Mar 23rd, 2009
Posted by Suzanne Ito, ACLU at 5:27pm	National Security

Interview with Ben Wizner on State Secrets

Last week, NationalJournal.com featured an interview about state secrets with ACLU National Security Project Staff Attorney Ben Wizner. Ben talks about the government's invocation of the state secrets privilege in our extraoridinary rendition case, Mohamed v. Jeppesen. In the interview, Ben talks about why it's crucial that judges are allowed to see the evidence the government claims is a state secret:

Think about what their argument is. If a judge can't look at the evidence, that means that the executive branch is literally policing itself. They like to set this up as a question of judicial competence and judicial trustworthiness, when instead what you have is a massive conflict of interest. What it means, under their rule, is that the executive branch can engage in torture, declare it a state secret and, by virtue of that declaration alone, avoid having any judicial accountability. You have to have judges involved.

Ben just argued Jeppesen before the before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last month. A decision is pending.

Permalink |	National Security

1. Hawaiian style Says:
   Mar 24th, 2009 at 12:54pm

   Thanks to the ACLU and to courageous folks like Mr. Wizner there might be hope yet.

   If we can't get judicial review we need ot set up another mechanism that will do the same thing.

   Having the foxes watching the hen house falls under my rule no. one, namely "If you put up with it; you deserve it."

   Aloha and Mahalo

2. Paen Says:
   Mar 24th, 2009 at 1:16pm

   Why am I suddenly reminded of that old Beatles song back in the U.S.S.R.

3. anonymous Says:
   Mar 25th, 2009 at 4:10pm

   I,too, am weary of governmental agencies hiding behind the veil of "state secrets." We desperately need the "transparency in government" that we've been promised, including exposure of domestic surveillance/spying activities that have profoundly and irrevokably altered the lives of many good, patriotic Americans.

   "Because it is so powerful and can trample legitimate claims against the government, the state secrets privilege is not to be lightly invoked" - (United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S. 1, 7 (1953))

4. anonymous writer Says:
   Mar 26th, 2009 at 9:51am

   How long does it take for comments to be "moderated" (as it is termed)?

5. ggg Says:
   Mar 26th, 2009 at 12:04pm

   Power's secretiveness is their nourishment. Just as the FED refuses to divulge anything or audit to congress bought to crate them.

   The Power Elites issued paper receipts

   To relieve us of barbarous gold

   And now that it’s done

   They sit on our tons

   Awaiting their Ponzi to tumble

   But the people are left

   Shouldering ponderous debt

   With money increasingly nothing

   Mouths, they call us

   The elites who control us

   Presumpters all are they

   But when we be wiser

   To they who enslave us

   We, must put the shaft to them all

6. Jeff Peterson Says:
   Mar 26th, 2009 at 3:54pm

   Transparency what a joke. Obama has hide more of what they are doing in their first 100 days than any other administration. Anonymous, how has the Patriot Act affected your life? How has anything that the intelligence agencies done effected any of you sheep. Unless you are subversive and trying to overthrow the government (throwing Obama out would be okay) then there is no effect on your lives. You are just trying to demean and degrade this country. LIVE FREE OR DIE

7. carlydh Says:
   Mar 26th, 2009 at 9:24pm

   Your main article had me hook-line-and-sinker until this part...Congress ought not to support programs that censor information, reinforce gender stereotypes, provide inaccurate and misleading information, promote religion in the classroom, stigmatize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students, and jeopardize the well-being of young people.
   How is promoting religion in the classroom a bad thing? I can see your point if you are refering to being 'forced' to pray and so forth, but it does not look like that is what you are meaning. Please correct me if I'm wrong, because everything else looks very interesting.
   Looking forward to your reply,
   CDH. (Mechanicsville, MD.)

8. anon Says:
   Mar 27th, 2009 at 3:49am

   Jeff Peterson (#6) "Unless you are subversive and trying to overthrow the government (throwing Obama out would be okay) then there is no effect on your lives. You are just trying to demean and degrade this country."

   Response: I love this country. I am law-abiding and patriotic. And guess what? My life has been turned upside-down. Take a look at the ACLU's literature about the many innocent people who have been "targeted", for lack of a better word. Please educate yourself and others. The things that I've experienced should never happen in this country.

9. Dr Shawna Murray MD Says:
   Mar 27th, 2009 at 2:28pm

   There is too much incompetency in all areas of government not to have full transparency available to those in charge of monitoring quality. Incompetence puts us all at risk.

10. anonymous Says:
    Jun 21st, 2009 at 6:55am

    Will we ever know what our most secretive agencies are doing, if they are able to hide behind the "state secrets privilege"? If anything goes, because government agencies are hiding whatever activities they want to hide, the following question must be asked: Who is running this country?

    Are we not, in theory, supposed to be "a government of the people, by the people and for the people"?

    Refer to "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists"

    Outlaw nonconsensual human experiments now
    By Cheryl Welsh | 16 June 2009

    http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/outlaw-nonco nsensual-human-experiments-now

    If nonconsensual human experiments are, in fact, taking place, should they not be exposed and stopped? Or are we going to let them continue and pretend that we really believe in the rule of law and the Constitution.