A US federal whistleblower has condemned Washington's continued abuse of secrecy laws to hide evidence of crimes.
Attorney and retired Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent Coleen Rowley told Sputnik that even though the law forbids classifying documents which could be used as evidence in court, in practice the government can do so with impunity.
Asked to comment on the shady 'Upstream' warrantless wiretapping programme that the US Supreme Court has refused to scrutinise, the federal insider said she "can't tell you because it's a secret!"
"This is the whole problem with the abuse of the national secrets privilege," Rowley stressed, which dates back to the administration of George W Bush, when Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, author of the infamous 'torture memos', argued that the 'War on Terror' gave the president the authority to snoop on citizens' phone calls and emails without a judge's permission.
Rowley said Yoo's opinion that the president can "basically do anything" without even declaring martial law was unlawful, but "Now, they've been kind of legalized in this 702 and Upstream programs, did get congressional attention later on."
Illegal Precedent
However, the government can simply cover its tracks by invoking secrecy laws — thanks to the precedent set in the 1953 US. v. Reynolds case.
That began when three civilian contractors were killed in the 1948 crash of a B-29 Superfortress bomber in Georgia. Their widows sued the US Air Force, which refused to release the accident report on the grounds that it would compromise national security, leading the court to rule in the three women's favour. The government ultimately appealed to Supreme Court, which overturned that verdict, although the widows still received some compensation.
"That's where they developed this doctrine that if we claim it's secret, if the government decides to claim it's secret, that... no information can come out about that," Rowley said. "I think it was even a couple of decades later, you found out that the government actually lied and there was nothing even secret about this. This was this precedent, the state secrets privilege was established based on a lie."
The upshot of that ruling is that "The government can just lie to prevent embarrassing information, and frankly, to prevent illegal actions," she added.
"The whistleblowers are supposed to be protected by this notion. It's actually in an executive regulation that the government cannot classify information to cover up a crime," Rowley said. "That is supposed to be the case. But guess what? State secrets privilege allows them to do that."
The attorney marvelled that there was no judicial oversight of the classification process.
"The judges don't want to do this, so they just defer to the government, Rowley lamented. "So all of that illegal torture, for instance, the black sites, all of that has been covered up, even though it's perfectly, completely illegal to torture people, and yet they've gotten away with this under 'state secrets'."
The "very easy fix" to the problem would be for the US Congress to require judges to view any classified materials relevant to court cases, the former FBI agent said, recalling how she once had to accompany a judge into the classified archives.
"They'd just prefer to say, oh, yeah, let the executive branch decide what's important to national security. I don't want to have any role in this. We don't want it" Rowley said. "That's why Congress needs to mandate that the judges have to review the material to see if it is covering up a crime, as in torture or whatever, or if it is bogus, as in US v. Reynolds."