POLITICS-US: Courts May Get More Latitude on "State Secrets"

[cascadiance]

Source: IPS

By William Fisher

NEW YORK, Apr 25 (IPS) - The U.S. Congress moved a step closer Thursday to reining in the legal practice that the government has used to block lawsuits by whistleblowers and victims of "extraordinary rendition", as well as actions that would embarrass the George W. Bush administration.

By an 11-8 vote, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the State Secrets Protection Act, a measure introduced by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Arlen Specter, a Republican from Pennsylvania. Specter, the committee's most senior minority member, was alone among the panel's nine Republicans to vote in favour of approving the bill.

The measure would establish new rules that would allow judges to review government evidence supporting its claims that bringing a case to civil trial would involve disclosure of classified state secrets and thus compromise national security.

...

But Attorney General Michael Mukasey said he believes Congress probably lacks the authority to alter the state secrets privilege because it is rooted in the Constitution "and is not merely a common law privilege."

...

Read more: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42127

---

Mukasey's amazing comments at the end show that he needs to go as much as Gonzales before him! Amazing that he attributes this privilege to be something codified in the constitution. It is borrowed from British laws because we LACKED laws in this area. We do have other laws now governing criminal court cases that supersede this privilege. Is Mukasey trying to say that those laws are "unconsitutional"?

Sheesh!

Sure hoping that this will open the door to get some of these cases through, though I think it sounds like Bush will veto this. We should make sure we tally EVERY vote in the House and Senate to see who we should revisit as enemies of the state (the PEOPLE's state and not the king's state that is!) later!

[Mnemosyne]

1. When the hell did Mukasey decide "common law" matters?

War criminal.

[ToughLuck]

2. The NEW BUSH ENABLER

Disgraceful Mukasey

[cascadiance]

3. Wow! Attention Sibel! Turkey also limits their "State Secrets" privilege the SAME DAY!

Wow too weird! Is there some coincidence that both these are happening on the same day, or is there something else we're missing here!

Check out this article now:

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=140170

Top board for state secrets to be established


Former Democrat Party leader Mehmet Ağar refused to testify to any court or commission about the Susurluk case, citing the principle of "state secrets."

Public officials will no longer be able to use the “state secret” defense to justify their actions when the state secrets bill is passed and establishes the Higher State Secret Board (DSK) -- an ultimate authority for deciding what constitutes classified information and documents.

The state secrets bill, drafted by the Justice Ministry in 2005 but never enacted due to opposition, has finally been submitted to Parliament. It introduces new regulations concerning the concept of state secrets, in the past one of the greatest obstacles in the prosecution of high-ranking public servants.

Aiming to ensure easy access to information, transparency and an end to an unnecessary culture of secrecy in government operations, the bill envisions regulation of the identification, preservation and disclosure of classified information and documents, as well as related duties and liabilities. In addition to redefining the Turkish concept of a state secret, the bill would institute a time limit on the confidentiality of such secrets -- a maximum of 75 years. If the bill passes, light may be shed upon a number of scandals that have fallen into obscurity, experts say.

Bekir Bozdağ, deputy chairman of the Justice and Development Party’s (AK Party) parliamentary group, told Today’s Zaman the bill would be passed soon. “Our party is eager to enact it. Recent developments show that such a law is particularly necessary. Due to Parliament’s busy agenda, we were unable to enact it in the previous parliamentary term -- but we’re determined to do so this term. I think this will ... soon,” he said.
...