Top Secret: We're Wiretapping You. Attorney accidentally given TOPSECRET file obtained w/out warrant

[Ian David]

By Ryan Singel| Also by this reporter
02:00 AM Mar, 05, 2007

It could be a scene from Kafka or Brazil. Imagine a government agency, in a bureaucratic foul-up, accidentally gives you a copy of a document marked "top secret." And it contains a log of some of your private phone calls.

You read it and ponder it and wonder what it all means. Then, two months later, the FBI shows up at your door, demands the document back and orders you to forget you ever saw it.

By all accounts, that's what happened to Washington D.C. attorney Wendell Belew in August 2004. And it happened at a time when no one outside a small group of high-ranking officials and workaday spooks knew the National Security Agency was listening in on Americans' phone calls without warrants. Belew didn't know what to make of the episode. But now, thanks to that government gaffe, he and a colleague have the distinction of being the only Americans who can prove they were specifically eavesdropped upon by the NSA's surveillance program.

The pair are seeking $1 million each in a closely watched lawsuit against the government, which experts say represents the greatest chance, among over 50 different lawsuits, of convincing a key judge to declare the program illegal.

More:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,72811-0.html

[ms liberty]

1. K&R n/t

[ClintonTyree]

2. I wish their lawyers good luck....

in obtaining the incriminating records from the NSA to prosecute their case.

I can hear the NSA's defense already. "What records? We have no records on these people and even if we DID they would be covered under the National Security Act and not subject to subpoena".

I wish these guys well but taking on the government's most secretive, mean and nasty agency isn't going to be a walk in the park.

[ck4829]

3. K&R

[rodeodance]

4. they need a 'key' judge. Good luck to ALL of us.

[yellerpup]

5. What does it take to shut these guys down?

K&R! Will all our rights disappear? We are pretending to bring democracy to Iraq while destroying it at home. We need our soldiers here for our own protection, and for the protection of the rights they are fighting for there.:kick:

Edited to add the kick.

[cascadiance]

6. Stay tuned for some more news on this sort of thing later today!

[barbtries]

7. has any information come out

regarding the reason they were wiretapped?

[myrna minx]

8. Kick.

:kick:

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. What are they doing with that information?

Does anybody have any doubt that local GOP donors to local Republican representatives have been given far too much information on their neighbor and/or business competitors?

We need to prepare on how we're all going to handle this once that information gets out, because I sincerely believe it's a matter of time before we discover that our privacy has been invaded for all the wrong reasons.

[moodforaday]

10. Will this finally put an end to

the tiresome idiots who spout "if you are not doing anything illegal, you have nothing to fear" and "you are not important enough for the government to eavesdrop on you"? If only...

[EVDebs]

11. Betcha he's a Democrat or Green Party member.

NSA probably avoids R's at all costs.

[josewelder]

12. Attorneys

First let me state that I am very much opposed to the use of unwarranted wire taps.
However the clients that these attorneys represented seem to be exactly the kind of organizations that were suspected of funneling money to terrorist, so if not for a lazy NSA office I believe they would have been given the needed warrant.
These attorneys are suing for a million dollars each. I fail to understand how that would make them patriotic or indicate that they are suing for any reason other than money.

[Connonym]

13. yes, you certainly do fail to understand

[josewelder]

14. Enlightenment

Please enlighten me as to what I fail to understand. I do not see these attorneys doing this to protect the rights of others, or to enforce the fact that the USA has a Constitution that should be followed by all members of the country including members of Government. If so I think they would sue for a token amount to make their point, rather than 1 million each. Please prove to me that they have anyone's interest in mind aside from their own. Please enlighten me as opposed to just replying with a derogatory terse comment.
The FBI whistleblowers are true patriots and have paid a true price for their actions. I have not seen them suing for 1 million each. What they did was for reasons greater than self interest.

[cui bono]

17. Have you heard of a little thing called the Bill of Rights?

The FBI whistleblowers are stating what they've seen within the agency. Not an invasion of their own rights. They don't have anything to sue about.

As to the amount, what does it matter if they get a lot of money? The fact is that the case is about illegal wiretapping and they are the only ones who can prove it. Whether or not they make money off of it doesn't change what they are fighting for nor does it change the affect the decision will have. Thankfully we have them out there to prove this and thankfully they are not afraid to bring the case against our govt.

[josewelder]

24. I disagree

Being fired from your job is not an invasion of one's rights(or did you mean right to privacy), would wrongful termination be cause for a lawsuit?

As to your claim that the amount does not matter. I think it does and could have a direct relationship to these attorneys decision to sue. How can you prove that these attorneys are fighting because they feel cheapened or denied their rights to privacy as opposed to just trying to make a buck? In other words you make an assumption that they are crusaders when they may just be capitalist trying to make a buck. WHat do they have to lose what could or should they have to fear?

As far as the money does not matter, I think it would be much better spent on education, vets, or the enviorment as opposed to going into the pockets of a lawyer whom is being proferred here as some type of selfless patriot.

I mentioned in my first post that I think what the Gov. did/does is wrong. So to the individual that called me a Freeper, you sir or madam can go screw yourself. If you cannot find a better way to express a diference of opinion perhaps YOU should keep your opinions to yourself.

[JDPriestly]

27. Yes. Haven't you ever heard of attorney client privilege?

0r of the right to be represented by the attorney of your choice in a court of law? How about the right to be represented by counsel in a criminal case? These are fundamental rights. Even the worst, most despicable criminal has the right to confidentiality in his communications with his lawyer. You also have that right. And don't think you could never be charged with a crime. You might be very surprised.

