Judge orders NSA spy papers released

CNN ^

[hipaatwo]

A federal judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration on its warrantless surveillance program, ordering the Justice Department on Thursday to release documents about the highly classified effort within 20 days or compile a list of what it is withholding.

U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy said a private group will suffer irreparable harm if the documents it has been seeking since December are not processed promptly under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Justice Department failed to meet the time restraints under FOIA and failed to make a case that it was impractical to deal quickly with the request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said no determination has been made as to what the government's next step will be.

[Boot Hill]

"This is a WHEN order, not a WHAT order."

That is exactly what this is about. Glad it only took 107 posts for someone to state it! The "what" is going to contain an awful lot of redacting and black-out!

[Sandy]

but I found a copy of the actual text of the FOIA and even right in there it says that it doesn't apply to material that is classified for national security reasons, so how can the idiot judge rule that they should be released?

The judge *didn't* rule that classified information needs to be released. He ruled that the government needs to comply with the FOIA.

[Mr. Brightside]

Judge Kennedy was appointed to the U.S. District Court in September 1997.

Carter?

[Cboldt]

That is exactly what this is about. Glad it only took 107 posts for someone to state it! The "what" is going to contain an awful lot of redacting and black-out!

Yup. See also Post 48 ;-)

[Boot Hill]

LOL, you and I did the same thing with the link that "K-oneTexas" posted in #37. One read and it was clear that this decision was no big deal. However, it will get a bit dicey when the plaintiffs get a couple dozen boxes of this...

And the judge tries to order an in camera hearing to determine for himself whether the redaction was reasonable. That could turn into a mess.

[conservative physics]

no it's not a joke.

you think people we are at war with have constitutional rights?

If enemy combatants had constitutional rights, we would have to consider them innocent until proven guilty, not use excessive force, read them their Miranda rights, set bail for them, give them a phone call and a lawyer, ect, ect...

[Inwoodian]

"He has his writ. Now let him enforce it."

[Howlin]

In December 1979, he was appointed Associate Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, where he served until his appointment to the federal bench

Carter.

He's a two-fer!

[EODGUY]

Excellent post.

I've written Sen. Grassley and still question why he seems to be the only legislator concerned about the 120 pages of dedacted material from the Barrett report dealing with clinton's misuse of IRS information against his enemies.

I feel the entire country was harmed beyond repair by Sandy Burglar's theft and destruction of classified, annotated documents dealing with the 9/11 Hearings that could have placed clinton and his administration in a very bad, if not criminal light.

I recall early 1992 when I worked closely with the US Attorney of our district and he was replaced immediately by clinton, as were all US Attorneys across the nation who did not fit the clinton template.
This is a dangerous, treasonous, partisan sham.
EODGUY

[Sandy]

For example, what part of [the foreign intelligence information] is admissible?
None of it can be used directly in a criminal prosecution.

That's not true. If the information is obtained legally, it's admissible in a criminal prosecution. Courts don't exclude evidence unless the evidence was obtained in violation of the defendant's rights.

[Mr. K]

now how about ordering the complete Barrett report released?

[Jim Verdolini]

Does a federal Judge have the authority to order a coequal branch of the government to turn over internal documents and does a judge have the power to order the release of classified material?

I don't think so.

I'd appeal or ignor

[Jim Verdolini]

"This is not the view of many on this forum, but as a former student of Epstein, I know him not only to be the least liberal guy I know, but probably the most brilliant legal scholar I know -- and I've known a few."

Now if he could only explain away the uninterupted series of court decisions that say the exact opposite.

[Jim Verdolini]

"FISA has been challenged repeatedly in the courts on Fourth Amendment grounds, separation of powers grounds, political question grounds -- you name it, it's been tried. The challenges have come from both the "right" and the "left." None has succeeded. Opinions continue to vary, but as far as the courts are concerned, FISA is constitutional."

Yes, but that does not say much. The act is a legal procedure for foreign wiretaps. Saying it is legal does not say that it can restrict the perfectly legal practice used by the administration.

