Guardian Journalist's Partner Detained Over NSA Issue

[bleeding heart]

Well, a nice attempt at intimidation...so much for "terrorism security"...they used "terrorism" to question him about something else entirely.

According to a document published by the UK government about Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, "fewer than 3 people in every 10,000 are examined as they pass through UK borders" (David was not entering the UK but only transiting through to Rio). Moreover, "most examinations, over 97%, last under an hour." An appendix to that document states that only .06% of all people detained are kept for more than 6 hours.

The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism. The detention power, claims the UK government, is used "to determine whether that person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."

But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing, as well the content of the electronic products he was carrying. They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

[cybercoma]

The Guardian was also threatened and forced to destroy hard drives that contained information they reported about Snowden.

[GostHacked]

Some heavy handedness going on here. Definitely trying to desperately covering things up.

[bleeding heart]

Well, lots of people have long been concerned that anti-terrorism laws and programs would be used for other purposes.

The detained journalist and the situation with the Guardian are two examples of exactly this.

[Shady]

I think the man detained was trying to transport classified information. So you'd expect him to be detained, which is reasonable. Asking the guardian to destroy hard drives isn't acceptable though.

[dre]

I think the man detained was trying to transport classified information. So you'd expect him to be detained, which is reasonable. Asking the guardian to destroy hard drives isn't acceptable though.

Violating the constitution and trying to hide the scope of data collection from FISA courts isnt acceptable either.

The three opinions include one from October 2011 by U.S. District Judge John Bates, who scolded government lawyers that the NSA had, for the third time in less than three years, belatedly acknowledged it was collecting more data than it was legally allowed to.

"NSA acquires valuable information through its upstream collection, but not without substantial intrusions on Fourth Amendment protected interests," Bates wrote

These scumbags should be put out to grass.

[Shady]

Violating the constitution and trying to hide the scope of data collection from FISA courts isnt acceptable either.

These scumbags should be put out to grass.

It's not unconstitutional until it's constitutionally challenged and found to be so. That doesn't mean somebody is allowed to transport classified materials. He deserved to be detained.

[Smallc]

It's not unconstitutional until it's constitutionally challenged and found to be so.

Ummm...sorry, but no. Either it's constitutional or it isn't. Being proven to be so is another thing entirely.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Smallc

[dre]

Ummm...sorry, but no. Either it's constitutional or it isn't. Being proven to be so is another thing entirely.

Regardless of whether its unconstitutional or not, this huge growth in surveillance and secrecy has no place in a free society. The ability to move about, and communicate in private without the state having the ability to monitor you is the very most important pillar of freedom in western society.

JFK said it pretty well...

The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.

John F. Kennedy

I think it was Kimmy that pointed out that government secrecy is now a large industry in the US than automobile manufacturing. Its amazing how an event like 911 can cause a society to attack itself. Its almost like these terrorists threw a piece of poisonous meat to our guard dog (the government), and in its confused and tortured stupor it has now turned on us.

Edited August 23, 2013 by dre

[dre]

Ummm...sorry, but no. Either it's constitutional or it isn't. Being proven to be so is another thing entirely.

I think that warrantless domestic wiretapping is a pretty clear violation of the fourth amendment. The courts have consistantly ruled against this type of broad surveillance, of people that the state has no probably cause to monitor.

But theres two major problems with attacking this treasonous, seditious and disgusting trend based on constitutional grounds....

1. Its almost impossible to demonstrate standing. In order for you to bring a case to the courts you have to prove that the government has in fact violated YOUR fourth amendment rights. But since the state keeps that information secret, nobody can do that. At least not without further leaks. No American can go into court and prove their emails were read, or their phonecalls were listened to. Challenges of this type have been rejected by the courts simply because the applicants could not prove they had the standing to bring the case, so the courts didnt even rule on the core legal question.

