Today in Washington, in the highest court in all the land, UACL council Kelly McCarthy presented the facts about the Executive order. Before Ms. McCarthy defended the UACL's claim, AG Mukasey and Solicitor General Andrew Clement tried to convince the court that the order was constitutional. THe court repaeatedly ask "Was the warrantless wiretapping constitutional?" No one on AG Mukasey's side could come up with an answer that would sit well with the court. At one point, the AG's team presented the justices with the warrants to wiretap members of the anti-war group ANSWER, and somehow the president connected that group to Malamar, who was then connected to Al Queda. While the warrants were kept private, the people in the room were able to understand the gist of what was contained in the documents. The Supreme Court then began to ask why the warrants were shown to the justices. Clement responded by stating that they just wanted to show the court that they were working inside the law to wiretap the so called "enemy combatants". Chief Justice Roberts thoughtfully asked, "If you are trying to prove to us that you don't need warrants to conduct domestic surveillance, why are you presenting us with warrants?" Next, Ms. McCarthy contended that the Executive Order is unconstitutional because it intended to rewrite FISA and and because it authorized surveillance that violates bothe the first and fourth amendments. The Supreme Court will hand in their decision on Friday. Stay tuned to the media center for more news on the issue...
-Jordan Lonner
