3 ms·
The court's functioning is absolutely still a secret to its plaintiffs [EU residents]; its location is a secret, the DOJ refuses to say if it has taken a case
by smcin 3y ago
The court's functioning is absolutely still a secret to its plaintiffs [EU residents]; its location is a secret, the DOJ refuses to say if it has taken a case yet, or when it will. [That implies it has not published any rulings, or maybe it will never publish rulings]. Its decisions will also be kept a secret, from both the EU residents petitioning the court and the federal agencies tasked with following the law. Plaintiffs [EU-residents] are not allowed to appear in person [not even remotely by Zoom, it sounds like?] and are represented by a special advocate, appointed by the U.S. Attorney General.
I can't see US citizens being told to just trust a secret European court whose deliberations aren't known, yet affects their lives, visas, travels, finances etc.
"Maybe the secret part is getting in front of them." No, they already stated that the EU plaintiffs don't have the right to appear before the court. So they don't get in front of them.
On the "Animal House" taxonomy of double-secret, it's up there.
- oooyay 3y agoI think your points are fair and I largely agree with you, but I'd probably use the word "opaque" rather than secretive. Sometimes opaque systems do serve a purpose, other times they're an excuse to undermine rights and liberties. This court deals entirely in classified information (from its mandate) and only produces classified rulings. I linked both of the sources (.gov websites) in another comment. Whether or not that's good enough to remain opaque I don't know. I do know that I'm not a fan of any surveillance state and I'm not confident in the ability of intergovernment watchdogs to spot violations, even gross ones.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y agoGovernments shouldn't be able to prosecute people with secret evidence and secret processes in secret locations. You can keep your classified materials secret or you can prosecute someone, but you shouldn't be able to do both. Anything else is categorically incompatible with the liberal democratic principles of accountable government. As it's said, "Put up, or shut up."
- leereeves 3y agoThis "court" doesn't prosecute anyone. It's an internal review board for the intelligence agencies. Its function is (purportedly) to prevent the intelligence agencies from abusing their power.
- kyleee 3y agoGreat, so it’s a police department Internal Affairs office on a whole lot of steroids. I’m sure it’s on the up and up
- nl 3y agoI don't think absolute statements like this are useful. There clearly are cases where it is appropriate to prosecute someone with classified evidence. Spying cases are a good example. The problem is that these exemptions are used too often.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 3y agoTransparent democratic government is non negotiable, but even from a consequentialist viewpoin it's not clear at all. We had a leaky sieve to documents of all SCI types for president for four full years and the nation hasn't collapsed. Clearly the downsides of unaccountable government are worse.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y agoThe thought of US citizens being even for a second treated like how the US government treats non-US-residents is absolutely hilarious. What an utter rude shock.
- AniseAbyss 3y ago[dead]