6 ms·

21 Comments so far and none commenting the State's Secret Privilege that allows such requests to be thrown out immediately. None of these lawsuits will go anywh

by achille 13y ago

21 Comments so far and none commenting the State's Secret Privilege that allows such requests to be thrown out immediately. None of these lawsuits will go anywhere. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege People erroneously tortured by the govt had their cases thrown out. Cases as low as bank robbery have zero chance.

icambron 13y ago
I'm not so sure. In what way are this guy's phone records a state secret?
- Confusion 13y ago
  Because officially these phone records don't exist and acknowledging their existence is a confession that everything Snowden alledges is actually true.
- fletchowns 13y ago
  I'd say it's because they are part of a top secret government program
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - michaelfeathers 13y ago
    Not any more.
    - Mordor 13y ago
      Actually, there are a lot of secret programs and there's going to be a PRISM II, which, coincidentally keeps an exact copy of the data from PRISM after it has been switched off. The only way to get around this is to open up the NSA to an independent team of international cyber experts from the UN. It would set a great precedent of 21st century democracy and challenge totalitarian regimes around the world.
      - eru 13y ago
        Why from the UN?
        chinpokomon 13y ago
        My thoughts too.
        alan_cx 13y ago
        Because its not the US and not a specific foreign state. I know Americans hate the UN, to socialist and dares to criticise the US, but for non Americans it's the closest thing to an authority that they can at least try to believe in as independent. We all trust the UN weapons inspectors, yes? Well, not GW Bush on a war path, true, but the rest of us? So how about UN Data Inspectors? Do Americans really believe the rest of the planet even slightly trusts the US government? No. So the UN would be the best bet. Unless the US is prepared to be audited by, say, the French. B5 fans will understand that the US is nicely represented to many by Mr Morden. Nice hair, nice suit, winning smile, all the right words.... surrounded by shadows.
        pilsetnieks 13y ago
        Let's say the inspectors would come from the countries represented in the Security Council. Would you really believe that Russians or Chinese would appoint truly impartial inspectors with no agenda? Frankly, as bad as this whole situation sounds, I trust the US government far more than Russia or China.
        lifeisstillgood 13y ago
        Mr Borden? Lizzie Borden's father? I dont get the reference
        will_brown 13y ago
        Americans hate the UN? The US subsidizes roughly 75% of the cost of the UN. That should emphasize the US commitment to the UN and international community. It may be fair to say Americans are skeptical about relinquishing State Sovereignty, such as the US refusal to sign the Rome Statute and come under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but most Americans would agree the UN is of great importance to the World. >Do Americans really believe the rest of the planet even slightly trusts the US government? No I think if you took a poll at any given time a majority of Americans would not trust their own government. American history teaches us to have a healthy skepticism for government. That skepticism would certainly extend to the UN, whereas at least the US is a democracy, in all its imperfection, which includes terms limits and elections, it only makes sense to be skeptical of relinquishing sovereignty to a UN that includes States represented by authoritarian and repressive regimes.
  - roboneal 13y ago
    A top secret program that the President of the United States has made extensive public remarks about: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba... De facto de-classification.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Tuna-Fish 13y ago
The difference is that the tortured guy was suing the government, while this bank robber is being sued by the government. As it's a criminal case, the standard of proof is on his side. So, it's not necessary for there to be proof that he's innocent, all he needs to do is to create a little bit of doubt. He's probably hoping that the government doesn't release records, as this could possibly be enough to free him.
- TomAnthony 13y ago
  Indeed, in the United States vs Reynolds Supreme Court case that seems to be considered the seminal [1] to establish the State's Secret Privilege: The district court rejected the formal claim and ordered the documents be produced; but, the government refused and the court entered final judgment for plaintiffs on the grounds that the refusal to produce the documents established the Air Force’s negligence. It seems the same logic could potentially apply here? [1] http://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9577-lcb111lyonspdf http://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9577-lcb111lyonspdf
  - ignostic 13y ago
    Sadly I don't think so. I believe in that case it was certain that documents did exist and one party was just refusing to produce them. In this case, the NSA is neither prosecution nor defense, and therefore doesn't have the same disclosure requirements. Further, there's no proof the NSA has such records. But, like most people in this thread, I am not a lawyer.

by achille 13y ago

icambron 13y ago

I'm not so sure. In what way are this guy's phone records a state secret?

