Did NSA Illegally Wiretap A Scholar? Congressional Panel Wants To Know

New York Times:

WASHINGTON -- A Congressional oversight panel plans to ask the National Security Agency to start an investigation into new evidence that the agency illegally wiretapped a Muslim scholar in Northern Virginia and concealed the eavesdropping during a 2005 trial in which the scholar was convicted on terrorism charges.

Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat and chairman of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, said in an interview that he planned to ask the inspector general of the N.S.A. to open what would be the first formal investigation by the agency into whether its eavesdropping program had improperly interfered with an American's right to a fair trial.

Read the whole story: New York Times

Comments

[Palemoon]

The time has come to shutdown the useless NSA. It is an organization that is not needed, never was needed and never will be needed. The enemy, the last time I checked, is not in the USA which is where the NSA was created to operate. It would be an entirely different story, if say, the NSA was monitoring foreign nations, agents or even terrorists. But they are not.

And if they refuse to shutdown, arrest them for treason.

[hopeless277]

They are illegally wiretapping ALL OF US AT THIS VERY MOMENT. And even if they say they stop, they will not. The citizens of the U.S. no longer have recourse against their government, the corporations that run it, or the people who profit so handsomely off of it. I am expecting mandatory implanted location devices in every citizen of this mindless police state. I'm sure Obama already has his.

[Durango]

Anyone read John Le Carre''s latest book, A Most Wanted Man?

Sounds like this case was taken up by Le Carre.

The man in one or another of his books has described nearly every situation, or make that crime, the Bush Administration has committed in the past 8 years.

if you want to understand the modern world you must read Le Carre.

[Sarahjan]

anti-Muslim Witch hunt is one of the reasons I have noted visted the US since 2000 and I have no plans to do so in the near future.

[pjburke]

Which back-room editor at the New York Times is responsible for continually obfuscating this?

Over and over, it is stated by the NYT (and others):

"the eavesdropping operation approved by President Bush weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks...­"

It is now well established that the illegal domestic wiretap surveillance by the NSA was already in operation some 7 months before 9/11... in February, 2001. WHY???

Heads Up, NYT: find out what the purpose of the illegal NSA domestic surveillance program was back in February 2001. It wasn't about 9/11 terrorists.

[MajorKong]

Odd. Back in the day they used to tell us that the Communists were evil because "They spy on their own people!"

[roald]

Good point.

[qdog112]

We have seen the enemy and he is US!

[chasmader]

Maybe I'm not getting something:

The US Constitution guarantees my right against unlawful search and seizure from the Government.

The US Attorney is violating the that same Constitution in gathering evidence. As an officer of the court, then shouldn't that same US Attorney be disbarred for knowingly violating a law repeatedly held up in court? Wasn't that what Watergate was about? Illegal wiretapping?

I don't get it.

[kareemachan]

Neither did Shrub & Co.

[Durango]

And do you know why William ayers was not prosecuted?

Because of illegal activities on the part of the Justice Department.

I don't know but would be willing to bet it involved illegal wiretaps.

Some people never learn.

[chasmader]

I hadn't thought of that.

[markusmarkus]

FYI, Jonathan Turley, law professor at the George Washington School of Law, and frequent guest on Countdown, is al-Timini's attorney.

"The truth is the truth, even when you are a minority of one." Mahatma Gandhi

[vietveter]

The balance between protecting our country and protecting our Constitution is
a delicate act.

Staying ON the line is going to be hard.

Jumping off either the right or the left side
of that line has dangerous results.

[Durango]

You protect the Constitution by following it.

And obeying the Constitution is not "optional.­"

it is the law of the land. And protecting and defending it is the responsibilty of EVERY government official. At all levels.

That is why they take the Oath.

[SinisterK9]

I would feel worse about it, if they weren't spying on a convicted terrorist.

However, as usual, I say let the investigation and legal system run it's course. Hopefully justice will be served, whichever side that happens to be in this case.

[111]

The point is that this is a man, born in the US, a scholar, stance on terrorism was known, "Dr. Al-Tamimi was noted for being against terrorism, both in public and in private. He has been quoted as saying: "If you consider this, then we can frankly say that certain acts of violence perpetrated by Muslims against non-combatant unbelievers over the last ten or fifteen years clearly contradict Islam. It is exceedingly important that Muslims are the first and foremost to condemn and reject such actions."

Many people in this country are wrongfully convicted and the legal system in this country is broken. The NSA broke the law as it existed at the time and they should be investigated and prosecuted aside from what happens to this gentleman.
Unfortunately for us, the Dems sold us out on FISA making data mining on US citizens without cause legal. When will it stop being just Muslims?

