National Security Letter Issuance Likely Headed To Supreme Court 112
Gunkerty Jeb writes The Ninth Circuit appeals court in San Francisco took oral arguments from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Department of Justice yesterday over the constitutionality of National Security Letters and the gag orders associated with them. The EFF defended a lower court's ruling that NSLs are unconstitutional, while the DoJ defended a separate ruling that NSLs can be enforced. Whatever the court rules, the issue of NSLs is all but certainly headed for the Supreme Court in the not too distant future.
DOJ Oaths (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't these guys have to take an oath to defend the Constitution?
Its time to add teeth to Oath Violations. Loss of job, loss of pension, jail time.
To argue that some silly law or court ruling overrides the First Amendment should be a criminal offense.
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, evidence is that most people who get excited about the First tend to think that the Second is something that can (and should!) be overridden at a whim....
I think the government should follow all of the constitution, but the reverse is also true. I can't even count how many gun fanatics I've seen that support the NSA, the TSA, etc. Some of us actually care about the constitution and not just the second amendment, but a lot of the people that don't also frequently make the claim that the government is incompetent and corrupt, so why the hell do they want it to be able to collect everyone's information?
Re: (Score:2)
You can't deny that it is a first amendment right to disagree with the second amendment. And if we are making generalizations a lot of the second amendment people love to use their rights to intimidate people exercising their first amendment rights.
You can't pretend that either side is totally virtuous.
Re: (Score:2)
Brandishing a firearm (threatening someone with one) is a felony unless you had reason to fear for your life. In which case you could have just shot the bastard.
Show evidence of widespread intimidation with weapons. Are you scared by the mere fact that people have them?
Re: DOJ Oaths (Score:4, Insightful)
If there wasn't the second amendment, you can bet your bottom dollar that there would no longer be a first amendment. .. or any amendment for that matter.
Yeah, because it's all your guns that are keeping the government from censoring what people can say. Y'all crack me up. How did things work out for David Koresh, or Randy Weaver, or anyone else who thought they could defend themselves from armed government agents? Has the second amendment prevented the Feds from spying on everyone, or seizing people's property, or establishing free speech zones, or otherwise infringing on our rights?
Look, I support gun ownership. I don't own one myself because I do not feel it necessary. But I support the right of any law-abiding citizen to arm themselves if they feel the need. However, the idea that that right will prevent the government from doing anything it wants is pure fantasy. You are outgunned and outnumbered. If they want to get you, they'll get you sooner or later.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily the actual targets one would go after are much softer and more unaware.
Re: (Score:2)
You are outgunned and outnumbered.
Sure about that? Last I heard, even the lower estimates of ownership FAR outstrip the entire military (all branches), and all LE in the country - combined.
That's true. But I'd counter that the military and police are more organized.
I was thinking more along the lines of individual or small group resistance. The Iraqis have shown us that it's almost impossible to maintain dominance when an entire population is against you. So yes, if the entire nation were to turn on the government it would be a different story. But the media will work to make sure any armed resistance is seen as domestic terrorism. Most people still believe what the news tells them. So
Re: (Score:2)
Well put a bunch of Firsters on one side of the room and a bunch of Seconders on the other side and then let them do battle with their respective speech and arms and see who wins.
There's probably a lesson or three in there. Figuring it out is above my paygrade though; that's why I'm so appreciative that this country has an independent judiciary making sure that the people with the arms aren't able to just simply apply force majeure to prevent free speech...
Re: (Score:1)
Well put a bunch of Firsters on one side of the room and a bunch of Seconders on the other side and then let them do battle with their respective speech and arms and see who wins.
There's probably a lesson or three in there. Figuring it out is above my paygrade though; that's why I'm so appreciative that this country has an independent judiciary making sure that the people with the arms aren't able to just simply apply force majeure to prevent free speech...
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" --Salvor Hardin
Re: (Score:2)
It is your first amendment right not to believe in the second amendment.
It is your first amendment right not to be prosecuted for declaring your disagreement with the second amendment.
It is NOT your first amendment right to request government employees to ignore your second amendment right. That is criminal. You can declare your belief that they should, but any intention to actually carry it out should land you in jail. And that goes for all constitutional rights.
Re:DOJ Oaths (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation, please? Enumerate two or three such cases — should not be difficult to do, if it really happens "a lot"... I'll wait. Thank you!
