Violations of the Law may be classified, Court Rules

For all those paranoids thinking the Government is keeping info from us and covering up any violations, you are not paranoid. It is a court backed descision.

Information that would reveal a violation of the law may be properly classified as long as it is not deliberately classified for the purpose of concealing the violation, a federal judge indicated this week.

Although the information is not supposed to be used to deliberately conceal any law breaking activities...

In section 1.7 of executive order 12958, as amended, on "classification limitations and prohibitions," the President directed that "In no case shall information be classified in order to ... conceal violations of law...."

In other words, according to Judge Lambert, classifiers actually may conceal violations of the law as long as such concealment is not the specific purpose of the classification.

But as with all things legal, the ruling is subject to interpretation

Under Judge Lamberth's interpretation, the executive order provision limiting classification of violations of the law is not a limitation on the types of information that may be classified at all, but rather an unverifiable limitation on the classifier's intention. The provision is not concerned with the consequences of classification (i.e., the fact that criminal activity will be concealed from public knowledge) but instead focuses on the mental state of the classifier. Did he or she specifically intend to conceal violations of the law? If not, the classification may proceed, even if concealment is the inevitable result. And since the classifier's mental state is unknowable by others or may itself be concealed, the executive order's limitation is deprived is of significant meaning.

Thus leaving the Government free to do as they please, cover it up and have the courts backing....

Interestingly, Secretary Rumsfeld did not use the phrase "in order to" which Judge Lamberth singled out to justify his interpretation of the order as a prohibition only on deliberate concealment. The Rumsfeld paraphrase seems to reflect the prior understanding that classification should not be used "so as to" conceal violations of the law, regardless of the intentions of the classifier.

But if violations of the law may in fact be classified, then it is important for Americans to know that. If Judge Lamberth has made it easier for classifiers to conceal violations of the law, he also put the public on notice that this is how the national security classification system now functions.

This is how I read it any way.
source

This is significant.

Regardless of the esteemed judge's (read:BAR's) opinion, the ultimate consequence is that any person, citizen or otherwise, may be prosecuted by the law, without the citizens' active involvement.

Can the citizen's trust the government with such power? My opinion is that at best, the government has not been granted this trust.

I hope we remember that when the next whistle-blower is locked away in some foreign prison, and/or never heard from again.

To all the people who told me I was crazy for saying that this government needs to be removed from power...
Somehow "I told you so" just isn't enough at this point...

This is really creepy. It seems as though the last few preludes to overt fascism have been instituted.

God help this nation.

Anyone ever read the Constitution? The powers of the Federal government as enumerated therein are few and limited. Everything else they do is illegal.

[edit on 2-11-2008 by OuttaHere]

Originally posted by OuttaHere
Anyone ever read the Constitution? The powers of the Federal government as enumerated therein are few and limited. Everything else they do is illegal.

You couldn't be more right about that.
They are rewriting the constitution by passing laws that fly in the face of that great document.
If a new law or piece of legislation is passed that "King George" doesn't like, he uses a presidential signing statement (I believe that is what it's called) to state that he doesn't feel that he is bound by this.

In other words he signs it with a footnote saying "This new law, or legislation does not apply to me, because I say so"
Since when is the president (or anyone else for that matter) above the law?

They can now search your home without a warrant, hold you without trial indefinitely, put you through a MILITARY trial (which has different laws, and rights than normal court) all for being a terrorist or enemy combatant.

May I remind you that "terrorism" has over 100 definitions.
There is no internationally agreed definition of terrorism.
Stop and think to yourselves for one moment.
Who are the REAL terrorists? The people who abuse their citizens under supposed "terrorist" laws, or the people BEING abused by these laws?

Hiding their violations of laws is the "keystone" of fascism, upon which the rest of their violations will rest.
Truly frightening, we should ALL be worried about this.