4 ms·

Correction: Yahoo did fight, and lost. The details aren't all released, but here's a precis of what's public: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/yahoo-

by rst 13y ago

Correction: Yahoo did fight, and lost. The details aren't all released, but here's a precis of what's public: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/yahoo-failed-fisa-fight/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/yahoo-failed-fisa-f... It's possible that there's as-yet undisclosed legal action with some of the others; the secrecy around just about any proceeding in the FISC makes it very hard to tell.

sageikosa 13y ago
I wondered the same thing. With secret courts and secret hearings, who knows who is fighting or not for our rights?
flexie 13y ago
Fighting unconstitutional laws in the phony secret "court" set up by the same laws is not really fighting, is it? It's sort of accepting the terms. Take the battle to the real courts and ask them to decide on the matter.
- sageikosa 13y ago
  Unfortunately, those are real courts, their functions and jurisdictions have been established by the Congress.
  - flexie 13y ago
    If congress can redefine courts into what is basically an administrative panel, then the entire separation of powers can be short-circuited. It's not a court just because congress says so.
    - gwright 13y ago
      > The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Congress certainly does have the 'say so' -- at least with 'inferior Courts'. That still leaves the Supreme Court though as final arbiter.
    - genwin 13y ago
      That's the crux of the matter. The root cause is that half of Americans are okay with such courts.
    - sageikosa 13y ago
      I'd like to agree with you. I believe there is a category of societal actions that constitutes a court of justice within the framework of a civil society; secrecy doesn't fall into that category.
- talmand 13y ago
  Exactly how do you get standing to sue the government for something they are not doing with something that does not exist?

by rst 13y ago

sageikosa 13y ago

I wondered the same thing. With secret courts and secret hearings, who knows who is fighting or not for our rights?

flexie 13y ago

Fighting unconstitutional laws in the phony secret "court" set up by the same laws is not really fighting, is it? It's sort of accepting the terms. Take the battle to the real courts and ask them to decide on the matter.

sageikosa 13y ago
Unfortunately, those are real courts, their functions and jurisdictions have been established by the Congress.
- flexie 13y ago
  If congress can redefine courts into what is basically an administrative panel, then the entire separation of powers can be short-circuited. It's not a court just because congress says so.
  - gwright 13y ago
    > The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Congress certainly does have the 'say so' -- at least with 'inferior Courts'. That still leaves the Supreme Court though as final arbiter.
  - genwin 13y ago
    That's the crux of the matter. The root cause is that half of Americans are okay with such courts.
  - sageikosa 13y ago
    I'd like to agree with you. I believe there is a category of societal actions that constitutes a court of justice within the framework of a civil society; secrecy doesn't fall into that category.
talmand 13y ago
Exactly how do you get standing to sue the government for something they are not doing with something that does not exist?