Litigation

Court, Media Weigh In on Federal Eavesdropping

By Charlie Hall

In a major decision involving the federal courts and U.S. anti-terrorism policy, a federal judge on Wednesday ruled that Bush-era electronic eavesdropping violated the Constitution because it was conducted without a search warrant. The ruling has spawned numerous articles and commentary in the national media:

• A New York Times article focuses on how the case has caused fissures between candidate Obama, who said warrantless wiretapping is “unconstitutional and illegal,” and President Obama, who has refused to publicly disown the Bush administration’s arguments justifying warrantless wiretapping. The article also explores the politics of whether the case will be appealed. Also see the original Times report on the ruling.
• Commentaries, by Glenn Greenwald in Salon, and by Dan Froomkin in Huffington Post, call the ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker (photo) a “stinging rebuke” against the Obama administration. In Froomkin’s words, “Walker angrily rejected the Obama administration’s attempts to get the case dismissed on the basis of a “state secrets” privilege. … The ruling should serve as a wake-up call to those who thought that the days of executive overreach were behind us — and as a red alert to all who care about the separation of powers.”
• Other news reports include a Christian Science Monitor report on the ruling, and an Atlantic Online analysis, “The Appeal of Not Appealing.”

In a summary judgment, Judge Walker ruled that federal wiretaps of an Oregon-based Islamic charity and two lawyers violated federal law regulating domestic surveillance.

To learn more, see Justice at Stake’s page on Civil Liberties and National Security, or its report, “Courting Danger.”

Full post as published by The Gavel on April 02, 2010 (boomark / email).