Re: (Score:1)
And if we are making generalizations a lot of the second amendment people love to use their rights to intimidate people exercising their first amendment rights.
The only thing a lot of your so-called second amendment people choose to intimidate on a regular basis are criminals and thugs, such as their representatives in Congress--and sometimes, other miscellaneous miscreants.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:DOJ Oaths (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, yes it is.
Nobody except moronic, hyper-partisan fuckwads (on "both[1]" "sides[2]") ever argued that the First and Second Amendments were mutually-exclusive, you know!
([1] in actual reality (as opposed to the Bizarro-world perpetuated by the propagandists we call "mainstream media") there are more than two points-of-view on any given issue, and they are not all equally valid.)
([2] the only way to be on a "side" is to blindly worship the totality of a party's platform instead of forming your own ideology. If that describes you, go tear up your voter registration card and then kill yourself, for the good of humanity.)
Re:DOJ Oaths (Score:5, Insightful)
..... by the propagandists we call "mainstream media"
I keep wondering WHEN everyone is going to wake up and realize what "we call the mainstream media" has become the
defacto US Department of Propaganda.. We should call things by their correct and factual names.. The "mainstream media"
hasn't been the "4th Estate" in quite a few years...
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so clear who is a department of who.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, even the few hyperpartisan fuckwards I know have never stated anything of the kind. Strawman much?
The problem, that leads many people to contrast the First and the Second Amendments, is not that they contradict each other — no one thinks so — but that we are reading them differently.
The First Amendment is read as liberally and a
To paraphrase (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of "petitioning the government for redress of grievances" don't you understand, citizen?
By your own logic, you don't have a right to any other speech — not to advertise [lawpublish.com] anything, not to produce pornography [firstamendmentcenter.org], not to organize boycotts [lexisnexis.com]. Not even political campaign speeches are a right under your reading of the Bill of Rights — unless they are addressed to the sitting government as a form of a petition. If, of course, your thinkin
Re: (Score:3)
I misspoke. I was trying to say that supporting or agreeing with the First and Second amendments are not mutually exclusive. Or in other words, that -- contrary to what "conservatives" would have you believe about "liberals," or what "liberals" would have you believe about "conservatives" -- lots of people think it's good to have the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.
And by the way, they're both all-encompassing: The First Amendment affirms your right to say whatever the fuck you want, especia
Re: (Score:2)
as the Jews read the prohibition to "cook lamb in the milk of its mother" â" combining goat cheese with beef is Treif even though neither are sheep, and a goat can not possibly be the bull's mother.
Most, but not all Jews. Some of them instead track which animals are the mothers and calfs, so they can happily eat milk-poached-meat provided the milk and meat are not mother and calf respectively.
When questioned by a travelling jewish writer, their retort was "which is more important? Your scholars or our
Re: (Score:2)
The point was, there is no such prohibition.
The only thing the scripture actually proscribes is what I quoted: "cooking lamb in the milk of its mother". That's all — all other rules are derived from that. That they have been expanded to cover all dairy and all meat — even those derived from different species — is the phenomenon I used as an illustration.
Re:DOJ Oaths (Score:5, Insightful)
Replace "First" with "Second", and your statement is still perfectly valid.
No, it's not the same thing at all. The 2nd specifies that it applies to a well regulated militia, so it doesn't actually apply literally to gun control, the question is if control violates the intent of it. The 1st, on the other hand, has the qualification of "congress shall make no law..." So any law granting authority for NSLs violates the constitution. In same cases the argument is made that something other than congress passing a law violates the intent of the 1st, but in the case of NSLs, the FBI uses various laws passed by congress as it's rationale, therefore any portions of those laws that do grant the FBI authority for NSLs is unconstitutional whether the 1st is taken literally or on its intent. Of course, that just applies to the disclosure portion. The purpose of the NSL is to force a search and/or seizure without a warrant, which is in direct violation of the 4th amendment.
