Secret law is not law. It is a fundamental breach of the social contract .

[kpete]

Privacy International files legal challenge against UK government over mass surveillance programmes

Eric King, head of research at Privacy International, added:

"One of the underlying tenets of law in a democratic society is the accessibility and foreseeability of a law. If there is no way for citizens to know of the existence, interpretation, or execution of a law, then the law is effectively secret. And secret law is not law. It is a fundamental breach of the social contract if the government can operate with unrestrained power in such an arbitrary fashion."

MORE:
https://www.privacyinternational.org/press-releases/privacy-international-files-legal-challenge-against-uk-government-over-mass

[Purveyor]

1. Indeed and thank you for posting. +1 eom

[Nanjing to Seoul]

2. yeah, but most Americans are too fat and happy in their illusions that they actually matter

to care. Besides, American Idol is on and I don't want to risk anything standing up for what is right. It might make my life just a bit harder.

(Do i need to include the sarcasm icon?)

[rhett o rick]

8. Most Americans are in various stages of denial making it easy for the tyrants. nm

[FarCenter]

3. That is not true in a representative democracy

In a representative democracy the people elect officeholders to act on their behalf to form and operate the government. The government may maintain secrets, including laws and judicial decisions that are known only to specific officeholders.

A democracy does not operate by plebiscite on each and every law.

[ret5hd]

6. If/when one is arrested for breaking one of these secret laws...

would one be told "we can't tell you why, so shutup!" and then when one goes to court and the prosecutor tell the judge "we can't tell you what law was broken, just that we have secret absolute incontrovertible proof of guilt" and then when one tries to present a defense the prosecutor just has to say "objection! irrelevant, your honor" and then when one goes to prison will one even be told the length of ones sentence?

[Orsino]

9. Ignorance of a secret law is an excuse, by definition.

Doubtless the secret laws' wording disagrees.

[treestar]

11. Impossible for an individual person to break these "secret laws"

Only the government could do that.

It would be challenged if there was a criminal case involved. See U.S. v. Duggan

[ret5hd]

12. How the hell do you know that to be a fact? The law is "secret", remember?

[Igel]

40. The laws aren't secret.

It's the interpretations that are, at least for a while. However, the laws and their interpretations are constraints on the government's ability to eavesdrop and invade our privacy. Hence the government can break the law and be punished in secret; that punishment is the invalidation of evidence or the order by the court to destroy information or stop some practice. Meh.

Are there secret laws that we don't know about? Perhaps if Congress met in secret to pass laws there could be. But if they were criminal laws and people were tried on them, we'd have sets of people vanishing into secret jails as the result of secret trials.

As far as I know, that hasn't happened. So is a secret law really a law if there's no implementation? Does such a law break the social contract? Dunno. Seems moot.

All the secret trial procedures known ultimately either authorize the obtention of information or result in indictments. If there's any criminal wrong doing, that info (or indictment) ends up in public trials--even if the proceedings are kept secret, we know the charges, who's involved, and when the court's in session. In those proceedings, the defendant gets to have an attorney present. (Although in at least one case, IIRC, the defendant wasn't allowed to see some evidence against him. His lawyer, who had clearance, was.)

I don't see how the quote in the OP actually applies to anything other than either an empty set or laws that are currently moot.

[treestar]

48. There are cases on it

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=FISA&btnG=&as_sdt=2%2C8

The laws/standards themselves aren't secret. Only the identities of the parties for whom warrants are sought - mainly because if they knew about it, the entire point of figuring out what they are doing would be lost.

[enough]

7. No, it isn't a plebiscite on every law, but in a representative democracy a law has to be known.

How can a citizen behave rationally in a society where some laws are secret, where it is not known what is legal and what isn't?

Also, how can a citizen decide whether the elected representatives deserve to stay in office or not if they don't know what laws are being made?

How can a citizen know whether a law is being enforced correctly if the law itself is secret?

The existence of secret laws completely changes the relationship between the citizen and government.

