Hmm... Perhaps Sibel Edmonds has something to hope for now if she can revive / appeal one of her older suits that were thrown out due to State Secrets privilege, if congress actually can deliver something. Though I'm sure Bushco will try to veto or signing statement away this one too, giving us one more reason to impeach that bum that will be ignored!
From:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41024POLITICS-US: Congress Seeks to Limit "State Secrets" Privilege
By William Fisher
NEW YORK, Jan 31 (IPS) - Alarmed by the George W. Bush administration's increasing use of the so-called "state secrets privilege" to keep politically embarrassing lawsuits against the government from ever coming before a judge, Congress is stepping in to help ensure that people with grievances can have their cases heard.
A new bill sponsored by Senators Edward M. Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, would provide a mechanism for protecting legitimate secrets while also permitting civil litigation to proceed. Both are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The state secrets privilege is a common law right that lets the government protect sensitive national security information from being disclosed as evidence in litigation.
The privilege was first recognised by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953, in a case later shown to have been bogus. It has been asserted since then by every U.S. administration, Republican and Democratic. But the Bush administration has increased its use dramatically. It has invoked the privilege in over 25 percent more cases each year than previous administrations, and has sought dismissal in over 90 percent more cases.
...
And perhaps the best-known of such cases involved Sibel Edmonds, a former translator at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who was fired for reporting security breaches and possible espionage within the Bureau. Edmonds unsuccessfully appealed her case to the U.S. Supreme Court. At the time, the inspector general of the Justice Department found that Edmonds' firing was an act of retaliation. She has since become the head of a group advocating for greater legal protections for whistleblowers who are involved in national security work.
Legal scholars and legal rights advocates have been outspoken on the Bush administration's use of the state secrets as a shield behind which it can conceal virtually any activity.
...
He added, "The current Supreme Court is so solicitous of presidential power that there is absolutely no prospect of real reform initiated by the current judiciary. If there is to be change, it will have to be at the initiative of Congress."
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
