Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

DOJ Accidentally Gives Lawyer Wiretap Transcript

Posted by Zonk on Sat Jul 07, 2007 07:05 AM
from the terry-gilliam-to-make-the-movie dept.
good soldier svejk writes "'It could be a scene from Kafka or Brazil. Imagine a government agency, in a bureaucratic foul-up, accidentally gives you a copy of a document marked "top secret." And it contains a log of some of your private phone calls. You read it and ponder it and wonder what it all means. Then, two months later, the FBI shows up at your door, demands the document back and orders you to forget you ever saw it.' That is what happened to Washington D.C. attorney Wendell Belew. His lawsuit takes on special significance given today's Sixth Circuit Court ruling that surveillance victims can only sue the DOJ if they can prove they were affected."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Court Orders Dismissal of US Wiretapping Lawsuit 362 comments
jcatcw writes with a link to a ComputerWorld article about the dismissal of a case against the NSA over the wiretapping program revealed last year. The case was brought by the ACLU. A three-judge panel in the Sixth Circuit has sent the case back down to District court for ultimate dismissal. "The appeals court decision leaves opponents of the NSA program in a difficult position, said Jim Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group that has opposed the program. The appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs could not sue because they can't prove they were affected by the program, and at the same time, ruled that details about the program, including who was targeted, are state secrets."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Standing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by HUADPE (903765) on Saturday July 07 2007, @07:11AM (#19778629) Homepage
    Well, this is proof of standing, the question now is will the court consider it admissible?
        • Re:Standing (Score:5, Funny)

          by NickCatal (865805) on Saturday July 07 2007, @11:07AM (#19779947)

          The editors of Slashdot are only doing their duty as citizens, following a precedent set over 230 years ago by guys named "Paine", "Franklin", "Jefferson".

          What version of RSS did Jefferson use again? I know Franklin was much more into ATOM.

  • Pentagon Papers (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Saturday July 07 2007, @07:18AM (#19778645) Homepage
    Didn't the Pentagon Papers case, which went all the way up to the Supreme Court, rule that once classified information has been leaked to the public, it can be freely copied and published?
  • Brazil the movie (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bazman (4849) on Saturday July 07 2007, @07:21AM (#19778657) Journal
    That's Brazil [imdb.com] the Terry Gilliam movie, not the South American country. Thought I'd clear that up before Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva decides to invade Slashdistan for badmouthing.

  • Thankyou (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeeVeeAnt (1002953) on Saturday July 07 2007, @07:21AM (#19778661)
    To the honourable person who made this "mistake".
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 07 2007, @07:22AM (#19778669)
    He shouldn't worry, as FBI has refined a process which basically guarantees you'll forget stuff like this. It's like a summer camp.
  • "DOJ Accidentally Gives Lawyer Wiretap Transcript"

    Maybe it was not an accident, but someone in government who wants to help stop the corruption.
  • FTA:

    Justice department lawyers have argued that, even if the pair of lawyers were monitored, judging the president's authority to do so requires looking at the specific reasons why the duo were surveilled. And those facts would be national secrets that would tip off terrorists, so no court can ever rule on the program.

    "This is not to say there is no forum to air the weighty matters at issue, which remains a matter of considerable public interest and debate, but that the resolution of these issues must be left to the political branches of government," Justice Department lawyers wrote in a brief on the case.


    They may as well have just taken a copy of the Constitution, shat all over it, and filed that as their legal brief. It's like they're arguing that the entire third article of the Constitution does not apply to them.
    • Fatal flaw... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by msauve (701917) on Saturday July 07 2007, @08:49AM (#19779053)
      and the court must be stupid (or, more likely, in collusion) to accept this reasoning:

      "Justice department lawyers have argued that, even if the pair of lawyers were monitored, judging the president's authority to do so requires looking at the specific reasons why the duo were surveilled. And those facts would be national secrets that would tip off terrorists, so no court can ever rule on the program."

      Because it makes no difference to the case whatsoever, why they were monitored. Warrantless wiretapping is illegal and unconstitutional regardless of the reason for doing so.
  • by theolein (316044) on Saturday July 07 2007, @08:29AM (#19778941) Journal
    The country of my birth was a police state. Shit like this, state abuse of power with absolutely no recourse for the victims, was the order of the day. Your country has become a police state since 2001. The corrupt bastards running your place, who you clowns voted in again after one abuseive term, have managed to dismember the rule of law in your country pretty effectively, partly by rigging your supreme court, and partly by then exceding the powers accorded to the President time and time again, with no real worry of being caught, because the only ones who could do anything about it are in the same camp as the ones abusing the system.

    Whatever fuckhead bin laden's goal was, he has won. Your country might be safer from "terrarists" now, but it's also safer from opposition politicians, foreign students, dissenting opinions, real freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It is also safe from a stable, debt free economy. Your government has got itself suckered into two wars it will not and cannot win (did anyone really think the Taliban would just roll over and die? They're winning in Afghanistan too), but from which it cannot afford to withdraw. Your government has seriously endangered relations with a Russia that has had enough of being the USA's bitch, and which is now starting to seriously raise the stakes (do you really think you can wobble about fighting two bush wars and take on Russia too?)

    And you know who is really laughing? The Chinese. They must be having hysterics. Every time Dick "Dick" Cheney opens his mouth for a round of anti-China drivel, everyone just has a good laugh. What can your country do about the Chinese military build up which is sure to challenge the USA later in this century? Nothing, absolutely nothing. China is so big and such a huge army and population that the USA could never, even if the Chinese did not have nuclear weapons, which they do, win a conflict. On top of that the USA economy is so tied into the Chinese economy that doing anything against China would seriously damage the American economy (Have to cut down on the SUVs a bit, and the clothers and just about all else too). The USA can't even play the Indians, China's natural foes, out against the Chinese because the Indians don't trust the USA either, and they find it easier to do business with Russia when it come to arms, because the Russians don't try to tell them how to run their country.

    In closing, there are many, big bad problems in this world, and the longer Dick and Blow stay in power, the worse things will get for you. This is not an admonition to vote Democract or Libertarian or whatever other party you Americans have dreamt up, but it is a thought that perhaps voting for someone who wasn't so out to ruin his own country might be a good idea.
  • by Bunderfeld (1113805) on Saturday July 07 2007, @09:25AM (#19779257) Homepage
    The DOCUMENT was, and still is, considered a State Secret. Whether or not you read it, doesn't mean you can do anything about it. In order for the Wiretapping Cases to go forward, the govt. will have to "unseal" this document, and that probably won't happen for another 200 years or so.

    Remember, the court was using "Circular Logic" to drop the case. You can't sue because you can't prove you were harmed. You can't prove you were harmed because the documents you want are State Secrets and therefore can't be used. Of course, this is the kind of thing I would have expected to read in a Russian Court in the 1980's, no offense to our Comrades here.
  • "only sue if they can prove they were affected". Now that is the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my life.

    - Hello, my name is Damocles [wikipedia.org], and I want to sue the emperor, because he got this f***ing Sword hanging above my head!
    - Sorry, sir, but unless you've been hurt by that sword, you cannot sue.
    - WTF?
    - I'm sorry, sir. Good bye.
  • by jbrader (697703) <jbrader@gmail.com> on Saturday July 07 2007, @11:13AM (#19779999)
    If this was like Kafka an agent would have shown up and demanded the man forget about a document that he had never actually seen. Then he would have turned into a giant bug.
      • Re:Ha hah! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Dunbal (464142) on Saturday July 07 2007, @07:57AM (#19778795) Homepage
        But now the government will obviously claim that the "copy" is in fact a work of fiction, completely made up. And NO they can't have access to any records to see if this is true or not. Such records don't exist. And if they did, they are state secrets.

        Watch, you'll see.
        • Re:Ha hah! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Squalish (542159) <moc TOD liamtoh TA hsilauqS> on Saturday July 07 2007, @08:45AM (#19779023) Journal
          This is the Dubya NSA/CIA/ETC - the career spies that weren't willing to shut up and follow orders are gone. Machiavellian ambition matched only by incompetence: That's what you're dealing with.

          The Cold Warriors weren't stupid. They were seeking heavily guarded secrets about the machinations of a superpower. The stakes were, officially, the fate of freedom itself, not a building here or there. The best and the brightest. Those who never succeeded against an intelligent adversary were fired, or for the real spying, killed. But tell me that someone who 'fails to catch a terrorist plot' by attempting to find suspicious brown people is going to face any real accountability, ever. This war needs no victory, because defeat is impossible. It wouldn't really matter if the Directorate was increasingly brazen in deciding who to assassinate(which we do, officially, do now), because even on an agency level, they really can't lose face until 2009, no matter how often they fail. There will always be targets, and so there will always be work, and so they will always be heroes defending our safety. This is the culture of the War on Terror.

          We the nation kidnap people around the world and torture them,
          And then WE THE PEOPLE find out about it, through these monsters' incompetence - resulting in a medium-sized PR war between those that believe in human rights and those who don't, that's eventually lost because Mat Lauer needs an exclusive next week, no matter how much NBC News has to suck up to the administration. Then, the fact that we kidnap and torture people becomes passe, becomes something that people occasionally bitch about, but essentially accept.

          What makes you think a domestic assassination would be any different?

