11/10/09: The Lift reports that the US and European Union have approved a new extradition agreement that replaces the old agreement signed in 2003.  The text of the new agreement is available here.

10/22/09: The Lift reports that the EU and the US will next week sign a treaty intended to simplify and accelerate the extradition of those suspected of serious crimes. The treaty, which will come into force next year, broadens the definition of serious crime to overcome problems with old bilateral treaties, which, for example, listed rape as an extraditable crime only if it involved a man and a woman. It also grants greater access to information in investigations of serious crime, including access to bank accounts.

11/09/09: The Blog of Legal Times reports that a group of litigants, including the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, who are suing the government are urging the federal district court in Washington to keep in place a series of rulings in a high-profile state secrets case that recently settled for $3 million.  They argue that the court's rulings are important for application in other cases. DOJ attorneys want Lamberth to vacate the rulings, saying that they have no precedential value.

10/12/09: The Miami Herald reports that recent court filings in a criminal case against the operator of a defunct Oregon charity reveal that federal prosecutors traveled to Russia in an attempt to find proof that the organization had been involved in terrorism. Federal prosecutors Charles Gorder and Chris Cardani met with agents from Russia's Federal Security Service and gave them copies of computer hard drives from Al Haramain Islamic Foundation Inc. The Federal Security Service was looking for information about Russian soldiers killed in Chechnya. Pete Seda, who founded the Ashland charity 10 years ago, is charged with conspiracy and tax fraud, accused of diverting money overseas for foreign Islamic fighters.

09/15/09: Politico reports that Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair is weighing in with a federal court about a misstatement the federal government made in legal papers filed in connection with what is now the most viable lawsuit over the Bush Administration's warrantless wiretapping program, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama. Blair filed a declaration which is vague about the nature of the error in a prior filing, but it appears to refer to a declassification review about information related to the warrantless wiretapping program.

08/21/09: Wired reports that the Obama administration is urging a federal judge to dismiss Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Obama, a lawsuit weighing whether a sitting US president may lawfully create a spying program to eavesdrop on Americans’ electronic communications without warrants or congressional authorization.

07/10/09: Jurist reports that The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation on Wednesday filed a request for partial summary judgment concluding that the National Security Agency illegally wiretapped several conversations between the charity and its lawyers. The organization is suing the government for the wiretapping and is seeking both disclosure of what was intercepted and monetary damages.

05/31/09: SCOTUSblog has additional coverage of the Al-Haramain warrantless wiretapping suit. The DOJ, facing an impatient federal judge’s threat to rule summarily that the federal government has engaged in illegal electronic wiretrapping on a Muslim organization within the US, asked the judge Friday night to issue a direct order to disclose secret data over the government’s objections that would then set the stage for an appeal on issues “of extraordinary constitutional significance.” Among those issues is whether a court has any authority to order disclosure of “state secrets” for use by a private party in a damages lawsuit, whether a law allowing such damages lawsuits overrides the government’s claim of a “state secrets” privilege against disclosing classified information, and whether a judge, not the government, can decide what a private party “needs to know” from secret government data for use in a lawsuit.

05/30/09: Wired blog reports that the Obama administration refused to budge late Friday and agree to reveal state secrets in the warrantless wiretapping lawsuit pending before District Judge Walker in California. The DOJ responded to the judges inquiry on whether the administration should be sanctioned for “failing to obey the court’s orders”. The government, as it has repeatedly, urged the judge to allow the government to appeal his January 5 order requiring the government to develop a plan – a so-called “protective order” – that would pave the way to the release of state secrets to plaintiffs’ attorneys.

05/23/09:  Law.com reports that government lawyers now face sanctions and the possibility of a judgment that the United States committed illegal surveillance, following an order filed on Friday by Northern District of California Chief Judge Vaughn Walker. Walker ordered Justice Department lawyers to explain why he should not essentially enter a default judgment against the government for violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by spying on the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.

