The Senate trying tonight to reign in Bush administration abuse of the idea of the state secret. How? Well, it's a secret....
For those in power, the obvious advantage of keeping people in fear is that they are less likely to question what you then do to them purportedly in the name of their own security. The hidden but perhaps greater advantage is that if any of them do ask you what you're doing, you can reply "can't tell you," because that could compromise your security. Thus, has the Bush administration not only eavesdropped illegally on Americans but it also hidden behind the state's secret claim when its illegal wiretaps have been challenged in court. Our fourth story tonight, a top Republican is teaming up with no less than Senator Ted Kennedy to strip Mr. Bush of that protection. The Associated Press reporting that Republican Senator Arlen Specter is working on legislation to change the current system in which civil lawsuits against the Bush administration are routinely killed because the administration claims the suits would expose state secrets. Under Kennedy and Specter's proposed law, judges in these cases would be instructed to evaluate the administration's claim for secrecy rather than just accept it at face value as many, if not most do now.
The bill may end up as part of the Senate's Wiretapping Law, due for a vote next month after which the president will sign it and monkeys will fly out of his
butt....
Am I wrong about this? I mean, if you stripped the politics away somehow from this and you asked every American about this topic, wouldn't they assume that this already was a law, that the government has to make at least some token effort to justify acting in secret against its own citizens?"
They stated in Reynolds expected judges to try to minimize the scope of the privilege. But, today, the privilege is used primarily not to keep something secret but to keep something from being used against the government....
The court had the report. I had the report. The government had the report.
But what the government didn't want is for the report to actually be used to prove that they're lying. And we've seen that in case after case. I was in a courtroom when people laughed when the government counsel argued that they could use the privilege to claim a secret something that was published on the cover of the "New York Times." That's how grotesque the privilege has become.
I have been in cases where the government was most clearly and certainly lying to the court. And the court did nothing to look at whether that allegation was true. And I think that's this Congressional action is so need here. You know, Reynolds itself, the original case was built on a lie. It was, at the time, people believed the Air Force had lied to the court. Many years later, the families showed it was a lie. And a few years ago, went back to the Supreme Court and said, look, here is the proof that you base this decision on a false representation by the government and the Supreme Court refused to re-examine the case."
Congressional leaders, GOP for political survival, and Democrats because they don't want to slow down the government with impeachment, has a reason to ignore this existing law as Olbermann asked "With or without this new law, suppose one of the anti-wiretapping civil lawsuits succeeds - what does that legal victory actually mean then in terms of stopping the government or punishing Alberto Gonzales or any other top officials responsible for this?"
To which Turley replied "Well, it could mean a lot. And that's one of the reasons there's lot of people, both Democrats and Republicans don't want to see it happen. They don't want a court to say that the president did something that is a federal crime. That's why they're trying to get all these cases thrown out of court because it is rather clear that what the president ordered was a federal crime- clearly defined in Federal Law. But that causes a problem. Because many of the Democratic leaders and Republican leaders have promised each other that they would not start impeachment proceedings. But when a federal judge says the president committed a crime, it's pretty darn hard to ignore that."
What could happen? "Keith, if I could get one wish granted, it would probably be this - that we could put this genie back in the bottle in terms of the privilege and allow citizens to sue their government to prove things like crimes. If you look back at history, most of the great reforms were not brought forth by Congress or presidents. They were brought forth by citizens standing up to the government. The privilege is now a tool used to protect the government from its own crimes. And that's what we need to work on."
The article "The Trial" meets "Alice in Wonderland" at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_winston__070816__22the_trial_22_meets__22a.htm
deals with how lawyers were inadvertently given information by the US government, but because it was classified they couldn't use notes or anything from the information, except that which came from their memories, which is similar to what Turley and Olbermann were discussing regarding how big bro 43 has destroyed our legal system and even though we know something is badly broken, there seems to be no hope of remedying it.
Big bro 43 has run out of steam or drugs that can enhance his sub-normal intelligence! He never was into "intellectual curiosity", but if his handlers gave him the phonetic spelling of words he could sound it out as any 3 year old is expected to do! Now he's allegedly deeply involved with reviving the Middle East peace process which he left to languish for his entire term until now, when it is too late. According to a VIDEO CLIP he said "The representatives of the government of state of Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization represented respectively by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas in his capacity as chairman of the PLO Executive Committee."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
Olbermann succinctly said "Elmo was not there. That would be Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President Mahmoud Abbas he's talking about. Mark Mecwer and Sammy Soser. But why remember names when the only reason for being there was to secure a photo opportunity for posterity though incredibly, Mr. Bush even needed help to do that properly."
He is so vapid you get the idea that a strong wind would disperse him throughout the universe. His handlers probably thought he knew where to pose the group for
the inevitable photo-op, which really was the entire point of the farce but,
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUSH: Congratulations for your strong leadership.
Appreciate it.
(APPLAUSE)
PRIME MINISTER EHUD OLMERT: If we move from the podium they will see us shaking hands."
Big bro 43 is a pathetic pile of "expletive deleted"! They should have put a "Mission Accomplished" banner up there. Then he'd know where to stand!
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
