blog.wired.com — The federal government intends to invoke the rarely used "State Secrets Privilege" The State Secrets Privilege is a vestige from English common law that lets the executive branch step into a civil lawsuit and have it dismissed if the case might reveal information that puts national security at risk.
Apr 29, 2006 View in Crawl 4
diddywolfApr 29, 2006
*giggles at the 'Brazil' referance that no one else got* I feel special :-pBut yeah... that sucks...
musicmantrsApr 29, 2006
ROFL, please link to this "fact" from some website with some credit. This is hilarious that you say this then dont back it up then people will pick it up as fact. Back it up or dont post
mcgimpusApr 29, 2006
Governments have always had the prerogative to protect information related to national security programs governmental departments etc. from public scrutiny not because they necessarily don't think the citizens themselves would be a problem, but rather that in releasing said information publicly the nation's enemies will get the same information about whatever is being released due to our open system. Thus allowing them to information necessary to change their tactics thus making the program as it's currently constituted useless assuming it is found legal assuming the case is hard.The executive branch and many members of Congress as I understand it, from both sides of the aisle mind you. Believe that the program has some merits even if individuals feel it is flawed or needs additional oversight from the statements I've heard from congressional members that have been fully briefed on the program. As I understand the workings of the legal system and the separation of powers. The judiciary still gets a say in whether or not the executive branch's claim of national security is valid because in order to claim such a thing they have to convince the members of the judiciary that in fact allowing the case to go forward would (which by default would release the information the government feel should remain classified to the public) would in fact damage national security. And as I understand the wiretapping issue none of the groups who seek information about it have yet prove that the law has in fact been violated. Only that they suspect there have been because they don't know for sure. If there was prove that the law had in fact been violated. I'm sure those who wish to impeach the president as revenge for Clinton's impeachment as well as those who are interested in maintaining the rule of law in this country, would be able to form an impeachment coalition which in spite of the fact that Republicans currently technically controlling both houses, would be able to begin impeachment proceedings. As of yet this has not happened therefore the debate remains more or less than academic arguments over the powers of the executive branch versus the legislative.
tzahiApr 30, 2006
Just goes to prove that america is no longer free. Combine it with net neutrality and dozens of free speech issues and you get the first days of a police state. Suprisingly, this is what the terrorists of 9/11 wanted and american leaders are playing into their hands.
16x9Apr 30, 2006
> pabster wrote: "Such a shame so many of our tax dollars are wasted on pathetic liberal organizations like the EFF and ACLU. Sometimes, you have to wonder whose side they are on..."What are you talking about? No public tax money goes to support the ACLU or the EFF.
curtissthompsonMay 5, 2006
I do not disagree with the points many of you have brought to attention, they are accurate, I'm just merely stating that this isn't something new, and the only difference this time, is that people refuse to stand for it, as it is from a president who continually does things such as this, without the American people's best interests at hand. This is information that sadly very few people know, yet should know. Discussions such as these and the information brought out in them are the kinds of civil debates people should be having over the current events relating to our present government in the U.S., if we ever wish to change things for ourselves, and for our nation's (and consequently the world's) future.
n00854180tMay 6, 2006
ACMoxon, I added you to my friends' list. Digg has not a PM system that I'm aware of, but if you're interested I'd be willing to further discussion.
nekoJul 15, 2006
Really, this just PROVES something dodgy is going on.After all, if they have nothing to hide, why are they vetoing the investigation? The innocent have nothing to fear...
nekoJul 15, 2006
Maybe you -are- voting, but the numbers aren't adding up somewhere along the way. Who would know?