Federal Judge Rejects State Secrets Claims: EFF Case To Proceed

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Federal Judge Rejects State Secrets Claims: EFF Case To Proceed

Posted by Unknown on Tuesday July 9, 2013 @12:04AM from the nowhere-to-hide dept.

The EFF has been attempting to sue the government over illegal surveillance since the Bush administration, and, despite repeated attempts to have the case dismissed because of State Secrets, a federal judge has now ruled that the case must go forward in public court, throwing out the government's State Secrets argument. From the order: Having thoroughly considered the parties' papers, Defendants' public and classified declarations, the relevant legal authority and the parties' arguments, the Court GRANTS the Jewel Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary adjudication by rejecting the state secrets defense as having been displaced by the statutory procedure prescribed in 50 U.S.C. 1806(f) of FISA. In both related cases, the Court GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' statutory claims on the basis of sovereign immunity. The Court further finds that the parties have not addressed the viability of the only potentially remaining claims, the Jewel Plaintiffs' constitutional claims under the Fourth and First Amendments and the claim for violation of separation of powers and the Shubert Plaintiffs' fourth cause of action for violation of the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court RESERVES ruling on Defendants' motion for summary judgment on the remaining, non-statutory claims." Although some statutory claims were dismissed, the core Constitutional questions will be litigated.

146 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Disgrace by smittyoneeach · 2013-07-09 00:04 · Score: 3, Funny

There sits disgrace
Like fuzz on your face
Of falsehood be shorn
In liberty reborn
Burma Shave

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 00:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Military will always expand their power. The Judiciaries job is not to *trust* the military to do the right thing, its to *check* they are doing the right thing. Each and every time, warrant by warrant.
When the FISA court granted *blanket* warrants, for all data of a class, on the *trust* that the NSA would filter and only use the portion of the data for the intended purpose it failed its duty. When NSA decided to start storing data on everyone in 4 huge data centers, it clearly intended to keep everything on everyone. Not limiting the data to just terrorists.
Where was the judicial oversight? Kept in the dark by abuse of secrecy.
1. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  The NSA and CIA have nothing to do with the military.
2. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by ArcherB · 2013-07-09 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  The Judiciaries job is not to *trust* the military to do the right thing, its to *check* they are doing the right thing
  The justice system is supposed to be blind and not "trust" anyone. I don't think the FISA court was set up to deal with the Constitutionality of the law itself, but to grant or deny warrants.
  
  Where was the judicial oversight? Kept in the dark by abuse of secrecy.
  We need a separate court that is secret like FISA whose purpose is to deal with cases brought up where the evidence brought up in the case should not be made public. They could handle the cases of terrorists, for example or any challenges to instances where the government is doing something that needs to be kept secret, but may or may not meet Constitutional muster.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
3. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by gl4ss · 2013-07-09 00:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The NSA and CIA have nothing to do with the military.
  yeah sure.. who controls them? the head of the military. of what institution was nsa transformed from? the military. with whom do both organizations work? with the military..
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
4. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by MarlowBardling · 2013-07-09 00:54 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A secret court, unexposed to public scrutiny, will be abused. The idea that oversight equals accountability outside of the view of the public is fairly trusting, and misses the fact that you're trying to fix a problem by making it bigger.
  If the judicial branch of the government is going to work outside the framework of law that it is built upon, the what's the point? Without checks that can actually be checked by an outside agency, there is no way to limit infractions, corruption, and abuse.
5. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by ArcherB · 2013-07-09 01:09 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The court system is supposed to be above public opinion and pubic opinion is not supposed to have any effect on the court's decisions.
  
  If the judicial branch of the government is going to work outside the framework of law that it is built upon, the what's the point? Without checks that can actually be checked by an outside agency, there is no way to limit infractions, corruption, and abuse.
  No, this court, like any other, would work within the law. The problem is that without the appropriate clearance, judges are not legally allowed to hear the evidence in the case so judicial oversight is not possible right now. All this would be is a court where the judges have the clearance to hear the cases and the evidence. The evidence in the cases as well as most of the information about the cases could be kept secret so these cases could go to court without damaging national security or the government using that as an excuse to keep the cases from ever being heard.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
6. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by swillden · 2013-07-09 01:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The Judiciaries job is not to *trust* the military to do the right thing, its to *check* they are doing the right thing
  The justice system is supposed to be blind and not "trust" anyone. I don't think the FISA court was set up to deal with the Constitutionality of the law itself, but to grant or deny warrants.
  The fundamental basis for the FISA court's decisionmaking on the warrants is constitutionality, plus, of course, USC 50 and the established precedents. The problem isn't that that the FISA court (FISC) can't evaluate the constitutionality of the law, it can, but that FISA hearings are ex parte, so there's no one to argue the view that the law is unconstitutional.
  Another serious, though subtle, problem with the FISC structure is that there is effectively no appellate review... the court has no oversight. There is an appellate court over FISC, but there is no one to force it to be used. If the government gets the answer they want from the court, fine, they go ahead. If they don't, it's purely at the government's discretion whether they want to appeal, and risk having a precedent set that goes against them if the higher court upholds the original ruling or whether they'd rather just tweak their request a bit and try again.
  This creates a situation where the government can push the boundaries of what FISC will allow with no concern that they might get slapped down in any definitive way. As it turns out, based on the numbers published, the court doesn't say "no" very often anyway, and of course there is no appeals process for approved warrants.
  The bottom line is that our courts are adversarial for a reason, and since the FISA procedures omit that very important element they're strongly biased in favor of whatever view the government chooses to argue -- because that's the only view that is argued.
  
  --
  Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
7. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:13 · Score: 0
  
  They cooperate but operate independently.
8. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Rockoon · 2013-07-09 01:16 · Score: 2
  
  The NSA and CIA have nothing to do with the military.
  I'm not sure about the CIA, but the NSA is most certainly a sub-branch of the Department of Defense, just like the Army, Navy, ...
  
  Anyways I dont see how his claim that the military will always expand its power holds water. The military is at the mercy of the executive branch with regards to policy and the legislative branch with regards to funding.
  
