Bill to limit executive privlige introduced

[tererun]

It was shit when nixon, reagan, bush, and bush Jr used it to try and protect their cronies while they did illegal things lie invade foreign countries, train dangerous radical terrorists who later used that training to do 911, and to supply radicals with high end us weapons. It was bullshit when the people in the Bush Jr. administration thumbed their noses and laughed at congress when they tried to find out answers.

If the republicans want to make it illegal for them to use executive privilege and hide behind national security so they can do illegal things then go for it. One must remember that the Obama administration is not the only administration to do this, and the republicans rely on these tactics to do their immoral and illegal actions and cover their asses.

If the Obama administration uses the racist hatred of Obama to troll the republicans into eliminating their own protections and actually trolls transparency through congress I will applaud him.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The identities of undercover agents should be protected. After the Valerie Plaine outing, Im just not going to trust people with political agendas to do the right thing. Fast and Furious was a huge giant totally avoidable mistake which should have consequences, but Im with Obama on keep names out of the hands of the likes of Issa.

Executive Privilege has nothing to do with the State's Secret Privilege.

There is no state secrets privilege.

In fact there is. You're just uninformed.

We think it should be clear that the term "not privileged" as used in Rule 34, refers to "privileges" as that term is understood in the law of evidence. When the Secretary of the Air Force lodged his formal "Claim of Privilege," he attempted therein to invoke the privilege against revealing military secrets, a privilege which is well

Page 345 U. S. 7

established in the law of evidence. [Footnote 11] The existence of the privilege is conceded by the court below, [Footnote 12] and, indeed, by the most outspoken critics of governmental claims to privilege. [Footnote 13]

Judicial experience with the privilege which protects military and state secrets has been limited in this country. [Footnote 14] English experience has been more extensive, but still relatively slight compared with other evidentiary privileges. [Footnote 15] Nevertheless, the principles which control the application of the privilege emerge quite clearly from the available precedents. The privilege belongs to the Government, and must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed [Footnote 16] nor waived [Footnote 17] by a private party. It is not to be lightly invoked.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/1/case.html

 

[Vidi]

Doubtful. Are you going to try and tell me their are National Security Secrets in the Documents Obama just Used EP for?

Also Doubtful

The identities of undercover agents should be protected. After the Valerie Plaine outing, Im just not going to trust people with political agendas to do the right thing. Fast and Furious was a huge giant totally avoidable mistake which should have consequences, but Im with Obama on keep names out of the hands of the likes of Issa.

Executive Privilege has nothing to do with the State's Secret Privilege.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The identities of undercover agents should be protected. After the Valerie Plaine outing, Im just not going to trust people with political agendas to do the right thing. Fast and Furious was a huge giant totally avoidable mistake which should have consequences, but Im with Obama on keep names out of the hands of the likes of Issa.

Executive Privilege has nothing to do with the State's Secret Privilege.

I respectfully disagree.

On what basis?

 

[Vidi]

Executive Privilege has nothing to do with the State's Secret Privilege.

I respectfully disagree.

On what basis?

On the basis I described in my original post. Im not gonna jump all over you. You may have a point, but I respectfully disagree with it.

No biggie.

 

[Inthemiddle]

All your first post did was lump two unconnected things together as if they were connected, yet drawing no actual connection between the two. May as well say that chicken and beef are the same thing, and that you respectfully disagree with those who say otherwise, and offer nothing more. It's a meaningless statement.

 

[Vidi]

All your first post did was lump two unconnected things together as if they were connected, yet drawing no actual connection between the two. May as well say that chicken and beef are the same thing, and that you respectfully disagree with those who say otherwise, and offer nothing more. It's a meaningless statement.

If you say so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Executive Privilege has nothing to do with the State's Secret Privilege.

There is no state secrets privilege.

In fact there is. You're just uninformed.

We think it should be clear that the term "not privileged" as used in Rule 34, refers to "privileges" as that term is understood in the law of evidence. When the Secretary of the Air Force lodged his formal "Claim of Privilege," he attempted therein to invoke the privilege against revealing military secrets, a privilege which is well

Page 345 U. S. 7

established in the law of evidence. [Footnote 11] The existence of the privilege is conceded by the court below, [Footnote 12] and, indeed, by the most outspoken critics of governmental claims to privilege. [Footnote 13]

Judicial experience with the privilege which protects military and state secrets has been limited in this country. [Footnote 14] English experience has been more extensive, but still relatively slight compared with other evidentiary privileges. [Footnote 15] Nevertheless, the principles which control the application of the privilege emerge quite clearly from the available precedents. The privilege belongs to the Government, and must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed [Footnote 16] nor waived [Footnote 17] by a private party. It is not to be lightly invoked.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/1/case.html

The phrase "States secrets" does not appear in that decision, want to try again?

 

[rdean]

Bush used it 6 times to cover up "real" crimes. Obama uses it once to fight against a witchhunt from, get this, a "Bush" program. Republicans will never pass it in case they get the White House.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There is no state secrets privilege.

In fact there is. You're just uninformed.

We think it should be clear that the term "not privileged" as used in Rule 34, refers to "privileges" as that term is understood in the law of evidence. When the Secretary of the Air Force lodged his formal "Claim of Privilege," he attempted therein to invoke the privilege against revealing military secrets, a privilege which is well

Page 345 U. S. 7

established in the law of evidence. [Footnote 11] The existence of the privilege is conceded by the court below, [Footnote 12] and, indeed, by the most outspoken critics of governmental claims to privilege. [Footnote 13]

Judicial experience with the privilege which protects military and state secrets has been limited in this country. [Footnote 14] English experience has been more extensive, but still relatively slight compared with other evidentiary privileges. [Footnote 15] Nevertheless, the principles which control the application of the privilege emerge quite clearly from the available precedents. The privilege belongs to the Government, and must be asserted by it; it can neither be claimed [Footnote 16] nor waived [Footnote 17] by a private party. It is not to be lightly invoked.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/1/case.html

The phrase "States secrets" does not appear in that decision, want to try again?

