News and Opinion for Democrats Against Bush -- Part II
Ashcroft Secrecy Leads to Cases with No Public Record
PT. II - HOME PAGE
PT. II - CONTENTS
BUSH and the MEDIA
CIVIL RIGHTS
-- Gay Rights
THE ECONOMY
-- The Real Deficit
---- Deficit Lies
-- International Debt
---- Children Will Pay
-- Tax Cut Con Game
---- Tax-Cut Lies
------ to Small Business
---- Phony Benefits
---- Hurting States
---- Why Accepted?
---- Cuts Will Backfire
-- Low-Tax Mania
-- Move toward Flat Tax
-- Corp. Tax Dodgers
-- Corporate Welfare
---- Halliburton
-- The SUV Boondoggle
-- Unemploym't Worse
------ Comp. Denied
---- Jobs Not Created
-- Widespread Poverty
-- False Recovery
-- Stock Market
EDUCATION
-- Texas Sch. Scandals
-- Broken Promises
-- Abandoned Youth
-- College Aid Cut
-- Aid to Rich Colleges
-- Textbooks Censored
-- Acad. Freedom Denied
ELECTRONIC VOTING -- --- A Crucial Issue
ENERGY
-- Monstrous Bill
---- Allows Blackouts
---- Bi-Part. Oppos'n
-- New Energy Bill
ENVIRONMENT
-- Bush's "Eco-Speak"
---- How to Tell Lies
-- Crimes v. Nature
---- Air Pollution
---- Global Warming
---- Ozone Depletion
---- Chemical Hazards
---- Loss of Wildlife
-- States Combat Bush
---- Power Plant Suits
-- Pension Funds, Too
LABOR ISSUES
-- Worker Safety
-- Real Jobless Stats
-- Overtime in Danger
--"Productivity"
PUBLIC HEALTH
-- Poor Ranking
-- Privatized Socialism
-- Health Insurance
---- The Uninsured
------ Middle Class
-- Cost of Drugs
-- Medicare
---- A Cynical Bill
---- Favoring HMOs
---- $$ to Drug Co.s
---- Bait and Switch
---- AARP Sells Out
---- Bullying to Win
---- Australian Critique
---- Some Good News
-- Chill on Research
TRANSPORTATION
-- Amtrak
-- Mars vs. Amtrak
WAR OF IDEAS
-- Use of Language
WAR on TERROR
--'Enemy Combatants'
-- Ultra-Secret Trials
-- Homeland Insecurity
---- Funds Miss Needs
WAR on CIVIL RIGHTS
-- FBI Prying Grows
---- Targeting Protests
------ & Anti-Bush Talk
-- Computer Privacy
-- Patriot Act
---- Excesses
------ Cure - SAFE Act
---- Dangers
---- Author's Fear
---- Librarians' Warning
--"Patriot Act II"
---- Death for Protest?
---- Sneak Enactments
-- CAPPS II
---- GAO Criticisms
---- EFF Concerns
-- Guantanamo
---- Conditions
---- Legal Status
---- UK Judge's Blast
-- Torture Condoned
---- Canadian's Ordeal
-- Yousef Yee
WAR on SCIENCE
-- Scientists Accuse
---- Admin. Can't Deny
WAR on WOMEN
-- Abortion Truths
-- Notorious Photo
WAR on WORKING FAMILIES

"The case is significant because it could force a close examination of secret tactics that are apparently becoming increasingly common under Attorney General Ashcroft. In September 2001, he ordered that all deportation hearings with links to the Sept. 11 investigation be conducted secretly. In addition, the Justice Department has acknowledged that at least nine criminal cases related to the Sept. 11 investigation were being cloaked in total secrecy."

--Warren Richey, Christian Science Monitor

Christian Science Monitor
from the October 30, 2003 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1030/p01s02-usju.html

Secret 9/11 case before high court

The justices consider a petition for a case with no public record.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

The complete article is currently (4/3/04) available on the Monitor's website, at-- http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1030/p01s02-usju.html [found through a Google search by article title on the dat above]

Quotes--

MIAMI - It's the case that doesn't exist. Even though two different federal courts have conducted hearings and issued rulings, there has been no public record of any action. No documents are available. No files. No lawyer is allowed to speak about it. Period.

Yet this seemingly phantom case does exist - and is now headed to the US Supreme Court in what could produce a significant test of a question as old as the Star Chamber, abolished in 17th-century England: How far should a policy of total secrecy extend into a system of justice?

Secrecy has been a key Bush administration weapon in the war on terrorism. ...

Federal judges have the authority to order sensitive documents or even entire hearings sealed from public view when disclosure might harm national security. Such rulings are usually issued after the judge has explained the need for secrecy in a decision available to the public. ...

What is highly unusual in MKB v. Warden is that lower court judges ordered the entire case sealed from the start - preventing any mention of it to the public. ...

In her petition to the court, Miami federal public defender Kathleen Williams says the judges' actions authorizing the secrecy without any public notice, public hearings, or public findings amount to "an abuse of discretion" that requires corrective action by the justices. ...

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

________________________________

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright 2003

Legislationline.org

26 Feb : US Supreme Court Approval for Holding of Secret Trials

 

This information was found at--  http://www.legislationline.org/index.php?topic=6

 

On 23 February, the US Supreme Court gave a green light for the government to conduct certain federal court cases in total secrecy. In a case with major implications for public access to the courts, as well as measures against terrorism, the USA’s highest court stated said it will not examine the circumstances surrounding a habeas corpus appeal filed by an Arab immigrant challenging his detention during the post-9/11 investigation. The proceedings were conducted under a government secrecy request which was upheld by federal judges. The case, M.K.B. v. Warden, was being closely followed by legal experts as it asked the high court to spell out whether there is a constitutional requirement that judicial proceedings in the federal courts be conducted in public, or at the very least, noted somewhere in the public record. The Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the public enjoys a right to access certain judicial proceedings. What is unique about the case of M.K.B. v. Warden is that the entire case including the fact that it existed at all was kept secret. In effect, the government, judges, and lawyers agreed to keep the matter secret, including the maintaining of a private docket system accessible only to those authorized. The court is also to review three other terrorism cases, with judgements to be handed down in April. (CDM)

 

OSCE, 2004. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.

Christian Science Monitor
from the February 24, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0224/p04s01-usju.html

Supreme Court decision may limit access to terror cases

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
 
The complete article is currently (4/3/04) available on the Monitor's website at-- http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0224/p04s01-usju.htm
 
Excerpt--

The US Supreme Court has given a green light for the government to conduct certain federal court cases in total secrecy. ...

The existence of the case was revealed by an alert reporter at the Daily Business Review of Miami after a brief docketing error by an appeals court clerk. But for the error, the press and public may never have learned of the case.

 


www.csmonitor.com | Copyright 2004 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

 FAIR USE NOTICE  
  This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.