Evidence Proves NSA Wiretapped Without Warrants

[geronimotwo]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=6360

Attorney: Evidence Proves NSA Wiretapped Without Warrants
Tuan Nguyen (Blog) - March 6, 2007 7:32 AM

But now evidence is no longer available and in custody of the Justice Department

Last July, U.S. President Bush blocked an internal investigation into the National Security Agency's (NSA) wire tapping program. The block by Bush resulted in a flurry of controversy and according to experts, made the NSA's program questionable in the eyes of citizens.

Now, a Washington D.C. attorney named Wendell Belew is suing the U.S. government for wiretapping without a warrant, and he has the evidence to prove it. Wendell received a "top-secret" report from fellow al-Haramain attorney Lynne Bernabei, which was retrieved from the Treasury Department's Washington D.C. headquarters.

After reviewing the documents, Belew was astonished to see that his phone calls to co-counsel Asim Ghafoor and a Saudi-based charity official named Soliman al-Buthi were all logged and detailed. After some time, the FBI showed up at Belew's door, demanding that he return the documents, which by this time had already been copied and given to Washington Post reported David Ottaway.

Lawyers representing Belew and Al-Haramain are now seeking damages of $1 million for each person for illegal wiretapping by the NSA. Interestingly, Dean Boyd, a representative for the government wrote "the government has never confirmed or denied whether plaintiffs were surveilled, much less surveilled under the Terrorist Surveillance Program."

Out of all previous court cases against illegal spying, Belew's case may blow the doors open for more cases because he actually has official evidence. Interestingly, after Belew and his lawyers filed their cases, the official documents were taken out of the courthouse and into a Justice Department-controlled secure room. Now, Belew's lawyers are no longer allowed to see those documents and are only allowed to file declarations based on their memory of the contents.

Last year the NSA and AT&T were accused to illegally wiretapping major internet and phone routers after PDF documents revealed that alleged of NSA wiretapping without having proper warrants. The source of this latest wiretapping incident is unknown, though the evidence suggests the AT&T wiretap had the same capabilities as the one suggested by Belew.

Belew's case may blow the doors open for more cases because he actually has official evidence.

i think this should say,"he actually HAD official evidence."

 

[GTSteve03]

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Didn't you know some famous washed-up celeb died? Or that a new season of "American Idol" is on?

That's terribly more interesting.

 

[Titan6]

Not a chance

We all know that the NSA would never do this without a warrant. These are just secret warrants. Signed by a secret judge.

We will let you know after your trial what the secret evidence was that we collected against you to convict you of your terror crimes. Maybe.

Run along now we have a Constitution to burn here....

 

[pacodelahoya]

Well, if you don't have anything to hide, why are you worried about warrantless wiretaps. If you are not for us, you are for the terrorists. This is just an isolated incident, the checks and measures built into the Constitution will take care of any problems.

 

[agd1953]

The Government does not have to play by the rules. In the interest of national security they are above the rules, or will change the rules. I would not be surprised to find that we all are being wire tapped.

 

[ranger335v]

Titan, agd, perhaps some history might reassure you.

In the period of 1861-65 the president suspended habeaus corpus and arrested many citizens and held them without charge or trial for as much as a4 years. No one knew at the time it started how long it would last. The fear was that they were spies and many were. But it was a time of intense hazard to the nation and the president felt it called for special measures. He did what he felt had to be done to protect the country. The war ended, things returned to normal, the naton did not crumble and today he is considered one of our greatest of our presidents.

In the period of 1941-45 the president ordered that hundreds of thousands for fear they might be spies or sabatours. A small percentage were, most were not. Especially elderly and children but they were all put into military type prison camps and held for four years. Most lost all they owned except the clothes they could hand carry. No one knew when it started how long it would last. But it was a time of intense hazard for the nation and the president did what he felt had to be done to protect the country. The war ended, things returned to normal, the nation did not crumble and today he is considered one of our greatest presidents.

Now, since 2001 until some unknown time in the future, we are under attack from a specific but difused enemy who seek to murder all of us, men, women and children alike. The president feels that there are spies and sabotures amoung them, and some really are. The president has chosen to listen in on those phone conversations from the known areas our attackers live, wanting to know if they are working with our internal enemies.