Nowhere in the text of either the 1st or 4th amendments does it specify exceptions for suspected terrorism. This sort of thing is exactly what the Bill of Rights is meant to protect us against.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The second amendment is arguable. Depending on how you interpret it, it may or may not have been intended to apply to random people having weapons for their own personal protection. Therefore, it is at least possible to argue that the mere existence of police departments, national guard units, and the military are well-regulated militias, and that nobody outside of those organizations has a right to bear arms. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that interpretation, but it is at least possib
Re: (Score:1)
You and the post ahead of you are both wronger than wrong on the subject of "interpreting" the Second Amendment. There's no "may or may not" about it because the founders actually wrote down what they meant when they wrote the thing. Lots of times. Go read some of them.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
It's kind of hard to do that if you don't have any, or if you have to get permission from the people you'd rather not have in power to do so, huh?
George Mason, another of the people who actually wrote the Constitutio
Re: (Score:2)
First, I'm not anti-gun. I am, however in favor of limited regulation of firearms to ensure public safety. Second, I'm well aware of everything you just said. However, to play devil's advocate once again, none of those things precludes a fully anti-gun interpretation. Here's why:
Mason's statements indicate what he considered the militia at the time, because the entire people were (at least to some degree) responsible for securing the nascent nation against its enemies. One could reasonably argue that,
Re: (Score:2)
Your whole argument is BS. The 1th is not that you have the unlimited power to say whatever you feel like, and that your government cannot make laws restricting you to say whatever you want. The 1th is about political speech and freedom of religion. The 1th does not give you the right to incite hate speech or incite any form of crime or cause any form of harm. Your rights ends when they infringe on other people rights, and the government is elected to ensure the rights of all.
This sort of thing is exactly what the Bill of Rights is meant to protect us against.
You would be correct if the NSL
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe English is just not my first language.
Re: (Score:2)
Read the First Amendment. Their are four specific statements there: freedom of speech, freedom of the press, having no established (i.e., government-favored) religion, and the right to assemble peaceably and petition the government. You could construe the last to mean that assembling for non-political purposes is not a Constitutional right, but that government-petition thing clearly does not apply to anything earlier in the Amendment.
I do have the Constitutional right to hate speech. I can say that s
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on the situation. What you certainly do not have is unlimited free speech.
Brandenburg v. Ohio "The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force, or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."
And further, Justice Frank Murphy "There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment o
Re: (Score:1)
You may well be punished for the injuries caused by the resulting *panic* if there was no such fire, though.
Nonsense. Punishing someone because other people took harmful courses of action in response to your speech is the same as punishing someone for their speech. You cannot separate the two. It's an unconstitutional restriction upon free speech.
Re: (Score:1)
Replace "First" with "Second", and your statement is still perfectly valid.
No, it's not the same thing at all. The 2nd specifies that it applies to a well regulated militia, so it doesn't actually apply literally to gun control, the question is if control violates the intent of it. The 1st, on the other hand, has the qualification of "congress shall make no law..." So any law granting authority for NSLs violates the constitution. In same cases the argument is made that something other than congress passing a law violates the intent of the 1st, but in the case of NSLs, the FBI uses various laws passed by congress as it's rationale, therefore any portions of those laws that do grant the FBI authority for NSLs is unconstitutional whether the 1st is taken literally or on its intent. Of course, that just applies to the disclosure portion. The purpose of the NSL is to force a search and/or seizure without a warrant, which is in direct violation of the 4th amendment.
Nowhere in the text of either the 1st or 4th amendments does it specify exceptions for suspected terrorism. This sort of thing is exactly what the Bill of Rights is meant to protect us against.
WRONG!! You're reading it wrong.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The text of the amendment is a comma separated list of things that cannot be infringed. It should be read as: "These things shall not be infringed; A well regulated militia (necessary to the security of the state) and the right of the people to keep and bear arms." That comma between the "well regulated militia" portion of t
Re: (Score:1)
Fairly sure the Oath was to defend the Corporations.
Spelling mistake (Re:DOJ Oaths) (Score:3)
Re:DOJ Oaths (Score:4, Interesting)
"Feds reviewing DEA policy of counterfeiting Facebook profiles" (Oct 9 2014)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
"Twitter says gag on surveillance scope is illegal “prior restraint”" (Oct 8 2014)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
US says it can hack into foreign-based servers without warrants (Oct 8 2014)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]
It seems the NSL aspect is just one aspect a very complex, hidden way of getting and using data for later use in the US legal system.
In the past other surveillance programs like FAIRVIEW, OAKSTAR, RAMPART-A and WINDSTOP could bring in the data locally, globally via friendly nations and tame trusted big brands.
