Just another arrogant twit in a black robe...
Posted on 02/16/2006 11:23:39 AM PST by hipaatwo
A federal judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration on its warrantless surveillance program, ordering the Justice Department on Thursday to release documents about the highly classified effort within 20 days or compile a list of what it is withholding.
U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy said a private group will suffer irreparable harm if the documents it has been seeking since December are not processed promptly under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Justice Department failed to meet the time restraints under FOIA and failed to make a case that it was impractical to deal quickly with the request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said no determination has been made as to what the government's next step will be.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
they had better appeal asap.
exactly which group is suffering harm.. Al Qeada, daily kos crowd or the DNC leadership on a fishing expedition?
Just another arrogant twit in a black robe...
HERE...is the reason that it has been so important for Bush to get as many SCOTUS justices confirmed as possible under his watch...
I have a feeling that these kind of "decisions" will be all too prevalent coming from some of Clinton's judges..
That dog's not gonna hunt for long.
this will be instantly appealed, its obvious who owns this judge.
For once I agree with Joe Stalin... "Judge, how many divisions do you have?"
The Supreme Court is next I hope.
What doesn't this AHOLE understand about the words "highly classified"?
Clinton appointee
SURPRISE!
I wonder if that's the same Rose of the Rose Law Firm of Hillary Clinton fame?
ping a ling
I thinks it's People for the Unamerican Way that's requesting this. I remember reading about it last week but I'm not 100% sure.
This is a turf war.
The judges are afraid they will now be bypassed.
Seriously, if the information is not being gathered for a court case there warrents are really not relevant. These judges are confusing the battlefield with the courtroom.
You can't win wars with scottish law.
How on earth do 90% of the LSM news reports refer to "Bush's Domestic Spying Program"?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Department of Justice
Civil Action No. 2006-0096
Memorandum Opinion & Order issued February 16, 2006 by Judge Henry H. Kennedy
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2006/Kennedy/2006-CV-96~9:45:49~2-16-2006-a.pdf
The 2006 opinions of the court: http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/district-court-2006.html
This is really a bogus decision. When seeking a preliminary injunction (which is what was issued here) the plaintiff not only has to show that they will suffer irreperable harm if the injunction is not granted; they must also show that the threatened harm to them if the injunction is not granted outweights the potential harm to the defendant if the injunction IS granted. Also, the plaintiff must show a substantial likelihood they will prevail on the merits. Now....how could anyone believe that the potential harm to the US if confidential info on the war on terror is disclosed is outweighed by the speculative damage some unknown telephone caller might have sufferd?
Thanks!
IT'S THE DAMN ACLU!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.