General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGovernment Fights to Keep Court Opinions on NSA Spying Hidden From Public
Last month, we asked the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courtknown as the FISCto publish its legal opinions allowing the government to track the phone calls of essentially all Americans. Those secret opinions are critical to the ongoing debate about the NSAs surveillance powers, but, perhaps even more importantly, they are the authoritative legal interpretations of a public law. Like the law itself, those opinions should be public. Given that fact, we were disappointed when, on July 5, the government opposed our request, arguing that the public is not entitled to read the FISCs opinions.
Think about that for a minute. Our government believes that opinions of a federal court deciding what a controversial federal law actually means and whether sweeping surveillance conducted under that law is constitutional should be secret. And were not just talking about keeping secret the names of the governments surveillance targets. The governments filing was clear: The public doesnt have the right to read even the FISCs legal analysis.
Here is how we countered the governments argument in the reply brief we filed late on Friday:
The First Amendment guarantees the public a qualified right of access to those opinions, because judicial opinions interpreting constitutional and statutory limits on governmental authorities including those relevant to foreign-intelligence surveillancehave always been available for inspection by the public and because their release is so manifestly fundamental in a democracy committed to the rule of law.
The governments contrary viewthat legal opinions of an Article III court controlling the constitutional rights of millions of Americans may forever be denied to the public, even if any legitimate interest in secrecy has expired or can be accommodatedis wrong. Indeed, if the government succeeds in depriving the public of the tools necessary to understand the laws passed by its elected officials, it will have eroded the foundations of our democracy. The governments theory affects more than the publics right to this Courts opinions; its reasoning would likewise deny the public a right of access to the opinions of courts sitting in review of those opinions, whether issued by the Court of Review or even the Supreme Court of the United States. That result would defeat democratic oversight and undermine public confidence in our legal institutions.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/government-fights-keep-court-opinions-nsa-spying-hidden-public
questionseverything
(9,662 posts)The First Amendment guarantees the public a qualified right of access to those opinions, because judicial opinions interpreting constitutional and statutory limits on governmental authorities including those relevant to foreign-intelligence surveillancehave always been available for inspection by the public and because their release is so manifestly fundamental in a democracy committed to the rule of law.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)The essence of this argument is whether we're following the law or we're trusting the Executive Branch to make it up as we go along.
I think some of the people defending the Administration don't get the ramifications of that. Abandoning rule of law in favor of "trust" is the road to Hell.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It will be...it is a big lie...I have noticed that even the media has not touched that turd.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth