Challenges Brew Over 'State Secrets'

AP via SFGate ^ | 11/26/7 | PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer

[SmithL]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In federal courts and on Capitol Hill, challenges are brewing to a key legal strategy President Bush is using to protect a secret surveillance program that monitors phone calls and e-mails inside the United States.

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.

Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee's senior Republican, believes the White House has gone too far in invoking state secrets to halt civil lawsuits.

"We have the authority to define the state secrets doctrine," Specter says. "I don't think that the simple assertion of state secrets ought to be the end of the matter."

Specter, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and others are working on legislation that would direct federal judges to review the president's state secrets claims and allow cases with merit to go forward.

Practices among judges vary. Some accept state secrets claims outright, dismissing cases on the government's word. Others read the privileged information and decide for themselves, but almost invariably side with the government, according to legal scholars.

[Old Sarge]

Only because it’s Bush, are they upset about this. If it were She Who Must not Be Named, they wouldn’t DARE say anything. They said nothing abour Carnivore or Echelon all the while She was in power.

The hypocrisy is thicker than atmospehere.

But then, they are the majority.

[vigilence]

Congress can, indeed, pass laws with regard to state secrets but, in the final analysis, they are only as good as the Supreme Court acknowledges. If the law has not passed judicial review it has the same status as Presidential claims/interpretations. And the Court has generally sided with the President in claims of National Defense.

[BGHater]

They can simply tell the SC not hear cases on State secrets. End of story.

[NTHockey]

“Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee’s senior Republican, believes the White House has gone too far in invoking state secrets to halt civil lawsuits.

“We have the authority to define the state secrets doctrine,” Specter says. “I don’t think that the simple assertion of state secrets ought to be the end of the matter.”

Specter, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and others are working on legislation that would direct federal judges to review the president’s state secrets claims and allow cases with merit to go forward. “

Specter and Kennedy - anytime these two get together, America gets screwed.