Althouse: "A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal"... except he didn't.

April 1, 2010

"A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Security Agency’s program of surveillance without warrants was illegal"... except he didn't.

Orin Kerr catches the NYT's misreading of Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...: Another step forward for diversity: a federal judge with neuter gender!; 4/1/10, 7:33 AM
Ann Althouse said...: Oops. Corrected.

I would have written "a federal court ruled" and leapt to the assumption that's what it said.

Good thing I didn't write that on a sign and get it photographed.; 4/1/10, 7:43 AM
traditionalguy said...: Courts and Congress will now resume making war since the Commander-in-chief's role is once again discovered to be"Illegal". Then the next deadly attack will threaten the existence of the country and the Commander-in-chief will fail us unless he/she acts "Illegally" until the enemy is defeated. It is always a timing thing with a countdown to an expiration date. I like President Lincoln's apt observation that the Court's rulings against the Commander-in-chief's exercise of war powers during the war will have to be enforced by the Court's Army.; 4/1/10, 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Yesterday, Jeremy was trying to change the subject by fussing that AA hadn't blogged on (the NYT's charactorization of) this issue, so when I started to read this headline, my first thought was: "What, she's taking notes from Jeremy now?!?!"

Then I saw the redirection, and was amused.; 4/1/10, 7:55 AM
Chase said...: The New York Times writes a news story the way it wants to present the facts, misrepresnting the facts.

Anyone surprised?

Anyone?

Anyone?

This just in - liberals will see this post and attack Fox News - that is all.; 4/1/10, 8:13 AM
Anonymous said...: That's the problem with writing on a computer: easy to change one thing, not so easy to be sure you've changed everything that needs to change along with it.; 4/1/10, 8:15 AM
Unknown said...: Jeremy is not gonna be happy. That item made his day.

WV "utlizers" For people who utilize with only one i.; 4/1/10, 10:29 AM
Fen said...: Oh god. This means another 6 months of Libtards claiming the NSA program has been declared illegal.; 4/1/10, 11:13 AM
Cedarford said...: Who are we all to argue with the sanctity of a single lawyer dressed in robes saying It Is So!

Worship the Sacred Parchment and it's Priests!
For they stand above the rabble, their chosen representatives, and their leader.
They are the Final Word. On Everything.
Especially when 5 of the Highest Priests say It IS So, over the other 4 High Priests.

We call it Rule of Law!; 4/1/10, 12:10 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Then the next deadly attack will threaten the existence of the country...."

We have had no deadly attack that threatened the existence of this country, so what do you mean "the next" one?

At this time, the existence of this country is most threatened by those within, by those in government past and present who whould subvert the rule of law and ignore the Constitution to institute an authoritarian state headed by a "unitary" Commander in Chief; by those who continue the prosecution of our terror wars of mass murder abroad, and who instituted and who still attempt to justify our torture regime and other violations of the Bill of Rights; and whose favoring of the large financial institutions at the expense of the citizenry may result in our nation's ultimate collapse.; 4/1/10, 1:49 PM
Opus One Media said...: about time.; 4/1/10, 3:49 PM
Opus One Media said...: Fen said...
Oh god. This means another 6 months of Libtards claiming the NSA program has been declared illegal."

read the entire article pls.; 4/1/10, 3:50 PM
Opus One Media said...: Fen said...
Oh god. This means another 6 months of Libtards claiming the NSA program has been declared illegal."

read the entire article pls.; 4/1/10, 3:50 PM
Skeptical said...: Orin Kerr is very smart and not a flake. Here's to him.; 4/1/10, 5:36 PM
traditionalguy said...: Robert Cook...You are correct as usual. Obama has not been President under a deadly attack, so he is an impeachable dictator that just makes Proclamations and skips the Congressional input. But were we talking about Bush in 2001? That President faced possible suitcase nukes from a Saudi Arabian Guerrilla organisation that had just done far more damage in a declared war (by them)on 9/11 than the Japs had done on 12/7. But thanks for joining me in stopping Obama's abuses.; 4/1/10, 7:45 PM
From Inwood said...: as someone once noted:

That's why the NYT is the preeminent American newspaper - because it’s always able to interpret what was actually said in order to gain the deeper truth of what was really meant.
It's a God-given talent.; 4/1/10, 8:55 PM
Robert Cook said...: "That President faced possible suitcase nukes...."

Hardly a likely possibility at all, government and media fear-mongering notwithstanding.

That said, I do think Obama is a dangerous President, a war criminal like his predecessor, and bold in continuing and expanding on his predecessors programs. Dave Lindorff posts a pertinent update today on COUNTERPUNCH to his previous call for the impeachment of George Bush, Dick Cheney, et al., in which he calls for the impeachment of Barack Obama. I recommend it to you.; 4/2/10, 11:12 AM