Judge Skeptical of State Secrets-Asks If IMPEACHMENT Is Only Avenue Available To Curtail Bush (WAPO)

[kpete]

Judges Skeptical of State-Secrets Claim

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 16, 2007; Page A04

..........

“The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that’s the end of it. No cases. . . . The king can do no wrong,” said Judge Harry Pregerson, one of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who grilled administration lawyers at length over whether a pair of lawsuits against the government should go forward.

“At one point, (Deputy Solicitor General) Garre argued that courts are not the right forum for complaints about government surveillance, and that “other avenues” are available. “What is that? Impeachment?” Pregerson shot back.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081502434.html?hpid=sec-politics

[NotGivingUp]

1. I'm glad to hear SOMEONE knows what the right things are to be done. n/t

[myrna minx]

2. Bushco, since they've seized power, has kicked the Judiciary branch in the teeth.

It appears that, at least with this instance, the Judiciary branch is asserting their rightful Constitutional powers.

[Botany]

3. The temerity of those courts ...

.... trying to interpret the law. Don't they know that is the job
of the exuctive branch?

Judge Harry Pregerson see the danger and the damage that this group is doing.

[cascadiance]

4. Sounds like they are getting worn out from the secrecy of the Kontogiannis case too!

Which I believe they (or at least some of them) heard a couple of weeks ago.

You can see the emotions here of some very frustrated judges!

Like I said in another post, perhaps this is a call for the congress to at least put forth a bill that would clarify and limit where State Secrets Privilege can be used. Even if it gets voted down, fillibustered, vetoed, or "dismissed" via a signing statement, it would be good to get these guys on record for treasonous votes on such legislation if it is well crafted.

And some of you might wonder why we don't see this privilege applied in criminal cases like Scooter Libby's, or Kontogiannis's case, and instead they tried with very degrees of success other means of getting those proceedings secret (Libby tried the "graymail" tactic, etc. and didn't succeed). Some might postulate that that is the reason that Fitzgerald also didn't go after Armitage, despite folks all pointing fingers at him as the source of the Valerie Plame leak. Many suspect that he's quite tied into the CIA hierarchy, and that they could "easily" dismiss a case on graymail grounds if one was brought against him, and perhaps that would shut down more permanently any investigations as to what happened with Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald probably knows that is the administrations' strategy for pointing fingers at Armitage, knowing that with the way cases are being dismissed now, that Armitage would never have to go to trial, even if investigated and indicted. Thus Fitzgerald's like waiting for a broader set of evidence implicating others in the conspiracy before restarting the investigation.

The reason that State Secrets Privilege is only applied in civil suits (like Maher Arar and Sibel Edmonds and these cases), is that there's other laws that can and are viewed as what should be used in criminal cases to protect secure evidence, but which don't allow entire cases to be dismissed, which currently don't apply to civil cases. The ACLU's Anne Beeson noted this in the ACLU's forum right before the Supreme Courts sessions where they refused to hear Sibel Edmonds' case. We should make sure that similar laws exist for civil cases, to avoid this "state secrets" privilege that continues to be used at record pace to dismiss entire cases instead of just confined to dismissing certain evidence like it had been used in the past.

[hootinholler]

5. The abuse of classification to cover an illegal act needs to be made illegal...

With penalties of life without parole.

-Hoot

[Poiuyt]

6. The answer would be yes - Impeachment IS the only way to curtail Bush

[Wilms]

7. K&R

[mzmolly]

8. Good question.

We all await the answer.

[Senator]

9. Impeachment is the Only Avenue Toward Anything

Anything legal ends up in a pardon.

Anything legislative ends up negated by Rule By Signing Statement.

Anything electoral ends up being stolen.

Anything moral or patriotic ends up being rationalized away.

Only Impeachment ... is actually DOING anything.

It IS our positive agenda.

It is our ONLY moral, patriotic, (and legal, legislative, electoral, diplomatic...) option.

Get on with it.

----