Not that it really makes a functional difference, but...

[Elder Iptuous]

If it's classified, the court can't release it.

but they do get to review it, and then make an official judicial interpretation of the law, right?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

"Not knowing the law is no excuse."

[Elder Iptuous]

right?!
we're a long way from the code being chiseled on a large stone in town square...

that's probably the biggest argument against feeling any moral compulsion to act in accordance with the law. (even that which is explicitly known)
fuck it.

[Cain]

If it's classified, the court can't release it.

but they do get to review it, and then make an official judicial interpretation of the law, right?

Yes, as far as I know.

However, since in the case of the Patriot Act these are FISA courts, I don't think the courts in question are equipped to interpret the law - only rule whether a particular surveillance warrant is legal or not under the current definition.

If another court wanted to examine the government's decisions, it may not even be allowed access to the secret interpretation.

[Cain]

By the way, you guys also have secret drone bases.

It was recently revealed that the drone attack which killed Anwar al-Walaki came from a previously unknown base in Saudi Arabia.

Who was a CIA Station Chief in Riyadh?  John Brennan.

Also revealed - John Brennan was asked by someone outside of the American government to sign off on signature attacks in Yemen.  They say the Yemenis, however, I think the Saudis are the more likely instigators.

So in essence you have secret hitmen operating from secret bases with the backing of secret laws, doing the dirty work of the Saudi government, who almost certainly wanted Anwar al-Walaki dead for what he may have known about 9/11 and Saudi intelligence operations in the US in 2000-2001.

[Elder Iptuous]

If it's classified, the court can't release it.

but they do get to review it, and then make an official judicial interpretation of the law, right?

Yes, as far as I know.

However, since in the case of the Patriot Act these are FISA courts, I don't think the courts in question are equipped to interpret the law - only rule whether a particular surveillance warrant is legal or not under the current definition.

If another court wanted to examine the government's decisions, it may not even be allowed access to the secret interpretation.

that would be crazy....
i thought the FISA courts just operated for the govt. to go to in order to get authorization for surveillance.  i figured if a citizen brought suit against the govt, then it would go through a standard court rather than a special purpose one.
if a court cant subpoena the interpretation that the govt acted on, i would still think they should have the right to give an official interpretation and the executive would be forced to adhere to it.
but, i'm just guessing based on what seems rational to me, which is rather foolish, i admit.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

By the way, you guys also have secret drone bases.

It was recently revealed that the drone attack which killed Anwar al-Walaki came from a previously unknown base in Saudi Arabia.

Who was a CIA Station Chief in Riyadh?  John Brennan.

Also revealed - John Brennan was asked by someone outside of the American government to sign off on signature attacks in Yemen.  They say the Yemenis, however, I think the Saudis are the more likely instigators.

So in essence you have secret hitmen operating from secret bases with the backing of secret laws, doing the dirty work of the Saudi government, who almost certainly wanted Anwar al-Walaki dead for what he may have known about 9/11 and Saudi intelligence operations in the US in 2000-2001.

...AND the Washington Post and New York Times have both known about those bases for years and sat on the information even as two administrations denied the reports from other news outlets.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

If it's classified, the court can't release it.

but they do get to review it, and then make an official judicial interpretation of the law, right?

Yes, as far as I know.

However, since in the case of the Patriot Act these are FISA courts, I don't think the courts in question are equipped to interpret the law - only rule whether a particular surveillance warrant is legal or not under the current definition.

If another court wanted to examine the government's decisions, it may not even be allowed access to the secret interpretation.

that would be crazy....
i thought the FISA courts just operated for the govt. to go to in order to get authorization for surveillance.  i figured if a citizen brought suit against the govt, then it would go through a standard court rather than a special purpose one.
if a court cant subpoena the interpretation that the govt acted on, i would still think they should have the right to give an official interpretation and the executive would be forced to adhere to it.
but, i'm just guessing based on what seems rational to me, which is rather foolish, i admit.

My guess is rule 4 would be invoked, which would mean that that particular secret interpretation would not be admissable in any meaningful way. How it's worked in other cases is rule 4 is invoked and then discussed ex-parte between the state and the presiding judge who then comes back and denies the subpoena without presenting any rationale for doing so, thus not presenting the party requesting the subpoena any opportunity to rebut it. As this legal theory is pretty much being treated in the same manner as a piece of material evidence, I can't see why it would be litigated any differently.

[Cain]

By the way, you guys also have secret drone bases.

It was recently revealed that the drone attack which killed Anwar al-Walaki came from a previously unknown base in Saudi Arabia.

Who was a CIA Station Chief in Riyadh?  John Brennan.

Also revealed - John Brennan was asked by someone outside of the American government to sign off on signature attacks in Yemen.  They say the Yemenis, however, I think the Saudis are the more likely instigators.

So in essence you have secret hitmen operating from secret bases with the backing of secret laws, doing the dirty work of the Saudi government, who almost certainly wanted Anwar al-Walaki dead for what he may have known about 9/11 and Saudi intelligence operations in the US in 2000-2001.

Bump.

Looks like I was at least half right:

A former senior official in the Obama administration told me that after Abdulrahman's killing, the president was "surprised and upset and wanted an explanation." The former official, who worked on the targeted killing program, said that according to intelligence and Special Operations officials, the target of the strike was al-Banna, the AQAP propagandist. "We had no idea the kid was there. We were told al-Banna was alone," the former official told me. Once it became clear that the teenager had been killed, he added, military and intelligence officials asserted, "It was a mistake, a bad mistake."

However, John Brennan, at the time President Obama's senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, "suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don't know what happened with the review."

So maybe Brennan wasn't in on the reasons for a set-up.  But he seems to know, or suspect, who is and ordered the report investigating it to be buried in some deep black hole somewhere.  While I'm inclined to believe that indicates ultimate responsibility lying with Riyadh, the Obama Administration's love of secrecy for its own sake cannot be dismissed as a possible reason.