There's a lot of grousing in the tech community -- and HN in particular -- about all the threats to freedom, and for all the problems with the government's responses to current issues like new technologies or terrorism.
There's legitimate substance here, but occasionally, the system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to -- the judicial branch both asserting its independence from the executive and striking down an overreaching action by the latter.
In the actual ruling [1], the judge provides a very apt quotation from another case: "Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive." This is particularly important in matters of national security. The tendency is for the executive branch to say the magic words "national security" if those words tend to cause other people to let them do whatever they want.
> There's legitimate substance here, but occasionally, the system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to -- the judicial branch both asserting its independence from the executive and striking down an overreaching action by the latter.
Note that this isn't over yet. The judge put a stay on the ruling to allow the government to appeal. Note that national security letters have been around since 1978; and have been greatly expanded in scope in 2001. So depending on how you count, that's 12 years or 35 years of lost liberty. I'm not sure I would count that as a system working the way it's supposed to. How many years of living under gag orders do we consider acceptable?
the system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to
The system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to far more often than the cynics like to admit. The system isn't perfect, but I'm not about to stop believing in justice just yet.
This is just a few years after 9/11, a year into the Iraq war, and Scalia, joined by Stevens, dissenting because the majority didn't go far enough in protecting an accused terrorist from the Bush administration:
"Having distorted the Suspension Clause, the plurality finishes up by transmogrifying the Great Writ—disposing of the present habeas petition by remanding for the District Court to "engag[e] in a factfinding process that is both prudent and incremental," ante, at 539. "In the absence of [the Executive's prior provision of procedures that satisfy due process], ... a court that receives a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from an alleged enemy combatant must itself ensure that the minimum requirements of due process are achieved." Ante, at 538. This judicial remediation of executive default is unheard of. The role of habeas corpus is to determine the legality of executive detention, not to supply the omitted process necessary to make it legal. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973) ("[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that custody, and ... the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody"); 1 Blackstone 132-133. It is not the habeas court's function to make illegal detention legal by supplying a process that the Government could have provided, but chose not to. If Hamdi is being imprisoned in violation of the Constitution (because without due process of law), then his habeas petition should be granted; the Executive may then hand him over to the criminal authorities, whose detention for the purpose of prosecution will be lawful, or else must release him."
His whole dissent, starting at 554, is worth a read.
A big reason why the system doesn't work when it doesn't is apathy, if more people merely took the effort to inform themselves and work within the system we'd be light-years ahead of where we are now.
There's legitimate substance here, but occasionally, the system actually works exactly the way it's supposed to -- the judicial branch both asserting its independence from the executive and striking down an overreaching action by the latter.
In the actual ruling [1], the judge provides a very apt quotation from another case: "Under no circumstances should the Judiciary become the handmaiden of the Executive." This is particularly important in matters of national security. The tendency is for the executive branch to say the magic words "national security" if those words tend to cause other people to let them do whatever they want.
EDIT: Actually link to the ruling
[1] https://www.eff.org/document/nsl-ruling-march-14-2013