While still a defeat, it's excellent to see the beginning of the courts questioning Bush's constant "state secret" excuse. At minimum, the logic is clearly flawed: if the President breaks the law, and declares the evidence for it "state secrets", that evidence then can't be introduced in court and thus dramatically decreases their chances of getting convicted of any wrongdoing - does no one see a problem with this setup, regardless of the particular topic?
Despite it being disappointing that the Sealed Document wasn't admitted, this will hopefully end up boding well for the end of warrantless wiretaps in addition to the use of the "state secrets" excuse. I just can't believe it's still taboo to talk about impeachment.
Full text from the 9th Circuit's website:
No comments:
Post a Comment