U.S. Asks Judge to Drop Suit on N.S.A. Spying
"the evidence we need to demonstrate to you that it lawful cannot be disclosed without that process itself causing grave harm to United States national security."
"The government cannot confirm or deny whether a particular individual is subject to surveillance or what the criteria is. Indicating that someone is not subject to surveillance is itself revealing."
"the critical facts necessary to adjudicate are subject to the state secrets privilege."
"You don’t get standing, simply because you say the president has a program and I think it might cover me."
Anonymous Liberal aptly names the government’s argument [quoted above] for the fictional government language in 1984 [actually, Newspeak?]. A quote from Chapter 1 of that book:
The Ministry of Truth — Minitrue, in Newspeak — was startlingly different from any other object in sight. It was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, 300 metres into the air. From where Winston stood it was just possible to read, picked out on its white face in elegant lettering, the three slogans of the Party:
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
Pretty good analogy, in many more ways than just the ones he’s mentioning. In a moment of great clarity in college as I pondered going to law school, I was listening to my roommate, a law student, talking about a case and said, "You’re making up an argument to fit your client’s case." He laughed at my comment. "In America," he said, "everyone is entitled to the best case possible. Did you think lawyering was about right and wrong? That’s for judges and juries." At the time, I was horrified, but came to understand what he was saying as pretty important. But I’m sure glad I went to medical school instead.
I don’t get law to this day, but I think that I get this case. One of the arguments the government is making is that the A.C.L.U. isn’t representing a plaintiff, because they can’t prove any given plaintiff has been listened in on [because the government won’t say who has been listened in on]. Unbelievable! Anonymous Liberal calls it Doublespeak. I think bullshit would be what one might call it in everyday parlance. In essence, the U.S. Government lawyer is in a federal court arguing that judicial review is not allowed by a federal court – which, by the way, is the essence of the case already, skipping the F.I.S.A. judicial review.
Cheney calls this "the unitary executive." I call it grounds for another revolution, preferably at the polls this November.
The Constitution defines Treason as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
In my book, this fits the definition of Treason. This Administration is levying war against our form of government and its Constitution.
“grounds for another revolution, preferably at the polls this November” The problem with counting on the voters to right this situation is that the election process has been perverted by the same people. If they own the company that makes the voting machines; if the election officials are part of the conspiracy; if the courts are stacked by the administration, then who is there to stop them from stealing this election too? It worked last time.