http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37236.htm
The NSA spy program will now work its way up the judicial food chain, as the December 27 ruling by U.S. federal judge William Pauley III in ACLU v. Clapper is at odds with Judge Richard Leon’s December 16 ruling. Those who weigh in on the legality of NSA spying, and its morality and efficacy, will be wise to read Judge Leon’s opinion closely.
In Klayman v. Obama, federal judge Richard Leon debunks the biggest lie of all – that the NSA spy program effectively combats terror attacks. Buried deep in his ruling is a powerful nugget of truth which exposes that when the government says “trust us” we shouldn’t. Footnote 65, found at the bottom of page 62 of the 68-page ruling has received inadequate attention in the press. It reads:
The Government could have presented additional, potentially classified evidence in camera, but it chose not to do so. Although the Government has publicly asserted that the NSA’s surveillance programs have thwarted fifty-four terrorist attacks, no proof of that has been put before me.
The footnote then provides citations to propublica.org and The Washington Post, and statements by Senators Patrick Leahy and Ron Wyden to support Judge Leon’s skepticism. An in camera review is a secure proceeding whereby the judge reviews allegedly sensitive information in private. If there were evidence of the actual effectiveness of the spy program the government would have no reason not to present it to a judge in camera.
In other words, the Government lies, and we are foolish to accept self-serving claims made by those in power without proof. On December 18, a White House appointed panel concluded in its final report that there is no evidence that the program has stopped any terror attacks.
No comments:
Post a Comment