Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: The Guardian and Glenn Greenwald Do it Again....Top Secret FISA Court Documents Revealed (627 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The administration is really in a catch-22... (20+ / 0-)

    situation right now. This drip, drip drip coming from Snowden, Greenwald and the Guardian is making them out as liars. But if they just come completely clean they're admitting that they drastically overreached.

    The latter is probably the most difficult for them to do. But it's the right thing. It would rip the metaphorical band-aid off the wound and eventually allow the air to heal it -- through new legislation and judicial processes that will rein in these programs.

    But the former allows the already gaping wound to fester and metastasize, spreading infection unchecked to all three branches of our government, mortally eroding the trust of the People. (what there is left of it anyway)

    "Anyone with an aquarium knows that if you change the temperature and chemistry of the water, you're asking for trouble... big trouble." -- Oceanographer David Gallo

    by markthshark on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 03:33:44 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No, THE ADMIN did not 'overreach'. It continued pr (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tony Situ, ybruti, mikidee

      ograms started under Bush and specifically authorized under the law by the means the law required, the FISA orders.

      I and you may think it should have stepped back and asked if this law was sufficient protection and if it should push to the limit of the judge's rulings, but that is not illegal, unconstitutional or 'overreach'.  It is what law enforcement does every day in every case.

      The only obvious problem with how they interpreted the rules revealed by these orders is the presumption of foreign source/partcipant.  I know why they argue for that - its their claim they can't segregate traffic just bc it uses US carriers, which is true as far as it goes - but that it akin to presuming 'reasonable suspicion', which you are not supposed to be able to do.  Still, they got a court to sign off on that, so it is legal.

      Everything else is a logical, indeed logically necessary extension, of existing prinicples in 4th A law, e.g. the displacement of 'probable cause' by 'reasonable suspicion', the allowance of seizure of the latter only and then investigation to determine if there is probable cause, the retention of all information acquired thusly (regular cops don't even have to purge the info, usually the best you can hope for is might be able to sue to get a coourt to order that if your state has a statute creating such a right).

      This is not an 'Obama scandal' or 'lie'.  It is, however, good cause to change the damn statute - starting with no more secret laws or court rulings (with necessary redactions).

      OTOH, it appears that it no long matters that the problem is the law and instead it is now all cult of personalty.

      ::sigh::

      •  We DON'T know the actual constitutional... (20+ / 0-)

        validity of this so-called law because the executive branch has been blocking access to the courts since its inception, claiming no one has 'standing' because they couldn't know they were being surveilled. But the only reason they can't know they're being surveilled is because of 'national security'. It's an untenable position. And a bogus justification.

        I and you may think it should have stepped back and asked if this law was sufficient protection and if it should push to the limit of the judge's rulings, but that is not illegal, unconstitutional or 'overreach'.
        And if we don't know if it's constitutional then we don't know if it's legal.

        Since the leaks, it's going to be harder for the government and subsequently the courts to claim litigants don't have standing.

        We'll find out if it's legal. But it's premature to say it is right now.

        That's the beauty in what Snowden did.

        "Anyone with an aquarium knows that if you change the temperature and chemistry of the water, you're asking for trouble... big trouble." -- Oceanographer David Gallo

        by markthshark on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 05:01:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, the COURTS have been blocking it, specifically (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tony Situ, No one gets out alive

          SCOTUS.  The executive can only make the argument.  The court is the one who accepts it or not.  And, like any law enforcement agent, the DOJ is using every available argument.  It's what they are supposed to do in an adversarial judicial system.

          We know that the did what the statute said and the court which has jurisdiction (which Congress decides under Art III) signed off on it.  That means it is putatively constitutional.  

          Now, it may be that later on it may be determined that part of the statute in some particular application (bc 'on its face' claims are pretty much dead, and besides its almost certainly constitutional under the incredibly low bar for that, i.e., it rationally relates a legitimate government purpose of preventing terrorism and other mayhem) but that will not mean its illegal, unconstitutional, 'overreach' or a scandal.

          It means that if we don't like this, we must change the law so the courts now traditional lax 4th A principles do NOT apply here and exactly what principles we wish do apply.

          •  SCOTUS hasn't been blocking lawsuits... (5+ / 0-)

            The D.C. Court of Appeals has been blocking access to SCOTUS. You know, the court made up of exclusively Bush-appointed hacks who took the Bush regime's argument wholesale with no respect to due deliberation or fairness at all? And the same appeals court buying the same bogus argument wholesale from the Obama administration.

            No, the COURTS have been blocking it, specifically (0+ / 0-)

            SCOTUS.

            Of course, technically it's the courts and not the administration. But if the courts are acting solely on behalf of the executive branch... well, you know what I'm saying. It's a corrupt process. And by definition that means it's illegal.

            In any case, these suits never reach the SCOTUS.

            But that may change now.

            "Anyone with an aquarium knows that if you change the temperature and chemistry of the water, you're asking for trouble... big trouble." -- Oceanographer David Gallo

            by markthshark on Thu Jun 20, 2013 at 05:40:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Jewel v NSA is still pending - (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JVolvo, markthshark

            it survived a standing challenge (9th Circuit reversed district court dismissal based on standing). The federal government is trying to have it dismissed under the state secrets privilege - but as of today it's still pending.

            IOW, these issues are continuing to make their way through the courts - that's how it's done.

            Out with the gloomage - in with the plumage!

            by mikidee on Fri Jun 21, 2013 at 08:28:03 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site