how-to block ads
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to notajudgement
Re: Smart Judges STILL exist
said by notajudgement :
It isn't necessarily a victory. Read the judgement, there CAN be evidence within the NSA and ATT that can be restricted from use in this case, if dicovery shows that. What this means is that, if in the process of discovery, there are items of secrecy that the government/judge deems to be a national threat, it can and will be withheld within this judgement.
Page 35 of 72.
Also, the judge noted in his ruling that in the past that the gov't refused to provide any evidence and appealed the judges ruling up thru the Supreme Court. This is far from over. I suspect the Gov't and AT&T will refuse the judges order and numerous appeals will follow.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Oh, this will definately go to SCOTUS. This, however, is one of those sighs of relief--to know that the legal system understands false manuevering when it crops up.
This is a pretty damned important case. | |
GigahertZ420
join:2001-10-02
Fairbanks, AK | So the judge essentially said to the govt, "If you have nothing to hide why do you want the case dropped?"
How ironic as this is what Bush & Co. has been using to defend their illegal deeds. | |
envoid
join:2002-12-21
Duluth, GA
2 edits | Well, from my reading, it seems like the Gubm't can invoke a claim of privilege even if the wiretap IS illegally conducted, and especially so when it is considered a time of war. Though didn't Bush say it wasn't or something and then say it was or vice-versa?
quote:
In particular, the government contends that the executive has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes, id at 24 (citing In re Sealed Case, 310 F3d 717, 742 (For Intel Surv Ct of Rev 2002)), and that the warrant requirement does not apply here because this case involves “special needs” that go beyond a routine interest in law enforcement, id at 26.
This sums up the Gubmt's thinking right here. "We don't need no stinking warrants!"
quote:
The first step in determining whether a piece of information constitutes a “state secret” is determining whether that information actually is a “secret.” Hence, before analyzing the application of the state secrets privilege to plaintiffs’ claims, the court summarizes what has been publicly disclosed about NSA surveillance programs as well as the AT&T documents and accompanying Klein and Marcus declarations.
Within the last year, public reports have surfaced on at least two different types of alleged NSA surveillance programs, neither of which relies on warrants. The New York Times disclosed the first such program on December 16, 2005. Doc #19 (Cohn Decl), Ex J (James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, Bush Lets US Spy on Callers Without Courts, The New York Times (Dec 16, 2005)). The following day, President George W Bush confirmed the existence of a “terrorist surveillance program” in his weekly radio address:
GW said:
In the weeks following the [September 11, 2001] terrorist attacks on our Nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with US law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist
organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the Government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.
Thankfully the Judge is smart and realizes that even if someone says something is a secret yet everyone knows about that something, it is no longer a "secret." And, thankfully, GW made it no longer a "secret." LOL
And I love how AT&T thinks they're special...
quote:
AT&T also contends it is entitled to statutory, common law and qualified immunity.
I still wish much luck to the EFF on this; Once it gets to the SCOTUS it will most likely be ruled against them. Kinda sad, really. | |
|
