Three federal appeals court judges hearing challenges to the National Security Agency’s surveillance programs appeared skeptical of and sometimes hostile to the Bush administration’s central argument Wednesday: that national security concerns require that the lawsuits be dismissed.
“Is it the government’s position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive when it comes to wiretapping is unchecked?†Judge Harry Pregerson asked a government lawyer. His tone was one of incredulity and frustration.
U.S. Defends Surveillance to 3 Skeptical Judges – New York Times
The Justice Department claims that neither case can go forward without compromising crucial intelligence-gathering materials, and asked the judges to dismiss them. Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre and DOJ lawyer Thomas M. Bondy didn’t find them particularly sympathetic.
”This seems to put us in the ‘trust us’ category,” Judge M. Margaret McKeown said about the government’s assertions that its surveillance activities did not violate the law. ” ‘We don’t do it. Trust us. And don’t ask us about it.’ ”
At one point, Garre argued that courts are not the right forum for complaints about government surveillance, and that “other avenues” are available. “What is that? Impeachment?” Pregerson shot back.The 9th Circuit is known as one of the most liberal appellate courts. Hearing the cases were three judges appointed by Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. Should it lose, the Justice Department will surely appeal, in the not-unreasonable expectation that a higher court will be more solicitous of the government’s predicament.
TPMmuckraker August 16, 2007 9:13 AM
Here’s my favorite quote…
Judge Pregerson, appointed by President Jimmy Carter, appeared irritated with the government’s arguments, and he became frustrated when Mr. Garre said he could not provide simple answers to questions about the scope of a recently amended 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Mr. Garre said it was a complicated law.“Can’t be any more complicated than my phone bill,†Judge Pregerson said.
U.S. Defends Surveillance to 3 Skeptical Judges – New York Times
I guess that means he doesn’t have an iPhone…
Blogged with Flock
