Change and hope!
Apr. 9th, 2009 08:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
birdwatcherEFF -- Friday evening, in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, the Obama Administration's made two deeply troubling arguments.
First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.
Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.
This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.
First, they argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence.
Sad as that is, it's the Department Of Justice's second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.
This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 02:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 02:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 02:33 am (UTC)менять придёццо многое:
- создать концлагеря для мирных граждан, а не для кровожадных чюрок,
подобные жыдо-гулагу
- пострелять массу вооружонного народу, как тамбовских "кулаков"
no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 02:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 02:42 am (UTC):)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 02:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 02:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 03:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 03:04 am (UTC)тут ЖЖ, все - маршалы :)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 03:05 am (UTC)и в исходной статье слова пишутся не для аудитории ЖЖ.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 03:07 am (UTC)мы отучаемсо от слова "мы" :)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 03:13 am (UTC)Спасибо, предупредили.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 03:27 am (UTC)http://hojja-nusreddin.livejournal.com/2008660.html
:)
no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 04:08 am (UTC)The first one is strange, I do not quite understand what exactly is claimed: that the government should tell the court it is state secret or the government shares its information with the court which (the court) then decides if it is state secret? I think I could live with the latter if further arbitration is possible and if there is a time limit after which the case automatically reopens or something like that. It is dangerous but so is opening some of the state secrets.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 04:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 04:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-10 05:03 am (UTC)