09 July 2013
Secrecy and the FIFA Court
It’s a shame that we have to rely on the virtually extra-constitutional function of the press to resolve a problem like the secrecy with which N.S.A. is licensed to carry out its monitoring of U.S. citizens’ communications over the telephone, internet, or other electronic means. I applaud Eric Lichtblau ‘s research, reliant on “officials,” “former officials,” a named national security law expert and other unnamed current and former intelligence officials, and I applaud his article in the July 7, 2013, NYT for making the public aware of the measures being taken to protect its security.
Infringement of citizens’ privacy may be allowed under the “special needs” exception to the Fourth Amendment, but its use should not be permitted solely on the basis of legal argument before a secret court. Even if the particulars of a specific case are not shared with the public, the application of any use of spying on constitutionally protected personal activities has to be open to everyone in order to conserve freedom in the face of terrorist or, heaven forbid, government threat. As long as our Congress or Presidents authorize arbitrary secrecy, as in the case of the FIFA court, we must rely on reporting such as Mr. Lichtblau’s to guarantee the people’s preeminence over the government.
It’s a shame that we have to rely on the virtually extra-constitutional function of the press to resolve a problem like the secrecy with which N.S.A. is licensed to carry out its monitoring of U.S. citizens’ communications over the telephone, internet, or other electronic means. I applaud Eric Lichtblau ‘s research, reliant on “officials,” “former officials,” a named national security law expert and other unnamed current and former intelligence officials, and I applaud his article in the July 7, 2013, NYT for making the public aware of the measures being taken to protect its security.
Infringement of citizens’ privacy may be allowed under the “special needs” exception to the Fourth Amendment, but its use should not be permitted solely on the basis of legal argument before a secret court. Even if the particulars of a specific case are not shared with the public, the application of any use of spying on constitutionally protected personal activities has to be open to everyone in order to conserve freedom in the face of terrorist or, heaven forbid, government threat. As long as our Congress or Presidents authorize arbitrary secrecy, as in the case of the FIFA court, we must rely on reporting such as Mr. Lichtblau’s to guarantee the people’s preeminence over the government.
Comments:
Post a Comment
