7 ms·

Secret courts have no place in the United States. The constitution guarantees you the right to defend yourself against an accuser (5A). You are not allowed to b

Secret courts have no place in the United States. The constitution guarantees you the right to defend yourself against an accuser (5A). You are not allowed to be in that court when you're accused. Also, the government is prohibited from unreasonable search and seizures (4A). When they get a court order, you're not allowed to defend against. FISA has never been before the Supreme Court, as you need a defendant. Since the court is secret, and no defendants allowed, it is never going to the supreme court. If you're accused, and go to trial, FISA evidence remains secret, and discovery is never given to your attorney. When you're on the receiving end of this, you will beg for your rights. The government has unlimited power, and resources to destroy you.

jazzyjackson 3y ago
> FISA has never been before the Supreme Court, as you need a defendant. Since the court is secret, and no defendants allowed, it is never going to the supreme court. Golf clap for the chum who yanked this loophole
supernova87a 3y ago
Do you take the position that there is no role / need whatsoever for a court in the United States that needs to hear confidential matters having to do with law enforcement, where to reveal it to the subject would compromise the investigation? I think your desire to paint it as some evil government bogeyman + some philosophy that everything should be open is over simplistic and honestly a little naive in how a country needs to defend itself. Now I am no fan of all that the FISA court has allowed. There are legitimate criticisms of how the lack of transparency has allowed some rubber stamping of investigations without good adversarial oversight. But to fundamentally assert that such a court should not exist is a bit ridiculous. You might as well suggest that every time before knocking down the door of a drug dealer, the drug dealer's attorney must be notified and get a chance to argue against the search warrant in front of the issuing judge, because in a couple of cases, they knocked on the wrong person's door.
- ch4s3 3y ago
  That you think the government should be in the business of kicking in doors without due process over mere chemical intoxicants is telling. It is anathema to the founding ideals, and historically illiterate with respect to alcohol prohibition.
- mu53 3y ago
  Looking back through history, the abuses that happen behind closed doors always outweigh the negatives of transparency. The inconvenience of being targeted by an illegal search warrant is nothing compared to what is going on right now. Political repression, killings, extreme corruption, and dictators want secret courts.

jazzyjackson 3y ago

> FISA has never been before the Supreme Court, as you need a defendant. Since the court is secret, and no defendants allowed, it is never going to the supreme court. Golf clap for the chum who yanked this loophole

supernova87a 3y ago

Do you take the position that there is no role / need whatsoever for a court in the United States that needs to hear confidential matters having to do with law enforcement, where to reveal it to the subject would compromise the investigation? I think your desire to paint it as some evil government bogeyman + some philosophy that everything should be open is over simplistic and honestly a little naive in how a country needs to defend itself. Now I am no fan of all that the FISA court has allowed. There are legitimate criticisms of how the lack of transparency has allowed some rubber stamping of investigations without good adversarial oversight. But to fundamentally assert that such a court should not exist is a bit ridiculous. You might as well suggest that every time before knocking down the door of a drug dealer, the drug dealer's attorney must be notified and get a chance to argue against the search warrant in front of the issuing judge, because in a couple of cases, they knocked on the wrong person's door.

ch4s3 3y ago
That you think the government should be in the business of kicking in doors without due process over mere chemical intoxicants is telling. It is anathema to the founding ideals, and historically illiterate with respect to alcohol prohibition.
mu53 3y ago
Looking back through history, the abuses that happen behind closed doors always outweigh the negatives of transparency. The inconvenience of being targeted by an illegal search warrant is nothing compared to what is going on right now. Political repression, killings, extreme corruption, and dictators want secret courts.