Talk:State Secrets Privilege
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Unnamed Study
That's not so, said Shannen Coffin, who oversaw state secrets litigation at the Justice Department from January 2002 until mid-2004. "I don't think that's even a remotely plausible claim," said Coffin, now in private practice. "It's an extremely important privilege and one the government takes extremely seriously." The Justice Department does not tally the government's use of the privilege. But according to a recent study, the U.S. has successfully asserted the secrets privilege at least 60 times since the early 1950s, and has been stymied only five times.
[edit] Reverts
In reference to the reverts, I don't have an agenda - I'm simply trying to give an idea of whether this is a frequently-used precedent, or only used a few times, or whatever. People reading the article have a fair expectation of walking away knowing whether it's a common or arcane piece of precedence.
The Seattle Times references the same study I do, meaning I think there is some air of legitimacy surrounding it. [1] "the United States successfully has asserted the secrets privilege at least 60 times since the early 1950s, and has been stymied five times." Sherurcij July 3, 2005 00:15 (UTC)
[edit] Post 9/11?
What's the relevance of saying "Since the Sept 11th attacks", when this article includes examples back to 1953? Did the State Secrets Privilege change significantly in 2001? Ojw 14:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
- No, it's just that the use (and especially the abuse) of it has skyrocketted post 9/11. 71.203.209.0 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Plagiarism?
During May 2005 instances related to Trulock were added to the article. I do not know their original source. However, I have found a news article published in August 2005 that seems to almost word-for-word duplicate the Wikipedia content related to Trulock (among other similarities). I am not sure if this is plagiarism because I do not know the original source of the material in the Wikipedia article. But I do think it bears investigation.
The August 2005 article is re-published on the Common Dreams website: 'State Secrets' Privilege Not So Rare.
[edit] Complete list
Is there a complete list of invocations? I think that would be appropriate to include since this is a hot topic and it would allow the read to make their own conclusions.
- I've already included all the examples I could find referenced, if you do find another example of a time it was invoked, please add it :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] exercising the privilege without asserting it?
In the article on Alger Hiss case, one of the things that the pro-Hiss side goes on about is that certain facts were not revealed to the defense, such as the FBI's capability to forge typewriters (facts finally revealed in the 1970s). It would be useful to have a section on state secrets privilege clarifying whether one can use the privilege without asserting the privilege. In other words does the defense and even the judge have to know that state secrets impinge on the case if they don't know already? I would think that the answer is obvious but IANAL. TMLutas 18:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Why is the title capitalized?
I came to this article after reading about the Khalid El-Masri case in the New York Times. They refer to this doctrine as the "state secrets privilege", uncapitalized. Is there a reason why the article capitalizes the phrase? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
