What a Country! Even Illegal Wiretaps are 'Classified'

In a bizarre victory for the Bush administration's efforts to hide the evidence of its criminal activity, U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle has ruled that records relating to the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program" of warrantless wiretaps -- a program another federal district court has already held to be unconstitutional -- are protected from discovery under the Freedom of Information Act because the administration has declared the records 'classified'.

The loud popping noise you hear is just George Orwell's head exploding.  More below.

A story on MSNBC from the AP wire service reports that Judge Huvelle rejected a suit under the FOIA by the People for the American Way Foundation, identified as a "liberal advocacy group."   (I guess trying to find out what illegal and unconstitutional activities your elected officials have got up to is now considered by the MSM to be a 'liberal' agenda.)

The story is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

The group had sought to use FOIA requests to flesh out the details of the surveillance program, such as the number of such wiretaps and who, if anyone, was responsible to review the program.

This is an alarming precedent, if it withstands appeal.  The notion that the government can act illegally yet protect itself from review by the citizenry and from subsequent prosecution merely by generous application of the "classified" label essentially gives the executive free reign to ignore the law without fear of retribution.

This would certainly be handy for the everyday criminal.  Imagine if you have been to your company's holiday party, had a few too many drinks and are pulled over by the cops:

Officer:  Sir, you were weaving all over the road and driving 90 miles an hour.  Have you been drinking?

 You:  I'm sorry, offishur, but that information is classified.

 Officer:  Well, then, I'm afraid you will have to take a breathalyzer test if you won't tell me how much you have had to drink.

 You:  I would tell you, offishur sir, but then I'd have to kill you.

Wouldn't it be fun to live a life where your wrongful actions are without negative consequences, at least for you?!

The court's decision makes it even more urgent that the newly-elected Democratic Congress make prompt and concerted use of its hearing and subpoena power to ferret out the details of the Bush regime's criminal conduct in order to restore the rule of law and bring the criminals to justice.  Let's hope they get started as soon as the new Congress convenes.

•  Flame on!

  by Captain Nimrod on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 07:30:36 AM PDT

•  What can you say?

  There is nothing to say!

  by curmudgiana on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 07:55:03 AM PDT

•  First of all

  The District Court for the District of Columbia is not bound by the decisions of the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.  Thus, even assumong that the prior decision was legally correct, it is not binding authority on almost anyone.

  Second, even if the program is unconstitutional and illegal it does not follow that the substance of the program is discoverable under FOIA.  As an analogy, think of grand jury materials.  Even if the grand jury was behaving in an illegal fashion and overstepping its bounds, it does not mean that the documents presented to the grand jury lose their secrecy protection.

  by Drgrishka1 on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:07:52 AM PDT

  •  Ah, Dgrishka1

    my old torture-defending friend.  Tireless supporter of the Unitary Executive and wise parser of cruelty and criminality.

    Care to tell me whose payroll you are on?

    by Captain Nimrod on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:30:19 AM PDT

    •  I disagree with drgishka

      ... about many things, but strictly from a legal standpoint, (s)he's correct.

      by bustacap on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:36:48 AM PDT

      •  He. :-) n/t

        by Drgrishka1 on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:53:54 AM PDT

    •  I work for the federal judiciary n/t

      by Drgrishka1 on Wed Nov 22, 2006 at 08:51:42 AM PDT