[lit-ideas] the subject is a secret...
- From: "Julie Krueger" <juliereneb@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 03:25:54 -0500
When Alice in Wonderland, Danny Kaye, and Abbott & Costello collide.....
<<"Any sort of program is a state secret," Kellogg said
"Even if the program doesn't exist?" McKeown replied, referencing the
president's claim.
"Whether or not it exists is a state secret," Kellogg answered.
"But if President Bush said it's not happening, how could that be a secret?"
the judge asked.
These are some of the reasons the hearing lasted two and a half hours.>>
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/136043;_ylt=Ai54MWW2ipCCOOFC3eYPy_MDW7oF
Robert Mullins, IDG News Service*Thu Aug 16, 12:00 PM ET*
If you're the U.S. federal government, how can you prove to someone that
something should be kept secret if you can't tell them what the secret is
because it's a secret? If you're a federal judge, how can you decide whether
someone gets to keep a secret if the secret-keeper won't say what the secret
is?
The debate over liberty versus security in this post-9/11 age took a trip
down the rabbit hole and through the looking glass in a federal courtroom in
San Francisco Wednesday, over the alleged U.S. National Security Agency
(NSA) program of monitoring the phone and e-mail communications of Americans
to try to stop terrorists before they strike.
More than one participant likened the testimony to "Alice's Adventures in
Wonderland," the classic children's book by Lewis Carroll. Compare and
contrast this excerpt from the book with what went on in court. This snippet
occurs when Alice, attending the Mad Hatter's tea party, suddenly notices
the March Hare's curious timepiece.
"'What a funny watch!' Alice remarked. 'It tells the day of the month, and
doesn't tell what o'clock it is!'
"'Why should it?' muttered the Hatter. 'Does your watch tell you what year
it is?' Alice felt dreadfully puzzled. The Hatter's remark seemed to have no
sort of meaning in it, and yet it was certainly English."
Testimony at the hearing Wednesday was in English but often left the judges
"dreadfully puzzled."
At the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a U.S. Department of
Justice lawyer asked three appeals court judges to dismiss a class-action
lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation on behalf of an AT&T
customer. The suit accused AT&T of violating the privacy rights of its
customers by letting the NSA set up shop inside an AT&T switching station in
San Francisco, monitoring customers' e-mails and phone calls without a
warrant.
The DOJ sought the dismissal because, at trial, it could be revealed that
the NSA worked with AT&T to wiretap Americans without a warrant, which is a
state secret, if indeed such a program existed at all. The government can't
say, because that's a state secret.
Airing evidence in the case "would reveal the sources, methods and
operational details" of government intelligence activities, argued Gregory
Garre, deputy solicitor general in the DOJ.
Appellate Judge Margaret McKeown responded by paraphrasing public comments
by U.S. President George W. Bush, whom she reported as saying, "There is no
surveillance of domestic phone calls without a warrant."
The Bush comment came up again when AT&T attorney Michael Kellogg, also
argued for dismissal on the Wonderland-like grounds that allowing the case
to go forward, yet not violate state secrets, would prohibit AT&T from
presenting a defense.
"Any sort of program is a state secret," Kellogg said
"Even if the program doesn't exist?" McKeown replied, referencing the
president's claim.
"Whether or not it exists is a state secret," Kellogg answered.
"But if President Bush said it's not happening, how could that be a secret?"
the judge asked.
These are some of the reasons the hearing lasted two and a half hours.
Garre also asked the judges to dismiss a case brought against Bush,
specifically, over the NSA's warrantless surveillance program. The plaintiff
is the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which claims it was spied on by the
NSA without a warrant.
At a news conference on the courthouse steps after the hearing, attorney Jon
Eisenberg, representing the foundation, admitted it felt "surreal" trying to
discuss in court a partial exchange of affidavits between himself, the U.S.
government and a judge arguing a point in the case that can't be made
public.
"I'm at a disadvantage because I don't know the government's side of that
argument. I only know my side. They have seen my secret brief. I have not
seen their secret briefs," Eisenberg said. "Yeah, I guess it is a bit like
going down the rabbit hole."
Eisenberg concurred when, in court, McKeown remarked, "I feel like I'm in
Alice in Wonderland."
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] the subject is a secret...