The NSL seems to just fit in between a global sorting and direct use in the US legal system.
It really depends how this plays out. Will the classic GCHQ view of not going to court so people feel like nothing telco related is going on?
Or the new US idea that surveillance is now of such a global reach and low cost that US courts can know and and will have to just understand "collect it all"?
The keys to a server and all users over time are now in play even if its just for legally finding one user for one case.
Once your servers are part of a case, who can legally say that case has stopped? Weeks, months, years of no crypto and all logs. All very legal now? Soon?
Re: (Score:2)
How about adding loss of PERSON to that list. As in execution - the time-honored punishment for those who have committed treason. I certainly can't think of many acts more treasonous than the very people entrusted with the power and authority to enforce the law at the highest levels actively undermining the constitution they have sworn to defend.
Re: (Score:2)
Treason is providing aid and comfort to an enemy, generally held to be some sort of military enemy. It requires either a confession or more than one witness to the same overt act for conviction.
Look, if we're defending the Constitution, let's defend the whole thing. I'm not all that fond of the Second Amendment, but you're not going to find me advocating what I see as unconstitutional gun control laws.
Re: (Score:2)
I would classify anyone undermining the very constitution that grants them any sort of legitimacy to be an enemy, wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't these guys have to take an oath to defend the Constitution?
Its time to add teeth to Oath Violations. Loss of job, loss of pension, jail time.
To argue that some silly law or court ruling overrides the First Amendment should be a criminal offense.
Nobody is arguing that some "silly law or court ruling overrides the First Amendment." The court rulings define what does and doesn't fall afoul of the First Amendment. The First Amendment's speech protections aren't universal (i.e. libel, incitement to violence), and they aren't specific to all cases, so the Constitution has to be interpreted, and the courts, for better or for worse, have to handle that.
Re: (Score:2)
>Didn't these guys have to take an oath to defend the Constitution?
I'm always amazed how Americans treat the Constitution like some kind of sacred text and then argue constantly about angels and pinheads.
If you're looking to distinguish between right and wrong, a religiously fundamental obsession with scripture is going to get you nowhere - it's better suited to defending the indefensible.
Even if some bewigged and berobed supreme priest deems it constitutional, it's still wrong - and that's what matters.
Re: (Score:1)
Not likely. SCOTUS never misses a chance to bitchslap the 9th. And deservedly so.
Re: (Score:3)
All Judges (Score:5, Funny)
Crazy as it seems, all the judges were sent letters prohibiting them from taking this case due to National Security.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Crazy as it seems, all the judges were sent letters prohibiting them from taking this case due to National Security.
No, they're allowed to take the case --- but they MUST paste the text that has been provided to them into their ruling and adopt the text as their ruling on the matter.
Re: (Score:2)
I find that very hard to believe. Could you please provide a link supporting that allegation?
For anyone else scratching their heads (Score:2)
Re:Balance of power (Score:4, Informative)
Sometimes it takes years/decades for power abuse to get curtailed (here's hoping...), but it seems this checks and balance thing can eventually grind through major issues like this. Not great, not perfect, glacially slow but it seems to be working...
So how would we know? Since it's all going on in secret, with severe punishments for anyone who speaks openly and truthfully about what they've been ordered to do, the only assumption that the proverbial "reasonable man" (or woman? ;-) would make is that we have no idea what they're planning to do to us next. This story could all be just "theater" to lead us to think that things are improving.
As long as the question "How would we know" is illegal for the participants to answer, we should simply assume the worst. We have a lot of history telling us what powerful leaders are likely to be doing to their own population when they enforce secrecy about their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
This. That's why the first amendment is by far the most important aspect of American law, and that's why any laws that abridge it in a broad manner (as NSL gag orders do), no matter the perceived need, must be struck down. There can be no freedom without the true transparency enshrined in our highest law, and without the people having the courage to demand that such transparency be defe
DONATE (Score:5, Insightful)
https://eff.org/ [eff.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Like they haven't been warned by the Clinton Administration demanding the even worse kind of backdoor [wikipedia.org] — they have...
Laugh.. (Score:2)
The same Supreme Court that brought us Citizens United? We are proper fucked now.
