There were quite a few cheers around the country this week when a Chief Judge i the Federal District Court put former President George W. Bush in his place at long last.
In sum, the Jurist rejected the Bush administration’s arguments in support of warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists (emphasis on suspected) and found in favor of the plaintiffs that Government agents had put an ear to the wall illegally in respect to a U.S.-based charitable organization.
Chief District Court Judge Vaughn Walker (currently presiding over the same-sex marriage proceedings in San Francisco) zeroed in on the heartbeat of Bush’s program which allowed agents to intercept phone calls and e-mail communications between American citizens and suspected foreign terrorists without a warrant.
When the illegal acts were initially uncovered, Bush argued that he had the authority to override a 1978 law, requiring the government obtain advance approval from the court for each separate eavesdropping attempt.
Walked noted in his opinion that “the theory of unfettered executive-branch discretion” portends the potential of government abuse and an overreach of authority.
Lawyers for the charity hailed Walker’s ruling.
“Inherent in what Walker has done in this case is a determination that President Bush’s program of warrantless surveillance was unlawful. Everybody has to follow the law, including the President.”
The court’s finding - and subsequent ruling - is a blow to the Obama administration in the final analysis, too.
The Justice Department has actively sought to have the case dismissed with the specific aim of barring a judicial review of the government’s wiretapping practices.
The main thrust of the Government’s argument dealt with National Security issues.
The Justice Department argued that the court lacked the authority to issue a ruling as to whether any alleged surveillance was legal because all wiretapping evidence was related to secrets that once disclosed would aid the Nation’s enemies.
To surmount that problem - which Walker labeled “nit-picking” on the part of Government lawyers - the parties were invited to take the Judge up on his offer to hear the issues in “closed-door” proceedings.
In a statement to the press, the Judge noted for the record that those legal wranglings in private proved to be fruitless.
According to Walker, the government spurned every offer to justify its conduct, hence the ruling.
At this juncture, the Government has the legal option to appeal the Court’s ruling in a higher court, within specific time frames dictated by applicable Statutes in the Federal District Court arena.
No comments:
Post a Comment