Comments on: “SEALED v. SEALED”: How Courts Confront State Secrets http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/06/sealed_v_sealed_how_courts_con.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Thu, 24 May 2012 10:04:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Got Free DumB? http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/06/sealed_v_sealed_how_courts_con.html/comment-page-1#comment-591 Got Free DumB? Sun, 02 Jul 2006 04:35:31 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/06/sealed_v_sealed_how_courts_confront_state_secrets.html#comment-591 Too many secrets, dont cha tink? Too many secrets, dont cha tink?

]]> By: Daphine Remish http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2006/06/sealed_v_sealed_how_courts_con.html/comment-page-1#comment-590 Daphine Remish Fri, 30 Jun 2006 02:18:32 +0000 http://fasweb.beacontec.com/blog/secrecy/2006/06/sealed_v_sealed_how_courts_confront_state_secrets.html#comment-590 I wonder if this opinion is not conflating the concepts of "State Secret Privilege" (not at all absolute) with the "Totten Doctrine" (very much absolute, to date)? While Totten, Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875), is very much absolute, it applies, to a very narrow set of case law. That is cases involving disputes between our government and individual(s); secretly agreeing to conduct espionage as covert agent(s); where their dispute cannot be litigated without revealing their covert relationship. I wonder if this opinion is not conflating the concepts of “State Secret Privilege” (not at all absolute) with the “Totten Doctrine” (very much absolute, to date)?

While Totten, Totten v. United States, 92 U.S. 105 (1875), is very much absolute, it applies, to a very narrow set of case law. That is cases involving disputes between our government and individual(s); secretly agreeing to conduct espionage as covert agent(s); where their dispute cannot be litigated without revealing their covert relationship.

]]>