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.

Comments

I got $5 on fail, anyone want some?

[OMNIpotusCOM]

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

Re:Even Simpler...

[Lonewolf666]

Or should his political opponents be able to sue him for political reasons, and automatically "win" (and what? get whatever they want?) because if Obama were to divulge secret info or methods as used in pursuit of his foreign policy or defense chores he'd be risking lives or breaking promises made to other governments?

Secret policies are unhealthy for a democracy anyway, because the citizens can only make good decisions (say, about who should be next president) if they are informed about what is going on.

A democracy is at an inherent disadvantage here compared to a dictatorship. But if you sacrifice your democracy over that, I guess you deserve an American version of Saddam Hussein ;-)

BTW and slightly off topic:
A state founded on the rule of law is also at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to fighting terrorists. Because it cannot simply imprison people without trial, and this means some bad guys on whom you have insufficient evidence will go free.
In this regard, the USA don't quite qualify as a rule of law state anymore, and I'd rather not travel to the USA until things change.