Judge Orders Release of Warrantless Surveillance Documents

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Nickdfresh
    SUPER MODERATOR

    • Oct 2004
    • 49125

    Judge Orders Release of Warrantless Surveillance Documents

    Judge orders action on spying documents

    By Pete Yost, Associated Press Writer | February 16, 2006

    WASHINGTON --A federal judge dealt a setback to the Bush administration on its warrantless surveillance program, ordering the Justice Department on Thursday to release documents about the highly classified effort within 20 days or compile a list of what it is withholding.

    U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy said a private group will suffer irreparable harm if the documents it has been seeking since December are not processed promptly under the Freedom of Information Act.

    The Justice Department failed to meet the time restraints under FOIA and failed to make a case that it was impractical to deal quickly with the request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

    Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said no determination has been made as to what the government's next step will be.

    At a court hearing a week ago, Justice Department lawyer Rupa Bhattacharyya said the government would respond starting March 3, but she said she had no information on when the process might be completed.

    Timing will depend on complexity, "and in this case there are a lot of complexities," Bhattacharyya said.

    Kennedy wrote that "courts have the authority to impose concrete deadlines on agencies that delay the processing of requests meriting expedition."

    Routine FOIA requests are to be handled within 20 days while expedited requests have no set time limit under the law, prompting the Justice Department to take the position that the amount of time for expedited requests could be longer than that for the routine 20-day handling.

    "Congress could not have intended to create the absurd situation" enabling the government to unilaterally exceed the standard 20-day period, Kennedy wrote.



    © Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
  • Warham
    DIAMOND STATUS
    • Mar 2004
    • 14587

    #2
    Big deal.

    Have you ever seen some of the 'classified' documents that the Feds release under the FOIA? 50-90% of the stuff is blacked out.

    Comment

    • Hardrock69
      DIAMOND STATUS
      • Feb 2005
      • 21834

      #3
      That is irrelevant.

      If a FEDERAL judge orders the release of documents to him, they will NOT be blacked out.

      I could see it if it was john Q. Public.

      Comment

      • Warham
        DIAMOND STATUS
        • Mar 2004
        • 14587

        #4
        Originally posted by Hardrock69
        That is irrelevant.

        If a FEDERAL judge orders the release of documents to him, they will NOT be blacked out.

        I could see it if it was john Q. Public.
        No, he will ALSO see the blacked out documents.

        I figured since you were into all that conspiracy shit, you would know this by now.

        Even certain PRESIDENTS have been asked to see certain documents or portions of documents and have been DENIED access. PRESIDENT, I said, not a federal judge.

        Comment

        • Nickdfresh
          SUPER MODERATOR

          • Oct 2004
          • 49125

          #5
          Very rare...

          And they can only legally "black out" so much...

          Comment

          • Warham
            DIAMOND STATUS
            • Mar 2004
            • 14587

            #6
            I don't think there's any legal requirements on what can be blackened out or not, under certain exemptions. I believe there's nine exemptions.

            Comment

            • Hardrock69
              DIAMOND STATUS
              • Feb 2005
              • 21834

              #7
              No.

              If the documents are classified, yet required to be seen by the judge, they will just swear the judge in with an appropriate security clearance.

              I do know about it.
              Shut yer ignorant trap.

              Comment

              • Warham
                DIAMOND STATUS
                • Mar 2004
                • 14587

                #8
                You are right:

                I found this here:

                Amended in 1974...

                Empowered federal district courts to order agencies to produce improperly withheld documents -- and to examine the contested materials privately (in camera) to determine if they were properly exempted under one of the nine categories. This amendment removed the barrier to court review which the Supreme Court had pointed out, giving courts the power to hold that a document had been improperly classified and therefore should be released. The government was required to prove that contested material was properly classified.

                Comment

                • Warham
                  DIAMOND STATUS
                  • Mar 2004
                  • 14587

                  #9
                  Somehow I get the feeling that the Justice Dept will say they 'misplaced some of the documents'.

                  Comment

                  • FORD
                    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

                    • Jan 2004
                    • 58754

                    #10
                    Originally posted by Warham
                    Somehow I get the feeling that the Justice Dept will say they 'misplaced some of the documents'.
                    In which case they should be charged with obstruction of justice.
                    Eat Us And Smile

                    Cenk For America 2024!!

                    Justice Democrats


                    "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

                    Comment

                    • Nickdfresh
                      SUPER MODERATOR

                      • Oct 2004
                      • 49125

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Warham
                      You are right:

                      I found this here:

                      Amended in 1974...

                      Empowered federal district courts to order agencies to produce improperly withheld documents -- and to examine the contested materials privately (in camera) to determine if they were properly exempted under one of the nine categories. This amendment removed the barrier to court review which the Supreme Court had pointed out, giving courts the power to hold that a document had been improperly classified and therefore should be released. The government was required to prove that contested material was properly classified.
                      If the judge has a security clearance, then they will have to show him, of face contempt of court charges...

                      They'll even have to show the parties involved in the lawsuit provided they get lawyers with the security clearances...

                      Comment

                      • bueno bob
                        DIAMOND STATUS
                        • Jul 2004
                        • 22820

                        #12
                        Originally posted by Nickdfresh
                        If the judge has a security clearance, then they will have to show him, of face contempt of court charges...

                        They'll even have to show the parties involved in the lawsuit provided they get lawyers with the security clearances...
                        Eligible lawyers can be issued clearances for such occurances, I think...?

                        There has to be some sort of disclosure somewhere.
                        Twistin' by the pool.

                        Comment

                        Working...