Response to my post about Karn case and Judge Ginsberg

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:39:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
To: fight-censorship@vorlon.mit.edu
Subject: Response to my post about Karn case and Judge Ginsberg

[In a post earlier this week announcing that a partial Karn transcript was
in Netly's Afterword section, I said that Ginsberg had libertarian
leanings. Attached is a response. --Declan]

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 10:48:46
From: [Name deleted -DBM]
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: Karn case challenging crypto rules -- oral arguments online

I don't know if you're aware of this case, but Judge Ginsberg wrote the
most disturbing dissenting opinion on a national security issue that I
can think of in recent years.  It was a lawsuit involving old FBI
COINTELPRO activity from the late 1950s.  The widow of a prominent
Communist sued the FBI for ruining her husband's career.  It seems the
FBI planted falsified documents implying that he was an FBI spy where
his fellow communists would find them.  To prove the case, the plaintiff
needed FBI records requested under FOIA.  The FBI refused, citing
"national security".  Two of the judges reviewing the case sensibly
noted that dirty tricks on American citizens during the 1950s are hardly
a national security issue today.  

Ginsberg, however, wrote a chilling dissent.  He *censored* the key
parts of his dissent, because they were based on classified information.
The plaintiff was not permitted to see the heart of Ginsberg's
justification.  That's as close to a secret court as I've ever heard of
in the US.  The case was settled out of court after the FBI lost the
suit, but to this day, I think Ginsberg is the worst judge in the
Federal courts.  I remember this story from the NY Times, but I'm sure
you can find the details yourself if you're interested. 

At any rate, I would consider Ginsberg highly susceptable to "national
security" arguments by the Federal govt.