8 ms·
NYTimes Sues US For Refusing To Reveal Secret Interpretation Of Patriot Act
- acabal 15y agoIf I'm reading this right, the NY Times say that if parts are classified, the interpretation should be released but the classified parts blacked out. What's to stop the government from just blacking out every word, then "releasing" that? Is there some kind of standard or expectation that can prevent the government from doing that?
- LargeWu 15y agoThe real problem is that we have laws that are classified.
- 0x12 15y agoYou thought you were joking: http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/exemption-5.jpg http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/exemption-5.jpg
- eli 15y agoThe Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is far from perfect, but once a claim is denied and a lawsuit is filed, the burden is on the government to prove which parts (if any) of the document are protected from disclosure. They rejected the initial FOIA request on the grounds that the document is properly classified and would jeopardize national security, but now they will have to prove that to a judge. In other words, if the lawsuit proceeds all the way to the bitter end, it's up to the judge what parts are blacked out, not the DoJ. RCFP has a nice overview of the process, if you're interested in the details: http://www.rcfp.org/fogg/index.php?i=intro http://www.rcfp.org/fogg/index.php?i=intro
- Sukotto 15y agoIirc, Gilmore v Gonzales showed that the government can have secret laws. I can see the administration believing that it's also ok to have a secret interpretation of a law. I personally strongly disagree with both of the above but don't see how I can change anything by arguing about it. [1] [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html#Pensieri-Stretti http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html#Pensieri-Stretti (pg, please put anchors in your essays) -- [edit to add] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilmore_v._Gonzales
- potatolicious 15y agoTIL I am expected to be aware of, and follow, a law that I cannot see. Someone stop this ride, I want to get off now.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- sneak 15y agoJust move somewhere that isn't insane. It's time. (I did, for this very reason.)
- ubernostrum 15y agoWell... that's a really bad way to characterize the case. First off, this is not a "law" in the sense most people think of; it wasn't passed by Congress and signed by the President. Rather, it's a directive issued by a federal agency, which has powers granted by Congress to issue directives and -- when deemed necessary for security purposes -- to keep the exact details of those directives from being disclosed. There's nothing particularly new in that, by the way; governments, even governments of countries which would by any standard be considered "free", have long exercised the power to enforce security-related policies without disclosing the details of those policies to the public at large. Second, Gilmore's case specifically ran into trouble because A) he was informed multiple times, as all air passengers are, of policies regarding ID and B) he was also informed that a process exists for flying without presenting ID, and voluntarily chose not to use that process (this is what really sunk his case). Third, even if there were no government-issued policies specifically requiring passengers to present ID, there are multiple agencies who would have the power to deny licenses to any airline which did not have -- as a condition of the contract between passenger and airline, represented by the ticket -- a requirement of presenting ID to check in. And, frankly, I don't think anyone would try to argue that down if it happened; such policies already exist and are widely accepted with respect to age-restricted products like alcohol.
- wnight 15y ago> First off, this is not a "law" in the sense most people think of; it wasn't passed by Congres s and signed by the President. Rather, it's a directive issued by a federal agency, which has powers granted by Congress to issue directives So in other words it's as good as a law, but without any safeguards and consequently no value to the public. > Gilmore's case specifically ran into trouble because A) he was informed multiple times, as all air passengers are, of policies regarding ID and B) he was also informed that a process exists for flying without presenting ID, and voluntarily chose not to use that process (this is what really sunk his case). Oh, of course he has no rights - they informed him of it. Well then, who could argue? > Third, even if there were no government-issued policies specifically requiring passengers to present ID, there are multiple agencies who would have the power to deny licenses to any airline which did not have -- as a condition of the contract between passenger and airline, represented by the ticket -- a requirement of presenting ID to check in. Almost total corruption being used to enforce secret laws. Check. > And, frankly, I don't think anyone would try to argue that down if it happened; such policies already exist and are widely accepted with respect to age-restricted products like alcohol. That makes less sense than anything else you've said. How does age-related restrictions on alcohol relate to ID requirements for flying? Flying isn't dangerous for the young like rampant drinking is.
