Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsUnited States Vs Reynolds
IN THE NEWS

United States Vs Reynolds

FEATURED ARTICLES
OPINION
June 29, 2008 | Barry Siegel, Barry Siegel, a former Times staff writer, directs the literary journalism program at UC Irvine. His book on U.S. vs. Reynolds and the state secrets privilege, "Claim of Privilege," was published this month.
The struggle to restrain the excesses of the executive branch of government -- and to maintain the separation of powers envisioned by this country's founders -- continues. The latest effort came from a panel of federal appellate judges who, on Monday, after taking a look at the government's evidence, ruled there was no basis to have labeled former fruit peddler Huzaifa Parhat an enemy combatant or to have detained him at Guantanamo Bay for the last six years.
ARTICLES BY DATE
Advertisement
OPINION
June 14, 2006 | Louis Fisher, LOUIS FISHER is the author of the forthcoming "In the Name of National Security," which analyzes United States vs. Reynolds.
THE JUSTICE Department told a federal judge Monday that a challenge to the National Security Agency's controversial domestic eavesdropping program must be thrown out of court because the secrets involved are just too sensitive. "The evidence we need to demonstrate ... that it is lawful cannot be disclosed without that process itself causing grave harm to the United States' national security," said the government's lawyer, Anthony J. Coppolino.
BOOKS
June 22, 2008 | Edward Lazarus, Edward Lazarus, a lawyer in private practice, is the author of "Closed Chambers: The Rise, Fall, and Future of the Modern Supreme Court."
IN LEGAL circles these days, it is much in vogue to praise the doctrine of stare decisis -- a fancy Latin term for giving great deference to past court decisions rather than rethinking legal principles anew. This idea feels quite benign. What could be terribly wrong or dangerous about yielding to the accumulated wisdom of the past?
NATIONAL
April 18, 2004 | Barry Siegel, Times Staff Writer
In a box delivered by rolling handcart on the morning of Feb. 26, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court received 40 copies of a petition so unusual a clerk decided he couldn't accept it for filing. First, though, he turned through its pages. In a preliminary statement, he read these words: Three widows stood before this court in 1952. Their husbands had died in the crash of an Air Force plane. The lower courts had awarded them compensation.
Los Angeles Times Articles
|