Secret Laws

Remove all ads!

Americans can now be obligated to comply with legally-binding regulations that are unknown to them, and that indeed they are forbidden to know.

A new report from the Congressional Research Service describes with welcome clarity how, by altering a few words in the Homeland Security Act, Congress "significantly broadened" the government's authority to generate "sensitive security information," including an entire system of "security directives" that are beyond public scrutiny.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2004/11/111404.html

Now that sounds fun, doesn't it?

• You're not allowed to fly.
• Why?
• Because you're not meeting the requirements of the law.
• Which law?
• I'm not allowed to tell you.
• But how can I get legal protection against executive action when I don't know based on what you acted?
• That is your problem.
• ...

That's not exactly how I understand the rule of law. The citizens possibility of knowledge of the law is crucial part of it - if it isn't the whole affair get's kafkaesque quite fast.

How are people supposed to follow laws if they don't know what they are?

 

Good one. I really hate being on double-secret probation.

 

That one was even better

 

Ragusa, if you spent half the time on SOLVING Germany's problems as you do in ferreting out America's problems, there'd be a new global superpower.

 

Well, it may be that I, as a historically literate German, I'm wary about administrations expanding executive powers and ruling by decree and historical somesuch thingies ... nevermind ...

And as a lawyer I find such developments questionable, under the perspective of: How to achieve *effective* legal protection against executive misconduct? Or against administrative errors.

What when you happen to no more be allowed to fly and they tell you to consult the agency that put you on the no-fly list, which is, of course, secret - so that you're screwed and have to ask them all. Hopefully you don't overlook the right one in the US agency jungle and find an officer who won't refuse your request because you filled the respective form wrong on the third copy on page 23 of 24

Just a point.

PS: And trust me Rally, I don't spend that much time on it to be able to solve Germany's problems instead

 

We did have such laws in Poland. No fun. Right now, only parts of the reasoning administrative authorities are obligated to provide, can be secret, and only if given Secret/Top Secret clause by competent authority. The court can still decide there's no reason to keep it secret from the citizen and nothing can be held in secret from the court.

Also, any and all administrative decision (act) must be based on universally binding law, i.e. affecting an abstract circle of subjects, which is either a parliament bill or delegated legislation of the executive - this means enactments of ministers or heads of the most important central organs, but only within the competence expressly granted by a parliament bill, including even guidelines for future executive enactments.

And even given those rigorous limits, we still have problems with people being screwed and not knowing why, if national security comes into play. What if we had such laws as the Congress' newest product? I shudder to think...

It doesn't take a law genius to realise that those secret laws are very, very wrong.

 

Sounds like the ASIO laws over here:

1. You can be detained without contact for up to 48 hours (and this may be extended by application to the A-G), without charges being laid and with relevant warrants issued only on the basis of suspicion;

2. You are entitled to a lawyer, however, you must name them and the agency reserves the right to veto anybody named;

3. Assuming your lawyer gets in, your right to silence and lawyer-client privileges are severely limited - your lawyer can also be summarily ejected;

4. If you are released, you are unable to effect any form of accountability, as it is an offence to identify an ASIO agent, so your chances of getting recognition for mistreatment or rights violations are sweet FA.

It's pretty living in the land of the free. Sure, you need a new policing response to terrorism, but this is knee-jerk at its most invasive. As a criminologist, I'm aware that any prevention technique can be defeated based on knowledge of the mechanisms and procedures involved. Theoretically, this shouldn't be a problem, and I just know someone is going to use the "if you have nothing to hide..." argument.

Unfortunately, it is differentially applied and this example is just absurd. The potential for abuse is incredible, especially since the inability to know exactly what the law is prevents you from being able to hold people accountable for a breach of your rights (since you can't possibly know what they are empowered to do).

 

I find it most striking that the harsh legislation in the US, allegedly in reaction to 911 but much more a compilation of what security hardliners wanted for 10 years anyway, hasn't led to a significant increase in terrorists getting caught or convicted in the US.

The few 'cases' heared of morphed into nothing but hot air once they arrived in court and without exception they threw up questions about serious executive misconduct.

Seen at as a way to improve anti-terrorism policework, the Patriot Act was a complete failure, like most comparable legislations.

When something terrible happens someone has to pay - and it can't be the political leaders of the spooks and soldiers who failed to prevent the incident, it's always that they just didn't have all the tools they needed. And not enough money! And not enough personnel! It's all about "Cover my ass!"

... as the saying goes: The bad craftsman always blames his tools, but in an administration where no one is held accountable for his mistakes, misconduct or conflict of interest that is standard procedure.

[ November 18, 2004, 12:00: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

What NonSequitur has described looks surprisingly so much like the practices that make a country bad and qualify it for axis of evil membership.

You know, here in Poland we have lots of ****ty laws and everyone from the president down to deputy secratary in a ministry could be indicted for something, but we would have people on the streets if such legislation were passed. Not to mention international trials.

 

BTA, can you point to incidents that show conclusively that measures put in place by the Patriot Act were directly responsible for stopping acts of terrorism? (Sincere question, not trying to put you on the spot)

Acts of terrorism are random things, they don't happen on a schedule. Nothing happened in NYC since the 1993 WTC bombing, and we didn't have the Patriot Act in place during that timespan. I'm calling you on an Abuse of Logic penalty.

 

The patriot acts remind me of that Simpson episode where a bear escapes from a circus and scares up the population of Springfield and they demand protection against bears and a huge bear watch is instituted and no more bears! Or when Lisa gives Homer a stone and tells him that it keeps away tigers and he asks her if it works and she tells him: Well have you seen any tigers lately? This makes Homer scream out in joy that he is finally safe from the threat of a tiger attack!

 

@ Ragusa and Joacqin: You DO understand American politics

It's all about perception and who you can blame....

 

@BTA: The government could impose a curfew, make a law that all citizens carry IDs all the time and that each homestead be visited by a police officer at least once a month. Someone could still say, "talk to me about failure when terrorist attacks occur".

 

There's no proof whatsoever yet, which is one. Also, it stands a fact that terrorists are experts in avoiding security. It's their job, after all. As a result, security measures applied on all people are bound to be much more inconvenient for an average citizen than for a terrorist. The terrorist has only to stop for a while and find another loophole in the system. The citizen doesn't need a minute loophole, it won't help him. The citizen needs to function in the system on day to day basis.

What is more, such measures are bound to result in greater opposition between "standard" citizens with limited rights and law enforcement agents. The latter will be feared, not trusted. In a society that isn't run by a military dictature, law enforcement needs citizen trust to work. Eventually, terrorists will become an abstract threat compared to obnoxious omnipotent government agents. Ultimately, citizens could even come to think that the terrorist threat is simply part of government propaganda and serves mainly to justify the government's omnipotence. Not like they wouldn't be right to a large extent.

 

The results of enacting such a law, however, are not a separate argument. It can only be argued whether it already is a failure or is yet to be one. History teaches us something, except those of us who won't learn. In my two paragraphs, I explained the natural consequences of this bill becoming law.