I remember as little as eight years back, a certain sense of respect I held for the need to keep things secret in Gummint work; especially intel, and perhaps more important, the means of acquiring intel, especially in hostile dealings.

Remember the boy who cried "Wolf!!"? That feelilng is long gone, as a result of a string of egregious abuses, to the point where I am not sure there is any rationale of weight for keeping critical information from the public. If there is, though, and maybe certain key processes, sources, agents, and data might qualify, is there any legitimate reason to keep the same information from a qualified and proven judge? If we can't trust a cArefully chosen representative of the judiciary, why should we be able to trust a military officer?
God knows, we can't trust the current President, Vice-President, SecState, the past SecDef. the SecInt, or the Motherland Fatherland Homeland Security buffoons.

From today's NY Times:

"...Congress has also been far too acquiescent, standing aside as the administration undermined individual rights and the constitutional system of checks and balances. It may finally be ready to act.

Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to vote on the State Secrets Protection Act. Introduced by Senators Edward Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, it would make it harder for this or future administrations to use a flimsy state secrets claim to avoid exposure of illegal or embarrassing conduct.

Legitimate secrets need to be protected, and the bill includes important safeguards. But before judges rule on a state secrets claim, the bill would require them to first review the documents or evidence for which the privilege is invoked — rather than rely on government affidavits asserting that the evidence is too sensitive to be disclosed.

To allow cases to go forward, judges would also be given authority to order the government to produce unclassified or redacted versions of the evidence.

Not surprisingly, the administration is trying to defeat this essential reform. In a recent letter to the Senate, Attorney General Michael Mukasey raised the prospect of a veto and insisted that the president — and not the courts — must have the final say over when and whether the privilege applies. Incredibly, and with no legal basis, he also expressed doubt that Congress has the power to mandate closer review of state secrets claims. "

Oh, maybe we should add the present AG and past AG to those listed.

Ya gotta wonder what the hell is the matter with these people.


A