Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 176 posts

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#61

Post by anigbrowl »

jtc331 wrote: post #54
anigbrowl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what's supposed to happen; the DoJ brought the dispute to the judicial branch and asked a court to resolve it, as opposed to arresting people or seizing control of the assets. They didn't seek the breakup of the company or the arrest or ruin of its officers, they asked the court to require compliance with what they believed to be a valid request in the form of the NSL. The court sided with the defenda…

Clearly you didn't read the article. Asking the court to require compliance would have meant that they would have filed a response to the telecom's suit and made the claim that the NSL was warranted and that the suit should be thrown out. Instead they're claiming that the mere act of filing suit is in itself illegal.

And they went to court to make that claim. As I've explained wlesewhere in the thread [1], exemption from judicial review is something that is often written into legislation by Congress. It's not the case that people in the DoJ or the WH wake up one morning and decide they can't be bothered with the courts any more. The law is designed to cut the Judicial branch out of the loop.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5383670

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#62

Post by nwzpaperman »

ericd wrote: post #47
r00fus wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The depressing part is realizing that Obama is actually the lesser of two evils (two elections running), and that worse could be happening right now in terms of rights erosion and increase in security-state. There is no left-wing remaining in power in this country. You only have corporatists and reactionary extremists corporatists.

It seems as though you may need to be a corporatist to raise a war chest comparable to the corporatists. It seems like the logical/natural steady state of elections with deregulated campaign finance...

Regulated campaign finance...who writes the rules?

The problem is fundamental to the structure and it is inevitable that, over time, every government becomes tyrannical.

Thomas Jefferson made it clear for the ages, "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Governments are of man and man is prone to taking advantage of and abusing his or her peers.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. I am not a friend to a very energetic government."

- Thomas Jefferson

"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun."

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#63

Post by rayiner »

sixQuarks wrote: post #35
mmastrac wrote: post #6

This part is a big WTF: "After the telecom challenged the NSL, the Justice Department took its own extraordinary measure and sued the company, arguing in court documents that the company was violating the law by challenging its authority."

As someone who is not affiliated with either party, I really don't get Obama supporters. He was supposed to bring change to the white house, instead, he has expanded Bush-era secrecy and has eroded our civil liberties even further... and not a peep from his support base. In my view, democrats are the lesser of two evils, but I'm just surprised that nothing has been done about this.

Obama has been more or less the right-center President he was as a candidate. People who are surprised by this wishfully read too much into his rhetoric.

E.g. Obama has continued interventions in Pakistan, etc, even though some people pinned their hopes on him as an "anti-war" candidate. But he was never "anti-war." He was "anti-Iraq war." He ran on a platform of "Bush took us into Iraq instead of hitting the terrorists harder in Afghanistan." So why should anyone be surprised he took troops out of Iraq and put more in Afghanistan?

E.g. re: drone strikes, is it really any worse than the cruise missiles Clinton was fond of using?

"Civil liberties" in the abstract sense, are not a core issue to Obama's base in the same way that say abortion rights are. During Bush, Democrats opposed expansions such as military tribunals in Guantanamo, etc, but things like NSL's have been around since the 1970's. I don't think the bulk of Obama's base have a problem with the status quo circa 1995, or ever did, regardless of what adherent civil libertarians might have hoped.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#64

Post by anigbrowl »

guelo wrote: post #53
anigbrowl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what's supposed to happen; the DoJ brought the dispute to the judicial branch and asked a court to resolve it, as opposed to arresting people or seizing control of the assets. They didn't seek the breakup of the company or the arrest or ruin of its officers, they asked the court to require compliance with what they believed to be a valid request in the form of the NSL. The court sided with the defenda…

Wrong. The telecom's suit is the challenge that you're talking about. The second suit claims that the first lawsuit is illegal. It would mean that you're not allowed to challenge the government in court. It would make your flowery language invalid.

I am not wrong, and you have misunderstood my claim. See the judgment at https://www.eff.org/document/nsl-ruling-march-14-2013 Page 2, lines 11-13.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#65

Post by rayiner »

Shivetya wrote: post #49
KoulMomo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obama's justice department has been just as horrible, if not more-so than Bush's justice department.

The real tragedy is the free pass the press gives him, if Bush had pulled this, the drone hits, fast and furious, and more, we would have at least had the press on our side. I can, but don't have to accept, members of his own party turning a blind eye, I will never accept a press which has.