  --
  "His name was James Damore."
9. Re: Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:24 · Score: 0
  
  They derive their charters from Executive Branch MILITARY powers, not POLICE powers like the FBI. That's why up till the Patriot Act there was always a legal wall between the agencies. Because their MILITARY ops were always illegal against US citizens... They were just SECRET.
10. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by kermidge · 2013-07-09 01:25 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  from Wikipedia article "Central Intelligence Agency":
  In September 1947, the National Security Act of 1947 established both the National Security Council and the Central Intelligence Agency.
  It is a separate agency. Period. That CIA and DOD cooperate on some matters (transportation, signals, paramilitary training and action, for some examples) is no wise equivalent to control. Each body is quite protective of its own space and prerogatives. Most DCI have been civilian, often with little or even no military experience.
  See also the short http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947
  See also https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/6-12th-grade/operation-history/history-of-the-cia.html
  While it has "kids" in the title it nonetheless gives a concise accounting of formation and scope of CIA.
  In sum: CIA ain't run by the military.
  From the Wikipedia article on "National Security Agency":
  The National Security Agency (NSA) is the central producer and manager of signals intelligence for the United States, operating under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense.
  So, one no, one yes.
11. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by LifesABeach · 2013-07-09 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  How does one make a Tyrant, or Coward uncontrollably spin like a Top? Grin.
12. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by LifesABeach · 2013-07-09 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that without the appropriate clearance,
  
  So, which Judge are you calling a Traitor?
13. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Charliemopps · 2013-07-09 01:42 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that it's not a adversarial processes. The only side making an argument is the feds. So they get to present the government with whatever information they feel like and there's no-one there to point out they're lieing through their fucking teeth. All these judges should be run out on their ears for even hearing these cases.
14. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:48 · Score: 0
  
  "A secret court, unexposed to public scrutiny, will be abused."
  Well, so will a public/open court. It might discourage abuse if it is a public court, but abuse can/will still happen. However, if it's out in the open then the public will know about it and voice their concerns to their legislators, who theoretically can act accordingly by revising law as necessary. Making a court secret eliminates the way that feedback is supposed to work in a democratic system to ensure that the law reflects what society wants, up to and including such things as constitutional amendments if that's what it takes. That's how the FISA laws were established in the first place: because people were outraged by the abuses and wanted change.
  The thing that's so bad about the current situation is that the government has done everything it can for the last ~10 years to prevent *consideration* of constitutional challenges at higher levels in the courts by using some combination of lack of standing (because people can't *prove* they have been subject to improper surveillance) and state secrets. Thankfully the first one may change.
15. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by fnj · 2013-07-09 01:56 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  We need a separate court that is secret like FISA
  No Thank You. We do not. And we should not tolerate one. No secret courts. No star chambers. No secret surveillance. No government operations of any kind that are secret except legitimate military secrets in time of legitimate war.
  No Shadow Government Damn It.
16. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by sl4shd0rk · 2013-07-09 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  In sum: CIA ain't run by the military.
  Ok then. Tell me, what part of CIA drone strike in Pakistan kills suspected militants and Support to Military Operations is not military? The CIA may have started out detached from the military, but what they do now certainly sounds to me like it's run by the same General Hotshit egomaniac brass you see on CNN.
  
  --
  Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
17. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  The courts are not supposed to be above public opinion. This was and is supposed to be a nation for the people, by the people, of the people. That is why the system was designed in such a way that the government had no ability to punish any person in any way for anything without them having a chance to be judged by a representative body of their peers. The jury, as originally designed, is the most powerful entity in the judicial check and balance while itself being checked by having absolute authority to judge the law, evidence, and circumstances of only one case at a time.
  As for clearance. That is a way for the executive to decide who they want to tell things to. The judicial is not and should not be subject to the executive branches judgement of their trustworthiness. When the judicial requires information of the executive there should be no question, there is no decision because the executive has no option but to provide the information required.
  Judges don't hesistate to make it clear to other parties they will tolerate no bullshit or shenanigans when it comes to cooperating and not screwing around with the court. We need judges to do the same with executive agencies.
18. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by ArcherB · 2013-07-09 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  No government operations of any kind that are secret except legitimate military secrets in time of legitimate war
  The problem is that there is always going to be someone that calls any war or anything military illegitimate. Also, surveillance is important even in times of peace. It is worthless if everyone knows what we are looking at and what we find.
  Since secrets are important to a government, regardless of your opinion, and since courts are public and have no current ability to hear cases where the matter is deemed secret by those charged, there is no oversight at all. Your resistance to court oversight that can keep things that need to be secret secret,is supporting the status quo where government has virtually unlimited power because any abuses can simply be called "national security" and court oversight is completely avoided.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
19. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Cigarra · 2013-07-09 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Well all that shows is that CIA is now a para-military organization. That doesn't mean they're controlled by the Military.
  
  --
  I don't have a sig.
20. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  A secret court, unexposed to public scrutiny, will be abused. The idea that oversight equals accountability outside of the view of the public is fairly trusting, and misses the fact that you're trying to fix a problem by making it bigger.
  If the judicial branch of the government is going to work outside the framework of law that it is built upon, the what's the point? Without checks that can actually be checked by an outside agency, there is no way to limit infractions, corruption, and abuse.
  But informing the voters might let them make choices that are detrimental to their security, making the country vulnerable to terrorists who may be plotting to overthrow the government and replace it with democracy. Voters are unreliable and can make imprudent choices when recklessly being given information that they are not equipped to deal with.
21. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by kav2k · 2013-07-09 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  In Russian we have a good umbrella term for what was described: silovik, "people of force".
22. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  But they are heroes!
  All soldiers are heroes! Don't you ever forget that!
  The more terrorists they murdered, the more they are heroes!
  And no, it doesn't matter if, as some say, those declarations are completely arbitrary, have nothing to do with freedom or protecting us, and actually solely based on industrial interests.
  They are our heroes. They protect us. And that justifies everything. Period.
  This is the rule we live by. Don't you dare to go against that. Because this is AMERICA, and if you don't like it you can go and take your humaneness with you!
23. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by kilfarsnar · 2013-07-09 02:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Anyways I dont see how his claim that the military will always expand its power holds water. The military is at the mercy of the executive branch with regards to policy and the legislative branch with regards to funding.
  Yeah, I'd say those with power always (or at least often) try to expand their power. It's not a military thing, it's a power thing.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
24. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by ArcherB · 2013-07-09 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  The courts are not supposed to be above public opinion. This was and is supposed to be a nation for the people, by the people, of the people.
  Laws are passed based on public opinion. Courts judge them based on the Constitution. Lady Liberty has a blindfold for a reason. If enough people feel strongly enough about an issue that is deemed unconstitutional, then the Constitution may be amended. For example, California held an election to in which the public opinion banned gay marriage. A court deemed that unconstitutional. Arizona has passed laws on immigration that were supported by public opinion that the court deemed unconstitutional.
  
  --
  There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
25. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-07-09 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  The CIA may have started out detached from the military
  The CIA did NOT start out detached from the military. The first two DCI were an Admiral and a General. Most of its agents in the beginning were military men.
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
26. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by sjames · 2013-07-09 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  What about the right to a public trial?
27. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:48 · Score: 0
  
  All organizations will expand their scope and power if there are no checks. Executive policy is to fight everyone, everywhere, all the time, and legislative policy is to give unlimited funding to any war or R&D project, regardless of efficacy. The military is not a reasonably sized organization being restrained by thoughtful governance. The military is a sprawling Titan, consuming so many resources, so much data, so much manpower, and doing so much in so many places that its growth is limited only by the fact that if it got noticeably bigger, it's host government would be incapable of supporting it.
28. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by sjames · 2013-07-09 02:50 · Score: 2
  
  The courts are supposed to be public. The people are the final check on the courts. That's why trials are public and transcripts are a matter of public record.
29. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  If enough people feel strongly enough about an issue that is deemed unconstitutional, then the Constitution may be amended.
  Unless the rulings are all made in secret so that the electorate can't form opinions or even know what their government is doing.
30. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by ahabswhale · 2013-07-09 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  The CIA has had their own drones that were completely independent of the military. That said, they are now turning over their drones to the military and will no longer have their own fleet. The will need to coordinate with the military for future drone strikes.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
31. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Reverand+Dave · 2013-07-09 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  I think the ATF and FBI should hold a siege on their compound until they surrender their weapons and come out peacefully. Or just burn the fuckers to the ground like every other para-military organization in the country.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
32. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by ahabswhale · 2013-07-09 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  The NSA is organizationally under the DoD but it is an independent organization that's almost entirely civilian. To say they are a military organization is really stretching the truth.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
33. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by intermodal · 2013-07-09 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  blanket warrants are specifically proscribed by the fourth amendment. There is no constitutional way to issue a blanket warrant.
  
