2 to 1. Oh Really?

In response to the DNR editorial on July 10. 

On July 7 in a federal district court, two out of three judges ruled that the plaintiffs in this case simply did not have the right to sue in this case. It seems that the government keeps all records of surveillance secret from everyone, including the judges in this case. Because of the secrecy, the plaintiffs couldn’t prove that they had been victims of wiretapping.  No evidence, no case. The two judges did NOT rule on the constitutionality of the wiretapping program but only on the viability of the case.

Glen Greenwald in Salon: 

The two judges in the majority did not dispute any of this. Instead, they ruled, roughly speaking, that because the program was conducted in secret, the plaintiffs cannot prove that they were subjected to warrantless eavesdropping and thus lack "standing" to contest the legality of the NSA program.

The lone dissenting judge agreed with Judge Taylor that the NSA Program is illegal.  In fact Judge Gilman stated that it wasn’t even close.

 

The Judge:

The closest question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the plaintiffs have the standing to sue. Once past that hurdle, however, the rest gets progressively easier . . . . [The administration's] AUMF and inherent-authority arguments are weak in light of existing precedent and statutory construction.

The real issue here is the government’s own admittance that the wiretapping is illegal and that it is within the power of the government to stonewall and obstruct any legal action against it.  Exactly where in the constitution does it say that the rights of the people concerning privacy are to be ignored when the government deems it necessary?

Again from Mr. Greenwald:

Any journalist or Bush follower claiming that this decision constitutes vindication for warrantless eavesdropping -- or that it constitutes a repudiation of Judge Taylor's finding that the President broke the law and violated the Constitution -- is deeply confused and/or engaged in a campaign of deceit. Even worse than that, anyone celebrating this result is essentially celebrating a situation where our government leaders are able to act in secret -- even when the law makes it illegal to do so -- and as a result of this secrecy, block courts from ruling on whether they broke the law.

I would say that the DNR qualifies as one of the above mentioned journalists and Bush followers. ‘Nuf said.