"That so-called privilege doesn't come from the Constitution or from statute."
This is highly misleading, as it ignores the role that court cases play as precedent in common law jurisdictions. United States v Reynolds, for starters.
It's misleading to simply say there is "precedent." The first case in which that supposed privilege was asserted, US v Reynolds, is highly dubious, and a likely coverup of wrongdoing. On that basis alone, courts should take a good hard look at whether there is a basis for such a "priviledge."
Its not misleading at all, there are 5 sources of US law constitutional law, statutory law, treaties, administrative regulations, and the common law. State secrets privilege comes from common law not constitutional law, or statutory law.
It is misleading; it's meant to suggest that courts are, extralegally, doing the will of the government.
In actuality, common-law systems draw from additional sources beyond a national/state constitution and statutes. And New Zealand (home of the NZ Herald) is a common-law jurisdiction, so the concept should not be completely foreign.
This is highly misleading, as it ignores the role that court cases play as precedent in common law jurisdictions. United States v Reynolds, for starters.