[antimedia] antimedia: I was going to critique the judge's opinion....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by antimedia:
I was going to critique the judge's opinion....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1155953501.shtml


   ....on the NSA case but why bother? Bryan Cunningham, who is
   emminently more qualified than I, [1]savaged the judge in this
   analysis of her horribly flawed "reasoning".

     We can sympathize with her motives, and even share some of her gut
     feelings of uneasiness about the program. But we cannot accept the
     stunningly amateurish piece of, I hesitate even to call it legal
     work, by which she purports to make our government go deaf and dumb
     to those who would murder us en masse. Her bosses on the Court of
     Appeals and/or the United States Supreme Court will not accept it.
     Much will be said about this opinion in the coming days. Iâll start
     with this: I wouldnât accept this utterly unsupported,
     constitutionally and logically bankrupt collection of musings from
     a first-year law student, much less a new lawyer at my firm. Why
     not? Herewith, a start at a very long list of whatâs wrong with
     Judge Taylorâs opinion.

   Ouch! And the judge is a law professor!
   One of the most amazing things I found in her decision was this
   statement.

     Plaintiffs here contend that the TSP has interfered with their
     ability to carry out their professional responsibilities in a
     variety of ways, including that the TSP has had a significant
     impact on their ability to talk with sources, locate witnesses,
     conduct scholarship, engage in advocacy and communicate with
     persons who are outside of the United States, including in the
     Middle East and Asia. Plaintiffs have submitted several
     declarations to that effect. For example, scholars and journalists
     such as plaintiffs Tara McKelvey, Larry Diamond, and Barnett Rubin
     indicate that they must conduct extensive research in the Middle
     East, Africa, and Asia, and must communicate with individuals
     abroad whom the United States government believes to be terrorist
     suspects or to be associated with terrorist organizations.12 In
     addition, attorneys Nancy Hollander, William Swor, Joshua Dratel,
     Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad indicate that they must also
     communicate with individuals abroad whom the United States
     government believes to be terrorist suspects or to be associated
     with terrorist organizations,13 and must discuss confidential
     information over the phone and email with their international
     clients.14

   Here the plaintiffs are admitting, on the record, that they are in
   contact with persons whom the government has designated as terrorists.
   One can only hope that this case will make its way to the Supreme
   Court, where we can get, once and for all, a definitive case about the
   President's Article II powers and the inability of either Congress or
   the courts to interfere with his constitutional authority.

References

   1. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWVlOGNiZmIyMmZkYTg2OGFiYzM3ZGU4Nzc0MjFjNzQ=