NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112402589.html

A federal jury in Dallas convicted five men with ties to a prominent Muslim charity of scores of criminal charges yesterday, handing the U.S. government a significant victory in its largest terrorism financing trial.

The verdicts against former leaders of the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, once ranked as the country's largest Muslim charitable organization, came only hours after a federal appeals court panel in New York upheld criminal convictions of three men accused of helping plot deadly bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

Together, the developments strengthened the Justice Department's power to choke the sources of funding that help fuel terrorist schemes -- and to use warrantless electronic surveillance to monitor the activities of U.S. citizens suspected of engaging in international conspiracies.

Excellent. I was tiring of people who kept insisting that there's no evidence to support the Justice Department contentions that some Islamic charities are mere funnels for cash to terrorists.

Now there is.

Yay?

-snip-

Yay apart from this

and to use warrantless electronic surveillance to monitor the activities of U.S. citizens suspected of engaging in international conspiracies.

Not a fan myself, but not a US citizen, so.... doesn't really apply.

Well, at least it's "we're fucking with terrorists using the civilian justice system".

Well, at least it's "we're fucking with terrorists using the civilian justice system".

For a change. :p

Ownt :D

After they investigated how many Islamic charities just because they were Islamic?

Something about a blind squrrel I think.

Not a fan myself, but not a US citizen, so.... doesn't really apply.
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear and all that.

So look at that, apparently the justice system DOES work after all. The idea that somehow we should fear giving bad men trials seems to be less and less solid.

So look at that, apparently the justice system DOES work after all. The idea that somehow we should fear giving bad men trials seems to be less and less solid.

We did need that warrantless wiretap thing though. Pretty useful overseas.

On another note, it's clear now that warrantless searches are OK overseas as well. So when we go through Walid Suspect's house overseas, we only need to show probable cause when we show up in court - no need for a warrant when we kick in his door.

We did need that warrantless wiretap thing though. Pretty useful overseas.

On another note, it's clear now that warrantless searches are OK overseas as well. So when we go through Walid Suspect's house overseas, we only need to show probable cause when we show up in court - no need for a warrant when we kick in his door.

Except...thats not really what this means at all.

Except...thats not really what this means at all.

Except - that the warrantless wiretaps in the in the article.

The warrantless searches overseas are in another article...

Except - that the warrantless wiretaps in the in the article.

The warrantless searches overseas are in another article...

So...it worked. That doesnt mean "its pretty clear theyre ok" and "we dont need a warrent when we kick down their door".


You should know how this works. Thought you were a lawyer.

Oh, whoops.

So...it worked. That doesnt mean "its pretty clear theyre ok" and "we dont need a warrent when we kick down their door".


You should know how this works. Thought you were a lawyer.

Oh, whoops.

It's pretty clear you didn't read the article, and aren't up on the latest in warrantless searches now. Care to step deeper in shit?

You should know how this works. Thought you were a lawyer.

I'm still forever amused by that. He actually, honestly thought he could get away with lying about being a lawyer.

A deception not possible to unmask, until such time as someone...asks him a question about the law.

It's pretty clear you didn't read the article, and aren't up on the latest in warrantless searches now. Care to step deeper in shit?

Ummm....in the article, a bunch of people are wanking off over the fact that their case wasnt tossed about because they used warrentless searches, and saying they worked (this time, again blind squirrel). That doesnt mean what you think it means.

Ah! The whole "You didn't agree with me so you must not have read the article I posted" ploy!

Maybe it'll work this time.... Let's watch.

Ah! The whole "You didn't agree with me so you must not have read the article I posted" ploy!

Maybe it'll work this time.... Let's watch.
It's like a car crash in slow motion. Horrible, you know what's coming, but oddly compelling.

Ah! The whole "You didn't agree with me so you must not have read the article I posted" ploy!

Maybe it'll work this time.... Let's watch.

here we see the wild troll in his native habitat. . .

here we see the wild troll in his native habitat. . .

