Keep your eye on this case!!!

[im10ashus]

It could set a precedent.

Motion calls spy charges illegal
Filing in case of two Albany Muslims says counts should be dismissed because NSA actions violated laws

By BRENDAN LYONS, Staff writer
Click byline for more stories by writer.
First published: Tuesday, January 24, 2006

ALBANY -- An FBI sting case that targeted two members of an Albany mosque should be dismissed because the investigation originated from a national spying program that may be illegal, an attorney for one of the defendants said in a motion filed in U.S. District Court.
The challenge of the government's case against Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain, who are accused of taking part in a plot to sell missile launchers to terrorists, may force federal prosecutors, and a U.S. District judge, to address a national debate unfolding about whether the National Security Agency violated any laws by eavesdropping on U.S. residents.

Terence L. Kindlon, Aref's attorney, filed a nine-page motion late Friday asking for all evidence in the case to be thrown out, and for a dismissal of the indictment. While defense lawyers in the case have been requesting access to classified evidence for more than a year, the new motion specifically targets the NSA program.

"The government engaged in illegal electronic surveillance of thousands of U.S. persons, including Yassin Aref, then instigated a sting operation to attempt to entrap Mr. Aref into supporting a nonexistent terrorist plot, then dared to claim that the illegal NSA operation was justified because it was the only way to catch Mr. Aref," Kindlon's motion said.

cont'd...

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=442855&category=REGION&newsdate=1/24/2006

[elehhhhna]

1. I saw this one coming. Evidence obtained illegally. Duh.

[im10ashus]

2. When will the be held accountable though?

This has to stop soon before it snowballs.

[EstimatedProphet]

3. That's encouraging

It really pisses me off that the average joe has no understanding of why entrapment is illegal, or why due process is important. If entrapment were legal, the government could compel you to break the law just to arrest you. Without due process, the government can become a harrassing organization-much like it did here, apparently.

[cantstandbush]

4. Not only illegaly obrtained evidence but ENTRAPMENT

But for the sting operation there would have been no crime. These people weren't looking to bomb any place until the US operatives enticed them. I wouldn't be surprised if the defense didn't say they were conducting their own sting to report the men who first engaged them.

[im10ashus]

6. Good point.

Entrapment indeed. And they WONDER why the Muslim world is pissed off at this country.

[michiganbuckeye1970]

5. doesn't matter

Alito gets confirmed and when the case finally gets to the SC, the 4th amendment will be passed around to be used as toilet paper.

[Igel]

7. The judge will have to decide if the claim is valid, of course.

And if he can't get the appropriate evidence, he'll have to decide if it's likely that the "United States person" was improperly wiretapped.

The lawyer's claim is just that. I would think it would depend on whether any of the evidence against Aref is crucially derived from the possible intercept of international calls, or if the judge assumes that the warrantless wiretapping was more extensive than anybody's actually provided any evidence for in media reports and press conferences.

For that, we'd need to see the evidence, not what one side claims the evidence is.

[EstimatedProphet]

8. Won't it be great after Alito is confirmed

when we can dispense with all these silly laws and procedures, and just put the people in jail that we know are guilty?

[im10ashus]

9. It sounds like what they want.

I am just amazed at the sheeple's lack of concern for our eroding Constitutional rights. This "war on terror" has been used to scare everyone into submissiveness. And I thought only Congress could declare war. What was I thinking?

[Oilwellian]

10. Bush's own administration warned of the risk

to conduct illegal wiretaps:

The Department's Office of Legal Counsel is analyzing relevant Supreme Court precedent to determine whether a "reasonable suspicion" standard for electronic surveillance and physical searches would, in the FISA context, pass constitutional muster. The issue is not clear cut, and the review process must be thorough because of what is at stake, namely, our ability to conduct investigations that are vital to protecting national security. If we err in our analysis and courts were ultimately to find a "reasonable suspicion" standard unconstitutional, we could potentially put at risk ongoing investigations and prosecutions.

The practical concern involves an assessment of whether the current "probable cause" standard has hamstrung our ability to use FISA surveillance to protect our nation. We have been aggressive in seeking FISA warrants and, thanks to Congress's passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, we have been able to use our expanded FISA tools more effectively to combat terrorist activities. It may not be the case that the probable cause standard has caused any difficulties in our ability to seek the FISA warrants we require, and we will need to engage in a significant review to determine the effect a change in the standard would have on our ongoing operations. . If the current standard has not posed an obstacle, then there may be little to gain from the lower standard and, as I previously stated, perhaps much to lose.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/24/181225/664

[im10ashus]

11. Thanks for the link! eom