EFF Victory Results in Release of Secret Court Opinion Finding NSA Surveillance Unconstitutional

[David Krout]

Source: EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation)

August 21, 2013

For almost two years, EFF has been fighting the government in federal court to force the public release of an 86-page opinion of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). Issued in October 2011, the secret court’s opinion found that surveillance conducted by the NSA under the FISA Amendments Act was unconstitutional and violated “the spirit of” federal law.

Today, EFF can declare victory: a federal court ordered the government to release records in our litigation, the government has indicated it intends to release the opinion today, and ODNI has called a 3:00 ET press conference to discuss "issues" with FISA Amendments Act surveillance, which we assume will include a discussion of the opinion.

It remains to be seen how much of the opinion the government will actually make available to the public. President Obama has repeatedly said he welcomes a debate on the NSA’s surveillance: disclosing this opinion—and releasing enough of it so that citizens and advocates can intelligently debate the constitutional violation that occurred—is a critical step in ensuring that an informed debate takes place.

Here are examples of documents previously released by the administration in response to our Freedom of Information Act request. Anything even resembling those “releases” would be utterly unacceptable today. But we’ve come a long way since then—it took filing a lawsuit; litigating (and winning) in the FISC itself; the unprecedented public release of information about NSA surveillance activities; and our continuing efforts to push the government in the district court for release of the opinion.

Read more: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/eff-victory-results-expected-release-secret-court-opinion-finding-nsa-surveillance

[gopiscrap]

1. Interesting

[Hydra]

2. I think I'll need some of this:

The President has fought tooth and nail to keep this secret, including the fact that the violation had been going on for 3 years. We'll see how much of the ruling we get to read.

Even so, I can't help but be excited- I've wanted to see the print of this from the moment I heard about it! Rubber stamp court calls NSA on 4th Amendment violation?? Gimme!!

[msanthrope]

8. Um no--the DOJ agreed to release and declined to appeal the court order, asking only

for a brief extension, which is over today:

https://www.eff.org/document/doj-status-report-re-releasing-fisa-court-opinion

[Hydra]

10. What do you mean, "Um, no"?

Are you saying the Obama Admin wanted this to see daylight?

[msanthrope]

13. Yes--in fact if you read the document I linked to, the decision was made to withdraw

the government's opposition to the release of this court opinion. What the government did ask was that the release date be pushed from 8/21 to 8/21 because of the coordination of various agencies. That was granted.

[Hydra]

17. I'm still not getting your point

The Obama Admin was against this until all of the roadblocks were torn down. This has been going on for over a year...am I not supposed to talk about what's on the written record now?

[msanthrope]

18. The Obama administration could have continued this fight by appealing--they chose to withraw,

instead, as evidenced by the links provided by the OP. That's the only point I am making to you.

[Hydra]

20. Then you didn't make a point

I pointed out that the Obama Admin fought this tooth and nail. They couldn't come up with a good excuse when the FISC said "We don't have a problem with the release, ask the Exec Branch."

They could certainly have kept going, but just because you stop something stupid doesn't mean you never did it.

[msanthrope]

22. Oh--I'm not trying to make this more than it is...I'm glad they agreed with Reggie Walton. nt

[JDPriestly]

27. The government probably did not want to litigate these issues because they thought they would

lose.

[David Krout]

11. so the DOJ didnt fight hard for the release because at one point it gave up?

Do you realize that makes no sense?

[msanthrope]

14. The government withdrew their opposition, according to the links YOU posted. You should read your

own links, Mr. Krout, particularly when you post them here, and particularly when they contain government court filings.

I realize from your low post count you are new at DU, but generally speaking, yes, we do read the links. The devil's in the details.

[David Krout]

26. You just repeated your exact same argument

You are pretending that withdrawing opposition of somethjng at some point is the same as not having fought tooth and nail prior to that point. Say something different next time.

[Caretha]

31. Why did you think it necessary

to mention the poster's low post count? Do you think that bolsters your position or credibility?

