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

[mmonk]

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.

-snip-

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.

-snip-


The bill now goes to the full Senate for a vote, though its timing and outcome remain unclear. A similar bill has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Jerrold Nadler, Democrat from New York, and Tom Petri, a Wisconsin Republican.

-snip-

Another case involved Sibel Edmonds, a former translator at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who was fired for reporting security breaches and possible espionage within the Bureau. Edmonds unsuccessfully appealed her case to the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time, the Inspector General of the Department of Justice found that Edmonds' firing was an act of retaliation.

-snip-


Of course it faces a veto from bush. But maybe a veto proof majority can be achieved some time in the future.

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

[Hydra]

1. The bill is worthless

The Judge gets to see the evidence...so what? The defense is not allowed to see it, and can't refute it. If the judge belongs to the mostly repub DoJ, he/she will still convict, and this will put a slight stain of legality on it.

:puke:

[mmonk]

2. Maybe at least the judge can determine if the "privilege"

is being used to cover up illegal activity.

Prof. David Cole of the Georgetown University Law Centre, one of the nation's preeminent constitutional lawyers, told IPS, "The administration has argued on the merits that the president has unilateral executive power in the 'war on terror' to violate even criminal laws, and when it has been challenged on that assertion, it has argued that the courts can't even rule on that assertion of power because the alleged criminal violation is a 'state secret'."

Cole's view is echoed by Prof. Peter Shane of the Ohio University law school. He told IPS that the Bush administration "has been conspicuous in its defence of the executive's secret-keeping authorities, even where disclosure of the information sought would not seem to undermine any public interest."

[Hydra]

4. The problem is that Bushco will give them bogus paperwork

That they are not allowed to talk about or verify.

This won't help Sibel Edmonds and cases like hers. The information will still not be public, while Bushco can claim that all of it is perfectly legal and approved by Congress.

[mmonk]

5. I know some of the things Ashcroft was claiming were state secrets

when POGO went to court against the Justice Department, the Justice Department decided to back down and instead of fighting in court, sent them a note saying what they wanted to publish wasn't a threat to national security. I think the key will be a honest justice department. But no, it doesn't prevent abuse of state secrets (which I have trouble believing in anyway).

[Hydra]

6. Of course the state secrets thing is bogus

Any justice system worth it's spit can be perfectly transparent- and it's in their interest to be so.

As to the DoJ backing down, Bushco prefers their powers not be defined in any way, so they frequently back down when challenged, but continue business as usual and demand the powers again later. It should be interesting to see if Bush vetoes, signing states, or simply ignores it.

[mmonk]

7. Indeed

[MiniMe]

3. It doesn't matter, they will just ignore it like they have ignored everything else

The goal now is just to stall, stall, stall. It may get approved near the end of the year if a dem is elected President. God forbid they should get away with all the crap * did. Actually, I don't want anybody, dem or repuke doing that kind of crap, but the repubs are all about protecting * until they are out of office.