Senate Judiciary Panel's Bill Would Set Limits for State Secrets Privilege (Sibel Edmonds)

[Hissyspit]

Source: CQ Politics

CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION – LEGAL AFFAIRS
Corrected March 11, 2008 – 3:18 a.m.

Senate Judiciary Panel’s Bill Would Set Limits for State Secrets Privilege
By Keith Perine, CQ Staff

Senior lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee are taking direct aim at a powerful legal doctrine that President Bush frequently uses to defend his executive powers from judicial review. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass., has introduced legislation to set new parameters around the state secrets privilege, which the administration has employed to stymie lawsuits contesting warrantless surveillance of American citizens and the treatment of detainees held by the U.S. government.

The bill is just one front in a legal and political struggle over the proper balance of power among the branches of government. The Bush administration has sought to expand executive power, in part by arguing that the president, as commander in chief, has broad authority in a time of war. But Kennedy, in introducing the bill (S 2533), said the state secrets privilege “is impairing the ability of Congress and the judiciary to perform their constitutional duty to check executive power.”

The committee is scheduled to consider the bill March 13. Chairman Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt., ranking member Arlen Specter , R-Pa., cosponsored the measure. Republicans will likely bottle up the bill in the full Senate, but the measure provides a high-profile forum for debate of the larger issues and serves as a potential marker for the 111th Congress in circumscribing the privilege after Bush leaves office.

- snip -

The administration has been aggressive in asserting the privilege. In May 2006, a federal judge cited the privilege in dismissing a lawsuit by Khaled El-Masri, a German citizen, against government officials. The suit alleged El-Masri was illegally seized in Macedonia and detained in a secret prison in Afghanistan. The government employed the privilege in 2004 to thwart a lawsuit by Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator. Edmonds alleged she was fired because she blew the whistle on bureau misconduct.

Read more: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002684026

[cascadiance]

1. Woops, you just beat me to the punch...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3220539

[babylonsister]

2. Rec'd! I hope this goes somewhere. nt

[Hissyspit]

3. .

[Hissyspit]

4. .

[Tippy]

5. First steps...Baby steps...but we are still walking still moving forward....

Sure the rethugs will try to stop this bill from going forward but sooner or later more Democrats will stand to be counted if we keep the pressure on them....call and or right your representative today and every day and make it a point and tell them what you want....I want my country back and this is a start.....

[pberq]

6. Kick & Nominated

[HCE SuiGeneris]

7. "Bring it on"

K & R

[cascadiance]

8. Senate Judiciary Panel’s Bill Would Set Limits for State Secrets Privilege

Source: CQ Politics

CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION – LEGAL AFFAIRS
Corrected March 11, 2008 – 3:18 a.m.

By Keith Perine, CQ Staff

Senior lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary Committee are taking direct aim at a powerful legal doctrine that President Bush frequently uses to defend his executive powers from judicial review.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy , D-Mass., has introduced legislation to set new parameters around the state secrets privilege, which the administration has employed to stymie lawsuits contesting warrantless surveillance of American citizens and the treatment of detainees held by the U.S. government.

...

The government employed the privilege in 2004 to thwart a lawsuit by Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator. Edmonds alleged she was fired because she blew the whistle on bureau misconduct.

...

Specifically, the legislation would require the government to submit affidavits explaining its invocation of the privilege, including an unclassified public version.

Judges would have enhanced abilities to privately review the data the government claims is too sensitive to release, rather than just review summaries provided by the executive branch. They would also have the power to appoint special masters with relevant expertise and security clearances to help them handle sensitive evidence.

Read more: http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000002684026

---

Looks like at least we'll get some C-SPAN air time covering what damage State Secrets Privilege is doing to our legal processes now and contributing to the making of "King George". Hope it helps wake people up, even if it doesn't have much chance in getting signed into law.

[annabanana]

9. There will be publicity, yes. But the logjam Repugs will keep it bottled up.. .n/t

[jody]

10. If it passes, * will veto it, and the veto will be sustained. n/t

[Donnachaidh]

11. Ted -- you should have introduced this a few YEARS back, yes?

And I'm not buying the *better late than never* answer. Seems like the smell of election time is the only thing to rouse some of the most *dug-in* in the Senate. :sarcasm:

[trthnd4jstc]

13. I agree.

Unfortunately, many in power, in our party, perform what is safe or expedient. I think it is a flaw in our system. I would like to see a third constitutional convention in order to make a more perfect union!

[trthnd4jstc]

12. Can any lawyers answer this one?

After BushCo leave office, considering all of the abuses of our Constitution, and laws, can any of these criminals be charged? I believe, when an injustice this extreme has happened, it is necessary for the sake of Humanity to make sure the war criminals are prosecuted.