One of the lawsuits against AT&T (and, by proxy, the NSA) regarding the unlawful disclosure of phone records sans warrants has been dismissed by one of the most ignorant federal judges ever to plant his fat political ass on a bench.

CHICAGO – Citing national security, a federal judge Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at blocking AT&T Inc. from giving telephone records to the government for use in the war on terror.

“The court is persuaded that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny whether it has disclosed large quantities of telephone records to the federal government could give adversaries of this country valuable insight into the government’s intelligence activities,” U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly said.

Um, hello stupid!  Have you missed the news reports over the last several months revealing that this program exists?  Perhaps you even missed the other federal judge, one who apparently does keep up with current events, in a similar case in California.

Kennelly’s ruling was in sharp contrast to last week’s decision from U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker of San Francisco, who said media reports of the program were so widespread there was no danger of spilling secrets.

Precisely!  There has been so much talk about this program, not to mention the dissemination of actual evidence against the government and AT&T (see this post for a link to the evidence), that it is more than difficult to imagine a trial — especially a “sealed” trial — could in any way endanger this illegal, unconstitutional program.  Only the purely ignorant or political would say otherwise.

Justice Department attorneys had argued that it would violate the law against divulging state secrets for AT&T to say whether it had provided telephone records to the supersecret spy agency.

The ACLU argued that the practice was no longer secret, because numerous news reports had made it clear that phone records had been given to the agency.

But the judge said the news reports amounted to speculation and in no way constituted official confirmation that phone records had been turned over.

See, just as I said: Only the ignorant.  From now on, you can ignore the media reports about impending hurricane strikes, tornado warnings, terrorist threats, and all manner of mayhem.  These reports, says this judge, are just speculation.  Nice…

But he didn’t just ignore current events in his ruling.  He also completely disregarded precedent for legal discovery in such cases.

He also said Terkel and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which sought class-action status, had not shown that their own records had been provided to the government. As a result, they lacked standing to sue the government, he said.

Do you really understand what the judge said?  Let me make it clear what this means.  First, you have only the evidence provided in the California case as well as media reports to substantiate your claim.  While this is legally admissible as probable cause and should engage the process of discovery, he thinks otherwise, thereby flipping the judicial process on its head.  Next, he claims the plaintiffs can not currently show their records were included in the illegal disclosure, and without that information there is no case, although the way these cases work is to show probable cause, which can then be used to force the company to aid in discovery of new evidence.  What the judge has done is tied the hands of Americans by saying you don’t have the specific evidence for yourself, although you have plenty of evidence to indicate this is actually happening, but without something to show you specifically were harmed, you can’t sue or enforce your legal and constitutional rights.  Huh?  Is he on crack?  Isn’t that what discovery is for?  When sufficient evidence indicates a possible wrongdoing, the court is empowered to force disclosure of the truth, yet this judge is ignoring that and saying the lack of up-front evidence is an indication no such evidence exists.

I’ll remember this the next time someone is arrested on grounds of probable cause.  This federal judge has just set the legal precedent that suspicion of wrongdoing is not enough to warrant further action.  That means the police can not arrest you even if they strongly suspect you of a crime.  Unless they have the direct and irrefutable evidence in hand to definitively show you are guilty, this judge makes clear they have no authority to detain you or investigate.  That’s a whole new concept of justice, me thinks.  It will certainly work wonders for law enforcement, although not to their benefit.  Criminals can celebrate this ruling.

And the ACLU is absolutely correct:

ACLU legal director Harvey Grossman said in a statement that his group respectfully disagreed.

“A private company — AT&T — should not be able to escape accountability for violating a federal statute and the privacy of their customers on the basis that a program widely discussed in the public is secret,” Grossman said.

At least for the federal district represented by this court, that is precisely what the judge has determined, and his decision will ensure this same escape is available for all federal prosecutions in the area.  People living there are now free to violate the law at will so long as there is no direct evidence of their involvement.  The court has determined that justice can only be served if you petition the court with all necessary evidence already in hand.  So much for discovery…

It simply amazes me that the government can cite a non-existent privilege (remember, the so-called “state secrets privilege” does not exist anywhere in American law) in order to skirt its constitutional and legal responsibilities.  Based on Judge Kennelly’s ruling, companies now get the same protection to act illegally and unconstitutionally.  They can also circumvent our First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  Isn’t it amazing how little of our American freedoms and liberties we actually retain?