The New York Times is just one of a number of organizations filing supporting briefs in a case involving an imam and a friend who owned a pizzeria who have been convicting of supporting terrorism by the government having been caught in a sting operative based on information from an illegal wiretap and information which the defense was not allowed to see, even though the defense lawyers had security clearances and which the ACLU has protested. "For a court to issue an opinion in which every word of its reasoning is sealed is unprecedented. It’s an invitation to abuse.”
The case may represent the best chance for an appellate ruling about the legality of the N.S.A. program, which monitored the international communications of people in the United States without court approval. Unlike earlier and pending appeals disputing the program, all of them in civil cases, Mr. Aref’s challenge can draw on the constitutional protections available to criminal defendants.
This will be a significant test of the government's procedures and the legality of wiretapping. We can but hope.
The case may represent the best chance for an appellate ruling about the legality of the N.S.A. program, which monitored the international communications of people in the United States without court approval. Unlike earlier and pending appeals disputing the program, all of them in civil cases, Mr. Aref’s challenge can draw on the constitutional protections available to criminal defendants.
The judge's statement to the jury during the course of the case is an eye-catcher: “The F.B.I. had certain suspicions, good and valid suspicions, for looking into Mr. Aref, but why they did that is not to be any concern of yours.”
Which will come first? A favorable verdict in this case or sufficient pressure by the administration on Congress to provide retroactive immunity? What then?
More background on the case can be found here.
