2 ms·
This is moving the goalpost. The question laid in front of the courts is "Is the system being described legal or constitutional?", not "is this what they're act
by rtpg 12y ago
This is moving the goalpost. The question laid in front of the courts is "Is the system being described legal or constitutional?", not "is this what they're actually doing."
This is where Congress is supposed to kick in (and Congress does spend a lot of time creating legislation when the judicial system doesn't have the tools to do what's "right"), either through FOIA-style legislation or legislating a restructuring of the NSA or whatever.
And this sort of "well we can't trust the gov't to follow any of the rules anyways" discussion is pointless, counterproductive, and false. Courts have countlessly told the "government" (which is really just the executive) to do things it didn't want to do. The system is working, and this is part of the process.
- talmand 12y agoI'm sorry, I need further description of what you mean by the moving goalposts analogy. It would seem to me the "is this what they're actually doing?" part is directly relevant to the "is the system being described legal or constitutional?" part. I can describe a process of removing money from the bank that looks legal because I say I'm withdrawing my own funds, but turns out to be totally illegal because what I'm really doing is robbing the bank. It is true that in some cases the courts do, in fact, tell the government they can or cannot do this or that. But I think the problem being referred to is when the "government" does things within a veil of secrecy so that the courts aren't even aware of the problem. Never mind the fact that the government creates a "court" to validate their procedures that itself is kept secret as part of the overall secrecy. In those cases I wouldn't say the discussion is pointless, counterproductive, and false.