Judge Orders White House To Produce Wiretap Memos

sv_libertarian sends this excerpt from the Associated Press: "A judge has ordered the Justice Department to produce White House memos that provide the legal basis for the Bush administration's post-Sept. 11 warrantless wiretapping program. US District Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. signed an order (PDF) Friday requiring the department to produce the memos by the White House legal counsel's office by Nov. 17. He said he will review the memos in private to determine if any information can be released publicly without violating attorney-client privilege or jeopardizing national security. Kennedy issued his order in response to lawsuits by civil liberties groups in 2005 after news reports disclosed the wiretapping."

Comments

"Post-Sept 11." -- say what?

[thisissilly]

I thought it was fairly well established that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping predates 9/11. The NSA was meeting with Qwest executives in February 2001, trying to pressure them into allowing it. They said no, other carriers buckled.

Re:Accountability ?

[CRCulver]

Assuming an Obama win on Tuesday and a serious shift towards Democrats (what polls largely suggest), are we finally going to see some serious investigations and accountability for this current administration?

A Democratic administration doesn't necessarily mean a stance against wiretapping. Many of the "ECHELON" activities which came to the public's attention with the 2001 European Parliament report were instituted under President Clinton, who also was a fan of "leveling the playing" field between American and foreign businesses through eavesdropping. A good introduction to the troubling rise of violation of privacy in the 1990s, which coincided with a popular Democratic president, is James Bamford's Body of Secrets .

Re:Accountability ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Obama voted for the bill that pretty much rubber stamps Bush's current surveillance and wiretapping regime.

Re:I still don't get why this is neccessary

[__aajwxe560]

>In any other case, the judge will surveillance must be shut down and the records sealed immediately. This law has been so effective that out of the >hundreds of FISA taps exactly ZERO have been denied.

Not to nitpick, but some FISA taps have in fact been denied (granted, not many):

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

To add a thought, just because the ratio is historically so low doesn't necessarily justify as a fact that the whole game isn't rigged in the first place.

Re:Accountability ?

[mattytee]

Considering that Obama voted for allowing retroactive immunity to the telcos, do you think he's going to call for accountability here?

It's rare for any branch that has expanded its powers to relinquish them. Usually this is done legally, by declaring such action unconstitutional.

Maybe we'll get some moderates/lefties in SCOTUS and some of the nonsense will be so declared.

Re:Who does the judge think he is?

[jjohnson]

The Department of Justice is not the lawyer for the White House--they have White House Counsel for that, and their work is privileged. Any work produced by the DOJ on request from the White House is, by definition, not privileged. It's a request to a third party to produce a legal opinion. The memos are the equivalent of going to the EFF and asking them to produce a 'friend of the court' brief; the fact that you requested it and they didn't doesn't create the attorney-client relationship, so privilege isn't an issue.

Yeah, sure

[Legion303]

I predict it will play out something like similar demands have in the past:

GWB: Fuck you.
Federal judge: Yes sir. Sorry to have bothered you.