Slashdot Mirror
Mixed News on Wiretapping from 9th Circuit US Court
abb3w writes "The bad news: the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled (pdf) that the Al-Haramain lawyers may not submit into evidence their recollections of the top secret document handed to them detailing the warrantless electronic scrutiny they received. 'Once properly invoked and judicially blessed, the state secrets privilege is not a half-way proposition.' The good news: they have declined to answer and directed the lower court to consider whether 'FISA preempts the common law state secrets privilege' with respect to the underlying nature of the program itself ... which also keeps alive hopes for the EFF and ACLU to make those responsible answer for their actions."
I believe that when the Legislature addresses some domain which had been prior subject to common-law, the legislation takes precedence.
e.g.: Statutory Marriage v. Common Law Marriage.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
It seems like it's a race to see if the Ninth can rule definitively on the culpability of the telcos (AT&T in particular) before the Congress rewards the telcos (and by implication the Bush Administration) with immunity.
:-)
There remains the question of whether the SCOTUS will overturn any pro-citizenry ruling the Ninth makes anyway.
But the more that comes out before the Ninth, the harder it will be for Congress/SCOTUS to completely immunize the telcos and the White House.
I hope the clerks in the Ninth make sure the judges don't choose this month to switch to decaf! (There's an amusingly twisted Ninth-Circuit-judges-meet-Lloyd-Bridges-from-Airplane! visual in there somewhere....)
Keep believing the right things will happen and act accordingly.
why not just expect it to be listened to?
... it's about how our government jumped the track, and what we can do to put it back. If we tolerate such egregious abuses of government power and make excuses for it, they'll keep grabbing more until they have it all. As citizens, we need to push back, and push back hard, or matters will only get worse.
Well, sure, that's just basic security. But this isn't really about the specific issue of telco complicity
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You would rather live a coward than die a free man, then?
Your opinion seems to be that of the majority in this country, and I believe that sentiment has a lot to do with how we have gotten to where we are, collectively. Do not attempt to raise an ideal higher than your personal interests. Just keep being passive. And remember: Consume, consume, consume! No one likes a louse, right?
"We may face a scorched and lifeless earth, but they're accountable to their shareholders first."
How can you have freedom without privacy? It doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "terrorists take away our cars, but the government only takes away our gasoline". One is no good without the other.
You're always going to run into this problem as long as there is secret information involved. If you accept the premise that there is information that really ought to be classified, which really would endanger national security, reveal vital intelligence capability, compromise friendly operatives, expose military secrets and so on. What can you do, assuming you have such information showing that someone is a criminal?
a) Black ops - no judge, no jury.
b) Hold a trial, but don't reveal the evidence. Kafka already wrote the book on this.
c) Reveal it to the defendant's lawyer under seal.
d) Don't do anything - let extremely dangerous men go free because being forced to reveal the information would be even more damaging.
e) Reveal everything to the public - but imagine putting top secret files someone stole into evidence, it wouldn't make sense.
There should most definately be laws against secret laws and secrets courts. Secret evidence on the other hand you can't really get away from and there's no ideal solution that completely serves all interests. Feel free to pick one or come up with one I forgot, but providing it to lawyers under seal is a compromise to serve two masters at once - to give the accused a fair trial and at the same time protect national security. The alternatives are quite frankly worse.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
besides, tax and spend IS a shitty economic policy, and the last few years are too complicated to really say how much better democrats would have done.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I've never really been comfortable with the claim of "State Secrets" being used as it is in courts. I totally agree with not releasing information that should be kept under wraps for whatever reason, but don't like that it can be used as a way to cover up malfeasence either.
In any decently-run system, a claim of secrecy should be honored, but only as a stipulation that the opposing side's claims are true and accurate. In other words, a default judgement against the government in that case.
Justice should be blind, but not deaf nor dumb.