how-to block ads
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: Smart Judges STILL exist
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. | |
|
