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 ...
ELECTRONIC PRIVACY
INFORMATION CENTER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Defendant.
EPIC - Civil Action 06-00096 (HHK)
ACLU - Civil Action 06-00214 (HHK)
Footnote 1: After EPIC filed its motion for a preliminary 1 injunction, the court consolidated this case with American Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. Department of Justice, Civil Action No. 06-214. By that case, plaintiffs seek “the release of records related to the NSA’s secret surveillance program to intercept, without prior judicial authorization, the telephone and Internet communications of people inside the United States.” Compl. ¶ 2.
This memorandum opinion is concerned solely with EPIC’s motion for a preliminary
injunction.
This order is for EPIC, true. But guess who gets their wish next. Three guesses and the first two don't count.
Yeah, I googled some and saw nothing.
"a private group may be harmed"
Want to bet that group is somehow connected with donations to HILLPAC.
Ralph Neas - I had to erase the comment I was making about him, but needless to say it had to do with hell and his entrance there....
"Sounds like this "request for spying information" was filed on behalf of Al-Qaeda"
===
Close, the ACLU.
From another article:
"In a joint action last week, the nonprofit National Security Archives and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit alleging that the Justice Department violated the Freedom of Information Act by not providing them with documents about the program requested in separate Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filings last year. The plaintiffs subsequently requested that their suit be consolidated with two nearly identical ones filed recently by the Electronic Privacy Information Clearinghouse (EPIC). District Court Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. granted the request. "
http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=2818
Was there any question?
http://www.theleagueonline.org/alumni_spotlight.php?submit=detail&uid=178
Hipaa here is the problem with your former teacher..
"Epstein says he has no problem with the President going to Congress and insisting that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act be streamlined,"
FISA is not constitutional. When have courts EVER given Congress the right to conduct foreign intelligence operations? Never. Which branch have the courts said has not only the inherent right but also the core power to conduct foreign intelligence operations? The executive. And yes so long as the president is convinced the supreme court would not reach a different verdict he not only has the constitutional right but the actual duty NOT to follow any law he believes unconstitutional (carter should have screened the FISA act before he signed it). Hell go back to the original writing of the FISA act. You'll see they even have a paragraph that says the supreme court may have a different opinion then the congress.
"but not surveillance of conversations involving domestic persons." look at the Hamdi case. The AUMF authorized the president to use all military force. The supreme court decided that taking POW's, even if U.S citizens, is a necessary part of warfare (and more intrusive then easedropping). So is collecting intelligence on the enemy, even more so when dealing with terrorists. Again it is the purpose of getting the information. If you bug a call that has one u.s domestic person for non foreign intel reasons you have major problems. But so long as the goal is to gather foreign intel court after court after court has said its the presidents right.
In the end these papers are from justice, not the NSA so I truely don't see where anyone is suffering irrepable harm. Nor do I see what harm it will do releasing the legal justifications for the program.
Because a Clinton appointed Judge says so ??
They have never been challenged in the context now being discussed ie. infringment of exclusive Executive power to wage war. Site me a holding that states otherwise but I don't believe you will find one.Courts historically have been extremely deferential to the Executive branch in matters such as this and I personally believe that SCOTUS would decide similarly.
About EPIC
EPIC is a public interest research center in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, the First Amendment, and constitutional values.
EPIC publishes an award-winning e-mail and online newsletter on civil liberties in the information age – the EPIC Alert. We also publish reports and even books about privacy, open government, free speech, and other important topics related to civil liberties.
We have no clients, no customers, and no shareholders. We need your support.
http://www.epic.org/epic/about.html
Peach....I fear that the New York Times has effectively done just that.
Very funny, but how about just the words "the, a, an, from, to , by, if, when, where, who, as, or, and, not" be not redacted?
O.K....but he's got his context wrong. This surveillance isn't a legal action designed to collect information for a court case. This is collecting military and diplomatic intelligence on foreigners, some of whom call people who happen to be in the United States.
Also, on what authority does any U.S. court give a warrant to monitor communications by someone in Germany? ...Can they authorize it just because they call someone in the U.S.? And if they authorize it, who is authorized? The FBI (which conducts domestic surveillance)? The FBI is not the NSA - which IS authorized to conduct foreign surveillance.
I also expect that he is, as most Americans are, unfamiliar with how hot wars are conducted. After all, our last major legal experience with such an enemy that was capable of attacking the mainland U.S. was before most Americans reached adulthood (They'd be at least 82). As such, we instinctively view questions such as warrants and detentions from the viewpoint of criminal prosecutions.
"You have made your ruling....now enforce it!" Andrew Jackson
Actually, I think two quotes were mixed: The one you cite, and a quote about the Popes battallions/divisions.
http://www.epic.org/epic/staff_and_board.html
EPIC Board and Staff
EPIC Board of Directors
Oscar Gandy, Chair [bio]
Marc Rotenberg, President [bio]
Deborah Hurley, Secretary [bio]
Barbara Simons, Treasurer [bio]
Whitfield Diffie [bio]
Peter Neumann [bio]
EPIC Staff
I am not an attorney, but I found a copy of the actual text of the FOIA and even right in there it says that it doesn't apply to material that is classified for national security reasons, so how can the idiot judge rule that they should be released?!
http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVII_4/page2.htm
"This section does not apply to matters that are--
(1)(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy and (B) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive order; "
Nullification. Bush should simply refuse.
SSNs, Other Data Should Be Scrubbed from Court Files
In comments to the federal judiciary, EPIC called for changes to procedural rules to shield personal information in court files from commercial data brokers. Commercial data brokers employ stringers to harvest personal information from court files, and then resell the information. Court files are becoming the fuel for dossier-building on Americans, and courts must accept the responsibility for shielding data from misuse. For more information, see EPIC's Public Records and Commercial Data Broker Pages. (Feb. 15)
Oh yeah, these too -
BREAKING NEWS: Court Orders Justice Department to Release NSA Surveillance Documents in EPIC Lawsuit
In response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (pdf) filed by EPIC, a federal judge has ordered (pdf) the Department of Justice to process and release documents related to the Bush Administration's warrantless surveillance program by March 8. It is the first court opinion addressing the controversial domestic spying operation. "President Bush has invited meaningful debate about the warrantless surveillance program," U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy wrote. "That can only occur if DOJ processes [EPIC's] FOIA requests in a timely fashion and releases the information sought." For more information, see EPIC's Domestic Surveillance FOIA page.
American Bar Association Says Unlawful Surveillance Should Stop
A new report (pdf) from the American Bar Association calls on the President to abide by constitutional checks and balances, and to end electronic surveillance inside the United States that does not comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Association overwhelmingly supported the report, which also urged the Congress to undertake comprehensive investigations. More information at the EPIC FISA page. (Feb. 15)
Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director
(snip)
He served as Counsel to Senator Patrick J. Leahy on the Senate Judiciary Committee after graduation from law school. He is the recipient of several awards, including the World Technology Award in Law.
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.