Shall I fetch the tranquilizer gun and radio tags? :D

Really, I love when people get snide, condescending, and even more aggressive when theyre wrong.


Then again, maybe I shouldnt be arguing with DK about this. He is a lawyer after all.

Shall I fetch the tranquilizer gun and radio tags? :D
*rings Putin for assistance* :D

*rings Putin for assistance* :D

Yeah, Sarah Palin is busy and besides, she usually kills em outright from a helicopter. ;)

Yeah, Sarah Palin is busy and besides, she usually kills em outright from a helicopter. ;)
Quite.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/nyregion/25embassy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

The authorities may lawfully conduct searches and electronic surveillance against United States citizens in foreign countries without a warrant, a federal appeals court panel said on Monday, bolstering the government’s power to investigate terrorism by ruling that a key constitutional protection afforded to Americans does not apply overseas.

The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, came in the case of three Al Qaeda terrorists convicted a few months before 9/11 in a conspiracy that involved the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa.

This, in relation to my link in my OP, which has a bit about this same court decision (which comes after the Holy Land convictions). Apparently, warrantless wiretaps (in the first article) and warrantless searches overseas are now legal tools.

Let me get this straight, they used illegal methods to illegally investigate thousands of charities, who happen to have some sort of religious connection to Muslims, and after all this, they found one that was appearently doing what they say they where doing, thus it legitimizes all illegal actions they took against these innocent charities?

Let me get this straight, they used illegal methods to illegally investigate thousands of charities, who happen to have some sort of religious connection to Muslims, and after all this, they found one that was appearently doing what they say they where doing, thus it legitimizes all illegal actions they took against these innocent charities?

Exactly. I would presume now that this is ok, the other charities will start being careful about to whom they send money and with whom they communicate overseas.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/nyregion/25embassy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss



This, in relation to my link in my OP, which has a bit about this same court decision (which comes after the Holy Land convictions). Apparently, warrantless wiretaps (in the first article) and warrantless searches overseas are now legal tools.

I wonder where jurisdiction and the laws of those foreign countries fall into this mosaic...

I wonder where jurisdiction and the laws of those foreign countries fall into this mosaic...

If the host nation doesn't really have a government (Somalia), the point is moot.

If the host nation doesn't really have a government (Somalia), the point is moot.

Is it?

Or more to the point, should it be? Should the admissibility of evidence collected for an American case against an American citizen in a foreign country be subject to the laws of our country, the foreign country or none at all?

I suspect this will go to a higher court, but I'm guessing as admittedly, I'm not a lawyer. Though I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express! :D

Exactly. I would presume now that this is ok, the other charities will start being careful about to whom they send money and with whom they communicate overseas.

You do realize how retarded this makes you sound, right? This is sort of like arresting hundreds of people, in the hopes that you accidentally arrest a terrorist; just because you may have caught one terrorist, doesn't mean all those arrests were warranted.

You do realize how retarded this makes you sound, right? This is sort of like arresting hundreds of people, in the hopes that you accidentally arrest a terrorist; just because you may have caught one terrorist, doesn't mean all those arrests were warranted.

The court disagrees with you. So does the appeals court.

I'm not a lawyer.

that's ok, neither is he. at least you don't lie about that fact.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/24/AR2008112402589.html

Excellent. I was tiring of people who kept insisting that there's no evidence to support the Justice Department contentions that some Islamic charities are mere funnels for cash to terrorists.

Now there is.

I was surprised you didn't start a thread crowing about this verdict yesterday.

I am not surprised, however, that you vastly exaggerate the meaning of this verdict and misconstrue past posts in these forums on this topic.

First, this verdict -- assuming it holds up -- proves there is evidence to support the Justice Department contentions that ONE Islamic charity was at least partially a funnel for cash to Hamas. This is after 15 years of Justice Department efforts and two trials. I would further note:
Holy Land wasn't accused of violence. Rather, the government said the charity, based in Richardson, Texas, financed schools, hospitals and social welfare programs controlled by Hamas in areas ravaged by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

...

