DOJ Fights To Bury Court Ruling On Government Surveillance 100
coolnumbr12 writes with this IBTimes excerpt: "The Justice Department may soon be forced to reveal a classified document that details unconstitutional surveillance of American citizens. The Justice Department has fought to keep the document secret for about a year, but a recent court order demands that they respond to a formal request filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation by next week, June 7, 2013."
All hail (Score:5, Interesting)
the EFF !
exit vikingpower
Re:All hail (Score:5, Interesting)
Why would you expect the Republicans to be our watchdogs? They are just as much a part of the problem as the Democrats.
The who rotten mess of post-9/11 needs to be swept away. DHS, TSA, Patriot Act etc.
Re: (Score:1)
And replaced with what? Folgers Crystals?
Re: (Score:3)
Lack of fear?
Re:All hail (Score:5, Insightful)
And replaced with what? Folgers Crystals?
Well, the crystals wouldn't be any LESS effective. Why not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And replaced with what? Folgers Crystals?
Well, yes, that would be a great start. Coffee doesn't keep me awake at night nearly as well as encroaching, overreaching government power.
Re: (Score:1)
"The best part of waking up..."
At least better than a knock at the door at 5am.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically a battering ram is a kind of knock.
Re: (Score:3)
So the Police/FBI are kind of like opportunity - they only knock once
BAM!
Re:All hail (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't seriously expect republicans to be watchdogs over things like this. While they claim to want small government, they simply offer a different kind of big government than democrats; that is, one that starts wars at every opportunity, spies on its citizens, and makes exception after exception for large corporations. Of course, democrats have some things in common with them, but they're both just trash that can't be trusted.
Re:All hail (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, they both spend too much.
But Republicans want to spend on wars in foreign countries.
Democrats want to spend on 'helping' Americans.
I don't like either, but since I have to take one, I'll take the latter.
Re:All hail (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:All hail (Score:4, Insightful)
'helping' isn't always helping.
Re:All hail (Score:4, Funny)
Most frightening words in the English language, "We're from the government and we're here to help."
Re:All hail (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They kept waiting for the Red Cross.
Re: (Score:2)
we've got churches, radio stations, buses, privately-owned businesses donating and going there with people and supplies without the government.
And yet, you're not turning down the government money?
Re: (Score:3)
So are the churches, radio stations, buses, privately-owned businesses going to rebuild all the homes that weren't insured or where the insurance company finds some way to weasel out of their responsibility? Are they going to rebuild all the shattered infrastructure? Any Libertarian that doesn't see a place for government in a disaster is an Anarchist by another name.
Re: (Score:2)
If I have a house and don't insure it and it catches fire and burns down then no one will give me a cent. Why is it that when people don't insure their houses that get caught up in a tornado like this they are entitled to money? If they pay for these peoples losses they should pay for every single motherfucker out there that didn't buy insurance no matter where or how they lost their homes.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't like either, but since I have to take one, I'll take the latter.
You most certainly do not have to take one.
Re:All hail (Score:5, Informative)
Are you fucking joking, trolling or high?
Seriously it has to be one of those options because if anything, Democrats have proven themselves to be as bloodthirsty as Republicans.
And before I get off topic on my rant, do note that the Bush era fuckwad who signed off on GWB's warrantless wiretapping and torture policies, is Obama's pick to head the FBI:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/james-comey-fbi-bush-nsa [guardian.co.uk]
Then what shall we talk about with respect to Obama:
Should it be his war on the 1st, 4th, or 5th amendment. His war on whistleblowers? Or just plain old war. Like tripling the number of troops in Afghanistan or conducting war with Libya without any congressional approval (goodbye War Powers Act, that little bit of post Viet Nam sanity designed to get us back to how the constitution says war is to started). Should we talk about how Obama tried to extend the Status of Forces Agreement in Iraq beyond the Dec 2011 expiration, failed, and as result pulled out the troops (and you fucking DNC hacks give him credit for ending Iraq when what he did was fail to extend it).
Maybe we should talk about Obama's opposition to the International Treaty to ban cluster bombs.
Maybe we should talk about how aggressively Obama has used the State Secrets Doctrine to shield torturers and those who spy on Americans. Maybe we should talk about why Obama as a candidate railed against NDAA, but recently cajoled Congress to pass it without any modifications, such as general estimate of how many Americans are illegally spied on.
