Court Denies Access to FISA Records for Defendent

[KB]

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06...-to-fisa-surveillance-records-in-terror-case/

"A federal appeals court has ruled a 20-year-old terrorism suspect has no right to see classified documents regarding how evidence against him was gathered, reversing a trial court’s ruling that would have given him unprecedented access to FISA court records."

...

"I don’t know of any case where … somebody has said ‘You got arrested pursuant to a search warrant, but we’re not showing you the search warrant,’” Cavise said."

...

“The adversary system is the foundation of civil liberties in this country and this opinion drives another significant wedge into that time-honored process….” he said."

While concurring with the court’s overall decision, another of the three judges wrote separately Monday that she sympathized with the Catch-22 attorneys faced: They can only challenge the basis of a FISA-related warrant if they spot errors in it, but they can’t spot errors because they aren’t allowed to see it."

In our court system, the defendent is always provided with detailed information on the prosecutions case if they re requested. This is called Discovery (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-when-the-prosecution-must-disclose.html ) and it is allowed because our justice system is based on the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. The defence is allowed to pick holes in the prosecutors case in order to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury.

This principle continues to be erroded and has further been erroded in this case. These are scary times we live in.


"In its Monday opinion, the appellate court agreed with prosecutors, who argued that letting Adel Daoud’s lawyers see the FISA court records — submitted as part of a warrant application — would endanger national security."


" 'A matter of internal security' – the age-old cry of the oppressor." - Picard, TNG S03E11

 

[JEDIYoda]

In this case good for the courts.............

OP you picked the wrong case to pretend to be up in arms about an issue that probably really would have something to do with national security!

The courts didn`t blow it, so much as you did!

 

[JEDIYoda]

" 'A matter of internal security' – the age-old cry of the oppressor." - Picard, TNG S03E11

<-- Picard a fake character on a TV show....go figure!!

 

[momeNt]

FISA isn't going to be making any mistakes. So the point is moot.

The real terrorism starts when destabilizationists try and erode our robust national security system through the justice system. Glad the justice system stepped up to the plate and hit a home run for Americans and our national security.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It won't surprise me if this makes it before SCOTUS that overturns this ruling and uphold rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

 

[Thebobo]

yea I learned about Discovery in the Movie My Cousin Vinney

&#8220;I don&#8217;t know of any case where &#8230; somebody has said &#8216;You got arrested pursuant to a search warrant, but we&#8217;re not showing you the search warrant,&#8217;&#8221; Cavise said.

He is an american citizen

 

[alzan]

<-- Picard a fake character on a TV show....go figure!!

That doesn't make the quote or the OP's point incorrect.

 

[PokerGuy]

That's so screwed up. So basically, even the court itself recognized (at least three of the judges did) that they've essentially created a catch 22 for the defense. Their client is innocent until proven guilty, and they need to be able to poke holes in the prosecution case, but they can't because they're not allowed to see the details of how the evidence was gathered or even what all the evidence is. That's bizarre IMO, it fundamentally contradicts how our justice system is supposed to work.

 

[Zorba]

In this case good for the courts.............

OP you picked the wrong case to pretend to be up in arms about an issue that probably really would have something to do with national security!

The courts didn`t blow it, so much as you did!

<-- Picard a fake character on a TV show....go figure!!

If you don't like Picard, how about the founding fathers:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense

Rights protect people against popular actions of the state, so the case is irreverent. If the prosecution refuses to turn over documents used against the defendant, then the defendant should be let go, I don't care what his alleged crimes are.

 

[theeedude]

It won't surprise me if this makes it before SCOTUS that overturns this ruling and uphold rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Not a chance with the Roberts court.

 

[TerryMathews]

The rules on this should be simple. If they can't provide the evidence they can't use it

 

[Texashiker]

It won't surprise me if this makes it before SCOTUS that overturns this ruling and uphold rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

It is not like the supreme court has a history of upholding civil rights.

I doubt this case will be overturned.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You people have never heard of the words -- National Security???

 

[JEDIYoda]

National Security trumps and individuals rights every time -- Like it or not!!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In this case good for the courts.............

OP you picked the wrong case to pretend to be up in arms about an issue that probably really would have something to do with national security!

The courts didn`t blow it, so much as you did!

