Slashdot Mirror
NYTimes Sues US Gov't To Know How It Interprets the PATRIOT Act
hydrofix writes "Techdirt has been following the story of the DoJ's classified interpretation of the PATRIOT Act. Specifically, it's all about Section 215, the so-called 'business-records provision,' which empowers the FBI to get businesses to turn over any records it deems relevant to a security investigation. Senators Ron Ryden and Mark Udall have been pushing the government to reveal how it uses these provisions to deploy 'dragnets' for massive amounts of information on private citizens 'without any connection to terrorism or espionage,' a secret reinterpretation that is 'inconsistent with the public's understanding of these laws.' After NYTimes reporter Charlie Savage had his Freedom of Information request denied, the NYTimes has now sued the government (PDF) to reveal how it interprets the very law under which it's required to operate."
Hey, that's my senator's name you're mangling there! Ron Wyden of Oregon.
Our government doesn't give even half of a flying fuck about what the Constitution says any more.
That will never happen, but I think we can make it less open to, shall we say, loose interpretation.
Make the spirit of the law explicit. The first part of the law should state "This is the problem we are trying to resolve."
Then let judges determine whether or not the executive (or a plaintiff) is using that law for that particular purpose. If they're trying to use it for another purpose, let them go to Congress to get a new law passed.
Unfortunately, sometimes you need a real entity with some clout in order to bring this kind of information to light. It shouldn't be the case, but it is. And I just can't see a blog having the resources to do something like this, or discovering the wiretaps a few years back, or uncovering Watergate.
Most of the time, news is nothing special... stuff happens and it gets written about - but sometimes it takes significant resources, and I just don't see any news blogs being able to muster up that kind of force. Which is why you won't be finding me cheering the death of newspapers.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
is that we have to sue our own government in an attempt to force them to tell us about the laws they are enforcing against us. That alone indicates a huge problem with the system, regardless of the nature of the laws themselves.
If I could vote in one constitutional amendment right now, it would be "No Secret Laws". That alone would fix a great deal of evil by shining some light into the many dark corners of our government.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Yea, that will work.
Like the way many federal laws start with "...interstate commerce..." (one of the few federal powers, so it's the justification for many federal laws), and then go on to legislate on things which aren't interstate commerce, and the courts play along. Wickard v. Filburn, as a single egregious example.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
I highlighted the important part. The heart of the concept of "due process of law" is that no one will be punished until they have been declared guilty of breaking a law in a fair trial. If the meaning of a law is so vague that neither judge nor jury can reasonably ascertain who is guilty of the law and who is not, then the only fair ruling it to acquit everyone accused of it. If the Supreme Court decides that a law cannot be reasonably interpreted, then no other court in the land should attempt to do so. In this case the law is void due to being unconstitutionally vague.
Exactly.
We have so many "weasel words" in the language of law that interpretation is up to the judge and jury. Its not like engineering at all. Its more like the language of statistics.
Every time I try to read a business contract, its like reading some newbies code where its full of undefined variables.
Drives me nuts.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
oh, you can't. sorry about that...
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Many laws do have this kind of prelude and even those that don't have legislative history that may be helpful in ascertaining the purpose of the legislature in making the law.
That said, the law should be like open source code, freely available for anyone to read and analyze. Yes, it might be complicated and confusing to a non-lawyer, but computer code is complicated and confusing to a non-programmer. Even with that complicated nature, either can be analyzed with some study and effort, at least to some extent.
The real problem we have been having, starting with Bush's secret legal memos regarding due process free detention, and Obama's legal memo regarding due process free execution, is that the executive branch is essentially creating laws and keeping them secret making it impossible to know if what you are doing is something that will get you jailed or killed. That's a big deal, a dagger in the heart of what any free society is based upon, a shredding of the separation of powers, and ethically indefensible. There is no circumstance in which the rules of society ought to be secret.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
A "secret interpretation" does indeed give us a basis for general expectations. Expect tyranny.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.