Just Ice

dr. elsewhere here

So much going on, it really is impossible to keep up.

Israel essentially loses its gamble, as do Bush and Blair in the whole matter; the London "plot" unravels; Marines - not just grunts or reserves - are caught hiding evidence in a classic CYA; Iraq spirals more and more out of control while Bush whines that they don't appreciate our sacrifices over there; and yet another court finds his administration has just no clue at all what laws or even the Constitution mean for them.

And, of course, we now have this bizarre twist on the JonBenet case dropping in at the most embarrassing moment, the perfect distraction (add this one to Keith's list, though the resulting effects may not be going quite as smoothly as the planners had planned.

In the midst of all this, we cannot overlook the importance of Judge Anna Digg Taylor's courageous and bold decision in the Sixth District case filed by the ACLU on behalf of various parties claiming harm from illegal spying by the NSA. Glenn Greenwald offers the best analysis, as usual (though Jonathon Turley's synopsis on Countdown is also a great sketch), and he gives much to celebrate.

Judge Taylor, a black woman (appointed by Carter, facts making great hay in bushland), openly stated that the program violates the First and Fourth Amendments, FISA, and several federal statutes. Included in the list of defendents are the US government and AT&T. Not only did she make it clear that the Justice Department's arguments on all but one point (state secrets) were not going to fly, she pointed out that what they have been doing through the NSA spying is not only illegal, it's unConstitutional.

The great part about this factoid is that it means that all those efforts taken up by Bush and Arlen 'forked tongue' Specter to create an ex post facto law legalizing their future and past crimes are moot and worthless; Congress cannot pass a law that is unConstitutional.

Arlen's little patchwork paste-up is dead in the water.

Moreover, Judge Taylor completely dismisses the Yoo argument regarding unitary executive powers thus: "....[T]here are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution." Period. And touche! And, just to drive in the blade, she ordered an immediate injunction for the program to stop.

Coupled with the Supreme Court decision on Hamdi v Rumsfeld, the administration is losing not just wiggle room but signficant bravado; in fact, the noose appears to be tightening.

Gonzalez announced that the ruling has been appealed and the injuction stayed, and Judge Taylor's decision could of course be overruled. But then again, as Greenwald points out, because Taylor emphasized the Constitutional issues so strongly, AG should not count on a reversal.

Moreover, should the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals sides with Taylor, it will be tantamount to asserting within the courts that the administration has been committing crimes, both statutory and Constitutional.

Any decision either way there can and likely will be appealed to the Supremes. And given the decision (5 - 3, with Roberts recusing himself), that will be an uphill battle for the DOJ.

We may be witnessing a monumentally important moment in judicial history here folks. So fitting it comes through a black woman.

But please, do send this brave patriot a lot of love, as the rightwingnuts have been chattering up a storm, attacking not her decision but her, personally, which they are always wont to do when they have no legs to stand on. Glenn reviews this aspect of the situation, as well, pointing out the atmosphere of fear created against "activist" judges (trans., "judges who say what I don't want to hear"). The bully mentality erupts like the damn Mafia. Or the Nazis.

I'll be following this case closely now, as well as the number of legal cases on the dockets these days. Hey, who'd'a thunk we'd be singing the praises of lawyers? I for one am so grateful for these guys taking up the banner; where would we be without them? Be sure your ACLU membership is up to date!

One recent decision in a lower court has horrifying implications for the free press, though, which I hope to address in some detail next week. For now, I'll offer one of my promised teasers: We'll soon be reviewing some serious legal issues in some serious detail with a very seriously astute lawyer. Stay tuned!