Does this mean that some of the tainted witnesses have already testified? If not, shouldn't they just be excluded? What exactly is a "vigorous cross-examination"?
Government officials identified the attorney as Carla Martin
Hope this moron is out of a job by now.
WTF?!? A first-year law student knows that he'll get his @$$ handed to him if he gets caught doing that, and the Feds did it in a high-profile terrorism trial?
Our security is in the hands of a bunch of Keystone Kops.
"This is the second significant error by the government affecting the constitutional rights of this defendant" ....I understood the defendent was NOT a US citizen and consequently has NO "constitutional rights" .....am I wrong here ? !
I can live with Moussaoui getting life in prison. BUT, only if Carla Martin receives the death penalty.
Seems there is a conspiracy in that Able Danger discovery.
Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion ...
http://notablecases.vaed.uscourts.gov/1:01-cr-00455/docs/71842/0.pdf
Text of e-mails from Carla Martin, Senior Trial Attorney for TSA...
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/moussaouifiles.pdf
http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/03/moussaoui_lawye.html
Are there FReepers who are also lawyers, and who might be able to shed some light on the legal ramifications of this mess?
Click on the scotusblog link for a fair summary. Still unfolding.
... Counsel stated that Carla Martin, an FAA "department head," in a telephone conversation told him that, in similar circumstances, the FAA had consented to the disclosure of a security directive to counsel for a party in litigation. Consent to disclose the security directive to Kalantar or to his attorney would be withheld in this case, however. Defense counsel explained that Kalantar and his attorney are "involved in advocacy groups for Iranians fighting discrimination" and have a connection with a pro-Iranian website discussing supposed discrimination against Iranians in various forums including the airline industry and specifically by Lufthansa. Hr'g Tr. at 24-25. 3
---
3 According, to defendants' counsel, Ms. Martin also stated said that the FAA had permitted disclosure of security directives in similar cases to a party's attorney because, unlike in this case, the attorney "[did] not appear to be emotionally or otherwise involved in the issue. And she felt that in those cases there wouldn't be a threat to the information being disseminated." Hr'g Tr. at 25.
Stephen J. McHale, Deputy Under Secretary, Transportation Security Administration, United States Department of Transportation, in a declaration appended to the United States' Statement of Interest states the following:
While it is true that in the past the predecessor of the TSA, the Federal Aviation Administration's Office of Civil Aviation Security, in conjunction with the Chief Counsel's office, made accommodations in federal court litigation that allowed air carrier counsel to provide SSI to opposing counsel pursuant to a strictly controlled confidentiality order, the TSA is unwilling to make any exceptions to the need-to- know category at the present time. This is due in no small part because of recent intelligence reporting that al-Qaeda militants had obtained access, through media sources and publicly available U.S. Government reports, to information concerning security vulnerabilities at American airports. While we do not know what part such information may have played in the decision to use U.S. civil airliners in the attacks on September 11 , we cannot discount the possibility at this time that SSI provided to those outside the operational need-to-know categorycould be exploited to further terrorist objectives and put the the public at greater risk.
United States' Statement of Interest, Ex. A ¶ 10 (Decl. of S. McHale).