[mike_c]

4. this is one point that I don't understand about the surveillance state debate....

How can anyone argue that "secret laws" have any place in a democratic society? How can anyone acknowledge the existence of such laws without first admitting that any appearance of democracy is a sham?

[rhett o rick]

20. Many choose to live in authoritarian denial. nm

[Romulus Quirinus]

67. I don't think you even have to be an authoritarian (though it helps)

Aren't we all taught to believe that we are the freest people on Earth? That democracy is progress, and progress is inevitable?

[rhett o rick]

69. Yes, many people live in total deniablity, thinking that the authoritarian state will

make them safe.

[sabrina 1]

5. As Ron Wyden has said, 'if the people knew how they are using the law they would be

angry'. Laws that are 'interpreted' in secret by those who stand to benefit from them are not conducive to a free society.

Good for the Brits for beginning the process of going after these criminals who are tearing democracies apart and most of whom were never elected.

[treestar]

10. It is not entirely secret

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=FISA&btnG=&as_sdt=2%2C8

Search of Google Scholar for cases on FISA

Some information about the reviews:

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/06/dni-statement-on-facts-on-the-collection-of-intelligence-pursuant-to-section-702-of-the-foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act/

But then if we do without FISA, we are back to the President being able to do anything:

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 102 S.Ct. 1004, 71 L.Ed.2d 296 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434

[Romulus Quirinus]

19. It should be noted that those decisions were made in a vastly different world.

That world's context is so far removed from our own that I believe it is inevitable that those decisions would be revisited were FISA overthrown by the court. One might as well look to precedents from today to rule on the legality of the private ownership of warp engines.

[treestar]

43. So back to the President having no checks on spying

Because without the FISA, that is where the common law was.

[Romulus Quirinus]

44. I'm afraid I don't see how this addresses my post.

Perhaps you were replying to another poster on this busy thread?

I must add, though, that you are the only source of this claim that I have seen. Many others seem to believe the final result will not settle where you are saying it will. Why should I believe we would end up in a worse place if FISA, especially if President Obama has our best interests at heart? Would he not likely craft a better replacement?

[treestar]

46. Well if you read the case I posted there

You will see the issue you are avoiding.

The Courts in U.S. v. Duggan cited cases to the effect that the President can spy on whoever he wants. The FISA was then enacted to have at least some oversight on him.

So if you want more oversight on him, the only solution is another statute that adds to FISA or provides for an entirely different method of supervising the President.

[Romulus Quirinus]

49. I assume that you are arguing in good faith. I would appreciate it if you would do the same for me.

In addition, I am not a lawyer, but a scientist. I would not ask you to calibrate my experimental equipment, and I think it is unreasonable to expect me to read the multiple Supreme Court legal opinions in your Google Scholar search, analyze them, and argue with you on equal footing. If you wish for this conversation to be fruitful, it would be helpful to point out a clearer reading, since there is no obvious link supporting your contention on the first page that I can locate with my meagre knowledge. That said...

My Google Fu does not seem to bring up anyone who agrees with your opinion. The first cut brought up the Wikipedia article on the Foriegn Intelligence Service Act, which mentions US vs Duggan:

Post-FISA

There have been very few cases involving the constitutionality of FISA. In two lower court decisions, the courts found FISA constitutional. In the United States v. Duggan, the defendants were members of the Irish Republican Army. 743 F.2d 59 (2nd Cir., 1984). They were convicted for various violations regarding the shipment of explosives and firearms. The court held that there were compelling considerations of national security in the distinction between the treatment of U.S. citizens and non-resident aliens.

IF this crime/case happened after FISA was passed, I don't see what bearing it has on what the law would revert to if FISA were removed from play. Further, the law blog you link to is simply a reposting of a memo from the office of the Director of National Intelligence, one Mr. Clapper, who has been in the news lately, and whose opinion I find to be self-serving and not a little suspect. The block quote you include is found no where on the site you linked.

