Feds Seek To Block Surveillance Lawsuit Filed By Islamic Charity Suspected Of Terror Ties
Posted on September 23, 2006
Here is an example of just how twisted our system is.
Via AP
U.S. Justice Department lawyers filed an appeal Friday aimed at blocking a lawsuit by a former Islamic charity that has challenged a Bush administration secret surveillance program.
U.S. District Judge Garr M. King ruled earlier this month that a lawsuit by the defunct Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation chapter in Ashland could go forward without damaging national security.
So, hold on one second. Why is this Islamic charity defunct? Well, that would be because On January 29th, 2004 the foundation was added to the United Nations list of groups whose assets are to be blocked due to suspected ties to Osama bin Laden or his al-Qaida network. The thing that has me puzzled is that they didn’t file this lawsuit until February 28, 2006. How do we even entertain the idea that they have any standing whatsoever?
But government lawyers argue that state secrets would be revealed if the lawsuit is allowed to proceed.
The case hinges on a classified document that U.S. Treasury officials inadvertently turned over to Al-Haramain lawyers after the charity was declared a global terrorist organization.
Hold on! Here is where I criticize the government. How in the hell does someone “inadvertently” turn over classified documents containing state secrets AFTER the front group has been declared a terrorist organization? How could someone even conceive of giving a group like that access to anything resembling classified information? Someone really screwed up here majorly.
However, I think it most certainly would reveal state secrets to allow a case like this to go forward. I’m still lost on how a “terrorist organization” can file a suit in the first place. If someone understands this, please fill me in.
The charity’s attorneys say the document shows that two U.S. lawyers for Al-Haramain and at least one of its officials were under electronic surveillance in 2004.
You don’t say? And it looks to me like they were under surveillance for very good reason.
Justice Department lawyers have argued the document falls under the “state secrets privilege,” allowing a judge to dismiss a lawsuit if it could damage national security by revealing state secrets.
As if “inadvertantly” handing over classified information, that “just so happens” to contain information that pertained to the monitoring of lawyers within a terror funding front group, to that very organization doesn’t damage national security enough? It seems pretty obvious to me that having this case move forward could further damage our security. I still think that I have to be missing something.
The worst thing about all of this? I predict that the government’s argument to preserve state secrets, regardless of all of the obvious in this case, will fail. Not only has this argument failed in all the other Surveillance cases but particular appeal is going before a special court well known for its insanity. That’s right…the infamous ninth circuit.
The appeal filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said “the district court is wrongly attempting to create some form of secret adversarial proceedings, and, in doing so, is raising a serious danger of disclosure of important national security information.”
Surely I am missing something.
Andrew Cochran of Counterterrorism Blog emailed me in reply to my plea to understand.
I know a lot about this, because Daveed worked for Al Haramain before he got smart and left Islam, and then became a key FBI witness against them.. It’s simple: the government lawyer screwed up, gave them a classified document years ago, and the FBI wants it back, and AH says no. They’re suing and DOJ wants to stop them from suing. But it started with a stupid mistake by our side.
I saw that much, and thank you for the quick reply. Andrew, since you know a lot about this explain the part I don’t understand. If this “charity” has been deemed a terrorist funding front group, then how do they have any standing to file a case?
Because they’re still a legal entity in the US. Their assets were frozen and two US leaders were indicted (and fled the country), but they had other personnel and left some lawyers behind. Some of the other foundations taken down still have a legal presence ( e.g., Holy Land).
I see. Isn’t that quite insane?
Of course - it’s the world of terrorism!
He suggests buying Daveed Gartenstein-Ross’s book: “My Year Inside Radical Islam: A Memoir” I just did.
» Filed Under Activist Judges, Illegal Activities, News, War On Terror
Trackback URL
Comments
13 Responses to “Feds Seek To Block Surveillance Lawsuit Filed By Islamic Charity Suspected Of Terror Ties”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
“How could someone even conceive of giving a group like that access to anything resembling classified information? ”
They didn’t conceive of it. It was inadvertent.
“I’m still lost on how a “terrorist organization” can file a suit in the first place. If someone understands this, please fill me in.”
Why would they not be able to?
So what’s next? Al-Q sues US government US GOV for harassment?
Kender,
I’d be willing to bet that if al Qaeda did pursue such a law suit a plethora of liberal lawyers would immediately offer their support, along with every liberal from Daily Kos and beyond.
The same would hold true if Saddam decided to sue the U.S. for unlawful invasion of his “peaceful”, sovereign nation.
“So what’s next? Al-Q sues US government US GOV for harassment? ”
They’ll lose.
gfactor? Who would lose?
“gfactor? Who would lose?”
Al-q.
So what is the biggest problem or activist judges? I believe it is activist judges because it would be a whole lot easier defending our freedom without them.
Al Qaeda would lose gfactor? I think that might depend on whether the case was before the 9th Circuit or not.
“Al Qaeda would lose gfactor? I think that might depend on whether the case was before the 9th Circuit or not.”
No. It wouldnt.
Are you sure Al Qaeda’s followers have not already one in case. When the government was compelled to release the names of detainees at Gitmo I tacked one win up to Al Qaeda.
“When the government was compelled to release the names of detainees at Gitmo I tacked one win up to Al Qaeda.”
Too bad. The rest of us saw it as a victory for open government.
That is where you are violating the rights of the people of the United States to be secure and happy. I assume you are most likely ignorant of the intelligence value of those names. That is not a surprise as it is probably outside your area of expertise.
Once Al Qaeda knows the names they also know what has been compromised and can act to plug possible leaks. By releasing their names the courts allow terrorist organization to better defend them selves.