My last security-related project involved PM for No Such Agency, I'm quite familiar with security issues. It's clear that reasonable secrecy makes sense, no one argues with that.
The problem is unrestrained secrecy breeds contempt and criminality, as has been clear since the dawn of time. What everyone doesn't know is that there is effectively no oversight, so secrecy is, indeed, unrestrained.
Never mind last week's HLD bill, that's how we got to last year's Patriot Act, and Ashcroft's actions. Peter Wright, ex-director of MI5 writes (in "Spycatcher") that American intel operatives are "ruthless and lawless" compared to their counterparts elsewhere in the world. The rule of law is the issue in my prior posts. Here's Michael Ruppert's take on that issue, from last year:
Beyond The Law
On November 9th, Attorney General Ashcroft announced that he was ordering the Justice Department to begin wiretapping and monitoring attorney-client communications in terrorist cases where the suspect was incarcerated. This was not even discussed in HR 3162. That same day Senator Patrick Leahy (D), Vermont wrote to Ashcroft. He had many questions to ask about what the Justice Department had been doing by violating the trust of Congress and assuming powers which were not authorized by either law or the Constitution. Leahy even quoted a Supreme Court case (U.S. v. Robel): "[T]his concept of "national defense" cannot be deemed an end in itself, justifying any exercise of... power designed to promote such a goal. Implicit in the term ënational defense' is the notion that defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart... It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of one of those liberties... which makes the defense of the Nation worthwhile."
Leahy asked Ashcroft by what authority had he decided - on his own and without judicial review - to nullify the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. He asked for an explanation and some description of the procedural safeguards that Ashcroft would put in place. He asked Ashcroft to appear before the Judiciary committee and to respond in writing by November 13.
His answer came a little late. On November 16, Patrick Leahy received an anthrax letter. And, as of this press time, Ashcroft has not responded in writing.
fromthewilderness.com |
