Lazarus
09-03-2007, 03:44 AM
It seems as though the 9th Circuit Appeals Court - if their queries were indicative - will reject the Governments' claims of " state secrets " in one , if not both, of the lawsuits working their way thru the system.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081502434.html?hpid=sec-politics
Deputy Solicitor General Garre, who had been scheduled to speak for 20 minutes, was kept at the podium for twice that time fielding hardballs. But some of the sharpest queries appeared grounded in concerns -- such as the scope of judicial authority -- that may be shared by jurists across the political spectrum. "Well, who decides if something is a state secret or not?" Pregerson asked. "Are you saying the courts are to rubber-stamp the determination of the executive of what's a state secret? What's our job?"
Government attorneys labored to assure the judges that the administration appreciates their role, while arguing that national security concerns require judges to dismiss cases that might expose state secrets.
"Is it the government's position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive, when it comes to wiretapping, is unchecked?" Pregerson asked. No, Garre replied, but he cited an earlier federal ruling that required courts to give "utmost deference" to security concerns.
"Well, what does 'utmost deference' mean?" Pregerson asked. Before Garre could reply, Judge Michael Daly Hawkins asked: "It doesn't mean abdication, does it?"
Now I know that the 9th is rather Liberal, and will be attacked for being so - but the D.C Circuit seems to have found its' conscience as well
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/08/court_overturns_dismissal_of_s.html
In an unusual move that may signal a new, more discriminating judicial view of the state secrets privilege, a federal appeals court has reinstated (pdf) a lawsuit which a lower court had dismissed after the government invoked the state secrets privilege.......
The government asserted the state secrets privilege in 2000 and moved for dismissal of the case. The government motion was granted by the D.C. district court (pdf) in 2004.
But in a June 29, 2007 decision (that was unsealed on July 20), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the dismissal. The Court did not dispute the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege, but concluded that there was sufficient unprivileged evidence on the record to permit the plaintiff to argue his case.
Since both Hepting and al-Haramain have similar unprivileged evidence, this ruling must bode well for their progress.
I do believe that the acquiescence has ended in the Judicial Branch - now if only the Congress can do the same.........
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/15/AR2007081502434.html?hpid=sec-politics
Deputy Solicitor General Garre, who had been scheduled to speak for 20 minutes, was kept at the podium for twice that time fielding hardballs. But some of the sharpest queries appeared grounded in concerns -- such as the scope of judicial authority -- that may be shared by jurists across the political spectrum. "Well, who decides if something is a state secret or not?" Pregerson asked. "Are you saying the courts are to rubber-stamp the determination of the executive of what's a state secret? What's our job?"
Government attorneys labored to assure the judges that the administration appreciates their role, while arguing that national security concerns require judges to dismiss cases that might expose state secrets.
"Is it the government's position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive, when it comes to wiretapping, is unchecked?" Pregerson asked. No, Garre replied, but he cited an earlier federal ruling that required courts to give "utmost deference" to security concerns.
"Well, what does 'utmost deference' mean?" Pregerson asked. Before Garre could reply, Judge Michael Daly Hawkins asked: "It doesn't mean abdication, does it?"
Now I know that the 9th is rather Liberal, and will be attacked for being so - but the D.C Circuit seems to have found its' conscience as well
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2007/08/court_overturns_dismissal_of_s.html
In an unusual move that may signal a new, more discriminating judicial view of the state secrets privilege, a federal appeals court has reinstated (pdf) a lawsuit which a lower court had dismissed after the government invoked the state secrets privilege.......
The government asserted the state secrets privilege in 2000 and moved for dismissal of the case. The government motion was granted by the D.C. district court (pdf) in 2004.
But in a June 29, 2007 decision (that was unsealed on July 20), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the dismissal. The Court did not dispute the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege, but concluded that there was sufficient unprivileged evidence on the record to permit the plaintiff to argue his case.
Since both Hepting and al-Haramain have similar unprivileged evidence, this ruling must bode well for their progress.
I do believe that the acquiescence has ended in the Judicial Branch - now if only the Congress can do the same.........