NationStates Jolt Archive

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html?hp&ex=1135746000&en=8778e8e441c81c90&ei=5094&partner=homepage) is reporting that defense lawyers for defendants connected to al Qaeda are looking into challenging prosecutors over the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.

Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.

The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out....

Because the program was so highly classified, government officials say, prosecutors who handled terrorism cases apparently did not know of the program's existence. Any information they received, the officials say, was probably carefully shielded to protect the true source.

But defense lawyers say they are eager to find out whether prosecutors - intentionally or not - misled the courts about the origins of their investigations and whether the government may have held on to N.S.A. wiretaps that could point to their clients' innocence.

Stanley Cohen, a New York lawyer who represented Patrice Lumumba Ford in the Portland Seven case, said many defendants would face significant obstacles in mounting legal challenges to force the government to reveal whether material obtained through the security agency's program was used in their cases.

"You really could have standing problems" for many of the defendants, Mr. Cohen said.

But some Justice Department prosecutors, speaking on condition of anonymity because the program remains classified, said they were concerned that the agency's wiretaps without warrants could create problems for the department in terrorism prosecutions both past and future.

"If I'm a defense attorney," one prosecutor said, "the first thing I'm going to say in court is, 'This was an illegal wiretap.' "
Now tell me--what happens if some of these people wind up walking because some of the evidence used to convict them was illegally obtained, especially when there was no reason not to go through legal channels provided by law? Will it hit Bush?

My prediction--if someone walks because of this, the blame will be spun by the right-wing right onto so-called "activist judges" for not doing what Bush wanted.

Now tell me--what happens if some of these people wind up walking because some of the evidence used to convict them was illegally obtained, especially when there was no reason not to go through legal channels provided by law? Will it hit Bush?

My prediction--if someone walks because of this, the blame will be spun by the right-wing right onto so-called "activist judges" for not doing what Bush wanted.

Your prediction sounds pretty much dead on to me. :(

Your prediction sounds pretty much dead on to me. :(
Some days, it's just a little too easy.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html?hp&ex=1135746000&en=8778e8e441c81c90&ei=5094&partner=homepage) is reporting that defense lawyers for defendants connected to al Qaeda are looking into challenging prosecutors over the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.


Now tell me--what happens if some of these people wind up walking because some of the evidence used to convict them was illegally obtained, especially when there was no reason not to go through legal channels provided by law? Will it hit Bush?

My prediction--if someone walks because of this, the blame will be spun by the right-wing right onto so-called "activist judges" for not doing what Bush wanted.


I have a feeling you are right with that prediction

Its kind of pathetic really (them not you)

Bush has foot-glued-mouth-disease of late :D

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html?hp&ex=1135746000&en=8778e8e441c81c90&ei=5094&partner=homepage) is reporting that defense lawyers for defendants connected to al Qaeda are looking into challenging prosecutors over the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.


Now tell me--what happens if some of these people wind up walking because some of the evidence used to convict them was illegally obtained, especially when there was no reason not to go through legal channels provided by law? Will it hit Bush?

My prediction--if someone walks because of this, the blame will be spun by the right-wing right onto so-called "activist judges" for not doing what Bush wanted.
This is going to be a better forum for an investigation into the legality of what Bush and the NSA did. I'd rather see the validity decided in a court, than see a bipartisan panel of fools act on it.

So what if the Administration and the Republican commentators spin it? That doesn't mean it will stick. If these wiretaps were determined to be illegal, Bush is going to have a lot of explaining to do. I don't think it's resignation material, though, unless he ends up named in some action. On the other hand, _this_ isn't going to help defeat Democrats in '06. It's probably going to neutralize the gaffs that the Dems have been making since '04.

Since you mention it, Myrmidonisia, here's an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102326.html) that deals with FISA judges being briefed on the system, apparently because the judge who oversees the FISA court is expecting some problems of this nature. The following is a quote I just found interesting.

