Calling A Halt To Bush's State Secrets Privilege Scam
It's about time.
As IPS News reports, "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.
"The new bill would provide a mechanism for protecting legitimate secrets while also permitting civil litigation to proceed.
"Under the proposed measure, when the government claims the state secrets privilege, it will be required to submit an affidavit explaining why the information sought should remain secret. If the court agrees that certain evidence is privileged, it must order the government to produce unclassified or blacked-out versions of the sensitive information if doing so would not harm national security.
"Judges would be authorised to rule against the government if it refuses to produce this documentation.
"However, Gabor Rona, international legal director of the advocacy group Human Rights First, told IPS, "When courts dismiss cases alleging human rights violations on state secrets grounds, and leave no alternative for redress, the U.S. is in violation of its obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to provide a remedy."
"The privilege was first recognised by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953, in a case later shown to have been bogus. It has been asserted since then by every U.S. administration, Republican and Democratic. But the Bush administration has increased its use dramatically. It has raised the privilege in over 25 percent more cases each year than previous administrations, and has sought dismissal in more than 90 percent of cases.
"The absence of such rules has resulted in the dismissal of a number of high-profile lawsuits against the government. For example:
"A German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, complained to the court that he was kidnapped, illegally detained and abused by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a case of "extraordinary rendition." His suit was dismissed because he would not be able to make his case except by using "privileged evidence" that exposed CIA practices -- and the CIA could not defend itself against the allegations 'without using privileged evidence.'
"Legal scholars and civil rights advocates have been outspoken against the Bush administration's use of the state secrets privilege as a shield behind which it can conceal virtually any 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.'
"He added, 'The current Supreme Court is so solicitous of presidential power that there is absolutely no prospect of real reform initiated by the current judiciary. If there is to be change, it will have to be at the initiative of Congress.' "
And what was the original basis for the State Secrets Privilege that Bush has abused so many times?
More than fifty years ago widows of civilian engineers who died in an Air Force plane crash wanted the official accident report about the cause of the deadly crash.
As reported in an LA Times (via CommonDreams) article last year, "An assistant U.S. attorney balked, arguing that the report could not be released without seriously hampering national security. He presented Air Force affidavits that said the plane was 'engaged in a highly secret mission' and 'carried confidential equipment.'
Even though the federal judge didn't buy the excuse and ruled in favor of the widows as did the appellate court which upheld the judge's ruling, as the article continues, "when the matter came before the U.S. Supreme Court, it reversed the lower courts, for the first time formally recognizing a state secrets privilege in the landmark ruling U.S. vs. Reynolds.
"Declassified half a century later, the disputed B-29 accident report turned out to tell a tale of military negligence — maintenance failures, missing heat shields, cockpit confusion — not one of national security secrets about a radar guidance system. The government, it seems, was seeking to cover its embarrassment and hide its mistakes, not to protect the country’s security."(Underline added.)
Deja vu all over again. This is why Bush and his administration flunkies have invoked state secrets privilege: to cover up the mistakes, crimes and misdemeanors committed by them.
The LA Times states, "Between 1953 and 1976, the government invoked the privilege in only five cases; between 1977 and 2001, in 59 cases. In the last six years, the Bush administration has invoked it 39 times, according to the best available count — or more than six times every year."
Bush's politicized Justice Department under its Bushite loyalist attorneys general protect the monarch with state secrets mumbo jumbo.
The article continues, "On Aug. 15, before an overflow crowd at the federal courthouse at 7th and Mission in San Francisco, three judges from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals listened to lawyers argue whether the once-obscure “state secrets privilege” gives the government an absolute right to withhold documents, bury evidence and block lawsuits.
"The government claimed the privilege in connection with two cases challenging the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance programs, including its controversial warrantless wiretapping operation. Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, arguing for the government, maintained that the cases should be dismissed instantly, no questions asked, because a trial would endanger national security. Presenting any evidence in a courtroom, he said, would put the country at 'exceptionally grave harm.'
"When it comes to national security, Garre said, judges must give the executive branch the 'utmost deference.'
"After listening to such claims for a while, the senior judge on the appellate panel, Harry Pregerson, asked Garre whether the state secrets privilege meant that the courts must simply 'rubber stamp' the decisions of the executive. 'The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that’s the end of it,' Pregerson said. 'The king can do no wrong.'
Enough of Bush's state secrets privilege scam. That privilege, begun more than half a century ago, was based on a lie aka cover up, just like Bush's presidency and policies are based on lies from his 2000 partisan Supreme Court coronation to the pre-emptive, illegal Iraq invasion and occupation.
