Brief Moment of Sanity - Judge Smacks Down Wiretapping!

Hell yes. HELL YES. In quite easily the best news I have heard in some time, a federal judge has ruled the NSA's warrantless wiretapping is quite unconstitutional. From CNN:

A federal judge on Thursday ruled that the U.S. government's domestic eavesdropping program is unconstitutional and ordered it ended immediately.

The Justice Department said it would appeal the ruling, saying the program was "a critical tool that ensures we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent a terrorist attack." (Note: Fuck that)

In a 44-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, -- who is based in Detroit, Michigan -- struck down the National Security Agency's program, which she said violates the rights to free speech and privacy. (Read the complete ruling -- PDF)

The defendants "are permanently enjoined from directly or indirectly utilizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP) in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and Internet communications, in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Title III," she wrote.

She further declared that the program "violates the separation of powers doctrine, the Administrative Procedures Act, the First and Fourth amendments to the United States Constitution, the FISA and Title III."

She went on to say that "the president of the United States ... has undisputedly violated the Fourth in failing to procure judicial orders."

In its statement announcing the appeal, the Justice Department rejected the judge's reasoning.

"In the ongoing conflict with al Qaeda and its allies, the president has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people," the Justice Department said. "The Constitution gives the president the full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and we believe the program is lawful and protects civil liberties." (Note: Bullshit. The Constiution does NOT give the President to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. This is just spin)

The lawsuit, filed January 17 by civil rights organizations, lawyers, journalists and educators, "challenges the constitutionality of a secret government program to intercept vast quantities of the international telephone and Internet communications of innocent Americans without court approval."

The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiffs included branches of the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Washington and Detroit branches of the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Greenpeace.

It's picking up steam across the blog-o-sphere. Glenn Greenwald weighs in with reports and opinion:

I have read the opinion. Here is my immediate analysis of it. It is a very strong opinion in some places, weak in others, but is rather straightforward -- and sometimes eloquent -- in its almost always unequivocal rejection of the Bush administration's arguments:

First, the court rejected the administration's assertion of the "state secrets" doctrine with regard to the NSA eavesdropping program on the ground that the program has already been publicly confirmed by the administration, and that all of the known facts necessary to rule on the plaintiff's claims -- namely, that the administration is eavesdropping without warrants -- are already publicly known. The court adopted upon the reasoning of Judge Walker who, as noted above, rejected the administration's invocation of this doctrine on the same ground.

(The court here did, however, grant the administration's motion to dismiss the part of the case challenging the constitutionality of the data-mining program, on the ground that it has not yet been confirmed, and litigation of its legality would therefore require disclose of state secrets).

Second, the court ruled that the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the legality of the NSA program even though they cannot prove they have been eavesdropped on, because they have suffered actual harm merely from knowing that the Government is eavesdropping. They all allege that they have extensive communications with the Middle East by telephone and fear that the administration is listening in without a warrant. Some are attorneys who fear the administration is eavesdropping on their conversations with their clients and witnesses, and they allege that these clients and witnesses have ceased communicating with them openly as a result.

Thus, the court held that these plaintiffs are suffering actual harm in their ability to carry out their professional duties as a result of the administration's warrantless eavesdropping program. That actual harm confers on them standing to challenge the legality of the program. The court also emphasized, in an excellent section I will quote shortly, that it is vital to our democracy that the administration's conduct not remain beyond the reach of judicial scrutiny.

Third, the court ruled -- rather emphatically and without much doubt -- that warrantless eavesdropping violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures (generally speaking, searches undertaken in the absence of a probable cause warrant). Citing the 1972 Supreme Court decision in the Keith case (more on that here) -- which held that warrantless eavesdropping is unconstitutional in the context of investigating domestic terrorist groups -- the court held (admittedly without much reasoning or even explicit arguments) that the same reasoning applies to make warrantless eavesdropping unconstitutional in the context of investigating international terrorist groups.

Fourth, the court ruled independently -- again, without all that much reasoning -- that the NSA program violates the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, apparently because it chills (deters) their free expression. Since the plaintiffs know the Government can eavesdrop without warrants on conversations of those groups and individuals deemed "subversive," the program abridges free expression in a way that the First Amendment prohibits.

Fifth, the court relied upon Youngstown to hold that the Executive's powers in the national security area do not entitle him to act beyond the law or the Constitution, and that courts are empowered under our Constitution to enjoin and restrict the exercise even of national security powers, even in times of war, when the President's conduct violates the law or the Constitution.

Sixth, the court swiftly and dismissively rejected the administration's claim that the AUMF constitutes authorization to eavesdrop in violation of FISA, noting that FISA is an extremely specific statute while the AUMF says nothing about eavesdropping. In any event, as the court noted, since the court found warrantless eavesdropping unconstitutional, Congress could not authorize warrantless eavesdropping by statute.

Seventh, the court made its scorn quite clear for the administration's Yoo theory of executive power because, as the court put it, "there are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." Citing Youngstown again, the court made clear that even in time of war, and even with regard to the President's Commander-in-Chief powers, the President is subject to constitutional restrictions -- a proposition long unquestioned in our system of government until the Bush administration began inventing radical theories of executive power.

Finally, and really quite extraordinarily, the court (a) declared the NSA program to be in violation of FISA, the First Amendment and Fourth Amendment and (b) issued a permanent injunction enjoining the Bush administration from continuing to eavesdrop in violation of FISA.

This is not the most scholarly opinion ever. It has argumentative holes in it in several important places. But it is correct in its result and it is an enormous victory for the rule of law. It took real courage for Judge Diggs Taylor to issue this Opinion and Order -- it is hard to overstate how much courage it took. It will obviously be appealed. But as of right now, it is illegal, according to this federal court, for the Bush administration to continue to implement its "Terrorist Surveillance Program," and since it is grounded in constitutional conclusions, nothing -- such as Arlen Specter's dreaded bill -- could change that.

He goes on and on. This is far from over, however, because now with the Justice Department appealing, this case will probably go as high as the Supreme Court. And they will make or break this, and honestly, my hopes are not high for the highest court in the land to rule against the Bush regime. But it is so promising to know there are still federal judges and courts out there who still support the Constiution and the people, and who know when something is wrong (or illegal)

Time will tell on this - and will Bush and Co, who are already war criminals, stop even though the court is demanding it?


This post will be updated should any further news or important situations break.