Federal Judge Allows Pro Se Suit Over Government Harassment

A Government Harassment Suit Goes to Court
The New York Times - OPINION - by Andrew Rosenthal  -  April 3, 2012

The Obama administration has been disturbingly successful at slamming the courts for any challenges to its excessive use, and abuse, of national security powers. So it is worth noting when a judge demands accountability. Take last week, when the administration insisted that U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper throw out a civil suit filed against the Department of Homeland Security. She refused, granting the plaintiff a much-deserved shot at justice. Some background on the suit: David House co-founded a group that supports Bradley Manning, the soldier who was charged with turning over government documents to WikiLeaks. Mr. House says he was questioned multiple times by the F.B.I., among others, and put on a watch list that “has resulted in him being stopped for questioning and searched each time he enters the United States.” On Nov. 3, 2010, customs agents stopped him in Chicago. Then the Department of Homeland Security took him into custody and ordered him to surrender his laptop, USB storage device, video camera and phone. Mr. House said those devices contained personal information, including bank account passwords and private email, as well as material about the support group for Mr. Manning. While in custody, Mr. House was questioned about his association with Mr. Manning, and about whether he had any connection to WikiLeaks. “The agents,” the court said, “did not ask House any questions related to border control, customs, trade, immigration or terrorism, and at no point did the agents suggest that House had engaged in any illegal activity or that his computer contained any illegal material.” Federal agents held his equipment for 49 days. They later offered the ludicrous explanation that it took so long because their computer whizzes were unfamiliar with the operating systems. (Was he using DOS?) The federal government refused to say what information had been copied from the electronic devices, who had seen it, if copies were made, and whether they were destroyed, given that they had nothing to do with any criminal investigation.  From the use of customs as a pawn in what is obviously a political game, to the seizure of Mr. House’s computer devices, this is an outrageous abuse of power. But the government didn’t think Mr. House deserved even a day in court. It demanded that the court dismiss Mr. House’s claims that the search and seizure violated his Fourth and First Amendment rights. The court said Mr. House had a legitimate claim concerning the 49-day delay in returning his property. And it granted him the chance to argue that the entire search and confiscation was based solely on his association with the Bradley Manning Support group, and therefore violated his First Amendment rights. Judge Casper did the right thing by assessing this case on its merits, and not on the propaganda of fear that has dominated the national security debate since Sept. 11, 2001.