4 ms·

Government Says Secret Court Opinion on Law Underlying PRISM Must Stay Secret

328 points by teawithcarl 13y ago

qubitsam 13y ago
> The government's bottom line is this: their rules trump the public's statutory rights. Mind boggling. And this is the same government that's invading sovereign countries, has its agencies undertake black operations to overthrow foreign democratically elected bodies that don't serve its interests [1], all in the name of bringing "democracy" to those regions. Here we have that same government making a fool out of the very people that elected it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_r...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
coldcode 13y ago
We the people are now we the unimportant nimrods. When the rule of law no longer matters, we no longer matter.
- wavefunction 13y ago
  The blatant disregard for us shown by our government is really the worst part about all this. No way to make an informed decision about anything. This whole "we know better than you" thing: Well of course you do, you're spying on us and doing all sorts of other horrible things in secret and not telling us!
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
magoon 13y ago
As you read the first paragraph, remember that the "Justice Department" is the executive branch.
yekko 13y ago
US justice system in ‘calamitous’ collapse
asperous 13y ago
Here is the source: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/doj_opposition_to_eff_motion_06-07-13.pdf https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/doj_opposit... I. This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over This Motion II. The Opinion at Issue Is Sealed Pursuant to This Court’s Rules III. This Court Should Not Vacate the Seal on the Opinion IV. The Fact That Movant May Be Unsuccessful in the District Court in Compelling the Department of Justice to Release a Classified, Sealed FISC Opinion Does Not Mean That Plaintiff Faces a “Catch-22” The release is really sticky though, this part really caugh my attention: >"Moreover, even if this Court had jurisdiction over this Motion, it should deny it, rather than allow another court to determine whether any portions of its opinion should be released under FOIA. Any such release would be incomplete and quite possibly misleading to the public about the role of this Court and the issues discussed in the opinion."
einhverfr 13y ago
Wow. Just wow. Not only do we have a star chamber, but we can't even be allowed to see what laws they have concluded are Unconstitutional. Any facade of a functioning democracy, or of a commitment to transparency by this government, is swept away. It also gets to something Scalia said in oral argument in Clapper v. Amnesty International, namely that we should trust the FISC to address 4th Amendment issues. It makes me wonder if he knew about the decision before the case reached the court. But without such access to case law determining what is Unconstitutional, how can we know what the law is? Where is due notice in this?
- derleth 13y ago
  > Any facade of a functioning democracy, or of a commitment to transparency by this government, is swept away. The same was true of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
  - jivatmanx 13y ago
    But, this time we have no Thomas Jefferson.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Not really. These were repealed right around the time of Marbury v. Madison so we never got a chance to see them in court.
- rdtsc 13y ago
  One wonders why there is a "culture of leaks" http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/303957-feinstein-bemoans-culture-of-leaks http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/303957-fein... This is just the start. Some of people I suspect who become a cog in the now large system don't get their original patriotism and respect for Constitution sucked out of them. A few will see the ridiculousness of this and do a very risky and dangerous thing and leak the information. There is a loss of trust that is building up and that will be devastating. Maybe the trust is disappearing because things really did get worse or it is disappearing because the Internet is there and people get more access to alternative channels of communications ( I haven't decided which is which ).
cdooh 13y ago
Laws that are interpreted in secret can only be subject to massive abuse. The problem isn't the survellance its the lack of public oversight
- rhizome 13y ago
  You ever know someone whose parents always said "because I said so?" It doesn't turn out well, and this is what they're doing to the country.
pfortuny 13y ago
To me, a secret court of justice is equivalent to a secret amendment of the Constitution: there is no way to protect yourself lawfully against it. Funny that it exists in the US ans nobody seems to care.
naasking 13y ago
EFF's link to its previous story is broken.

328 points by teawithcarl 13y ago

> The government's bottom line is this: their rules trump the public's statutory rights. Mind boggling. And this is the same government that's invading sovereign countries, has its agencies undertake black operations to overthrow foreign democratically elected bodies that don't serve its interests [1], all in the name of bringing "democracy" to those regions. Here we have that same government making a fool out of the very people that elected it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_r...

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

coldcode 13y ago

We the people are now we the unimportant nimrods. When the rule of law no longer matters, we no longer matter.

wavefunction 13y ago
The blatant disregard for us shown by our government is really the worst part about all this. No way to make an informed decision about anything. This whole "we know better than you" thing: Well of course you do, you're spying on us and doing all sorts of other horrible things in secret and not telling us!

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

magoon 13y ago

As you read the first paragraph, remember that the "Justice Department" is the executive branch.

yekko 13y ago

US justice system in ‘calamitous’ collapse

asperous 13y ago

Here is the source: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/doj_opposition_to_eff_motion_06-07-13.pdf https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/doj_opposit... I. This Court Does Not Have Jurisdiction Over This Motion II. The Opinion at Issue Is Sealed Pursuant to This Court’s Rules III. This Court Should Not Vacate the Seal on the Opinion IV. The Fact That Movant May Be Unsuccessful in the District Court in Compelling the Department of Justice to Release a Classified, Sealed FISC Opinion Does Not Mean That Plaintiff Faces a “Catch-22” The release is really sticky though, this part really caugh my attention: >"Moreover, even if this Court had jurisdiction over this Motion, it should deny it, rather than allow another court to determine whether any portions of its opinion should be released under FOIA. Any such release would be incomplete and quite possibly misleading to the public about the role of this Court and the issues discussed in the opinion."

einhverfr 13y ago

Wow. Just wow. Not only do we have a star chamber, but we can't even be allowed to see what laws they have concluded are Unconstitutional. Any facade of a functioning democracy, or of a commitment to transparency by this government, is swept away. It also gets to something Scalia said in oral argument in Clapper v. Amnesty International, namely that we should trust the FISC to address 4th Amendment issues. It makes me wonder if he knew about the decision before the case reached the court. But without such access to case law determining what is Unconstitutional, how can we know what the law is? Where is due notice in this?

derleth 13y ago
> Any facade of a functioning democracy, or of a commitment to transparency by this government, is swept away. The same was true of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
- jivatmanx 13y ago
  But, this time we have no Thomas Jefferson.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Not really. These were repealed right around the time of Marbury v. Madison so we never got a chance to see them in court.
rdtsc 13y ago
One wonders why there is a "culture of leaks" http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/303957-feinstein-bemoans-culture-of-leaks http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/303957-fein... This is just the start. Some of people I suspect who become a cog in the now large system don't get their original patriotism and respect for Constitution sucked out of them. A few will see the ridiculousness of this and do a very risky and dangerous thing and leak the information. There is a loss of trust that is building up and that will be devastating. Maybe the trust is disappearing because things really did get worse or it is disappearing because the Internet is there and people get more access to alternative channels of communications ( I haven't decided which is which ).

cdooh 13y ago

Laws that are interpreted in secret can only be subject to massive abuse. The problem isn't the survellance its the lack of public oversight

rhizome 13y ago
You ever know someone whose parents always said "because I said so?" It doesn't turn out well, and this is what they're doing to the country.

pfortuny 13y ago

To me, a secret court of justice is equivalent to a secret amendment of the Constitution: there is no way to protect yourself lawfully against it. Funny that it exists in the US ans nobody seems to care.

naasking 13y ago

EFF's link to its previous story is broken.