Mixed News on Wiretapping from 9th Circuit US Court 93
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."
Intentional Legislation Trumps Common Law. (Score:4, Insightful)
e.g.: Statutory Marriage v. Common Law Marriage.
Big Brother is my friend. (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot depends on the Ninth Circuit (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:i'm all "tapped" out (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, sure, that's just basic security. But this isn't really about the specific issue of telco complicity
Re:Big Brother is my friend. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Big Brother is my friend. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:HALF-way (Score:3, Insightful)
That's either silly if you don't like the state secrets privilege, and very dangerous if you do.
Re:HALF-way (Score:5, Insightful)
a) Black ops [wikipedia.org] - no judge, no jury.
b) Hold a trial, but don't reveal the evidence. Kafka already wrote the book [wikipedia.org] 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.
bad news is good news (Score:0, Insightful)
Who would have thunk that the 9th circuit court of liberalism and comunism would come out with such a decision?
Oh, by the way, do you guys actually support terrorism???
Re:Big Brother is my friend. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Never Been Comfortable (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:HALF-way (Score:3, Insightful)
Logically speaking all criminal activity is secret whether it is carried out by agents of the government or private individuals working to their own purposes. There is never any excuse where criminal activity once discovered should not be prosecuted, that is a direct denial of justice and one of the basic tenets that all people are equal under the law, including politicians, as well as, agents of the NSA, CIA or the FBI or any other agencies from around the world who where directly or indirectly involved.
The government does not do anything, it is always individuals with in government who carry out the actions of government. It is not the government that is pursued and prosecuted in the courts, it is the individuals who have acted outside the interests of the government and the people whom the government is meant to represent.
The most important issue of any court case is the primary interests of the people and the active public pursuit of justice, no so called secrets should ever be allowed to under mine the sanctity of the courts, the basic means by which, the public can ensure that the government is in fact acting in the public interest and that functions of government have not been treasonously usurped to feed the greed of a corrupt loathsome minority.
Re:Big Brother is my friend. (Score:3, Insightful)
But even if you and Janis don't see eye to eye, it doesn't matter. Because what's really going on is that people are choosing to live as cowards rather than live as free men. Worldwide, and even more so in the USA, more people are killed by bees than by terrorist attacks. Yet you don't see Big Brother calling for people to live in fear of bee stings do you?
So yeah, I would rather die a free man - a very old free man.
Our values dictate the guy walks (Score:3, Insightful)
Is the correct answer. In the absence of a trial and the admission of evidence to open court, the state has not proved that the man involved is actually extremely dangerous. The government cannot have it both ways. If it "knows" the guy is dangerous, then it can bring him or her to trial.
The best way to fight terrorism, is with terrorism. Yes, terrorism is an act of war. The best analog of terrorism is the state sponsored piracy of western nations in the days of sail. All the nations practiced piracy as a means to fight that were short of war. Civilian ships, merchant vessels, were the targets of plunder and destruction. It seems that the way to handle terrorists then, in an era where all the nations support them, or are too weak to prevent terrorists, then, we have to have terrorists ourselves, and engage in tit for tat terrorism with probable enemies.
Instead of invading countries with the US Marines and US Army, we instead have our own Uncle Sam Brigade to fight the Al Quds Brigades, our Bedrock to fight their "Base". The USA would deny it funds the terrorist organizations, but, if Al Qaeda hit an American target, then, the Uncle Sam Brigade would in turn blow up an Islamic religious site, or perhaps steal an oil tanker or two. There are people in American Prisons that could, no doubt, be recruited for this work.
Re:Big Brother is my friend. (Score:3, Insightful)
You want true freedom? You may have it, you simply must signal your intent to not follow the laws of the land where you are currently at. Want to kill somebody? Go ahead, do it. However, you must understand that those around you who have decided to give up certain freedoms to be safe will treat you as if you are not part of that society, and are free to kill you, rape you, dismember you, torture you, or whatever they see fit.
Now, we can modernize this and use other people's views, such as John Locke's. I will not, however, provide you an example, as John Locke's views are the same that our country was founded on. I suggest you read some of his writings, and then come back. Do you have life? Do you have liberty (not license)? Do you have the ability to build estate? Yes? Then sit down, shut up, and quit acting like your rights are being trampled upon.
Furthermore, you cannot make an argument like yours without presenting examples. What can I think that I can do without permission? I can kill a trespasser on my own property, I can do what I like with my land (I'm not an idiot, I don't live in a city), hell, I can do pretty much whatever I like on my land, including many things that most people would consider illegal - after all, the police can't come on my land unless they have reasonable suspicion to obtain a warrant, and as long as my activities stay on my own land, they wouldn't ever know!
Re:HALF-way (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, in a technical sense, by definition it's no longer secret. But I'm thinking of a more narrowly drawn privilege than that. Here's the hypothetical: Someone is charged wrongly with murder. They have access to information that absolutely clears them, but it's been classified as a "state secret". Should the person truly be prevented from presenting that evidence? Should an innocent person really be sent to the gas chamber to preserve the state secret?
I am no lawyer. Perhaps there exist mechanisms to make sure this doesn't happen. But from everything I've read, the government -- the same government, by the way, that's pressing the murder charge -- could and would keep that evidence from consideration. That seems absurd.