Wednesday, December 7, 2016   

  Home     About     Guest Editorials     Advertise     Blog     Site Map     Links     Contact      Subscribe RSS      Subscribe Email  
Home » General

FBI Muslim spying lawsuit against U.S. is tossed by judge

15 August 2012 General 14 Comments Email This Post Email This Post

A federal judge Tuesday threw out a lawsuit filed against the U.S. government and the FBI over the agency’s spying on Orange County Muslims, ruling that allowing the suit to go forward would risk divulging sensitive state secrets.

Comparing himself to Odysseus navigating the waters between a six-headed monster and a deadly whirlpool, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac Carney wrote that “the state secrets privilege may unfortunately mean the sacrifice of individual liberties for the sake of national security.”

The judge said that he reached the decision reluctantly after reviewing confidential declarations filed by top FBI officials, and that he was convinced the operation in question involved “intelligence that, if disclosed, would significantly compromise national security.”

Carney allowed the suit to stand against individual FBI agents and supervisors on Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act-related claims.

The class-action lawsuit was brought by a group of Orange County Muslims who contended that their constitutional rights were trampled when the FBI sent an undercover informant into their midst to illegally spy on them.

The controversy revolves around the actions of Craig Monteilh, who alleges that he posed as a Muslim convert at the behest of the FBI to collect information at Orange County mosques. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Council on American-Islamic Relations sued on behalf of community members who alleged that the FBI engaged in a “dragnet” investigation that indiscriminately targeted Muslims based on their religion, planted bugs in offices and homes, and listened in on private religious conversations.

The U.S. government asserted the state secrets privilege in the case, contending that divulging their targets in counterterrorism investigations, as well as how and why, would endanger national security.

Monteilh, a convict who the FBI acknowledges worked as an informant on a case dubbed Operation Flex, has since taken his story public and filed lengthy court papers for the ACLU outlining his FBI work.

“That information could cause harm for years to come,” Department of Justice attorney Anthony Coppolino told Carney in court Tuesday.

While acknowledging that asserting the state secrets privilege could be seen as “unfair or harsh,” Coppolino said it was necessary for the greater public good.

ACLU attorney Ahilan Arulanantham argued that the government should not be allowed to “shut the courthouse door” simply by citing national security. “It’s contrary to the basic notion that the judiciary determines what the law is and holds the government to it,” he said. “We’re exempting huge swaths of government activity to judicial oversight.”

Original post: FBI Muslim spying lawsuit against U.S. is tossed by judge

Share/Bookmark




14 Comments »

  1. that’s a terrible ruling.

  2. Location: The US
    Scenario: FBI has a mole to spy on Muslims.
    a) Muslim Response: Muslims feel violated. They say constitutional rights trampled. More drama. More circus.
    b) What should have been the response: “FBI dudes, go ahead…we have nothing to hide. We are Americans first and foremost. In time, you’d realize that we are one of you”

    Location: 99% of the Islamic nations
    Scenario: The nation’s top security agency has a mole to spy on …err…wait….where are the non-muslims ? haven’t they been hunted to the point of extinction ? So ..err…but tit for tat…let’s spy on the half a dozen that are still around. Damn Infidels!!!
    a) Non-Muslim response: Begging the government to stop persecution
    b) Their govt’s response: Use some assinine Islamic law and take all the 6 out.

    Before you criticize the battle plans, know what you are up against.

    I’m with the judge on this one.

  3. By observing muslims the FBI is just doing its job! It isn’t the Buddhists, or the christians, or the Hindus, or the native americans that blow up people for the greater glory of their deity! No, it is the muslims and that is why observing these people is the right thing to do. It is that simple……rom

  4. More disguting islamophobia in Pakistan

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19280339

  5. Aikido Arjun,

    “Location: The US…Location: 99% of the Islamic nations…” yeah, but we don’t hold ourselves to the same standards of the islamic nations that practice “the religion of peace”.

    “Use some assinine Islamic law and take all the 6 out.” you referancing the six bahai in prison in iran? i think they use spying laws, national security concerns to round them up.

    “Before you criticize the battle plans, know what you are up against.” ok what are we up against?

    “I’m with the judge on this one.” the aclu lawyer is right. it is the job of the judiciary to watch the watchers. we can’t have the government run roughshot over civial liberties just in the name of national security. as a free society we have to accept some risk to our personal safety to insure our personal liberty.

    look i have no problem with the fbi spying on people within the law. not sure what the muslims are even complaining about. if the judge threw it out because there where no damages or no merit. that is one thing. but we can’t have the executive branch constantly claiming natinal security, or executive privilage. shit we might as well be under martial law then. the courts are there to check and ballance the other two branches of government. sloppy as that may be. that’s how it works.

    there is nothing worst then seeing people pick and choose when they demand personal freedom, small government. then demand the government keep them save by trampling others freedoms.

    rom,

    “By observing muslims the FBI is just doing its job!” i have no problem with spying on muslims within the law. send informants into mosques, motorcycle clubs, neo-nazis, the italian american association, the waste management organizaton of america, whatever. but then don’t be afraid to defend your actions in a court of law. just like if the muslim are doing nothing wrong they shouldn’t worry about the fbi spying on they. then if the fbi is doing nothing wrong, don’t worry about the scrutiny of the courts.

