home

State Secrets Defense Shields Administration From Accountability

by TChris

Accountability avoidance is habitual in the Bush administration. It therefore comes as no surprise to learn that the Justice Department has grown increasingly reliant on the "state secrets" defense to evade judicial review of alleged governmental misconduct.

The privilege has been asserted by the Justice Department more frequently under President Bush than under any of his predecessors -- in 19 cases, the same number as during the entire eight-year presidency of Ronald Reagan, the previous record holder, according to a count by William G. Weaver, a political scientist at the University of Texas at El Paso.

The examples are wide-ranging:

Under Mr. Bush, the secrets privilege has been used to block a lawsuit by a translator at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Sibel Edmonds, who was fired after accusing colleagues of security breaches; to stop a discrimination lawsuit filed by Jeffrey Sterling, a Farsi-speaking, African-American officer at the Central Intelligence Agency; and to derail a patent claim involving a coupler for fiber-optic cable, evidently to guard technical details of government eavesdropping.

The defense is pending in this lawsuit challenging the NSA's domestic spying program.

When the government says, "Judge, if we talk about this, we'll jeopardize national security," it usually wins. But who knows if those assertions are truthful? The government wouldn't lie to a court, you say?

But critics of the use of the privilege point out that officials sometimes exaggerate the sensitivities at risk. In fact, documents from the 1953 case that defined the modern privilege, United States v. Reynolds, have been declassified in recent years and suggest that Air Force officials misled the court.

An accident report on a B-29 bomber crash in 1948 was withheld because the Air Force said it included technical details about sensitive intelligence equipment and missions, but it turned out to contain no such information, said Wilson M. Brown III, a lawyer in Philadelphia who represented survivors of those who died in the crash in recent litigation.

"The facts the Supreme Court was relying on in Reynolds were false," Mr. Brown said in an interview. "It shows that if the government is not truthful, plaintiffs will lose and there's very little chance to straighten it out."

< Sopranos Season Six Finale | Mule Racing News >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: State Secrets Defense Shields Administration F (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 09:43:07 PM EST
    perhaps i'm being naive' here, but it would seem prudent jurisprudence to, at minimum, require a bit more from the govt asserting this claim, than merely their word that it's so. is there commonly some requirement that the agency in question produce redacted docs, to support their overall claim of "national security issues"? while you obviously don't want state secrets being bounced around the ether like angelina jolie rumors, you also don't want to give the govt carte blanche to use this as a means of subverting every suit brought against it. given this administration's penchant for classifying pretty much everything "top secret", including data previously declassified and already in the public domain, not requiring at least minimal proof of the claim is a dangerous precedent to set.

    Re: State Secrets Defense Shields Administration F (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 04, 2006 at 09:48:25 PM EST
    Makes you wonder about how much they knew about the thing that justified all this secrecy: 9/11. I guess that is secret too.

    Another way to live above the law...of course they are gonna exploit it as often as possible.

    Re: State Secrets Defense Shields Administration F (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 12:45:13 AM EST
    Squeaky: Makes you wonder about how much they knew about the thing that justified all this secrecy: 9/11. Speculation on how much they knew about 9/11 would get very uncomfortable for Bush:
    Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush's brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8-9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection. more...


    Re: State Secrets Defense Shields Administration F (none / 0) (#5)
    by Wes on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 03:12:34 AM EST
    Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation : Less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated. More here and here....

    Re: State Secrets Defense Shields Administration F (none / 0) (#6)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:10:09 AM EST
    Accountability? That's not a real word, is it? Maybe you mean accounting, there's plenty of those number crunchers. Or maybe it's all just a bunch of bleeding-heart, terrorist loving, dope smoking, granola eating, anti-war, bio-fuel powered, pro-peace, compost pile liberal hoo-ha.

    Re: State Secrets Defense Shields Administration F (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:32:37 AM EST
    I dont know about that but I may be borrowing that "old man Dipsy-Doodle" for other contexts from now on Dadler.

    Re: State Secrets Defense Shields Administration F (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 11:38:47 AM EST
    You certainly have my permission.

    Re: State Secrets Defense Shields Administration F (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 01:13:23 PM EST
    Wow! Wes posted a long film (1hr 20m) debunking the status quo regarding 9/11. If you have the time to watch it is worthwhile. It even calls into question, very convincingly, OBL's Nov 01 taped confession. Why is this administration so secretive? Hard to conclude anything other than that they have much to hide. Here it is again for those interested. link

    Re: State Secrets Defense Shields Administration F (none / 0) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Mon Jun 05, 2006 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    Dadler, You forgot latte drinking...