"Claim of Privilege": Trail of "state secrets" followed like an absorbing mystery

Seattle Times by Kevin J. Hamilton | Jul. 18, 2008 (Review)

Ironically, as it turned out, the Reynolds case itself never did involve anything even remotely resembling "state secrets." When the accident report was declassified in the 1990s, all it contained was a dry summary of glaring negligence: engine maintenance orders (designed to prevent the fire) that had been ignored, negligent aircraft operation by the pilots, and a failure even to train the civilians on escape procedures or parachute operation. Full Story »

Posted by Dwight Rousu

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics
Topics: Bush Administration, Civil Liberties, Law, National Security, U.S. Supreme Court
Member Tags: state criminality
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dwight Rousu - Jul 20, 2008 - 12:34 PM PDT
Reviewed by: Dwight Rousu (review)
Edit Lock: This story can be edited

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Dwight Rousu
4.5
 by Dwight Rousu - Oct. 1, 2008

Scoundrels and criminals try to hide behind secrecy, and the current crime family administration has been invoking a mantra of "state secrets" to avoid revealing internal documents and testimony. The supreme court decision that rests at the root of this spate of claims is the subject of the book and the review of the book. Declassified in 1990, the facts show the secrecy claim was falsely used to cover up government negligence and deny citizens their rights. This story is important for citizens to have in mind when "state secrets" is being invoked to cover negligence and crimes by the current administration, and any future administration. It shows the supreme court got the facts wrong, so the original decision should be overturned.

Dwight posted this story.
See Full Review » (13 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.5

not enough reviews
from 1 review (10% confidence)
Quality
4.6
Facts
5.0
Fairness
5.0
Information
5.0
Sourcing
4.0
Style
5.0
Accuracy
5.0
Balance
4.0
Context
4.0
Popularity
3.8
Recommendation
5.0
Credibility
3.0
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
2.6
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!