State Secrets

[NYBURBS]

Didn't notice any threads on Obama following Bush's lead by invoking once again the State Secrets doctrine in an attempt to have a torture lawsuit thrown out. Here is a link:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/02/10/obama/

[trish]

State Secrets Privilege is an evidentiary rule that goes back to the founding fathers and before that to English law. I don't think you really want to argue that no information should be guarded by such a privilege. (The operative words in the Obama campaign literature (to which your link refers) are "more often than".)

Here's a rather even handed account of Obama's current encounter with State Secret Privilege:

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/considered_in_light_of_the.php

I would be happiest if the Obama administration had more transparency than any other administration on record. It remains to be seen just how much transparency we'll get.

This link is a start

http://www.recovery.gov/

I would like to see sites like these on every major government program.

Peripherally related to this, I would like to see Obama put an end to extraordinary rendition. He did not and indications are he probably will not. He is, afterall, not the commie, pinko, ultraliberal that many like to paint him as. He's a pragmatist and a centrist who is also a democrat.

[chefmike]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/26/pentagon-to-allow-photos-_n_170250.html

[NYBURBS]

State Secrets Privilege is an evidentiary rule that goes back to the founding fathers and before that to English law. I don't think you really want to argue that no information should be guarded by such a privilege. (The operative words in the Obama campaign literature (to which your link refers) are "more often than".)


It goes back a long way yes, though not in the form we have come to know as of late. It used to be a way to prevent certain material from being introduced, not as a means of throwing out entire lawsuits. As the article also points out these are not suits in which the government is an innocent 3rd party; the suits in which this privilege is being asserted are brought forth due to direct government action against individuals. Granted in this case the airline is a private party, but one which was allegedly acting at the direction and behest of the United States government.

Chef I actually just read that news story before logging in. To be honest I'm still not impressed. News and opinion should always be beyond the reach of government authority. Kudos to Obama for moving closer to the right action, but it still leaves much to be desired.

[chefmike]

State Secrets Privilege is an evidentiary rule that goes back to the founding fathers and before that to English law. I don't think you really want to argue that no information should be guarded by such a privilege. (The operative words in the Obama campaign literature (to which your link refers) are "more often than".)


Chef I actually just read that news story before logging in. To be honest I'm still not impressed. News and opinion should always be beyond the reach of government authority. Kudos to Obama for moving closer to the right action, but it still leaves much to be desired.

Of course it does, NYburbster...but pragmatic cynicism is sometimes a prerequisite when dealing with political reality...is it not?

Otherwise you may as well just get fitted for you tinfoil dunce cap and line up for the kool-aid with thx and El Nino at Alex Jonestown, right?...btw...didn't Alex Barnum, er, Jones endorse Ron Paul's presidential aspirations... :wink: :wink:

[trish]

The Atlantic article states,

“Officials decided that it would be imprudent to reverse course so abruptly because they realized they didn't yet have a full picture of the intelligence methods and secrets that underlay the privilege's assertions, because the privilege might correctly protect a state secret, and because the domino effect of retracting it could harm legitimate cases, both civil and criminal, that are already in progress.”

I read this saying the administration does intend to reverse direction on the invocation of State Secrets Privilege but the magnitude of the reversal and its exact formulation will be informed by a thorough but timely review of the current legal consequences of reversal as well as its consequences on national security. This seems to me to be a reasonable course of action. Of course, we must reserve judgment until we see what happens.

[thx1138]

Hey, Trish: Mike posted a link without commentary. How come you're berating him as you do me? I don't think photographing a bunch of transfer tubes drapped in the American flag should cause controversy. The reason bush stopped the practice is because he was worried the number of coffins would be found out to be larger than the official death count. I wonder if centcom continues the practice of stuffing the parts of several bodies into one transfer tube like they used to.

[trish]

Remember when I said occasionally posting one link or one story was one thing, but being a human robot was another? (See http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=42863&start=0 ) That's why.