>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:17 2024
Received: by 10.150.134.21 with SMTP id h21mr1088615ybd.9.1247197547428;
Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Return-Path: <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Received: from smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com (smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com [64.26.60.145])
by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 15si94596gxk.4.2009.07.09.20.45.47;
Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 64.26.60.145 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jm..._at_tscm.com) client-ipd.26.60.145;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 64.26.60.145 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of jm..._at_tscm.com) smtp.mail=jm..._at_tscm.com
Received: from Raphael.tscm.com (unknown [72.70.123.211])
(Authenticated sender: jm..._at_tscm.com)
by smtpauth01.csee.onr.siteprotect.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FE81C802F
for <TSCM-..._at_googlegroups.com>; Thu, 9 Jul 2009 22:45:44 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20090709220438.27b2b8f8_at_tscm.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 7.0.1.0
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2009 23:38:17 -0400
To: TSCM-L <TSCM-..._at_googlegroups.com>
From: "James M. Atkinson" <jm..._at_tscm.com>
Subject: Wiretap foes turn Obama's words against feds
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="===========_797565500=.ALT"
--===========_797565500=.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; formatowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All attorneys need to have their offices and
homes checked for bugging devices monthly, but
not by the same company each time.
Instead, put together a list of TSCM people
within 200-250 miles of their location... NOT ***
PI's *** who also "do sweeps" (with two
suitcases), but actual, experienced electronics
folks who spend most of their time performing
sweeps. The use of a PI is fine for general
investigative work, overall security work, and EP
type of work, but not for bug sweeps. In fact, a
really smart attorney will have a number of PI's
who all work as outside contractors, as well as a
large number of subject matter experts they can
call on for services, advice, or opinions (including sweepers).
The attorney should contract directly to the TSCM
company for service, and avoid involving anybody
outside of an extremely close circle of people
who can be depended on to maintain absolute
silence about the upcoming inspection. It is
often wise to engage the PI firm that provides
general investigative or security services during
the sweep, but who does not provide the actual sweep itself.
PI's should make note here, that you can do your
customers a lot better service if you provide
security only for the sweep, and let an outside
firm come it with all the technical gizmo,
gadgets, ladders, lights, test equipment, and
appropriate vehicles, and experience. You will
also do your customer a better deal if you let
them pay the sweep company separate from your
billings for time (in this case the law firm pays
you for your security and coordination services).
The PI who does this will also end up making way
more money in the long run as they are not laying
out money (most PI's will not lay down more then
a few grand) for gear that they only use a few
days a month (if they are lucky), and then are
lucky to make only a few hundred bucks a day.
For attorneys the way that you handle this is to
call upon the security company or PI firm that
you use on a regular basis, and with whom you
have an ongoing relationship for a wide variety
of services. Then you engage a sweep firm to come
in to check a small area, and once the engagement
is scheduled you call your local PI or security
company up and have them come stand watch over
the area to be inspected until the sweep person
can get their a few days later. Of course if you
are going to have multiple offices checked you
are going to of course need multiple security
people or PI’s (one per room), and if you have a
really large series of offices you may need to
even station security people at the doors of all
phone rooms and wiring closets.
If you are a PI or a security person you can see
where I am going with this… Take a law firm that
would like to have 3 attorneys offices checked
for bugs. This project is estimated to take at
least 5-6 days once the sweep folks get into the
3 rooms, but they will also need access to the
phone room as well, in addition to two wiring
closets. This means that at any given time you
will need at least 6 people (one to cover each
room, plus one relief person), plus someone to
provide coverage outside the building, or in the
hallways. This adds of to time… a lot of time in
fact. Given that there are only a few dozen sweep
people in the entire country (yeah, yeah, I know
every PI thinks they can do sweeps), this means
that it is going to take a few days to line up a
sweep unless it is done well in advance, on a
quasi-random basis, and even then you still
coverage by security people before any sweep to
lock down the place against any live devices being removed.
Even if the attorney (CEO, etc) doesn’t actually
have a bug sweep performed, this sporadic flurry
of security lockdown will freak out any
eavesdropper. Hence, if the PI understands the
logistics of a sweep, and understands how to
freak out an eavesdropper they can run through
this drill, and only occasionally bring in an actual TSCM person.
