Mr. Klayman is a conservative lawyer who founded "Judicial Watch." He is not a minor player. He carries brevity. He can shake loose the elements of law most don't recognize as relevant.
Larry Klayman, (click here) founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties. During his tenure at Judicial Watch, he obtained a court ruling that Bill Clinton committed a crime, the first lawyer ever to have done so against an American president. Larry became so famous for fighting corruption in the government and the legal profession that the NBC hit drama series "West Wing" created a character after him: Harry Klaypool of Freedom Watch. His character was played by actor John Diehl....
Larry Klayman, (click here) founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, is known for his strong public interest advocacy in furtherance of ethics in government and individual freedoms and liberties. During his tenure at Judicial Watch, he obtained a court ruling that Bill Clinton committed a crime, the first lawyer ever to have done so against an American president. Larry became so famous for fighting corruption in the government and the legal profession that the NBC hit drama series "West Wing" created a character after him: Harry Klaypool of Freedom Watch. His character was played by actor John Diehl....
Published time: January 09, 2014 13:36
Lawyers from the Justice Department (click here) have urged a judge to halt a lawsuit against the NSA’s spy programs. This comes after the judge’s previous ruling that the NSA’s collection of metadata was likely unconstitutional and "almost Orwellian" in nature.
On Wednesday, government lawyers appealed to US District Court Judge Richard Leon to put court proceedings on hold for two lawsuits against the NSA filed by conservative legal activist, Larry Klayman.
Klayman has challenged the legality of the NSA’s programs that collect and store the metadata of American citizens on a massive scale.
The lawyers argued that if the lawsuits were allowed to go further, they would lead to the disclosure of classified information which would represent a “significant risk” to national security.
“Plaintiffs have made clear their intentions to seek discovery of this kind of still-classified information, concerning targets and subjects, participating providers, and other operational details of the challenged NSA intelligence programs,” said the motion.
In this way, the lawyers want the lawsuits suspended until the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit hears an appeal of Judge Leon’s December-16 ruling that the NSA’s gathering of massive amounts of metadata probably went against the constitution. The US Department of Defense appealed the ruling on January 3....
In all honesty, I don't think the particulars of this NSA program will be realized for another 20 years when some information starts to become declassified. The best position of US Justice at this point is to examine the records available to them and decide if any can be declassified so the public understands better the use of the program. If US Justice can't or won't speak intelligently to the public so they can resolve their anxiety over the program, then it is a matter of vigilance to prevent citizen detentions without representation for the next 20 years. Keep it in the public eye. The lawsuits may fail.
The outcome of the lawsuits will depend on the 'comfort' the Judge has with the material of the program and the actions of US Intelligence in it's role in National Security. I think in order to WIN in these lawsuits it will be a Judge with FISA experience and known to err on the side of Civil Liberties. I am not sure who that might be right now, but, that is the best hope for a fair hearing.
Judge Leon is an interesting guy, BUT, I am not convinced he is as comfortable with the 'unknown' so much as the known. FISA is about the unknown. Judge Leon, while an interesting Judge, his experience is mostly based in sifting through known information. Iran-Contra and Gitmo detainees. But, he has to be given a legal statue that assails the 'unknown' activity of US intelligence. I don't know if there is anything sufficient to bring the US Justice Department and the NSA to a stop in this program. Whatever decision he makes almost seems to me would be nullified by any subsequent request to FISA.
There is this:
Sep. 26, 2013 7:00 am
After President Richard Nixon (click here) left office in 1974, a bipartisan congressional investigation discovered many of his constitutional excesses. Foremost among them was the use of FBI and CIA agents to spy on Americans in violation of federal law and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution....
Calling up the ghost of Nixon. In other words, is the program conducted by the NSA a RETURN to Nixon's abuses? That would put the actions of the NSA in direct violation of the USA Constitution. It would then require an amendment to the Constitution in order to allow the government this level of invasive surveillance in regard to Civil Liberties.
