Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
12. I think it has o do with this..wiki
Sat Jun 7, 2014, 08:45 AM
Jun 2014

The state secrets privilege is an evidentiary rule created by United States legal precedent. 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.[1][2][3][4][5][6] United States v. Reynolds,[7] which involved military secrets, was the first case that saw formal recognition of the privilege.

Following a claim of "state secrets privilege", the court rarely conducts an in camera examination of the evidence to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause to support the use of this doctrine. This results in court rulings in which even the judge has not verified the veracity of the assertion.[1] The privileged material is completely removed from the litigation, and the court must determine how the unavailability of the privileged information affects the case.[3][5]

James Risen and the matter of Wen Ho Lee [View all] struggle4progress Jun 2014 OP
If it was all about Risen, if he was the ONLY reporter to ever have the ability to report on sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #1
Unfortunately, you are right in my view. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #2
Courts do not get classified material Leme Jun 2014 #5
That is simply not correct. Courts can and do get classified material all the time. msanthrope Jun 2014 #7
perhaps I should have said Leme Jun 2014 #8
No...that's not correct at all. Witnesses who will testify as to classified matters msanthrope Jun 2014 #9
hmmm. well I saw a case quoted here that seemed to indicate otherwise Leme Jun 2014 #10
Why not find the case/cite? Then I can comment as to the specific issue. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #11
I think it has o do with this..wiki Leme Jun 2014 #12
You do realize this only applies to civil cases, right? Not criminal. nt msanthrope Jun 2014 #26
many various "this" in thread, I don't know which this you refer to Leme Jun 2014 #27
But Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of the press. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #19
we may be close in our thinking, but Leme Jun 2014 #21
See my post #22. It's tough, but we have to respect the freedom of the press and it has to be JDPriestly Jun 2014 #24
in a case of imminent crime Leme Jun 2014 #25
Precedents for compelling testimony of US journalists in court struggle4progress Jun 2014 #3
See my post # 19. JDPriestly Jun 2014 #20
When the accusations are false Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 2014 #4
I've referenced the shred job Risen did on Lee before, as have you. That he went to msanthrope Jun 2014 #6
for me, hero or not Leme Jun 2014 #13
But blanket confidentiality? randome Jun 2014 #14
I did edit almost immediately, about 30 mintes ago Leme Jun 2014 #15
I guess I just missed "deadline". lol Leme Jun 2014 #16
Ha! Happens to me all the time, too! randome Jun 2014 #17
yeah, this is a discussion..not a book Leme Jun 2014 #18
Jefferson, who was the victim of much false gossip printed by irresponsible newspapers, JDPriestly Jun 2014 #22
I do not consider Risen to be a "hero." I just consider the freedom of the press to be JDPriestly Jun 2014 #23
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»James Risen and the matte...»Reply #12