2 ms·

I 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 pur

by oooyay 3y ago

I 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 ago
Governments 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 ago
  This "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 ago
    Great, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Transparent 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.

by oooyay 3y ago

HeatrayEnjoyer 3y ago

Governments 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 ago
This "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 ago
  Great, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Transparent 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.