Help Limit the "State Secrets" Privilege - Page 2

Help Limit the "State Secrets" Privilege

This is a discussion on Help Limit the "State Secrets" Privilege within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by SelfDefense I don't mean to spoil a good rant but exactly what was classified information that was kept secret with WHitewater. If ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 32

Thread: Help Limit the "State Secrets" Privilege

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array morintp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    1,233
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I don't mean to spoil a good rant but exactly what was classified information that was kept secret with WHitewater. If I recall correctly, Whtewater was thoroughly investigated throgh open records and depositions. All legal, none of it secret. The same can be said for every one of your examples except for what you call 'extraordinary rendition.' Haliburton? That used to be the liberal mantra when, in fact, Haliburton efficiently did the rebuilding tasks that they rightly won by contract. No secret there, either.
    I don't think I mentioned classified information for those examples. They are just examples of things the last two administrations have done that show they don't always do the "right" thing. WRT Halliburton, I'm talking about the "no bid" contracts they received. It's good to have a former board member as vice president.

    Just curious, but what do you think 'their guy' (I assume you mean President Bush) did wrong and exactly why do you think he is not accountable?
    Don't assume. I mean the blind devotion to party. Some of it is directed at the Clinton (Democrat) supporters that see nothing wrong with anything he did/does and see no good from Bush (Republicans). The rest is for the Bush (Republican) supporters that see nothing wrong with anything he did/does and see no good from Clinton (Democrats).

    Why do you think the Administration is the sole arbiter of right and wrong? Mostly, right and wrong is obvious from a moral standpoint and we always have that pesky Constitution along with the laws of the land to help with those scenarios that might be questionable.

    There is a very good reason that classified information is classified. And, no, the people do not have a right to know.
    There is also some information that has no good reason being classified except that keeping it a "state secret" keeps someone's butt out of jail. My point is, who decides? The person that stands to face charges of supporting terrorism if the tapes of CIA agents torturing an innocent man see the light of day?


  2. #17
    VIP Member
    Array nn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    7,120
    If Kennedy and Spector want it, I'm against it.
    I believe in keeping classified material classified.
    We are killing ourselves telling the enemy our secrets.

  3. #18
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by morintp View Post
    I don't think I mentioned classified information for those examples. They are just examples of things the last two administrations have done that show they don't always do the "right" thing. WRT Halliburton, I'm talking about the "no bid" contracts they received. It's good to have a former board member as vice president.
    It is fascinating that the public only became aware of no bid contracts through the derisive tone of the main stream media. The fact is that no bid contracts are nothing new, they are quite common, and they save the American people money.

    Many people do not realize that the government contracts for bids. That is, they pay contractors for proposals, schedules and costs. Those proposals are reviewed and the field of contractors is thinned. Further design reviews and costs (the expense paid for by the government) are provided for those remaining companies in competition for the contract. The ultimate contract winner is not necessarily the lowest cost but the company that can solve the problem at the lowest cost.

    When it is clear the one company has the experience, the success, and the technology to solve the problem then the government awards 'no bid' contracts. Why? Because every other competitor will not be chosen. Should we have a series of golf tournaments among DC members to see who should represent the US in the Ryder Cup or should we select Tiger Woods?

    Haliburton has earned their status as the premiere company and Cheney, as Vice President, had nothing to do with their contracts. Perhaps his leadership as an executive of that company propelled them to success.

    Don't assume. I mean the blind devotion to party. Some of it is directed at the Clinton (Democrat) supporters that see nothing wrong with anything he did/does and see no good from Bush (Republicans). The rest is for the Bush (Republican) supporters that see nothing wrong with anything he did/does and see no good from Clinton (Democrats).
    That did not seem to be the tone of your post. Clinton broke the law and was held accountable. He was impeached. Through the Constitutional process he was acquitted. Bush has never broken the law and he was never rightly accused of breaking the law. I support Bush as the President yet I find some of his policies deeply offensive. None of this has anything to do with classified information.

    There is also some information that has no good reason being classified except that keeping it a "state secret" keeps someone's butt out of jail. My point is, who decides?
    I understand your point. The vast majority of classified information is classified for a very good reason. You cojecture that 'some' information has 'no good reason being classified.' Exactly how do you arrive at theat conclusion? Who decides? Classified information originates from the Executive Branch, the alphabet soup of defense organizations as well as the military hierarchy. All information that flows from original classifiation is is similarly classified. And all the 'secret classified' information that you hear about is neither secret or or classified unless Federal laws have been violated with severe penalties, including death.

    The person that stands to face charges of supporting terrorism if the tapes of CIA agents torturing an innocent man see the light of day?
    Is there evidence of a innocent man being 'tortured?' Any technique that potentially saves American lives at the discomfort of an enemy is fine by me.

    Why do you support disclosing our interrogation techniques to the enemy? How does that help Americans?
    Last edited by Scott; January 26th, 2008 at 07:42 AM. Reason: fixed quote tag

  4. #19
    Distinguished Member Array Stetson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Augusta,Maine
    Posts
    1,555
    Time to vote No I say

  5. #20
    Distinguished Member Array Stetson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Augusta,Maine
    Posts
    1,555
    Time to say no because Teddy's name attached to this.I waish he'd go away and retire.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array bobcat35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    664
    the last thing i need is some loose lipped judge or congressman going on CNN and getting my buddies killed and captured. washington has proven that they don't understand that the enemy watches CNN. its bad enough telling the world the limitations on our NBC gear and the weaknesses of our armour but now they want to be able to leak everything?
    "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."
    -Winston Churchill
    Every well-bred petty crook knows: the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting.
    -Inara, firefly

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array simon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    3,018
    BikerRN,I think you are being to hard on the Tedster Kennedy....He is really a Drunk Driver Murderer...DDM,rather than a Drunk Murderer....DM.
    Won't support it if ol Tedster does....my.02

  8. #23
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667

    Judges need a basis for making decisions

    Quote Originally Posted by sniper58 View Post
    Judges should not have the power to determine what's secret and what's not. If they wanted that job, they should have studied something other than Law.
    Judges have to have a basis for making a decision. They can not reach a just decision if they don't get the full truth. Therefore, The Executive Branch really should have only two choices. Give up the case (criminal), accept a default judgment against it (in civil cases) OR, find a way to let the judge get the information needed to make a decision.

    Judges are patriotic citizens. The biases of many readers here aside, they are by and large very well educated and ethical. At the Federal level, all of the judges have been nominated by a president, and consented to by the senate.

    There are (and should be) mechanisms for judges to be cleared to hear any evidence that is relevant to a case. Without these, there can not be justice.

    There is no excuse for distrupting the judicial process. Without it, ALL of The Constitution means absolutely nothing. "The Goverment" isn't the Executive Branch. The Government is the whole ball of wax of Executive, Legislative, AND Judicial branches working both together and at cross purposes (to check the power of each one).

    Claims of "state secrets " are too often a cop-out for coverup, and shouldn't be allowed to get in the way of the judicial branch doing its job.

    There are too many people willing to give The Executive Branch too much power. It is by and large undeserved power because the only two members of the entire Executive Branch ever elected are the President and Vice President. Everyone else is an appointee with little or no stake in anything beyond their immediate careers and their personal public image. And when a president is in his second term, there isn't a single member of the entire Executive Branch likely to ever come before the electorate for anything, ever. They need to receive strict Congressional and Judicial oversight.
    Last edited by Hopyard; January 26th, 2008 at 10:57 AM. Reason: html error

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,802
    After reading through the thing, I don't see anything that jumps out as outlandish. It appears that this is designed to put back in place the oversight that is granted by the Constitution and has been lacking for some time by the Congress. The executive branch is one branch of the government. It does not get to exist without any oversight or accountability to anyone even though they think they do.

    As far as the references in this post about no bid contracts and Haliburton, etc. The only reason, and again, the only reason that there is such a wide usage of contractors in this military action in Afganistan and Iraq, is that if contractors were not used a draft would have to have been ordered to support to number of personel required for these actions. Public support for this effort would not have been there if the draft was called for. It was an end run around making the American people sacrifice as a whole for somehthing they thought they wanted.

    And if anyone thinks that there hasn't been waste, fraud and abuse of the money spend in these actions your just ignorant to the facts which are clearly there and have been discussed in numerous hearings.