  --
  In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
34. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by kilfarsnar · 2013-07-09 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  No, this court, like any other, would work within the law.
  If it's secret, how do you know? The reason public scrutiny is important is that it enables just anyone to check and see that things are above board. There have been enough examples of people involved in secret dealings lying and withholding information that we know we need independent oversight.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
35. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  Who is top dog for the CIA? - President Obama.
  Who is the Commander in Chief of the military? - President Obama.
  Gee, looks to me like they have the same boss... That boss happens to be the head of the military. Thus, all are under military control.
36. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by gl4ss · 2013-07-09 03:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  look man, we all know why "cia isn't military" on paper. it's the same reason why u2 spyflights were done by "civilian" pilots. you know it's bullshit, the money comes from the same budgets and the same guy can order both to do whatever he wants.
  you could quite easily argue that CIA is the first step on the line of semantics bullshit that leads straight to gitmo. it's just about bending the rules. "we're not military! we just happen to do everything a military does, but since military isn't allowed to do this we do it. sweeeet?"
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
37. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  Or just burn the fuckers to the ground like every other para-military organization in the country.
  Are you suggesting that every other para-military organization should be burned to the ground or that they already have?
38. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Reverand+Dave · 2013-07-09 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that there is always going to be someone that calls any war or anything military illegitimate.
  
  I completely agree with the first part of your statement. No matter what action the military or government take, there will be detractors. I don't necessarily see this as a problem though. This would help the issue be seen from multiple angles. It is the core of scientific consensus. Dissenting opinions should be evaluated on the merit of the argument in the open and not behind closed doors where motives are suspect. The appearance of unregulated and unmitigated impropriety is an issue.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
39. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by gl4ss · 2013-07-09 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well all that shows is that CIA is now a para-military organization. That doesn't mean they're controlled by the Military.
  I never said that. I just said that both of them are controlled by the same person(s).
  Who I suppose is technically a military person, being the head honcho of the military.. who for conveniencys sake happens to keep a separate branch. It's only international customs why CIA exists as a separate institution and isn't officially branded as a section of the military like the navy... well, that and budget reasons, can funnel money from one to the other now if congress doesn't approve funding the other.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
40. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 03:50 · Score: 0
  
  You're referring to something that is so small it isn't even a classical military operation. There is a small sliver somewhat at the outside edges of both the military (a subset of what special forces) and the CIA (a subset of their paramilitary operations) that make for good TV, and apparently good fodder for /., but you'd be shocked to discover that the military and the CIA don't even always get along.
41. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Em+Adespoton · 2013-07-09 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  The CIA has had their own drones that were completely independent of the military. That said, they are now turning over their drones to the military and will no longer have their own fleet. The will need to coordinate with the military for future drone strikes.
  Actually, I think the idea is that the military won't need to coordinate with the CIA for future drone strikes. The CIA WILL need to coordinate with the military to use the drones for intel gathering purposes however.
  Makes much more sense than the way things were before.
42. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by ahabswhale · 2013-07-09 04:14 · Score: 1
  
  No, the military had been running its own drone strikes all along. The CIA lost its drone strike power because they developed a bad rep with the locals.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
43. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by TubeSteak · 2013-07-09 04:23 · Score: 2
  
  you know it's bullshit, the money comes from the same budgets and the same guy can order both to do whatever he wants.
  The Pentagon just argued that Seal Team 6 was on loan to the CIA when they went after Bin Laden,
  which excuses their purge of almost all documents that could be requested by the Freedom of Information Act.
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/08/bin-laden-raid-files-reportedly-purged-from-pentagon-computers-sent-to-cia/
  
  The CIA, noting that the bin Laden mission was overseen by then-CIA Director Leon Panetta before he became defense secretary, said that the SEALs were effectively assigned to work temporarily for the CIA, which has presidential authority to conduct covert operations.
  "Documents related to the raid were handled in a manner consistent with the fact that the operation was conducted under the direction of the CIA director," agency spokesman Preston Golson said in an emailed statement. "Records of a CIA operation such as the (bin Laden) raid, which were created during the conduct of the operation by persons acting under the authority of the CIA Director, are CIA records."
  It doesn't even matter if they're lying, as its unlikely anyone will get punished or dragged before a Judge.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
44. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by ulatekh · 2013-07-09 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  I dont see how his claim that the military will always expand its power holds water. The military is at the mercy of the executive branch with regards to policy and the legislative branch with regards to funding.
  Then you must have missed President Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex. Things haven't changed much in 50 years.
  
  --
  "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
45. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by idontgno · 2013-07-09 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  Lady Liberty has a blindfold for a reason.
  Pedantry alert!
  You mean Iustitia, Lady Justice:
  
  Lady Justice is most often depicted with a set of scales typically suspended from her right hand, upon which she measures the strengths of a case's support and opposition. She is also often seen carrying a double-edged sword in her left hand, symbolizing the power of Reason and Justice, which may be wielded either for or against any party.
  Since the 15th century, Lady Justice has often been depicted wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.
  It's a good principle. However, US Courts have consistently shown some weaknesses in the area of impartial justice when considering issues where the case has been shaped in terms of national security, warmaking, and the low-grade semi-state of emergency we seem to find ourselves living in.
  
  --
  Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
46. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by meta-monkey · 2013-07-09 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed! The secret FISA court isn't doing its job right, so we need another court to watch over them, but that court also needs to be secret, we need a Double Secret Court.
  Well that solves the problem of abuse of power by a secret court! What's next?
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
47. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by cfsops · 2013-07-09 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  The Pentagon just argued that Seal Team 6 was on loan to the CIA when they went after Bin Laden,
  It was my understanding from the beginning that it was a CIA operation with JSOC people temporarily assigned. IOW, I don't think this was ever a "secret". I think this is not unusual and sometimes works in reverse, (CIA/SOG temporarily assigned to JSOC units), as well.
48. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  this is why the constitution explicitly provides a mechanism by which 'the people' (through congress) can 'legitimize' military action:
  it's called 'declaring war'.
  this has been conveniently despensed with since wwII
49. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Reverand+Dave · 2013-07-09 06:05 · Score: 1
  
  A lot have, and a lot more probably should be. Case in point.
  