They reminded jurors that none of the charity's benefactors were designated by the U.S. as terrorist fronts, and that Holy Land also donated to causes elsewhere, including helping victims of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995

link (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/11-25-2008/20081125022014_10.html)

Second, you have previously made wild accusations against a whole range of Islamic charities, including CAIR, based primarily on the Holy Land Foundation indictments. Others, including myself, merely pointed out that (1) an indictment wasn't evidence of much of anything and (2) the guilt of the HLF doesn't necessarily transfer to other charities.

That said, you appear to have been right that there was a better case against the HLF than some of us presumed. Take that small victory for what it is worth.

That said, you appear to have been right that there was a better case against the HLF than some of us presumed. Take that small victory for what it is worth.

The fear it should well invoke in the other Islamic charities will do more than any further investigation will do.

The fear it should well invoke in the other Islamic charities will do more than any further investigation will do.

I seriously doubt it will invoke any fear except in those who already have irrational ones.

I was surprised you didn't start a thread crowing about this verdict yesterday.

I am not surprised, however, that you vastly exaggerate the meaning of this verdict and misconstrue past posts in these forums on this topic.

First, this verdict -- assuming it holds up -- proves there is evidence to support the Justice Department contentions that ONE Islamic charity was at least partially a funnel for cash to Hamas. This is after 15 years of Justice Department efforts and two trials. I would further note:
Holy Land wasn't accused of violence. Rather, the government said the charity, based in Richardson, Texas, financed schools, hospitals and social welfare programs controlled by Hamas in areas ravaged by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

...

They reminded jurors that none of the charity's benefactors were designated by the U.S. as terrorist fronts, and that Holy Land also donated to causes elsewhere, including helping victims of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995

link (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/11-25-2008/20081125022014_10.html)

Second, you have previously made wild accusations against a whole range of Islamic charities, including CAIR, based primarily on the Holy Land Foundation indictments. Others, including myself, merely pointed out that (1) an indictment wasn't evidence of much of anything and (2) the guilt of the HLF doesn't necessarily transfer to other charities.

That said, you appear to have been right that there was a better case against the HLF than some of us presumed. Take that small victory for what it is worth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGxUIXBMorM

The court disagrees with you. So does the appeals court.

What's your point? The legal system of the United States is pretty much in the back pocket of the administration, so to say that this puppet organization agrees with it's master is sort of like saying your sockpuppet agrees with your main handle, so therefore it must be true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/nyregion/25embassy.html?partner=rss&emc=rss



This, in relation to my link in my OP, which has a bit about this same court decision (which comes after the Holy Land convictions). Apparently, warrantless wiretaps (in the first article) and warrantless searches overseas are now legal tools.

Here is a pdf (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/2nd/011535pv2.pdf) (unfortunately 30 pages) of the Second Circuit's decision in In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa (Fourth Amendment Challenges).

I'm reading the decision now.


EDIT: Having read the case, I'm persuaded it makes sense and is not as far-reaching as some might think. The key holding of the case is:

For these reasons, we hold that the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause has no extraterritorial application and that foreign searches of U.S. citizens conducted by U.S. agents are subject only to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness

The court is NOT saying that the 4th Amendment does not apply to foreign searches, but rather is saying such searches do not necessarily require warrants in order to satisfy the 4th Amendment. The searches still must be reasonable.

You do realize how retarded this makes you sound, right? This is sort of like arresting hundreds of people, in the hopes that you accidentally arrest a terrorist; just because you may have caught one terrorist, doesn't mean all those arrests were warranted.The court disagrees with you. So does the appeals court.

Um. Neither court spoke to such an issue, which is absurd on its face.

I was surprised you didn't start a thread crowing about this verdict yesterday.

I am not surprised, however, that you vastly exaggerate the meaning of this verdict and misconstrue past posts in these forums on this topic.

First, this verdict -- assuming it holds up -- proves there is evidence to support the Justice Department contentions that ONE Islamic charity was at least partially a funnel for cash to Hamas. This is after 15 years of Justice Department efforts and two trials. I would further note:
Holy Land wasn't accused of violence. Rather, the government said the charity, based in Richardson, Texas, financed schools, hospitals and social welfare programs controlled by Hamas in areas ravaged by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

...