Tossing the first line of your block quote into a search engine leads to this Brietbart link (http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/27/NSA-Scandal-Stay-Focused) which agrees with your analysis. The quote itself comes from an amicus curiae brief filed with the Court by Judicial Watch in in American Civil Liberties Union vs National Security Agency in 2006. Judicial Watch, it has often been noted, does not commonly cover itself in glory. :3

Lacking as I am in legal training, and being capable only of reading the plain meaning of the 4th amendment and the simplified explanations of other experts, and based on the quality of said experts standing on either side, I would say that I'm still inclined to disagree with you on this point. I do think, however, that this post might make for a fine OP.

[treestar]

50. OK so you have no intent to argue in good faith

You may not be wiling to read those cases, but the justices were. Glad they get to be the ones to decide the law.

Prior to the enactment of FISA, virtually every court that had addressed the issue had concluded that the President had the inherent power to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance to collect foreign intelligence information, and that such surveillances constituted an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. See United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908, 912-14 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1144, 102 S.Ct. 1004, 71 L.Ed.2d 296 (1982); United States v. Buck, 548 F.2d 871, 875 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 890, 98 S.Ct. 263, 54 L.Ed.2d 175 (1977); United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593, 605 (3d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 881, 95 S.Ct. 147, 42 L.Ed.2d 121 (1974); United States v. Brown, 484 F.2d 418, 426 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 960, 94 S.Ct. 1490, 39 L.Ed.2d 575 (1974). But see Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d 594, 633-51 (D.C.Cir. 1975) (dictum), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 944, 96 S.Ct. 1685, 48 L.Ed.2d 187 (1976). The Supreme Court specifically declined to address this issue in United States v. United States District Court [Keith, J.], 407 U.S. 297, 308, 321-22, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2132, 2138-39, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972) (hereinafter referred to as "Keith&quot , but it had made clear that the requirements of the Fourth Amendment may change when differing governmental interests are at stake, see Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967), and it observed in Keith that the governmental interests presented in national security investigations differ substantially from those presented in traditional criminal investigations. 407 U.S. at 321-24,

It's my problem to make you understand that? You have no intent of even trying.

[COLGATE4]

51. Thanks for the comprehensive list of cites. But

I doubt you'll make much headway in convincing those who fervently want to believe in 'secret laws', star chamber proceedings, etc. in discussing the merits of FISA and prior jurisprudence. Without FISA the President would have a much freer hand to surveil however he deemed appropriate and the courts would uphold it. FISA isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than it was without FISA.

[treestar]

62. Thank you for being a person who actually understands!

Most people are going from a false premise and you can repeat yourself a zillion times and get no where!

[COLGATE4]

65. But it's so much more fun to swoon and breast-beat about

the supposed injustices of the law now that Snowden has become the pop idol de jour.

[Romulus Quirinus]

68. *Waves*

I'm over here!

[Romulus Quirinus]

52. You do realize that this isn't the opinion of the court, but a quote from the amicae curiae brief

brought before the court by Judicial Watch in 2006?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2006/nsa%20amicus%20brief.pdf

Your quote, which you are incorrectly ascribing to the Supreme Court, can be found on page 19.

[Romulus Quirinus]

54. Here is an article in from Dr. Anthony Clark Arend of Georgetown University

who argues against this interpretation:

http://blogs.georgetown.edu/?id=12001

So, does the case law indicate that the President would have the Constitutional authority to conduct such warrantless surveillance?

Lower court decisions seem to suggest that the answer is in the affirmative. But there are several very important caveats:

First, the Supreme Court still has not ruled on the question.

Second, Truong related to surveillance that took place before FISA was adopted, even though the case was decided after FISA went into effect.

Third, while the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review indicated that it took "for granted" that the President has the authority to conduct such searches, that statement seems to be dicta and not part of the actual holding of the case.