Bush administration officials believe it is not possible, in a large-scale eavesdropping effort, to provide the kind of evidence the court requires to approve a warrant. Sources knowledgeable about the program said there is no way to secure a FISA warrant when the goal is to listen in on a vast array of communications in the hopes of finding something that sounds suspicious. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said the White House had tried but failed to find a way.

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

"For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap," said the official. "They couldn't dream one up."
To be sure, there are plenty of people inside the Bush administration who disagree openly with that unnamed government official--Gonzales, Negroponte, etc.--but if that's an accurate characterization, then I hope some judges do start tossing evidence.

The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/28/politics/28legal.html?hp&ex=1135746000&en=8778e8e441c81c90&ei=5094&partner=homepage) is reporting that defense lawyers for defendants connected to al Qaeda are looking into challenging prosecutors over the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.


Now tell me--what happens if some of these people wind up walking because some of the evidence used to convict them was illegally obtained, especially when there was no reason not to go through legal channels provided by law? Will it hit Bush?

My prediction--if someone walks because of this, the blame will be spun by the right-wing right onto so-called "activist judges" for not doing what Bush wanted.

Sure, they walk. But we know who they are now. And who they talk to.

In the case of the Portland Seven, or the truck driver who was planning to sabotage a bridge in New York, planned attacks were stopped.

I'm quite sure, Nazz, that if Bush had not conducted this surveillance, and a bridge was blown up in New York, that you would have castigated the Bush Administration for laying down on the job.

Sure, they walk. But we know who they are now. And who they talk to.

In the case of the Portland Seven, or the truck driver who was planning to sabotage a bridge in New York, planned attacks were stopped.

I'm quite sure, Nazz, that if Bush had not conducted this surveillance, and a bridge was blown up in New York, that you would have castigated the Bush Administration for laying down on the job.
Well, considering that the truck driver who was planning on sabotaging the bridge in New York was planning on doing so with a fucking blowtorch, I don't feel too threatened.

What's more important here--and this is where your hackery comes out most clearly--is that the Bush administration had perfectly legal methods of getting this information and chose not to use them, so if these guys walk, it's on them and on no one else.

But to give you a counter-example of how callow and craven this administration is, I present Yaser Hamdi. Remember him? US-born Arab taken captive in Afghanistan, charged with being a member of al Qaeda, held as an enemy combatant? When the courts said he had the right to challenge his status, what did the Bush administration do? They let him go back to Saudi Arabia where he can plan jihad to his heart's content, where he can ostensibly rejoin his old al Qaeda buddies. He was too dangerous to put on trial in the US, but not too dangerous to release in the middle east. What kind of fucked up reasoning is that? I'm sure you'll have something, DK--bring it, and reinforce my opinion of you.

This _is_ the best quote from the article. Apparently, the administration was hamstrung by the FISA laws because "... the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it." Well, if you don't have those two elements, how are you going to target a wiretap, warrant or no warrant? Fine, you can spy on everyone.

As for tossing evidence, I'm with you -- if the wiretaps turn out to be illegal. I'm more in favor of a court decision that settles this once and for all.

im thinking what will happen is that the defense attnys will ask for the source of the evidence, the feds will refuse, and that the defendants will walk without trial.

He was too dangerous to put on trial in the US, but not too dangerous to release in the middle east. What kind of fucked up reasoning is that? I'm sure you'll have something, DK--bring it, and reinforce my opinion of you.

Usually, you release people like that and watch them to see where they go, who they talk to, etc. It's not fucked up, and it's a traditional intelligence gathering method - especially when you have no people inside their organization.

Well, considering that the truck driver who was planning on sabotaging the bridge in New York was planning on doing so with a fucking blowtorch, I don't feel too threatened.

Now was this a blow torch that is used to solder copper pipes together, or was it an oxy-acetylene torch of the sort that is used to cut steel? If it's the steel-cutting variety, I'd be a little concerned that he could weaken the bridge enough, before he was caught, that the city might have to stop traffic on it for a few days. He might actually force them to bring it back to code, thus depleting their infrastructure repair budget for the year. See how insidious these terrorists can be?

