From the very beginning of the illegal wiretapping case being brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) against the government and AT&T, both of the defendants have tried to get the case dismissed. The government wants the case dismissed because of state secrets and national security; AT&T wants the case dismissed because of trade secrets. Yesterday, in a 72-page decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied both the government's and AT&T's motions to dismiss.

What struck me as odd, though, is one of the justifications the government uses to bolster its claim that the wiretapping isn't illegal:

Additionally, the government contends that plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment claim fails because no warrant is required for the alleged searches. In particular, the government contends that the executive has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the warrant requirement does not apply here because this case involves “special needs” that go beyond a routine interest in law enforcement. [Citations removed, emphasis added.]

This is the government's official stance? That the executive has the constitutional equivalent of magic powers thar allow him to conduct searches without a warrant, in flagrant violation of the Fourth Amendment?! Some DOJ lawyer wrote this down, and his boss approved that? I thought the whole "the president has inherent constitutional authority that isn't explicitly mentioned, or even implicitly mentioned, but is there nonetheless, just trust us" was a public relations creation. But now it's being used as a legal justification? These people must have gone to law school at Patriot University.