Article

2010-04-01 Home Front: WoT

Judge: US wiretapping on Islamic charity illegal

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2010-04-01 00:00|| || Front Page|| [5 views ] Top
File under: al-Qaeda

#1 Walker was first nominated by Reagan (but not confirmed by the Senate), then nominated by GWBush and confirmed early in the GWB admin

Posted by lord garth 2010-04-01 01:01|| 2010-04-01 01:01|| Front Page Top

#2 the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, once based in Oregon, could pursue civil remedies for being subjected in 2004

Meaning law suits against US citizens. Nice the lawyers are getting some work. Why is it nothing good ever seems to come out of San Francisco?

Posted by Besoeker 2010-04-01 05:51|| 2010-04-01 05:51|| Front Page Top

#3 Sure to be overturned.

Posted by Black Bart Ebberens7700 2010-04-01 06:35|| 2010-04-01 06:35|| Front Page Top

#4 Not sure to be overturned. Seems a finding that the program that authorized warrantless wiretaps (a part of the Patriot Act?) was illegal under higher laws (perhaps even Constitutional grounds?) I know a lot of people claimed that at the time, both liberals and libertarians. I figure we should get a warrant for all 'searches' (and I consider a tap a form of search) except in cases where minutes count, and this doesn't look like one of those cases. But put me on the jury for the civil remedy and I won't award a nickel.

Posted by Glenmore 2010-04-01 07:34|| 2010-04-01 07:34|| Front Page Top

#5 Not to mention, the tapped calls were to the lawyers - even under anti-terrorism calls I would assume there is lawyer-client confidentiality priviledge.
There has to be a better way to monitor terrorists than warrantless taps on their lawyers. I just see potential for abuse all over that set-up.

Posted by Glenmore 2010-04-01 07:39|| 2010-04-01 07:39|| Front Page Top

#6 Personally, I have no problem with this ruling.
You have a 'terrorist' connection.
You are telling me you can't be bothered to file the paperwork, and then find a judge who won't issue a search warrant?

Posted by Mizzou Mafia 2010-04-01 12:12|| 2010-04-01 12:12|| Front Page Top

#7 With Glenmore. Yesterday, Islamic charities. Today, under an admin not to your liking, maybe your organization's privileged conversations tapped without a warrant?

Posted by lex 2010-04-01 12:57|| 2010-04-01 12:57|| Front Page Top

#8 Thomas More: "And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on youwhere would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? [More leaves him] This countrys planted thick with laws from coast to coastmans laws, not Godsand if you cut them downand youre just the man to do itdyou really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?"

Posted by lex 2010-04-01 13:02|| 2010-04-01 13:02|| Front Page Top

#9 Orin Kerr has a more detailed analysis of this over at the volokh conspiracy.

Its pretty complicated.

Posted by lord garth 2010-04-01 14:38|| 2010-04-01 14:38|| Front Page Top

#10 If they didn't have a warrant, then it should be thrown out of court. Protects everyone that way.

Now the warrentless search of numbers being called is fine, but anything more than that requires a judge's signature.

Posted by DarthVader 2010-04-01 21:16|| 2010-04-01 21:16|| Front Page Top

23:43 newc
23:33 newc
23:31 Old Patriot
23:27 rwv
23:23 JohnQC
23:11 JohnQC
23:11 Frank G
22:51 JosephMendiola
22:48 abu do you love
22:46 JosephMendiola
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:34 Atomic Conspiracy
22:08 Chief
21:55 GK
21:52 Atomic Conspiracy
21:48 Old Patriot
21:41 Frank G
21:40 Alaska Paul
21:40 Frank G
21:39 Barbara Skolaut
21:16 DarthVader
21:12 OldSpook
21:12 xbalanke
21:09 xbalanke