DOJ Says Public Has No Right To Know About The Secret Laws The Feds Use To Spy On Us

from the what,-you-want-to-know-that-stuff? dept

Mon, Jul 8th 2013 10:20am — Mike Masnick

So, we were just discussing the insanity of the FISA court (FISC) basically acting as a shadow Supreme Court, making broad rulings in total secrecy that have created a secret body of law that the public is not allowed to know about. Given increasing revelations about these shadow laws, the ACLU and other public interest groups are trying, yet again, to get access to some of these key rulings. All along, they've been extremely careful to note that they're not asking FISC to reveal specific foreign intelligence issues, operations or targets: merely the parts of the rulings that identify what the law is -- i.e., how it's being interpreted by the courts. Because that seems rather fundamental to a functioning democracy.

However, as you might expect, the Justice Department has now hit back with a new filing that says, flat out, the public has no right to know what the secret court is ruling on and how it's codifying secret laws. The argument is, basically, that because FISC rulings have almost always been secret, then it's perfectly reasonable that they're secret. In other words, it's perfectly legal for secret laws to remain secret, because they're secret. Later it also argues that actually revealing the law would be (oooooooh, scary!) dangerous.

Let's make this simple: yes, revealing specific details of various surveillance efforts and targets could create security issues, no doubt. But revealing how a United States' law is interpreted can never by itself create a national security issue. And that's all that's being asked of here. The DOJ is being incredibly dishonest and disingenuous in conflating the two issues, arguing that because the FISC deals with intelligence operations, that its rulings on the interpretation of the law must also be secret. But that's wrong. You can reveal the basic interpretation of the law without revealing the specific intelligence efforts and methods. The only reason to keep the interpretation of the law a secret is because it'll be a huge embarrassment and show widespread abuse.

152378942 US Opposes ACLU at FISA Court (PDF)152378942 US Opposes ACLU at FISA Court (Text)

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, fisa court, fisc, nsa, secret laws, surveillance

70 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 9:09am

"The only reason to keep the interpretation of the law a secret is because it'll be a huge embarrassment and show widespread abuse."

No. The only reason to keep it secret is so that the secret police can stay secret. That way when people "disappear" there can't be any questions asked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheCraiggers, 9 Jul 2013 @ 4:11am
  
  Re:
  Um, that would be the abuse he was referring to.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:36am

Justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity or fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection before the law of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, or other characteristics, and is further regarded as being inclusive of social justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

I guess they are using a secret interpretation of Justice now as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:45am
  
  Re:
  That misses stateing explicitly the the most important right, the one to hold political views that differ from those held by the establishment, and to work in a peaceful fashion to change the political system. This is what is most under threat from a surveillance state.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Lionex, 8 Jul 2013 @ 5:10pm
  
  Re: Nationality
  FISAA discriminates against people because of their nationality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:47am

I know the secret interpretation.
"The Fourth Amendment is null and void upon mention of 'terrorism.'"

You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 2:30pm
  
  Re: I know the secret interpretation.
  Public safety, terrorism, the children... all excuses used to throw out the constitution when it is found to be inconvenient.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:48am

pants on fire
The ACLU has no standing to bring such a motion because it was not a party to any relevant opinion

LIARS! If anyone at the ACLU has a Verizon Business account, then they are very much a party to a relevant opinion.
I'm pretty sure that there are ACLU members that have been incidentally scooped up or directly targeted in other FISA cases as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:25am
  
  Re: pants on fire
  Maybe the DOJ feels that parties are not parties if they are not invited to the party.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re: pants on fire
  They already have. I remember reading an article where (it was either ACLU or EFF, can't remember) they sued, saying "We're Verizon customers, it's been proven that Verizon customers are being spied upon, thus we do have standing".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 1:24pm
    
    Re: Re: pants on fire
    It's the ACLU. They had the lawsuit that was initially dismissed on the grounds that they didn't have standing because they couldn't provide any evidence that any of the alleged abuses affected them. Within a day of the leaks going public, they refiled their lawsuit.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:55am

Arrest that man, he broke the LAW!

What law? I was just standing here.

It's a Secret!

If its a secret then how do you know I broke the law?

Because I am the Law!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jordan (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:57am

Hey feds! I hear that if you have nothing to hide you don't mind not having secrets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 10:58am

Becuase Roberts says to not share?
Additionally, unlike the operations of any other court, the FISC's operations are governed "by ISA, by Court rule, and by statutorily mandated security procedures issued by the Chief Justice of the United States [which] [t]ogether . . . represent a comprehensive scheme for the safeguarding and handling of ISC proceedings and records."

I'd like to see these procedures that the Chief justice has issued.
Does Chief Justice Roberts have a public mailing address? I'd like to petition him to issue more open security procedures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:07am

Once the Presiding Judge has decided to direct publication of an opinion, the Court is empowered to "direct the Executive Branch to review the [opinion] and redact it as necessary to ensure that properly classified information is appropriately protected."

Ah... if it should so be that the court decides to grant the ACLU's request, the DOJ reserves the right to simply black the entire thing out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:19am

No judicial review of Classification
Indeed, as this Court has recognized, "if the FISC were to assume the role of independently making declassification and release decisions. . . there would be a real risk of harm to national security interests and ultimately to the FISA process itself." ... judges do not make classification decisions and are not intended to become national security experts." ... And, while they may have "more expertise in national security matters than a typical district court judge, that expertise [does] not equal that of the Executive Branch, which is constitutionally entrusted with protecting the national security." ... Thus, this Court has recognized that classification and declassification decisions are the province of the Executive Branch, and "there is no role for this Court independently to review, and potentially override, Executive Branch classification decisions."

The DOJ is honestly trying to claim that there is an executive responsibility that doesn't fall under judicial review?
Almost every court case out there deals with a situation where the court is not as 'expert' as the executive. Should the courts no longer be able to rule on suits against the EPA, and other matters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ockham's Stubble (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:20am

Interpretations of law and 'security issues'
Probably said somewhere in someone's briefs or whatever, but could a plausible reason for conflating the two (the law & the facts) be that, as part of interpreting the law, specific factual details of the cases where the law is being interpreted are cited? So the interpretational element of a FISC decision that defines the scope of the laws is intertwined with facts about a particular case that are claimed to be 'sensitive'?

(Now, if that's the case, I think we could at least get a redacted version, or a rewritten one that summarizes the resulting interpretation without the case details it was built from.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:20am

Does anyone remember the Imperial Presidency?
Because now we have the Inquisition to match.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rocket5 (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 6:07pm
  
  Re: Does anyone remember the Imperial Presidency?
  The Inquisition was always there. We just didn't know about it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:28am

Diverted into trying to find out what's secret.
This is futile pedantry, working as intended to waste time and diffuse outrage. -- You should instead be stating loudly and often that because these assertions of "law" are secret, it's null and void.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Arthur Treacher, 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:27pm
  
  Re: Diverted into trying to find out what's secret.
  Well, well, well.. for the first time ever, I wish you made sense. I think that "null and void" means something other than what you think it means, like "common law". And that renders what you've written into complete nonsense.
  
  Please try again, because I think you're on the verge of attaining comprehensibility.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re: Diverted into trying to find out what's secret.
  You do realise that that's the ultimate goal here? Step one is finding out what the secret rulings are, then showing to the world that these secret rulings are null and void.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 1:21pm
  
  Re: Diverted into trying to find out what's secret.
  "Loudly and often"...you should change your name.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rapnel, 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:49am

Pretty Simple
It would seem that if the DOJ insists that the public has no right to know about secret law than it has inadvertently positioned itself, the DOJ, as having no right to exist in any government founded upon the U.S. Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:51am

We do have the right to vote everything who thinks we don't have the right out of office though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:01pm
  
  Re:
  Sadly, we don't. They are appointees. The general public (scum) have no say in it. We can vote out the people who appointed them, but can't change the appointment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Malbin, 8 Jul 2013 @ 7:02pm
  
  Re: Except Chief Justice Roberts
  He was personally appointed by the guy who was in charge when this all began and was put into place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- comicjeenyus, 8 Jul 2013 @ 7:50pm
  
  Re:
  Except the judges in the FISC were chosen and put there by the Chief Justice, meaning they cannot be voted out, same as the Chief Justice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Real Michael, 9 Jul 2013 @ 6:22am
  
  Re:
  Says who? Vote out one incumbent and another will take his or her place so that the systematic dismantling of our liberties continues unabated. The duality between both political parties is an illusion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:51am

Oh I can think of another reason...
'The only reason to keep the interpretation of the law a secret is because it'll be a huge embarrassment and show widespread abuse.

If for example it came out that the 'interpretation' made it clear that the US citizenry were considered just as much a 'threat' to the government as any potential foreign terrorists, that might cause more than just some 'embarrassment' there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Kellen (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 11:53am

So... given that "ignorance is no excuse", we will be prosecuted to the full extent allowable under the secret interpretation of law made by the secret court in secret, which we had absolutely no way of knowing about?

