5 ms·

There is no secret law. FISA, the law which authorizes surveillance, is a public law approved by Congress. Courts make secret decisions all the time, especiall

by wycats 13y ago

There is no secret law. FISA, the law which authorizes surveillance, is a public law approved by Congress. Courts make secret decisions all the time, especially when surveillance is involved. When a local police department gets a wiretap on a mob boss, it happens secretly. If a detective oversteps in the midst of a larger investigation, it's quite likely that the ruling about the particular use of surveillance would be sealed. The question here is not whether we have courts that make secret rulings. It shouldn't surprise anyone that judicial oversight over in-progress investigations would be secret while the investigation (and related investigations) were in progress. The useful policy question is what the scope and length of the seal should be. For FISA, it seems that the scope and length is "everything, and forever". We can do better than that.

LoganCale 13y ago
There is, however, a secret interpretation of the law, which the executive branch uses to apply the public law and which they refuse to reveal to the public.
btilly 13y ago
Actually the USA does have secret laws. Ask for the law requiring ID to travel. Nobody will show it to you. A decade ago an activist sued to try to see it, the case went to the 9th circuit, and he lost. Without being allowed to see the law. See http://papersplease.org/gilmore/ http://papersplease.org/gilmore/ for verification.
- talmand 13y ago
  Not that I agree with the concept of the law in question, a private airline does have the right to require that you present any ID of their choosing to fly on their planes. They have the right to refuse you if you choose to not follow their rules. There is room for debate on whether the airlines should be creating their rules based on laws for the TSA that are then not publicly displayed. But the thing is, if the law pertains to the airlines and not the public then that's the sticking point. Let's say that the lawmakers had decided that said law involved national security and that gives precedent to keep the law secret to those it does not directly affect. The law, which we haven't seen, likely only pertains to the airlines directly and not the passengers. The airlines are informed of the law that tells them they are required to request ID. It's likely you couldn't even sue in that case because you wouldn't have standing. The thing is, this type of law likely no longer applies. These days, in the U.S. at least, you typically do not have to show ID at the counter to get your tickets or at the gate to get on the plane, which was done in the past. They might ask to verify you should be getting the tickets you are requesting, but likely they won't resist much if you refuse. Recently you only need a credit card to identify yourself to get your tickets from the automated kiosk. Now you have to show ID to a government agent at the security gate to get past. That's the rub, they are now requiring that you show ID to get past the security gate, not to get on the plane. You are not being restricted from traveling by not showing ID, you are being restricted on entering a certain part of the airport for not showing ID. If you can get past the security gate, you are free to enter the plane. Therefore, you cannot claim the government is preventing your right to travel for refusing to show ID at all. They're just not letting you go down a certain hallway in a building for refusing to show ID. Any law can be written to do anything you want that easily passes Constitutional muster if you think things through.
  - btilly 13y ago
    Not that I agree with the concept of the law in question, a private airline does have the right to require that you present any ID of their choosing to fly on their planes. They have the right to refuse you if you choose to not follow their rules. The ID was purportedly required by the TSA, not by the airlines. And so cannot be justified on the right of the airline to set rules that they want as a private entity.
    - talmand 13y ago
      I totally agree, that's why I believe the requirement was shifted from the airlines' responsibility to the TSA directly. Now you are not being asked for ID to travel, you are being asked ID to pass a security gate.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I totally agree, that's why I believe the requirement was shifted from the airlines' responsibility to the TSA directly. No, it was shifted as part of the general shift of security responsibilities to the TSA so that the airlines (who don't have sovereign immunity) wouldn't be responsible for future security incidents, that would instead be the responsibility of the TSA (who does enjoy sovereign immunity except to the extent Congress chooses to waive that immunity.)
        talmand 13y ago
        I agree with this as well. Such as shift can have more than one benefit.
jellicle 13y ago
Nonsense. The U.S. has numerous secret laws related to terrorism, torture, and surveillance, which they have vigorously and successfully fought to keep secret in numerous court cases. For example, this law was secret from 2002 to 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-bush-administration http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-bu...

by wycats 13y ago

LoganCale 13y ago

There is, however, a secret interpretation of the law, which the executive branch uses to apply the public law and which they refuse to reveal to the public.

btilly 13y ago

Actually the USA does have secret laws. Ask for the law requiring ID to travel. Nobody will show it to you. A decade ago an activist sued to try to see it, the case went to the 9th circuit, and he lost. Without being allowed to see the law. See http://papersplease.org/gilmore/ http://papersplease.org/gilmore/ for verification.

talmand 13y ago
Not that I agree with the concept of the law in question, a private airline does have the right to require that you present any ID of their choosing to fly on their planes. They have the right to refuse you if you choose to not follow their rules. There is room for debate on whether the airlines should be creating their rules based on laws for the TSA that are then not publicly displayed. But the thing is, if the law pertains to the airlines and not the public then that's the sticking point. Let's say that the lawmakers had decided that said law involved national security and that gives precedent to keep the law secret to those it does not directly affect. The law, which we haven't seen, likely only pertains to the airlines directly and not the passengers. The airlines are informed of the law that tells them they are required to request ID. It's likely you couldn't even sue in that case because you wouldn't have standing. The thing is, this type of law likely no longer applies. These days, in the U.S. at least, you typically do not have to show ID at the counter to get your tickets or at the gate to get on the plane, which was done in the past. They might ask to verify you should be getting the tickets you are requesting, but likely they won't resist much if you refuse. Recently you only need a credit card to identify yourself to get your tickets from the automated kiosk. Now you have to show ID to a government agent at the security gate to get past. That's the rub, they are now requiring that you show ID to get past the security gate, not to get on the plane. You are not being restricted from traveling by not showing ID, you are being restricted on entering a certain part of the airport for not showing ID. If you can get past the security gate, you are free to enter the plane. Therefore, you cannot claim the government is preventing your right to travel for refusing to show ID at all. They're just not letting you go down a certain hallway in a building for refusing to show ID. Any law can be written to do anything you want that easily passes Constitutional muster if you think things through.
- btilly 13y ago
  Not that I agree with the concept of the law in question, a private airline does have the right to require that you present any ID of their choosing to fly on their planes. They have the right to refuse you if you choose to not follow their rules. The ID was purportedly required by the TSA, not by the airlines. And so cannot be justified on the right of the airline to set rules that they want as a private entity.
  - talmand 13y ago
    I totally agree, that's why I believe the requirement was shifted from the airlines' responsibility to the TSA directly. Now you are not being asked for ID to travel, you are being asked ID to pass a security gate.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > I totally agree, that's why I believe the requirement was shifted from the airlines' responsibility to the TSA directly. No, it was shifted as part of the general shift of security responsibilities to the TSA so that the airlines (who don't have sovereign immunity) wouldn't be responsible for future security incidents, that would instead be the responsibility of the TSA (who does enjoy sovereign immunity except to the extent Congress chooses to waive that immunity.)
      - talmand 13y ago
        I agree with this as well. Such as shift can have more than one benefit.

jellicle 13y ago

Nonsense. The U.S. has numerous secret laws related to terrorism, torture, and surveillance, which they have vigorously and successfully fought to keep secret in numerous court cases. For example, this law was secret from 2002 to 2009: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-bush-administration http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/16/torture-memos-bu...