As unpleasant as that appears in an ideal world, it ain't jail for all, nor does anyone lose their property or get seperated from their families, they just have their conversations checked for plans to do innocents harm. You do know that, don't you? To date, some years after the program was started, not one American has been arrested or jailed without arrest, nor do we have any valid reason to believe any one will be without just cause. We are told that some of the info has thwarted a few attacks and I suspect that's true. But, eventually, this "war" will end, things will return to normal and the nation won't crumble. This may well turn out to be one of our greatest presidents.

On the other hand, if the deaf, dumb and blind politicians now in charge actually strip us of that tiny bit of protection maybe we won't win this time.

You do know who passed the regulations that prevented the FBI, CIA, SS, etc. from passing information between themselves and which kept them from seeing the "dots" they were later berated for not connecting don't you? Cringe, because that mind set is back in power and they haven't smartened up a bit! In fact, they may be dumber; you may well get your wish that the wire tapping of innocent Americans will be stopped soon.

God help us. The politicians won't. And many of our people have their eyes wide shut too.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Ranger, I bet you would have a different outlook if you were one of the hundreds of thousands that were interred in the camps.

Sorry, the ends does not justify the means, we have a Constitution for a reason.

 

[Titan6]

Thank goodness I was worried for no reason

Now as soon as all the terrorists are defeated this will all go away. Lets see now how long did it take the Isrealis to defeat the terrorists?

Oh yeah forever....

 

[ranger335v]

Didn't say it was good, it wasn't. Didn't say it was right, it wasn't. But it ended and it didn't destroy the nation.

Our option with the "terriosts" is to roll into a fetal ball and beg them not to hurt us too bad? That doesn't work with our home grown trolls but perhaps with those gental camel drivers it will. OK. You win.

Time - and blood - will tell who is crazy.

 

[Titan6]

I really hope you are right but logic keeps telling me you are probably wrong.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Ranger, it sounds good in principle, but what are you gonna do when the powers that be decree that all civilian gun owners are now domestic terrorists? And don't tell me it won't happen, cuz I'm not buying it.

click me http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/FBIsuspect.html

 

[royh]

One thing that is rarely mentioned in discussions such as these is that we could have a 9/11 every single year and the deaths due to terrorism on U.S. soil would be similar to, for example:

Cholelithiasis and other disorders of the gallbladder
Peptic ulcer
Asthma
Nutritional Deficiencies
Accidental drowning and submersion
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames

(chosen from this collection of tables of deaths in 2004)

Would you tolerate a gross violation of the rule of law and civil rights in order to try a solution to one of the above plagues on society, when you have no particular reason to believe the solution would work anyway?


Freedom is security. Isn't that what this site is about?


http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_19.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

 

[geronimotwo]

if information is "secret" or "top secret" but is (or its gathering is considered) unconstitutional , does this give the right to make it public?

 

[ranger335v]

royh, I'm slow. And confused. Is you comment to suggest the US ingnore terriosts and spend our efforts and attention on the various illnesses instead?

paco, the above opening applies and I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Do you think that allowing NSA to listen to overseas calls into the US will lead to confiscation across the nation? If so, while I have no trust of bureaucrats ((and I think that was the mindset in control in NOLA) I think you may have a jump of logic longer than the facts support. IF our liberal politicians actually feel that the public would allow it they would confiscate NOW, not to wait for another aircraft hitting a building.

Titan, again the above, what are you thinking I'm wrong about? If it's that after the "war" is done the "wiretapping" (which it is not) won't stop? If so, even if Bush is the most evil man to have occupied the office (which he is not) in two more years he's outta there. It would take the authority of the incoming president to carry it on. And I think there's not a chance that either the new pres or congess will accept that. In other words, wheither the NSA program is helpful or not, politicians will see that it's ended in '09.
And the nation will not crumble in the mean time.

NOW, a personal opinion, neither history nor questons. We cannot "win" in Iraq, not in the conventional sense and Bush clearly said that when we went in.

Crushing Iraq and occupying the country could have been easily done but that simply wasn't our goal. We sought to remove a destabilizing force in the region that has a strangle hold on the world's economy AND attempt to allow them to gain the strength and desire to control their own destiny.

