The NEW "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy.

"Don't ask us about the secret (probably illegal) programs spreading all around you and we won't tell you.

Sounds like a super foundation to build a global oligarchy on, doesn't it? The mere fact that the US government refuses to acknowledge whether certain secret (probably illegal) programs exist makes me suspect that they are illegal. This slate article details the trials and tribulations of plaintiffs and judges who feel as if the world has gone crazy -- while trying to flesh out the details of "secret" (probably illegal) government programs that everyone knows exist.

Q: "[How can it be] "a state secret" that that the government is not intercepting millions of customers' communications illegally. How can the absence of an illegal program be a secret?"
A: "If the government had to prove that something that doesn't happen, doesn't happen, it would have to divulge everything that does happen."

Huh? That's a bit of flawed logic, I'm afraid. I know defendants don't usually have to prove innocence, the burden typically lies upon the plaintiff. But its rough going when the defendant keeps confiscating and destroying all the evidence. Its an odd legal climate where the government doesn't just falsely deny something, they tell us that they can't tell us, and that its for our own good. We should start asking questions about the secret (and probably illegal) program to paint all ducks purple with q-tips and see if they have the same "national security secret" response.

"I'm sorry, but the NSA can neither confirm, nor deny, the existence of a secret federal program to paint ducks purple with q-tips.

• Slate: Lawyers in Wonderland