Posted on 02/04/2006 5:34:30 PM PST by frankjr
Iyman Faris, the only terrorist who has been named publicly in connection with the NSA terrorist surveillance program, has moved to set aside his conviction for conspiring to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge on the ground that he was "illegally" spied upon by NSA. Faris's cause is being taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union:
In many ways, Faris is not an ideal plaintiff for attorneys who hope to focus their case on whether the president abused his authority by spying on innocent Americans. Faris’ guilt is widely acknowledged, despite his recent claims of innocence. Among the evidence against him, prosecutors alleged that he sent a message to al-Qaida leadership in 2003 claiming that “the weather is too hot,” a signal that he could not follow through with his Brooklyn Bridge plan.
The NSA's international surveillance program is legal, but the Democrats' partisan insistence to the contrary, notwithstanding the different tune they sang during the Clinton administration, could have serious consequences.
If the Dems are ever in charge, the "weather will be real cool" for Faris and his NYT friends.
George Looney can portray him in a movie.
So, the NSA surveillance program stopped a plan to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge? Has New York senator Hilliary Clinton praised this program yet which prevented a terrorist attack in her home state?
If she were to say anything about it, it would only be to claim that her husband "stopped terrorists" while complying with FISA requirements, blah, blah, blah..
Hillary probably doesn't know there is a Brooklyn bridge.
Politically, it would be beneficial to Republicans if some leftwing Clinton appointed NY judge ordered Faris released. And if he made a gratuitous tirade trashing Bush for the NSA program, that would be all the better.
That the ACLU gets money from us, the taxpayers is what amazes me.
Sure she does. She sold it to the voters of NY.
You forgot the part about the Court ordering payment to the perp for lost wages.
The charge here is silly. Perps ALWAYS say the evidence was obtained illegally. Disclosure by the NYT changes nothing in any given perp's case.
The Dems better hope that Faris does not get off. They will be seen as the party that is getting terrorists released, and the Republicans will be seen as the ones that are tough on terrorists.
The democrats would argue that it's Bush's fault Faris got off, and that if Bush had simply gotten a Fisa warrant everything would be safe and legal.
To which I'd respond -- yes, and we'd also have a lot more evidence, what with all the pieces of the bridge lying around after the explosion.
When you read the thread article you may find, as I did, that the set of facts surrounding this Iyman Faris matter seems ideally suited for that purpose. The only possible hang-up that I can foresee would be the "primary purposes" test, as it regards when the government got the necessary warrants to proceed with the actual prosecution, as opposed the warrantless intelligence gathering, that initiated the case.
Thought you might be interested.
Definitely interested, thanks for the ping, concurred--with the exception perhaps being that this guy's whole case does not hang on the NSA taps. That will likely mean that they'll not rule on it, since it will be highly arguable whether the info made a difference in his conviction, and the SCOTUS tries to edge out of that kind of iffiness where it can.
"The only possible hang-up that I can foresee would be the "primary purposes" test, as it regards when the government got the necessary warrants to proceed with the actual prosecution, as opposed the warrantless intelligence gathering, that initiated the case."
However, lest ye forget, this is no Ferguson v. CoCharleston where the Court will be eager to 'protect the children.' The SCOTUS has uniformly leaned toward such a interpretation of the 4th Amendment as to effectively neuter it in some situations (car stops, 'good faith' cops, etc.), and it is especially eager when national security is even remotely concerned. Now, I'm a libertarian eager to cry "Inter arma silent leges!" and let slip the dogs of war, but I also think that it is necessary to somehow limit the power given to the President. I would like very much for the Court to rule in favor of the President, but I'd also like to see it place a proper limitation so that this does not become carte blanche for the Executive to tape suspect calls and then tape all calls from/to suspects ad infinitum. I don't want any arguments that Abdul in Iraq's Al Qaeda called Mohammed in Florida, Mo called for a Domino's cheez-popper pizza, Billybob called that same Domino's and so the NSA can legitimately put a tap on Billybob's phone. And I see the way this is currently interpreted as allowing that, with few objections here on FR. I don't see the SCOTUS concerned at all with this--they are most likely to roll out that red carpet for the NSA instead, which is too bad.
I could be wrong, but I thought it did. But if not this case, then another case similar to the facts in Truong will come along, it's inevitable.
I think the Supreme Court will, and I expect them to adopt the limits previously expressed, consisting of the primary purposes test, to limit the executive's authority to exclusively intelligence matters and not criminal cases. And second, that the security threat be a threat of foreign origin, and not a threat of domestic origin.
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.