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.
"In our defense, your Honor, we did it in secret so as not to get caught."
"Case dismissed!"
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
If the Executive *didn't* use ATNT to spy on Americans then it is not a security matter.
If the Executive *did* use ATNT to spy on Americans then its illegal (no warrant) and legal protection doesn't apply to illegal acts.
Try it, the judge will bend over backwards to find a way to continue this case.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (which established the FISA court) clearly and explicitely says that the US Government may not do survielance of American citizens without a warrant. I do not see how the government can assert privilege over the NSA's clearly illegal actions. (Nixon tried and failed - badly)
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
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.
No, no! The INNOCENT have nothing to hide. The government does.
As a Muslim American, I'm told that I should invite violations of my basic civil rights with the only probable cause being my skin color, ethnicity and religion because I shouldn't have anything to hide. Yet, when the corporations involved with the government and the government itself has lawsuits filed against it based on evidence beyond the realm of "probable cause," they can invoke some act they pulled out of their asses. How do I go about obtaining an act like this but only to protect my civil/constitutional rights? Does the "if you got nothing to hide..." line work with the government too or is FOX news going to spin it some other way for all of us?
I would like to see some serious punishment for some members of the administration after they leave office... People are talking about impeachment if the democrats get control of congress... but that seems like kind of a slap on the wrist, and would only effect bush himself.
It seems like more than anything else, what has characterized this administration is the desire for power. The wiretaps don't piss me off because I think they are unjust. They piss me off, because wiretaps without any kind of oversight seem likely to be used against the administrations political enemies. The administration has already openly abused its power to try to destroy its such enemies numerous times... they've been hunting down the people that leaked the warantless wiretapping stufff forever (didn't they find one guy?) and will probably try to bring some kind of trumped up charge against their obviously legitimate whistlebloying. Who is to say they weren't tapping democratic campaign headquarters in the 2004 election? I'm not sure that, with the character the administration has itself to have recently, that I can say that is beneath them.
At some point if the power of the executive branch isn't checked, the presidential office itself, could become a threat to the country. With the kind of power that the president has, how difficult would it be to just refuse to step down after your term was up? This president has shown no regard for the law, and a willingness to make up paper thin excuses for his abuse of power. Maybe Bush wouldn't, or couldn't take power like that, but if we set a precedent where we allow the president to break the law, and grab power like crazy all through his administration just like this one did, what's to stop someone more ambitious than him from going further in the future?
I'd like to see congress put some mechanisms in place for checking the execute branch. Specifically, I'd like whatever authority that the administration *imagines* gives them the power to do warantless wiretaps specifically removed. Power to spy on whomever it pleases the administration, without even having to tell anyone in the other branches about it, is clearly a threat to the checks and balance system. Maybe a constitutional amendment needs to be made laying out the powers of the executive branch more specifically, and limiting the power to spy on anyone without oversight from the judicial, and maybe the legislative branch.
Whatever the trial judge decides about the DOJ motion, you can bet this gets appealed all the way up the line to SCOTUS. The claim, as asserted by DOJ, would be a clear violation of the due process clause if the government could step into any case and inhibit discovery or evidence presentation. In other cases involving sensitive material, the trial judge has the opportunity to review such material before granting or denying the motion.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
So, either they don't have such a monitoring program, but they want the terrorists to think they do, and it would compromise state secrets to reveal the fact it does not really exist, OR ...
It's exactly what people are suggesting it is, and the government is going to cover its ass with a big "state secret" stamp?
What is this? The frickin USSR?
Here's a clue: if the system had been set up via legislation, so that there was debate about its merits and it had some kind of legal legitimacy, it wouldn't be a big deal to keep the details of its implementation secret. But secretly set up something that sure sounds as if it must be violating well-established law, and of course people are going to be pissed off and demand answers to questions. They are asking now for answers and justification that should have been provided before the thing was deployed.
At least the Great Firewall of China is openly admitted to exist, and everybody already knows the government there is authoritarian. Does a Great Firewall of the USA exist? The world may never know. But if its existence and justification is not properly explained to its own people it will say much more about the current US regime than the answers to the legal questions in this case ever would.
In what kind of bizarro democracy would the government truly be better off not explaining itself? Shouldn't they dispell people's concerns about these rumors?
Say it ain't so, Joe
It ain't so
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Well, seems to me that they have two choices.
Either they go ahead with the prosecution and risk creating this precedent that you fear. Or, they do not, and the government gets away with it.
Either way, with no consequences to their actions, the government is (or might as well be) above the law. At least with the EFF trying to prosecute, they
a) have a chance of doing something about it
b) bring it to people's attention
c) in the event of losing, sow the seed in people's minds that they *must* have been up to something in order to quash the case like that
Incidentally, you also mustn't forget that precedent is a guide, not an iron clad rule. Judges are free to rule differently; precedent just gives them something to use as guidance, and to point at in the event of their ruling being questioned.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
You obviously didn't read US v. Reynolds. The plaintiffs were seeking federal data to support their CIVIL lawsuit. The case established the Government's right to invoke Executive Privilege to stop disclosure in a tort.
The EFF case is entirely different. The government claims that Executive Privilege is a higher power than the 4th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. And the EFF, in the process of losing their lawsuit, will permanently erode the 4th Amendment, and place the Executive Branch beyond the reach of the courts.
Quite a few people believe it is our duty to support our President, even if he's a lying, cheating, murdering, egg-sucking, goose-fucking prick (and he is, too). Many even think that "freedom of speech" goes too far, and that the government should approve news stories (it seems it is these days). These same people have perverted the meaning of patriotism.
Patriotism is standing up for liberty. Patriotism is battling against tyranny, even if that tyranny is home-grown. Patriotism is putting the rights of the people before the rights of the government, and before the rights of corporations.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
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
>all this case is about is absence of evidence as THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for what you're implying.
We have Mark Klein's written statement about tapping fiber at ATT facilities.
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
We have Russell Tice's testimony before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has defended the program
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
President Bush says he signed the order.
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
Could you try using boldface? Somehow the all-caps hasn't been enough to convince me.