Comment Submitted by Michael Walsh

I am in disbelief that anyone within our government can stand and propose this with a straight-face. The reason for my disbelief, is that this “exemption” which DHS seeks to claim must be a joke. It can’t be serious because this would be a clear violation of the Laws of the Unites States, and the Rights of her Citizens. Quoting quickly from the definition of the first exception claimed, 12(A), would allow the government to withhold documents and records from “the individual who is the subject of a record.” If this were an access to information concern, I could buy that the government wouldn’t want national security documents turned over to just anyone. However, the system of records to which this applies is court- martials. In more common parlance, court-martials are trials for members of a uniformed service. So the government proposes to withhold from the subject of a trial, more commonly called a defendant, documents and records. Being from the legal profession, I can say it is fair to deem all records and documents in a proceeding or trial to be “evidence.” So to reconstruct this exemption in common terms, the government wishes to withhold evidence, potentially exculpatory evidence, from a defendant at a trial. That is patently illegal and against all that the American Judicial system has ever stood for. Withholding evidence from a defendant, but using same and said evidence to convict him/her is a tactic best associated with the Court of the Star Chamber. This exemption the government seeks smells of all of the worst abuses of a judicial system which this country has ever seen. If the government is allowed to put forth secret evidence, perhaps they would like to use rank hearsay, or perhaps they should just skip the trial procedure entirely and just go to a summary execution. Uniformed Service Member risk their lives to protect our country. They give up many of their rights to do so, including participation in the political process. However, all of their rights to protect them at trial from an arbitrary government are alive and well. The Supreme Court has allowed the limitation of Service Member’s rights, but not the elimination, thereof. It is ironic that these uniformed service members are willing, able, and very well might give their live to protect the very rights the government seeks to withhold. I do hope the Department of Homeland Security will reconsider this insidious proposal.