Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

State Secrets Defense Rejected In Wiretapping Case

Posted by kdawson on from the come-out-into-the-light dept.

knifeyspooney writes in with an Ars Technica report that a federal judge has issued a strong rebuke to government lawyers attempting to invoke the "state secrets" defense to quash a lawsuit over warrantless wiretapping. This is not the high-profile case the EFF is bringing against the NSA; instead the case is being pursued by an Islamic charity that knows it had been wiretapped. "At times, a note of irritation crept into [Judge] Walker's even, judicial language. At one point, he described the government's argument as 'without merit,' and characterized another as 'circular.' He also seemed impatient with the Justice Department's refusal to provide any classified documents addressing Al Haramain's specific claims for review in chambers. 'It appears... that defendants believe they can prevent the court from taking any action under 1806(f) by simply declining to act,' wrote Walker."

14 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Is this the "charity" in question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see why the government would want to wiretap them.

    I can't see why the government should be able to avoid the audit requirements we've set down in law (both for criminal investigation, and separately for intelligence) regarding those wiretaps.

  2. Re:Is this the "charity" in question? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If so I can see why the government would want to wiretap them.

    Yeah? Well if the Feds had gone to the trouble to show a judge why they wanted to tap them, then they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  3. Re:Is this the "charity" in question? by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can't go all "24" on someone just because. Show your cards to a judge, then do whatever is necessary. It's about time some judge bitchsmacked them with the constitution.

  4. Re:Is this the "charity" in question? by 77Punker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Haramein

    If so I can see why the government would want to wiretap them.

    Then they should get a warrant, even a bullshit retroactive FISA warrant.

  5. National Insecurity by jerep · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Justice Department has repeatedly sought to block the suit by invoking national security concerns.

    I really don't feel secure from so much government secrecy, seems like it's their argument to everything for the past few years.

    It's like saying Windows is secure because it's running secret proprietary code under the hood.

    --
    Do you D?
    1. Re:National Insecurity by philspear · · Score: 5, Funny

      No, don't you see?!? Terrorists are a forgetful bunch. If the courts order the feds to turn over their wiretaps, the terrorists are going to read the conversations they've had and will enact their dastardly, forgotten plans!

      "Oh man! I totally forgot Osama wanted me to blow up that bridge! Thank you, NSA, for reminding me!"

      It is essential for national security that we not release the tapes so the terrorists aren't reminded! We have to keep their plans secret from them! /joke

    2. Re:National Insecurity by philspear · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know... it's always disturbing to me when my jokes get modded insightful, or when my serious posts get modded funny.

  6. whos next by He+who+knows · · Score: 5, Funny

    I bet the judge is going to be wiretapped now.

  7. Ok, let me get this straight... by orzetto · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... so first we have a president whose second name is Hussein, and now Muslims are bringing freedom to America?

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    1. Re:Ok, let me get this straight... by commodore64_love · · Score: 5, Interesting

      P.S.

      Proposed Amendment (the XXVIII)

      Any Person, regardless of rank or position, found by a State Supreme Court, State Legislature, or the Supreme Court of the United States to be committing acts in violation of this Constitution shall be charged with treason, with appropriate penalties as determined by the Congress.

      *
      * example: illegal wiretaps or searches without a judge's warrant
      * all of the persons who committed that act would be charged

      Why this proposed amendment? Because I'm tired of seeing government officials violate the Constitution and "get off" without any kind of consequences. There needs to be a deterrent, with corresponding fear of punishment, otherwise these bozos will just continue breaking Constitutional law again-and-again as if it didn't exist.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  8. Remember folks... by Brandybuck · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember all you folks who argued for greater presidential powers: Every power you gave Bush is a power Obama now has. And ditto for you Obama fans who will be arguing the same in the next few years for your guy. Eventually there will be someone you don't like in office. There's a very good reason for limiting the power of government: malchiks and nitwits frequently find their way into office.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  9. Re:Is this the "charity" in question? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What if all the information they had about them was that lonely wikipedia page? I dont think the judge would consider it as evidence...

    Too true, lol. Personally I've always maintained that their failure to seek warrants was ipso facto proof that they didn't have any decent evidence. Why would you take the risk of circumventing the law when the FISA court is ready and willing to retro-actively rubber stamp your warrant, unless you know you don't have enough to satisfy even the rubber stamper?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  10. Re:really? by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Funny

    George W. Bush:

    Great president?

    Or greatest president?

    ...

    Ok, I'll put you down for "great'.

    --
    Developers: We can use your help.
  11. Re:Well? by KeithJM · · Score: 5, Informative

    only enemy combatants detained overseas and their affiliates are in GITMO

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Padilla_(prisoner) They did try to send an American citizen, not in the military, arrested in the US, to Gitmo. He was held as an "enemy combatant" for 3.5 years before civil liberties groups got him a trial. I'm not saying I'm sad he is in jail (he was later found guilty), and I'm really not a conspiracy theorist, but it wouldn't be hard to believe there was at least one US citizen that they arrested in the US and sent to Gitmo without anyone noticing.

    As it is, even with the press aware of this guy's situation, he sat in jail for 3.5 years without being charged with a crime. A US citizen, arrested in the US by the US government. That doesn't creep you out at all?