Judge in Libby case seeks to kill "states secrets" defense in Libby trial.

Source AP News

Just coming short of shutting down I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's defense team, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton curtailed the number of defense summaries he might order the Bush Administration to turn over.

This request was to be the beginning of the much-anticipated "states secrets" defense or more commonly know as Graymail for the Libby legal team.

WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal judge signaled Monday that he is seeking ways to provide Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff general descriptions of highly classified documents to use in his defense against perjury charges.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton issued an order significantly curtailing the number of intelligence summaries that he might order the Bush administration to turn over to lawyers for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

The judge showed a willingness to accept Libby's contention that he needs copies of the presidential daily briefings to help mount a defense against charges that he lied about how he learned and subsequently told reporters about CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity.

"Upon closer reflection, it is becoming apparent to this court that what is possibly material to the defendant's ability to develop his defense" is not every detail from the briefings that Libby received as Cheney's national security adviser, Walton said.

Of course, many think this was a "Hail Mary" pass at taking the "state secrets" defense and shutting the trial down before it ever gets started using the Graymail argument.

Graymail is a defense gambit not available to most criminal suspects. But years ago defense attorneys representing clients connected to the national security establishment--say, a former CIA employee gone bad--figured out a way to squeeze the government in order to win the case: Claim you need access to loads of classified information in order to mount a defense--more than might truly be necessary. Of course, the government is going to put up a fight. It may release some information--but not everything a thorough defense attorney will say is needed. The goal is to get the government to say no to the informant. Then the defense attorney can attempt to convince the judge that without access to this material he or she cannot put up an adequate defense. If the lawyer succeeds, it's case dismissed. In such situations, the defendant is essentially saying, Prosecute me and I'll blow whatever government secrets I can. Isn't that the act of a patriot?

Of course, this same "states secrets" argument can be used in the other general direction.

Silencing Critics by Exploiting National Security and State Secrets Laws

Prosecuting individuals for national security violations, in particular subversion, is currently the most common method used by Chinese authorities for silencing those who, in spite of the legal, political, psychological, and technological barriers that authorities have erected to prevent Chinese citizens from expressing their opinions, nevertheless attempt to exercise their right to publish their political views.

Chinese laws require that anyone intending to disclose information relating to state secrets, national security, or the nation's leaders must get prior government authorization. The law then defines these terms to encompass all forms of information pertaining to politics, economics, and society. The government therefore has the right to censor any information on these topics, and anyone who publishes such information without prior authorization has violated the law, regardless of the actual contents of their writings (see, for example, the case of Zheng Enchong, discussed below).

Reports from non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International, Digital Freedom Network, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Reporters Without Borders, and Human Rights in China indicate that Chinese authorities regularly detain and imprison professional and freelance journalists and writers based on accusations that their writings violate national security laws.

This is a common practice in communist regimes, and now is coming to a United States of America street corner near you.

I have admiration for a judge realizing what is going on here, and for his attempt to keep this trial alive and have the trial go to court.

I just wonder...who is Libby falling on the sword for?

The disgraced drunken-hunter Vice-President?

The illegitimate lame-duck President?

Or is he protecting the Republican activist of "all things evil," Karl Rove?

Only a few privileged people will ever know the answer to this question.