It’s a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart
There’s a great scene in O Brother Where Art Thou where Everett and Pete are arguing about a watch Everett stole from Pete’s “kin,” before they knew that this “kin” was turning them in for reward money:
Pete: You stole from my kin
Everett: Who was fixin’ to turn us in
Pete: But you didn’t know that at the time
Everett: So I kept until I did
Pete: That don’t make no sense!
Everett: It’s a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.
Couldn’t help but think of that exchange when I read Zombie’s analysis of the wiretapping case now before the 9th Circuit, in which the government snooped on an Islamic “charity.” The “charity” was known to have terror links, and had opened a branch in Oregon.
Sho ’nuff, the snooping turns up terror financing, and the government moves to shut it down. The “charity,” not knowing they had been found out, sues. The government, in discovery, incredibly lets classified docs on the surveillance through. The terror group, er, charity, now becomes really p— off and sues, challenging the legality of the mechanism the government used to prove they were terrorists:
From here onward, things became bizarre, a dizzying tug-of-war over surrealistic legal technicalities. Both sides were put into completely impossible positions: The government had to suppress a document which revealed Top Secret surveillance without actually admitting that it had conducted any surveillance; whereas Al-Haramain sought to revoke its designation as a terrorist organization by citing the very evidence (the information gathered during the surveillance) that suggested it was a terrorist organization.
In a word: farcical.
[When you read Zombie’s analysis, be sure to scroll to the bottom to see his stunning set of photos on the media circus–who they ignored, and who they fawned over. I bet you can guess.]
Comments
2 Responses to “It’s a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart”
Leave a Reply
My thoughts that if the government had legal and legitament reasons to investigate the charity they should not have to defend themselves. If the sole reason is that it was islamic charity then the government has some explaining to do. If that was indeed the case then we are starting to resort back to the japanese interment camps (that seem so under discussed in american history) and that is ethically wrong on every level. However, if the government had sound evidence to investigate the terrorists then they are off the hook. It is along the same lines that if an officer has probable cause to search a car and turns up narcotics, the office is off the hook. I think that this alleged “charity” is just trying to turn the blame away from them. They knew they were terrorists and went after the government to give the government a reason to hold a grudge. That way if the government turns up eveidence and declares them terrorists they can say the government is holding a grudge and is declaring this based on shaky evidence. They know that the government cant turn the evidence over due to national security. Its a good plan.
You know what solves this whole problem………..a warrant.