05/16/09: Wiredblog reports that the Obama administration urged US District Judge Vaughn Walker to order disclosure in a 3-year-old lawsuit weighing whether a sitting US president may bypass Congress and adopt a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. Such an order could force the Court of Appeals to weigh in on the hotly contested issue. The classified data in question shows that two American lawyers for the al Haramain charity were illegally intercepted without warrants. Judge Walker has twice ordered the parties to craft a protective order that would permit the plaintiff's lawyers to view the evidence without disclosure to the public, but the government refuses.

04/27/09: Secrecy News reports that Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) reintroduced three bills last week that he said were needed to limit presidential power and to restore the proper constitutional balance among the three branches of government. The first bill (S.876) would substitute the United States as the defendant in place of telecommunications companies in pending lawsuits alleging unlawful surveillance pending before Judge Walker. The second bill (S.877) would require the Supreme Court to review certain cases concerning the constitutionality of intelligence surveillance, statutory immunity for telecommunications providers, and would eliminate the Court’s discretion as to whether to grant certiorari.The other bill deals with presidential signing statements.

04/18/09: The Atlantic reports that on Friday US District Judge for the District of Northern California Vaughn Walker on Friday dealt a blow to the Obama administration's state secrets defense in the case of Al-Haramain v. Bush. Walker ordered the government to produce a plan by May 8th for safeguarding classified information it claimed it could not share at trial because it was a state secret.  The Muslim charity Al-Haramain had sued the Bush administration for allegedly subjecting the charity to illegal NSA surveillance. Walker reasoned in his narrowly tailored opinion that the Obama administration could share the evidence at trial because Al-Haramain's attorneys are cleared to the TS/SCI level, and the evidence was classified at the TS/SCI level.

04/07/09: On Counterterrorism Blog, Victor Comras argues that US District Court Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's decision in the Al-Haramain Oregon NSA wiretapping case epitomizes the tension between the state secrets doctrine and due process in terrorism cases.

03/25/09: The Washington Post reports that civil liberties advocates are accusing the Obama administration of forsaking campaign rhetoric and adopting the same expansive arguments that his predecessor used to cloak some of the most sensitive intelligence-gathering programs of the Bush White House.The al-Haramain case, challenging the use of warrantless wiretaps, is pending decision by Judge Walker in San Francisco, is a case where the Obama administration has followed the Bush administration's invocation of the State Secrets privilege. Last month, a bipartisan Senate group introduced legislation that would require judges to look at the classified evidence when the government makes the state-secrets claim, rather than rely only on its account of the sensitivity of the materials.

03/03/09: The Washington Independent has a detailed recap of the separation of powers controversy that is developing between the Obama administration and Judge Walker, the California district court judge presiding over the warrantless wiretapping suit, Al-Haramain v. Obama. On Friday the DOJ filed a brief challenging Judge Walker's power to carry out an order requiring the government to give Al-Haramain's attorneys the opportunity to view a document showing that its clients and two of its lawyer had been subject to warrantless wiretapping. Additionally, the DOJ wrote the Court that if the Court planned to show opposing counsel the document, the DOJ should be permitted to withdraw it from a previous submission to the court.

02/28/09: Wired reports that Judges Pregerson, Hawkins, and McKeown for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Northern District of California decided Friday to dismiss the government's interlocutory appeal in the case of Al-Haramain v. Obama for lack of jurisdiction. The justices also mooted the government's motion for a stay. The decision dealt a blow to the Obama administration's efforts to uphold the state secrets doctrine adopted by the Bush administration, which had been used to deny the use of a classified government document in the case which suggested that two plaintiffs in the case had their phone conversations tapped without warrant.

02/21/09:  The San Francisco Chronicle reports that the Obama administration filed an emergency request with the Ninth Circuit to stop Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco from allowing lawyers challenging the government's wiretapping program to see a classified surveillance document.  The document is the central evidence in Al-Haramain, the last remaining lawsuit over the legality of former President George W. Bush's 2001 order for the National Security Administration to intercept phone calls and e-mails between Americans and suspected terrorists in other nations.  HT to How Appealing.

