At the time of the August decision, Alberto Gonzales had this to say:
"We also believe very strongly that the program is lawful," he said in Washington, adding that the program is "reviewed periodically" by lawyers to determine its effectiveness and ensure lawfulness.
I've never understood how breaking the law (specifically FISA) could be considered lawful, but what do I know - I'm not a lawyer.
Continuing on, as expected, the Bush administration filed an appeal. Not only that - they said that they would NOT stop the program (as the judge ordered) while that appeal was pending.
CNN braoke into its news coverage to say that the Associated Press is reporting that the Federal appeals court ruled to allow the warrantless wiretapping program to continue as the appeal progressed.
There is nothing via Goggle News or on CNN.com with the official AP article so I don't know yet which appeals court is involved, its composition, and some analysis of the timeframe for the appeal itself - in other words, how long we will have to bear this unlawful and shamefull violation of our Constitutionally protect rights. I will update the diary when I find more information.
Update [2006-10-4 16:41:46 by RenaRF]: Ok - smart people let me know in the comments that it's the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (hat tip Vitarai and PatsBard). They have the order up (PDF). It's short - and here it is:
Nos. 06-2095/2140UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
AMERCIAN CIVILI LIBERTIES UNION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF MICHIGAN; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS; COUNCIL ON AMERICAN-ISLAMIC RELATIONS OF MICHIGAN; GREENPEACE, INCORPORATED; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; JAMES BAMFORD; LARRY DIAMOND; CHRISTOPHER HITECHENS; TARA McKELVEY; BARNETT R. RUBIN,
Plaintiffs - Appellees (no. 06-2095)
Cross-Appellants (No. 06-2140)
v.
NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY/CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICE; KEITH B. ALEXANDER, General, in his official capacity as Director of the National Security Agency and Chief of the Central Security Service,
Defendants - Appellants (No. 06-2095)
Cross-Appellees (No. 06-2140)
BEFORE: BATCHELDER, GILMAN, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges
The government moves for a stay pending appeal of the district court's order holding the Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the Government from utilizing the Program "in any way, including, but not limited to, conducting warrantless wiretaps of telephone and internet communications, in contravention of [FISA and Title III]."
In considering whether a stay pending appeal should issue, we balance the tranditional factors governing injunctive relief: (1) whether the applicant has demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other interested parties; and (4) where the public interest lies. Baker v. Adams Count/Ohio Valley Sch. Bd, 310 F.3d 927, 928 (6th Cir. 2002); Michigan Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991). This court, in Grutter v. Bollinger, 247 F.3de 631, 633 (6th Cir. 2001), noted that
Michigan Coalition said that the success on the merits which must be demonstrated is inversely proportional to the harm. More than a possibility of success must be shown, and "even if a movant demonstrates irreparable harm that decidedly outweighs any potential harm to the nonmoving party if a stay is granted, he is still required to show, at a minimum, "serious questions going to the merits."" (edits and citations omitted)After careful review, we conclude that this standard has been met in this case. Accordingly,.
the motion for a stay pending appeal is GRANTED.ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT.
Leonard Green, Clerk
I can't properly paginate this stuff like the actual order, but you get the picture. I was quite surprised to see Christopher Hitchens listed as a Plaintiff, too. Did I miss something? More on the judges in another update.
Update [2006-10-4 16:56:47 by RenaRF]: A little bit on the three judges, based on some basic poking around:
Alice Moore Batchelder - nominated June 12, 1991; confirmed on November 27, 1991. A Google Search of her name leads me to believe that she was a Judge conservatives wanted considered for SCOTUS, and at a minimum has been identified as "friendly" vis-a-vis the administration of Bush 2. Wikipedia also has a nice summary.
Ronald Lee Gilman - Nominated July 16, 1997; confirmed November 6, 1997. I didn't get much outside of official information from a Google search, and Wikipedia has a brief entry.
Julia Smith Gibbons - Nominated October 9, 2001; confirmed July 29, 2002 [quite a lag]. PFAW has an interesting piece on why Gibbons (among others) "Confirm [their] worst fears". The brief Wikipedia entry can be found here.
.jpg)
Comments are closed on this story.