  --
  I got here through a series of tubes
50. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by cfsops · 2013-07-09 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's little to do with soldiers. Everyone's a fucking hero any more here. If a cop or a fireman or heaven-forbid a mail person just does their job, they're now a "hero". If someone walks down the street and doesn't fall into a quivering mass at the corner, pissing itself over the cars and shit driving by, then that someone is a fucking hero.
51. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by dywolf · 2013-07-09 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  how are you so consistantly ignorant?
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
52. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by dywolf · 2013-07-09 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  So therefor the DOJ, the DOE (both of them), State Department, DHS, FBI, Secret Service, DOT, and DOTT, and all other parts of the Executive Branch, including the Library of Congress....are all under military control?
  So uh...which service is the President part of? What rank is he?
  Oh he's not?
  Just because the military falls under the Executive branch same as the other doesnt mean the other is "under military control". That logic could be turned around to say because the President is "chief diplomat" the entire EB is under State Department control...or as ultimate controller of the DoJ the military answers to the cops..and on and on.
  Bloody ignorant troll.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
53. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by dywolf · 2013-07-09 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  were the pilots in the military? no.
  the fact many pilots were ex-military is immaterial. so are most Astronauts, and a whole ton of other federal employees. but simple federal law prevents any active military personel from holding any government position while still int eh military. its a simple matter of basic law. you can ignore it all you want, or handwave it away as part of the conspiracy, but that's how it is.
  were the planes owned by the military? again, no.
  the Air Force created the original design request, BUT the Air Force did not operate the U-2 until after the CIA stopped (the Air Force actually REJECTED the U2 proposal they themselves solicited, and didnt regain interest until after the CIA proved how useful it was). meaning the aircraft were bought by the CIA, NOT the military. The same goes for the Lockheed A-12; the Air Force never operated the A-12, they operated its similar, but larger, successor, the SR-71, years after the CIA stopped.
  and no, the budgets were not and are not the same. the CIA has its own pot of money, coming from the "intelligence budget", which is seperate from the defense budget, and which also pays for the other 15 intelligence agencies, military and civilian, seperated into two categorie: national intellegince (civilian) and millitary (duh).
  no part of anything you said is any way factual.
  There were not military.
  Your posts in this thread are not insightful.
  You are a troll.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
54. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Dr.+Sheldon+Cooper · 2013-07-09 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  That was sarcasm, right?
  
  --
  Bazinga.
55. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by dywolf · 2013-07-09 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Its part of DoD, but technically not part of the military anymore. The military (essentially government sub-departments for this discussion) fall under the DoD, but the DoD itself is not 100% military. that's the key distinction. NSA grew out of a military interservice joint agency, and thus has retained its connection to the DoD and still has military ranking members (and facilities on certain bases around the world), but by and large its more civilian than not.
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
56. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by suutar · 2013-07-09 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Lady Liberty does not have a blindfold. You're thinking of Lady Justice, whose blindfold is meant to reflect objectivity and impartiality, not secrecy and lack of oversight.
57. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by fyngyrz · 2013-07-09 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  I think he's right. The military -- all branches -- operates with a code of honor that they're pretty darned proud of, and generally stick to as a matter of course. The NSA and CIA operate under the guidance of "we think we need to do X" and very little else.
  Regardless of the original genesis, I would far rather trust a platoon of marines or soldiers or sailors, etc., than any number of NSA or CIA employees above zero. The military guys would almost certainly call me "sir" and get between me and any real threat. The NSA and CIA guys... not so much.
  As you may have inferred, I support our military; I am under the very strong impression that they do the (crazy difficult) jobs they are assigned, and they're quite careful to do them within the limits of honor and constitutional obligation with very few exceptions indeed. I do not, however, think that they are being well used. But that's not a problem with the military. That's a problem with our political (cough) leadership.
  
  --
  I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
58. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by perceptual.cyclotron · 2013-07-09 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  A little dated, but still on point: Parenti on Right-wing judicial activism...
59. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 09:21 · Score: 0
  
  THE YELLOW DOG BARKS AT MIDNIGHTugugiugoug'bkjbkug;igigkb/ln:h'phi'oi'gouguohb/,bm,bn.mB>KhbLHGLghoiuyh
  'on
60. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by fnj · 2013-07-09 09:32 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that there is always going to be someone that calls any war or anything military illegitimate
  Yes, but the fact is that the constitution does outline a basis for legitimacy.
  I think the real problem is the other way round. The government always tries to find a way to attempt to assign false legitimacy to any kind of rogue military operation or fake undeclared "war" which a portion of the government sees fit to undertake.
61. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by tibman · 2013-07-09 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Except for the part where they have zero rank, no uniforms, and you never see them on TV? It's a civilian organization.
  
  --
  http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
62. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  operates with a code of honor that they're pretty darned proud of, and generally stick to as a matter of course.
  Oh, please. Individuals do break the code if they feel doing so would do more good than harm; they're human like anyone else. Furthermore, it won't stop anything if the code is either incomplete or just plain wrong.
63. Re: Judicial control is what was missing by t1gg3r · 2013-07-09 17:28 · Score: 0
  
  The Department of Defense is the military.
64. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  It's been my belief that the NSA was an organization created to do what the CIA used to do before it got sloppy. Once the CIA was too much of a hot potato for the politicians it became "more open" and as such, the fall guy for anything espionage related the public found out about. Now, everyone knows the CIA is a cover and the NSA has been doing the dirty work of our intelligence group for a long time.
  Now the NSA is being outed, just like the CIA was back in the 70's. My worst fear is what is the new 3 letter acronym group doing that we won't hear about for 15 more years.
  Welcome to the rabbit hole Alice. It's dark in here.
65. Re: Judicial control is what was missing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-10 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  Haha as a hospital corpsman anyone who breakes the 'code' is ostracized and cast out. Quite literally in fact. Administrative separation. Cause? Unable to adjust to military standards.
66. Re:Judicial control is what was missing by redlemming · 2013-07-10 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  No, this court, like any other, would work within the law. The problem is that without the appropriate clearance, judges are not legally allowed to hear the evidence in the case so judicial oversight is not possible right now. All this would be is a court where the judges have the clearance to hear the cases and the evidence. The evidence in the cases as well as most of the information about the cases could be kept secret so these cases could go to court without damaging national security or the government using that as an excuse to keep the cases from ever being heard.
  This type of court arrangement is also known as a "Star Chamber". It goes back to the 15th Century. Like many other things, what initially seemed like a good idea (a means of providing a check and balance on the upper ranks of the nobility) quickly went bad (notoriously so).
  Once upon a time, Americans were very determined to prevent this kind of thing, which is why you find negative references to "Star Chamber Sessions" in the old Perry Mason books from the 1930's and 1940's. The average modern reader of these books probably has never heard this term.
  Long term public oversight of government is certainly one of the fundamental rights arising under the 9th Amendment ("rights retained by the people") and the 10th Amendment ("rights reserved by the people"). Exactly what constitutes "long term" is subject to some discussion, but given the time scale on which trials occur there is no legitimate reason to keep things secret. It follows that any laws or precedents to the contrary are in violation of the Bill of Rights.
  The US legal profession -- being in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to recognizing the 9th Amendment -- can be expected to do its best not to acknowledge such a right. Regrettable, but until people outside the profession start paying attention to legal ethics that's not likely to change. Entropy in a closed system increases unless reversed by energy from an outside source.
  Given the extremely negative history associated with secret courts, there really isn't any legitimate basis for doing this sort of thing today. Have the trial and declassify things as needed, or forego the trial. If somebody in the government is under trial, the latter is not an option, otherwise the government would simply classify everything to protect its members from the consequences of illegal conduct.
  Yes, doing things this way makes some tasks harder for the government -- but that's the way things have to be for a society to be free.
Not exactly a secret anymore by ArcherB · 2013-07-09 00:20 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think the fact that this has been made public and that the government itself is no longer denying this negates any attempt to call this "state secrets".
However, there will be cases that deal with actual state secrets. For those, we need a court set up to deal with that sort of thing, not just a court to approve warrants, but a court to handle cases brought up by whistle blowers that evaluate the Constitutionality of cases like this.

