Slashdot Mirror


DOJ To Claim National Security in NSA Case

deblau writes "Wired is reporting that the federal government intends to invoke the rarely used 'State Secrets Privilege' in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class action lawsuit against AT&T. The case alleges that the telecom collaborated with the NSA's secret spying on American citizens. The State Secrets Privilege lets the executive branch step into a civil lawsuit and have it dismissed if the case might reveal information that puts national security at risk."

13 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. So they're doing it then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Such an action could only be seen as a flat out admission that the EFF allegations are at least as bad as they claim, and quite possibly worse. There you go, Citizens, your Government is spying on you. Now lets watch as the major media outlets all ignore the story.

  2. Independent examiner by Alain+Williams · · Score: 4, Interesting
    So, will the US government allow this to be examined by someone completely independent who can then vouch that the government is clean ?

    The examiner would, of course, be bound to secrecy other than answering the above question.

    Need to get right: 1) who chooses the examiner (we don't want a gov't stooge); 2) who drafts the wording to the question to be answered.

    OK: the above is a nice idea, but it won't happen - governments don't like their workings scrutinised.

    1. Re:Independent examiner by fishbowl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "So, will the US government allow this to be examined by someone completely independent who can then vouch that the government is clean ?"

      Why would they? Seriously, you're talking about the US. One of the few nations in history that can call a shot that it will invade a sovreign nation and replace its government, follow through on that threat, and face absolutely no opposition, and even come out with exactly the same alliances and trade relationships as before. Certianly no domestic rebellion or resistant military.

      And you think that country should, or would, subject itself to any scrutiny from someone outside its government because....?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  3. Re:I think... by jrmcferren · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it is in the best intrest to let the case go on. The approval rating of the administration is very low and we are talking atomic bomb low. While I voted for Bush, this issue should not be covered up. The Bush administration's approval rating will drop either way, but the effects may not be as damaging if the truth is told instead of covered up. BTW: I wish Bush was censured, spying on American Citizens is wrong without just cause.

    --
    sudo mod me up
  4. Re:I think... by Phoenix666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Agreed. Where there's smoke, there's fire. I hope people keep after government spying. It brought down one administration, and it can bring down another. Once it starts to unravel, we're going to find out more about the vast conspiracy that is the neo-con movement, from rigging the ballot to treason to war profiteering and on and on. It will shake the republic to its very roots. But once we excise them from the body politic and expunge their backers (the ultra-wealthy who are behind it all), we'll be a much stronger country. See, those people think they're born with the divine right of kings and think they can command the rest of us like sheep. What they fail and have ever failed to understand is that America's strength is in her people.

    --
    Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
  5. Re:But if ... by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Irrelevant. No law supercedes the Constitution, which guarantees every citizen's right to privacy and the right to a due process warrant for search and seizure. It doesn't say "unless the President thinks it's a national security matter". The national security clause would have to be in the Constitution to be able to override this kind of suspension of Civil Rights.

    Unless the Prisident is going to try to claim that he secretly declared martial law, there is no law in the land that will stop this from progressing. The best they can realistically hope for is a closed courtroom and sealed documents.

    --
    The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  6. Re:I still don't see how state secrets applies by praksys · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Under the US constitution power is divided between three branches of government. The central issue in this case is whether the power to conduct this kind of surveillence falls within the powers reserved to the executive branch. If that is the case then it doesn't matter what laws congress has passed, or what they appear to say. The only way to take this power away from the executive would be to ammend the constitution.

    Nixon did of course get smacked down for doing something that looks similar, but in that case the spying was strictly domestic. In spite of what everyone keeps saying about the current case, it is not domestic spying. One end of every communication intercepted is in another country, and the court that decided the Nixon case specifically noted that their ruling did not apply to international communications.

  7. Re:state secret clause by Aim+Here · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Erm, the allegations are based a story that entered the public domain in an NYT story in December 2005 which alleged that President Bush signed a secret order shortly after September 11th 2001 to conduct warrantless wiretaps of US citizens. This is backed up by the testimony of one Mark Klein, an AT&T tech who was approached by the NSA in 2002 to do some of the work. Clinton had absolutely nothing to do with the current allegations of illegal domestic spying. This is GWB's crime all the way.

    Now I wouldn't call you a liar if you said that Clinton had perhaps done something similar sometime, but the reason people didn't complain about Clinton doing this is because there was, and AFAIK still is, no real evidence that he did so, and there was certainly no major news outlet or civil rights group making any allegations of domestic wiretapping when he was in power. If you remember, the US media jumped all over Clinton for all sorts of personal scandals when he was in power (Whitewater, Lewinsky, etc); if there wasn't an outcry over Clinton, it's because there wasn't an allegation to cry about.

    Why should people complain about things that they've probably not heard of, and for which there appears to be no evidence?

  8. Re:But if ... by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 3, Interesting
    We always have an alternative:
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government [...]
    The framers believed that change up to and including revolution against your government is a fundamental right. If you truly believe that the state of this Union is as bad as you suggest, exercise your unalienable rights. Or leave the nation.

    "But the armed forces..."

    Will be just as divided as the citizens are. During the last Civil War, the leadership of the Armed Forces divided almost evenly between the North and the South. I can name 5 generals who would not follow Mr. Bush, although they still might remain loyal.

    Believe it or not, the moderate majority is beginning to get upset with our government. 70% of the nation now disagrees or is unsure of our leadership. Historically speaking, a President with less than 65% approval is considered ineffective. Mr. Bush is at 30%. Do you think the people don't see the unending corruption in the Legislature by big business and special interests? That they don't see the repeated illegal acts of the Executive and his officers, and his failure to lead the military effectively?

    --
    The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  9. Just in from the AP by codepunk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The FBI secretly sought information last year on 3,501 U.S. citizens and legal residents from their banks and credit card, telephone and Internet companies without a court's approval, the Justice Department said Friday.

    And how many of these 3,501 where arrested as a terrorist? I suspect none or very , very few so how many of these where violated?

    --


    Got Code?
  10. Re:EFF Loss = New Precedents against our Civil Rig by Bogtha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whether or not the executive branch believes it can ignore the Fourth Amendment is beside the point. The State Secrets Privilege is all about dismissing lawsuits before they even get to a point at which such a thing can be discovered.

    This can be used to cover up abuses of power, but that doesn't mean precedents can be set making the abuses of power legal. That doesn't make sense. To set such a precedent would mean that the lawsuit wasn't dismissed but went ahead anyway.

    --
    Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
  11. Re:But if ... by Fred_A · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't think the USSR ever had a propaganda machine approaching the efficiencu of the US one. It's no wonder people react that way, they've been conditionned to do so since the craddle.

    I mean just look at the people with flags on their houses. Try finding a single other country worldwide where people feel compelled to do something odd like that. The very concept of the US has been turned into a godlike entity. Hosting critical thoughts is akin to criticizing the prophet in an islamic country (although you won't be lapidated just yet ;) ).

    What's interesting though is that elsewhere the people that are adamant when you criticise the county, party, whatever, are those that are in power. The common people will more or less maintain appearances but in private will very clearly take the propaganda for what it is. In the US, it's the common people who hold no power that seem to be the most thourougly brainwashed.

    This has always struck me as being both very odd and very unique. But then since don't visit very often and see things from a distance, I might get the wrong impression.

    --

    May contain traces of nut.
    Made from the freshest electrons.
  12. Re:I think... by inKubus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think it's pretty obvious that everyone needs get excited.

    A. Vote in the upcoming election
    B. Send a letter to their congressperson/senator
    C. Donate $10-100 to the EFF or OTHER reputable HUMAN RIGHTS ORGANIZATION (don't have starbucks for 2 days and SEND MONEY.)

    DO IT! DO IT! DO IT! If you don't, you're a piece of shit.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.