Feds: Even Though We've Been Ordered To Reveal Secret Interpretation Of The PATRIOT Act, We're Not Going To Do That
from the secret-laws! dept
You may recall that, back in early September, the FISA Court (FISC) agreed that its various rulings that secretly interpreted Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act to mean something entirely different than any plain language reading of the law implies should be declassified. Here's what the court said at the time:The unauthorized disclosure in June 2013 of a Section 215 order, and government statements in response to that disclosure, have engendered considerable public interest and debate about Section 215. Publication of FISC opinions relating to this provision would contribute to an informed debate. Congressional amici emphasize the value of public information and debate in representing their constituents and discharging their legislative responsibilities. Publication would also assure citizens of the integrity of this Court's proceedings.It then instructed the DOJ to figure out what to redact, so it could be declassified and released. Except... the DOJ instead fought that order, and while it did find some documents that meet the criteria -- namely a ruling from February of this year -- the DOJ is now telling the FISA Court that despite the order, it would really prefer to keep that interpretation of the law a complete secret. Actually, it goes further than that. It doesn't ask for permission to keep it secret, it just says that it cannot reveal the interpretation.
In addition, publication with only limited redactions may now be feasible, given the extent of the government's recent public disclosures about how Section 215 is implemented. Indeed, the government advises that a declassification review process is already underway.
In view of these circumstances, and as an exercise of discretion, the Court has determined that it is appropriate to take steps toward publication of any Section 215 Opinions that are not subject to the ongoing FOIA litigation, without reaching the merits of the asserted right of public access under the First Amendment.
After careful review of the Opinion by senior intelligence officials and the U.S. Department of Justice, the Executive Branch has determined that the Opinion should be withheld in full and a public version of the Opinion cannot be provided.Got that? This secret court interpretation of a law that we all live under, which the court itself has ordered to be revealed, is unlikely to be revealed because the intelligence community really, really doesn't want it revealed. Again, this is not about so-called "sources and methods." This is entirely about understanding how a US court interprets a US law. But that interpretation is secret, meaning that the law itself is secret, and apparently the executive branch of the federal government is going to fight to keep it that way.
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: bulk collection, doj, fisa court, fisc, metadata, patriot act, section 215, surveillance
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Put them all in prison.
Do it before we have another PAX situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.popehat.com/2013/11/17/alabama-court-roger-shuler-continue-to-thwart-roger-shulers-fi rst-amendment-rights/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How interesting - Ronald J. Riley is involved in that story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remind again why the NSA and the DoJ thinks that their opinion is more important than the rights of the American People? I thought it's the role of the government to look after our interests. It's not the job of government to take it upon themselves to ignore court orders, to spy on the American People and to violate our constitutional rights.
I think that this country is heading toward a time when the people are going to say "enough is enough" and simply overthrow the idiots who are giving our country a black eye.
[ 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 ]
Poo
Yet another example of Obama's Secret Government where all documents, as to their true operation, must be kept top secret, where even their existence is redacted, so that the US public is blissfully unaware of how many times they break and abuse the law.
Not that Obama created this system where he is just the willing new King sitting on this throne of turds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...GITMO
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1. The claim is that those being held there are not US Citizens or people in the United States and therefore are not protected by the laws (including the Constitution) of the United States.
2. That is a military detention during a time of war rather than incarceration as a result of a criminal prosecution. Military detentions during war time don't have the due process rules that would force you to release captured enemy combatants without a trial that could easily go back to fighting against your country.
If the premise was that they were US citizens arrested for crimes against US law, due process would be required. Habeous corpus is supposed to remedy issues where due process is violated. This is not to say that I agree that should be allowed to continue as is or even that there should be accountability for much of what has happened there. There should be. However for those held there habeous corpus really doesn't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Point 1: The US Constitution does not "protect" people, citizens or otherwise, directly. It restricts what the US government can do. In some cases, those restrictions are lower when it comes to behavior toward non-US people, but not in all cases. It's easy to tell which is which because it says so outright in the Constitution.
Point 2: We are not at war, so this is not a "time of war", so there is no part of that claim which is actually applicable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And for point 2, as John said we're not at war, and even if you want to claim we are at war that's just as problematic, because it would be a war with no clear enemy and certainly no obvious end date. It's a war against no one in particular that could go on for generations, and that cannot be a legitimate reason to detain someone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The U.S. Government just gave the FISA court justices and the court system in general the finger.
The U.S. Government is basically saying we wan't to have blanket authority to do what we will and we will not reveal our methods or the reasons behind them, even if we are told to do so in a court of law.
The Government and it's Justice Department along with the Intelligence agencies have run amok and seem to be beyond control of anyone and seem to answer to no one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberty as we have known it has been gone, and has been for longer than we realize.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publish anyway
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Publish anyway
But do you really think the cowards would?
Never.
