Somewhere In The US The Idea Of Precedent Has Vanished
As our regular readers know, Marcie and I are no slouches when it comes to the law. We study it, eat it, breathe, and sleep it. But, not everyone is clearly as knowledgeable as we are, or as smart as the FISA Court of Review who set the precendent to begin with. Yes, an appellate court screwed the pooch on Tuesday:
An appellate court on Tuesday directed a lower court to consider statements by a Muslim cleric in northern Virginia that he had been illegally wiretapped under the warrantless eavesdropping program that President Bush authorized.
The ruling opened the door to what could be the first ruling by a federal court on whether information obtained under the program, operated by the National Security Agency, had been improperly used in a criminal prosecution.
The cleric, Ali al-Timimi, who was sentenced to life in prison last year for inciting his Muslim followers to violence, is challenging his conviction because he says he suspects that the government failed to disclosed illegal wiretaps of his e-mail messages and telephone conversations.
In an order released on Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit did not rule on the merits of Mr. Timimi's assertions about the N.S.A. program, but sent the case back to the federal trial court in Alexandria, Va., for a rehearing.
The appellate court gave the trial judge in the case, Leonie M. Brinkema, broad latitude, saying the trial court could "order whatever relief or changes in the case, if any, that it considers appropriate."
A number of defendants in terrorism cases around the country have sought to challenge their prosecutions on the ground that evidence against them may have been garnered from undisclosed wiretaps.
Mr. Timimi's case is the first to result in a rehearing on the challenges. The Justice Department did not oppose his motion to vacate his appeal and have the trial court consider the eavesdropping question. Department officials said they saw the appellate decision as largely procedural, but declined to discuss how the case might play out when the trial court rehears it.
"We'll brief the court at the right time and advise the court appropriately," a spokesman for the department, Bryan Sierra, said. "Whenever we have the opportunity to set the record straight, we'll do so."
But a lawyer for Mr. Timimi, Jonathan Turley, said the appellate order was a significant and "extraordinary step" because appellate courts did not generally order a rehearing in a criminal case while an appeal was pending.
"This is very good news for us, and we're eager to go back to Judge Brinkema to explore these troubling issues," Mr. Turley said in an interview.
The Justice Department has declined to say publicly whether National Security Agency wiretaps were used against Mr. Timimi or any other terrorism defendants. But Mr. Timimi's lawyers maintain that circumstantial evidence, including incriminating conversations between him and other suspects that were monitored after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, indicate that the eavesdropping program was used against him.
I'll tell you exactly how the trial court should deal with this. The verdict should stand, and the cleric goes to jail. The appeal itself should have been tossed out. In In re: Sealed Case, the case heard before the FISA Court of Review, it was ruled that not only was the president's powers guaranteed to do this under the Constitution, but also that the program itself was quite legal.
The idea that we may not be monitored by the government is purely idiotic, and the folklore of leftist moonbats. There is nothing that prevents the government from doing it, and especially not against a non-citizen. While this may be procedural, and no concern is warranted, I do take offense to the fact that this question has already been answered. It's been answered not only by the court directly in charge of the FISA court, but it has been answered by lawyer after lawyer out of the Justice Department. It's legal, we're doing it, end of story.
And if the appeals continue up the ladder, the USSC will have to rule on it. With precedent in hand, the Supreme Court will rule that what is being done is definitely legal, Mr. Timimi's rights weren't violated, and that he needs to serve his sentence. That's how I see it, as well. Sorry, but there is nothing preventing the president from conducting this sort of surveillance, and especially not when we're at war and have no way of knowing where our enemy is here in Am,erica. We know they're here; that much is certain. Where is another thing altogether, and this program helps us in that regard.
Publius II
As our regular readers know, Marcie and I are no slouches when it comes to the law. We study it, eat it, breathe, and sleep it. But, not everyone is clearly as knowledgeable as we are, or as smart as the FISA Court of Review who set the precendent to begin with. Yes, an appellate court screwed the pooch on Tuesday:
An appellate court on Tuesday directed a lower court to consider statements by a Muslim cleric in northern Virginia that he had been illegally wiretapped under the warrantless eavesdropping program that President Bush authorized.
