Hacker News Reader

Comment by Animats | Hacker News Reader

When the Government invokes the state secrets privilege in a lawsuit to conceal evidence, it should lose the case, not win it.

It seems to be an open secret that UANI is a front for the CIA and/or Mossad. Until now, that info only appeared in fringe blogs. Now it's in the mainstream press. So the coverup effort may have backfired.

View on HN

> it should lose the case, not win it.

It's sad that we've gotten this bit of public policy wrong.

We have standards for the willful destruction of evidence; the same could apply directly to secrets. "Okay, if the secret is serious enough-- you can keep it, but we're going to interpret that in a manner which is against your interests."

This allows for a reasonable decision to take place over what should and shouldn't be kept from the courts. No one expects national security to be cheap, if the government needs to lose some cases to keep its secrets then so be it.

Otherwise, the outcome we have now where the state claims secrecy at every point it can possibly get away with it is inevitable: it's the best strategy because there is no cost to it. Arguably, government attorneys wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't try for it. It's the job of the public, congress, and the judiciary to tell them no in the interest of having a functioning legal system.

If my secret is so important that I can't tell it in court, even in my defense, I would lose my case.

So should the government.

> it should lose the case, not win it.

Problem is... the government is not even a party to the case! They can't win or lose; they're like the guy objecting at someone else's wedding.

That is a bit of a wrinkle, but it's easy enough to extend the basic principle to that type of situation. If the government objects to person A suing person B for $10 million, it should have to pay person A the ten mil to make the case go away.

And if A sues B not for money, but for some kind of action? Or injunctive relief?

The government can either take the action itself if it makes sense, or compensate B for its costs.

So the government can somehow hack into the NYTimes editing process and put a retraction of some earlier claim into the newspaper, all without the NYTimes staff cooperating?

Similarly, if A is constantly harassing B, B should just shut up and take the money the government pays him in compensation, along with the harassment that isn't being stopped?

Are you sure that is the outcome you are advocating for?

> So the government can somehow hack into the NYTimes editing process and put a retraction of some earlier claim into the newspaper, all without the NYTimes staff cooperating?

Can you come up with a concrete example of how such a court order might come about in a case that the government is intervening in in this manner?

> Similarly, if A is constantly harassing B, B should just shut up and take the money the government pays him in compensation, along with the harassment that isn't being stopped?

See above.

> Are you sure that is the outcome you are advocating for?

It's difficult to know, since these seem to have no relationship to any hypothetical case I can come up with.

You're moving goal posts.

My example is: A sues the NYT, demanding that they rescind something.

Your solution: The government steps in and takes the action itself.

You want the government to get involved. I don't. I want A and the NYT to fight it out in court.

No, I don't want the government to get involved. I hold the (probably far more radical position than you) that government is not entitled to secrets at all, and that all government employees should be live-streaming their activities to the public Internet at all times while on duty.

I was presenting an alternative on the assumption the government would anyway.

We're not talking about secrets and government employees!

You have expressed your desire to not have any judgments except monetary compensations.

And I'm pointing out that harassment victims would rather live in peace than get some money in exchange for their state-sanctioned(!) victimhood.

> We're not talking about secrets and government employees!

Actually, that is the core premise of the conversation I am having.

You probably have a reasonable point, but I'm disinclined to discuss it if we're not actually having the same conversation. All the more so since you have made a false accusation about my desires.

Seems to be entirely unreasonable to say "I have an objection but you can't hear it."

Honest question, was that ever in doubt by any thinking person? The article here claims a _former CIA director_ founded it.

The case is between two private parties. The government is interfering in the case on their own behalf, not as plaintiff or defendant.

It's possible that one of the parties _is_ the government, but the secret that is being protected is that fact itself.

I'd say its not just possible, but more likely probable. From the article:

> United Against was founded in 2008 by a former CIA director and a group of retired diplomats to advocate against the nuclear Iran.

Nobody, let alone a former director, retires from the CIA. They just get a cushy desk job in some off-book toe-the-company-line operation.

Except that through their intervention they have laid bare their connection to this private company. They're culpable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com