Comments on: Can A Court Grant Access to Classified Info? http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/09/access_to_classified.html Secrecy News from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:51:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Victoria http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/09/access_to_classified.html/comment-page-1#comment-4989 Victoria Wed, 23 Sep 2009 10:51:45 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2796#comment-4989 I enjoyed reading Michael's comment - I'm not sure whether to be heartened or saddened that the US is just as bad as the UK on this front! I enjoyed reading Michael’s comment – I’m not sure whether to be heartened or saddened that the US is just as bad as the UK on this front!

]]> By: Michael OKane http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/09/access_to_classified.html/comment-page-1#comment-4577 Michael OKane Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:22:43 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2796#comment-4577 This is hypocrisy. Has anyone looked at what the government does with clearances on the criminal side of the court? The government is being hypocritical about this. And it looks like the attorneys don't know the history of these cases. Maybe it's not reported on, I don't know. I once held a security clearance from one of these agencies. Top Secret, Crypto, Noforn. Never used it. When I did have occasion to finally see classified information, I was surprised to see that newspaper articles and other public source information were routinely classified. The more I spoke to others who had clearances, the more it became obvious that classified information wasn't worth it. Still, the government is fiercely protective of what it calls "classified information." Fast forward. The United States invades Panama and seizes General Noriega, amongst others. I represented one of the others (as I had been doing before the invasion. Interesting sidenote: they told me that if they would dismiss the charges against Noriega for political reasons, they'd also dismiss against my client.) All of the Noriega attorneys-except me-ran to and obtained security clearances. They sent "court security advisers" from Washington. These were CIA guys, a man and a woman. They were quite upset that I wouldn't take the clearance, because it's all about control. Please note that the clearances were everything but forced on the attorneys, so I have to laugh when I read your article stating that the government won't give them out. A few days after I turned my clearance down, I revealed the existence and location of a NSA listening station on Ancon Hill in pleadings filed in open court. The press jumped on it, the judge sent out police to arrest me, it was hysterical. When I arrived in chambers, I pointed out that the location I had described was listed in and published in the Canal Zone phone book. Of course, the prosecutors didn't have a copy. The lawyers in the coffee table would be so much better off without clearances. They should look at the Operation Court Broom case in Miami--that case contains all you need to know info about how the government can bug offices. Simply tell the government, "hey, if classified info comes out at trial, that's your problem." Utter and complete hypocrisy. Or perhaps, institutional Alzheimer's, which is just as bad. Best Regards, Michael OKane This is hypocrisy. Has anyone looked at what the government does with clearances on the criminal side of the court? The government is being hypocritical about this. And it looks like the attorneys don’t know the history of these cases. Maybe it’s not reported on, I don’t know.
I once held a security clearance from one of these agencies. Top Secret, Crypto, Noforn. Never used it. When I did have occasion to finally see classified information, I was surprised to see that newspaper articles and other public source information were routinely classified. The more I spoke to others who had clearances, the more it became obvious that classified information wasn’t worth it. Still, the government is fiercely protective of what it calls “classified information.”
Fast forward.
The United States invades Panama and seizes General Noriega, amongst others. I represented one of the others (as I had been doing before the invasion. Interesting sidenote: they told me that if they would dismiss the charges against Noriega for political reasons, they’d also dismiss against my client.) All of the Noriega attorneys-except me-ran to and obtained security clearances. They sent “court security advisers” from Washington. These were CIA guys, a man and a woman. They were quite upset that I wouldn’t take the clearance, because it’s all about control. Please note that the clearances were everything but forced on the attorneys, so I have to laugh when I read your article stating that the government won’t give them out. A few days after I turned my clearance down, I revealed the existence and location of a NSA listening station on Ancon Hill in pleadings filed in open court. The press jumped on it, the judge sent out police to arrest me, it was hysterical. When I arrived in chambers, I pointed out that the location I had described was listed in and published in the Canal Zone phone book. Of course, the prosecutors didn’t have a copy.
The lawyers in the coffee table would be so much better off without clearances. They should look at the Operation Court Broom case in Miami–that case contains all you need to know info about how the government can bug offices. Simply tell the government, “hey, if classified info comes out at trial, that’s your problem.”
Utter and complete hypocrisy. Or perhaps, institutional Alzheimer’s, which is just as bad.

Best Regards,

Michael OKane

]]> By: Shaun http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2009/09/access_to_classified.html/comment-page-1#comment-4555 Shaun Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:17:20 +0000 http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/?p=2796#comment-4555 Where separation of powers exist within a nation state, then the courts should have jurisdiction to rule in anything pertaining to that nation state. Too often there is a lack of accountability and the courts should be that recourse available to all to seek that restitution where the government has failed to provide. Where separation of powers exist within a nation state, then the courts should have jurisdiction to rule in anything pertaining to that nation state. Too often there is a lack of accountability and the courts should be that recourse available to all to seek that restitution where the government has failed to provide.

]]>