Now was this a blow torch that is used to solder copper pipes together, or was it an oxy-acetylene torch of the sort that is used to cut steel? If it's the steel-cutting variety, I'd be a little concerned that he could weaken the bridge enough, before he was caught, that the city might have to stop traffic on it for a few days. He might actually force them to bring it back to code, thus depleting their infrastructure repair budget for the year. See how insidious these terrorists can be?
I do indeed.:)

Now was this a blow torch that is used to solder copper pipes together, or was it an oxy-acetylene torch of the sort that is used to cut steel? If it's the steel-cutting variety, I'd be a little concerned that he could weaken the bridge enough, before he was caught, that the city might have to stop traffic on it for a few days. He might actually force them to bring it back to code, thus depleting their infrastructure repair budget for the year. See how insidious these terrorists can be?
*FLORT*
That would depend, i guess, on whether the same crew from the Army Corps of Engineers that ok'd the levee foundations was involved or not.

Legal analysts said the strongly worded government petition did more than ask for a simple transfer of Padilla, who is a U.S. citizen, from military to civilian custody. Some said the case ultimately could set precedent over an array of legal disagreements between the White House and civil liberties advocates, particularly over the administration's aggressive use of executive power without seeking prior approval from the courts or Congress.

Last week, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. — the same body that upheld the administration's right to designate Padilla as an enemy combatant in the first place — issued a sharply worded ruling that rejected the administration's shift in strategy.

That opinion, written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, was considered by legal experts to be a major setback for the administration, in part because Luttig is considered to be one of the most conservative appeals court judges on one of the most conservative appellate courts in the nation. Luttig had been considered by Bush as a potential U.S. Supreme Court nominee.
....

On Wednesday, the solicitor general, acting at the behest of the White House, contended in 27 pages of legal arguments that the appeals court had overstepped its authority when it blocked Padilla's transfer, and that in the process it had wrongly challenged a sitting president's right during wartime to protect the nation from a new and dangerous enemy.

"The 4th Circuit's order defies both law and logic," Clement wrote in his petition. "That unprecedented and unfounded assertion of judicial authority should be undone as expeditiously as possible by this court."

.......
Recently, Padilla's appeal of his detention as an enemy combatant was days away from heading to the Supreme Court when the administration announced he was being indicted instead. Prosecutors said they would try him on charges that didn't include dirty bomb allegations — and in a public courtroom rather than a closed and controversial military tribunal.

U.S. officials said that did not mean they were backing away from the allegations. They said in interviews with The Times that they had downgraded the charges in the federal court case because they could not present in a civilian court the classified evidence backing up the more serious allegations.

In its Dec. 21 ruling blocking Padilla's transfer to federal authorities, the three-judge appeals court panel said it was concerned that the Justice Department might have decided to prosecute Padilla as a way of averting a Supreme Court ruling on the president's ability to detain him indefinitely.
------------
I snipped a little out but it's current ... so of course this is the same Fourth Circuit Court that is used in the argument FOR the president's "authority" in wiretapping (as posted by Greenlander, where he snipped it from FOXNews and called it his own!)

Also interesting, Straughn, is that the decision you're talking about there was rendered by conservative judge Michael Luttig, who until recently was rumored to be a possibility for the Supreme Court. Certainly no liberal activist judge saying this.

Also interesting, Straughn, is that the decision you're talking about there was rendered by conservative judge Michael Luttig, who until recently was rumored to be a possibility for the Supreme Court. Certainly no liberal activist judge saying this.
Damned right. Good call. *bows*

Hopefully MIB, Corneliu and Greenlander will run with it!!!~~~~~

EDIT: Ooh, how rude of me. I didn't consider that Deep Kimchi might have enough personal integrity to appreciate it as well.