1) That which we call a rose
2) Actually, it does, right there in the excerpt I posted.
3) There's plenty of other case law about it.

973 F.2d 1138

"Most courts that have discussed the state secret privilege have adopted the position that, if privileged information would establish a valid defense, then the court ought to dismiss the plaintiffs' case. Zuckerbraun, 935 F.2d at 547

776 F.2d 1236: James W. Fitzgerald, Appellant, v. Penthouse International, Ltd.; Meredith Printingcorporation; Meredith Corporation; Bob Guccione;steve Chapple and Michael L. Greenwood,united States of America, Appellees :: US Court of Appeals Cases

The state secrets privilege was recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 73 S.Ct. 528, 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953)

635 F2d 268 Farnsworth Cannon, Inc. v. Grimes | OpenJurist

The central question presented is whether, in litigation between private parties, the successful assertion of a state-secrets privilege by the United States government results not only in the exclusion of the privileged information but also in an alteration in the usual rules by which courts allocate burdens of production and persuasion and according to which they order dismissal or summary judgment.

 

[Vidi]

Bush used it 6 times to cover up "real" crimes. Obama uses it once to fight against a witchhunt from, get this, a "Bush" program. Republicans will never pass it in case they get the White House.

It was NOT a Bush program. It was a tactic used during the Bush era twice, it failed miserably ( they lost 200 guns ) then it was CANCELED on OCt 6, 2007.

THEN, Fast and Furious was created on Oct 26, 2009. TWO full years later.

I guarantee I hated Bush more than you and would LOVE to be able to blame this on him, but the facts are the facts.

 

[Avorysuds]

The second a R was elected the right would repeal this one

And the second a Dem was elected you would be against abuse of powers... Wait... Kind of like now.

That was quick TM, thanks for proving once again just how much a blind hack you have become over a lifetime of stewing in hate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

how do you know there is not?

BTW there is gran jury testimony that would be illegal for them to release to congress

What part of fast and the furious involved national security?
Are you still defending holder about not lying?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Bush used it 6 times to cover up "real" crimes. Obama uses it once to fight against a witchhunt from, get this, a "Bush" program. Republicans will never pass it in case they get the White House.

It was NOT a Bush program. It was a tactic used during the Bush era twice, it failed miserably ( they lost 200 guns ) then it was CANCELED on OCt 6, 2007.

THEN, Fast and Furious was created on Oct 26, 2009. TWO full years later.

I guarantee I hated Bush more than you and would LOVE to be able to blame this on him, but the facts are the facts.

Yes we can see that you are trying tactic used by bush. nice word play,
The only comparisons between the two they involved guns. and drug dealers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In fact there is. You're just uninformed.


https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/345/1/case.html

The phrase "States secrets" does not appear in that decision, want to try again?

1) That which we call a rose
2) Actually, it does, right there in the excerpt I posted.
3) There's plenty of other case law about it.

973 F.2d 1138

"Most courts that have discussed the state secret privilege have adopted the position that, if privileged information would establish a valid defense, then the court ought to dismiss the plaintiffs' case. Zuckerbraun, 935 F.2d at 547

776 F.2d 1236: James W. Fitzgerald, Appellant, v. Penthouse International, Ltd.; Meredith Printingcorporation; Meredith Corporation; Bob Guccione;steve Chapple and Michael L. Greenwood,united States of America, Appellees :: US Court of Appeals Cases

The state secrets privilege was recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 73 S.Ct. 528, 97 L.Ed. 727 (1953)

635 F2d 268 Farnsworth Cannon, Inc. v. Grimes | OpenJurist

The central question presented is whether, in litigation between private parties, the successful assertion of a state-secrets privilege by the United States government results not only in the exclusion of the privileged information but also in an alteration in the usual rules by which courts allocate burdens of production and persuasion and according to which they order dismissal or summary judgment.

The state invoking secrets as a third party, interesting.

I guess that makes you right, about time.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And how are they a third party? These are all cases in which the government has been a party.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And how are they a third party? These are all cases in which the government has been a party.

They were neither the plaintiff nor the defendant, how are they not a third party?

 

[EriktheRed]

Well, pushing back against the imperial presidency wouldn't be a bad thing in and of itself.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So much for the claim that only right wingers think Obama is wrong to use executive privilege to cover up Fast and Furious.

Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com

nope. Nothing to do with Fast and Furious as far as I can tell.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nothing here about Fast and Furious:

Quantum Windbag is full of hot air, again.

So much for the claim that only right wingers think Obama is wrong to use executive privilege to cover up Fast and Furious.

Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com

Much-Abused ‘State Secrets Privilege’ Under Fire in Congress
Much-Abused 'State Secrets Privilege' Under Fire in Congress | Threat Level | Wired.com

“The ongoing argument that the state secrets privilege requires the outright dismissal of a case is a disconcerting trend in the protection of civil liberties for our nation,” Nadler said of the bill, unveiled last week.

---

Bill Would Limit Judges on State Secrets
Bill Would Limit Judges on State Secrets | Threat Level | Wired.com

Lawmakers on Wednesday introduced legislation that might make it more difficult for federal judges to scuttle lawsuits in which the government claims state secrets might be exposed.