Sorry but if the premise of the story correct this effectively violates Constitutional rights. National security? There is no greater threat than a government which violates those rights, trickery or roundabout invalidation notwithstanding. Some information may perhaps be redacted, but wholesale denial? No.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Rights protect people against popular actions of the state, so the case is irreverent. If the prosecution refuses to turn over documents used against the defendant, then the defendant should be let go, I don't care what his alleged crimes are.

The rules on this should be simple. If they can't provide the evidence they can't use it

The rights afforded by the US Constitution should not be violated for any reason...............Period!!!

Not a chance with the Roberts court.

It is not like the supreme court has a history of upholding civil rights.

I doubt this case will be overturned.

And the clowns chime in

 

[theeedude]

I am sure the teabaggers are going to be out protesting this violation of our Constitutional rights. Too bad they started and stopped reading at the 2nd Amendment and never got to the 4th.

 

[Texashiker]

And the clowns chime in

Clowns?

Next time a civil rights case goes before the supreme court, remind yourself of forced sterilizations, slavery and detainment of Japanese-Americans without due process.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Sorry but if the premise of the story correct this effectively violates Constitutional rights. National security? There is no greater threat than a government which violates those rights, trickery or roundabout invalidation notwithstanding. Some information may perhaps be redacted, but wholesale denial? No.
__________________

Then the rules need to be changed.....I would agree to that!!

 

[Texashiker]

People do not even have the right to grow their own crops without permission from the government, so how is someone supposed to get access to court records.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Government says you do not get something, you do not get it.

 

[MrPickins]

Clowns?

Next time a civil rights case goes before the supreme court, remind yourself of forced sterilizations, slavery and detainment of Japanese-Americans without due process.

Just how far back in history are you going to go to try to prove your points?

FISA isn't going to be making any mistakes. So the point is moot.

The real terrorism starts when destabilizationists try and erode our robust national security system through the justice system. Glad the justice system stepped up to the plate and hit a home run for Americans and our national security.

Grade A trolling right here. :thumbsup:

 

[shira]

That's so screwed up. So basically, even the court itself recognized (at least three of the judges did) that they've essentially created a catch 22 for the defense. Their client is innocent until proven guilty, and they need to be able to poke holes in the prosecution case, but they can't because they're not allowed to see the details of how the evidence was gathered or even what all the evidence is. That's bizarre IMO, it fundamentally contradicts how our justice system is supposed to work.

Um, no. One of the judges wrote that.

 

[Texashiker]

Just how far back in history are you going to go to try to prove your points?

Didn't the supreme court recently rule on using torture?

http://rt.com/usa/supreme-rumsfeld-vance-court-493/

Two United States citizens can&#8217;t sue the federal government and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for being subjected to torture while detained by US force during the Iraq War, the Supreme Court decided Monday.

Is 2013 too far back in history for you?

The government can break the law, torture citizens and the victims have no recourse.

And we "really" expect the court to force the government to hand over evidence?

 

[PokerGuy]

National Security trumps and individuals rights every time -- Like it or not!!

I'd argue that individual rights are more important than any concept of national security. National security should definitely be taken into consideration, but it's not the end all carte blanche to justify anything.... well, at least it shouldn't be.

The rules on this should be simple. If they can't provide the evidence they can't use it

To be clear, they are not saying they're not showing the evidence to support what he's charged with, what they're saying is that they can't reveal exactly how that evidence was collected, because doing so would compromise national security. That's a pretty reasonable stance, but at no point should it ever be considered OK to violate constitutional rights.

Um, no. One of the judges wrote that.

Agreed, I meant to type one of the three judges, not three judges. One of the judges made the observation.

 

[Oldgamer]

In this case good for the courts.............

OP you picked the wrong case to pretend to be up in arms about an issue that probably really would have something to do with national security!

The courts didn`t blow it, so much as you did!

I didn't read the whole article, but kinda disagree with you on this. He is at this point a suspect, and hasn't been convicting of anything yet. Our American penal system has been in the past "innocent until proven guilty". So what if this was an American white guy? Who they gathered information that was construed by the FBI or the NSA and that prompted an arrest. What if this guy really is innocent, but now he has no way of defending himself because the defense cannot see how they gathered evidence to get a better picture of how they made the assumption he really was guilty of a terroristic crime. That is the problem here, is that everything is kept so secret secret you can't protect or defend yourself.