What I find fascinating about this hearing is that they literally can't find the words for what national security letters and gag orders do
like the government just conceded that they're totally okay if the government agrees that the letter is not law
-
-
but also that it doesn't matter because FISC
-
if I'm following correctly (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the gov't thinks if the gag letter is overturned, everybody's still gagged
-
"overturned" -- now here I'm playing with the words that don't mean the words they are again
-
ok i have a clarification that doesn't really matter nvm yes the government thinks no matter what the judge rules, everybody still gagged
-
government now arguing that FISC is the appropriate forum for this.
-
how would i describe the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts? hmmm "a soundless black hole of due process"
-
oh man this is a weirder case than I thought it was
-
another funny thing from earlier in the hearing is that the government mentioned that "there has been greater interest in surveillance..."
-
"....there have been recent events..." and then he wouldn't say Snowden's name lol
-
Judge is back to calling it a protocol
-
Government really doesn't want to talk about the DAG letter, they want to talk about FISA because the letter is too weird
-
like now that I'm thinking about it, the letter exists in an odd limbo of not-law
-
not just in the sense of "fuck FISC and all it stands for," i really can't decide how it works inside of administrative law
-
journalists: please do not aggregate my tweets, i am not a nat sec law expert
-
so basically gov't is arguing that Twitter can be menaced by a not-law letter telling them what they can and can't say and it doesn't matter
-
LMAO the government is arguing that the FISC is the right forum but they are also arguing...
-
... they can't even acknowledge there is a FISC-reated order involved because that information is in itself classified
-
welp separation of powers talk, i'm zoning out for this one, sorry guyspic.twitter.com/a4MOpBONKs
-
now talking about pending 9th circuit stuff that would affect this case
-
now plaintiff is asking about the 0 issue.
-
(warrant canaries)
-
government says what they said about the 0 issue (warrant canaries) is not a concession, slightly flustered
-
but repeats what he said. Saying you've received 0 is not a problem. Warrant canaries good to go?
-
What's awesome* about this case is how the government keeps not being able to say stuff or describe stuff bc classification
-
and they don't even seem ashamed
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.