This is probably the scariest bit of everything in this whole NSA debacle so far. The Executive Branch is ignoring a Judicial order? And nothing will be done? What kind of a precedent is that going to set?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liberty died...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liberty died...
It's still egregious and wrong, but not of the sort that might cause you to go to jail accidentally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Liberty died...
the whole thing is so bizarre, it makes me shake my head in open-mouthed wonder: SECRET laws ? SECRET interpretations ? ? SECRET judges ? ? ? SECRET trials ? ? ? ? SECRET prisons ? ? ? ? ?
cue gil scott heron:
And now it's winter
Winter in America
And all of the healers done been killed or sent away
Yeah, and the people know, people know
It's winter
Winter in America
And ain't nobody fighting
Cause nobody knows what to save
And ain't nobody fighting
Cause nobody knows, nobody knows
And ain't nobody fighting
Cause nobody knows what to save
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need a list
I think we need to start a centralized site that can list the pertinent information on anyone who is damaging the U.S.
Whether it lists people in power who have dumped on the citizens, to the name on a badge of a TSA agent or border guard who goes too far, we need to start accounting for who is responsible for this crap.
A central site where a photo of a bad actor could be put up and others could comment on it with name/address/etc... to supply additional information on them. The personal info could be hidden from general view till needed.
A central database of information on all those who seek to harm us could do wonders a few years down the road when the end comes for these monsters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need a list
Barack Hussein Obama II
Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.
Eric Himpton Holder, Jr.
George Walker Bush
Richard Bruce Cheney
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need a list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: We need a list
but still, the Koch bros. only have so much influence, while it's a lot, they still can't order the DoD to do something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need a list
But seriously, what should we do? We can comment about decapitated heads, but does anyone really want to go that far? The historical outcomes of armed revolts aren't that good -- the odds of ending up with something better than we have no are not high. But is there any way to make real progress, to have real reform, within the current political and economic framework? Or to overthrow it without civil war?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need a list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need a list
I don�t think that�d go over too well with a lot of people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need a list
More like a "Traitors List", I'd think.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need a list
The good die young, immortality is reserved for the greatest of Cheneys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: We need a list
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need a list
Simply list everyone currently holding office in the USA and then, as they each seperately, or in groups, come forward with information about their fellow politicians' crimes, their names are removed from the list.
In the place of their names, a "smiley" should link to the disclosed information they brought to the table.
Make this list publicly known and readily available online and make sure it is heavily archived, as it will be cyber-bombed regularly by the NSA, CIA, and FBI, as well as by most of the high tech american and international corporations that currently run the USFed as a public relations and funding agency.
My thinking is that, if you're a member of government and are not exposing the criminal activity of your fellow politicians, then you too are guilty, whether you personally have committed crimes against the american people or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and some people still say that there is nothing wrong with the way the USA is being run? and some still say that the President is in control of all the various levels and departments of government? you must be out of your tree!!
it also shows that, i bet, even if the funding was removed from the NSA, there would be a 're-arranging' of funding so that all, including the NSA were able to carry on ,even if no one else in government knew it or approved it! is this country fucked up or just fucked? either one dont look good to me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"...which the court itself has ordered to be revealed..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The order was weak
They did exactly what was ordered, and answered that it's all redacted and they will release none of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The next logical step
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The next logical step
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
At this point
I just want them to stop doing it (even if their secret reason was a good one)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whatever happened to .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whatever happened to .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Whatever happened to .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Whatever happened to .....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Constitution? Wassat?
I was under the impression it was kinda naughty to say "Fuck off" when told to do something by the judicial branch?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah - and $5 gets you a nice latte at Starjunk
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treason
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States."
But given that the sovereign of the United States is its people, something could probably be constructed. Especially, declaring a US citizen "enemy combatant" would actually make you a traitor, since you wage war against him, and thus the US. Even if you are the government (The right way to do it would be trying him as a traitor, of course; but NOT as "enemy combatant").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Letter of the Law
Well of course it is going to fight to keep it that way.
To allow the public to know how the fed uses the law to spy on the public, is in effect, aiding and abetting the enemy - of the fed.
That of course, is the fed's new secret interpretation of "treason" - giving aid or comfort to the non-wealthy public.
Let's face it. The only people that US law protects today, are criminals. You want to be protected by the laws of the land, you must join the ranks of the crooks, but you have to steal a bundle of cash first to prove you're worthy.
Reminds me of the way the wealthy ran the dark ages.
They gave the peasants a choice:
Join the ranks of the castled soldiers and get fed and housed in return for looting and torturing peasants, or remain a peasant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tyranny
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is a link to a an article by Sheldon Wolin which everyone should read it:
A Kind of Fascism Is Replacing Our Democracy
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0718-07.htm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So we have a Constitutional crisis?
SCOTUS is the final arbiter. Lower courts have their decisions overturned frequently enough. What happened with that? Is this a Constitutional crisis moment? Nothing suggests that it is anything remotely like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]