Which is exactly the case now. Federal courts in the U.S. and military tribunals in Gitmo.

The U.S. government will do whatever the powers that be deems are in their best interest. Period. No exceptions. End of story.

“The Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

“The Constitution is just a goddamned piece of paper.”

So having another secret court set up is just asking for more trouble.

I think Edmund’s point was more that once you start creating special courts and special tribunals to start judging claims held under the secrets act, what you’ll do is create two judicial systems…one that’s responsive to the laws of the land and one that isn’t. And the one that isn’t will be abused by those in power.

FISA was set up to be a watchdog to prevent these sorts of abuses from happening, and yet all it took was a chief executive who doesn’t care about the law or rights to circumvent it. As a former intel guy myself, I’m skeptical that a court set up to hear “classified” cases would be anything more than a rubber stamp for whatever the government wants to do…especially since their reasoning for their decisions will likely not be open to public scrutiny. What seems more likely is that such a court would encourage the government to deem all controversial cases like this as “classified” to take them out of the public eye.

#4 | Edmund Dantes | August 18th, 2008 at 1:45 pm

I know Nando… and they could give it a really cool name like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, but I’m just spitballing here.

You could go there and have these super secret court proceedings where the defense doesn’t even get to see the evidence being used against them. It could even allow for the government to wiretap on an emergency basis for 72 hours without having a court order.

But that’s probably too restrictive.

FISA is only for gathering the information, not for prosecuting/hearing the cases. We need a court that can do the latter.

#6 | Frank | August 18th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

The problem with judges having to go through a clearance process is that they would be beholden to the executive branch for maintaining that clearance. Make one decision the president doesn’t like, and say good-bye to your security clearance…

Good way to get rid of judges you don’t like — don’t impeach them, just yank their clearance.

I currently hold a T.S.+ clearance. Investigations are conducted every 5 years (for re-accreditation). In a Judge’s case, we could name them for life, just as in other federal courts, unless their clearances got pulled. And, we could make the agency that conducts the clearances subject to the Senate, rather than the executive branch, so that no one person can interfere.

Good way to get rid of judges you don’t like — don’t impeach them, just yank their clearance.

You could go there and have these super secret court proceedings where the defense doesn’t even get to see the evidence being used against them. It could even allow for the government to wiretap on an emergency basis for 72 hours without having a court order.

But that’s probably too restrictive.

These federal judges really are craven idiots. I think the republic could survive if this case were to be heard. I do hope that they are reigning in the unitary executive.

U.S. government power is limitless.