Evidence of Warrantless Physical Searches in the Portland Case?

A few odd pieces to the puzzle on the searches and spying front this afternoon. I don't really know what to make of any of them, or even if they're connected, but I'm going to put them up anyhow.

First, there's this really weird article out of a local TV station in Washington State.

PORTLAND, ORE. - A secret document in an Oregon lawsuit challenging President Bush's domestic wiretapping program will be held in a secure facility in Seattle while the judge and lawyers try to figure out how to keep it under wraps in Portland.

U.S. District Judge Garr King decided this week that the document couldn't be held securely in a federal courthouse in Portland, and shouldn't be held at the local office of the FBI, a defendant in the case....

(the US attorney's office in Seattle hoped it could later be made public, but....) A government lawyer said, however, the document would be so black with redactions that it couldn't be understood.

Weird, huh?

Now, the reason this caught my interest was the US News and World Report article last weekend that alleged(second hand) warrantless physical searches of an attorney's office, AN ATTORNEY WHO WAS DEFENDING THE SAME CHARITY, al-Haramain. (second page, last two paragraphs.)

Also, in that same US News article was this where Alberto Gonzales made a "tacit case" that under their theory of the unitary executive warrantless physical searches were within presidential authority.

But in a little-noticed white paper submitted by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Congress on January 19 justifying the legality of the NSA eavesdropping, Justice Department lawyers made a tacit case that President Bush also has the inherent authority to order such physical searches. In order to fulfill his duties as commander in chief, the 42-page white paper says, "a consistent understanding has developed that the president has inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless searches and surveillance within the United States for foreign intelligence purposes."

Lastly, we have this bit from Rawstory, in Gonzales's answers to Congress, that says that attorney/client conversations are not specifically exempted from the warrantless eavesdropping program.

So, putting these loose threads together, we have Gonzales admitting that attorney conversations may not have been protected, a "tacit case" by the Justice Dept that physical searches are equivalent to tapping international calls under the authority they're claiming, some suggestions of the feds conducting warrantless physical searches of another attorney associated WITH THE SAME CHARITY.

And now we have a mystery document that is so hot that it must be stored offsite in a secure vault, and so incriminating that the FBI, even in with their best measures, is not allowed to keep it in their possession.

We got something cooking here.

UPDATE: In case you're not a Rawstory fan, here's the AP version of the article. Also, attorney Nelson who claims he has been the subject of multiple warrantless searches of his office and home, was on Olberman tonight, repeat at 11PM Central - first segment.