Confusion 13y ago
Because officially these phone records don't exist and acknowledging their existence is a confession that everything Snowden alledges is actually true.
fletchowns 13y ago
I'd say it's because they are part of a top secret government program
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelfeathers 13y ago
  Not any more.
  - Mordor 13y ago
    Actually, there are a lot of secret programs and there's going to be a PRISM II, which, coincidentally keeps an exact copy of the data from PRISM after it has been switched off. The only way to get around this is to open up the NSA to an independent team of international cyber experts from the UN. It would set a great precedent of 21st century democracy and challenge totalitarian regimes around the world.
    - eru 13y ago
      Why from the UN?
      - chinpokomon 13y ago
        My thoughts too.
      - alan_cx 13y ago
        Because its not the US and not a specific foreign state. I know Americans hate the UN, to socialist and dares to criticise the US, but for non Americans it's the closest thing to an authority that they can at least try to believe in as independent. We all trust the UN weapons inspectors, yes? Well, not GW Bush on a war path, true, but the rest of us? So how about UN Data Inspectors? Do Americans really believe the rest of the planet even slightly trusts the US government? No. So the UN would be the best bet. Unless the US is prepared to be audited by, say, the French. B5 fans will understand that the US is nicely represented to many by Mr Morden. Nice hair, nice suit, winning smile, all the right words.... surrounded by shadows.
        pilsetnieks 13y ago
        Let's say the inspectors would come from the countries represented in the Security Council. Would you really believe that Russians or Chinese would appoint truly impartial inspectors with no agenda? Frankly, as bad as this whole situation sounds, I trust the US government far more than Russia or China.
        lifeisstillgood 13y ago
        Mr Borden? Lizzie Borden's father? I dont get the reference
        will_brown 13y ago
        Americans hate the UN? The US subsidizes roughly 75% of the cost of the UN. That should emphasize the US commitment to the UN and international community. It may be fair to say Americans are skeptical about relinquishing State Sovereignty, such as the US refusal to sign the Rome Statute and come under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, but most Americans would agree the UN is of great importance to the World. >Do Americans really believe the rest of the planet even slightly trusts the US government? No I think if you took a poll at any given time a majority of Americans would not trust their own government. American history teaches us to have a healthy skepticism for government. That skepticism would certainly extend to the UN, whereas at least the US is a democracy, in all its imperfection, which includes terms limits and elections, it only makes sense to be skeptical of relinquishing sovereignty to a UN that includes States represented by authoritarian and repressive regimes.
- roboneal 13y ago
  A top secret program that the President of the United States has made extensive public remarks about: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-obama-said-on-nsa-controversy/ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/06/07/transcript-what-oba... De facto de-classification.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Tuna-Fish 13y ago

The difference is that the tortured guy was suing the government, while this bank robber is being sued by the government. As it's a criminal case, the standard of proof is on his side. So, it's not necessary for there to be proof that he's innocent, all he needs to do is to create a little bit of doubt. He's probably hoping that the government doesn't release records, as this could possibly be enough to free him.

TomAnthony 13y ago
Indeed, in the United States vs Reynolds Supreme Court case that seems to be considered the seminal [1] to establish the State's Secret Privilege: The district court rejected the formal claim and ordered the documents be produced; but, the government refused and the court entered final judgment for plaintiffs on the grounds that the refusal to produce the documents established the Air Force’s negligence. It seems the same logic could potentially apply here? [1] http://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9577-lcb111lyonspdf http://law.lclark.edu/live/files/9577-lcb111lyonspdf
- ignostic 13y ago
  Sadly I don't think so. I believe in that case it was certain that documents did exist and one party was just refusing to produce them. In this case, the NSA is neither prosecution nor defense, and therefore doesn't have the same disclosure requirements. Further, there's no proof the NSA has such records. But, like most people in this thread, I am not a lawyer.