The eavesdropper will even become complacent
because they will see these visible security
flurries, but no sweep equipment as seen and will
assume that it was just a ruse. The eavesdropper
may at some time discover that the lockdown was
in fact a ruse in and of itself, and that the
TSCM folks were actually performing a sweep in
between these lock-down flurries. In some cases
there may even be a high profile lockdown, or an
invisible lockdown. The sweep may be done in a
way that is visible, or invisible. The staff of
the law firm may know that a sweep is going to be
performed the upcoming weekend, or the sweep may
happen right under the noses of the employees and
they have no clue what is really going down.
Better to let a real sweep company come in for a
couple of days to do a proper job (with hundreds,
if not thousands of pounds of equipment) and
slowly clear each room, each phone, and each wire one at a time.
The goal is to totally confound the spy, to trick
them, and to draw them out, to cause them
confusion, and to exploit this confusion to flush both them and their bugs =
out.
I would note that just because a federal, state,
or local agency does something under presumed
authority, or just because a executive order was
written, or some political order was handed down
does not mean that an eavesdropping project was
legal and within the limits of the law.
The law is the law, is the law... it does not
bend... either somebody is aiding by the law or
they are breaking it. Government employees for
centuries have justified breaking the law at the
behest of their lords and masters, and often they
feel that their illegal conduct is justified by
the illusion of the greater good, or for some
political traction or power maneuver.
The FBI, DEA, USSS, USPS, etc has historically
flaunted the eavesdropping laws, and each has a
long history of using illegal bugs, break-in,
burglaries, and wiretaps for political advantage,
and in cases where their was absolutely no
criminal case to be made, but only political
agendas to be pursued. COINTELPRO is one of the
classic examples (major humiliation when hundreds
of FBI and other folks lost their jobs when this
program got exposed), but there have been many
other similar programs over the years.
Bottom line is all attorneys need to have their
offices, their computers, their phones, their
wires, their ceilings, basements, walls,
furniture, their homes, and anything and
everything that even remotely involves client
contact, records, or other data checked out on a
regular basis. Just because information can not
be used against your target directly, does not
mean that it, you, they, or it will not be targeted.
Eavesdroppers need to realize that someone is
hunting them, and that the person who is hunting
them may be better at catching spies, than the
eavesdropper is at doing the spying. Of course if
the bugging is legally on the up and up, and the
eavesdropper knows their business then they will
have zero problem convincing a judge to issue a
protective order, and the TSCM firm will have
zero problem giving the customer back all of their money.
[Hint: If a TSCM firm gives you back your money,
declines to give you a report, and for some
reason the project suddenly takes way less time
then originally estimated then you can safely
assume that you are screwed, or are about to be
screwed. Generally, a legitimate TSCM
practitioner will not accept money for a sweep
that they have a sitting judge to wave them off
of (law enforcement officers can not legally wave
a TSCM’er off, only a sitting judge can do that).
If a legitimate wave-off does in fact happen the
TSCM specialist will find some reason to wrap the
project up early (oops, equipment broke), will
evade providing a report either verbally or in
writing (oops, computer crashed), and will not
request any further funds (nah, don’t worry about
the rest of the bill), and will most likely
return any funds they have already been given
(maybe now, maybe later). Also, some TSCM folks
carry a special insurance policy that covers them
in advance for any situation where a legal court
ordered wave-off happens so that the insurance
company pay them so long as they did not accept
any further monies from the client once they were
put under a protective order (in writing), AND
all monies paid were refunded to the client in a
timely manner, AND no report of any kind was made
to the client in regards to bugs being present, or not being present.
Once a lawyer or law firm has an established
relationship with a TSCM firm it is wise to have
another attorney retain the TSCM specialists
services on a project-by-project basis, and then
for the second attorney to act as counsel to the
first attorney. This second attorney actually
engages the outside TSCM firm (and security
and/or PI firm), and the sweep is performed for
the first attorney at the direction of the second
attorney. Then once first attorney’s office is
confirmed to be free of bugs the roles get
reversed (after the books are totally closed on
the first assignment), the TSCM practitioner gets
engaged by the first attorneys who is acting on
behalf of the second attorney and the second
attorneys office then gets checked for bugs, and
so on. When a law firm has a sweep performed it
may be wise to have an odd-man-out who represents
the other lawyer(s) in the firm. There are some
law firms who actually handle their sweeps via an
outside associate so that nobody in the main
office has even the slightest idea that sweeps are being performed.
