U.S. Government Moves To Dismiss EFF Case

iny0urbrain writes "The New York Times reports that the US government has asked a federal judge to dismiss the Electronic Frontier Foundation's civil liberties lawsuit against the AT&T Corporation because 'of a possibility that military and state secrets would otherwise be disclosed.' The statement concludes by saying: 'Finally, because the United States intends to assert the state secrets privilege and file a dispositive motion to dismiss this action, the United States requests that discovery proceedings be deferred until the government's submission has been considered and heard.' You can view the full text of the government's statement of interest (PDF) on the EFF's website." Sorry, hadn't had my coffee yet this morning, and double posted this one. Sadly, the first one is a mere two stories down. It's also still pouring into the submissions bin, so I'm not the only one not yet awake.

Comments

In previous news....

[slashbob22]

EFF had asked a Federal Judge to order AT&T to cease and desist their co-operation with the DoJ because 'of a possibility that personal and corporate secrets would otherwise be disclosed.'

Get Off Your Keyboards !

[Anonymous Coward]

Why isn't anyone connecting the dots? This is no time for partisan pleasantries. Americans are in the midst of the biggest gov/corp conspiracy to undermine civil rights, control communications and profiteering scheme in history. START PROTESTING ALREADY !!!

Re:whaa

[grylnsmn]

There's a difference between a civil case (which is what the EFF case is) and a criminal investigation (which is what Watergate was). States Secrets Privilege applies mostly to civil cases, regardless of whether the government is a party to the case or not.

Re:Reminder from history

[PatrickThomson]

Not true. The nazi party actually legitimately aquired a majority in the Reichstag, before they burned it down and blamed it on the opposition in order to seize absolute power. He only won 37% of the votes cast (or thereabouts) but the opposing citizens were too divided in opinion.

For the last time, we are NOT AT WAR.... sigh.

[TheNoxx]

The "War on Terror" is just a catchphrase, and the actual war, meaning one government's army fighting against the army of an opposing government, on Iraq was over long ago. We have a very large amount of troops deployed for being outside of a war, but that's no different from our "policing action" in a few Asian countries. This is why Bush has tried very hard, and often succeeded, to fabricate a need and provision for special powers, such as creating the Homeland Security department and having them create that bullshit "color coded threat" system, and why the Patriot Act was originally passed: it was supposed to expire, but was then made permanent. The president no longer retains any special war privileges, and aside from the ones granted to him and his cronies through the Patriot Act (which I believe they aren't using this time because they'd validate the claim to an extent that might well warrant many other groups besides the EFF to join in the legal battle, as the court case as it stands has the feds speaking tripledoublespeak (from the filing in TFA):

"When allegations are made about purported classified government activities or relationships, regardless of whether those allegations are accurate, the existence or non-existence of the activity or relationship is potentially a state secret."

Also, there are very clear provisions for privacy in the Constitution, and I believe the Supreme Court already ruled on this at least once: your communications, in whatever form, are your property and you have the right to keep them private. This is why getting a wiretap is (well, was, and kinda still is, though apparently legal justice magically changes depending on which agency/department of the government you work for) so hard to obtain. This is why unauthorized wiretaps are inadmissable in court; the same rule applies to getting a warrant to search your email or whatever you use. The reason why so many people have the miconception that they don't have the right to privacy is because the rights of citizens were greatly eroded under Rehnquist, for if I recall correctly, the Rehnquist court is the reason why police can't search you when you're walking on the street but can search and open any belongings you have once you step inside a vehicle, amongst other and lesser known trespasses and limitations on personal liberties.

Oh, and lastly, FISA is completely constitutional, and very well cemented into the machinery of the federal government, as the FISA court has great authority and works a little too nicely with intelligence agencies (The infamous CARNIVORE was created at the order of the FISA court), so I don't know why Bush exhibited such baffling stupidity by giving an Executive Order to the NSA for the wiretapping (which does break the law, and the only reason there hasn't been an inquiry is because the Republican controlled House and Senate refuse to even consider any sort of legal action) instead of asking the FISA court to issue an order for the wiretapping to the NSA, which probably wouldn've been completely legal... Perhaps because even the oft-bold FISA court isn't that stupid and brazen to so openly violate the Constitution.

Re:Reminder from history

[hyfe]

Not true.p> Heh, you can't start a post saying Not True and then proceed to agree. Maybe you're misunderstanding the German politcal system? The nazi party actually legitimately aquired a majority in the Reichstag,

Yes, this is true. However, 'Aquired' as in 'had majority backing' and not 'had the majority of seats themselves'. In other words, a majorty of the Reichstag was content not to 'raise a vote-of-no-confidence'.

Re:Question:

[huge]

Could he then use the power of his position to make his bumping off of the hobo confidential and be immune from any prosecution on the act?

No, you cannot declare something classified to cover your illegal acts. Section 1.7 of Executive order 12958 prevents classification to conceal violations of law.