Courts Side With NSA On Wiretaps

New York Sun ^ | December 26, 2006 | By JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN

[Laverne]

Defense lawyers who had hoped that the public disclosure a year ago of the National Security Agency's wiretapping program would yield information favorable to their clients are being rebuffed by the federal judiciary, which in a series of unusually consistent rulings has rejected efforts by terrorism suspects to access the records. In at least 17 criminal cases, federal district judges nominated to the federal bench by presidents Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush have ruled against requests to force the government to tell defendants, most accused of terrorism-related crimes, whether the NSA eavesdropped on them without a court warrant.

snip....

The New York Sun reviewed 14 of them. In those orders, the judges, excluding Judge Brinkema, did not state any reason for denying the defense motions, except to indicate that they had considered the secret briefs of the government. In one written order, a judge implied that his willingness to sentence a defendant without further hearings was on the condition that the government's secret brief said no evidence came from the NSA program.

[rhombus]

I'm sure the NY Times will report this "above the fold". ;-)

[Laverne]

Yup, Just like the reported the Sandy Burg(l)er story above the fold.

[M1Tanker]

I think it was above the fold.... on page 40.

[Bulldawg Fan]

The defeatist media was hoping this would damage the war effrot. Too bad scum bags.

[tobyhill]

The MSM is really burying this one because they know that if a federal judge rules against disclosure it's legal. No defendant can have evidence obtained illegally used against them or leading to other evidence against them.

[blitzgig]

Good news. I'm glad to see these judges treat the law with respect.

[pepsi_junkie]

...rebuffed by the federal judiciary, which in a series of unusually consistent rulings has rejected

You know the judiciary is out of control when applying the law consistently is observed as unusual.

[HarleyLady27]

Is this some of the reason that pelosi is having a 4 day swearing in party???

(...hopeing this takes their 'bad' news out of the limelight?...)

[RWB Patriot]

Let's just hope the dems don't pull something out of their @$$ to overturn the court's decision.

[Doc91678]

I can see those bleeding hearts and Progressive Marxist Liberals now. They will be up in arms, whining and crying foul.

[CottShop]

of course the courts sided with NSA because the NSA has taken EVERY precaution NOT to trample on people's rights and even democrat leaders who were curious about the NSA had to admit that our citizen's rights were absolutely upheld, and they declared that they were VERY impressed with the precautions and wished that the public had been more informed of just how careful the NSA was in their investigations into terror calls http://sacredscoop.com

[Donna Lee Nardo]

The media also is out of control to write such a statement.

But then again, there is no black and white for the left; everything comes in grays.

[westmichman]

Because you say it does not make it true.

[bukkdems]

I've been wondering how, if the courts had ruled against the NSA, the inspections of foreign visitors, foreign mail and foreign parcels could have proceeded. Telephone calls and email between foreign interests and Americans are simply newer forms of communication that deserve the same scrutiny as passengers, letters and packages.