--
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
1. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by FriendlyLurker · 2013-07-09 00:27 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  We have Snowden to thank for this change in attitude. Public sentiment is everything. And yet, the second part of his interview which addresses pretty much every criticism laid on him (before it was made) never made /. news for nerds, (it got modded down to oblivion on the firehose AFAIK), despite Snowdens story being highly relevant news for nerds...
2. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 00:32 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  (it got modded down to oblivion on the firehose AFAIK)
  No surprise there, anyone who watches Snowden in that two part video interview is pretty much immunized against the vast majority of propaganda being slung about to try and discredit him. Slashdot has plenty of shill accounts standing by to target anything that interferes with the propaganda machines message. Paging Cold Fjord in 3, 2,...
3. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by pla · 2013-07-09 00:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  However, there will be cases that deal with actual state secrets. For those, we need a court set up to deal with that sort of thing
  
  No. We need a lack of state secrets. We need an open, transparent government that actually acts in the interests of its people rather than its CEOs. We need a court set up to try every breach of public trust as a capital offense.
  
  We need an asteroid.
4. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by Lehk228 · 2013-07-09 00:54 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Purges are an excellent idea, comrade.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
5. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  That video was only released yesterday, Monday 8 July 2013 - how fast do you think Slashdot is at finding news for nerds?
6. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:17 · Score: 0
  
  Which people did he hand names and contact info of people and their families for? Can you name one? Or provide a link? All I heard is that he revealed massive spying on us and our allies.
7. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by pla · 2013-07-09 01:19 · Score: 2
  
  Purges are an excellent idea, comrade.
  
  "In Soviet Russia" jokes aside, I hate to tell you this, but the KGB would have given Vlad Kryuchkov's left nut to have anywhere near the "Total Information Awareness" at the NSA's disposal today.
  
  The US intelligence agencies have a better reputation than their Soviet or Nazi Germany era counterparts for one and one reason only - They prefer to go high-tech rather than break kneecaps. And make no mistake, while I drastically prefer keeping my kneecaps intact, their goals count as no more or less noble than the legendary atrocities of their predecessors.
8. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  dont feed the troll. It is a bot, anyway...
9. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by kermidge · 2013-07-09 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think a separate court is necessary, even for FISA warrants and oversight. It's been common enough over the years for _in camera_ sessions as part of otherwise ordinary court proceedings.
10. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by LifesABeach · 2013-07-09 01:39 · Score: 2
  
  For those, we need a court set up to deal with that sort of thing
  
  Really? And you know best for all of us?
11. Re: Not exactly a secret anymore by Mabhatter · 2013-07-09 01:45 · Score: 0
  
  Manning was just the mail boy who happened upon memos between politicans that were offensive for their contempt of Americans. Manning got involved after incidentally seeing offensive documents. He was only cleared to "pass out the mail". Like a butler who's seen their boss be an ass too many times and speaks out. Still a breech of trust, but not of job performance.
  Snowden was PART of the system to PERFORM the spying, and to actually plan and figure out how to violate individuals' rights... He obviously did it for some time. Snowden doesn't get "whistleblower" credit just for turning over things HE TOOK MONEY TO DO FOR YEARS. He is Part of that spying system, "in for a penny, in for a pound" what they do to him is his own fault. He shouldn't be getting any sympathy because he "feels bad about spying on Americans" now.
12. Re: Not exactly a secret anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  Try 3 months.
13. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by SirGarlon · 2013-07-09 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  We need a court set up to try every breach of public trust as a capital offense.
  Be careful what you wish for. The DOJ would be bringing people like Manning and Snowden before that court.
  
  --
  [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
14. Re: Not exactly a secret anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:37 · Score: 0
  
  You sir, are a troll.
15. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  And by the way: The best way to get rid of "teh terroristz" is to
  1. actually be honest and nice to other countries, and
  2. not meddle with countries in such a way that they are created in the first place (See: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Chile, even Mexico a bit... and that's only the ones I know of.)
  I remember a time, when we here in Germany, France, Belgium, etc looked up to the USA. They were the cool guy in the group. They were fun. And fuck, we even trusted them.
  At least the average Americans.
  Yes, even Afghanis, Iranis, North-Koreans, Russians, etc
  How about that? Can you become like that again? For us?
  We promise we'll be there for you and embrace you.
16. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by interkin3tic · 2013-07-09 03:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  However, there will be cases that deal with actual state secrets.
  I'm honestly having a hard time picturing what those cases would be. I could see the need for secret courts if one assumes that the very existence of a spy program to listen to foreign terrorists' cell phone calls is a secret. But that's idiotic. The terrorists know we're trying to spy on them. We know that they know. Even before Snowden or Binney. Al Quaeda has been acting covertely since before we actually WERE listening. They weren't holding public meetings in Sudan to discuss the best ways to attack the US.
  
  Regular courts deal with things that need to be kept secret: the names and addresses of witnesses against criminals isn't published in a "People with a price on their heads weekly" magazine. Regular non-secret courts can handle secrets. They won't be outing informants.
  
  Lastly, the pointless secrecy is massively counterproductive. Leaks are going to happen if you make it a moral obligation for someone to report it as you do with secret courts and clearly perverting justice. It seems clear to me that the leaks are going to be more dangerous than you'd have with non-secret courts. The Manning leak had, if I recall, actual sensitive information that regular courts would have likely kept secret, such as informant identities.
17. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by kilfarsnar · 2013-07-09 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  However, there will be cases that deal with actual state secrets. For those, we need a court set up to deal with that sort of thing, not just a court to approve warrants, but a court to handle cases brought up by whistle blowers that evaluate the Constitutionality of cases like this.
  Can't we just clear the judge and have him review evidence in private? Why do we need a whole new court system?
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
18. Re: Not exactly a secret anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  Snowden doesn't get "whistleblower" credit just for turning over things HE TOOK MONEY TO DO FOR YEARS. He is Part of that spying system, "in for a penny, in for a pound" what they do to him is his own fault. He shouldn't be getting any sympathy because he "feels bad about spying on Americans" now.
  Whistleblower. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
19. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by ulatekh · 2013-07-09 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  The best way to get rid of "teh terroristz" is to
  1. actually be honest and nice to other countries, and
  2. not meddle with countries in such a way that they are created in the first place
  [...]
  How about that? Can you become like that again? For us? We promise we'll be there for you and embrace you.
  We know what you believe, Mr. Obama. You tried doing this and it failed miserably. Stop trying to sell it.
  