They reminded jurors that none of the charity's benefactors were designated by the U.S. as terrorist fronts, and that Holy Land also donated to causes elsewhere, including helping victims of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995

link (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/11-25-2008/20081125022014_10.html)

Second, you have previously made wild accusations against a whole range of Islamic charities, including CAIR, based primarily on the Holy Land Foundation indictments. Others, including myself, merely pointed out that (1) an indictment wasn't evidence of much of anything and (2) the guilt of the HLF doesn't necessarily transfer to other charities.

That said, you appear to have been right that there was a better case against the HLF than some of us presumed. Take that small victory for what it is worth.

Awww.... Kimchi was having an orgasm with his Joe-McCarthy-Got-Some-Right moment and about to proudly declare to the world "See? I Told You Dem Mozlem Darkies Were Ebil!" when you had to ruin the party with cold hard facts.

Is there no honor amongst fellow lawyers?

:D:D:D

Is there no honor amongst fellow lawyers?


Levels of Honor:
Samurai
Ninja
Klingon Warrior
Doctor
Your Wingman
thieves
Murderers
Lawyers

Excellent. I was tiring of people who kept insisting that there's no evidence to support the Justice Department contentions that some Islamic charities are mere funnels for cash to terrorists.

Now there is.
First time I've heard anything of the sort...

First time I've heard anything of the sort...

It was argued here before. But now...

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/11/24/PH2008112403062.jpg

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa186/anotherguyLF/img_35.gif

<Cartman>
Yes! Yesss! Oh, let me taste your tears.
Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness!
</Cartman>

It was argued here before.

Really? I'm sure you can find that for us then, right?

Really? I'm sure you can find that for us then, right?

I'm sure Cat-tribe was alluding to it when he talked about it earlier in this thread. He seems terribly disappointed that they were convicted.

Really? I'm sure you can find that for us then, right?I too would like to see evidence for that claim.

I'm sure Cat-tribe was alluding to it when he talked about it earlier in this thread. He seems terribly disappointed that they were convicted.Tease. That's not proof of anything, that's just baitin'.

I'm sure Cat-tribe was alluding to it when he talked about it earlier in this thread.

No no, you made the claim, your job to find the link.

Put up or shut up time DK.

Really? I'm sure you can find that for us then, right?

He has it filed right next to the footage of those veterans being spit on at his local veterans hospital.

I'm sure Cat-tribe was alluding to it when he talked about it earlier in this thread. He seems terribly disappointed that they were convicted.

Nice try, but I wasn't "alluding" to anything resembling your strawman -- merely to the fact that you had made wild accusations when HLF was indicted and others disagreed with those accusations.

I am neither disappointed nor particularly enthused about these convictions. If, as it appears to be, the defendants were guilty, they deserved to be convicted. The government's actions in this case are hardly cause for celebration, however.

He has it filed right next to the footage of those veterans being spit on at his local veterans hospital.

and his license to practice law.

Nice try, but I wasn't "alluding" to anything resembling your strawman -- merely to the fact that you had made wild accusations when HLF was indicted and others disagreed with those accusations.

I am neither disappointed nor particularly enthused about these convictions. If, as it appears to be, the defendants were guilty, they deserved to be convicted. The government's actions in this case are hardly cause for celebration, however.

You know, because it's all right to overlook the explicit use of warrantless wiretaps on American citizens, Curveball-type hidden witnesses and the resulting need for a retrial instead of getting it right the first time if it means Those Ebil Mozlem Darkies get convicted the second time around.

If a similarly uncivil manners of gathering information (or perhaps, again warrantless wiretaps) are used to gather damning evidence on the indictments of Cheney and Gonzales I betcha Kimchi'll throw a bitchfest at that.