2. The remedy described by the constitution for fourth amendment violations is that evidence against you in court will be thrown out. Clearly the authors envisioned a scenario where the government was using warrantless wiretaps or illegal searches against a suspected criminal. The accused in that case can have that evidence thrown out and this happens quite often.

Basically the government and their lawyers have found a way to attack and trample on the rights of US cititzens in a way that makes it almost impossible for anyone to either seek a remedy through the courts, or even get a ruling on what the government is doing.

So a legal solution, unless this picture changes, is off the table. That leaves a political solution, and since half the citizenry are cowardly little authoritarian state power sycophants, that are actually cheering for the government to violate their rights, its hard for that to work either.

So I would wager that we will see a massive increase in scope of this activity over the next few years, and I think that before long the information will be used not to prevent terrorist attacks but to go after American citizens.

[cybercoma]

Ummm...sorry, but no. Either it's constitutional or it isn't. Being proven to be so is another thing entirely.

Ehhh.... not exactly. The reality falls somewhere between what you and Shady are arguing. Interpretation of the law changes over time. It's not so rigid that "either it's unconstitutional or not." Having said that, it's not so variable as to be entirely dependent upon the judges' decision. There's only so far they can go with their interpretation. They make their decision within the confines a particular political, social, and legal context.

[GostHacked]

Ehhh.... not exactly. The reality falls somewhere between what you and Shady are arguing. Interpretation of the law changes over time. It's not so rigid that "either it's unconstitutional or not." Having said that, it's not so variable as to be entirely dependent upon the judges' decision. There's only so far they can go with their interpretation. They make their decision within the confines a particular political, social, and legal context.

The law is or is not. It is constitutional or not. Interpretations are for corrupt lawyers and people who do not want to follow their own rules.

[cybercoma]

The law is or is not. It is constitutional or not. Interpretations are for corrupt lawyers and people who do not want to follow their own rules.

Well, I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand legal theory at all then.

[cybercoma]

Let me give you an obvious example. A city bylaw says, "No motorized vehicles in the park after dark." Someone with a disability in a motorized wheelchair goes through the park on the way home after dark. Are they breaking the law? There isn't a court in the country that would uphold that charge. Why? Because judges will interpret the intent and spirit of the law when looking at cases. Language is very limited in what and how it conveys things. So it is the job of judges and lawyers to interpret the meaning of laws. Lawyers will make their arguments about how they interpret the law and a judge will ultimately decide.

[GostHacked]

Well, I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand legal theory at all then.

Legal theory? Why have laws and stuff if they all can be interpreted in a way it was not meant to be? This is stupid and dangerous. And this is how the NSA got away with all this to begin with.

[Smallc]

Let me give you an obvious example. A city bylaw says, "No motorized vehicles in the park after dark." Someone with a disability in a motorized wheelchair goes through the park on the way home after dark. Are they breaking the law?

Well, yes. Interpretation is a different matter, and you go on to say that.

[GostHacked]

Let me give you an obvious example. A city bylaw says, "No motorized vehicles in the park after dark." Someone with a disability in a motorized wheelchair goes through the park on the way home after dark. Are they breaking the law? There isn't a court in the country that would uphold that charge. Why? Because judges will interpret the intent and spirit of the law when looking at cases. Language is very limited in what and how it conveys things. So it is the job of judges and lawyers to interpret the meaning of laws. Lawyers will make their arguments about how they interpret the law and a judge will ultimately decide.

What you indicate is selective enforcement of the law, not interpretation. If you need to interpret the law, then the laws were not worded right in the first place and the laws need to be changed. Loop holes and inconsistencies need to be addressed.

So the other factor is that these laws are so complicated there is no clear meaning of the law. So does that mean we need to continue interpreting it, or should that mean the law needs to be changed? If the latter, why had it not been done?

