Convicted terrorist sues U.S. attorney general

CNN ^ | 5-10-02 | Phil Hirschkorn

[tallhappy]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One of four men convicted last year in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings is suing United States Attorney General John Ashcroft over the new regulation that allows the government to eavesdrop on certain attorney-client conversations in prison.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

So the Democrats now have a new hero. I wonder if Gore is helping pay his attorney fees.

[Amelia]

So the Democrats now have a new hero.

I'd bet there are a few GOP-types cheering him on too.... :-/

[Teacher317]

I think I might be one of those, until someone can explain to me why a person's private conversations should be monitored by our nanny-state. If they can do this with convicts (and the usually-protected lawyers, oddly enough), it's only a few years until they can do it to all phone lines, all computer lines, and all cell phone traffic. No matter what reason you cite for the convict, the same can be used for the rest of us. After all, the gun laws plainly show that we are to be presumed dangerous until we prostrate ourselves enough to prove otherwise.

[Bogey78O]

We'll just have to ask for the death penalty next time to end his threat once and for all.

[BillaryBeGone]

One question: Why are they still alive to be such pains in the rear?

[Amelia]

I think I might be one of those, until someone can explain to me why a person's private conversations should be monitored by our nanny-state.

Mohamed al-'Owhali, 25, from Saudi Arabia...is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole...A federal jury in Manhattan found him guilty of murdering the 213 people, including 12 Americans, who were killed in the August 7, 1998, truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya...Al-'Owhali was also convicted on numerous conspiracy, bombing and weapons charges.

The jury was deadlocked on the government's request to impose a death sentence on al-'Owhali, failing to reach a required unanimous decision, with some jurors citing the view that life in prison is a harsher punishment than a lethal injection -- and saying that they didn't want to turn al-'Owhali into a martyr.

He's not a U.S. citizen, and he has been convicted of attacking our country. Personally, I don't think he should have any rights, including the right to life, but I guess the jury disagreed on that last one.

[tallhappy]

I wonder if Gore is helping pay his attorney fees.

I wonder who's paying the lawyer as well.

[No Truce With Kings]

I think I might be one of those, until someone can explain to me why a person's private conversations should be monitored by our nanny-state. If they can do this with convicts (and the usually-protected lawyers, oddly enough), it's only a few years until they can do it to all phone lines, all computer lines, and all cell phone traffic. No matter what reason you cite for the convict, the same can be used for the rest of us. After all, the gun laws plainly show that we are to be presumed dangerous until we prostrate ourselves enough to prove otherwise.

Are you stating that convicted felons, serving time in prison have a right to firearms while incarcerated? Or that they have the right to vote while they are in prison? Or that holding them in prison somehow violates their right against involuntary servitude(even though the involuntary servitude clause specifically exempts criminals)?

A convicted felon forfeits rights accruing to an American citizen. Period. This includes privacy rights. As it is, conversations between a prisoner and his attorney, monitored under this close, cannot be used against the prisoner in a court of law. He is not giving up his right against self-incrimination.

HOWEVER, if they learn that the prisoner is participating in a crime by monitoring conversations with his lawyer, they can use that as evidence against anyone else that is participating. (I believe that includes the lawyer, because if the lawyer participates in a crime he forfeits his privilege.)

The Fifth Amendment covers self-incrimination. If your words cannot cause you to go to jail, you cannot refuse to speak.

[twntaipan]

And you know what? He'll probably win too.

We seem to lack the will to defend ourselves.

[Humidston]

WE are paying his lawyer. Go figure...

[Humidston]

We seem to lack the will to defend ourselves.

AMEN!

[Senator Pardek]

What you said.

[Lion's Cub]

I'm not a lawyer, but what you said in #9 sounds right to me. Should the court rule against the DOJ, however, let's send him to Gitmo since he's not a citizen. Maybe we'll get lucky and the lowlife's will riot :)

[DugwayDuke]

"I think I might be one of those, until someone can explain to me why a person's private conversations should be monitored by our nanny-state."

Then, you haven't been paying attention in class, teacher. It has been established that terrorists are rather fond of using their lawyers to funnel information out of prison to other terrorists to use in terrorist activities. These recordings cannot be used by, cannot even be shared with, prosecutors unless these recordings contain information of a conspiracy to committ future terrorist acts.

You see, without this law, a terrorist could name any outside plotter as his attorney and use that person to convey any information he desired.

And, prior to the enactment of this statute, all communications were monitored except those involving an attorney for all prisoners. I suspose you have a problem with drug lords running drug rings from inside prison too?

[Thane_Banquo]

As it is, conversations between a prisoner and his attorney, monitored under this close, cannot be used against the prisoner in a court of law.

I'm for the law as long as the information can't be used against the guy in court. That would be a blatant violation of the 5th Amendment, and though I don't give a rat's --s about this terrorist scumbag, I care deeply about the Constitution.

[snopercod]

There are a few of us independents worried about secret trials with secret evidence before a secret tribunal. I can't help but remember that the US Constitution requires:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

[cake_crumb]

"A federal jury in Manhattan found him guilty of murdering the 213 people, including 12 Americans, who were killed in the August 7, 1998, truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya.

"Trial testimony and evidence showed that al-'Owhali -- who had trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan -- helped prepare the bomb and rode in the passenger seat of the truck that transported it, firing stun grenades at embassy guards in an effort to help get the truck close to the embassy's rear entrance. Al-'Owhali was also convicted on numerous conspiracy, bombing and weapons charges."

"I don't discuss anything important"

Errr....sure. Don't worry, al-'Owhali, WE believe you! Don't we, FReepers!?

[Teacher317]

A convicted felon forfeits rights accruing to an American citizen. Period.

So we can kill every convicted felon, since he has no right to life? We can use some really cruel and unusual punishments on them, since you just declared their rights forfeit? They lose their rights to see their families, visitors, or lawyers? They lose their right to appeal their conviction? They lose the right to eat?

No, they don't. In other words, the above statement is incorrect. Period.

You also expanded my statement in a classic straw-man argument. Those in prison do not have the right to bear arms. They do lose their right to Liberty, for a specific period of time. However, when they are released from prison, their right to defend themselves, including with a gun, should be restored with all of their other rights.

[Teacher317]

I su[p]pose you [don't] have a problem with drug lords running drug rings from inside prison too?

(I assume my corrections are proper.) Yes, of course I have a problem with prisoners committing illegal acts, just as I have a problem with free citizens committing illegal acts. However, just because someone MIGHT be committing an illegal act does not mean that we should rescind our Rights in the hopes of making the job of the police easier. (We should do that in hundreds of others ways, but not this one.) If we do, then it is a short hop to say that since the freed drug dealers use the phone to do their deals, the police should monitor those calls as well. Then, of course, those who are suspected of other crimes will be similarly monitored... simply put, it's a bad idea. It assumes that all of those conversations contain illegal activity, without any proof beforehand. Let's find other ways to police them... ways that won't restrict the rights of those who are not committing crimes, and that won't erode the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'. (How about punishing those lawyers who make relay communications, for example?)

(Yes, I am aware that those in prison have been convicted of something already... that does not mean that their every action forevermore will be an illegal one. The guards do not have the right to monitor their conversations, no matter how vile and heinous the dirt-bag might be.)