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."

Comments

Independent examiner

[Alain Williams]

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.

Re:Independent examiner

[fishbowl]

"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....?

Re:I think...

[Phoenix666]

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.

Re:But if ...

[Bacon Bits]

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.

Re:I still don't see how state secrets applies

[praksys]

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.

Re:EFF Loss = New Precedents against our Civil Rig

[Bogtha]

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.

Re:But if ...

[Fred_A]

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.

Re:I think...

[inKubus]

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.