Illegal Warrantless Wiretapping Program Officially Declared Illegal

Federal District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled yesterday that the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program, conducted by the NSA, violates the Constitution. This is the official word we've been waiting for, confirming what everyone already knew to be true. The Executive does not get to do whatever they want in the name of protecting the country.

This is also a vital step in the impeachment process. In Articles of Impeachment, it's one thing to claim that the program is illegal. It's quite another to be able to show that the judicial branch agrees.

Clearly, the administration will not allow this decision to rest - they've already pledged to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. Should it go that far, it will be very interesting to follow. Conservative blogs are already frothing with charges of "activist judges, " and "liberal media bias." Which is no surprise since the RNC followed the ruling yesterday with a post, "Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security."

The Republican support for the warrantless wiretap program ALWAYS excludes the very heart of the matter. Because of past abuses by the Nixon administration (and likely others), there is now legislation (FISA, for example) that requires investigators to get a warrant to spy. The law allows for urgent requests, so even when there is a last-minute need to eavesdrop, the process is designed specifically not to get in the way. It's even allowed that you apply for the warrant after the fact. Yet, the administration feels that it need not obtain these warrants, so they simply ignore the law.

If the administration claims are true - that, while eavesdropping on a conversation, "one of the parties on the call is a suspected Al Qaeda or affiliated terrorist," WHY is it so difficult to do it legally? If they're suspected, don't you have evidence to support your suspicion? Can't your evidence be shared in the secret FISA court to ensure that there is substantial reason to spy? So far, there is no clear indication that there is a need to suspend the balancing effect of the judiciary on the executive.

I guess it's just easier to claim that liberals and others concerned about civil rights are "soft on terrorism."