Judge Finds NSA Wiretapping Program Illegal

Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that a federal judge has ruled that the NSA's warrantless surveillance program was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration's effort to keep one of Bush's most disputed counterterrorism policies shrouded in secrecy. Judge Vaughn R. Walker ruled that the government had violated a 1978 federal statute requiring court approval for domestic surveillance when it intercepted phone calls of Al Haramain, a now-defunct Islamic charity in Oregon, and of two lawyers who were representing it in 2004. Declaring that the plaintiffs had been 'subjected to unlawful surveillance,' the judge said that the government was liable to pay them damages."

Comments

Excellent. Now where are the criminal charges?

[moeinvt]

The FISA law was created in the wake of civil liberties abuses under the Johnson and Nixon administrations. It set up the secret FISA court so that the executive branch could not use "national security" as an excuse to bypass judicial oversight when conducting surveillance. The standards were very low to begin with, but the essential point is the "checks and balances" provision where at least SOMEONE (even if it's a secretive panel of judges) other than the executive branch knows what's going on.

A critical element of the LAW that's being overlooked here is that it established civil AND criminal penalties for violations. If the judge has ruled that there are civil liabilities, then it's obvious that someone broke the law. We now need to see criminal investigations, arrests and prosecutions. What's the point of having a regulatory framework governing the behavior of Federal employees when there are no consequences for violating the regulations? From the intelligence community to the financial regulatory agencies to the legislature and president himself, this government has exhibited an utter and complete disregard for the rule of law. Nixon said "If the president does it, then it's not a crime". Now it seems like "If a government employee does it, it's not a crime".

Re:Particular Taps, Not Entire Program

[Jiro]

It's the New York Times. Accuracy there has been suboptimal.

And the ruling didn't even go that far. The government's defense was that it is not required to obey the law. The government didn't try to argue that it *was* obeying the law. So the judge ruled that 1) yes, you are required to obey the law, and 2) since you didn't try to argue that you were obeying the law, I have to assume that you're not, so pay up.

In other words, the issue of legality didn't really come up except in a very narrow sense.

Re:Unfortunately, this doesn't mention wiretaps

[Reziac]

That was my thought too. "Effects" is "any damned thing you own that we didn't think of offhand, but might not be precisely homes or papers." In short, anything that is YOURS. How is this not clear?? How would electronic anything be exempt??

Besides, the Constitution is not a list of things We The People may do or not do. It is a list of things the Government MUST do and MUST NOT do, and with respect to that government, the Constitution is indeed in the form of "all things not compulsory are forbidden".

I swear, our whole government is becoming one big April Fools joke, with We The People cast as the fools. :(