OP Ed in the NY Times this morning - A midnight filing by the Obama administration on Friday, asking a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit because of the so-called state secrets doctrine, again raises a troubling question. Why do the White House and Justice Department continue to invoke this severe legal tool essentially as prior administrations have used it, in the face of a considerable body of opinion that it has been abused and should be significantly reformed?
Everyone recognizes that there are secrets that must be protected, but the doctrine has been used to cover up illegal and embarrassing acts or to avoid needed public discussion of policies. Federal trial judges sometimes fail to make the government justify its use of the privilege.
Despite President Obama’s promises of reform in this area, the public still cannot reliably distinguish between legitimate and self-serving uses of the national security claims. Worse, some of the administration’s claims clearly have fallen on the darker side of that line.
The lawsuit was filed by the father of Anwar al-Awlaki to stop the government from killing his son, who is believed to be planning attacks for the branch of Al Qaeda in Yemen, where he is said to be in hiding. Charlie Savage reported in The Times that there is wide agreement in the administration “that it is lawful to target Mr. Awlaki,” but disagreement about the basis for requesting dismissal of the lawsuit. In the end, “a more expansive approach” won out.
Given the cloud of doubt hanging over the doctrine — for 57 years, really, since the Supreme Court established it and for the past decade, especially, because the Bush administration abused it to conceal torture — it’s time for the Obama administration to air these differences and explain the full extent of its thinking...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/opinion/30thu1.html?hpDefinition of State Secrets from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege)The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security.<1><2><3><4><5><6> United States v. Reynolds,<7> which involved military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.
Following a claim of "state secrets privilege", the court rarely conducts an in camera examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.<1> The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.<3><5>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