2/14/2009:  The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a federal judge tersely denied the Obama administration's request Friday to suspend a challenge to former President Bush's wiretapping program while the administration asks an appellate court to dismiss the case.  Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco said he would not allow the government to appeal his Jan. 5 ruling, which allowed the suit to proceed and required the Justice Department to arrange security clearances which would enable plaintiff lawyers to examine a classified document and determine whether their client, Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, had been wiretapped.  HT to How Appealing.

02/13/09: The San Francisco Chronicle reports that for the second time this week, the Obama administration has gone to court in San Francisco to argue for secrecy in defending a terrorism policy crafted under George W. Bush.  In papers filed Wednesday night, the new Justice Department asked Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to suspend action on a suit challenging the wiretapping program, arguing that proceedings would jeopardize national security.

01/26/09: Wired reports that the Obama administration adopted the position of its predecessor administration when it urged U.S. District Judge for the 9th Circuit Vaughn Walker to set aside a ruling in a closely watched spy case weighing whether a U.S. president may bypass Congress and establish a program of eavesdropping on Americans without warrants. In the same story, Wired also reports that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration's defense of legislation passed in July that immunizes telecommunications companies from lawsuits for complicity in the Bush administration's eavesdropping program. HT to The Lift.

01/06/09: The Miami Herald reports that U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker has denied the government's third motion to dismiss, reinstating an Islamic charity's lawsuit challenging a Bush administration surveillance program. Judge Walker said that there is enough primary evidence showing the charity might have been the target of government-tapped telephone calls that were done without court approval under the administration's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program. The case is Al-Haramain v. Bush, and the Judge Walker's opinion is available here. The Electronic Frontier Foundation and The San Francisco Chronicle also cover the story.

12/03/08:  Wired reports here and here about two cases in San Francisco before U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in which the plaintiffs might finally get a ruling on both the constitutionality of the domestic surveillance program allegedly conducted by the National Security Agency as well as the immunity given to the telecom companies who cooperated. 

• The first case involves two attorneys representing an Islamic charity on the blacklist who allege that they were victims of the spying.  Judge Walker ruled that pursuing such an allegation would require independent, corroborating evidence, and the government accidentally obliged when it turned over top secret documents alluding to that very thing to the lawyers in discovery. 

11/18/08: The New York Times reports that President-elect Obama's views on domestic spying will face an early test when he replies to motions in legal challenges to the National Security Agency's domestic wiretapping program.  The question is whether President Obama will elect to reject these challenges under the state secrets doctrine, as Bush has, or reveal more information about the program's structure and operation.

07/08/08: The New York Times has an article discussing a recent ruling in Al-Haramain by Judge Vaughn Walker stating that FISA contains the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted.  Threat Level discusses it here and here.

Thread: al-Haramain v. Obama warrantless wiretapping suit

11/09/09: The New York Times reports that Iraqi lawmakers passed a long-delayed election law on Sunday to pave the way for a January poll, after parliament sidestepped a potentially explosive disagreement over the oil-producing city of Kirkuk.

11/07/09: JURIST reports that an official from the Iraqi Independent High Electoral Commission on Friday called for a delay of the January 16 parliamentary elections, after the Iraqi Parliament remained at an impasse over updating a controversial provincial election law. Electoral commission chief Faraj al-Haidari told state media that it would be impossible to organize elections by January 16. The parliament is at a stalemate over two disputed issues - the inclusion of candidate names on the ballot instead of a closed list of parties, which would threaten the incumbency of powerful but unpopular MPs; and deciding who will be allowed to vote in the ethnically divided city of Kirkuk, which is residence to thousands of Kurds as well as Arabs.

11/06/09: The New York Times reports that the Iraqi Parliament failed again on Thursday to approve a law to regulate a national election in January, deepening doubts about whether the nation can hold the vote on schedule. American military officials have said a postponement of the country’s Jan. 16 parliamentary election could delay the withdrawal of American troops out of fear for Iraq's political stability.

11/04/09: The Washington Post reports that US and UN officials have grown increasingly worried in recent days as Iraqi lawmakers have continued to put off a vote amid bickering over how to hold elections in the disputed city of Kirkuk. Because the stalemate threatens to delay the elections, and a delay could paralyze the Iraqi government, US commanders may be forced to reevaluate whether to postpone the pullout of their troops.