- aes 15y agoWhat parts of Patriot Act are secret?
- sukuriant 15y agoThe interpretations of certain parts of the law are secret.
- suivix 15y agoJust another day of Bush in office... oh wait.
- Shivetya 15y agoSarcasm I know, but far too many people fall for promises made on a campaign trail. Worse far too many believe their side will always do what is right. Yet once in power there are far too many government agencies and persons who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Some will simply overwhelm any new administration so as to keep their power, others will use fear, some will stall, and finally others will just ignore and hope to ride out the four or eight years.
- electromagnetic 15y ago> What sort of democracy are we living in when the government can refuse to even say how it's interpreting its own law? That's not democracy at all. I really don't get his point here. Democracy has nothing to do with the legal structure of elected governments, nor does it have anything to do with the clarity of the legal system. Democracy is to do with every "citizen" having a fair and equal right to vote. Of which freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the presses are considered essential tenets. The US is currently suffering Majority Rule in that the majority is shit scared of anything and everything, especially fellow human beings with head wear out of their traditional social or religious norms. This means the majority in the US is fully willing to sign away rights and freedoms for the mere assumption that they're "protected" by a piece of paper stored in the library of congress. I'd feel safer if we armed the clowns with shotguns, you know as a surprise attack thing.
- hnhg 15y agoMy interpretation of democracy is that it needs a legal system that works, and I believe that means it has to be fair and transparent. If the fabric of a legal system is corrupt, what's the point of politics?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- lhnn 15y agoI understand your point that "Democracy" is roughly equivalent to universal sufferage, but the point is that a public unaware of the laws and interpretations thereof created by our government cannot make informed decisions about their leadership.
- ugh 15y agoExactly. Citizens have to be able to inform themselves. Democracy wouldn’t make any sense otherwise.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
- Andrew_Quentin 15y agoI am confused. Is it not the judges who interpret the act, the law, etc, not the fed or the government.
- jarrett 15y agoYes, insofar as the law is brought before the court. But everyone--private citizens and governments alike--are constantly "interpreting" the law, in that they're operating on certain assumptions about what the law means. For example, when you file your taxes, you are, as strange as it sounds, interpreting the tax code. In this case, there is more than one possible way to interpret the PATRIOT Act. The government has to decide what it thinks the law means, and use that interpretation to guide its actions.
- pyre 15y agoWhen/if you end up in a court room. The police/FBI decide who to bring to the court.
- meric 15y agoIf the government has secret interpretation of all its laws, how do they expect citizens to conform with them? Let's say they arrest someone based on a secret interpretation of its laws, does it mean the trial has to be secret too, to avoid revealing this secret interpretation? Can the arrested person hire a lawyer of his choosing, or are only lawyers with the appropriate level of access (determined based on the government's own choosing) allowed to be hired by the said arrested person? The secret trial is held, the judge deems the person guilty (at this point we're not sure the judge was granted access to the secret interpretation, though), the person goes to jail. Now, will the person has access to the secret interpretation, so at least they now know for what secret interpretation of the law they got into jail for? If not, then what if the sentence was capital punishment?
- splat 15y agoThis is assuming that there is a trial at all. The Obama administration has already made clear that it has the power to execute US citizens without trial.
- andylei 15y agoso let's say it's world war ii and i'm a us citizen. i get on a boat to germany and join the german army. do you think a us soldier is not allowed to shoot me because the constitution allows me a trial before "execution"?
- gyardley 15y agoNo, it's not considered murder to kill a wartime enemy in compliance with the laws of war. The parent is probably referring to the drone strike in Yemen that successfully killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen. Here the issue isn't his death, but the process leading to it. The circumstances surrounding al-Awlaki's death might be legally justifiable - apparently there's a 50-page DoJ memorandum arguing that it was. I'm certain the 'wartime enemy' argument was used. However, the public will never know if the death of al-Awlaki was justifiable, because that memorandum is secret. The executive order that led to al-Awlaki's death is secret - the Obama administration is refusing to discuss any US involvement. The evidence that informed the executive order leading to al-Awlaki's death is secret. I'm not a naïf. I'm prepared to concede that under certain quite rare and specific circumstances, it might be justifiable for the US government to kill a US citizen without full due process - I'd choose that, say, over a nuke going off in Manhattan. But there must be some judicial oversight. At the moment, we have no idea how many US citizens the president has ordered killed - and because the details behind these are 'state secrets', normal checks and balances against the abuse of power do not apply. I've got no sympathy for al-Awlaki, but this is as good a definition of tyranny as any.