WHATEVER. You fucking Democrat asshats are the biggest bunch of hypocrites around. Your ONLY reason to exist is to normalize the executive power grabs and constitution destroying behavior of the GOP. The entire country would be better off if you collectively had a heart attack and died, because then a real opposition to the GOP could evolve. Your ilk though, you're all talk and all back stabbing.
Democrats: The New GOP. Fresh face, same shit.
Re: (Score:3)
you don't really understand politics do you?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Are you kidding me? If there is anyone even more blatant in their support for the secret surveillance police state than the democrats, it would be the republicans.
Re:All hail (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very true. It seems to go kinda like this:
Republican: National security is at risk, we must curtail civil rights!
Democrat: Hey you can't take people's rights away like that....you have to do it like this...then you can get everything you want AND prosecute anyone who leaks on it
Republican: Ok Deal.
Democrat: Now lets raise taxes to pay for it
Republican: Not so fast, how about we backdoor a tax hike to make it look like something else, and make sure we can shield ourselves and our friends
Democrat: Ok deal.....oh and we can fight about it and suck up all the air time so nobody talks about civil liberties
Republican: Now you are getting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Finally! Someone on slashdot that understands how politics in the US really works.
Re:All hail (Score:5, Insightful)
Depends what you mean by a deal. Lots of things pass uncontroversially. Just this year, BEFORE the sequester debate came back, the pentagon's orders were reviewed, and where congress saw the Pentagon wanted 7 new C-130s, congress approved 14 of them. This was bipartisan....this is what they do all the time...in fact, over the life of the program, congress has approved 5000% more C-130s than the military ever ordered: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/10-6 [commondreams.org]
Then there is the whole issue of their fake fights. Someone first pointed it out to me a few years back. Chart the minimum wage over time against inflation. You will find that it follows inflation on a long term average. Everyone who watches the issue knows this. However, congress wont just bake it in because, every few years it gives them an excuse to drag it out and beat the drums.
The Republicans beat the "too expensive to do business" drum, and the money flows into their coffers from all manner of group against raising the minimum wage. Employers all over the country are falling all over themselves to throw money at the GOP.
The Democrats beat the "workers are hit hard" drum, and labor unions, and all of their associated groups fall all over themselves to throw money a the Democrats.
Then in the end....they all "grudgingly agree" to do what they all knew was going to happen from the start....and put the issue away for the next few years until they can dust it off and do it all over again.
Thing is, you see it everywhere. Abotion? ever noticed how often anti-abortion laws blatantly violate Roe V Wade? Ever wonder, why professional lawmakers, people who have had time to study the system and work with it, would propose something that they know can't survive? Fact is, the public's opinion of abortion is a near 50/50 split, and hasn't changed in while. Perfect issue for them.
Propose a law, knowing it will never have to be implemented seriously for more than a few weeks. Money starts rolling in to both sides. Law gets passed, law gets struck down, pro-life and pro-choice groups both see a huge windfall.
Then, they take the budget, come up with an agreement, but call it a sequester, really tiny fractional cuts in the increase in discretionary spending, coupled with a small tax hike, thats all it was. They agreed to it, but structured it so they could pretend to disagree and "try to avoid it" for months, then blame each other when it "hit".
But that isn't really how they deal, thats just how they suck up all the air.
For the deals, look at how the PATRIOT act got passed or renewed. Look at how FISA courts got gutted and how the torture program went unprosecuted. They make deals all the time, they just don't talk about those deals.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends what you mean by a deal. Lots of things pass uncontroversially. Just this year, BEFORE the sequester debate came back, the pentagon's orders were reviewed, and where congress saw the Pentagon wanted 7 new C-130s, congress approved 14 of them. This was bipartisan....this is what they do all the time...in fact, over the life of the program, congress has approved 5000% more C-130s than the military ever ordered
I think I just figured out why the US has such a large debt...
Note to humor impaired: no need to mod or respond
Re: (Score:2)
Finally! Someone on slashdot that understands how politics in the US really works.
I regret that I cannot remember to which Slashdotter credit is due, but a few years ago they showed that they understood just fine when they said "The Republicans are the party of evil and the Democrats are the party of stupid."
I added my own corollary about the nature of those things which they get together to do.
Re: (Score:2)
One and the same. Obama's pick to head the FBI signed off on the Bush era domestic spying crap and torture. Welcome to the new boss, same as the old.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/30/james-comey-fbi-bush-nsa [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
especially after reading: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/07/fbi_spyware?currentPage=all [wired.com]
Seems like they'll stop at nothing to catch their man, even if it means turning us into a police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Turning us into a police state is the point. Giving themselves the power to do whatever they want without even the slightest hint of oversight. The rest is just a happy side effect for them
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's inverse-slashdotted. It must've gotten better since you posted this 7 minutes ago. Broken before it makes the main page. Fixed afterwards.
