State secrets privilege

Application of the privilege results in exclusion of evidence from a legal case based solely on affidavits submitted by the government stating that court proceedings might disclose sensitive information which might endanger national security.In this case, it was alleged that a letter from General James Wilkinson to President Thomas Jefferson might contain state secrets and could therefore not be divulged without risk to national security.The widows of three civilian crew members sought accident reports on the crash but were told that to release such details would threaten national security by revealing the bomber's top-secret mission."[11]These figures were later retracted, as they were based on erroneous information: Correction: In this article, we incorrectly reported that the government invoked the state secrets privilege in 23 cases since 2001.[13] An article in the New York Times in August 2007, regarding a lawsuit involving Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, concluded that judges were more willing to ask the government to validate its claims.Under its original formulation, the state secrets privilege was meant only to exclude a very narrow class of evidence whose revelation would harm national security.[20] These reforms center around several ideas: On January 22, 2008, Senators Edward Kennedy, Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter introduced S. 2533, the State Secrets Protection Act.In February 2002, it was invoked in the case of Notra Trulock, who launched a defamation suit against Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, falsely charged with stealing nuclear secrets; President Bush stated that national security would be compromised if Trulock were allowed to seek damages from Lee; though it resulted in the case being dismissed, another suit was launched directly attacking then-FBI Director Louis Freeh for interfering and falsely invoking the state secrets privilege.[26] The privilege was invoked in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case of Crater Corporation vs. Lucent Technologies Inc. and AT&T Company, in September 2005.In a different case in Michigan, brought by the ACLU against the NSA on behalf of various scholars, journalists, attorneys, and national non-profit organizations, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled on August 17, 2006, that the program was unconstitutional and should be halted.She upheld the doctrine but ruled that the government's public statements concerning the operation were admissible and constituted sufficient proof for the case to continue without any privileged evidence or discovery.On May 27, 2006, the Justice Department moved to preempt the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) challenge to warrantless domestic surveillance by invoking the state secrets privilege.In April 2006, the Bush administration took initial steps to use the state secrets rule to block a lawsuit against AT&T and the National Security Agency brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[31] However, the case was dismissed on June 3, 2009,[32] citing legislation (section 802 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) stating that in the case of a covered civil action, the assistance alleged to have been provided by the electronic communication service provider was in connection with an intelligence activity involving communications that was authorized by the President during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on January 17, 2007; designed to detect or prevent a terrorist attack, or activities in preparation for a terrorist attack, against the United States; and the subject of a written request or directive, or a series of written requests or directives, from the Attorney General or the head of an element of the intelligence community (or the deputy of such person) to the electronic communication service provider indicating that the activity was authorized by the President; and determined to be lawful.[35] On October 9, 2007, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of the Fourth Circuit's decision, letting the doctrine of state secrets privilege stand.[37] In July 2013, Greek shipping magnate Victor Restis brought a defamation lawsuit against UANI for claiming that his companies were "front men for the illicit activities of the Iranian regime."Justice Elena Kagan also wrote a concurring opinion, saying the case should be sent back to the lower court to consider whether some of the informations Zubaydah sought could be separated from state secrets.Gorsuch argued that the fact that Zubaydah was held at a black site in Poland between 2002 and 2003 was now public knowledge and could therefore no longer be a state secret, and expressed concern about the government's overclassification of information.
evidentiary ruleUnited Statesprecedentlegal caseaffidavitsUnited States v. Reynoldsin cameraExecutive BranchTotten RuleNew York Times Co. v. United StatesPentagon PapersEnglish common lawpublic-interest immunitycommander-in-chiefforeign policyUnited States v. NixonAaron Burr'strial for treasonJames WilkinsonThomas JeffersonSupreme Court of the United StatesWhite House CounselJohn DeanSeptember 11, 2001 attacksGeorge W. BushExecutive Order 13233Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial TelecommunicationPolitical Science QuarterlyGlenn Greenwaldexecutive powerunitary executive theoryJohn Yoowar on terrorextraordinary renditionjudicial reviewwar powersState Secrets Protection ActEdward KennedyPatrick LeahyArlen SpecterB-29 SuperfortressGeorge TenetdefamationLos AlamosWen Ho LeePresident BushLouis FreehSibel Edmondsattack the United States on September 11, 2001whistleblowerJeffrey Alexander SterlingAfrican-Americanqui tamUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitLucent Technologiespatent infringementfiber opticAmerican Civil Liberties Union v. National Security AgencyU.S. Justice DepartmentACLU v. NSACenter for Constitutional RightsNSA call databaseNSA warrantless surveillance controversyHepting v. AT&TNational Security AgencyElectronic Frontier FoundationHouse Judiciary CommitteeKevin BankstonForeign Intelligence Surveillance ActKhalid El-MasriCentral Intelligence AgencytorturedegradinginhumancaptivityT. S. Ellis IIIU.S. District CourtSupreme CourtMaher ArarAttorney GeneralJohn AshcroftDeputy Attorney GeneralJames B. ComeyUnited States District Court for the Eastern District of New YorkTenet v. DoeUnited Against Nuclear IranGeneral Dynamics Corp. v. United StatesFederal Bureau of Investigation v. FazagaIslamic Center of IrvineIrvine, CaliforniaUnited States v. Zubaydahex parteGuantánamoAbu ZubaydahJames Elmer MitchellCIA torture programCIA black siteUnited States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuiten bancStephen BreyerJohn RobertsBrett KavanaughAmy Coney BarrettClarence ThomasSamuel AlitoElena KaganNeil GorsuchSonia SotomayorTotten v. United Statescommon lawEspionage Act of 1917Mosaic theory of intelligence gatheringFederal Tort Claims ActClassified Information Procedures ActSilent witness ruleWayback MachineFindLawJURISTThe Chicago TribuneUnclaimed TerritoryThe New York TimesVillage VoiceNational Security Whistleblowers CoalitionNBC NewsHarvard Law ReviewSCOTUSblogRobert ChesneyWake Forest UniversitySchool of LawNat HentoffFederation of American Scientists