I know this all sounds terribly confusing, but
imagine the poor eavesdropper who is half blind
and sitting out in some un-air-conditioned
listening post in boxers and a t-shirt, trying to
figure out if the cleaning crew really is a
cleaning crew, if that low slung soccer mom van
is really for people or sweep gear, and if the
latest security lockdown is for a real sweep, of
merely a ruse for a sweep that has already taken place.
Eavesdroppers are terrified of not knowing, and
illegal eavesdroppers are more terrified still…
so keep the eavesdroppers off balance, keep them
guessing, and do sweeps that are virtually invisible to the eavesdroppers.
…and PI’s, please, please, please partner up with
or work with several TSCM firms or TSCM
practitioners and let them teach you how to
choreograph sweeps. I promise you that you will
make way more money then trying to do sweeps
yourself, and your clients will be much happier
with the end results… especially if your clients are attorneys.
-jma
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/09/BADQ18LP9H.DT=
L&tsp=1
Wiretap foes turn Obama's words against feds
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, July 9, 2009
(07-09) 15:38 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- An Islamic
charity challenging former President George W.
Bush's wiretapping program in a San Francisco
federal court cited candidate Barack Obama's
words Thursday in arguing that a president has no
power to unilaterally order eavesdropping on Americans.
Lawyers for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation
introduced their brief by quoting Obama's words
in December 2007: "Warrantless surveillance of
American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional."
FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978, requires the government to get a warrant
from a court that meets in secret before
intercepting messages between Americans and
suspected foreign terrorists. Bush acknowledged
in 2005 that he authorized such surveillance four
years earlier and said he had constitutional
authority to take such actions during wartime.
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San
Francisco has scheduled a hearing Sept. 1 on
whether Al-Haramain has the right to sue the
government and, if so, whether it was wiretapped
unconstitutionally. It would be the first hearing
on the legality of the surveillance program since
a federal court panel assigned lawsuits from
around the nation to Walker in 2007.
The government accidentally gave Al-Haramain a
classified document in 2004 reportedly showing
that two of the organization's lawyers had been
wiretapped. Al-Haramain returned the document at
the government's request and has been barred from
relying on it in court, but has argued that
federal officials' public statements show it was
the target of electronic surveillance - a
critical fact in establishing its right to sue.
Obama administration lawyers have not said
whether they consider the surveillance program
legal, an issue they may address in a filing due
Aug. 5. Instead, they contend the suit would
damage national security if allowed to proceed,
and have resisted Walker's orders to let
Al-Haramain's attorneys review the classified
document to help them argue against dismissal.
In Thursday's filing, the now-defunct Islamic
organization said ample public evidence showed
that it had been wiretapped during an
investigation that led the Bush administration to
designate it as a terrorist group in 2004, a classification it disputes.
Al-Haramain said a 2007 speech by a deputy FBI
director - who mentioned that the group had been
under surveillance during the terrorism
investigation - indicated that federal agents had
eavesdropped on phone conversations in 2004
allegedly linking the organization to Osama bin
Laden. Other government officials and lawyers
have made statements pointing to the same conclusion, the group said.
Challenging the Bush administration's argument
that the president has inherent power to order
surveillance, Al-Haramain quoted Obama and his
future attorney general, Eric Holder, who said in
a June 2008 speech that Bush had acted "in direct defiance of federal law."