    As far as opinions that if the executive branch wants to do things, as far as torture, or kidnapping etc, as long as it is getting the terrorist, well I just don't know where to begin with that. There is more than sufficient proof that torture does not get good information. All of the military leaders and prior military leaders I have heard have said this is not an acceptable means of information gathering. Along with that, if we don't want to put our troops at risk of torture or inhumane treatment, we should not be advocating that it is an acceptable policy for our government. Whether or not it is done in another country or at secret locations. Wrong is wrong in my book.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  10. #25
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    After reading through the thing, I don't see anything that jumps out as outlandish. It appears that this is designed to put back in place the oversight that is granted by the Constitution and has been lacking for some time by the Congress. The executive branch is one branch of the government. It does not get to exist without any oversight or accountability to anyone even though they think they do.
    The myth of 'oversight' has been promulgated by the media for so long that many people do think it is part of the Constitution, much like the so called, 'separation of church and state.' There is no such provision for oversight. The Constitution provides for three branches of government, each with a distinct function. It provides for natural checks and balances but no oversight. As to accountability of the Executive, it is certainly not to Congress or the Judiciary. It is solely accountable to the people.

    So, yes, the Executive can, does, and was intended to operate without oversight.

    The true nature of the Judiciary is provided by Hamilon, in Federalist 47. He describes the absolute weakness of the Judiciary as the Founders intended, which is a far cry from the current Supreme Court that many believe is the final authority. The Court determining what information is classified is nonsensical idea and will never happen. Basically, it is not a function of the Judiciary.

    Excerpt from Federalist 47:

    The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

    This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power1; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."2 And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.

  11. #26
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    As far as opinions that if the executive branch wants to do things, as far as torture, or kidnapping etc, as long as it is getting the terrorist, well I just don't know where to begin with that. There is more than sufficient proof that torture does not get good information. All of the military leaders and prior military leaders I have heard have said this is not an acceptable means of information gathering.
    I have heard that waterboarding (not torture but for the most tortured definition) was directly responsible for breaking a terrorist and providing actionable intelligence that caused the capture of even more of the enemy. It may not be acceptable for some but it is effective. Further, if we get ANY actionable intelligence that saves Americans lives then that is exactly what we should do. That is why we capture them rather than kill them on the battlefield. Some say they will say anything their captors want to hear but it is not a matter of pleasing the captors, but rather gaining information that can be checked out. That argument against iterrogating terrorists has no merit.

    Along with that, if we don't want to put our troops at risk of torture or inhumane treatment, we should not be advocating that it is an acceptable policy for our government. Whether or not it is done in another country or at secret locations. Wrong is wrong in my book.
    The enemy simply cuts off the heads of Americans. Is that inhumane? Sometimes they drag or brave men and women through the streets? Those acts have absolutely nothing to do with whether the United States aggressively interrogates the enemy. It is simply the nature of the evil we are fighting.

    The obvious example is that a captured enemy has information of a nuclear bomb planted in a major US city. Should we not take ANY measure to extract the information? Or should we take the misnamed 'high road' and allow tens of thousands of Americans to die while we provide the enemy with prayer rugs, qurans, three meals, and safety? Oh, and a hearing before a judge...

  12. #27
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667

    Say what?

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The myth of 'oversight' has been promulgated by the media for so long that many people do think it is part of the Constitution, much like the so called, 'separation of church and state.' There is no such provision for oversight. The Constitution provides for three branches of government, each with a distinct function. It provides for natural checks and balances but no oversight. As to accountability of the Executive, it is certainly not to Congress or the Judiciary. It is solely accountable to the people.
    Recon Mr. Nixon wouldn't agree with the above. He too thought there was no accountability to Congress. He found out otherwise.

  13. #28
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Recon Mr. Nixon wouldn't agree with the above. He too thought there was no accountability to Congress. He found out otherwise.
    Nixon, like Clinton, broke the law. There is a distinct difference between busybodies in other branches overseeing and trying to influence policies and enforcing the laws of the land. Clinton was impeached, Nixon would likely have been impeached. But neither case had anything to do with oversight.

    It is obviously not against the law for the Executive to protect state secrets. Congress has its checks and balances insofar as they can pass legislation that will effectively give all of our intelligence and military secrets to the enemy. But they have no say into what information is classified. And neither does the Judiciary.