You might rethink your strategy, even though you have many posts - I don't particularly think that's been to your advantage.

[Paulie]

21. Snowden release was in May. This DOJ memo is dated August.

Would the latter happen without the former?

[msanthrope]

23. No--I think it was Reggie Walton who was behind it. I'm thinking he holds a bit more sway than

Snowald.

[Paulie]

24. Yes the judge has helped. But the news back in June was telling a different story

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/06/justice-department-electronic-frontier-foundation-fisa-court-opinion

[msanthrope]

25. Again...that fits in with Walton being the prime mover. Possibly also Wyden and Udall

having a positive influence.

[JDPriestly]

33. Judges sometimes have a way of letting a party know that the game is up.

Are you suggesting that is what Reggie Walton did with regard to the government.

When was the hearing preceding the government's statement that it was withdrawing its defense on the matter? Was it before or after Snowden's revelations?

[Civilization2]

3. An open "debate", that requires multiple lawsuits to get a rough idea of what is actually going on?

Is that what Obama is talking about? We need to see more movement on this file than a short speech and the appointment of a known and admitted lair, to head the "investigation",. . 35 years for Manning for leaking stuff that should be public. And more secrecy is added all the time,. remember when we had a right to see the evidence against us,. good times.

Here is the rest of the EFF post;

Release of the opinion today is just one step in advancing a public debate on the scope and legality of the NSA’s domestic surveillance programs. EFF will keep fighting until the NSA’s domestic surveillance program is reined in, federal surveillance laws are amended to prevent these kinds of abuse from happening in the future, and government officials are held accountable for their actions.

Good for them for pushing as much as they do. Support the EFF!

[David Krout]

4. I hope its not heavily redacted

They do that sometimes.

[malthaussen]

29. "Over the past three years, the NSA has..." (200 black pages) n/t

[99th_Monkey]

5. As they say "the Devil will be in the details", for sure

Which is why it's so important to be watching these developments very closely.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. Waiting for the condemnation of the EFF

as a racist, right-wing organization, bent on destroying Obama in 3...2...1...

[druidity33]

7. This is important news...

thank you for linking to this David.

K&R.

[MisterP]

9. so it IS real, it IS spying, it IS spying on Americans, and it IS illegal and unconstitutional

EVERY time someone whimpers "wait for all the facts to come out before jumping to crazy conclusions," reality takes note and knocks them down: EVERY time they make a claim it's a false one: EVERY claim they make is a successive one--a ring fort to defend the dreamboat du jour
rightist Trojans are 0 for 20,000, once more
their goal, of course, is not to convince or distract, but to delay: they know their posts are all archived, and all wrong--but as long as they can act as baffles for any reaction, it'll end up muted and muffled by the time it emerges into the public discourse (and then they can pretend that DUers are just a tiny, far-left minority--"a third of a third" they called us 70-percenters under Bush)

[kelliekat44]

12. What am I missing. Where is the finding of "unconstitutional?" And what part of the program does

this finding refer to?

[David Krout]

15. the part that says you must have a connection to an investigation

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nsa-collected-thousands-us-communications

[Hydra]

19. 2 places that we know of

Having not seen the ruling yet. 215 and 702. I believe the 215 violation is the "everything is relevant" interpretation that allows them to spy on all of us. I'm not sure what the 702 violation is, but it may be the more direct violation.

[Hekate]

16. You can donate to EFF at the link if you want to thank them

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/08/eff-victory-results-expected-release-secret-court-opinion-finding-nsa-surveillance

I wish they would diversify their bumper stickers, though -- the one I have only says EFF and their logo, which doesn't tell people much. Some months ago I asked if they would consider making single-issue bumper stickers (my preference would be for one about electronic voting machines) but the person I spoke to said they weren't.

[WillyT]

28. K & R !!!

[Fearless]

30. Told you so.

Just saying.

[blackspade]

32. Unconstitutional? Who'd have thunk it?

EFF.....

[blkmusclmachine]

34. ?!