    “It is that simple……rom” no it’s not that simple.

  6. Mike

    To your larger philosophical question about what ought to be the behavior of free societies, I don’t have an apt solution for a threat such as one we have now. But when Islamic doctrine is relentlessly pressing on, should we debate on procedural correctness or should we be focused on end goals?

    When they ask for Islamic banking, you are in an economic war. When Muslim US soldiers fire on their own colleagues, you are in an unprovoked civil war. When Muslims insist on living by sharia law in the US in direct conflict with the nation’s laws, you are in a rebellion.

    With Islam, you are always at war. The average westerner is yet to wake up to this FACT (despite 9/11 or 7/7).

    At its least intensity, it is a culture war. At it is highest….well ask a Persian whose ancient ways are haram in his own country and Arabic ways rule the roost. Ask an Indian, who lost half his country and even today (majority) Muslims insult Hindu ways as Kufr/ Haram. How will national integration happen ? Ask an indonesian atheist who’s sentenced to death for claiming there’s no Allah / prophet Mohammad is a fraud.

    Tell me which other religionist who migrated to west is matching this assinine muslim behavior in intensity and scale ? That should tell you why the doctrine needs special love from the FBI and like.

    When Muslims get together and press for Islamic rights that appear to cherish independent identity but in reality, are stubbornly secessionist, they cease to be Muslim individuals who ought to be tried by existing civil/ criminal laws; they become Islamic doctrine’s foot soldiers and “war like” laws should apply.

    It shouldn’t be difficult to make this distinction. Islamic doctrine is cancerous and needs to be ruthlessly checked. Any peddling of it in the guise of religion is not to be allowed simply because it is not just a religion. The only way West and rest of the non-Islamic world can remain sane is to defang the doctrine. If that involves telling an immigrant Muslim to behave, then so be it.

    Please do not tie up the intelligence and law enforcement agencies with righteousness ropes. We need them to be sharp more than ever.

    Aikido Arjun

  7. Diversity is to be cherished. It adds to a society’s tapestry and makes it even more beautiful. All relgions, cultures that I know of add to this diversity.

    However, bible thumpers and sharia lovers, while seeming to add to this diversity, are actually trying to destroy it by enforcing their view on the rest of the world. The former are sophisticated in their bigotry and, fortunately, can be engaged in an intellectual battle. The latter are brutes that need to be engaged in physical battles for that’s what they indulge in.

    Once you come to this level of awareness of what you are up against, you’d draw up battle plans accordingly.

  8. The national slogan is E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, ONE. Lately people have been casting aspersions on the idea of US “exceptionalism”, but after reading the ethnic conflicts going on in some places I guess we are exceptional. Up until now at least.

  9. AA,

    “To your larger philosophical question about what ought to be the behavior of free societies, I don’t have an apt solution for a threat such as one we have now. But when Islamic doctrine is relentlessly pressing on, should we debate on procedural correctness or should we be focused on end goals?” procedural correctness. interesting phrase. never heard that before? you might want to trademark that. but if we don’t keep to our procedures (laws) we fall into chaos. i’m a libertarian but not an anarchist. we can’t just throwout our principles whenever we face a threat.

    “When they ask for Islamic banking, you are in an economic war.” well i think islam making interest haram is one of the dumber things i’ve ever heard of. but i don’t know why that is an economic war. if muslims want to pay rent their entire lives so be it. i have seceral rental properties.
    “When Muslim US soldiers fire on their own colleagues, you are in an unprovoked civil war.” come on now. americans have been killing fellow american since the beginning. that soesn’t make it a civil war.
    “When Muslims insist on living by sharia law in the US in direct conflict with the nation’s laws, you are in a rebellion.” there i agree. there should only be one law for all americans.

    “With Islam, you are always at war. The average westerner is yet to wake up to this FACT (despite 9/11 or 7/7).” you forgot 3/11. trust me i’m well versed in the islamic attacks in the west. and many within the islamic world. there is most definately some violent tendancies within islam.

    “At its least intensity, it is a culture war.” everything is a cultural war.
    “At it is highest….well ask a Persian whose ancient ways are haram in his own country and Arabic ways rule the roost. Ask an Indian, who lost half his country and even today (majority) Muslims insult Hindu ways as Kufr/ Haram. How will national integration happen ? Ask an indonesian atheist who’s sentenced to death for claiming there’s no Allah / prophet Mohammad is a fraud.” i’m well aware of the zorostians being driven from persia. or the bahai. yeah the msulims have a shit ton of bad laws. all the more reason not to follow suit.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCCyK87hH9M

    “Tell me which other religionist who migrated to west is matching this assinine muslim behavior in intensity and scale ? That should tell you why the doctrine needs special love from the FBI and like.” superiority of threat doesn’t mean we should abandon our morals. next thing you know we are interning people (americans).

