Instamonkey: Warrantless wiretapping still illegal

Well, duh:

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration’s effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies of former President George W. Bush.

The ruling by Judge Walker, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, also rejected the Justice Department’s claim — first asserted by the Bush administration and continued under President Obama — that the charity’s lawsuit should be dismissed without a ruling on the merits because allowing it to go forward could reveal state secrets.

The judge characterized that expansive use of the so-called state-secrets privilege as amounting to “unfettered executive-branch discretion” that had “obvious potential for governmental abuse and overreaching.”

In 2008, Congress overhauled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to bring federal statutes into closer alignment with what the Bush administration had been secretly doing. The legislation essentially legalized certain aspects of the warrantless surveillance program.

But the overhauled law still requires the government to obtain a warrant if it is focusing on an individual or entity inside the United States. The surveillance of Al Haramain would still be unlawful today if no court had approved it, current and former Justice Department officials said.

God bless activist judges. You know: the ones who uphold the rule of law.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/?q=trackback/7220

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You say Warrantless Surveillance....

They say Terrorist Surveillance.

I heard this story on the way home from work. One of the people interviewed referred to the program as the "Terrorist Surveillance Program," which I thought was such classic neo-con* discourse that I had to smile at the temerity.

*Can something be classically neo-con?

Obvious

I love it when judges use a word like "obvious". There's nothing obvious about the law. If there were, we wouldn't need lawyers.

Re: Obvious

Actually, the state secrets privilege really does have “obvious potential for governmental abuse and overreaching.” We don't need the lawyers to clarify that for us; we need them to push back so that it doesn't happen.

Re: Obvious

I agree: It appears obvious to me. However, we all know the law isn't about what's obvious. It never is. To me, it's obvious what the Second Amendment means, too. It's only one sentence. But as country we've been arguing about it for how long?

So what I'm saying is, any lawyer or judge who uses a word like "obvious" is being disingenuous.