I am thinking of sending this to the local letters to the editor red newspaper so give me your best shot. Content,style, punctuation hell even spelling. Have at it.
We managed to get through two world wars and some others without having any state secrets or at least if we did then we did not withhold evidence upon that basis until 1953. This is the precedent upon which all future state secrete claims for withholding evidence is based. In this landmark case the judge was not allowed to see the evidence and ruled in the blind. After release of the classified documents, new litigation was attempted, based in part, on a complaint that the classified material contained no secret information. It appears the government lied to the court. Who would have thought it? Disgraceful! The president in 1953 was Eisenstein who won WWII with some help, lied to the court. Presidents relying on this precedent, well draw your own conclusions.
Destruction of evidence of a crime is its self a crime. Now suppose instead of burning or shredding the evidence it were made unavailable, say sealing in a container and dropping in the Marianas trench. How is that different from declaring the evidence a state secret and thus unavailable? What if the hidden evidence contained information of a serious crime, say a war crime. The president claiming the state secrete privilege would for certain be a criminal on the one hand but the criminally would be in theory justified by preventing damage to the nation, said damage theoretical – unproved and unprovable.
A judge would have to determine whether the evidence should be put at ocean bottom or made public. In many cases the judge is not given access to the material in question and must rely on affidavits submitted by DOJ attorneys, who as in the 1953 case have been less than truthful. He would have to weigh whether a serious criminal, or band of criminals, should be allowed to go free against the theoretical damage to the nation, said damage theoretical – unproved and unprovable. The damage could be the destruction of an aircraft carrier or merely nonexistent. What should he do? Being a judge is hard work.
Of course if said president were invoking the state secret for a reason other than to protect the nation, then assuming the evidence had information about a crime then he would just be in my opinion an uncommon criminal. Even the thought of having a criminal for president, especially since I worked so hard to get him elected is hard to take. But then again after eight years a fellow gets used to it, but it doesn’t make the next four easier.
This discussion concerns the torture evidence and President Obamas efforts to pretend it never happened. He is disobeying court orders, using state secrets privilege where it cannot be justified, he is trying to get congress to pass a law making the information public illegal and lastly he is fighting a losing battle. The photos and other evidence are coming out either legally or otherwise. The demand for accountability cannot be ignored. It is scentless to pretend that Al’ Queda, those tortured, those torturing, those watching and taking pictures of torture, those in charge of torture, those who ordered torture, those who tried to legalize torture, peoples around the world and you and I are ignorant or uncaring about torture.
It is hard for me to imagin how in six short months I have gone from reading progressive internet blogs which boil down to Obama = JFK to blogs boiling down to Obama = Bush. How in hell did that happen so quickly? I cannot grasp the idea supporting ” The way to a successful presidency and reelection is to do what Bush did.”.
