's not getting in again and it's likely that his cronies aren't getting the job next either.
So if he passes this, he has already managed to neuter any attempts to expose his actions and he would want to be able to expose the actions of his opponents.
rant:
Any judge that gives credence to this shit should be tossed into prison for corrupting the constitution/treason given their position and effect.
A couple things:
1. Individuals in a religion (or a country) can have substantially different beliefs from their leaders. An analogy would be a Democrat voter holding different beliefs from a Republican president. The president is supposed to represent and lead all citizens in the country, even though not everyone agrees with him/her.
2. The term antisemitic in the article is a bit misleading. I assumed you were using the term to mean "racist" and "hates jews"; however, the article appears to be using the term to describe the UCC's attempt to use economic leverage to work against zionism and the repression of Palestinians. You may argue they're the same thing, but they are not in my mind. I personally have multiple jewish friends, but disagree with many policies of the state of Israel.
This seems like a non-issue.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
Allowing you around kids makes as much sense as letting Michael Jackson run a preschool. A woman dating you is like a woman seeing Jack the Ripper.
Carping about Democrats who actually stick up for your rights instead of complaining about the Republicans who have spent the last 8 years shredding the Constitution is like being the biggest fucking idiot on the face of the planet.
"Saying you can't trust Congress to do the right thing with sensitive information is basically a repudiation of democracy."
Unfortunately, this has already been shown to be the case with respect to the allegations of illegal wiretapping by President Bush. It was the responsibility, and duty, of Congress to demand and conduct an (at least partially public) investigation into the activities of the president and his minions.
Congress also let him off the hook on WMD misrepresentation (Gulf of Tonkin, anyone?), Illegal Torture authorization (which he admitted to by the way) and Guantanamo detainees (Geneva Convention). Other potential crimes (e.g. Valerie Plame) could not be directly linked to him but dirty his name, and that of his administration, nonetheless.
Congress abdicated their duties with regard to the separation of powers, international law, the constitution, and public trust - over and over again, because its members were (and still are) afraid of even being *accused* of being soft on terrorism.
So please don't tell me we can trust Congress to do the right thing. They've already proven they can't and won't, even when the evidence is staring them in the face.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
It is factually correct that ... the neocons in power are all rich, white men.
College-Pages.com - Online Colleges, Degrees, and Programs
Although the 9/11 attacks were the impetus which resulted in the US operations in Iraq, they were not the reason for the attacks in Iraq.
The reason was twofold. Following 9/11, the "Bush Doctrine" was initiated, a strategy which basically amounts to not suffering trouble spots to continue to foment terrorists.
Iraq was just such a trouble spot, considering their ongoing violations of the armistice (technically, the first gulf war never ended, so Bush-43 "merely" resumed operations). Those violations included AA-fire at NATO enforcement of the no-fly zone, and attempts to hinder and even mislead the UN weapons inspectors.
Weapons inspectors who themselves were unreliable, based on Hans Blix's shameless self-promoting and attempts to become buddy-buddy with Saddam and play diplomat. If Iraq was out of the headlines for a while, Saddam was keeping them from key areas. If it looked like war loomed, all of a sudden, saddam was cooperating amicably.
And simultaneous to these events, Saddam used his daughters to lure his sons-in-law (who'd defected) back to Iraq to their deaths.
I know you and the US news media focused on WMDs because they were the easiest to cram into a fifteen second sound bite, and certainly their presence was an issue (or we wouldn't have needed weapons inspectors) but the reason for resuming the Iraqi conflict was procedural and, ironically, necessary to maintain UN authority. You can only say, "or else" for so long before you need to answer the question, "or else, what?"
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
'Purps' is spelled 'perps'
And living near SF (though not in the district), I am really pissed that the first semi-official thing Pelosi did is say she wouldn't try to enforce the duties of her office. Why the Democrats didn't go in, guns blazing, investigating everything and producing the evidence that we all know exist that BushCo should at the very least be in jail, if not hanged for treason.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
See, the Congressional Democrats need to have an adversary to leverage. McCain would be the one to ensure the Congressional Democrats' continued existence and influence. That's why they are dragging this primary election out as long as possible, so that all of this in-fighting will bring to light the fact that Clinton has not one iota of integrity, and Obama is nothing more than a Marxist, and many American voters will have a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction, which increases McCain's chances of winning.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
...Carter got them to accept Israel as a neighbor and an Israeli/Palestinian peace deal if it passed a referendum. Hamas saying they accept Israel is quite a bit different than actually accepting. Based on past experience, and based on explicit language in Hamas' charter, Israel would be very wise to doubt their sincerity.A little voice inside me wants to believe them, or at least for Israel to take them at their word. But another little voice inside me answers, "Haven't they tried this before?"
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.