Finally, even assuming for argument's sake that the President does have the authority under certain circumstances to conduct warrantless surveillance in response to a threat posed by a foreign power or the agent of a foreign power, such surveillance would still need to meet the "reasonableness requirement" of the Fourth Amendment. Given that FISA establishes a fast and secret procedure that the Executive Branch can use to obtain court orders to conduct surveillance against foreign powers and their agents, and given that FISA even allows for retroactive approval of surveillance if time were truly of the essence, would it be "reasonable" for the President to act outside that framework? The reasonableness question is especially critical in the present controversy because this action does not seem to be a one-time surveillance that needed to be undertaken at a moment's notice, but rather a long program that required numerous re-authorizations.

This seems to jibe with my layman's understanding of the situation.

[Romulus Quirinus]

56. According to the ACLU, it is the USA PATRIOT act which enables this level of surveillance, rather

than the presence of FISA:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/l102301i.html

[Romulus Quirinus]

59. Started an OP here:

www.democraticunderground.com/10023201340

[RufusTFirefly]

29. FISA is a fig leaf and a rubber stamp.

(How's that for mixed metaphors?)

From a Sacramento Bee editorial entitled "Secret FISA court rubber stamps U.S. surveillance"

The last three years, the judges approved every single one of the 5,179 applications; 40 of them were modified before permission was granted. One was withdrawn by the government before a ruling. The numbers are similar in previous years, according to groups that keep track. From 1979 through 2009, the court approved a total of nearly 28,800 requests, modifying about 400. It rejected only 11, while the government withdrew about 20.

[treestar]

45. Even so, then at least they are looking at it

Without FISA, the President decides all by his lonesome. FISA was meant as a check on unlimited Presidential power to spy.

[magellan]

13. Again I have to ask: why do some here trust 10 Repub judges to secretly define privacy?

10 of the 11 FISA court judges are Repubs. They were all appointed by Chief Justice Roberts. No confirmation process.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023188497

Can anyone who takes on faith the "legality" of the NSA programs explain to me why they trust 10 Repub judges who are acting IN SECRET, when we see examples of how extremist and eager to piss on the the Constitution the Repubs are OUT IN THE OPEN every day?

[saidsimplesimon]

25. magellan, good question n/t

[COLGATE4]

53. First of all, because it's nothing but simplistic

to assume that Repub,lican judges are necessarily going to support the government. I'm not even sure that these 10 are even 'republican judges'. Does that mean a Republican President appointed them to the bench or does it mean that they are registered Republicans? If a Republican President appointed them they may as well be Liberals - look at David Souter. And even if they're registered Republicans, so what? Have we gotten to the point that anyone of a different political persuasion is automatically deemed so untrustworthy as to not be able to hold a position that demands great moral probity. Most judges I've ever know or know of tend to play things very much down the middle. Even most of the admittedly conservative Federal Judges are not known for knee-jerk support of Republican ideas.

[Enthusiast]

34. Because liberals can't be trusted with national security?

That's what the "conservatives" believe. The president seems to have a nearly equal dim view of Liberals based on the makeup of his appointments. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with nearly unchecked Republican control.

[magellan]

38. Where does this idea come from?

When was the last time actual liberals were in charge of national security? Are we talking Carter and the Iran Hostage Crisis?

[Enthusiast]

39. The media willingly joined a

conspiracy in the late 1970s to paint Carter as weak and indecisive. At the same time future Reagan Administration members were engaged in secret talks with the Iranians. This eventually became known as Iran-Contra.

The dirty deeds the Reagan Administration pulled off were as bad as anything ever done in this nation -treason. But Iran-contra has been conveniently relegated to an inaccessible place in the memory of the national culture. Equally conveniently forgotten is the bombing of Marine barracks in Lebanon when Reagan was President. Reagan could have been labeled a coward by the media right then and there when he pulled our forces out(cut and run). But even clear back then the media was under the strictest RW control.

So I would say all liberals have been portrayed as weak on defense since the days of Carter and Iran-Contra. I guess that's because liberals wouldn't make up some non-existent threat and spend billions to correct it while destroying many lives in the process.

