July 20, 2006
View Comments | Post CommentWe Won Our Motions Against The Gov't And AT&T!
Judge Walker (George W. Bush's cousin, and an appointee of Bush, Sr.) has denied the government's state secrets motion, and denied AT&T's motions to dismiss in EFF's suit against AT&T for its cooperation in the government's warrantless wiretapping program!
The order just came out about half an hour ago, and the EFF office is abuzz. Everyone is so jazzed about this. We pretty much knew we were winning these as soon as we realized that the Judge didn't mention September 11th within the first paragraph.
There are a bunch of juicy quotes, as well, such as this one:
"But it is important to note that even the state secrets privilege has its limits. While the court recognizes and respects the executive’s constitutional duty to protect the nation from threats, the court also 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, particularly because the very subject matter of this litigation has been so publicly aired. The compromise between liberty and security remains a difficult one. But dismissing this case at the outset would sacrifice liberty for no apparent enhancement of security."
And this one:
"Because the alleged dragnet here encompasses the communications of "all or substantially all of the communications transmitted through [AT&T’s] key domestic telecommunications facilities," it cannot reasonably be said that the program as alleged is limited to tracking foreign powers. Accordingly, AT&T’s alleged actions here violate the constitutional rights clearly established in Keith. Moreover, because "the very action in question has previously been held unlawful," AT&T cannot seriously contend that a reasonable entity in its position could have believed that the alleged domestic dragnet was legal."
He also quotes Hamdi:
"Whatever power the United States Constitution envisions for the Executive in its exchanges with other nations or with enemy organizations in times of conflict, it most assuredly envisions a role for all three branches when individual liberties are at stake."
And he even questions whether the government was being truthful in its disclosures:
"If the government’s public disclosures have been truthful, revealing whether AT&T has received a certification to assist in monitoring communication content should not reveal any new information that would assist a terrorist and adversely affect national security. And if the government has not been truthful, the state secrets privilege should not serve as a shield for its false public statements."
Posted at July 20, 2006 3:15 PM | Comments (6)
Comments
Post a new comment
At the risk of sounding stupid, I received an email telling me about this and honestly, thought it was spam.
Could you explain what this truly means for individuals like myself?
Thanks so much. And keep up the good work on the site. Really love it
Posted by: Needtsza at July 20, 2006 5:43 PM
Holy shit! I saw the news, but I completely failed to make the mental connection between EFF and the case. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Aaron at July 21, 2006 3:30 AM
Guess what? the 9/11 comment was in today's Express. If you want, I'll hold on to a copy for you.
yes, your blog was quoted in a widely read Washington publication - insanity!
Posted by: Beau at July 21, 2006 9:08 AM
That's awesome! Congratulations!
Posted by: daniel at July 21, 2006 12:16 PM
Needtsza: It means our case can proceed, seeking damages, and an injunction against AT&T, which would disallow them to continue letting the NSA blanketly listen to the calls of its subscribers. So in a narrow sense, it may shut down this particular program that violates your privacy and civil rights--at least for a little while.
But in a broader sense, it is one of the first examples of the judiciary standing up to an Executive that has been on a power grab. And it's Bush's own cousin ("W" stands for Walker, as in Vaugh Walker). If the judiciary can re-assert some reasonable balance of power in this country, that means more liberty and policy for everyone.
And finally, if AT&T is forced to pay damages, it affirms the principle that no one may violate constitutional rights, even if they have the government's say-so. That means that, in the future, companies will have to think a lot harder about cooperating with a corrupt government.
Beau: That's okay. It's available online. But thanks for the heads up about it.
Posted by: David Barzelay at July 21, 2006 1:25 PM
FIGHT THE POWER!
congrats bro. i hopped up and down in Cairo a few times when i read about it. most exciting.
Posted by: ghazlay at July 25, 2006 6:32 AM
