The Bush Administration Defends the NSA Wiretapping Program Before the 9th Circuit

According to the New York Times the three judge panel was very skeptical of the program. The lawsuits consolidated before the court consist of two different cases:

1) A program where AT&T allegedly provides “the NSA its customers’ phone and Internet communications for a vast data-mining operation,” in a program that “the government has not acknowledged,” but plaintiff’s lawyers call a “content dragnet.”

2) A program disclosed by The New York Times in December 2005, which the administration calls the Terrorist Surveillance Program,” where the NSA bypasses “court warrants in monitoring international communications involving people in the United States.”

The Federal Lawyers argued that almost nothing in the NSA wiretapping program could be talked about in court, but the Judges (the three panel) must give the executive branch claims of state secrets the "utmost deference."

The three judges on the court were unsatisfied with the argument, and appeared incensed by some of the answers:

“Is it the government’s position that when our country is engaged in a war that the power of the executive when it comes to wiretapping is unchecked?” asked one judge.

“This seems to put us in the ‘trust us’ category. ‘We don’t do it. Trust us. And don’t ask us about it,’” said Judge M. Margaret McKeown.

“Every ampersand, every comma is top-secret?” queried Judge Michael Daly Hawkins about a withheld document.

- “”Are you saying the courts are to rubber-stamp the determination of the executive of what’s a state secret? What’s our job?” asked Pregerson.

- “I feel like I’m in Alice and Wonderland,” observed McKeown.

When Deputy Solicitor General Greg Garre argued that “other avenues” than the court system were the proper forum for complaints about government surveillance, Pregerson shot back: “What is that? Impeachment?”

The 9th circuit is known to be the most liberal in the nation with the 2nd circuit a distant second, but these arguments the administration is making to my knowledge have never been argued before. That the Executive branch has no check, not Congress, not the Courts and certainly not us, the people.

The attorney for the plaintiff responded when Judge McKeown said I feel like I am in Alice in Wonderand, and said: "I feel like I am in Alice in Wonderland Too. I filed a sealed file in this case, arguing what I think is in the document. I cannot talk about that file today."

Any questions whether we are actually in a dictatorship?