A district court judge has ruled on the FISA wiretapping case:
A federal judge ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency’s program to wiretap the international communications of some Americans without a court warrant violated the Constitution, and she ordered it shut down.
The ruling was the first judicial assessment of the Bush administration’s arguments in defense of the surveillance program, which has provoked fierce legal and political debate since it was disclosed last December. But the issue is far from settled, with the Justice Department filing an immediate appeal and succeeding in allowing the wiretapping to continue for the time being.
Commentary in the blogosphere by the usual suspects is largely along the expected lines: supporters of the Bush Administration have attacked the judge’s reasoning, motives, and acumen; opponents of the Bush Administration have hailed the decision as a triumph for the rule of law. I won’t bother linking to them—they’re easy enough to find.
I continue to maintain what I’ve held since the story broke: it’s far from clear and I’m willing to let the courts decide. This is only Round 1.
UPDATE: Jack Balkin makes a rather interesting case that district court judge Anna Diggs Taylor, by the specific arguments she’s made and the manner in which she’s made them in her opinion, is cleverly working the gamesmanship of the appellate system in the federal courts. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
