Posted on 11/16/2007 10:53:50 AM PST by SmithL
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that an Islamic charity's lawsuit alleging it was illegally wiretapped by federal investigators cannot go forward because the key piece of evidence is protected as a state secret.
In a near-fatal blow to the case filed by the now-defunct U.S. arm of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that a top secret call log accidentally turned over to Al-Haramain's lawyers by the U.S. Treasury Department can't be used as evidence.
Al-Haramain, which was labeled by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization, alleged it had been illegally wiretapped by the Bush Administration without a warrant. But without the document, the court said, the foundation has little proof it was wiretapped and can't sue.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
McKeown, M. Margaret
Drive a stake in it. Pass the silver bullets.
Under a Hillary presidency, don’t you think that maybe the denizens of Free Republic might become targets of illegal wiretaps? This unchecked power of government is disturbing. What’s so hard about getting a warrant?
Time sensitive. Takes too long. Under the right circumstances, it should not be required. I don’t worry about it. I am not on any watch list.
The 9th Circus actually protected a national security secret? That’s a first. They must have all been drunk or stoned.
Well, the time it takes in order to get one.
You get info on Friday night that a terrorist strike is going to happen early Saturday morning...if you wait around for a warrant, you don't stop the attack in time & 300 people die as a result.
Now, I understand this isn't always the scenario, however, it's what I have heard as a valid reason against them from those protecting us.
If they PUBLISHED the document, then it would be in the public domain, and thus admissable as evidence. It is possible that there could be some penalty imposed for the publishing, however.
If Hillary gets to be pres and wants to wiretap terrorist groups, I’m all for the wire taps.
She'd never wiretap the DNC, come on now.
What she’s going to do with it, I’m sure you won’t support.
I think she already has them tapped and all the candidates too. Or at least their FBI files.
Their lawyers are officers of the court. They could be disbarred for disclosing any evidence without court approval. (secret or not.)
For now...
If Hillary gets to be pres and wants to wiretap terrorist groups, I’m all for the wire taps.
Maybe you'll change your tune when she declares Free Republic a terrorist group?
If that's what she wants, she'll do it anyway. The notion that some judges (many of whom are already biased or in cahoots with the Clintons) are going to protect your rights from Hillary is laughable. A President who views the law and the Constitution simply as a means to her own power will not have any problem finding a legal justification, no matter how specious.
What’s so hard about getting a warrant?
When the search and/or transcription is based on an electronic algorithm that maps networks of related phone calls, it's impossible to a get warrent in the few seconds such computeraized searchs have to be run in. Or do you think the pompous asses on the Federal bench are waiting like the server at McDonalds for you to ask for "2 no-notification warrants with special sauce"?
The only sure check for a 'President' like Hillary is political or physical.
Taking things a bit too seriously on that front are you? If there have been notions on that front, I have not seen them. Please let me know if there is anything out there that threatens to put FR on a terror watch list.
I guess that's a fair question. Here's one answer:
On May 12 in Iraq, an al-Qaida ambush hit U.S. forces and took three soldiers captive, including Jimenez. A rescue effort was launched soon thereafter. But according to a story in the New York Post this week, the rescue ground to a halt as U.S. lawyers took nearly 10 hours to gain legal approval to wiretap telephones used by the terrorists in Iraq.It's a complex topic, and I understand people have some strong feelings about monitoring terrorists who call someone in the U.S. But when the bad guys are talking to one another on the battlefield, I really don't think our government should be required to get a warrant just because some part of the call travels through wires or switches located in the U.S.If true - the Post story is based on anonymous sources with access to a report being provided to a committee in Congress - this is an outrage. When our soldiers' lives are on the line, our policy should be to act first and consider the legal ramifications later.
As one of the Post's sources said: "How many lawyers does it take to rescue our soldiers? It should be zero."
These people are going to get someone killed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.