[kareemachan]

And he was convicted because of the illegal spying - and now we're learning that it sounds like they picked and chose exactly what parts of it to use, hiding the ones that maybe would have brought the case to a different conclusion.

[SinisterK9]

Being born in the U.S. and being a scholar makes no difference. That statement merely tries to draw sympathy for him regardless of what his actions were.

I'm sure people are wrongfully convicted in this country. On the same token, how many guilty people go free? The legal system may not be perfect by any stretch, but it's definitely set up in favor of the defendant, by placing the burden of proof on the prosecution. If you want to make a blanket statement, you might want to consider providing supportive, accurate, factual, and statistical data. Show exactly how many people who are are found guilty in a court of law are actually innocent and wrongfully imprisoned. While you are at it, if you can prove they are innocent, you should have no trouble having their case appealed and overturned.

The NSA 'MAY' have broken the law. If you have airtight proof, maybe you ought to submit it to the authorities. It may help with their investigation.

As it stands right now, the 'scholar' is a convicted terrorist.

[solid]

"When will it stop being just Muslims?

==========­==========­==========­=========

I'm sure that train already left the station years ago.

[coastalcarla]

Hey K9 - this man is a "convicted terrorist" that was convicted in the first place by the government spinning the information they illegally got from his phone calls to make him look guilty (a la FOX NEWS), and supressing the parts of the phone calls that exonerated him. What kind of Bush loving troll are you to not admit that all of the public outrage against the NSA and their trumped up charges against innocent people just because they're Muslim is valid? This is not the first time that the government has made a case just to persecute a Muslim since 9/11. They've been doing it regularly to "prove" to people that they're tough on terror. And they're convicting people on terrorism charges for things as small as filling out visa information wrong. The NSA is no better than the KGB at this point - and not to be trusted. If you think that it's ok for them to do this because the person is a "convicted terrorist", who else are you ok with them spying on? Because the next person they wrongfully imprison could be you.

[SinisterK9]

You, like many others are confusing allegations with concrete facts. If they are found to be in breach of the law, and this guy is in fact not a terrorist, then I expect justice to be served.

You are laying out emotionally charged statements, and trying to pass them off as fact. By all means, if you have proof of anyone's guilt or innocence, I urge you to present your evidence to the authorities, so you can help speed the case(s) along.

I never said it was ok. What I did say is "I would feel worse about it, if they weren't spying on a convicted terrorist". My statement was my opinion, tied to a fact.

But by all means, throw a few more inflammatory statemetents in there about the KGB, and Bush, and so on. Don't forget to throw a few Nazi Germany references in there for good measure. It really adds validity to your argument..­...

[hildutus]

First they came after the Muslims. But I was not a Muslim, and so I did nothing. ...

[AnalyzeIT]

Second they came after the 'gays and lesbians. But, I'm neither, and so I did nothing...­.

[nick1936]

Then they came after me

[rollingdivision]

If illegally obtained evidence was used in his prosecution it shouldn't have and the courts should determine the remedy which could range all the way to throwing out his conviction. The source and legality of all evidence in the trial should be reviewed for legality. But, if he contends the allegations the government has information that "might include evidence that would point to his innocence" are true, the burden is on the defendant to present solid evidence this information does actually exist and the government has it. The government must present all the information they have to the court but, It is not up to the government to prove they don't have this alleged information.

[kareemachan]

"The burden is on the defendant to present solid evidence this information does actually exist and the government has it. The government must present all the information they have to the court but, It is not up to the government to prove they don't have this alleged informatio­n."

Okay, if the government doesn't have to prove they have the information, how the hell do we know if they presented ALL the information to the court? Court asks if that's everything, the gummint sez yup, court sez okay. End of story? You really trust them that far?

[rollingdivision]

No you can't trust politicians but it is unreasonable to expect them to prove they don't have evidence unless the defendant has strong evidence to support the claim they do. How do you prove a negative? No matter what records or information or evidence the government presents the defendant will simply maintain the evidence he claims they have is still being hidden. There is no way to prove the defendant's allegation is false.

[springsm]

Note to Republicans in Congress..­"Obviously this is not a case that has 'benn resolved'".

[JustNotTrue]

Personally, all Americans should be wired tapped to find out when they are going to attack another country.

[Toonadude]

And it could be quickly narrowed down to focus on those countries where Halliburton has business interests.

[RexPrimoris]

This is conduct typical of a police state and utterly despicable. Did the U.S. attorneys prosecuting the case know about this? DId they care, or were they just interested in gaining a conviction at any cost and a scalp to put on their resumes and advance their careers?