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

51–60 of 68 posts

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

#51

Post by DannyBee »

rayiner wrote: post #48
DannyBee wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I don't see Roberts embracing a reading of the state secrets privilege that essentially makes these sorts of constitutional claims unreviewable. What was on the line in both Reynolds and General Dynamics was money. The justices were quite pointed about this in General Dynamics, accusing the company in oral arguments of just being greedy, etc. The assertion of the privilege in at least some of the NSA cases raises cou…

"I don't see Roberts embracing a reading of the state secrets privilege that essentially makes these sorts of constitutional claims unreviewable."

Roberts didn't seem all that interested in Amnesty vs Clapper, which, while not a state secrets claim, is, IMHO, not going to be all that wildly different in terms of ideological breakdown.

In fact, they even went so far as to say "Second, even if respondents could demonstrate that the targeting of their foreign contacts is imminent, they can only speculate as to whether the Government will seek to use §1881a-authorized surveillance instead of one of the Govern- ment’s numerous other surveillance methods, which are not chal- lenged here."

Which is just, IMHO, beyond throwing the government a bone and going whole hog into crazy land on government surveillance.

I'm aware of the aftermath of the oral arguments/opinion on clapper, and I could see SCOTUS taking something on because the government kinda screwed them on parts of the opinion, but I have a lot of trouble believing the court is going to be all that receptive, state secrets claim or not.

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

#52

Post by ScottBurson »

joelgrus wrote: post #47
aluhut wrote: post #44

I'm curous. Could someone tell me how the republicans feelings are towards all this? Are they doing something? They are in some way in a bad position. Much of the stuff has been established under Bush but on the other hand they pretend to "protect the constitution" and of course they don't like Obama.

It varies, the "national security Republicans" are all for the surveillance, e.g. http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/12/mike-rog... whereas the "libertarian Republicans" are just as strongly against it, e.g. http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/12/ama...

It really is an issue that cuts across party lines. I've found that people of a libertarian bent get offended when I suggest this. If they're Republicans, they think that the GOP is the bastion of liberty and the Democrats are the authoritarians. If they're Democrats, it's the converse. But it seems to me that the issue is pretty close to orthogonal to party affiliation.

One example is California's two senators: both Democrats, but Feinstein is famously authoritarian, while Boxer AFAIK tends in the other direction.

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

#53

Post by phdp »

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?

Not a lawyer but one reason may be that the activities are in a legal grey area where they have secret interpretations of laws. They work hard to keep cases that involve these interpretations out of the courts because as soon as a judge declares it illegal they must stop. Kind of like asking for forgiveness rather than permission.

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

#54

Post by ganeumann »

w_t_payne wrote: post #45
atlantic wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intelligence agencies have a history of attempting to circumvent the limitations imposed by funding. There's a lot of evidence that the CIA has been involved in drug trafficking. In the case of the NSA, it could for example sell some of its intel to the private sector (technical and business information concerning rival companies).

So what do you think it is in this case? Front running? Or a more esoteric form of market manipulation?

Bitcoin, obviously.

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

#55

Post by anoncowherd »

tinfoil007 wrote: post #35
e12e wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid this all dates back further than 12 years (eg: see Binning at hope 9). There's little evidence the true motivation was to defeat terrorism (if for no other reason than domestic terrorism falls under the fbi, not nsa -- and is and has been arguably the bigger threat).

William Binney's keynote at HOPE 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxnp2Sz59p8 all talks: http://www.hopenumbernine.net/schedule/

"I played a central role in setting up this all-encompassing surveillance, but now that it's been in operation for years, I realize it could be used for naughty things. It's time to blow the whistle on this!"

Binney's case is interesting, to say the least.