Yes. This is doubleplusgood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RyanNerd (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:06pm
  
  Re:
  In addition to this secret crap there are so many laws that even the lawmakers themselves are not sure how many criminal laws there are.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bengie, 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:04pm

Laws
If people don't know what the laws are, then they can't purposefully plan to get "past" a law by a technicality. They can also make up laws as they go, as there is no way to prove that something is a law or not.

Now that people can be arrested and held indefinitely for no reason at all, I see no purpose of having laws in the first place. Why not just say, "don't piss off the government"?

No matter how good the intentions, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, assuming the NSA even has good intentions and isn't just up for a power grab.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:08pm

surely the most important point is how much has to happen, how much more needs to be taken away before the people wake up and realise that there are certain people taking away the very way of life that exists in the USA and other countries, all to benefit them only and to forward an agenda that only they seem to know and think they are the only ones that should know about but once it is achieved everyone should then just accept it and get on with being told what to do every second of every day. add in that the people are also expected to accept being constantly persecuted, constantly spied on and treated like they deserve nothing other than the bowl of gruel and cup of water each day, whilst doing whatever 'the masters' dictate! when a law enforcement agency states that the people shouldn't know how a law is being interpreted until they are being accuse under that law is not just ridiculous, it has to be in itself illegal! the police state is oh, so close people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:24pm

Is this the same Eric Holder that lied about issuing phone taps on journalists? Him and Clapper have zero credibility and every word the utter aloud is a LIE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iambinarymind (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:24pm

Their context of "dangerous"
The reason releasing the secret interpretation of the laws to the public would be dangerous is because it would reduce the amount of power that said secret interpretations provide the sociopathic politicians. It's dangerous for their individual means/ends, not for the people being spied on.

It's all in the definitions and context.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 1:12pm
  
  How do you figure?
  Essentially by giving our representatives, psychopathic, megalomanic or otherwise just antisocial, unlimited surveillance power (they already have the ability to send the swat team to your door) unchecked via any sort of public accountability, they can erase anyone they want for no reasons but their own.
  
  Hope your hot spouse doesn't catch their eye. And if he / she hits on you, better not turn down any advances.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 1:53pm
    
    Take away their power
    There is a way to take away (some of) their power. Encrypt everything!
    
    Until recently, that was difficult as the crypto-tools assumed that each person has an One-True-Identity. And by validating that identity you would establish trust in that identity. Both GPG and S/MIME take that for granted.
    
    Nowadays we can do better. With widely distributed anonymous identities, it's much easier to hide in the crowd. And it's easier than signing up with an email address and password.
    
    Check out http://eccentric-authentication.org/
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rdl, 8 Jul 2013 @ 12:52pm

I remember this from a movie
The US Government has in essence put the citizens of the "most free" country on double secret probation.
In college we called these secret rules "Winchesters" and used it to haze underclassmen. Our government is still just a frat house.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 1:39pm

WOW...
You could be on double secret probation and not even know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anzablazer, 8 Jul 2013 @ 2:18pm

All Obama has done is create a Fascist Police State. That Hitler would of been proud of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re:
  This isn't left or right, both sides are played against the middle to give us all the illusion of choice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 2:33pm
  
  Re:
  To be fair, Obama didn't create any of it. He's expanding it, but it was already in full steam before he even thought about running for office.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 3:02pm
    
    Stop making excuses, loser...
    He has the power to put a stop to it, but his corrupt "politician" nature has taken over and now he is THE WORST abuser of citizens' rights in the history of the US.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 3:36pm
      
      Re: Stop making excuses, loser...
      He does indeed have the power to stop it. However, he is a very, very far cry from being "the worst" abuser of citizens rights in the history of the US. I would argue that the worst abuses of citizens rights didn't even happen in his lifetime.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Wally (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 4:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Stop making excuses, loser...
        Color me wrong, but I think that the acting head of the IRS responsible for delaying non-profit status for conservative groups like the Salvation Army because they were a conservative group with the word "army" in the title of their banner. Obama appointed him. Obama may or may not be the worst abuser in US history but in modern day US, he's more corrupt than Richard Nixon was during the Watergate Scandal.
        
        Then there is his accuastion of Snowden being a computer hacker as he believed the word of the DOJ on that. He was responsible, could hae demanded things due to executive order, and he could have stopped it when he took office in late 2008.....he signed and expanded FISA in 2010 expanding upon the policy. PRISM was not spying on US citizens regardless of where they went in the world and only monitored those here on temporary visa before the FISA amendment in 2010...they simply included everyone.
        
        Now, he was a rperesentative for the city counsil of Chicago in the Illinois State Senate and was close to a former mayor who got busted for tax evasion before the Obama Campaign in 2008.
        
