Obama Administration Doesn’t Want the Judiciary in ‘National Conversation’ on Security and Liberty

Is the judge allowed to object?Credit: SalFalko / Foter / CC BY-NCEarlier today, Ed Krayewski wrote of a troubling argument presented by the Department of Justice in a lawsuit over the extrajudicial killing of American citizens in Yemen. The DOJ argued that the court was essentially barred from examining the legality and Fourth Amendment issues of the case due to security issues. Legal Times noted:

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer repeatedly expressed concern that the government's position would essentially strip U.S. citizens abroad of their constitutional rights. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Hauck argued there was a difference between having a constitutional right—which he said could be protected by the executive and legislative branches—and being able to make constitutional claims in court. Collyer countered that not being able to access the courts would deprive citizens of the ability to enforce their rights.

"I'm really troubled…that you cannot explain to me where the end of it is," Collyer said. "That, yes, they have constitutional rights but there is no remedy for those constitutional rights."

Yes, it appears that Hauck is arguing that the executive and legislative branches will protect constitutional claims even in the absence of the judiciary involvement, which is a remarkable … I don’t know quite how to describe it. A remarkably mendacious analysis of the history of the protection of civil liberties in the United States, is what it is.

Over at Wired, despite this allegedly “national discussion” President Barack Obama said he would like to have about balancing liberty and security, again, the administration is doing what it can to keep it out of the courtroom:

The Obama administration for the first time responded to a Spygate lawsuit, telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata in the United States is in the “public interest,” does not breach the constitutional rights of Americans and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

Thursday’s response marks the first time the administration has officially answered one of at least four lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of a secret U.S. snooping program the Guardian newspaper disclosed last month. The administration’s filing sets the stage for what is to be a lengthy legal odyssey — one likely to outlive the Obama presidency — that will define the privacy rights of Americans for years to come.

The New York federal district court lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, demands a federal judge immediately halt the spy program the civil rights group labeled as “one of the largest surveillance efforts ever launched by a democratic government.”

Just to emphasize: “cannot be challenged in a court of law.” Actually, maybe that’s why the phrase “conversation” keeps being invoked. A conversation doesn’t actually indicate any changes of policy will be forthcoming. Keeping the judiciary out of the equation makes it possible to let people go on about their concerns, smile sagely at them and act as though you, too, are concerned, and then continue on doing exactly what you’re doing. This pretty much appears to be the Obama Administration’s strategy: leadership via feigned interest.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Curtisls87||

    Hubris, Hubris, Hubris!

  • Warrren||

    You still have one-third of the government working for you and that ain't too shabby!

  • Generic Stranger||


    You still have one-third of the government working for against you and that ain't too shabby!

    FTFY

  • Generic Stranger||

    Shit...I read that as two thirds. Oh well, still works...

  • Loki||

    You still have one three-thirds of the government working for against you and that ain't too shabby!

    Now it's fixed.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Yes, it appears that Hauck is arguing that the executive and legislative branches will protect constitutional claims even in the absence of the judiciary involvement...

    Don't look at history as your guide, look into Constitutional Scholar Obama's eyes and see that his heart is pure on this.

  • ||

    The Obama administration for the first time responded to a Spygate lawsuit, telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata in the United States is in the “public interest,” does not breach the constitutional rights of Americans and cannot be challenged in a court of law....

    ...because FYTW.

  • CE||

    Google, AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft et al should stop being pansies and release the metadata on the NSA's spying requests they have been forced to comply with.

    If the NSA has nothing to hide, why would they object to the metadata about their requests being released to the public?

  • Rich||

    The Obama administration for the first time responded to a Spygate lawsuit, telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata ... cannot be challenged in a court of law.

    "The Obama administration" told this? Names, Scott, names. I believe those folks can be challenged by a congressional committee.

    Where *will* it all end? 8-(

  • CE||

    "Extrajudicial killing"?

    You mean murder?

  • Sevo||

    "You mean murder?"

    Now why do you have to use words like that? We're trying to be friendly here, to help you see how we can help you and you can help us, and then you go an use a word like that.
    We're asking you do cooperate with us, that's all. You WILL cooperate, won't you?

  • ||

    You WILL cooperate, won't you?

    And lack of cooperation is resistance.

    Stop resisting!

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm not one to use the term "tyrannical" lightly, but if the administration is claiming that citizens cannot use the courts to protect themselves from potential government overreach, then that is exactly the right term to use. It may not be a malicious, oven-stoking tyranny, but it is tyranny nonetheless.

  • LynchPin1477||

    I'm also going to go ahead just leave this right here...

    Congress shall make no law...abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What? THERE. . .ARE. . .THREE. . .BRANCHES!

  • Loki||

    A conversation doesn’t actually indicate any changes of policy will be forthcoming. Keeping the judiciary out of the equation makes it possible to let people go on about their concerns, smile sagely at them and act as though you, too, are concerned, and then continue on doing exactly what you’re doing. This pretty much appears to be the Obama Administration’s strategy: leadership via feigned interest.

    Nice. I'm definitely stealing this bit.

  • Nazdrakke||

    So are there any clauses left on the Bill of Rights that have not had the Sharpie of Greater Goodness taken to them?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's about time for that special prosecutor. This fucking administration has to go.

  • Sevo||

    This "conversation" is beginning to sound like the "conversation" you have with the IRS.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The Obama administration for the first time responded to a Spygate lawsuit, telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata in the United States is in the “public interest,” does not breach the constitutional rights of Americans and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

    You heard the man. Time to repeal the Patriot Act in its entirety.

  • Metazoan||

    WomSom/Big Anonbot is behind the whole thing!

  • buybuydandavis||

    The only news is that the Obama Administration is openly admitting it deems itself above the law. They've been acting that way since day 1.

    He's giving the Putin autocracy a run for it's money.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement