DOJ To Claim National Security in NSA Case 337
deblau writes "Wired is reporting that the federal government intends to invoke the rarely used 'State Secrets Privilege' in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class action lawsuit against AT&T. The case alleges that the telecom collaborated with the NSA's secret spying on American citizens. The State Secrets Privilege lets the executive branch step into a civil lawsuit and have it dismissed if the case might reveal information that puts national security at risk."
I still don't see how state secrets applies (Score:5, Informative)
just face it.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The only thing putting national security at ris (Score:2, Informative)
report [house.gov][pdf]
Re:But if ... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:EFF Loss = New Precedents against our Civil Rig (Score:4, Informative)
This is by no means a new legal theory. The State Secrets Privilege was first recognised by a judge in United States v. Reynolds, 1953 [findlaw.com], and he drew on existing English case law to make that judgement. The precedent was set over fifty years ago, it's hardly being set by the EFF.
Re:Possible Justification (Score:1, Informative)
Remember the Maine.
Pearl Harbor.
Operation Paper Clip.
Intentionally uncured syphallis experiments.
Unwitting LSD experiments.
Northwoods documents.
Various Church committee revelations.
Waco.
Ruby Ridge.
Abu Gharib.
Guantanamo Bay.
And these are only the ones that have been 100% confirmed by historical fact and admitted too.
Re:But if ... (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm...
cat constitution.txt | grep -i "privacy"
It would appear that particular aspect of the document is missing.
I think that contemporary case law has been mistaken for a constitutional protection. But that is where you and I have the same problem, namely, government entities going and hazing things up with a delusionally enlarged sense of their own power.
It's unfortunate that this notion of privacy was introduced as it was: a blatantly contrived re-reading of the constitution. Now those who jumped on board that judicial advancement for our rights are finding that it is being circumvented in the executive and the legislative and is quite often being approved with a wink from the judiciary. The right way to have done this would have been to have kept a constructionist philosophy to the consitution while ratifying an amendment to guarantee our right to privacy--then it would not be at so much of a risk of being swallowed up by the uncertain maneuvering room the government presently enjoys.
Giving the government the power to redact the constitution in exchange for wonderful things like the right to privacy is exactly the same thing as giving the government sweeping augmentations of power in exchange for safety. It doesn't matter how shiny or seemingly good/humanitarian/beneficial the reward is, if you cede them any control in exchange, you are going to be losing much more in the end.
Re:But if ... (Score:5, Informative)
The US legal system is based on Rule of Law with precedence. That means previous court rulings on laws are considered the correct interpretation of laws, or, in this case, can effectively establish laws. Even constitutional ones.
From http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#privac y [usconstitution.net] :
More:y
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Privac
"Rarely used" State Secrets privilege... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bullshit, how is does this even make sense? (Score:2, Informative)
He was screwed and basically got nada last I knew.
Oh ya, the company was Lucent(lucifer?) technologies and relates to underwater connectors for fiber optics(Wanna bet they have tapped into every undersea fiber there is?).
Re:I think... (Score:5, Informative)
They broke the law. There is no getting around that. You cannot spy on us citizens without a warrant. There is a system set up to get that warrant secretly, and "speedily". They chose to not get a warrant (or 10,000 warrants). It is that simple.
Using "national security" as a reason is not good enough. I think the supreme court already said this [cnn.com] Even if we had all of our communications monitored, that would not stop a terrorist who is determined to kill himself and take people with him. Giving up privacy will not help us stop the terrorists. Even if we imposed "martial law", as long as they have the determination, they would keep trying to kill themselves.
Look at Iraq now, we have how many hundreds of thousands of troops there, who have the authority to impose curfews, search without warrants, etc, and STILL there are many, many suicide bombings every month.
And, furthermore, since this is a war without a clear end, when will we know they are not monitoring our communications? Will they come out and say it, or will we just have to "take their word for it"? Sorry, that's not good enough. They have no credibility.
Absence of evidence (Score:5, Informative)
We have Mark Klein's written statement about tapping fiber at ATT facilities.
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
We have Russell Tice's testimony before the House Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has defended the program [pbs.org]
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
President Bush says he signed the order. [cnn.com]
> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
Could you try using boldface? Somehow the all-caps hasn't been enough to convince me.
Than's for doing the work for us... (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, it's right there. being necessary to the security of a free state. The security of a free state is not only challenged from outside influences but by insider actions as well. If the framers we're only concerned with external states coming in and challenging our sovernty they would have said "being necessary to the security of a free state from foriegn nations" or something similiar. I