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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Ichingcarpenter

(36,988 posts)
Mon Mar 30, 2015, 06:15 AM Mar 2015

A court case so secret, US Govt says it can't go on [View all]

magine that someone has wronged you, and you sue them.

Then the Government magically appears in court and asks that your suit be dismissed because, for reasons it won't tell you, state secrets might be dredged up in the course of the litigation.

You have no idea what they're talking about.

But after secret discussions with the judge from which both you and the defendant are excluded, the court dismisses your suit.

This Kafkaesque scenario couldn't happen in the U.S., right?

Not until Monday, it couldn't. That's when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York did exactly that, dismissing a defamation suit by Greek shipping magnate Victor Restis against a shady advocacy group called United Against Nuclear Iran.

This is the first time a US court has dismissed a lawsuit on the basis of state secrets when the case didn't involve either the Government or a defence contractor deeply enmeshed with classified government contracts.

It's also a marvellous example of how secrecy fundamentally distorts the legal process and subverts the rule of law.

When I write about a case, I usually begin by describing the facts.

Here the facts are so secret I can barely say anything........................................................................



http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11424037

39 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Well I'm not worried. Savannahmann Mar 2015 #1
The depth of corruption we face woo me with science Mar 2015 #2
What part of the Constitution covers Secret Trials? Octafish Mar 2015 #3
Considering I found the trial docs on google, I wonder how msanthrope Mar 2015 #11
So what? Octafish Mar 2015 #33
You are entitled to that document if it contains exculpatory evidence msanthrope Mar 2015 #34
I think you just described what happened in this case. ieoeja Mar 2015 #35
I smell CIA/MIC astroturf hootinholler Mar 2015 #4
I read the ruling. I have to agree with the judge. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #10
Quelle surprise... riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #12
The Plaintiff is a billionaire money launderer with a bullshit claim msanthrope Mar 2015 #14
I'm concerned about an ugly turn of events by our increasingly secretive govt riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #17
So you finally googled the Plaintiff? Look, he's smart....if I msanthrope Mar 2015 #19
Yes I did. And it's obviously NOT a bullshit claim since the case can't be tried riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #23
Why do you think it's the NGO and not the Kaplan discovery? msanthrope Mar 2015 #26
That's nice hootinholler Mar 2015 #25
Already did your googling for you.....see post #9. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #27
K&R riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #5
I have no words Amishman Mar 2015 #6
Everything secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2015 #7
I wonder if Obama is aware of this case Oilwellian Mar 2015 #8
Poor billionaire and money launderer sues, loses, and I'm supposed to care? msanthrope Mar 2015 #9
This tactic of smearing everyone who challenges the deep state is getting stale riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #13
Your concern for the billionaire money launderer who stole from the Greek msanthrope Mar 2015 #15
You never fail to amuse msanthrope (sic) riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #18
Yeah.....and next you'll tell me OJ is innocent. Have you finally read msanthrope Mar 2015 #20
Is that the best you can do msanthrope (sic)? riderinthestorm Mar 2015 #24
And coming from a supposed attorney Oilwellian Mar 2015 #16
An attorney who doesn't feel sorry for some billionaire Plaintiff, whose money msanthrope Mar 2015 #22
You do realize, you're siding with an entity that has... Oilwellian Mar 2015 #29
I'm siding with the intervenor, the DOJ. That's who won dismissal. nt msanthrope Mar 2015 #30
I can tell you why you should care in one word. Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2015 #37
Already done....Ellsberg, Zuckerbraun, and Doe. The opinion is worth msanthrope Mar 2015 #38
So........ DeSwiss Mar 2015 #21
LOL obviously the CIA said kill this in court. Rex Mar 2015 #28
But apparently the CIA didn't mind the information getting out. Savannahmann Mar 2015 #32
It's totally crazy right? Rex Mar 2015 #36
The first and last time I encountered this sort of thing I ran like hell in the opposite direction. hunter Mar 2015 #31
We gotta change the site so we can rec replies. Savannahmann Mar 2015 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A court case so secret, U...