Yes, I'm back to referencing the movie "Sneakers." In that film, Setec Astronomy was discovered to be an anagram of "Too Many Secrets."

If it wasn't apparent before, the New York Times is of the opinion that the U.S. government doesn't deserve to have any secrets when it comes to national security.

The Bush administration has employed extraordinary secrecy in defending the National Security Agency's highly classified domestic surveillance program from civil lawsuits. Plaintiffs and judges' clerks cannot see its secret filings. Judges have to make appointments to review them and are not allowed to keep copies.

Judges have even been instructed to use computers provided by the Justice Department to compose their decisions.

But now the procedures have started to meet resistance. At a private meeting with the lawyers in one of the cases this month, the judges who will hear the first appeal next week expressed uneasiness about the procedures, said a lawyer who attended, Ann Beeson of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Lawyers suing the government and some legal scholars say the procedures threaten the separation of powers, the adversary system and the lawyer-client privilege.

Justice Department officials say the circumstances of the cases, involving a highly classified program, require extraordinary measures. The officials say they have used similar procedures in other cases involving classified materials.

In ordinary civil suits, the parties' submissions are sent to their adversaries and are available to the public in open court files. But in several cases challenging the eavesdropping, Justice Department lawyers have been submitting legal papers not by filing them in court but by placing them in a room at the department. They have filed papers, in other words, with themselves.

Is any of this really surprising given the highly-classified nature of the program? Seriously, are they going to trust top secret documents to a bunch of court clerks in Wisconsin?

Also, what's with the conflicting descriptions of the program—again.

Some cases challenging the program, which monitored international communications of people in the United States without court approval, have also involved atypical maneuvering.

International communications? I thought this was a domestic program. My mistake.