Citing Four-Day Old Surveillance Law, Bush Seeks Dismissal of Lawsuit Challenging NSA Spying

[struggle4progress]

By David Kravets
August 09, 2007 | 3:11:11 PM

Four days after President Bush signed controversial legislation legalizing some warrantless surveillance of Americans, the administration is citing the law in a surprise motion today urging a federal judge to dismisss a lawsuit challenging the NSA spy program.

The lawsuit was brought by lawyers defending Guantanamo Bay prisoners. The lawyers and others alleged the threat of surveillance is chilling their First Amendment rights of speech, and their clients' right to legal representation.

Justice Department lawyers are asking (.pdf) U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to toss the case, citing the new law -- which says warrantless surveillance can continue for up to a year so long as one person in the intercepted communications is reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.

The motion is set to be heard in federal court in San Francisco this afternoon. ~snip~

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/citing-four-day.html

[Hydra]

1. K&R

"Surprise motion"??? I called this the second he signed the FAA!

Where are the naysayers now?

[RufusTFirefly]

10. Aw gee. If we had only known then what we know now!

Who woulda thunk it? I mean, I always thought he was the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with and all.

[The Backlash Cometh]

14. We all saw it coming. Our congresspeople are either the most incredibly

stupidest people on this planet, or the most naive.

Well, they could also be corrupt. Hard to say.

[Vincardog]

2. Where is the Bug Man DELAY defense that that law was not in force when the offense was committed?

[tbyg52]

20. Don't be silly

Consistency is only for us little people, don'cha know.

[C_U_L8R]

3. Hopefully Judge Walker is a Constitution defender

[glitch]

4. Hope he's not related to George Walker Bush.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[LordJFT]

5. haha he thinks laws work retroactively...wow

[truedelphi]

8. But since it will be tried in the court of public opinion

This gives Mainstream Media Spinmeisters the proper spin

Why get all agitated about something that is legal now??

If it is legal NOW, should it not have been LEGAL THEN??

And since it was not LEGAL then, it must be the fault of the Democratic Congress for not getting it right to begin with (Never mind that the Congress was Republican when this first was of importance)

[Richard Steele]

12. Sadly, laws seem to work however the Decider says they work these days.

Get out your dictionary, and remove the word "unbelievable".
We, as a nation, have no further use for it. :(

[EFerrari]

6. No comment. K&R

[proud patriot]

7. Of Course he is

:grr:

[buddhamama]

9. i didn't see this coming...

:mad:

[KaptBunnyPants]

11. Thanks Blue Dogs and Pelosi.

nt

[Disturbed]

13. Busholin & his NSA violated the FISA Law at least 30 times.

Now he wants to delete those violations. My guess is that nothing will happen to him or anyone else, legally, regarding those violations.

[KaptBunnyPants]

17. Your guess is almost certainly right.

This is just a game for our politicians. I could very easily see a Democratic President coming in afterward and ending all the investigations of Bush's administration by fiat, as Bill did for Bush I. Wouldn't want to see anyone important actually be held to account for criminal misdeeds, that's for just for poor people.

[bigtree]

15. predicted

let's see what the court says

[scarletwoman]

16. I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED, I tell you!!!!!

"Surprise motion", indeed! NO ONE could have POSSIBLY PREDICTED THIS!!!!

:banghead:

[Javaman]

18. soooprise soooprise soooprise...nt

[zabet]

19. Was there a special signing statement that made the FISA

law retro-active? Chimp is such an arrogant bastard when it comes to the law.