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

White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#21

Post by ChristianBundy »

Theodores wrote: post #15

This is great - they are making it worse for themselves! Before the Snowden revelations came along nobody took you seriously if you thought we lived in a world of mass surveillance. Now we all know all too well that we do. As the scandal unravels the government are clinging to the 'terrorism' fig leaf. They haven't got anything else, no other plausible excuse for what they have been up to. Nobody has completely seen…

I'm probably missing something obvious, but what evidence is there to suggest that there's an ace that trumps the government's terrorism card?

I want to be optimistic, but I'm not really sold on the idea that we have the information, and that it's just a matter of time until it's released to the public.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#22

Post by meddlepal »

pash wrote: post #9
pvnick wrote: post #3

So, [Clapper] said, he was continuing to assert the state secrets privilege, which allows the government to seek to block information from being used in court even if that means the case must be dismissed. It's almost funny to see the administration's hypocrisy on full display. They seem to think that if they keep pushing this issue under the rug that it'll just go away. The Obama administration wants to have its cak…

I hope the administration's lawyers just walked into a trap. Ordinarily, when the government asserts its state-secrets privilege (which dates only to the 1950s), a judge privately reviews the evidence to see whether it seems plausible that proceedings would reveal state secrets. Now that the admistration has asserted its secrets privilege in this case, the appellate court can very appropriately circumscribe the privi…

I see this a lot in NSA topics about how some new legal challenge might reverse NSA activities... Why does anyone think this will work? The NSA is accountable to the executive. The executive is responsible for enforcing laws but can selectively enforce... Why would it limit it's own power?

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#23

Post by brianpgordon »

meddlepal wrote: post #22
pash wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope the administration's lawyers just walked into a trap. Ordinarily, when the government asserts its state-secrets privilege (which dates only to the 1950s), a judge privately reviews the evidence to see whether it seems plausible that proceedings would reveal state secrets. Now that the admistration has asserted its secrets privilege in this case, the appellate court can very appropriately circumscribe the privi…

I see this a lot in NSA topics about how some new legal challenge might reverse NSA activities... Why does anyone think this will work? The NSA is accountable to the executive. The executive is responsible for enforcing laws but can selectively enforce... Why would it limit it's own power?

Checks and balances. The NSA is funded by Congress. Congress needs the courts in order for their legislation to have any effect.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#24

Post by [deleted] »

mabhatter wrote: post #13

As President he's "supposed" to fight for this, even if it's crap. That's how our "adversarial" government works. That's why it's CHECKS... As in gloves off, missing teeth, hockey checks. It's up to the other TWO BRANCHES to get off their lazy asses and knock the Executive branch down a peg or two. They liked blaming the President but they gotta do the WORK to take things back. Shut up and FIGHT!

[deleted]

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#25

Post by willnorris »

DannyBee wrote: post #12
pvnick wrote: post #3

So, [Clapper] said, he was continuing to assert the state secrets privilege, which allows the government to seek to block information from being used in court even if that means the case must be dismissed. It's almost funny to see the administration's hypocrisy on full display. They seem to think that if they keep pushing this issue under the rug that it'll just go away. The Obama administration wants to have its cak…

"I'm optimistic." Don't be. The supremes have made it clear as recently as last year they have little to no interest in this one.

do you not think that the revelations in the last year might change that?

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#26

Post by kordless »

Theodores wrote: post #15

This is great - they are making it worse for themselves! Before the Snowden revelations came along nobody took you seriously if you thought we lived in a world of mass surveillance. Now we all know all too well that we do. As the scandal unravels the government are clinging to the 'terrorism' fig leaf. They haven't got anything else, no other plausible excuse for what they have been up to. Nobody has completely seen…

Aliens or AI.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#27

Post by mitchty »

joering2 wrote: post #14

“Disclosure of this still-classified information regarding the scope and operational details of N.S.A. intelligence activities implicated by plaintiffs’ allegations could be expected to cause extremely grave damage to the national security of the United States,” wrote the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr. I am really getting sick and tired of listening to this dirtbag scum motherfucker. He lied…

Keep in mind he's not being promoted, he's the fall guy if things go south. Basically he's being setup to be the lightning rod if things go bad.

Note the new talk about possible pardons. My take on the tea leaves is that they now realize that Snowden has been saving the best for last (or later). And that he's only revealing whats needed to effect change. If they don't start damage control the right way Clapper is going to be thrown under a parked bus as fast as the media can spin it.

As soon as the bad stuff comes out Clapper is going to get to be the fall guy. He won't get replaced until something bad gets revealed. Then a "reformer" will be brought in. Least that would be the PR way to approach it. Not sure it'll work in this case but old tricks are the best tricks.

Course I could be wrong, eh we'll see.

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#28

Post by atmosx »

> But the government said that despite recent leaks by Edward J. Snowden, the former N.S.A. contractor, that made public a fuller scope of the surveillance and data collection programs put in place after the Sept. 11 attacks, sensitive secrets remained at risk in any courtroom discussion of their details — like whether the plaintiffs were targets of intelligence collection or whether particular telecommunications providers like AT&T and Verizon had helped the agency.

The only one who THINKS that it is unknown whether AT&T and Verizon were obliged by the government to hand over data is the government[1].

I remember when Wikileaks released the cables and US government employees were not allowed to read them. The rest of the world, was reading them anytime though.

In the world of governance I'd expect rationale to be above everything else. Apparently that's not the case in today's world. USA it's just another example, in Greece where I live, common sense has long been gone by politicians and population...

[1] However, there is a minor detail here. If this fact gets court proof, maybe some government members would be in terrible trouble. They can always mention National Security but God forbid, what if they have to bring proof?

Re: White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts

#29

Post by Theodores »

ChristianBundy wrote: post #21
Theodores wrote: post #15

This is great - they are making it worse for themselves! Before the Snowden revelations came along nobody took you seriously if you thought we lived in a world of mass surveillance. Now we all know all too well that we do. As the scandal unravels the government are clinging to the 'terrorism' fig leaf. They haven't got anything else, no other plausible excuse for what they have been up to. Nobody has completely seen…

I'm probably missing something obvious, but what evidence is there to suggest that there's an ace that trumps the government's terrorism card? I want to be optimistic, but I'm not really sold on the idea that we have the information, and that it's just a matter of time until it's released to the public.

Good!

A year ago nobody imagined that all of this Snowden stuff would come out, did they? Yet he was clearly working on something that may or may not have worked.

The mass surveillance works two ways: to learn/steal the secrets of the citizenry is one way, the other way is to hide secrets from the citizenry. Some people in government are more concerned with people talking about their secrets, their 'noble lies'. This is because, once exposed and once a cover up gets started, they face a serious existential threat. But we need a bit more public humiliation, loss of trust in the government and more silly talk about 'terrorism' to get the climate right for that. However, rest assured, there is at least one 'existential threat' in a holding pattern, just waiting for the perfect storm...

Post reply on HN