WASHINGTON - In federal courts and on Capitol Hill, challenges are brewing to a key legal strategy President Bush is using to protect a secret surveillance program that monitors phone calls and e-mails inside the United States.
Under grilling from lawmakers and attack by lawsuits alleging Bush authorized the illegal wiretapping of Americans, the White House has invoked a legal defense known as the "state secrets" doctrine — a claim that the president has inherent and unchecked power to shield national security information from disclosure, either to plaintiffs in court or to congressional overseers.
The principle was established a half-century ago when, ruling in a wrongful-death case brought by the widows of civilians killed in a military plane crash, the Supreme Court upheld the Air Force's refusal to provide an accident report to the plaintiffs. The government contended releasing the document would compromise information about a secret mission and intelligence equipment.
Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee, believes the White House has gone too far in invoking state secrets to halt civil lawsuits.
"We have the authority to define the state secrets doctrine," Specter says. "I don't think that the simple assertion of state secrets ought to be the end of the matter."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071126/ap_on_go_co/state_secrets;_ylt=Anisx...
This is just more evidence of the government's trampling of the constitution and the demise of our open system of justice. What we have in the current government is becoming less like a system of laws that apply to everybody and more like an absolutist regime that pretty much does whatever it wants and is above any laws. We have been living through a coup, a kind of putsch, for the last six years and most people haven't even noticed. Some have even supported it.
tut...tut...tut...you are not being patriotic....
http://toledoohioneighborhoodconcerns.com/blog
Why bother investigating? Let's say that, in a fit of pique, the court does find that the President and his henchmen have overstepped their authority and trampled our constitutional rights into a mud hole. The court orders the President to stop.
Or else what? What will happen if the Pres. doesn't stop? Nothing. What will happen to Himself if the President knowingly violates our constitutional rights? Nothing. What will happen to his henchmen? Nothing.
In a way, this is a bit like the USSC hearing the case on the second amendment. If the court finds that the 2A does not confer an individual right, that will give the federal government thugs the right to start a house to house search and seizure. If not, confiscation will be postponed and none of the unconstitutional gun laws will be repealed.
You see what I mean? It really does not make a difference.