We ruled Germany and Japan for years after WW2, much longer than we have been fighting and "ruling" Iraq. We work just to allow Iraq to gain the political and military strength to have a chance in quelling the outside influences being imported there. That's not an evil goal but they haven't come up to speed yet. Abandoning them now would surely let the jihadists tear the place apart AND then the region, allowing them to work from there as a safe private enclave with oil. That would be a disaster of global proportions, making our depression of the 30s look like a dress rehersal. The rag heads do not think like we do, nor are their goals anything like ours but, given time, enough of them will come to reject the violence. That can't happen if we turn them over the to violators before they think they have a chance to stand on their own. And the world needs to know that America won't abandon it's ideals on the international scale; the view of Vietnam lives on in the mind of the world and doing it again would have slow but catastrophic consequences.

If we abandon Iraq it might wouldn't cause vilolence here for maybe two months. I mean, letting bullies win doesn't discourage them at all! They have no compunctions about killing each other, how can we hope they would cease killing us?

Granted, it would save money and be logistically easier to fight them here but I really don't want the USA to be that battle ground, I like the idea of doing most of it over there, where there is a chance of depressing them without the blood of our women and children running in rivers. And make no mistake my friends, that's what the loonies are working towards. So, there or here, we will eventually have to stand against them. Where do you think that would be best?

 

[ranger335v]

royh, I'm slow. And confused. Is you comment to suggest the US ignore terriosts and spend our efforts and attention on those illnesses instead?

paco, the above opening applies, I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Do you think that allowing NSA to listen to overseas calls into the US will lead to confiscation of firearms across the nation? If so, I disagree. While I have no love or trust of bureaucrats (and I think that was the mindset in control in NOLA), I think that is a jump of logic longer than the facts support. IF our liberal politicians actually felt the public would allow it, they would confiscate NOW, and not wait for another aircraft to hit a building.

Titan, again the above. What are you thinking I'm "wrong" about? Is it that after the "war" is done the "wiretapping" (which it really is not) won't stop? If so, and even if Bush is the most evil man to have occupied the office (which he is not), in two more years he's outta there. It would take the authority of the incoming president to carry it on. And I think there's no chance that either the new pres or congess will continue it. In other words, wheither the NSA program is helpful in saving lives or not, the pandering politicians will see that it's ended in '09. And I doubt the nation will crumble in the mean time.

NOW, personal opinion on current events, being neither history nor questons.

No, we cannot "win" in Iraq, not in the conventional sense. Bush clearly said that when we went in. But military victory, as such, is not, nor has it ever been our purpose there. Crushing Iraq and occupying the country could have been easily done but that simply wasn't our goal.

We sought to remove a destabilizing force in the region that has a strangle hold on oil and, from that, on the world's economy. Bush's clearly stated long term goal has been to allow them to gain the strength to control their own destiny in peace with the world.

We ruled Germany and Japan for years after WW2. In fact, we are still there but as allies. That's much longer than we have been fighting and "ruling" Iraq. We work just to allow Iraq time to gain enough political and military strength to have a chance in quelling the major outside influences (Iran and the Philistines) are exporting there. That's not an evil goal but Iraq hasn't come up to speed yet and we can't walk away without great consequences to us.

We cannot abandon them in a vaccum, as if that would simply be the end of it all for us. Abandoning Iraq now would surely allow the jihadists tear the place apart, AND then the region. If we allow the wackos to work from a safe private enclave with much oil it would have horrible ripples within 6-8 years. There would be an economic disaster of global proportions, making our depression of the 30s look like a dress rehersal for a world wide catastrophy. Our more intelligent politicians know that but many are willing to chance it for personal and party power right now. The fools know nothing but the moment, that includes most of our news media.

The rag heads do not think like we do nor are their life goals much like ours but, given time, enough of the more intelligent will come to reject the violence jihad brings on them. That can't happen if we turn them over the to death dealers before they can believe they have a chance to stand against them on their own. And the world needs to know that America won't abandon it's ideals on the international scale; the view of Vietnam lives on in the mind of the world and doing it again would have slow but catastrophic consequences for us.

If we abandon Iraq quickly it might not cause the losers to bring more violence here ... for maybe six months? I mean, letting bullies win doesn't discourage them, you know? The fools have no compunctions about killing each other, how can we hope they would cease killing us if we go wienie out before them?

In the sense that we would like, the hate driven Moslem society will never be in peace as long as two people still survive on earth. Granted, it would save money and be logistically easier for us to fight them here but I really don't want the USA to be the center of that battle ground.

I really like the idea of doing most of the fighting over there, where there is a chance of depressing them to a low level without the blood of our women and children running in rivers. That was my goal when in uniform and it remains my desire today. And make no mistake my friends, the Moslem loonies are working towards bringing it home to us as soon as they can, again.

