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.
A little over two years. When I was in the Air Force we wrote software that we couldn't talk about to anyone, and they couldn't tell us what is was for. You wrote little tiny routines from vague specifications, they would be tested and returned if they didn't work. You could not be told what data was input and what didn't work, just that it didn't. Sometimes they updated the specs to be less vague so you could actually write something that worked.
Best part was when you had to go to the bathroom. The spec you had must be locked up, so you'd go to the security officer and they'd sign for your spec and lock it in a safe. When you were done, you'd come back and fill out a form to get the spec back.
I don't have a problem with Clinton getting a blowjob. I don't have a problem with him lying about it. I DO have a serious problem when the lying is under oath as part of testimony in a court of law. They call this perjury. Last time I looked, it was a crime.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
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.
Clinton lied, babies died because for a while there we couldn't think of a blowjob without Linda Tripp's face.
Clinton lied, and people died.
He attacked Iraq to "wag the dog" on the Lewinski scandal. You can believe that, or you can believe his stated motive:
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
For the record, I think both Clinton and Bush are dicks, but I can't sit idly by while you parrot incorrect slogans.
Having buried friends because of congressional leaks, I can say qith complete confidence that you cannot trust our Congress with secrets. They'll disclose anything to gain some political power. True seperation of power only occurs with an armed populace.
I gotta say that's a totally excellent way to sabotage an election. Hire the "terrorists" to print an "endorsement" for the opposition. It's funny/sad that the trick actually works.
Except in this case, of course, it was the Hamas spokesman on the radio in New York, doing an interview, and expressing his preference for Obama. I'm really not thinking that McCain's people, or Hillary's, have a lot of influence over the Hamas PR machinery in that way. Obviously, Obama was quick to say, "la la la! I'm not listening to that endorsement!" because obviously he has a vested interest in it going away. I found it more amusing than anything else.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I have the facts to back it up.
1) The Duelfer Report, clearly stating that there was no connection between the Baathist movement and al Qaeda, and just the dysfunctional remainings of a weapons program.
2) An interview with the Number Two of al Qaeda, al Zawahiri.
3) The history of the Baath Party as a secular, socialist and nationalist Arab movement.
4) The biography of the Number Two of Iraq, Tariq Aziz, who is no muslim at all, but a Chaldean Catholic. So whatever Iraq was, it was surely not ruled by islamistic jihadists.
5) All the alleged evidence brought before the war being debunked, from the Yellow Cake Story to the British dossier on Iraq's WMD program being just a rip of of Ibrahim al-Marashi's doctoral thesis.
6) The fact that Donald Rumsfeld even created his own intelligence unit because the CIA was still unable to uncover anything supporting, what the administration was believing to be true.
7) The fact that Colin Powell's address at the U.N. didn't convince neither Hans Blix, head of the U.N.'s inspectors of Iraq's WMD program nor the "old Europeans", with Germany's Minister for Foreign Affairs, J.Fischer, publicly stating his doubts.
"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