I have a few thoughts after reading this article:<p>1. This (re: citizens violating classified laws or legal interpretations) is definitely a situation where any sane judge/jury would find against the ignorantia juris non excusat principle, so I don't expect the use of any of this to hold up in any court, ever, not just because its effects are potentially unconstitutional. And any judge worth the wood upon which they sit would dismiss any evidence presented that has been gathered as a result in that it wasn't obtained with a legal warrant, or in any manner that is constitutional.<p>2. This is massive amounts of ammunition for conspiracy theorists, especially truthers. Let me give it a try: 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the US government under the Bush administration as a false flag operation in order to to get the Patriot Act passed with plans to classify interpretations which would give the government over-reaching powers to violate the constitutional rights of citizens to the point of being able to create a Stasi state.<p>3. Why don't we demand impeachment if Obama re-authorizes any part of the Patriot Act, obviously knowing about classified secret interpretations which have already been found to be unconstitutional (re: classified findings)? The congress has the ability to decide whether or not the President has committed a "high crime", and I'm fairly certain this fits the historical meaning of that term.. knowingly and willingly violating the constitutional rights of every US citizen, a constitution which the president is sworn to defend (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_Presiden...</a>).
It's pretty interesting to look at the NSA leaks in hindsight, especially with an eye towards the foreshadowing and warning signs that exist today for the countless programs we don't know about. Take a look at this too, from a year ago: <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/nsa-spied/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/nsa-spied/</a>
If I were Wyden, I would just pen an entire new bill that describes exactly what is going on already and send it to the Congress to be voted on. I would be the best way to publish what is happening. Everything in the bill could be written in the future tense, so it can't be seen as declassifying what is going on in the present.
IANAL, so help!<p>So, as in the OP, suppose I'm in business,
and the FBI knocks at my door and says that
they want all the data in my server farm.<p>I say, "Just a minute while I contact my
lawyer". Then I turn to the FBI and
say, "My lawyer says we'll see you in court.
I've got to get back to work.
Be seeing you.".<p>So, in court, the FBI lawyers tell
the judge that they are due the data
in my server farm because of a
double secret, triple top secret,
national security, national command
authority, black law that can't be
talked about because the first
rule of black law is never talk
about the rules of black law.<p>Then the judge says what? This is
a joke, right? Or, get out'a here.
Or. you can take your double-triple
nonsense back to your FBI HQ funny
farm and use it for intellectual
self abuse, but you've got nothing
more to do here or with the defendant.<p>That's the way it would work, right?<p>Or, maybe as in the OP there are some double-triple
secret laws, but as soon as the FBI
wants to use one to get all the data
in my server farm, we go to court,
and the judge starts laughing, right?
If only the mainstream media would stop parroting government lies, then I think we the people could rise up and stop the NSA. It's going to take intelligent people like us on the internet to finally stop Pax Americana from oppressing our freedoms.