        I would say that this is a big problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Steve M, 8 Jul 2013 @ 5:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Stop making excuses, loser...
        Talk about ignorance. The head of the IRS when all this was taking place was appointed by Bush, not Obama. His name is Douglas Shulman, Google him.
        
        The man who was brought in front of congress was on the job for a matter of months and nothing more than a fall-man for conservatives on a political witch hunt.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2013 @ 1:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Stop making excuses, loser...
        Shulman, who donated $500 to the Democratic National Committee in 2004, was appointed IRS Commissioner by President Bush in March 2008 and resigned in November 2012. (Bush was being bi-partition.)
        
        During the 3 year and four month period beginning September 16, 2009 and ending January 31, 2013, Shulman visited the Obama White House almost twice as many times as any other current or former member of the Obama Cabinet.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 5:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Stop making excuses, loser...
        I'd like to hassle the IRS for their *lack* of persecution of so-called religious organisations, who contrary to their provision of tax-exempt status openly campaigned for one candidate over another during the recent Presidential election. Oh, that candidate they went for was Republican. Suddenly, a deathly silence on the conservative front.
        
        Can't have it both ways. Looks like the IRS is keeping things fair...
        
        Also, what about the stories they've been picking on organisations with 'Occupy' etc in their name?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 10:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Stop making excuses, loser...
        I don't think the IRS "scandal" is actually an example of corruption. I think it's an example of incompetence.
        
        he's more corrupt than Richard Nixon was during the Watergate Scandal.
        
        I disagree emphatically with this. I've seen nothing from the Obama administration that rises to that level of corruption. Not saying it doesn't exist, just that I've not seen it.
        
        I'm not saying that Obama is some kind of angel. He's a straight-up corporatist and acts as such. But we have to keep these things in perspective. The wrongs Obama has done (and continues to do) are bad, but not even in the top 10 of Bad Things Presidents Have Done in the 20th and 21st Centuries.
        
        Saying that isn't excusing Obama at all. It's just being realistic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
zerostar83 (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 4:58pm

Secret Works!
It's a very well-known fact that it's easier to convict people if they don't know the law or their rights! Smart move by the DOJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ron Sonntag, 8 Jul 2013 @ 5:24pm

Fascism at best!
This is how it begins and expands. Deny access to the very laws that provide the structure of our society. By doing so, these evil architects hope to continue to hide the scaffold of fascism in front of our open eyes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rocket5 (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 6:03pm

No right to know laws?
talk about rigging the game.

secret laws only help those with secret agendas.

period. full stop. end of story.

"we're spying on you because there's a law you have no right knowing about that says we can"

my guess is that if Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of the founding fathers were alive to hear that, they'd roll up their sleeves and say "We really don't think so. Time for you to go."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 7:22pm
  
  Re: No right to know laws?
  ...if Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and the rest of the founding fathers were alive to hear that, they'd roll up their sleeves and say "We really don't think so. Time for you to go.
  
  Come to think of it the Tree of Liberty is looking a touch dry and wilty.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimmy Z, 8 Jul 2013 @ 6:10pm

Where did our country go?
I was raised in the 60's. I have never before in my life felt as frustrated to be an American as I am now. I still love my country, deeply; but I'm very afraid of my government. They no longer represent the people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Howard (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 10:41am
  
  Re: Where did our country go?
  "I was raised in the 60's. I have never before in my life felt as frustrated to be an American as I am now. I still love my country, deeply; but I'm very afraid of my government. They no longer represent the people."
  
  I am not american and don't live in america. I grew up in the 60s too and I grew up to admire and believe in and respect america. I admired Kennedy and even Johnson, I admired the justice system and the people. I admired how the people and the press dealt with Nixon.
  
  But something happened when Clinton was President. The right wing element in american society abandoned justice, they abandoned civility, they abandoned most of that democracy means except for the voting part. Since then I have watched a country that is, and I do not think I am exaggerating here, falling apart from the inside. I have watched a political system self destruct and is now not fit for purpose, and a 'military complex' and intelligence machine that is so deeply ingrained into all of the tentacles of power that I fear there is no escape.
  As for not representing the people, I see it another way. I see a people who have abandoned their political system and handed it over to big business and big money.
  For the first time in my life I really feel it when I see americans say 'god bless america'. It really needs it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dean Collins, 8 Jul 2013 @ 6:56pm

USSA
lol and we laugh at China being communistic and overbearing.