Weak on defense or not weak on defense, it is an entirely fictitious and fabricated quality. It's much like, "Tax and spend Democrats."

[magellan]

47. Yeah, the list of Repub national security failures

...before and after Carter, right up to Dimson, make a ginormous lie of the acquired belief that cons defend this country better than liberals. The truth is that Repubs are responsible for many disasters on their watches, and their policies are the root of much of the hate we have to protect ourselves against.

Of course to make the point, we'd also have to get the media to stop defining people like the Clintons and Obama as liberals. It's as ludicrous as calling them socialists.

[Enthusiast]

57. Calling them socialists is just part of the ruse.

Millions of idiot Teabagger wannabees go around in their little circle of life calling Obama a socialist. They're too damned dumb to see the difference when it's right in their face.

[magellan]

60. Anyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a liberal to a Teabagger

(I think I read that here first and I've been using it on the pondscum for years.)

But never mind the Repubs; there are millions of centrist Dems who believe they're liberals (or progressives, depending on usage) and call themselves that. Unfortunately there are so few true liberals left in national politics we have virtually zero control over messaging, and no contemporary liberal president to hold up as an example. Just 32-year-old stories of Carter the rw wurlitzer has distorted out of all perspective.

I have to give props to Obama for at least acknowledging the rightward shift on the national political scene since then:

"The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican."

He's only wrong about his policies being mainstream. It's clear from polls on various issues, especially economics, that Americans want a more liberal approach from him. Raise taxes on top earners, regulate and prosecute the financial industry, stop the austerity crap like fiddling with SS and cutting food stamps, support for the public option in healthcare, oppose free trade deals, etc.

It's true the Repubs prevent him from getting the best of these things, but it's also true that he (along with the bulk of the Democratic Party) favors neoliberal policies that benefit corporations. So moderate Repub? Yes. Mainstream? Not so much.

[Enthusiast]

71. Exactly.

Mainstream? Not in the same ball park.

[Octafish]

14. Secret Laws and Secret Government are un-American.

Last edited Tue Jul 9, 2013, 01:01 AM - Edit history (1)

Secret laws mean those in on the secrets are above those who aren't.

Secrecy means We the People aren't in charge.

[Zorra]

15. Rec nt

[ProSense]

16. The FISA law

"Secret law is not law. It is a fundamental breach of the social contract ."

...isn't secret, its execution is secret. Congress has oversight.

This brings to mind two questions: 1) Why isn't Congress more proactive in terms of oversight 2) What level of transparency is reasonable? Senators Leahy, Udall and Wyden support the a fix.

Do you support Senator Leahy's Patriot Act/FISA reform bill?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023135750

The FISA law and secret court were established following the Chuch Committee recommendations.

Introduced in the Senate as S. 1566 by Edward Kennedy (D–MA) on May 18, 1977
Committee consideration by: Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee on the Judiciary
Passed the Senate on March 20, 1978 (95-1)
Passed the House on September 7, 1978 (246-128)
Reported by the joint conference committee on October 5, 1978; agreed to by the Senate on October 9, 1978 (Without objection) and by the House on October 12, 1978 (226-176)
Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 25, 1978

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was introduced on May 18, 1977, by Senator Ted Kennedy and was signed into law by President Carter in 1978. The bill was cosponsored by nine Senators: Birch Bayh, James O. Eastland, Jake Garn, Walter Huddleston, Daniel Inouye, Charles Mathias, John L. McClellan, Gaylord Nelson, and Strom Thurmond.

