Judges Popping Bush Bubble on Surveillance

Picture Courtesy of the White House

President Bush may think that his double top secret members only surveillance program on Americans is out of the courts hands but technically I don’t think the Judges of those courts think so. Frankly, I can’t blame them. Lawyers for the administration are defending the President’s actions by simply saying in court that it is a state secret.

What is really a pain in the Bush royal behind is the simple fact that the very liberal 9th Circuit Court is reviewing the terminology of “State Secret” as far as the governments case goes regarding fifty legal cases pending. George, you aren’t in Crawford anymore and clicking your heals three times is not going to appease this court. Three of the Judges on the court are pissed and they are letting the attorneys for the government know it.

Over at the Washington Post they have this outstanding must read piece regarding this story…

Judges Skeptical of State-Secrets Claim

By Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 16, 2007; Page A04

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 15 -- Lawyers for the Bush administration encountered a federal appeals court Wednesday that appeared deeply skeptical of a blanket claim that the government's surveillance efforts cannot be challenged in court because the litigation might reveal state secrets.

"The bottom line here is the government declares something is a state secret, that's the end of it. No cases. . . . The king can do no wrong," said Judge Harry Pregerson, one of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who grilled administration lawyers at length over whether a pair of lawsuits against the government should go forward.

Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre was forced to mount a public argument that almost nothing about the substance of the government's conduct could be talked about in court because doing so might expose either the methods used in gathering intelligence or gaps in those methods.

"This seems to put us in the 'trust us' category," Judge M. Margaret McKeown said about the government's assertions that its surveillance activities did not violate the law. " 'We don't do it. Trust us. And don't ask us about it.' "

At one point, Garre argued that courts are not the right forum for complaints about government surveillance, and that "other avenues" are available. "What is that? Impeachment?" Pregerson shot back. - Washington Post

I’m thinking the recipe for Coke is a secret, Betty Crocker has a ton of recipes in her apron that are a secret. Industries across America have trade secrets that don’t destroy peoples lives. Our government and our President is hiding behind a wall of secrecy and that is unacceptable to me as an American citizen when they use the “State Secret“ defense. Then they have the audacity to request that the cases be dismissed due to “State Secret” reasons.

Our courts are there for a reason. They are charged with upholding the laws of our nation. If the courts are confused over the laws as our President cares to adhere to them or stray past the gray area and play in the pitch black area then where is the checks and balance that the courts are supposed to uphold. Public statements from the President does not define the law. Laws that he sees fit to use and abuse to fight his made up war in Iraq on his own people!

While the President and his crew is busy covering up the truth, it’s a simple fact of life that the truth never really goes away. He can pave over the truth, color it with multiple brush strokes and even try to hide it away in the darkest corner of the closet of American history. It’s still there, the pavement will crack from the heat, the colored paint will chip and peal and everyone always has to eventually clean out the closets. Time is what will give up the truth and George Bush is biding his time.

Papamoka

Others talking about this issue...

Rising Hegemon

The Seventh Sense
Mockingbird's Medley
Amygdala

Feel free to link to this post...

We will gladly reciprocate in kind...

Cross posted at Bring IT ON!

Technorati Tags:
Bush, Rove, Libby, Hastert, Karl Vick, Tom Delay, History, Reuplican, Wire Tapping, FISA Court, 9th Circuit Court, Liberal, Justice, FBI, CIA, Spying, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Terror, Terrorists, War on Terror, Karl Rove, State Secret, Washington Post, Bush Lies, Signing Statements, Congress, Impeachment, Impeach, Presidential History, White House, Iraq Cover Up, Bush Administration, George W. Bush

Former FISA Judge Slams Bush

Picture courtesy of Smithsonian NMAH

Finally, there is someone other than the press and the blogosphere questioning President Bush use of warrantless wire taps. Who better than a former judge of the court that used to approve wire taps to speak out on this issue?

Even though the warrantless wire taps were labeled by the courts as technically illegal without the courts approval the President to this day uses them at his own discretion because the laws of the courts do not apply to him.

Over at the Washington Post they have this to say about it…

Ex-Surveillance Judge Criticizes Warrantless Taps

By Michael J. Sniffen
Associated Press
Sunday, June 24, 2007; Page A07

A federal judge who used to authorize wiretaps in terrorism and espionage cases criticized yesterday President Bush's decision to order warrantless surveillance after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"We have to understand you can fight the war [on terrorism] and lose everything if you have no civil liberties left when you get through fighting the war," said Royce C. Lamberth, a U.S. District Court judge in Washington and a former presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, speaking at the American Library Association's annual convention.
Lamberth, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan, expressed his opposition to letting the executive branch decide on its own which people to spy on in national security cases.

The judge said it is proper for executive branch agencies to conduct such surveillance. "But what we have found in the history of our country is that you can't trust the executive," he said.
"The executive has to fight and win the war at all costs. But judges understand the war has to be fought, but it can't be at all costs," Lamberth said at the Washington Convention Center. "We still have to preserve our civil liberties. Judges are the kinds of people you want to entrust that kind of judgment to more than the executive." - Washington Post

Can we get an Amen from the choir?

President Bush using warrantless wire taps for expedience purposes was blown out of the water by Judge Lamberth when on 9/11 the darkest day of this century he approved FIVE warrants during the commute from his home to the court. Is that not quick enough for President Bush?

Papamoka