  --
  "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
20. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 07:37 · Score: 0
  
  Alright then. Have fun in your law-of-the-jungle dog-eat-dog wasteland of shattered delusions, Catholiban Neocunt.
  Because honestly, there's no bigger joy than to see a bully go down by shooting *himself* in the nuts, bending over, hitting his stupid face on a small wall, and falling flat on his ass. With the kids running circles around him, kicking him in the sides, until he cries and calls for his Mommy^WOhLawd.
  It will be a joy for whole world, including real Americans, to watch.
21. Re: Not exactly a secret anymore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  ... in for a penny, in for a pound ...
  
  My sentiments exactly. But this 'tough on crime' mantra has a slippery slope. Remember Nazi Germany? It happened because the people agreed with the criminalization of large segments of the population. And once people were were criminals, they deserved everything they got. Not dissimilar to the attitude in the USA today. The USA is also the home of the biggest warning against this: "When they came for the communists ... ".
  
  ... He shouldn't be getting any sympathy ...
  
  Then there's no incentive for him to stop being a criminal and stand for your rights and civil liberties. Who benefits from you having fewer civil liberties? I don't think it's you. This self-righteousness simply results in shooting oneself in the foot.
22. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by triffid_98 · 2013-07-09 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  However, there will be cases that deal with actual state secrets
  What exactly isn't a state secret nowadays?
  
  It couldn't be any more ironic that the when the state secrets act was originally recognized by the court (United States v. Reynolds - 1953) it was based on a lie. There was nothing mission related in the accident report, but of course none of us, including the supreme court justices who ruled on it actually knew that for another 47 years.
  
  Checks and balances my ass.
23. Re:Not exactly a secret anymore by Lehk228 · 2013-07-09 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  the NSA has a better reputation in the US than the KGB, it's easy to hold a better reputation when you control the message.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
24. Re: Not exactly a secret anymore by i · 2013-07-10 02:37 · Score: 1
  
  Snowden should get credit because hi did what everyone should do, based on elementary moral.
  Governments striving for their own good against the interests of humanity should always be exposed.
  
  --
  Mundus Vult Decipi
Seven Expectations by some+old+guy · 2013-07-09 00:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

1. Trial will be drawn out for six months to two years by motions, security considerations, etc.
2. Regardless of rulings, appeals will take a further two to five years.
3. Meanwhile, the government will continue to do as it damned well pleases.
4. Through it all, 99% of the public will pay more attention to American Idol or Nascar.
5. Poor ~pj at Groklaw will be driven to distraction by the huge briefs and exhibits expected to be filed.
6. Major media will spin everything pro-government.
7. At the end of it all, regardless of legal gymnastics, there will be no practical difference.

--
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
1. Re:Seven Expectations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 00:30 · Score: 0
  
  0. This ruling will be appealed.
  BTW, your sig is taken from a variation of a narcotics anonymous quote.
2. Re: Seven Expectations by alen · 2013-07-09 00:32 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget baseball and basketball
  The mets have a decent chance for a playoff spot in the 2014 season. And the Brooklyn Nets are good as well
3. Re:Seven Expectations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 00:32 · Score: 0
  
  8. Anyone who objects to the illegal surveillance (or indeed calls it illegal in the first place) will be called "Socialist."
4. Re:Seven Expectations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 00:43 · Score: 0
  
  You got 7 almost correct
  7) At the end of it all, regardless of legal gymnastics, there will be no practical difference except that American's will have to examine if they have exhausted all but the cartridge(ammo) box or if they will continue to try soap, ballot, jury and moving boxes instead.
5. Re:Seven Expectations by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-07-09 00:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Don't worry - they'll start the next illegal program now so that when this one gets struck down, its replacement will be humming along nicely.
  'Soverign immunity' is what makes this form of government unjust in the first place. To hear the government lawyers use it as a defense claim is to hear them say, "but your honor, we're entitled to injustice." It's enough to make one's inner Bastiat's skin crawl.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
6. Re:Seven Expectations by some+old+guy · 2013-07-09 00:45 · Score: 2
  
  See [2.]
  I know nothing of Narcotics Anonymous. Apparently you do.
  
  --
  Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
7. Re:Seven Expectations by pla · 2013-07-09 00:49 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You didn't go far enough with #7. Not just no practical difference, we'll have no difference at all, because the executive branch will simply ignore the ruling, the same way Holder regularly does, and Reno and Ashcroft did before him (DOJ != Judiciary) ; The same way the FDA does when it doesn't "like" court orders to make certain drugs available without discrimination. The same way the entire intelligence community has done for years (*cough* guns to contras funded by running the international drug trade and all pardoned by former CIA directer Bush-the-Elder *cough*).
  
  And we worry about some phone call tracking? We have an outright rogue government, not even pretending to give a shit about its citizens anymore, and we really care about the latest distraction over whether Snowden counts as a hero or a traitor?
8. Re:Seven Expectations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 00:49 · Score: 1
  
  They're like regular Anonymous, except with Narcotics.
9. Re:Seven Expectations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  That's very cynical indeed. I am not saying you are not correct, but I rather wait and see. I am busy with work and school so instead of marching through the streets I give some money to EFF, and in my opinion they do excellent work.
10. Re:Seven Expectations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  Never heard that. You're prolly a socialist asshat. You meant to say "terrorist".
11. Re:Seven Expectations by kermidge · 2013-07-09 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Often with better doughnuts, also.
12. Re:Seven Expectations by LifesABeach · 2013-07-09 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Best response to an AC post I've ever read; thanks.
13. Re:Seven Expectations by kilfarsnar · 2013-07-09 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  0. This ruling will be appealed.
  BTW, your sig is taken from a variation of a narcotics anonymous quote.
  Kind of a funny quote for them. When I do drugs I expect the same result as before, not a different one.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
14. Re:Seven Expectations by steelfood · 2013-07-09 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  It isn't without precedence. Andrew Jackson reportedly said regarding a Supreme Court decision he didn't like (and subsequently didn't follow), "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
  And then people have the galls to call him a strong president. A lawbreaker is more like it.
  
