SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
In a striking reversal to the Bush Administration’s efforts to use the state secrets doctrine, left undisturbed by the Obama Administration, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled today that a lawsuit challenging warrantless government surveillance could proceed. The Associated Press reports:
A federal appeals court in San Francisco on Friday rejected the Justice Department’s request for an emergency stay in a case involving a defunct Islamic charity. The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, claimed national security would be compromised if a lawsuit brought by the Oregon chapter of the charity, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, was allowed to proceed. Now, civil libertarians hope the case will become the first chance for a court to rule on whether the warrantless wiretapping program was legal or not. It cited the so-called state secrets privilege as a defense against the lawsuit.
“All we wanted was our day in court and it looks like we’re finally going to get our day in court,” said Al-Haramain’s lawyer, Steven Goldberg. “This case is all about challenging an assertion of power by the executive branch which is extraordinary.”
Actually, there isn’t any serious issue as to whether the warrantless wiretapping program was legal. It wasn’t. It was a large-scale felony. The Bush Justice Department wasn’t even capable of articulating a case for it being lawful.
Normally the Justice Department prosecutes crimes. Under President Bush, however, cooking up schemes to commit large-scale crimes was a Department of Justice specialty, which raised the acute problem of what to do when you got caught. The answer came in a one-size-fits-all formulation: claim state secrets! In the Al-Haramain case, like a number of others, the state secrets doctrine was invoked not because of any actual state secrets—indeed the gig was up when documents about the unlawful surveillance were disclosed—but because the litigation, if it proceeded, would tend inevitably to show that Bush Administration engaged in systematic warrantless surveillance.
Now it’s time for the truth to out. And for the Justice Department to take the energy it put into fending off a legitimate civil suit into honest-to-goodness law enforcement. Like prosecuting the people who cooked up and implemented the warrantless surveillance scheme, including the conspirators at the Justice Department.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”