«   |   »

Federal Judge Finds That Bush Administration Broke The Law

by Ben Hoffman

SAN FRANCISCO — In a repudiation of the Bush administration’s now-defunct Terrorist Surveillance Program, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that government investigators illegally wiretapped the phone conversations of an Islamic charity and two American lawyers without a search warrant.

U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker said the plaintiffs provided enough evidence to show “they were subjected to warrantless electronic surveillance.”

The judge’s 45-page ruling focused narrowly on Al-Haramain case, touching vaguely on the larger question of the program’s legality.

Source

Of course, the spineless Eric Holder won’t pursue this or any of the other Bush administration crimes. Evidently, our laws don’t apply to the executive branch of our government when it’s occupied by Republicans. Clinton gets impeached for lying about getting a BJ but Bush can illegally wiretap American citizens and lie about it and he gets a free pass.

Posted on March 31, 2010 at 5:53 PM in Education, Politics   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL

9 Comments to “Federal Judge Finds That Bush Administration Broke The Law”

    
  1. Moe
    March 31, 2010 at 6:23 PM

    This is like the gajillionth time that a court has found the Bush administration to have acted illegally. What the hell does it take???

    Reply
  2. The Arbourist
    April 1, 2010 at 1:29 AM

    I propose that once they started holding people accountable for their actions, the current administration would also be have to be held accountable for their actions.

    The power elites would simply not stand for that level accountability within the current political structure.

    Full marks though if they do actually decide to prosecute people who have broken the law. It may be a small move toward the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of money.

    Reply
    • Moe
      April 1, 2010 at 7:59 AM

      Arb – I think I agree with you on the ‘why’ of no follow up on this stuff. “The power elites simply would not stand for it.”

      They truly do live in a different world where ‘do as I say not as I do’ is a founding principle. I think it was Atrios who coined the term ‘the villagers’ for the Washington Press Corp – it could as easily be applied to the entire power establishment.

      Reply
  3. Vern R. Kaine
    April 1, 2010 at 7:41 AM

    We’re ALL wiretapped – it’s more a question of what they can use in a court of law. Regardless, I think the reason nothing will happen is that wiretapping in any form is supported by the law enforcement community and the national security community at large, no matter what they say publicly.

    Besides, people will call terrorism a “law enforcement issue” (refer the KSM trial), when it’s really a national security issue to me. Law enforcement doesn’t allow you to really “tag” people in the precrime stage. It assumes one’s already living within the law, therefore innocent until proven guilty. When it comes to national security however (even taxes), it’s the other way around – guilty until proven innocent. That may not be “fair” in some people’s eyes, but to me it’s not only fair, it’s necessary. I think even Barack Obama and Eric Holder agree with this, which is why I don’t think we’ll see anything happen of it.

    Reply
    • Ben Hoffman
      April 1, 2010 at 8:55 AM

      It clearly violates the Fourth Amendment. Funny how right wingers are so selective in what parts of the Constitution should be abided by and what parts are irrelevant.

      Reply
      • Vern R. Kaine
        April 1, 2010 at 9:05 AM

        Please, Ben. It’s “your guys” who are letting it go, just as you’re saying it’s “my guys” who supposedly started it all (if we’re going to get petty and start name-calling based on ideologies here). The fact is that EVERY administration’s national security players operate above or outside the law to at least some degree. To think otherwise is totally naive. They’re ALL letting it go because that’s what Bush’s admin would have done before, and what Obama’s admin will do now, so who’s really being selective here?

      • Ben Hoffman
        April 1, 2010 at 9:11 AM

        I’m talking about civilian right-wingers. They’re all up in arms because the new health care laws will require them to be insured, which they claim to be unconstitutional, but you never hear them mention the violations of the Constitution if it’s in the name of security (or if it’s done by Republicans).

      • Vern R. Kaine
        April 1, 2010 at 9:17 AM

        [I’m talking about civilian right-wingers. They’re all up in arms because the new health care laws will require them to be insured, which they claim to be unconstitutional, but you never hear them mention the violations of the Constitution if it’s in the name of security (or if it’s done by Republicans).
        A bit of a wide brush, I think, but yep, definitely some hypocrisy there for sure.

      • Ben Hoffman
        April 1, 2010 at 9:32 AM

        Religious people do the same thing with the Bible. They only use the parts that suit their needs.

    

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: