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

171–176 of 176 posts

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

#171

Post by SEMW »

Snoptic wrote: post #167
SEMW wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right. A moral high ground built on an axiom of 'our citizens are now deserving of human rights than anyone else's' is more of a moral tar pit than a high ground.

If foreigners can't submit to our responsibilities, then they can't have our rights. The US doesn't rule the whole world, and the world doesn't want US to. Therefore, conflicts will arise, and there is no fair play among warring nations.

> there is no fair play among warring nations.

This might be a fair point if the US government was only claiming that the (supposedly inalienable) human rights which it respects in its own citizens are only suspended as against citizens of countries the US is in a state of war with.

But it doesn't. It claims that they don't apply to any non-Americans (outside US borders, at least - non-US citizens inside US borders do have some protections, IIRC). And the US courts seem to agree (e.g. US v. Verdugo-Urquidez)

The US is not at war with the entire rest of the world.

> If foreigners can't submit to our responsibilities, then they can't have our rights.

The original assertion was about what is moral. To make sure I understand you correctly - you're claiming that because I don't have responsibilities to the US government (I don't pay US taxes etc. being not a US citizen), it's not immoral for the US government to act in a way that, if I was a US citizen, would be an actionable breach of my fundamental rights?

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

#172

Post by unclebucknasty »

XorNot wrote: post #168
unclebucknasty wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By your logic, the extent to which we protect American ideals and freedoms is a function of what other actors do. Worse, it is the most egregiously abhorrent actors who would drive our direction most. The problem with this thinking is that it has brought us exactly to where we are today. It is a very slippery slope that can literally destroy the fabric of this country. There is no end to what can be justified under t…

Your freedoms are hardly being overtly invaded by being security screened when you fly. Whether the security screening is effective or a distraction is a different question (or dangerous, in the case of the X-Ray backscatter). I'm curious what freedoms you think you've given up in the name of security, that aren't simply complaints about being inconvenienced. Because there's plenty of real problems, but, in the conte…

You mean what's more invasive than being groped and having an image of my genitals taken when I fly? I think that's overt enough and more than mere inconvenience.

Also not sure how you discount being exposed to dangerous radiation as not "overtly invasive". I certainly don't see that as a different question.

But, I actually wasn't focused on airport security as much as the spirit of your response. This idea that we have to meet everything the bad guys do with "more security", which does equal less freedom, rights, and privacy. The PATRIOT Act, of course comes to mind.

Though, it certainly applies to the airport scenario too. Bad guys put a bomb in a shoe? We all take off our shoes now. Bomb in the underwear? We move to backscatter machines that image what's underneath. Where does it stop? It's crazy, and it's a product of the same general reactionary thinking that brought us the "plenty of real problems" you referenced.

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

#173

Post by rayiner »

Snoptic wrote: post #166
rayiner wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am bringing up historical context because you keep using the word "unprecedented." We did attempt to justify the Iraq war: WMD's. No less justifiable than many of our other interventions in Latin America, Asia, etc. Spanish American war anyone? Also: since when is justification required to go to war? The test has never been more or less than "protecting our interests." I don't think its a stretch to compare an Amer…

The problem of habeas corpus isn't to protect Al Awalki, it is to prevent the government from torturing Al Avalki for ten years and then saying, oops, we got the wrong guy.

I absolutely agree that if Al Awalki was being detained by the government on American soil, he would have been entitled to file a habeas petition to contest his detention. Absolutely no doubt, and there was an 8-1 Supreme Court decision just this decade, post-9/11, that reaffirmed this principle. Habeas is the bedrock of our civil liberties and we should guard it jealously.

But habeas is a procedure for challenging illegal detention, meanwhile Al Awalki was a fugitive. He was not in the hands of U.S. authorities, on U.S. soil. He took up arms against America in Yemen, and was hiding, evading capture. Habeas is inapplicable to a person who is evading the government's attempts to bring him to justice, in effect evading the government's attempts to give him due process. It is inapplicable by the very nature of the device--a writ from a court to order the release of a prisoner being held by an executive authority within the court's jurisdiction. No U.S. court had jurisdiction over Al Awalki.

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

#174

Post by anigbrowl »

wnight wrote: post #170
anigbrowl wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, just pointing out that quite eminent historical personages had different opinions on the merits of judicial review, and that similar views still exist today, although they're in a minority. I think people are inclined to assume that The Way Things Are is much the same as How They're Supposed To Be, when in fact the country might have developed quite differently very easily, despite having started from the same co…

I've re-read your earlier post and I have to say that any view that requires the supreme court to enact laws they find outside the scope of the constitution is just baffling and tautologically wrong. Marbury v. Madison didn't establish a power, it clarified the obvious. If the law oversteps the bounds of the constitution the court has no power to enforce it - their and congress' own power being derived from the const…

I don't subscribe to the view that the Supreme Court has to allow laws dramatically outside the constitution to stand; I said there exists such a school of thought with some influential members, whether I agree or not. The SC can't enact laws, that's what Congress does.

The Executive branch enforces the laws, per article II section 3 of the Constutition. The Judicial branch adjudicates disputes, it does not enforce anything.

The SC is the final arbiter of constitutionality - as Justice Robert Jackson said, it's not final because it's the SC, it's the SC because it's final.

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

#175

Post by bashinator »

noonespecial wrote: post #69
bashinator wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conti…

It occurs to me now, that the gag order might actually prevent them from testifying as to why they took down the notification.

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

#176

Post by unclebucknasty »

rayiner wrote: post #173
Snoptic wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem of habeas corpus isn't to protect Al Awalki, it is to prevent the government from torturing Al Avalki for ten years and then saying, oops, we got the wrong guy.

I absolutely agree that if Al Awalki was being detained by the government on American soil, he would have been entitled to file a habeas petition to contest his detention. Absolutely no doubt, and there was an 8-1 Supreme Court decision just this decade, post-9/11, that reaffirmed this principle. Habeas is the bedrock of our civil liberties and we should guard it jealously. But habeas is a procedure for challenging i…

Yes, and the Supreme Court has already, in practice, retreated from a similar ruling it made regarding foreign detainees:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/14/opinion/the-supreme-court-...

The ruling was all talk and no action. It is only a matter of time before it is tested on U.S. citizens.

Then, there's this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/03/ndaa-obama-indefini...

This is the slow drip of freedom and liberty on the decline. By the time America realizes what happened, it will be too late.

Post reply on HN