Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

DOJ To Claim National Security in NSA Case

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the nice-idea-now-its-mine dept.

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."

10 of 337 comments (clear)

  1. I think... by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    that this action by the fed pretty much confirms the EFF's claims here.

    1. Re:I think... by zCyl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      now all this case is about is absence of evidence as THERE IS NO EVIDENCE for what you're implying.

      Do you really think the federal government has the political capital to spend right now going around and covering up wiretapping that they're NOT doing?

    2. 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.
    3. Re:I think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well said. That is the point people are missing here. Nobody, especially the president, is above the law. If the law is there, they have to follow it, or ask congress to change the law (which they probably would have done).

      They broke the law. There is no getting around that. You cannot spy on us citizens without a warrant. There is a system set up to get that warrant secretly, and "speedily". They chose to not get a warrant (or 10,000 warrants). It is that simple.

      Using "national security" as a reason is not good enough. I think the supreme court already said this Even if we had all of our communications monitored, that would not stop a terrorist who is determined to kill himself and take people with him. Giving up privacy will not help us stop the terrorists. Even if we imposed "martial law", as long as they have the determination, they would keep trying to kill themselves.

      Look at Iraq now, we have how many hundreds of thousands of troops there, who have the authority to impose curfews, search without warrants, etc, and STILL there are many, many suicide bombings every month.

      And, furthermore, since this is a war without a clear end, when will we know they are not monitoring our communications? Will they come out and say it, or will we just have to "take their word for it"? Sorry, that's not good enough. They have no credibility.

  2. I still don't see how state secrets applies by Raul654 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
    1. Re:I still don't see how state secrets applies by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      Are you sure about that? The way I read the EFF case and the and the Wired writeup, they are under the belief that ALL communications are being re-routed to the NSA. Not simply all calls which are going international.

      If they are truly getting copies of every single AT&T communications, this would most especially NOT be limited to international communications -- it would, in fact, be large-scale domestic spying with no warrants or specific targets. Merely recording everything that goes on to see if they can sift out anything useful.

      That is bloody scary! And, highly illegal.
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  3. huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  4. Sounds like they're not denying it -- why?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  5. Re:But if ... by Jon+Luckey · · Score: 5, Funny
    Hmm...
    cat constitution.txt | grep -i "privacy"

    It would appear that particular aspect of the document is missing.

    Hmm...
    echo cats cats cats lions tiger ocelots | grep -i "feline"

    It would appear that any feline aspect of that string is missing

    --
    -- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
  6. Absence of evidence by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 5, Informative

    >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.