The Secret Life of America

Hm. This does sound like something the Senate and the courts should be looking at.

Under grilling from lawmakers and attack by lawsuits alleging Bush authorized the illegal wiretapping of Americans, the White House has invoked a legal defense known as the "state secrets" doctrine — a claim that the president has inherent and unchecked power to shield national security information from disclosure, either to plaintiffs in court or to congressional overseers.

The principle was established a half-century ago when, ruling in a wrongful-death case brought by the widows of civilians killed in a military plane crash, the Supreme Court upheld the Air Force's refusal to provide an accident report to the plaintiffs. The government contended releasing the document would compromise information about a secret mission and intelligence equipment.

And now it's used to shield... everything the executive wants, basically. Jacob Sullum was on this more than a year ago. Radley Balko noticed some "state secret" chicanery just a month ago. It'd be good to get '08 candidates on the record about this.

Headline explained here.

Comments

x,y | November 27, 2007, 3:14pm | #

Funny, I thought the headline reference was to that show on the Food Network with Mark Summers.

Alice Bowie | November 27, 2007, 3:16pm | #

GW Bush wants to use the state secrets doctrine b-cause he's afraid the world might find out that he favors ball-gages, featured kittie-masks, and butt plugs....like the rest of the republican party.

Chester | November 27, 2007, 3:20pm | #

"GW Bush wants to use the state secrets doctrine b-cause he's afraid the world might find out that he favors ball-gages, featured kittie-masks, and butt plugs....like the rest of the republican party."

Wow! A Weigel groupie speaks!

Angela | November 27, 2007, 3:23pm | #

The principle (national security) was used to hide negligence from the start.
From that fine organization: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3145

The case was history, or so it seemed. But after the passage of several decades, there has been an astonishing development. In 2000, Judith Palya Loether, the daughter of one of the civilian engineers, discovered on the Internet that the long-secret report had been declassified. She ordered a copy and was outraged to learn that it contained no military secrets. But there was incriminating evidence showing government negligence. According to the report, the crash was most likely caused by an engine fire. Contrary to Air Force directives, a protective shield designed to prevent engine overheating had not been installed. The report concluded: "The aircraft is not considered to have been safe for flight."

At least we can be sure the same principle is being followed currently.

Guy Montag | November 27, 2007, 3:27pm | #

Yep, right, yea. The only things presented to the Congress or to the public, ever, are things that nobody could object to.

Yea, that's the ticket.

J sub D | November 27, 2007, 3:29pm | #

It is about time the congress and judiciary grew some testicles and challenged the Bush administration on this "state secrets" crap. Does anybody believe this administration about these security claims? Does anybody believe this administration about anything?

Hell, if GWB said the sun came up this morning, I'd go outside to confirm.

Pro Libertate | November 27, 2007, 3:35pm | #

Matt Welch is taking over as Reason E-in-C? Does he get the leather jacket?

Kwix | November 27, 2007, 3:36pm | #

GW Bush wants to use the state secrets doctrine b-cause he's afraid the world might find out that he favors ball-gages, featured kittie-masks, and butt plugs....like the rest of the republican party.

I'm not sure what a "featured kittie-mask" is, but it sounds like you are saying that Republicans are perverts. Please don't. You insult the good name of perverts everywhere.

SugarFree | November 27, 2007, 3:44pm | #

I'm not sure what a "featured kittie-mask" is

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with keeping 'ginas clean. Thank god.

Gina | November 27, 2007, 3:47pm | #

I don't need a kitty mask, thank you very much.

Reinmoose | November 27, 2007, 3:47pm | #

I'm not sure what a "featured kittie-mask" is

Is it maybe something like a merkin?

Pro Libertate | November 27, 2007, 3:49pm | #

Viking Moose would know. I invoke his presence.

TLB | November 27, 2007, 4:03pm | #

It'd be good to get '08 candidates on the record about this.

