A Judge Says No To King George

(The Nation)  This column was written by David Corn.

---

In ruling on Thursday that the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional and must be halted, U.S. district Judge Anna Diggs Taylor slammed the White House on several critical fronts.

For months, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and other administration aides have been defending — even championing — what they call the "terrorist surveillance program," under which the National Security Agency can intercept communications that involve an American citizen or resident without a warrant if one party to the communication is overseas and suspected of being linked to anti-American terrorists). They have maintained that the president has the authority as commander in chief to authorize such surveillance. Though the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) generally forbids wiretapping without warrants, the White House has contended that Bush is not bound by the limitations of that law. This claim — arising from the Bush administration's view of expansive (even supreme) presidential power — set up a constitutional clash. And in the first round of the legal battle, Judge Taylor has knocked out the White House argument.

In her decision, she accused the administration of dishonestly arguing that the lawsuit filed by the ACLU and others (including journalists, researchers and lawyers) against the NSA wiretapping should be dismissed because it would expose state secrets:

It is undisputed that Defendants have publicly admitted to the following: (1) the TSP [Terrorist Surveillance Program] exists; (2) it operates without warrants; (3) it targets communications where one party to the communication is outside the United States, and the government has a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al Qaeda. As the Government has on many occasions confirmed the veracity of these allegations, the state secrets privilege does not apply to this information.

She added:

Defendants assert that they cannot defend this case without the exposure of state secrets. This court disagrees. The Bush Administration has repeatedly told the general public that there is a valid basis in law for the TSP. Further, Defendants have contended that the President has the authority under the AUMF [legislation authorizing Bush to use military force against Iraq] and the Constitution to authorize the continued use of the TSP. Defendants [the Bush administration] have supported these arguments without revealing or relying on any classified information. Indeed, the court has reviewed the classified information and is of the opinion that this information is not necessary to any viable defense to the TSP....Consequently, the court finds Defendants' argument that they cannot defend this case without the use of classified information to be disingenuous and without merit.

In other words, Bush cannot hide behind an it's-classified defense. (Taylor did say that the administration could do so in a related matter — the data-mining of phone records by the NSA. That's because not enough information has been publicly released about this covert program.)

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[sandycat2]

The judge in the wiretap decision cited Clinton V Jones in her opinion for the decision? How flawed is that? Clinton V Jones was a personal matter concerning Clinton's behavior with the woman Jones and whether he could be taken to court involving his disgusting behavior with women. How does this decision have anything to do with Bush's decision to use warantless wiretaps to intercept terrorist plans to attack and kill American citizens which is a national security issue? That is like trying to mix apples and oranges. Bush is just trying to keep Americans alive with his program. What if the program reveiled information in a call from Pakistan to a terrorist who happens to be a traitorous American citizen in the US about an imminent terrorist attack. What if the attack occurs in the time it takes to get a warrant and 10 thousand Americans or more are killed and billions of dollars of destruction is done to our infrastructure and our economy and puts our country into a severe recession. How smart would this decision look then? This program is not about Bush. It is about keeping Americans alive and FREE.

[prelgovisk]

KING George? Propaganda and Opinion, not news

[carlylaine]

All of you left wingers would be screaming bloody murder if there were another major attack from the countries who want us dead. You'd be screaming for Bush's death if you and yours were to be attacked and he did nothing.

Why do some American citizens hate their own country with such venom? Why are they so bent on a cataclysmic end to a wonderful country? You obviously have only one agenda and that is to assist in our destruction.

Nothing that comes out of your mouth is constructive. You are practically crazed with your maliciousness.

This has been said and written ad nauseam but if you dispise us so much then leave. Go to the countries that want to annihilate America and live their way. Work for them.

You won't do it. Your hostility is because we have a Republican President, which you hate so tremendously that you'd rather destroy the whole country with your poisonous hearts.

[carlylaine]

Interesting how most of this post is talking about how corrupt the Bush Administration is. I posted several about my conservativism and it's now nowhere to be seen.

Therefore, I will continue to post that left- wingers are destroying the country with their hate-filled diatribes. I have never seen such venom for one administration. And only because President Bush is Republican.

Ya just can't stand that WE WON.

[emhawks]

I want to congratulate US district Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for having the courage to stand up to the Bush/Cheney adm. & do what is right. The warrantless wiretapping of millions of American citizens is unconstitutional. It is but one example of the lawlessness of this adm. Bush/Cheney's continuous abuses of power,their blatant lies to the American people, their belief that they are above the law & their indifference to the will of the American people are all impeachable offenses. Bush & Cheney (especially Cheney; the real President of the US) are terrorists. They are just as guilty in their own way, as Bin Ladin or any terrorist, for the bloodshed we see now in the Mid. East, for the deaths of more than 2500 US servicemen/women & for (as we will hopefully see proven in the years ahead)the horrific tragedy of 911.

[speakinup]

Bet that made you feel good huh, eyesore. You are a little frustrated too huh ?

Another Lefty that couldn't come up with a good rebuttal, so he had to get personal instead.

Make no mistake DesertRat200 - the left will be blaming President Bush when that bomb goes off. Oh, he should not have bothered those poor terrorists that promissed to kill 3 million before they would be happy (Osama B). He only enraged them so that now they are over here.

[speakinup]

Mr Corn - feeling a little frustrated are we ? Well, I must say I'm not entirely surprised that a lefty jornalist (if even in a opinion piece) would use the expression 'King George'. After all, the name of the game is sensationalism. Forget the idea, that we are to tell the news, let's be another political player. Mr Corn is here to push his agenda, and sell his rag. And he does it in true lefty style, by name-calling. Way to go Mr Corn.

Never mind the fact that the ACLU had to go to the town with the biggest Muslim population (ok - so maybe it's just up in the top ten.)to find a Judge that was willing to be this stupid to help terrorists. Makes me wonder when she's up for election.

[beetabuns]

It is about time someone stood up and spoke about injustices in this country. Bush is supposed to be defending us, yet he is trampling on the very thing that our democracy stands for by "protecting us".... Why dont more news programs stand up and speak out? Does this administration have everyone afraid???

[rocketeer5-2009]

This isn't an issue of liberals being soft on terrorists. It's an issue of complying with existing law. The ruling doesn't say stop surveillance of terrorists. It says stop WARRANTLESS surveillance of terrorists. FISA says get a warrant. So get a warrant. Is it so hard to simply follow the law?

[godseyesore-2009]

Not clever enough to choose a unique name, "desertrat200" is obviously holed up in scorching sterile dirt, and the ACLU would fight to protect his/her right to do so.