FISA finds a friend in the court

By Libby

This is a somewhat comforting turn of events. I've been following this case for a while and if memory serves, this group was targeted by the Bush regime's homeland surveillance team for allegedly funneling money to terrorists. In the course of the discovery process, as it wound it's way through the lower courts, the government inadvertently sent a document proving they had been illegally spying on the charity. When the mistake was discovered, federal agents stormed the charity and their lawyer's offices to retreive the document and any evidence of its existence, going as far as seizing computers. The White House has been trying to kill the case in court ever since but the federal district judge is not buying the government's arguments.

The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity. The group says it has evidence of an illegal wiretap used against it by the National Security Agency under the secret surveillance program established by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Justice Department has tried for more than two years to kill the lawsuit, saying any surveillance of the charity or other entities was a “state secret” and citing the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court under the agency’s program.

But Judge Walker, who was appointed to the bench by former President George Bush, rejected those central claims in his 56-page ruling. He said the rules for surveillance were clearly established by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant from a secret court.

This is especially heartening because the same judge will be presiding over the about 40 civil cases against the telecoms that have been brought by various parties. Of course, if the fiasco of the so-called FISA compromise passes in the Senate, the judge's frame of mind won't mean squat since it will effectively force him to dismiss those cases but still, it's good to know there's at least one sane jurist left in the higher courts who is willing to put the rule of law above political fealty. There may be hope for us yet.

Update: Glenn has the legalese and a much fuller explanation of what's at stake in this vote.