FFS if this was another country we'd be slamming them.....instead this just feels like a bad dream I cant wake up from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 7:30pm

Fuck You
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2013 @ 7:43pm
  
  Re:
  Unfortunately, Surveillance upon the Pysche
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC, 8 Jul 2013 @ 7:51pm

Only one reason for the secrecy
They are engaged in treasonous conduct, and need to be held accountable - and not at some point in the future. This needs to end now.

The FISA courts have no legitimacy. Secret courts never do. Their rulings mean nothing, and count for nothing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gag-order me with a spoon, 8 Jul 2013 @ 9:18pm

what democracy?
So is this the point in history when we discover that by architecting our nation as a democratic republic, rather than as a democracy, we have successfully saved the government from the people but not vice versa, resulting in this great experiment being a failure?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 8 Jul 2013 @ 9:43pm
  
  Harbingers of the Republic's fall.
  "..We have successfully saved the government from the people but not vice versa, resulting in this great experiment being a failure?"
  
  If it fails, yes. But great experiments often fail. That's why they are experiments. This one was grand enough for nations across the globe to follow by their own volition in their own footsteps.
  
  But France is still France after a revolution. And Russia is still Russia even after it went Soviet for a century. For this experiment to fail, it will have to fragment into sovereign states and not rejoin for a while. Longer than our lifetimes.
  
  Maybe sheer determination to prevent the USA from failing is what will push us through this. But I doubt it. The elite love their money more than they love the United States, and they'll spend it all defending that love if they must.
  
  If we're lucky, we'll resolve this peacefully, yet long and hard is the road from perdition for our nation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FM Hilton, 9 Jul 2013 @ 2:58am

Secrecy of laws
The DOJ is probably trying to figure out how to hide as many laws as possible through the ordinary means, too.

After all, do most Americans know that there is a database for Federal court cases that can be accessed by anyone with an account?

It's called PACER, and you can get an account for free. Once you get one, you can look up nearly any case in it (if you have the correct information about it) and find out the details of that case, complete with filings, opinions and summaries for it.

http://www.pacer.gov/

You wouldn't that if you didn't need to, such as being involved in one.

Lawyers know about it, but I would guess by a long shot most ordinary citizens don't.

I bet the DOJ would like to roll that one back, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love the big O, 9 Jul 2013 @ 8:05am

That's because the DOJ is full of republicans.
They're still trying to cover up the Bush years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Howard (profile), 9 Jul 2013 @ 10:31am

Fear
The unfortunate truth is that the American people were essential frightened witless by the 11/9 attack on New York, and in response handed over every piece of liberty and freedom to the Government Security apparatus.

The Bush administration manipulated that fear and and rode it like a champion surfer, screwing every inch of advantage through the Patriot Act, and others.

Behind all of this fear is are bogus claims of "if it saves one life" and "we are at war".

This is what the security agencies use when they arm-lock every politicians and every congressman and every President - and what they sell to every gullible american too lazy to actually 'think'.

Politicians are easy meat on this, because they are scared witless that if they say no, and ONE person is killed, they will be blamed. AVOID ALL BLAME is the first principle of political life in the USA.

The people buy this nonsense because they are far too lazy to 'think'.

In a country of 300 Million people, Osama Bin Laden managed to frighten the hell out of them by killing less than 3,000 of them on one awful day. He failed to achieve any success before that or since. But that one attack has turned the US and it's people into shivering wrecks who have handed their lives over to the dark security agencies, lock stock and barrel.

Until Americans stand up and say NO. WE ARE NOT FRIGHTENED ... You can kill a few of us. You can kill tens or dozens of us. Do your best. But we will NOT abandon the principles we have fought for for hundreds of years!

Until that time comes, then Bin Laden has achieved the most stunning and comprehensive victory over America and everything it stood for, that has ever been achieved in history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lololol, 9 Jul 2013 @ 2:59pm

spying secrecy
Now weren't they insinuating a few years back that if you had nothing to hide then you had nothing to worry about? Hmmmm, if they aren't really covering anything up then shouldn't they be open with that info?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robyn, 9 Jul 2013 @ 4:52pm

This is some pretty circuitous logic
Under this logic the US should never be separate from England because we were once part of England; under this logic England should have never adopted a democracy because the King previously ruled with absolute power

Under this logic: Black people should never have the rights that white people have as this was the way it was when the US was created and by in large before that point.

Of course I think we can all agree this is fundamentally nonsense and circuitous logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nam Marine, 10 Jul 2013 @ 4:12pm

Treason!
The Department of "just-us"..........SMELLS !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2013 @ 4:19pm

We are all breaking this hidden law...Flee Reddit guys!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Robert Kriegar, 12 Jul 2013 @ 11:45pm

Revelation could be "dangerous"?
"Dangerous"

To whom? Politicians?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]