Towards a critique of state secrecy: Uncovering the rhetorical practices of secret keepers and their legitimization by the discourse of law

This thesis examines the rhetorical devices that secret keepers in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States use to justify the non-disclosure of state secrets. It also examines the manner in which judges in these three countries write and speak about state secrets. By embracing the rhetorical devices used by secret keepers and materializing them in reported decisions, judges add legitimacy to the discourse of secret keepers and directly assist in its reproduction and distribution. Taken together, the discourse of the state and the discourse of law on state secrecy sets up the dominant interpretive frames with which any public engagement, whether supportive or critical, must engage. While the persuasive social effect and perceived legitimacy of this combined discourse may ebb and flow, it appears enduring and difficult to challenge despite the existence of counter-discourses and concessions such as the adoption of access to information legislation. This thesis seeks to understand how state secrecy discourse becomes or appears preeminent, and how it reproduces itself, as a first step in formulating a fuller critique of this discourse.