Put another way, a legal act of Congress does not trump the Constitution itself. Congress cannot remove or limit any plenary power inherant in any other branch of government.

[Jim Verdolini]

"FISA is not constitutional. When have courts EVER given Congress the right to conduct foreign intelligence operations? Never."

You are confusing two concepts. The act is constitutional in its providing a route for a specific action. The route is legal as has been confirmed in a lot of cases. The act would only be unconstitutional if it was used to limit the executive in carrying out his plenary powers. Even then, the act would be legal, just not legally binding on the executive.

It is a lot like posting a 55mph speed limit. That does not mean drivers are limited to only 55. They can also drive more slowly and, if they are an official vehicle carrying out an official mission, the speed can be far greater. The law is legal but not binding in all cases. FISA is a perfectly legal route to wiretaps but is not the only route.

[Jim Verdolini]

""As President Lincoln said... the court has ruled, now let them enforce it!"

Not the right quote and it was Andrew Jackson. Try to get it right."

Actually, Lincoln ignored quite a few supreme court decisions during the war, he just did not comment on it.

[Boot Hill]

Sandy:   "That's not true. If the information is obtained legally, it's admissible in a criminal prosecution."

You are correct in part, it but also incorrect in other parts.

It is correct to state that any evidence used to prosecute an individual must be legally obtained. But the question (in the present case) then becomes, when did the warrantless intercepts change from being legal to illegal and the answer to that is found in the "primary purpose" test.

The Truong court, who is credited with the genesis of the primary purpose test, concluded that while the President may lawfully conduct warrantless surveillance for the purpose of gathering foreign counter intelligence, it would NOT be similarly lawful for the government to do so when the primary purpose of the intercepts has changed to commencing a criminal prosecution of the targeted individual.

Therefore, when I stated that "none of it can be used directly in a criminal prosecution", that was a true statement because the evidence Cboldt was referring to was gathered through warrantless intercepts solely for counter intelligence purposes. The moment the intent of the surveillance changed to commencing a criminal prosecution, the government would be obligated to obtain a warrant in order for the intercepts to remain lawful, and the warrantless evidence gathered prior to that point, would be excluded, under the primary purpose test.

Outside of their intelligence value, the only use the warrantless intercepts could play in a criminal prosecution, would be in drafting the probable cause affidavit, necessary for obtaining a criminal warrant.

[Rapscallion]

Screw the judge. Why can't this be left private as it is a concern of national security?

You are right. I wish the President would really stand up to these rogue judges who pay no price for their partisan rulings. Congress needs to strap on their spines and impeach a couple of judges for being traitorous. No wonder we hold politics and the courts in greater and greater conmtempt each year.

[Grampa Dave]

This Kennedy is as liberal and dishonest as Ted Kennedy.

This judicial POS was appointed by the Clintoons. He is an ACLU tool and has a history of BS like this.

Red Hot Cuppa Politics: ACLU Darling Judge Orders Release of Surveillance Documents To Protect Civil Rights Group...
... Act... Judge Henry Kennedy was appointed federal judge by none other than President William Jefferson Clinton. Prior to ... To say that Judge Kennedy is a liberal is the ...cuppapolitics.blogspot.com/2006/02/aclu-darling-judge-orders-releas... - 41k - Cached - More from this site - Save

ABC News: White House Wag: Courts Back Clinton
... In a ruling last week, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Kennedy threw out Broaddrick's lawsuit ... last week, another federal judge rejected a claim by a Clinton White House staffer that ...abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121718 - 25k - Cached -

It will take 2 to 3 decades before these maggot infested left wing Clintoon judicial appointees are flushed out of the system.

[Sandy]

The moment the intent of the surveillance changed to commencing a criminal prosecution, the government would be obligated to obtain a warrant in order for the intercepts to remain lawful, and the warrantless evidence gathered prior to that point, would be excluded, under the primary purpose test.

The primary purpose test is dead. If the intercepts don't violate the 4th Amendment or FISA or the Wiretap Act, there is no legal ground for excluding any evidence obtained.