The FISA resulted from extensive investigations by Senate Committees into the legality of domestic intelligence activities. These investigations were led separately by Sam Ervin and Frank Church in 1978 as a response to President Richard Nixon’s usage of federal resources to spy on political and activist groups, which violates the Fourth Amendment.[4] The act was created to provide Judicial and congressional oversight of the government's covert surveillance activities of foreign entities and individuals in the United States, while maintaining the secrecy needed to protect national security. It allowed surveillance, without court order, within the United States for up to one year unless the "surveillance will acquire the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a party". If a United States person is involved, judicial authorization was required within 72 hours after surveillance begins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act

If the Patriot Act is repealed, should the secret FISA Court be abolished?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022999502

[LondonReign2]

24. No, its secret law, not "just" secret execution

In Secret, Court Vastly Broadens Powers of N.S.A.

WASHINGTON — In more than a dozen classified rulings, the nation’s surveillance court has created a secret body of law giving the National Security Agency the power to amass vast collections of data on Americans while pursuing not only terrorism suspects, but also people possibly involved in nuclear proliferation, espionage and cyberattacks, officials say.

The rulings, some nearly 100 pages long, reveal that the court has taken on a much more expansive role by regularly assessing broad constitutional questions and establishing important judicial precedents, with almost no public scrutiny, according to current and former officials familiar with the court’s classified decisions.

The 11-member Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, known as the FISA court, was once mostly focused on approving case-by-case wiretapping orders. But since major changes in legislation and greater judicial oversight of intelligence operations were instituted six years ago, it has quietly become almost a parallel Supreme Court, serving as the ultimate arbiter on surveillance issues and delivering opinions that will most likely shape intelligence practices for years to come, the officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/us/in-secret-court-vastly-broadens-powers-of-nsa.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

[ProSense]

35. No, the

"No, its secret law, not "just" secret execution"

...execution is secret. The court was established as a secret court. The execution includes the interpretations of the law. That is what needs more transparency.

Do you support the fix proposed by Leahy, Udall and Wyden?

I also asked: 1) Why isn't Congress more proactive in terms of oversight 2) What level of transparency is reasonable? Senators Leahy, Udall and Wyden support the a fix.

I'll add: What needs to happen to ensure vigorous Congressional oversight?

[saidsimplesimon]

28. ProSense, yawn, been there, heard that, you are entitled to

disagree. I don't trust either House of Congress, or any party to look after my best interests. That is why I encourage all citizens to participate in our limited Republic. Register to vote, don't assume that paid advertisements, hype, hyperbole, and downright lies represent democracy.

The Brits, Americans and others depended on deception during ww2. Has something changed?

[ProSense]

33. So

"ProSense, yawn, been there, heard that, you are entitled to disagree. I don't trust either House of Congress, or any party to look after my best interests. That is why I encourage all citizens to participate in our limited Republic. Register to vote, don't assume that paid advertisements, hype, hyperbole, and downright lies represent democracy."

...you don't trust Congress, and your solution is to vote?

What exactly does that have to do with my point about the law, how it came to be and the proposed fixes?

[kentuck]

17. I like unhappycamper's sigline:

"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings." - John F. Kennedy

[truebluegreen]

18. +1

[ReRe]

22. +2

[ProSense]

37. That's a great quote. Still,

the NSA is 61 years old.

By the 1960s, NSA was regarded as a vital element in the effort to provide U.S. policymakers and war fighters the critical intelligence needed to successfully complete their missions. While NSA entered the ‘60s with pride in its accomplishments, the decade would not be without its challenges. NSA sought out the best and the brightest to meet these challenges. (See Documents A1 & A2 at end of chapter.) Early in the new decade, the Agency would also realize the importance of loyalty in the workforce.

Martin and Mitchell

Then and now, intelligence agencies operate on the premise that the information they collect will be kept secret. To accomplish this requirement, vast sums of money are spent on tangible devices to secure and protect the environment in which the information resides. However, physical security measures can only do so much. In the end, every intelligence organization depends on the integrity of its workforce to protect its sensitive information.

- more -

http://www.nsa.gov/about/cryptologic_heritage/60th/book/NSA_60th_Anniversary.pdf

[nolabels]

55. With such an idea in mind does it give them a right to.......

invade every body's privacy?

