« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
New Vistas in Government Secrecy
The spectacle of defense attorneys struggling to defend their clients against secret evidence has become a familiar one during the Bush Administration. But it's a rare occasion when even the prosecutors are cut out of the loop.
That's what has been happening in the case of Ali al-Timimi, a U.S. citizen who was convicted back in 2005 on terrorism charges. His lawyers are arguing that he was the subject of the administration's warrantless wiretapping program, and that his constitutional rights were violated. It's been a messy appeals process, and yesterday, the judge who presided over the case threw up her hands:
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit sent the case back to [U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema] last year after Timimi's attorneys raised the wiretapping argument. That led to a flurry of secret litigation. Yesterday, at a rare open hearing in the case, Brinkema said it was "ludicrous" that even prosecutors had not been allowed to see a series of filings that the intelligence community submitted to the judge."I am no longer willing to work under the circumstances where both the prosecuting team and defense counsel are not getting any kind of access to these materials," Brinkema said, according to a transcript of the hearing. "Frankly, if I can't get some flexibility on the government's part, then I'm going to be inclined to grant a motion for a new trial."
Comments (19)
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 21, 2007 11:38 AM:Countdown to House of Cards Falling . . .
Can it be long 'til a world leader is found in a bunker with a 9mm automatic?
jolly ranchero wrote on November 21, 2007 11:44 AM:Check the Patriot Act Part II. I'm sure there's a secret provision in fine print for removing judges who rule against this Administration.
More of a legal Q--if the prosecution doesn't even know what they're arguing, how can it be considered legit in court? Does the prosecutor just say, "Your Honor, we're arguing whatever's on that sheet of paper over there, even thought he have no idea what's on that sheet of paper"??
JA wrote on November 21, 2007 12:19 PM:Welcome to the Moscow Show Trials. Everyone is guilty and "NO you can not see the evidence!"
AngryAmerican wrote on November 21, 2007 12:28 PM:Well jolly ranchero, if you take the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and combine them with the military commisions act you find that there is no legal process in this country. It's all a sham. Without habeas corpus, we are not a democracy, and we don't have civil liberties. I would argue that there isn't even a legal case to be made here being that we are no longer a nation of laws, which is why impeachment is so important. It's the only tool left to save our democracy.
brian wrote on November 21, 2007 12:43 PM:Exactly. Secret trials have no place in a republic.
Maybe we can be saved by some judges with a sense of right and wrong.
Restore the constitution; adjudicate signing statements; end warrentless wiretaps; restore habeas corpus.
Mere despotism is close at hand.
Kalkaino wrote on November 21, 2007 12:58 PM:Real courageous, what a champion of justice that Judge Brinkema is:
"Frankly, if I can't get some flexibility on the government's part, then I'm going to be inclined to grant a motion for a new trial."
Translation: "If, in about three or four years, this utter prosecutorial lawlessness isn't slightly diminished I maybe, could, possibly, might have to think about bloviating against it. In the meantime I'll give the Bushies the benefit of the doubt. Prisoner remanded."
Maybe that's more... justiness?
SeeDee wrote on November 21, 2007 1:23 PM:This is just one more little reason why Nancy Pelosi, with her early-oh decision to 'remove impeachment (of Bush, et al.) from the table' should be replaced as Speaker by some true Democrat who values the Freedoms dear to the U.S. of A.
The Pelosis, the Hoyers, the Emanuels and their ilk have betrayed not only those voters who elected a Democratic majority a year ago,,,they have betrayed the U.S. of A., too.
danger wrote on November 21, 2007 1:39 PM:SeeDee: I expect once everything has played out, we'll discover that Bush blackmailed the entire Democratic leadership into not impeaching, thanks to his warrantless wiretapping project. At least that's what I imagine was going on.
I find it quite mind boggling too that in the cases she's presided over the prosecution didn't have a clue what the evidence they were gathering was. Really? I imagine Zacarias Moussaoui will need a new trial now.