This is the time, Al-Haramain's lawyers told
Walker, for the judge to decide what the group
called the central question in the case: "May the
president of the United States break the law in
the name of national security?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=-----------------------
-------------------------
James M. Atkinson Phone: (978) 546-3803
Granite Island Group Fax: (978) 546-9467
127 Eastern Avenue #291 Web:
http://www.tscm.com/
Gloucester, MA 01931-8008 E-mail: mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesmatkinson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=-----------------------
-------------------------
No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the
enemy until it is ripe for execution. - Machiavelli, The Prince, 1521
--===========_797565500=.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<body>
All attorneys need to have their offices and homes checked for bugging
devices monthly, but not by the same company each time. <br>
<br>
Instead, put together a list of TSCM people within 200-250 miles of their
location... NOT *** PI's *** who also "do sweeps" (with two
suitcases), but actual, experienced electronics folks who spend most of
their time performing sweeps. The use of a PI is fine for general
investigative work, overall security work, and EP type of work, but not
for bug sweeps. In fact, a really smart attorney will have a number of
PI's who all work as outside contractors, as well as a large number of
subject matter experts they can call on for services, advice, or opinions
(including sweepers). <br>
<br>
The attorney should contract directly to the TSCM company for service,
and avoid involving anybody outside of an extremely close circle of
people who can be depended on to maintain absolute silence about the
upcoming inspection. It is often wise to engage the PI firm that provides
general investigative or security services during the sweep, but who does
not provide the actual sweep itself.<br>
<br>
PI's should make note here, that you can do your customers a lot better
service if you provide security only for the sweep, and let an outside
firm come it with all the technical gizmo, gadgets, ladders, lights, test
equipment, and appropriate vehicles, and experience. You will also do
your customer a better deal if you let them pay the sweep company
separate from your billings for time (in this case the law firm pays you
for your security and coordination services).<br>
<br>
The PI who does this will also end up making way more money in the long
run as they are not laying out money (most PI's will not lay down more
then a few grand) for gear that they only use a few days a month (if they
are lucky), and then are lucky to make only a few hundred bucks a
day.<br>
<br>
For attorneys the way that you handle this is to call upon the security
company or PI firm that you use on a regular basis, and with whom you
have an ongoing relationship for a wide variety of services. Then you
engage a sweep firm to come in to check a small area, and once the
engagement is scheduled you call your local PI or security company up and
have them come stand watch over the area to be inspected until the sweep
person can get their a few days later. Of course if you are going to have
multiple offices checked you are going to of course need multiple
security people or PI’s (one per room), and if you have a really large
series of offices you may need to even station security people at the
doors of all phone rooms and wiring closets. <br>
<br>
If you are a PI or a security person you can see where I am going with
this… Take a law firm that would like to have 3 attorneys offices checked
for bugs. This project is estimated to take at least 5-6 days once the
sweep folks get into the 3 rooms, but they will also need access to the
phone room as well, in addition to two wiring closets. This means that at
any given time you will need at least 6 people (one to cover each room,
plus one relief person), plus someone to provide coverage outside the
building, or in the hallways. This adds of to time… a lot of time in
fact. Given that there are only a few dozen sweep people in the entire
country (yeah, yeah, I know every PI thinks they can do sweeps), this
means that it is going to take a few days to line up a sweep unless it is
done well in advance, on a quasi-random basis, and even then you still
coverage by security people before any sweep to lock down the place
against any live devices being removed.<br>
<br>
Even if the attorney (CEO, etc) doesn’t actually have a bug sweep
performed, this sporadic flurry of security lockdown will freak out any
eavesdropper. Hence, if the PI understands the logistics of a sweep, and
understands how to freak out an eavesdropper they can run through this
drill, and only occasionally bring in an actual TSCM person.<br>
<br>
The eavesdropper will even become complacent because they will see these
visible security flurries, but no sweep equipment as seen and will assume
that it was just a ruse. The eavesdropper may at some time discover that
the lockdown was in fact a ruse in and of itself, and that the TSCM folks
were actually performing a sweep in between these lock-down flurries. In
some cases there may even be a high profile lockdown, or an invisible
lockdown. The sweep may be done in a way that is visible, or invisible.
The staff of the law firm may know that a sweep is going to be performed
the upcoming weekend, or the sweep may happen right under the noses of
the employees and they have no clue what is really going down.<br>
<br>
Better to let a real sweep company come in for a couple of days to do a
proper job (with hundreds, if not thousands of pounds of equipment) and
slowly clear each room, each phone, and each wire one at a time.<br>
<br>
The goal is to totally confound the spy, to trick them, and to draw them
out, to cause them confusion, and to exploit this confusion to flush both
them and their bugs out.<br>
<br>
I would note that just because a federal, state, or local agency does
something under presumed authority, or just because a executive order was
written, or some political order was handed down does not mean that an
eavesdropping project was legal and within the limits of the law. <br>
<br>
The law is the law, is the law... it does not bend... either somebody is
aiding by the law or they are breaking it. Government employees for
centuries have justified breaking the law at the behest of their lords
and masters, and often they feel that their illegal conduct is justified
by the illusion of the greater good, or for some political traction or
power maneuver.<br>
<br>
The FBI, DEA, USSS, USPS, etc has historically flaunted the eavesdropping
laws, and each has a long history of using illegal bugs, break-in,
burglaries, and wiretaps for political advantage, and in cases where
their was absolutely no criminal case to be made, but only political
agendas to be pursued. COINTELPRO is one of the classic examples (major
humiliation when hundreds of FBI and other folks lost their jobs when
this program got exposed), but there have been many other similar
programs over the years.<br>
<br>
Bottom line is all attorneys need to have their offices, their computers,
their phones, their wires, their ceilings, basements, walls, furniture,
their homes, and anything and everything that even remotely involves
client contact, records, or other data checked out on a regular basis.
Just because information can not be used against your target directly,
does not mean that it, you, they, or it will not be targeted.<br>
<br>
Eavesdroppers need to realize that someone is hunting them, and that the
person who is hunting them may be better at catching spies, than the
eavesdropper is at doing the spying. Of course if the bugging is legally
on the up and up, and the eavesdropper knows their business then they
will have zero problem convincing a judge to issue a protective order,
and the TSCM firm will have zero problem giving the customer back all of
their money.<br>
<br>
[Hint: If a TSCM firm gives you back your money, declines to give you a
report, and for some reason the project suddenly takes way less time then
originally estimated then you can safely assume that you are screwed, or
are about to be screwed. Generally, a legitimate TSCM practitioner will
not accept money for a sweep that they have a sitting judge to wave them
off of (law enforcement officers can not legally wave a TSCM’er off, only
a sitting judge can do that). If a legitimate wave-off does in fact
happen the TSCM specialist will find some reason to wrap the project up
early (oops, equipment broke), will evade providing a report either
verbally or in writing (oops, computer crashed), and will not request any
further funds (nah, don’t worry about the rest of the bill), and will
most likely return any funds they have already been given (maybe now,
maybe later). Also, some TSCM folks carry a special insurance policy that
covers them in advance for any situation where a legal court ordered
wave-off happens so that the insurance company pay them so long as they
did not accept any further monies from the client once they were put
under a protective order (in writing), AND all monies paid were refunded
to the client in a timely manner, AND no report of any kind was made to
the client in regards to bugs being present, or not being present.<br>
<br>
Once a lawyer or law firm has an established relationship with a TSCM
firm it is wise to have another attorney retain the TSCM specialists
services on a project-by-project basis, and then for the second attorney
to act as counsel to the first attorney. This second attorney actually
engages the outside TSCM firm (and security and/or PI firm), and the
sweep is performed for the first attorney at the direction of the second
attorney. Then once first attorney’s office is confirmed to be free of
bugs the roles get reversed (after the books are totally closed on the
first assignment), the TSCM practitioner gets engaged by the first
attorneys who is acting on behalf of the second attorney and the second
attorneys office then gets checked for bugs, and so on. When a law firm
has a sweep performed it may be wise to have an odd-man-out who
represents the other lawyer(s) in the firm. There are some law firms who
actually handle their sweeps via an outside associate so that nobody in
the main office has even the slightest idea that sweeps are being
performed.<br>
<br>
I know this all sounds terribly confusing, but imagine the poor
eavesdropper who is half blind and sitting out in some un-air-conditioned
listening post in boxers and a t-shirt, trying to figure out if the
cleaning crew really is a cleaning crew, if that low slung soccer mom van
