Hacker News
points by TheCoelacanth 2 days ago | 0 comments
Secret courts are anathema to democracy and need to be abolished.
[–] Tangurena2 2 days ago
The 6th Amendment was written to prevent secret courts. The English Star Chamber was frequently secret and you could be put on trial without knowing what evidence/testimony was brought against you. The Star Chamber was also why the 5th Amendment exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Chamber

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

[–] WillPostForFood 2 days ago
6th amendment is strictly about criminal prosecutions. The court in question is not a criminal court.
[–] mring33621 1 day ago
The "court" in question is being used to hide blatant violations of US Citizens constitutional rights against mass surveillance.
[–] rdiddly 2 days ago
A secret court is arguably not even a court. It provides no legitimacy whatsoever. It's a bunch of people in a room making a decision. I don't understand why they even bother. Just conduct your dictatorship by issuing decrees over a Zoom meeting.
[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
It's a word game. By calling it a court, legitimacy is implied. Most personalized TV channels are called "social media" even though they're really "personal TV" because the former sounds like it connects you with your friends. The NSA isn't a "surveillance state", it's "intelligence gathering". It's not a war, it's a special military operation. And so on.
[–] phoghed 1 day ago
Reddit is undoubtedly “social media” and never had anything to do with connecting to your friends.

It’s basically synonymous with user-generated content site. It’s why TikTok is social media and Netflix isn’t, and PineDrama is somewhere in the middle because even though it’s studio content there’s still emphasis on the comments and whatnot.

[–] thaumasiotes 2 days ago
> Most personalized TV channels are called "social media" even though they're really "personal TV" because the former sounds like it connects you with your friends.

This is clearly untrue; they're called "social media" because they developed inside other things that were already called "social media".

[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
Then Netflix is a DVD rental?
[–] thaumasiotes 2 days ago
If you think really, really hard, maybe you'll be able to get your arrows the right way around.
[–] cowlevel 2 days ago
DVD rental developed from online streaming?
[–] andreyf 1 day ago
This is a distraction from the problem, they are courts because they function as courts in providing binding precedent on how laws are interpreted. The people making the decision (FISA judges) are Article III federal judges (i.e. nominated by the President, confirmed by Senate), picked by SCOTUS Chief Justice, and continuously vetted for security clearance by exec branch. Public interest importance of their decisions are supposed to be released (for legislators to be able to preform their legislative function) within 180 days.

That is the problem -- if legislators aren't informed how the laws they wrote are interpreted / used by the executive, they cannot reason about how to legislate next.

[–] rdiddly 15 hours ago
Your point is only that the judges have been decreed to be trustworthy by various people. That's fine, and it's right to involve all three branches. But the proceedings being secret means no one has any evidence of their actual (as opposed to decreed) legitimacy. No one can reach any of the same conclusions by the same means. If a tree falls in a secret court and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

The principle upon which courts themselves are founded is basically science - An assertion is only an assertion, and doesn't become legitimate unless it 1) has evidence backing it, and 2) survives adversarial argumentation. That which is proven and can't be disproven is deemed true. Where criminal accusations are concerned, it's what distinguishes a just verdict from mere arbitrary tyranny. That is the favor being done for prosecutors by defense attorneys: giving their wins legitimacy.

But the whole proceeding is public so that the people, the actual legitimate authority in the land, have access to the same evidence and the same arguments, and can reach the same conclusion reached by their agents and representatives in the court. The verdict is just and everybody knows it.

All I'm doing is applying the same principle to the FISA court itself. If they're so trustworthy and secure, so worthy of the job of interpreting laws, it should be no problem to present evidence to that effect, by opening the proceedings. Anything that needs to be done secretly kind of needs to shed the name of "court" and become e.g. "agency" or "department."

[–] tastyfreeze 2 days ago
I came to say the same thing. The secret courts and even the administrative agency courts should not exist. They are a violation of our rights. Any court where the prosecution, judge and jury are all government employees is a gross abuse of authority.
[–] aqme28 1 day ago
"What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security.”

- Milton Mayer - They Thought They Were Free. The Germans, 1933-45

[–] rnd0 2 days ago
Democracy has been deprecated in the United States, and will be removed in a future 'election'.
[–] navigate8310 2 days ago
If this is the case, then I shudder for democracies that look up to the US for inspiration on how to run their country.
[–] LtWorf 2 days ago
I'm not sure there's anyone left who does that without the USA army kidnapping their president or similar things.
[–] kakacik 2 days ago
There ain't nobody 'looking up' to US these days, where does this fairy tale idea come from? People around the world are not dumb, whole world is completely fed up to the brim with direct and indirect attacks from US in past 2 years, sowing chaos, conflict and death. We just wan to be left alone, and thats it. Not something US can do but one can always dream right.

There are many places which are more democratic and free than US ever was, its not a secret information but you won't hear about it in latest hollywood flick or fox/cnn. One only needs to travel a bit outside US bubble with open mind.

US system of 2 parties is pretty dumb if you think about it, artificial in pretty bad ways and not really transferable elsewhere. Constitution and laws which are less than toilet paper when power is taken by sufficiently motivated bad actor, 0 working checks and balances. It could have been worse of course if thats how we want to rank it, but we are not even in the half of it and something tells me we haven't seen the worst of it yet.

[–] aahs 1 day ago
The author of this statement is obviously American
[–] contingencies 2 days ago
Great to see unfettered public discussion of such matters. Oh wait, "You've read your last free article."
[–] rstuart4133 2 days ago
In Australia are have organisations with titles like "Independent Commission Against Corruption". Their remit is to investigate political corruption and corruption in the public service (like say the police). They come in two flavours. In some states their deliberations are done in public. In other states they are secret.

Over time it's become evident open model is far, far more effective at ensuring the public has confidence the people running the place are doing the right thing. It does risk the occasional unwarranted "witch hunt". But that threat ensures powerful people avoid doing things that while above board, could arouse public suspicion. Less suspicious acts mean higher trust in the government.

[–] likoya 2 days ago
The us constitution has been destroyed one step a time. It's dead letter now.
[–] bliteben 2 days ago
The root of the question though is "Is secrecy an anathema to democracy?"