Yeah, it'd be great if the MSM would do their job. However, while we're waiting for ice to form in hell, let me suggest that Reason could do a public service by suggesting to their readers that they:

1. Go to campaign apperances.
2. Ask real questions.
3. Upload the response to Youtube.

Alternatively, Reason could get behind this plan. Producing one of those in a one-step-above-PublicAccessTV-style fashion and then uploading a transcript and the video to Youtube wouldn't cost that much money, and it's something that the second-tier candidates might agree to.

So, let's see if Reason gets behind either plan.

Kwix | November 27, 2007, 4:16pm | #

So, let's see if Reason gets behind either plan.

Or you could, you know, promote it on your blog.

New World Dan | November 27, 2007, 4:22pm | #

The state secrets defense should result in a default judgement for the plaintiffs.

Lord Acton | November 27, 2007, 4:28pm | #

Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice;
nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.

Alice Bowie | November 27, 2007, 4:41pm | #

It's a Mask...with cat whiskers and features

Taktix® | November 27, 2007, 4:46pm | #

It's a Mask...with cat whiskers and features

What, like furries?

ChrisO | November 27, 2007, 4:46pm | #

The case was history, or so it seemed. But after the passage of several decades, there has been an astonishing development. In 2000, Judith Palya Loether, the daughter of one of the civilian engineers, discovered on the Internet that the long-secret report had been declassified. She ordered a copy and was outraged to learn that it contained no military secrets. But there was incriminating evidence showing government negligence. According to the report, the crash was most likely caused by an engine fire. Contrary to Air Force directives, a protective shield designed to prevent engine overheating had not been installed. The report concluded: "The aircraft is not considered to have been safe for flight."

Interesting. Normally, that would be grounds under Rule 60 of the federal procedural rules to reopen the litigation, since the U.S. Govt. committed fraud on the court. I participated in a case like this years ago, where the issue was a lost government record. In that case, there was no reopening (in part) because the government archivists made an unintentional mistake. But where the government lies to the court, that's another matter altogether.

I'm sure the courts would concoct some bullshit reason to keep the case from being reopened.

mike | November 27, 2007, 4:58pm | #

I agree with New World Dan. This defense is the equivalent of saying "I have an alibi, but I can't tell you what it is or my marriage will be ruined."

Dogzilla | November 27, 2007, 5:06pm | #

David W--
Headlines, like jokes, should never be explained.
You either get them or you don't.

TLB | November 27, 2007, 5:08pm | #

Kwix: thanks for your valued input. I have indeed promoted it "chez mois", as well as elsewhere. However, unfortunately, I don't yet get as many visitors as Reason.

And, there's no reason why Reason can't promote either plan. I only have to be linked as the inspiration once, and then Reason can take the idea and run with it. (If they try to put their thumb on the scale I will, of course, denounce that.)

And, both are very good ideas that would change the presidential race as well as showing up the MSM. And, about the only valid reason not to promote either plan is due to partisan fears, the fear that the other side would use the same techniques against those on their side.

Maybe Nick Gillespie could make either one of these his first official acts.

J sub D | November 27, 2007, 5:27pm | #

It's a Mask...with cat whiskers and features

I had a horrifying vision after reading this. Imagine looking at this the next time your having sex.

BakedPenguin | November 27, 2007, 6:14pm | #

J sub D - you're too pessimistic, if that's the right word. Think about looking at this instead. (no nudity, but possibly NSFW)

J sub D | November 27, 2007, 6:36pm | #

Mr. B. Penguin -

Well I could go with that. Ya really think Halle Barry would hook up with me?

BakedPenguin | November 27, 2007, 6:44pm | #

J sub D - If we stop trying to obtain wonderful things just because they seem impossible to reach, we might as well give up being libertarian.

J sub D | November 27, 2007, 6:52pm | #

Mr. B. Penguin -
Damned good point.

Stevo Darkly | November 28, 2007, 2:52am | #

I'm not sure what a "featured kittie-mask" is

"Is it maybe something like a merkin?"

Is it a burkha for the workin's where your gherkin should be lurkin'?

Jake Boone | November 28, 2007, 9:10am | #

I'm snerkin'.

Stevo Darkly | November 28, 2007, 3:41pm | #

I really should be workin', but I guess I'm kinda shirkin'. But I'm really sleepy, so I'll set the coffee perkin'.