Are we talking about the same press that cheer-led us into the Iraq war? And on a macro scale--the same press that has basically deified Ronald Reagan?

The American press has never been opposed to blowing up foreigners, because Americans believe it is our god-given right to blow up foreigners. This is true regardless of what party is in power. To the extent that there is opposition, it is rooted solely on the impact of military action on Americans--servicemen killed in action, money spent out of the Treasury, etc. That's why the press finally turned against Bush when Iraq continued to drag on. And that's also why the press doesn't care about drone strikes--the American drone operators aren't getting shot at nor do they cost us a lot of money. That's why they didn't care about cruise missiles under Clinton, either.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#66

Post by protomyth »

rsync wrote: post #30

This will open up our Monday morning schedule nicely if we no longer have to maintain: http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt It would be our great pleasure :)

sorry: "However, she stayed her order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#67

Post by will_brown »

mey wrote: post #43
will_brown wrote: post #34

This is definitely a victory and kudos to the EFF, but keep this win in perspective. The Court only ruled on the gag orders attached to the NSLs. Therefore, as of now the executive can still issue an NSL, without a gag order attached, which is still the equivalent of a warrant less search and seizure. So there is still a larger fight ahead in getting the Courts to rule the NSLs are Unconstitutional.

Please read the EFF's press release closely. Specifically In today's ruling, the court held that the gag order provisions of the statute violate the First Amendment and that the review procedures violate separation of powers. Because those provisions were not separable from the rest of the statute, the court declared the entire statute unconstitutional. There is are two separate issues, overstepping of executive auth…

>Please read the EFF's press release closely. Specifically

Thanks, I read the Court opinion.

Though I think you need to read my comment more specifically. There is nothing inconsistent with my comment and your comment, I think you just got hung up on the Court declaring the entire NSL law unconstitutional and I reference NSLs being sent in the future without gag-orders.

You are correct there were two issues in the case, but the second issue "the judicial review provision" was only related to the NSL nondisclosure provision. See Page 1 paragraphs 20-22 of the Court Order (issue one and two "collectively refered to as 'NSL nondisclosure provisions).

Therefore, Congress can reauthorize NSL without gag-orders, and they will bc that is what Congress does when a new law is struck down they rewrite it to comply with the Court ruling. Then the NSL without gag-order will be challenged again and this time not under the 1st Amendment like the non-disclosure provisions but under the 4th Amendment.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#68

Post by tomkinstinch »

guelo wrote: post #53
anigbrowl wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what's supposed to happen; the DoJ brought the dispute to the judicial branch and asked a court to resolve it, as opposed to arresting people or seizing control of the assets. They didn't seek the breakup of the company or the arrest or ruin of its officers, they asked the court to require compliance with what they believed to be a valid request in the form of the NSL. The court sided with the defenda…

Wrong. The telecom's suit is the challenge that you're talking about. The second suit claims that the first lawsuit is illegal. It would mean that you're not allowed to challenge the government in court. It would make your flowery language invalid.

> It would mean that you're not allowed to challenge the government in court.

IANAL, but is it not true that you can only sue the government to the extent that it lets you?

Can a lawyer chime in on the extent of sovereign immunity?

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#69

Post by noonespecial »

bashinator wrote: post #46
rsync wrote: post #30

This will open up our Monday morning schedule nicely if we no longer have to maintain: http://www.rsync.net/resources/notices/canary.txt It would be our great pleasure :)

Wouldn't this just be considered premeditated intent to violate the NSL gag orders?

I think it works like this. They are not permitted to tell you that they have been served a warrant, but they are always free to tell you that they haven't. If they should suddenly stop doing so, its up to you to draw your own conclusions as to why. That seems reasonable, even in the context of the madness of federal law.

As the text file says however, its always possible that they are being coerced to lie and continue to say that they haven't when they have.

Re: Federal Judge Finds National Security Letters Unconstitutional, Bans Them

#70

Post by sixQuarks »

brown9-2 wrote: post #44
sixQuarks wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is not affiliated with either party, I really don't get Obama supporters. He was supposed to bring change to the white house, instead, he has expanded Bush-era secrecy and has eroded our civil liberties even further... and not a peep from his support base. In my view, democrats are the lesser of two evils, but I'm just surprised that nothing has been done about this.

What civil liberties have been eroded?

Well,the fact that the president now has the right to kill an American citizen with no due process is a pretty good example.
Post reply on HN