Why We Care about Privacy
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/technology/internet/privacy/why-care-about-privacy.html

[Enthusiast]

41. Me too.

Words like this used to carry some weight.

[FiveGoodMen]

21. Amen to that!

[DeSwiss]

23. To the 100th power!

[Uncle Joe]

26. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[RufusTFirefly]

27. So absolutely fundamental: Sunlight is the best disinfectant. n/t

[The Second Stone]

30. Secret law and secret courts are tyranny

and we should be as alarmed as the founders were about things like the Star Chamber. I don't want my government collecting information on my fellow citizens and blackmailing our representatives.

[leveymg]

31. It's debatable if you can even call it "law." It certainly isn't legal, no matter how the courts

may rule in secret. If it isn't subject to challenge, and there's no way to know if a secret law is applied, it's fundamentally unfair, and as such a violation of Due Process. That provides a prima facie "necessity defense" for anyone who reveals secret laws of general application.

Secret laws which are generally applied in secret upon an unsuspecting public are different from classification agreements that apply only to persons who make an informed decision to hold specific documents in secret.

Classification agreements are justifiable because they only binding on those who are authorized and agree to hold such matters secret.

[COLGATE4]

64. Once again - the law is not secret.

You can call it a 'secret law' all you want and pontificate from there but it doesn't make it so. FISA is law of the land and was passed in Congress and signed by the President. It is not fundamentally unfair. Likewise, the 'necessity defense' has no bearing whatsoever on the topic we are discussing here (and, BTW saying is does does not constitute anything prima facie).

[leveymg]

66. The rulings and interpretations are the substance of the law, the statute is just black letter

I guess you've never studied philosophy or law or history of American Jurisprudence. You will find that the letter and interpretation often contradict, and that is how the law advances.

But, if the thinking of Judges and their application of the letter of the law is secret and unknown to the public, as I said, the law is secret. Secret law is null and void.

If laws are applied in such a way that they are effectively secret courts ruling on secret issues, the public still has every right to know the details, particularly if these rulings may affect their liberty interests.

[COLGATE4]

76. Then you would guess wrong.

I have been a practicing attorney for 30 years now. And no, the letter of the law and its interpretation can't contradict. That's not how the case law system of jurisprudence we have in the U.S. works. In addition, there are hundreds of thousands of cases in court daily where the 'thinking' of the judges remains 'secret' since most judges' decisions are never reported or even made public. And since the judge's ruling is the application of the law, it also is not secret.

[leveymg]

77. No. Records are rarely sealed, except in FISA/nat'l security, and some civil cases by agreement.

Other than the exception made for juveniles, trade secrets, ongoing Grand Juries, classified information, there is a qualified First Amendment right of access. See, [PDF]
Sealing Court Records and Proceedings: A Pocket Guide
www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/Sealing...pdf/.../Sealing_Guide.pdf?
by RT Reagan - Related articles
Sealing Court Records and Proceedings: A Pocket Guide. 6. National Security. On rare occasions, adjudication of a case requires presenting to the court ...

Essential to the rule of law is the public performance of the judicial
function. The public resolution of court cases and controversies
affords accountability, fosters public confidence, and
provides notice of the legal consequences of behaviors and
choices.
On occasion, however, there are good reasons for courts to
keep parts of some proceedings confidential. Courts will keep
confidential classified information, ongoing investigations,
trade secrets, and the identities of minors, for example.
The public in general and news media in particular have a
qualified right of access to court proceedings and records. This
right is rooted in the common law.1 The First Amendment also
confers on the public a qualified right of access. In 1980, the
Supreme Court held that the First Amendment right of access
to court proceedings includes the public’s right to attend criminal
trials.2 The Court suggested that a similar right extends to
civil trials, but they were not at issue in the case.3 Some courts
of appeals have held that the public’s First Amendment right of
access to court proceedings includes both criminal and civil
cases.4

[COLGATE4]

78. Don't be obtuse. The record of court decisions

(i.e. the judge's "thinking" (as you so elegantly put it) is only published in cases which reach the appellate levels. The great majority of cases which are decided do not have a published record. It's not that they're sealed - it's that they don't exist. Read what I said.

