Talk:State secrets privilege

message: What's the relevance of saying "Since the Sept 11th attacks", when this article includes examples back to 1953? Did the State Secrets Privilege change significantly in 2001? Ojw 14:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's just that the use (and especially the abuse) of it has skyrocketted post 9/11. 71.203.209.0 01:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post 9/11? 

message: Is there a complete list of invocations? I think that would be appropriate to include since this is a hot topic and it would allow the read to make their own conclusions.
:I've already included all the examples I could find referenced, if you do find another example of a time it was invoked, please add it :) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete list 

message: In the article on Alger Hiss case, one of the things that the pro-Hiss side goes on about is that certain facts were not revealed to the defense, such as the FBI's capability to forge typewriters (facts finally revealed in the 1970s). It would be useful to have a section on state secrets privilege clarifying whether one can use the privilege without asserting the privilege. In other words does the defense and even the judge have to know that state secrets impinge on the case if they don't know already? I would think that the answer is obvious but IANAL. TMLutas 18:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  exercising the privilege without asserting it? 

message: I came to this article after reading about the Khalid El-Masri case in the New York Times. They refer to this doctrine as the "state secrets privilege", uncapitalized. Is there a reason why the article capitalizes the phrase? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is the title capitalized? 

message: There is one thing europeans do not understand about the doctrine of State Secrets Privilege and which Wikipedia should explain clearly for international audiences who are unfamiliar with the weird anglo-saxon legal system.
Considering that US is a capitalist system country, everything should have a price, yet the State Secrets Privilege does not appear to have a cost or price associated with it?
Let's say I go to the court and say I am John Average and look at my evidence: I was kidnapped by the CIA due to mistaken identity error, taken to Bananistan and tortured in a pit for 8 months day and night and then dumped in an abandoned forest in Chachacistan. I want a verdict of 5 million USD compensation for my sufferings and lasting injuries resulting from the many beatings.
CIA then comes and tells the judge the entire case is secret due to State Secrets Privilege and everybody should go home. The judge then makes the verdict: CIA loses due to obstruction of justice, but no need to present any evidence, case closed forever and Mr. John Average wins only 3 million dollars, because his injuries claims were slightly exaggerated. The price for a single excercise of the State Secrets Privilege to maintain secrecy was therefore 3 million dollars.
Why the system does not work this way? Why is the CIA able to invoke the State Secrets Privilege without bearing any price or cost? The due compensation for Mr. Joe Average's long torture sufferings is actually his well-earned private property. Therefore dismissing a case via State Secrets Privilege, but without paying a dime, actually amounts to government taking of private property, which is strictly banned by the US constitution! Supposedly US population cherishes and much protects private property, so this is a contradiction? 87.97.107.96 (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article hard to decipher on basic concepts. 

message: The study cited by the piece via John Dean has been corrected  and revoked by The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The corrected statistic shows no quantitative increase in invocations of the state secrets privilege during the Bush administration.
However, a newer study conducted by University of Texas at El Paso scholar William Weaver demonstrates invocations of state secrets privilege under the Bush Administration have increased remarkably from a total of 45 during the Bush administration compared to only 65 invocations in the 48 years since the Reynolds Decision that precedes Bush's tenure.
--Bufred (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study Corrected 

message: Why is there no reference to Totten v. United States (1876)? That case provides a broader version of the State Secrets Privilege than does United States v. Reynolds. I've also asked this question here. SMP0328. (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ping SMP0328., sometime in the intervening 12 years, some editor either saw your inquiry, or thought similarly to yourself. There is now reference to Totten in the body of the article, with sources.--FeralOink (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totten Bar 

message: The link for Footnote 25 is broken. I was only able to find this: (http://www.leahy.senate.gov/press/examining-the-state-secrets-privilege-protecting-national-security-while-preserving-accountability) when I searched. It's on a senator's site, so I think it's trustworthy, but I don't know enough about Wiki to know if I should just go and replace the link or not. Would be nice if someone who knows about making decisions could make this decision.151.213.186.222 (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, IP User. I will go have a look at that right now and make a decision. If it is on a U.S. senator's website, it is usually reputable, but I will confirm whether or not it complies with WP:NPOV. I really appreciate your effort to help Wikipedia! That was nice of you to take the time to drop in and make a helpful suggestion.--FeralOink (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding: Footnote 25 Link