          I say this as someone normally allergic to tinhattery: Never put anything past these people. They will always surprise you with yet another step towards totalitarian fascism, something unthinkable yesterday, which will be mildly distasteful tomorrow.
            • Re:Ha hah! (Score:5, Informative)

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 07 2007, @11:54AM (#19780333)

              From Wikipedia: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the needs of the state, and seeks to forge a type of national unity, usually based on, but not limited to, ethnic, cultural, or racial attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism.



              Who does that sound like ?
            • Re:Ha hah! (Score:5, Informative)

              by TheRaven64 (641858) on Saturday July 07 2007, @12:50PM (#19780805) Homepage Journal

              US is still a democracy unlike Hitler's Nazi germany.
              Germany was a democracy when Hitler was elected as Chancellor. It was still a democracy when he suspended habeas corpus. It was still a democracy when the coalition including the Nazi party and the Catholic Center Party pushed through the Enabling act, although probably not after the act was passed.

              Democracy is one of the tools we use to preserve freedom. It's not perfect, but it's one of the best we've found so far.

            • still a democracy? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by ConfusedVorlon (657247) on Saturday July 07 2007, @12:53PM (#19780827) Homepage
              >US is still a democracy unlike Hitler's Nazi germany.

              It isn't entirely clear that the US is still a democracy - at least not in the sense of free and fair elections.

              exit polls [wikipedia.org] are routinely used by international election monitors to determine whether elections have been rigged.
              The last presidential election had disparities between the exit polls which are

              at the least, unusual. [wikipedia.org]

              Certainly, people get to vote - but it isn't clear that those votes are counted.

              That's even before you get pernicious issues like gerymandering or campaign finance.

            • Re:Ha hah! (Score:5, Interesting)

              by HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) * <lajollahomeless@hotmail.com> on Saturday July 07 2007, @01:02PM (#19780865) Journal

              US is still a democracy unlike Hitler's Nazi germany.
              I know that this is something that most people never bother to think about: do you have any idea which banks held the funds for the Third Reich and who the executives were at the tops of those banks? Any idea which corporations made the bombs which the Third Reich dropped, and which banks held the accounts for those corporations, and who the bank executives were at the time? Any idea which banks dealt with the currency that the Third Reich used on the world market for trade and oil to fuel their airplanes and tanks?

              I know this is completely against everything that everyone loves to believe but, the truth of the matter is, the plug could've been pulled on the Third Reich at any time by the forefathers of the very same people who fund the world organizations that pull 90-year old men out of their modest middle class homes in the Midwest and ship them off to prison.

              Profit margin wasn't any different then than it is now. The people who died under the oppression of the Third Reich were sold out, not by the Nazi party, but by their own upper class.
    • Re:Old News? (Score:5, Informative)

      by pjhenley (98045) on Saturday July 07 2007, @08:05AM (#19778835)
      Yes. From an article posted on Wired yesterday:

      Wendell Belew, a lawyer who represented a now banned Ashland, Oregon Muslim charity, says the government accidentally provided him with proof his conversations were eavesdropped on without a warrant. His case has a hearing in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in August. The government wants his, and all the other cases, thrown out, arguing they endanger national security.


      http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/07/appeals-c ourt-t.html [wired.com]
    • by nomadic (141991) <nomadicworld.gmail@com> on Saturday July 07 2007, @09:36AM (#19779343) Homepage
      You'll have to excuse me, because I don't see a problem with this at all.

      Then you're part of the problem.

      Sure there's no warrant, but if there were a warrant, it would jeopardize the secrecy of the tap and the effectiveness of our intelligence. And in this case, there was every reason to listen in. The program was properly applied to help find terrorists.

      They could have applied for a warrant under FISA, which would not have jeopardized the secrecy of the tap at all; all it would have done is made sure there was some judicial oversight of it.
    • by KeensMustard (655606) on Saturday July 07 2007, @10:12AM (#19779569)

      In other words, he represented an organization that believes that women should not be educated, cannot be seen outside of the house without a male relative, would rather let little girls burn to death in a school fire than to have them be seen without proper attire, and all kinds of other vile crap.
      Wait. He's a Republican??
      • by trewornan (608722) on Saturday July 07 2007, @10:25AM (#19779669)
        Agreed - it's perfectly reasonable to put wiretaps on people suspected of involvement in terrorism. It's even legal, you just go to a judge and explain your reasons and he gives you a warrant. So why would you break the law by wiretapping illegally instead? Perhaps because wanting to wiretap someones lawyer in the hope you'll get something you can use against them is not acceptable (for good reason) and you'd never be granted a warrant.

        But that's just that pesky human rights stuff again and in the post 9-11 era we can't afford to be respecting human rights.