[TheKentuckian]

32. The fact that this has to be said speaks to how deep in shit we are.

It also paints a bright ass line on who really are "natural political allies" and who is opposition, even the enemy or in service to them pretending to be on the same side to narrow debate and fix races so that on heads we lose and on tails they win.

[Enthusiast]

36. Kicked and Recommended! nt

[Waiting For Everyman]

42. K&R nt

[Dragonfli]

58. It appears Obama does not agree and is fighting to keep mysterious redefinitions of our law secret.

The Obama administration on Friday called on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to reject a request by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to release court opinions related to secret government surveillance programs.


Lawyers for the Justice Department argued, according to Reuters, that releasing the opinions would expose the public to dangers that are "real and significant, and, quite frankly, beyond debate."

The Justice Department lawyers, however, did say that the surveillance court is free to release opinions as long as doing so does not violate specific rules.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/309433-justice-department-urges-surveillance-court-not-to-release-opinions#ixzz2YHnRWgAX

It appears Obama does not welcome the debate and in fact is fighting tooth and nail to avoid it.

A recent fact that leaves me confused as to why he would say, "lets have the debate". One might consider such a statement to be less than truthful in light of what his Justice Department has requested.

We should have a debate about what the dangers are and how we developed the surveillance programs to address them. If the dangers are real, we should be briefed on what they are and actually be allowed the debate on whether we wish to give up our privacy rights as well as the transparency of the rule of law itself in order to be protected from the feared dangers.

Is such an extreme approach even effective in protecting us? What exactly are we supposed to be so afraid of that the mere mention of its name may endanger us further somehow?

How is the mere knowledge of the legal justifications used to secretly interpret laws designed to protect us from these unknowable dangers also so dangerous as to be called "real and significant, and, quite frankly, beyond debate." ? How can knowledge of the law in a Democracy be considered so unquestionably dangerous as to require us to be protected from the words of the laws interpretations?

I do not believe a rule of law that is secret and lacks transparency could ever be trusted by a free and aware citizenry. Nor do I wish to give up privacy for an undisclosed amorphous boogie man that I am told is too scary for me to know about or understand.

So yes. I would love to have the debate if only we were allowed to have it.

[libodem]

61. That makes so much sense

It breaks my heart. What have we become?

[Catherina]

63. That's a keeper. Very well said n/t

[Recursion]

70. Secrecy is specifically allowed for in the Constitution

Article 1, Section 5:

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

[kentuck]

75. But it sound like either the whole House or Senate is required to vote on it...

And 20% required to put it on the Journal?

[Life Long Dem]

72. Couldn't this be said about all warrants?

When a judge grants a warrant to the police isn't that done in secret? You don't know the judge issued a warrant. Isn't that the same thing happening here? A judge approves the warrant in secret. Does this secrecy make it not a law?

Maybe you find out about the warrant when a cop knocks on your door to arrest you, or maybe not if they make an arrest before serving you the warrant. With FISA court maybe you find out about the warrant when they arrest you or chat with you about conversations you had with a terrorist. Same when they knock on your door to serve a warrant for your arrest. You didn't have any idea they had a warrant for your arrest.

To let you know about this warrant before they hear your conversation would defeat the purpose in catching you talk to a terrorist. So what should they do? Allow everyone to know ahead of time that they want to find out what your talking about to a terrorist? Or maybe any outstanding warrant they have on you when they knock on your door to arrest you should have been given to you after they warned you they have a warrant and are after you. That doesn't make sense. They would never catch anyone.

[Recursion]

73. These "secret laws" are the government's self-limitations on surveillance

They replaced a system in which the government could spy however the hell it wanted.

There's probably a better way, but nobody's ever implemented it.

[cantbeserious]

74. Thank You For Sharing

eom

[temmer]

79. kick