Judge throws out wiretapping lawsuit

Judge throws out wiretapping lawsuit

www.montereyherald.com

A federal judge Wednesday tossed out a lawsuit challenging a Bush administration surveillance program filed by a Saudi Arabia-based Islamic charity the U.S. government lists as a terrorist organization.
The U.S. branch of the defunct Al Haramain Islamic Foundation, which was based in Ashland, Ore., claimed federal officials illegally eavesdropped on their calls without court approval under the administration's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program.

At the heart of the challenge was a top secret call log that the Treasury Department accidentally turned over to Al Haramain's lawyers, who say it showed government terrorist hunters listened to their phone conversations with foundation officials living in Saudi Arabia.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I'd love to say score one for the good guys, as I love the end result of this ruling. However, I continue to be disturbed by the growing number of cases in which federal, state, and local officials labeling evidence that could go against them as "public security" and, therefore, basically rendering it toothless against them. They have to be able to come to some sort of compromise in which this evidence can be disseminated only to the judge who can then instruct the jury as to the vallidity of the contents without actually disclosing whatever state secrets are contained within them.

www.montereyherald.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Knowing as little as I do about this issue and the group involved I would say it seems justified to me to "listen in". If terrorists are at work and the government knows it and can intervene then please please please do it.

Knowing the Bush administration I also seriously question the validity of this being a terrorist organization and not just a religious group. something akin to Catholic Charities perhaps. IT also sounds like that this group is suing which means they are still around and therefore it is VERY likely they are not terrorists. Bush would have taken them down if they were right?

This whole thing of keeping state secrets under wraps in criminal cases of what I assume to be US citizens is simply another rip at the constitution and our rights as citizens. The ultimate impact of the issue at hand is the age old struggle of balancing Order and Freedom.

So I guess I have to ask myself, is the 'listening in' worth it?

Originally posted by burdman30ott6


I'd love to say score one for the good guys, as I love the end result of this ruling. However, I continue to be disturbed by the growing number of cases in which federal, state, and local officials labeling evidence that could go against them as "public security" and, therefore, basically rendering it toothless against them. They have to be able to come to some sort of compromise in which this evidence can be disseminated only to the judge who can then instruct the jury as to the vallidity of the contents without actually disclosing whatever state secrets are contained within them.

www.montereyherald.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Here's an idea: Howzabout we go back to getting warrants and doing everything above the table with proper oversight, instead of going on "fishing expeditions" that clearly violate Constitutional rights and covering up what we've done under the "National Security" blanket?

Oh right, because if we did that this would actually be the America the Founding Fathers intended, and we wouldn't have mechanisms in place for the party in power to spy on its opponents, or for paranoid federal agents with nothing better to do to use in profiling American citizens for future harassment. How silly of me!

Yeah I agree this case was justified however allowing them to spy on terrorists should not allow them to spy on everyone.
But then who exactly can be a Terrorist?
They should need some fair evidence against people before they start spying.Thats why warrant less wiretapping is just another abolishment of basic human privacy.Why is it so hard for them to get a warrant?
They can get warrants in 5 minutes for drug raids based on circumstantial evidence.

Originally posted by Being_From_Earth
Yeah I agree this case was justified however allowing them to spy on terrorists should not allow them to spy on everyone.
But then who exactly can be a Terrorist?
They should need some fair evidence against people before they start spying.Thats why warrant less wiretapping is just another abolishment of basic human privacy.Why is it so hard for them to get a warrant?
They can get warrants in 5 minutes for drug raids based on circumstantial evidence.

That's the whole point. The ONLY reason to eliminate the need for warrants is so they can spy on the innocent.

Regardless of the ultimate goal, whether it be profiling those who might become dangerous to the ruling class as the world economic meltdown escalates and targeting those individuals for future action, or spying on the opposing political party in order to stay one step ahead of them strategically, or just keeping a log of Americans' activities and connections in order to blackmail them into compliance with whatever "new order" the rulers choose, the removal of Constitutionally-mandated oversight and the upsetting of checks and balances exists solely for use not against "terrorists", but against the People. The folks running the Government right now fear the People, because the People, if they truly understood the power they wield, would have those rulers in the guillotine and bring this nation back the People's control.

Originally posted by Being_From_Earth
Yeah I agree this case was justified however allowing them to spy on terrorists should not allow them to spy on everyone.
But then who exactly can be a Terrorist?
They should need some fair evidence against people before they start spying.Thats why warrant less wiretapping is just another abolishment of basic human privacy.Why is it so hard for them to get a warrant?
They can get warrants in 5 minutes for drug raids based on circumstantial evidence.

According to the 'preventive' paradigm shift in the justice department you can't wait for evidence. You have to act first.