After they investigated how many Islamic charities just because they were Islamic?
NO. Not "just because they were Islamic". Raising money for suicide bombers, with barely a nod and a wink, used to be endemic in Dearborn.

Not entirely related to this, I suppose, but has anyone else heard that Salim Hamdan has been released from Guantanamo Bay and is now being flown back to Yemen?

Or more to the point, should it be? Should the admissibility of evidence collected for an American case against an American citizen in a foreign country be subject to the laws of our country, the foreign country or none at all?
The court applies a standard of "reasonableness" (vague, obviously, but leaving the door open for judges to reject abusive prosecutorial misconduct in other cases), not finding it appropriate to require going to a foreign judge for a warrant (if such a concept as a "warrant" even exists in the other legal system) or to some judge here in the US (which district?)
I suspect this will go to a higher court
I suspect you are right.

Is it?

Or more to the point, should it be? Should the admissibility of evidence collected for an American case against an American citizen in a foreign country be subject to the laws of our country, the foreign country or none at all?

I suspect this will go to a higher court, but I'm guessing as admittedly, I'm not a lawyer. Though I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express! :D

FWIW, let me explain some of the Second Circuit's decision:


The Fourth Amendment definitely "has extraterritorial application to the conduct abroad of federal agents directed against United States citizens."


Under the 4th Amendment, warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable -- except when they fall within one of many exceptions to the Warrant Clause


The 2nd Circuit provides a variety of reasons why an overseas search should not be subject to the Warrant Clause:


there is nothing in our history or our precedents suggesting that U.S. officials must first obtain a warrant before conducting an overseas search. In fact, the defendant could not identify any instances in our history where a foreign search was conducted pursuant to an American search warrant.

nothing in the history of the foreign relations of the United States would require that U.S. officials obtain warrants from foreign magistrates before conducting searches overseas or, indeed, to suppose that all other states have search and investigation rules akin to our own.

if U.S. judicial officers were to issue search warrants intended to have extraterritorial effect, such warrants would have dubious legal significance, if any, in a foreign nation.

it is by no means clear that U.S. judicial officers could be authorized to issue warrants for overseas searches



Thus, the Fourth Amendment’s Warrant Clause has no extraterritorial application and that foreign searches of U.S. citizens conducted by U.S. agents are subject only to the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness


In this case, there are two sets of searches at issue that must be judged for reasonableness: the search of the defendant's Kenyan home and the monitoring of two Kenyan phone lines.


The search of the home is held to have been reasonable because:


even though it involved the sanctity of the defendant's home, the search was minimally intrusive. It was not covert. U.S. agents searched the home with the assistance of Kenyan authorities pursuant to a Kenyan warrant authorizing the search. The search occurred during daytime and with the presence of witnesses. An inventory listing all the times seized during the search was prepared and given the defendant's wife. Finally, the scope of the search was limited to those items believe to have foreign intellignece value and retention and dissemination of the evidence acquired during the search was minimized

without going at length into the facts, the search was supported by probable cause including a year of monitoring of the defendant's use of telephone lines used by al Qaeda members. Al Qaeda posed a serious threat to national security and the government had ample evidence that the defendant was working with al Qaeda



The surveillance of the defendant's phone lines was also reasonable. In short, the intrusion of the defendant's privacy was outweighed by the threat to national security posed by al Qaeda, the amount of evidence the government had linking the phone lines to al Qaeda.


*this has been a public service announcement -- with guitar!*

Not entirely related to this, I suppose, but has anyone else heard that Salim Hamdan has been released from Guantanamo Bay and is now being flown back to Yemen?
i read it in the paper this morning.

Yay?

When they take the same scrutiny to AIPAC. Or get AIPAC to stop taking the same scrutiny to them, if you want to look at it that way.....

Put up or shut up time DK.

Nothing? Nothing at all?

Unsurprising.

So they were convicted for sending charitable funds to people who the US Govt. didn't consider to be terrorist organizations and those funds went into building hospitals and schools? The horror! Justice has truly been done.

Nothing? Nothing at all?

Unsurprising.

Careful. Hes a lawyer.