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."
that this action by the fed pretty much confirms the EFF's claims here.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence or in other words what you are saying is only supposition and is not supported by the evidence. Remember don't look for the absence of evidence to prove something and now all this case is about is absence of evidence as THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for what you're implying.
If you aren't a muslim terrorist you have nothing to worry about. If you are, you have nothing to worry about, except me biting your fucking head off like the chicken-ass you are.
Unless, of course, you're a journalist investigating wrong-doing by a favored government staffer, or a politician on the other side from the party in power, or you're a member of the UN about to vote against something the current administration wants badly, or...but why go on; there are endless reasons you're wrong. You're so naive, or arrogantly stupid. I bet you listened a lot to Limbaugh, before his drug arrest.
I find it funny how people are complaining about this particular tactic NOW. As if GW cooked it up and invented it.
I don't recall people complaining when the clinton administration used it.
Personally I think it sucks without oversight. When spewing this or that about the current administration, have some historical perspective.
The problem is not just that the EFF loses cases. The problem is that for every lost case, a new legal precedent is established that permanently reduces our civil rights. In this case, the EFF has given the government an opportunity to use a new legal theory, that they are immune from lawsuits to prevent illegal violations of the Fourth Amendment (i.e. illegal search and seizure) merely by invoking Executive Privilege with a National Security Letter.
With their ill-conceived, poorly planned and poorly executed lawsuit, the EFF will permanently establish that the President and the Executive Branch is above the law and can violate the Bill of Rights at their whim, and that citizens have no redress. Thanks a lot, EFF!
I've thought long and hard about this, I have thought it through. The government is breaking it's our laws, and is being aided by a corporation which is also breaking our law. It is about to invoke a law which allows the government, in this case, to prevent the government's own lawbreaking from being exposed.
In what universe does the person who stands to lose from a lawsuit also get to be the party which determines whether or not a lawsuit can go forward?
This is the height of irony. The government is using a law to prevent the exposure of the breaking of a law.
Who decides whether or not the government is allowed to do this? That's what I want to know. Do they have to at least convince the judge with more than their claim of national interest? Or can the powers that be just send a loyal friend to tell the judge to drop the case?