Reason.com
If They're Not Talking About It, It Must Be a Secret
Last week a federal judge in San Francisco said a lawsuit against AT&T over its cooperation with the NSA's warrantless surveillance program could proceed, rejecting the Bush administration's argument that the case would reveal state secrets. This week a federal judge in Chicago said a lawsuit against AT&T over its cooperation with the NSA's collection of phone records cannot proceed, accepting the Bush administration's argument that the case would reveal state secrets. The crucial difference: While administration officials have acknowledged the existence of the surveillance program, they have not acknowledged the existence of the phone call database. If they're not talking about it, it must be a secret.
That argument is awfully convenient for the government, but it's not quite as worrisome as a more ambitious variation: If they're not talking about it, it must be legal. Then again, the practical result may be the same.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Are We Headed for a Fight with China? (5.28)
- Lessons From the United Fruit Company (5.28)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|7.28.06 @ 1:05PM|#
The problem of overseeing and reining in secret programs doesn't seem to lend itself well to broad, consistent solutions. I agree that there are times when the government needs to keep things secret; I just think it's maybe 1% of the times that the gov't claims secrecy is needed.
That said, if I had to choose between the two suits I'm glad the surveillance one is going ahead.
jfgdio|7.30.06 @ 11:00PM|#
化工助剂
thanks!