Re:Already Slashdotted... (Score:5, Funny)
Sure! [REDACTED] at [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] by [REDACTED] [REDACTED] suck [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] hamburger [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] turbine [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Joshua Tree [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] feces.
Re: (Score:2)
Too much info. More like
The [REDACTED] is [REDACTED] because [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].
Re:Already Slashdotted... (Score:4, Funny)
Yo Dawg!
I heard you like [REDACTED] so we [REDACTED] some [REDACTED]in your [REDACTED] so you can [REDACTED].
Re:Already Slashdotted... (Score:4, Informative)
Summary: That such a ruling about unconstitutional activity exists is all that's publicly known. The methood of spying was ruled unconstitutional, but has not been revealed.
The EFF is currently suing to force revelation of the unconstitutional method. Next court step: government has until June 7 to respond why it should remain secret.
Note this is separate from the subject or topic of the spying.
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory SMBC: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?db=comics&id=2508#comic [smbc-comics.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The incident in question was about 20 months ago, and the ruling, as OP says, was about a year ago. Some months back a congressman revealed the ruling existed, but nothing else since the ruling itself was classified.
It was the method of data collection that was important and ruled unconstitutional. Obviously, We The People want to know what the government did, specifically the method of spying that it abused, and not the persons or subject matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Summary: That such a ruling about unconstitutional activity exists is all that's publicly known. The method of spying was ruled unconstitutional, but has not been revealed.
The other thing that is that the DOJ is fighting to keep the document secret.
They should be fighting to make it public.
Its time to seriously consider moving the DOJ to a different branch of government, perhaps its own branch.
Re: (Score:2)
Its time to seriously consider moving the DOJ to a different branch of government, perhaps its own branch.
Rename it to the "Dept. of Jocularity". Truth in advertising. Calling that corrupt, power-grabbing, partisan-politicking, Rights-violating, pit of jackboots-in-suits a department of "Justice" is already a bad joke. Also, like stand-up comedians, they both try to "kill" and "slay" their audience. The DoJ audience's change of state is much more permanent and final in nature, however. Just ask Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexicans after that F&F DoJ gun-gag...oh, wait...
Strat
Site is non-responding (Score:1)
Working fine for me (Score:1)
google cache (Score:2)
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.ibtimes.com/secret-court-document-finds-spy-techniques-unconstitutional-justice-department-fights-keep-it-hidden [googleusercontent.com]
Slashdotted (Score:2)
Here's a cached version [wikimedia.org]
Thank you EFF (Score:4, Insightful)
The justification for "classifying" information is pretty much lost on people working in government these days. Keep up the good work, EFF! This classification of government crimes against the constitution nonsense has to stop.
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same DOJ that's having Eric Holder investigate the crimes of... Eric Holder.
Sometimes I'm amazed at how much blatantly fucked, unconstitutional shit these assclowns manage to get away with... then I remember: bread and circuses.
Fuck.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the same DOJ that's having Eric Holder investigate the crimes of... Eric Holder.
That makes perfect sense. Who would know better then himself about the crimes he did not commit?
This is not a big deal (Score:2)
Here is the court order:
https://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/052413-eff.pdf [fas.org]
One possible "response" they could provide is "piss off".
You'll also note the Rule 7(i) Security Clearance information proviso for the EFF counsel; so even if they get to see the information, it doesn't meant that you get to see the information, or that they can subsequently re-disclose.
Re: (Score:2)
this is the one that i am expecting.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Feds can leak so can the EFF. Depending on the severity of what the governments been up to (and I'm fairly sure it's far beyond anything we've even thought of) and the amount of it that's actually revealed in this document, I personally would sacrifice my citizenship to let the rest of the world know about it... and I think the EFF is a lot more dedicated than I.
Executive Order...wait for it.... (Score:4, Interesting)
in 3...2...1...here it comes...
"President Mr. Transparency Obama today invoked the National Security Act of 1947 to issue an Executive Order applying prior restraint on disclosure of any and all FISC rulings and decisions."
Betcha a six pack of your favorite it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
in 3...2...1...here it comes...
"President Mr. Transparency Obama today invoked the National Security Act of 1947 to issue an Executive Order applying prior restraint on disclosure of any and all FISC rulings and decisions."
Betcha a six pack of your favorite it happens.