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

#56

Post by anoncowherd »

e12e wrote: post #34
oelmekki wrote: post #31

Terrorism has won. Twelve years later, the country that was so proud to be "leader of the free world" is now affected by a cancer named secrecy and defiance ; defiance from government toward people and defiance from people toward government (well, that last part is not new, but it's not baseless anymore, which make a huge difference). US should definitely work on trust, especially because their main strength is busin…

I'm afraid this all dates back further than 12 years (eg: see Binning at hope 9). There's little evidence the true motivation was to defeat terrorism (if for no other reason than domestic terrorism falls under the fbi, not nsa -- and is and has been arguably the bigger threat).

>> There's little evidence the true motivation was to defeat terrorism

It was never about terrorism. In fact, governments like terrorism because it gives them an excuse to grab more power and strip people of their liberties. The surveillance is about control, power and maintaining it. It's meant to be used against the general populace.

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

#58

Post by wavefunction »

DannyBee wrote: post #51
rayiner wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see Roberts embracing a reading of the state secrets privilege that essentially makes these sorts of constitutional claims unreviewable. What was on the line in both Reynolds and General Dynamics was money. The justices were quite pointed about this in General Dynamics, accusing the company in oral arguments of just being greedy, etc. The assertion of the privilege in at least some of the NSA cases raises cou…

"I don't see Roberts embracing a reading of the state secrets privilege that essentially makes these sorts of constitutional claims unreviewable." Roberts didn't seem all that interested in Amnesty vs Clapper, which, while not a state secrets claim, is, IMHO, not going to be all that wildly different in terms of ideological breakdown. In fact, they even went so far as to say "Second, even if respondents could demonst…

Roberts is actually the one Supreme Court Justice heavily involved in the FISA court, as he is responsible for appointing the Federal judges that sit on its bench.

See how this represents a Mexican standoff where every branch of the US government is complicit? I think the American people are going to have to offer Amnesty to one of the 3 branches to get them to roll over on the other two ;)

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

#59

Post by dblarons »

aluhut wrote: post #44

I'm curous. Could someone tell me how the republicans feelings are towards all this? Are they doing something? They are in some way in a bad position. Much of the stuff has been established under Bush but on the other hand they pretend to "protect the constitution" and of course they don't like Obama.

I think this issue is causing real identity problems for many in the Republican party. As noted above, the libertarian wing is clearly against surveillance. However, IMO some of the most fundamental tenants of conservatism are anti-authoritarian, leaving pro-surveillance conservatives on the wrong side of the aisle in many respects.

It is absolutely astonishing to me that so many conservatives defend mass surveillance. As for the laws being established under Bush, I don't actually see that as a factor in many people's minds. I find that many conservatives hardly consider Bush to be an exemplary Republican and thus aren't ashamed to criticize his presidency. Many of his policies were so contradictory to the core conservative philosophy (education reform, surveillance, Patriot Act).

Of the conservatives in my area, I'm hearing everything from people who care a lot all the way to people who have no idea there were leaks. Which, it is important to note, is what makes this issue so strange. From what I can tell, the same has happened in the Democratic party. Crazy!

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

#60

Post by DannyBee »

wavefunction wrote: post #58
DannyBee wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't see Roberts embracing a reading of the state secrets privilege that essentially makes these sorts of constitutional claims unreviewable." Roberts didn't seem all that interested in Amnesty vs Clapper, which, while not a state secrets claim, is, IMHO, not going to be all that wildly different in terms of ideological breakdown. In fact, they even went so far as to say "Second, even if respondents could demonst…

Roberts is actually the one Supreme Court Justice heavily involved in the FISA court, as he is responsible for appointing the Federal judges that sit on its bench. See how this represents a Mexican standoff where every branch of the US government is complicit? I think the American people are going to have to offer Amnesty to one of the 3 branches to get them to roll over on the other two ;)

"Roberts is actually the one Supreme Court Justice heavily involved in the FISA court, as he is responsible for appointing the Federal judges that sit on its bench."

I doubt he really wants this, actually (and I believe he's said as much). It's simply what congress made law, so he does it.

Post reply on HN