Secret Courts

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10143520-38.html?tag=nl.e433

I have a big problem with secret courts and this article doesn't make me feel much better about the government.

The Constitution is now just a memory.

Mirage wrote:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10143520-38.html?tag=nl.e433

I have a big problem with secret courts and this article doesn't make me feel much better about the government.

from your link
The U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review concluded that as long as the executive branch has "several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts."
The case arose because an unnamed telecommunications company believed that a now-lapsed surveillance law was unconstitutional and challenged it in the secret court.

This court exists only for wiretapping international calls and emails for national security. The government is trying to prevent another terrorist attack like 9/11. I think our government should do everything in it's power to protect us. This is a very dangerous world we live in. Isn't the reason that we form governments in the first to provide safety for it's citizens? Don't we have a constitutional right to expect the federal government to do whatever it takes to prevent terrorist attacks? I do make international calls and have no problem with the calls being tapped if it can prevent future attacks.

If you notice in the article, it tells you two very important details;
first, the court has been around for at least 20 years

Quote :

That's because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court typically hears only from one side--lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice--and appeals happen only when the requests are denied. More than two decades went by without any appeals taking place

and second, they are talking about overseas phone communications

Quote :

other providers to open their networks to federal snoops hoping to listen in on international communications.

This isn't new, or even news; the only odd thing is they made the decision public.

Sparks, how dare you agree with me!

I really hate to bring this up but you know the Nazis used to claim national security when holding some of their secret courts too. It is too easy to justify setting aside the rules "for our own good."

But that's the point, it's not "setting aside the rules." The purpose of the court is so that when our intelligence agencies, which have a duty to protect us, are conducting activities overseas and run into a situation that might conflict with the law have somewhere to go for an opinion and ruling that won't be on the front page of the paper tommorrow.
It doesn't say how often the court has ruled against the agencies, only that not appeals had been filed in 20 years.

Mirage wrote:

I really hate to bring this up but you know the Nazis used to claim national security when holding some of their secret courts too. It is too easy to justify setting aside the rules "for our own good."

But keep in mind, a lot of the gitmo trials have been postponed because lawyers for them have been asking for the evidance that the secret courts gathered, and the govt refuses to give it up

Thats why the Govt dropped its case against the supposed dirty bomber, because his lawyers wanted access to the witness that gave testimony to those secret courts, and the Govt did not want to allow it, even federal courts ruled they need to have that access

mike3775 wrote:

Mirage wrote:

I really hate to bring this up but you know the Nazis used to claim national security when holding some of their secret courts too. It is too easy to justify setting aside the rules "for our own good."

But keep in mind, a lot of the gitmo trials have been postponed because lawyers for them have been asking for the evidance that the secret courts gathered, and the govt refuses to give it up

Thats why the Govt dropped its case against the supposed dirty bomber, because his lawyers wanted access to the witness that gave testimony to those secret courts, and the Govt did not want to allow it, even federal courts ruled they need to have that access

Exactly. And how is it ever right to keep someone locked up for 7 years without ever being charged? Obviously we believe these are probably bad guys. Yet even a serial killer deserves his day in court, even if we may disagree on what happens after that trial.

I agree, I always thought the evidence against the dirty bomber was suspicious at best, and the Govt proved me right

Obama said he would try them all in Federal court, so lets see if he upholds that, or whether he will CHANGE his mind yet again

Bill B wrote:

Sparks, how dare you agree with me!

I simply read Mirage's link and really could not understand his objection to it. Since he is dragging the Nazi's into this debate, I am starting to think he just skimmed the article without really understanding the issues involved.

It was really more all the other articles I have read that seem to distrust that it is always just foreign nationals being spied upon.

sparks wrote:

Bill B wrote:

Sparks, how dare you agree with me!

I simply read Mirage's link and really could not understand his objection to it. Since he is dragging the Nazi's into this debate, I am starting to think he just skimmed the article without really understanding the issues involved.

Sparks, you really believe that the Govt does not spy on its own?

I guarantee they are. If J Edgar Hoover could do it for over 40 years as FBI director(and start a file on every person born while he was in charge) and get away with it, why am I to believe it still does not happen?

I bet if I filed a FOI request with the FBI for any files with my name on them, I would be denied

Tiger1 wrote:

The Constitution is now just a memory.

Tiger1 our Constitution has been a memory since shortly after 9/11- Tha Patriot Act

Face wrote:

Tiger1 wrote:

The Constitution is now just a memory.

Tiger1 our Constitution has been a memory since shortly after 9/11- Tha Patriot Act

That started the downward spiral, and it has not quite reached the bottom, as yet, but it is close.

You know, the article wasn't talking about the gitmo tribunals or trials against suspected terrorists, or even about people in custody.
It was about FISA courts which only deal with intelligence gathering when foreign operations overlap into domestic areas.
IMO the prisoners at Gitmo should never have been taken from Afghanistan, but they are there and they are under military, not civilian, juristiction; therefore military tribunals are the correct method of dealing with most of them.

Bill B wrote:

You know, the article wasn't talking about the gitmo tribunals or trials against suspected terrorists, or even about people in custody.
It was about FISA courts which only deal with intelligence gathering when foreign operations overlap into domestic areas.
IMO the prisoners at Gitmo should never have been taken from Afghanistan, but they are there and they are under military, not civilian, juristiction; therefore military tribunals are the correct method of dealing with most of them.

Not exactly true Bill, a judge just ordered the 14 or 15 year old that was placed in Gitmo released, not a military Judge. (of course the 14 or 15 year old is now in his 20's) So yes a civillian Judge does seems to have a certian amount of juristiction.

They should have been released to the gov't of the country where they were captured for whatever punishment they wish to mete out.

tater wrote:

They should have been released to the gov't of the country where they were captured for whatever punishment they wish to mete out.

Lets ask the USS Cole bombers how well they are treated by the local courts. Oh yeah you can't, because they escaped with help from jail guards