  --
  "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
15. Re:Seven Expectations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  guns to contras funded by running the international drug trade and all pardoned by former CIA directer Bush-the-Elder
  You forgot rehired by Bush-the-W.
16. Re:Seven Expectations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 07:24 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry - they'll start the next illegal program now so that when this one gets struck down, its replacement will be humming along nicely.
  'Soverign immunity' is what makes this form of government unjust in the first place. To hear the government lawyers use it as a defense claim is to hear them say, "but your honor, we're entitled to injustice." It's enough to make one's inner Bastiat's skin crawl.
  It means you can't sue a government for not following its own laws. It's not as shady as it sounds when you really think about it. There is a system of checks and balances, and going around them is pointless - it's an order of operations thing. If the congressional and judicial branches were actually defunct, then so is your court and your laws, so what is a lawsuit against the executive at that point? Talk to your representatives.
  The Constitution, you know, "We the People ... do ordain and establish ..." is _obviously_ a different matter. That's why the court rejected the statutory claims, leaving the constitutional ones. IMHO:IANAL.
17. Re:Seven Expectations by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 18:04 · Score: 0
  
  As interesting as your commentary is, even the first step toward reform must be taken before the reform can be realized. We cannot stop caring about prosecuting such offenses, even if there will be a subsequent offense just around the corner.
Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 00:26 · Score: 0

Sudden outbreak of common sense.
Tap a federal judge again, will you? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 00:27 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder how much the mention of "...tapping federal judges' phones at will..." had anything to do with it.
my .02
1. Re:Tap a federal judge again, will you? by NatasRevol · 2013-07-09 01:23 · Score: 1
  
  Or how many ways you can 'tap' a judge.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:No. by Cenan · 2013-07-09 00:36 · Score: 2

Yes, Bush' reign constituted a brief interlude where there were no spies, no government abuse, no secret agendas, no profit driven wars - only lilies and cake for everyone. The presidents before him and after him were demons, and people just doesn't seem to grasp that the benevolent rule of the one true Bush was cut short prematurely. A God among men should not have to suffer the laws of men, Bush for a third period! Huzzah!

--
... whatever ...
Re:No. by Dins · 2013-07-09 00:45 · Score: 2

Please do not feed the trolls...
Re:No. by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-07-09 00:47 · Score: 1

Bush for a third period! Huzzah!
Please accept the current "Cheyney's fourth term" as a consolation prize.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The core claims will now be litigated....away by __aasehi2499 · 2013-07-09 00:51 · Score: 1

The court is obviously ready to bear the brunt of watering down/abusing The Constitution further at this point, so will allow the matter to be heard.
Re:No. by Cenan · 2013-07-09 00:53 · Score: 2

But, but, I... they... we...
Yes sir *bows head*

--
... whatever ...
State secret != Domestic by mrjatsun · 2013-07-09 01:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

There used to be a good separation between domestic (FBI) and international (CIA, NSA, ...) data gathering (for a good reason). In theory, any collection of data, active spying, etc. on US citizens cannot be done under a national security, restricted access setting. Nor could any of the assets used to to collect data (say for an investigation) on one or more US citizen be classified. There are exceptions for US citizens co-operating with a foreign government of course. And data can be withheld during an active investigation, etc, etc. For a long time classified assets were not allowed to be used for domestic investigations.
This separation is now gone of course. There also seems to be an attitude that if the data is collected, and not looked at, its ok as long as there check and balances to ensure that the data is not being looked at. Obviously, in a democracy, a government cannot police itself with no external visibility. It's a fundamental breakdown of the principles of a democracy. Hopefully this will be brought up when this case makes its way to the supreme court.
What is being done is so obviously wrong. It will be an interesting case to determine if the Supreme Court is representing the country or representing the government.
I see what you did there by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 01:27 · Score: 0

stegonagraphic messages hidden in the changing dollar amounts from one spam to the next
personally, I would use a forum where the comments aren't archived for eternity, but that's just me
1. Re:I see what you did there by kilfarsnar · 2013-07-09 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's funny you mention that. I have seen a number of posts over the years here that made me wonder if they were coded messages disguised as spam.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
2. Re:I see what you did there by Em+Adespoton · 2013-07-09 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Someone actually made a slashdotfs module for FUSE a while back that used a transparent steganographic layer to store your local data at anon -1 :) Won't work for big data, but nifty for small sets :)
General Keith Alexander disagrees by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:09 · Score: 1

The head of the NSA is General Keith Alexander.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/12/cyber-threat-alexander/1982115/
"WASHINGTON — The head of the military's cybercommand says network threats are growing dramatically,... Army Gen. Keith Alexander told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday. "Cybereffects are growing."
You can thank the militarization of the CIA on General Hayden who drove it under Bush to military aims:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_V._Hayden
See all the medals and badges? He's not a boy scout.
Judicial branch isn't just to control the military however, and it would be nice if it de-militarized the agencies as a first step.
1. Re:General Keith Alexander disagrees by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  [... blame it on ...] on General Hayden who drove it under Bush to military aims [...]
  Absolutely. Unlike that guy that Clinton appointed to head the NSA. What was his name? Oh right, General Hayden.
  Other military leaders to occupy the office included:
  Adm. Stansfield M. Turner (appointed by Carter)
  Starting with Lt. George H. W. Bush (appointed by Ford), it's harder to find non-military directors of the CIA because so many men were WWII and Korea vets. The real difference in the modern era, as far as I'm aware, is that starting with Hayden, these guys are maintaining their military career while heading the agency. The CIA truly is a wing of our military effort at this point, make no mistake. The NSA was less so until 2002, when they got reorged into Homeland Security. Now the line between Homeland Security and the Military is very fuzzy indeed (much as Homeland Security does try to fight back against that, mostly on jurisdictional issues).
soverign immunity? by gr8_phk · 2013-07-09 02:17 · Score: 1

the Court GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' statutory claims on the basis of sovereign immunity.
So the government thinks it is a sovereign entity that can do whatever it likes? And the court takes that view? I thought the country was the sovereign entity and the government was just a part of it established by the people. When did the government or any part of it get this new status?
1. Re:soverign immunity? by Em+Adespoton · 2013-07-09 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  the Court GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' statutory claims on the basis of sovereign immunity.
  So the government thinks it is a sovereign entity that can do whatever it likes? And the court takes that view? I thought the country was the sovereign entity and the government was just a part of it established by the people. When did the government or any part of it get this new status?
  The people grant the government sovereign immunity to certain things as part of the governing process. Government itself would be illegal without this. It's kind of like the Library of Congress can archive all written works, even though copyright forbids this. They have sovereign immunity for the interests of the people.
  Looked at another way, certain laws are written to restrict rights; the government is exempt from some of these laws as it is at cross purposes to restrict governmental rights in these areas.
  So it's not the government that is a sovereign entity; it is The People; these People grant those executing their wishes certain exemptions to allow them to execute said wishes.
  Now that's the simplistic view, and obviously government in the US has ripened to the point where this can be (and is) abused. But they still don't get a "get out of jail free" card -- they have to show that their purpose for going above the law is only to enable effective governmental oversight.
  Seems like they did that for those two counts, but were unable to do that for the other counts levied against them.
2. Re:soverign immunity? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 08:59 · Score: 0
  
  the Court GRANTS Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' statutory claims on the basis of sovereign immunity.
  So the government thinks it is a sovereign entity that can do whatever it likes? And the court takes that view? I thought the country was the sovereign entity and the government was just a part of it established by the people. When did the government or any part of it get this new status?
  Um, yes? That's how it makes laws, and other stuff allowed by the Constitution.
  'We the People' wrote the Constitution which establishes the government, so only the constitutional claims will go forward.
  The statutory claims need to go through your congress critters.
Official Secrets Act by Frankie70 · 2013-07-09 02:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Sir Humphrey: The Official Secrets Act isn't to protect secrets - it's to protect officials.
-----
James Hacker: I occasionally have confidential press briefings, but I have never leaked.
Bernard Woolley: Oh, that's another of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I give confidential press briefings; you leak; he's been charged under Section 2a of the Official Secrets Act.
-----
This program should not exist by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:28 · Score: 0