Alguien wrote on November 21, 2007 1:40 PM:AngryAmerican wrote on November 21, 2007 12:28 PM:
Well jolly ranchero, if you take the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and combine them with the military commisions act you find that there is no legal process in this country. It's all a sham. Without habeas corpus, we are not a democracy, and we don't have civil liberties. I would argue that there isn't even a legal case to be made here being that we are no longer a nation of laws, which is why impeachment is so important. It's the only tool left to save our democracy.
EXACTLY RIGHT!
mbbsdphil wrote on November 21, 2007 1:53 PM:This is simply a XXI century version of The Salem Witch trials!!!
This nation seems condemned to repeat all the scandalous mistakes made in 250 years of history! Black-listing of artists and intellectuals for suspected communist activities is the next step. Stay tuned.
How about dismissing the charges? Looks like a lot of bad faith and purposeful obstruction by the government.
RWN wrote on November 21, 2007 2:46 PM:Courage, our judges who are not co-opted by unitary-federalist conspiracy begin to unpeel this lawlessness and force the rogue justice department under the cloak of systemic national security to come out into the open.
I have known Federal Justices of the past and a few still current and they would not go for this kind of stuff.
freepatriot wrote on November 21, 2007 3:01 PM:we're having trials where THE PROSECUTION can't see the evidence
what kind of fucking trial is that ???
where do you have to look to find the evidence manual for this, The Soviet Union ???, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Hitler's thisrd reich ???
will someone please tell me where to look for the prescedents on trials where NOBODY is allowed to see the evidence ???
the zapkitty wrote on November 21, 2007 3:08 PM:mbbsdphil wrote:
"How about dismissing the charges?"
Then the "terrorist" will remain in "custody" on "other charges" for our "safety"... remember that we've also lost the concept of protection from double jeopardy with everything else.
A new trial requiring the administration to fish or cut bait would be thus be better in the long run.
Jeff wrote on November 21, 2007 3:49 PM:will someone please tell me where to look for the prescedents on trials where NOBODY is allowed to see the evidence
Unless I'm mistaken, this is a never before imagined level of mendacity. Kafka would have rejected it as a plot too absurd to be believed. Orwell would have said, "Jesus, what next?"
On the other hand, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be arming for violent rebellion. And most likely branded terrorists.
Persona non grata wrote on November 21, 2007 4:52 PM:AngryAmerican typed:
"Well jolly ranchero, if you take the Patriot Acts 1 and 2 and combine them with the military commisions act you find that there is no legal process in this country. It's all a sham. Without habeas corpus, we are not a democracy, and we don't have civil liberties. I would argue that there isn't even a legal case to be made here being that we are no longer a nation of laws, which is why impeachment is so important. It's the only tool left to save our democracy."
AA the US is not and never has been a democracy. The US is in fact a constitutional representative republic. Which is why it is of the utmost importance that anyone who has had their fill of the malfeasance undertaken in our, the Peoples, names these past 7 years needs to stand up and be heard.
If we don't put a stop to the unlawful actions of the US government then who?
Do we the People abdicate our sovereignty over the government?
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Mark wrote on November 21, 2007 6:53 PM:"On the other hand, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be arming for violent rebellion. And most likely branded terrorists."
Heh heh, true. true. Didn't they discuss the eventuality when what they created might become so twisted that a reworking was needed? Have we come so far?
Bob wrote on November 21, 2007 8:49 PM:Patriot Act III will be "all defendants are guilty as charged until proven innocent." A few of W's signing statements is all you need to repeal the Constitution.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Mary wrote on November 22, 2007 8:30 AM:Bush Justice/Homeland Security Policy
"They hate us for our freedoms"
So therefore we will remove all of those freedoms. Problem Solved.
Wanna go out for a beer?
Gaylord wrote on December 20, 2007 8:48 PM:The same pertains to the Salem witch trials. People being held without reason for an indefinite amount of time. akritomayok!!!!!