ACLU Lawsuit Against NSA Is Weak

Posted on January 18, 2006

Another hat tip to AJ Strata
Certainly folks that knowingly correspond with known and suspected terrorists should know they are taking a risk, and that such treasonous actions comes with consequence. It is obvious that the ACLU’s case is weak. Here are some initial assessments.

For instance, former New Jersey Judge and constitutional scholar Andy Napolitano says that the lawsuits will probably be thrown out by whichever judges are assigned to the cases. He says that the cases have no standing since the plaintiffs are saying “they believe” or “they think,” and possess no proof of injury to themselves as a result of the NSA program.

A former Marine intelligence officer, NYPD detective and owner of an international security and investigations agency says that the attorneys should know that their lawsuits will go nowhere and wonders why the members of the news media do not tell Americans the truth.

“All these people need to do is read the FISA Act. It’s not mandatory for the President to seek their permission during a war,” he says
…
Mark Levin, legal scholar with the Landmark Legal Foundation and author of the book Men In Black, says that this whole frenzy is nothing more than left-wing groups attempting to undermine the war effort. He says that the ACLU in particular is against any action taken to fight terrorism. They are even hunting for the courts they believe have the most liberal judges who may entertain their nonsense

AJ says:

The ACLU is an institution that is putting itself out of our misery.

I hope he is right. One thing for sure is that besides all the “ifs” and “mights” this frivilous and dangerous lawsuit is based on, many of the plaintiffs in the case are the very people that the government should be listening to. And not just the ACLU and CAIR.

Debbie Schlussel points out who is behind the lawsuit and why.

I’m not referring to the famous Plaintiffs about whom you’ve heard: For example, Christopher Hitchens, the well-known Vanity Fair writer who is tight with convicted felon lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s money launderer Grover Norquist. (Norquist’s receipt of thousands from Saudi charities raided by Customs for billions in Al-Qaeda money laundering is well-known, and Hitchens wrote glowingly of Norquist’s efforts on behalf of radical Islam).

I’m referring to ACLU lawyers Noel Saleh, Mohammed Abdrabboh, and Nabih Ayad, the ACLU Plaintiffs named in the yesterday’s Complaint, and attorney William Swor, a member National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers–all named in the lawsuit. They are exactly the kind of people whom the federal government SHOULD be watching, but probably isn’t. One of these men admitted to funding Hezbollah, one was accused of tampering with a witness, and a third signed a document contradicting statements he made in the lawsuit. Not to mention, one of these attorneys engaged in exactly the same “spying” (on me) that he now opposes when done by the NSA.

Their clients are no different from that of convicted Attorney Lynn Stewart’s (convicted of helping the Blind cleric spread terrorist messages in Egypt), and in some cases, their behavior is far worse. Yet, instead of monitoring them, the federal government’s representatives in Detroit have been courting them, their clients, and friends in a series of exclusive meetings.

Take Noel Saleh. The thrice-disciplined attorney (who was suspended from the practice of law) openly stated at a town hall meeting with federal officials that he has financially contributed to Hezbollah. He heads an Arab welfare agency that gets millions in our tax dollars, yet was raided by the FBI for engaging in Medicaid fraud. The organization also spent thousands in our tax dollars on “job training” (commercial driving lessons and attempts at HazMat hauling certificates) for two men indicted as members of the Detroit Al-Qaeda terror cell. He has represented a number of Islamic terrorists, including Ibrahim Parlak and “former” PFLP terrorist Imad Hamad.

Then, there is Mohammed Abdrabboh, a Palestinian attorney and ACLU of Michigan Board Member.

Not only does he represent a number of accused terrorists, he lied in signed documents about it. In the ACLU lawsuit, Abdrabboh’s ACLU claims:

86. As part of his criminal defense practice, Mr. Abdrabboh has represented and continues to represent people the government has suspected of allegedly having some link to terrorism or terrorist organizations

. And, there is a lot more.
If you are interested in opposing the ACLU’s lawsuit, join us, and contact Debbie through her site.

Volokh on why the NSA is effective.
Awesome commentary at Just One Minute

» Filed Under ACLU, News, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

4 Responses to “ACLU Lawsuit Against NSA Is Weak”

Anonymous Liberal on January 18th, 2006 10:28 am

As a purely legal matter, AJ doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. Standing is a notriously nebulous doctrine and it’s always difficult to predict how a judge will rule, but these suits aren’t surefire losers. The ACLU has good lawyers working for them and they’ve come up with a fairly clever argument for standing.

They’re arguing that the mere fact that warrantless wiretapping is taking place is chilling protected communications. The alleged injury does not depend on whether the plaintiffs can show that they were personally spied upon. And they’re not arguing that commucations with terrorists are being disrupted. They are arguing that communications with non-terrorists are being disrupted because those non-terrorist value their privacy and don’t want to be caught up in the NSA’s net.

Again, who knows whether a court will buy this argument and allow the cases to proceed, but the argument itself is stronger than you or AJ give it credit for.
Peter Bella on January 18th, 2006 1:20 pm

The problem with legal experts is that no matter their expertise in interpreting the laws and regulations and how right they may be, they can still be wrong. Remember, jurists render decisions. Many times, as we see on a daily basis, these decisions defy belief. All it takes is one judge who is on the same agenda with the ACLU and they win.

Then the appeals process begins. Up until the point that the US Supreme court rules, years later, they can claim victory. That is all that counts, claiming victory.
sharky on January 18th, 2006 1:25 pm

I support what the President is doing, but looking at FISA doesn’t solve his problem. “Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for a period not to exceed fifteen calendar days following a declaration of war by the Congress.”

Yes, we are at war, the war on terror is real and needs to be one, but it isn’t a declared war. They are going to have to find another loop-hole.
Jack on January 18th, 2006 2:45 pm

As a lawyer involved in the case, I want to assure AJ that we did indeed discuss the standing issue, specifically whether journalists can claim a chilling effect on their sources and the decidely WRONG chiling effect on the attorney-client privilege, which is the oldest privilege at English common law. We believe the suit is sound.

But it was Peter Bella’s comment that made me want to add two cents here. Years ago, Boswell reported Samuel Johnson’s reply to the question: How can a lawyer represent a cause he knows is wrong? Dr. Johnson supposedly replied, “My dear Sir — I know not whether my cause is right or wrong until the judge tells me so!”

This lawsuit is good for all Americans, but particularly so for those U.S. persons with unusual political and religious beliefs and associations.