And impeachment is still off the table.
As IPS News reports, "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.
"The new bill would provide a mechanism for protecting legitimate secrets while also permitting civil litigation to proceed.
"Under the proposed measure, when the government claims the state secrets privilege, it will be required to submit an affidavit explaining why the information sought should remain secret. If the court agrees that certain evidence is privileged, it must order the government to produce unclassified or blacked-out versions of the sensitive information if doing so would not harm national security.
"Judges would be authorised to rule against the government if it refuses to produce this documentation.
"However, Gabor Rona, international legal director of the advocacy group Human Rights First, told IPS, "When courts dismiss cases alleging human rights violations on state secrets grounds, and leave no alternative for redress, the U.S. is in violation of its obligation under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to provide a remedy."
"The privilege was first recognised by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953, in a case later shown to have been bogus. It has been asserted since then by every U.S. administration, Republican and Democratic. But the Bush administration has increased its use dramatically. It has raised the privilege in over 25 percent more cases each year than previous administrations, and has sought dismissal in more than 90 percent of cases.
"The absence of such rules has resulted in the dismissal of a number of high-profile lawsuits against the government. For example:
"A German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, complained to the court that he was kidnapped, illegally detained and abused by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a case of "extraordinary rendition." His suit was dismissed because he would not be able to make his case except by using "privileged evidence" that exposed CIA practices -- and the CIA could not defend itself against the allegations 'without using privileged evidence.'
"Legal scholars and civil rights advocates have been outspoken against the Bush administration's use of the state secrets privilege as a shield behind which it can conceal virtually any 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.'
"He added, 'The current Supreme Court is so solicitous of presidential power that there is absolutely no prospect of real reform initiated by the current judiciary. If there is to be change, it will have to be at the initiative of Congress.' "
And what was the original basis for the State Secrets Privilege that Bush has abused so many times?
More than fifty years ago widows of civilian engineers who died in an Air Force plane crash wanted the official accident report about the cause of the deadly crash.
As reported in an LA Times (via CommonDreams) article last year, "An assistant U.S. attorney balked, arguing that the report could not be released without seriously hampering national security. He presented Air Force affidavits that said the plane was 'engaged in a highly secret mission' and 'carried confidential equipment.'
Even though the federal judge didn't buy the excuse and ruled in favor of the widows as did the appellate court which upheld the judge's ruling, as the article continues, "when the matter came before the U.S. Supreme Court, it reversed the lower courts, for the first time formally recognizing a state secrets privilege in the landmark ruling U.S. vs. Reynolds.
"Declassified half a century later, the disputed B-29 accident report turned out to tell a tale of military negligence — maintenance failures, missing heat shields, cockpit confusion — not one of national security secrets about a radar guidance system. The government, it seems, was seeking to cover its embarrassment and hide its mistakes, not to protect the country’s security."(Underline added.)
Deja vu all over again. This is why Bush and his administration flunkies have invoked state secrets privilege: to cover up the mistakes, crimes and misdemeanors committed by them.
The LA Times states, "Between 1953 and 1976, the government invoked the privilege in only five cases; between 1977 and 2001, in 59 cases. In the last six years, the Bush administration has invoked it 39 times, according to the best available count — or more than six times every year."
Bush's politicized Justice Department under its Bushite loyalist attorneys general protect the monarch with state secrets mumbo jumbo.
The article continues, "On Aug. 15, before an overflow crowd at the federal courthouse at 7th and Mission in San Francisco, three judges from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals listened to lawyers argue whether the once-obscure “state secrets privilege” gives the government an absolute right to withhold documents, bury evidence and block lawsuits.
"The government claimed the privilege in connection with two cases challenging the Bush administration’s domestic surveillance programs, including its controversial warrantless wiretapping operation. Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, arguing for the government, maintained that the cases should be dismissed instantly, no questions asked, because a trial would endanger national security. Presenting any evidence in a courtroom, he said, would put the country at 'exceptionally grave harm.'
"When it comes to national security, Garre said, judges must give the executive branch the 'utmost deference.'
"After listening to such claims for a while, the senior judge on the appellate panel, Harry Pregerson, asked Garre whether the state secrets privilege meant that the courts must simply 'rubber stamp' the decisions of the executive. 'The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that’s the end of it,' Pregerson said. 'The king can do no wrong.'
Enough of Bush's state secrets privilege scam. That privilege, begun more than half a century ago, was based on a lie aka cover up, just like Bush's presidency and policies are based on lies from his 2000 partisan Supreme Court coronation to the pre-emptive, illegal Iraq invasion and occupation.
And impeachment is still off the table.
Comments