US says gov't, not court, should judge spy secrets

[Eugene]

US says gov't, not court, should judge spy secrets
Thu May 25, 2006 2:01am ET

By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The United States government, not any court, is the best judge
of whether to keep programs such as its controversial effort to eavesdrop on citizens
a secret, an assistant attorney general said on Wednesday.

Peter Keisler, an assistant attorney general, and other U.S. officials made the claim
in the latest filing to a lawsuit alleging that telecommunications firm AT&T illegall
allowed the government to monitor phone conversations and e-mail communications.

"In cases such as this one, where the national security of the United States is implicated,
it is well established that the executive branch is best positioned to judge the potential
effects of disclosure of sensitive information on the nation's security," they wrote
in a filing on Wednesday evening.

"Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that courts are ill-equipped as an
institution to judge harm to national security."

<snip>

Full article: http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-05-25T060114Z_01_N24330476_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-ATT.xml

Alternate headline: Leave spy judgements to government: officials - Boston Globe

[The_Warmth]

1. Uhhh....

Aren't the courts PART of the United States Government, or did I fail my government class?

[lindisfarne]

12. BushCo has changed the semantics on "government" - the government

consists of checks and balances, but now, "government" doesn't include the legislative or judicial branches. Just the executive branch, which will check and balance itself.

[rodeodance]

16. Recommend.

[kestrel91316]

24. I guess you didn't get the memo where Bush unilaterally threw out the

Constitution...................

What courts?

[w4rma]

2. BushCo just wants to be able to manipulate information for political

purposes. If they have to explain to a judge (even one appointed by Bush) then he runs the risk that the judge might actually decide to do his/her job when there is a pattern of politically manipulated information.

It would appear to me that BushCo's definition of "national security secret" is a secret that might harm the political appearance of Bush rather than a secret that might actually harm the lives of American citizens.

Those evil bastards are doing everything they can to keep hold of their power.

And then I find this in the GDP:
"Bush-hatred a threat to national security"
by Morton Kondracke
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_3853550
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2645362

[sandnsea]

3. So tell the FCC they need to investigate

I don't agree with this, but if they want the government to decide, then they better tell the FCC to get with it.

Get The Spies OFF The Line
http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/

Sign the ACLU Petition to the FCC
https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=DTT_FCC_letter

[pezdespencer]

4. Don't Be Fooled

The government they are referring to Is the executive branch W is "The Decider" Remember and it should be up to "The decider" if this is legal jeez guys after 5.5 years you cant read between the lines

[Kagemusha]

5. Unfortunately the courts are poorly equipped. The problem is,

Congress isn't doing its part. That's where the system is breaking down the worst. The courts cannot be expected to deconstruct national security in civil trials.

[LeighAnn]

6. I ain't got no business with no warrant

Who needs the courts? They just get in dubya's way :thumbsdown:

[annabanana]

7. read: "George says George gets to decide what George

is allowed to do."

Big surprise there.

[lindisfarne]

11. He's the Decider. n/t

[DemoTex]

8. Trust us.

Really.

[teryang]

9. The courts interpret the 4th Amendment

This is one of those propaganda psywar Rovian frame the issue for bizzaro world dumb ass no one went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public headlines.

That said, I have zero confidence in the Court's application of the 4th Amendment to anything. They have been gutting it for decades. According to the "gubmint" we basically have no rights.

[lindisfarne]

10. Let's just do away with checks and balances and crown * Mad King George.

[NashVegas]

13. Unmittigated Arrogance

Is going to be their downfall.

[rodeodance]

14. In other words, this 'gov' does not want ANY oversight. [and I wonder if

Congress will roll over and say yes??--OK George whatever you say]?

[jarab]

15. If all their arguments are this weak, then ... eom

...O...

[rodeodance]

18. the gov tossed in 'nat. security'-the trump card--so not so sure it is

'weak'. those words work so well for them.

[jarab]

19. Correct. It has worked exceedingly well for them, hasn't it? n/t

...O...

[rodeodance]

17. WH wants the suit dismissed and court will dicide June 23.

from boston globe link in IP

......The privacy rights group Electronic Frontier Foundation says the program allows the government to eavesdrop on phone calls and read e-mails of millions of Americans without obtaining warrants. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would order the government to stop the program.

President George W. Bush has acknowledged a domestic spying program under which the National Security Agency, without court warrants, has listened to international calls and monitored e-mails by U.S. citizens if one party was thought to be linked to terrorism.

The U.S. government is asking a federal court in San Francisco to dismiss the case. The judge will review the motion on June 23.

U.S. officials are asking federal Judge Vaughn Walker to review classified materials they say bolster their case that U.S. national security is at stake. Under that proposal, the plaintiffs would not have access to those materials and thus could not directly argue against them.

"The Court should consider the materials submitted by the United States in support of its assertion of the state secrets privilege in order to fully understand and avoid the dangers that would result from any such litigation," the filing said.

[rpannier]

20. How about the public...the people...American Citizens???

This may sound radical, but...can we have a say?

edited for spelling

[Hosnon]

21. I agree with this. The judiciary is not equipped to make such decisions.nt

[suziedemocrat]

22. That's like having a murderer decide if it was justified self-defense.

That's like having a tax-cheat decide if he paid enough taxes.

That's like having a rapist decide if she was asking for it.

Why have trials at all anymore - it would save so much money to just have the accused tell us if he/she committed a crime.

[ThomCat]

25. Exactly,

and Bush is fine with that, so long as he's the criminal making the judgements.

[izzybeans]

23. Since when is the court not a part of the government?

[ThomCat]

26. The courts better smack this down Hard.

Just the idea that the administrative branch gets to determine the legality of their own programs should be causing rioting in the streets.

[bear425]

27. As evidenced by their 2000 Bush v Gore decision...

"Indeed, the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that courts are ill-equipped as an
institution to judge harm to national security."

[Az_lefty]

28. Government knows best....

the RW would have flipped out if Clinton had tried this stunt.
:puke:

[coalition_unwilling]

29. But a judge must first decide whether it is truly

a national security issue or whether it is violation of civil rights issue (or some combination thereof). Only after a determination has been made that it is a national security issue can the executive step in to argue that national security might be harmed through discovery.

Just because BFEE says it is a "national security" issue doesn't necessarily make it so. Although I could see the Supreme Court ulitmately having to decide the issue and, given 2000 and events since, I really don't see them backing the plaintiffs against the executive branch. Of course, one or more new "smoking guns" (like the Watergate tapes) and that dynamic could change.

[underpants]

30. Of course but this is a DoJ that yesterday also took up the spin...

for Hastert (The ABC story).

It is ALL politics with these yahoos it always has been.

:kick: this is an incredible story released in the middle of the night.

[Pachamama]

31. I guess its official: There is only 1 Branch of Gov't - The Executive

The courts don't matter and the congress don't matter....its all what the President and "his" gov't says is okay....

Be afraid....be very afraid..... :scared:

[superconnected]

32. The dictator want's to get rid of the balance of power.

Typical of dictators.

Luckily he isn't going to retain the "president" title much longer.

If he wants to be dictator then let him try.

America is good at over throwing dictators.

Machiavelli beautifully points out why a dictator succeeding is impossible when faced with a country full of people that believe in democracy. This failure can't do it. He has only survived this far on the will of the people. After that's gone Ape brain isn't smart enough, and neither is his dad, to know how fast he will be gone.