Because we already said so years ago... and now it appears they do whatever they please:
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/405707/the-total-information-awareness-project-lives-on/
In February 2006, the controversy intensified. Reports emerged that component technologies of the supposedly defunct Total Information Awareness (TIA) project – established in 2002 by the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop advanced information technology to counter terrorists, then terminated by Congress in 2003 because of widespread criticism that it would create “Orwellian” mass surveillance – had been acquired by the NSA.
Washington’s lawmakers ostensibly killed the TIA project in Section 8131 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal 2004. But legislators wrote a classified annex to that document which preserved funding for TIA’s component technologies, if they were transferred to other government agencies, say sources who have seen the document, according to reports first published in The National Journal. Congress did stipulate that those technologies should only be used for military or foreign intelligence purposes against non-U.S. citizens. Still, while those component projects’ names were changed, their funding remained intact, sometimes under the same contracts.
1. Re:This program should not exist by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  Cancelled but still alive:
  http://infolab.stanford.edu/~ullman/fcdb/aut07/2006/ethics_readings/USA-Today-TIA-cancelled.htm
  The controversial Terrorism Information Awareness program was conceived by retired Adm. John Poindexter and was run by the Information Awareness Office that he headed inside the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
  It was developing software that could examine the computerized travel, credit card, medical and other records of Americans and others around the world to search for telltale activities that might reveal preparations for a terrorist attack.
  Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., who has battled the program for months, hailed the result Wednesday. "Americans on American soil are not going to be targets of TIA surveillance that would have violated their privacy and civil liberties," Wyden said in an interview.
  "The original Poindexter program would have been the biggest surveillance program in the history of the United States," he added. "Now the lights have gone out on the program conceived by John Poindexter." He said the agreement would allow foreign intelligence gathering on terrorism "without cannibalizing the civil liberties of Americans."
Origin of all this State Secrets Business by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 03:21 · Score: 0

A very easy to listen to and understand where all this business with State Secrets stuff really went wrong. In 1953. And has been a downward spiral ever since... http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/383/origin-story?act=2#play
-Daiv
You prove the point! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 05:12 · Score: 0

You throw the word "Socialist" around like it's a random insult. You don't even know, or care, what it means. You are a fucking idiot, and you prove your parent post's exact point.
The Sum of All Fears by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-07-09 05:40 · Score: 1

If the NSA's power isn't removed, within five years they will be beyond any Legislative, Executive, or Judicial control, with power J Edgar could only dream of.

They (with data from their foreign co-conspirators), have near-total information awareness of nearly everyone... including politicians and judges.

Those that don't knuckle under to blackmail, will suffer unfortunate tragedies like a plane (Paul Wellstone) or car (Micheal Hastings) crash.
Re:meh by dkleinsc · 2013-07-09 05:40 · Score: 1

The third guy you're thinking of is Samuel Alito.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
NSA = DoD by sjbe · 2013-07-09 06:04 · Score: 1

The NSA is organizationally under the DoD but it is an independent organization that's almost entirely civilian.
Whether or not the NSA is staffed by civilians is irrelevant as to whether it is a part of the DoD. The DoD employs huge numbers of people who do not wear uniforms. If the Secretary of Defense issues and order to the NSA they will follow it. Hence they are a part of the DoD.

To say they are a military organization is really stretching the truth.
It isn't stretching the truth even a little bit. Their chain of command is military. Period. End of story.
1. Re:NSA = DoD by ahabswhale · 2013-07-09 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  You're an idiot and clearly have never been in the military.
  
  --
  Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
2. Re:NSA = DoD by dywolf · 2013-07-09 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  No.
  Military = DoD,
  but DoD != Military.
  The NSA grew out of a military agency, and still has ranking leaders who are ranking military. But it's more civilian than not.
  There are only 3 parts of DoD that are unquestionably "military", and that is the actual 3 branches of the military: Air Force, Army, and Navy (which includes Marines*). 4 if you include the Joint Chiefs since they're technically it's own heading in the organizational brackdown. The rest are are civilian sub-departments of the DoD, even though they have military personal assigned and even in charge of them, and interface heavility with the branches, but they are civilian: DARPA, DoD security forces, DFAS, SecDef, and the NSA.
  *(Coast Guard has been moved under DHS and is not longer military, even though it's still a "uniformed service"...there are a couple other government "uniformed services" that aren't military, NOAA has one even)
  
  --
  The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Laws are not merely public opinion by sjbe · 2013-07-09 06:19 · Score: 1

Laws are passed based on public opinion
Sometimes but frequently laws are passed that contradict public opinion. We the public do not vote on every issue. Instead we elect agents to represent us but they do not have to represent the majority opinion and often do not. Furthermore if they did merely follow the majority opinion there would be numerous instances of injustice against groups in the minority. Sometimes what is right or what is necessary isn't always popular and sometimes not even legal. Ask Mr. Snowden.
Government without accountability = tyrrany by sjbe · 2013-07-09 06:39 · Score: 1

The problem is that there is always going to be someone that calls any war or anything military illegitimate.
And those people have a right to be heard. Sometimes they are right. Even if they are not right they still have a right to be heard and to be able to judge the facts for themselves.

Also, surveillance is important even in times of peace.
Agreed but that does not mean that any surveillance for any reason by any party is automatically acceptable.

Since secrets are important to a government, regardless of your opinion, and since courts are public and have no current ability to hear cases where the matter is deemed secret by those charged, there is no oversight at all.
It does not matter what is important to the government. What matters is what is important to the people represented by that government. I care not a tiny bit if the restrictions on our government makes their job more difficult. My civil liberties are more important than their ability to do their job. In fact collectively our civil liberties are more important than their lives.

Your resistance to court oversight that can keep things that need to be secret secret,is supporting the status quo where government has virtually unlimited power because any abuses can simply be called "national security" and court oversight is completely avoided.
Court oversight without some reasonable way to make decisions known and thus accountable to the people is tyranny. While not every decision needs to be made public immediately, a secret organization reporting to a secret court making secret decisions which are kept secret indefinitely is completely unacceptable. While there are legitimate issues of security that need to be considered, they cannot be considered without any accountability to the people.
Re:meh by smittyoneeach · 2013-07-09 13:45 · Score: 1

For a guy with a tag like "noh8rz10", you sure serve it up.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear