DOJ Trying To Hide Secret Interpretations Of The Law Because You'd All DIE!!!!
from the secret-laws dept
It's kind of sad that anyone could possibly think that it's okay for the government to have secret interpretations of the law in a free and open society. "The law" is more than just the legislation itself, but the collection of caselaw and interpretations, combined with the legislation, that make up the overall "law." If some of those interpretations are kept secret, then how can the public obey the law? The answer is that they can't -- which is why secret interpretations shouldn't be allowed. The Justice Department, however, prefers to keep some things secret, and it's asking the court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the EFF seeking to find out how the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is interpreting parts of the FISA Amendments Act, after it was revealed (late on a Friday) that the court found at least one situation in which the feds collected info in violation of the 4th Amendment.The EFF figured the public should know the details. The DOJ on the other hand... would rather the public stay in the dark. The DOJ actually suggests that merely revealing the fact that they got slapped down by the FISC provides enough "balance."
Last summer, in an effort to strike the right balance between government transparency and the protection of critical intelligence activities, the government declassified four statements concerning its activities pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) Amendments Act of 2008. Not content with that disclosure, Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF” or “Plaintiff”) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request seeking additional information related to two of the declassified statements, specifically, that on at least one occasion the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (“FISC”) “held that some collection carried out pursuant to the Section 702 minimization procedures used by the government was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” and that “on at least one occasion the FISA Court has reached th[e ] conclusion” that “the government’s implementation of Section 702 of FISA has sometimes circumvented the spirit of the law.”And thus, we should be satisfied with that and want no more. Also, you don't want to know what kind of hell would break loose if the DOJ had to reveal how the law was actually interpreted. I mean, we'd all die or something very close to it, judging by the DOJ's language.
The government has determined that disclosure of the information withheld from Plaintiff could result in exceptionally grave and serious damage to the national security. Plaintiff obviously cannot contend otherwise. The Court accordingly should defer to the government’s determination in this case, uphold the Department’s withholdings, and grant this motion.Basically, we've determined that you're all better off not knowing this information, and you should trust us because it's not like we have any incentives to lie (though, of course, we do). Also: boo!
Thankfully, more people are realizing just how ridiculous this is. The Washington Post has put out an editorial slamming the DOJ for its position:
Yet, as the amicus brief points out, the OLC’s opinions aren’t some intermediary step toward establishing the final legal interpretations for the executive branch. In general, they are the final legal interpretations for the executive branch. The FBI could choose to exercise the authority that the OLC said it had — or not — but Congress, the judiciary and the public at large all deserve to know what the executive branch thinks it can do, once it issues a conclusive opinion.In other words, it's not right that the government can determine its own secret interpretations of the law, and it's time for the courts to put a stop to this.
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: doj, fisa, fisc, secret laws, spying, surveillance
Companies: eff
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Fixed.
I'm glad the scare tactics are getting worn out. It's like the boy that cries wolf when there is none and when the wolf come nobody will help him. When there's a real threat people will not believe the Govt anymore...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wonder if John Steele will have a shoe-in job when Judge Wright finally gets through with him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think they got it wrong
Even if the government determines something would seriously damage national security, it would seriously damage this countries morals not to.
This is supposed to be a country "of the people, by the people, and for the people". In other words if you are doing harm to "the people" or their rights, you're doing more to damage the country than explaining how you interpret the law ever could.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I think they got it wrong
Read through the Federalist Papers sometime, especially #10... the only minority the Framers were seriously interested in protecting were the ownership class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What REALLY bothers me is the line right after the "grave danger" sentence, "Plaintiff obviously cannot contend otherwise." What!? How is that at all obvious? I would say that the government MUST explain how it interprets the laws of the land, and NOT doing so may lead to grave and serious danger, and maybe terrorism and cyber-bulling. Government OBVIOUSLY cannot contend otherwise. If the argument works in any given direction, then it is a terrible argument.
Imagine if Prenda and Co saw this filing before their latest hearing with Judge Wright. Instead of pleading the fifth, they could have just said that answering any questions could lead to grave and serious danger and the judge obviously cannot contend otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance of the law
Rule of law is important, but first the rules must be reasonable and known.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance of the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Ignorance of the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorance of the law
Nah, they'll convict you anyway. If you're lucky, they'll show your lawyer the evidence against you (but you won't be allowed to see it because it's classified).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take my chances
Chance of dying from government having secret laws: very high, eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, they have jurisdiction by the authority of force, but so does North Korea. So do territories run by radical warlords. So did the Soviet Union. What makes a democratic court fair and reasonable is only by the confidence of the people.
Since the Dotcom affair it become more and more evident that the court system doesn't serve justice. It serves money and power. It opposes anything that is deemed subversive by money and power, whether crime is committed or not.
And the consequence of this is that anyone and everyone processed by the DoJ are now political victims. Those in prisons are political prisoners, whether their crimes were politically motivated, or committed atrocities for pleasure.
This is a consequence of not having a working justice system: the state can't tell criminals from crazies from the counter-culturists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In the 70's we would have called it a Police State.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Situations like this are verifying what history has already taught us: open and frank discussions that are kept in confidence tend not to be good for the public, since the confidence is more necessary for keeping up appearances than they are for actually promoting beneficial policy.
And since Law Enforcement seems to be more interested in power than service, it might serve us to take away their surveillance privileges for a while, since they seem to using it less about actually stopping crime than they are for chilling counter-cultures and other activities subversive to the mainstream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remember (seems like ancient history already) when Prendaa started to act funny after someone pointed out a few goofy looking documents leading up to their recent pleading the 5th in civil court. Since the DJ basically starts out with the 5th it does not look good from here. Its scary when government itself seems skewed.
Not having to worry about secret laws and courts was one of the founding reasons for a short easy to understand document like the Constitution. Government is fast becoming a myth. Good government is a joke. Now we have to worry about secret government interpretations? Expect an increase in high blood pressure/hypertension prescriptions.
Its possible such an interpretation is some kind of post rationalization attempt to justify earlier transgressions and if it worked? Keep up the good bad work?
If the interpretation was planned specifically to violate personal rights (whatever the seemingly patriotic rational) it would be best to ferret out the source and administer red slips.
The public at large does not seem up to neutering bad government practice atm. To point out the obvious as long as there are only two parties in the mind of the average voter... nothing major will change. Business as usual. (the two parties wont change unless they have a rival worth worrying about)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Secret Interpretations? Okay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Secret Interpretations? Okay.
But secret interpretations are typically used to justify unpopular or even heinous action by the state. One example is the clandestine interpretation of the Geneva Conventions by the Bush administration to interpret organized partisans instead as spies (unlawful combatants), and in denial of due wartime protections subjecting them to enhanced interrogation.
To engage in an applied Godwinism, Secret interpretation of the law is a tool that could allow for a free nation like ours to consider another final solution to the Jewish question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]