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,802
    "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "

    This is the oversight that the constitution grants the congress, whether anyone thinks it is there or not.

    As for those that rely so heavily on the the Federalist papers, remember they were written by 3 people, mostly by 2 people from opposing sides in an attempt to sway the voters of New York to adopt the Constitution. Those papers as some wish to quote so often have no bearing or authority for our government. They are neither the Constitution or law, just a couple of folks ideas at the time.

    I don't believe this legislation that is being proposed has any effort in it to give the Judiciary the ability to declassify information. I believe it does require that the government if they are going to try to prosecute an individual must either give the information for the prosecution so that it may be reviewed, allowing proper legal defense, or if not then it will not allow for the government to just say, this is a bad guy, and we said so, and you have to believe us.

    "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

    There is no rebellion or public invasion going on at present. For anyone that trusts the govenment, especially the executive branch so blindly that they wish to allow them to do whatever they want. I will be looking forward to the posts in 2 years if Hillary gets elected. I will love to hear, hey she is the executive, don't question her.

    Oh, I can't wait, or will the tune of certain individuals change drastically.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  15. #30
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof. "

    This is the oversight that the constitution grants the congress, whether anyone thinks it is there or not.
    I don't read anything in that clause in the way of oversight. There is no oversight, only a different function that enables checks and balances so that one branch cannot overshadow the other two. As Hamilton wrote, the President holds the sword, the Congress holds the purse strings. That is not oversight.

    As for those that rely so heavily on the the Federalist papers, remember they were written by 3 people, mostly by 2 people from opposing sides in an attempt to sway the voters of New York to adopt the Constitution. Those papers as some wish to quote so often have no bearing or authority for our government.
    The Founders' intent is derived from the Federalist Papers. They do not have the weight of law, but then again, neither does any Court decision. It is meant as a guide. The only way to understand our Republic is to consider the Federalist Papers, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in concert.

    They are neither the Constitution or law, just a couple of folks ideas at the time.
    Sure, just a couple of folks: James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. Yup, just a couple of folks, the authors of the Constitution.

    I don't believe this legislation that is being proposed has any effort in it to give the Judiciary the ability to declassify information. I believe it does require that the government if they are going to try to prosecute an individual must either give the information for the prosecution so that it may be reviewed, allowing proper legal defense, or if not then it will not allow for the government to just say, this is a bad guy, and we said so, and you have to believe us.
    Are you referring to American citizens? If so, there are already laws regarding their habeus corpus rights and every other protection afforded citizens. Terrorists have no such rights. They have no right to habeus corpus, no right to a speedy trial, no right to legal counsel. The enemy has no rights.

    As to the singular case of a citizen being held as an enemy combatant, there is every reason to believe he is a dangerous terrorist. We should urge Congress to pass legislation that makes legal obstacles disappear when dealing with enemy scum even if they are American citizens.

    "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
    The public safety definitely requires that in some cases habeus corpus should be suspended. Again, we are talking about terrorists, not American citizens.

    I will be looking forward to the posts in 2 years if Hillary gets elected. I will love to hear, hey she is the executive, don't question her.

    Oh, I can't wait, or will the tune of certain individuals change drastically.
    No, I am sure my tune will not change drastically or at all no matter who is in office. And I never said don't question the Executive. This particular Administration has done many things and have enacted policies offensive to me and my views. However, I understand that is the perogative of leadership. We do not elect a puppet to mirror the views of the people. We elect a President to manage the nation as he thinks is the right course. For all Bush's faults, he has been an exceptionally strong leader.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. "Handgun Dispute Roils Colorado State University"
    By Skippys in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: April 10th, 2010, 06:45 PM
  2. Washington State lawmakers to seek ban on "military-style" weapons!!!!
    By swatspyder in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: February 5th, 2010, 08:53 PM
  3. 23 State Attorneys General To AG Holder: "No Semi-Auto Ban"
    By sigman232 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 19th, 2009, 03:09 PM
  4. "(AP) Armed state senator foils alleged burglary by teens"
    By osanmike in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: November 21st, 2006, 01:39 PM
  5. One more privilege of earning the "Green Beret"
    By Skygod in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 4th, 2006, 02:20 AM