My favorite is "Previously Classified Anti-Constitutional Finding Court Document Stout" -- It tastes like freedom, as in beer.
I save the labels. They'll be worth something to historians someday.
If only... (Score:5, Funny)
If only we had another department. A department that could bring justice to these rogue agencies. We could even have a separate one for each agency. For DoJ, We'd call it "The department of justice justice department". Of course it would only be a matter of time before it became corrupt. That's why it would be overseen by a department of justice justice department justice department. And after that? The Department of Turtles, which is all the way downtown.
Re:If only... (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, what needs to happen is a few senators need to clone Chuck Grassley's spine and attitude. That is what congressional oversight is all about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Responding to sigs is off topic, but sometimes you see something that is so blatantly wrong that something needs to be said. Or typed, rather.
Re: (Score:1)
The IRS is going to audit the EFF . . . (Score:5, Funny)
. . . "audit", with "extreme prejudice" . . .
redacted (Score:1)
What's to stop them from lying? (Score:1)
What's to stop them from lying like Holder apparently did. Just editing out tons of stuff. It's not like they're worried about going to jail.
I am not being cynical.
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/05/28/eric-holder-under-investigation-by-house-judiciary-committee-for-possibly-lying-under-oath/ [firedoglake.com]
We have a serious problem with the integrity of the justice system. It's mainly because of worries about national security. Those worries go directly to a part of the minds of the individuals involved, the decision ma
Re: (Score:1)
9-11 made us lose perspective of a lot of things we need to keep perspective on in order to achieve real security and also to maintain our way of life, e.g. democracy.
Not that I necessarily disagree with your sentiments, but the US is (was?) a Constitutional Republic.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing a literal democracy with Democracy. A democratic republic It's a democratic form of government. It's not majority rule or direct democracy, At any rate the distinction being made is the difference between democratic forms of government and undemocratic forms.
A representative Republic is not a form of lawless despotism.
Likely Results (Score:2)
I would expect that the EFF will get nothing, or if something, a highly redacted version.
The court will only have any effect as long as the government keeps coming to the court. The court is unlikely to provide a strong disincentive for the government coming to the court by providing the full decision.
After all, its job is not to rat out the government, it is to tell the government what not to do.
Privacy and freedom versus safety (Score:4, Interesting)
This could impact national security. It could inform those who would attempt to do us harm about which communications are being monitored and potentially how.
But, this is America. I want privacy and freedom over security.
A man name Franklin once said:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
I realize that privacy isn't a right under the Constitution, explicitly (defining privacy and boundaries).
But the 4th Amendment to the Constitution does a pretty good job and is pretty clear when it comes to the government (Facebook is another story):
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
A judge has opined that there have been breaches of the Constitution. We the People, deserve to see the document in question.
Re: (Score:2)
A man name Franklin once said:
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”
Yes Franklin did say that. But it's not true, and he knew it when he said it. Ever since the first families banded together to form tribes people have been trading a little liberty for a little safety and it's worked out well. In fact trading liberty for safety is a pretty good way to describe the entire arc of human history.
Not true? He qualified it with "essential Liberty" and "temporary Safety". Perhaps, without the qualifiers, he knew it to be false statement, but I've never seen anything that would indicate that he didn't believe his own statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since being imprisoned will make you safer, lets throw you in prison. What? You don't want that? Maybe because there are somethings that are more important than being safe? Like maybe being free?
Re: (Score:2)
I realize that privacy isn't a right under the Constitution, explicitly
Rights exist, absent government. The U.S. Constitution doesn't create rights, it protects several of them from government infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
I just wish said government would read the Constitution once in a while and reflect on it before writing legislation (they should also read the legislation before voting...). Very few Federal legislators fulfill their oath regarding upholding and protecting the Constitution. Most legislators, with good intentions, feel that "protection" (the "common defense" and "general Welfare" bits of the preamble) can override other Constitutional protections. This should not be. If there is a conflict it is not Con
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but I’m going to spam you a bit more about the two party system. Your post got me thinking and I can’t turn it off. And I really don’t feel like vacuuming
The two parties have a lock on both election funding and ballot eligibility. Both of these are solvable, funding should be pooled and split among registered candidates (and corporations should not be able to contribute a penny, they are not citizens). Private Citizens can do as they wish, as much as I may dislike the idea and t
DoJ will just ignore it. Again. (Score:1)
Because there are no consequences for ignoring such an order, and our government officials are never held accountable for criminal acts while in office, they will simply just ignore this order like they have ignored the last several.