I’m in favor of the Kennedy legislation. We should have never come to a point where anyone could be “secretly” arrested on “secret” charges and held indefinitely for “undisclosed” reasons. Supposedly, this is a country of laws. Supposedly those laws provide security and protection for the people, not for the supersecretspyagencyyouneverheardof. It’s time we dropped all the police state crap.
If a person cannot be trusted with a security clearance, he/she cannot be trusted to be a Judge.
Therefore, issue clearances to Federal Judges.
The problem is that the fitness of someone to be a judge is evaluated on criteria that have nothing to do with the criteria used to determine whether someone is able to hold a security clearance.
For example, I don’t think there would be a problem with a Federal judge being married to someone whose family lives in an unfriendly country. That would be a major problem with someone applying for a security clearance.
Precisely. It may not be a “perfect” solution (if such a Frankenstein of compromises can even exist), and many will still oppose it for that very reason (it’s not “perfect,” whatever their definition of perfect may be), but it is a step up from the current situation.
Bricker has already addressed that point, in post 15.
2008 is indeed turning into an Annum Mirabile.
Bricker, the one issue I’ve seen raised (in the posts above) that doesn’t seem to have been answered is that of the special master’s security clearance. Allow me to play Paranoid Liberal for a second, and suggest that a hypothetical President Earthworker W. Shrub’s Administration might decide to revoke the clearance of a special master who might rule against their position.
Does it make sense that:
- The judge himself can rule on any such claim not involving specialized security knowledge; and
- If a special mater is appointed, his clearance is “frozen” to prevent the sort of paranoid scenario I’ve suggested from playing out in real life?
I wouldn’t support this. Security clearances may be revoked for a number of reasons - not all of them paranoid ones.
Remember that the last few years have seen a former National Security Advisor lose his clearance and a former CIA director nearly lose his.
The natural response here is for another master to be appointed - daring the President to can him as well. And if this becomes a pattern, it is all by itself interference in a trial, for which the President may be held liable through impeachment and trial himself.