In that, is a moral and ethical aspect that is problematic and has to be answered by the legal profession. By returning to a lower level of surveillance as dictated by the US Constitution, in fact, is the legal maneuvers putting national security at risk in a NEW AGE of danger. The legal profession has to answer that. They are vulnerable citizens, too. But, if that is the fact, then there is a new precedent that defines Civil Liberties that even the legal profession won't assail.
It is problematic because allowing such precedent determines the future even after this 'so called' danger resolves. I don't think we have a choice but to insist these programs are rolled back to the limits of FISA, otherwise, free speech becomes oppressed. Americans will have to assume some responsibility for their own safety in these issues.
A lot is at stake and the profession has to see their way to exacting facts and clear opinions to define their own position in regard to surveillance. See, up to now, the government is considered correct and necessary in their actions. The government is considered innocent because there aren't American detainees piling up in prisons. The real problem is THE POTENTIAL to that in the wrong hands. So a presiding judge would have to see the potential and validate it as too dire a possibility to hamper Justice from defending the NSA to this extent.
In all honesty, I don't think the particulars of this NSA program will be realized for another 20 years when some information starts to become declassified. The best position of US Justice at this point is to examine the records available to them and decide if any can be declassified so the public understands better the use of the program. If US Justice can't or won't speak intelligently to the public so they can resolve their anxiety over the program, then it is a matter of vigilance to prevent citizen detentions without representation for the next 20 years. Keep it in the public eye. The lawsuits may fail.
The outcome of the lawsuits will depend on the 'comfort' the Judge has with the material of the program and the actions of US Intelligence in it's role in National Security. I think in order to WIN in these lawsuits it will be a Judge with FISA experience and known to err on the side of Civil Liberties. I am not sure who that might be right now, but, that is the best hope for a fair hearing.
Judge Leon is an interesting guy, BUT, I am not convinced he is as comfortable with the 'unknown' so much as the known. FISA is about the unknown. Judge Leon, while an interesting Judge, his experience is mostly based in sifting through known information. Iran-Contra and Gitmo detainees. But, he has to be given a legal statue that assails the 'unknown' activity of US intelligence. I don't know if there is anything sufficient to bring the US Justice Department and the NSA to a stop in this program. Whatever decision he makes almost seems to me would be nullified by any subsequent request to FISA.
There is this:
Sep. 26, 2013 7:00 am
After President Richard Nixon (click here) left office in 1974, a bipartisan congressional investigation discovered many of his constitutional excesses. Foremost among them was the use of FBI and CIA agents to spy on Americans in violation of federal law and the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution....
Calling up the ghost of Nixon. In other words, is the program conducted by the NSA a RETURN to Nixon's abuses? That would put the actions of the NSA in direct violation of the USA Constitution. It would then require an amendment to the Constitution in order to allow the government this level of invasive surveillance in regard to Civil Liberties.
In that, is a moral and ethical aspect that is problematic and has to be answered by the legal profession. By returning to a lower level of surveillance as dictated by the US Constitution, in fact, is the legal maneuvers putting national security at risk in a NEW AGE of danger. The legal profession has to answer that. They are vulnerable citizens, too. But, if that is the fact, then there is a new precedent that defines Civil Liberties that even the legal profession won't assail.
It is problematic because allowing such precedent determines the future even after this 'so called' danger resolves. I don't think we have a choice but to insist these programs are rolled back to the limits of FISA, otherwise, free speech becomes oppressed. Americans will have to assume some responsibility for their own safety in these issues.
A lot is at stake and the profession has to see their way to exacting facts and clear opinions to define their own position in regard to surveillance. See, up to now, the government is considered correct and necessary in their actions. The government is considered innocent because there aren't American detainees piling up in prisons. The real problem is THE POTENTIAL to that in the wrong hands. So a presiding judge would have to see the potential and validate it as too dire a possibility to hamper Justice from defending the NSA to this extent.
