Difference between revisions of "Thomas Brody"
(Created page with "{{person |wikipedia= |amazon= |historycommons=http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=thomas_brody_1 |spartacus= |twitter= |image= |birth_date= |birth_place= |death_da...") |
(a bit short, but - unstub) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|wikipedia= | |wikipedia= | ||
|amazon= | |amazon= | ||
| − | |historycommons=http:// | + | |image=No image available (photo).jpg |
| + | |historycommons=https://web.archive.org/web/20170626070023/http://historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=thomas_brody_1 | ||
|spartacus= | |spartacus= | ||
| − | | | + | |nationality=US |
| − | | | + | |description=Spooky Assistant US Attorney General who defended [[NSA]] wiretapping without a warrant. |
|birth_date= | |birth_date= | ||
|birth_place= | |birth_place= | ||
|death_date= | |death_date= | ||
|death_place= | |death_place= | ||
| − | |constitutes= | + | |constitutes=lawyer |
}} | }} | ||
| + | '''Thomas Brody''' was a spooky Assistant US Attorney General who defended [[NSA]] wiretapping without a warrant. He has a very low internet profile. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Al Haramain lawsuit== | ||
| + | Brody represented the government arguing for the dismissal of the Al Haramain Case, a case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California filed 28 February 2006 by the [[al-Haramain Foundation]] and its two attorneys concerning [[NSA]] warrantless surveillance.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20110111004050/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/02/islamic-charity-sues-to-shut-down-nsa.php</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Brody, argued for the dismissal saying, "The [[state secrets]] privilege requires dismissal of this case." Even the determination as to whether Al Haramain was spied upon, he argues, "is itself a state secret." The Top Secret government document that Al Haramain is using as the foundation of its case is too secret to be used in court, Brody argues, even though the government itself accidentally provided the charity with the document. Even the plaintiff’s memories of the document constitute "state secrets" and should be disallowed, Brody continues. "This document is totally non-redactable and non-segregable and cannot even be meaningfully described," he says. A disconcerted Judge McKeown says, "I feel like I’m in Alice and Wonderland." Brody concludes that it is possible the Al Haramain attorneys "think or believe or claim they were surveilled. It’s entirely possible that everything they think they know is entirely false."<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20170626070023/http://historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=thomas_brody_1</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''[https://web.archive.org/web/20170626070023/http://historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=thomas_brody_1 History Commons has more on the case]''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
{{SMWDocs}} | {{SMWDocs}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}} | ||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 23:39, 7 April 2024
 Thomas Brody  (lawyer) | |
|---|---|
.jpg) | |
| Nationality | US |
Spooky Assistant US Attorney General who defended NSA wiretapping without a warrant. | |
Thomas Brody was a spooky Assistant US Attorney General who defended NSA wiretapping without a warrant. He has a very low internet profile.
Al Haramain lawsuit
Brody represented the government arguing for the dismissal of the Al Haramain Case, a case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California filed 28 February 2006 by the al-Haramain Foundation and its two attorneys concerning NSA warrantless surveillance.[1]
Brody, argued for the dismissal saying, "The state secrets privilege requires dismissal of this case." Even the determination as to whether Al Haramain was spied upon, he argues, "is itself a state secret." The Top Secret government document that Al Haramain is using as the foundation of its case is too secret to be used in court, Brody argues, even though the government itself accidentally provided the charity with the document. Even the plaintiff’s memories of the document constitute "state secrets" and should be disallowed, Brody continues. "This document is totally non-redactable and non-segregable and cannot even be meaningfully described," he says. A disconcerted Judge McKeown says, "I feel like I’m in Alice and Wonderland." Brody concludes that it is possible the Al Haramain attorneys "think or believe or claim they were surveilled. It’s entirely possible that everything they think they know is entirely false."[2]
History Commons has more on the case
