AT&T Says Spying Is Too Secret For Courts

The Wired blog 26B Stroke 6 reports on the arguments AT&T and the US government made to an appeals court hearing motions in the case the EFF brought against the phone giant for their presumed part in the government's program(s) to spy on Americans. In essence AT&T seems to have argued that the case against the telecom for allegedly helping the government spy on Americans is too secret for any court, despite the Administration's admission it did spy on Americans without warrants.

Comments

How's that for logic

[VirusEqualsVeryYes]

So let me get this straight. AT&T says it can't defend itself because it would endanger national security (basically, AT&T is guilty), and because of this, the case should be throw out (a win for AT&T)?

But I guess logic like that is adequate for government work.

Re:How's that for logic

[krlynch]

That's not what they're claiming at all. From their brief, starting bottom of page 1:

In light of [the Government's] invocation of the state secrets privilege, Plaintiffs will not
have access to the evidence necessary to establish standing, and, just as important,
AT&T will be prevented from tendering any evidence that would disprove it.
Firmly established precedent mandates that a case must be dismissed whenever it
becomes clear that the state secrets privilege will prevent a plaintiff from proving a
necessary element of his case or a defendant from defending itself fully on an
issue. In cases such as this one, where there is "no hope of a complete record and
adversarial development of the issue," the only proper result is to dismiss the
complaint.

where the quotes are from previous cases.

Contrary to the blog's claims, AT&T is NOT saying that national security prevents them from litigating ... they are saying that the Government's actions prevent both the plaintiffs AND themselves from litigating: the plaintiffs can't show they have standing without access to information AT&T doesn't have and hence can't produce, and AT&T can't obtain material is needs to defend itself. The Government, not AT&T, has claimed the state secret privilege. It's the same result perhaps, but for a very different set of reasons than the blog post claims. I'm not going to take a position on the state secrets privilege here, but a full debate on the issue needs to correctly state the facts.

Re:Sssssh!

[frp001]

>> Now the terrorists have won!
As a matter of fact, they have. It is not about destroying a country, or individuals, it is a about destroying a lifestyle and beliefs (.i.e democracy) AFAIK they have won.

Take your pick

[MikeRT]

You either have the rule of law, or you have "national security." They are mutually exclusive. Anything too secret to be brought before the law is too secret to be judged by it. Therefore it is outside the law, making the government a law unto itself, unaccountable to the public.

Funny how that works. It's pretty much always the case that, paraphrasing parts of the Bible here, when men give up obedience to law and order, good rules and the ethic of accountability, that moral decline in the population begins. What? Bush's supporters didn't realize that the rule of law is just about the keystone of public morality?

27B Stroke 6

[The Famous Brett Wat]

Get it right: the blog name is "27B Stroke 6" which is a beautiful reference to the out-of-control bureaucracy in Terry Gilliam's movie "Brazil".

Re:27B Stroke 6

[Tim C]

For those not in the know (as the wiki article doesn't seem to mention it), a "27B stroke 6" is a form that Harry Tuttle says he'd have to fill in before he could do anything to help, even if your apartment is on fire. (I forget the exact quote, but it's something like "I couldn't even give you a glass of water if your apartment was on fire without filling in a 27B/6 first")

Re:So every victim must suffer because of Bush?

[Rob the Bold]

Dear God, do you realize what you are advocating by saying that you would automatically vote to acquit? You would allow a serial child molester go to make a statement against Bush. That is, pardon my French, fucking sick.

Let me get this straight. The President declares himself above the law. Government agencies routinely violate the constitution in the name of national security. Habeus Corpus is effectively suspended (just by saying "he's a terrorist"). AT&T won't resists testifying in spy cases because its info is too secret for courts. Our citizens and treasure are squandered in an unprovoked war of adventurism. And the thing that really gets your panties in a bunch is that some guy calls for a jury revolt? Think of the children!!!!1!

Re:The darkest hour is just before the dawn

[Stooshie]

... Dictatorship just don't work, it ain't the natural state of affairs ...

What is interesting is that, in fact, dictators are only kept in power by the will of the people (or at least the lack of the will to get rid of them). Under Hitler, for instance, the majority of the German population were quite well off and ignored the fact that their wealth came from the belongings stolen from those in concentration camps and alot of the work was done by slave labour (ie those in the concentration camps).

It was only when Germany started loosing the war that Hitler decided to take his own life as he knew it was over and he wouldn't have the support of the people any more.

I was the same with Saddam Hussain. He was in power for so long because the majority were, in fact, ok. They had an excellent education system (the most liberal in the middle east (women were granted an equal education)) and electricity and hospitals.

I'm not condoning either of those rulers, but it is interesting that the main backbone democracy (ie the people choose those in power) is, in fact, the same reason that dictators stay in power.

p.s. don't confuse democracy and freedom.

Democracy is the process of choosing those in power.

Freedom is the ability to say what we want, however truthful, stupid, offensive, funny etc... as long as we don't incite violence or hatred (as in Voltaire's quote "I disagree with everything you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it.").

Re:Need proof or it ain't true

[CRCulver]

The fundamentalist religious right here in America is every bit as frightening as any Muslim theocracy.

Having spent much of my youth among Fundamentalists in the Deep South, I have never, ever heard a call among them for instituting e.g. the public stoning of homosexuals or taking the lash to adultresses, punishments which are extremely common in the most theocratic parts of the Muslim world. The things that American conservative Christians are vocal about, say, allowing a prayer before a high school football game or tweaking a biology textbook, as odious as they may be to many desiring complete separation of church and state, are in no way comparable to the gory brutality of Muslim theocracies that exist as we speak.