Mystery Document In Wiretap Suit Sent To Seattle For Safekeeping

[struggle4progress]

March 23, 2006
By KOMO Staff & News Services

PORTLAND, ORE. - A secret document in an Oregon lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic wiretapping program will be held in a secure facility in Seattle while the judge and lawyers try to figure out how to keep it under wraps in Portland.

U.S. District Judge Garr King decided this week that the document couldn't be held securely in a federal courthouse in Portland, and shouldn't be held at the local office of the FBI, a defendant in the case.

In a telephone conference that offered few clues about the document, King said it would go to a secure facility at the U.S. attorney's office in Seattle, but he hoped it eventually could be edited and held in Oregon as the suit progresses.

A government lawyer said, however, the document would be so black with redactions that it couldn't be understood. <snip>

http://www.komotv.com/stories/42563.htm

[LiberalHeart]

1. Hmmm ... this is very interesting (n/t)

[rodeodance]

2. more--involves NSA and FISA

......A transcript of the telephone conference was made available to The Associated Press by Steven Goldberg, a civil rights attorney who filed the lawsuit last February.

The lawsuit alleges that the National Security Agency illegally wiretapped electronic communications between a local chapter of the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation and Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor, both attorneys in Washington, D.C.

It contends the NSA did not follow procedures required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, and failed to obtain a court order authorizing electronic surveillance of the charity and its attorneys. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have said they can't spell out the facts that support their suit because those details are classified.

The conference over the document arose because the FBI office is the only place in Portland that has a facility that meets specifications for what the government calls "sensitive compartmented information," according to the telephone conference transcript.

[rodeodance]

3. the Oregonian has filed suit for access to info.

.....King expressed hope that he and others could consult with security experts and "the originator" of the document "to see if something less secure would be satisfactory."

Coppolino told King that editing the document wouldn't be possible "without redactions of the document to the point where the content wouldn't be - would not be understandable."

In a separate development, The Oregonian newspaper reported Thursday that it had filed suit last week seeking documents in the case.

"If the government is committing crimes against its citizens, the public is entitled to know the nature of the crimes," said the newspaper's attorney, Charles Hinkle.

[rodeodance]

4. Oregonian : gov committing crimes against citizens and public needs to kno

....."If the government is committing crimes against its citizens, the public is entitled to know the nature of the crimes," said the newspaper's attorney, Charles Hinkle.

[wordpix2]

6. How about lying about reasons to go to war? Isn't that a crime?

[coalition_unwilling]

19. Lying isn't a crime, but when its result is fraud against the

taxpayers of the United States, I think that could be an indictable offense.

[EVDebs]

18. Read an article today on anniversary of the 'disaparacidos' in Argentina

for what it's worth.

Argentines remember victims of Dirty War

By BILL CORMIER
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1102AP_Argentina_Coup_Anniversary.html

If you think it couldn't happen here you are sadly mistaken. Take a good look at your conservative neighbors and guys like Karl Rove. In fact, you can EXPECT it to happen here if they stay in power much longer.

[Toots]

11. Well now we know that Wendell Belew and Asim Ghafoor are Al Qaeda

They must be because Bush* said he only wiretapped Al Qaeda and we all know he would never LIE. I wonder if they can sue Bush* for Slander?

[HuffleClaw]

5. "Lawyers for the plaintiffs have said they can't...

...spell out the facts that support their suit because those details are classified."

double hmmmmm.

this secrecy crap is getting out of hand. i'm reminded of a recent case in which only the judge and prosecution were privy to some 'sensitive information'.

[wordpix2]

7. There's not a vault thick and safe enough to keep it hidden forever

The truth will out, hopefully sooner rather thann later. Meanwhile the criminals will keep lying about their secret programs.

[DeepModem Mom]

8. What the heck is this? nt

[OnyxCollie]

9. I've been following this for a while.

Attorney Thomas H. Nelson of Portland, OR is representing the codirector of an Islamic charity indicted on charges that he has ties to Osama bin Laden. Mr. Nelson says the FBI mistakenly provided his client classified papers disclosing illegal NSA wiretaps of his client's charity. (A Washington Post reporter was also mistakenly provided the classified documents. They were returned at the request of the FBI. Since this occurred a few months before the NYT disclosed the NSA wiretaps, the WaPo was not aware of the significance of the documents.) Mr. Nelson believes his office and home have been the subject of clandestine searches over a nine month period, in hope of retrieving the documents. A letter to U.S. Attorney Karin Immergut only returned a response that the she has nothing to do with the NSA, and Mr. Nelson should address his concerns with the NSA. Similarly, a letter to the NSA received a response of "the NSA can neither confirm nor deny..." What this means is that Bushco believes its authority to conduct warrantless wiretaps extends as far as physical searches.

Senator Leahy, during the NSA hearing, asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales if "black bag jobs" ie. physical searches were possible. Gonzales replied, redirecting the discussion back toward the topic of the NSA wiretaps was "what the President authorized, and all that was authorized."

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[DeepModem Mom]

14. Wow -- thanks, blackops. nt

[fasttense]

10. But don't you know, under the unitary executive theory (code for King)

brush can do whatever he wants. No laws apply to him because he is the law. Therefore illegal search and seizures are no longer illegal if brush says go ahead. And he don't have to tell no stinking congress about what he does either. Just read his latest signing order on how he plans to ignore the reporting requirements under the un-Patriot Act.

[donkeyotay]

13. Gives whole new meaning to, "Didn't you get the memo?"

The Unitary Executive rules by memo. "People" in his administration write memorandums in accordance with His wishes. Should they perhaps overlook a needed contingency, the "Congress" rewrites the law to make it conform to the Unitary Executive's wishes.

God help us. Oh, that's right, "God" works for the Unitary Executive, too.

[underpants]

16. Check out W's "Signing statement" on the Patriot Act renewal

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x743264

[Just Me]

12. That document must contain some serious shit in it.

So, weird. The judge is afraid the document can NOT be secured in a federal courthouse? :shrug: Kinda' "spooky" doncha' think? :scared:

[quiet.american]

15. Uh-huh. n/t

[Nothing Without Hope]

17. Of course, according to Bush's de facto line item veto, there was no

illegality:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2185459
thread title (3-24-06 LBN): Bush shuns Patriot Act requirement
Boston Globe. Excerpt: “When President Bush signed the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act this month, he included an addendum saying that he did not feel obliged to obey requirements that he inform Congress about how the FBI was using the act's expanded police powers. … In the statement, Bush said that he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ‘impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties.’ “
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement