Senate Proceeding on Jun 10th, 2009 :: 8:57:00 to 9:06:39
Total video length: 9 hours 45 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:89 Duration: 0:09:39 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

8:56:57 to 8:57:00( Edit History Discussion )

John Thune: reach an -- the latitude to between the rights of litigants

8:57:00 to 9:06:39( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Orrin Hatch

8:57:01 to 8:57:22( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: and the need of our national security. this is conducted on a case-by-case basis. the writers of the bill want to redefine the standard to only afford protection under the states secrets privilege only when the disclosure of evidence is -- quote -- "reasonably likely to cause significant to national security. this is a very serious departure

8:57:23 to 8:57:45( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: from the long- precedent of the reynolds case. this has ramifications that would severely impede the protection of national security secrets. it is absolutely preposterous to abandon the standard that has more than 55 years of jurisprudential evolution and case law t

8:57:46 to 8:58:07( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: the there's reasonable danger, then we secure the information. the state secrets protection act, s. 417, says if it's reasonably likely, you can compromise the information. s. 417 fails to protect state secrets.

8:58:08 to 8:58:30( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: now, the state secrets privilege is never lightly used with impunity. the assertion of this right must be made in writing by the head of the the state secrets privilege. in r sometimes been the director of national intelligence. cour probe to ensure that the

8:58:31 to 8:58:52( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: privilege has been invoked correctly. the probe will include an examination as to why the information need to prove a plaintiff's case. conversely, courts will examine as to why the information is critical to after thoughtful review, a judge makes

8:58:53 to 8:59:13( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: production of evidence alleged to have been covered by the privilege. not a hrou passed by politicians -- not a law passed by politicians. there is a myth that the bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege more than any administration. that is a myth. rooted in this fallacy is the idea that the administration

8:59:14 to 8:59:38( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: overreached in asserting the privilege to protect infortion not previously thought to be within its scope. this erroneous notion was propagated by not only the media but by members of this body. most legal experts in the field of national security law have stated that it is not possible to collect accurate annual

8:59:39 to 8:59:59( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: comparisons. there is no "batting average" that can be empirically compare from one presidential adminiration to another. too so would incorrectly operate under the assumption that the government is presented with the same amount of cases each year in whichhe privilege can be asserted. it makes absolutely no sense to me to compare

9:00:00 to 9:00:21( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: administrations and judge them based on the total number of times they asserted the privilege. the flow of litigation changes from year to year and varies from each administration, as does the invocation privilege. and it carries because of the times and -- and it varies because of the times and circumstances. we've been living under very difficult times and circumstances where we have to

9:00:22 to 9:00:43( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: protect this country, circumstances we've never had to face before. therefore, it is ludicrous to even attempt to compare the rate of assertions of this privilege and arrive at the incorrect conclusion that because the bush administration used this privilege, it must be changed. unfortunately for the authors of this bill, the data does not

9:00:44 to 9:01:04( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: support the hypothesis that the bush administration used to overrule the state secrets privilege in an attempt to published decisions have revealed that in the 1970's, the government filed five motions. in the 1980's, the government filed motions nine times in the 1990's, the government filed motions 13 times.

9:01:05 to 9:01:25( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: preliminary data available for the bush administration indicates that the privilege was used 14 times. therefore, the impetus for the state secrets protection act does not support the conclusion that the bush administration blazed a new trail in national security law. on the contrary, the authors of this bill are the ones attempting to alter national

9:01:26 to 9:01:46( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: security law. and keep in mind, we've been going through a terrorism, and, is a need to protect national security. that's why we have the state secrets law. in the fst 100 days the obama administration -- get

9:01:47 to 9:02:08( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: that, now, in the first 100 days of the obama administration -- the department of justice has invoked this privilege three times. in the first 100 days. this is the administration who was complaining about it. now they've found when they face reality and how important this

9:02:09 to 9:02:29( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: privilege is, they have changed their tune and they should. and i commend the administration and specifically the president for recognizing this. the administration has picked up where the bush administration left off in three pending cases: al harimain, islamic foundation

9:02:30 to 9:02:52( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: vs. obama, mohammed vs. jefferson data plan, and jewell vs. n.s.a. during the interview of the widely revered liberal journalist, attorney general eric holder stated that, in his opinion, the bush administration administration -- get this word -- correctly applied the state secrets privilege in these cases.

9:02:53 to 9:03:13( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: if this legislation is passed in attorneys would be given access to highly classified declarations before -- before a judge rules on whether the state secrets privilege should prevent such a disclosure. can you imagine the harm that could come to our country?

9:03:14 to 9:03:34( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: it's hard to believe anybody would be advocating this in the united states senate with what we've been going through and the special wars that we've been going through and the special type of terrorists that we've been having to put up with. this legislation, lousy legislation, will have the effect of incentivizing lawsuits by

9:03:35 to 9:03:55( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: lawsuits with a security clearance. i rember one case in new york where the attorney herself was convicted because she was passing on information. now, this clearance will grant these attorneys access to

9:03:56 to 9:04:16( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: classified information divulged could recently harm our national security it's bad enough trying to keep secrets around here, let alone with people be qualified for that type of classification. does an attorney need absolute proof of some violation of law

9:04:17 to 9:04:39( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: to file a lawsuit to learn detailed about programs? no, under this bill. they simply need to make an accusation do. ensuring national security programs stay classified is critical to our citizens' continued safety. under this legislation, private attorneys, regardless of the

9:04:40 to 9:05:00( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: merits of their lawsuits, will beiven access to our nation's secrets. secrets that are critical to the protection of our country. it's not hard to see legislation could seriously harm national security. it's anybody would be arguing for this legislation.

9:05:01 to 9:05:21( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: it is a legitimate concern that ideological attorneys will be willing to compromise national security interests and secrets and disose classified information. there are at least two recent instances involving the disclosure of class information. these are recent, and i'm just

9:05:22 to 9:05:43( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: talking about the recent ones. and then only two of them. there may be more. in may 2007, lawyer leaked classified information pertaing to guantanamo detainees to a human rights lawyer i find it disturbing that a u.s. military officer, who has sworn

9:05:44 to 9:06:08( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: to protect this nation, would disseminate classified information. but an even more troubling scenario is posed by private attorneys in 2005, a more alarming case came to light when a civilian defense counsel was convicted of providing material support for a terrorist conspiracy by smuggling messages from her

9:06:09 to 9:06:29( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: client, a muslim clair cleric convicted of terrorism, to his islamic fundamentalist followers in egypt. do you know how difficult it was to convict an islamic fundamentalist religious leader? and yet this man was convicted, and rightly so, and this

9:06:30 to 9:06:39( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: attorney compromised these matters. in press interviews after the attorney was convicted, she said -- quote -- "i would do it again. it's the way lawyers are