tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post3446128726911644983..comments2024-02-23T03:29:54.261-05:00Comments on The Unreligious Right: NYT Horrified that Secrets Could Remain SecretUNRRhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-64117058135935902052009-02-13T22:24:00.000-05:002009-02-13T22:24:00.000-05:00Right on UNRR. I couldn't agree more with your po...Right on UNRR. I couldn't agree more with your post. I was very disappointed when I read that shallow piece in the Times.Pathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10990395163682467972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-34407846663541228612009-02-12T11:52:00.000-05:002009-02-12T11:52:00.000-05:00No. From what I read the U.S. government received ...No. From what I read the U.S. government received false information from Canada that he was an Al Qaeda member. It acted on that incorrect information. The Canadian government agreed to pay Arar 10 million dollars for their screw-up. That should be the end of it.<BR/><BR/>It's bad that an innocent man was arrested and abused. But mistakes can happen. The Canadians are at fault here.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-44670974717614048832009-02-12T10:57:00.000-05:002009-02-12T10:57:00.000-05:00What you're saying is that you don't have a proble...What you're saying is that you don't have a problem with the way innocent Canadian citizen Maher Arar was arrested at JFK and rendered to Syria.Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-33288132903899309742009-02-12T07:12:00.000-05:002009-02-12T07:12:00.000-05:00Gherald,At first glance, that legislation seems re...Gherald,<BR/><BR/>At first glance, that legislation seems reasonable. I'm not opposed to having some sort of oversight to evaluate secrecy claims by the executive branch.<BR/><BR/>Alon,<BR/><BR/>"Is there any evidence that they actually did anything, besides the US government's word?"<BR/><BR/>Who cares and who knows? Again, the job of the U.S. government is to protect the U.S. and its citizens. If it has good reason to believe -- and apparently it did or it wouldn't have bothered to seize them -- that certain foreign individuals are terrorists, then I'm all for taking action against them.<BR/><BR/>The government should err on the side of protecting the U.S. when it comes to suspect foreign nationals. If they are mistaken, they can clean it up later.UNRRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17093711439992855042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-52504456482246824192009-02-11T22:55:00.000-05:002009-02-11T22:55:00.000-05:00The word "terrorist suspects" is chilling. Is ther...The word "terrorist suspects" is chilling. Is there any evidence that they actually did anything, besides the US government's word?Alon Levyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12195377309045184452noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1138570918413841323.post-56155864557662747682009-02-11T22:14:00.000-05:002009-02-11T22:14:00.000-05:00States Secrets Legislation Re-Introduced:The legis...<A HREF="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/state_secrets_legislation_re-introduced.php" REL="nofollow">States Secrets Legislation Re-Introduced</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>The legislation codifies best practices that some courts use but others don't, like the appointment of special masters to independently evaluate intelligence information. The government would be required to disclose the evidence behind its particular privilege claims to judges, and not merely assert that such evidence exist. Also, judges wouldn't be able to dismiss the case solely because the privilege has been asserted; the pleadings stage must have been underway, along with document discovery. (Note: judges can still dismiss the case solely based on the privilege claim, but he or she must vet the information in a legal proceeding beforehand, and must allow the defense to make a counterlcaim.) The legislation would establish new safeguards for protecting classified information and provide a way for judges to report on the cases to Congress.</I><BR/><BR/>This strikes me as the right approach. Administrations should not be able to merely assert that something should be secret with no judicial review. The NYT is correct on this.<BR/><BR/>Ambinder <A HREF="http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/on_state_secrets_why_didnt_the_admin_seek_a_continuance.php" REL="nofollow">also speculates</A>:<BR/><BR/><I>My informed guess is that the Obama Administration will find cases to revoke the privilege's assertion. They will do so publicly and with great fanfare. They will simultaneously announce a new set of restrictions on when and how the privilege should be invoked. They will do so on their own timetable (to the extent that the courts don't force their hands), and they will do so in conjunction with the broader ideal of reconciliation and accountability. They're just not ready to do so 22 days in, and the particulars of this case weren't, in any case, ideal for them.</I><BR/><BR/>I hope so.Gherald Lhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14018224925808657621noreply@blogger.com