How Do You Prove You Were Warrantlessly Wiretapped If It's A Secret?
from the the-amazing-legal-obstacle-course dept
As we continue to debate the question of telco immunity, there's a separate, but related legal issue that's worth paying attention to as well: the question of who can actually sue about having their rights abused by supposedly warrantless wiretaps. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court ruled that various groups such as the ACLU couldn't sue because they had no "standing" (i.e., proof that they were impacted by the warrantless wiretaps). It's a bit convoluted when you think about it: there's no way to determine if illegal spying took place because the only way you could get the evidence would be to first prove you have the evidence that it took place. But if you think that's twisted, it gets even more bizarre.It turns out that in one related case, the government accidentally sent over proof that it used a warrantless wiretap to monitor a certain group. Thus, that group can actually show it has standing... sorta. One of the lawyers involved in pushing just such a lawsuit forward has a stunning tale explaining the amazing obstacle course he had to traverse to actually have this lawsuit move forward (and it's not over yet). Basically, the government claims the information in the document is still secret, even though it gave it out, and some of the details have been reported on the news (in business contexts once info is out, it's no longer secret -- apparently, not so with the government).
Where things get really bizarre, though, is in how the lawyers on this case can actually deal with this evidence it has. Basically, they had to destroy all copies they had of the evidence in question, and can sort of obliquely refer to it from memory in secret filings that are written under the watchful eye of the Justice Department, officially to make sure that the "classified info" remains classified. Even better, the lawyers had to respond to a secret filing from the Justice Department that the lawyers weren't even allowed to see. The case is far from over -- as the latest ruling basically set up another ridiculous tightrope for the lawyers to walk -- basically saying that they can't use the evidence in the document because it would prove their case. Instead, they first have to prove it without the document, and then if they do that, they can use the document (after it's basically no longer necessary). And there's all sorts of side amusements, such as reading about how the Justice Department tries to destroy the lawyer's computer to make sure there's no secret documents on there (it's like a scene from a bad comedy, where they discover that simply banging a hard drive on a table isn't an effective way to damage it). And, there's also the bit where the Justice Department refuses to let one lawyer take part in the drafting of the secret filing because they just don't like him.
This has gone way beyond protecting state secrets or providing security and protection to American Citizens. As you read the details, it's quite clear this is about doing whatever possible to hide what was almost certainly an illegal move by the administration. If telecom immunity is granted, then this particular case, Al Haramain v. Bush, would basically be the only case left that looks into the legality of warrantless wiretapping. Say what you want about the importance of protecting US citizens, the American Constitution set up a system of checks and balances for a very good reason: so no single group has enough power to make the rules itself. This whole thing shows how the executive branch is trying to guarantee there are no checks or balances on some of its activities. That's a very scary precedent and on that anyone -- no matter what your political persuasion -- should be against.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: al haramain, immunity, state secrets, warrantless, wiretaps
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Corporations = Outer Party
The rest of us = Proles
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is all I can think of when I read these posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Move to Canada
Our leaders are so high up Bush's ass that they can see Tony Blair's feet.
We live in interesting times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
clas is clas and unclas is unclas
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Standing
The one ray of hope I see is that in Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in al-Haramain v. Bush, he repeated uses the term "aggrieved persons". It is my hope that an aggrieved person is somehow a lesser burden of proof than standing.
For instance, given the evidence presented by Mark Klein in Hepting vs. ATT (that all information going over AT&T's WorldNet fibers is being copied into a room which only the NSA has access to), it should be reasonable to assume that anyone who transmits any bits over AT&T's fibers in San Francisco was illegally tapped. This should count as the necessary evidence for the lawyers for al-Haramain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporations = Outer Party
The rest of us = Proles
Yep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
194 days and counting...I can't wait until this administration is out of office so we can all (figuratively) hang them. This is exactly the kind of thing our representatives should be fighting AGAINST, not FOR.
Stupid telco money buying their votes...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA">Aaron Russo was right!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have to say it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why the Telco's?
Whats the Telco's role in all this?
Thank;
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why the Telco's?
The government asked them to provide direct access to various communications channels, without a warrant. The proper response from the telcos would be to point out that a warrant is needed.
Instead, they (with the exception of Qwest) provided the taps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what's the point?
Secondly, anyone over the age of 10 in this country knows the correct response to law enforcement's request top search (or tap) is "do you have a warrant?". No one is pointing out that teleco immunity WAS available to them - had they asked for and received a warrant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know I'm gonna get flamed but
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I know I'm gonna get flamed but
It's good to see you on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not just the current administration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
telco money buying votes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stunned after RTFA.
After stepping back a bit and reflecting, it has become apparent to me this situation, along with the TSA treating everyone like criminals, new laws having to be crafted for Telco Immunity and a host of other Orwellian developments during the last 8 years, are all symptomatic of what happens when a free people lack the collective courage to aggressively take on and destroy an external threat, enemy or evil.
Lacking that resolve and courage to confront and destroy the evil they face, they inevitably turn on each other, taking and surrendering their freedoms, thus ending up morphing into the very image of the dictatorial evil they feared in the first place.
Wake up fellow citizens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a matter of Time
then they'll be whinning: Why didn't someone do something ....Whaaa Whaaaa Wha. The End !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a matter of Time
He couldn't stop 9/11 despite blatant evidence it was going to happen. What was his initial reaction? The same thing he did throughout his entire life, hid like a little bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a matter of Time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secrecy
Military: We are planning an attack on the opposition.
Opposition: Attack first, or simply move elsewhere.
NSA: We are acquiring a warrant to tap a suspected terrorist's phone line.
Suspected Terrorist: Change plans to avoid NSA's tap.
If there were no secrets, then there would be no security.
Sure the government should admit when it was wrong, but it should not be forced to reveal secrets that could protect Americans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secrecy
Oh, and the FISC is a secret court so no one knows about the wiretaps. But I guess retroactive warrants from a secret court aren't good enough for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The outcome of these efforts are perverse
The outcome of these efforts are perverse. So in my opinion, the problems lies in the fact only the 'positive' side of family deterioration is on government's ability to collect tax revenue, and this in turn elevates jobs and employment above family activities, thusly family values and activities are moved to the negative side, while in the real world they can not be separated as core family values are necessary to maintain an economy based on integrity. When a government can know a child better than a parent (via warrantless tapping, scanning of emails, and obtaining school records and library records) this itself is extremely bad for long term integrity of a nation.
All this leads to a perverse incentive, and it seems to me that one should either include both (where obtained information is shared and maintained with legal guardians) or none of the efforts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shouldn't your title be "does the tree make sound when it falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it?"
or something along those lines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Orly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Orly
If you're too stupid to understand this, then you're getting the government you deserve -- the one we have now, the one that thinks you're stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not that anyone has anything to hide; it's that the government can start looking for things that are "unpopular" with them, even if those things are perfectly moral, ethical & legal. If you haven't read 1984, I think it is instructive on this issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]