According to a report by the New York Times, the Obama administration is trying to prevent litigation that would essentially challenge the constitutionality of many of the recently disclosed actions of the NSA, citing national security.
From the NYT:
The Obama administration moved late Friday to prevent a federal judge in California from ruling on the constitutionality of warrantless surveillance programs authorized during the Bush administration, telling a court that recent disclosures about National Security Agency spying were not enough to undermine its claim that litigating the case would jeopardize state secrets.
In a set of filings in the two long-running cases in the Northern District of California, the government acknowledged for the first time that the N.S.A. started systematically collecting data about Americans’ emails and phone calls in 2001, alongside its program of wiretapping certain calls without warrants. The government had long argued that disclosure of these and other secrets would put the country at risk if they came out in court.
Super. National Security. So, can anything be hidden for “national security” reasons? The government can do literally whatever it wants, constitutional or otherwise, and simply claim “national security” to prevent trial?
It’s well known that the Obama administration isn’t exactly living up to its promise to be “the most open and transparent in history” — a promise that laughably still has not been taken down from whitehouse.gov. And it’s things like this that makes the promise look completely ludicrous.