81–90 of 141 posts
Shouldn’t the Supreme Court weigh in on some of this stuff? IMO this is a constitutional issue of the highest magnitude.
Clapper flat-out lied to congress, he even admitted he did later, and even the few congress members who knew he was lying could not do anything about it because the evidence was top secret.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.
> The public can change the composition of the Congress In theory. In practice, Congress members are not selected by a public electorate, but rather by careful gerrymandering practices paid for by corporate interests designed to benefit themselves financially. In the USA, you have no choice of your elected leaders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a frustrating situation because intelligence agencies obviously do need to keep secrets while at the same time they can use this as justification to keep anything they want secret, even when there is no real national security concern with revealing the information. I agree and think the way to improve this is to codify into the relevant laws that: 1. If the government claims "state secrets" they have a burden…
We have FISA courts which allow the government to file charges against a private individual in a way that protects state secrets. Why are citizens not allowed to use these same FISA courts to file suit against the government? With properly authorized attorneys representing both sides cases involving state secrets can be argued. Not allowing citizens to bring cases to these courts is to create two forms of law: one fo…
I mean, however problematic an arrangement for legal defense in this setting is, at least they must have a very high bar of acting on it, if any action could reveal too much.
Also, if the only legal defense would be that the evidence was acquired illegally, that's a pretty weak defense, especially if it was simply defined to be legal. The minor problem of damages incured despite being not guilty already existed before--a door broken to search your house will not be repaired by them either way, I don't think.
The major problem that amounts to a concpiracy theory of controling politics, influencing supreme court judgement and cetera may be conciderable, but in that case, what's a lawyer going to do about it, huh?
From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…
> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "state secrets" firewall means that the public has no ability to police government surveillance. The public can change the composition of the Congress, which has oversight and lawmaking authorities over domestic intelligence agencies.
The result of Citizens United was the death blow on American democracy. First, companies can put as much money as they want on elections, second, rich people control companies, and third, foreign countries also control companies. Put this together and the USA has no functioning democracy anymore, it is at the whims of billionaires and/or foreign powers.
Shouldn’t the Supreme Court weigh in on some of this stuff? IMO this is a constitutional issue of the highest magnitude.
Isn't the problem that no evidence can be presented, even to the Supreme Court, because everything is marked super tip-top maximum secret? Clapper flat-out lied to congress, he even admitted he did later, and even the few congress members who knew he was lying could not do anything about it because the evidence was top secret.
From the article: "Judge Ellis said: "For Wikimedia to litigate the standing issue further, and for defendants to defend adequately in any further litigation, would require the disclosure of protected state secrets, namely details about the Upstream surveillance program's operations. For the reasons that follow, therefore, the standing issue cannot be tried, or otherwise further litigated, without risking or requirin…
Congress could rule that the copying/filtering method is illegal and that Henning’s method of mirroring is the only acceptable practice. Then we don’t care so much about the specific means. I’m not a huge fan of ombudsman/czar positions but I think it would make sense to have some sort of privacy advocate within the executive and maybe even a house committee on the topic. It’s abundantly clear at this point that when…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being a whistleblower is not a crime. Whistleblowing is regulated by law. Government agencies have internal processes for people who want to blow the whistle on conduct they may deem illegal or unethical, and it is perfectly safe to do so. Edward Snowden did not go through the proper channels. If he had, doing so would not have led to his prosecution. He broke into computer systems he did not have the right to access…
Ah, the Espionage Act of 1917. One of the governments finest attacks on free speech. And it worked. The Supreme Court, in wanting to uphold a conviction against someone protesting a war they almost certainly agreed with, ruled it constitutional. And do you really think the government will give him a fair trial? No. They almost certainly will give him a secret trial. How are those even constitutional? And regarding th…
"National security" is obvious doublespeak.
National security does not mean security for the general public, it means security for the incumbent power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the Espionage Act of 1917. One of the governments finest attacks on free speech. And it worked. The Supreme Court, in wanting to uphold a conviction against someone protesting a war they almost certainly agreed with, ruled it constitutional. And do you really think the government will give him a fair trial? No. They almost certainly will give him a secret trial. How are those even constitutional? And regarding th…
>Why is it different when the government does it? National security? "National security" is obvious doublespeak. National security does not mean security for the general public, it means security for the incumbent power.