March 02, 2006

Able Danger Whistleblowers File Suit Against Defense Agencies

Men Were Not Allowed Counsel During Closed Hearings

Able Danger whistleblowers Anthony Shaffer and J.D. Smith have filed a lawsuit against the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, and against George Peirce, Robert H. Berry, Jr., William J. Haynes, II, Esq., and Tom Taylor - acting both as individuals and as counsels for the DIA, the DoD, and the Department of the Army. Attorney for the plaintiffs Mark Zaid, with whom I participated in a conference call regarding Able Danger, has released a PDF file of the filing. The basis of the complaint (Civil Action No. 06-271 (GK)) is that Shaffer and Smith were denied their First Amendment right to counsel by the defendants during closed, classified Congressional hearings about the Able Danger program. Shaffer and Smith were not compelled to testify, but "...it was made clear that were Shaffer or Smith to decline to appear voluntarily they would be compelled to do so."

The suit seeks that the court direct the defendants to allow the plaintiffs' attorneys be granted access to classified material, through expedited clearance procedures, if necessary. the suit also alleges that the defendants violated their own internal rules regarding right to counsel, and seeks recovery of court and attorney fees.

The PDF file can be downloaded at the Able Danger Blog.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:08 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Good. Some of the crap they've pulled has been far too obvious.

Posted by: Oyster at March 02, 2006 07:00 PM (YudAC)

2 I believe your reference to the First Amendment concerning a right to counsel should be concerning the 4th amendment. Freedom of Speech is certainly one thing that was denied in the "Closed" hearings, but the right to counsel to provide advice from self incrimination is routinely being denied in most of these closed sessions, as well as Grand Jury activities. That is what the 4th amendment was all about, at least "In my Opinion".

Posted by: Henry Bacarisse at March 03, 2006 08:27 AM (r0aPW)

3 OOPs, I meant the 6th Amendment provides Right to Counsel.

Posted by: Henry Bacarisse at March 03, 2006 08:29 AM (r0aPW)

4 Henry, they're arguing that "...the plaintiffs possess a First Amendment right to communicate with their counsel to include discussions involving classified information..." - This wording is directly from the suit, but I should have phrased the post differently. I'm not sure why they didn't cite the sixth amendment.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 03, 2006 08:47 AM (RHG+K)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
17kb generated in CPU 0.018, elapsed 0.1048 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.0955 seconds, 239 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.