English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 97142/127787 (76%)
Visitors : 33311959      Online Users : 466
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 學術期刊 > Issues & Studies > 期刊論文 >  Item 140.119/103339
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/103339

    Title: State Secrets Privilege: Origins, Parameters, and Application
    Authors: 薛朝勇
    Huseh, Chao-Yung
    Keywords: executive privilege;state secrets privilege;national security;judicial review;Chen Shui-bian
    Date: 2007-12
    Issue Date: 2016-10-25 17:22:05 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: On January 25, 2007, for the first time in Taiwan's history, President Chen Shui-bian filed a request for a constitutional interpretation and invoked the state secrets privilege in an attempt to shield the first lady from a corruption trial. The interpretation sparked a national uproar and many in the media voiced criticism of the president. The controversy centered on the assertion by the grand justices that the president enjoys ”special privilege over state secrets,” and that he alone can decide what is a state secret. Some argued that this is a ”super umbrella” of protection tailored for the president, which may lead to the creation of a dictatorship and allow a ruler to cheat the people in the name of ”protecting national secrets.”The state secrets privilege has been described as the ”nuclear bomb of legal tactics,” which is most often used by the executive branch in civil court cases to protect against subpoenas, discovery motions, or other judicial requests of information. Based the application of this privilege in the United States, we find that state secrets privilege is increasingly subject to abuse to hide criminal activity, and to thwart legal requests for information and close off investigations. We argue that the state secrets privilege should be treated as qualified, not absolute. Otherwise there is no adversary process in court and no exercise of judicial independence over available evidence. The judiciary should take steps to prevent the state secrets privilege from remaining a license for executive overreaching, and to prevent injustice from being committed in the name of secrecy.
    Relation: Issues & Studies,43(4),185-225
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[Issues & Studies] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    43(4)-185-225.pdf1348KbAdobe PDF175View/Open

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback