This would never happen in a Tom Clancy novel

[Kuciwalker]

I took all of my political lessons from Clancy

[Aeson]

The part of me that cared about Tom Clancy died the day Ben Affleck took on the role of Jack Ryan.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Aeson
The part of me that cared about Tom Clancy died the day Ben Affleck took on the role of Jack Ryan.

QFT

[Patroklos]

I was willing to overlook Alec because he was overshadowed by Sean. Ben? Well we all know what happens if you give an idiot enough rope to hang himself.

[Chemical Ollie]

James Earl Jones is always the boss of Ryan. Teh Dart Wader rulez!

(Can't remember who played that character in Red October though).

But he topic of this thread was not really Tom Clancy stories, but the inconsistencies between the novels and recent real life events within the espionage commutiny.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by GePap
I find it ridculous that the courts continue to allow the "state secrets" argument given its history.

I mean, we now KNOW that the government lied to the courts in 1953 when the precedent was set for this ruling. And yet the courts continue to buy the argument.....

I still don't understand why we don't have courts for state secrets, where a judge who is somehow magically not influenced by the folks in power (someone appointed for life, or something) is able to review these things and say "heck no, this is not relevant, that case can go to court"... or let the House have a special subcommittee that approves these things, or whatever. Make the default be "not secret" so that the House has to actually rule on it for it to be kept secret, and have a deadline of 30 days from the usage of 'secret' to approve it, and that will decrease the usage of it (otherwise the House can't rule fast enough) AND have independent verification that it's really secret.

I mean, honestly i'd trust anyone not employed by the FBI, CIA, or executive branch to make the ruling...