She'll be smacked down on appeal very quickly but she managed to grab a headline - which is the sole purpose in this fraudulent exercise.
Here is the opinion in all its stunning ignorance - try and follow the tortured logic involving the repudiation of the governments claim of state secrets. It gives new meaning to 'risible'.
This will be heard in the Sixth Circuit - I hope that the language used when it is overturned is commensurate with the lack of intelligence shown by this judge. She needs to stay home and nap.
Sixth Circuit
Update 12:32 MDT StY: It'll be worth following the discussion on Volokh Conspiracy
SECOND UPDATE:(3:10PM MDT) White House Response:
Statement on the Terrorist Surveillance Program
Last week America and the world received a stark reminder that terrorists are still plotting to attack our country and kill innocent people. Today a federal judge in Michigan has ruled that the Terrorist Surveillance Program ordered by the President to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the American people is unconstitutional and otherwise illegal. We couldn't disagree more with this ruling, and the Justice Department will seek an immediate stay of the opinion and appeal. Until the Court has the opportunity to rule on a stay of the Court's ruling in a hearing now set for September 7, 2006, the parties have agreed that enforcement of the ruling will be stayed.
United States intelligence officials have confirmed that the program has helped stop terrorist attacks and saved American lives. The program is carefully administered, and only targets international phone calls coming into or out of the United States where one of the parties on the call is a suspected Al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist. The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out. That's what the American people expect from their government, and it is the President's most solemn duty to ensure their protection.
The Terrorist Surveillance Program is firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties. The Terrorist Surveillance Program has proven to be one of our most critical and effective tools in the war against terrorism, and we look forward to demonstrating on appeal the validity of this vital program.
19 comments:
peteruk:
I couldn't agree more.
I can hardly wait to discover which plaintifs (US Persons) fail to fall into the classification of "he" or "she" and require, instead, "it".
Corporate ones, Knuck.
Peter,
This is pure politics disguised as law. A stay of the order will be issued immediately and the program will continue as before. The Sixth Circuit will reverse the jerk and my bet is that the USSC will uphold the reversal by refusing to hear another appeal.
I would be unsurprised to find out that this decision was written by someone on Conyer's staff.
Peter:
You are right and I think that in the end the program will survive for that very reason. In fact I would not be surprised if some lawyers in DC, maybe even in the Senate, were not thinking of ways to protect this even now.
I do think that mose Americans expect the government to do these kinds of things. Despite the chill felt by some journalists, most people I know were outraged that the 9/11 hijackers were able to operate with virtual impunity right here in the US before the attack. The truth is they were safer here than almost anywhere.
But Rick is right, this judge is an idiot. No doubt the ACLU went judge shopping before they brought the case to her court.
lurker:
I saw that too. I think they can continue while it is on appeal anyway.
Could "it" be the NYT?
lurker:
They may be a pain in the ass, but they do know how to make laws and they are Republicans. Even if the programs are legal, it does not hurt to have a law protecting them.
Hopefully. In terms of military tribunals etc I have been under the impression that they are near to a bill on this subject. But I would not be surprised if most of the people don't end up facing a court martial.
jb:
I guess it depnds on whether or not you look at just from a political perspective, in that regard I would agree with you. Glenn should have said it was a defeat for anyone serious about catching terrorists.
Glenn should consider much longer vacations. He refers to a "summer slump" that, according to Rasmussen is not occuring.
Watching the initial comments over at Volokh's confirms the assessment that this judge's claim to fame is that she gives hope to the less than mediocre.
I have a splitting headache and I don't think it will be improved by reading this nonsense.
Nevertheless, I am certain Rove wrote the opinion and sat on it until after the London plot was announced.
JB,
Proposed Republican ad:
"Scotland Yard recently foiled a plot that would have killed 4,000 British and American citizens with help from an NSA surveillance operation that Democrats claim is illegal - even unconstitutional.
The next time you hear a Democrat claim that they can "make you safer" ask them about their stand on NSA surveillance of known terrorists. Their silence speaks volumes."
If Mehlman doesn't have a similiar ad up by tomorrow night, he needs a swift kick.
Peter,
My 'hope for less than the mediocre' remark goes in spades for Jimmuh. He's a very bitter old weasel. The book on the Peter Principle should have his picture on the cover.
...but as far as I can tell the Dems are badly misreading the public sentiment on the NSA eavesdropping program.
Replace "public" by "Democratic" and it all makes sense.
From a comment at Volokh's:
"After years of having the professional opportunity to read her opinions, I am not afraid to say, she may very well be the least competent, least intelligent, dimmest hack in the federal judiciary. Her opinions sometimes verge on the incoherent and at best aspire to the sub-literate. She could not construe a statute, much less a constitution, to save her life. In short, in the basic non-ideological judicial craftsmanship department, she is in my experience the worst on the federal bench."
I hope the Sixth slaps her around a bit when they overturn this farce. If the ACLU did shop this to her they got what they deserve.
Well if they are not afraid of ending up llike Pearl I guess they could do a face to face interview. Heaven forbid some freaking reporter might be inconvenienced.
Why do you suppose both Gonzales and the President responded today to this ruling? It's a gift to the Administration.
I have been pursuaded for years that God so loves GWB he sucks the brains out of his opponents at critical moments.
Lurker,
The appeal will be heard September 7th. The Appeals Court will have subsided to chuckling by the 10th and the reversal will soon follow. I imagine the ACLU doofii will drag out the filing of the SCOTUS appeal until mid-October - or whenever the filing seems most politically advantageous. It doesn't really matter - the "Dems are soft on terrorism" drum is going to be beaten at the same tempo regardless.
Yeah, just like Andrew Sullivan.
Andrew Sullivan is a scam operation conceived by Dick Cheney and his pals in the oil industry? That explains much.
Knuck,
It makes you wonder how many ballot boxes you have to stuff to get a gig like that. I've read the comment threads over at Volokh's and you can tell that the lefty legal Lilliputians are embarassed by this clown. I've made a couple passes through the decision and the lack of logic is incredible - this is a political statement made by an idiot whose voluminous robes do not mask the fact of her incompetence. I really hopes the Sixth gives her a solid smack for this, she dishonors the bench and needs to go.
All of the Plaintiffs contend that the TSP has caused clients, witnesses and sources to discontinue their communications with plaintiffs out of fear that their communications will be intercepted.
Then why don't the Plaintiffs sue the New York Times instead?!?!?!??!?
Yes, I know the answer. But the proximate cause of their difficulties in communication is not the government, it's Keller and Co for revealing the program and putting their contacts on alert.
Post a Comment