They know full well that this is unconstitutional. Should the constitution be interpreted too? Leaves a lot of wiggle room for those 'protecting' us. They obviously have played fast and lose with the constitution and laws, through many means. Executive Orders, signing statements, PATRIOT ACT, NDAA. The NDAA makes the claim that an American can be indefinitely detained without charge. CLEAR violation of the constitution.

[Shady]

Well, I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand legal theory at all then.

I hate to agree with cyber, but it seems a lot of people in here don't know the proper terminology to use, and how the legal system works.

[Shady]

Ummm...sorry, but no. Either it's constitutional or it isn't. Being proven to be so is another thing entirely.

Uh no. A law isn't unconstitutional until the Supreme Court finds it so.

[GostHacked]

Uh no. A law isn't unconstitutional until the Supreme Court finds it so.

If the supreme court finds a law unconstitutional, it was not ever so in the first place.

[Smallc]

If the supreme court finds a law unconstitutional, it was not ever so in the first place.

Exactly. It wasn't as if it was somehow magically constitutional until that point and then, poof.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Smallc

[Shady]

If the supreme court finds a law unconstitutional, it was not ever so in the first place.

Wrong again. Laws have been challenged, some are found to be constitutional, some aren't. There's a lot of interpretation. It's not always black and white. Justices disagree with each other. So do courts. Some supreme courts interpret things strictly, some less. You guys don't know what you're talking about.

[GostHacked]

Wrong again. Laws have been challenged, some are found to be constitutional, some aren't. There's a lot of interpretation. It's not always black and white. Justices disagree with each other. So do courts. Some supreme courts interpret things strictly, some less. You guys don't know what you're talking about.

So if it was found to be unconstitutional was the law ever constitutional to begin with? The simple and only answer is , NO.

[cybercoma]

What you indicate is selective enforcement of the law, not interpretation. If you need to interpret the law, then the laws were not worded right in the first place and the laws need to be changed. Loop holes and inconsistencies need to be addressed.

So the other factor is that these laws are so complicated there is no clear meaning of the law. So does that mean we need to continue interpreting it, or should that mean the law needs to be changed? If the latter, why had it not been done?

They know full well that this is unconstitutional. Should the constitution be interpreted too? Leaves a lot of wiggle room for those 'protecting' us. They obviously have played fast and lose with the constitution and laws, through many means. Executive Orders, signing statements, PATRIOT ACT, NDAA. The NDAA makes the claim that an American can be indefinitely detained without charge. CLEAR violation of the constitution.

You know I'm not talking about this case in particular. I agree with you. But it's the nature of language that things are ambiguous and can be taken different ways. Language is a complicated matter and something that seems obviously, may not necessarily be obvious. Especially when it comes to constitutional law, sometimes the courts have to determine what the "spirit" of law was. That's not to say they can just interpret things any damn way they please, ie, cat means dog. Sometimes laws are poorly written, like you said, but even when they're not poorly written, there's still most of the time room to interpret the spirit and intent of laws. Otherwise, what's the point of precedent? Our entire legal system is based on the interpretation of law, as opposed to a strict legal positivist notion that the law is exactly the words as they are written.

[dre]

You know I'm not talking about this case in particular. I agree with you. But it's the nature of language that things are ambiguous and can be taken different ways. Language is a complicated matter and something that seems obviously, may not necessarily be obvious. Especially when it comes to constitutional law, sometimes the courts have to determine what the "spirit" of law was. That's not to say they can just interpret things any damn way they please, ie, cat means dog. Sometimes laws are poorly written, like you said, but even when they're not poorly written, there's still most of the time room to interpret the spirit and intent of laws. Otherwise, what's the point of precedent? Our entire legal system is based on the interpretation of law, as opposed to a strict legal positivist notion that the law is exactly the words as they are written.

This is why the courts should review legislation BEFORE it becomes law, to make sure that its properly written, clear, and constitutional... Instead of allowing unconstitutional laws to be on the books and forcing some citizen that falls victim to it, to bring a case post-hoc at their own cost.

Edited August 23, 2013 by dre