This story in the Guardian last year about a foiled plot to blow up a jet bound for the US included classified information. The Justice Department subpoenaed the records in order to find the source of the leak, but the AP is now arguing that the investigation is too broad and goes far beyond what is necessary to uncover that specific leak.
Its the latest conflict between a executive branch focus on national security and the secrecy alleged necessary to obtain it, and the media's effort to maintain press freedoms.
For background:
- Under sweeping subpoenas, Justice Department obtained AP phone records in leak investigation.
- Here’s the story the AP suspects led to sweeping Justice Dept. subpoena.
- Justice Dept. Defends Seizure of Phone Records.
- Leak Investigations Are an Assault on the Press, and on Democracy, Too.
- Spying on The Associated Press
Showing posts with label security policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label security policy. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Presidential advice prior to 9/11
An ongoing question since 9/11 has been why wasn't information about the attacks available? A commentator in the NYT argues that the CIA and the Defense Department had different positions on whether Bin Laden was an imminent threat. The CIA said yes, the Defense Department said no. The question became, who had the president's ear?
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Is the right to petition threatened?
The author of "Reclaiming the Petition Clause: Seditious Libel, ‘Offensive’ Protest, and the Right to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances" (info in Amazon) thinks so:
EVERY four years, we witness the spectacle of the presidential nominating conventions. And every four years, host cities, party leaders and police officials devise ever more creative ways of distancing protesters from the politicians, delegates and journalists attending these stage-managed affairs.
The goal is to trivialize and isolate dissenting speech without actually banning protest outright. One result is something of a Potemkin village: government proclaims its full commitment to respecting the First Amendment without actually permitting any observable dissent to take place near the convention.
Tampa, Fla., which will host the Republicans from Aug. 27 to 30, and Charlotte, N.C., which will host the Democrats from Sept. 3 to 7, are already following the trend. Charlotte has adopted an ordinance that expands the power of the local police to detain, search and arrest persons in its downtown core. (The Charlotte ordinance also bans camping on city-owned property, a clear response to the Occupy movement.) Tampa is also considering new municipal laws to limit, and in some instances flatly prohibit, downtown protest activity.
Citizens generally have a right to use public streets, sidewalks and parks for expressive activity — unless the government has a substantial reason for requiring expressive activity to take place somewhere else or at another time. Because the rights of speech, assembly and association do not include a right to communicate a particular message to a particular audience, the government’s willingness to let would-be protesters speak somewhere else, some other time, has usually been seen by courts as satisfying the First Amendment.
. . . Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not accorded the Petition Clause much legal significance. When litigants have pressed Petition Clause claims, the justices have noted that all First Amendment rights are “cut from the same cloth” and thus “are inseparable.” However, in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, a Petition Clause case decided last year, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that there could be cases “where the special concerns of the Petition Clause would provide a sound basis for a distinct analysis” and where the rights of petition and free speech “might differ in emphasis and formulation.”
This suggests that the court could be sympathetic to carefully devised arguments focused on the right to petition. Officials in Charlotte and Tampa should not reflexively equate dissent with criminality (or domestic terrorism), nor should they have to be sued to do the right thing.
I strongly advise 2301 students to read this op-ed. It's worth a class discussion. The right to petition for grievances has a long and important history which led to the establishment of the U.S. as we know it. It may well be the right that all other rights rest on. If this right is threatened, what else is threatened?
EVERY four years, we witness the spectacle of the presidential nominating conventions. And every four years, host cities, party leaders and police officials devise ever more creative ways of distancing protesters from the politicians, delegates and journalists attending these stage-managed affairs.
The goal is to trivialize and isolate dissenting speech without actually banning protest outright. One result is something of a Potemkin village: government proclaims its full commitment to respecting the First Amendment without actually permitting any observable dissent to take place near the convention.
Tampa, Fla., which will host the Republicans from Aug. 27 to 30, and Charlotte, N.C., which will host the Democrats from Sept. 3 to 7, are already following the trend. Charlotte has adopted an ordinance that expands the power of the local police to detain, search and arrest persons in its downtown core. (The Charlotte ordinance also bans camping on city-owned property, a clear response to the Occupy movement.) Tampa is also considering new municipal laws to limit, and in some instances flatly prohibit, downtown protest activity.
Citizens generally have a right to use public streets, sidewalks and parks for expressive activity — unless the government has a substantial reason for requiring expressive activity to take place somewhere else or at another time. Because the rights of speech, assembly and association do not include a right to communicate a particular message to a particular audience, the government’s willingness to let would-be protesters speak somewhere else, some other time, has usually been seen by courts as satisfying the First Amendment.
. . . Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not accorded the Petition Clause much legal significance. When litigants have pressed Petition Clause claims, the justices have noted that all First Amendment rights are “cut from the same cloth” and thus “are inseparable.” However, in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, a Petition Clause case decided last year, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that there could be cases “where the special concerns of the Petition Clause would provide a sound basis for a distinct analysis” and where the rights of petition and free speech “might differ in emphasis and formulation.”
This suggests that the court could be sympathetic to carefully devised arguments focused on the right to petition. Officials in Charlotte and Tampa should not reflexively equate dissent with criminality (or domestic terrorism), nor should they have to be sued to do the right thing.
I strongly advise 2301 students to read this op-ed. It's worth a class discussion. The right to petition for grievances has a long and important history which led to the establishment of the U.S. as we know it. It may well be the right that all other rights rest on. If this right is threatened, what else is threatened?
Thursday, September 22, 2011
From the NYT: Split Decision and Barbed Comments Show a Court Deeply Divided on Wiretapping
A nasty split decsision from an appelate court on how to strike a balance between security and privacy:
An appellate court decision on Wednesday revealed deep and lingering divisions among a dozen judges over the government’s wiretapping powers and the courts’ ability to regulate them.
Deadlocked by a 6-to-6 vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cleared the way for a lower court to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of broadened wiretapping powers that Congress approved in 2008 at the urging of the George W. Bush administration. . . .
As significant as the decision itself were the sometimes barbed comments of the appellate judges, as they clashed over whether Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups should be allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the wiretapping powers.
In an unusual turn, 5 of the 12 judges issued separate written opinions on the question of whether the plaintiffs had legal grounds to sue the government.
Judge Gerard E. Lynch, explaining why the lawsuit should move ahead, wrote that the case represented an important test of the balance between the government’s ability to detect national security threats and the plaintiffs’ claims to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
“The Constitution sets limits on the powers even of Congress,” Judge Lynch wrote. “It is the glory of our system that even our elected leaders must defend the legality of their conduct when challenged.”
Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs was equally forceful in arguing that the lawsuit should not proceed. He called the suit “frivolous” and likened it to a “plaintiff’s allegation that the C.I.A. is controlling him through a radio embedded in his molar.”
In a related story, Senators in a recent hearing take the Justice Department to task on how the surveillance is beign carrid out.
An appellate court decision on Wednesday revealed deep and lingering divisions among a dozen judges over the government’s wiretapping powers and the courts’ ability to regulate them.
Deadlocked by a 6-to-6 vote, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit cleared the way for a lower court to hear a challenge to the constitutionality of broadened wiretapping powers that Congress approved in 2008 at the urging of the George W. Bush administration. . . .
As significant as the decision itself were the sometimes barbed comments of the appellate judges, as they clashed over whether Amnesty International, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups should be allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the wiretapping powers.
In an unusual turn, 5 of the 12 judges issued separate written opinions on the question of whether the plaintiffs had legal grounds to sue the government.
Judge Gerard E. Lynch, explaining why the lawsuit should move ahead, wrote that the case represented an important test of the balance between the government’s ability to detect national security threats and the plaintiffs’ claims to privacy under the Fourth Amendment.
“The Constitution sets limits on the powers even of Congress,” Judge Lynch wrote. “It is the glory of our system that even our elected leaders must defend the legality of their conduct when challenged.”
Chief Judge Dennis G. Jacobs was equally forceful in arguing that the lawsuit should not proceed. He called the suit “frivolous” and likened it to a “plaintiff’s allegation that the C.I.A. is controlling him through a radio embedded in his molar.”
In a related story, Senators in a recent hearing take the Justice Department to task on how the surveillance is beign carrid out.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Top Secret America
Last year the Washington Post published an interesting study of the security and intelligence apparatus set up after 9/11.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The TSA's Pat Down Policy
Slate outlines the process by which the pat down policy was developed, announced and implemented, as well as the campaign its now waging to defend it. It creates and interesting dilemma for both the TSA and the Obama Administration. Which woudl you rather have to explain? Why travelers were groped, or why you let an explosive on a plane, especially if it goes off?
While we're at it, here's something to relax about: cavity bombs. Current technonoly cannot detect them.
While we're at it, here's something to relax about: cavity bombs. Current technonoly cannot detect them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)