This finding is not unexpected and was identified through Canada's national surveillance program. This is unfortunate and not anything to be concerned about.

However, this court is constrained by law, and under the law, I can only conclude that the Government has not violated FOIA by refusing to turn over the documents sought in the FOIA requests, and so cannot be compelled by this court of law to explain in detail the reasons why its actions do not violate the Constitution and the laws of the United States. The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of this pronouncement is not lost on me; but after careful and extensive consideration, I find myself stuck in a paradoxical situation in which I cannot solve a problem because of contradictory constraints and rules—a veritable Catch-22. I can find no way around the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the Executive Branch of our Government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws, while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.

It's very, very difficult I think for us to have a transparent debate about secret programs approved by a secret court issuing secret court orders based on secret interpretations of the law.

We've recovered a hat and a sneaker identified as that of the individual we're looking for, ... The boy has not been found as of yet.

It seems whenever the government doesn’t want anyone to know something, it is all of a sudden critical to national security.

I'm not being trite. I'm not being a parody of myself, and in finding a new kind of color to adopt for myself, it's not this or that: it's singer-songwriter, but it's also blues guitar player, it's also comedian.