Shh!

[stoutfellow]

I don't know about you, but I find the idea of secret laws - laws whose content, whose very existence, cannot be discussed in public - extremely disturbing.

Addendum: Brian Tamanaha, at Balkinization, is very concerned. Orin Kerr, at the Volokh Conspiracy, thinks it isn't that big a deal. I respect both of them; both are lawyers (although Kerr admits that this isn't his area of expertise). I'll reserve judgment, pending further information.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

fan of parts of the PATRIOT ACT and not of others

Oh, likewise. I was on the Library Board of Trustees when it came out.[1] We had a few discussions at that time :<) . Nobody was in favor of the library provisions, but the Board's instructions to the Librarian were to follow the law. Of course.

I can even see why it was that they wanted that provision and why they wanted the gag rule. The trouble is, that it is these sorts of things that are subject to being abused, and I have zero confidence in any administration's ability to resist the temptation to abuse them.

Basically, it is the increased powers of surveillance and lack of accountability thereto that I most object to. For any of these, as do you, I strongly want a sunset provision.

[1] Also a Village Trustee - the Library reports to the Town, so I thought I was OK - and was, officially, but the Village works closely with the Town and I found it difficult to represent one without worrying about interference with responsibilities to the other. So now I am Treasurer, but not on the Board.

[countrycousin.livejournal.com]

arrgh. I got on from the email notification and didn't notice that I wasn't recognized. Silly newbie. The above was I.

[carbonelle.livejournal.com]

Actually, I could live with having both the increased powers of surveillance (well, some) and the delayed-notification gag rule (well, somewhat :-) (*the idea of trumpeting that public libraries are guaranteed CIA- and FBI-free zones strikes me as... well, unwise) if only said sub-sections were subject to a 4-year sunset provision timed to just prior to the presidential elections.

We've got to work with people's self-interest, whenever we can.

[countrycousin.livejournal.com]

What I don't like about secret investigation of private habits is that it can be used by the party in power to maintain power. Not all, but sufficient, political animals have shown they are willing to so use the power. I don't want the power to exist. That is also the problem with Security secrecy, which I generally support. It is (ab)used to protect the reputations of people in power. Not all the time, of course. But often enough.

Fat chance of getting Congress to set up a sunset to expire during election season :<) . . .