The federal courts begin to act on classification issues

"A US judge has ordered the FBI to stop its "pervasive" use of National Security letters to snoop on phone and email records, ruling Friday that the widespread tactic was unconstitutional. The order issued by US District Court Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco came as a blow to a measure heavily used by the administration of President Barack Obama in the name of battling terrorism "  globalpost

********************************

"Garland rejected an effort by the Obama administration to keep secret any aspect of the C.I.A.’s interest in the use of drone strikes to kill terrorism suspects abroad. It does not necessarily mean the contents of any of those records will ever be made public, and it stopped short of ordering the government to acknowledge publicly that the C.I.A. actually uses drones to carry out “targeted killings” against specific terrorism suspects or groups of unknown people who appear to be militants in places like tribal Pakistan. The Obama administration continues to treat that fact as a classified secret, though it has been widely reported."  NY Times

----------------------------------------

There has been a consistent pattern in which  federal judges have been willing to uncritically accept the Executive Branch's arguments with regarding to classification issues regarding evidence.

It often seems that any argument at all from the Justice Department will suffice in most courts.  This different.  pl  

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130315/fbi-snooping-tactic-ruled-unconstitutional

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/16/us/court-says-cia-must-yield-some-data-on-drones.html?_r=0

 

 

Comments

[William R. Cumming]

And for various reasons, often legal technicalities, almost zilch from SCOTUS on classification and the courts.

[Bill H]

IMHO, these issues will go to the Supreme Court, which will rule in the government's favor.

[William R. Cumming]

Actually the authority for official secrecy not mentioned in the Constitution but IMO certainly an implied power by inference at least until the National Security Act of 1947 became law. Again IMO that statute exclusively empowers the President and his/her delegees to classify.

The real question perhaps is why is more information classified annually now than at the height of the Cold War?

[Alba Etie]

I was always more afraid of CheneyBush/ObamaBiden assault on my civil liberties then ever I was al Qaida .

[Charles I]

Is this really a push back against the snooping itself rather than the over-classifying covering up of it, or merely a classification issue whereas the snooping itself is fine?

That'd be progress on form but not substance to me.

[turcopolier]

Charles I

For me this is an issue of defendants not being able to prepare an adequate defense because the government hides the evidence. pl

[William R. Cumming]

PL! You are correct in that the Classified Information Procedures Act was designed to benefit the Courts to accurately assess pre-trial the claims of defendents that they could not present a defense without accessing classified materials and the Prosecution's claims that no classified material was suitable to give the defense a case. It was a reform in 1978 but has not worked out as either defense, prosecution or the judiciary quite anticipated.

I long advocated to the Criminal Division of DoJ and the NSC staff that the definition of "sabotage" in the US Code could be updated and deal with much of modern espionage as well as the virtual world and not just physical attacks. Last enacted in 1917 to deal with domestic attacks on shipping.

Modern supply line attacks could be devastating witness the Fukishima event and the Thai flooding that impacted domestic production even though starting as natural events but revealing of how "just in Time" supply lines have created new vulnerabilities.

[Charles I]

thanks