|
|
Thursday, June 22nd, 2006
|
12:50p - Straight from the horse's mouth.
From http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004741.php
June 17, 2006
Late last night, the Government filed its reply brief, providing a last round of written briefing in advance of next week's hearing in our case against AT&T for collaborating with the Government's surveillance program. Finally the Administration has come out and flatly said what it has hinted at throughout its arguments: that the Program is above the law. The Government wrote that
" the court—even if it were to find unlawfulness upon in camera, ex parte review—could not then proceed to adjudicate the very question of awarding damages because to do so would confirm Plaintiffs’ allegations." (emphasis added)
Essentially the Government is saying that, even if the Judiciary found the wholesale surveillance program was illegal after reviewing secret evidence in chambers, the Court nevertheless would be powerless to proceed, because the Executive has asserted that the Program, which has been widely reported in every major news outlet, is nevertheless still such a secret that the Judiciary (a co-equal branch under the Constitution) cannot acknowledge its existence by ruling against it. In short, the Government asserts that AT&T and the Executive can break the laws crafted by Congress, and there is nothing the Judiciary can do about it.
We intend to vigorously oppose this radical assertion of power. Please consider donating to EFF and help stop the illegal spying.
Posted by Kurt Opsahl at 01:05 PM
----------------------------------
Well now. Ain't that some shit?
The executive branch is claiming to be outside the jurisdiction of the judicial branch.
So, now why exactly isn't there widespread open protests on the steps of every government building across this country?!?
----------------------------------
From http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060621-7101.html (slightly modified)
Thankfully, the Judge presiding over this case has issued a set of questions for both parties to consider. They're worth looking over, if only because they show that the judge is taking both sides of this debate seriously, and he doesn't sound likely to simply roll over and accept the government's claims without scrutiny.
Here's the best one:
How can confirming or denying the existence of the alleged surveillance program at issue here, or AT&T's alleged participation in that program, constitute disclosure of a state secret when the program has been so widely reported in the public sphere?
current mood:  outraged (1 comment |comment on this)
|
3:42p - Huh... Funny
http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=6274&pagtype=samechan
Looks like the former boss of the guy who was my boss when I was contracting with MS has left the company.
I'm kinda curious what spurred his leaving. While I was there, he was definitely one of the bigger pro-MS advocates.
current mood:  curious (comment on this)
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
wakko's journal