Arlen Specter blocks investigation into legality of NSA spying

This is truly the state of the Republican party today. Scared stiff that they might lose their grip on power this fall, they've decided to adopt the anti-accountability stance of the White House even as they try to distance themselves from the Bushies' extra-legal activities. It's utter moral bankruptcy brought on by their abject fear of the truth-- and manifested as further enabling of the administration's disastrous policies.

Specter has mollified conservative opposition to his bill by agreeing to drop the requirement that the Bush administration seek a legal judgment on the program from a special court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978.

Instead, Specter agreed to allow the administration to retain an important legal defense by allowing the court, which holds its hearings in secret, to review the program only by hearing a challenge from a plaintiff with legal standing, said a person familiar with the text of language agreed to by Specter and committee conservatives.

Conservative Republicans who pushed for the change say that it will help quell concerns about the measure’s constitutionality and allow the White House to retain a basic legal defense.

An expert in constitutional law and national security, however, said that the change would allow the administration to throw up huge obstacles to anyone seeking to challenge the program’s legality. . . .

Mary Cheh, a law professor at George Washington University who specializes in constitutional law, secrecy and national security, said that only allowing the judiciary to review a challenge to the surveillance program in response to a plaintiff’s challenge gives the administration legal cover.

“Of course the administration is going to throw up all sorts of obstacles to a court ever hearing them,” she said, referring to plaintiffs’ challenges.

Cheh said plaintiffs would likely have to jump over very high hurdles to have their cases heard. The administration could, for example, invoke the “state-secrets privilege” and deny plaintiffs access to information, or it could try to deny plaintiffs’ legal standing. Cheh said it would be difficult for plaintiffs to demonstrate in court that they have been injured by the surveillance program because the program is secret.

Recommended. This piece from The Hill gives a great explanation into how the executive and legislative branches are trying to manipulate the law to maintain secrecy and prevent transparency.