The ruling opened the door to what could be the first ruling by a federal court on whether information obtained under the program, operated by the National Security Agency, had been improperly used in a criminal prosecution.
The cleric, Ali al-Timimi, who was sentenced to life in prison last year for inciting his Muslim followers to violence, is challenging his conviction because he says he suspects that the government failed to disclosed illegal wiretaps of his e-mail messages and telephone conversations.
In an order released on Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit did not rule on the merits of Mr. Timimi's assertions about the N.S.A. program, but sent the case back to the federal trial court in Alexandria, Va., for a rehearing.
The appellate court gave the trial judge in the case, Leonie M. Brinkema, broad latitude, saying the trial court could "order whatever relief or changes in the case, if any, that it considers appropriate."
A number of defendants in terrorism cases around the country have sought to challenge their prosecutions on the ground that evidence against them may have been garnered from undisclosed wiretaps.
Mr. Timimi's case is the first to result in a rehearing on the challenges. The Justice Department did not oppose his motion to vacate his appeal and have the trial court consider the eavesdropping question. Department officials said they saw the appellate decision as largely procedural, but declined to discuss how the case might play out when the trial court rehears it.
"We'll brief the court at the right time and advise the court appropriately," a spokesman for the department, Bryan Sierra, said. "Whenever we have the opportunity to set the record straight, we'll do so."
But a lawyer for Mr. Timimi, Jonathan Turley, said the appellate order was a significant and "extraordinary step" because appellate courts did not generally order a rehearing in a criminal case while an appeal was pending.
"This is very good news for us, and we're eager to go back to Judge Brinkema to explore these troubling issues," Mr. Turley said in an interview.
The Justice Department has declined to say publicly whether National Security Agency wiretaps were used against Mr. Timimi or any other terrorism defendants. But Mr. Timimi's lawyers maintain that circumstantial evidence, including incriminating conversations between him and other suspects that were monitored after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, indicate that the eavesdropping program was used against him.
I'll tell you exactly how the trial court should deal with this. The verdict should stand, and the cleric goes to jail. The appeal itself should have been tossed out. In In re: Sealed Case, the case heard before the FISA Court of Review, it was ruled that not only was the president's powers guaranteed to do this under the Constitution, but also that the program itself was quite legal.
The idea that we may not be monitored by the government is purely idiotic, and the folklore of leftist moonbats. There is nothing that prevents the government from doing it, and especially not against a non-citizen. While this may be procedural, and no concern is warranted, I do take offense to the fact that this question has already been answered. It's been answered not only by the court directly in charge of the FISA court, but it has been answered by lawyer after lawyer out of the Justice Department. It's legal, we're doing it, end of story.
And if the appeals continue up the ladder, the USSC will have to rule on it. With precedent in hand, the Supreme Court will rule that what is being done is definitely legal, Mr. Timimi's rights weren't violated, and that he needs to serve his sentence. That's how I see it, as well. Sorry, but there is nothing preventing the president from conducting this sort of surveillance, and especially not when we're at war and have no way of knowing where our enemy is here in Am,erica. We know they're here; that much is certain. Where is another thing altogether, and this program helps us in that regard.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:31 PM
2 Comments:
.......no normal person is only one thing.....regarding: crime...i'm conservative.....regarding:prostitution.....i'm liberal.......chris rock........now....be honest...how much do you really know?
Oberon:
I'd seriously answer the question if I recognized it's relevance to the post that I made.
My point in the post revolves around the fact that an appellate court has basically ordered a reexamination of the cleric's case based onthe argument that the surveillance used is illegal.
As I state clearly in the post, the surveillance isn't illegal. It is legal, and deemed so by the Court of Review overseeing FISA. The cleric did commit a crime by preaching and urging incitement to violence. While his "preaching" cannot be the focal point of prosecution (freedom of religion), his attempted incitement could be construed as sedition.
He already is facing a life prison sentence--judged guilty by a jury--regarding his actions. I fail to see where he has an argument regarding the evidence used against him, and the way it was gathered when the courts have already ruled that such methods are legal.
Publius II
Post a Comment
<< Home