Judge defers decision on US wiretap suit

[cal04]

A federal judge on Monday deferred making an immediate decision on a request that the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping program be halted as a violation of law. The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit in January, asked U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor to stop the White House from intercepting international phone calls and e-mails without a warrant in its fight against terrorism, saying it violates Americans' free speech and privacy rights.

But the government responded that the program is key to helping protect U.S. security. Taylor deferred any ruling. Another hearing is scheduled for July 10. "Our clients have suffered concrete harm," Ann Beeson, the ACLU's associate legal director, told the court, saying lawyers now have to travel overseas to gather information they would have previously received on the phone and journalists are beginning to lose sources.

"The framers (of the U.S. Constitution) never intended to give the president the power to ignore the laws of Congress even during wartime and emergencies," she said. The case was filed in Detroit because the area is home to one of the largest Arab populations outside the Middle East. Nazih Hassan, a Lebanese-American, and a member of the ACLU, said the wiretapping had instilled fear in the Arab community.

(snip)
The ACLU's suit contends that U.S. officials have already disclosed enough for judges to rule that the recent wiretapping skirted the requirements of a 1978 surveillance law. "We don't believe we need any more facts to prove the president has violated the law," Beeson told reporters after the hearing.

Continued...
http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-12T191219Z_01_N11178720_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-EAVESDROPPING.xml

[Kutjara]

1. Plain English translation:

Judge: Stop the wiretapping, it's illegal.
BushCo: We don't wanna.
Judge: OK.

[jeff30997]

2. The way I see it it's more like:

Judge: Stop the wiretapping, it's illegal.
BushCo: We have pictures of you in a delicate situation.And phone recordings too of course.
Judge: OK.

[Kutjara]

3. Yep, that's more like it all right. n/t

[nolabels]

4. The only thing that seems surprising is the decision took this long

Some lackey judge must of been cued in for need for a little charade time

[cal04]

5. Wired.com is courtroom-blogging the ACLU's suit

The ACLU's challenge to the government's warrantless wiretapping of phone calls between American citizens and persons outside the country the government thinks are connected to terrorism had its first real hearing today.
As I noted last week, the ACLU has an interesting strategy(http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?entry_id=1496496) to get around the government's attempt to dismiss the case since it might reveal state secrets: they are arguing that the president's admission in December that the program was going on, outside of the law regulating wiretaps, is enough for the judge to rule the program illegal.


Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Michigan's Federal District Court can, according to the ACLU, simply decide that any wiretapping of Americans without approval from a court is illegal without learning any more details about how the program operates. Not surprisingly, the Justice Department argues that it could prove the legality of the program by describing it further, but that would reveal national security secrets so the suit must be tossed under the state secrets privilege. The Justice Department also maintains that the program doesn't have to follow the law, since the president has wartime powers via the Constitution.

(snip)
The DOJ also questioned the right of the ACLU to bring the suit, since none of the plaintiffs -- which include journalists and lawyers who represent suspected terrorists -- can prove they were surveilled. It's a legally tough hurdle to get over since targets of secret wiretaps are never told they were surveilled (those whose conversations are captured by conventional criminal wiretaps are eventually told so, including the targeted person and anyone recorded talking to that person).

Judge Taylor seemed to take an interest in that point, asking Beeson to elaborate further on why a journalist such as Christopher Hitchens has standing to sue if he can't prove he was wiretapped. Taylor is planning on holding a follow-up hearing on the government's motion to dismiss the case on state secrets grounds in early July. While technically the judge could agree with the ACLU's bid for summary judgment before then, she's highly unlikely to do so before reading and holding a hearing on the government's secret arguments to dismiss the case. As in the EFF vs. ATT case, those documents are in a secret room in Washington D.C. (http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/index.blog?entry_id=1497337)



more
http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/

[struggle4progress]

6. kick

:kick: