Friday, July 21, 2006
By DAVID KRAVETS
Seattle Post-Intelligencer/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
A federal judge refused Thursday to dismiss a lawsuit challenging the Bush administration's domestic spying program, rejecting government claims that allowing the case to go forward could expose state secrets and jeopardize the war on terrorism. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker said the warrantless eavesdropping has been so widely reported that there appears to be no danger of spilling secrets.
Dozens of lawsuits have been filed alleging that telecommunications companies and the government are illegally intercepting Americans' communications without warrants. This is the first time a judge has ruled on the government's claim of a "state secrets privilege."
"It might appear that none of the subject matter in this litigation could be considered a secret given that the alleged surveillance programs have been so widely reported in the media," Walker said. Walker also wrote that he did not see how allowing the lawsuit to continue could threaten national security. "The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one," Walker said. "But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security."
And in declining to dismiss AT&T Inc. from the lawsuit, which was filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a privacy group, Walker suggested that the case had some merit. "AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal," he wrote.
A Justice Department spokesman said the administration was reviewing the ruling.
The lawsuit challenges President Bush's assertion that he can use his wartime powers to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant. It accuses AT&T of illegally making communications on its networks available to the National Security Agency without warrants....
It will be interesting to see what happens with this, and how long it takes. Almost certainly, what was once the Justice Department will appeal this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- and the 9th Circuit will either refuse to hear the case (most likely, if they agree with the decision) or they will hear it -- and likely rule against the government. Then it will be appealed to the US Supreme Court, and reach their precincts somewhere around 2009, when none of the players will be around, and a new (and hopefully more principled and smarter) attorney general will be stuck defending this case. At which point, the Court will either refuse to hear the case, will hear and reverse, or will hear and affirm. Given the current court ... I have no clue how it will fall out. I think the court will hear the appeal -- I would think it would have four votes for that, at least -- and my gut feeling is that it would reverse and remand, but that's just a guess.
And all that, we'll have reached 2009, and we still won't have had a hearing on the actual merits of the case. This has to be what the administration is hoping for, that things will proceed at their normal glacial pace, and they just won't have to worry about it after a certain point.
Posted by iain at July 21, 2006 11:48 AM