is really for people or sweep gear, and if the latest security lockdown
is for a real sweep, of merely a ruse for a sweep that has already taken
place.<br>
<br>
Eavesdroppers are terrified of not knowing, and illegal eavesdroppers are
more terrified still… so keep the eavesdroppers off balance, keep them
guessing, and do sweeps that are virtually invisible to the
eavesdroppers.<br>
<br>
…and PI’s, please, please, please partner up with or work with several
TSCM firms or TSCM practitioners and let them teach you how to
choreograph sweeps. I promise you that you will make way more money then
trying to do sweeps yourself, and your clients will be much happier with
the end results… especially if your clients are attorneys.<br>
<br>
-jma<br><br>
<br><br>
<a href="
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/09/BA=
DQ18LP9H.DTL&tsp=1" eudora="autourl">
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/09/BADQ18LP9H.DT=
L&tsp=1</a>
<br><br>
Wiretap foes turn Obama's words against feds<br>
Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer<br><br>
Thursday, July 9, 2009<br><br>
(07-09) 15:38 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- An Islamic charity challenging
former President George W. Bush's wiretapping program in a San Francisco
federal court cited candidate Barack Obama's words Thursday in arguing
that a president has no power to unilaterally order eavesdropping on
Americans.<br><br>
Lawyers for the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation introduced their brief by
quoting Obama's words in December 2007: "Warrantless surveillance of
American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and
unconstitutional." <br><br>
FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, requires the
government to get a warrant from a court that meets in secret before
intercepting messages between Americans and suspected foreign terrorists.
Bush acknowledged in 2005 that he authorized such surveillance four years
earlier and said he had constitutional authority to take such actions
during wartime.<br><br>
Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker in San Francisco has scheduled a
hearing Sept. 1 on whether Al-Haramain has the right to sue the
government and, if so, whether it was wiretapped unconstitutionally. It
would be the first hearing on the legality of the surveillance program
since a federal court panel assigned lawsuits from around the nation to
Walker in 2007.<br><br>
The government accidentally gave Al-Haramain a classified document in
2004 reportedly showing that two of the organization's lawyers had been
wiretapped. Al-Haramain returned the document at the government's request
and has been barred from relying on it in court, but has argued that
federal officials' public statements show it was the target of electronic
surveillance - a critical fact in establishing its right to sue.<br><br>
Obama administration lawyers have not said whether they consider the
surveillance program legal, an issue they may address in a filing due
Aug. 5. Instead, they contend the suit would damage national security if
allowed to proceed, and have resisted Walker's orders to let
Al-Haramain's attorneys review the classified document to help them argue
against dismissal.<br><br>
In Thursday's filing, the now-defunct Islamic organization said ample
public evidence showed that it had been wiretapped during an
investigation that led the Bush administration to designate it as a
terrorist group in 2004, a classification it disputes.<br><br>
Al-Haramain said a 2007 speech by a deputy FBI director - who mentioned
that the group had been under surveillance during the terrorism
investigation - indicated that federal agents had eavesdropped on phone
conversations in 2004 allegedly linking the organization to Osama bin
Laden. Other government officials and lawyers have made statements
pointing to the same conclusion, the group said.<br><br>
Challenging the Bush administration's argument that the president has
inherent power to order surveillance, Al-Haramain quoted Obama and his
future attorney general, Eric Holder, who said in a June 2008 speech that
Bush had acted "in direct defiance of federal law."<br><br>
This is the time, Al-Haramain's lawyers told Walker, for the judge to
decide what the group called the central question in the case: "May
the president of the United States break the law in the name of national
security?" <br><br>
<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------<br>
James M.
Atkinson &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p;
Phone: (978) 546-3803<br>
Granite Island
Group &nbs=
p;
Fax: (978) 546-9467<br>
127 Eastern Avenue
#291  =
;
Web:
<a href="
http://www.tscm.com/" eudora="autourl">
http://www.tscm.com/<br=
>
</a> Gloucester, MA
01931-8008  =
;
E-mail:
<a href="mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com" eudora="autourl">mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com<=
br>
</a> <b>
<a href="
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesmatkinson" eudora="autourl">
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamesmatkinson<br>
</a></b>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------<br>
No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the
<br>
enemy until it is ripe for execution. - Machiavelli, The Prince,
1521 </body>
</html>
--===========_797565500=.ALT--
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:17 CST