A Chicago judge denied to grant an injunction preventing AT&T from handing the phone records of ordinary people to the government.

The judge said that requiring AT&T to confirm or deny its role in domestic spying would compromise national security.

These programs are no longer secrets. The administration has already acknowledged its illegal domestic spying program, and AT&T's data collection activities have already been widely reported and documented by credible sources.

Glenn Greenwald notes that this case has even more troubling implications:

The administration plainly believes that it is entitled to engage in conduct which violates the law while blocking courts from ruling on the legality that behavior. What is the point of having laws if political officials can violate them and then immunize themselves from being held accountable in a court of law -- as the Bush administration, at least thus far, has successfully done?

Here we see a two-pronged attack on the separation of powers. The president claims that he is not bound to respect the laws passed by Congress (i.e., FISA), and furthermore he is the final authority on what court cases might jeopardize national security. The president's decision is not subject to appeal. He is not accountable to Congress or to the public for his determinations. He doesn't have to give reasons for his decisions.

The bottom line is that the president can block any court case he wants by claiming that the case might reveal state secrets. That was a nice way to shut down the Illinois citizens who wanted to sue to stop AT&T from giving their private records to the government, or anyone who might want to use the courts to challenge Bush's authority.

[x-posted at Majikthise.]