SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A federal appeals court in New York will hear oral argument on Tuesday in the ACLU's lawsuit fighting for the public's right to know the legal justifications for government spying.
The Freedom of Information Act suit seeks the release of secret memos written by government lawyers that provided the foundation for the warrantless surveillance of Americans' international communications. In essence, these memos serve as the law that governs the executive branch. By withholding them, the government is flouting a core principle of democratic society: The law must be public.
The memos cover the government's legal interpretations of Executive Order 12333 [(EO 12333)], which was issued by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. It's the primary authority under which the NSA [(National Security Agency)] conducts surveillance, and it encompasses an array of warrantless, high-tech spying programs. While much of this spying occurs outside the United States and is ostensibly directed at foreigners, it nonetheless vacuums up vast quantities of Americans' communications. That's because in today's interconnected world, communications are frequently sent, routed, or stored abroad — where they may be collected, often in bulk, in the course of the NSA's spying activities.
For example, the NSA has relied on EO 12333 to collect nearly 5 billion records per day on the locations of cell phones, as well as hundreds of millions of contact lists and address books from email and messaging accounts. It also intercepted private data from Google and Yahoo user accounts as that information traveled between those companies' data centers located abroad.
Related: DOJ Made Secret Arguments to Break Crypto, Now ACLU Wants to Make Them Public
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @03:14PM (1 child)
There are no secret courts of law in the United States. Article 1 is clear about that. Which is to say, if the law has to be adjudicated ONLY in secret, then the court adjudicating it is a secret court, and therefore not a court with jurisdiction within the United States. Which is to say that the FISA court may hold court on their favourite color of cafateria jello, but not on any matters that result in law enforcement. And any citations therefrom derived, hold about as much jurisdiction as a handfull of piss.
Not that they don't operate this way, but they do so unlawfully. And if their execution of these methods, they impose a loss on a citizen, it is a crime. If they want to change that, they can pass an amendment. There is a procedure in place for doing what they want to do. They aren't following that procedure. A court that doesn't observe its own rules is betraying it's oath, and by doing so forfeiting its jurisdiction.
You can't swear an oath to the law, and break that oath as part of your SOP, and call both yourself and the law legitimate. Well, you can, King George did. Lots of dictators do. Fortunately the founders wrote a procedure for that too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 05 2018, @05:34PM
yes, this is how local and county courts act around the country too. they hear cases extra-judiciously (via illegal laws) and the "officials "are so brainwashed and ignorant they don't even believe when you explain it to them, or they know, but don't care. when you explain it to the cops they don't care either as they already know they are just hired guns who do what they are told. courts and their henchmen are criminals and traitors and should be dealt with accordingly.