5 ms·

If the hosting company says that they can't name the agency and can't say anything about the nature of the claim, that immediately makes me think of a National

by joshwa 16y ago

If the hosting company says that they can't name the agency and can't say anything about the nature of the claim, that immediately makes me think of a National Security Letter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter "[A National Security Letter] is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various record and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight. They also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued."

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
derwiki 16y ago
"The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case." (same article)
DavidSJ 16y ago
derwiki replied to this comment by saying: "The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case." (same article) For some reason, his reply is dead, but it seems like a valuable comment so I'm reproducing it.
- fmora 16y ago
  Thank god for the separation of powers. It is incredible how many rights the Bush presidency attempted to take away from its citizens all in the name of national security. The more I read stuff like this the more it seems that we were heading to a totalitarian government. Edit: In case anybody wonders why I threw in Bush's name in there is because the Patriot Act, created during his presidency, greatly extended the NSL powers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter
  - fmora 16y ago
    If you are going to down vote me at least explain why.
    - Yzupnick 16y ago
      Maybe it is because you pick on a single president what every president has done. (From all parties.) Did Bush do things that where a violation of rights? Probably, but so did every president including but not limited to Obama, Clinton, Bush (senior), and Reagan. I would venture to guess it is impossible to name a president that did not infringe on the rights of citizens. Second, it was the current government that did this, not Bush.
      - shadowfox 16y ago
        You might want to put in a few examples to bolster your case
      - fmora 16y ago
        Violation of rights seemed to have been more pervasive with the Bush presidency. He may had good intentions but looking at the big picture this is a huge step backwards. The Patriot Act, championed by his presidency, not created by the current administration, greatly increased the NSL power. That is why I single him, he was the main driving force during that time. Congress should have known better. Unfortunately they were probably being lied to, to scare them into submission the same way that they were lied to about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I want to protect this country (USA) with all my might, but we also have to be really careful about not taking steps backwards with regards to civil liberties. Essentially, that letter almost seems to give dictatorial powers to the government, which is what makes it extremely alarming.
      - jeromec 16y ago
        I would venture to guess it is impossible to name a president that did not infringe on the rights of citizens. The degree to which any perceived infringement occurs is what is significant. Bush pushed for and succeeded in suspending habeas corpus, a Constitutional protection by which people can challenge their imprisonment. This was only done twice in history, once by Bush and once by Lincoln at the start of the Civil War. By contrast, President Obama opposed the suspension of habeas corpus since he was a senator.
- joshwa 16y ago
  From my reading of the wikipedia articles about those cases, there has been no definitive decision on these-- just some refusal to vacate a stay, and then congress revised the law to have some congressional review. Perhaps someone else can point me to something more definitive describing how the gag orders were ruled unconstitutional?

by joshwa 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

derwiki 16y ago

"The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case." (same article)

DavidSJ 16y ago

derwiki replied to this comment by saying: "The gag order was ruled unconstitutional as an infringement of free speech, in the Doe v. Ashcroft case." (same article) For some reason, his reply is dead, but it seems like a valuable comment so I'm reproducing it.

fmora 16y ago
Thank god for the separation of powers. It is incredible how many rights the Bush presidency attempted to take away from its citizens all in the name of national security. The more I read stuff like this the more it seems that we were heading to a totalitarian government. Edit: In case anybody wonders why I threw in Bush's name in there is because the Patriot Act, created during his presidency, greatly extended the NSL powers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter
- fmora 16y ago
  If you are going to down vote me at least explain why.
  - Yzupnick 16y ago
    Maybe it is because you pick on a single president what every president has done. (From all parties.) Did Bush do things that where a violation of rights? Probably, but so did every president including but not limited to Obama, Clinton, Bush (senior), and Reagan. I would venture to guess it is impossible to name a president that did not infringe on the rights of citizens. Second, it was the current government that did this, not Bush.
    - shadowfox 16y ago
      You might want to put in a few examples to bolster your case
    - fmora 16y ago
      Violation of rights seemed to have been more pervasive with the Bush presidency. He may had good intentions but looking at the big picture this is a huge step backwards. The Patriot Act, championed by his presidency, not created by the current administration, greatly increased the NSL power. That is why I single him, he was the main driving force during that time. Congress should have known better. Unfortunately they were probably being lied to, to scare them into submission the same way that they were lied to about the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Don't get me wrong, I want to protect this country (USA) with all my might, but we also have to be really careful about not taking steps backwards with regards to civil liberties. Essentially, that letter almost seems to give dictatorial powers to the government, which is what makes it extremely alarming.
    - jeromec 16y ago
      I would venture to guess it is impossible to name a president that did not infringe on the rights of citizens. The degree to which any perceived infringement occurs is what is significant. Bush pushed for and succeeded in suspending habeas corpus, a Constitutional protection by which people can challenge their imprisonment. This was only done twice in history, once by Bush and once by Lincoln at the start of the Civil War. By contrast, President Obama opposed the suspension of habeas corpus since he was a senator.
joshwa 16y ago
From my reading of the wikipedia articles about those cases, there has been no definitive decision on these-- just some refusal to vacate a stay, and then congress revised the law to have some congressional review. Perhaps someone else can point me to something more definitive describing how the gag orders were ruled unconstitutional?