Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senate Proposal To Clarify 'State Secrets' Doctrine

Posted by Soulskill on from the you-can-trust-us dept.

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.

3 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Fat Chance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  2. Who are these "Senators" anyway? by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  3. About time, but it doesn't go far enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.