Posted on 08/19/2006 10:48:02 AM PDT by dirtboy
When the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco filed suit against AT&T for, it said, giving the National Security Agency "secret, direct access to phone calls and e-mail ... detailing the activities of millions of ordinary Americans," the Justice Department went to the judge, as it often has in such cases, insisting the lawsuit not be heard because it involves "state secrets."
Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco -- pointing to the continuing, widespread public controversy over the president secretly authorizing the NSA's warrantless disregard of individual privacy rights -- ruled that there was no urgent state need for secrecy.
Moreover, he added significantly, "it is important to note that even the state-secrets privilege has its limits. While the court recognizes the executive's constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court takes seriously its constitutional duty to adjudicate the disputes that come before it... To defer to a blanket assertion of secrecy here would be to abdicate that duty."
-- snip --
Lest anyone think that Judge Walker is one of those brazen liberal "activist" judges -- that many infuriated conservatives insist are endangering the republic -- the California First Amendment Coalition, a useful news source on legal matters, reports that Judge Walker, "a former corporate lawyer," was appointed by the first President Bush and is considered a conservative in the legal community.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I'd be interested in your takes on this column.
He's neither "nitwit" nor "liberal". Well, maybe "liberal" in the 1950's sense.
just because a Republican appointed him doesn't mean he's not a liberal. You can't always tell what's going to happen to a judge once he gets on the bench. Sometimes they turn pinko like this one apparently did.
Turn pinko? I'm curious - if the executive branch declares something to be a state secret, is that an automatic pass? Or does there need to be some threshhold of proof?
Fraudulent statement therefore the assumption put forward in the case is fraudulent. Using a phone network, you are on OTHER peoples property. You have no right of privacy. By this logic if you overheard two thugs talking about robbing the local gas station, you would be "invading their privacy". 2nd you are extending the right of citizenship to the non citizen side of the conversation. This mythical "individual privacy right" does not extend to a non citizen. 3rd, It perpetuates the fraud that the Govt is "listening in" to the phone calls. That is not at all what this program does. So the base of the suit and standing of the plantiffs make this a fraudulent suit from the start.
? In addition the group bringing suit have no standing to bring suit. They can point to no damage done them by the program. To have standing you have to be damaged by the action. For example, if you see a car accident, you cannot sue the driver who caused the accident. Just because you see a car accident doesn't mean you can sue. You have to actually have to be party to the accident before you have standing to bring suit. None of the various plaintiffs have standing therefore the suit should of been dismissed.
In addition, the 1st Bush appointed Souter. Are you going to try and argue Souter is a Conservative? Based on who appointed a Judge has NOTHING to do with the Judges legal philosophy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.