These lawyers are protecting YOUR RIGHTS, not just their own rights to privacy and the rights of their clients to confidentiality.

I assure you that when Bush saw his lawyer before speaking to Fitzgerald about the Plame matter, he insisted that the conversation be confidential. And I bet you would be the first to scream very loudly if the government listened in while you discussed personal matters with your lawyer.

Wiretapping lawyer's phones is a serious violation of the Constitutional right of every American to be represented by counsel.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bjorn Against]

19. Have you ever heard of attorney/client privilege?

Hint: it is ILLEGAL for the government to tap the phones on a lawyer because they want to get information on their client. It doesn't matter who that client is, the government has no right snooping in on those phone calls. If you think they could have got a warrant based on who their clients were you are wrong, dead wrong.

And for your information, one million dollars is a pretty small sum of money considering the fundamental rights that were violated in this case. In fact when you are talking about a government with a budget in the trillions it is nothing more than a slap on the wrist that they are seeking.

[josewelder]

25. Client

The Client was the Saudi Arabian Gov. or a charity largely funded by such Gov. and its cronies. The client was set up to promote the ideals of conservative Muslim religiuos beliefs(Muslim brotherhood perhaps). Various of these organizations had already been shown to have been used to funnel money to Militant Islamic Groups around the world. This organization would seem to be an obvious target for the US Gov. to investigate. The calls that I saw mentioned in the article were to contacts of the client in Saudi Arabia, I did not see any mention of calls that were 100% domestic. And I do not know if the attorney client privelege would apply to this under the Unpatriot act etc. So unless you are well versed in International Law and have memorized the Patriot act I have trouble believing that I am dead Wrong. I really wish I was but I am sure there is some out for the Gov. buried in these laws; had they choosen to get a warrant. The fact that they did not obtain a warrant does make it Illegal and morally wrong.

[Heywood J]

28. Hmmm...

>The Client was the Saudi Arabian Gov. or a charity largely funded by such Gov. and its cronies.

You mean the same government that can "summon" Cheney at a moment's notice and whose royalty the President romps through the flowers with? If association alone were enough to prove guilt, they would both already be in the dock. It isn't, though. If that's all they did, then I doubt anyone would give them a warrant when so many others deal with them and aren't tapped.

[cui bono]

29. It doesn't matter who they were talking to.

That's not the point. You keep missing the fundamental point that their right to privacy was violated and done so illegally, and the rights of their clients as well.
As soon as you try to rationalize it you go down the slippery slope of creating grey areas where there can not be any for the law to work. I'm sure BushCo will use all of the same arguments you are using. But it just plain doesn't matter. They broke the law when they wiretapped without a warrant. End of story.

[Quantess]

30. What cui bono said.

[cui bono]

32. Why thank you. =)

[grizmaster]

20. Maybe you consider your privacy cheap

but I want it clear from my viewpoint that any unwarranted invasion of my privacy is worth multiple millions (and some jail time for the violators too). If you want your privacy sold off cheap, then the current administration will gladly oblige (and probably already has).

[josewelder]

26. Privacy

You know I do not think I could put a dollar value on my privacy. To me it is priceless and not for sale. However if it were violated I like to believe that my fight would be for the jail time for the perps. as you mentioned, and that I would not feel obliged to assign a dollar value to the incident. I think a 1 million dollar suit cheapens the fight for an ideal(right). And please do not tell me about the court cost. They are attorneys and seeing as their clients have a little money they might be so kind as to chip in.

[cui bono]

31. They're being sued, not charged with a crime.

They can't get jail time for a civil suit. If you want to fight for jail time for them feel free to go make a citizen's arrest. Please.

And if you think your privacy is priceless then why do you keep making arguments for the wiretapping? (in another thread you implied it's okay since the clients are presumed guilty by you).

Again, it doesn't matter how much they are fighting for, it matters that they are fighting the good fight to preserve the right to privacy, and that fight can/will affect us all.

And as to a comment you made in another post about how the money could be better spent on education etc... that may be so, except it won't be. The money is already allocated. It's not like they're going to take that money from somewhere like education, nor are they going to spend an extra mil on education if they don't pay this fine. They could have been spending a trillion dollars in better ways but they chose to go to war so they could make money for their buddies. And this the crowd you want to allow illegal wiretapping and that you trust to spend our money in "better" ways?

[grizmaster]

33. if you feel your privacy is priceless then no price is to high

to demand in recompense.

And money is the only thing the neocon scum give a damn about. So it is the most effective tool to punish them with.

[Miss Chybil]

21. 1 million should cover the legal fees and if they could have gotten a warrant

they should have.

This is the United States of America. We have laws to protect us from being harmed by the government. A true patriot fights to maintain the rights we are given as citizens of this great country for himself and for us all. He doesn't give them over willy-nilly to despotic administrations because... why? I can't think of a reason someone would do that.

[MasonJar]

15. The government disobeyed the law. (and that means period.)

In which case no information that they obtained by illegal actions should be able to be used in a court of law. Lawyers out there, please correct me if I am wrong. Also there is the issue of attorney/client privilege, which I am sure Bush and Cheney and their cabal expect to exercise when sent to court, but have no problem denying others.

[cui bono]

18. Yeah, and anyone involved in this who is an attorney should be disbarred.

And any judges who knew about it dismissed.

[fed-up]

16. kick/rec n/t

[lonestarnot]

23. Guess they can throw out attorney privilege now.