    “When Muslims get together and press for Islamic rights that appear to cherish independent identity but in reality, are stubbornly secessionist, they cease to be Muslim individuals who ought to be tried by existing civil/ criminal laws; they become Islamic doctrine’s foot soldiers and “war like” laws should apply.” again i’m 1000% anti-sharia. 1000% anti- jewish law, catholic law…etc. etc. war like laws to southern california? that’s crazy dude. let them press for sharia. the more they do the more people come to understand what sharia is.

    “It shouldn’t be difficult to make this distinction. Islamic doctrine is cancerous and needs to be ruthlessly checked.” i find socalism to be cancerous, doesn’t mean you can just throw out judical oversite of the executive branch.
    “Any peddling of it in the guise of religion is not to be allowed simply because it is not just a religion. The only way West and rest of the non-Islamic world can remain sane is to defang the doctrine. If that involves telling an immigrant Muslim to behave, then so be it.” that’s fine.you can tell the immigrants to follow the laws all you want.you can attack and defang the doctrine all you want. you can’t have the courts abandon their responsibility of oversight.

    “Please do not tie up the intelligence and law enforcement agencies with righteousness ropes. We need them to be sharp more than ever.” righteous ropes are the best ropes. someone must restrain the neccesary evil of government. let’s not allow the caliphate to run rampant. absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Aikido Arjun

    //Aikido Arjun
    18 August 2012 at 4:16 pm

    “Diversity is to be cherished. It adds to a society’s tapestry and makes it even more beautiful. All relgions, cultures that I know of add to this diversity.” lol. i don’t give a fuck about diversity. what does that have to do with the price of tea in china/checks and balances?

    “However, bible thumpers and sharia lovers, while seeming to add to this diversity, are actually trying to destroy it by enforcing their view on the rest of the world. The former are sophisticated in their bigotry and, fortunately, can be engaged in an intellectual battle. The latter are brutes that need to be engaged in physical battles for that’s what they indulge in.” i agree, the muslims are much more prone to violence then any other group i can think of. still we can’t run screaming with our dresses over our heads. we need to maintain our principles.

    “Once you come to this level of awareness of what you are up against, you’d draw up battle plans accordingly.” we are no where near the nuclear option, or martial law. i love dinging the muslims for their craziness as much as the next guy. but let’s keep the hyperbole in check. and the government.

  10. Wall them off and let them destroy each other.

  11. the berlin wall perhaps. LMFAO.

  12. At the moment we are offering a safety valve. It is insanity to import people who think they have the right to kill this or that group. Let them lay into each other in their idiot rancorous primitive tribalism.

    Did you see that fatwa some Egyptian genius imam came up with – those against Morsi are against Allah and therefore can be killed. That is the mentality – the opponent or the one who thinks differently may be killed, it is pleasing to Allah.

  13. “At the moment we are offering a safety valve.” and that is a good thing.
    “It is insanity to import people who think they have the right to kill this or that group. Let them lay into each other in their idiot rancorous primitive tribalism.” well you may be right there? we welcomed the blind shiek and he tried to blow uo the wtc. we welcomed 19 “students” and they managed to bring down teh wtc.

    “Did you see that fatwa some Egyptian genius imam came up with – those against Morsi are against Allah and therefore can be killed.” there are all sorts of crazy fatwas from the muslims. but don’t you see how “westernized” fiqh is making it’s way back to the islamic world. they truely believe they are the religon of peace. they are starting to discount, or rationalize some of the crazy verses of the koran. and discount some hadiths totally. another 1400 years and the may be civil. now is not the time to wall them off. this isn’t the ten century. you know that by the time the chinese built the great wall it was nearly useless. catapults and all.
    “That is the mentality – the opponent or the one who thinks differently may be killed, it is pleasing to Allah.” well hopefully muslims in the west will come to understand freedom of speech. and other freedoms. fuck allah. and may his prophet muhammad suck my dick. don’t be scared.

  14. Mike,

    You again prove that though you claim to be an atheist, you are an Islamophobe as well and a very high degree of it. See you again abused our prophet, us and our faith. Yes you condemned other faiths too but the bulk of your wrath is on us.

    Yes, there must be one set of laws for all in your land, the most vital of which shall be: eliminate your greed, consider others as humans too, give your crocodile tears up while condemning and punishing others for the same crimes.

    Well, you can never resist insulting us, our faith and our prophet. Remember, people before and during your time have never sat idle in doing so. But there have been those who can answer yours too.

    Anon,

    Do you need mega sized boulders to seal your holes? I can provide those freely. Remember the Hadrian’s wall, created by the Romans to keep away your Germanic forefuckers? Or the Walls of Constantinople to keep the bastard Shittomans at bay? Neither survived. Those who built them were destroyed by their own follies. The Maginot Line proved no match for the Wehrmacht. Neither did the huge arsenal of the USSR to stop its fall.

Have your say!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>