10/20/09: The Washington Post reports that the Iraqi parliament failed Monday for a second time to vote on a measure crucial to organizing January elections that will choose a new parliament and serve as a milestone in US plans to withdraw combat troops from the country.

10/14/09: CNN reports that Iraqi and international officials fear the upcoming parliamentary election could be delayed if lawmakers fail to pass a revised election law this week. The vote is scheduled for January 16, and Iraq's Independent High Electoral Commission said Tuesday that the schedule for planning the election is predicated on that date. But both the United States and the United Nations have raised concerns that there is no election law three months before the scheduled polls.

Thread: Iraq election

11/09/09: Jurist reports that US officials are conducting reviews to determine which Guantanamo Bay detainees may face trials in military or civilian courts in the US, according to statements made by Attorney General Eric Holder to reporters Sunday.

11/06/09: The Miami Herald reports that the Democratic-controlled Senate on Thursday turned back a GOP-led effort to bar Sept. 11 terrorists from being prosecuted in civilian federal courts. Instead, senators voted 54-45 to support a request by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder to have the option of prosecuting Sept. 11 terrorists such as accused mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in either federal courts or by military commission. 11/05/09: Politico reports that nearly 150 family members of victims of the September 11 attacks have written to the Senate urging passage of an amendment that would effectively force military trials for 9/11 plotters by barring their prosecution in federal civilian courts. The amendment, proposed by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), is expected to come to a vote today during consideration of the Commerce/Justice/Science appropriations bill.

11/04/09: Politico reports that Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder wrote to Senate leaders last week to oppose an amendment by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that seeks to block the use of civilian courts to try 9/11 suspects.

10/29/09: Politico reports that the Defense Authorization bill that President Obama signed Wednesday afternoon contains changes the administration sought to the military commissions process likely to be used to try some of the terror suspects detained at Guantanamo Bay.

10/27/09: IntLawGrrls has a post summarizing and discussing recently amended provisions of the Military Commissions Act and arguing that the amendments reflect a modest step in the right direction.

10/13/09: ProPublica reports on the practical difficulties in releasing Guantanamo detainees whom judges have freed.

10/11/09: The Miami Herald reports that United States Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who helped craft the 2006 law that established the military commissions, said Friday that he may attach an amendment to an appropriations bill that would prohibit the Obama administration from spending money on the prosecution and trial of the accused terrorists before US civilian federal judges.

10/10/09: JURIST reports that the US House of Representatives on Thursday passed HR 2647 which amends the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to provide suspected terrorists with greater due process rights. The Military Commissions Act of 2009 was approved by a vote of 281-146 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act granting $681 billion in military appropriations for the 2010 fiscal year. Among the bill's provisions are limitations on the use of hearsay or coerced evidence and greater defense access to witnesses and evidence.

10/09/09: Balkinization has a post discussing the National Defense Authorization Act and its provisions for appellate review of military commission trials. 

08/24/09: The Congressional Research Service has posted The Military Commissions Act of 2006: Background and Proposed Amendments. This report provides a background and analysis of military commissions rules under the MCA. The report identifies pending legislation, including Senate-passed S. 1390, and describes proposals suggested by the Obama Administration.

08/21/09: The American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today demanding disclosure of a legal memo from the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) that reportedly addresses the constitutional rights that Guantánamo detainees could legally claim during military commission proceedings in the US. The memo, drafted in May 2009, also reportedly addresses the admissibility of statements obtained through coercion in those proceedings. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

07/30/09: Opinio Juris has an analysis piece by Deborah Pearlstein discussing the details of passed amendments to the Military Commissions Act of 2006, including procedural protections and prosecution forum decision factors.

07/16/09: The Wall Street Journal reports that at military commission hearings at the military detention camp Wednesday, the administration sought delays in proceedings, as it reviews detainee cases and revamps a process that President Barack Obama criticized as unconstitutional. 

07/08/09: The New York Times reports that Obama administration lawyers said Tuesday at a Senate hearing that detainees prosecuted by military commissions should have some of the same constitutional rights as American citizens tried in civilian criminal courts. Republicans on the Armed Services Committee argued that foreigners now detained on terrorism charges at the American detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, did not deserve those constitutional protections.

07/07/09: Jurist reports that retired Rear Admiral John Hutson, formerly the US Navy's Judge Advocate General, argued Tuesday that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 should be repealed rather than reformed. Hutson said that although he was an "early and ardent supporter of military commissions," the process created to try enemy combatants "did not live up to the traditions" of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and had become a "significant distraction for the military."

06/29/09: The Wall Street Journal reports that the Justice Department has determined that detainees tried by military commissions in the U.S. can claim at least some constitutional rights, particularly protection against the use of statements taken through coercive interrogations. Military prosecutors have said involuntary statements comprise the lion's share of their evidence against dozens of Guantanamo prisoners who could be tried.

06/24/09: CQ reports that Senior lawmakers on the Senate Armed Services Committee are negotiating legislation on military commissions for detainees, with an eye toward adding it to the fiscal 2010 defense authorization measure. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said one sticking point is how to treat detainees whom the administration can neither put on trial nor safely release. Graham favors establishing a new national security court that would review the initial determinations of a detainee’s status, as well as periodic review of the status of detainees who are held without trial indefinitely.

06/23/09: National Security Advisors has an article arguing that Article 36(b) (which governs Military Commissions, such as those undertaken at Guantanamo) should be amended to provide that all rules, procedures and regulations for military commissions be uniform so far as practical, and that, before the President adopts any rules, regulations, and procedures that differ from those governing trial by courts-martial, he must submit to Congress a justification and explanation of why the rules governing courts-martial are not practicable. 

06/15/09: Jordan Paust of the University of Houston Law Center argues in a Jurist commentary that a reconstituted military commission at Guantanamo Bay set up to only prosecute aliens would necessarily violate bilateral treaties, create a "denial of justice" for aliens under customary international law, and violate principles of human rights law established by treaty and custom.

06/12/09: The Weekly Standard reports that the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at US detention facilities in Afghanistan. HT to Security Debrief.

06/12/09: The Wall Street Journal reports that a Pentagon decision to not advise Guantanamo Bay prisoners of their rights during questioning that began in 2006 could prove a legal stumbling block in trials.

06/09/09: Reuters reports that the Obama administration is considering seeking a change in the military commission trials for Guantanamo Bay terrorism suspects to allow those who face the death penalty to plead guilty without getting a full trial.

05/31/09: Opinion Juris has a post by Deborah Pearlstein, discussing the details of what legislation the Obama administration might advocate for, including how the administration might amend the MCA in order to try detainees before military commissions.

05/26/09: The Miami Herald reports that President Barack Obama is still deciding where to prosecute the the death penalty cases against five men accused of orchestrating the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The cases are currently pending in the military commission system, but Obama is considering moving them to federal court.

05/25/09:  The San Francisco Chronicle reports on some of the differences between trials in military tribunals and civilian criminal courts.

05/16/09: The LA Times and Miami Herald report that President Obama's decision to revive military tribunals to try suspected terrorists will likely fail to erase the taint of illegitimacy over the courts despite efforts at reform, civilian and military legal experts said.  "I believe that the rules and procedures can be fixed so as to provide an actual fair proceeding. But what I don't think they can salvage is the perception that the commissions are an illegitimate and unfair process," said Air Force Maj. David Frakt.

05/15/09: Jurist reports that President Barack Obama announced today that he is reinstating the controversial military commission system to try some Guantanamo Bay detainees. Obama said that there will be changes to the system to increase defendants' rights, including barring statements obtained under harsh interrogation methods and making it more difficult to introduce hearsay evidence. The administration will also seek a 90-day continuance of pending proceedings to implement the new rules and ask Congress to make changes to the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

05/15/09:  The New York Times, Miami Herald, LA Times and CNN report that President Obama has decided to resurrect the military commission system that former President Bush created to try suspected terrorists, but will ask Congress to expand the rights of defendants to contest the charges against them. Obama will ask for an additional 120-day delay in nine pending hearings before commissions so the administration can revamp the procedures to provide more due process to detainees. The new system would limit the use of hearsay, ban evidence gained from cruel treatment, give defendants more latitude to pick their own lawyers and provide more protection if they do not testify.  During the presidential campaign, Obama called the military commission system put in place by Mr. Bush “an enormous failure” and vowed to “reject the Military Commissions Act.”

05/09/09:  The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration is preparing to revive the system of military commissions established at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, under new rules that would offer terrorism suspects greater legal protections.  The rules would block the use of evidence obtained from coercive interrogations, tighten the admissibility of hearsay testimony and allow detainees greater freedom to choose their attorneys.

05/08/09:  Salon features an opinion piece by Denny LeBoeuf in which he argues that, "any purportedly retooled military commissions will be the same discredited proceedings that I observed before President Obama issued his promising orders to halt the injustice...These proceedings, in principle and in practice, are completely inconsistent with the fundamental principles of American justice and with U.S. treaty obligations. They are subject to political influence, and rely on confessions or witness statements extracted by torture and on secret evidence that a defendant cannot see or rebut."

05/04/09:  The Washington Post reports that the fear that some Guantanamo cases are not prosecutable in federal court has sharpened debate within the Obama administration about the need to maintain military commissions, in which the rules of evidence are less stringent, according to sources involved in the discussions. Obama criticized such tribunals during the campaign, but some of his top officials, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, have said in recent days that the commissions remain an option.

05/02/09: The New York Times reports that the Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guatanamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself. The first public moves could come as soon as next week, perhaps in filings to military judges at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, outlining an administration plan to amend the Bush administration’s system to provide more legal protections for terrorism suspects.

03/17/09:  The Associated Press reports that old terror case files are being dusted off as the Obama administration considers prosecuting high-profile Guantanamo Bay detainees in civilian courts, focusing on crimes allegedly committed before September 11, 2001. The tactic could allow the government to limit testimony about harsh, more recent interrogations and avoid revealing sensitive intelligence about al-Qaida.  HT to How Appealing.

03/16/09: In the Harvard International Review, Maj. Shane Reeves (US Army) argues that those who believe trials in the US federal court system will cure all the perceived injustices of the military commissions is misguided for two reasons.  First, the detainees were captured in combat, and the information collected about them (perhaps by foreign nations) was never envisioned for use in a US court and may not conform to our evidentiary requirements.  Second, the international community may not perceive a federal trial as more fair than the abandoned military commission system; no matter the forum, an American-centric trial will be viewed with skepticism and perceived as the United States invoking "victor's justice."

03/15/09: In Homeland Security Today, US Coast Guard Academy Law Professor Glenn Sulmasy argues that civilian courts are not the proper venue for trying alleged Al Qaeda combatants currently detained by the US government.

02/16/09:  The Washington Post reports that as officials try to decide who can be released and who can be charged, they face a series of murky questions: what to do when the evidence is contradictory or tainted by allegations of torture; whether to press charges in military or federal court; what to do if prisoners are deemed dangerous but there is little or no evidence against them that would stand up in court; and where to send prisoners who might be killed or tortured if they are returned home.  The article goes on to give details on four such specific cases which illustrate the various legal problems.

Thread: Prosecution of Guantanamo detainees and reform of Military Commissions Act (see also "Closing Guantanamo" thread)

11/08/09: The Intelligence Daily reports that President Barack Obama has instructed DOJ attorneys to argue before Federal District Judge Vaughn Walker, that he must toss out the Electronic Frontier Foundation's Shubert v. Bush lawsuit challenging the secret state's driftnet surveillance of Americans' electronic communications.

10/31/09: The Atlantic reports that the Department of Justice asserted the state secrets privilege to prevent the National Security Agency from having to disclose information about its domestic collection activities after the disclosure of the Terrorist Surveillance Program, or TSP, in 2005.  The plaintiffs allege they were caught up in a "dragnet" of NSA surveillance that included unwarranted massive collection of domestic phone calls, e-mails and other data. The case is Shubert et. al v. Obama.