Truth and justice are top "states secrets"

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by KGB_resident, May 19, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060518/wl_afp/usattacksgermanycia_060518225149;_ylt=ApC5Co70a0.FBVARG2ExF2uQOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

    It is an interesting situation. Previously I thought that it is the main objective of namely courts to establish truth. I fancy that the US government would say that the story is not true. And what the man could do in this situation? Go to the court to hear again "if your story is true then..."

     
  2. A lot of people would pay for that sort of treatment.
     
  3. I will say this, having been trained as a lawyer in civilian life, the 'state secrets privilege' is very troubling to me and I'm not in support of it. There are judicial protections that could be invoked in a court case containing highly sensitive information, even if that meant that part of the evidence was witheld or limited. To deny any recourse for the individual by denying a trial is draconian. Since 911 the 'state secrets privilige' has been invoked far to often. I consider it's use in this case to be an abuse.
     
  4. Virgil!

    Let's imagine that American citizen would be treated by Russian sercret services exactly that way. What would be official reaction (in Washington)?

    However I believe that this case is rather an exception that something typical.
     
  5. He's asking for $75,000 in compensation.

    How the likes of the silly fat fcukers who tried to sue McDonalds (and the ambulance chasers who represent them) must feel about that, I don't know.
     
  6. One thing I wonder is if their are "rogue elements" at work here. I've heard that actual interregators have complained that prisoners showed signs of abuse. The psychological effects made it difficult for interrogators to do their job, and they complained that guards have been abusing prisoners. I don't know what exactly is happening, but their is definitely something screwy happening. Obviously given my position, all I can do is speculate.
     
  7. I gather that the court entertains assertions of the state secrecy privilege on the basis of secret presentations from which the plaintiff (not having a security clearance) is excluded.

    This effectively reduces the whole court process to a sham.

    We are left to wonder just what was claimed to be a secret:

    1. That this fellow was apparently kidnapped and tortured?

    2. The relative effectiveness of various torture implements and techniques?

    3. The existence of USA-controlled dungeons abroad?

    4. The identities of US public officials who order the commission of these outrages?

    Assuming for the sake of argument that any of those matters were secrets (they aren't), we must also ask how public disclosure would endanger "US security."

    Americans may well worry if the course of justice in American courts can be so easily thwarted by the government.

    Today they did this to a German national but tomorrow it could be any of us.