Re: (Score:2)
The objection to Citizens United is that it too TOO broad a view of the First Amendment, by granting First Amendment protections to speech that opponents of the decision didn't think should get those protections.
Re: (Score:1)
Super PACs
I hope SCOTUS will defend the constitution (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe I am too much of an idealist (and give my country too much benefit of the doubt), but if SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) does its job, this madness (NSL's) will be stifled.
After, the American system is built on the assumption that one or two branches will attempt to subvert liberty, and that the other will reign them in.
In this case the executive and legislative have run amock and believe themselves capable of handling essentially limitless power. NSLs are an excellent example, we want in
Re:I hope SCOTUS will defend the constitution (Score:4, Funny)
I hope SCOTUS will defend the constitution
Eh, why start now?
Re: (Score:3)
But no jail time for the criminals (Score:2)
As always, no matter how non-obvious or convoluted the law, a regular person would face jail time if what they did were found to be illegal. And for government officials, they will merely be told "from now on, you may no longer do that".
Re: (Score:1)
Governmental officials are subject to the same criminal and civil laws as anyone else. But some have immunity to prosecution while they hold office.
The NSA hold no such immunity, legally speaking. Practically speaking, they have permanent immunity because they know all the dirt on all the politicians, so no politician dare cause them problems unless they don't mind ending up in jail or losing the next election. Hence the NSA are caught lying to congress and face no consequences, are caught spying on congress and face no consequences, are caught spying on the American public and everyone else, and face no consequences. And it's not because congress does
Supreme Court (Score:3)
The the supreme court will decline ruling on it, and nothing will change.
Re: (Score:2)
The the supreme court will decline ruling on it, and nothing will change.
No, they'll rule.
The supreme court almost always makes the correct ruling... weather you and I agree with it or not. Citzens united, for example, was the correct ruling... even as unpopular as it was. Freedom does have its price after all. But SCOTUS are very slow to rule. They wait to take cases during the "right time" or when public opinion moves in the right direction. They are aware that if they rule on something that's currently very unpopular, they could cause a public backlash that would lead to even
Re: (Score:3)
Citizens United was not the correct ruling. Bribes are not a protected form of speech, and large campaign contributions made by an individual or a small group of individuals (remember that in a corporation, a small number of board members have near total autonomy in such decisions) are indistinguishable from bribes. And even if bribes were a constitutionally protected form of speech, it would still be entirely reasonable for government to limit the manner of that speech—requiring corporations to sp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem is that what the CU decision effectively made legal were attack ads that mention a candidate by name, paid for by third parties. Although they are effectively in-kind contributions to the campaign, they aren't subject to any of the contribution limits that would normally apply to contributions, because they aren't actually given to the campaign.
In effect, the CU decision allows for unbounded campaign contributions in the form of advertising dollars from
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If your facts were correct, I'd agree with you, but they aren't:
Re: (Score:2)
Obama Administration (Score:5, Insightful)
In 2008 a pair of "New Black Panters" members were arrested for intimidating voters in Philadelphia. In due time they were sued by Bushitler's Department of Justice, which was about to win the case [wikipedia.org]. Obama's Department of Justice, however, allowed the men to avoid any punishment.
I'm bringing this up to preempt any attempt to defend Obama DoJ current actions defending "Security Letters" by their "having to" defend a law. They don't have to. When they didn't feel like it, they dropped the ball and let several thugs walk free and unscathed. Today they do feel like it, they want to have this law and are earnestly defending it.
They may even win, but even if they lose, it will not be for lack of trying. Oh, and they want to keep a backdoor [slashdot.org] for themselves in your personal electronics too. Remember that if ever you have a difficulty deciding on who to vote for — a promise, that Democrats will improve your civil liberties, will be a lie.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the practice will be illegal anyway. But it always has been, and we see that no one really pays attention to that pesky "legality" question, so what'll probably happen is that it will get a new window dressing, be secret, and no one will be the wiser.
Oh, it'll still be illegal, but that's what gag orders are for.
Re: (Score:1)
Any promise by Republicrats is a lie. Didn't generations of Bushes and Clinton and Obama Hussein Barracks teach you anything???
Re: (Score:3)
No, the government wants it's power because The People don't want theirs. When an exiting president gives a speech [youtube.com] indicating trou
Unfortunately... (Score:2)
And once at the Supreme Court... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)