- eli 15y agoAnd this right here is why we still need big, expensive news organizations. Sure, they don't need to be printed on dead trees, but I can't think of any online publications with the resources to bring what will surely prove to be an expensive. lengthy, and possibly fruitless lawsuit.
- switch007 15y agoIs this sarcasm? Do you work for News Corp? This kind of insanity from governments shouldn't exist in the first place!
- noonespecial 15y agoIt does. And will. So we might need News Corp. “In normal times, evil should be fought by good, but in times like this, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil”
- grandalf 15y agoUh, the NY Times is the closest thing we have to an official government newspaper, so I think you're severely mistaken if you think this counts as holding government accountable. The NY Times convinced a lot of people to support the Iraq war when it ran its poorly fact-checked story fed to its reporter by propagandists funded by the CIA. I remember how profoundly my view of the Iraq situation changed when I read all of that in the paper I trusted at the time.
- RexRollman 15y agoDid you really believe that the New York Times was infallible?
- grandalf 15y agoIt's not a question of fallibility. It's a question of how propaganda functions in society. The Times has become a voice for the powerful interests in the US. Judith Miller's "mistakes" were hugely influential to me because I was naive... similarly I think those who believe this lawsuit means anything are similarly naive.
- jrockway 15y agoWhat depresses me most is how Obama is no better than Bush at this sort of thing. It's not Democrats vs. Republicans: they're all out to get us.
- mcantelon 15y agoAsk yourself why the US needs to have secret laws? Why the US pours so much resources into domestic "counter-terrorism"? This ramping up of domestic security has gone on intensely for a decade even though there is no credible domestic threat. When the state spends so much resources effectively preparing for war domestically, there just might be cause for concern.
- shareme 15y agoSimple explanation: 1970s saw abuse of CIA/FBI power concerning spying, etc on US citizens. Late 1970s laws passed curtailing that power 911 happens same agencies decide to broker a push to get those powers back..thus we have the Patriot Act
- mcantelon 15y agoThat explains the Patriot Act and fun stuff like MAIN CORE, but there seems to be a pattern beyond old-fashioned domestic surveillance: DHS, Northcom, Infragard, secret prisons run by ICE, federal direction of local law enforcement (i.e. Operation FALCON), domestic use of drones, the push for body scanners/pre-crime detectors, the ability of the federal government to assassinate US citizens, the "watch list" that feds can keep you on even if you've been cleared or wrongdoing, etc. The biggest federal building project since the Pentagon is the DHS HQ: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/homeland.security.headquarters/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/09/homeland.security.hea...
- gyardley 15y agoWhat interests me most is the change in Obama's domestic security stance after assuming the presidency. Remember his promises to close Guantanamo Bay? Now Obama seems more authoritarian than President Bush was. To me, this radical change in stance suggests that there is in fact a credible domestic threat against the United States - that Obama, on assuming the presidency, learned some things that made a deep-enough impression on him to transform his stance on national security. I don't like that conclusion, but to me, that's the simplest interpretation of his behavior. (I'd love to hear other, less frightening interpretations. As it is, I try not to think about this stuff too much.) If so, perhaps many of the actions of this and the past administration are justifiable as lesser evils - perhaps. However, the executive branch shouldn't get to make this determination alone. It's not necessarily the administration's decisions that are the problem here, but the complete veil of secrecy around them that's keeping us from having an informed debate.
- nkassis 15y agoreminds me of this onion video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWfKdKWJEkM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWfKdKWJEkM
- InclinedPlane 15y agoMost transparent administration in history.