Lawyers Say They Have Evidence of Warrantless Surveillance

[RamboLiberal]

Source: ABC News

A case coming up before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals may be the best chance for civil liberties lawyers to challenge the government's warrantless domestic surveillance program, attorneys say.

Earlier this month, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Ohio dismissed a challenge to the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program because the plaintiffs, a group of lawyers, professors and journalists, could not show they had actually been put under government surveillance.

If the court's reasoning is followed by other courts, it could doom the dozens of other similar pending cases where plaintiffs have no hard evidence that they were spied on under the top secret government program.

But, in one case in Oregon, lawyers say they have actual proof that the government listened in on their clients' phone calls without a warrant, providing a chance to have the courts decide whether the surveillance program is unconstitutional.



Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3386890&page=1

[Demeter]

1. Gotcha!

A secret can only be kept between two people if one of them is dead.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. interesting

[HereSince1628]

3. Why do I expect the Fed's to come in and claim National Security

and then get a court order allowing them to seize the evidence?

[Canuckistanian]

4. They'd have to convince the judge

They wouldn't be able to seize evidence being used in a court case, not could they unilaterally declare evidence to be classified that wasn't previously classified.

An appeal would have to be made to the judge through the court.

[cascadiance]

5. Maybe they'll get Reggie Walton to rule "State Secrets" privilege...

... and dismiss it like he has all of Sibel Edmonds' cases.

Oh wait, he's now on th FISA Court. Would that be a conflict of interest? From Bushco's point of view, HELL NO!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

6. I hope we have at least one Federal Circuit that knows the Constitution.

I hope.

[jaybeat]

7. Yup... this is rich. REALLY rich

This case has been percolating for some time. At first, it was "the government says these folks in Ashland were funding terrorists." But, of course, the evidence against them was "secret." And once you're labeled a "terrorist organization," (not unlike being declared an "enemy combatant") there usually isn't much you can do about it. Because the evidence for classifying you as such, is, well, classified.

Only this time, their fabled incompetence showed a connection to the NSA warrantless wiretaps, and now the cat is, quite literally, out of the bag. (Prioritizing loyalty over ability bites them in the ass. Again.)

And now, they are actually saying, not only "We want the document back," but "We want you to forget you ever saw it."

BWaaahhhaaa hhhaaaa hhhaaa hhaaaa! :rofl:

Really! I'm not making this up!

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, a now-defunct Islamic charity that the government says has ties to al Qaeda, says in court papers that the government accidentally gave it a highly classified document that shows the government monitored calls between the foundation's directors, who were overseas, and two of its lawyers in the United States.

<snip>

The government has gone to uncommon lengths to protect the secrecy of the surveillance program, both in Al-Haramain and in other cases. It persuaded the trial judge in the Al-Haramain case to place the secret document in a Secure Compartmentalized Information Facility at the FBI office in Portland.

The government is now trying to prevent the court from using Al-Haramain's lawyers' memories of the document as evidence that they were put under warrantless surveillance.

"The level of secrecy in this case strikes me as extraordinary," said Nancy Marder, a Chicago-Kent College of Law professor who specializes in litigation secrecy. "It has sort of a Kafkaesque air to it. You can't see certain documents. You can't recall certain documents, You can't use the documents that might exist."

<snip>

According to Al-Haramain's lawsuit, in May 2004, the National Security Agency gave the U.S. Treasury Office of Foreign Asset Control "logs of conversations" between Belew and Ghafoor and Al-Haramain's directors.

In August of that year, the Treasury Office accidentally gave a top secret document to Lyn Bernabei, a lawyer for Al-Haramain, which is listed by the government as a terrorist organization with ties to al Qaeda.

The document, included with a stack of other, unclassified documents, showed that the government allegedly monitored conversations between Al-Haramain's directors and lawyers, court filings say.

<snip>

In court filings, the government argues that the case cannot go to trial without forcing the government to confirm or deny whether Belew and Ghafoor were spied on — a fact, the government contends, that could jeopardize national security. The Justice Department also says the subject matter of the case is a state secret that must be kept out of public view.

A ruling that Al-Haramain is able to sue, the government argues, would itself disclose classified information because it would reveal that the plaintiffs were subject to surveillance under the spying program.

Bradley called dismissing the case because of the state secrets privilege "drastic." "They're trying to disqualify any court from reviewing the legality of the program," he said.

Bingo. They openly assert that there must not be any oversight of any kind--"If the courts are allowed to decide whether or not we've done something illegal, that would mean we'd have to tell them about the stuff we've done that's illegal--and we can't do that, because that stuff's a SECRET!"



"99, I'm afraid we've missed it... by THAT much."

"Oh, Max!"

[OnyxCollie]

8. Here are a few more links to the Oregon case.

Judge refuses to give FBI custody of classified document
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060324/24oregon.htm

Mystery Document In Wiretap Suit Sent To Seattle For Safekeeping
http://www.komotv.com/news/archive/4180731.html

Newspaper sues for documents in NSA wiretap case
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060321/21oregon.htm

The Letter of the Law
The White House says spying on terror suspects without court approval is ok. What about physical searches?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060327/27fbi_2.htm

Paper Said to Show NSA Spying Given to Post Reporter in 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201852.html

'Specific' info on NSA eavesdropping?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0306/p03s03-uspo.html

Charges tossed against Oregon Islamic Charity
http://www.archives2005.ghazali.net/html/charges_tossed.html