Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, February 01, 2014

A terror suspect is challenging the constitutionality of the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program, saying in a court document filed Wednesday that spying by the federal government has gone too far. In the motion filed in federal court in Denver with help from the American Civil Liberties Union, Jamshid Muhtorov also requested that prosecutors disclose more about how surveillance law was used in his case. Muhtorov denies the terror charges he faces.

Advertisement

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

diablo

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

Surveillance under current law "is exceptionally intrusive and it is conducted by executive officers who enjoy broad authority to decide whom to monitor, when and for how long," Muhtorov argued in his motion.

"The statute that authorized the surveillance is unconstitutional," Muhtorov said, citing constitutional provisions against unreasonable search and seizure.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is why I tend to agree with Moder8 about domestic surveillance by NSA but also warned about revealing our methods as it might help destroy our ability to find these bums.

#1 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-01 12:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

They're truly terrorized now. Muhtorov will suicided soon.

#2 | Posted by reitze at 2014-02-01 01:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

Maybe by the ACLU, Reitze. They could collect more damages with him out of the way.

#3 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-01 03:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Nothing to see here, just our secret police and secret courts keeping us safe from secret threats.

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-02-01 01:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

The ACLU are a gang of anarchists.

#5 | Posted by nullifidian at 2014-02-01 01:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

[ACLU] could collect more damages with him out of the way.

How do you come up with this off the wall crap? This involves a motion to suppress evidence in a criminal case. Damages are not an issue. Even if they were, in order to collect damages one must have been harmed. Here, the person potentially harmed in the criminal defendant not the ACLU.

That said, here is an article on ACLU's site regarding the matter. It offers some interesting observations about how the issue has been treated by the government in other cases. That includes a representation made by the Solicitor General to the Supreme Court that it turns out was false unbeknownst to the Solicitor General. Hopefully this time the issue will get real consideration by the court's without the distraction of standing issues. Link to the motion filed in the case.

#6 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-01 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

Et Al, this is setting the groundwork for a lawsuit, nothing else. It's an information dredge that will be used for such later.

#7 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-02 02:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

[T]his is setting the groundwork for a lawsuit, nothing else.

If true, great but I don't think so. Nevertheless, this is an opportunity for a court to delve into the issue. Who knows where it goes?

#8 | Posted by et_al at 2014-02-02 03:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

The nsa, cia, fbi, tsa, etc are and have always been fascist terrorist organizations.

Ask any black people who fought in the civil rights movement.

#9 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-02-02 05:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort