21–30 of 176 posts
One of the main points of the U.S. constitution is to provide checks and balances so that one branch of government cannot ac t unilaterally without oversight. For the executive branch to argue that in this case there is no way to challenge it is disingenuous at best and at worst, as this judge pointed out, unconstitutional. It's frustrating to me as a citizen that if a government agency decides it has a problem with…
One of the main points of the U.S. constitution is to provide checks and balances so that one branch of government cannot ac t unilaterally without oversight. For the executive branch to argue that in this case there is no way to challenge it is disingenuous at best and at worst, as this judge pointed out, unconstitutional. It's frustrating to me as a citizen that if a government agency decides it has a problem with…
Or the EFF, it's almost like little guy insurance
There's a lot of grousing in the tech community -- and HN in particular -- about all the threats to freedom, and for all the problems with the government's responses to current issues like new technologies or terrorism. There's legitimate substance here, but occasionally, the system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to -- the judicial branch both asserting its independence from the executive and striking d…
The system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to far more often than the cynics like to admit. The system isn't perfect, but I'm not about to stop believing in justice just yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the 9th circuit upheld, then it would be binding in the 9th circuit, but persuasive in the other circuits if challenged on those grounds elsewhere.
So then we should hope this goes to the Supreme Court so it can be upheld there and applied everywhere? Or will most smaller courts apply it in other districts anyway, if the 9th Circuit upholds it?
Ideally what would happen is for the case to be appealed, for the 9th circuit to uphold, then for a different circuit to come out the other way so the argument can be made that the Supreme Court needs to resolve the circuit split. That's one typical way controversial things like this make their way up to the Supreme Court.
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Eternal_vigil...
attributed to Jefferson is
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
So, US citizens need to resist the excesses of big gumment and, moreover, as good news, can do so with a simple letter to their Congressman and Senators, if enough citizens do that.
E.g., it was good to see SOPA/PIPA go down for the count after one punch from a flurry of publicity and letters to Congress. I wrote all three of my guys here in NY.
One way to get more such needed letters is more information on the Internet as here on HN. While the EFF seems to do a lot of really good work, the legal system is slow while a few 18 wheel trucks of letters to Congress can get action as quickly as Congress can act which means in less than 24 hours. Two-thirds of the House; two-thirds of the Senate; do not pass the White House, do not collect the president's signature; done. We actually do live in a quite responsive democracy; when enough citizens shout "frog" Congress jumps; and Congress has the lion's share of the power.
For the power of more information, as at
http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2003/1203/nv/nv2.htm
"'Sunlight is the best disinfectant,'” a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis".
The NSL situation was so obviously unconstitutional that I have to believe that the W efforts to push through that and similar stuff after 9/11 were understood at the time to be unconstitutional but to give a window, until cases were brought and the courts acted, to permit defending against anymore 9/11s.
Hopefully the FBI and the DoJ didn't do too much damage to honest US citizens and did round up lots of wacko Jihaders dreaming of a harem of 72 virgins or whatever.
There's a lot of grousing in the tech community -- and HN in particular -- about all the threats to freedom, and for all the problems with the government's responses to current issues like new technologies or terrorism. There's legitimate substance here, but occasionally, the system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to -- the judicial branch both asserting its independence from the executive and striking d…
Note that this isn't over yet. The judge put a stay on the ruling to allow the government to appeal. Note that national security letters have been around since 1978; and have been greatly expanded in scope in 2001. So depending on how you count, that's 12 years or 35 years of lost liberty. I'm not sure I would count that as a system working the way it's supposed to. How many years of living under gag orders do we consider acceptable?
There's a lot of grousing in the tech community -- and HN in particular -- about all the threats to freedom, and for all the problems with the government's responses to current issues like new technologies or terrorism. There's legitimate substance here, but occasionally, the system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to -- the judicial branch both asserting its independence from the executive and striking d…
the system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to The system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to far more often than the cynics like to admit. The system isn't perfect, but I'm not about to stop believing in justice just yet.
This is just a few years after 9/11, a year into the Iraq war, and Scalia, joined by Stevens, dissenting because the majority didn't go far enough in protecting an accused terrorist from the Bush administration:
"Having distorted the Suspension Clause, the plurality finishes up by transmogrifying the Great Writ—disposing of the present habeas petition by remanding for the District Court to "engag[e] in a factfinding process that is both prudent and incremental," ante, at 539. "In the absence of [the Executive's prior provision of procedures that satisfy due process], ... a court that receives a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from an alleged enemy combatant must itself ensure that the minimum requirements of due process are achieved." Ante, at 538. This judicial remediation of executive default is unheard of. The role of habeas corpus is to determine the legality of executive detention, not to supply the omitted process necessary to make it legal. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) ("[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody"); 1 Blackstone 132-133. It is not the habeas court's function to make illegal detention legal by supplying a process that the Government could have provided, but chose not to. If Hamdi is being imprisoned in violation of the Constitution (because without due process of law), then his habeas petition should be granted; the Executive may then hand him over to the criminal authorities, whose detention for the purpose of prosecution will be lawful, or else must release him."
His whole dissent, starting at 554, is worth a read.
This is exactly what the nation needs. We should be pushing back against government overreach where fundamental freedoms are concerned.
http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt
It would be our great pleasure :)