So, there or here, we will eventually have to stand against them. Where do you think taking our stand would be best?

 

[Titan6]

Well Ranger let us put the old wheels back on the logic train..

Ranger said:

'Titan, again the above, what are you thinking I'm wrong about? If it's that after the "war" is done the "wiretapping" (which it is not) won't stop? If so, even if Bush is the most evil man to have occupied the office (which he is not) in two more years he's outta there. It would take the authority of the incoming president to carry it on. And I think there's not a chance that either the new pres or congess will accept that. In other words, wheither the NSA program is helpful or not, politicians will see that it's ended in '09.'

Okay, here it is real obvious that you have not actually read the Patriot Act or maybe don't understand it. Read it and get back to me. Understand that these were also all measures introduced by dems so it won't change unless Gingrinch, Paul or similar is elected. Bush is NOT An Evil boogeyman, far from it IMHO he is a very decent and honest person. Nameless, faceless bueracrats on their own little personal power trips are and I have seen plenty of them to know. Bush has just given them the tools.

Ranger said: NOW, a personal opinion, neither history nor questons. We cannot "win" in Iraq, not in the conventional sense and Bush clearly said that when we went in.

Please show that prior to March 2003. Not saying he didn't say it just didn't hear it in all the rant about WMDs.

Ranger said: We ruled Germany and Japan for years after WW2, much longer than we have been fighting and "ruling" Iraq. We work just to allow Iraq to gain the political and military strength to have a chance in quelling the outside influences being imported there. That's not an evil goal but they haven't come up to speed yet. Abandoning them now would surely let the jihadists tear the place apart AND then the region, allowing them to work from there as a safe private enclave with oil. That would be a disaster of global proportions, making our depression of the 30s look like a dress rehersal.

Okay that is just plain crazy. There is absolutely no similarity between post WWII Germany and Japan to Iraq. You have a completely different culture, economy, religion, politics, philosophical outlook, everything is different. Japan was an island and Germany's neihbors were trying desperately to stabilize the region not fan the flames as Iraq's are. We had 10000000 men under arms in two countries not much larger than Iraq. Imagine Japan if we hadn't nuked them and compelled the surrender and you get a little closer multiply that by a thousand and you get the picture.

Ranger said:
The rag heads do not think like we do, nor are their goals anything like ours but, given time, enough of them will come to reject the violence. That can't happen if we turn them over the to violators before they think they have a chance to stand on their own. And the world needs to know that America won't abandon it's ideals on the international scale; the view of Vietnam lives on in the mind of the world and doing it again would have slow but catastrophic consequences.

Ragheads huh? I am sure they will see your ideas in no time; also not very high road either. Just like those reasonable people from Palestine they will jump right aboard the peace train. But I am not holding my breath either.

Which ideals are we abondoning here? Oh yeah the bill of rights on an international scale... Everybody outside the US has seen us trash our own Constitution and the American people do nothing, so it must be okay with us.

We had to destroy the constitution in order to save it?

 

[CannibalCrowley]

In the period of 1941-45 the president ordered that hundreds of thousands for fear they might be spies or sabatours. A small percentage were, most were not. Especially elderly and children but they were all put into military type prison camps and held for four years. Most lost all they owned except the clothes they could hand carry. No one knew when it started how long it would last. But it was a time of intense hazard for the nation and the president did what he felt had to be done to protect the country. The war ended, things returned to normal, the nation did not crumble and today he is considered one of our greatest presidents.

Afterwards, our government admitted that the actions taken were wrong. Restitution was also paid to the victims.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Ranger,
I'm saying that once the Fed Gov oversteps it's Constitutional boundaries, who is going to put it back into place? We have been at war since the beginning of the last century. Why? Here's why

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

When they are done with the middle eastern terrorists,(if ever) the government WILL turn on someone else to keep the bulk of the people afraid so those people will give the government more power to keep them safe. Once the government has power, it won't give it up. Power corrupts, absolute power currupts absolutley. Ask yourself which is the most powerfull government on earth and why they feel it is necessary to infringe on it's citizens rights in order to keep them safe. This goes a lot deeper than listening to overseas calls without permission.

 

[buzz_knox]

On second thought, I think I'll stay out of this one. I suspect that certain people do searches on their own name to see what people are saying about them, especially those who specialize in "whistleblower" and "public interest" cases.