It’s so secret, We Can’t Tell You. That’s the catchy headline on today’s New York Times editorial about “relentless efforts” to continue the BananaRepublic‘s legacy of clandestine eavesdropping.
If an Islamic charity is “subjected to warrantless surveillance” by the National Security Agency and is “declared a sponsor of terrorism,” what happens when it challenges those claims in court? Well …
When the lawsuit was filed in 2006, the government argued that the charity and two lawyers who worked with it could not sue unless they knew the charity was being wiretapped. They could not know that because the wiretapping was secret. If they somehow found out, they could not prove the wiretapping was warrantless, because that was also a secret.
So …
The plaintiffs first tried to build their case on a classified document they were given by mistake. When that document was suppressed, they showed from public records that they were subject to illegal surveillance. The government said that those should be suppressed, too. The lawyers argued that the only basis for a suit would be if the government admitted it had no warrant. And it would not admit that, because that was a secret.
Which, the editorial said …
reminded us of the movie “Animal House” and the college dean who puts a fraternity on “double-secret probation.” It doesn’t know the rules, or even that it is on probation, so it can never get out of it.
I like it when Times editorials use ridicule. In any case …
Senator Obama promised repeatedly in the 2008 campaign to reverse Mr. Bush’s many abuses of power. This was one of them. President Obama should read this court ruling with chagrin and eliminate warrantless spying. It is also far past time to stop hiding behind spurious, often ludicrous, claims of national security.
Are you ready? Let’s get serious.
